Submission to the Human Rights Committee
the Task Forces for the Sixth Periodic
Report by the Japanese Government
109th session (14 October – 1 November 2013)by Center for Prisoners' Rights Japan

Japan: current state of the death penalty
and prison condition

Contact:
Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan
c/o Amicus Law Office, Raffine Shinjuku #902,
1-36-5, Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan, 160-0022
E-mail: cpr@cpr.jca.apc.org
Fax: +81(0)3-5379-5055

1

Contents
The death penalty ................................................................................................................................3
Facts and Figures ............................................................................................................................3
Resumption of executions ................................................................................................................5
Lay judge trial and the death penalty ...............................................................................................6
Human rights violations on death row ..............................................................................................6
The executions of persons with mental disability .............................................................................8
Lack of Safeguards against Execution .............................................................................................8
Questions to the Government of Japan: ..........................................................................................9
Prison Condition in Japanese Prison .................................................................................................10
Health, Sanitation and Medical Treatment in Prison ......................................................................10
Life imprisonment and the system of Parole .................................................................................. 11
Question to the Government of Japan;.........................................................................................15
Solitary confinement ......................................................................................................................16
Question to the Government of Japan;.........................................................................................19
Disciplinary measures / Punishments (in prison) ...........................................................................20
The Grievance Mechanism ............................................................................................................21Question to the Government of Japan;.........................................................................................222

The death penalty
Facts and Figures
1.

Since 2008 when the CCPR reviewed Japan’s fifth periodic report, Japan has executed 36 people,
including one woman (Table 1). On August 30th, 2009, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won thegeneral election and seized political power for the first time. Then, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)
won the elections on December 16th, 2012 and became ruling party once again. Among the 36, 27 were
executed by a LDP-led government, and 9 by the DPJ. Although no execution was carried out in 2011, on
March 29th, 2012, Justice Minister Toshio Ogawa ordered the execution of three death row inmates. As a
response to the growing death row population (Table 2), conservative voices within the LDP, as well assome media, have for the past months been calling for executions on regular basis. The current Justice
Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki ordered executions of three inmates only two months after assuming officeon December 26th, 2012. In 2012, Japan was part of the 21 countries which have carried out judicial
executions in the world.

(Table 1）Changes in the number of executions
Year

Date

2008

February 1

Execution Annual total
3

15

Justice Minister

Prime Minister

Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
April 10

4

Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
June 17

3

Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
September 11

3

Koji Yasuoka

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
October 28

2

Eisuke Mori

Taro Aso

(LDP)
2009

January 29

4

7

Eisuke Mori

Taro Aso(LDP)
July 28

3

Eisuke Mori

Taro Aso

(LDP)
2010

July 28

2

2

Keiko Chiba

Naoto Kan

(DPJ)
2011

N/A

0

0

N/A

N/A

2012

March 29

3

7

Toshio Ogawa

Yoshihiko Noda

(DPJ)
August 3

2

Makoto Taki
(DPJ)
3

Yoshihiko Noda

September 27

2

Makoto Taki

Yoshihiko Noda

(DPJ)
2013

February 21

3

April 26

5

Sadakazu Tanigaki(as of August 5)

(LDP)

2

Shinzo Abe

Sadakazu Tanigaki

Shinzo Abe(LDP)

Red: Executions by DPJ
Blue: Executions by LDP(Table 2) Death sentence and inmates on death row
Year

Finalized death

Death sentence imposed at Inmates with finalized death sentences at

sentences

the first instances

year end

1993

7

4

56

1994

3

8

57

1995

3

11

54

1996

3

1

51

1997

4

3

51

1998

7

7

52

1999

4

8

50

2000

6

14

53

2001

5

10

55
4

2002

3

18

57

2003

2

13

56

2004

14

14

66

2005

11

13

77

2006

21

13

94

2007

23

14

107

2008

10

5

100

2009

17

9

104

2010

9

4

111

2011

22

9

129

Resumption of executions
2.

The Government of Japan did not execute anyone for 20 months from the execution carried out on 28 July
2010. However, the executions resumed on March 29th, 2012, following orders by new Justice Minister
Toshio Ogawa. At a press conference, he said: "I simply performed my duty as a Justice Minister. The
right to punish criminals rests on Japanese nationals, and a government poll shows the majority ofJapanese support the death sentence," "Also, lay judge trials maintain the death sentence as a punishment,
and lay judges are from the general public." As a result, in total 9 executions were carried out under the
DPJ government.

