Overview of the Document
Document title:
Report on the Results of the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting
Document number: 582820
Approval date:
April 11, 2025
Date of preparation of the meeting result report:
April 9, 2025
Meeting concerned:
Caucus Representatives’ Meeting held on April 8, 2025
Created by:
Sukagawa City Council Secretariat
Source of acquisition:
Obtained through a request for disclosure of information
Type of document:
Proposal/approval document, meeting result report, materials for the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting, draft notice, and reference materials
Petition concerned:
Petition submitted on April 3, 2025, seeking correction of human rights violations, including review and remedial measures concerning the constitutional issues of the recommendations for resignation adopted in fiscal year 2011
Format published:
PDF with personal information and other information redacted to the necessary extent
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document is an internal document recording the results of discussions held at the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting of the Sukagawa City Council concerning the petition submitted on April 3, 2025.
In the proposal/approval document, the subject is stated as “Report on the Results of the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting.”
The reason for drafting the document is stated to be the reporting of the results of the above-mentioned meeting held on April 8, 2025.
The meeting result report records that the meeting was held on April 8, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 10:40 a.m., in the council reception room.
The attendees listed include the chairperson, vice-chairperson, representatives of each caucus, non-affiliated council members, and staff members of the council secretariat.
The matter for discussion was the handling of the petition submitted on April 3, 2025.
The petition is recorded as seeking review and remedial measures concerning the constitutional issues of the recommendations for resignation adopted in fiscal year 2011.
At the meeting, the matters for discussion were whether the handling of the petition should be referred to the Council Steering Committee scheduled for April 23, 2025, and whether the council should respond in writing within one week of submission as requested by the petitioner.
As the result of the discussion, the document records that the legal interpretation of the petition would be consulted with the City’s legal counsel, that the formal handling of the petition would be referred to the Council Steering Committee scheduled for April 23, 2025, and that the written response would be sent as a notice expressing the view of the City Council, based on a draft prepared by the secretariat.
The opinions of the representatives of the caucuses are also recorded.
One caucus representative stated, in substance, that the petition contained many legal and technical terms, that the petitioner was merely stating matters while incorporating his own thoughts, and that it was difficult to determine, including whether it was legally proper.
The same representative also stated, in substance, that they wanted the City’s legal counsel to confirm whether there had been any legal problem.
In the same opinion, it is also recorded that, because the council had also suffered damage in the form of damage to its image due to a certain act, the council issued the recommendation for resignation, and that the representative did not think this would affect the finalization of the criminal sentence.
Another caucus representative stated, in substance, that there was no obligation to respond exactly as requested by the petitioner, but that, in terms of the council responding in good faith, it would be acceptable to send a document explaining how the petition system would be handled.
The same representative also stated, in substance, that a recommendation for resignation is only a recommendation, that whether to resign is up to the individual, that whether it constitutes a constitutional human rights violation is not something for “us” to decide, and that it would be better to respond after consulting the City’s legal counsel.
Another caucus representative stated, in substance, that the matter seemed to exceed the scope of what the council should decide, and that, if the petitioner was not satisfied, he should file a lawsuit.
Another caucus representative stated, in substance, that, apart from issues of legal interpretation, the council should discuss only the handling of the petition.
Another caucus representative stated, in substance, that the petitioner might be saying not that the recommendations for resignation themselves were unconstitutional, but that the subsequent responses of the council and the City were unconstitutional; that, after hearing opinions from lawyers or experts, a firm basis should be established so that no future problems would remain; and that the recommendations themselves were considered to have been natural.
This document includes two draft notices to the petitioner.
One is a notice not framed as a response to the petitioner’s request, informing the petitioner that the handling of the petition would be discussed by the Council Steering Committee.
The other is a response document addressing the petitioner’s request, informing the petitioner that the handling of the submitted petition would be discussed by the Council Steering Committee.
The document also includes reference materials concerning the basis of the petition.
