Overview of the Document
Document title:
Written Opinion to the Courts
Attached documents:
Judgment Document
Structural Proof of Constitutional Violations in the Three-Layer Constitutional Framework—Analytical Materials Concerning the Sukagawa City Council Case
Date of preparation:
April 28, 2025
Prepared by:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Submitted to:
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
President of the Fukushima District Court
Head of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court
Means of acquisition:
—
Type of document:
Written opinion to the courts and attached analytical materials
Format of publication:
PDF with personal information and other necessary parts redacted
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF content Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document consists of a written opinion dated April 28, 2025, prepared by Toshio Tsumuraya and addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Fukushima District Court, and the Head of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court, together with its attached materials.
The attached materials listed in the document are the judgment document and “Structural Proof of Constitutional Violations in the Three-Layer Constitutional Framework—Analytical Materials Concerning the Sukagawa City Council Case.”
The written opinion to the courts concerns the criminal case in which Toshio Tsumuraya, while serving as a member of the Sukagawa City Council in 2011, was arrested, detained, indicted, and later convicted. It points out problems concerning the detention extension and the guilty judgment rendered by the court at that time.
The written opinion identifies as an important chronological fact that the first resignation recommendation resolution was passed on October 26, 2011, while Tsumuraya was still in detention, before indictment, and before the criminal trial had begun.
It also records that, in the second resignation recommendation resolution on December 1, 2011, the proposer stated that Tsumuraya had “admitted drunk driving.”
The written opinion argues that the resignation recommendation resolutions, media reports, detention extension, indictment, trial, and judgment should not be treated as isolated events. Rather, they should be examined in relation to institutional pressure, the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to a fair trial, judicial independence, and the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution.
In particular, the document requests clarification of responsibility in relation to Article 99 of the Constitution, including the responsibility of Judge Shuichi Nezaki, who rendered the judgment, and other persons involved.
The attached document, “Structural Proof of Constitutional Violations in the Three-Layer Constitutional Framework,” analyzes the same case from multiple perspectives, including constitutionalism, democracy, the rule of law, due process, the right to a fair trial, personal rights, judicial power, the presumption of innocence, judicial independence, the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution, international human rights law, the risk of repeated structural constitutional violations, and institutional impossibility of remedy.
After this document was submitted, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued an administrative notice treating the matter as 2025 ta No. 1, a retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
That administrative notice was based on the submission of the April 28, 2025 written opinion and its attached materials, and requested the submission of documents prescribed by Article 283 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
For this reason, this document was not only a written opinion submitted to the courts, but also the document that led to the matter being treated by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court as a retrial case.
The specific procedural history and judicial decisions in the retrial case are addressed in a separate article.
What this document confirms is that, as of April 28, 2025, Toshio Tsumuraya had raised before the courts not merely the alleged injustice of an individual criminal judgment, but a broader institutional issue involving pre-judgment resignation recommendation resolutions, public authorities’ treatment of him as guilty, the impact on criminal proceedings, retrial remedies, destruction of records, obligations under international human rights treaties, and responsibility under Article 99 of the Constitution.
Content of the Written Opinion to the Courts
The written opinion to the courts begins by setting out the summary of the document.
It states that, in relation to the 2011 criminal case in which Toshio Tsumuraya was arrested and indicted while serving as a member of the Sukagawa City Council, the detention extension and guilty judgment by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court raised issues under Article 31, Article 32, Article 76, paragraph 3, and Article 99 of the Constitution, as well as Article 60 and Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The written opinion questions whether Judge Shuichi Nezaki, who rendered the judgment, and other persons involved violated their constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution, and it was prepared for the purpose of seeking correction through retrial procedures and clarification of institutional responsibility.
The purpose of the written opinion is to point out, in light of the fact that more than thirteen years had passed since the first resignation recommendation resolution of October 26, 2011, that the court’s handling of the case violated the Constitution and the law, and that the unconstitutional state had not been corrected. It therefore requested strict correction and response.
The chronological sequence set out in the written opinion includes the traffic accident on October 18, 2011; Tsumuraya’s voluntary appearance and ordinary arrest on October 19; the press conference by the chair and vice-chair of the city council and media reporting on October 20; referral to the prosecutor on October 21; the first resignation recommendation resolution on October 26; indictment on November 9; the second resignation recommendation resolution on December 1; the first trial hearing on December 26; the guilty judgment on January 16, 2012; and finalization of the judgment on January 31, 2012.