3.

After the change of government from the LDP to DPJ, the Minister of Justice Sadakazu Tanigaki took
office. On February 2013 he carried out three executions less than two months after his nomination. He
said at the press conference, "What is more important is not the international trend of abolition, but thefact that the death penalty is a domestic issue."4.

Two of the three inmates, Masahiro Kanagawa and Kaoru Kobayashi, did not exercise their rights ofappeal and the other one, Keiki Kano, was originally sentenced to life imprisonment, which was repealedby the higher court.

5.

On Friday April 26th 2013, the Minister of Justice Sadakazu Tanigaki ordered execution of two inmates,
Katsuji Hamasaki and Yoshihide Miyagi, both detained at Tokyo Detention Center.

56.

This was the second execution under the government led by Liberal Democratic Party which came backto the power in last December, and it was only two months after the last execution had taken place inFebruary.

7.

Moreover, execution of Hamasaki was carried out only sixteen months after his sentence had become
finalized in December 2011. In Japan, death row prisoners are severely restricted their contacts withoutside world, and even reaching out to a counsel for retrial procedure is difficult for them. Along withthe basic problem that no prior notice of execution is given to inmates, the execution clearly deprived theinmate of his right to challenge the legitimacy of execution.

Lay judge trial and the death penalty
8.

In May 2009, the Act on Criminal Trials Examined under Lay Judge System was enacted and the new
system of the Lay Judge, which was aimed at making more people feel involved in the justice process andenhance trust of the public. So far, there has not been an increase in the number of death sentences, but itshould be noted that the number of homicides has been decreasing since 2008. On the other hand, anapparent new tendency can be seen. Under the Lay Judge system, prosecutors have sought sentence ofdeath for 24 defendants, and as of April 12, 17 defendants out of 24 have been sentenced to death. Thismeans that in more than 70% of all the capital cases (70.83%), prosecutors achieved the death penalty.
This is much higher than the corresponding rate of death sentences under the trials by professional judges
only (from 1980 to 2009), which is 55.7%.

9.

Furthermore, among 17 individuals sentenced to death, four defendants let their death sentences become
final by withdrawal of appeals by themselves. Despite the repeated recommendations made by theCommittee against Torture or the Human Rights Committee, the government of Japan has insisted thatmandatory appeal system is not needed because most defendants exercise their rights of appeali.

10. To reach the conclusion of the death sentence (and any other punishment), simple majority which includes
at least each one from both professional judges and lay people is enough.

Human rights violations on death row
11. Despite the repeated recommendationsii by UN bodies, rights of death row inmates are strictly limited.

612. The new Prison Law which was enacted in 2007 provides that a death row prisoner shall be detained in asingle cell and separated from the other prisoners day and night. Under the law, to make mutual contacts
with other death row prisoners is possible, where deemed advantageous in light of the principle oftreatment prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 32, which provides that ‘upon treatment of an inmate
sentenced to death, attention shall be paid to help him/her maintain peace of mind’. However, actually the
Ministry of Justice admits that such treatment has never been allowed.

13. Contacts with people outside prisons are also strictly restrained. Under the law, relatives of the inmate
sentenced to death and people who have the special necessity to have contacts with death row prisonersiii
have right to contact with them, but actually people other than family members are often not allowed to
do so. As for others, the number of the outside people who are allowed to get in touch with a prisoner islimited to three to five, and even those who are allowed to exchange letters with a prisoner are notnecessarily permitted to meet with a prisoner.

14. Meetings between prisoners and their legal representatives are usually observed by prison guards. On
January 27th, 2012, Hiroshima High Court decided that having a meeting with his or her lawyers for a
retrial case without attendance by a prison guard is ‘legitimate interest of the inmate sentenced to death’and unless there are special circumstances, a guard’s attendance at such a meeting should not be allowed.
Against this ruling, the government appealed to the Supreme Court and the case is still pending.
Attendance at lawyers’ meeting is still a common practice.

15. The idea underlying such inhumanely restrictive treatment is ‘to maintain a peace of mind’ as stipulated
in Article 32. During the Diet session in which the new Prison Bill was discussed, the Ministry of Justiceof the LDP-led government said that ‘to maintain peace of mind’ should not be interpreted as a tool for
restriction of prisoners’ rights, but should be used to give assistance to the prisoners. In practices,
however, ‘peace of mind’ still works as a strong reason to restrict the prisoners’ rights, especiallyrights to make contacts with outside. That is, the government explains that such contacts may disturb‘peace of mind’ of prisoners who are facing death and therefore whose mental state is so unstable andvulnerable.

