The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Background Information and Overview

Police Detention Cells, the So-called “Daiyo-Kangoku (Substitute Prison)” 1
1.
The UN Human Rights Committee stated clearly that “the substitute prison system should bemade compatible with all requirements of the Covenant” in the Concluding Observation in 1998 2 (para.23of the Observation). The issue concerning the Police Detention Cells has been one of the controversial
points for many years both internationally and nationally, then, the Human Rights Committee’s statement
supra is based on these critical discussions.
2.
The so-called ”Daiyo-Kangoku” or Substitute Prison system has symbolized human rights
violations, especially torture, in Japan for a long time. The police detention cells which were originallyintended to be used to hold arrestees temporarily until being brought before judges, then, should not be
used to detain suspects in the cells for long periods of time in order to investigate them.
3.
The old Prison Law 3 provided that the police detention cells could be used as substitutes for4
prisons tentatively. The government’s report says that “approximately 1,300 police detention cells are
established in police stations” (para.139 of the government’s report) 5. According to some statistics data,
during at least these 10 years, the capacity of police cells has been increasing more than that of detention
centers which are controlled by the Ministry of Justice 6.
4.
Furthermore, the number of inmates in police detention cells has been increasing. The
government’s report says “The number of suspects detained in police detention cells was approximately
190,000 during the year 2003”(para.139) 7. The following table shows the “number” of inmates and“cumulative number” of inmates in police detention cells, which includes not only suspects, but also
defendants and sentenced inmates. The data shows the increasing trend.

1995

Cumulative Numberof Detainees in
Police Detention
Cells (persons)
2,559,473

1996

2,733,575

107

1997

3,028,010

118

1998

3,291,208

129

1999

3,650,765

143

2000

4,028,551

157

Year

Indices 1995=100

100

1

The following information is especially concerning paras.139-143 of the government’s report (see Appendix 1).
UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.102[19 November 1998]
3
The Prison Law which was applicable to all inmates in criminal institutions has been revised. See infra [para.16].
4
In this report, “prison” is basically used as a generic term which includes both correctional institutions for sentenced
prisoners, and detention houses mainly defendants who are detained and death sentenced prisoners. However, manysuspects and defendants are detained in police detention cells in Japan.
5
See Appendix 1.
6
According to the statistical data which the government issued to the Diet, the capacity of police sells has been increased
from 17,559 (year 1996) to 19,713 (2005). On the other hand, the capacity of detention centers for pre-trial detainees has
been 16,193 to 17,137 during same period.
7
See Appendix 1. This number (190,000 in 2003) seems “the number of inmates” in Police Detention Cells. We could
not find this type of number in official statistics but could find some of them in an article written by one of police officers(Masahiro Nakagawa, Journal of Police Science, Vol.56, Part.10, p.143). According to his article, the number of detainees
were 125,679 (1995), 129,537 (1996), 136,855 (1997), 141,927 (1998), 148,949 (1999), 158,556 (2000), 164,864 (2001),
173,695 (2002).
2-1-

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

2001

4,442,951

174

2002

4,851,662

190

2003

5,273,923

206

2004
5,441,386* Cited from the White Paper on Police (2005).

213

5.
A significant feature of this “Daiyo-Kangoku” system is that interrogators themselves detain
the suspects, control them, and exercise authority over detainees’ daily life. The police officers canprovide privileges to those who admit to the charges and on the other hand, they can disturb those who
don’t. The latter suspects are investigated for a long time and finally they become exhausted mentallyand physically to such an extent that they confess, even if there is no physical violence.
6.
The police authorities often describe the chances of abuse of the rights of detainees will decrease
because they have separated the department to which the officers who are in charge of detention belong,from the one to which officers in charge of interrogation belong. The essential feature of this system
can not be changed even after the detention officers are separated from the interrogators in the sameorganization. Some members of the Human Rights Committee also voiced the same concerns during theproceedings at the session to examine the 4th periodic report by the Japanese government, and theCommittee said that “The Committee is concerned that the substitute prison system (Daiyo Kangoku),
though subject to a branch of the police which does not deal with investigation, is not under the control of aseparate authority” in the Concluding Observation in 1998 (para.23 of the Observation). In fact, if theinterrogators assert the necessity for investigation of the cases, the detention officers could not refuse them.
It is still same today, the police as a whole have to realize their purpose (to obtain suspects’ confession)
through the “Daiyo-Kangoku” system.
7.
Members from NGOs, the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations, and academics have beenworking for abolition of the “Daiyo-Kangoku” system for a long time, but they could not succeed when the
new Prison Law was enacted in May, 2006 (see para.16 infra). The New Law retains police detention
cells as the substitute prison, and also includes the provisions which give them the legal status of theinstitutions to detain arrestees, then it seems to promote detaining most suspects and defendants in police
detention cells.
8.
However, the Diet members passed a resolution which requires the related authorities to makeefforts to decrease use of police detention cells progressively. The Diet’s resolution also requests theauthorities to review the way of criminal investigation including interrogation and the “Daiyo-Kangoku”
system. Especially, the following ideas should be taken into consideration: recording interrogation;
presence of defense lawyers; and alternative measures to custodial ones at pre/pending-trial stage.

Prisons
A. Harsher Punishment and Overcrowded Prisons – Background of Torture and Ill-treatment
9.
Overcrowding beyond our experience is progressing in Japanese prisons now.
situation, the risk of torture and ill-treatment is increasing.

Under this10.
The prison population (the average daily number of inmates) had consistently been trending
down since 1950, the number of 103,170 as a peak, had been stabilized at nearly 50,000 by 1999.
However, since 1999 it has been changed into a steep increasing trend. The number of prisoners which
was 53,947 in 1999 has increased by 44.5% to 77,932 in 2005. When the proportions of prisoners to theentire population are measured, Japan has remained one of the countries which have small prison
populations, but the growth rate in Japan is extremely high among the whole world.
11.

As a result of this increasing trend, the ratio of the actual number of imprisoned inmates to the-2-The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

capacity in overall prisons went beyond 100% in 2001. To deal with this growth of inmates, thegovernment has made extensions to the existing facilities and built semi-privatized prisons by the measuresof Private Finance Initiative. However, the ratio of prisoners to the capacity has been increasing.
Especially, the ratio of sentenced prisoners reached 117% in 2005.
12.
Concerning the reason for this trend, the government and we, NGO members, have different
analysis. The government explains that prisoners’ growth is caused by a rise in crime, then, they stressed
tougher policy on crime including enhanced control by police and harsher punishment. On the other hand,
our view differs from this explanation as follows: The official statistical data referred to as “the numberof committed crimes” only shows the number of cases (or suspects) whose occurrence came to be known tothe police/prosecutors through reporting, filing a complaint or other reasons, then, the steep increase of thenumber was caused by efforts to strengthen control on incidents by investigative authorities amid mounting
concerns about safety in Japanese society. Excessive tougher policy on crime without objective evidence
about effective measures will lead to more overcrowding of prisons.
13.
It is evident that there is a limitation in the capacity of prisons, so the government has to change
their policy in the direction of decrease of prisoners’ number. For example, about 20% of prisoners who
suffer from drug addiction can be treated in the community.

B. Nagoya Prison Cases and Recommendation of the Council on Prison Administration Reform
14.
Notorious torture cases occurred in a chronic overcrowded prison. Three sentenced prisoners
died or were injured as a result of the guards’ assaults in the Nagoya Prison 8 from 2001 to 02. On
December 14th, 2001, a 43 year male prisoner who was detained in a “protection room” (isolation room todetain a prisoner who shows signs of suicide or self-injury) died after guards sprayed a high-pressure hose
at his naked buttocks. The prisoner died because of severe injury to his rectum and bacterial shock. On
May 27th, 2002, a 49 year male prisoner died after being left in a protection room. The prison guards
fastened the prisoner’s leather handcuffs too tight and he died of heart failure. On September 25th, 2002,
a 30 year male prisoner was severely injured because of intraabdominal bleeding and hospitalized outside
after he was also bound too tightly with leather handcuffs by guards.
15.
Eight prison guards involved in a series of these cases, were indicted for “Causing Death or
Injury by Violence and Cruelty by a Special Public Official” (Article 195 of the Penal Code). Concerning
the case which occurred on December 2001, one guard as a defendant was finally found guilty in thecriminal case (other defendants appealed), and the court ordered the government to pay compensation to
the victim’s family on November, 2006. These assaults on prisoners by guards clearly consist of torture.
Especially, concerning the incident which occurred on September 2002, the guards did violence to theprisoner for the purpose of forcing him to dismiss his complaint to the Bar Association. Therefore, it canfall under the category of torture under article 1 of the Convention which requires the purpose.
16.
Amid amounting criticism of these incidents in the Nagoya Prison, the Minister of Justiceestablished the Council on Prison Administration Reform composed of academics, lawyers, and others (cf.
para.85 9 of the government’s report). The Council issued recommendations for reform plans of Japaneseprisons (mainly for convicted prisoners) to the Minister of Justice. According to this recommendation andsome draft revisions of the Prison Law, the new law called the “Law Concerning Penal Institutions and theTreatment of Sentenced Inmates” was enacted in the Diet on May 2005 and in force since May 2006. On
May 2006, the amendment of this law was enacted and it added provisions on treatment of detained
suspects and defendants and also death sentenced prisoners to the new law. This amendment of the newlaw will be in force by June 2007. Hereafter, both the new law which was in force since May 2006 and its
amendment will be referred to as “New (Prison) Law”.

8
9

Nagoya Prison detains mainly sentenced male adult prisoners.
See Appendix 1.

-3-

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Overview of the Prison Law’s Revision and its Subject
May 2005 ----the Law Concerning Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates was enacted
May 2006 ----the Law Concerning Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates went into force
May 2006 ----Amendment of the Law Concerning Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates:
was enacted and renamed it as the Law Concerning Criminal Institutions and the Treatment of All
Criminal Inmates
From May 2006 to the date of effect of the amendment law----the Law Concerning Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates went into force>>>(applicable to)>>> Sentenced Prisoners---- the old Prison Law>>>(applicable to)>>> Suspects and Defendants who are Detained; and Death Row
Prisoners
By Spring 2007

the Law Concerning Criminal Institutions and the Treatment of All Criminal Inmates will go
into force

C . Positive Aspects and Concerns of the New Law
17.
For the prohibition of torture, the positive aspects 10 of the New Law are the following: (1)Expansion of the opportunity to contact those outside of prison; (2) Establishment of independent
committees for visiting prisons (the government explained as “the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal
Institutions”) in each prison; (3) Improvement of the complaints system.
18.
Regarding (1), under the old Prison Law, usually, sentenced prisoners could exchange letters with
only their family members and they could see only their family members. But under the New Law,sentenced prisoners are usually free to exchange letters with any persons outside except “the person who issuspected of disturbing discipline and order in the institution or to hamper rehabilitative treatment for
prisoners”. Concerning visits, prisoners can be allowed to meet their friends when the warden/prison
governor identifies the person as “who wouldn’t hamper the prisoner’s rehabilitation”. This development
is expected to open the prison gates to the outside world, and help to prevent torture and ill-treatment.
However, we have to raise a concern about the fact that visiting hours are limited because of overcrowding
and lack of places for visits.
19.
Regarding (2), “the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal Institutions”, independent
committees for visiting prisons which consists of lawyers, doctors, academics, and other community
members has been established in each prison, in reference to “Boards of Visitors” in the UK and similarsystems in other countries. The Boards’ members have authorization to interview inmates and request theprison governor to give some information about management of the prison and treatment of inmates, andsubmit recommendations to the prison governor. We are expecting that the Board will work actively andcheck prisons constantly in order to prevent torture and ill-treatment.
20.
Regarding (3), under the old Prison Law, the complaints system for prisoners was only a petition
to the Minister of Justice which totalizes the prison governments. Under the New Law, the complaints
system has been improved. We welcome that some points of improvement: for example, definition of
responsibility to examine and judge the complaints, and to notify the results to the prisoner and setting up a
standard period for examination of the complaint. On the other hand, as a remaining issue, we urge thegovernment to establish an independent mechanism from the Ministry of Justice which includes prison
governments. If a prisoner wants to make a complaint to the independent bodies besides the prison
authority, they can only go to court. (About this detail, see paragraphs infra about Article 13 of our report).
21.
We can see one more positive aspect in practice. The government stopped the use of leather
handcuffs which had been used usually as a restraint instrument on prisoners, and imposed limitations on
10

The following positive aspects are described mainly about sentenced inmates, because we can assess administrative
documents and practices only for sentenced prisoners at the present moment.

-4-

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

the use of solitary confinement and detention in the so-called “Protective Rooms”. However, we areconcerned about the following: The government can revalidate the period of the solitary confinement manytimes, and there is no limitation; it introduces a new type of handcuffs and uses them together with solitaryconfinement which will cause degrading treatment of prisoners especially at meals and toilet breaks. We
are also concerned that there is no definite provision about investigation of death cases in prisons.

D. Remaining Issues under the New Law
22.
Even after the New Law has come into force, we raised 3 issues concerning prevention of tortureand ill-treatment in prison as follows, except the problem of police detention cells: (1) to ensure prisoner’s
rights to medical treatment; (2) to abolish longer solitary confinement; (3) to expand the range of subjects
prisoners can complaints about and to establish independent mechanisms for investigation of thecomplaints. We mentioned the issue (2) in our comments about article 2 & article 16 and the issue (3) inthat of article 13, then, the following description will be about the issue (1).
23.
The medical condition in Japanese prisons is critical. As to the reason for this, firstly the
number of doctors working in prison is extremely small. Secondly, prison officers who are qualified as
nurses often examine and administer a dose to prisoners instead of doctors. The prison government
usually explained the reason for this treatment because many prisoners pretend to sick, but this should beconsidered a separate issue.
24.
Furthermore, when a prisoner needs medical treatment by the certain medical specialist who
works for exterior institutions, the prison governor/warden often refuses to bring them outside because of
the small number of prison guards who accompany and supervise the prisoner.
25.
To solve this problem, we suggest that the jurisdiction over prison medical administration should
be changed from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, which leads
to ensure medical practice independency from security issues in prison and to integrate into the ordinal
medical system in the community where the prison exists and to get more doctors. Inadequate medical
practice will lead to ill-treatment of prisoners, then, this should be considered one of the urgent issues
together. Additionally, the issue of investigation of death in prison should be considered.

Asylum Seekers and Refugees
A. Overview of the Asylum Procedure
26.
Japan joined the Refugee Convention in 1981 and Refugee Protocol in 1982. In the same year,
the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA), which sets the procedure for asylum
procedure, came into effect. Since then, the law had hardly been amended until 2005, which was the firstamendment of ICRRA for asylum recognition.
27.
Asylum application is decided by the Minister of Justice after interview and review have takenplace when an application is filed with the Immigration Bureau. If applicants disagree with the decision,
they may file an appeal to the Minister of Justice once again. Since the 2005 amendment, private-sector
persons of experience or academic standing began to review the process of appeal. When the appeal isrejected, it is possible to proceed to the judicial procedure for its revocation. However, state founded legal
aid is not provided through public assistance.