This timeline is important because it allows the case to be understood not merely as the result of a criminal trial, but as a continuous sequence involving media reporting immediately after the arrest, actions by the city council, the resignation recommendation resolution while Tsumuraya was in detention, the second resignation recommendation resolution after indictment but before the first trial hearing, and the finalization of the guilty judgment.
The written opinion first addresses the detention extension decision. It argues that, under circumstances in which institutional pressure had already arisen, the court should have strictly reexamined the propriety of continued detention, but instead permitted the extension through a formalistic review.
Next, regarding the trial and judgment, the written opinion argues that, despite the fact that Tsumuraya had been subjected to institutional condemnation through a resignation recommendation resolution while in detention and had been deprived of an opportunity to defend himself, Judge Shuichi Nezaki failed to reflect the city council’s conduct in the structure of the judgment.
The written opinion also examines the judgment in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to a fair trial under Article 32 of the Constitution, and judicial independence under Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.
It further states that the defense counsel’s failure to raise the unconstitutionality of the resignation recommendation resolution as an issue, failure to make procedural objections, and failure to conduct sufficient counterproof constituted serious procedural defects.
However, this website examines the structural problems of this case based only on public documents, judgments, minutes, media reports, submitted documents, and other verifiable materials. It does not rely on difficult-to-prove matters such as conversations during attorney-client meetings.
The written opinion also records that, when an inquiry was made in 2025 to obtain the trial records, both the court and the public prosecutor’s office responded that the records had been destroyed due to expiration of the retention period.
Regarding this point, the written opinion does not treat the destruction of records as an isolated problem. It characterizes the failure to correct the unconstitutional structure for more than thirteen years as institutional negligence, and as a problem that deprived retrial proceedings or extraordinary appeal procedures of effectiveness.
As opinions and requests, the written opinion asks the courts to conduct a formal investigation and make findings regarding the constitutional violations and procedural illegality in this case; to clarify responsibility for dereliction of duty and violation of Article 99 of the Constitution by Judge Shuichi Nezaki and other persons involved; to consider the use of retrial and extraordinary appeal systems; and to issue a court statement or institutional guidelines to prevent similar institutional omissions and external pressure in the future.
In the comprehensive statement, the written opinion also records that Toshio Tsumuraya did not resign after arrest and continued to reserve judgment on his future course until the judgment became final. It states that this position was based on the recognition that ultimate responsibility for determining guilt should be entrusted to the independent judgment of the judiciary.
The comprehensive statement further states that the vocabulary used in the judgment closely resembled words repeatedly used in media reports and in the city council’s resignation recommendation resolutions, and that it could not be denied that the court may have been influenced by social atmosphere and institutional evaluation.
On that basis, Tsumuraya stated that he concluded that the court was no longer functioning as an independent decision-making body, and that filing an appeal would be institutionally meaningless.
For this reason, the written opinion makes clear that the decision not to appeal was not simply a procedural choice, but that the finalization of the judgment was positioned as one piece of evidence of the institutional structure itself.
In the conclusion, the written opinion states that it was submitted in the name of law and the Constitution, based on Article 12 and Article 99 of the Constitution, by a citizen and by the person directly concerned.
It also requests that, even if the courts take the position that they cannot respond except through statutory procedures such as a retrial request, they should clarify the relationship between that institutional limitation and the constitutional duty imposed on public officials by Article 99 of the Constitution.
The conclusion also expressly states that, in relation to this case, Tsumuraya intended to file a request with the Prosecutor-General for an extraordinary appeal under Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Content of “Structural Proof of Constitutional Violations in the Three-Layer Constitutional Framework”
The attached document, “Structural Proof of Constitutional Violations in the Three-Layer Constitutional Framework,” analyzes the case not merely as a criminal case or a retrial matter, but as a structural violation spanning multiple layers of constitutional principles.
The document first positions the case as one that raises questions about the functioning of constitutionalism, democracy, the rule of law, the judiciary, the prosecution, and the city council system.
As in the written opinion to the courts, the document sets out the chronology from the traffic accident on October 18, 2011; the arrest on October 19; media reports on October 20 and 21; the first resignation recommendation resolution on October 26; indictment on November 9; the second resignation recommendation resolution on December 1; the first trial hearing on December 26; the guilty judgment on January 16, 2012; and finalization of the judgment on January 31, 2012.
The document identifies the “first layer” as violations of the core principles of the constitutional order.
