Overview of the Document
Document title:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Abbreviation:
VCLT
Article concerned:
Article 27
Original text:
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.
Adopting body:
United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties
Year adopted:
1969
Year of entry into force:
1980
Relationship with Japan:
The Convention entered into force for Japan on August 1, 1981.
Type of document:
International treaty concerning the conclusion, validity, interpretation, performance, and termination of treaties
Source of acquisition:
Public materials of the United Nations International Law Commission
Format published:
Original text and Japanese translation, summary, and explanation of its relationship to this case
Original source document:
Skip to PDF contentAbout the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is a treaty that establishes basic rules of international law concerning the conclusion, validity, interpretation, performance, termination, and related matters of treaties.
In relation to this case, Articles 26 and 27 of the Convention are particularly important.
Article 26 provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.
Article 27 provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Accordingly, Japan, as a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）, cannot justify failure to perform its obligations under the Covenant merely by relying on explanations based on domestic institutional arrangements.
In this case, the issue is whether matters under the Covenant can be left unexamined on such grounds as the absence of legal binding force of recommendations for resignation, the absence of an automatic duty to act under the petition system, the matter being internal to a local assembly, the mayor’s office and the council being separate organs, or the fact that the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau was introduced.
Facts Confirmed by This Document
This document is the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
This provision is important for understanding the relationship between treaty obligations and explanations based on domestic legal systems.
When a State concludes a treaty, that State must perform its treaty obligations in good faith.
A State cannot justify failure to perform treaty obligations on the basis of domestic legal systems, procedures, allocation of authority, distinctions between organs, or the existence or absence of legal effects under domestic law.
In this case, Japan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979.
Accordingly, at the time of the recommendations for resignation in 2011, Japan was under a treaty obligation to comply with the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant.
At the time of the requests for correction, petitions, legal consultations, and responses in 2025, Japan was also under obligations concerning effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant.
In this respect, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is an important source for examining whether issues under the Covenant can be avoided merely by explanations based on domestic institutional arrangements.
In particular, in this case, explanations such as the following become issues: that recommendations for resignation are non-binding political expressions of intent, that petitions do not automatically impose a duty on the council to act in the same way as formal petitions, that the matter concerns a local assembly’s judgment, or that the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau was introduced.
However, what matters under the Covenant is not only the formal classification under domestic law.
The issue is whether a public authority made a public expression of intent before judgment that prejudged the outcome of the trial, and whether, thereafter, an effective remedy or a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation was provided in response to allegations of rights violations.
Accordingly, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides the foundation for examining this case not merely as a matter of domestic institutional theory, but as an issue of obligations under an international human rights treaty.
Important Entries
What is particularly important in this document is that Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prohibits invoking domestic law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right of persons charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 also states that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
Furthermore, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant establishes the obligation to ensure that persons whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated shall have an effective remedy.
The issue in this case is whether these obligations under the Covenant can be avoided merely by explanations based on domestic institutional arrangements.
For example, there is an explanation that a recommendation for resignation has no legal binding force and does not immediately deprive a council member of status.
However, in relation to Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, the issue is not limited to whether the act has legal binding force.
The issue is whether a public authority made a public expression of intent before judgment that prejudged the outcome of the trial.
There is also an explanation that a petition of this kind is different from a formal petition and does not automatically impose a duty on the council to take action.
However, in relation to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 31, the issue is not limited to the formal effect of the petition system.
The issue is whether a competent authority ensured an effective remedy, or conducted a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation or review in response to allegations of rights violations under the Covenant.
There is also an explanation that the mayor’s office and the council are separate organs.
Of course, under the Local Autonomy Act, the mayor’s office and the council are separate organs.
However, in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the issue is whether the allocation of powers among domestic organs can justify failure to perform obligations under the Covenant.
In this case, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the past recommendations for resignation, and Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council responded to the requests for correction and petitions after 2025.
Accordingly, while it is necessary to clarify the division of roles under domestic law, that alone does not eliminate the issues of review obligations, remedy obligations, or investigation obligations under the Covenant.
In this respect, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is an extremely important norm for examining attempts to avoid the issue through domestic institutional explanations in this case.
Questions Raised by This Document
1. Can issues under the Covenant be avoided merely by explanations based on domestic institutional arrangements?
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a party may not invoke its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
In this case, domestic institutional explanations are at issue, including the legal nature of recommendations for resignation, the handling of petitions, the division of authority between the mayor’s office and the council, and the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
However, the issue under the Covenant is not merely how these matters are classified under domestic law.
