FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICAPRIL 2010 VOLUME 59

Focus
Asia-PacificNewsletter of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center (HURIGHTS OSAKA)

June 2012 Vol. 68

Contents

Editorial

Detention Centers and Prisons in Japan
This is a discussion of the issues regarding
Japanese detention centers and prisonsthat have been discussed in the Universal
Period Review of Japan in 2008.
- HURIGHTS OSAKAInternational Pressure

Page 2
Death Penalty in Japan
This is an edited version of the section ondeath penalty of the counterreport filedby the International Federation for Human
Rights and the Center for Prisoners’ Rights
for the second Universal Periodic Review
of Japan.
- International Federation for Human
Rights and the Center for Prisoners’ Rights
Page 6
Map Ta Phut: New Minamata?
This is a presentation of the issues
regarding industrialization and the right ofpeople to health focusing on the case of
Map Ta Phut village in the Eastern
Seaboard Industrial Zone in Thailand.
- HURIGHTS OSAKA
Page 10
Human Rights Center for Thailand
This is a report on the internationalseminar on the establishment of a humanrights center in Thailand.
- Jefferson R. Plantilla
Page 14

International pressure, with international media support, canforce governments to take action on specific human rights
violations. It can make governments admit the existence ofsuch human rights violations, or hold those responsible forthe violations accountable.
But the more “regular” international pressure may not havethe same impact. International pressure arising fromconclusions, recommendations, general comments andresolutions of the human rights bodies of the United Nations(UN) needs assistance to create national impact.
Outside the halls of the UN and beyond the circle of humanrights organizations lobbying in the UN, much of the analyses
and recommendations by the human rights bodies for better
promotion and protection of human rights remain unknown
to the people who should benefit from them.
Government action on the conclusions, recommendations,general comments and resolutions of the UN human rights
bodies depends on national pressure. Unless they suffer frommassive repression that provides little space for action, people
at the national level should be able to assert the pressure on
their respective governments.
It is thus imperative on the part of the organizations involved
in UN human rights lobby to bring this international pressure
from UN human rights bodies to the domestic sphere.

1

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68

Detention Centers and Prisons in Japan
HURIGHTS OSAKAT

h e U n i v e r s a l Pe r i o d i c
Review (UPR) of the United
Nations (UN) Human Rights
Council facilitates thediscussion and analysis ofreports on the human rights
situation in UN member-states.1
Th e r e c o r d o f t h e U P R
processes, however, would
remain stuck in the files of the
UN and diplomatic missions
unless deliberately andsystematically brought out tothe people of the countries
involved for further discussion
and subsequent action.
It is in this light that the 2008
UPR of Japan’s human rights
situation is being presented inthis article. It focuses on thesituation of detention centersand prisons in Japan, one of theissues discussed in the UPR
process.
Later in 2012, the second UPR
of Japan’s reports will be held.
Will there be new answers to
old issues?
Detention Centers and Prisons
The 2008 UN summary reporton observations of the treaty
monitoring bodies on detention
centers and prisons in Japanraises questions:2
14. CAT [Committee Against
Torture] noted with concernthat a definition of torture, as
provided by article 1 of theConvention [against Tortureand Other Cruel, Inhuman or
D e g r a d i n g Tr e a t m e n t o r
Punishment], was not includedin the [Japanese] Penal Code,and that in particular “mental
torture” within the meaning of
the Convention’s definition is
not clearly defined underarticles 195 and 196 of thePenal Code and also thatpenalties for related acts, suchas intimidation, areinadequate.3
xxx

xxx

xxx

16. CAT was deeply concerned
about allegations of continuous
prolonged use of solitaryconfinement, despite the newprovisions of the 2005 Act on
Penal Institutions and the
Tr e a t m e n t o f S e n t e n c e d
Inmates limiting its use. The
State should amend current
legislation to ensure thatsolitary confinement remains
an exceptional measure oflimited duration. In particular,
the State should systematicallyreview all cases of prolonged
solitary confinement, by meansof a specialized psychologicaland psychiatric evaluation,with a view to releasing those
wh o s e d e t e n t i o n c a n b e
considered in violation of theConvention.4

The report further states that:5
15. The general conditions ofdetention in [Japanese] penal
institutions, including
overcrowding, were of concernt o C AT. T h e C o m m i t t e e
recommended that Japan takeeffective measures to improveconditions of detention, ensure
strict monitoring of restraining2

devices, the provision of
medical assistance to all
inmates at all times and that itshould consider placing
medical facilities and staff
under the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Health.6

The national report of Japan forthe 2008 UPR explains the steps
being taken on the issues raisedby treaty monitoring bodies
such as ensuring that “a heating/cooling system is installed in thedetention facilities” and“medical treatment from a
doctor at public expense if a
detainee is sick or injured” isprovided. There is no responseto the suggestion to put the
medical service under the“jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Health.” There is a statementthat the overcrowding of thepenal institutions is being
addressed.
The national report of Japan
does not discuss the issues
regarding non-inclusion of thedefinition of torture in the penal
law, and solitary confinement.
Th e U N s u m m a r y r e p o r t
discusses the long-standing
issue of substitute prison systemcalled daiyo kangoku:7
17. In 2007, CAT was deeply
concerned at the systematicuse of the Daiyo Kangoku
substitute prison system for the
prolonged detention of arrested
persons even after they appear
before a court, and up to thepoint of indictment. This maylead to a de facto disrespect of

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
the principles of thepresumption of innocence,right to silence and right ofdefence. 8 Similar concerns
were raised by the HR [Human
Rights] Committee in 1998.9

During the interactive dialogueof the UPR, Japan’s response
further explained this issue:10
With regard to the police
detention system, it was
explained that the necessity ofdetention was strictly
examined by the police, aprosecutor, and a judge in dueorder, and that a judge decides
on its necessity and theplacement of the detention fora maximum of 10 days. A
prosecutor and a judge
respectively review thenecessity of the extension of
the detention, and a judge
order is also necessary for thee x t e n s i o n , wh i ch c a n n o t
exceed 20 days in total. The
Delegation stated that thesubstitute detention system wasindispensable to carrying out
prompt and effective
investigations. At the police
detention facilities,
investigative officers were notallowed to control thetreatment of detainees;
detention operations wereconducted by the detention
division of the facility, which is
not involved in investigations
at all. The Delegation also
explained that, regardless ofthe type of crime committed,
detainees can haveconsultations with their lawyer
at anytime and there is no
official watch person during
the meeting and no time
limitation.

