Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF JAPAN
10 May 2007
Share
Committee against Torture CAT/07/16/Rev.1
10 May 2007
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Japan to questions raised by Committee Experts on the initial report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Wednesday, 9 May, the delegation, which was led by Tetsuya Kimura, Director of the Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that interrogation and other investigation activities were permitted in accordance within a regular schedule for meals and bedtime. Moreover, interrogations were not to be carried out at night, unless there were pressing reasons to do so. Regarding the so-called "secret handbook of interrogation" methods, that was actually the memoir of an experienced investigator setting out his personal experience, advice and opinions about his job. It was not an official manual in any way.
On the issue of videotaping, the delegation stressed that interrogation was indispensable in Japan to come to the truth of the case. Videotaping could bring about many problems, because it became more difficult to take up private issues concerned and could cause a suspect to become more reluctant to express himself. There were strong pressures on the police to produce results, and videotaping the interrogation threatened that ability. Nevertheless, Japan was very seriously engaged in reviewing the possibility of using audio or video recordings during interrogations.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Japan towards the end of the session on Friday, 18 May 2007.
As one of the 144 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Japan is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee next reconvenes in public, at 3 p.m. on Friday, 11 May, it will hear the answers of Poland to the questions posed by Experts on Thursday, 10 May.
Response of Japan
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 9 May, the delegation of Japan, addressing concerns of the scope of what constituted a public official or a person acting in a public capacity in terms of provisions against torture, confirmed that, among others, those terms included prison officials, immigration officials and self-defence forces.
Complaints of torture against police officers were pursued through an administrative procedure. That procedure provided for the detention of suspects and all the other procedural guarantees and measures in a criminal procedure. The Public Prosecutor decided as to whether an indictment should be brought in such a case.
On the issue of the two extradition requests from Peru for ex-President Fujimori, Japan had felt that the indictment had not presented sufficient prima facie evidence to extradite Mr. Fujimori, the delegation said. Then, in 2005, Mr. Fujimori had left the country, thus pre-empting Japan's taking a final decision on his extradition.
Regarding accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention, the delegation noted that the Government was currently reviewing the possibility of setting up the national monitoring mechanism required by the Protocol, as well as the need for any revisions to Japanese legislation to conform with the Protocol.
With respect to the situation of the "comfort women", the delegation first noted that Japan had acceded to the Convention against Torture in 1999. The Convention’s provisions were not applicable retroactively and therefore did not apply to the actions in question. Moreover, Japan had addressed in good faith the provisions for reparations with regard to the Second World War, under the San Francisco agreement, among others, and had fulfilled its legal obligations in that regard and settled all outstanding issues, including that of the comfort women. Following a study on the situation of the comfort women that had been undertaken several years ago, the Japanese Government had issued a statement expressing the Government's sincere apologies and remorse, and those apologies had been offered several times. The policy of the Japanese Government in that regard had not changed. Moreover, financial compensation had been paid to some former comfort women and the Government had implemented medical and other support projects to address their condition. Furthermore, the Japanese Prime Minister himself had directly sent his apologies to the comfort women.
When a case was transferred to the Prosecutor by the judicial police, if the Prosecutor wished to keep the suspect in detention, he had to apply to a judge for a detention order. The maximum detention period was 10 days, which could be extended a further 10 days at the Public Prosecutor's request. Citing statistics for 2005, the delegation said that the arrest rate had been 33.2 per cent, 29.8 per cent of whom were detained. Of the detainees, 43.9 per cent were detained for 10 days or less.
Suspects in custody before indictment could have access to defence counsel, and defence counsel could be appointed by the court under certain circumstances.
In terms of the "substitute prisons" or detention in police detention facilities, that practice was used because it was known that detention regimes in police cells prevented the violation of the detainees’ rights, the delegation affirmed. Also, where there was a risk of destruction of evidence or tampering with the investigation of the case, such a detention could be ordered. In addition, such detentions were granted where it was considered that the investigation would not take a long time, and it was therefore not desirable to transfer the suspect to a prison cell further away.
Interrogation and other investigation activities were permitted in accordance within a regular schedule for meals and bedtime, the delegation said. Moreover, interrogations were not to be carried out at night, unless there were pressing reasons to do so. Regarding the so-called "secret handbook of interrogation", that was actually the memoir of an experienced investigator setting out his personal experience, advice and opinions about his job. It was not an official manual in any way.