16. Pardon, commutation and reprieve for death row inmates have never been allowed even after theconsideration of the government of Japan’s previous ICCPR report in 2008.

17. In Japan, death row inmates are usually not informed of the date and time of execution until just an hour7

before it actually takes place. This practice gives great sufferings to inmates themselves as well as theirfamilies. Moreover, lack of prior announcement totally deprives inmates of the opportunities to challenge
the legitimacy of executions.

The executions of persons with mental disability
18. The Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the execution of an inmate in a state of insanity (Article 479
paragraph 1). However it is impossible to verify if it has been the case. Because even inmates themselves
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.

19. Japanese government has continued to execute those who suffered mental illness. Seiha Fujima, one of
the three prisoners who were hanged on December 7th, 2007, was mentally ill and after the trial at thefirst instant court he was found legally incompetent by the Supreme Court. However, his death sentence
became final and was carried out without any examination of his mental condition by the third party.

20. On June 17th, 2008, Tsutomu Miyazaki was executed as well as two other inmates. Miyazaki wasmentally ill and was receiving psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia in the detention center. 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. It seems that there are quite a number of death row prisoners whoare suffering from serious mental illness but do not receive proper medical treatment, including Iwao
Hakamada, who are widely believed to be actually innocent, Shoko Asahara, a guru of Aum Shinrikyo
cultist group and Matsuzo Ohama, who has been on death row since 1977, when he withdrew an appeal
against the sentence of death and let his sentence become final. Government has failed to establish areview mechanism to identify death row inmates who may be suffering from mental illness, despite theCommittee’s serious concern expressed in the previous session in 2008. Danger of executing insane
people is still remaining.

Lack of Safeguards against Execution
21. As there is no system of mandatory appeal, a sentence of death which was rendered at the first instancecourt could be a final decision, if a defendant does not exercise his/her right to appeal. And actually morecases have become final without review by the higher courts, especially under the Lay Judge System.

822. After a death sentence became final, prisoners can file a request for retrial. However, after the finalizationof the sentence of death, private communication between prisoners and lawyers are not guaranteed. In
most cases, Prisoners’ meetings with lawyers are attended and monitored by guards. Even in exceptional
cases where a guard does not attend such meeting, sometime (once every three meetings or so) a guard
attends and keep a record of conversation. Furthermore, severe restrictions on communication withoutside people in general make it extremely difficult for a prisoner to find out a lawyer for legal
representation. State-appointed lawyer is not available after the finalization of the sentence.

23. There are no rules for decision-making about who will be executed next, at least there is no written rule
which is publicized.
24. Filing a request for re-trial or pardon cannot legally avoid execution. However, previous examples showthat if procedure for retrial or pardon is actually pending and ongoing, the Ministry usually skips theexecution of such inmates. Therefore, even if the Ministry knows that an inmate is preparing for a retrial,
his/her execution will not be stayed. Moreover, the Ministry argues that if a prisoner has filed a retrial
request based on the same reason as he/she raised in his/her previous request, execution of such person ispossible even if the procedure is pending.
25. Thus prisoners on death row have to live their daily lives with fear of execution.

Questions to the Government of Japan:
Provide statistical information on outside contacts for inmates sentenced to death, which includes thenumber of people who are able to make contact with inmates sentenced to death as (i) relatives, (ii)persons with the necessity to have a visit in order to carry out a business pertaining to an importantconcern of the inmate sentenced to death, (iii) persons whose visit is deemed instrumental to help theinmate sentenced to death maintain peace of mind, and (iv) other individuals who are permitted at thediscretion of the warden of the penal institution when the visit or other contact is reasonably deemed
to be necessary for the maintenance of a good relationship with this individual or for any otherreasons and when it is deemed that there is no risk of causing disruption of discipline and order in the
penal institution.

Provide information on the process to decide whether or not the inmate sentenced to death is in astate of insanity at the time of his/her execution.

Provide more detailed information on the opinion survey on the death penalty conducted from November
to December 2009, which includes all sub-questions and its answers.

