Overview of the Document
Document title:
Written Request Concerning the Correction of Constitutional Violations and Human Rights Violations in Sukagawa City, together with the Receipt
Date:
April 3, 2025
Prepared by:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Submitted to:
Citizen Safety Division, General Affairs Department, Sukagawa City
Document type:
Written request and receipt
Publication format:
PDF files with personal information redacted where necessary
Original Japanese written request PDF:
Skip to PDF contentReceipt issued upon submission:
Facts Confirmed by the Document
This written request was submitted to the Citizen Safety Division of the General Affairs Department of Sukagawa City on April 3, 2025.
Its subject is the correction of alleged constitutional violations and human rights violations within Sukagawa City.
The written request concerns four resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council between 2011 and 2012, beginning with the first resolution adopted on October 26, 2011.
The document argues that the issue is not limited to the adoption of the resolutions themselves. It also raises concerns regarding the alleged failure of Sukagawa City to investigate or correct the situation for more than thirteen years.
The document explains why it was submitted to the Citizen Safety Division rather than directly to the mayor. It states that the current mayor had been a member of the Sukagawa City Council at the relevant time and had voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolutions. The document therefore argues that a decision-making structure involving the mayor would raise a conflict-of-interest concern and would not be suitable for an impartial investigation.
The written request asks Sukagawa City to take the following eight measures:
Prepare and publish the City’s position on the constitutionality and legality of the resignation recommendation resolutions in light of the Constitution of Japan, international human rights standards, and domestic law.
Conduct a factual investigation into the entire process relating to the resolutions, including their possible effects on the investigation, trial, and judgment in the related criminal case, and prepare and publish an investigation report containing a legal assessment.
Examine the involvement of City officials and the City Council Secretariat in the resignation recommendation resolutions, conduct a legal assessment, and publish the results.
Explain the failure to address the alleged unconstitutional situation for more than thirteen years, clarify the responsibility of the City in writing, and publish that explanation.
Exclude all persons involved in the resignation recommendation resolutions from the decision-making, investigative, and evaluative process concerning the requested investigation and corrective measures, and establish an impartial structure.
Establish an independent review committee including external experts.
Apologize for the alleged human rights violations caused by the institutional actions and the subsequent failure to correct them, and implement remedial measures, including an official response and measures to restore the applicant’s reputation.
Establish institutional safeguards, including guidelines and ethical rules, to prevent similar conduct from recurring, publish the relevant operational policies, and implement them.
The document requests that Sukagawa City provide written notice of its proposed response, including the method, schedule, and responsible officials for the investigation and corrective measures, no later than April 17, 2025.
Key Statements
1. Four Resignation Recommendation Resolutions
The written request states that the Sukagawa City Council adopted four resignation recommendation resolutions beginning on October 26, 2011.
It argues that these resolutions violated due process, personal rights, equality before the law, and the presumption of innocence.
It further argues that, although the resolutions were formally described as recommendations, their substantive effect was comparable to a public condemnation and sanction imposed without a sufficient legal basis.
2. Resolution Adopted While the Applicant Was Detained Before Indictment
The written request states that the first resignation recommendation resolution was adopted while the applicant was detained before indictment.
It states that the applicant was not given an opportunity to present an explanation or rebuttal before the Council adopted a resolution recommending his resignation.
The document argues that this process was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and lacked the procedural safeguards required when a public institution takes an action capable of causing serious harm to an individual’s political status and reputation.
3. Failure to Investigate or Correct the Situation for More Than Thirteen Years
The written request argues that the issue is not limited to the adoption of the resolutions.
It states that Sukagawa City did not question their constitutionality, investigate the relevant facts, or implement corrective measures for more than thirteen years.
It argues that this prolonged inaction raises a structural issue concerning the constitutional duty of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution.
4. Conflict of Interest Concerning the Decision-Making Structure
The document states that the current mayor had been a City Council member at the relevant time and had voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolutions.
It therefore argues that the mayor should be excluded from the investigative and evaluative process concerning the requested corrective measures.
The document requests the establishment of an impartial decision-making structure.
5. Possible Involvement of City Officials and the City Council Secretariat
The written request states that the resignation recommendation resolutions were institutionally supported through administrative work, including the management of meeting schedules, preparation of documents, printing, distribution, and the maintenance of official minutes.
It asks Sukagawa City to investigate whether City officials or the City Council Secretariat were involved, determine the extent of any involvement, conduct a legal assessment, and publish the results.
6. Establishment of an Independent Review Committee
The written request asks Sukagawa City to establish an independent review committee that includes external experts.
The purpose of this request is to ensure the neutrality and objectivity of the investigation.
7. Apology and Remedial Measures
The written request asks Sukagawa City to apologize for the alleged human rights violations caused by institutional actions and the subsequent failure to correct them.
It also requests remedial measures, including an official response and measures to restore the applicant’s reputation.
8. Measures to Prevent Recurrence
The written request asks Sukagawa City to establish guidelines, ethical rules, and other institutional safeguards to prevent similar conduct from recurring.
It also requests that the City publish and implement its operational policies.
9. Deadline for a Written Response
The document asks Sukagawa City to provide a written response no later than April 17, 2025.
The requested response was to include the proposed investigation method, schedule, responsible officials, and approach to corrective measures.
Questions Raised by the Document
1. Did Sukagawa City conduct an adequate investigation after receiving specific allegations of human rights violations?
The document raises specific concerns involving due process, the presumption of innocence, personal rights, equality before the law, the constitutional obligations of public officials, and the possible involvement of City officials and the City Council Secretariat.
Did Sukagawa City conduct a sufficient factual investigation and legal assessment after receiving these allegations?
2. Can the fairness of a criminal trial be adequately protected when a public institution expresses an assumption of guilt before judgment?
