Overview of the Document
Document title:
Sukagawa City Internal Documents Concerning the Results of the Legal Consultation Conducted on April 19, 2025, and the Response to the Written Request
Document management number:
591988
Date prepared:
April 23, 2025
Date of the legal consultation:
April 19, 2025
Date of approval by the Mayor:
April 24, 2025
Date on which the response was issued:
April 28, 2025
Prepared by:
Citizen Collaboration Promotion Division, Citizen Collaboration Promotion Department, Sukagawa City
Method of acquisition:
Obtained through an information disclosure request submitted to Sukagawa City
Document type:
Internal approval documents of Sukagawa City, a report recording the results of the legal consultation, an internal approval sheet, and a draft response to the written request
Publication format:
PDF file with personal information and other non-public information redacted where necessary
Original Japanese PDF:
Facts Confirmed by the Document
On April 3, 2025, Sukagawa City received a written request titled “Written Request Concerning the Correction of Constitutional Violations and Human Rights Violations in Sukagawa City.”
Sukagawa City determined that legal confirmation was necessary.
On April 19, 2025, Sukagawa City conducted a legal consultation jointly with the Secretariat of the Sukagawa City Council.
According to the Sukagawa City internal documents, the consultation took place from 5:50 p.m. to 6:40 p.m. at the office of the Sukagawa City Council of Social Welfare on the first floor of Sukagawa City Hall.
The City was represented by the head of the Citizen Collaboration Promotion Division and an official of that division.
The Sukagawa City Council Secretariat was represented by its director, deputy director, and the head of its proceedings and research section.
The subjects of the consultation included both the written request submitted to Sukagawa City and the petition submitted separately to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council.
The internal documents state that the Council Secretariat conducted its consultation first, after which Sukagawa City conducted its own consultation.
The Sukagawa City internal documents record a proposed policy not to take the various measures requested in the written request.
A draft response was prepared on April 23, 2025.
The Mayor approved the response on April 24, 2025.
Sukagawa City issued its final response on April 28, 2025.
Key Statements
1. Reason for Conducting the Legal Consultation
The Sukagawa City internal documents state:
A written request was submitted on April 3. Since legal confirmation was necessary, a legal consultation was conducted. A petition concerning a similar matter was also submitted to the City Council. Since the resignation recommendation resolutions were also the central issue for the Council, the Council Secretariat conducted its consultation first, after which the City conducted its own consultation.
This statement confirms that the City and the City Council Secretariat were dealing with separate submissions addressed to separate institutions.
It also confirms that the consultations were conducted in connection with one another.
2. Sukagawa City’s Proposed Response Policy
The Sukagawa City internal documents state:
Since it was confirmed that there was no legal obligation to respond, we would like to refrain from taking the various measures requested in the written request.
The written request did not merely ask whether Sukagawa City had a formal obligation to issue a response.
It asked the City to investigate alleged human rights violations, assess their legality, establish an impartial review structure, implement corrective measures, restore the applicant’s reputation, and prevent recurrence.
The internal documents do not show how each of these issues was examined before the City decided not to take the requested measures.
3. Statement Concerning a “Presumption Close to Guilt”
The internal records concerning the joint legal consultation contain the following statement:
In addition, because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making a presumption close to guilt.
This is a particularly important statement.
An arrest is not a conviction.
An arrest is a measure taken during an investigation. It does not establish criminal guilt.
A person charged with a criminal offence must be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
The statement recorded in the consultation materials raises a fundamental question: whether the legal consultation was conducted on the basis of a view that is compatible with the presumption of innocence.
The document containing this statement is an internal record summarizing the consultation. It is not a verbatim transcript and is not a written legal opinion prepared by the attorney.
Accordingly, the statement is presented here as a statement recorded in the internal documents concerning the joint legal consultation.
It is not presented as a verbatim quotation from the attorney.
It is also not presented as a statement made independently by Sukagawa City alone.
Nevertheless, Sukagawa City participated in the joint consultation and subsequently adopted a policy not to implement the corrective measures requested in the written request.
For that reason, the meaning and influence of this recorded statement must be examined when assessing the City’s response.