9Prison Condition in Japanese Prison
Health, Sanitation and Medical Treatment in Prison
Issue
26. The areas of health, sanitation and medical treatment are some of the domains whose problems remain
unsolved even with the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and Treatment of Inmates and Detainees(hereinafter called “the New Law”). The root cause of the problem lies in the fact that medical services
rely on the security system in place in the penal institutions. Security requirements are prioritized overanything else, making it extremely difficult to provide adequate medical services.

27. The lack of medical staff, of doctors in particular, is serious. As of April 2012, in Japan, the quota of
doctors in full time employment in penal institutions is 226, however only 187 doctors are assigned.
There are twelve institutions who has no full time doctor, and sixteen institutions that are falling below
the quota. (Yomiuri Shimbun 27 Dec. 2012)

28. As a result of the lack of doctors, assistant nurses are charged with the responsibility to judge thenecessity and urgency of medical examination by a doctor. Since assistant nurses are themselves prison
guards who acquired their qualification at the prison's medical facility, they have a natural tendency toprioritize security requirements.

29. Medical examination by a doctor is frequently deemed unnecessary, causing delay in medical attention,and resulting in symptoms that cannot be treated at the penal institution.

30. There are cases when even though medical facilities and treatment available at the institution are
inadequate, the decision to transfer the inmate to an outside hospital is not made, leading to worsening
symptoms, or even death. In February 2012, a male prisoner in his seventies detained at Toyama Prison
died of disease because of the unreasonable delay in receiving medical treatment.

31. In February 2008, a group of 22 inmates including relatives of a deceased inmate and ex-prisoners inTokushima 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.

10

32. Some inmates said that the doctor injured them by placing his finger into their anus when there was noapparent need for a rectal examination and without their consent. In one case, an inmate who suffereddizziness 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 was wasting away
because of high fever requested intravenous feeding but was refused by the prison governor at that timeand after that. This inmate later killed by himself.

Points for discussion
33. In July 2011, Japanese government answered to a question of committee against torture which isconcerned with the second Japanese government report.

34. “The transfer of the medical department of penal institutions to the Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare has not been implemented due to a number of problems, including the problem of securingdoctors, the necessity of maintaining a framework that ensures the provision of medical treatment within
institutions from the perspective of securing the custody of inmates and protecting privacy and thenecessity of maintaining a framework that ensures the prompt handling of emergency cases by securingdoctors who can attend to penal institutions in times of emergency. However, efforts have been made tosecure medical staff, including doctors, and to improve medical facilities so as to ensure that adequate
medical treatment is provided to inmates. Moreover, measures have been taken to have inmates attended
to or admitted at an outside medical institution if necessary.”

35. However, fundamental institutional reformation to increase the number of full-time doctors has notachieved. The number of full-time doctors has actually been decreasing.

Life imprisonment and the system of Parole
36. The Number of Prisoners serving the Life Imprisonment is growing, and periods of such lifers actuallyserving in prisons are becoming longer.

37. The number of new prisoners sentenced to life conclusively in 2011 was 43, while the number ofprisoners released on parole in the same year was only six. The number of life sentences is increasing, andmoreover, the average period of imprisonment of lifers is becoming longer. The number of lifers releasedon parole, however, has been markedly decreasing these years.
1138. Since April 2009, prisoners serving more than 30 years in prison are due to be examined for parole
automatically.

39. A decade from 2002 to 2011, lifers who are released on parole were 56 in total (excluding prisoners
granted more than twice because of revoking former parole). In 2002, the average period in prison was 23
years and 5 months, but in 2011 it became 35 years and 2 months. Those lifers died in prison in thisdecade were 147, far more than those who were released on parole. (See “Statistical Data” below).

40. As for the treatment, at the end of December 2011, there were eight lifers who have been imprisoned formore than 50 years (See “Statistical Data” below). Long imprisonment will deteriorate prisoners’ healthphysically and mentally.

41. What is worse is that the Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an administrative ordinance in 1998 which
actually limit the opportunity for parole to prisoners sentenced to life (in cases of very serious offences or
widely reported cases). This ordinance has virtually created a new type of punishment, a life
imprisonment without a possibility of parole, without introducing a new law.

42. There is no clear and substantive criterion for parole disclosed to prisoners and the parole granting
procedure is carried out only by officers. After long years, prisoners often lack expectation to return totheir own community, and non-governmental organizations regularly receive letters from prisonsexpressing their distress.