This section addresses violations of constitutionalism, democracy, and the rule of law.
With respect to constitutionalism, the document argues that the principle that the Constitution is superior to state power was ignored and that unconstitutional acts were institutionally tolerated.
With respect to democracy, it argues that an elected city council member was unilaterally sanctioned before a guilty judgment became final, that no Article 100 investigation committee was established, and that the public trust expressed through election was effectively impaired within the institutional system.
With respect to the rule of law, the document raises the question whether the arrest, detention, and subsequent treatment of a sitting city council member reflected not strict application of law, but rather exemplary treatment of a public figure or conformity with political and social pressure.
In this section, Article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is positioned as the provision concerning the requirements for arrest, and Article 60 as the provision concerning the requirements for detention.
The document identifies the “second layer” as violations of the foundational principles of fundamental human rights.
This section addresses violations of due process, the right to a fair trial, personal rights, judicial power, and the presumption of innocence.
Regarding violation of due process, the central fact identified is that the first resignation recommendation resolution of October 26, 2011 was passed while Tsumuraya was in detention and before indictment, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
The document also records that, although social criticism and pressure expanded through media reporting, neither the court, the prosecution, nor the defense counsel raised the institutional pressure as a procedural issue.
The document further analyzes due process under Article 31 of the Constitution by reference to the contrast between the formal theory and the substantive theory.
The formal theory regards a procedure as constitutional if it formally satisfies the procedures prescribed by law.
By contrast, the substantive theory requires that the content of the procedure must substantially guarantee the right of defense, fairness, and neutrality.
The document states that, even if criminal procedures were formally proceeding, the fact that a resignation recommendation resolution was passed while Tsumuraya was in detention and before indictment, with no opportunity to defend or rebut and under the formation of institutional pressure, means that the essence of due process was lacking under the substantive theory.
It further positions the case as one in which, even if the formal theory were adopted, the constitutional guarantee was substantially lost in the process of applying the law under the concrete facts of this case, giving rise to a problem of unconstitutionality as applied.
Regarding the violation of the right to a fair trial, the document argues that a state of institutional condemnation was created by the city council’s resignation recommendation resolution while Tsumuraya was in detention before indictment, that social criticism and presumptive guilt became public through media reports, and that the court failed to consider these institutional and social pressures.
Regarding violations of personal rights, judicial power, and the presumption of innocence, the document examines how the first and second resignation recommendation resolutions, media reports, and statements in the council chamber affected Tsumuraya’s honor, personal rights, the location of judicial power, and the presumption of innocence.
In particular, in the second resignation recommendation resolution, Tsumuraya’s position that he would wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign was described in terms such as being “contrary to social justice,” and the statement that “committing drunk driving while in office is outrageous” was made. This is important as an example of public pre-judgment of guilt before a judicial decision.
The document identifies the “third layer” as violations of structural principles of institutional mechanisms.
This section addresses abandonment of the duty of judicial independence, violation of the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution, and disregard of international human rights law.
Regarding the duty of judicial independence, the document argues that the court was in a position to know that a resignation recommendation resolution had been passed while Tsumuraya was in detention, but failed to reflect that fact in the reasons for judgment and remained unresponsive to institutional pressure.
Regarding the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution, the document states that judges, prosecutors, administrative officials, and other public officials are under a duty pursuant to Article 99 of the Constitution to respect and uphold the Constitution, yet the unconstitutional state in this case was not corrected for a long period.
The document also makes clear that the responsible actors are not limited to judges and prosecutors.
Specifically, it states that if the council secretariat or city officials were involved in the notice, execution, dissemination, or operation of the resignation recommendation resolution, those officials may also be subject to examination in relation to the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution under Article 99.
This raises the question whether local government officials, even if they were mechanically processing a decision of the council or the mayoral department, should at least have had an opportunity or duty to seek correction or review where the content of the decision could be recognized as involving a serious constitutional issue.
Regarding disregard of international human rights law, the document states that Japan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979 and is required under Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution to faithfully observe treaties. Nevertheless, the rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the Covenant, including the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, assistance of counsel, and cross-examination, were not sufficiently examined.
The document further addresses, as supplementary points from the perspective of international constitutionalism and human rights analysis, the risk of repeated structural constitutional violations and the institutional impossibility of remedy.
Regarding the risk of repeated structural constitutional violations, the document states that formal council resolutions can function as institutional condemnation, that the prosecution and the courts, which should correct such violations, remained silent, and that no institutional review or recurrence prevention measures were taken even after the conviction became final. It therefore identifies a risk that similar human rights violations may recur.