In these reference materials, it is organized that the petitioner relied on Article 12 of the Constitution of Japan; that petitions of this kind are different from formal petitions and that no particular procedures or forms are prescribed; that receiving such a petition does not automatically require the council to take any particular action; and that, in the Sukagawa City Council, matters concerning the operation of the council are, for example, discussed by the Council Steering Committee.
The landscape-format materials attached to this document also include a table entitled “Status of the Recommendations for Resignation Concerning Former City Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya” and detailed mayoral answers.
The table organizes the recommendations for resignation adopted on October 26, 2011, December 1, 2011, February 9, 2012, and March 1, 2012, as well as the matter of resignation as a council member on March 6, 2012.
Accordingly, this document confirms that, regarding the petition submitted on April 3, 2025, the Sukagawa City Council, at the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting, organized a course of action under which the legal interpretation would be consulted with the City’s legal counsel and the formal handling would be discussed by the Council Steering Committee.
Important Entries
What is particularly important in this document is that it is a record showing that the Sukagawa City Council internally discussed the petition seeking review and remedial measures concerning the constitutional issues of the recommendations for resignation adopted in fiscal year 2011.
In this case, four recommendations for resignation were adopted by the Sukagawa City Council between 2011 and 2012.
Thereafter, on April 3, 2025, a petition was submitted seeking review and remedial measures concerning the constitutional issues of those recommendations for resignation.
This document shows how the Sukagawa City Council organized its handling of that petition at the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting held on April 8, 2025.
What is important here is that the Sukagawa City Council decided to consult the City’s legal counsel concerning the legal interpretation of the petition.
This indicates that the content of the petition was treated not merely as an expression of opinion or a general request, but at least as a matter requiring legal confirmation.
It is also important that the formal handling of the petition was to be referred to the Council Steering Committee scheduled for April 23, 2025.
This shows that the petition was scheduled to be sent from the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting to the Council Steering Committee as a matter concerning the operation of the council.
It is also important that the opinions of the caucus representatives recorded in the document address the legal nature of the petition, the nature of the recommendations for resignation, the constitutional issues concerning the responses of the council and the City, resolution through litigation, and the need to consult the legal counsel or experts.
One opinion stated that they wanted the City’s legal counsel to confirm whether there had been any legal problem.
Another opinion stated that a recommendation for resignation is only a recommendation, that whether to resign is up to the individual, that whether it constitutes a constitutional human rights violation is not something for “us” to decide, and that it would be better to respond after consulting the City’s legal counsel.
Another opinion stated that the matter seemed to exceed the scope of what the council should decide, and that, if the petitioner was not satisfied, he should file a lawsuit.
However, the issue here is the fact that the Sukagawa City Council itself decided on and adopted the four recommendations for resignation between 2011 and 2012.
The recommendations for resignation were not actions taken by an external body.
They were official expressions of intent proposed in the plenary session of the Sukagawa City Council, adopted by the council after omitting questions, referral to a committee, debate, or after requiring the person concerned to leave the chamber, and passed unanimously or by similar approval.
Accordingly, when, in 2025, constitutional issues, issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and requests for review and remedial measures were raised concerning those past decisions of the council, the question arises whether the matter could simply be treated as “not something for us to decide” or as “exceeding the scope of what the council should decide.”
This point is also important in relation to Article 89, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Local Autonomy Act.
Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that an ordinary local public entity shall have an assembly as its deliberative organ, composed of members elected by its residents.
Paragraph 2 of the same article provides that the assembly shall decide important matters and exercise powers such as inspection and investigation.
Paragraph 3 of the same article provides that council members must faithfully perform their duties, entrusted by the residents, in order to contribute to the proper exercise of the powers of the assembly.
The recommendations for resignation in this case were precisely official expressions of intent made by the Sukagawa City Council as a public deliberative organ.
For that reason, when review of constitutional issues, human rights issues, and subsequent council responses concerning those official expressions of intent was later requested, the question arises how the council should have explained, examined, and responded in relation to the role of the assembly and the duties of council members contemplated by Article 89 of the Local Autonomy Act.