Japan’s 2010 submission on
follow-up
totherecommendations in the 2008

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
Concluding Observations of the
Human Rights Committee on
Japan’s Fifth Periodic Report11
provides additional explanationthat justifies the continued
existence of daiyo kangoku.
Essentially, the argument forcontinued use of daiyo kangoku
is that it is “operated for swift
and appropriate investigation
and also for the convenience ofthe detainee’s defence counsel
and family members.”12
The UN summary report alsomentions the issue ofcomplaints mechanism:13
24. Additionally, CAT wasconcerned at: (a) the lack of aneffective complaints system forpersons in police custody; (b)the lack of authority of theBoard of Visitors for Inspectiono f Pe n a l I n s t i t u t i o n s t oinvestigate cases or allegationsof acts of torture or ill–
treatment; (c) the lack of
independence of the Review
and Investigation Panel on
Complaints by Inmates inPenal Institutions and its
limited powers to investigate
cases directly; (d) statutory
limitations on the right ofinmates to complain and theimpossibility of defence
counsel assisting clients to file
a complaint; (e) reports ofadverse consequences forinmates as a result of having
filed a complaint and oflawsuits rejected on the
grounds that the term for
claiming compensation had
expired. The State should also
consider establishing an
independent mechanism, withauthority to promptly andimpartially investigate all
allegations of, and complaints
about, acts of torture and illtreatment from bothindividuals in pretrial detention

3

in police facilities or in penal
institutions. The State shouldtake all appropriate measures toensure that the right of inmates
to complain can be fully
exercised. 14 In relation to
victims of sexual violence, CATalso called for the prompt andimpartial investigation ofallegations of torture and illtreatment with a view toprosecuting those responsible.15
Additionally, the State shouldtake appropriate measures toensure that all victims of actsof torture or ill-treatment can
exercise fully their right toredress,
includingcompensation
andrehabilitation.16

Japan responded to this issue by
stating during the interactive
dialogue of the UPR that “acomplaints mechanism has
been developed in order toensure the appropriate
treatment of detainees.” In its
national report, it cites as one of
the amendments to the penallaw (Act on Penal Detention
Facilities and Treatment of
Inmates and Detainees) that
“ ( C ) o m p l a i n t m e ch a n i s m sconsisting of a petition forreview, report of cases andfi l i n g o f c o m p l a i n t s a r e
provided.” Thus a complaints
mechanism has been developed
where a “petition of objection
may be sent to the Prefectural
Public Safety Commission, athird party institution which
controls the prefectural police.”
Comments of the Stakeholders
The UPR process includes theconsideration of reports fromt h e “ s t a k e h o l d e r s ” wh i chmainly consist of nongovernmental institutions thatwork on human rights issues.
Among these stakeholders,FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
several Japanese nongovernmental organizations
submitted their respective
reports. Their reports contradict
on several points the national
report of Japan and its responses
during the interactive dialogue.
The OHCHR compiled thesereports and submitted asummary to the HRC.17
On the issue of daiyo kangoku,
the stakeholder summary reportstresses several points:18
a. The detention of persons inpolice cells for up to twentythree days without charge.
b. The lack of regulations
regarding the length ofinterrogations, the restriction
on access to lawyers ofdetained persons, the lack ofrecording of interrogation
sessions19 and the concernthat this system is routinely
being used to obtain'confessions' through tortureor other cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment, such as
beating, intimidation, sleep
deprivation, questioning
from early morning until late
at night, and making thesuspect stand or sit in a
fixed position for long
periods. The 2008 National
Police Agency guidelines for
conducting interrogations
have been foundinadequate.
c. The lack of an independent
institution to investigate
complaints while suspects
are in police detention
facilities.
The stakeholders recommend
the abolition of the daiyo
kangoku (substitute prison)system, or “bring it into linewith international standards,
and implement safeguards, such

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
as explicit directives for prompt
and unhindered access to legal
counsel as well as electronic
recordingofallinterrogations.”20
The Japan Federation of Bar
Associations (JFBA), responding
to the 2010 comments of Japanon this issue (in response to the
Human R ig h t s C o m m i t t e eConcluding Observations),
persistently argues for its
abolition on the ground that:21
no other system in the world
where police detention can becontinued for as many as 20
days. In addition, the excuse
that it is impossible toconstruct detention facilities
cannot be accepted today, 30
years after the problem ofsubstitute prisons was firstpointed out by the JFBA. The
only way to avoid “the risk ofprolonged interrogations andabusive interrogation methods
with the aim of obtaining a
confession” is to abolishsubstitute prisons, which the
JFBA has consistently called
for.

JFBA adds that it does not callfor immediate abolition of daiyo
kangoku. Instead, it asks to“begin … abolishing the[system of] detention ofsuspects to whom it would
cause more adverse effects,
such as those who deny thealleged crimes and juvenilesuspects.”
On the new Act on Penal
D e t e n t i o n Fa c i l i t i e s a n dTreatment of Inmates andDetainees enacted in 2006, andtook effect in June 2007, several
stakeholders recognize the“positive provisions, such as the
expansion of prisoners’ contacts
with the outside world, theestablishment of independent

4

committees to inspect prisons,and the improvement of thecomplaints mechanisms.”22
However, they express concern
about “the possibility for therevalidation of the period of thesolitary confinement with nolimitation, the introduction of a
new type of handcuffs and their
use together with the solitaryconfinement, … the absence ofdefinitive provisions for theinvestigation of deaths inprisons,” and the provision of“medical assistance toprisoners” not being under thejurisdiction of the Ministry of
Health.23 JFBA explains further
in 2010 that “mental andphysical effects of the solitaryconfinement rule for death row
inmates is serious, and it isabsolutely necessary to amend
Article 36 of the Act on Penal
D e t e n t i o n Fa c i l i t i e s a n dTreatment of Inmates andDetainees, so as to substantively
guarantee mutual contact
outside of individual cells.”24
While some improvements havebeen made on the situation ofdetention centers and prisons inJapan, there remain a number ofissues that have to be
sufficiently addressed in orderto fully protect the human rights
of detained persons andconvicted prisoners in the
country. It is expected that therecommendations25 of several
member-states during the 2008
UPR would be the focus of
discussions in the 2012 UPR of
the human rights situation in
Japan.
For further information pleasecontact HURIGHTS OSAKA.

(Continued on page 15)

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68

Death Penalty in Japan
International Federation for Human Rights and the Center for Prisoners' Rights JapanS

ince 2008, when Japan's
human rights record wasbrought under the Universal
Periodic Review of the United
Nations Human Rights Council,
twenty people had been
executed. Among thesee x e c u t i o n s , fi f t e e n w e r eapproved by the previous
government of the Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP), andfive by the current governmentof the Democratic Party of Japan(DPJ) that won the generalelections in 2009.
While there was no execution in
2 0 1 1 , t h e c u r r e n t Ju s t i c e
Minister Toshio Ogawa ordered
the execution of three death row
inmates on 29 March 2012. The
conservative LDP and some
sections of the media have beencalling for executions in
response to the growing deathrow population.
INDEX 2009 and Death Penalty
Prior to taking power, DPJ
adopted a set of policies called'INDEX 2009' that included areview of the death penalty
system and a consideration of
moratorium on executions.
The new DPJ government
appointed Keiko Chiba as
Justice Minister, a lawyer turned
politician who belonged to theDiet (Parliament) Members for
the Abolition of the Death
Penalty, and was the SecretaryGeneral of the Amnesty Diet
Members' League of Japan.