Regarding the institutional impossibility of remedy, the document states that when inquiries were made to the court and the prosecutor’s office in 2025, both responded that the records had already been destroyed due to expiration of the retention period. In light of the practical limitations of retrial requests and extraordinary appeal procedures, the document identifies a problem under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for the right to an effective remedy.
Important Statements
First, it is particularly important that the written opinion to the courts does not merely challenge the conclusion of the guilty judgment in the 2011 criminal case. Instead, it treats the detention extension, resignation recommendation resolutions, media reports, lack of opportunity to defend, pre-judgment treatment as guilty, the court’s judgment, destruction of records, and difficulty of retrial relief as an integrated problem.
Second, the written opinion positions the first resignation recommendation resolution as institutional condemnation by a public authority, adopted while Tsumuraya was in detention, before indictment, and without any opportunity to defend himself.
Third, with respect to the second resignation recommendation resolution, the document treats as problematic under the presumption of innocence the fact that, although it was before the first trial hearing and before a guilty judgment, statements were made in the proposal reasons such as that Tsumuraya had “admitted drunk driving” or that “committing drunk driving while in office is outrageous.”
Fourth, the document raises the issue that Judge Shuichi Nezaki, who rendered the judgment, failed to reflect the institutional pressure created by the resignation recommendation resolutions in the structure of the judgment.
Fifth, the document analyzes the court’s conduct not merely as an issue of the propriety of an individual judicial decision, but in relation to judicial independence under Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution under Article 99, and the duty to faithfully observe treaties under Article 98, paragraph 2.
Sixth, the attached document analyzes the case as a “three-layer constitutional structure,” dividing the issues into core principles of the constitutional order, foundational principles of fundamental human rights, and structural principles of institutional mechanisms.
Through this structure, the case is positioned not merely as an individual criminal case or an internal local council matter, but as a matter crossing constitutionalism, democracy, the rule of law, due process, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, judicial independence, and the right to an effective remedy under international human rights law.
Seventh, the document sets out an argument concerning Article 31 of the Constitution based on the contrast between the formal theory and the substantive theory of due process.
The attached document does not treat the case merely as a procedural defect. Rather, it positions the case as one in which, even if criminal procedures formally existed, the right of defense, fairness, and neutrality were lost in substance.
For that reason, the document argues that under the substantive theory there was a clear violation of due process, and even under the formal theory, the concrete circumstances of this case give rise to a problem of unconstitutionality as applied.
This point forms the legal backbone of the claim that Article 31 of the Constitution was violated in this case.
Eighth, the document does not limit responsibility under Article 99 of the Constitution to judges and prosecutors.
The attached document states that council secretariat officials and city officials involved in the notice, execution, dissemination, or operation of the resignation recommendation resolution may also be subject to examination under Article 99 of the Constitution, if their involvement institutionally supported a public decision involving constitutional problems.
Ninth, the written opinion contains an important statement concerning the decision not to appeal.
It states that the vocabulary used in the judgment closely resembled words repeatedly used in media reports and in the city council’s resignation recommendation resolutions, and that it could not be denied that the court may have been influenced by social atmosphere and institutional evaluation.
On that basis, Tsumuraya stated that he concluded that the court was not functioning as an independent decision-making body, and that filing an appeal would be institutionally meaningless.
Thus, in the written opinion, the decision not to appeal is not positioned as a mere procedural choice, but as a decision to treat the final judgment itself as evidence of the institutional structure.
Tenth, the document raises the problem of destruction of records.
The written opinion records that the court and the public prosecutor’s office had destroyed the records due to expiration of the retention period.
This is important in relation to the effectiveness of post-conviction remedies, including retrial requests and extraordinary appeals.
If one seeks to examine public pre-judgment of guilt, violation of the presumption of innocence, institutional pressure, and the impact on interrogation and trial proceedings after the fact, the absence of records makes verification and remedy difficult.
Eleventh, the document states that a request for an extraordinary appeal was planned.
In the conclusion of the written opinion, it is expressly stated that, in relation to this case, Tsumuraya intended to file a request with the Prosecutor-General for an extraordinary appeal under Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This shows that the document was not merely a statement of opinion to the courts, but was connected to post-conviction remedies including retrial and extraordinary appeal procedures.
