Overview of the Document
Document title:
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31
Official title:
General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant
Abbreviation:
General Comment No. 31, GC31
Article concerned:
Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）
Paragraph addressed in this article:
Paragraph 15
Original Text:
Article 2, paragraph 3, requires that in addition to effective protection of Covenant rights States Parties must ensure that individuals also have accessible and effective remedies to vindicate those rights.
Such remedies should be appropriately adapted so as to take account of the special vulnerability of certain categories of person, including in particular children.
The Committee attaches importance to States Parties’ establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations under domestic law.
The Committee notes that the enjoyment of the rights recognized under the Covenant can be effectively assured by the judiciary in many different ways, including direct applicability of the Covenant, application of comparable constitutional or other provisions of law, or the interpretive effect of the Covenant in the application of national law.
Administrative mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies.
National human rights institutions, endowed with appropriate powers, can contribute to this end.
A failure by a State Party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.
Cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective remedy.
Adopting body:
United Nations Human Rights Committee
Year adopted:
2004
Type of document:
Interpretative guidance on an international human rights treaty
Source of acquisition:
Obtained from the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights（OHCHR）
Format published:
Original PDF, Japanese translation, summary, and explanation of its relationship to this case
Original source document:
Skip to PDF contentAbout General Comments
General Comments are interpretative guidance issued by treaty bodies that monitor the implementation of international human rights treaties, explaining the meaning of treaty provisions and the obligations required of States parties.
General Comments of the Human Rights Committee are not themselves provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, they are important international interpretative materials for understanding the interpretation and application of the Covenant.
General Comment No. 31, addressed in this article, explains the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Paragraph 15 is particularly important for understanding the content of the effective remedy required under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant.
Facts Confirmed by This Document
This document is a General Comment issued by the Human Rights Committee concerning the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31, addressed in this article, explains the effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant, including the availability and effectiveness of remedies, judicial and administrative mechanisms, the duty to investigate, the problem of failure to investigate itself, and the cessation of ongoing violations.
The paragraph states that States parties must ensure that individuals have accessible and effective remedies to vindicate their rights under the Covenant.
The Human Rights Committee also attaches importance to States parties establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations under domestic law.
This shows that remedies under the Covenant are not limited to courts alone, and that administrative mechanisms also have important significance.
The paragraph further states that administrative mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies.
What is important here is that what is required is not merely a formal response or guidance concerning available systems, but a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of allegations of violations.
The paragraph also states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.
This is extremely important in this case.
In this case, the recommendations for resignation adopted before judgment raise issues in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant.
Thereafter, from 2025 onward, Toshio Tsumuraya himself requested Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council to review and correct the past recommendations for resignation.
Accordingly, the issue is not only whether the past recommendations for resignation violated the presumption of innocence.
The issue is also whether, after allegations of rights violations were made, Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council conducted a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation or review.
If no investigation or review was conducted, the failure itself may give rise to a separate issue in relation to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15.
This document is important for examining that point.
The paragraph also states that cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective remedy.
In this case, the issue is whether the past recommendations for resignation, the related official records, and the subsequent refusal to correct or merely formal handling continue to affect the person’s honor, dignity, political participation, and social reputation.
From this perspective as well, General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 is an important document for examining this case not merely as a “past issue,” but as an issue that has not been remedied up to the present.
Important Entries
What is particularly important in this document is that General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 indicates the necessity of a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of allegations of violations.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires States parties to ensure that persons whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated can obtain an effective remedy.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 explains that this effective remedy requires not only accessible and effective remedies, but also appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations.
In particular, administrative mechanisms are described as especially necessary for giving effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly, and effectively.
This is directly related to this case.
In this case, from 2025 onward, Toshio Tsumuraya himself requested Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council to review and correct the past recommendations for resignation in relation to the presumption of innocence, due process, fair trial, effective remedy, Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan, and Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan.
In such a situation, the issue is not merely whether a document was received, whether a response was issued, or whether a legal consultation was held.
What matters is whether the allegations of rights violations were investigated or reviewed promptly, thoroughly, and effectively.
Even more important is that the paragraph states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.
This statement is important for understanding the structure of this case.
In this case, the recommendations for resignation adopted between 2011 and 2012 are themselves at issue.
However, that is not the only issue.
If, after 2025, review and correction were requested concerning that issue but no substantive investigation or review was conducted, that failure itself may become a new issue.
In this respect, General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 is an important norm for organizing this case not only as an issue of past recommendations for resignation, but also as an issue of the later failure to provide a remedy or review.
The paragraph also states that cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective remedy.
In this case, the issue is whether the past recommendations for resignation remain as official records and whether the subsequent refusal to correct or merely formal handling has maintained or fixed the problem up to the present.