The delegation underscored that both the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure had preventive provisions to ensure that forced confessions were prohibited. In addition, the burden of proof was on the prosecutor concerning whether or not the confession was obtained voluntarily or involuntarily. To prevent excessive reliance on confessions, article 8 of the Constitution provided that no one could be convicted in cases where his own confession, whether made in open court or not, was the only evidence against him.
On the issue of videotaping, the delegation stressed that interrogation was indispensable in Japan to come to the truth of the case. Videotaping could bring about many problems, because it became more difficult to take up private issues concerned and could cause a suspect to become more reluctant to express himself. There were strong pressures on the police to produce results, and videotaping the interrogation threatened that ability. Nevertheless, Japan was very seriously engaged in reviewing the possibility of using audio or video recordings during interrogations.
Regarding the Herald Tribune article, which discussed a case of alleged vote buying, the delegation recalled that for 13 indictments, 12 defendants had been found not guilty. (One of the suspects had died during the course of the investigation.) There had been no fabrication of facts as asserted in the article, or interrogation under pressure. The court decision had been based on evidence produced. It was found that the six confessions had been done on a voluntary basis. Ultimately, the court in its ruling said that there were alibis for the defendants.
In the Saga Prefecture case, in which three women had been murdered, it was true that there had been long hours of investigation, and that had been pointed out by the court in its decision. Depending on the gravity of the case, it was difficult to reduce the hours of investigation, the delegation stressed. However, the sex, age and heath of the suspect had to be taken into consideration in conducting police interrogations.
In the case of the man who had been falsely imprisoned for two years and nine months in the Yokohama Prefecture, that was indeed regrettable. However, the delegation said it was true that the suspect had freely confessed before the trial was brought.
The high rate of conviction in Japan was not owing to forced confessions, the delegation countered. There were strict screening rules for bringing indictments that meant that cases were not brought unless the case was clear.
Gags were only used in police detention facilities, where protection cells were not available, when detainees did not follow officials' directions to stop shouting, and was only used by the order of the detention manager, and taking the health conditions of the detainee into consideration. Arresting ropes of over 3 millimetres in diameter were used in cases where there was a risk that the suspect would escape, or cause injury to property or to himself, the delegation said.
Single cell treatment was used for those inmates who refused to work or who had problems socializing with other inmates. The delegation said that it was possible to keep an inmate in a single cell for a long time period, but the authorities tried to encourage inmates to leave that regime and transferred prisoners to other accommodations as soon as possible.
Regarding sexual violence in prisons, the delegation said any cases that arose were addressed as quickly as possible, and cited some examples. In the Toyohashi branch of Nagoya Prison, in September 2003, a prison official had been found guilty of having conducted illicit sexual intercourse with a prisoner. Following an administrative review, the official had been dismissed. Moreover, a criminal prosecution brought had ended in the official's conviction to a prison sentence of three years. In September 2004, a Fukuoka prison official who had forced a female prisoner to strip naked twice was dismissed following an administrative review. However, as the victim had not wanted to press a criminal action, no criminal prosecution had been undertaken.
In terms of oversight for the complaint procedure for prisoners, there was a special board that reviewed the complaints. The secretariat of the special board was within the Ministry of Justice, but to guarantee separation from the Corrections Bureau, it was placed in the Minister's Secretariat, the delegation said.
Regarding the composition of the mobile teams of citizens that monitored conditions in detention centres, the delegation said that the Correctional Administrative Reform Council had recommended that the teams consist of citizens from the region, including lawyers, doctors or members of local government. Recommendations from public and private organizations were canvassed, including local bar and medical organizations. Members were to be of high moral standing.
Stays in protection rooms could be ordered for up to 72 hours. However, if necessary, the warden of the prison could renew that order for a further 48 hours if he deemed it appropriate. There was no limit for how many times the stay could be renewed. However, a doctor had to review the medical status of the detainee for further renewals. The delegation had no figures on how many prisoners were kept in such rooms, or for how long, nor had any studies been undertaken on the effectiveness of placing prisoners in protection rooms.
On the death penalty, and the practice of hanging in Japan, the delegation said there was no consensus that such punishment was inhumane. Regarding prisoners on death row, and long confinements in solitary cells, it was the practice in Japan to confine prisoners sentenced to the death penalty in solitary cells. It was true that those confinements were often long, for procedural reasons.