-5-

Judicial
ProcedureLaw, high,(Supreme)
court

Humanitarian
Staus
Granted
Not Granted

Trial

Examination

AppealExamination

Application

Adminitrative Procedure
MOJ ・Immigration Bureau

StatusGrantedThe Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Opinions of RefugeeAppeal Counselors

28.
Since 1982, from the time when the refugee recognition system was implemented up until the endof 2005 (for 23 years), 3928 persons have applied for refugee status, 376 (including those who were
granted after an appeal) have been granted refugee status, 381 have been given the special permission tostay on humanitarian grounds. It is defined in the Immigration law, Article 61-2-2-2 only as “undercertain circumstances to be permitted to reside,” and not mentioned if Article 3 of Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is taken into consideration, nor
making any clarification on the regulations or rules for implementation.

B. Recent Developments
29.
Since the 2005 Amended Immigration Law and its implementation, deportation is prevented in
the system of refugee recognition procedure (during the administrative procedure, not judicial procedure).
Legal status of the asylum seekers were a little more stabilized due to the introduction of provisional stay.
30.
Through the judicial procedure, there are cases that concept of “percecution” is discussed anddeportation order and/or refugee rejection decision are cancelled based on the Convention Regarding the
Status of Refugees and/or Convention Against Torture in some cases (the numbers of the cases are limited
but both in district and high court).

C. Challenges of Refugee Recognition Procedures
31.

The following problems are brought up by related parties/agencies:

・ Overly strict burden of proof is imposed on the applicants (Ref. The State of the World’s Refugees,
UNHCR, 2002)
・ Bias for nationalities of those who are granted refugee status (i.e. few Chinese and 0 Turkish Kurds outof more than 450 cases)
・ Although it is different depending on each applicant, the usual waiting period for recognition takes
about one year or more, and work and daily life are not guaranteed for this time period.

-6-

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Immigration Detention Institutions
A. Foreigners in Japan
32.
This report focuses on migrant workers and asylum seekers except for so-called Westerners
whose legal status is comparatively stable and the people from former colonies (i.e. special permanent
residents) prewar and during World War 2nd. These people can be described as follows in the timeline:(1) Indochina refugees since 1975 (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), which led Japan to ratify the 1951
Convention in 1981. (2) Influx of migrants since the middle of 1980s. There has been on the increase in
the number of migrants from the Philippines, Thailand, Iran, the Republic of Korea, Bangladesh andPakistan, who came to work in Japan. These people worked at construction sites, factories or snack bars. In
1990, the Japanese government amended the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act toestablish a policy to remove so-called “unskilled” migrant workers. Since then, the government has labeledthose people as illegal migrants. Instead, the government introduced the alternative solution, which is toaccept those of Japanese ancestry from Latin America as a labor force. (3) Then, after the 1990s, many
people from Peru, Brazil and Bolivia came to Japan seeking job opportunity. (4) Around the same time,
the number of asylum seekers from Burma and China to Japan gradually increased because of the
suppression of the democracy movement. (5) The trainees from foreign countries has increased. (6)Japanese who were left in China and their families at the end of World War 2nd started to go back to Japan.
(7) The asylum seekers from Pakistan, Kurdish areas, Afghanistan and China increased in the late 1990s.
It still continues today.
33.
Migrant workers seemed to be temporary guest workers as the authorities expected at first.
However, they have started to resettle in Japan and stay here longer and longer although they think theywant to go back to their home countries sometime in the future. This trend contradicts the government’s
expectation. A new migrant policy will be started in order to solve the manpower shortage problem
because of the decrease of Japanese population and birthrate. The problem is that migrants are not a
temporal social phenomenon but could be a persistent one.

B. Xenophobia and Deteriorating Conditions of Immigration Detainees
34.
It is hard to say that the government’s policy for foreigners is tolerant. There is a rumor that“foreigners" are dangerous. The rumor doesn’t have any concrete basis and it frequently comes from the
Police Agency and the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice since 1992 when the bubble economy
burst. As a result, many undocumented migrants have been arrested, prosecuted, detained, and deported.
Moreover, the immigration control has been strengthened and they refuse many people from Asia, Africa,and Latin America entry to Japan as an interdiction measure. From 1991 to 1994, the capacity ofdetention at immigration facilities reached 100%. The treatment for detainees and violence against themhappened frequently. They became a social problem. Furthermore, there is an increasing number ofasylum seekers and almost all of them are denied refugee status from the late 1990 to the present. Most ofthem are detained in immigration detention facilities for a long and indefinite period. This causes thefriction between the officers at Immigration Bureau and immigration detainees. It also triggers officer’s
violent behavior against the detainees and their bad psychophysical conditions, such as frequent self-injury
and attempted suicide. It highlights the problems of the health care system in detention facilities.
35.
On November 6, 1998, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights expressed concerns
about these situations and made an exceptional recommendation for the improvement of the Immigration
Bureau in Japan as follows: (1) the Committee is concerned about allegations of violence and sexual
harassment of persons detained while pending immigration procedures, including harsh conditions ofdetention, the use of handcuffs and detention in isolation rooms, (2) detainees in immigration detention
centres may remain there for limited periods of up to six months and, in some cases, even up to two years,(3) the Committee recommends that the State party review the conditions of detention and, if necessary,take measures to bring the situation into compliance with articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, (4) the
Committee requested strongly that the government should prepare for the establishment of any domestic
human rights organization to provide independent and effective functions to observe ill and illegal-7-

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

treatments by police and immigration officers in detention centers.
36.
On October 17, 2003, the Joint Declaration on Enhancing Control of Illegal Foreigners in Tokyo
was issued by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department and the
Immigration Bureau. This aims at reducing the number of illegal immigrants by half over next five years.
In addition, on February 16, 2004, the Immigration Bureau under the Ministry of Justice started the system
to gather "information on illegal and other foreigners" through their homepage on the web. The systemseems to hunt undocumented foreigners. The system gathers very private individual information such as
name, nationality, address and working place, and relevant information of “the person who seems to beillegal.” The information is automatically sent to each regional Immigration Bureaus by E-mail. Anyone
can provide such information anonymously.
37.
In 2006, during the Diet session, the amendment bill on Immigration Control and Refugee
Recognition Act got passed by the Diet and proclaimed on 24 May, 2005. The revised act aims to tighten
the control of foreigners under the name of preventive measure against terrorism: (1) At the Required
Landing Examination to provide personal identification information (fingerprints and photographs) in anelectromagnetic form. Except for persons who are under sixteen; special permanent residents; engaged in
the activity of diplomat or official. (2) Deportation of the person who is possibly a terrorist. (3) By
registering fingerprints and photographs in advance, the person will be permitted to pass through theautomated gate at the time of entry and departure.
38.
A series of amendment on the immigration act and its system result in a sharp rise of the numberof people arrested and detained. Because of these new and tightened measures, violence against detainees
frequently happen in the immigration facilities.

C. The Purpose of Management and Detention of Foreigners in Japan
39.
Foreigners in Japan are subject to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act(hereinafter ICRAA) and “Alien Registration law”. Both of them aim at control over foreigners and do notmention their human rights. Therefore, in the court cases on foreigners’ human rights, their human rights
are based on the human rights related provisions in the Japanese Constitution or international standards onhuman rights. Under current legislation, there is no basic law related to foreigners’ human rights.
40.
Japan accepts foreigners in accordance with the status of residence. Status of residence is, thatis to say, this is provided by ICRAA and typifies to whom acceptable and what kind of activity they do.
Therefore, this system does not take a position from the side of foreigners’ human rights. Rather, it works
as a limit on their activity. For instance, if you enter Japan as a tourist, it is categorized as “a temporarystay” in the status of residence and they are not allowed to work except for receiving temporarycompensation.
41.
In January 2006, according to the statistics issued by the Immigration Bureau, the number
overstaying is 193,745. If we add the number of persons who did not enter under proper processes, thenumber of irregular migrants would increase to 3,000,000. Irregular migrants are subject to arrest by the
Immigration of Bureau. If an irregular migrant is found, he or she should be detained in the process ofdeportation.
42.
There are two types of detention facilities in Japan: long-term and short-term. As for the
long-term one, there are three immigration detention centers: one is located in Omura in Nagasaki, a second
one is located in Ibaraki in Osaka and the third one is located in Ushiku in Ibaraki prefecture. The
combined detention capacity is 1,800 in total. As for the short-term ones, there are fifteen regional andbranch offices, whose total capacity is 1,610. The number of total immigration detainees is around 2,000
per a day.

D. Agendas for Implementation of Treaty and its Rights-8-

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

43.

(1) Newly introduced good measures and systems----A new type of leather handcuff was introduced in Nov. 2003.
any pressure on wrists of detainees.

Because of its stretchness, it mitigates----Detainees may make a phone call if they want. The detention facilities permit detainees to make aphone. This is good because it prevents human rights abuse inside the facilities leading to transparency.
However, the authorities set the time table and it means any detainee can freely make a phone call anytime.
For example, at East Japan Immigration Center, it sets the time rule to make a phone call outside, 9:00
-11:00 and 13:00-16:30. Under this rule, it is impossible to call to friends who have day-time jobs anddifficult to call anybody in foreign countries because of time-lags. The East Japan Immigration Center
explained that they don’t permit any phone call to outside anytime. They allow them depending on
individual reason. Thus, this is not a perfect system providing the right to call for detainees and should be
improved.
----Some immigration centres are allowing access to detainees without the presence of officers. This
seems to be positive in terms of transparency of the procedure, but the measure seems to be taken just only
to avoid troubles of officers and not in the light to secure transparency.
44.

(2) Adequate medical care in the centre

Interpreters should be provided while having a medical care. Access to external medical agency is to beeased. A procedure to suspend the detention according to discretion made by a doctor should be introduced
if a person’s medical or mental health is worsened and in trouble.
45.
(3) “Mandatory detention policy” should be amended and elements for detention should beclarified.
Remove the following persons from the list of detention. Persons in ill, minors, elderly persons, pregnant
women, asylum seekers, persons pending before courts, persons pending before Labor Standards Agencies
for non-payment and accidents from labor, persons without prospect of deportation, and other persons who
were found not eligible for deportation.
Detention should be decided at the judicial system given the fact that such decision is identical to criminal
procedure.
A system should be set up to proceed deportation while staying in the house for persons not eligible fordetention.
46.

(4) Set a limit to detention terms for deportation orders.

A limit of 30 days with additional 30 days of extension, so maximum of 60 days, is provided for detention
for detention orders. However, no limit is set for detention for deportation orders. This should be
amended to avoid indefinite detentions or long term detentions. (It could be suggested that a maximum of 4months combined with the term for detention order is to be considered.)47.

(5) Remove reciprocity clause of Article 6 of the State Redress Law.

The reciprocity clause of Article 6 of the State Redress Law is set as a burden for foreigners to file a claim
for protection of human rights. The clause should be removed respectively.
48.

(6) Transparency for immigration procedures----Support casework by lawyers and non-governmental organizations.
Support casework by providing regular communication and information sharings with authorities, freevisits to the sites, unconditional meetings to be allowed without attendance of officers, disclosure ofinternal documents, allow caseworkers to state recommendations for improvements, and providing
financial support from the government.

-9-

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)----Set up an independent monitoring scheme with full authority
An independent monitoring scheme should be set up with a full authority of receiving allegations forhuman rights abuses, to carry out non-restricted on-site visit to any detention centres without warrant and in
regular basis, to make interviews to detainees without any condition, to make recommendations otherwise
to issue an order for improvement to immigration authority, to issue an order to suspend deportation anddetention pending other judicial or administrative procedures.

Mental Health Institutions
49.
Ninety percent of institutional mental health services in Japan are privately owned and operated.
There are currently 330,000 people still in psychiatric inpatient facilities in Japan, leaving Japan with thehighest number of psychiatric in-patients in the world. Additionally, 25% of total hospital beds in Japanare used for psychiatric hospitalization.
50.
The Japanese Law Pertaining to the Mental Health and Welfare of People with Mental Problems
allows psychiatrists to hospitalize people involuntarily as well as restricting their behavior. This isdifferent from many countries that require the court to review or order these actions. In many countries
the right to restrict freedoms in this way is reserved for the public sector. However in Japan these rights
are ceded to psychiatrists in the private sector. Additionally, Japan has begun to implement neo-liberalpolicies of the privatization of many public services. Thus, the number of private psychiatric hospitals isincreasing, as is the number of public sector psychiatrists who are moving into the private sector.
Consequently, it is unclear who in the broad mental health system has the responsibility for interpreting andimplementing the mental health law. This leaves room for many human rights abuses, both historically andcurrently.
51.
The current mental health law has two types of hospitalization: Article 29, Involuntary
Hospitalization Ordered by the Prefectural Governor, and Article 33, Hospitalization for Medical Care andCustody. Article 33 includes hospitalization consented to by family members and local officials such ascity or town mayors.
52.
Under Article 36 the Director [the designated psychiatrist] of the psychiatric hospital may impose
necessary restraints on a person hospitalized within the limits essential for his/her medical care and custody.
This includes placing the person in a locked ward, a seclusion room, and physical restraints. The one day
statistics from June 2003 of 1,662 psychiatric hospitals indicated that there were 140, 075 individuals in 24
hour locked inpatient wards (42.6% of total psychiatric hospitalizations), 7,741 people restricted to
seclusion rooms, and 5,109 individuals under physical restraint. However, Japanese practice also allows
people to be placed in seclusion rooms for under 12 hours without the consent of the designated psychiatrist.
As a result, although many say that punishment is not a part of medical practice, the restriction of behavior
and short-term seclusion without the review of a designated psychiatrist allows for the punishment of
individuals.

- 10 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Specific Information Relating to the Informationof Articles 1 to 16, 19 and 22 of the Convention

Article 1

Definition of Torture and Japanese Legislation
Questions to the Government
53.
How is “torture and cruel punishment” under Article 36 of the Constitution different from“torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” under Articles 1 and 16 of
the Convention, or how is the former one the same as the latter one?
54.
What kind of public officers can be punished under Articles 194 to 196 of the Penal Code?
Especially, how about officers belonging to the Self Defense Forces and immigration detention centers, anddoctors or nurses of psychiatric hospitals?
55.
The government should describe their interpretation of “acquiescence of a public official” under
the Convention. Is “acquiescence of a public official” under the Convention punishable under theJapanese Penal Code?
56.
In order to conform to the definition of the Convention and to establish international jurisdiction
on torture, does the government have a will to establish “torture crime” under the Penal Code or otherlegislation?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
57.
As the government’s report mentioned at paragraphs 2 and 17, article 36 of the Constitution ofJapan absolutely forbids “the infliction of torture and cruel punishment by any public official”. However,
it is unclear whether “torture and cruel punishment” under the Constitution include both “torture” and“other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” 11 under Articles 1 and 16 of theConvention against Torture. Although, “torture and cruel punishment” of the Constitutional provision
should be interpreted the same as “torture” (article 1) and “other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment”(article 16) of the Convention, even after Japan ratified it, the government report described
clearly about this point (para.17 of the government’s report) 12. If there were some differences between thetwo, the government should describe how the Constitution’s interpretation differs from the Convention’s,
and why. In addition, whether “public officials” in the Constitution covers all factors the Convention
requests is also not clear.
58.
The government’s report says “Any person who commits an act of torture, including an attempt
to commit torture, an act which constitutes complicity or participation in torture, is punishable under the
Penal Code and other criminal laws for various offences and their complicity” (paras.17, 31 and 32) 13.
However, even if the case is punishable as an ordinal type of offence, such as violence, injury, and others,
the government’s report doesn’t show the specific statistical data concerning how many public officers have11

“Ill-treatment” is used in this report as a collective term of “other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment” in Articles 1 and 16.
12
See Appendix 1.
13
See Appendix 1.