However, Chiba, as Justice
Minister, did not take any action
to realize INDEX 2009 during
the first ten months of the new
government.
On 28 July 2010, the first
executions under the DPJ
government took place. At apress conference, Minister
Chiba announced that she hadordered the execution of two
prisoners, both detained at
Tokyo Detention Center. She
was also the first Justice Minister
to attend executions. On thisoccasion she announced herplan to create a Study Panel at
the Justice Ministry to study thefollowing items: a. approach on
addressing the issue of either
abolition or retention of thedeath penalty; b. execution
system including notices on
executions; c. provision of
information on executions to
the public; and d. visit ofmembers of the media to the
execution chamber.
The Study Panel was establishedon 6 August 2010 with all
members belonging to the
Ministry of Justice (i.e., Minister,Vice Minister, ParliamentarySecretary for Justice and highranking officials of the Ministry).1
C o i n c i d e n t a l l y, t h e D P J
announced the establishment
within the party of a working
group on death penalty.
Since its establishment, thePanel held several meetings.
Minister Chiba held two

5meetings, her immediate
successor Minister Yoshito
Sengoku held one meeting, andMinister Satsuki Eda held threemeetings. Each Minister
expressed the expectation that
the Panel discussions would
trigger national debate on death
penalty, but no such debate
occurred.
Challenges to the New Ministerof Justice
By September 2011, a new
Minister of Justice wasappointed (Hideo Hiraoka) who
said that "some people say [that]not signing off executions issabotaging the duty of theJustice Minister, but the minister
also has the duty to consider
how to handle the death
sentence amid various
international opinions on thesubject."2
During the first Panel meetingon 17 October 2011 that he
attended, Minister Hiraoka
expressed his determination toinitiate a real "national debate"
on death penalty. He thenreferred the matter to theLegislative Panel of the Ministry,
which dealt with issues that
required legal amendment. But
the Ministry officials refused his
proposal.
Minister Hiraoka then planned
to establish another panel thatwould not be an internal bodyof the Ministry and would havevarious experts or stakeholders

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
from outside the Ministry as
members. But just before its
formal establishment, Toshio
Ogawa replaced Hiraoka inearly January 2012.
Toward the end of 2011,
Minister Hiraoka had been
facing strong pressure not only
from bureaucrats at the Ministry
who wanted to retain the death
penalty, but also from the DPJled Cabinet.
On 26 October 2011, at theDiet session, Chief Cabinet
Secretary Osamu Fujimura said"the Cabinet has no plan toabolish the death penalty and itis the role of Justice Minister tosign off eventually afterreflection. I'd like to say to
Hiraoka that he should clearly
express his own opinion [on therole of the Minister on thismatter]".
It was obvious that Fujimura,and Prime Minister Yoshihiko
Noda as well, wanted to avoid
issues during the Diet sessions
that would be targeted by the
opposition party LDP. A de facto
stay of executions was one such
issue.
Furthermore, on 21 November
2011, the Supreme Court
affirmed with finality the death
sentence of Seiichi Endo, aformer leading member of Aum
Shinrikyo Cult, as penalty forcommitting a series of serious
crimes including the Tokyo
Subway Gas Attack in 1995. A
total of thirteen death sentences
handed down to Aum Shinrikyo
cultists including its guru,
Shoko Asahara, have been
affirmed with finality. Voicesfrom the media demanded theexecution of Asahara, bringing
another pressure on Minister

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
Hiraoka on approving
executions.
Resumption of Executions
The new Justice Minister, Toshio
Ogawa, clearly and repeatedly
foreclosed the possibility ofcontinuing the stay of
executions. He claimed that
authorizing executions was theJustice Minister's responsibility,and expressed his intention toorder executions. At the sametime, Minister Ogawa scrapped
former Minister Hiraoka's plan
for a special panel on capital
punishment. He also abolishedthe Study Panel two months
after assuming office. The Panel,as its last activity, issued areport that simply summarized
the discussions during its
meetings without providing any
recommendation or conclusion.
On 29 March 2012, Minister
Ogawa ordered the executionof three inmates detained at
Tokyo, Hiroshima and Fukuoka
Detention Centers. At the press
conference, he said:
I just performed my duty as ajustice minister. The right topunish criminals rests on
Japanese nationals, and agovernment poll shows the
majority of Japanese support
the death sentence.... Also,
lay judge trials maintain thedeath sentence as apunishment, and lay judges
are from the general public.3

It is notable that Prime Minister
Noda also told a press
conference on 30 March 2012that he had no plan to abolisht h e d e a t h p e n a l t y. H e
explained:
in view also of the fact that
there is still no decline in or
end to atrocious crimes, I

6

recognize that it will bedifficult to abolish the death
penalty immediately. There is
no change to the fact thatJapan does not have a policy
to abolish the death penalty.4

After the executions, Minister
Ogawa announced that thethree top officials at the Ministry(i.e., himself, the Vice Ministerand the Parliamentary Secretary)would have privatedeliberations on the execution
method. The four key points tobe discussed were reportedly
the following: whether or not
the current execution method of
death by hanging should be
reviewed; whether or not
inmates should be informed of
their executions the day before
the scheduled time rather thanin the morning of the day of
execution as currently
practiced; how to informi n m a t e s ' r e l a t iv e s o f t h e
execution; and finally, how tohandle prisoners sentenced todeath in case of abolition of thedeath penalty.5
The lack of transparency in theprocess makes deliberation onthese issues doubtful. In casesuch deliberation would takeplace, there is a likelihood that
it would not involve in-depth
research or discussion since
Minister Ogawa deemed a yearlong period for deliberation as
too long. Neither would thedeliberation stop executions inview of the repeated statementby Minister Ogawa that hewould perform his 'duty as
Justice Minister'.
Public Opinion
Government officials frequently
cite public opinion to justify thedeath penalty, and yet the fact
remains that the government

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
has never properly measured
the public opinion.
In February 2010, the Cabinet
Office released the results of an
opinion poll on the justicesystem. On the issue of death
penalty, respondents were asked
to choose one of the three
answers: 1. Death penalty
should be abolishedunconditionally; 2. In somecases, the death penalty cannot
be avoided; 3. I don't know/It
depends. 85.6 percent of the
respondents chose the second
option that saw death penalty as
unavoidable in “some cases.”Thus, there is no basis forclaiming that more than 85% of
the people actively supported
the death penalty.
More importantly, Japanesec i t i z e n s h ave n e ve r b e e nprovided with essential
information on the death
penalty system in Japan. Even
after then Minister Chiba
allowed the media to visit an
execution chamber at the Tokyo
Detention Center, almost all
information other than thenames and the detention placesof the executed people haveremained hidden to the public.6
Despite the recommendation
made by the United Nations
Human Rights Committee, theg ove r n m e n t h a s f a i l e d t odisclose necessary informationand has done nothing to "informthe public about the desirabilityof abolition [of death penalty]."
Disclosure of information
should be the precondition andthe first step in initiating public
discussion on the death penalty.
People would gradually advancethe level of discussion on thisissue if the government did not