4. Statement Concerning the Absence of Legal Binding Force
The internal documents also record a statement concerning the resignation recommendation resolutions:
Since a resignation recommendation resolution has no legally binding force, there is no procedural illegality even if the person concerned is absent.
This statement concerns the Council-side consultation regarding the resignation recommendation resolutions.
It must therefore be distinguished from Sukagawa City’s own proposed response policy.
However, it remains relevant to the City-side documents because Sukagawa City conducted its consultation jointly with the Council Secretariat and subsequently decided not to take the corrective measures requested in the written request.
The absence of formal legal binding force does not necessarily mean that no human rights violation can occur.
A public institution may cause serious harm to a person’s reputation, political status, and right to a fair trial even when its action is formally described as a non-binding recommendation.
5. Statement Concerning the Four Resignation Recommendation Resolutions
The Sukagawa City internal documents also contain the following statement:
Although there is no legal problem, from the perspective of the principle similar to double jeopardy, it is difficult to deny the impression that four resignation recommendation resolutions were excessive.
This statement indicates that the repeated adoption of four resignation recommendation resolutions was not regarded as an ordinary or self-evidently appropriate response.
Nevertheless, Sukagawa City’s final response did not explain how the City assessed the cumulative effect of the four resolutions.
Nor did it explain why no corrective measure was considered necessary.
6. Sukagawa City’s Final Response
The response issued by Sukagawa City on April 28, 2025, states:
With regard to the written request submitted on April 3, 2025, Sukagawa City considers that the matter was handled appropriately. We ask for your understanding.
The response does not identify the facts examined by the City.
It does not identify the legal standards applied by the City.
It does not explain how the City evaluated the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence.
It does not explain how the City evaluated the absence of an opportunity to respond before the first resignation recommendation resolution was adopted.
It does not explain how the City evaluated the cumulative effect of four resignation recommendation resolutions.
It does not explain why the requested investigation, corrective measures, and safeguards against recurrence were not implemented.
Questions Raised by the Document
1. What did Sukagawa City examine before concluding that the matter had been handled appropriately?
The written request raised specific issues concerning due process, the presumption of innocence, personal dignity, the constitutional duties of public officials, the possible involvement of City officials and the City Council Secretariat, and the need for an effective remedy.
Which facts did Sukagawa City examine?
Which legal provisions did it consider?
What reasoning led the City to conclude that the matter had been handled appropriately?
2. What is the legal basis for the statement that an arrest permits a “presumption close to guilt”?
The internal records concerning the joint legal consultation contain the statement:
In addition, because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making a presumption close to guilt.
An arrest is not a conviction.
What legal basis could justify a presumption approaching guilt before a criminal judgment has been rendered?
How can such a view be reconciled with the presumption of innocence?
3. Can the fairness of a criminal trial be protected if a public institution treats an arrested person as being close to guilty before judgment?
The first resignation recommendation resolution was adopted while the person concerned was detained before indictment.
The second resolution was adopted before the first criminal hearing.
If a public institution expresses an assessment approaching guilt before the criminal court has rendered its judgment, can the fairness of the subsequent investigation, trial, and judgment be adequately protected?
4. Does the absence of formal legal binding force eliminate the possibility of a human rights violation?
A resignation recommendation resolution may lack formal legal binding force.
However, a resolution adopted by a public institution may still affect a person’s reputation, political status, and ability to receive a fair trial.
Does the absence of formal legal binding force answer the constitutional and human rights questions raised by the written request?
5. Why did Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat conduct a joint legal consultation?
The written request submitted to Sukagawa City and the petition submitted to the Sukagawa City Council were addressed to different institutions.
Why were the consultations conducted jointly?
Did Sukagawa City independently examine its own responsibilities?
Did the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat independently examine the issues raised in the petition?
6. What does the conclusion that there was “no legal obligation to respond” mean?
The written request did not ask only whether the City had a formal duty to send a written response.
It asked whether past conduct involved human rights violations.
It also asked whether the City had a present obligation to investigate and correct any continuing consequences of those violations.
Were these separate questions examined independently?
7. How did Sukagawa City assess the four resignation recommendation resolutions?
The internal documents record the view that four resignation recommendation resolutions created an impression of excessiveness.