- 11 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

been prosecuted and sentenced by charging them with offences which result from acts of torture, and also
to what extent in public officers’ cases the gravity of the offences were taken into consideration atprosecution and in court. Thus, it will be difficult to assess whether implementation of the Penal Codeand other criminal laws fully meets the requirements of the Convention in practice.
59.
Furthermore, Article 194 to 196 of the Penal Code is applicable only to certain public officers, i.e.
“a person performing or assisting in judicial, prosecution or police functions” or “a person who is guarding
or escorting another person detained or confined in accordance with laws” (para.31) 14. It seems to be
narrower than “a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” under Article 1 of theConvention. For example, whether or not all types of officials such as the Self Defense Forces,
immigration detention centers, and doctors or nurses of psychiatric hospitals can be included in the above
terms is unclear.
60.
Although the government’s report says that “an attempt to commit torture, an act whichconstitutes complicity or participation in torture, is punishable”, whether or not “acquiescence of a public
official” under Article 1 of the Convention is included in the above crime categories is also undefined.
61.
As the government’s report mentioned (paras.33-54) 15, Japan can establish its jurisdiction on thesuspects who committed certain offences in foreign countries. There are some legal provisions for
detention and extradition of criminals and providing of international assistance in investigation. However,as we explained infra about Article 4, Japanese Penal Code which is applicable to torture cases applies only
to certain types of Japanese public officers. This is flaw in legislation under the Convention.

14
15

See Appendix 1.
See Appendix 1.

- 12 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 2 and Article 16

Japanese Legislation and Effective Measures to Prevent Torture
Questions to the Government
62.
How can the Self-Defense Forces personnel and the police officer resist it when ordered to do theact like torture?
63.
What kind of measures has the government taken such as the effective legislative, administrative,
judicial or other measures based on the viewpoint of prevention of the acts of torture, according to theguideline of the initial report (CAT/C/4/Rev.3) to the Committee?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
64.
Concerning para.19 16 of the government’s report, there is no specific explanation about thepractices and measures to prevent acts of torture. Moreover there is no assessment of effectiveness in thegovernment’s report according to the guideline of the initial report (CAT/C/4/Rev.3). For example, thegovernment’s report mentioned training concerning prohibition of torture and ill-treatment to public
officers as one of the measures to prevent torture (para.56) 17. The government should also explain thegoal and effectiveness of this training.
65.
Concerning para.20 18 of the government’ report, article 5 paragraph 2 of the Law on Measures
to Protect Citizens in Response to Foreign Military Attack provides that minimum necessary limitations canbe imposed on people’s liberty and rights in an emergency. However, this law has no derogable clause on
the right against torture and cruel punishment under Article 36 of the Constitution.
66.
Concerning para.21 19 of the government’s report, there is no provision of domestic law whichallows disobeying an order to commit acts of torture, and it is compatible with article 2 paragraph 3 of theConvention. For example, article 57 of the Self Defense Forces Law provides that any member of the Self
Defense Forces shall obey a superior’s order in exercise of their duty. However, there is no provision that
excludes the superior’s order to engage in torture. We can raise the same concern about police officers.
(cf. the Self Defense Forces Law, article 57, and the Police Law, article 63)

Police Detention Cells
Question to the Government
67.
What are the obstacles against abolishment of the so-called “Daiyo-Kangoku” or the substituteprison system?

Current Situation and Our Concerns
16

See Appendix 1.
See Appendix 1.
18
See Appendix 1.
19
See Appendix 1.
17- 13 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

See supra [paras.1-8]

Related Cases
68.
Many cases of violence, threats, and long time interrogation carried out inside of“Daiyo-Kangoku” causing false confessions have been reported for a long time. Especially, in the 1980s,
4 defendants who had been sentenced to death were exculpated at review trials. All 4 defendants madefalse confessions in “Daiyo-Kangoku”.
69.
Regarding the recent cases, a suspect who was arrested on charges of drug related crime anddetained in a police cell, insisted that he had been interrogated for 12 hours each day, and he was forced toconfess in return for meal, sleep, and message to his mother. He was also shouted at by interrogators
many times and forced to stand up for 90 minutes. As a result of these harsh interrogations, he admitted
another charge of murder. However, judges denied admissibility of the record of his confession and found
him not guilty (Osaka District Court in March 17th 2003).
70.
On April 2003, 15 suspects were arrested on charges of election irregularities and detained inpolice cells. Most suspects were interrogated from 9AM to 9PM almost every day and forced to makefalse confessions. Interrogators shouted, kicked and beat a desk saying “Don’t lie” and “You must be
sentenced to death”. Sometimes they used prevarication and influence peddling. Eventually, 13 suspects
were prosecuted but all of them denied their charges at the trial. After that, on February 23, theKagoshima District Court found 12 defendants not guilty (One defendant passed away during the trial).
The court ruled that the confession by defendants were possibly obtained as a result of forcibleinterrogation by the police. Furthermore, one of arrestees (but was not prosecuted) wan a compensation
for damage against the Kagoshima Prefectual Government and the Kagoshima Police (January, 2007).
(Asahi News Papers, January, 6th, 2006, and February, 24th, 2007; Nishinihon News Papers, March 6th,
2007)

Prisons
Question to the Government
71.
What kind of measures have been taken at legal and practical levels, to improve on the issues
which the Human Rights Committee raised concerns in the Concluding Observation in 1998, includingexcessive limitation to prisoners’ liberty, harsh disciplinary measures, use of restraint devises, and solitaryconfinement?

A. Longer Solitary Confinement
Question to the Government72.
Under the new Prison Law, all sentenced prisoners are supposed to be classified into the 1st, 2nd,
3rd and 4th grade, depending on their security levels. The 1st grade means that the modest limitation shallbe imposed on prisoners’ liberty and rights and the 4th grade means the strictest limitation shall be imposed.
What factors are taken into consideration when the prisoner is classified into the strictest limitation
category, the 4th grade? Are there any protective measures guaranteed to prevent excessive limitation on
the prisoner’s liberty and rights?

- 14 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Current Situations and Our Concerns
73.
The Human Rights Committee raised serious questions of compliance with articles 2, paragraph 3(a), 7 and 10 of the Covenant, about “use of harsh punitive measures, including frequent resort to solitaryconfinement” in the Concluding Observation to the Japanese government (para.27(b) of the Observation).
However, as far as the solitary confinement issue, any remarkable improvement has never been seen sincethen (cf. para155 20 of the government’s report). Especially we are concerned that there are about 30
prisoners each year, who have been detained in solitary confinement for more than 10 years as a sum total.
Several prisoners have been detained for over 30 years. The number of these prisoners has neverdecreased during these 5 years.
74.
Solitary confinement is widely known to have a severe damaging effect on the prisoners andsome prisoners are suffering from such damages. The government explained that they could not stop theuse of the solitary confinement, “because the prisoners are deeply disturbed” or “the prisoners urge to be insolitary confinement”. However, some prisoners are mentally disturbed because of longer solitaryconfinement. Moreover, detaining deeply disturbed person for 30 to 40 years in solitary confinement is nolonger effective punishment. We insist that longer solitary confinement, which has been continued formore than 10 years will at least consist of ill-treatment.
75.
Under the New Law, the name of continual solitary confinement has been altered to“Segregation” as a defined name (article 53). Under the old law, the same treatment was called “solitaryconfinement for the purpose of correctional treatment to prisoner”, however, we have received the reports
on many cases which the prisoners were detained in solitary confinement when they brought a lawsuit
against the prison authorities. The New Law requires the more detailed conditions when “Segregation”
shall be imposed on prisoners, then we expect this new provision would decrease these cases. The periodof solitary confinement shall be shortened by basically 3 months and can be revalidated in each one monthafter the period exceeds (under the old law, it was basically 6 months and could be revalidated in each 3months).
76.
However, even after the New Law went into force, the authorities can continue the solitaryconfinement forever. We NGO and the Bar Association has been insisting that the government should
consider amendment of the New Law, so as to establish the definite maximum limitation of solitaryconfinement’s period, and the prisoner should be released from the confinement after the maximum period
exceeds and reviewed to ensure whether they really need to be in solitary confinement more or not.
77.
Furthermore, under the New Law, all sentenced prisoners are supposed to be classified into the
1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th grade of restriction, depending on their security levels. The 1st grade means that themodest limitation shall be imposed on prisoners’ liberty and rights and the 4th grade means that the strictest
limitation shall be imposed. If the prisoners are classified into the 4th grade, they have to stay in theirown single room all day, then, it would be almost same as solitary confinement (except they cancommunicate with other prisoners about once a month and more). In addition, when solitary confinement
as “Segregation” shall be imposed, the law provides the limitation of maximum period and complaints
system, but when solitary confinement as the 4th grade shall be imposed, the law has no such protective
measures. We are concern that the number of prisoners who are imposed solitary confinement as “the 4th
grade restriction” would increase because it is easier to categorize prisoners into this grade than to impose“Segregation” on them.

Statistical Data and Related Cases
78.
The number of prisoners who are detained in solitary confinement for more than 10 years andtheir period (the data resulted from 4 times research by one of the Diet members from 2000 to 2005)
Research on
November 10th, 2000
20

Research on
July 10th, 2001

See Appendix 1.

- 15 -

Research on
October 1st, 2002

Research on
November 1st, 2005

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

37Y 00M*
36Y 07M
35Y 06 M
34Y 11 M
34Y 09 M

37Y 08 M
37Y 03 M
35Y 07 M
35Y 05 M
27Y 10 M

38Y 11 M
38Y 05 M
36Y 07 M
29Y 01 M
24Y 00 M

27Y 10 M
22Y 06 M
22Y 02 M
21Y 05 M
20Y 11 M
20Y 05 M
20Y 04 M
19Y 04 M
19Y 03 M
19 Y 01M
18 Y 11 M
18 Y 10 M

22Y 10 M
22Y 04 M
21Y 07 M
21Y 01 M
21Y 00 M
19Y 10 M
19Y 09 M
19Y 09 M
19Y 07 M
19 Y 06 M
17 Y 07 M
17 Y 03 M

23Y 07 M
22Y 10 M
22Y 04 M
22Y 02 M
21Y 01 M
21Y 00 M
21Y 00 M
20Y 10 M
20Y 09 M
18 Y 10 M
18 Y 06 M
16 Y 01 M

17 Y 00 M
16 Y 07 M
15 Y 02 M
14 Y 05 M
14 Y 02 M
13 Y 11 M
12 Y 02 M
11 Y 11 M
11 Y 01 M
10 Y 04 M
10 Y 02 M

15 Y 10 M
14 Y 10 M
14 Y 07 M
12 Y 10 M
12 Y 07 M
11 Y 09 M
11 Y 00 M
10 Y 10 M
10 Y 05 M

15 Y 09 M
13 Y 10 M
13 Y 10 M
12 Y 12 M
12 Y 02 M
12 Y 01 M
11 Y 06 M
11 Y 00 M
10 Y 06 M
10 Y 04 M
10 Y 04 M
10 Y 03M

Total
number28
ofpersons* “Y” refers to year and “M” refers to month.

26

42Y 00 M
41Y 06 M
39Y 08 M
38Y 07 M
27Y 01 M
26Y 08 M
26Y 00 M
25Y 05 M
25Y 00 M
24Y 10 M
23Y 11 M
23Y 11 M
23Y 06 M
21Y 07 M
20 Y 03 M
19 Y 08 M
18 Y 05 M
17 Y 01 M
16 Y 01 M
15 Y 09 M
15 Y 03 M
15 Y 02 M
14 Y 01 M
13 Y 07 M
13 Y 05 M
13 Y 04 M

10 Y 00 M

13 Y 04 M
13 Y 01 M
10 Y 06 M
10 Y 00 M

30

30

79.
On January 2002, we asked for an investigation by the Bar Associations in 6 regions having
prisons where they have detained prisoners in solitary confinement for over 10 years. However, no prison
authorities cooperated with these investigations such as disclosure of the name of prisoners who have beenin solitary confinement and we cannot see any progress.

B. Death and Injury Cases Caused by Leather Handcuffs and Detention in “Protective
Rooms” 21Questions to the Government
80.
Since the Human Rights Committee raised concerns about frequent use of and “Protection
Rooms”, the many cases of death in the room have been reported. What measures have the government
taken in order to prevent death and injury in the protection rooms?
81.
21

When the prisoner who suffers from any disease or is mentally disturbed is detained in theThis part is especially about paras.150, 151 and 152 of the government’s report. See Appendix1.

- 16 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

protection room, how often are they examined by doctors? (Because these types of detention have often
resulted in death in the room)

Current Situations and Our Concerns
82.
Leather handcuffs is one of the restraint instruments in prison, which has a waist belt with 2
wrist bands made of leather in order to fix both wrists on waist. In some cases, prison guards fasten
the belt so tightly that many prisoners’ abdomen and intestine become severely damaged.
83.
The Concluding Observation of the ICCPR in 1998 raised concerns about frequent use of“protective measures, such as leather handcuffs” and the organ mentioned that these use “may constitutecruel and inhuman treatment”(para.27(d) and (f) of the Observation). Leather handcuffs and protection
rooms were often used in punitive way or for harassment, when prisoners tried to complaint to outside suchas the Bar Association and NGO and write to the Commission on Human Rights of the UN.
84.
These inadequate uses of handcuffs and “protection rooms” might be a breach of theConvention against Torture. There are some court decisions such as the Chiba District Court’s
decision on February 7th 2000 and the Osaka District Court’s decision on May 29th, which say that theuse of leather handcuffs constitutes violation of the (old) Prison Law.
85.
In October 2002, after the cases which a prisoner died during detention in protection roomwith leather handcuffs became public, the prison government stopped using leather handcuffs on
October 2003. Then, the government altered the type of leather handcuffs to nylon ones for pain
relief, but it has been reported that these handcuffs have been used with prisoners’ hands tied behindthem. This practice might be in breach of article 33 of the Standard Minimum Rules for theTreatment of Prisoners.

Related Cases
86.

Nagoya Prison Cases

See supra [para.14-15].
87.

