Overview of the Document
Document title:
Minutes of the December 2011 Regular Meeting, December 1, 2011
Date created:
December 1, 2011
Created by:
Sukagawa City Council
Source of acquisition:
Obtained from the Sukagawa City Council website
Type of document:
Minutes of a city council plenary session
Relevant period:
December 1, 2011
Format published:
PDF containing excerpts of the relevant portions from the original minutes
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document consists of the minutes of the plenary session of the December 2011 Regular Meeting of the Sukagawa City Council, held on December 1, 2011.
At this plenary session, a second resolution recommending that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya resign was taken up.
This resolution followed the first recommendation for resignation, which had been adopted on October 26, 2011.
The document confirms that, after Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya left the chamber, the resolution recommending his resignation was placed on the agenda.
The proposer then gave an explanation of the reasons for the proposal.
The stated reasons were based on the fact that the first recommendation for resignation had been adopted on October 26, 2011, that an all-council-members conference had subsequently been held on November 24, 2011, and that Toshio Tsumuraya had given an explanation at that conference.
The proposer stated that, although Toshio Tsumuraya had said he took the first recommendation for resignation seriously, he had not indicated an intention to resign as a council member.
The proposer also negatively evaluated his position that he would decide his future course after waiting for the outcome of the criminal trial.
In addition, the proposer made an assessment premised on the view that Toshio Tsumuraya had driven under the influence of alcohol while in office, and stated in substance that such conduct was impermissible for a city council member.
After the explanation of the reasons for the proposal, questions and debate were omitted, and a vote was taken.
The resolution was adopted with the approval of all attending council members.
Accordingly, this document confirms that the second recommendation for resignation was processed after Toshio Tsumuraya had left the chamber, through the sequence of explanation of reasons, omission of questions and debate, and vote, and that it was adopted with the approval of all attending council members.
Important Entries
What is particularly important in this document is that the second recommendation for resignation was adopted after Toshio Tsumuraya had been required to leave the chamber.
The first recommendation for resignation had been adopted while he was absent from the plenary session because he was in detention.
By contrast, at the time of the second recommendation for resignation, he was present at the plenary session. However, because the proposal concerned him personally, the resolution was taken up after he left the chamber.
Therefore, this document confirms that the explanation of reasons, questions, debate, and vote did not take place in front of him. Rather, the resolution recommending his resignation was deliberated and voted on after he had left the chamber.
The second recommendation for resignation was also based on his explanation at the all-council-members conference held on November 24, 2011.
However, at that point, the first criminal trial hearing had not yet been held.
No guilty judgment had been rendered.
The important point here is that the second recommendation for resignation was adopted before the first hearing on December 26, 2011.
In other words, at the time of the second recommendation for resignation, the criminal trial had not yet begun, and there had been no factual finding or guilty judgment by a court.
Despite this, the Sukagawa City Council negatively evaluated the content of Toshio Tsumuraya’s explanation and his position that he would wait for the result of the criminal trial before deciding whether to resign. The council then adopted a second recommendation for resignation on the basis of an assessment premised on the view that he had driven under the influence of alcohol.
Furthermore, after the explanation of the reasons for the second recommendation for resignation, questions and debate were omitted.
Accordingly, this document shows that, before the first hearing and before any judgment, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the second recommendation for resignation after Toshio Tsumuraya had left the chamber, relying on his explanation and his position regarding the timing of his decision on resignation.
Questions Raised by This Document
Does the fact that a recommendation for resignation has no legal binding force negate the issue under the presumption of innocence?
A recommendation for resignation is generally explained as having no immediate legal effect of depriving the targeted council member of his status.
However, this does not mean that there is no issue in relation to the presumption of innocence.
Paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32 of the Human Rights Committee states that all public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
In Gridin v. Russian Federation, which is referenced in that paragraph, the issue was not a legally binding measure, but statements made by persons connected to public authorities and their relationship to the presumption of innocence.
Accordingly, in relation to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the issue is not limited to whether the act has legal binding force.
The central question is whether a public authority made a statement, expression, resolution, or treatment before judgment that prejudged the outcome of the trial.
In this case, the first recommendation for resignation was adopted on October 26, 2011.
