Submission to the Committee against Torture
50th session (May 2013)by Center for Prisoners' Rights and International Federationfor Human Rights
Contact: geneva@fidh.org
Japan: current state of the death penalty
The death penalty
A. Facts and Figures
1. Since 2007 when the CAT reviewed Japan’s report for the first time, Japan has

executed 43 people, including one woman (Table 1). On August 30th, 2009, theDemocratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won the general election and seized politicalpower for the first time. Then, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won theelections on December 16th, 2012 and became ruling party once again. Among the43, 34 were executed by a LDP-led government, and 9 by the DPJ. Although noexecution 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 thegrowing death row population (Table 2), conservative voices within the LDP, as well
as some media, have for the past months been calling for executions on regularbasis. The current Justice Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki ordered executions of threeinmates only two months after assuming office on December 26th, 2012. In 2012,
Japan was part of the 21 countries which have carried out judicial executions in theworld.
(Table 1）Changes in the number of executions
YeaDateExecution
Annual total

Justice Minister

Prime Minister

Jinen Nagase

Shinzo Abe

r200

April 27379(LDP)
August 23

3

Jinen Nagase

Shinzo Abe(LDP)
December

3

Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda

7200

February 1(LDP)3158

Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
April 104Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
June 17

3Kunio Hatoyama

Yasuo Fukuda(LDP)
September

3

Koji Yasuoka

11
October(LDP)
2

Eisuke Mori

28200

January 29

Yasuo Fukuda
Taro Aso(LDP)
479

Eisuke Mori

Taro Aso(LDP)
July 28

3

Eisuke Mori

Taro Aso

(LDP)
201

July 28220201

Keiko Chiba

Naoto Kan(DPJ)
N/A

00

N/A

N/A

March 29

37

Toshio Ogawa

Yoshihiko Noda

1201
2(DPJ)
August 3

2

Makoto Taki

Yoshihiko Noda

(DPJ)
September2

Makoto Taki

27
201

Feburary

321

Yoshihiko Noda

(DPJ)
33

Sadakazu Tanigaki(as of April(LDP)

12)Red: Executions by DPJ
Blue: Executions by LDP

Shinzo Abe(Table 2) Death sentence and inmates on death row
Year Finalized death
Death sentence imposedsentencesat the first instances
1993
74
1994
38
1995
3111996
31
1997
43
1998
7
7
1999
48
2000
614
2001
510
2002
318
2003
213
2004
14
14
2005
1113
2006
2113
2007
23
14
2008
105
2009
17
9
2010
94
2011
22
9Inmates with finalized death sentences
at year end
56
57
54
51
51
52
50
53
55
57
56
66
77
94
107
100
104
111
129

B. 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, hesaid: "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, intotal 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 ismore important is not the international trend of abolition, but the fact that the death
penalty is a domestic issue."
4. Two of the three inmates, Masahiro Kanagawa and Kaoru Kobayashi, did not

exercise their rights of appeal and the other one, Keiki Kano, was originallysentenced to life imprisonment, which was repealed by the higher court.

C. Lay judge trial and the death penalty
5. In May 2009, the Act on Criminal Trials Examined under Lay Judge System wasenacted and the new system of the Lay Judge, which was aimed at making morepeople feel involved in the justice process and enhance trust of the public. So far,there has not been an increase in the number of death sentences, but it should be
noted that the number of homicides has been decreasing since 2008. On the otherhand, an apparent new tendency can be seen. Under the Lay Judge system,
prosecutors have sought sentence of death for 24 defendants, and as of April 12, 17
defendants out of 24 have been sentenced to death. This means that in more than
70% of all the capital cases (70.83%), prosecutors achieved the death penalty. Thisis much higher than the corresponding rate of death sentences under the trials byprofessional judges only (from 1980 to 2009), which is 55.7%.
6. Furthermore, among 17 individuals sentenced to death, four defendants let their

death sentences become final by withdrawal of appeals by themselves. Despite therepeated recommendations made by the Committee against Torture or the Human
Rights Committee, the government of Japan has insisted that mandatory appeal
system is not needed because most defendants exercise their rights of appeal i.
However, not only the fact that four death sentences have already become final
under the Lay Judge system, but also the fact that more than 30% of the prisoners
7. 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 laypeople is enough.