Takamatsu Prison CaseOn October 4th, 2001, a prisoner imprisoned in Takamatsu Prison was assaulted by his roommate andtaken to the protection room and restrained with leather handcuffs by guards. After that, anotherguard fastened them tighter and left the prisoner alone in the room for more than 26 hours. This
treatment caused the prisoner’s serious injury and he made a complaint against the prison government
for compensation but he lost on May 8th, 2006.
88.

Hamada Detention Center CaseAt Hamada Detention Center in 1996, a prisoner who seemed to be suffering from alcohol withdrawal
disorder died because of thermal fever. He was left in a protection room, where the air temperature
was 28.9 degrees Celsius and humidity was about 70%, for around 4 days. His bereaved family filed
a suit against the government seeking compensation and the Matsue District Court decided that theprison government failed to provide adequate medication for the prisoner and admitted its
responsibility for his death and ordered the government to pay compensation to his family.
89.

Kawagoe Juvenile Training Center CaseOn November 13th, 2001, a prisoner was detained in a protection room because he behaved violently.
At that time, he was bound with metal and leather handcuffs for more than 24 hours and had- 17 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

aftereffects such as his thumb’s palsy. (Kyodo Press, December 4th, 2002)

C. Disciplinary Measures / Punishment 22
Questions to the Government
90.
The Human Rights Committee raised its concern about “use of harsh punitive measures,
including frequent resort to solitary confinement” in the Concluding Observation in 1998 (para.27(b) of the
Observation). Have the government made efforts to avoid disciplinary measure by solitary confinement
as much as possible?
91.
The Human Rights Committee raised its concern about “lack of fair and open procedures for
deciding on disciplinary measures” in 1998 (para.27(c) of the Observation). What measures has thegovernment taken in order to develop the due process for disciplinary measures in prison? Does thegovernment have the will to add amendments to the Law to request independent person’s (such as alawyer) presence during the disciplinary process for the future? If their answer is no, what is an
obstacle?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
92.
We welcome that the New Law has regulated more detail about the disciplinary measures
including what kind of measures will be imposed upon prisoners, and what procedure will be carriedout for imposing these measures.
93.
However, the Law has a lack of clarity about the conducts constituting a “disciplinary
offence” because what kind of conducts should be subject to disciplinary measures and whether aprisoner should be imposed or not are mostly supposed to depend on each warden/prison governor’s
discretion. (cf. Rule 29 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners)
94.
Furthermore, concerning the procedure for imposing disciplinary measures, it does not fully
guaranteed due process. The prisoners cannot examine the details of their own cases and are notguaranteed the right to call witnesses or appoint a counsel (or other independent representative) for
their defense. The Panel to examine the cases and make a judgment also consists of prison officers.
An assistant person from the prison officers is supposed to assist or represent the prisoner. According
to a result of investigation by one of the Diet members in 2002, there was no record which shows that
this “assistant officer” insisted to not impose the punishment for the prisoner. Eventually, prison
officers are supposed to play roles of prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney.
95.
In addition, this process has a lack of transparency. Under the old Prison Law, most judicial
decisions said that the procedure for disciplinary measures is different from that for criminal
punishment as the case infra, but some decisions also said that it should guarantee due process as muchas possible. Moreover, the Human Rights Committee raised concerns that “lack of fair and open
procedures for deciding on disciplinary measures” in the Concluding Observation of 1998 (para.27(c)of the Observation).
96.
The most serious disciplinary measure is almost the same as solitary confinement. The
prisoner shall be limited in taking a bath and exercise. Additionally, the prisoners might be havemore restrictions imposed on them depending on the governor’s discretion such as work and contact
with outside. The Human Rights Committee raised concerns that “use of harsh punitive measures,
including frequent resort to solitary confinement” in the Concluding Observation of 1998, but after
that, disciplinary measure by solitary confinement has been mostly used. This harsh type of measure
should be avoided as much as possible.
22

This part is about especially para.157 of the government’s report.

- 18 -

See Appendix1.

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Related Cases
97.
According to a result of the investigation by one of the Diet members in 2002, 30,432
prisoners out of 37,411 who had disciplinary measures imposed on them, were in solitary confinement.
The limitation of the period of this confinement shall be 60 days at maximum, and in fact the average
period was 12.5 days per case during 1998-2000. The reasons for imposition of this type of measure
were “assaults to another prisoner”(5,507 persons), “omission of duty”(4,799), “quarrel”(3,162), “backanswer/disobedience to orders”(2,985), and “giving and receiving objects illicitly”(2,832). We raise
concerns that the confinement is too harsh to punish these conducts.
98.
Hiroshima District Court Decision June 29th, 2004
The prisoner as a plaintiff filed a suit for compensation because disciplinary measure were imposed on him
illicitly and this treatment constitutes a violation of the due process principle under the JapaneseConstitution. 10 days solitary confinement was imposed on him and prohibition of reading because heused offensive language against prison guards. However, the judge decided there was no violation.
Because the procedure for disciplinary measures in prison is different from that of criminal punishment
and it doesn’t require following the due process principle. The details about disciplinary procedures
depend on each warden/prison governor. The plaintiff also insisted disproportionality between his
conduct and the imposition on him but it was not accepted by the court.

D. Rape
Question to the Government
99.

What measures has the government taken to prevent sexual violation against inmates?

Current Situation and Our Concerns
100.
We have received many reports concerning rape or sexual abuse cases in detention centers or
special area of prisons for pre-sentenced detainees (because female and male detainees are detained in
the buildings) as follows. These violations often occurred during a male guard’s patrolling at night.
This might constitute violation of rule 53 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners.

Related Cases
101.

Nagoya Prison Toyohashi Branch Case

In June 24th, 2004, one of male prison officers in Nagoya Prison Toyohashi Branch was arrested on acharge of crime of “Violence and Cruelty by a Special Public Official” under the Penal Code. He had
sexual relations with a 20’s aged female detainee 6 times, using a key to make her room unlocked without
permit during female officer’s absence. The female detainee has become pregnant and the fact was
unveiled. The officer was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in January 13th, 2005. (Jiji Press, June 24th,
2004)
102.

Fukuoka Prison Iizuka Branch Case

During the end of July to the beginning of August in 2004, one male prison officer in Fukuoka Prison
Iizuka Branch was dismissed in disgrace because of his sexual abuse to a female detainee having forced her
to become naked many times. (Yomiuri News Paper, September 22nd, 2004)- 19 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

103.

Nagoya Detention Center Ichinomiya Branch CaseIn December 2000, in Nagoya Detention Center Ichinomiya Branch a 34 year old male prison officer
developed a rapport and had a sexual relationship with a female detainee soon after she was released.
Although the prison authorities didn’t the fact, the officer quit the job later. The woman certified that she
was sexually abused by the officer twice when he patrolled at night in 1996. (Kyodo Press, February 7th,
2002)
104.

Kanagawa Prefecture Police Station Izumi Branch Case

In January 2002, in Kanagawa Prefecture Police Station Izumi Branch, a 42 year old police officer broke
into a room for a female detainee using a duplicate key and had sexual relations with a female detaineeseveral times. He was arrested on a charge of crime of “Violence and Cruelty by a Special Public
Official” under the Penal Code and was sentenced 3 years imprisonment in August 9th, 2002. (MainichiNews Paper, January 24th, 2002)

E. Treatment of Female Inmates during Pregnancy
Questions to the Government
105.
What is the reason for frequent use of ecbolic (medicine for inducement of labor) on female
inmates during pregnancy? Why is it not always necessary for the doctor to obtain inmate’s consent
about use of ecbolic on her?
106.

What is the reason for binding pregnant prisoners in her bed until just before the birth?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
107.
At a female inmate’s child-birth, the authorities usually make arrangements for the child birthplace not to be a criminal institution, and the pregnant inmate is taken to an outside hospital.
However, for reasons of the hospital’s own, an inmate was virtually forced to agree with using ecbolic
beforehand. In 2004, 8 out of 30 inmates who were imprisoned in detention centers over the country
were forced to use ecbolic. It is cruel for female inmate because she cannot choose other options forbearing her child.
108.
Furthermore, when inmates who are suffering from some diseases become hospitalized inoutside institutions, basically, they are supposed to be bound in their bed with handcuffs and rope, forthe purpose of prevention of escape.(According to the record of the Diet’s Commission on Health,Welfare and Labor on October 25th, 2005) Similarly, pregnant female inmates have been also
restrained until just before the birth. We consider these practices must consist of the violation of theConvention (especially, articles 2 and 16).

Related Cases
109.
In February 2005, a female defendant, who had been pregnant when she was arrested anddetained in Tokyo Detention Center, was taken to an outside hospital about one month before the expected
date of birth. The hospital tried to persuade her to agree with using ecbolic for her child-birth, but she
refused it. Then, she was moved to another hospital and was bound in her bed with handcuffs andrope until just before her birth. The authorities of Tokyo Detention Center said that it was no problem
because it was usual practice.

- 20 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

F. Violence against Prisoners
Question to the Government
110.
What kind of measures to prevent violence against prisoners by prison guards/officers has thegovernment taken?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
111.
Violence against prisoners by prison officers is said to be caused by the relatively large
number of prisoners per one officer (4.3 prisoners per one officer in 2004). In order to control
prisoners some officers are likely to resort to use of force, but sometimes it exceeds the limit andcaused serious injury and aftereffects. The use of force should be a last resort and kept to theminimum.

Related Cases
112.

Miyagi Prison CaseIn Miyagi Prison, from June 2004 to April 2005, some prison officers did a favor for some prisoners,
including giving alcohols, cigarettes, sweets, and letting them use cellular phones. For the purpose
restoring disturbed order in the prison caused by this misconduct, prison officers used force to control
disobedient prisoners. An officer who hit a prisoner in January and March in 2005 received
disciplinary sanction. In December 2005, 3 prisoners who were injured by the officers’ violence filed
a suit for compensation, but one out of them had his suit dismissed because of pressure by the prison
authorities.

G. Long Imprisonment of Prisoners Sentenced to Life 23
Question to the Government
113.
year?

Why has the period of imprisonment of prisoners sentenced to life become longer year by

Current Situation and Our Concerns
114.
The number of new prisoners who had been sentenced to life conclusively in 2005 was 119, on
the other hand, the number of prisoners released on parole was only 3 in the same year. Moreover, at theend of February, 2002, there was a life sentenced prisoner who has been imprisoned for 52 years and 10
months. Long imprisonment like this will deteriorate prisoners’ health physically and mentally and might
consist of degrading and ill-treatment under the Convention. And what is worse, the Public Prosecutor’s
Office issued an administrative order to its branch offices, which will virtually limit the chance of releaseon parole for prisoners sentenced to life very strictly (in the case of very serious offences and when thevictim’s family have very severe feelings to the prisoner, release on parole will be more difficult). This
practice will be compatible with due process principle because the administrative order has established a
new type of punishment of life imprisonment without parole.

23

In Japan, life imprisonment doesn’t mean that the prisoner has to be imprisoned all through his/her life de jure.

- 21 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Statistical Data
115.
The number of prisoners who had been sentenced to life imprisonment and released on parole by
the period of imprisonment
Year (the periodof imprisonmentby the release)
Average number
during 1976-80

Total

Within
14
years
7.6

Within
16
years
24.2

Within
18
years
11.0

Within20 years

Beyond20 years

51.0

Within
12
years
0.8

4.2

3.2

Average number
during 1981-85

46.4

1.2

9.6

18.4

10.8

3.8

2.6

1986

28

－

3

15

6

2

2

1987

25

2

2

12

7

2

－

1988

11

－

1

5

2

1

2

1989

13

－

－

5

1

3

4

1990

17

－

－

5

3

4

5

1991

33

－

1

12

8

6

6

1992

21

－

－

6

1

6

8

1993

16

1

－

4

5

4

2

1994

15

－

－

－

8

3

4

1995

15

－

－

1

5

4

5

1996

9

－

1

－

－

5

3

1997

13

－

1

－

－

4

8

1998

14

－

－

－

－

5

9

1999

9

－

－

－

－

3

6

2000

6

－

－

－

－

－

6

2001

14

－

1

－

1

－

13

2002

5

1

－

－

1

－

3

2003

13

－

－

－

－

－

13

2004

8

－

－

－

－

－

8

2005

3

－

－

－

－

－

3

* Based on White Paper on Crime in Japan by the Ministry of Justice.

H. Overcrowding of Prisons
Current Situation and Our Concerns
116.
Overcrowding beyond our experience is progressing in Japanese prisons now as supraparas.9-13]. Under this critical situation, prisoners and officers feel strongly stressed, and they sometimes
act as a trigger of violence resulting in injury or death. It means that overcrowding prisons increases therisk of torture and ill-treatment.

Related Cases
117.

Kobe Prison Case

In May 3rd, 2006, in Kobe Prison (a correctional institution), a male prisoner in his 50’s who shared asingle room with another prisoner, was assaulted by his roommate and died. Soon after the prisoner was
assaulted, officers checked his injuries but did not take him to a doctor. The next morning, they found the- 22 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

prisoner lay unconscious and took him to a hospital but he died there. Kobe Prison accommodated about
2,180 prisoners which are beyond its capacity of 1,800 at that time. To cope with this overcrowding
situation, 2 prisoners were detained in a single room and 9 prisoners were in a room for 6.

I. Disclosure of Related Information
Current Situation and Our Concerns
118.
The government is reluctant to disclose data concerning prison administration and facts there.
We can request disclosure from the Ministry or each prison authority, but most data in documents areblackened. Concerning medical records, if a prisoner requests his/her own record to disclose, it will
be denied because of “protection of privacy”. Therefore, it is difficult for NGOs and academics to
examine the facts in prison.

Immigration Detention Institutions
A. Violence by Immigration Officers against Foreign Detainees
Questions to the Government
119.
The UN Human Rights Committee stipulated its concern and called for improvement on 6 Nov.
1998 24 for cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments, such as violence, sexual harassment, use of
handcuffs and protection cells, against foreigners detained in immigration centers during the deportation
procedure. What sorts of measures for improvement have been adopted following the recommendation?
(cf. paras.3 and 68 of the government’s report 25)

Current Situations and Our Concerns
120.
Torture occurs when officers force foreign suspects to sign on legal documents for the forced
repatriation.
121.
Cases mentioned below are examples of the torture in Immigration institutions, attained throughevidence in courts, hearing investigations conducted by NGOs and interviews by migrant supporters.
----Forcible and physical thrust by officers after detaining suspects from their residencies to interrogation
rooms----Padded restraints with blankets and ropes----Kicking, punching and sweeping feet or lifting to hurl suspects onto the floor----Repeat violence until a suspect kneels and bows----Enforced isolation after violence.

24

The Human Rights Committee raised concern about “allegations of violence and sexual harassment of persons detained
pending immigration procedures, including harsh conditions of detention, the use of handcuffs and detention in isolation
rooms” in the Concluding Observation in 1998 (para.19).
25
See Appendix 1.