The issue is how the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant, the right to an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3, the prohibition on public authorities prejudging the outcome of a trial under General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, and the duty to investigate and provide remedies under General Comment No. 31 were treated in this case.
Accordingly, the question is whether issues under the Covenant can be avoided merely by explanations based on domestic institutional arrangements.
2. Does the absence of legal binding force of a recommendation for resignation negate the issue under the presumption of innocence?
A recommendation for resignation is generally explained as not having the legal effect of immediately depriving the council member concerned of his or her status.
However, in relation to Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, the issue is not limited to whether the act has legal binding force.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 states that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
In Gridin v. Russian Federation, referred to in that paragraph, the issue was not a legally binding disposition, but statements by persons connected with public authorities in relation to the presumption of innocence.
From this perspective, the absence of legal binding force of a recommendation for resignation does not automatically negate the issue under the presumption of innocence.
In relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the issue under the Covenant cannot be avoided merely by relying on the existence or absence of legal effect under domestic law.
3. Does the absence of an automatic duty to act under the petition system negate the issue of effective remedy?
In this case, it has been explained that petitions of this kind are different from formal petitions and do not automatically require the council to take any particular action.
However, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant establishes the obligation to ensure that persons whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated shall have an effective remedy.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 also states that allegations of violations must be investigated promptly, thoroughly, and effectively, and that failure to investigate itself may give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.
Accordingly, the domestic explanation that the petition system imposes no automatic duty to act does not by itself avoid the issues under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 31.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shows that domestic institutional arrangements cannot justify failure to perform treaty obligations.
Therefore, in this case, the formal explanation concerning the petition system must be distinguished from the issues of effective remedy, investigation, review, and correction.
4. Does the fact that the mayor’s office and the council are separate organs eliminate the treaty-based issue?
Under the Local Autonomy Act, the mayor’s office and the council are separate organs.
This division of organs is important as a matter of domestic law.
However, in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the issue is whether a State can justify failure to perform its obligations under the Covenant on the basis of an allocation of powers among domestic organs.
In this case, the body that adopted the recommendations for resignation was the Sukagawa City Council.
On the other hand, a response to the 2025 request was also issued in the name of the Mayor of Sukagawa City.
Legal consultations were also conducted on both the City side and the Council side.
Thus, both the mayor’s office and the council were involved in issues concerning the past recommendations for resignation and subsequent remedy or correction.
Accordingly, the fact that the mayor’s office and the council are separate organs is important for organizing the scope of responsibility of each organ.
However, that fact alone does not eliminate the issues of the presumption of innocence, effective remedy, duty to investigate, or failure to provide a remedy under the Covenant.
5. Does introducing the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau exhaust the effective remedy required under the Covenant?
In this case, Sukagawa City, in its response dated April 28, 2025, introduced the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
However, this does not mean that Sukagawa City itself or the Sukagawa City Council itself conducted a substantive review, explanation, correction, or recurrence-prevention measure concerning the past recommendations for resignation.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant requires an effective remedy for persons whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 indicates the need for a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of allegations of violations.
Accordingly, the issue is whether Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council can avoid examining issues under the Covenant merely by introducing the Legal Affairs Bureau’s system.
In relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is necessary to examine carefully whether introducing another domestic system can be used as a reason to avoid review or remedy under the Covenant.
6. Is it sufficient to say that the matter exceeds the scope of what the council should decide?
In 2025 internal council materials, an understanding was recorded to the effect that the matter seemed to exceed the scope of what the council should decide.
However, the Sukagawa City Council was the body that actually adopted the recommendations for resignation between 2011 and 2012.
A petition was later submitted to that same council seeking review and correction of the constitutional and Covenant-based issues arising from those resolutions.
In such a situation, the issue is how the current council should review, explain, and correct its own past official expressions of intent.
In relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the question is whether issues concerning effective remedy or the duty to investigate under the Covenant can be avoided merely by explanations based on domestic procedural scope or council management.
7. Do treaty obligations extend to all domestic organs?
Obligations under the Covenant are imposed on the State as a whole.
Therefore, the subjects responsible for performing treaty obligations are not limited to the central government.
Local public entities, local assemblies, administrative organs, and public officials are also in a position to respect constitutional and treaty-based human rights guarantees within the scope of their authority under domestic law.
