Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Reportsof the Japanese Government under Article 40of the International covenant on civil and political rights

By Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan

September, 2008

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Reports of the Japanese
Government under Article 40 of the International covenant on civil
and political rights
Japan, 9th September, 2008
The Center for Prisoners’ Rights JapanThe Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan (CPR):
The Center for Prisoners' Rights is a non-profit, non-governmental organization establishedin 1995, with the objective of improving prison conditions and prisoners’ treatment in Japan
to comply with international human rights standards. Our members include lawyers,
academics, and human rights activists. The CPR is working with international NGOs suchas Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Penal Reform International, International
Federation for Human Rights and others, and together we have held many international
human rights seminars and conferences in Japan.
The CPR is a part of the CAT Network and had sent a submission to the Task Forces 1 on
27th February, 2008.
Address: c/o KIKUTA LAW OFFICE, Raffine Ochanomizu #807,
3-28-13, Kanda Ogawa-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0052, Japan
Tel&Fax: +81(0)3-3259-1558, E-mail: cpr@jca.apc.org

The Purpose of this Alternative Report
This alternative report on the fifth report of the Japanese government under the Internationalcovenant on civil and political rights was compiled for the purpose of rendering the additional
information. And this is concentrated on the interested issues of the CPR. Because of ourlimited resources and experiences, this report focuses on issues concerning Article2
paragraph3 (a), Article6, Article7 and Article10 of the Covenant.

Contact Person about this Report is as Follows:
Emi Akiyama (Ms)
Fax: +81(0)3-3259-1558,

1

E-mail: cpr@jca.apc.org

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/CATNetworkJapan1.doc
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/CATNetworkJapan2.doc

iThe Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

Contents*the CPR refers to paragraph number / page

Background Information and Overview
A. Harsher Punishment and Overcrowded Prison – Background of Torture and Ill-treatment 1-6/01
B. Nagoya Prison Cases and Recommendation of the Council on Prison Administration Reform
7-10/02
C. Positive Aspects and Concerns of the New Law 11-15/03
D. Remained Issues under the New Law 16/04

Article 6
A. Critical Situations Surrounding the Death Penalty in Japan 20-25/05
B. Serious Problems on Communication with Outside 26-33/06
C. Isolation 34-35/07
D. Execution of Mentally Ill Prisoners 36-37/08
E. Secrecy 38-42/08
F. No Possibility of Commutation of Sentence 43-45/09

Article2 paragraph 3 (a), Article7 and Article10
A. Longer Solitary Confinement 46-54/11
B. Disciplinary Measures / Punishment 55-63/14
C. System for Investigating Complaints by Prisoners 64-80/16
D. Death and Injury Cases Caused by Leather Handcuffs and Detention in “Protective Rooms”
81-90/20
E. Medical treatment 91-103/21
F. Long Imprisonment of Prisoners Sentenced to Life 104-112/23
G. Violence against Prisoners 113-115/25
H. Rape 116-121/26
I. Treatment of Female Inmates during Pregnancy 122-126/27
J. Overcrowding of Prisons 127-128/28
K. Disclosure of Related Information 129/29

APPENDIX：

Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture 2 Concerning
Prison (CAT/C/JPN/CO/1)

2

CAT/C/JPN/CO/1

ii

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

Background Information and Overview
A. Harsher Punishment and Overcrowded Prisons – Background of Tortureand Ill-treatment
1.

Overcrowding beyond our experience is progressing in Japanese prisons now.

Under thissituation, the risk of torture and ill-treatment is increasing.

2.

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 48.9% to 80,344 in 2006. This increasing trend still continued.

3.

When the proportions of prisoners to the entire population are measured, Japan has remained oneof the countries which have small prison populations, but the growth rate in Japan is extremely high among
the whole world.

4.

As a result of this increasing trend, the ratio of the actual number of imprisoned inmates to thecapacity 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 and has lasted to be beyond 110% since
2002.

5.

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.

6.

Obviously there is a limitation in the capacity of prisons, so the government has to change theirpolicy in the direction of decrease of prisoners’ number.
from drug addiction can be treated in the community.
1

For example, about 20% of prisoners who suffer

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

B. Nagoya Prison Cases and Recommendation of the Council on Prison
Administration Reform
7.

Notorious torture cases occurred in a chronic overcrowded prison.

Three sentenced prisoners
1died or were injured as a result of the guards’ assaults in the Nagoya Prison 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.

May 27th, 2002, a 49 year male prisoner died after being left in a protection room.
fastened the prisoner’s leather handcuffs too tight and he died of heart failure.

On

The prison guards

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.

8.

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 7 of the Covenant.

9.

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.
The Council issued recommendations for reform plans of Japanese prisons (mainly for convicted prisoners)
to the Minister of Justice.

10.

According to this recommendation and some draft revisions of the Prison Law, the new law

called the “Law Concerning Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates” was adopted in theDiet in May 2005 and came into force in May 2006. In May 2006, the amendment of this law has passed
the Diet and it added provisions on treatment of detained suspects and defendants and also death sentenced
prisoners to the new law. This amendment of the new law came into force in June 2007. Hereafter, boththe new law which came into force sin May 2006 and its amendment is referred to as “New (Prison) Law”.

1

Nagoya Prison detains mainly sentenced male adult prisoners.

2

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

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 came into force>>>(applicable to)>>> Sentenced Prisoners---- the old Prison Law>>>(applicable to)>>> Suspects and Defendants who are Detained; and Death Row
Prisoners
July 2007

the Law Concerning Criminal Institutions and the Treatment of All Criminal Inmates cameinto force

C . Positive Aspects and Concerns of the New Law
11.

For the prohibition of torture, the positive aspects 2 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.