- 23 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

122.
The instruments used for torture are: metal handcuffs (category 1), reformed leather
handcuffs (category 2), rope (category 1), rope with metal core and fixable metal rings (category 2),
gags, blankets, bamboo swords, cores of facsimile rolls for beating, leather gloves for punching andothers.
123.
Triggers for violence are usually small violations of rules in the detention facilities. Admonitions
eventually turn into violence. ‘Small violations’ are things such as smoking at night, making noise bychasing roaches at night, noise demanding changes of treatments and others. Additionally, a case is reported
in which a suspect was forced to repatriate whilst bundled with blankets and rope.

Related Cases
124.

Torture for forced agreement of repatriation

A Pakistani, detained in an immigration detention facility on August 2003, was asked to sign adocument for his repatriation. On his rejection, he was beaten on his neck. Since then he has felt
constant pain in his neck as well as a pain and numbness in his left arm. (“Hurt Foreigners in Japan”,
Junpei Yamamura, [“Medical Asahi”, December 2004]. This example is similar to one of the cases inarticle 14[56-year-old Pakistani man’s case].)125.

A case of forced repatriation under padded restraint

This case took place on 7th November 2004 at Nishi-Nihon Immigration centre. A Vietnamese female(Ms. G) was subjected to forced repatriation under padded restraint. The report below is from directinterviews by a migrant supporter.
“Shortly after one o’clock on the 7th of November, immigration officers visited Ms G’s residence andtold her to ‘Come downstairs, we will give you the result of your provisional release status,’ hence sheleft to the ground floor where officers waited. There, a number of documents were spread in front of
her and she was told ‘Sign this document, we will deport you from Japan.’ After she rejected signing
the documents, about 10 officers entered, opened a blanket on the floor and pushed her down on theblanket. She was handcuffed, her legs tied with rope and her waist down bundled with the blanket andrope. She was carried into a microbus then taken to Kansai International Airport. As the boarding time
approached, she was forcibly carried onto an aircraft by about 6 officers, despite her resistance byclaiming ‘I do not wish to be on board.’ In the aircraft, she was repeatedly thrown to the floor and thendragged to the bottom by about 4 officers. As she shouted ‘I do not wish to be home.’ on her seat, oneof the officers kneeled onto her stomach, two of them held on her legs, one on her hands that are metal
handcuffed and another on her face and neck. Then, they tried to gag her mouth with a kind of a bar.
The bar was approximately 3 centimetres in diametre, 20 centimetres in total length, wrapped withcloth and had strings attached to the both ends. She was released off those instruments 20 to 30
minutes after the aircraft departed. Both her legs and arms were swollen and bruised.”

B. Role of the Isolation Room (the Protection Room)
Current Situation and Our Concerns
126.
The isolation room is a chamber aimed to seclude detainees whom are likely to commit suicide oran act of self-destruction, to defy officers or to provoke other detainees. In several cases, this very room has
been the locality for the abusive treatment of detainees. In such a room, one is to be under 24 hours
surveillance in a space as big as 5 square metres. Both a toilet and a sink are embedded into the floor, sothat every surface of the room stays flat. Even flushing a toilet cannot be done without an officer treading
on a pedal outside the room. There is an account: ”It was impossible to clean myself after relieving as there- 24 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

was no toilet paper”. In 1993, a one-legged Iranian named Nabidhi gave a testimony that he was beaten in
an interrogation room, stripped to a piece of underwear and eventually hanged from bars with his hands
handcuffed.

C. Adoption of Metal Core Rope as Instrument of Restraint 26
Questions to the Government
127.
Binding rope Type 2 which is used from 2003 has a wire inside the rope. This is feared to
be used for human rights abuse. Please illustrate the structure and speculation of the rope by drawing.
Please clearly specify the difference with the Type 1, especially on how to use it and the aim of its
usage. Together, please show us statistics from 2003 to 2006 on its usage, the reason of its usage, andthe center-by-center figures of its usage. (cf. paras.153 and 154 of the government’s report 27)

Current Situation and Our Concerns
128.
In the aftermath of a case involving leather handcuffs in Nagoya prison, there have beenchanges to the selection of instruments used for restraint in immigration institutions. Instruments
adopted after November 2003 are 4 kinds consisting of metal handcuffs (category 1), reformed leather
handcuffs (category 2), rope (category 1) and metal-core rope (category 2). According to Immigration
Detention Guidelines, reformed leather handcuffs (category 2) are defined as: ”A ring expandable byarbitrary locking mechanics aimed for fixing wrists, assembled to the sides of a trapezoidal joint ofmetal or optional materials with equal strength, with the whole part covered by either leather orchemical fibers”. Rope is adopted in two kinds as following. Rope (category 1) is the same as the one
applied before, defined as: ”Rope within 3 to 15 millimetres in diametre, less than 6 metres in lengthand made with either linen or chemical fibers”. Rope (category 2) is: ”The same as category 1,
provided that metal wire is run through the core and a retractable metal instrument, less than 10
centimetres in total length, is attached to one end”. It seems that possibilities for abusive usages still
remain despite the revocation of leather handcuffs.

Related Cases
129.

Examples of how metal-core rope is used

A detainee who recently attempted suicide and was placed in an isolation room describes theexperience possibly involving the reformed leather handcuffs (category 2) and rope as following:“leather handcuffs are no longer used but my stomach was tied with rope. An instrument on my hands(handcuffs category 2) is ‘Something harder than leather’, roughly 10 centimetres in width.
‘Something harder than leather’ is blackish and very hard as if there is metal inside. My waist is boundtightly with thin rope (unproven whether it is Rope category 2). It was very agonizing through pains
both of rope and of heavy compression. The rope and the handcuffs are fixable together at the positionof stomach.”

D. Use of Drugs for Calming Detainees
Current Situations and Our Concerns

26
27

November 2003, Immigration Bureau
See Appendix1.

- 25 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

130.
It has been indicated that substantial amount of antipsychotics, sleep agents, antianxiety
agents as well as others are possibly prescribed to detainees. It is used to calm agitated detainees andultimately to make them easier to handle. According to the previously mentioned report by Dr. Yamamura(“Hurt Foreigners in Japan”), a 28 year old male Pakistani, put into custody in May 2003 and deported inJune 2004, was dosed with a substantial amount of drugs and deported while unconscious.
131.
Although purposeful usages of drugs by the authorities have been increasingly reported throughparole evidences by a number of detainees, the Immigration Bureau continues to deny the cases.

Related Cases
132.
Drugs prescribed to a man deported in June 2004 upon his departure (Higashi-Nihon
Immigration Centre)
MorningDay

EveningNight

HIRNAMIN (5mg)

Antipsychotic

2 tbls

2 tbls

2 tblsSOLANAX (0.4mg)

Anxiolytic(Antianxiety Agent)

2 tbls

2 tbls

2 tblsLOXONIN

Analgesic(Pain Reliever)1 tbls

1 tbls

1 tblsEBASTEL

Antiallergic(Hypnotic side effect)

2 tblsNEOMALLERMIN

Antihistamine(hypnotic side effect)

1 tblsPURSENNID

Laxative

3 tblsMYSLEE (5mg)

Hypnotic

3 tblsPAXIL (20mg)

Antidepressant

1 tblsLENDORMIN(0.25mg)

Hypnotic

1 tblsROHYPNOL (2mg)

Hypnotic

1 tbls133.
On an account by the man (whose medication is exemplified in the above list), ”I was
surrounded by a number of officers telling me ‘This is your medication’, the officers handed me thedrugs and I eventually fell asleep after taking the drugs. Then I was carried out of the prison onto an
aircraft while I was sedated.”134.
Dr. Yamamura pleads the case: ”The fact that the authorities brought the victim into a stateof the unconsciousness through substantial drug dosing could have lead to fatal consequences. It is acase against medical ethics and is in no way an act of a medical treatment if a doctor was responsible
for the prescription of such drugs.” (Junpei Yamamura “Hurt Foreigners in Japan”, Medical Asahi,
December 2004)- 26 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

E. Acts of Self Destruction and Various Health Hazards Due to Long Term or Indefinite Detention
Questions to the Government
135.
Is the government preparing for amendments to the law to provide a term for detention fordeportation orders? (cf. para.156 of the government’s report 28)

Current Situations and Our Concerns
136.
Although the maximum period for a detention, according to the written detention order, is limited
to up to 30 days, plus another 30 days by extension, the cap is undefined for a detention by the written
displacement order. This is the cause of both long term and indefinite detentions. From 2001 to 2002, suchdetentions and subsequent mental and physical problems amongst detainees surfaced as social issues.
During this period, a number of cases consisting of self-destructive behavior and attempted suicide inprisons were documented.
137.
Dr. Yamamura states instances of health hazards and inadequate healthcare conditions in prisonscollected through diagnostic interviews with detainees in prisons and direct examinations with ex-detainees.
(“Hurt Refugees in Japan” Medical Asahi, February 2004)
138.
In 2005, several changes took place in the procedure to attain refugee status, following therevision of the immigration law in which ‘Provisional Stay Permit’ was introduced. However, thecondition to attain such a permit is limited to the conditions of: 1. ’a person who submitted aregistration form within 6 months after his landing’ and 2. ‘a person who has entered Japan directly’,
hence the condition does not apply to everyone seeking refugee status. Those in trial succeeding thedenial of applications are also excluded from the condition. Appropriately, the revision does not offer acomplete resolution to the indefinite custody. These structures in which such indefinite detention islegalized are still in place to this day. Consequently a number of detainees are still kept in suchconditions and their provisional releases rarely approved.

F. Mandatory Detention Regime --Detentions of People Inappropriate to Be Detained
Questions to the Government139.
Is the government preparing for systematic change on procedures including improvement on
independent monitoring agencies, to remove the following from the list of detention?: Ill persons, minors,
elderly persons, pregnant women, asylum seekers, persons pending before courts, persons pending before
Labor Standards Agencies for non-payment and accidents from labor, persons without prospect ofdeportation, and other persons who were found not eligible for deportation. (cf. para.24 of thegovernment’s report 29)

Current Situation and Our Concerns
140.
As well as asylum claimants, aged individuals, pregnant women, teenagers and those with mental
and/or physical disabilities are also detained due to the Mandatory Detention Regime that the current
immigration authority has adopted as its public stance. It is a serious situation bearing in mind the poor
healthcare conditions in prisons.

28
29

See Appendix1.
See Appendix1.

- 27 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Mental Health Institutions
Questions to the Government
141.
There are very large differences in the rate of involuntary hospitalization and the duration of
hospitalization in each of the prefectures. Why does the government allow this differential condition topersist?
142.
Patients dislike ECT intensely, and often view it as punishment. Will the government takeaction to limit, regulate or abolish its use in Japan?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
143.
The Mental Health Law of 1987 introduced the concept of human rights that purported toguarantee that patients have the right to communicate and have visitors. However, the conditions are still
not good. Additionally, there are problems with other conditions in the hospitals that are not specificallyguaranteed in the law.
144.
Long term inpatients, most of whom are aging, share rooms with many other patients and so haveno privacy for periods of time extending over many years. Additionally many hospitals still do not haveregular daily activities, for example the opportunity to enjoy fresh air outside of the hospital.
145.
In emergency admissions and acute hospitalization and treatment, orders for seclusion and IV
neuroleptics are often made automatically. The use of IV neuroleptics in these cases also requires
physical restraint. These conditions cause severe trauma to the affected patients, perhaps even worsening
their conditions.
146.
Japan is notorious internationally for its practice of polypharmacy in psychiatry. Polypharmacy
is the use of different medications for each symptom, resulting in patients taking many medications withunknown interaction effects. Also, recently there has been a revival of the use of ECT (electro-convulsive
therapy, or “shock treatment”) in Japan. This creates fear for patients who often associate it withpunishment. Additionally, although the protocol and technology for ECT has been revised in much of theworld, this is not the case in Japan. Japan has too few anesthetists in general, and their use in psychiatry isa low priority. Additionally, non-modified ECT is the norm in Japan.
147.
Adolescents and adults are often treated in the same wards in Japan. This practice has beenabandoned in most of the developed world, since adults can be abusive of adolescents when treated together.
For example, Tokyo To has only one adolescent psychiatric facility. As a result, only 50% (191 patients)of adolescents receiving psychiatric hospitalization were treated in that special facility. The other 50%
received treatment in mixed wards with adults. In some prefectures there is no special facility or ward foradolescents.
148.
The Medical Observation Law guarantees that each patient will be treated in a private room,
which is a great improvement over the conditions of other patients. However, all patients hospitalized
under this law are treated in the same locked ward. This means that acute patients are under the same
conditions as patients who are receiving social rehabilitation. This is very different than similar treatment
in other countries where distinctions are made in the conditions of those in the acute phase of theirtreatment and those who are receiving social rehabilitation leading to their discharge.

- 28 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

The Death Penalty
Questions to the Government
149.
The Human Rights Committee recommended in the Concluding Observation, that the
government should “take measures towards the abolition of the death penalty and that, in the meantime,that penalty should be limited to the most serious crimes, in accordance with article 6, paragraph 2, of theCovenant” (para.20 of the Observation), however, why are the number of death penalty sentences
increasing recently?
150.
The Human Rights Committee also recommended that “the conditions of detention on death row
be made humane in accordance with articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant”. What measures
have the government taken to improve conditions of detention on death row?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
151.
The government report says “application of the death penalty for individual cases is madecarefully and strictly based on the standard established by a Supreme Court judgment” (para.146 of thegovernment’s report 30) however the number of death sentences is increasing significantly these days shownas infra. In fact, the similar cases which had previously been sentenced to life have been sentenced todeath recently.
152.
Concerning the background of increase in the death sentence, more defendants have never appeal
or dismissed the appeals which their defendant lawyers carried out. The description of the government’s
report (para.147 of the government’s report 31) is different from the reality for the following reasons: there isno system to make appeals compulsory when the defendant would receive the death penalty; the possibility
to start a review trial is excessively small. There is no effective measure to prevent wrongful death
sentence and execution in the Japanese criminal justice system.

Statistical Data
153.

The number of death sentences and executions:
The number of
executions under thedeath penalty

30
31

The number of death row
The number of sentenced The number of sentenced
prisoners at the end of
to death conclusively
to death at the first trial
the year

1993

7

7

4

56

1994

2

3

8

57

1995

6

3

11

54

1996

6

3

1

51

1997

4

4

3

51

1998

6

7

7

52

1999

5

4

8

50

2000

3

6

14

53

2001

2

5

10

55

2002

2

3

18

57

2003

1

2

13

56

See Appendix1.
See Appendix1.

- 29 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

2004

2

14

14

66

2005

1

11

13

77

* Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution, Annual Report of Judicial Statistics, and Annual Report of Statistics on
Correction- 30 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 3

Questions to the Government
From the perspectives of preventing “refoulement”:
154.
What kinds of systematic measures do you provide for asylum seekers (esp. who are detained) toaccess lawyers right after rejection of their appeal in administrative procedure.
155.

Is state-funded legal aid available?