At that point, Toshio Tsumuraya had not yet been indicted, was in detention, and was absent from the plenary session.
Despite this, the Sukagawa City Council made an official expression of intent demanding his resignation on the basis of his arrest for alleged drunk driving.
Therefore, with respect to the first recommendation for resignation, the issue is not merely the formal point that it lacked legal binding force. The issue is whether, before indictment, while he was in detention and absent from the session, a local council as a public authority made an expression of intent that prejudged the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
What issues does a council resolution before judgment raise in relation to the location of judicial power and the fairness of the trial?
Article 76, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan provides that the whole judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law.
Article 76, paragraph 3 further provides that all judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by the Constitution and the laws.
In this case, the second recommendation for resignation was adopted after indictment, but before the first hearing and before judgment.
At that point, the examination of evidence in the criminal trial had not yet begun, and no court had made a finding of guilt.
Despite this, a public authority, namely the local council, adopted a second recommendation for resignation after considering the explanation given by Toshio Tsumuraya at the all-council-members conference.
The vote at the plenary session was conducted after Toshio Tsumuraya had left the chamber.
Such an official expression of intent before judgment raises issues in relation to the principle that the determination of criminal responsibility belongs to the judiciary, and that judges must make decisions independently without external influence.
Therefore, the second recommendation for resignation must be examined not only in relation to the presumption of innocence, but also in relation to the location of judicial power and the fairness of the trial.
Is waiting for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign contrary to social justice?
This document records that Toshio Tsumuraya stated that he would decide his future course after waiting for the outcome of the criminal trial.
Criminal responsibility is determined through a criminal trial.
A person is presumed innocent until a guilty judgment becomes final and binding.
Therefore, if the presumption of innocence is taken seriously, his position that he would wait for the result of the criminal trial before deciding whether to resign should have been regarded as a response deserving respect.
Nevertheless, in the second recommendation for resignation, this position was evaluated as contrary to social justice and as showing serious disregard for the council’s decision.
How can it be explained, in light of the presumption of innocence, due process, and the location of judicial power, that the council negatively evaluated his position of waiting for a court judgment and used that position as a reason for adopting another recommendation for resignation?
Is exclusion from the chamber under Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act a separate issue from giving the person an opportunity to defend himself?
In this document, the chair requested that Toshio Tsumuraya leave the chamber on the basis of Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act.
The fact that a council member may not participate in deliberation and voting on a matter concerning himself personally is a separate issue from whether that person is given an opportunity to explain the facts, respond, and defend himself.
Was it not necessary to secure a sufficient opportunity for explanation and rebuttal before requiring him to leave the chamber, or on some other occasion?
Even if he was present at the plenary session, if the explanation of reasons, omission of questions, omission of debate, and vote were all conducted after he had left the chamber, he could not rebut or supplement the proposer’s explanation at that time.
For a recommendation for resignation that could seriously affect his political status, honor, and social reputation, at what stage and in what manner was his opportunity to defend himself or respond secured?
Was it appropriate to treat his explanation at the all-council-members conference as a basis for finding that he had admitted criminal conduct?
In the explanation of reasons, the proposer stated that, at the all-council-members conference held on November 24, 2011, Toshio Tsumuraya had admitted drunk driving.
However, what can be directly confirmed from these minutes is the fact that the proposer described it in that way.
In addition, at the all-council-members conference on November 24, 2011, Toshio Tsumuraya was placed in a markedly unequal situation: he was alone, without a lawyer, facing twenty-six other council members.
He was asked to explain matters related to a criminal case, including matters that could be disadvantageous to him.
Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself.
In relation to a criminal case, refusing to explain, or refraining from speaking until the outcome of the trial, should not in itself be evaluated unfavorably.
Was the situation in which he was placed one in which he could express his will freely and on equal terms?
Was it appropriate to treat an explanation made in such circumstances, which was disadvantageous to him, as a basis for finding that he had admitted criminal conduct?
Was it consistent with the privilege against self-incrimination, the presumption of innocence, and the guarantee of due process to treat that explanation as a basis for finding that he had admitted criminal conduct and then adopt a second recommendation for resignation before the first hearing?
Is it permissible to state, before the first hearing and before judgment, that he committed drunk driving?