12.

Regarding (1), under the old Prison Law, usually, sentenced prisoners could exchange letterswith 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”. This development is expected to open the prison gates to the outside world, and help toprevent torture and ill-treatment.

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”.
However, we have to raise a concern about the fact that many friends are not allowed to see inmates as thegovernor considers they don’t have necessary to see them and that visiting hours are limited because ofovercrowding and lack of places for visits.

13.

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 the2

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.

3

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

prison 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.

14.

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.
system has been improved.

Under the New Law, the complaints

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 64 - 80 of our report).

15.

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
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.
16.

Remaining Issues under the New Law
Even after the New Law has come into force, we especially raised concerns about four issues

still remaining 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. (4) longer imprisonment of prisoners sentenced to life.
comments about article 3(a), article 7 and article 10.

4

We mentioned these issues in our

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

Article 6
Question to the Government
17.

What measures to restrict the use of the death penalty have been taken since the last examinationby the Committee in 1998?

18.

How many capital cases have been finalized without trial at the appellate court?

What is the reason for the rapid increase in the number of executions in the recent years?

19.

Is there a system which allows prisoners including death row inmates to access their medical

records kept by prison medical authorities? If not, what is the reason for it?

Current situation and Our Concerns
A.

Critical Situations Surrounding the Death Penalty in Japan(a)

Expanded Use of Death Penalty

20.

In 1990’s, Japan was repeatedly recommended by Human Rights Committee that Japan should

reduce the number of offences punishable by death and limit the use of death penalty.

Since then, thenumber of recognized cases of heinous crimes has continued to decrease and there has been no obstacle forJapanese government to follow the recommendations by HRC and limit the use of the death penalty.

But,in 2000, the new capital offence, indiscriminate mass murder, was added and the number of capital offences
increased from 17 to 18.

21.

Number of death sentences, as well as long-term imprisonment including life imprisonment, has

increased remarkably (See“Statistical Data” below).

In 1990’s, the average number of death sentencesat the first instance court was 4. But for the last 8 years, the corresponding number is 14. Obviously
public prosecutors tend to seek more harsher punishment than before, taking the advantage of voices ofcrime victims which strongly call for tough penal policy.

Courts accordingly accept the prosecutors’

argument and the criteria for the death penalty have been practically changed from that of the precedents.
Nowadays in a case where life imprisonment or even fixed term imprisonment should have been sentenced
years ago, death penalty tends to be sentenced.

22.

Similarly, in 1990’s the average number of annual executions was around 3, but in 2007, thenumber was 9 and after former Justice Minister Kunio HATOYAMA took his office, who expressed hisstrong support for the death penalty at his inauguration in August 2007 and said executions should be
carried out automatically like ‘belt conveyer’, executions took place almost every two months and the total
5

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)of 13 people were executed by his order. Current Justice Minister also expressly supports death penalty andmore executions are likely to be carried within this year.
(b)
23.

Defiance to International Community
On top of these expanded usage of death penalty, Japanese government has made it clear that it

will never respect the recommendations made by international community regarding the death penalty,
instead of just ignoring these recommendations.
24.

In February 2008, Japanese government submit ‘note verbale’ to the Secretary General of United

Nations, which shows strong opposition to the General Assembly’s Resolution 62/149, entitled Moratoriumon the use of the death penalty, together with other 57 countries. Furthermore, Japanese government
intentionally failed to provide the Secretary-General with information relating to the use of capital
punishment and the observance of the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing
the death penalty, which is called on by the resolution.

And in June 2008, at the session of the Universal

Periodic Review by Human Rights Council, Japanese government said that Japan is not in a position either
to consider granting a moratorium on executions or to abolish the death penalty (A/HRC/8/44/Add.1).
25.

Now Japan is openly going against the international voices and this means Japan does not have awill to carry out its responsibility in the human rights area.

B.
(a)
26.

Serious Problems on Communication with Outside
Lack of Confidential Communication between Lawyers and Death Row Inmates
In May 2006, Prison Law was totally revised and the New Prison Law entered into force in June

2007. The new law stipulates that the meetings of the death-row inmates must be attended by prison
officials except when there are justifiable reasons for the meeting without them, like preparation for alawsuit or other reasons for the protection of the inmates’ rightful benefit (Article 121).

Therefore it islegally possible for the official to attend the meeting between the inmate and his or her attorney for retrial,
but during the discussion in the diet session, Justice Minister said that in principle this kind of meeting
would be confidential.
27.

However, after the enforcement of this new law, observers attended the all meetings for retrial

nationwide. JFBA strongly demanded the Ministry of Justice to improve that situation. But it is still aroutine that the officials attend the meetings and only few inmates are allowed to see their lawyers without
presence of guards.
28.

Also, this new law provides that all the correspondence between an inmate and outside people

including his or her attorney for retrial should be censored.

As for these restrictions on the access tolawyers, the Committee against Torture expressed serious concern, stating “the limitations imposed ondeath row prisoners concerning access to their legal representatives, including the impossibility to meetwith them in private, while on appeal requesting retrial; the lack of alternative means of confidential
communication and the lack of access to state defense counsel after the final sentence is handed down.”
6

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)(paragraph 20).
29.

Censorship on the letters exchanged between inmates and their legal representatives clearly

violates article 14 paragraph 3 of the Covenant.
(b)

Strict Limitation on Communication with Friends or Acquaintances

30.

The New Prison Law relaxed the limitation on communication between inmates and persons

other than family and lawyers. That is; (1) people who are considered to contribute to the inmate’s mental
stability can visit and correspond with the inmate, and, (2) when there is necessity of meeting, for example
maintaining friendly relationship, and the meeting is considered not to cause any disturbance to disciplineand order of the penal institution, it can be admitted by discretion of the authorities.

