Stakeholder’s Information Reportfor the 14th session of the Working Group on the UPR – April 2012

Prison and the Death Penalty
in Japan
FIDH1
Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan (CPR)2

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
17, passage de la main d'or, 75011 Paris, France
Tél: 33 (0) 1 43 5525 18
Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan (CPR)
Raffine Shinjuku #902, 1-36-5 Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan 160-0022
Phone: +81(0)3-5379-5055

1 Founded in 1922, FIDH is an international NGO defending all civil, political, economic, social and culturalrights, set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It acts in the legal and political field for thecreation and reinforcement of international instruments for the protection of Human Rights and for theirimplementation. FIDH is a non-partisan, non-religious, apolitical and non-profit organisation. It currently has
164 member organisations.
2 The Center for Prisoners’ Rights (CPR) was established in March 1995 as the first Japanese NGO specializing

in prison reform. CPR‘s goal is to reform Japanese prison conditions in accordance with international humanrights standards and to abolish the death penalty. CPR is a member of the World Coalition Against the Death
Penalty (WCADP), a correspondent member of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and theAnti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN).

1Part 1. Human Rights Violations in Prisons
Introduction: Regressing Treatment of Sentenced Inmates
1.

In May 2006, the Law Concerning Penal Institutions and the Treatment of Sentenced
Inmates (hereinafter referred to as “the New Law”) was implemented, based on thefundamental principle of respecting human rights of sentenced inmates and providing
support for their rehabilitation.

2.

However, as time went by, practices reverted back to the treatment of inmates under
the old Prison Law, trampling the principles of the New Law. This regressive trend ismore clearly seen in the institutions detaining inmates whose inclination towards crime isdeemed advanced, though it is also seen in other categories of institutions, suggesting that
this is a nation-wide phenomenon.

3.

In 2011, a review after 5 years of implementation was conducted, in accordance withthe requirement prescribed in the New Law. However, not a single provision of the New
Law was revised. Only minor amendments to the Ordinance for Enforcement of the New
Law were made.

4.

Described below are actual conditions under which the inmates are treated in Japanesepenal institutions, in a way that goes against the spirit of the New Law, thus requiring
drastic amendments to the New Law.

A. The Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal Institutions
5.

By the New Law, the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal Institutions wasestablished for all penal institutions including detention houses.
The board is comprised of 4 to 10 'visitors' including attorneys recommended by the local
bar association and doctors recommended by the local branch of the Japan Medical
Association. The board is to advance its opinions and views with regard to the operationof the penal institution to its head at least once a year.

6.

The members of the board are part-time national public officials and are provided witha per diem when attending meetings. However, the Ministry of Justice has budgeted only
6 days of per diem throughout the year (corresponding to 6 meetings a year). Some boards
hold meetings almost every month and visit the institutions on a regular basis while others
don’t even hold the 6 meetings in a year and advance no opinions or no views to the headof the institution.

7.

The boards don’t have their own secretariat, so even for the most active boards, it isquite difficult to review the huge quantities of letters sent by the inmates and to conduct
thorough investigations concerning the operational issues of the institution.

8.

One Police Detention Facilities Visiting Committee was also established in eachprefecture, in April 2007. However, in some of these committees, no attorneys areappointed, let alone the ones recommended by the local bar association. In 2011, theFukushima Prefectural Public Safety Commission refused to appoint an attorney
recommended by the Fukushima Bar Association.

2

Recommendation:
 Japan should take necessary measures to ensure effective inspection by the
Boards of Visitors.

B. Health, Sanitation and Medical Treatment
9.

The areas of health, sanitation and medical treatment are some of the domains whose
problems remain unsolved even with 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 required medical services.

10.

