Center for Prisoners’ Rights JapanThe Summary Report of the Internationalcovenant on civil and political rights
Recent Issues on Prisons in Japan
By Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan
September, 2008

The Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan (CPR)
The Center for Prisoners' Rights is a non-profit, non-governmental organization established in 1995, withthe 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 such as 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.
Contact Person about this Report is as Follows:
Emi AKIYAMA (Ms)
The Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan, c/o KIKUTA LAW OFFICE, Raffine Ochanomizu #807,
3-28-13, Kanda Ogawa-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0052, Japan
Fax: +81(0)3-3259-1558, E-mail: amayika@jca.apc.org

1． Death Penalty
1,In 1990’s, Japan was repeatedly recommended by HRC that Japan should reduce the number of offencespunishable by death and limit the use of death penalty.

But, in 2000, the new capital offence, indiscriminate massmurder, was added and the number of capital offences increased from 17 to 18. And number of death sentences has
increased remarkably.
＊The number of death sentences at the first instance court
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

3

1

4

8

11

1

3

7

8

14

10

18

13

14

13

1314

＊The number of the executions
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

0

7

2

6

6

4

6

5

3

2

2

1214913**the figures for September 11, 2008
2,In February 2008, Japanese government submit ‘note verbale’ to the Secretary General of United Nations,which shows strong opposition to the G. A. Resolution 62/149, entitled Moratorium on the use of the death penalty,
together with other 57 countries. Furthermore, Japanese government intentionally failed to provide theSecretary-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 inJune 2008, at the session of the UPR by Human Rights Council, Japanese government said that Japan is not in aposition either to consider granting a moratorium on executions or to abolish the death penalty.
3,The New Prison Law entered into force in June 2007. This provides that all the correspondence between aninmate and outside people including his or her attorney for retrial should be censored.

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

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.
4,

Death row inmates are put into solitary confinement and not to have any contact with each other outside theircells , which means isolation is principle. In 2007, The Committee against Torture expressed its concern, saying that
“The principle of solitary confinement after the final sentence is handed down. Given the length of time on death row,
in some cases his exceeds 30 years”.
5,

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.

This practice gives great sufferings to inmates themselves as well as

their families.
6,

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

Theamnesty system does exist, but the last time it was applied to a death-row inmate was 1975, when the death penalty wascommuted to life imprisonment.

2.
7,

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

NGO members forsupporting prisoners and lawyers have received many letters of complaints on refusal of medical treatment and1receiving inappropriate treatment, which sometimes resulted in serious injuries and death.
firstly the number of doctors working in prison is extremely small.

As to the reason for this,Secondly, prison officers who are qualified as

nurses often examine and administer a dose to prisoners instead of doctors. 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 theprisoner. In addition, we raise concerns about ensuring prisoners rights to access their medical records, including therecords of medication which they are taking and the results of their medical examinations.
8,The CAT recommended the government to ensure “adequate, independent and prompt medical assistance beprovided to all inmates at all times” in May, 2007. 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 theordinal medical system in the community where the prison exists and to get more doctors.

3.
9,Long Imprisonment of Prisoners Sentenced to Life
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.

The number of life sentences has beenincreasing. Moreover the average imprisonment period of lifers has been longer and the number of lifers released onparole has been markedly decreasing.

At the end of December, 2007, there was a life sentenced prisoner who has

been imprisoned for more than 58 years.

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 theadministrative order has established a new type of punishment of life imprisonment without parole.
＊The number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment (Source: Annual Report on Corrections)Year
Number1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
883

894

909

923

938

968

2002 2003 2004

2005 2006 2007

1,002 1,047 1,097 1,152 1,242 1,352 1,467 1,596 1,670＊The number of prisoners served term in prison as lifer as of December 31, 2007 (Research by one Diet member on July,2008)

4.
10,Servedterm

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 - 59years

Number

632

315

171

182

198

97

38

19

854

1

Longer Solitary Confinement
The HRC 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 solitary confinement” in the Concluding
Observation to the Japanese government. And the conclusion and recommendation by the CAT in 2007, raised theirconcerns on inadequate use of solitary confinement, about “the State party should amend its current legislation in orderto ensure that solitary confinement remains an exceptional measure of limited duration, in accordance with international
minimum standards. In particular, the State party should consider systematically reviewing all cases of prolonged
solitary confinement, through a specialized psychological and psychiatric evaluation, with a view to releasing those
whose detention can be considered in violation of the Convention”. However, as far as the solitary confinement issue,
2any remarkable improvement has never been seen since then.

Especially we are concerned that there are about 30

prisoners each year, who have been detained in solitary confinement for more than 10 years as a sum total. Several
prisoners have been detained for over 30 years and the longest one has been for 52 years.
11,

Under the New Law, the name of continual solitary confinement has been altered to “Segregation” as adefined name.

Furthermore, all sentenced prisoners are supposed to be classified into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th grade ofrestriction, depending on their security levels.

The 1st grade means that the modest limitation shall be imposed on

prisoners’ liberty and rights and the 4th grade means that the strictest limitation shall be imposed.

If the prisoners areclassified into the 4th grade, they have to stay in their own single room all day, then, it would be almost same as solitaryconfinement.

In addition, when solitary confinement as “Segregation” shall be imposed, the law provides thelimitation 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 solitaryconfinement as “the 4th grade restriction” would increase because it is easier to categorize prisoners into this grade thanto impose “Segregation” on them.

5.
12,

System for Investigating Complaints by Prisoners
The New Law introduced “the Board of Visitors for Inspection of Penal Institutions” system.

But the board

dose not have enough authority to investigate cases of torture or ill-treatment. Although the Board consists of lawyers(nominated from the JFBA), doctors (nominated from the Japanese Medical Association), persons nominated from thelocal government as a community delegate, and 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. 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 have sufficient knowledge of prison issues are very active. But on the other hand, otherprofessions are not always so enthusiastic.
13,

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)”. Moreover, during thesame period, total number of cases inmates asked were 1848, but only 6 cases were accepted.
14,We can raise concerns at this time.

Firstly, the new complaints procedure is complicated and is notuser-friendly. The duration which inmates can petition is very short (within 30 days from a day after the disposition isnotified), and inmates can not ask for help or representatives from outside.
new complaints system is narrow.

Secondly, the range of the subject of theInmates can not use a new complaints system about what they really need to bewithdrew or changed, concerning things such as inadequate medical treatment by prison doctors/nurses, and limitation
on receiving goods and visits from family and friends. Thirdly, even under the new complaints system, it is still theofficers from the Correction Bureau, the Ministry of Justice, who examines prisoners’ complaints. The HRC was“concerned that there is no independent authority to which complaints of ill-treatment by the police and immigration
officials can be addressed for investigation and redress” in the Concluding Observation in 1998.
15,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 lawyer, a doctor, and thedirector of the prison volunteers’ organization, and they are reviewing some cases which were previously raised byprisoners and rejected by the authorities.

They had examined 635 cases by May, 2008, of which 43 cases weredecided 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.
3