Twelfth, the submission of this document led to the administrative notice in the 2025 ta No. 1 “retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act” before the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
Through that administrative notice, the court requested the submission of documents prescribed by Article 283 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure on the premise that this document had been submitted.
Therefore, this document was both a written opinion to the courts and the document that triggered the matter being treated as a retrial case.
Thirteenth, the document is also important in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The document raises issues concerning Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, which guarantees the right to a fair trial; Article 14, paragraph 2, which guarantees the presumption of innocence; Article 14, paragraph 3, which concerns the right to assistance of counsel and cross-examination; and Article 2, paragraph 3, which concerns the right to an effective remedy.
These points connect directly to later analyses on this website concerning General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15, and Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Questions Arising from This Document
1. How should the courts have evaluated the pre-judgment resignation recommendation resolutions within the criminal proceedings?
In this case, the first resignation recommendation resolution was passed while Tsumuraya was in detention, before indictment, and without any opportunity to defend himself.
The second resignation recommendation resolution was passed after indictment, but before the first trial hearing.
Both were expressions of will by a public authority before a guilty judgment was rendered.
The question therefore arises how the court handling the criminal case should have treated such pre-judgment public treatment of Tsumuraya as guilty or institutional condemnation in relation to detention extension, trial management, evaluation of evidence, and the reasons for judgment.
2. Should institutional pressure have been considered at the stage of detention extension?
The first resignation recommendation resolution was passed while Tsumuraya was in detention.
After that, the detention period was extended and interrogation continued.
The document raises the issue of how, under these circumstances, the detention extension affected the suspect’s right of defense, right to remain silent, interrogation environment, and fair procedure.
The question is how the court should have evaluated the pressure imposed on Tsumuraya by a public authority’s resignation recommendation resolution when deciding whether to extend detention.
3. How should the necessity and propriety of the ordinary arrest have been examined?
The attached document refers to Article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the violation of the rule of law.
In this case, Tsumuraya was not arrested in flagrante delicto, but was ordinarily arrested on the day after the accident.
Therefore, the necessity and propriety of arrest, and the existence of a risk of flight or destruction of evidence, become issues.
In particular, because this was the ordinary arrest of a sitting city council member and was followed by resignation recommendation resolutions, media reporting, detention extension, interrogation, and indictment, the question arises how the requirements of Article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should have been compared with the facts of this case.
4. Does due process under Article 31 of the Constitution require only the formal existence of procedures?
The attached document analyzes Article 31 of the Constitution in light of the contrast between the formal theory and the substantive theory of due process.
Under the formal theory, if procedures prescribed by law are followed, the procedure may be evaluated as constitutional.
However, under the substantive theory, the content of the procedure must substantially guarantee the right of defense, fairness, and neutrality.
In this case, a resignation recommendation resolution was passed while Tsumuraya was in detention and before indictment, without any opportunity to defend or rebut, and under institutional pressure linked to media reporting.
The question is whether due process can be said to have been guaranteed merely because criminal proceedings formally moved forward.
Even if the formal theory were adopted, the question remains whether, under the concrete facts of this case, an issue of unconstitutionality as applied arises.
5. Could the court properly omit any examination of public pre-judgment of guilt in the reasons for judgment?
The document questions the fact that Judge Shuichi Nezaki, who rendered the judgment, did not reflect the institutional pressure created by the resignation recommendation resolutions and media reports in the structure of the judgment.
Even if the court refrained from referring to external council resolutions or media reports in order to maintain the neutrality of the criminal trial, that does not eliminate the issue.
Rather, where public pre-judgment of guilt existed before judgment, the question arises whether the court should have indicated some examination in order to exclude its influence and secure a fair trial.
6. Does the non-binding nature of a resignation recommendation resolution negate its impact on criminal proceedings?
A resignation recommendation resolution is generally explained as a political expression of will that does not immediately deprive the targeted council member of legal status.
However, this document does not focus only on whether the resignation recommendation resolution immediately deprived Tsumuraya of his council membership.
The issue is whether a public authority, namely the city council, treated him as if he were guilty before judgment, and whether that evaluation, combined with media reporting, could have affected social pressure and the environment of the criminal proceedings.
Therefore, the question is whether the domestic-law formalism that a resignation recommendation resolution is not legally binding can negate problems under the presumption of innocence or the right to a fair trial.
7. Can council secretariat officials and city officials be separated from the issue under Article 99 of the Constitution?