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
have total control of relevant
information.
Lay Judge Trial and the Death
Penalty
Under the new Lay Judgesystem, introduced in May
2009, fourteen defendants havebeen sentenced to death. 7
Among them, two death
sentences have become final
due to withdrawal of appeal by
the defendants themselves,
while three sentences have been
upheld by the High Courts.
Despite the repeatedrecommendations made by theUnited Nations Committee
against Torture and the Human
Rights Committee, thegovernment of Japan still insiststhat mandatory appeal system is
not needed because mostdefendants exercise their right ofappeal. However, the fact thattwo out of the twelve people
tried at the lay judge courts did
not exercise their right of appeal
provides a compelling reason
f o r h av i n g t h e s y s t e m o fmandatory appeal.
A simple majority, with at least
one vote each from amongprofessional judges and lay
people respectively, is enoughto render a death sentence (andother punishments). Until thedeath penalty has beenabolished, unanimous verdictshould be absolutely necessary
for death sentences.
Human Rights Violations on
Death Row
Despite the repeatedrecommendations by United
Nations human rights bodies torespect the rights of death row

7

inmates, their rights are still
strictly restricted.
The Prison Law,8 as amended in
2006, provides that a death row
prisoner shall be detained in asingle cell and separated fromother prisoners day and night.
But the law allows, as an
exception, "mutual contacts
with other death row prisoners"
when they are deemed"advantageous [to the prisoners]
in light of the principle oftreatment prescribed inparagraph (1) of Article 32.9
However, the Ministry of Justiceadmits that such treatment has
never been allowed.
Contacts with people outsideprisons are also strictly limited.
Only three to five people areallowed to visit death row
inmates, while those who areallowed to exchange letters withthe prisoners are not necessarily
permitted to meet with theprisoners.
Meetings between prisoners andtheir legal representatives areusually done in the presence ofprison guards. On 27 January
2012, the Hiroshima High Court
ruled that a meeting between aprisoner and her/his lawyers fora retrial case without thepresence of prison guards wasfor the 'legitimate interest of theinmate sentenced to death' andunless special circumstances
exist, a guard's attendance atsuch a meeting should not beallowed. The government sought
to overturn this ruling byappealing to the Supreme Court,
where the case is currently
pending. Attendance of prison
guards at meetings between
lawyers and prisoners is still a
common practice.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
Th e i d e a u n d e r l y i n g t h e
exception to inhumanely
restrictive treatment is “tomaintain the peace of mind” ofthe prisoners as stipulated in
Article 32 of the new Prison
Law. The Ministry of Justice saysthat “maintaining the peace ofmind” should not be interpreted
as a tool for restricting
prisoners' rights, but should be
used to assist the prisoners. In
practice, however, “peace ofmind” still works as a strong
reason to restrict the prisoners'
rights, especially the right to be
in contact with people outside
the prison.
Conclusion
Recently, Japan failed to step
forward in the right direction,i.e., maintain a de-facto
moratorium on executions that
could bring the country to agree
to their ultimate abolition, by
hanging three inmates after
twenty months without
executions.
As far as the issue of the death
penalty is concerned, theattitude of the government ofJapan deserves the strongest
denunciation. And UPR process
is an absolutely precious
opportunity to convey
international voices to theJapanese society.
Now is the most crucial time forJapan to face the strong criticism
from the international
community. Voices from theworld, which tend to be ignored
by Japanese society, should be
conveyed to the government sothat they can change thegovernment's attitude towards
the death penalty.
This is an edited version of thesection on death penalty of the

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
Stakeholder's Information
Report for the 14th session of
the Working Group on the UPR(April 2012) entitled “Prison
and the Death Penalty inJapan,” submitted jointly byInternational Federation for
Human Rights (FIDH) and theCenter for Prisoners' Rights
Japan (CPR).
For further information, pleasecontact: Center for Prisoners'
Rights Japan (CPR), Raffine
Shinjuku #902, 1-36-5 Shinjuku,
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
160-0022; ph (813)5379-5055; fax (813)5379-5055;
e-mail:c p r @ c p r. j c a . a p c . o r g ;www.cpr.jca.apc.org/.

Endnotes
1 Other members are: Assistant
Vi c e - M i n i s t e r o f Ju s t i c e ,Director-General of the Criminal
Affairs Bureau, Director of theLegislative Division, Director of
the General Affairs Division of
the Bureau, Director-General of
the Correction Bureau, Directorof the General Affairs Division of
the Bureau, Director of the
Prison Service Division of the
Bureau, Director-General of theRehabilitation Bureau and Director of the General Affairs Division of the Bureau.
2 Minoru Matsutani, “Hiraoka
urges “active” debate on executions,” The Japan Times, 20 September 2011. Text available atwww.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20
110920f1.html.
3 M i n o r u M a t s u t a n i “ Th r e ehanged: executions are firstsince ‘10’,” The Japan Times, 30
March 2012. Text available atwww.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20
120330a1.html.
4 Press conference statement ofPrime Minister Yoshihiko Noda,

830 March 2012, Speeches andStatements by the Prime Minister,
www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/sta
tement/201203/30kaiken_e.html.
5 “Ministry of Justice's top officials
to hold non-disclosed death
penalty deliberations,” Mainichi
Shimbun, 10 April 2012.
6 Maiko Tagusari, ‘Death Penalty
in Japan’ (2010), East Asian Law
Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pages 93106.
7 As of 19 April 2012.
8 Act on Penal Detention Facilities
and Treatment of Inmates andDetainees. See full English version
atwww.japaneselawtranslation.go.j
p/law/detail_main?vm=&id=142.
For further information see “Reform of Penal Institutions,” atwww.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/issues/
issues06.html.
9 Article 32: Upon treatment of an
inmate sentenced to death, attention shall be paid to help
him/her maintain peace of mind.
Te x tavailable
atwww.japaneselawtranslation.go.j
p/law/detail_main?vm=&id=142.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68

Map Ta Phut: Thailand’s Minamata?
HURIGHTS OSAKA

F

earing the possibility of
another leak of toxic
chemicals, villagers from Map
Ta Phut in Rayong province
sued in early 2009 thegovernment of Thailand anddemanded the demarcation ofareas where the petrochemicalindustries could be located. In
M a r c h o f t h a t y e a r, t h eAdministrative Court ruled that
Map Ta Phut was a “pollution
control zone” that obliged the“authorities to measure soil andwater quality regularly and tocome up with a plan to reduce
pollution if [found to be] too
h i g h .” 1 I n o r d e r t o h o l daccountable those who violate
the environmental law, thevillagers and the People’s
Eastern Network filed anotherlawsuitbeforetheAdministrative Court to stop the
expansion of the industries. The
court decided in September
2009 to suspend seventy-six
projects due to absence of
health impact assessment
required under Article 67 of the2007 Constitution. The decision
was appealed to the Supreme
A d m i n i s t ra t ive C o u r t t h a t
decided on 2 December 2009
to maintain the suspension of
sixty-five projects, but allowed
eleven projects2 to proceed.3
Th e c o m p a n i e s a f f e c t e dincluded “Bayer, the German
pharmaceutical giant; Aditya
Birla Chemicals, an Indian
conglomerate; BlueScope Steelof Australia; and two dozen
companies belonging to[ Pe t r o l e u m Au t h o r i t y o f