31.

These criteria themselves are far from sufficient, since they leave wide discretion with theauthorities and a judgment of whether someone contributes to inmate’s mental stability or not also depends
on the authorities. Even so, if the new provision was properly applied, considerable improvement would
have been seen in the practices.

Actually, however, restriction on the communication clearly against the

new law is frequently seen.

32.

The authorities of all the seven detention centers, which detain convicted death-row inmates, let

the inmates submit the list of names of 5 persons they want to meet or exchange letters.

Detention center

authorities examine each person on lists and then about three of them are admitted for communication,although the new law does not limit the maximum number of the people.

In case the conditions requiredby the new law are met, inmates must be allowed to meet or correspond with whoever they want to,regardless of the number of the people.

33.

Therefore, the current practice means that detention authorities have created new rule beyond the

law.

C.
34.

Isolation
The inhuman practice of isolation of death row inmates has been approved by the new law.

Death row inmates are put into solitary confinement and not to have any contact with each other outside
their cells (Article 36), which means isolation is principle.

35.

However isolation of sentenced inmates in general is only admitted under the severe

requirements (Article 76), because the new law itself recognizes that continuous isolation gives serious
influence on the inmates’ physical and mental conditions.

The Committee against Torture expressed its

concern, saying that “The principle of solitary confinement after the final sentence is handed down. Given
7

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

the length of time on death row, in some cases his exceeds 30 years”.

Treatment of this kind is inhumanand must be improved immediately.

D.
36.

Execution of Mentally Ill Prisoners
The Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits execution of the inmate in a state of insanity (Article

479 paragraph 1).

However it is impossible to verify if it has been observed.

Because even inmatesthemselves cannot get access to their own medical records, and the medical specialists outside of prison had
not been admitted to visit them for medical examination.

Based on this situation, The Committee against

Torture expressed serious concern on “the absence of a review mechanism to identify inmates on death row
who may be suffering from mental illness” (Paragraph 20).
37.

But even after the examination by CAT, Japanese government has continued to execute those

who suffered mental illness.

Seiha FUJIMA, one of the three prisoners who were hanged on December 7,

2007, was mentally ill and after the trial at the first instant court he was found legally incompetent by theSupreme Court.

However, his death sentence became final and was carried out without any examinationof his mental condition by the third party.

On June 17, 2008, Tsutomu Miyazaki was executed as well as

two other inmates. Miyazaki had been mentally ill and receiving psychiatric treatment in the detention
center for more than a decade. Medicines prescribed for his symptom indicated that he was suffering fromschizophrenia.

Miyazaki’s lawyer was preparing for filing a request of retrial and sent a letter which

required the Justice Minister not to execute him. But two weeks after receiving the letter, the Minister
executed Miyazaki without any examination on his mental condition.

E.
(a)
38.

SecrecyLack of Prior Notice of Execution
Secrecy is another serious concern.

In Japan, death row inmates are not informed of the date of

execution until just an hour before it actually takes place.
themselves as well as their families.

This practice gives great sufferings to inmates

Moreover, lack of prior announcement totally deprives inmates of theopportunities to challenge the legitimacy of executions, as seen in the case of Tsutomu Miyazaki.

(b)
39.

Insufficient disclosure of information
On December 7, 2007, the Ministry of Justice disclosed the names of the three death row inmates

who were hanged on that day, as well as the summary of the crimes they were convicted of and thelocations where they were hanged.

Some media said this is an important step toward transparency of thedeath penalty system, but this argument is totally away from the point.

40.

The ministry said that ‘disclosure of such information is important to explain to the public that
8

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

executions are being properly carried out, since the voice of the public including crime victims which
demands disclosure of related information has increasingly become louder’.

However, obviously there

has been no movement by family members of crime victims which calls for disclosure of the information
concerning the executions.

Moreover, even in previous practice, the ministry informally provided the

media with the names and other information which identified the hanged inmates.

That is, there issubstantially no progress but the ministry pretends to take an important step on the grounds that victims aredemanding disclosure.

41.

By referring to rising of victims’ voice, the ministry tried to justify both the previous hidden

practice and its modification. It can be said that the ministry does not have any intention to disclose much
more information, such as why these inmates were selected for executions or whether the inmates had any
mental disorders or not, and to drastically review its secrecy policy.

42.

But having the start of new lay judge system close at hand, essential information of death penalty

system and executions should be disclosed widely.

F.

No Possibility of Commutation of Sentence

43.

After the death penalty is confirmed, actually there is no possibility of commutation of thesentence.

The amnesty system does exist, but the last time it was applied to a death-row inmate was 1975,

when the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.

On December 7, 2007, Noboru IKEMOTO,

age 74, was executed 11 years after the conviction of his sentence, while the Committee against Torture
recommended that ‘the State Party should ensure that its legislation provides for the possibility of thecommutation of a death sentence where there have been delays in the implementation of the death
sentence.’ Ikemoto had been rendered life imprisonment at the first instance court, which was overturnedby the High Court.
44.

As of May, 2008, 25 inmates have been on death row for more than 10 years, three of them for

more than 30 years. However even elderly inmates are not granted amnesty, and some of them die of
illness in detention centers. Currently there are at least four death row inmates who are in their 80’s.

Statistical Data
45.