The attached document analyzes the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution under Article 99 as a matter that may extend not only to judges, prosecutors, and council members, but also to council secretariat officials and city officials.
In particular, if they were involved in the notice, execution, dissemination, or operation of the resignation recommendation resolution, the question arises whether their acts institutionally supported a public decision involving serious constitutional problems.
Even if local government officials were in a position of mechanically processing decisions made by the council or mayoral department, where the content involved constitutional issues they could have recognized, the question remains how their conduct should be evaluated in relation to the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution.
8. Can the decision not to appeal be treated simply as non-exercise of a procedural right?
The written opinion states that Tsumuraya did not appeal because he concluded that the court was not functioning as an independent decision-making body and that an appeal would be institutionally meaningless.
It also expressly positions the final judgment itself as evidence of an institutional structure.
Therefore, the question is whether, in this case, the absence of an appeal can be treated merely as the formal fact that the party did not exercise a right to appeal.
Where public pre-judgment of guilt, council resolutions, media reports, the content of the court’s judgment, and silence toward institutional pressure all overlapped, the meaning of the decision not to appeal must be examined in a different context from ordinary litigation strategy.
9. What significance does the destruction of records have in relation to retrial relief and effective remedy?
The document records that when trial records were sought in 2025, both the court and the public prosecutor’s office stated that the records had been destroyed due to expiration of the retention period.
Trial records are important when later examining the fairness of the criminal trial, defense activities, formation of statements, and the impact of the resignation recommendation resolutions.
The question is how the destruction of records should be evaluated from the perspective of retrial requests, requests for extraordinary appeal, and the right to an effective remedy.
10. What significance does a request for extraordinary appeal have within the remedial structure of this case?
The written opinion expressly states that Tsumuraya intended to file a request with the Prosecutor-General for an extraordinary appeal under Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
An extraordinary appeal may be relevant where there is a violation of law in a final judgment.
In this case, the issue is not merely a dispute over fact-finding. The issues include public pre-judgment of guilt before judgment, violation of the presumption of innocence, insufficient examination by the court, destruction of records, and lack of an effective remedy.
For that reason, a request for extraordinary appeal is positioned as a means, distinct from a retrial request, to challenge violations of law in the final judgment and criminal proceedings.
11. How should the courts confront the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution under Article 99?
The document repeatedly points out that public officials, including judges, are under the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution under Article 99.
Even if the court takes the position that it cannot respond except through statutory procedures such as retrial requests, the question remains how it should treat the indication of a constitutional violation structure such as the one in this case.
The question is whether Article 99 is merely an aspirational provision, or whether it provides a basis for public officials to conduct some form of review or correction when confronted with a clear constitutional issue.
12. How should the presumption of innocence and the right to an effective remedy under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights be treated in this case?
The document raises issues under Article 14, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant guarantees the right of anyone charged with a criminal offense to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant requires the state to ensure an effective remedy for persons whose Covenant rights or freedoms have been violated.
In this case, public pre-judgment of guilt through pre-judgment resignation recommendation resolutions, insufficient examination by the court, destruction of records, and difficulty of retrial relief overlap.
The question is how the Covenant-based presumption of innocence and obligation to provide an effective remedy should be treated by domestic courts.
13. What does it mean that this document was treated as a retrial case?
This document consists of a written opinion and attached materials submitted to the court on April 28, 2025.
Thereafter, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued an administrative notice treating the matter as 2025 ta No. 1, a retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
In that administrative notice, the court requested the submission of documents prescribed by Article 283 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure on the premise that this document had been submitted.
Thus, this document was not merely submitted as a written opinion, but became the trigger for the court to treat the matter procedurally as a retrial case.
The specific procedural history and judicial decisions in the retrial case are addressed in a separate article.
14. What significance does this document have as the starting point for remedial requests and retrial-related proceedings after 2025?
This document consists of a written opinion and attached materials submitted to the courts on April 28, 2025.
On the same date, Sukagawa City also issued its final response to the request for corrective measures concerning human rights violations.
Therefore, this document is important not only in relation to the 2011 and 2012 resignation recommendation resolutions and criminal judgment, but also as a point of connection to post-2025 corrective requests, retrial-related proceedings, requests for extraordinary appeal, residents’ lawsuits, and analysis under international human rights norms.
It can be understood as a document that positioned the case not merely as a past criminal case, but as an issue for which correction or remedy continues to be required.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 12 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision states that the freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people. In this document, it is positioned as a basis for the person concerned to submit a written opinion seeking restoration of the constitutional order.