D.Human rights violations on death row
8. Despite the repeated recommendationsii by UN bodies, rights of death row inmates

are strictly limited.
9. The new Prison Law which was enacted in 2007 provides that a death row prisoner

shall be detained in a single cell and separated from the other prisoners day andnight. Under the law, to make mutual contacts with other death row prisoners ispossible, where deemed advantageous in light of the principle of treatmentprescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 32, which provides that ‘upon treatment of aninmate sentenced to death, attention shall be paid to help him/her maintain peace ofmind’. However, actually the Ministry of Justice admits that such treatment has
never been allowed.
10. 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 forothers, the number of the outside people who are allowed to get in touch with aprisoner 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.
11. 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 this ruling, the government appealed to the Supreme Court and the case isstill pending. Attendance at lawyers’ meeting is still a common practice.
12. The idea underlying such inhumanely restrictive treatment is ‘to maintain a peace ofmind’ as stipulated in Article 32. During the Diet session in which the new Prison
Bill was discussed, the Ministry of Justice of the LDP-led government said that ‘tomaintain peace of mind’ should not be interpreted as a tool for restriction ofprisoners’ 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 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 and vulnerable.
13. Pardon, commutation and reprieve for death row inmates have never been allowed

even after the consideration of the government of Japan’s previous CAT report in2007.
14. In Japan, death row inmates are usually not informed of the date and time ofexecution until just an hour before it actually takes place. This practice gives greatsufferings to inmates themselves as well as their families. Moreover, lack of priorannouncement totally deprives inmates of the opportunities to challenge thelegitimacy of executions.

E. The executions of persons with mental disability
15. The Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the execution of an inmate in a state ofinsanity (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.
16. But even after the examination by CAT in 2007, Japanese government has continued

to execute those who suffered mental illness. Seiha Fujima, one of the threeprisoners who were hanged on December 7th, 2007, was mentally ill and after thetrial at the first instant court he was found legally incompetent by the SupremeCourt. However, his death sentence became final and was carried out without any
examination of his mental condition by the third party. On June 17th, 2008, Tsutomu
Miyazaki was executed as well as two other inmates. Miyazaki was mentally ill andwas 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 theletter, the Minister executed Miyazaki without any examination on his mentalcondition. It seems that there are quite a number of death row prisoners who aresuffering 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 deathand let his sentence become final. Government has failed to establish a review
mechanism to identify death row inmates who may be suffering from mental illness,despite the Committee’s serious concern expressed in the previous session in 2007.
Danger of executing insane people is still remaining.

F. Recommendations to the Government of Japan:
The Government of Japan should:•Introduce the moratorium officially and consider abolition of death penalty.

•

Publicize information of the death penalty and ensure a prisoner on death row
will be notified of date of his/her execution well before it actually takes place.

•Provide death row prisoners with more contact with the outside.

•Adopt a mandatory review and appeal system for capital cases.

•Review the current pardon system in order that the system can truly function for
those facing death.

•Establish a review mechanism to identify death row inmates who may besuffering from mental illness.

•Impose unanimous verdict for any case of death sentence.

Paragraph 1 of the reply to question 13 on page 18
REPLIES TO THE LIST OF ISSUES (CCPR/C/JPN/Q/5)
TO BE TAKEN UP IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE FIFTH PERIODIC REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN(CCPR/C/JPN/5)i

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/442/15/PDF/G0844215.pdf
iiiii

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
an inmate 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 isprohibited pursuant to the provision of paragraph (3) under Article 148 or the provisions ofthe next Section:(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,such as reconciliation of marital relations, pursuance of a lawsuit, or maintenance of abusiness;(iii) A person whose visit is deemed instrumental to help the inmate sentenced to deathmaintain 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 disciplineand order in the penal institution, then the warden of the penal institution may permit theinmate 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 applyin this 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, ormaintenance of a business;(iii) Letters deemed to be instrumental to help the inmate sentenced to death maintainpeace of mind.
(2) The warden of the penal institution may permit an inmate sentenced to death to sendor receive letters other than those listed in the preceding paragraph in cases where it isdeemed that there is a circumstance where the sending or receiving is necessary for themaintenance of good relationship with the addressee, or for any other reasons, and if it isdeemed that there is no risk of causing disruption of discipline and order in the penal
institution.