Prisoners on death row were informed that their sentence would be carried out on the day of their execution. If they were informed earlier, it could destabilize the prisoner, the delegation said.
Turning to refugee issues, the delegation said refugees who could not be immediately deported were kept in detention facilities. However, if it was found that such a detention would be unduly long, provisional release was possible.
With regard to immigration centres, complaints could be lodged with the director of the centre, and it was possible to appeal that decision by a complaint before the Minister of Justice. Since that procedure had been instituted, there had been 167 complaints, 63 cases going all the way to the Minister of Justice. It was found that there was a reason for complaint in one case, however, it did not relate to violence committed by officials.
Turning to conditions in psychiatric hospitals, the delegation noted that mental hospitals had to make periodic reports to the Ministry of Justice on the condition of patients. Those working in private mental hospitals were not public officials, but in case of false committals, the hospitals had to comply with Ministry of Justice standards, thus ensuring appropriate consideration for the human rights of patients.
The delegation confirmed that human trafficking was specifically criminalized in Japan's penal code.
Regarding dismissal of judges, in Japan judges had a very strong position in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary. Judges could only be dismissed following a public impeachment or where it could be demonstrated they were mentally or physically unfit to carry out their duties. A Supreme Court judge could only be deposed by public referendum.
Questions by Committee Experts
FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Japan, wished to know the Government's opinion as to whether the Convention's prohibition against torture was binding in times of war.
In Japanese law prolonged detention might be an indication that a confession given after such detention would not be accepted. However, the limit for detentions was 23 days and, given the possibility of limitless extensions of the detention, it appeared that there was no upper time limit for detention. Mr. Mariño therefore wondered what a prolonged detention was considered to be in Japan. Such a procedure seemed to indicate a disregard for the presumption of innocence in the Japanese legal system.
In the case of the death penalty, Mr. Mariño said that he had understood that death row prisoners were not given legal assistance, but asked for further clarification as the delegation had provided information to the contrary.
Mr. Mariño was further concerned about the independence of the mechanism to investigate conditions in penitentiaries. Similarly, he was concerned about the "mediators" appointed to assist asylum-seekers in lodging their applications. How was the independence of such mediators guaranteed? And who appointed them?
ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Japan, could not understand the delegation's explanation as to why videotaping of interrogations could not be undertaken. They had noted that such recordings could be leaked; however, that was equally true of written statements.
On asylum requests, Mr. Kovalev was concerned that the present wording of the relevant Japanese legislation increased the risk that an asylum-seeker at risk of being tortured in his home country, but who had most recently travelled to Japan from a third country, would actually be more and not less likely to be returned to his country of origin where he faced the threat of torture.
Other experts asked questions on a number of topics, including the decision-making process for discharging mental patients; and why, if the Ministry of Justice had abolished gags for prisoners, it continued to be a valid practice for prisoners.
An Expert, noting the delegation's explanations with regard to the women who had been forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Army during the Second World War, including that the provisions of the Convention were not applicable retroactively, noted that it was now commonly recognized that victims of sexual trauma experienced a continuing trauma and violation of their rights based on events in the past. In that connection, the denial by the Japanese Government of its responsibility in this regard constituted a retraumatization for those women.
Response by Delegation
Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Japan said there was a system to register complaints of racial discrimination within the national police.
It was not true that the Ministry of Justice disregarded the presumption of innocence, the delegation stressed. That was why, before a trial was undertaken there were two stages during which a suspect was fully screened while in detention. Japan put a great deal of importance on the presumption of innocence and on ensuring that it was preserved.
On the counsellor system for asylum-seekers, the delegation said that there was a booklet on that system which had been devised for information purposes, and it included information on the qualifications of such counsellors. A copy would be provided to the Committee if it wished.
The delegation dispelled fears that Japanese asylum legislation made it more likely that an asylum-seeker would be returned to their home country, even if there was a likelihood that he would be tortured there. The immigration law prohibited return of asylum-seekers to any country where they were at risk of being tortured.