Table and Graph (Source: Annual Report of Judicial Statistics)
Year

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

death penalty

3

1

4

8

11

1

3

7

8

life imprisonment

32

34

27

45

37

34

33

47

72

25-30years imprisonment

9

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

20-25years imprisonment
15-20years imprisonment

27

20

18

30

19

22

26

25

25

total of over 15 years imprisonment

27

20

18

30

19

22

26

25

25

total of death penalty, life imprisonmentand over 15 years imprisonment

62

55

49

83

67

57

62

79

105

Year

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

death penalty

14

10

18

13

14

13

13

14

life imprisonment

69

88

98

99

125

119

99

74

9

7

3

17

38

25-30years imprisonment
20-25years imprisonment
15-20years imprisonment

57

54

58

72

81

135

137

103

total of over 15 years imprisonment

57

54

58

72

81

138

163

148

total of death penalty, life imprisonmentand over 15 years imprisonment

140

152

174

184

220

270

275

236

Changes in the number of death penalty,
life imprisonment and other long-term imprisonment
at the first instence court
300

death penalty

life imprisonment
250

total of over 15 years imprisonment

total of death penalty, life
imprisonment and over 15 years
imprisonment

200

150

100

50

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

10

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

0

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

Article2 paragraph 3 (a), Article7 and Article10
A.

Longer Solitary Confinement

Question to the Government
46.

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?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
47.

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).
And the conclusion and recommendation by the Committee against Torture in 2007, raised their concerns
on inadequate use of solitary confinement, about “the State party should amend its current legislation inorder to ensure that solitary confinement remains an exceptional measure of limited duration, in accordancewith international minimum standards. In particular, the State party should consider systematicallyreviewing all cases of prolonged solitary confinement, through a specialized psychological and psychiatricevaluation, with a view to releasing those whose detention can be considered in violation of theConvention” (para.18 of Conclusions and recommendations by the CAT).

However, as far as the solitaryconfinement issue, any remarkable improvement has never been seen since then.

Especially we areconcerned 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 and the longest

one has been for 52 years. The number of these prisoners has never decreased during these 5 years.

48.

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”.
confinement.

However, some prisoners are mentally disturbed because of longer solitary

Moreover, detaining deeply disturbed person for 30 to 50 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.

49.

Under the New Law, the name of continual solitary confinement has been altered to
11The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)“Segregation” as a defined name (article 76).

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).

50.

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.

51.

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
52.

(1)

The number of prisoners who are detained in solitary confinement for more than 10 years

and their period (the data resulted from 5 times research by one of the Diet members from 2000 to 2008)
Research on

Research on

Research on

Research on

Research on

November 10th,

July 10th,

October 1st,

November 1st,

April 10th,

2000

2001

2002

2005

2008

1

37Y 00M*

37Y 08 M

38Y 11 M

42Y 00 M

52Y03M2

36Y 07M

37Y 03 M

38Y 05 M

41Y 06 M

43Y00M3

35Y 06 M

35Y 07 M

36Y 07 M

39Y 08 M

39Y01M

4

34Y 11 M

35Y 05 M

29Y 01 M

38Y 07 M

35Y10M

12

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

5

34Y 09 M

27Y 10 M

24Y 00 M

27Y 01 M

26Y06M

6

27Y 10 M

22Y 10 M

23Y 07 M

26Y 08 M

26Y05M

7

22Y 06 M

22Y 04 M

22Y 10 M

26Y 00 M

25Y06M8

22Y 02 M

21Y 07 M

22Y 04 M

25Y 05 M

23Y11M

9

21Y 05 M

21Y 01 M

22Y 02 M

25Y 00 M

23Y05M

10

20Y 11 M

21Y 00 M

21Y 01 M

24Y 10 M

20Y05M

11

20Y 05 M

19Y 10 M

21Y 00 M

23Y 11 M

20Y01M12

20Y 04 M

19Y 09 M

21Y 00 M

23Y 11 M

16Y05M13

19Y 04 M

19Y 09 M

20Y 10 M

23Y 06 M

16Y02M

14

19Y 03 M

19Y 07 M

20Y 09 M

21Y 07 M

16Y00M

15

19 Y 01M

19 Y 06 M

18 Y 10 M

20 Y 03 M

15Y11M

16

18 Y 11 M

17 Y 07 M

18 Y 06 M

19 Y 08 M

15Y09M

17

18 Y 10 M

17 Y 03 M

16 Y 01 M

18 Y 05 M

13Y01M

18

17 Y 00 M

15 Y 10 M

15 Y 09 M

17 Y 01 M

12Y08M

19

16 Y 07 M

14 Y 10 M

13 Y 10 M

16 Y 01 M

12Y06M

20

15 Y 02 M

14 Y 07 M

13 Y 10 M

15 Y 09 M

11Y11M

21

14 Y 05 M

12 Y 10 M

12 Y 12 M

15 Y 03 M

11Y09M

22

14 Y 02 M

12 Y 07 M

12 Y 02 M

15 Y 02 M

11Y03M23

13 Y 11 M

11 Y 09 M

12 Y 01 M

14 Y 01 M

24

12 Y 02 M

11 Y 00 M

11 Y 06 M

13 Y 07 M

25

11 Y 11 M

10 Y 10 M

11 Y 00 M

13 Y 05 M

26

11 Y 01 M

10 Y 05 M

10 Y 06 M

13 Y 04 M

27

10 Y 04 M

10 Y 04 M

13 Y 04 M

28

10 Y 02 M

10 Y 04 M

13 Y 01 M

29

10 Y 03M

10 Y 06 M

30

10 Y 00 M

10 Y 00 M

30

30

Total
number28

26

22* “Y” refers to year and “M” refers to month.

53.

(2)

The total number of the prisoners detained in solitary confinement
Research on

Research on

Research on

Research on

November

September

OctoberApril

10th, 2000

10th, 2003

10th, 2006

10th, 2008

Segregation

-

-

148

95

4th grade of restriction

-

-

3,588

3,539

3,736

3,634

Total number

2,036

2,108

13

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)54.