In this case, the Sukagawa City Council adopted recommendations for resignation as the deliberative organ of a local public entity, and Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council responded to the requests for correction and petitions after 2025.
Accordingly, the fact that the matter concerns an internal issue of a local assembly or a city does not remove it from examination under the Covenant.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is important for examining this point.
8. Can issues under the Covenant be avoided on the basis of domestic requirements for retrial?
In this case, not only the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence by recommendations for resignation before judgment, but also the subsequent criminal trial, request for retrial, and dismissal of the retrial request are subject to examination.
Under domestic law, retrial is subject to requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Courts examine retrial requests in relation to such matters as the novelty of evidence, the clarity or obviousness of evidence, and the effect on the final judgment.
However, in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the issue is whether the requirements of the domestic retrial system, the existence of a final judgment, the framework of evidence evaluation, or domestic case-law practice can justify failure to perform obligations under the Covenant.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant guarantees the right of persons charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 states that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
Accordingly, where a public authority prejudged the outcome of a trial before judgment or made a public expression of intent premised on guilt, that issue arises at that point in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant.
This issue does not arise only after it is proved that the public expression actually affected the conclusion of the criminal trial.
The presumption of innocence is a principle that governs the treatment of the person by public authorities before criminal responsibility has been proved according to law.
Therefore, public assumptions of guilt before judgment are independently at issue in relation to Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant.
If such public assumptions of guilt may have affected the formation of statements, defense activities, social pressure, the fairness of the criminal trial, or the environment in which the court made its judgment, the issue becomes even more serious.
In other words, influence on the criminal trial is not a requirement for establishing a violation of the presumption of innocence. It is a circumstance that strengthens the seriousness of the violation, the need for remedy, and the scope that should be examined in retrial proceedings.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 and 16 also address effective remedy for rights violations, prompt, thorough, and effective investigation, cessation of ongoing violations, reparation or restoration, official apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices.
Accordingly, in retrial proceedings, the issue is whether a court may exclude problems under the Covenant, such as public assumptions of guilt before judgment, merely through a formal application of domestic retrial requirements.
The existence of requirements for retrial under the domestic system is, of course, natural.
However, if the interpretation and application of those requirements block substantive examination of the Covenant-based issue of public assumptions of guilt before judgment, this raises an issue in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Courts, too, are not in a position to avoid examining the presumption of innocence, fair trial, and effective remedy under the Covenant merely by relying on the domestic retrial system, the existence of a final judgment, or the framework for determining novelty or obviousness of evidence.
In this respect, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is an important norm not only for examining the responses of the City and the City Council, but also for examining judicial decisions on retrial.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
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 its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. It is the central norm of this article.
International Human Rights Treaties
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 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. In this case, it is at issue in relation to the requests for correction, petitions, legal consultations, and responses after 2025.
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision establishes the right to a fair trial. It is at issue in relation to public assumptions of guilt before judgment and 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. 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 examining whether the absence of legal binding force of recommendations for resignation under domestic law can negate the issue under the presumption of innocence.
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 important in relation to the failure to review or provide a remedy after 2025 in this case.
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.
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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 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 local assembly should review and explain its own past official expressions of intent when constitutional and Covenant-based issues are later raised.
Relationship to This Case
The domestic institutional explanations referred to here include not only the absence of legal binding force of recommendations for resignation, the handling of petitions, the allocation of authority between the mayor’s office and the council, and the introduction of the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau, but also the requirements of the retrial system, the existence of a final judgment, and domestic legal frameworks concerning the novelty or obviousness of evidence.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is a treaty norm to which Japan is bound and which has entered into force for Japan. It is supported domestically by the obligation of faithful observance under Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan.
Accordingly, in this case, the issue repeatedly arises not only in relation to the responses of Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council, but also in relation to judicial decisions on retrial: whether issues under the Covenant concerning the presumption of innocence, fair trial, and effective remedy may be left substantively unexamined, or avoided, on the basis of domestic institutional explanations.
First, there is the explanation that recommendations for resignation have no legal binding force.
However, the issue in this case is not only whether the recommendations for resignation immediately deprived the person of council member status.
The issue is whether a public authority, namely a local assembly, made public expressions of intent before judgment that prejudged the outcome of the trial.
In relation to Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, the issue cannot be negated solely by the absence of legal binding force.
Second, there is the explanation that the petition system imposes no automatic duty to act.