156.
Through the asylum procedure, especially judicial procedure (it takes about 2 to 4 years including
high court), how are the asylum seekers livelihoods secured either by work permit or providing financial
assistance.
157.
Why did Japanese Officials visit asylum seekers places of origins in Turkey with military police,in 2004 and share the fact of their asylum application?
158.
In considering complementary forms of protection, how do you interpret and set up the guidelines
of “under certain circumstances to be permitted stay,” (Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act,
Article 61-2-2-2) in terms of interpreting Article 3 of CAT ?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
159.
The 2005 Amendment on (article 61-2-6 Section 3 of) the Immigration Law guarantees the rightfor applicants of refugee status not to be deported during the recognition procedures. However, there is areported instance of which asylum seekers were deported despite the regulation which allows asylum
seekers to file suits within 6 months of the rejection after administrative procedures.
160.
Access to judicial review is not necessarily guaranteed for all asylum seekers and sometimes
they are deported right after the administrative procedure has ended.
---- Asylum seekers have legal right to bring a lawsuit demanding for their refugee status. However, there
is no legal aid and assistance financed from the national treasury, therefore, actually, not all asylum seekers
can access to judicial review. According to the statistics data in 2006, 389 asylum seekers were rejected
their application by the Immigration Bureau, the Ministry of Justice, and 59 cases were brought to thecourts (same person might filed a suit several times since they have to make 2 litigations [1 is forcancellation for rejection of asylum claim, and the other is for cancellation of deportation order]). It isdifficult to ensure that deportation (not voluntary repatriation) does not taken place within 6 months whichis the time frame necessary to bring an action to the court after rejection of an appeal. The case infra
represents such a case. Therefore, repatriation before 6 months should be consulted with internationalorganizations in order to assess, if it is voluntary.
161.
Asylum seekers’ data are shared with governments of their origin.
---- Since June 22 the new Immigration law went into force, and it is officially written that information of
applicants/asylum seekers will be shared with foreign governments including the one the asylum seeker
who is applying for refugee status, is from. This makes the personal data and the fact that he/she applied
for refugee status shared with the government of his/her origin, which further creates a risk of persecution.
162.
Asylum seekers are not allowed to legally work or to obtain public assistance making it
difficult for them to sustain life.
---- During the judicial procedure, asylum seekers are not qualified as any resident status, nor permitted towork. Moreover, there is no public assistance for life. It usually takes several years to complete judicial- 31 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

proceedings, which makes it so hard for them to sustain life without any aid. This is not ensuring theprinciple of non-refoulement. The minimum standard of life should be guaranteed and work permits
should be given during the trial.
163.
Complementary forms of protection and its detailed standards are not clearly written and aconcrete description of Article 3 is not stated.
---- Since the amended 2005 Immigration Act, even if a refugee application is rejected, when there is“under certain circumstances to be permitted stay,” (Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act,
Article 61-2-2-2) they are granted the right to stay. However, there is no clear statement on qualification,and how many persons who had been rejected their refugee application could be permitted this kind of
status in fact is not clearly disclosed in official statistics, since the disclosed number includes the
duplication. There is a need for regulations to be written clearly in order for the intent of the Article 3 of
the CAT to be reflected in the law.

Related Cases
Case Example of Deportation Right after the Administrative Procedure Ended Against Their Will:
164.
Kurdish asylum seekers were deported on the same day of the rejection on appeal (the end of theadministrative procedure) on January 27, 2006. According to their attorneys, they were given the papers
which explained that they could file a suit within 6 months, but were not allowed to contact their attorneys,
and deported against their will. (February 1, 2006, Tokyo Shinbun News Paper)- 32 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 4

The Penal Legislation and Practice over Torture
Question to the Government165.
Why has the number of cases of guilty verdicts on charges of crimes under article 194-196 of thePenal Code been so few? (cf. para.105 of the government’s report 32)

Current Situations and Our Concerns
166.
Although articles 194 to 196 of the Penal Code may be applicable to aggravated offence
categories including torture by public officers, it is rare to impose these punishments as seen in para.105 of
the government’s report.
167.
The government’s report says “Any person who commits an act of torture, including an attempt
to commit torture, an act which constitutes complicity or participation in torture, is punishable under the
Penal Code and other criminal laws for various offences and their complicity” (paras.17, 31 and 32 33) .
However, even if the case is punishable as an ordinal type of offence, such as violence, injury, and others,
the government’s report doesn’t show the specific statistical data concerning how many public officers havebeen prosecuted and sentenced by charging them with offences which result from acts of torture, and also
to what extent in public officers’ cases the gravity of the offences were taken into consideration atprosecution and in court. Thus, it will be difficult to assess whether implementation of the Penal Codeand other criminal laws fully meets the requirements of the Convention in practice.
168.
Furthermore, we can raise some points which are undefined in relation to Article 194 to 196 in
the government’s’ report as follows:
169.
Articles 194 to 196 of the Penal Code are applicable only to certain public officers, i.e. “a person
performing or assisting in judicial, prosecution or police functions” or “a person who is guarding or
escorting another person detained or confined in accordance with laws”. It seems to be narrower than “apublic official or other person acting in an official capacity” under Article 1 of the Convention. For
example, whether or not all types of officials such as the Self Defense Forces, immigration detention
centers, and doctors or nurses of psychiatric hospitals can be included in the above terms is unclear.
170.
According to Article 4 of the Penal Code, only “Japanese public officials” are punishable under
Article 194 to 196. If the suspects of the acts of torture are foreign national public officers, they can not
be charged with aggravated offences, but can just be punished by charging them with other ordinal types ofoffences, such as violence, injury, and others. Thus, it doesn’t seem to meet the requirement of Article 4paragraph 2 of the Convention, which says “make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties whichtake into account their grave nature” (See also infra the paragraph about Article 5 to 9).
171.
We have received some reports of cases involving staff of private psychiatric hospitals (mosthospitals are under private management in Japan) or employees of private companies who work for
immigration detention facilities. But whether or not these kinds of persons are punishable under articles
194 to 196 is uncertain from the government’s report. In addition, privatization of prisons is also
progressing in Japan, and staff from private companies who work in public detention places will be one ofthe points to be discussed.
172.
32
33

Although the government’s report says that “an attempt to commit torture, an act which

See Appendix1.
See Appendix1.

- 33 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

constitutes complicity or participation in torture, is punishable”, whether or not “acquiescence of a public
official” under Article 1 of the Convention is included in the above crime categories is also undefined.

Statistical Data
173.

The number of suspects prosecuted or not prosecuted under articles 194, 195 and 196

Article 194 (Abuse of Authority by special public officer [incl. causing death or injury thereby])Year(1) Prosecuted(2) Not Prosecuted

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Total number

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Request of trial proceedings

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Request of summary order

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total number*

30

110

109

87

88

145

140

Suspension of prosecution

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

Lack of suspicion

5

31

17

5

3

16

27

No suspicion

15

47

72

59

63

82

88

Not applying any offence

10

27

20

23

21

47

25

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Total number

4

7

6

2

0

3

4

Request of trial proceedings

4

7

6

2

0

3

4

Percent of ProsecutedSuspects (1)/(1)+(2)Article 195 (Violence and cruelty by special public officer)
Year(1) Prosecuted

Request of summary orderTotal number*(2) Not Prosecuted

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

273

222

211

211

243

379

384

Suspension of prosecution

3

9

7

20

6

8

5

Lack of suspicion

52

34

57

51

59

86

72

No suspicion

208

148

121

95

130

254

228

Not applying any offence

10

31

26

35

48

30

79

1.4

3.1

2.8

0.9

0.0

0.8

1.0

Percent of ProsecutedSuspects (1)/(1)+(2)Article 196 (Violence and cruelty by special public officer Causing death or injury thereby)Year(1) Prosecuted(2) Not Prosecuted

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Total number

0

1

0

21

4

0

0

Request of trial proceedings

0

1

0

21

4

0

0

Request of summary order

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total number*

84

115

114

141

212

224

279

Suspension of prosecution

3

5

8

7

7

3

1

Lack of suspicion

35

31

38

36

74

57

49

No suspicion

44

58

49

69

80

136

186

Not applying any offence

2

21

19

29

51

28

43

0.0

0.9

0.0

13.0

1.9

0.0

0.0

Percent of ProsecutedSuspects (1)/(1)+(2)Based on "Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution for 1999-2005 (Ministry of Justice)"* This total number includes other reasons than those below.

- 34 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Articles 5-9174.
As the government’s’ report mentioned (paras.33-54) 34, Japan can establish its jurisdiction on thesuspects who committed certain offences in foreign countries. There are some legal provisions for
detention and extradition of criminals and providing of international assistance in investigation. However,as we explained supra about Article 4, the Japanese Penal Code which is applicable to torture cases applies
only to certain types of Japanese public officers. Accordingly, the government and Japanese society tend
to consider acts of torture less serious. We can see this tendency from the treatment of the former
president of the Republic of Peru, Alberto Fujimori who stayed in Japan from 2000 to 2005.
175.
Fujimori was suspected of massacres and abductions using his secret army during his presidency,
and in 2003 the Peru government requested the Japanese government to extradite him on grounds ofinternational legal standards including the Convention against Torture. Survivors and the families ofvictims also urged his extradition. However, the Japanese government rejected these requests because
Fujimori was deemed a Japanese national and a domestic law prohibits extradition of its own citizens toforeign countries. Additionally, the government didn’t move forward with the investigation process.
This fact is an important issue which has a possibility of violation of the Convention.

34

See Appendix1.

- 35 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 10

General Issues
176.
Since 1995, there have been some efforts to promote human rights education to law enforcement
officers in the wake of the resolution on “Decade for Human Rights Education” adopted by the United
Nations. In particular, we can see some developments on human rights education practices to officers ofprisons and immigration detention centers in recent years.
177.
However, we are skeptical about the effectiveness of the current education programs. Most
programs include only one-way lectures given by senior officers in the same governmental agency. There
are more examples than before in which they invite speakers, such as academics and NGO members fromoutside of the agency, but they are limited. Additionally, lectures are usually about only general ideas, andgive the same ideas to all kinds of professionals. We think that more specific human rights education
which is tailored for the specific types of public officers should be given.

Mental Health Institutions
Questions to the Government
178.
Concerning paragraph 70 35 of the government’s report: The Training of Designated Psychiatrists,
does the government directly supervise and approve the curriculum for the training of designatedpsychiatrists?
179.
Moreover, does the government require that the curriculum comply with the international
standards for the protection of human rights, and that this topic is afforded enough time in the course of thecurriculum such that designated psychiatrists will be adequately trained?

35

See Appendix1.

- 36 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 11

Police Detention Cells and Prisons
Questions to the Government
180.

How will the review of the New Law be carried out, 5 years after the enforcement of the law?

181.
What are the positive aspects of the New Law for abolition and prevention of torture and otherill-treatment and punishment?

A. Police Detention Cells
Current Situation and Our Concerns
182.
Concerning “interrogation rules” under article 11 of the Convention, even after a suspect isbrought before a judge, he/she is usually supposed to return to a police detention cell (usually in a police
station) not to a detention center administered by the Ministry of Justice. Almost all suspects are detainedin this place, so-called “Daiyo Kangoku” or substitute prison for 23 days at the maximum, until they are
indicted by a prosecutor. During these days, police officers and prosecutors can interrogate the suspect,
almost freely.
183.
There is no limitation for interrogation at a police station and especially, the suspect who denies
the charges or keeps silence is likely to be interrogated until midnight. In that case, police officers
sometimes don’t make any record of the interrogation during the suspect‘s denial. In addition, the records
of interrogation often have been switched or altered.
184.
There is no system for recording interrogation by police in Japan now, thus, no one can review
whether the proceedings had been carried out adequately or not. Accordingly, we reject the government’scomment saying that “the interrogation rule …are systematically reviewed by the relevant organizations,and revisions are made to relevant regulations as necessary” (para.76) 36 In fact, we have received many
reports such as coerced confession caused by mental torture including threat and influence peddling, andphysical torture including assault and sexual abuse.
185.
The Human Rights Committee was “deeply concerned about the fact that a large number of theconvictions in criminal trials are based on confessions”. And it “strongly recommends that the interrogationof the suspect in police custody or substitute prisons be strictly monitored, and recorded by electronicmeans” in the Concluding Observation of 1998 (para.25 of the Observation). Members of NGOs and theJapanese Federation of Bar Associations have continued to urge the governments to introduce the recording
system during interrogation of suspects, however the government mostly shows a negative attitude on this.
Recently, the head of the Supreme Public Prosecutor Office suggested that recording system would be
introduced partly during their interrogation of suspects, but which cases will be recorded is depending on
the prosecutors’ discretion and the purpose of recording might be for only prosecutors’ advantage. Then,
this suggestion will be not only inadequate but also be an obstacle for the defense of suspects.
186.
Concerning “the supervision and direction at police detention cell” mentioned in thegovernment’s report (para.79) 37, “regular inspections of police detention cells” mean inspection by thesame governmental body. This system is regulated not by law but by administrative rules. Although thesame system will be regulated by the New Law which will go into force by next Spring, we think that it
might not be an effective measure to prevent torture.
36
37

See Appendix1.
See Appendix1.

- 37 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Related Cases
187.

The Existence of a Secret Manual for Interrogation to Encourage Forcing Confession

In April 2006, a press published a paper including a manual to interrogate suspects, which had been leaked
accidentally from a computer of a police officer’ working for the Aichi Prefecture Police. This manual
describes police officers’ attitudes when they interrogate suspects. It includes some descriptions which
encourage officers to break up suspects who denied their charges, for example, “Once you come into theinterrogation room, you must not get out until obtaining a suspect’s confession” and “The suspect whodenies his/her charge must be interrogated morning till night”(for the purpose of weakening the suspect).
This manual also encourages interrogators to control suspects’ liberty on a 24-hour basis in order to exploit
to obtain suspects’ confession by breaking them up.
The manual is presumed to be used for training of police officers according to other documents leaked at
the same time, and the government did “not” deny its existence during a session of the Diet. We consider
that what the manual says is similar to situations which have been reported to us, and police officers havelearned it as a legitimate method to obtain a suspect’s confession through means of long-time interrogation
resulting in exhaustion of the suspect.

B. Prison
Current Situation and Our Concerns
188.
Correctional institutions, rules, instructions, and practices for treatment of prisoners are showing
some progress these days including the New Law. Especially as to communication with outside,
disciplinary procedure, complaints system, and establishment of the so-called “the Board of Visitors for
Inspection of Penal Institutions”, we can see positive aspects. However, there are many limitations on
prisoners’ liberty and rights. Since the New Law is supposed to be reviewed 5 years after the date ofenforcement, the government should record, save, and disclose related factual data for an extensive
discussion (as much as possible with no violation of inmates’ privacy).

Mental Health Institutions
Questions to the Government
189.
Related to seclusion: The Mental Health Act allows for 12 hours of seclusion prior to review by
a Designated Psychiatrist. Why is the restriction of behavior so long?
190.
The general medical law allows for the number of psychiatrists to be only 1/3 the required
number of other physicians in hospitals for other medical specialties, and it allows for nurses to be 2/3 ofnurses in other medical specialties.
Why is there a difference in staffing requirements between
psychiatry and all other medical specialties?