Thailand] PTT, the Thai energy
giant.”4
The court ruling shocked thebusiness community in
Thailand. The Ministry ofIndustry of Thailand estimatedthe losses that might have arisen
from the suspension of the
projects at a little over nineteen
billion US dollars.5
The Thai government appealed
the ruling and got the court in2010 to allow seventy-four
projects to proceed, while
revoking the operating licensesof two projects that were
included in a government list of“ h a r m f u l a c t iv i t i e s .” 6 Th egovernment also ordered a studyof the environmental problem,
through the National
Environment Committee headed
by former Prime Minister AnandPa n y a r a c h u n , t h a t f o u n deighteen types of industrial
projects that might harm theenvironment. But this list was
subsequently shortened toeleven types of industrial
projects deemed harmful to theenvironment and subject toenvironmental and healthimpact assessments.7
Pollution and Health Concerns
A 2010 analysis by Silpakorn
Universityofthe“environmental and healthimpact studies” made by thecompanies concerned foundthat thirty-five of the seventy-six
industrial plants “suspended [in2009] in Map Ta Phut industrial
estate [would] use hazardous

9

chemicals that [could] cause
several ailments.” Twenty-one
plants would use carcinogenic
substances in their production
process. Other toxic substances
to be used would be harmful tothe respiratory system (thirty-four
projects), neurological system(twenty-four projects),
reproductive system (tenprojects), foetus (four projects),
blood system (eighteen projects),
liver and renal (twenty-fiveprojects), skin and eyes (thirtythree projects).8 Since Map Ta
Phut has been declared apollution control zone, pollution
emissions must be limited.9
The serious health and pollution
problems in Rayong province
were not new. Several studies
had shown the rise of cancer
cases in the province many
years before the court cases
came about. One report
explains:10
Thailand's National Cancer
Institute found in 2003 that
rates of cervical, bladder,breast, liver, nasal, stomach,throat and blood cancers werehighest in Rayong Province,
where Map Ta Phut and otherindustrial zones are located. A
study led by Italian researchers
and released in 2007 found thatpeople living near Map Ta Phut
had 65 percent higher levels ofgenetic damage to blood cells
than people in the sameprovince who lived in rural
areas. Such cell damage, which
is a possible precursor tocancer, was 120 percent higher

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
for refinery workers than forresidents of Rayong Province's
rural communities.

Petrochemical Industrial Zone
Map Ta Phut was a swampy
area with about eight thousandpeople in the late 1970s. But
with industrial development
under the Eastern Seaboard
Development Plan from early
1980s, Map Ta Phut became atown with the number ofresidents increasing to 36,000
and over 100,000 migrant
workers by 1992. In 1997,
serious cases of health problems
started to occur, symbolized by
the case of students andteachers in Map Ta Phut Pan
Pittayakarn School who were
hospitalized for inhaling toxic
air.11
The industrial zone of Map Ta
Phut includes a port that is now
considered to be a “highvolume, high-capacity industrial
port serving the area's heavy
industries.” Being Thailand's
biggest industrial port, it was
built to accommodate a wide
range of vessels, equipments,
and cargoes, and to boost thecountry's export capacity.12
Japanese Companies
In early 2010, Japanesecompanies raised concerns
about the Map Ta Phut court
decision and the lingering lackof resolution of the issues. The
Japanese Chamber ofCommerce (JCC) warned about
the possibility of having theoperations of Japanesecompanies transferred to othercountries due to the thenprevailing situation.13
About one-third of the JCC'smore than one thousand three

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
hundred corporate members in
Thailand were affected by the
Map Ta Phut court rulings.
These companies operate in thechemical, steel, construction
and financial sectors.14
In response, the Eastern
Peoples' Network and residents
in the Map Ta Phut vicinity
submitted a letter to theJapanese Embassy, calling on
Japanese investors to stoppressing the Thai government tor e s o l ve t h e M a p Ta P h u t
problem within five months.
The coordinator of Eastern
Peoples' Network criticized thestance of the Japanesecompanies considering Japan’s
experience in industrial
pollution, particularly the
Minamata case.15
In January 2010, the Minister tothe Prime Minister’s Office ofThailand visited the Minister forInternal Affairs andCommunications of Japan to
explain efforts to resolve the
Map Ta Phut problem. In March
2010, the Thai Finance Minister
led a high-level government
delegation in a visit to Japan to“explain the strategy in dealing
with the Map Ta Phut problem
to the Japanese public andprivate sectors.”16 In July of thatyear, the then Thai Prime
Minister (Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva)
met the members of theJapanese business community
in Thailand and explained what
the government was doing on
the matter. He stressed theprospect of resolving the Map
Ta Phut issue in the next fourmonths (including theresolution of court cases).17
Japanese Support
During the 1982-1993 period,
Japan provided loans for the10

implementation of the Eastern
Seaboard Development
Program. The loans were meant
to develop industrial estates,
ports, roads and highway,
railway, water reservoir andp i p e l i n e , e t c . Th e l o a n s
recognized the strategic valueof the Eastern Seaboard in theover-all economic developmentof Thailand. Several of the loans
involved projects in Map Ta
Phut area, which was planned
as the place for heavy chemicalindustry.18
A 2 0 0 0 e va l u a t i o n s t u dy
sponsored by Japan Bank forI n t e r n a t i o n a l C o o p e ra t i o n(JBIC)19 noted the need to lookat measures for limiting
environmental impact
particularly at the Map Ta Phutarea. A 1988 survey of theenvironmental condition did
not reveal serious problems dueto the modern technology usedby the industrial firms in thearea. But at that time, the“current primary environmental
issue [was] the odor which has
attracted attention in Thailand,in connection with complaints
from residents around thecomplex made in the past twoto three years.” The complaints
started to come out in 1996.
The 1997 case of students andteachers in a school in Map Ta
Phut area, cited earlier, sufferingfrom the industrial odor became
the main example of the
problem. The Thai government
took countermeasures tominimize the odor, according to
the study.
The Issue
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section
67 (Community Rights) of the2007 Constitution of Thailand
provides the following:20

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
Any project or activity which
may seriously affect the qualityof the environment, natural
resources and biologicaldiversity shall not be permitted,
unless its impacts on the qualityof the environment and on
health of the people in thecommunities have been studied
and evaluated and consultation
with the public and interested
parties have been organised,and opinions of an independent
organisation, consisting ofrepresentatives from private
environmental and healthorganisations and from higher
education institutions providings t u d i e s i n t h e fi e l d o fenvironment, natural resourcesor health, have been obtained
prior to the operation of suchproject or activity.
The right of a community to sue
a government agency, Stateagency, State enterprise, local
government organisation orother State authority which is ajuristic person to perform theduties under this section shallbe protected.