The lack of medical staff, of doctors in particular, is serious. As of April 2010, there
were 12 institutions in Japan where there was no full-time doctor. Even 'full-time' doctors
only work 3 days a week.i
As a result of the lack of doctors, assistant nurses are charged with the responsibility tojudge the necessity and urgency of medical examination by a doctor. Since assistantnurses are themselves prison guards who acquired their qualification at the prison's
medical facility, they have a natural tendency to prioritize security requirements.
Medical examination by a doctor is frequently deemed unnecessary, causing delay inmedical attention, and resulting in symptoms that cannot be treated at the penal
institution.ii
There are cases when even though medical facilities and treatment available at theinstitution are inadequate, the decision to transfer the inmate to an outside hospital is notmade, 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.

11.

Since air conditioning in cells is available only in a few of the institutions, the dangerof heat stroke in the summer and hypothermia in the winter is quite high, especially insolitary cells (including protection cells).iii
Fissured skin and chilblains are commonly seen among detainees, even in areas south ofTokyo, where the climate is milder during winter.

12.

The death by freezing of a male detainee at Kobe Detention House on 7 January 2006
epitomized the infringement of the detainees’ rights to receive medical treatment.
However, the numerous problems that were exposed by this incident remain unresolved,
even after the enactment of the New Law.
The detainee (aged 29 at the time of the incident) had been complaining of cold and pain
caused by ill health for more than 10 days prior to his death. On the day before his death,
he was hardly able to move on his own and was taken to a solitary cell equipped with asecurity camera. Thereafter, he was brought to a doctor in a wheel chair. Even though he
did not respond to the doctor’s questions at all when he was examined, he was diagnosed
as having no particular health problem and was placed back in the aforementioned solitarycell.
Many of the detention officials and assistant nurses, including those who monitored him
via the camera, were observing his status. However, for the purpose of preventing
condensation, a window of the cell facing outside was left partially open.

3

In the evening of that day, he vomited a lot but was left unattended. Only the soiled sheets
were taken away. He eventually froze to death the following morning, when thetemperature fell below zero degree Celsius.
13.

In the same case, the bereaved family members filed a suit seeking redress from theState and on 8 September, 2011, the Kobe District Court made a ruling, ordering the Stateto pay a compensation of about 44 million yen. The ruling was finalized.
Afterwards, the Ministry of Justice issued a notice regarding the prevention of
hypothermia.
However, the poor conditions of detention have not changed, nor has the medical
treatment system been reviewed.
Recommendations: Inmates should receive necessary medical treatment and live in a healthyand sanitary environment.
 Medical service should not be hindered as a result of security
requirements.

C. Strict Discipline and Order
14.

Along with the medical system, the issues concerning discipline and order were hardly
reformed even with the New Law.
In the past, solitary confinement was used with no clear criteria.iv The New Law clarified
the criteria for “isolation.” As a result, the number of sentenced inmates who are given thetreatment of complete isolation from other inmates for 24 hours a day has decreased
dramatically.

15.

However, many who do not meet the criteria for “isolation” are placed in solitaryconfinement, which is virtually the same as isolation, as they are designated, as part of a
new classification system, as “type 4 of in the security categories” The only differences
between this treatment and isolation are that on the one hand, there is a possibility forbathing and exercising with other inmates and on the other hand, that the concerned
inmates can, in accordance with a special directive, come in contact with other inmates
twice a month (which used to be once a month before the aforementioned review).
As of 10 October 2010, 2,755 are designated as type 4 in the security category,accounting for 4.4% of the total.

16.

4Strict rules continue to be imposed unchanged, even after the enactment of the New
Law.
At one time, the military style march by the inmates, when moving from the cells to thefactory, was eased. However, in recent years, it has been reinforced.
There is a restriction on the amount of water that can be used and the frequency of its use ,which has a direct impact on hygiene.v The Report of the Special Rapporteur on thehuman right to safe drinking water and sanitation, following a mission to Japan in2010 (A/HRC/18/33/Add.3, page 15) mentions this issue.
Furthermore, in 11 prisons located in the Western part of Japan, prisoners who work at
factories inside prisons have to strip down and be completely naked as they are bodysearched when they go to and from factories and cells. Such a practice, which is
absolutely degrading and irrationally invades inmates’ right to privacy, should beabandoned immediately.