Current Situations and Our Concerns- 38 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

191.
In the 1987 the former Mental Health Act 38 was reformed. Then, in 1999 the Mental Health
Law was changed to include welfare issues, and became the Mental Health and Welfare Act.
Subsequently, other minor changes and additions where made to the law. This continual review andrevision of the law mostly has been positive, and should be encouraged to continue in the future.
192.

Concerning paragraph 92 39 of the government’s report:

This law differentiates between two types of involuntary hospitalization. Article 29 requires that two
designated psychiatrists examine the patient and make hospitalization decisions. By contrast in Article 33
hospitalizations, which are the vast majority of involuntary hospitalizations, families are designated as
making hospitalization decisions.
In 2005, involuntary hospitalizations represented 35.5% of total hospitalizations.
Article 29
hospitalizations were only 1% of these. The vast majority of Article 33 hospitalizations (34.4%) are at theconsent of family members. However, many of these hospitalizations are recommended by psychiatrists,
with families encouraged to consent. In most Article 33 hospitalizations the families accede to therecommendations of the designated psychiatrists. Because of the nature of the traditional role of authority
in Japanese society, this amounts to a kind of coercion in the decision to hospitalize. Thus, in fact thedesignated psychiatrists are making the decision to hospitalize in both Article 29 and Article 33. This isespecially problematic on Article 33 hospitalizations: They often include seclusion, and thus again family
agreement avoids legal responsibility and potential judicial review.
193.

Concerning paragraph 94 40 of the government’s report:

The Law on the Medical Care and Observation for Mentally Incompetent Persons who Committed Serious
Harm on Others (Medical Observation Law) was implemented in July 2005. This law requires review by
a judge and a mental health judge (psychiatrist), but allows for two months of hospitalization before thisreview. This two month period has problems that have already been identified. However, there is anadditional problem. It is possible to convert a patient from an Article 29 hospitalization to a Medical
Observation Law hospitalization, and when this is done, it allows for an additional two months ofinvoluntary hospitalization for forensic report before Court review. It is potential violation of patients’rights that the law did not anticipate.
194.
There is another problem related to the review of treatment and patients’ condition. The Mental
Health Act created no mechanism for independent examination and assessment of patients’ rights andpossible abuse. The new Medical Observation Law has replicated this fundamental problem.

38

The preliminary report mis-cited this as 1997.
See Appendix1.
40
See Appendix1.
39- 39 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 12

Police Detention Cells and Prisons
Questions to the Government
195.
The government’s report says “the competent authorities” including police conduct aninvestigation “when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture or other cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment has been committed” (para.98) 41. Especially, when the suspect of torture act is a
public officer such as a police officer, is there any special measures to take for the purpose of prompt andimpartial investigation?
196.
Can “the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal Institutions” established under the New Law
investigate when they suspect the existence of torture in prison? (Do they have any authority to do so?)A. Police Detention Cells
Current Situation and Our Concerns
197.
The government’s report describes only general information on the function of the Japanesepolice organization (para.8) 42. They should present to the Committee the specific cases in which thepolice proceeded with prompt and impartial investigations on the torture or other ill-treatment cases ofwhich the suspects/perpetrators were the police officers. We think that the police organization can not
be a competent authority to proceed with an impartial investigation on cases which involve police
officers.

Related Cases
198.

Wakayama Higashi Police Station CaseIn April 2004, in a cell at Wakayama Higashi Police Station, a male detainee died caused by asphyxia after
a restraint instrument covering his mouth to prevent roaring was attached. This suspect seemed to screamand yell, then, his mouth was covered and his body was restrained with a body-suit and nylon handcuffs.
Moreover, he was covered almost the entire length of his body (from his forehead to his foot) with ablanket and left alone for a long time.
Regarding this case, 3 police officers as perpetrators were prosecuted without their arrest and sentenced tofines of 500 thousand yen (about 3,200 EURO on March 22nd), and a head of the Wakayama Higashi
Police Station and other 2 officers were given a disciplinary warning or admonition as their supervisors.
The bereaved family filed a suit seeking for fact-finding and compensation and it is pending now. In
March 25th, 2005, in Fukaya Police Station, Saitama Prefecture Police, a suspect came from Thailand diedwhile his body was restrained with a body-suit. It was said that autopsy is planned to be carried out, but
no result of the investigation has been made public until now.
Even concerning the cases involving police officers, we have only the system that the cases are supposed to
be investigated by the police themselves. Then, there is virtually no competent authority to carry out aprompt and impartial investigation on the torture cases.

41
42

See Appendix1.
See Appendix1.

- 40 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

B. Prison
Current Situation and Our Concerns
199.
During the process to investigate and examine the Nagoya Prison incidents (cf. paras.14-15 ofthis report), it has been realized that any investigation system and practice in prison have never worked
effectively. Especially, concerning death in prison, lack of medical examination to confirm the existenceof torture, sloppy medical records and lack of effective autopsy system must be improved. Although the
New Law introduced “the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal Institutions” system, they don’t haveany authority to investigate cases in which they are suspicious of torture or ill-treatment by themselves.

Related Cases
200.

Nagoya Prison Cases (especially about investigation of the cases)

After a series of incidents were published by press, amid mounting criticism by society, the Ministry ofJustice organized a team which consisted of the ministry’s officials to investigate the facts and backgroundfactors. Then, in 2003, the Correctional Administration Reform
Council (members came fromacademic, legal profession, journalism, doctors, community groups) was organized in order to examinesome issues to reform Japanese prison legislation and practices (para.82 43 of the government’s report).
We welcome that the government has taken these measures. Because the investigation by thegovernment’s team and the examination by the Reform Council have brought forth certain information
about prison issues which had been hidden behind prison walls to light, and the prison reform including
enactment of the New Law are making progress.
However, these achievements are mostly owed to those outside of the Ministry including the Diet members,
lawyers, and NGO members, and most information, especially, what we really need to know for reform has
been hidden even now. Therefore, we urge the government to take prisoners’ human rights issues
seriously, and take adequate measures including prompt and impartial investigation and disclosure of
related information. We also urge them to establish an independent body which is authorized toinvestigate promptly and impartially.

43

See Appendix1.

- 41 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 13

Independent Authority to Investigate Complaints of Human Rights Abuses
Question to the Government
201.
After the Concluding Observation by the Human Rights Committee in 1998 which raised concern
about the lack of independent authority to deal with complaints from detainees, have the government taken
any measures to improve this issue?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
202.
Under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, when there are reasonable grounds to believecommittal of torture, independent bodies are necessary as the government’s duty. A remarkablecharacteristics of human rights violations during detention in police custody is that it occurs behind closed
doors. To make the fact of violation public, an independent body from the government having theauthority to step into institutions, interview detainees and officers, and access any kinds of documents, isnecessary. The government presented the bill relating to the establishment of a body for redress of humanrights violations to the Diet. This bill provides that the body is under control of the Ministry of Justice,therefore, the body is short of independency, and has a provision to limit the liberty of the press. Thus,
many human rights NGOs were against this bill. Moreover, politicians from the ruling parties also havecome to be against it for different reasons from that of human rights NGOs, and it seems to become
difficult to be enacted.

Police Detention Cells and Prisons
A. Police Detention Cells
Question to the Government
203.
Does the government have a plan to establish any independent bodies to deal with complaints
from detainees in Police Detention Cells? If they don’t have any ideas about it, what is the obstacle
against it?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
204.
There is no effective and independent complaints system regarding torture or ill-treatment inpolice detention cells.
205.
Under the New Law which will be enforced by Spring of 2007 (the amended Prison Law), a newcomplaints system will be established, but an independent body has not been introduced. There is no
independent body to examine complaints for detainees in police detention cells.
206.
Under the same law, “the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Police Detention Cells” will beestablished but we don’t have enough information about the detail and whether it will be similar to the one
in prisons or not.

- 42 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

B. Prison
Questions to the Government
207.
Under the New Law, a new complaints system has been temporarily applied to prisons in Japan.
How effective has this been in fact for these 10 months?
208.
How does the government repute the work by the Advisory Committee for reviewing complaints
from prisoners, which was temporarily established? What are the obstacles to establish any independentbodies to investigate or examine the complaints from prisoners?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
209.
Through the process to investigate and examine a series of the Nagoya Prison incidents, the main
problem about the complaints system and practices were brought to light. In fact, prison officers often
blocked prisoners’ petitions to the Minister of Justice and outside organs. Concerning the system ofcomplaints to the Minister of Justice, if prisoners could present their petitions, the complaints could notreach the Minister as a more independent authority (they were dealt with by the officers of the Ministry)and rarely resulted in success.
210.
Under the New Law, we welcome that the complaints system has been reformed, because the newprovisions as follows are included into the Law:----the authorities to deal with complaints 44 can withdraw provisionally the disposition by thewarden/prison governor (however within discretion of the authorities to deal with complaints)----setting up a standard period for examination (the decision have to be made within 90 days as much as
possible from the date of petition)----definition of responsibility to examine and make decision on the complaints, and to notify the inmate of
the results----decision by the authorities to deal with complaints legally binds the warden/prison governor and it can
withdraw the disposition, or the authorities themselves can take necessary measures to prevent recurrenceof the violation.
211.
Although we don’t have enough information about its practice, we can raise concerns at this time.
Firstly, the new complaints procedure is complicated and is not user-friendly. It has 2 different kinds ofprocedures, depending on what kinds of subjects the inmate wants to complain about. Inmates have towrite the certain format for complaints and call an officer to send the paper to the authority. Moreover, theduration which inmates can petition is very short (within 30 days from a day after the disposition is
notified), and inmates can not ask for help or representatives from outside (they only ask for help fromprison officers).
212.
Secondly, the range of the subject of the new complaints system is narrow. The subject onwhich inmates can ask for withdrawal or change are limited only to the certain type of disposition by thewarden/prison governor including imposition of disciplinary measures, segregation, and relatively harsher
limitation on prisoners’ liberty. Inmates can not use a new complaints system about what they really need
to be withdrew or changed, concerning things such as inadequate medical treatment by prison
44

The authorities to deal with complaints from prisoners are the superintendents of the regional correction headquarters
which is one of agencies of the Correction Bureau, and the Minister of Justice at the appeal stage. Roughly, prisoners canappeal to the Minister of Justice after their complaints are dismissed by the superintendents of the regional correction
headquarters.

- 43 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

doctors/nurses, limitation on receiving goods from family and friends, and others.
213.
Thirdly, even under the new complaints system, it is still the officers from the Correction Bureau,
the Ministry of Justice, who examines prisoners’ complaints. The Human Rights Committee was“concerned that there is no independent authority to which complaints of ill-treatment by the police andimmigration officials can be addressed for investigation and redress” in the Concluding Observation in
1998. The independent authority to deal with complaints is necessary also for prisons. We can see some
progress about this issue as follows, and urge the government to promote this achievement and reconsider
an inadequate point.
214.
As a result of the recommendation by the Correctional Administration Reform Council (seesupra), since January 2006, the Advisory Committee for reviewing complaints from prisoners has been
temporarily established. The Committee consists of 5 independent members including 2 professors, alawyer, a doctor, and the director of the prison volunteers’ organization, and they are reviewing somecases which were previously raised by prisoners and rejected by the authorities 45. They had examined
204 cases by July, 2006, of which 11 cases were decided to be re-examined by the authorities, and 3
cases were decided to be reasonable. Therefore, they seem to yield some results.
215.
However, we have to raise a concern on this Committee in terms of independency. The
Committee doesn’t have its own secretariat, and officers from the Ministry of Justice are working for it.
The Committee has no power to investigate the cases from the first, which means that can not directlyinterview prisoners and officers, and directly access any related documents.

Immigration Detention Institutions
Questions to the Government
216.
Have you got any example of improvement by using a newly institutionalized complaint systemon the Ministry of Justice regulation for treatment of detainees, which is corresponding to the amendmentof immigration law adopted in November 2001? Please show examples of any of your efforts on
improving the effectiveness of the complaint system defined in “the Treatment of Detainee Regulation” by
the Ministry of Justice. (paras68, 86, 88, 117, and 119 46 of the government’s report)

Current Situations and Our Concerns
217.
Rights to Appeal: In November 2001, the "Regulation on the Treatment of the Detainees(decree of Ministry of Justice)" based on the Immigration Laws was passed.
218.
The purpose of this regulation is to improve the treatment of the detainees by the immigration
officers. According to this new system introducing the concept of submitting what it’s called the "Appealof Complaint". Detainees could file a complaint against any unsatisfactory treatment by the immigration
officers within 7 days after the event happened to the Immigration Bureau authority via submitting the"Appeal of Complaint" which states their reason of discontent.
219.
However, this new system - the "Testimony of Complaint" - is far from what one would consider
as functional. According to the report by Asahi Newspaper; 2003 May 30th issue, there were 68 cases ofcomplaints against violence and abuse by the immigration officers inside the detention facility (20testimonies in year 2001, 33 testimonies in 2002, among 16 testimonies between January and March in year
45
46

See supra note 44.
See Appendix1.

- 44 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

2003, one case had been withdrawn).
220.
When the complaint testimony gets issued, the director of the detention facility must investigate
the case and come up with a decision either to make an effort of improvement or just simply drop the caseby saying "insufficient evidence". Unfortunately, even if there was enough evidence to back the case, theImmigration Bureau would in either way finalize all the cases from the detainees as "insufficient evidence ".
As a result, there hasn’t been any single improvement based on the complaint testimonies from thedetainees. By taking a close look at the reasons of discontent among the detainees, there are: 5 cases ofpower abuse and assaults by the immigration officers; 12 cases of verbal insult, physical abuse and neglect(ex. treating them with contempt, serving food on the footwear, does not listen to any requests, breaks
possession of the detainees such as a watch, etc.); and 8 cases stating discontent for the medical treatments
inside the detention facility. There were some comments made from the detainees stating that they want
to go back to their country which is outside the margin but there were many that are more serious. Such
were: "received physical abuse from several officers" or "got hurt emotionally through verbal insults".
They have also mentioned that even though there is a system of "Testimony of Complaint" and they write
their issues down, there seems to be no follow-up and no one comes to talk about it. Therefore, there were 4
cases in which the detainees demands for improvement in such system and increase the number of workers
that would take care of the problems faced by the detainees. Out of 68 cases which involves charges against
physical abuse by the immigration officers, 23 cases were declared to the Ministry of Justice due to theobjection against its denial, however; all 23 cases were dismissed.

Mental Health Institutions

Questions to the Government
221.
How does the government evaluate the approved 6.4% requests to be discharged? Is this thenumber anticipated when the law was created?
222.
How does the government evaluate the small number of requests for improved treatmentcompared to the large number of inpatients? Is the conclusion reached that this means that patients are
satisfied with the conditions of their treatment?
223.
Although the condition of patients is often stable, many times the PRB does not approve a request
for discharge because the patient does not have a place to go. That is, the decision is made based on social
conditions and the limitation of social resources, resulting in longer lengths of stay in the hospital. What
policy does the government have for this situation and are there plans to change it?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
224.
Concerning paragraph 122 47 of the government’s report, a provision for the establishment of a
Psychiatric Review Board (PRB) was created for the first time in Japan under the 1987 Mental Health Law(see below). It has not worked effectively.
225.
In 2004, there were 330,000 psychiatric inpatients in hospitals in Japan. That year, there were1,902 formal requests to be discharged (0.6% of total inpatients). The PRB accepted 122 of theserequests (6.4% of total requests). However, only 1 or 2 of these accepted requests were actuallydischarged. The rest of the cases were converted to other types of hospitalizations, including Article 33
47

See Appendix1.