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to personal dignity, personal rights, honor, and social reputation. It is important in examining how the resignation recommendation resolutions, media reports, and statements in the council chamber affected Tsumuraya’s personal interests.
Article 14 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns equality under the law. In this document, it is relevant to the issue of whether the arrest, detention, interrogation, and treatment of a public office holder in the criminal process involved arbitrary or disproportionate application.
Article 15 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the people’s inalienable right to choose and dismiss public officials. It is relevant to the question whether the status of an elected local council member was effectively impaired by resignation recommendation resolutions before a guilty judgment became final.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision guarantees due process. It is relevant to whether due process was consistent with the fact that resignation recommendation resolutions were passed while Tsumuraya was in detention, before indictment, and without an opportunity to defend, followed by continuation of criminal proceedings.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision guarantees the right of access to the courts. It is relevant to whether Tsumuraya was sufficiently guaranteed the position to receive a fair judicial determination under public pre-judgment of guilt and institutional pressure.
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision guarantees the right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial. It is relevant to how public pre-judgment of guilt by public authorities relates to the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 76, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision vests the whole judicial power in the courts. If a local council makes statements that effectively determine criminal facts before judgment, the issue arises in relation to the location of judicial power.
Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision guarantees judicial independence. It is relevant to how the court should have excluded institutional pressure from council resolutions and media reports in order to secure a fair trial.
Article 93 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns local assemblies and elections of local public entities. It is relevant to local autonomy and representation through election.
Article 98, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision establishes the Constitution as the supreme law. In this document, the failure to correct unconstitutional institutional responses is treated as a hollowing out of constitutional supremacy.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision requires faithful observance of treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations. 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 imposes the duty to respect and uphold the Constitution on public officials. In this document, it is relevant to how judges, prosecutors, city council members, administrative officials, and others should have responded to clear constitutional issues.
Article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns the requirements for ordinary arrest. In this document, it is relevant to the question of necessity and propriety, given that Tsumuraya was not arrested in flagrante delicto but was ordinarily arrested on the day after the accident.
Article 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision sets out the requirements for detention. In this document, it is relevant to how the propriety of detention extension should have been examined under circumstances involving institutional pressure.
Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision requires an acquittal where there is no proof of crime. It is important in relation to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in criminal trials.
Article 435, item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns grounds for retrial. In this document, it is referred to in relation to procedural defects and failures in defense activity.
Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns extraordinary appeals. In this document, it is referenced because Tsumuraya intended to file a request for an extraordinary appeal with the Prosecutor-General.
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial. It is important in examining how public pre-judgment of guilt and institutional pressure affected the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision guarantees the presumption of innocence. In this case, the issue is that the city council, as a public authority, passed resignation recommendation resolutions and made evaluations premised on criminal facts before the first trial hearing and before a guilty judgment.
Article 14, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the rights of a criminal defendant, including defense rights, assistance of counsel, and cross-examination. In this document, it is relevant to defense activity, opportunities to rebut, and responses to institutional pressure.
Article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the obligation of the state party to take legislative or other measures necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the right to an effective remedy. It is relevant where destruction of records, difficulty of retrial requests, institutional limitations of extraordinary appeal, and insufficient examination by the courts overlap.
General Comments
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30:
This paragraph states that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial in relation to the presumption of innocence. It is important in this case in relation to the city council’s pre-judgment resignation recommendation resolutions and definitive evaluations of criminal facts.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15:
This paragraph indicates that allegations of violations require prompt, thorough, and effective investigation, and that failure to investigate may itself give rise to a separate violation of the Covenant. It is important in relation to the failure of the courts, administrative bodies, and the council to correct or examine the issue.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 16:
This paragraph indicates the content of effective remedies, including compensation or reparation, restitution, rehabilitation, official apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices. It is important in examining what type of remedy was required rather than merely formal responses.
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 and must be performed by them in good faith. It is important in relation to the duty to perform the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in good faith.
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. It is important in examining whether domestic limitations such as retrial requirements, record retention systems, internal procedures of local councils, or other institutional limitations can justify avoiding obligations under the Covenant.
Relationship to This Case
This document is important because it shows the problem awareness from which the post-2025 remedial requests and institutional review in this case began.