The local residents, the courts
and the government have allused Section 67 of theConstitution.
This constitutional provision is
novel in recognizing the right ofthe community to sue thegovernment and other Stateagencies. The residents of Map
Ta Phut used this constitutional
provision to protect their right tohealth and sound environment.
The Map Ta Phut case is acomplicated issue for a numberof reasons: a. It involves heavy
chemical industries
concentrated in one region(Eastern Seaboard region) which
are by nature high-risk
industries; b. It is part of a major

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
project of the government thatinvolves major domestic andforeign companies, requires
huge financial investment, andtherefore has huge role in theo v e r- a l l e c o n o m y o f t h ecountry; c. It involves
documented health problems
suffered by the residents aroundthe factories.
The statement made by Anand
Panyarachun, former Prime
Minister of Thailand and head of
the National Environment
Committee cited earlier, toforeign investors in the Map Ta
Phut industrial zone captures toa large extent what the affected
people want to say:21
Yo u c a n n o t e q u a t e y o u r[financial] book losses with theloss of lives and thedeterioration of the health of
the individuals. They bear nocomparison.

The main issue is: Can thehealth of the people and theprotection of the environment
be guaranteed in maintaining ahuge petrochemical industrialzone?
It seems that the industrial
pollution and the consequent
health problems (not to mention
the documented adverse effects
of industrial pollution on theland and water resources in thearea) cannot be denied.
The constitutional provision oncommunity rights, the action of
the local residents to protect
their rights, and the court
decisions (which may not resolve
the problems completely) areessential in preventing thesituation from turning into a
Minamata-like situation.

Next scene
Strong explosions preceded thefire at the Bangkok Synthetics
Co. (BST) factory in the Map Ta
Phut industrial estate on 5 May
2012. Twelve workers died,while one hundred twenty-nineothers were injured.22 Hundredsof residents in the area
evacuated.23 The government
ordered the closure of thefactory, while other factories in
the industrial estate were
instructed to recheck theirsecurity systems since morethan half of them use chemicals.
The Thai Prime Minister visitedthe victims and the factory area.
She met with “relevant agencies
at the Map Ta Phut industrial
estate office where she ordered
the committee to be set up tolook for toxic residue in theenvironment. Workers and thepeople around the factory
feared the leak of chemicals andfled the area. The governmenth a s wa r n e d t h a t i n h a l i n gchemical toluene, suspected ofleaking from the factory, would
be fatal.24
This recent industrial accident
raises once more the question:
Is a Minamata-like situation in
Map Ta Phut preventable?
In case a new industrial zone
arises in rural Dawei in southern
B u r m a / M y a n m a r, t h e s eindustries might relocate there.
But then this would-be
Southeast Asia's largest
industrial complex (dubbed"new global gateway of IndoChina") would become anothercandidate for a new Minamata.

Endnotes
1 Thomas Fuller, “In Industrial
Thailand, Health and Business

11

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC

2

3

4
5

6
7

Concerns Collide,” New YorkTimes, December 18, 2009, in
www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/
world/asia/19thai.html?
_r=2&emc=eta1.
The eleven projects allowed toproceed included projects are theclean energy and product quality
enhancement programmes ofRayong Refinery, gas recycling
enhancement done by HMC
Polymers, clean energy, oilva p o u r- c o n t r o l l i n g - u n i t
installations at Star Petroleum
Refining, oil-vapour-controllingunit installations at PTT
Aromatics and Refining, air
pollution control improvementsof Indorama Petrochem, and thechlorine vaporizer and wet
scrubber installation of Aditya
Berla Chemicals (Thailand). “Thaicourt suspends 65 industrial
projects,” The ASEAN Affairs, at
w w w. a s e a n a f f a i r s . c o m /t h a i l a n d _ n e w s / i nve s t m e n t /thai_court_suspends_65_industri
al_projects.
The Solving of Environmental
Problems at Map Ta Phut inRayong, Foreign Office, The
Government Public Relations
Department, in http://
thailand.prd.go.th/
view_inside.php?id=4604.
Oranan Paweewun and Leigh
Murray, “Thai Court Keeps
Projects Frozen on Environmental
Concerns,” Wall Street Journal,
available at
http://
online.wsj.com/article/
SB125974924793572579.html.
Fuller, op. cit.
Suttinee Yuvejwattana andSupunnabul Suwannakij, “ThaiCourt Lifts Ban on Industrial
Projects Halted on Environment
Grounds,” 2 September 2010 atwww.bloomberg.com/news/
2010-09-02/thai-court-lifts-banon-industrial-projects-halted-onenvironment-grounds.html.
Ibid.
PM visits Map Ta Phut to review
progress in solutions toenvironmental problem,w w w. m c o t . n e t / c f c u s t o m /cache_page/132374.html. See
also Powering Up - Industry andcommunities go head to head,

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
Business Report Thailand, Issue#1, October 2010, available inwww.businessreportthailand.com/maptaphut-industrycommunit-1279. See also Malini
H a r i h a ra n , “ M a p Ta P h u t
concerns refuse to fade away,” atwww.icis.com/blogs/asianchemical-connections/2010/09/
map-ta-phut-concerns-refuseto.html.
8 Apinya Wipatayotin, “Industries
c o m e c l e a n o n h a z a r d s ,”Bangkok Post, 11 October 2010,www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/200791/
chemical-health-hazards-at-mapta-phut.
9 Ibid.
10 Fuller, op. cit.
11 Tara Buakamsri, Denny Larson,
Faikham Harnnarong, Penchom
Saetang, Walaiporn Mooksuwan,
Thailand's Air: Poison Cocktail Exposing Unsustainable
Industries and the Case forCommunity Right To Know andPrevention (Bangkok: Campaign
for Alternative Industry Network,
Greenpeace Southeast Asia,
Global Community Monitor,
2005), pages 23, 25.
12 Port of Map Ta Phut, World Port
Source,atwww.worldportsource.com/ports/
THA_Port_of_Map_Ta_Phut_345
5.php.
13 “ J a p a n e s e W a r n o f D i r e
Outcome Again,” Bangkok Post.
29 January 2010 www.bdothaitax.com/bdo/in-the-news/79.
14 Ibid.
15 “Japanese investors asked to stoppressing Thailand for Map Ta Phut
solution,” in www.mcot.net/
cfcustom/cache_page/22626.html.
16 “Minister Satit Wongnongtaey
Reassures Japan about Thailand's
Efforts to Resolve the Map Ta
Phut Problem,” Government
Public Relations Department, 18
January 2010, at http://
thailand.prd.go.th/
view_inside.php?id=4711. “Thaidelegation to visit Japan on Map
Ta Phut progress, National News
Bureau of Thailand,” Public
Relations Department, 19
Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 0 , a t h t t p : / /12thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?
id=255302190016. “Financeminister assures Japan ofThailand's ability to cope withrallies,” Thailand Business News,
March 2010, at http://thailandbusiness-news.com/business/
11179-finance-minister-assuresjapan-of-thailands-ability-tocope-with-rallies
17 "Prime Minister meets Japanese
Investors," 14 July 2010, at http://
media.thaigov.go.th/pageconfig/
viewcontent/viewcontent1e.asp?
pageid=472&directory=1942&co
ntents=46732.
18 Kenichi Ariga and Shinya Ejima,“Post-Evaluation for ODA Loan
Project - Kingdom of Thailand,
Overall Impact of Eastern
Seaboard Development
Program,” JBIC Review No.2
November 2000 pp 81~115,
available at www.jbic.go.jp/en/
research/report/jbic-review/pdf/
report02_4.pdf
19 Ibid.
20 Unofficial translation of theConstitution of the Kingdom Of
Thailand, B.E. 2550 (2007),
Foreign Law Bureau, Office Of
The Council Of State, available atwww.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/
2007/1.html#C05P08.
21 “101 East: Toxic Thailand,”AlJazeera. This report was madeavailable by AlJazeera, at
w w w. yo u t u b e . c o m / wa t ch ?
v=OfHiaAThDPU&NR=1&featur
e=endscreen.
22 “Map Ta Phut scoured forpollutants,” Bangkok Post, 5 May
2012, available at:w w w. b a n g k o k p o s t . c o m /breakingnews/292101/map-taphut-scoured-for-pollutants.
23 “Blaze at chemical factory inThailand kills 12,” Herald Sun, 6
May 2012, available at:www.heraldsun.com.au/news/
more-news/blaze-at-chemicalfactory-in-thailand-kills-12/storye6frf7lf-1226348063704.
24 “Chemical explosion, fireprompts
committee
appointment,” The Southeast
Asian Times, 9 May 2012,
available
at:www.southeastasiantimes.com/.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68