How did Sukagawa City assess their cumulative effect?
Why did the final response contain no explanation concerning this issue?
8. Did Sukagawa City examine its obligation to provide an effective remedy?
The City received a written request identifying specific alleged human rights violations and requesting an investigation and corrective measures.
Did Sukagawa City examine whether it had an obligation to provide an effective remedy under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
If it concluded that no corrective measure was necessary, what was the legal basis for that conclusion?
Relevant Legal Standards
Constitution of Japan
Article 13:
The relationship between the conduct at issue and respect for individuals, personal dignity, and personal interests must be examined.
Article 31:
The relationship between due process and a public institution making an adverse assessment without providing a sufficient opportunity to respond must be examined.
Article 32:
The relationship between the conduct at issue and the right of access to the courts must be examined.
Article 37, paragraph 1:
The relationship between the conduct at issue and the right to a trial by an impartial tribunal must be examined.
Article 76, paragraph 3:
The relationship between the conduct at issue and judicial independence must be examined.
Article 98, paragraph 2:
The relationship between the City’s response and Japan’s obligation to faithfully observe treaties and established laws of nations must be examined.
Article 99:
The relationship between the conduct at issue and the obligation of the Mayor, members of the City Council, and other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution must be examined.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 14, paragraph 1:
The right to a fair hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal must be examined.
Article 14, paragraph 2:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 2, paragraph 3:
The relationship between the City’s response after receiving the written request and the obligation to ensure an effective remedy must be examined.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 26:
Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed in good faith.
Article 27:
A party may not invoke provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Human Rights Committee General Comments
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30:
Public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, including by making public statements affirming the guilt of an accused person before guilt has been established according to law.
General Comment No. 31:
States must ensure effective remedies, cease continuing violations, and provide appropriate reparation where Covenant rights have been violated.
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
Article 1:
Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.
Article 2:
An internationally wrongful act exists when conduct attributable to the State constitutes a breach of an international obligation.
Article 4:
The conduct of an organ of a local government may be attributable to the State under international law.
Article 12:
A breach exists when an act or omission is not in conformity with an international obligation.
Article 14:
A breach resulting from a continuing act or omission may continue for as long as the conduct remains inconsistent with the obligation.
Article 30:
A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act must cease the act and, where appropriate, offer assurances and guarantees of non-repetition.
Article 31:
A responsible State must make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.
Article 32:
A State may not rely on its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations arising from international responsibility.
Relevance to This Case
This document does not merely show that Sukagawa City received a written request and issued a brief response.
It shows that Sukagawa City conducted an internal review after receiving specific allegations of constitutional violations and human rights violations.
The City did not reserve its judgment.
It conducted a legal consultation jointly with the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat.
It then adopted a policy not to take the measures requested in the written request.
Finally, it issued a written response stating that the matter had been handled appropriately.
The internal records concerning the joint legal consultation contain the statement:
In addition, because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making a presumption close to guilt.
This statement is directly relevant to the central issue examined by this website.
The presumption of innocence does not begin after an arrest.
It applies precisely when a person has been arrested, accused, and exposed to the risk of being treated as guilty before judgment.
The document is therefore relevant not only to the events that occurred between 2011 and 2012.
It is also relevant to the manner in which Sukagawa City examined those events in 2025 and to the City’s decision not to implement corrective measures after receiving a specific request for a remedy.
Related Documents
Japanese-Language Version of This Article
Previous Evidence Article
Written Request Submitted to Sukagawa City Seeking an Investigation and Corrective Measures for Human Rights Violations
Next Evidence Article
Sukagawa City Internal Document: Specifications for the Fiscal Year 2025 Multilayered Support System Development Project
Related Evidence Articles
Sukagawa City Council Internal Documents: Legal Consultation Conducted after a Petition Seeking Corrective Measures Concerning Human Rights Violations
Response Issued by Sukagawa City on April 28, 2025
Response Issued by the Sukagawa City Council on April 28, 2025
Related Analysis Pages
Record and Examination of the Case: Part 4 — Violation of the Presumption of Innocence
Record and Examination of the Case: Part 5 — Efforts to Obtain a Remedy
Legal Arguments and Structure of the Constitutional and Legal Violations