Recommendation:
 Inhuman and abusively strict discipline and order, including the use ofsolitary confinement, should be lifted.

D. Contact with the Outside World
17.

With the implementation of the New Law, the strict restrictions on contact with theoutside world were temporarily eased, allowing the inmates to receive visits by andcorrespond with people other than their family members, relatives, and attorneys. vi
However, thereafter, contact with the outside world has again been restricted. The
restrictions are particularly severe in the institutions detaining people who were judged ashaving advanced inclination towards crime.

18.

Gifu Prison, located in the Chubu province of central Japan, is one of the institutions
where such restrictions are in place. Overthere, detainees are sentenced to 10 years ormore of imprisonment, and are prohibited, in principle, any contact with the outside world
other than with family members and relatives. Friends of inmates who were formerly
allowed contact are now banned from having any exchange with the inmates. Several
inmates are filing a lawsuit due to this.

19.

A policy that permit visits only when there are circumstances under which
communication by letters is insufficient is actually implemented nationwide. This applies
to visits by attorneys as well. For instance, Chiba Prison asks attorneys representing
inmates there to explain in writing the reason why visits are necessary in addition tocommunication by letters.

20.

Even though the New Law prescribes that a staff member shall attend a visit only
when it is deemed necessary, in reality, visits without attendance are limited to
exceptional cases.
Even the visit by an attorney is attended by a guard unless the inmate explains that thevisit is for the purpose of consultation regarding the treatment he/she received in theinstitution where she/he is currently detained. Therefore, even if the visit is important for
the inmate, if the case in question is about a private matter such as a divorce suit, staff
member will always attend the visits.
There are some cases where visits by members of the human rights protection committee
of a bar association are attended by a guard, even though the visits are made for the
purpose of investigating whether there are human rights violations by the institution.

Recommendations: Japan should bear in mind that contact with the outside world is useful forthe rehabilitation of prisoners. Unreasonable restrictions oncommunication should be lifted.

E. Inadequacy of the Grievance Mechanism
21.

5

Under the New Law, a new grievance mechanism was established, namely,
Application for Examination, Stating of Facts, and Filing of Complaints.

22.

However, the former two systems require that the Application (or Stating of Facts) bemade within 30 days and for any of the systems, application made by a representative is
not permitted.
Application for Examination can only be made for a limited range of measures. For
instance, what can often be a serious problem, such as rejection of visits and rejection ofdelivery and purchase of articles, is not subject to such application.

23.

The Application for Examination and Stating of Facts are to be made to thesuperintendent of the regional correction headquarters. When the headquarters determinethat 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.
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 Panel on Complaints by Inmates in Penal Institutions, which
comprises of 5 outside members. This final step is not stipulated in law.

24.

However, the Panel does not have its own secretariat and therefore is unable toconduct 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 regional correction headquarters. 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 isfound to be reasonable); 0 case out of 224 in 2011.

25.

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 thegrievance as originally proposed. For instance, in 2010, of the 2 cases that the Panelissued the opinion that they should not be dismissed, only one was processed inaccordance with the opinion of the Panel.

Recommendation: The grievance mechanism should be reformed so that human rights
violations can be effectively remedied.

F. Unending Instances of Violence by Prison Officials
26.

In 2011, an official at the Tokyo Detention House was arrested for “violence or cruelty
by special public officials.” He was indicted for causing violence to 3 sentenced persons,of which one was injured. In May 2011, he was convicted with a suspended sentence.
The number of incidents for which he was indicted was limited. However, in the course of
the trial, it was revealed that he repeatedly inflicted violence on many inmates for at least
several years, hitting and kicking them almost daily. It also came to light that hiscolleagues knew about his violent behavior but none of them cautioned him or evenreported his behavior to their hierarchy.

27.