- 45 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

and “voluntary” hospitalization. Additionally, there were 177 formal requests for the improved treatment.
This includes various issues such as better food, more freedoms, improved conditions, etc. Only 16 of the
177 requests were approved. Moreover, no appeal mechanism exists for the cases that were not accepted,
thus leaving no process for resolving disagreement.

- 46 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 14

General Issues
Questions to the Government
226.
How many cases were there in which the detainees in police detention centers, prisons, andimmigration detention centers, and patients in mental health institutions filed lawsuits from 1999 to thelatest year? And what were the results of these cases, including the amount of compensation for damage?
227.
What does the government consider the obstacles for detainees and patients to call forcompensation for damage caused by any violation in each institution?
228.
Can the plaintiff who has been determined to be a victim of torture receive redress other thancompensation including rehabilitation?

Police Detention Cells and Prisons
A. State Compensation for Victims of Torture during Police Interrogation
Current Situations and Our Concerns
229.
Generally, the violence occurred during interrogation in closed room and there is no recording
system there, and it is difficult for detainees to access independent medical professionals. Therefore,
securing evidence of torture is almost impossible, and at the trial against the police, if the plaintiff could
obtain some evidence, judges rarely admit the fact.
230.
In Japan, there are no organizations such as rehabilitation centers for survivors of torture as seen
in other countries. It is important to take measures for redress, which is not only compensation, but also
to establish some rehabilitation centers supported by the competent authorities.

B. State Compensation for Victims of Torture in Prisons
Current Situations and Our Concerns
231.
It is difficult for prisoners to win compensation for damage during their detention in prisons asfollows:
232.
Suing the prison officers and authorities will be the cause of retaliatory treatment such as
solitary confinement. Inmates in prisons don’t have a right to be present in the court for their litigation.
Mostly, finding an attorney at law is not easy for inmates at the first stage. If they could not employ
their own attorney, getting an award of compensation might be more difficult.
Collecting evidence of
torture and other ill-treatment will also be extremely hard, because most important evidentiary
documents were held by the prison authorities (as the defendants). We know of some cases which theirrelated documents were altered or missing. The plaintiff will have no or few witnesses, who are mostly
officers or other prisoners and have difficulty giving testimony.
233.
In addition, according to many experiences of lawyers who have dealt with many prison cases,
judges, especially higher courts’ judges, have a tendency to allow prison authorities to exercise wider
discretion on inmates’ treatment and they are reluctant to find responsibility to compensate for the- 47 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

damages.
234.
Furthermore, the statute of limitations (3 years) will be another obstacle especially fordetainees to begin the legal process.
235.
For foreign national inmates, the principle of reciprocity (para.128 of the government’s
report) 48 under the State Redress Law often virtually makes it difficult to receive compensation underjudicial decision. This kind of limitation seems to be a violation of article 14 of the Convention and theprovision of the Law should be abolished.
236.
Concerning the positive aspect, in the case of sentenced prisoners, since May 2006 when the
New Prison Law has been in force, some progress has been shown. Once, at the first stage of thelitigation, a prisoner as a plaintiff could not meet his/her lawyer without being supervised and recorded
by a prison officer belonging to the organ of the defendants. This practice will be changed andprisoners will now meet their lawyers in private.

Related Cases
237.

An Iranian Prisoner Case of Violation in a Correctional Institution

An inmate, who came from Iran and was imprisoned in Japanese prison, filed a lawsuit for compensationfrom his damage by prison guards’ violation. He tried to call for help to outside including the United
Nations, lawyers, and human rights NGOs, but he couldn’t. Then, after release, he filed a suit. The
judgment by the Tokyo High Court, on August 31st, 2005, admitted the facts of violation which the plaintiff
insisted, however they rejected the redress for the plaintiff because the statute of limitations had expired.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. His leg is suffering from severe thrombosis as anaftereffect of injury in prison until now. The judges didn’t play their role adequately because theyrejected his redress, nevertheless they realized the fact of violation.

Immigration Detention Institutions
A. No Compensation is Expected
Current Situations and Our Concerns
238.
Generally, the detainees sent to the detention facilities should be deported so even if they getassaulted at the detention facilities, it is rare for these victims to obtain compensations from the Japanese
government. There are a couple of cases where these ex-detained victims demanded state compensation
by bringing their cases to the court. The chart indicates the list of cases we follow.
239.
The detention facilities are like a "hidden room" where it’s hard to know what’s going on inside,
especially since all the detainees would sooner or later get deported and leave the place. In such anenvironment, cases that have demanded national compensation is just a tip of the iceberg. As shown on
the chart below out of 8 confirmed cases: 2 cases have obtained aid due to the loss of the national side and1 case won by charging against the security company of the Landing Prevention Facility; summing up to
only 3 cases which were able to obtains some assistance.
240.
There are 2 main reasons why it is difficult to obtain state compensation at the court in the casesof violation of human rights inside the detention facilities. First, there are no third party checking inside the48

See Appendix1.

- 48 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

detention facilities; therefore, it is difficult to submit any evidence from the defender’s side. Second, there
is a lack of understanding of human rights among the judges as well as carelessness in acknowledging thetruth.
241.
Also, the Japanese government emphasizes the principle of reciprocity which is stated in article 6
of State Compensation Law.

Related Cases
242.
The court cases on Treatments Inside Immigration Detention Facilities Demanding for National
Compensation
Date of Incident

Case

Regional courtHigh Court

May 1993
Tokyo Immigration 2nd
Bldg.

Iranian man, physical abuse, locked up in theisolated room for long term

Plaintiff won the case(partial)
charges against physicalabuse lost
Plaintiff lost the case

Plaintiff won the case(partial)
charges against
physical abuse lost
Plaintiff lost the case

Plaintiff won the case－

Plaintiff lost the case

Dismissal of an
appeal, Plaintiff lostthe case
Plaintiff lost the caseSouth Korean man, physical abuse
June 1994
Osaka Immigration
Detention Center
Nov. 1994
Chinese woman, physical abuse during theinterrogation
Tokyo Immigration
BureauAug. 1997
Iranian man, Mr. Mir excessive violenceTokyo Immigration 2nd resulting in death
Bldg.
Kurdish man, was not allowed to get outdoor
1997
exercise
East Japan Immigration
CenterTunisian man, entry denied, physical abuse,
June 2000
trial held in civil court including national
Narita Airport Landing
compensation
Prevention Facility
May 2001
Nigerian man, physical abuse & sexualWest Japan Immigration harassment
Center
Ethiopian man, insufficient medial treatments
2002
West Japan Immigration
CenterApril 2002
West Japan Immigration
CenterJuly 2003
East Japan Immigration
CenterApril 2004
East Japan Immigration
CenterMay 2004
East Japan Immigration
Center243.

Chinese man physical abuse

Plaintiff won the case

Civil court won, Lost thenational compensation－

Plaintiff won the case

Plaintiff won the case

Plaintiff won the case (afault made by theimmigration medics got
accepted)
Plaintiff lost case

Dismissal of an
appeal, Plaintiff lostthe case

Pakistanese man, physical abuse, medical
misconduct

Pending

Turkish man, physical abuse, medical
misconduct, case on demanding for thenational compensation
Iranian man, physical abuse, medical
misconduct, case on demanding for thenational compensation

Pending

Pending

Pending

Case Regarding Mr. Mir’s Death Caused by Excessive Assaults

On August 1997, the sudden death of an Iranian man named Mr. Mir took place in the second building of- 49 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

the Tokyo Immigration Bureau. The Akabane Police Dept. investigated the case and suspected 8
immigration officers of excessive violence which caused Mr. Mir’s death. However, the District Public
Prosecutor's Office did not prosecute this case. The photographs taken at the hospital where Mr. Mir wassent after his death show numerous wounds and marks around his wrists and feet indicating that he had
been handcuffed and tied up. Apparently, this would indicate that Mr. Mir had been severely beaten up. In
October 1998, Mr. Mir’s family decided to prosecute the Japanese government in order to gain National
Compensation. The following testimonies given by the immigration officer as a witness had been settled
during the trial.
"Mr. Mir was taken to a different room, since one night he got caught using a lighter something which wasprohibited during the late night hours. Five officers were in charge of this case. Inside the room where Mr.
Mir was brought into, his wrists were tied at his back with metallic handcuffs fixed by leather cuffs. Bothhis feet were tied together with a rope. His handcuffed wrists and rope-tied feet were then tied together byanother rope; curving his body backward. Then they rolled Mr. Mir inside a blanket and tied a rope aroundit. Mr. Mir was taken to a narrow isolation room where he laid on the floor. At one point Mr. Mir tried to situp; he then fell, hit his head on the wall and killed himself."
It is extremely difficult to accept this testimony given by the immigration officer, stating that no one had
witnessed the exact moment of Mr. Mir’s death, knowing that within the small isolation room where there
were supposedly five officers at the time and Mr. Mir was lying on the floor with his whole body strapped.
One would find it impossible to imagine anyone in such condition, with both their arms and feet strapped
together and rolled up in a blanket, manage to hit their head on the wall and die.
Later on, a testimony given by an Iranian witness who was there in the same detention facility at the time
was obtained. His testimony was, "His death was caused by assaults from the immigration officers." Healso described that the immigration officers carried Mr. Mir and banged his head against the wall. In March
2003, based on the Iranian witness’ testimony, lawyers appealed to Tokyo District Public Prosecutor's
Office and Investigation Committee to revise the disposition of not prosecution of 8 immigration officers incharge of Mr. Mir’s death. As a result, the Investigation Committee found this case as "suitable forrevision". However, the investigators dropped the case and did not continue this case.
Nevertheless, Mr. Mir’s family went to court and demanded national compensation but his family lost boththe trials against the District Court and the Supreme Court. In the end, the Japanese Administration of
Justice finally did not reach out their hands for justice regarding the incident of Mr. Mir, an Iranian man’s
death most likely caused by the Japanese civil officers.

B. There Is No Rights to Receive Any Type of Rehabilitation Treatment
Current Situation and Our Concerns
244.
There are no rights guaranteed to obtain any sort of rehabilitation treatments to heal the wounds
caused by physical abuse by immigration officers. Every action made by immigration officers is considered
to be legitimate so that most abusive cases are not considered to be any violence and physical abuses.
Therefore, there is no necessity of any type of rehabilitation treatment is not guaranteed. The following
case, a detained Pakistani man’s case, shows a typical example of medical treatment condition inside
detention facilities.

Related Cases
245.

Abandoned Without Any Treatment After being Beaten

Mr. A, a 56-year-old Pakistani man, was severely beaten by a couple of immigration officers in the East
Japan Immigration centre after he refused to sign to accept Mr. A’s deportation order. The immigration
officers physically abused Mr. A by pushing his head forcibly on the desk; swung his head violently in- 50 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

every direction; and struck the backside of his neck.
After this incident, Mr. A started to feel the pain and numbness around his neck and his left arm. He
claimed his symptoms and then he got sent to a hospital located inside the detention centre six times, but
the doctor never even touched him and gave him no diagnosis for a long time. Meanwhile, Mr. A’s
symptoms got worse and he was finally taken, after one month, to a hospital outside of the detention centre
where he took MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). As a result, they found compression on his left cervicalnerve (spondylosis) and also at his narrow inter-vertebral space.
Mr. A began preparing for taking his case to the court. However, one day in June 2004, around 30 or 40
immigration officers came into Mr. A’s room suddenly and took him to a different, bigger room where he
was then forced to accept to leave Japan. Then Mr. A was handcuffed and was taken to Narita Airport
where he got deported.
Mr. A’s supporters, who were preparing for bringing his case to the court, say that this is obviously an
intention to deter to bring his case to the court by the Immigration Bureau. (December 2004 edition of“Medical Asahi”; Documents from a December 27th 2005 press conference by lawyers)- 51 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 15

Question to the Government
246.
How many criminal cases excluded the defendants’ confessions from the admissible evidences
because the statement had been obtained as a result of torture?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
247.
As the government report describes, the Japanese Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law
provide that confessions which were made involuntarily shall not be admitted in evidence (paras.133 and134 of the government’s report) 49. However, there have been extremely few cases in which the judges
decided the statement had been made involuntarily under these provisions and excluded from theadmissible evidences in criminal trials.
248.
Since we don’t have any electric recording system during interrogation at police station, what
defense lawyers can do to prove their clients confessed involuntarily is only to examine the defendants andinterrogators (police officers and prosecutors) at the proceeding. To prove effectiveness of the article 15of the Convention, implementation of recording system by electric devices during interrogation is anecessary measure as the Human Rights Committee recommended in the Concluding Observation in 1998.

49

See Appendix1.

- 52 -

The Alternative Report on the Initial Report of the Japanese Government by the CAT Network Japan (March, 2007)

Article 19

Question to the Government249.
Why was the government’s report submitted to the Committee after expiration of the due date ?
And the reason that the report covers only information from 1999 to March 2004 in spite of new legislation
having been enacted or went into force after that period, should be made clear to the Committee.

Current Situations and Our Concerns
250.
Despite Japan’s accession of the Convention was 1999, the submission of the initial report to theCommittee was delayed to a large extent. Moreover, the report only covers information during 1999 to
March 2004. As supra of this report, important legislative and practical changes have occurred after thisperiod, then, the government should make efforts to add new information to the report.
251.
Two "consultations" with NGOs were carried out, before the submission of the Governmental
report. However, these consultations took the form of each side stating its position. There was no actual
discussion. Moreover no document was made available before or during consultations and it wascompletely impossible for the NGO side to know what the government was preparing and intending to
publish in the report. NGOs are frustrated that the process appears to be little more than window dressing,
the appearance of the consultation but with no substance.

Article 22
Current Situations and Our Concerns
252.
The government says that “(the individual communication) system needs careful examination as
it may cause problems in relation to the judicial system including the independence of the judiciary
guaranteed by the Constitution” and this same argument on the First Optional Protocol (which provides forthe individual communication) of the ICCPR has been repeated for long a time. Scholars and lawyers
argued against this, the government’s opinion.
253.
In relation to this issue, we would like to add information about the Optional Protocol of theConvention Against Torture. Since 1999 when the Protocol was adopted by the UN, we NGO members
have talked with the government and held some campaigns to promote the government’s ratification, butlittle progress has been seen until now. As far as prison matters, the independent visiting bodies havebeen established since May 2006. These bodies are expected to develop into one of the National
Preventive Mechanisms under the Protocol. Then, the International Preventive Mechanism can become
more effective. We would like to know the government’s intentions with regard to ratification oraccession to the Protocol if any circumstances change.
[End of Alternative Report]- 53 -