43. If there is truly no possibility, no programs, no proper procedure to follow and no fair criterion for lifers
to get parole, we must say life sentence is arbitrary and inhuman, and therefore a violation of international
human rights standard.

12

Statistical Data
(Table 3)Number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment
Year

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Number

894

909

923

938

968

1,002

1,047

1,097

1,152

Year

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Number

1,242

1,352

1,467

1,596

1,670

1,711

1,772

1,796

1,812

Source: Annual Report on Corrections(Table 4)

The situation of life sentenced prisoners（2002～2011）
The number of

The Number of prisoners

The number of life

new prisoners

who had been sentenced tosentenced prisoner in Jailwho had been

life imprisonment andsentenced to life

released on parole

The number of lifeYearsentenced prisoners
died in jail

2002

1,152

75

5

18

2003

1,242

114

13

11

2004

1,352

119

8

15

2005

1,467

134

3

12

2006

1,596

136

4

15

2007

1,670

89

0

13

2008

1,711

53

4

7

2009

1,772

81

6

14

2010

1,796

50

7

21

2011

1,812

43

6

21

Total

-

894

56

147

Source: White Paper on Crime in Japan by the Ministry of Justice and The Ministry of Justice Situation of be sentenced
to life and life sentenced prisoners are released on parole

13

(Table5) life sentence prisoner - period of imprisonment （The end of 2011）
The period of imprisonment

The number of（year）

prisoner

Proportion

The average age（year）

Less than10 years

948

52.3%

48.8

From 10 years to 20 years

402

22.2%

56.1

From 20years to 30 years

347

19.2%

62.7

From 30 years to 40 years

87

4.8%

64.8

From 40 years to 50 years

20

1.1%

69.6

More than 50 years

8

0.4%

78.1

1,812

100.0%

54.2

Total

Source: The Ministry of Justice Situation of be sentenced to life and life sentenced prisoners are released onparole(Table 6) Number of prisoners who had been sentenced to life imprisonment and released on parole by theperiod of imprisonment
Year (the period
Within 12

Within 14

Within 16

Within 18

Within 20

Beyond 20

years

years

years

years

years

years

51.0

0.8

7.6

24.2

11.0

4.2

3.2

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

of imprisonment

Total

by the release)
Average number
during 1976-80
Average number
during 1981-85

14

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

2006

4

－

－

－

－

－

4

2007

0

－

－

－

－

－

－

2008

4

－

－

－

－

－

4

2009

6

－

－

－

－

－

6

2010

7

－

－

－

－

－

7

2011

6

－

－

－

－

－

6

Source: White Paper on Crime in Japan by the Ministry of Justice

Question to the Government of Japan;•

Provide the information on average period of imprisonment by the release.

15

Solitary confinement

Issue
44. In the past, solitary confinement was used without clear criteria. The new law clarified the criteria for“isolation.” As a result, the number of sentenced inmates who are given the treatment of complete
isolation from other inmates for 24 hours a day has decreased dramatically. The number of prisoners who
are given the treatment of “isolation” decreased from 148 people in October 2006 to 16 people in April
2012.

45. However, many prisoners who do not meet the criteria for “isolation” are placed in solitary confinement,
which is virtually the same as isolation, by being designated as a particular type in the new classification
system of inmates called “security categories.” The only differences between this treatment and isolation
are merely that there is a possibility for bathing and exercising with other inmates and that the inmatescan, in accordance with a directive, come in contact with others twice a month (which used to be once amonth before the review of the New Law in 2011). As of 10 April 2012, 2,190 prisoners are designated as
type 4 in the security categories, accounting for 4.01% of the total.

46. Even though the number of prisoners designated as type 4 decreased, there still remains tendency to use
the type 4 in the security categories to keep prisoners isolated. There are several prisons which actively
use the type 4 in the security categories. (About this detail, see Table7.)

Points relating to the Covenant•

No legally-established criteria for solitary confinement of type 4 in the security categories.

47. The most of solitary confinement has no legally-established criteria. Although the new law has clear
criterion for isolation, the criterion cannot be applied on the type 4 in the security categories.
•

Solitary confinement is often used as retaliation.

48. The civil society has received reports on many cases which the prisoners were detained in solitaryconfinement when they brought a lawsuit against the prison authorities.
•

No legally-binding complaint procedure.