The incident was revealed because one victim spoke, with courage, to the detention
house authorities immediately before parole. He was subjected to violence almost daily
except for Saturdays and Sundays over a period of 10 months.
The official managed to avoid being exposed for a long time by imposing silence on thevictims.

6

He repeatedly made excuses for himself during his criminal trial by saying that he “wenttoo far while trying to guide the inmates enthusiastically,” never reaching an
understanding that his act was fundamentally wrong.
28.

In 2009, an official of Fukushima Prison was arrested and convicted for forcing
inmates in sexual intercourse.
In January, 2012, a ruling was finalized by the Supreme Court which determined that
violence was used illegally resulting in injury caused to an inmate when he was brought
under control by force in Gifu Prison in May, 2006.

Recommendation:
 Japan should take necessary measures, including training of prison staff
and disciplinary measures, to prevent violence against prisoners.

G. Conclusion
29.

It has been 10 years since 2002, when it was revealed to the public that the lives of 2
inmates of Nagoya Prison were taken. It is unfortunate to say that even after such asacrifice, the prison system today is operated in a way that seems to have abandoned theidea of penal reform.

30.

One of the biggest factors is that the principle behind the treatment of inmates has nottaken root among the officials working on the frontlines. The fundamental perspective iseither completely lacking or weak to view the inmates as human beings whose rights areprotected and who are, after leaving prison, to be reintegrated into society as its members.

31.

The lack of this awareness is further driven by the fact that the number of correction
staff members is few and they are overworked with the job of controlling the detainees.
The ratio of detainees to prison official is above 4 to 1 in Japanese penal institutions, still
at a high level. It is not an exaggeration to say that the prison officials on the front lines
are single-mindedly working daily to prevent accidents such as prison escape, suicides,
and violence among inmates, so that they can send the inmates out from one side of thewalls to the other “uneventfully.”
There is hardly any sense of pride or hope in their work as something that helps
rehabilitate those that have committed crime.

Recommendations: It is a fundamental premise for prison reform that the quality and quantityof prison officials be improved drastically. The training given to prison
officials is substantially inadequate, and the whole system needs to bechanged, starting with hiring practices.
 The current way of rigidly assigning inmates in large-scale centralized
institutions, based only on the attributes of the inmates such as whether
their inclination towards crime is advanced or whether their sentence islonger than 10 years, will have to be changed.

7

Part 2. The Death Penalty
A.
1.

Facts and Figures
Since the last UPR session, Japan has executed 20 people (Table 1). On August 30
2009, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won the general election and seized politicalpower for the first time. Among the 20 inmates, 15 were executed by the Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP)-led government, and 5 by DPJ. Although during the year 2011,
no execution was carried out, on March 29 2012, Justice Minister Toshio Ogawa ordered
the execution of three death row inmates. As a response to the growing death row
population (Table 2), voices among the conservative LDP and some media are calling forexecutions on regular basis.

(Table 1）Changes in the number of executions
Year

Date

Execution

Annual total

Justice Minister

Prime Minister

2008

February 1

3

15

Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
April 10

4

Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
June 17

3

Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
September

3

Koji Yasuoka

11
October 28

Yasuo Fukuda

(LDP)
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

2011

-

-

0

2012

March 29

3

3

(As ofKeiko Chiba (DPJ)

Naoto Kan

Toshio Ogawa

Yoshihiko Noda

(DPJ)

March
31)
(Table 2) Death sentence and inmates on death row
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
8

Finalized death
sentence
7
3
3
3
4
7

Death sentence imposed at
the first instance
4
8
11
1
3
7

Inmates with finalized death sentences atyear end
56
57
54
51
51
52

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

B.

4
6
5
3
2
14
11
21
23
10
17
9
22

8
14
10
18
13
14
13
13
14
5
9
4
9

50
53
55
57
56
66
77
94
107
100
104
111
129

INDEX 2009 of Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)

2.

Prior to the political change, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) had announced its
plan to review the death penalty system and consider a moratorium on executions, in a setof DPJ’s policies called ‘INDEX 2009’.