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 couldn’t see any progress.

B.

Disciplinary Measures / Punishment

Questions to the Government
55.

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?

56.

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
57.

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.

58.

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.

59.

(cf. Rule 29 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners)

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.

Accordingto a result of investigation by one of the Diet members in 2002, there was no record which shows that
14

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

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.

60.

In addition, this process has a lack of transparency.

Under the old Prison Law, mostjudicial 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).

61.

The most serious disciplinary measure is almost the same as solitary confinement.

prisoner shall be limited in taking a bath and exercise.

The

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.

Related Cases
62.

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 raiseconcerns that the confinement is too harsh to punish these conducts.

Hiroshima District Court Decision June 29th, 2004
63.

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 Japanese Constitution.

10 days solitary confinement was

imposed on him and prohibition of reading because he used offensive language against prison
guards.

However, the judge decided there was no violation.

Because the procedure fordisciplinary 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
15

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

the court.

C. System for Investigating Complaints by Prisoners
Question to the Government
64.

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, has thegovernment taken any measures to deal with this issue?

65.

Under the New Law, a new complaints system has been temporarily applied to prisons in Japan.

How effective has this been in fact since this enforcement?

66.

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

independent bodies to investigate or examine the complaints from prisoners?

Current Situation and Our Concerns(a)

New bill to establish independent body67.

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 not fully autonomous, and has a provision to limit the freedom of the press.

Thus,

many human rights NGOs were against this bill. Moreover, politicians from the ruling parties are also
against it but for different reasons from those of the human rights NGOs. Thus the new bill might prove to
be difficult to get enacted.

(b)
68.

Board of Visitors for prisons
During the process to investigate and examine the Nagoya Prison incidents (cf. paras.7 - 10 ofour report), it has been realized that any investigation system put into practice in prisons has never beenable to work effectively.

Especially, concerning deaths in prison, lack of medical examination to confirm

the existence of torture, sloppy medical records and lack of an effective autopsy system must be improved.
Although the New Law introduced “the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal Institutions” system, thisboard don’t have enough authority to investigate cases in which they are suspicious of torture or
ill-treatment by themselves.

69.

As to efficiency of this Board of Visitors, we can mention the following items:
16

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

・The Board consists of lawyers (nominated from the JFBA), doctors (nominated from the Japanese
Medical Association), persons nominated from the local government as a community delegate.
Sometimes the director of the prison asks directly for academics.
・The secretariat of the Board is supposed to be in charge of each prison’s staff under the regulation.
We don’t know enough evidences to prove whether this system have affected on independency of
the Board.

Some members gave us a testimony that the prison authority’s help is convenient forsmooth proceeding of its job, but it also make difficult to keep proper tense relations between the
Board and prison authority.
・Moreover, under the law, the Board members can request the prison government to disclosure any
related information and allow them to meet prisoners privately, at the same time, the government
has a duty to meet their demand.

In fact, lawyers and professors who are enthusiastic and havesufficient knowledge of prison issues are very active. But on the other hand, other professions are
not always so enthusiastic.
・In order to make the Board more effective, the purpose and role of the Board should be clarified asprotection of human rights of prisoners and improvement of their treatment, and standards ofnomination should be set up accordingly.

For independency of the Board, they also need their own

secretariat separated from the government.

(c)

New complaints system

70.

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.

71.

Under the New Law, we welcome that the complaints system has been reformed, because thenew provisions as follows are included into the Law:----the authorities to deal with complaints 3 can withdraw provisionally the disposition by the warden/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
3

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.

17

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

withdraw the disposition, or the authorities themselves can take necessary measures to prevent recurrenceof the violation.

72.

Under the law, there are 3 kinds of measures to complaints.

As to one of these system, during

approximately one year since enforcement of the new system (May 26 2006 to February 28 2007), subjects
about which inmates ask complaints most are “limitation on letters” and “disciplinary punishment (punitive
measures)”. And we can also see some “limitation on reading books and newspapers”, “rejection/stop of
medical treatment”, and “segregation” cases.

Moreover, during the same period, total number of cases

inmates asked were 1848, but only 6 cases were accepted.

73.

We can raise concerns at this time.

not user-friendly.

Firstly, the new complaints procedure is complicated and is

It has 2 different kinds of procedures, depending on what kinds of subjects the inmate

wants to complain about. Inmates have to write the certain format for complaints and call an officer tosend the paper to the authority.

Moreover, the duration 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 fromoutside (they only ask for help from prison officers).

74.

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
doctors/nurses, and limitation on receiving goods and visits from family and friends. According to thegovernment’s explanation, the range of the subject which inmates can ask, is depending on each prison
governor (warden)’s discretion.

However, inmates should be provided “right” to complaints under the

law.

75.

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.

76.

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, a
18

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

lawyer, 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.

They had examined

635 cases by May, 2008, of which 43 cases were decided to be re-examined by the authorities, and 11
cases were decided to be reasonable.

Cases which resulted in “Need to re-examine” or “MOJ’s result is

inappropriate” mainly include cases regarding to letters, but also medical treatment and violence.

77.

We can recognize certain efficiency on this committee’s work, then, we think that the

government should take an effort to develop this experience to establishment of independent body toreceive and investigate complaints.

78.

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.

Related Cases(a)79.

Nagoya Prison Cases (especially about investigation of the cases)
After a series of incidents were published by press, amid mounting criticism by society, theMinistry of Justice organized a team which consisted of the ministry’s officials to investigate the facts andbackground factors.

Then, in 2003, the Correctional Administration Reform Council (members camefrom academic, legal profession, journalism, doctors, community groups) was organized in order toexamine some issues to reform Japanese prison legislation and practices.
government has taken these measures.

