Overview of the Documents
Document titles:
Immediate Appeal Application
Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal
Dates of creation:
Immediate Appeal Application: December 15, 2025
Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal: January 6, 2026
Prepared by:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Submitted to:
Sendai High Court
Criminal Division of the Sendai High Court
Case title:
Immediate Appeal Case Against the Decision Dismissing the Retrial Request
This case title is stated in the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal.
Case number:
2025 Ku No. 84
This case number is stated in the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal. The Immediate Appeal Application itself does not show this case number.
Original decision:
Decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the retrial request, dated December 12, 2025
Original case number:
2025 Ta No. 1
Underlying case:
Road Traffic Act Violation Case
Type of documents:
Immediate Appeal Application and Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal
Publication format:
PDFs with personal information and other necessary portions redacted
Original PDFs:Immediate Appeal Application
Skip to PDF contentSupplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by These Documents
These documents show that Toshio Tsumuraya filed an immediate appeal with the Sendai High Court against the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dated December 12, 2025, which dismissed the retrial request in 2025 Ta No. 1.
The Immediate Appeal Application was prepared on December 15, 2025.
The Immediate Appeal Application states that the appellant files an immediate appeal because he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the request in 2025 Ta No. 1 on December 12, 2025.
In the relief sought, the Immediate Appeal Application requests that the original decision be revoked and that the case be remanded to the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
The Immediate Appeal Application argues that the original court found the appellant’s claims to be “not clear,” but nevertheless dismissed the request without confirming the meaning of those claims with the appellant.
The application argues that, although the original court itself found the content to be “not clear,” it rendered a decision without taking any procedure to confirm the appellant’s true intention. This is argued to be improper from the standpoint of the fundamental principle of criminal proceedings, namely the discovery of truth, and to constitute illegality due to insufficient examination.
The Immediate Appeal Application also argues that the original court dismissed the matter at the threshold without clarifying the appellant’s claims and without giving him a substantive opportunity to explain or clarify them, thereby violating Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan, which guarantees due process, and Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan, which guarantees the right of access to the courts.
The Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal was prepared on January 6, 2026.
The supplemental statement identifies the case title as “Immediate Appeal Case Against the Decision Dismissing the Retrial Request” and the case number as 2025 Ku No. 84.
This case number is not stated in the Immediate Appeal Application itself. It is confirmed in the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal.
The Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal supplements the arguments made in the Immediate Appeal Application. It argues more specifically that the original decision was procedurally illegal and unconstitutional because it stated that the appellant’s claims were “not clear,” but did not ask him to clarify their content and did not give him a substantive opportunity for clarification or supplementation before dismissing the matter.
First, the supplemental statement argues that the original decision was unlawful because it found the appellant’s claims “not clear” while failing to exhaust procedures for clarification.
Second, it argues that although the appellant had indicated in his written opinion dated July 9, 2025 that he retained materials such as newspaper articles and council minutes and was willing to submit them if necessary, the original court dismissed the matter without encouraging submission or identifying what was lacking. This is argued to constitute an unlawful surprise decision.
Third, it argues that many of the factual matters asserted by the appellant concerned publicly available materials, such as council minutes, resolution documents, and press materials, which were accessible and could have been confirmed by the court. Nevertheless, the original court dismissed the request without clarifying whether such materials existed or whether it had confirmed them. This is argued to constitute insufficient examination and defective reasoning.
Fourth, it argues that because the original decision did not specifically identify which factual assertions were assumed, which points were considered “not clear,” or why the request could be dismissed without asking for clarification or supplementation, the appellant’s effective ability to pursue an appeal was impaired.
Accordingly, these documents show that the appellant challenged the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the retrial request, sought revocation and remand, and argued that the original decision involved procedural illegality and violations of Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution of Japan.
For details on the decision dismissing the retrial request, see “Decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court Dismissing the Retrial Request — Problems Concerning Violations of the Presumption of Innocence and the Retrial Judgment.”
Important Statements
The first important point in these documents is that the Immediate Appeal Application seeks revocation of the original decision and remand to the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
This shows that the appellant did not merely object to the conclusion of the original decision, but argued that the procedure before the original court itself was unlawful and that the case should be remanded so that lawful proceedings could be conducted.
Second, the Immediate Appeal Application argues that the original decision found the appellant’s claims to be “not clear,” but dismissed the request without confirming the meaning of those claims.
This point lies at the core of the problem with the decision dismissing the retrial request.