3.

The following week, Mrs. Keiko Chiba was appointed as Justice Minister. She was alawyer turned politician and had been known as a member of the Diet Members’ for the
Abolition of the Death Penalty, and also as the Secretary-General of the Amnesty Diet
Members’ League of Japan. However, she did not take any action to realize policies
expressed in INDEX 2009 for the first 10 months.

C.

Execution ordered by Minister Chiba and Study Panel

4.

On July 28, 2010, the first executions under the DPJ administration took place. At apress conference, Minister Chiba announced that she had ordered the executions of thetwo prisoners, both detained at Tokyo Detention Center and attended their executions,which was a first for a Justice Minister. On this occasion she said she would establish aStudy Panel at the Justice Ministry to discuss the following items: a. approach to the issueof abolishing or retaining the system of the death penalty, b. issues related to the
execution including the measure of noticing execution, c. providing information on
executions; and allow news media to visit the execution chamber.

5.

The Study Panel, established on August 6, 2010,, consisted of only members of the
Ministry, i.e., Minister, Vice Minister, Parliamentary-Secretary for Justice and highranking officials of the Ministry.vii
Coincidently, the DPJ announced the establishment of a working group on the death
penalty inside the party.

6.

Since the establishment of the Panel, two meetings were held under Minister Chiba:
one under her successor Minister Yoshito Sengoku and three under Minister Satsuki Eda.
Every Minister said that he or she expected that this Panel would trigger national debate
on the issue of the death penalty. However, the discussion at the panel never led to some
sort of national debate.

D.
7.
9

Challenges faced by Hideo Hiraoka
In September 2011, Hideo Hiraoka took office as Justice Minister. Soon after that, hesaid “some people say not signing off executions is sabotaging the duty of the JusticeMinister, but the minister also has the duty to consider how to handle the death sentenceamid various international opinions on the subject.” viii
8.

On October 17, 2011, at the 8th meeting of the MOJ’s Study Panel, which was thefirst one attended by Hiraoka, he showed a will to initiate a real ‘national debate’. For thispurpose, he tried to refer the issue of the death penalty to the Legislative Panel of the
Ministry, a body which considers issues which requires new legal system or amendmentof related laws. However, the idea was denied by the officials at the Ministry.

9.

Then Hiraoka planned to establish another panel on the death penalty, which is not aninternal body of the ministry, but composed of various experts or stakeholders fromoutside the ministry. But just before its formal establishment, Hiraoka was replaced by
Toshio Ogawa in early January 2012.

E.

Pressure to push Minister Hiraoka out

10.

In fact, as the end of the year 2011 approached, Minister Hiraoka faced strong pressure
not only from bureaucrats at the Ministry who adhered to retention of the death penalty,
but also from the DPJ-led Cabinet.

11.

On October 26 2011, at Diet session Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said“the Cabinet has no plan to abolish the death penalty and it is the role of Justice Ministerto sign off eventually after reflection. I’d like to say to Hiraoka that he should clearly
express his own opinion (on the role of Minister)”.
It is obvious that Fujimura, and of course Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda as well, wanted
to avoid any disputable issues in the Diet sessions and a de facto stay of executions was
one of such issues targeted by the opposition party LDP.

12.

Furthermore, on November 21, 2011, the death sentence of Seiichi Endo, a former
leading member of Aum Shinrikyo Cult, who was found guilty of committing a series ofserious crimes including the Tokyo Subway Gas Attack in 1995, became final at theSupreme Court. Thus a total of thirteen death sentences handed down to Aum Shinrikyo
cultists including its guru, Shoko Asahara, were confirmed ultimately. The voices
demanding an execution of Asahara were heard among the media and this brought anotherpressure on Hiraoka in the direction of approving executions.

F.

Resumption of execution

13.