In the explanation of reasons, the proposer stated that driving under the influence of alcohol while in office was outrageous.
However, at the time of this resolution, the first hearing had not yet been held.
No guilty judgment had been rendered.
The existence or non-existence of criminal responsibility is a matter to be determined by a court on the basis of evidence.
Is it consistent with the principle of the presumption of innocence for the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, to make an assessment premised on the view that drunk driving had occurred before the first hearing and before judgment?
Does such an assessment amount to anticipating the judicial judgment of the court?
Are respecting the council’s decision and waiting for the outcome of the trial mutually incompatible?
In the explanation of reasons, the proposer evaluated Toshio Tsumuraya’s continued service as a council member as showing serious disregard for the council’s decision.
However, the first recommendation for resignation was not a legally binding judicial judgment.
Does the fact that he recognized the council’s expression of intent, while deciding to wait for the outcome of the criminal trial before determining his future course, immediately mean that he disregarded the council?
Respecting the council’s decision and waiting for the judgment of a court should, in principle, be capable of coexisting.
Is it permissible to demand resignation before judgment on the basis of public sentiment?
In the explanation of reasons, the proposer stated that the situation was impermissible even from the standpoint of public sentiment.
However, the presumption of innocence is a principle that must be respected even when public sentiment is strong.
Is it permissible for a public authority, before judgment, to make a condemnatory assessment and demand resignation on the basis of public sentiment?
Can reliance on public sentiment avoid the issue of the prohibition on prejudgment by public authorities under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32?
Was it appropriate to omit questions, referral to a committee, and debate?
With respect to the second recommendation for resignation, questions, referral to a committee, and debate were also omitted.
Was there sufficient consideration of the content of Toshio Tsumuraya’s statements, the status of the criminal trial, the presumption of innocence, due process, the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself, and the location of judicial power?
In addition, in the second recommendation for resignation, Toshio Tsumuraya had left the chamber and was not present during the explanation of reasons, omission of questions, omission of debate, and vote.
In light of this, does the omission of questions, referral to a committee, and debate also raise concerns from the perspective of securing his opportunity to respond?
Was the approval of all attending council members consistent with each council member’s duty to respect and uphold the Constitution?
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted by the standing approval of all attending council members after Toshio Tsumuraya had left the chamber.
Local council members bear a duty to respect and uphold the Constitution.
Did the attending council members consider the presumption of innocence, due process, the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself, the opportunity for the person concerned to defend himself, the fairness of the trial, and the location of judicial power?
The fact that all attending council members approved the resolution means that the Sukagawa City Council, as an institution at that time, expressed an official intent in the direction of condemning him before judgment.
How should the impact of such a resolution adopted by all attending members be evaluated in relation to his honor, social reputation, political status, and subsequent activities as a council member?
Did the Sukagawa City Council later examine this resolution?
This resolution has not been withdrawn.
On April 3, 2025, a petition was submitted requesting examination and correction of the resignation recommendation resolutions.
Did the Sukagawa City Council conduct an objective investigation and examination of the content, procedure, impact, and legal assessment of the second recommendation for resignation?
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
Domestic Law
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns respect for the individual, personal interests, honor, and social reputation. The issue is the impact that the recommendation for resignation had on Toshio Tsumuraya’s honor, social reputation, political status, and activities as a council member.
Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision states that the people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them. The issue is the relationship between the mandate given by residents through election and the fact that the council adopted a resolution demanding the resignation of an elected council member before judgment.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the guarantee of due process. In this case, the issue is not only whether Toshio Tsumuraya was given a sufficient opportunity to defend himself or respond, but also whether the fact that the city council, a public authority, made an assessment premised on guilt before the criminal judgment itself was consistent with due process and the purpose of the presumption of innocence.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right of access to the courts. If, before judgment, a public authority makes an assessment premised on guilt, and that assessment spreads through media reporting and social evaluation, the issue is whether the person’s position to receive a fair judicial judgment in the subsequent criminal trial was sufficiently protected.
Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right of a criminal defendant to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal. The issue is whether a fair trial was guaranteed in circumstances where a public authority’s pre-judgment view of guilt could exert external pressure on the proceedings and judgment.
Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision states that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself. The issue is the relationship between the purpose of the privilege against self-incrimination and the fact that, while facing a criminal trial, Toshio Tsumuraya was asked to explain matters in a markedly unequal situation, without a lawyer, alone before twenty-six other council members, and that the content of his explanation was later treated as a reason for the recommendation for resignation.
Article 76, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision states that the whole judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law. The issue is whether the city council, which had no authority to make a final determination as to whether Toshio Tsumuraya was guilty in the criminal case, anticipated the court’s judicial judgment by making a definitive assessment before the first hearing, premised on the existence of criminal conduct.
Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the principle that judges shall exercise their authority independently and be bound only by the Constitution and the laws. If a pre-judgment official assessment spreads through media reporting and social evaluation, it must also be examined in relation to judicial independence and the fairness of the trial.
Article 93, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the fact that members of local public entity assemblies are chosen by direct popular vote. The issue is the relationship between the direct election of local council members by residents and a recommendation for resignation adopted by the council.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns Japan’s duty to faithfully observe treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations. The issue is Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Japan has ratified.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the duty of city council members and other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is whether it was consistent with that duty for the city council, as a public authority, to make an assessment premised on guilt before judgment.
Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision states that a judgment of not guilty must be rendered when there is no proof of a crime. It is relevant to the principle of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.
Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision concerns the rule that a member of the assembly of an ordinary local public entity may not participate in proceedings concerning a matter relating personally to himself or certain relatives. The issue is that requiring Toshio Tsumuraya to leave the chamber is separate from guaranteeing him an opportunity to defend himself or respond, and the procedural meaning of that separation must be examined.
Article 135 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision concerns the statutory disciplinary procedures for local council members and the relationship between those procedures and the practical disadvantages caused by the recommendation for resignation.
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial. If, before judgment, a public authority makes an assessment premised on guilt, and that assessment spreads through media reporting and social evaluation, the issue is whether the criminal proceedings and trial conducted under that influence sufficiently guaranteed the right to a fair trial.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision guarantees that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. In this case, the issue is that the city council, as a public authority, made an assessment premised on guilt before the first hearing and before judgment.
Article 14, paragraph 3 g of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the right of a person charged with a criminal offence not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. The issue is the relationship between this right and the fact that Toshio Tsumuraya was asked to provide an explanation at the all-council-members conference, and that the content of that explanation was later treated as a reason for the recommendation for resignation.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for violations of Covenant rights. The issue is the relationship between the response after a request for correction of human rights violations was submitted and the obligation to ensure an effective remedy.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
This provision states that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. It is relevant to Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Japan has ratified.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
This provision states that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The issue is whether the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be avoided on the ground that, under domestic law, a recommendation for resignation is a non-binding political expression of intent, that the act was done by a local council, or that the matter was internal to the council.
Paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32:
This paragraph states that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a criminal trial. In this case, the issue is that the Sukagawa City Council, as a public authority, made a definitive assessment before the first hearing and before judgment, premised on the view that Toshio Tsumuraya had driven under the influence of alcohol while in office.
Paragraph 41 of General Comment No. 32:
This paragraph concerns the right not to be compelled to make self-incriminating statements or to confess guilt, and the international standard requiring the absence of direct or indirect physical pressure and undue psychological pressure.
General Comment No. 31:
This general comment concerns effective remedies for violations of Covenant rights, the cessation of continuing violations, and appropriate corrective measures.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the relationship among these provisions are examined in the page “Legal Arguments and Structure of Constitutional and Legal Violations.”
Relationship to This Case
This document concerns the second of the four recommendations for resignation adopted between 2011 and 2012.
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted while Toshio Tsumuraya was in detention and absent from the plenary session.
By contrast, at the time of the second recommendation for resignation, he was present at the plenary session, but was requested to leave the chamber on the basis of Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act.
After he left the chamber, the proposer explained the reasons for the proposal, questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted, and a vote was taken.
In the explanation of reasons for the second recommendation for resignation, the proposer stated that, at the all-council-members conference on November 24, 2011, Toshio Tsumuraya had admitted drunk driving.
However, the circumstances under which that statement was allegedly made cannot be ignored.