If the original court considered the appellant’s claims to be unclear, the question arises whether the court should have identified what was unclear, indicated what needed to be supplemented, and, where necessary, given the appellant an opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
Third, the Immediate Appeal Application argues that the original court’s threshold dismissal without giving a substantive opportunity for explanation or clarification violated Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan, which guarantees due process, and Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan, which guarantees the right of access to the courts.
This means that these documents do not merely dispute whether grounds for retrial existed. They also raise the question whether the retrial request procedure itself complied with due process and the right of access to the courts.
Fourth, the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal provides a more detailed supplement to the problems with the original decision.
Specifically, it argues that the original decision failed to exhaust clarification procedures despite describing the claims as “not clear,” ignored the appellant’s indication of willingness to submit evidence, rejected matters that could have been confirmed through public records and publicly available materials without proper confirmation, and impaired the effectiveness of the appeal through defective reasoning.
Fifth, the supplemental statement points out that, in the written opinion dated July 9, 2025, the appellant had expressly stated that he retained materials such as newspaper articles and council minutes and was willing to submit them if necessary.
This point is directly related to the question whether, if the original court considered the materials insufficient or the facts unclear, it should have identified what it regarded as lacking and invited submission or supplementation.
Sixth, the supplemental statement argues that the defective reasoning in the original decision made it difficult for the appellant to understand what had been examined, what had been considered, and what should be challenged before the higher court.
This is not merely a problem of insufficient explanation by the original court. It concerns the effectiveness of the immediate appeal itself.
Accordingly, these documents are not only documents challenging the content of the original decision, but also documents for examining clarification, opportunities for supplementation, reasoning, and the effectiveness of appeals in the retrial request procedure.
Procedural Position in the Criminal Proceedings
These documents were submitted by the appellant as an immediate appeal against the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dated December 12, 2025, dismissing the retrial request.
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials were submitted on April 28, 2025.
Thereafter, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated those submissions as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and handled the matter as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
On May 2, 2025, the court issued an administrative notice requesting the submission of a certified copy of the original judgment and any evidentiary documents or physical evidence that the requester wished to submit additionally.
Furthermore, on June 13, 2025, the court issued a request for opinion, asking the requester to submit a written opinion by July 11, 2025.
In response, the requester submitted a written opinion dated July 9, 2025, and thereafter this matter proceeded as a retrial request case.
Subsequently, on December 12, 2025, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued a decision dismissing the retrial request.
The Immediate Appeal Application was prepared on December 15, 2025, three days after that decision, and was submitted seeking revocation of the original decision and remand.
The Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal was then prepared on January 6, 2026, supplementing the arguments concerning procedural illegality and constitutional violations in the original decision.
Accordingly, these documents show the stage at which the matter moved from the retrial request decision before the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court to the immediate appeal proceedings before the Sendai High Court.
The issues in this case were not limited to a mere reconsideration of the evaluation of evidence.
The issues raised included the Sukagawa City Council’s resignation recommendation resolutions before the final criminal judgment, violations of the presumption of innocence, prejudicial public expressions by public authorities, the right to a fair trial, the process of statement formation, the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m., and the need for judicial relief.
For that reason, these documents raised before the immediate appeal court the question whether the original court dismissed the matter without giving sufficient opportunity for clarification or supplementation with respect to those issues.
Questions Arising from These Documents
1. If the court considered the claims “not clear,” should it not have asked for clarification?
The original decision evaluated the appellant’s claims as “not clear.”
However, the Immediate Appeal Application and the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal argue that, if the court made such an evaluation, it should have confirmed the purpose, subject matter, and evidentiary basis of the claims with the appellant and, where necessary, requested clarification or supplementation.
This raises the question how a court should understand a party’s claims and identify the subject of examination.
In particular, in this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials raised issues concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment, the process of statement formation, and the need for effective relief.
Accordingly, if the court considered those claims to be unclear, the question arises whether it should have identified what was unclear and given the appellant an opportunity to supplement, rather than immediately dismissing the request.
2. Was it a surprise decision to dismiss the matter without inviting submission despite the appellant’s indication of willingness to submit evidence?
The Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal argues that the appellant had stated in his written opinion dated July 9, 2025 that he retained materials such as newspaper articles and council minutes and was willing to submit them if necessary.
Therefore, if the original court believed that materials were insufficient or that the facts were unclear, the question arises whether it should have indicated which points required proof and invited the appellant to submit the relevant materials.
If the original court dismissed the matter by relying on lack of clarity or non-submission of evidence without inviting submission and without identifying what was lacking, the question arises whether that was a surprise decision that deprived the party of an opportunity to supplement.