Accordingly, simply treating the matter as a “past resolution” is not sufficient in light of the purpose of General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15.
Questions Raised by This Document
1. Was a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation conducted in response to the allegations of violations?
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 states that administrative mechanisms are particularly required in order to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly, and effectively.
In this case, from 2025 onward, Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council were requested to review and correct the past recommendations for resignation in relation to the presumption of innocence, due process, fair trial, and effective remedy.
Accordingly, the issue is not simply whether the request or petition was received.
Nor is it merely whether a written response was issued or a legal consultation was held.
The issue is whether a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation or review was actually conducted in response to the allegations of rights violations.
2. Does the failure to investigate itself become a separate issue?
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 states that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.
This point is extremely important in the structure of this case.
In this case, the recommendations for resignation adopted before judgment themselves raise issues in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant.
However, if, after 2025, review and correction were requested and no substantive investigation or review was conducted, that failure itself may become a separate issue in relation to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant.
Accordingly, in this case, it is necessary to examine separately the issue of the past recommendations for resignation and the later issue of failure to investigate or provide a remedy.
3. Can a formal response or guidance concerning available systems be regarded as an effective remedy?
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 requires accessible and effective remedies.
It also states that administrative mechanisms are necessary to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly, and effectively.
From this perspective, a merely formal response or guidance concerning available systems cannot by itself be regarded as ensuring an effective remedy.
In this case, Sukagawa City responded to the written request by stating that the matter had been handled appropriately by the City and by referring to the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
However, if that response did not specifically indicate what facts were confirmed concerning the past recommendations for resignation, what legal evaluation was conducted, and on what grounds the matter was judged to have been handled appropriately, the question arises whether it can be regarded as a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation.
4. Does the fact that a legal consultation was held constitute an effective investigation or review?
In this case, after the 2025 request for correction, legal consultations were held on the City side and the City Council side.
However, what General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 requires is a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of allegations of violations.
Therefore, the mere fact that a legal consultation was held does not mean that an effective investigation or review was completed.
In particular, in the City-side legal consultation held on April 19, 2025, a view was recorded to the effect that, because the person had been arrested, it was not problematic to make an assumption close to guilt.
This understanding raises serious questions in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.
If Sukagawa City responded that it had handled the matter appropriately on the basis of such a legal understanding, there is a possibility that this was not an effective investigation or review, but rather a refusal to correct based on an understanding that itself raises problems under the presumption of innocence.
5. Were measures to cease an ongoing violation considered?
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 states that cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective remedy.
In this case, the recommendations for resignation themselves were adopted between 2011 and 2012.
However, if those resolutions and related official records remain and continue to affect the person’s honor, dignity, political participation, and social reputation, the issue cannot be said to have been completed in the past.
It is also possible that the refusal to correct or merely formal handling after 2025 has fixed the past problem in place up to the present.
Accordingly, the issue is what measures Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council considered in order to cease the ongoing violation or its effects.
6. What role should the City and the Council have played as administrative or legislative mechanisms?
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 attaches importance to States parties establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations.
In this case, organs of a local public entity, namely Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council, received allegations of rights violations.
The issue is whether, in such a situation, it was sufficient for the City and the Council simply to shift the matter outside by saying that the person should file a lawsuit or consult the Legal Affairs Bureau.
In particular, the Sukagawa City Council was the body that had itself adopted the past recommendations for resignation.
When that same body later received allegations of violations, it is necessary to examine what investigation, review, explanation, or corrective action it should have undertaken as an administrative or legislative mechanism.
7. Did the failure to provide a remedy make the issue a new problem after 2025?
In this case, the recommendations for resignation adopted between 2011 and 2012 are at issue.
However, if, after 2025, the person requested review and correction and no substantive investigation or remedy was provided, the issue is not limited to the past resolutions.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 indicates that the failure to investigate allegations of violations may itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.
Accordingly, in this case, in addition to the issues from 2011 to 2012, the failure to investigate, failure to provide a remedy, refusal to correct, or merely formal handling after 2025 should be examined as a new issue.
This point is important for positioning this case as a current issue.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision establishes the obligation to ensure that persons whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated shall have an effective remedy. It is the central treaty provision of this article.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision establishes the presumption of innocence. In this case, the recommendations for resignation adopted before judgment raise issues in relation to this provision.
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision establishes the right to a fair trial. The issue is how public assumptions of guilt before judgment and the later failure to provide a remedy relate to the fairness of the criminal trial.
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 council member and subsequent responses affected political status and council activities.
General Comments
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15:
This paragraph concerns accessible and effective remedies, judicial and administrative mechanisms, prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of allegations of violations, the problem of failure to investigate itself, and cessation of ongoing violations. It is the central norm of this article.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 16:
This paragraph concerns reparation for individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated, including appropriate compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, official apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices. It is important in examining the content of remedies.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30:
This paragraph explains the presumption of innocence and states that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial. It is important in relation to the first and second recommendations for resignation in this case.