At the all-council-members conference on November 24, 2011, Toshio Tsumuraya was asked to provide an explanation in a markedly unequal situation, without a lawyer, alone before twenty-six other council members.
He was asked to explain matters that could be disadvantageous to him while he was facing a criminal trial.
The situation was not one in which Toshio Tsumuraya and the other council members exchanged views freely and on equal terms.
Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself.
The all-council-members conference on November 24, 2011 was not an interrogation by the police or prosecutors.
However, careful examination is required as to whether an explanation given by a person facing a criminal case, without a lawyer, alone before twenty-six other council members in a markedly unequal situation, can be treated in the same way as an explanation given on the basis of ordinary free will.
Furthermore, in the second recommendation for resignation, Toshio Tsumuraya’s position that he would wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding his future course was evaluated as contrary to social justice and as showing serious disregard for the council’s decision.
In addition, even though no guilty judgment had become final and binding, the proposer stated definitively that driving under the influence of alcohol while in office was outrageous.
Criminal responsibility is, in principle, determined through a criminal trial.
A person is presumed innocent until a guilty judgment becomes final and binding.
If the presumption of innocence is taken seriously, Toshio Tsumuraya’s position that he would wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding his future course should have been regarded as a response deserving respect.
Nevertheless, the Sukagawa City Council, as a public authority, relied on an explanation made in a markedly unequal situation, without a lawyer, alone before twenty-six other council members, and negatively evaluated his intention to wait for the result of the trial.
It then adopted a second recommendation for resignation before the first hearing, with the approval of all attending council members.
Accordingly, this document does not merely show that the second recommendation for resignation was adopted.
It is an important document showing the process by which an explanation made under circumstances disadvantageous to the person concerned was converted into an assessment that he had admitted criminal conduct, and how that assessment was then used to deny his intention to wait for the outcome of the trial, leading to an official condemnation before the first hearing.
This case must also be examined in relation to judicial power.
Judicial power to determine the existence or non-existence of criminal responsibility belongs to the courts.
The Sukagawa City Council had no authority to make a final determination as to whether Toshio Tsumuraya was guilty in the criminal case.
Despite this, in the second recommendation for resignation, the proposer definitively stated before the first hearing that driving under the influence of alcohol while in office was outrageous.
The council also evaluated his position of waiting for the result of the trial before deciding his future course as contrary to social justice and as showing serious disregard for the council’s decision.
This was not merely an expression of political opinion.
It was a case in which the city council made a definitive assessment before judgment concerning alleged criminal facts that should have been determined by a court, and even rejected his intention to wait for the court’s judgment.
Therefore, this case must also be examined from the perspective of whether the city council anticipated the judicial judgment of the court and entered into the sphere of judicial power.
Furthermore, even if a recommendation for resignation is, under domestic law, a non-binding political expression of intent, that does not mean that the issue under the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be avoided.
In relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the question is whether an explanation based on the domestic legal system can justify a failure to perform treaty obligations.
Accordingly, this document is important for examining, as an integrated whole, the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself, the presumption of innocence, due process, the location of judicial power, the fairness of the trial, and treaty obligations.
Related Materials
Related pages
The following core pages are currently available in Japanese only.
Record and Verification of the Case
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 1
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 2
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 3
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 4
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 5
Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality
Related evidence articles:
Document Distributed in Sukagawa City—Group Calling for the Resignation of Toshio Tsumuraya
Related normative articles:
Related timeline entries:
October 18, 2011:
The alleged incident was said to have occurred.
October 19, 2011:
Toshio Tsumuraya voluntarily appeared at the police station and was then arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant. This was not an arrest in flagrante delicto. Detention began.
October 24, 2011,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the First Resolution Recommending Resignation
October 26, 2011,
First Resolution Recommending Resignation
November 9, 2011:
He was indicted and was later released on bail.
November 28, 2011,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Second Resolution Recommending Resignation
December 1, 2011,
Second Resolution Recommending Resignation
January 16, 2012,
Conviction
January 31, 2012,
Conviction became final and binding
February 7, 2012,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Third Resolution Recommending Resignation
February 9, 2012,
Third Resolution Recommending Resignation
February 27, 2012,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Fourth Resolution Recommending Resignation
March 1, 2012,
Fourth Resolution Recommending Resignation