We welcome that the

Because the investigation by the government’s team and theexamination 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.

80.

However, these achievements are mostly owed to those outside of the Ministry including theDiet 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.

19

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

D.

Death and Injury Cases Caused by Leather Handcuffs and Detention in“Protective Rooms”
Questions to the Government
81.

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?

82.

When the prisoner who suffers from any disease or is mentally disturbed is detained in theprotection 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
83.

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.

84.

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.

85.

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.

86.

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.

20

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

Related Cases(a)Nagoya Prison Cases

87.

(b)

See supra paragraph. 7 – 10.

Takamatsu Prison Case88.

On October 4th, 2001, a prisoner imprisoned in Takamatsu Prison was assaulted by his

roommate and taken to the protection room and restrained with leather handcuffs by guards.

Afterthat, another guard 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.

(c)

Hamada Detention Center Case89.

At 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 airtemperature 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 the prison 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.

(d)

Kawagoe Juvenile Training Center Case90.

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

E.

Medical treatment

Questions to the Government
91.

Please inform any program on human rights education for prison medical staff.

92.

Is there any plan to place medical services in prisons under the control of Minister of Health,

Labor and Welfare?

Current Situation and Our Concerns
93.

The medical condition is in urgent crisis for most prisoners detained in Japanese prisons.

NGOmembers for supporting prisoners and lawyers have received many letters of complaints on refusal of21The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

medical treatment and receiving inappropriate treatment, which sometimes resulted in serious injuries anddeath.

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 manyprisoners pretend to sick, but this should be considered a separate issue.

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. In addition, we raise concerns about ensuring prisoners rights toaccess their medical records, including the records of medication which they are taking and the results of
their medical examinations.

94.

Insufficient medical service would consist of torture or ill-treatment under the international

human rights standards.

In fact, the Committee against Torture recommended the government to ensure“adequate, independent and prompt medical assistance be provided to all inmates at all times” in their
Conclusion and Recommendation in May, 2007.
95.

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.

Related Case(a)96.

Gross violation by a prison doctor in Tokushima Prison
In February 2008, a group of 22 inmates including relatives of a deceased inmate andex-prisoners in Tokushima Prison filed a criminal complaint against the medical chief doctor, the former
prison governor, and a guard in its medical section, saying that they had suffered abuse by a prison doctor
while practicing from May 2004 to November 2007.

97.

Some inmates said that the doctor injured them by placing his finger into their anus when there

was no apparent need for a rectal examination and without their consent. In one case, an inmate who
suffered dizziness was pinched on his inner thighs, had his ankle stepped on and was given a rectal check,causing an infection that required surgery at a private hospital. Moreover, another inmate who waswasting away because of high fever requested intravenous feeding but was refused by the prison governor
at that time and after that. This inmate later killed by himself.

98.

The Center for Prisoners’ Rights identified 100 complaints including that by above plaintiffs, and22

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

among them, 31 are abuse suffered from rectal examination, 26 from abstinence from food or reduced dietdue to inappropriate treatment, 14 cases were refusal of medical treatment or examination, and 20 were thecases where the doctor refused to offer medication.

99.

Although the prison authorities insisted that rectal examinations by the doctor were part ofproper medical practices, the doctor was removed from the duty of medical treatment in Tokushima Prison(but he has not been recalled until now),(b)

Many death cases caused by insufficient medical care and neglect

100.

Some cases resulted in death of prisoners which seem cause of lack of appropriate medical

treatment have been reported by press recently.

101.

In one case of Osaka prison occurred in February, 2008, the inmate had been given a dose of his

psychiatric problems and he died during detention in solitary confinement at a preventive room.

102.

In Toyama prison, members of the independent committees for visiting prisons raised theirconcerns about lack of proper medical treatment, no full-time doctor and frequent occurrence of trouble
relating medication to prisoners, based on their own inquiry, in their report.
from cancer has died because of insufficient treatment and examination.

One prisoner who suffered

Although he received his test

result as “more close examination is necessary” firstly, he had never been provided any more examinationand special care until he came down with severe pain.

103.

Moreover, a case which an ex-inmate in Yamagata prison seek for complaints against the prison

authorities caused by improper medical treatment have come reach settlement in this February. Even after
his examination showed a shadow in the lung, the prison doctor didn’t provide any more close examination
for him, but after that, he was given a diagnosis of end-stage lung cancer.

F.

Long Imprisonment of Prisoners Sentenced to Life 4

Question to the Government104.

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

year?

105.

What are theobstacles to make release on parole of lifers so difficult ?

4

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

23

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

Current Situation and Our Concerns
106.

The number of new prisoners who had been sentenced to life conclusively in 2007 was 74, on

the other hand, the number of prisoners released on parole was only one in the same year.
life sentences has been increasing.

The number ofMoreover the average imprisonment period of lifers has been longer

and the number of lifers released on parole has been markedly decreasing (See “Statistical Data” below).

107.

As to treatment, at the end of December, 2007, there was a life sentenced prisoner who has been

imprisoned for more than 58 years (See “Statistical Data” below).

Long imprisonment like this will

deteriorate prisoners’ health physically and mentally and might consist of degrading and ill-treatment under
the Covenant.

108.

And what is worse, the Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an administrative order to its branch

offices, which will virtually limit the chance of release on parole for prisoners sentenced to life very strictly(in the case of very serious offences and when the victim’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.

Statistical Data
109.

(1)
Year

Number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Number

883

894

909

923

938

968

2000 2001 2002

2003 2004 2005

2006 2007

1,002 1,047 1,097 1,152 1,242 1,352 1,467 1,596 1,670

Source: Annual Report on Corrections

110.