49. In 2008, the Human Rights Committee recommended that "The state party should discontinue (omission)
the practice of segregating certain inmates in "accommodating blocks" without clearly defined criteria or
possibilities of appeal." Japanese government answered that "treatment in a single room throughout day
and night is covered by a complaints mechanism."16

50. “Claim for Review”, one type of grievance mechanism can be applied to “isolation”. However, it cannot
be applied to the type 4 in security categories. Although “Filing of Complaints”, another type of grievancemechanism can be applied to the type 4 in security categories, “Filing of Complaints” is absolutely
ineffective in practice.

•

Two Types of Solitary Confinement
Type1: ‘Isolation’ under the Law
・Article 76 of the Prison Law provides “isolation of sentenced inmates ”
・An inmate can be isolated if:- there is a risk of disrupting discipline and order in the penal institution by making
contact with other inmates, or- there is a risk of being exposed to harm by other inmates and no other solutions areavailable to avoid it
・Period of ‘isolation’ shall not exceed 3 months, but no limit on the renewal times.
・16 persons are under ‘isolation’（as of 10th April 2012）
・Inmates under ‘isolation’ can file a ‘Claim for Review’, one of the grievance mechanisms
stipulated by the Law

Type2: ‘Category 4’ under the Regulations
・The Regulations for the Enforcement of the Prison Law, which is an ordinance of Ministryof Justice, has created four categories in order to classify the inmates, based on theevaluation of their threats to discipline and order of prison.
・Inmates classified as ‘Category 4’ must be placed in single cells and segregated from otherinmates.
・No upper limit to the period of time
・2,190 persons are classified as ‘Category 4’
・Classification into ‘Category 4’ cannot be subject to a review by higher authorities, i.e.
inmates are not allowed to file a Claim for Review against this disposition.

・Only differences between ‘isolation’ and ‘category 4’ are:1)

Category 4 inmates have a possibility for bathing and exercising with other inmates and,2)

Category 4 inmates can come in contact with others twice a month17Key Factors:
・Category 4 is very much similar to ‘isolation’, which is strictly restricted by the Law
・Nevertheless, inmates are placed under Category 4 for indefinite time without any explicit
criteria.

(Table 7). The list of prisons in which the number of prisoners who are designated as Type 4 in the
security categories is more than twice the national average
Number ofprisoners
Total number ofPercentage of total

Name of Prison

designated as Typeprisoners

number4 in the security
category

Kitakyusyu Medical Prison

263

64

25.50%

Gifu Prison

846

139

16.75%

Asahikawa Prison

298

44

16.18%

Tokushima Prison

741

74

10.32%

Saijo Branch Prison

39

4

10.26%

Miyagi Prison

993

92

10.20%

Okazaki Medical Prison

214

21

10.10%

Hachioji Medical Prison

229

21

9.33%

Kakogawa Prison

983

86

9.06%

Kumamoto Prison

607

52

9.03%

2,667

218

8.61%

Himeji Juvenile Prison

300

25

8.42%

Akita Prison

497

38

8.05%

Fuchu Prison

51. Especially we are concerned that there are about 20 prisoners each year, who have been detained insolitary 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 49 years.

18

(Table 8). The number of prisoners who are detained in solitary confinement for more than 10 years andtheir period(The data resulted from 6 times research by one of the Diet members from 2000 to 2012)

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
Total
numberofpersons

Research on
November
10th, 2000
37Y 00M*
36Y 07M
35Y 06M
34Y 11M
34Y 09M
27Y 10M
22Y 06M
22Y 02M
21Y 05M
20Y 11M
20Y 05M
20Y 04M
19Y 04M
19Y 03M
19Y 01M
18Y 11M
18Y 10M
17Y 00M
16Y 07M
15Y 02M
14Y 05M
14Y 02M
13Y 11M
12Y 02M
11Y 11M
11Y 01M
10Y 04M
10Y 02M

Researchthon
July 10 ,2001
37Y 08M
37Y 03M
35Y 07M
35Y 05M
27Y 10M
22Y 10M
22Y 04M
21Y 07M
21Y 01M
21Y 00M
19Y 10M
19Y 09M
19Y 09M
19Y 07M
19Y 06M
17Y 07M
17Y 03M
15Y 10M
14Y 10M
14Y 07M
12Y 10M
12Y 07M
11Y 09M
11Y 00M
10Y 10M
10Y 05M