The first resignation recommendation resolution was adopted while the applicant was detained before indictment.
The second resolution was adopted before the first criminal hearing.
When a public institution expresses an accusatory assessment before criminal responsibility has been finally determined, can the fairness of the subsequent investigation, trial, and judgment be adequately protected?
3. Did Sukagawa City fulfill its responsibility to explain the failure to take corrective measures for more than thirteen years?
The written request argues that Sukagawa City failed to investigate or correct the alleged violations for more than thirteen years.
Did the City provide a specific explanation addressing that allegation?
Did it subsequently examine the past conduct and implement any necessary corrective measures?
4. Could a decision-making structure involving the mayor ensure impartiality?
The written request argues that the current mayor should be excluded from the investigative and evaluative process because he had voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolutions as a City Council member at the relevant time.
What measures were necessary to ensure an impartial investigation?
What decision-making structure did Sukagawa City actually establish?
5. Did Sukagawa City investigate the involvement of City officials and the City Council Secretariat?
The written request raises questions concerning the management of meeting schedules, the preparation, printing, and distribution of documents, and the maintenance of official minutes.
Did Sukagawa City identify the relevant documents, authors, approving officials, distribution routes, expenditures, and persons involved?
6. Why was an independent review committee not established?
The written request asks Sukagawa City to establish an independent review committee including external experts.
If the City did not establish such a committee, what was the reason?
On what basis did the City consider that an internal review alone would be sufficiently neutral and objective?
7. Was the legal consultation conducted on April 19, 2025 intended to facilitate an objective investigation?
A legal consultation was conducted after the submission of the written request.
Was the purpose of the consultation to examine the facts, assess the legal issues, and consider corrective measures?
Or was it primarily intended to justify past actions and limit the scope of the City’s response?
8. Was it appropriate to use a consultation framework intended for public welfare services?
If the legal consultation conducted on April 19, 2025 used a free legal consultation slot established as part of a welfare service for residents, was that use appropriate?
Was the use of a public welfare consultation framework and attorney compensation consistent with the intended purpose of the program when the consultation concerned the internal response of Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council?
9. Did Sukagawa City directly answer the requests made in the document?
The written request asks for a factual investigation, legal assessment, published investigation report, independent review committee, apology, measures to restore the applicant’s reputation, safeguards against recurrence, and a written response.
Did Sukagawa City provide a specific and sufficient answer to each request?
Relevant Legal Standards
The following legal standards are relevant to the issues raised by this document. Their detailed interpretation and application to this case are examined separately in the legal analysis section of this website.
Constitution of Japan
Article 12: The responsibility to maintain the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the prohibition against abusing those rights.
Article 13: Respect for individuals and the protection of personal dignity and personal interests.
Article 14, paragraph 1: Equality under the law and protection against unjustified discriminatory treatment.
Article 16: The right to petition peacefully for redress.
Article 31: Due process of law.
Article 32: The right of access to the courts.
Article 37, paragraph 1: The right of an accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal.
Article 76, paragraph 3: Judicial independence and the requirement that judges act independently in the exercise of their conscience and be bound only by the Constitution and laws.
Article 98, paragraph 1: The Constitution as the supreme law of the nation.
Article 98, paragraph 2: The obligation of Japan to faithfully observe treaties and established laws of nations.
Article 99: The obligation of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution.
Other Relevant Domestic Standards
Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 336: When a crime has not been proven, the court must render a judgment of acquittal.
Local Public Service Act, Article 30: The duty of local public officials to serve the public interest.
Local Public Service Act, Article 32: The duty of local public officials to comply with laws and regulations.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 14, paragraph 1: The right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.
Article 14, paragraph 2: The right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 2, paragraph 3: The obligation to provide an effective remedy for violations of rights recognized in the Covenant.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)
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 any State organ is attributable to the State under international law. This may include the conduct of organs of local government.
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 is a starting point for the series of requests, internal reviews, legal consultations, official responses, resident audit requests, and resident litigation that followed from 2025 onward.
On the same day, a separate petition seeking an investigation and corrective measures concerning the resignation recommendation resolutions was submitted to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council.
By receiving this written request on April 3, 2025, Sukagawa City became formally aware that specific constitutional and international human rights concerns had been raised regarding the four resignation recommendation resolutions adopted between 2011 and 2012.
The City also became formally aware of allegations concerning:
the failure to investigate or correct the situation for more than thirteen years;
the possible involvement of City officials and the City Council Secretariat;
a conflict-of-interest concern affecting the decision-making structure;
the need for an independent review committee;
measures to restore the applicant’s reputation; and
safeguards against recurrence.
After submission of this document, a legal consultation was conducted on April 19, 2025. Sukagawa City issued a response on April 28, 2025.
This document is therefore important when examining the point at which Sukagawa City became formally aware of the alleged violations, the nature of the internal review conducted afterward, the content of the City’s response, and whether any adequate investigation or corrective measure was implemented.
Related Documents
Japanese-Language Version of This Article
Previous Evidence Article
Petition Submitted to the Sukagawa City Council Seeking an Independent Review and Corrective Measures Concerning the Resignation Recommendation Resolutions
Next Evidence Article
Sukagawa City Internal Document: Legal Consultation Conducted after the Request for Corrective Measures Concerning Human Rights Violations
Related Evidence Articles
Sukagawa City Council Internal Document: Legal Consultation Conducted after the Request for Corrective Measures Concerning Human Rights Violations
Sukagawa City Internal Document: Specifications for the Fiscal Year 2025 Multilayered Support System Development Project
Response Issued by Sukagawa City on April 28, 2025
Response Issued by the Sukagawa City Council on April 28, 2025
Documents Concerning the 2025 Resident Audit Request
Documents Concerning the 2026 Resident Litigation
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