(2) Number of defendants sentenced to life imprisonment in the court of first instanceYear

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Number

111.

32

34

27

45

37

34

33

47

72

69

88

98

99

125

119

99

74

(3) Number of prisoners served term in prison as lifer as of December 31, 2007

Served
term

Less
than
5 years

5 - 10years

10 - 15years

15 - 20years

20 - 25years

25 - 30years

30 - 35years

35 - 40years

40 - 45years

45 - 50years

50 - 55years

55 - 59
years

Number

632

315

171

182

198

97

38

19

8

5

4

1

Source: Research by one Diet member on July, 2008

24

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

112.

(4) Number of prisoners who had been sentenced to life imprisonment and released on parole

by the period of imprisonment (Table and Graph)
Persons released on Average Imprisonment

Year

Parol

Period by Relase Date

1984

54

15Years11Months

1985

27

1986

Persons released on Average Imprisonment

Year

Parol

Period by Relase Date

1996

7

20Y5M

15Y5M

1997

12

21Y6M

27

16Y6M

1998

15

20Y10M

1987

26

15Y3M

1999

9

21Y4M

1988

12

16Y

2000

7

21Y2M

1989

12

19Y1M

2001

13

22Y9M

1990

14

20Y3M

2002

6

23Y5M

1991

34

18Y1M

2003

14

23Y4M

1992

20

19Y11M

2004

1

25Y10M

1993

17

18Y1M

2005

10

27Y2M

1994

19

18Y3M

2006

3

25Y1M

1995

16

20Y

2007

1

31Y10M

Source: Annual Report on Corrections

60

35.00
30.00

50

25.00
20.00
30
15.00

Period

40

20
10.00
10

5.00

0

0.00
1
9
8
4

1
9
8
5

1
9
8
6

1
9
8
7

1
9
8
8

1
9
8
9

1
9
9
0

1
9
9
1

1
9
9
2

1
9
9
3

1
9
9
4

1
9
9
5

1
9
9
6

1
9
9
7

1
9
9
8

1
9
9
9

2
0
0
0

2
0
0
1

2
0
0
2

2
0
0
3

2
0
0
4

2
0
0
5

2
0
0
6

2
0
0
7

Year
Persons released on Parol
Average Imprisonment Period by Relase Date

G.

Violence against Prisoners

Question to the Government
113.

What kind of measures to prevent violence against prisoners by prison guards/officers has
25

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

the government taken?

Current Situations and Our Concerns
114.

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
Miyagi Prison Case115.

In Miyagi Prison, from June 2004 to April 2005, some prison officers did a favor for someprisoners, including giving alcohols, cigarettes, sweets, and letting them use cellular phones.

For thepurpose restoring disturbed order in the prison caused by this misconduct, prison officers used force tocontrol disobedient prisoners.
disciplinary sanction.

An officer who hit a prisoner in January and March in 2005 received

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.

H.

Rape

Question to the Government
116.

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

Current Situation and Our Concerns
117.

We have received many reports concerning rape or sexual abuse cases in detention centersor special area of prisons for pre-sentenced detainees (because female and male detainees are detainedin 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
(a)
118.

Nagoya Prison Toyohashi Branch Case
In June 24th, 2004, one of male prison officers in Nagoya Prison Toyohashi Branch was arrested
26

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

on a charge of crime of “Violence and Cruelty by a Special Public Official” under the Penal Code.

He hadsexual 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.
unveiled.

The female detainee has become pregnant and the fact was

The officer was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in January 13th, 2005. (Jiji Press, June 24th,

2004)

(b)

Fukuoka Prison Iizuka Branch Case

119.

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)(c)

Nagoya Detention Center Ichinomiya Branch Case120.

In 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)

(d)
121.

He resigned his post in prison government “voluntarily”.

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
detainee several 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)

He was arrested on a charge of crime under the Penal Code and wassentenced 3 years imprisonment by the Tokyo District Court in August 2002, after that, he also sentenced
guilty by the Tokyo High Court in January 2003.

I.

Treatment of Female Inmates during Pregnancy

Questions to the Government
122.

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?

123.

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

Current Situations and Our Concerns
27

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)124.

At a female inmate’s child-birth, the authorities usually make arrangements for the childbirth place 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.

125.

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)
restrained until just before the birth.

Similarly, pregnant female inmates have been also

We consider these practices must consist of degrading andill-treatment of the Covenant.

Related Cases
126.

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 noproblem because it was usual practice.

J.

Overcrowding of Prisons

Current Situation and Our Concerns
127.

Overcrowding beyond our experience is progressing in Japanese prisons now as supraparagraphs 1 – 6 of our report.

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 the risk of torture and ill-treatment.

Related Cases
Kobe Prison Case128.

In May 3rd, 2006, in Kobe Prison (a correctional institution), a male prisoner in his 50’s whoshared a single room with another prisoner, was assaulted by his roommate and died.
prisoner was assaulted, officers checked his injuries but did not take him to a doctor.
28

Soon after the

The next morning,

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

they found the 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 withthis overcrowding situation, two prisoners were detained in a single room and nine prisoners were in aroom for six.

K.

Disclosure of Related Information

Current Situation and Our Concerns
129.

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 indocuments are blackened.

Concerning medical records, if a prisoner requests his/her own record to

disclose, it will be denied because of “protection of privacy”.
academics to examine the facts in prison.