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 important in relation to the duty to faithfully implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
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 absence of an automatic duty under the petition system, the absence of legal binding force of recommendations for resignation, the fact that the matter concerns internal handling by a local assembly, or the referral to the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau can justify leaving the duty to provide a remedy under the Covenant unexamined.
Domestic Law
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 person’s personal interests.
Article 16 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right of petition. The issue is how public authorities should respond when a person seeks review and correction of rights violations through a request or petition.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns due process. The recommendations for resignation before judgment, and the later refusal to review or merely formal handling, raise issues in relation to due process.
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial by an impartial court. It is necessary to examine how public assumptions of guilt before judgment and the later failure to provide a remedy relate to the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 76, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision states that judicial power is vested in the courts. If a local assembly makes a public expression of intent before judgment that prejudges criminal responsibility, this raises an issue in relation to the location of judicial power.
Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision establishes the independence of judges. Public assumptions of guilt before judgment and the later failure to correct them raise issues in relation to fair trial and judicial independence.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision requires that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations be faithfully observed. It is important in relation to the domestic significance of the Covenant and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision establishes the duty of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is how local council members, heads of local public entities, and officials should respect constitutional and treaty-based human rights guarantees.
Article 89, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Local Autonomy Act:
These provisions position a local assembly as a deliberative organ composed of members elected by residents, and provide for the powers of the assembly and the faithful performance of duties by council members. They are important in examining how a council should investigate, review, explain, or correct its own past official expressions of intent when constitutional and Covenant-based issues are later raised.
Relationship to This Case
The issue in this case is not limited to the recommendations for resignation adopted between 2011 and 2012.
Nor is it limited to whether a guilty judgment later became final.
What is important in relation to General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 is whether, when allegations of violations of rights under the Covenant were made, a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation or review was conducted.
In this case, the first recommendation for resignation was adopted on October 26, 2011, before indictment, while the person concerned was in detention and absent from the plenary session.
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted on December 1, 2011, before the first hearing and before judgment, after the person concerned had left the chamber.
These recommendations for resignation raise issues as pre-judgment public assumptions of guilt in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant.
Thereafter, from 2025 onward, the person concerned requested Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council to review and correct the constitutional issues and Covenant-based issues arising from the past recommendations for resignation.
At that point, the issue was no longer limited to the past recommendations for resignation.
The issue became whether Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council conducted a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation or review in response to allegations of rights violations.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 states that administrative mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly, and effectively.
Accordingly, in this case, it is not sufficient to focus only on whether a document was issued in response to the request or petition, or whether a legal consultation was held.
What matters is whether it was made clear what facts were confirmed concerning the past recommendations for resignation, what legal norms were applied, and on what grounds the past handling was judged appropriate or inappropriate.
In the City-side legal consultation held on April 19, 2025, a view was recorded to the effect that, because the person had been arrested, it was not problematic to make an assumption close to guilt.
This understanding raises serious questions in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.
This is because General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 states that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, and also states that the length of pre-trial detention should never be taken as an indication of guilt or of its degree.
If, on the basis of such a legal understanding, Sukagawa City responded on April 28, 2025 that the matter had been handled appropriately by the City, there is a possibility that this response was not an effective investigation or review, but a refusal to correct based on an understanding that itself raises problems under the presumption of innocence.
On the City Council side as well, at the 2025 Caucus Representatives’ Meeting, it was organized that the legal interpretation would be consulted with the City’s legal counsel and that the handling of the petition would be discussed by the Council Steering Committee.
On the other hand, opinions were also recorded to the effect 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, in relation to General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15, the issue is whether simply leaving the matter to litigation, or merely referring the person to the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau, can be regarded as a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of allegations of violations.
Furthermore, the paragraph indicates that a failure to investigate allegations of violations may itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.
From this perspective, in this case, in addition to the issue of the recommendations for resignation adopted between 2011 and 2012, the failure to conduct a substantive investigation or review after 2025 should itself be examined as a separate issue.
The paragraph also states that cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective remedy.
In this case, the past recommendations for resignation and related official records remain, and they may continue to affect the person’s honor, dignity, political participation, and social reputation.
Therefore, the issue is what measures Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council considered in order to cease the ongoing violation or its effects.
Accordingly, General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 is a central norm for positioning this case not only as an issue of past recommendations for resignation, but also as a current issue concerning whether allegations of violations after 2025 were investigated, reviewed, remedied, or corrected.
This document is an important source showing that the failure to provide a remedy or the failure to conduct a review itself becomes an issue in this case.
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:
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.”