Research on
October 1st,
2002
38Y 11M
38Y 05M
36Y 07M
29Y 01M
24Y 00M
23Y 07M
22Y 10M
22Y 04M
22Y 02M
21Y 01M
21Y 00M
21Y 00M
20Y 10M
20Y 09M
18Y 10M
18Y 06M
16Y 01M
15Y 09M
13Y 10M
13Y 10M
12Y 12M
12Y 02M
12Y 01M
11Y 06M
11Y 00M
10Y 06M
10Y 04M
10Y 04M
10Y 03M
10Y 00M

Research on
November 1st,2005
42Y 00M
41Y 06M
39Y 08M
38Y 07M
27Y 01M
26Y 08M
26Y 00M
25Y 05M
25Y 00M
24Y 10M
23Y 11M
23Y 11M
23Y 06M
21Y 07M
20Y 03M
19 Y 08M
18 Y 05M
17 Y 01M
16 Y 01M
15 Y 09M
15 Y 03M
15 Y 02M
14 Y 01M
13 Y 07M
13 Y 05M
13 Y 04M
13 Y 04M
13 Y 01M
10 Y 06M
10 Y 00M

Research on
April 10th,2008
52Y 03M
43Y 00M
39Y 01M
35Y 10M
26Y 06M
26Y 05M
25Y 06M
23Y 11M
23Y 05M
20Y 05M
20Y 01M
16Y 05M
16Y 02M
16Y 00M
15Y 11M
15Y 09M
13Y 01M
12Y 08M
12Y 06M
11Y 11M
11Y 09M
11Y 03M

Research on
April 10th,2012
49Y 08M
47Y 00M
30Y 06M
30Y 04M
27Y 10M
27Y 04M
23Y 10M
22Y 05M
21Y 11M
20Y 05M
20Y 01M
19Y 11M
16Y 07M
15Y 09M
15Y 02M
13Y 03M
12Y 07M
11Y 07M
11Y 02M
10Y 05M
10Y 03M

28

26

30

30

22

21

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

Question to the Government of Japan;
Provide information on the number of inmates who have been released from solitary confinement as
Category 4 of security categories by using the grievance mechanism.

19

Disciplinary measures / Punishments (in prison)
Issue
52. The most concerning issue now on this is that the procedure for punishments are not fair and meeting thedue process. Reports received by the Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan indicates that a lot of inmates are
not satisfied with the procedure. Complaint procedure, even it exists, is not functioning as it is very hard
to file a complaint when getting a punishment.

53. The Law has a lack of clarity about the conducts constituting a “disciplinary offence” because what kindof conducts should be subject to disciplinary measures and whether a prisoner should be imposed or not
are mostly supposed to depend on each warden/prison governor’s discretion.

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

54. 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 not guaranteed theright to call witnesses or appoint a counsel (or other independent representative) for their defense.
Panel to examine the cases and make a judgment also consists of prison officers.
from the prison officers is supposed to assist or represent the prisoner.

The

An assistant person

According to a result ofinvestigation 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.

55. 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 caseinfra, but some decisions also said that it should guarantee due process as much as 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).

56. The most serious disciplinary measure is almost the same as solitary confinement.
limited in taking a bath and exercise.

The prisoner shall be

Additionally, the prisoners might be have more 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 bysolitary confinement has been mostly used.

This harsh type of measure should be avoided as much as
20

possible.

57. Practically, those who are likely to get punishment repeatedly are said to be long term inmates, foreign
inmates, inmates with mental disability. These category of inmates are having difficulties in making
communication, therefore it is concerned that whether efforts were invested to obtain their understanding.

The Grievance Mechanism
Issues and points relating to the Covenant
58. Under the present law we have 3 type grievance mechanism stipulated by prison law. Claim for Review
and Stating of Facts which is in the case grievance was accepted then to relief impose an obligation on theinstitution. These have a limit to what can be grievance. Filing of Complaints dose not have a limit togrievance but we could ask only to improve and not obligation.

59. The former two systems require that the Application (or Stating of Facts) be made within 30 days and forany of the systems, application made by a representative is not permitted.

60.

Claim for Review can only be made for a limited range of measures. For instance, what can often be aserious problem, such as rejection of visits and rejection of delivery and purchase of articles, is not
subject to such application.