Another opinion recorded in the document organized the issue by stating that the petitioner might be saying not that the recommendations for resignation themselves were unconstitutional, but that the subsequent responses of the council and the City were unconstitutional, and that, after hearing opinions from lawyers or experts, a firm basis should be established so that no future problems would remain.
This organization is important.
This case is not an issue completed by the recommendations for resignation adopted between 2011 and 2012.
The issue is also how, in 2025, the Sukagawa City Council, after being asked to review and correct the past recommendations for resignation, handled the matter, the extent to which it examined the matter itself, the extent to which it entrusted the matter to legal counsel or experts, and what accountability it fulfilled.
Of particular importance is the recorded opinion of one caucus representative stating, in substance, that the council had also suffered damage in the form of damage to its image due to a certain act, and therefore issued the recommendation for resignation, and that the representative did not think this would affect the finalization of the criminal sentence.
This statement can be understood as treating the issue in this case as a question of whether the recommendations for resignation actually affected the result or finalization of the criminal judgment.
However, the issue in this case is not limited to whether the recommendations for resignation actually affected the finalization of the sentence or the result of the judgment.
The very fact that, before judgment, the City Council as a public authority made an expression of intent premised on guilt is itself an issue in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Whether or not there was actual influence is a separate matter to be examined additionally.
Accordingly, the question arises whether the issue concerning the presumption of innocence in this case can be resolved merely by saying that the recommendation “does not seem to have affected the finalization of the sentence.”
This statement is important as an indication that, even within the council in 2025, the issue may have been understood within the framework of whether there was actual influence on the judgment.
In this way, this document shows that, within the Sukagawa City Council, the petition was recognized not merely as an administrative matter, but as a matter concerning the Constitution, human rights, legal interpretation, the legal nature of recommendations for resignation, and the subsequent responses of the council and the City.
On the other hand, as the result of the meeting, the council did not prepare a substantive response within one week as requested by the petitioner, but organized a course of action to send a notice stating that the handling of the petition would be discussed by the Council Steering Committee.
The landscape-format materials also organize the status of the four recommendations for resignation in a table.
This table shows that, as of 2025, the Sukagawa City Council side had internally organized the history of the four past recommendations for resignation and the subsequent resignation.
Accordingly, this document is an important document showing how, in 2025, the Sukagawa City Council received and internally processed the allegation of constitutional issues concerning the past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses.
Questions Raised by This Document
1. Was the content of the petition treated merely as a petition, or as a matter requiring legal confirmation?
This document states that the legal interpretation of the petition would be consulted with the City’s legal counsel.
This indicates that the content of the petition was treated not merely as an opinion or request, but as a matter requiring legal confirmation.
Nevertheless, the direction organized for the petitioner was limited to sending a notice that the handling of the petition would be discussed by the Council Steering Committee.
Was this handling sufficient in relation to the review and remedial measures requested in the petition?
2. Is it sufficient to focus only on the legal nature of a recommendation for resignation?
This document records an opinion to the effect that a recommendation for resignation is only a recommendation, and that whether to resign is up to the individual.
However, the issue in this case is not limited to whether a recommendation for resignation has legal binding force.
The very fact that, before judgment, the City Council as a public authority made an expression of intent as if guilt were being assumed independently raises an issue under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, the repeated adoption of recommendations for resignation after the judgment became final, and the continuous pressure to resign imposed on the person concerned, raise issues in relation to personal rights, political participation, council activities, and statutory procedures.
Accordingly, the question arises whether the constitutional and international human rights issues in this case can be resolved merely by explaining that a recommendation for resignation is formally only a recommendation.
3. Can the council, which itself decided on and adopted the recommendations for resignation, later say that the issue is “not for us to decide”?
In this case, the Sukagawa City Council itself adopted four recommendations for resignation between 2011 and 2012.
These resolutions were not dispositions made by an external body, but official expressions of intent decided on and adopted by the Sukagawa City Council itself in plenary session.
Nevertheless, at the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting in 2025, opinions were recorded to the effect that whether the matter constitutes a constitutional human rights violation is not something for “us” to decide, and that the matter seems to exceed the scope of what the council should decide.