Death row inmates had State appointed council up through their appeal to the Supreme Court. Following their final appeal, death row inmates still had access to a lawyer, it was just not a State appointed council, the delegation clarified.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
10 May 2007
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Japan to questions raised by Committee Experts on the initial report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Wednesday, 9 May, the delegation, which was led by Tetsuya Kimura, Director of the Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, said that interrogation and other investigation activities were permitted in accordance within a regular schedule for meals and bedtime. Moreover, interrogations were not to be carried out at night, unless there were pressing reasons to do so. Regarding the so-called "secret handbook of interrogation" methods, that was actually the memoir of an experienced investigator setting out his personal experience, advice and opinions about his job. It was not an official manual in any way.
On the issue of videotaping, the delegation stressed that interrogation was indispensable in Japan to come to the truth of the case. Videotaping could bring about many problems, because it became more difficult to take up private issues concerned and could cause a suspect to become more reluctant to express himself. There were strong pressures on the police to produce results, and videotaping the interrogation threatened that ability. Nevertheless, Japan was very seriously engaged in reviewing the possibility of using audio or video recordings during interrogations.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Japan towards the end of the session on Friday, 18 May 2007.
As one of the 144 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Japan is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee next reconvenes in public, at 3 p.m. on Friday, 11 May, it will hear the answers of Poland to the questions posed by Experts on Thursday, 10 May.
Response of Japan
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Wednesday, 9 May, the delegation of Japan, addressing concerns of the scope of what constituted a public official or a person acting in a public capacity in terms of provisions against torture, confirmed that, among others, those terms included prison officials, immigration officials and self-defence forces.
Complaints of torture against police officers were pursued through an administrative procedure. That procedure provided for the detention of suspects and all the other procedural guarantees and measures in a criminal procedure. The Public Prosecutor decided as to whether an indictment should be brought in such a case.
On the issue of the two extradition requests from Peru for ex-President Fujimori, Japan had felt that the indictment had not presented sufficient prima facie evidence to extradite Mr. Fujimori, the delegation said. Then, in 2005, Mr. Fujimori had left the country, thus pre-empting Japan's taking a final decision on his extradition.
Regarding accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention, the delegation noted that the Government was currently reviewing the possibility of setting up the national monitoring mechanism required by the Protocol, as well as the need for any revisions to Japanese legislation to conform with the Protocol.
With respect to the situation of the "comfort women", the delegation first noted that Japan had acceded to the Convention against Torture in 1999. The Convention’s provisions were not applicable retroactively and therefore did not apply to the actions in question. Moreover, Japan had addressed in good faith the provisions for reparations with regard to the Second World War, under the San Francisco agreement, among others, and had fulfilled its legal obligations in that regard and settled all outstanding issues, including that of the comfort women. Following a study on the situation of the comfort women that had been undertaken several years ago, the Japanese Government had issued a statement expressing the Government's sincere apologies and remorse, and those apologies had been offered several times. The policy of the Japanese Government in that regard had not changed. Moreover, financial compensation had been paid to some former comfort women and the Government had implemented medical and other support projects to address their condition. Furthermore, the Japanese Prime Minister himself had directly sent his apologies to the comfort women.
When a case was transferred to the Prosecutor by the judicial police, if the Prosecutor wished to keep the suspect in detention, he had to apply to a judge for a detention order. The maximum detention period was 10 days, which could be extended a further 10 days at the Public Prosecutor's request. Citing statistics for 2005, the delegation said that the arrest rate had been 33.2 per cent, 29.8 per cent of whom were detained. Of the detainees, 43.9 per cent were detained for 10 days or less.
Suspects in custody before indictment could have access to defence counsel, and defence counsel could be appointed by the court under certain circumstances.
In terms of the "substitute prisons" or detention in police detention facilities, that practice was used because it was known that detention regimes in police cells prevented the violation of the detainees’ rights, the delegation affirmed. Also, where there was a risk of destruction of evidence or tampering with the investigation of the case, such a detention could be ordered. In addition, such detentions were granted where it was considered that the investigation would not take a long time, and it was therefore not desirable to transfer the suspect to a prison cell further away.
Interrogation and other investigation activities were permitted in accordance within a regular schedule for meals and bedtime, the delegation said. Moreover, interrogations were not to be carried out at night, unless there were pressing reasons to do so. Regarding the so-called "secret handbook of interrogation", that was actually the memoir of an experienced investigator setting out his personal experience, advice and opinions about his job. It was not an official manual in any way.