First, the document positions the first resignation recommendation resolution of October 26, 2011 as an expression of will by a public authority, adopted while Tsumuraya was in detention, before indictment, and without an opportunity to defend himself.
Second, the document raises the issue that the second resignation recommendation resolution of December 1, 2011 was adopted before the first trial hearing and before a guilty judgment, yet the city council evaluated Tsumuraya’s conduct in definitive terms.
Third, the document indicates the problem awareness that these resignation recommendation resolutions should not be treated merely as political expressions by a local council, but should be examined as institutional pressure that could have affected criminal proceedings, media reporting, social evaluation, formation of statements, defense activity, and the environment in which the court rendered its judgment.
Fourth, the document raises the issue that Judge Shuichi Nezaki did not sufficiently examine such institutional pressure within the structure of the judgment.
This point directly connects to later analyses on this website concerning the prohibition on public authorities prejudging the outcome of a trial and the right to an effective remedy.
Fifth, the document analyzes due process under Article 31 of the Constitution in light of the contrast between the formal theory and the substantive theory, and concludes that the mere formal existence of procedures cannot eliminate the problems in this case.
In this respect, the document asks not merely whether procedures existed, but whether those procedures were substantially fair.
Sixth, the document records the decision not to appeal not as a simple non-exercise of the right to appeal, but as the result of the recognition that the court was no longer functioning as an independent decision-making body.
For this reason, the document is also important as an explanation for the question why no appeal was filed, because it positions the final judgment as evidence of the institutional structure itself.
Seventh, the document expressly states that Tsumuraya intended to file a request with the Prosecutor-General for an extraordinary appeal under Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This shows that the case was connected not only to retrial proceedings, but also to the extraordinary appeal system for correcting violations of law.
Eighth, the document raises the issue that destruction of records made subsequent retrial requests, requests for extraordinary appeal, and post-conviction verification difficult.
This is not merely a record management issue, but one that should be examined in relation to the right to an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the duty to investigate under General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15.
Ninth, the document understands the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution under Article 99 as a responsibility not only of judges, prosecutors, and local council members, but also of public officials as a whole, including council secretariat officials and city officials.
In particular, it states that officials involved in the notice, execution, dissemination, or operation of the resignation recommendation resolution may also be subject to examination under Article 99 where their conduct institutionally supported a public decision involving clear constitutional problems.
This expands the case beyond the question whether the criminal judgment at the time was correct, and into the broader question of what verification and corrective duties public institutions and their members bear when confronted with suspected constitutional or treaty violations.
Tenth, the document questions explanations that rely on domestic institutional limitations to avoid response, in light of Article 98 and Article 99 of the Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This has an important continuity with the later 2025 requests to Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council for correction, the petition, legal consultations, responses, residents’ lawsuit, and retrial-related claims.
Eleventh, this document triggered the issuance of an administrative notice by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court in 2025 ta No. 1, a retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
This shows that the document was not treated merely as a written opinion, but led to procedural treatment by the court as a retrial case.
However, the specific procedural history, submitted documents, and judicial decisions in the retrial case are addressed in a separate article.
Therefore, this document organized the case not merely as a past local council resolution, past criminal judgment, or individual retrial request, but as a constitutional and international human rights issue for which verification and remedy continue to be required.
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:
Written Opinion to the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court—Response to the Court’s Request for Opinion（Plans to post in the future）
Related normative articles:
Related timeline entries:
January 31, 2012
The guilty judgment rendered by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court became final.
April 28, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written opinion addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Fukushima District Court, and the Head of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
May 2, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court assigned the case number 2025 ta No. 1 and treated the matter as a retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On the same day, the court issued an administrative notice.
June 13, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued a request for opinion in the 2025 ta No. 1 retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
December 12, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissed the retrial request in the 2025 ta No. 1 retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
December 15, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya filed an immediate appeal against the decision dismissing the retrial request.
January 8, 2026
The immediate appeal was dismissed.
January 11, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya filed a special appeal.
February 6, 2026
The special appeal was dismissed.
March 31, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a “Questionnaire and Request Concerning the Effect of a Final Criminal Judgment and Judicial Remedies Under Violation of the Presumption of Innocence” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Division of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court. As of the present time, no response from the courts directly addressing the substance of this document has been confirmed.
May 15, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted an “Application for Human Rights Relief and Corrective Measures Concerning Violation of the Presumption of Innocence, Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial, and Related Violations” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Division of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court. As of the present time, no response from the courts directly addressing the substance of this document has been confirmed.