However, when constitutional issues and remedial measures are later raised concerning official expressions of intent that the council itself made in the past, the question arises whether the council may properly organize the matter as something that the council itself does not decide.
In particular, Article 89, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Local Autonomy Act provide that a council is a deliberative organ composed of members elected by residents, that it exercises powers such as important decision-making, inspection, and investigation, and that council members must faithfully perform their duties entrusted by residents.
In relation to these provisions, the question arises to what extent the council should have examined, explained, and considered remedial measures concerning the past recommendations for resignation that it itself had adopted.
4. In relation to Article 89, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Local Autonomy Act, what response should the council have made?
Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that an ordinary local public entity shall have an assembly composed of members elected by residents.
Paragraph 2 of the same article provides that the assembly shall decide important matters and exercise powers such as inspection and investigation.
Paragraph 3 of the same article provides that council members must faithfully perform their duties, entrusted by the residents.
In this case, the same council adopted multiple recommendations for resignation against an elected council member, before and after judgment.
In 2025, the council was asked to review and take remedial measures concerning the constitutional issues and issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights arising from those recommendations for resignation.
In such a case, is it sufficient for the council to explain merely that, under the petition system, there is no automatic duty to take action?
Or, in relation to the role of the assembly and the duties of council members contemplated by Article 89 of the Local Autonomy Act, should the council have considered some form of examination, explanation, or remedial measures concerning its past decisions?
This point is important in examining this document.
5. Is it sufficient to say that the recommendation “does not seem to have affected the finalization of the sentence”?
This document records an opinion to the effect that, because the council also suffered damage in the form of damage to its image due to a certain act, the recommendation for resignation was issued, and that this did not seem to affect the finalization of the criminal sentence.
This way of organizing the issue can be understood as focusing on whether the recommendations for resignation actually affected the outcome of the criminal trial.
However, the issue in this case is not limited to whether the recommendations for resignation actually affected the finalization of the sentence or the result of the judgment.
The very fact that, before judgment, the City Council as a public authority made an expression of intent premised on guilt is itself an issue in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Whether or not there was actual influence is a separate matter to be examined additionally.
Accordingly, it is necessary to examine whether the issue of pre-judgment public assumptions of guilt can be resolved merely by saying that the recommendation “does not seem to have affected the finalization of the sentence.”
6. Is it sufficient to say that, if the petitioner is not satisfied, he should file a lawsuit?
This document records an opinion to the effect that, if the petitioner is not satisfied, he should file a lawsuit.
However, in this case, through the petition, the council itself was asked to examine and correct its past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses.
When a public authority is confronted with constitutional issues concerning its own past acts, is it sufficient simply to leave the matter to resolution through litigation?
In relation to the obligation to ensure an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the question also arises what kind of examination or remedial measures the council itself should have undertaken.
7. What is the significance of the understanding that “the subsequent responses of the council and the City” are at issue?
This document records an opinion to the effect that the petitioner might be saying not that the recommendations for resignation themselves were unconstitutional, but that the subsequent responses of the council and the City were unconstitutional.
This understanding is important.
In this case, the issue is not only the recommendations for resignation adopted between 2011 and 2012, but also the fact that, even in 2025, sufficient examination, correction, and explanation concerning those issues had not been carried out.
In other words, this case includes not only the past recommendations for resignation, but also the subsequent responses of the council and the City, the refusal to correct the matter, and the fixing of the problem in the present.
The fact that this point was recognized within the council is an important evidentiary value of this document.
8. What was the scope of the consultation with the legal counsel or experts?
This document states that the legal interpretation would be consulted with the City’s legal counsel.
It also records an opinion that, after hearing opinions from lawyers or experts, a firm basis should be established so that no future problems would remain.
The question here is whether the subject of the consultation was merely the formal handling of the petition, or whether it included the constitutional issues of the recommendations for resignation, the presumption of innocence under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the subsequent responses of the council and the City, and effective remedy.