The delegation underscored that both the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure had preventive provisions to ensure that forced confessions were prohibited. In addition, the burden of proof was on the prosecutor concerning whether or not the confession was obtained voluntarily or involuntarily. To prevent excessive reliance on confessions, article 8 of the Constitution provided that no one could be convicted in cases where his own confession, whether made in open court or not, was the only evidence against him.
On the issue of videotaping, the delegation stressed that interrogation was indispensable in Japan to come to the truth of the case. Videotaping could bring about many problems, because it became more difficult to take up private issues concerned and could cause a suspect to become more reluctant to express himself. There were strong pressures on the police to produce results, and videotaping the interrogation threatened that ability. Nevertheless, Japan was very seriously engaged in reviewing the possibility of using audio or video recordings during interrogations.
Regarding the Herald Tribune article, which discussed a case of alleged vote buying, the delegation recalled that for 13 indictments, 12 defendants had been found not guilty. (One of the suspects had died during the course of the investigation.) There had been no fabrication of facts as asserted in the article, or interrogation under pressure. The court decision had been based on evidence produced. It was found that the six confessions had been done on a voluntary basis. Ultimately, the court in its ruling said that there were alibis for the defendants.
In the Saga Prefecture case, in which three women had been murdered, it was true that there had been long hours of investigation, and that had been pointed out by the court in its decision. Depending on the gravity of the case, it was difficult to reduce the hours of investigation, the delegation stressed. However, the sex, age and heath of the suspect had to be taken into consideration in conducting police interrogations.
In the case of the man who had been falsely imprisoned for two years and nine months in the Yokohama Prefecture, that was indeed regrettable. However, the delegation said it was true that the suspect had freely confessed before the trial was brought.
The high rate of conviction in Japan was not owing to forced confessions, the delegation countered. There were strict screening rules for bringing indictments that meant that cases were not brought unless the case was clear.
Gags were only used in police detention facilities, where protection cells were not available, when detainees did not follow officials' directions to stop shouting, and was only used by the order of the detention manager, and taking the health conditions of the detainee into consideration. Arresting ropes of over 3 millimetres in diameter were used in cases where there was a risk that the suspect would escape, or cause injury to property or to himself, the delegation said.
Single cell treatment was used for those inmates who refused to work or who had problems socializing with other inmates. The delegation said that it was possible to keep an inmate in a single cell for a long time period, but the authorities tried to encourage inmates to leave that regime and transferred prisoners to other accommodations as soon as possible.
Regarding sexual violence in prisons, the delegation said any cases that arose were addressed as quickly as possible, and cited some examples. In the Toyohashi branch of Nagoya Prison, in September 2003, a prison official had been found guilty of having conducted illicit sexual intercourse with a prisoner. Following an administrative review, the official had been dismissed. Moreover, a criminal prosecution brought had ended in the official's conviction to a prison sentence of three years. In September 2004, a Fukuoka prison official who had forced a female prisoner to strip naked twice was dismissed following an administrative review. However, as the victim had not wanted to press a criminal action, no criminal prosecution had been undertaken.
In terms of oversight for the complaint procedure for prisoners, there was a special board that reviewed the complaints. The secretariat of the special board was within the Ministry of Justice, but to guarantee separation from the Corrections Bureau, it was placed in the Minister's Secretariat, the delegation said.
Regarding the composition of the mobile teams of citizens that monitored conditions in detention centres, the delegation said that the Correctional Administrative Reform Council had recommended that the teams consist of citizens from the region, including lawyers, doctors or members of local government. Recommendations from public and private organizations were canvassed, including local bar and medical organizations. Members were to be of high moral standing.
Stays in protection rooms could be ordered for up to 72 hours. However, if necessary, the warden of the prison could renew that order for a further 48 hours if he deemed it appropriate. There was no limit for how many times the stay could be renewed. However, a doctor had to review the medical status of the detainee for further renewals. The delegation had no figures on how many prisoners were kept in such rooms, or for how long, nor had any studies been undertaken on the effectiveness of placing prisoners in protection rooms.
On the death penalty, and the practice of hanging in Japan, the delegation said there was no consensus that such punishment was inhumane. Regarding prisoners on death row, and long confinements in solitary cells, it was the practice in Japan to confine prisoners sentenced to the death penalty in solitary cells. It was true that those confinements were often long, for procedural reasons.