Human Rights Center for Thailand
Jefferson R. PlantillaT

he Ministry of Justice ofThailand adopted a plan toestablish a human rights centeras part of the implementation of
the second National Human
R i g h t s P l a n o f Th a i l a n d(2009-2013). The planned
human rights center would havethe following objectives: (1) To
create a database (electronic
version) on human rights
information covering all typesof relevant information ands t a t i s t i c s ; ( 2 ) To c r e a t e“knowledge management
space” (a place that provides
human rights information in
print, digital and other forms topeople, and also a place forlearning human rights) for those
who are interested in humanrights; (3) To conduct humanrights training for relevant
stakeholders; (4) To compile
lessons learned from related
agencies; and (5) To exchange
information, knowledge andexperiences among thoseworking on human rights
around the world.
In order to understand how
existing human rights centers
operate, the Ministry of Justiceof Thailand organized a two-day
international seminar on thesubject on 22-23 March 2012
in Bangkok.1 Representatives ofthe following human rights
centers attended the seminar:
Africa - Legal & Human Rights
Centre in Tanzania (LHRC), Gulf
region - United Nations Human
R i g h t s Tra i n i n g a n dDocumentation Center forSouth-West Asia and Arab
Region (Doha Centre), Europe -Norwegian Centre for Human
Rights (NCHR), Southeast Asia Human Rights Resource Centre(HRRC), Thailand - Center for
Human Rights and Social
Development Studies (CHRSD),
the Philippines - Philippine
Human Rights Information
Center (PhilRights), Japan - AsiaP a c i fi c H u m a n R i g h t s
Information Center (HURIGHTSOSAKA), and Australia - Castan
Centre for Human Rights Law(Castan Centre).
Human Rights Center
Experiences
The human rights centers
represented in the seminar havevaried experiences due to thedifferent mandates, objectives
and target groups. They fallunder the following types ofhuman rights centers:a. University-based centers NCHR, Castan Centre,
CHRSD, and HRRC;
b. Non-governmental centers LHRC and PhilRights
c. Government-supported
centersa. Local government, atleast partially –HURIGHTS OSAKA
b. I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l(United Nations) – DohaCentre.
These human rights centers
cover different target groups
a n d p r ov i d e a va r i e t y o fservices:a. Target groups
1. marginalized sectors

13

2. n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a lworkersandorganizations
3. national human rights
institutions
4. s u b r e g i o n a l h u m a nrights bodies
5. academic community
6. governments, and
7. U n i t e d N a t i o n sagencies, programs andfunds.
b. Services
1. legal assistance
2. education (formal andnon-formal)
3. r e s e a r c handdocumentation
4. information dissemination
5. law reform
6. consultancy service, and
7. i n t e r n a t i o n a lcooperation.
Among the university-based
centers, two (NCHR, Castan
Centre) are linked to faculty oflaw/law school, while the rest
have broader mandate. HRRC isa regional structure (network ofuniversities in Southeast Asia)and thus functions mainly toaddress subregional concerns.
The same is true of NCHR,
which was established as both
university-based institution anda national human rights
institution. However, NCHR
will cease to function as anational human rights
institution in view of stricter
rules of the United Nations
Human Rights Council.
Among the non-governmental
centers, one is a legal
assistance/resource center that

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
covers human rights issues(LHRC) and another is a
research and training arm of a
network of human rights
organizations (PhilRights).
While having a special
consultative status as a nongovernmental organization with
the United Nations’ Economic,
Social and Cultural Council(ECOSOC), HURIGHTS OSAKA
works closely with the local
governments in Osaka in viewof the support they haveprovided in its establishment.
The Doha Center, on the other
hand, is unique for being asubregional center of the United
Nations (Office of the HighCommissioner for Human
Rights) for the Arab region(covering part of Africa, wholeof West Asia and part of SouthAsia).
It is notable that despite
differences in mandates,
structures, and target groups,
these human rights centers arelargely similar on two programs:
human rights promotion (fromeducation to policy
development), and research.
Many of them also operate at
subregional, regional andinternational levels (NCHR,
HRRC, CHRSD, andHURIGHTS OSAKA).
Seminar Discussions
During the seminar, the humanrights center representatives
raised a number of issues
regarding the establishment of ahuman rights center in Thailand.
They stressed the need to define
clearly the distinction between
the planned governmentsupported human rights centerand the existing National
Human Rights Commission of

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68
Thailand (NHRCT), which
would facilitate better
cooperation between them. Thisissue has already been noted by
the Ministry of Justice ofThailand in its 2011 report on
the implementation of thenational human rights action
p l a n s .2 Th e r e p o r t c i t e scooperation between
government institutions andother institutions including
NHRCT as one of the challenges
being faced. The NHRCT has
also stressed in its Strategic Planof the National Human Rights
C o m m i s s i o n o f Th a i l a n d(2002-2007) the need forcooperation with relevant
government agencies that are
involved in human rights work
(as mandated by the 2000
National Human Rights Policy
Master Plan of Action).
Th e h u m a n r i g h t s c e n t e r
representatives also cited theneed for the planned humanrights center to have thecapacity to do research anddisseminate human rights
information in an objective
manner. This can fall under the“neutral” character of a humanrights center, which means
being focused solely on
pursuing the protection,
promotion and realization ofhuman rights as defined byinternational human rights
instruments.
This also implies that theplanned human rights center
should be guaranteed access torelevant information ingovernment records, andauthorized to use them in its
work.
An overly broad policy oftreating government data as
confidential would restrict thecapacity of the planned humanrights center to assess the14