29

Therefore, it is difficult for NGOs andThe Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)【APPENDIX】

Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee
against Torture 1 Concerning Prison
Conditions of detention in penal institutions
Paragraph17.
The Committee is concerned over the general conditions of detention inpenal institutions, including overcrowding. While welcoming the abolition of the use ofleather handcuffs in penal institutions, the Committee notes with concern allegations of
instances of improper use of “type 2 leather handcuffs” as punishment. The Committee isconcerned at allegations of undue delays in the provision of medical assistance to inmates aswell as the lack of independent medical staff within the prison system.
The State party should take effective measures to improve conditions in places ofdetention, to bring them in line with international minimum standards, and inparticular take measures to address current overcrowding.The State party should
ensure strict monitoring of restraining devices, and in particular adopt measures toprevent them being used for punishment. In addition, the State party should ensure that
adequate, independent and prompt medical assistance be provided to all inmates at all
times. The State party should consider placing medical facilities and staff under thejurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.
Use of solitary confinement
Paragraph18.
The Committee is deeply concerned at allegations of continuous
prolonged use of solitary confinement, despite the new provisions of the 2005 Act on Penal
Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced Inmates limiting its use. In particular, theCommittee is concerned at:(a) The de facto absence of a time limit for solitary confinement, as there is no limit on the
renewal of the three-month rule;(b) The number of detainees who have been in isolation for over 10 years, with one caseexceeding 42 years;(c) Allegations of the use of solitary confinement as a punishment;(d) The inadequate screening of inmates subject to solitary confinement for mental illness;(e) The lack of effective recourse procedures against decisions imposing solitary confinement
upon persons serving sentences;(f) The absence of criteria to determine the need for solitary confinement.
The State party should amend its current legislation in order to ensure that solitaryconfinement remains an exceptional measure of limited duration, in accordance with
1

CAT/C/JPN/CO/1-1-

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

international minimum standards. In particular, the State party should consider
systematically reviewing all cases of prolonged solitary confinement, through aspecialized psychological and psychiatric evaluation, with a view to releasing those
whose detention can be considered in violation of the Convention.
Death penalty
Paragraph19.
While noting the recent legislation broadening visiting andcorrespondence rights for death row inmates, the Committee is deeply concerned over anumber of provisions in domestic law concerning individuals sentenced to death, which could
amount to torture or ill-treatment, and in particular:(a) The principle of solitary confinement after the final sentence is handed down. Given thelength of time on death row, in some cases this exceeds 30 years;(b) The unnecessary secrecy and arbitrariness surrounding the time of execution, allegedly inorder to respect the privacy of inmates and their families. In particular, the Committee regrets
the psychological strain imposed upon inmates and families by the constant uncertainty as tothe date of execution, as prisoners are notified of their execution only hours before it is due totake place;
The State should take all necessary measures to improve the conditions of detention of
persons on death row, in order to bring them into line with international minimum
standards.
Paragraph20.
The Committee is seriously concerned at the restrictions imposed on theenjoyment of legal safeguards by death row inmates, in particular with respect to:(a) The limitations imposed on death row prisoners concerning confidential access to theirlegal representatives, including the impossibility to meet with them in private, while on
appeal requesting retrial; the lack of alternative means of confidential communication and thelack of access to state defence counsel after the final sentence is handed down;(b) The lack of a mandatory appeal system for capital cases;(c) The fact that a retrial procedure or a request for pardon do not lead to suspension of theexecution of sentence;(d) The absence of a review mechanism to identify inmates on death row who may besuffering from mental illness;(e) The fact that there has been no case of commutation of a death sentence in the last 30
years.
The State party should consider taking measures for an immediate moratorium on
executions and a commutation of sentences and should adopt procedural reforms which
include the possibility of measures of pardon. A right of appeal should be mandatory for-2-

The Alternative Report on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Japanese Government by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (September, 2008)

all capital sentences. Furthermore, the State party should ensure that its legislation
provides for the possibility of the commutation of a death sentence where there havebeen delays in its implementation. The State party should ensure that all persons on
death row are afforded the protections provided by the Convention.
Prompt and impartial investigations, right to complain
Paragraph21.
The Committee is concerned at:(a) The lack of an effective complaints system for persons in police custody. It regrets the fact
the 2006 Penal Law does not introduce an independent body with such a mandate. The
Committee notes the lack of information on the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Police
Detention Cells, to be established in June 2007;(b) The lack of authority of the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal Institutions toinvestigate cases or allegations of acts of torture or ill–treatment;(c) The lack of independence of the Review and Investigation Panel on Complaints by
Inmates in Penal Institutions, as its secretariat is staffed by personnel of the Ministry ofJustice, and its limited powers to investigate cases directly, as it cannot interview prisoners
and officers, nor does it have direct access to any related documents;(d) The statutory limitations on the right of inmates to complain and the impossibility ofdefence counsel assisting clients to file a complaint;(e) Reports of adverse consequences to inmates as a result of having filed a complaint and oflaw suits rejected on the grounds that the term for claiming compensation had expired;(f) The lack of information on the number of complaints received, as well as the number ofinvestigations initiated and completed and their outcome, including information on thenumber of perpetrators and sentences received.
The State party should consider establishing an independent mechanism, with authority
to promptly, impartially and effectively investigate all reported allegations of andcomplaints about acts of torture and ill-treatment from both individuals in pre-trial
detention at police facilities or penal institutions and inmates in penal institutions. The
State party should take all necessary measures to ensure that the right of inmates tocomplain can be fully exercised, including the lifting of any statute of limitations for actsof torture and ill–treatment; ensuring that inmates may avail themselves of legal
representation to file complaints; establishing protection mechanisms against
intimidation of witnesses; and reviewing all rulings limiting the right to claim
compensation. The State party should provide detailed statistical data, disaggregated bycrime, ethnicity, age and sex, on complaints relating to torture and ill-treatment
allegedly committed by law enforcement officials and on the related investigations,prosecutions, and penal or disciplinary sanctions.
-3-