Since new Justice Minister Toshio Ogawa took office, he had clearly and repeatedly
denied the possibility of continuing the stay of executions, by claiming that authorizing an
execution is the Justice Minister’s responsibility, and expressed his intention to order
executions. At the same time, Ogawa scrapped Hiraoka’s original idea to establish a
special panel on the capital punishment.
Two months after his inauguration, he announced the closure of the Study Panel. The
Panel issued a report, which just summarized each hearing without any recommendationor conclusion.

14.

Three weeks later, on March 29th 2012, he ordered the execution of three inmates who
had been detained at Tokyo, Hiroshima and Fukuoka Detention Center. At the press
conference, he said:

10

"I just performed my duty as a Justice Minister. The right to punish criminals rests on
Japanese nationals, and a government poll shows the majority of Japanese support thedeath sentence," "Also, lay judge trials maintain the death sentence as a punishment, andlay judges are from the general public."ix
15.

It is notable that Prime Minister Noda also told a press conference that he has no plans
to abolish the death penalty. He then said:"Taking into consideration a situation where the number of heinous crimes has notdecreased, I find it difficult to do away with the death penalty immediately… I have noplans to abolish it." He also pointed out that 85.6 percent of citizens polled by the Cabinet
Office were not in favor of the abolition of death penalty

16.

After the executions, Ogawa announced that the three top officials at the Ministry, i.e.,
himself, vice Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, would have private deliberations on
the execution method. It is reportedly said that the four key points to be discussed arewhether the current execution method of death by hanging should be reviewed; whether toinform inmates of their executions the day before the scheduled time unlike on themorning of the same day as is currently the case; how to inform inmates' relatives of acompleted execution; and finally, how to handle prisoners sentenced to death in case thedeath penalty is abolished.x

17.

It is unclear whether they will really ‘deliberate’ on the issues because of secrecy. At
the same time, as Minister Ogawa has repeatedly said that he would perform his ‘duty as
Justice Minister’, executions will be approved during the deliberations. And regarding theperiod of deliberation, Minister Ogawa said that one year is too long, which suggests thatin-depth research or discussion will not take place.

G.

Public opinion18.

As Minister Noda said, public opinion is always mentioned by government officials,
but as a matter of fact, public opinion has never been properly measured by thegovernment.

19.

In February 2010, the Cabinet Office released the results of an opinion poll on thejustice system including the issue of death penalty. Respondents were given three options
from which to choose; 1st: the death penalty should be abolished unconditionally, 2nd: Insome cases, the death penalty cannot be avoided. 3rd: I don’t know/It depends. As a result,
85.6% people chose the 2nd option.
Thus it cannot be said that over 85% people actively support the death penalty.

20.

More importantly, Japanese citizens have never been provided with essential
information on the system and the administration of death penalty in Japan. Even after
Keiko Chiba allowed the media to visit an execution chamber at Tokyo Detention Center,almost all information other than the names and the detention places of the executed
people has remained hidden to the public. xi Despite the recommendation made by the
Human Rights Committee, the government has failed to disclose necessary informationand has done nothing to “inform the public about the desirability of abolition.”

21.

Disclosure of information should be precondition and the first step to initiate thediscussion. By stepping out from the total control of related information by thegovernment, we would be able to gradually advance the level of discussion.

11

H.

Lay judge trial and the death penalty

22.

Under the new system of the Lay Judge, which was introduced in May 2009, fourteen
defendants have been sentenced to deaths. xii Among them, two death sentences havebecome final due to withdrawal of appeals by the defendants themselves, and the threesentences have been upheld at the High Courts.

23.

Despite the repeated recommendations made by Committee against Torture or The
Human Rights Committee, the government of Japan insists that mandatory appeal system
is not needed because the most defendants exercise their rights of appeal. However, thefact that two out of the fourteen people tried at the lay judge courts did not exercise theirrights is a compelling reason which requires the system of mandatory appeal.

24.

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 isenough. Until the abolition of the death penalty, unanimous verdict should be absolutely
necessary for the sentence of death.

I.

Human rights violations on death row

25.