s i t u a t i o n i n a n o b j e c t iv emanner.
Necessarily, the planned humanrights center should be able tocriticize the government basedon data analysis andinternational human rights
standards.
Other issues raised by thehuman rights center
representatives relate to thefollowing:a. Capacity of the planned
human rights center togather existing resources(information, materials,
expertise, etc.) and tomobilize them in its
activities;
b. Role of the planned humanrights center in increasing
the capacity of the judiciary,
law enforcement officials,
members of parliament andtheir staff, and other actors
in applying human rights
standards in their respective
areas of work;c. Need for a continuingemphasisontheinternational human rights
commitments of thegovernment and the stresson universality and otherprinciples of human rights.
The Director General, Mr.
Pithaya Jinawat, of the
Department of Rights andLiberties Protection, the main
agency tasked with the
preparation for theestablishment of the planned
human rights center, presented asummary of the presentations
and discussions in the seminar.
He noted that such a humanrights center should havehuman rights database, be aknowledge-based resource
center, be useful for humanrights policy development andFOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC

JUNE 2012 VOLUME 68

work, and protect the humanrights of both Thais and nonThais.

Jefferson R. Plantilla is the Chief
Researcher of HURIGHTSOSAKA.

He noted the need to further
consult stakeholders on the plan
to establish a human rights
center.

For further information, pleasecontact HURIGHTS OSAKA.

While there is still much todiscuss regarding the nature,
mandate, powers and functionsof the planned human rights
center, the plan itself constitutes
a move in the right direction as
far as human rights areconcerned.

Detention in Japan(Continued from page 4)
Endnotes
1 The Universal Periodic Review
process involves theconsideration of information
submitted by the UN MemberState involved, the OHCHR (forUN human rights treaty
bodies), and “other relevant
stakeholders”. See Universal
Periodic Review
Documentation,inwww.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/U P R / P a g e s /Documentation.aspx.
2 Compilation Prepared by theO f fi c e o f t h e H i g hCommissioner for Human
Rights, In Accordance with
Paragraph 15(B) of the Annex
to Human Rights Council
Resolution 5/1 - Japan, A/HRC/
WG.6/2/JPN/2, 8 April 2008,
page 6.
3 CAT/C/JPN/CO/1, para. 10.
Originally note 72 of the UNsummary document.
4 CAT/C/JPN/CO/1, para. 18.
Originally note 74 of the UNsummary document.
5 Compilation, op. cit.

Endnotes
1 International Seminar on
Human Rights: “Human Rights
Center: Possibility and Way
Forward,” held at the Rama
Gardens Hotel, Bangkok.
2 Department of Rights andLiberties Protection,

6 CAT/C/JPN/CO/1, para. 17.
Originally note 73 of the UNsummary document.
7 Compilation, op. cit., page 7.
8 CAT/C/JPN/CO/1, para. 15.
Originally note 75 of the UNsummary document.
9 CCPR/C/79/Add.102, para. 23.
Originally note 76 of the
document.
10 Report of the Working Groupon the Universal Periodic
Review - Japan, A/HRC/8/44,
30 May 2008, page 4.
11 CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5.
12 Para 7, “Substitute detention
system and article 14 of theCovenant,” CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5/
Add.1, 13 April 2010.
13 Compilation, op. cit., page 8.
14 CAT/C/JPN/CO/1, para. 21.
Originally note 90 of the UNsummary document.
15 CAT/C/JPN/CO/1, para. 25.
Originally note 91 of the UNsummary document.
16 CAT/C/JPN/CO/1, para. 23.
Originally note 92 of the UNsummary document.
17 Summary Prepared By The
O f fi c e o f t h e H i g hCommissioner for Human
Rights, In Accordance With
Paragraph 15(C) of the Annex
To Human Rights Council
Resolution 5/1, A/HRC/WG.
6/2/JPN/3, 3 April 2008.

15

Development of the National
Human Rights Plans of Thailand(Bangkok, Ministry of Justice,undated), page 26.
3 The 2002-2007 Strategic Plan of
the NHRCT discusses therelationship between this planand the National Human Rights
Plan (2001-2005), and the
National Economic and Social
Development Plan (NESD Plan)(2002-2006). See The Strategic
Plan of the National Human
Rights Commission of Thailand(2002-2007), page 39.

18 Ibid., page 4.
19 The National Police Agency ofJapan published in March 2009a report on its verification ofvideotaped investigations done
during the September 2008 February 2009 period. But thereport is being criticized forjustifying partial videotaping ofinvestigation “without giving
any consideration to theh a r m f u l i n fl u e n c e s o finterrogations taking placebehind closed doors.” See
Opinion on "Verification on
Experimental Audio/Video
Recording of Interrogations at
Police", available atwww.nichibenren.or.jp/en/
document/opinionpapers/
20090717.html.
20 Summary, op.cit., page 4.
21 J a p a n Fe d e r a t i o n o f B a r
Associations, Opinion Paper
regarding the Japanese
Government's Comments on
the Concluding Observationsof the Human Rights
Committee, January 22, 2010,
page 6.Available atwww.ccprcentre.org/doc/HRC/
Japan/JFBA_Japan94.pdf.
22 Summary, op.cit., pages 4-5.
23 Ibid.
24 JFBA, op. cit., page 18.
25 Report of Working Group, op.
cit., page 18.

HURIGHTS OSAKA Calendar

DE
AU
OSAKA

ST
PO

BUR
E

HURIGHTS OSAKA will be holding the second meeting of educators from China, Hong Kong, Japan,
south Korea, and Taiwan to finalize the content of the training resource material on human rights
education in the school systems in Northeast Asia. The meeting will be held on 1-2 September 2012 at
HURIGHTS OSAKA office.

JAPON

TAXE PERCUEPRINTED MATTERAIR MAIL

May be opened for inspection by the postal service.

HURIGHTS OSAKA, inspired by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formally opened in December 1994. lt has the following goals: 1) to promote human rights
in the Asia- Pacific region; 2) to convey Asia-Pacific perspectives on human rights to the international
community; 3) to ensure inclusion of human rights principles in Japanese international cooperative activities; and 4) to raise human rights awareness among the people in Japan in meeting its growing internationalization. In order to achieve these goals, HURIGHTS OSAKA has activities such as Information Handling, Research and Study, Education and Training, Publications, and Consultancy Services.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is designed to highlight significant issues and activities relating to human rights in
the Asia-Pacific. Relevant information and articles can be sent to HURIGHTS OSAKA for inclusion in thenext editions of the newsletter.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is edited by Osamu Shiraishi, Director of HURIGHTS OSAKA.
Sender: HURIGHTS OSAKA(Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center)
8F, Takasagodo Bldg., 1-7-7 Nishihonmachi, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0005 Japan
Phone: (816) 6543-7002
Fax: (816) 6543-7004
E-mail: webmail@hurights.or.jp Web site: http://www.hurights.or.jp

HURIGHTS OSAKA