Prisoners on death row were informed that their sentence would be carried out on the day of their execution. If they were informed earlier, it could destabilize the prisoner, the delegation said.
Turning to refugee issues, the delegation said refugees who could not be immediately deported were kept in detention facilities. However, if it was found that such a detention would be unduly long, provisional release was possible.
With regard to immigration centres, complaints could be lodged with the director of the centre, and it was possible to appeal that decision by a complaint before the Minister of Justice. Since that procedure had been instituted, there had been 167 complaints, 63 cases going all the way to the Minister of Justice. It was found that there was a reason for complaint in one case, however, it did not relate to violence committed by officials.
Turning to conditions in psychiatric hospitals, the delegation noted that mental hospitals had to make periodic reports to the Ministry of Justice on the condition of patients. Those working in private mental hospitals were not public officials, but in case of false committals, the hospitals had to comply with Ministry of Justice standards, thus ensuring appropriate consideration for the human rights of patients.
The delegation confirmed that human trafficking was specifically criminalized in Japan's penal code.
Regarding dismissal of judges, in Japan judges had a very strong position in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary. Judges could only be dismissed following a public impeachment or where it could be demonstrated they were mentally or physically unfit to carry out their duties. A Supreme Court judge could only be deposed by public referendum.
Questions by Committee Experts
FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Japan, wished to know the Government's opinion as to whether the Convention's prohibition against torture was binding in times of war.
In Japanese law prolonged detention might be an indication that a confession given after such detention would not be accepted. However, the limit for detentions was 23 days and, given the possibility of limitless extensions of the detention, it appeared that there was no upper time limit for detention. Mr. Mariño therefore wondered what a prolonged detention was considered to be in Japan. Such a procedure seemed to indicate a disregard for the presumption of innocence in the Japanese legal system.
In the case of the death penalty, Mr. Mariño said that he had understood that death row prisoners were not given legal assistance, but asked for further clarification as the delegation had provided information to the contrary.
Mr. Mariño was further concerned about the independence of the mechanism to investigate conditions in penitentiaries. Similarly, he was concerned about the "mediators" appointed to assist asylum-seekers in lodging their applications. How was the independence of such mediators guaranteed? And who appointed them?
ALEXANDER KOVALEV, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Japan, could not understand the delegation's explanation as to why videotaping of interrogations could not be undertaken. They had noted that such recordings could be leaked; however, that was equally true of written statements.
On asylum requests, Mr. Kovalev was concerned that the present wording of the relevant Japanese legislation increased the risk that an asylum-seeker at risk of being tortured in his home country, but who had most recently travelled to Japan from a third country, would actually be more and not less likely to be returned to his country of origin where he faced the threat of torture.
Other experts asked questions on a number of topics, including the decision-making process for discharging mental patients; and why, if the Ministry of Justice had abolished gags for prisoners, it continued to be a valid practice for prisoners.
An Expert, noting the delegation's explanations with regard to the women who had been forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Army during the Second World War, including that the provisions of the Convention were not applicable retroactively, noted that it was now commonly recognized that victims of sexual trauma experienced a continuing trauma and violation of their rights based on events in the past. In that connection, the denial by the Japanese Government of its responsibility in this regard constituted a retraumatization for those women.
Response by Delegation
Responding to additional questions raised, the delegation of Japan said there was a system to register complaints of racial discrimination within the national police.
It was not true that the Ministry of Justice disregarded the presumption of innocence, the delegation stressed. That was why, before a trial was undertaken there were two stages during which a suspect was fully screened while in detention. Japan put a great deal of importance on the presumption of innocence and on ensuring that it was preserved.
On the counsellor system for asylum-seekers, the delegation said that there was a booklet on that system which had been devised for information purposes, and it included information on the qualifications of such counsellors. A copy would be provided to the Committee if it wished.
The delegation dispelled fears that Japanese asylum legislation made it more likely that an asylum-seeker would be returned to their home country, even if there was a likelihood that he would be tortured there. The immigration law prohibited return of asylum-seekers to any country where they were at risk of being tortured.
Death row inmates had State appointed council up through their appeal to the Supreme Court. Following their final appeal, death row inmates still had access to a lawyer, it was just not a State appointed council, the delegation clarified.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record