Despite the repeated recommendations by UN bodies, rights of death row inmates arestrictly limited.

26.

New Prison Law which was enacted in 2007 provides that a death row prisoner shallbe detained in a single 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 of treatment prescribed in paragraph (1) of
Article 32. xiii However, actually the Ministry of Justice admits that such treatment has
never been allowed.

27.

Contacts with people outside prisons are also strictly restrained. The number of theoutside people who are allowed to get in touch with a prisoner is limited to three to five,and even those who are allowed to exchange letters with a prisoner are not necessarily
permitted to meet with a prisoner.

28.

Meetings between prisoners and their legal representatives are usually observed byprison guards. On January 27th 2012, Hiroshima High Court decided that having ameeting 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 thisruling, the government appealed to the Supreme Court and the case is still pending.
Attendance at lawyers’ meeting is still a common practice.

29.

The idea underlying such inhumanely restrictive treatment is ‘to maintain a peace ofmind’ as stipulated in Article 32. The Ministry of Justice says that ‘to maintain peace ofmind’ 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, especially rights to make contacts withoutside.

12

J.

Conclusion

30.

Recently Japan failed to step forward in the right direction, a de-facto moratorium on
executions which could bring the country to the ultimate abolition, by hanging threeinmates after 20-month-period without executions.

31.

As far as the issue of the death penalty, the attitude of the government of Japandeserves the strongest denouncement. And UPR process is absolutely a precious
opportunity which could convey the international voices to the Japanese society.

32.

Now is the most crucial time for Japan to face the strong criticism from theinternational community. Voices from the world, which tend to be ignored by Japanesesociety, should be conveyed to the government so that they can change the government’s
attitude toward the death penalty.

iStandard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR) provides that at every institution there shall beavailable the services of at least one qualified medical officer who should have some knowledge ofpsychiatry. The medical services should be organized in close relationship to the general healthadministration of the community or nation. They shall include a psychiatric service for the diagnosis and, inproper cases, the treatment of states of mental abnormality (Rule 22(1)).
ii
SMR provides that sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized
institutions or to civil hospitals. Where hospital facilities are provided in an institution, their equipment,
furnishings and pharmaceutical supplies shall be proper for the medical care and treatment of sick prisoners,
and there shall be a staff of suitable trained officers (Rule 22(2)).
iii
SMR provides that all accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping
accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions andparticularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation (Rule 10).
iv
Human Rights Committee says in its General Comment 20(44)(Art. 7, Torture or Degrading Treatment)
4/3/1992 that prolonged solitary confinement of the detained or imprisoned person may amount to acts
prohibited by article 7.
v
SMR provides that ‘prisoners shall be required to keep their persons clean, and to this end they shall be
provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness’ (Rule 15).
vi
SMR also provides that prisoners shall be allowed under necessary supervision to communicate
with their family and reputable friends at regular intervals, both by correspondence and byreceiving visits (Rule 37)
vii
Other members are: Assistant Vice-Minister of Justice, Director-General of the Criminal Affairs Bureau,
Director of the Legislative Division, Director of the General Affairs Division of the Bureau, Director-Generalof the Correction Bureau, Director of the General Affairs Division of the Bureau, Director of the Prison
Service Division of the Bureau, Director-General of the Rehabilitation Bureau and Director of the General
Affairs Division of the Bureau.
viii
Minoru Matsutani ‘Hiraoka urges “active” debate on executions’, The Japan Times, 20 September, 2011ix
Minoru Matsutani ‘Three hanged: executions are first since ‘10’, The Japan Times, 30 March, 2012x
‘Ministry of Justice's top officials to hold non-disclosed death penalty Deliberations’, Mainichi Shimbun, 10
April, 2012
xi
Maiko Tagusari, ‘Death Penalty in Japan’ (2010), East Asian Law Journalxii
As of April 19, 2012
xiii
Article 32: Upon treatment of an inmate sentenced to death, attention shall be paid to help him/her maintainpeace of mind.

13