If the scope of consultation was limited to the formal handling of the petition, the question arises whether that was sufficient to address the essential issues in this case.
9. Can the issues in this case be addressed merely by a general explanation of the petition system?
The reference materials in this document explain that petitions of this kind are different from formal petitions, that no particular procedures or forms are prescribed, and that receiving such a petition does not automatically require the council to take any particular action.
However, the petition in this case was not merely a general request.
It sought remedial measures concerning constitutional issues and issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights arising from the past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses.
Accordingly, it is necessary to examine whether a general explanation of the petition system alone can be regarded as addressing the issues of the presumption of innocence, due process, political participation, and effective remedy in this case.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
Domestic Law
Article 12 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision states that the freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by the Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, that they shall refrain from abusing these freedoms and rights, and that they shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare. In this document, the reference materials state that the petitioner relied on Article 12 of the Constitution.
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns respect for the individual, personal rights, honor, and social reputation. It is necessary to examine how the past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses affected the personal interests of the person concerned.
Article 16 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right of petition. Although the materials organize the petition in this case as different from a formal petition, the issue is how the council should treat an act by which a resident or related person seeks correction from a public authority.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns due process. The absence of the person concerned, the requirement that he leave the chamber, the omission of questions, referral to a committee, and debate, and repeated pressure to resign in the past recommendations for resignation raise issues in relation to due process.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the duty of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is how local council members and the council secretariat should examine and correct past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses when constitutional issues are later raised.
Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision states that an ordinary local public entity shall have an assembly as its deliberative organ, composed of members elected by the residents of that ordinary local public entity. In this case, the issue is that the Sukagawa City Council, as a deliberative organ composed of elected members, adopted past recommendations for resignation and was later asked to review and correct constitutional issues concerning those recommendations.
Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision states that the assembly of an ordinary local public entity shall decide important matters and exercise powers such as inspection and investigation. In this case, when constitutional issues were later raised concerning recommendations for resignation adopted by the council itself, the issue is how the council should have examined, explained, and considered necessary remedial measures.
Article 89, paragraph 3 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision states that members of the assembly of an ordinary local public entity must faithfully perform their duties, entrusted by the residents, in order to contribute to the proper exercise of the powers of the assembly. In this case, the issue is whether the council members and the council faithfully conducted examination and explanation concerning the past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses in a manner consistent with the mandate of the residents.
Article 109 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision concerns the Council Steering Committee. In this document, the handling of the petition was organized as a matter to be discussed by the Council Steering Committee.
International Human Rights Treaties: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the presumption of innocence. The fact that, before judgment, the City Council as a public authority adopted recommendations for resignation as if guilt were being assumed is itself an issue in relation to this provision.
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns political participation. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation against an elected city council member and subsequent responses affected his political status and council activities.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns effective remedy. It is necessary to examine whether effective review and remedial measures were provided concerning past public assumptions of guilt, repeated recommendations for resignation, and the subsequent responses of the council and the City.
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 issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be left unexamined on the ground that the acts were those of a local council, that the matter was internal to the council, or that the petition system does not automatically impose a duty to take action.
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 Unconstitutionality and Illegality.”
Relationship to This Case
This document shows how the Sukagawa City Council internally handled the petition submitted on April 3, 2025.
In this case, four recommendations for resignation were adopted by the Sukagawa City Council between 2011 and 2012.
Thereafter, on April 3, 2025, a petition was submitted seeking review and remedial measures concerning the constitutional issues of those recommendations for resignation.
This document shows that, concerning that petition, the representatives of the caucuses expressed their opinions at the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting held on April 8, 2025, and that the council secretariat prepared a meeting result report.
The significance of this document lies not in the past recommendations for resignation themselves, but in the fact that it shows the response of the Sukagawa City Council as of 2025.
In other words, this document shows that this case was not merely a past event, but that, even in 2025, the council was asked to review and correct the matter, and internally discussed how to handle that request.
This document states that the legal interpretation of the petition would be consulted with the City’s legal counsel.