However, in this case, allegations of rights violations under the Covenant were made, and review and correction were requested.
In such a situation, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 and 16 raise issues concerning effective remedy, prompt, thorough, and effective investigation, cessation of ongoing violations, reparation or restoration, official apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant practices.
Accordingly, the question is whether issues of remedy or investigation under the Covenant can be avoided merely by formal explanations concerning the petition system.
Third, there is the explanation that the mayor’s office and the council are separate organs.
This point is important as an allocation of authority under domestic law.
However, in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the issue is whether the allocation of powers among domestic organs can justify failure to perform obligations under the Covenant.
In this case, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the recommendations for resignation, and Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council responded to requests for correction and petitions after 2025.
Accordingly, the issues under the Covenant must be examined after clarifying the scope of responsibility of each organ.
Fourth, the introduction of the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau is at issue.
Sukagawa City, in its response dated April 28, 2025, introduced the human rights remedy system of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
However, introducing that system does not mean that Sukagawa City itself or the Sukagawa City Council itself conducted a substantive review, explanation, correction, or recurrence-prevention measure concerning this case.
In relation to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 and 16, the issue is whether an effective remedy or a prompt, thorough, and effective investigation was provided in response to allegations of rights violations.
Fifth, the legal understanding expressed in the 2025 legal consultation is at issue.
In this case, in the Sukagawa 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.
However, Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 states that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, and that the length of pre-trial detention should never be taken as an indication of guilt or of its degree.
Accordingly, an understanding that permits an assumption close to guilt on the basis of arrest or detention raises serious issues under the Covenant.
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, that response should be examined from the perspective of the presumption of innocence and effective remedy under the Covenant, before any domestic institutional explanation is accepted.
Sixth, the issue arises whether matters under the Covenant can be avoided on the basis of domestic requirements in retrial proceedings.
In this case, before judgment, the Sukagawa City Council adopted recommendations for resignation.
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted before indictment, while the person concerned was in detention and absent from the plenary session.
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted after indictment, but before the first hearing and before judgment, after the person concerned had left the chamber.
These recommendations raise the issue whether a public authority treated the person as if guilty before criminal responsibility was proved according to law.
This issue arises independently in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant as public assumptions of guilt before judgment.
In this case, the criminal proceedings later advanced, a guilty judgment was rendered, and that judgment became final.
The person then sought relief through retrial, raising issues such as public assumptions of guilt before judgment, violation of the presumption of innocence, the process of statement formation, and influence on the criminal trial.
Under domestic law, retrial is subject to requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Courts examine retrial requests in relation to such matters as the novelty of evidence, the clarity or obviousness of evidence, and the effect on the final judgment.
However, in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the issue is whether the requirements of the domestic retrial system, the existence of a final judgment, the framework of evidence evaluation, or domestic case-law practice can justify failure to perform obligations under the Covenant.
The existence of requirements for retrial under the domestic system is, of course, natural.
However, if the interpretation and application of those requirements block substantive examination of the Covenant-based issue of public assumptions of guilt before judgment, this raises an issue in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Courts, too, are not in a position to avoid examining the presumption of innocence, fair trial, and effective remedy under the Covenant merely by relying on the domestic retrial system, the existence of a final judgment, or the framework for determining novelty or obviousness of evidence.
Seventh, the issue arises whether the domestic remedy process as a whole was effective.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant establishes the obligation to ensure that persons whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated shall have an effective remedy.
General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 and 16 address prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of allegations of violations, cessation of ongoing violations, reparation or restoration, official apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices.
Accordingly, in this case, the issue is whether the domestic remedy process as a whole, including the retrial proceedings, functioned as an effective remedy under the Covenant, not only whether Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council responded in some form.
If the City and the City Council did not conduct a substantive review, and the courts also dismissed the matter in retrial proceedings without substantively examining the Covenant-based issues, then even if the matter was processed under domestic systems, the question remains whether an effective remedy under the Covenant was actually provided.
In this way, this case repeatedly raises the question whether obligations under the Covenant can be avoided on the basis of domestic legal forms, systems, allocations of authority, procedural classifications, retrial requirements, or the existence of a final judgment.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is the central norm for examining such avoidance through domestic institutional explanations.
This document is an important source for organizing this case not merely as an internal matter of a local assembly, an administrative response issue, or a formal issue under the domestic retrial system, but as an issue of obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and their good-faith performance.
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.”