61. The Claim for Review and Stating of Facts are to be made to the superintendent of the regional correction
headquarters. When the headquarters determine that there are no illegal or unfair facts after conducting
their investigation, then a request can be filed to the Minister of Justice within 30 days.

62. If the Minister of Justice determines that such a filing is groundless and therefore should be dismissed,
before the final decision is made, the Minister is to ask for advice to the Review and Investigation Panelon Complaints by Inmates in Penal Institutions (the Study Group on Review of Appeals Filed by Inmatesof Penal Facilities), which comprises of 5 outside members.

63. However, this final step is not stipulated in law. Moreover, the Panel does not have its own secretariat andtherefore is unable to conduct its own investigation. Since the investigation is primarily based on what isprovided in writing, it is extremely difficult for the Panel to reverse a decision made by the regionalcorrection headquarters.
2164. Even when the Panel determines that grievances are reasonable, its opinion is anyway not legally binding,which means that the Ministry of Justice may decide to dismiss the grievance as originally proposed.

65. Of the 217 cases examined in 2010, 2 cases were found by the Panel not to be dismissed (in other words,
the request made by the inmate is found to be reasonable); 0 case out of 224 in 2011.

66. The Grievance Mechanism still basically should be done by inmate itself ( they can ask the help to staff
but not to ask people and lawyer on the outside ) then they got only outcome or even nothing. The Center
for Prisoners’ Rights Japan got many letters from inmates such as “I did the Grievance Mechanism but
nothing. Is there any way to relieve?”, “The Grievance Mechanism is not effective against human rights
violation”.

Question to the Government of Japan;•i

How many cases has the Panel found not to be dismissed during the period between 2006 and 2012?

Paragraph 1 of the reply to question 13 on page 18

REPLIES TO THE LIST OF ISSUES (CCPR/C/JPN/Q/5)
TO BETAKEN UP IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE FIFTH PERIODIC REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN(CCPR/C/JPN/5)
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/442/15/PDF/G0844215.pdf
iiCAT/ C/JPN/CO/2[28 June 2013]

CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5[18 December 2008]
CAT/C/JPN/CO/1[3 August 2007]
CCPR/C/79/Add.102[19 November 1998](Visitors)
Article 120 In cases where any of the persons listed in the following items requests to visit aninmate sentenced to death (except those having the status as an unsentenced person;
hereinafter the same shall apply in this Division), the warden of the penal institution shallpermit the inmate sentenced to death to receive the visit except the cases where it is prohibited
pursuant to the provision of paragraph (3) under Article 148 or the provisions of the next
Section:iii(i) A person who is a relative of the inmate sentenced to death;(ii) A person with the necessity to have a visit in order to carry out a business pertaining topersonally, legally, or occupationally important concern of the inmate sentenced to death, suchas reconciliation of marital relations, pursuance of a lawsuit, or maintenance of a business;22

(iii) A person whose visit is deemed instrumental to help the inmate sentenced to death
maintain peace of mind.
(2) In cases where a person other than those listed in the items of the preceding paragraphrequests to visit an inmate sentenced to death, if it is deemed that there is a circumstance
where the visit is necessary for the maintenance of good relationship with the person or for any
other reasons, and if it is deemed that there is no risk of causing disruption of discipline andorder in the penal institution, then the warden of the penal institution may permit the inmate
sentenced to death to receive the visit.
(Letters Permitted to Send or Receive)
Article 139 The warden of the penal institution shall permit an inmate sentenced to death(except those having the status as an unsentenced person; hereinafter the same shall apply inthis Division) to send or receive the letters under the following items except where it isprohibited by the provisions of this Division, paragraph (3) of Article 148, and the next Section.
(i)

Letters the inmate sentenced to death sends to or receives from his/her relative;(ii) Letters which the inmate sentenced to death sends and receives in order to carry out abusiness pertaining to personally, legally, or occupationally important concern of the inmate
sentenced to death, such as reconciliation of marital relations, pursuance of a lawsuit, or
maintenance of a business;(iii) Letters deemed to be instrumental to help the inmate sentenced to death maintain peaceof mind.
(2) The warden of the penal institution may permit an inmate sentenced to death to send or
receive letters other than those listed in the preceding paragraph in cases where it is deemedthat there is a circumstance where the sending or receiving is necessary for the maintenance ofgood relationship with the addressee, or for any other reasons, and if it is deemed that there isno risk of causing disruption of discipline and order in the penal institution.

23