This shows that, within the Sukagawa City Council, the petition was treated as a matter requiring legal confirmation.
It also states that the formal handling of the petition would be discussed at the Council Steering Committee scheduled for April 23, 2025.
This shows that the petition was shared at the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting and was scheduled to be sent to the Council Steering Committee.
In addition, this document records the opinions of the representatives of the caucuses.
These include opinions that the City’s legal counsel should be asked to confirm whether there had been any legal problem; that a recommendation for resignation is only a recommendation and whether to resign is up to the individual; that whether the matter constitutes a constitutional human rights violation is not something for “us” to decide; that the matter seems to exceed the scope of what the council should decide; and that, if the petitioner is not satisfied, he should file a lawsuit.
However, in this case, the body that decided on and adopted the past recommendations for resignation was none other than the Sukagawa City Council itself.
The Sukagawa City Council adopted four recommendations for resignation between 2011 and 2012.
These were not decisions made by an external body. They were official expressions of intent made by the Sukagawa City Council as a public deliberative organ.
Accordingly, when constitutional issues and issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were raised in 2025 concerning those past decisions of the council, the question arises whether it was appropriate for the council to organize the matter as “not something for us to decide” or as “exceeding the scope of what the council should decide.”
This point is also important in relation to Article 89, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Local Autonomy Act.
Article 89 of the Local Autonomy Act positions the council as a deliberative organ composed of members elected by residents, provides that it exercises powers such as important decision-making, inspection, and investigation, and provides that council members must faithfully perform their duties entrusted by residents.
On the premise of this provision, when constitutional and international human rights issues are later raised concerning past official expressions of intent made by the council itself, the question arises whether the council may limit itself to formal processing of the petition, or whether the council itself should have considered some form of substantive examination, explanation, or remedial measures.
On the other hand, the document also records an opinion organizing the issue as perhaps not being about the recommendations for resignation themselves, but about the subsequent responses of the council and the City being unconstitutional, and an opinion that, after hearing opinions from lawyers or experts, a firm basis should be established so that no future problems would remain.
This point shows that, even within the council, the issues raised by the petition were recognized not merely as a formal matter of petition handling, but as issues concerning the past recommendations for resignation, subsequent responses of the council and the City, the Constitution, human rights, and legal interpretation.
What is important here is that the issue in this case is not limited to whether the recommendations for resignation had legal binding force.
The very fact that, before judgment, the City Council as a public authority made an expression of intent as if guilt were being assumed independently raises an issue under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Whether or not there was actual influence is a separate matter to be examined additionally.
Therefore, an understanding that focuses only on whether the recommendations for resignation actually affected the finalization of the sentence or the result of the judgment cannot adequately capture the issue concerning the presumption of innocence in this case.
Furthermore, the repeated adoption of recommendations for resignation after the judgment became final, and the continued absence of sufficient examination and correction thereafter, raise issues in relation to personal rights, political participation, council activities, and effective remedy.
Accordingly, this document is an important document for examining how, as of 2025, the Sukagawa City Council received these issues and attempted to process them.
This document is also important in relation to effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
How did the council respond when it was asked to review and correct past public assumptions of guilt, repeated recommendations for resignation, and the subsequent responses of the council and the City?
Was that response sufficient as a merely formal handling under the petition system?
Or, as an issue under the Constitution, Article 89 of the Local Autonomy Act, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, was a more substantive review and remedial measure required?
This point is examined in “Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality” as an issue concerning effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and General Comment No. 31.
This document is a foundational document for examining these issues.
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 timeline:
April 3, 2025:
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a request to Sukagawa City seeking redress for human rights violations arising from the resignation recommendation resolutions, and also submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council.
April 8, 2025:
On the Sukagawa City Council side, a meeting of the Conference of Faction Representatives was held concerning the petition.
April 19, 2025:
Legal consultations were conducted on the Sukagawa City side and the Sukagawa City Council side concerning the request and the petition.
April 28, 2025:
Sukagawa City issued its final response to the request, stating that the matter had been “properly handled.”