3. How did the court treat public records and publicly available materials?
The Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal argues that many of the factual matters asserted by the appellant concerned materials that were generally public and could also have been confirmed by the court, such as council minutes, resolution documents, and press materials.
From this perspective, if the original court considered the claims to be unclear, the question arises whether it should at least have identified what was unclear and what needed confirmation or supplementation.
It is also necessary to examine to what extent the court confirmed, or failed to confirm, public records and publicly available materials that could have been checked.
This point relates to the sufficiency of examination and reasoning in the retrial request procedure.
4. Does defective reasoning impair the effectiveness of an appeal?
The Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal argues that the original decision did not specifically indicate which factual assertions it assumed, which points were considered “not clear,” or why the matter could be dismissed without requesting clarification or supplementation.
With such a decision, the appellant would have difficulty understanding what was examined, what was considered, and what should be challenged before the higher court.
Accordingly, defective reasoning is not merely insufficient explanation. It raises the question whether it impairs the right of access to the courts guaranteed by Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan, especially the effective opportunity to pursue an appeal.
5. How far should the immediate appeal court examine the procedural problems in the original decision?
These documents challenge not only the conclusion of the original decision, but also the fact that the original court described the appellant’s claims as “not clear” while giving no opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
Therefore, in the immediate appeal proceedings, the matters to be examined are not limited to whether there was newly discovered evidence under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The appeal court should also examine whether the original court conducted appropriate procedures, whether the appellant was given a substantive opportunity to present claims and evidence, and whether the reasoning of the original decision was sufficiently specific to allow an effective appeal.
This point is important in relation to due process, the right of access to the courts, and effective relief in the retrial request procedure.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 426, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns dismissal by decision when an appeal is without merit. In this case, it is important in relation to the later decision of the Sendai High Court, which would dismiss the immediate appeal under this paragraph.
Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision sets out one of the grounds for retrial, namely the discovery of clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal. The original decision organized the appellant’s claims as an issue under this item and held that no ground for retrial existed. These documents challenge the legality of that reasoning process and procedure.
Article 447, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns dismissal by decision when a retrial request is without merit. The original decision dismissed the matter under this paragraph. These documents constitute an appeal against that dismissal decision.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the guarantee of due process. These documents argue that the original court violated due process by describing the appellant’s claims as “not clear” while dismissing the matter without giving an opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right of access to the courts. These documents argue that the defective reasoning and lack of opportunity for supplementation in the original decision made an effective appeal difficult and thereby infringed the right of access to the courts.
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial. In this case, the issues include whether a fair criminal trial was secured in relation to resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment, the process of statement formation, the admission of evidence, and the reasons for the judgment.
Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision requires Japan to faithfully observe the treaties it has concluded and established international law. It is important in relation to the domestic significance of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial. In this case, the issues include how public assumptions of guilt before judgment and institutional pressure may have affected the fairness of the criminal trial, and how those issues were handled in the retrial request procedure and immediate appeal proceedings.
Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR:
This provision establishes the presumption of innocence. In this case, the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council before the criminal conviction became final, and the reasoning underlying those resolutions, are at issue in relation to this principle.
Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to an effective remedy. These documents raise the question whether the original court’s defective reasoning and lack of opportunity for clarification or supplementation obstructed effective relief for violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
General Comments
General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30:
This paragraph indicates that all public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial. In this case, it is important in relation to the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the city council before judgment and the public expressions of intent premised on criminal facts.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 15:
This paragraph states that allegations of violations must be investigated promptly, thoroughly, and effectively, and that a failure to investigate may itself give rise to a separate violation of the Covenant. In these documents, it is important in examining the extent to which the original court and the immediate appeal court effectively examined the allegations of violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 16:
This paragraph identifies forms of effective remedy, including compensation or reparation, restitution, rehabilitation, public apologies, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices. In this case, it is important in considering what kind of remedy was required for violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, rather than a merely formal dismissal.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith. It is important in considering whether domestic authorities must faithfully perform obligations under the ICCPR concerning the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and effective remedies.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article provides 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 the requirements of the retrial system, domestic procedural limitations, or the characterization of a resignation recommendation resolution as a non-binding expression of intent can justify avoiding consideration of obligations under the ICCPR concerning the presumption of innocence and effective remedies.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the interrelationship among these provisions are examined in “Legal Claims and the Structure of Constitutional and Legal Violations.”
Relationship to This Case
These documents show that Toshio Tsumuraya filed an immediate appeal with the Sendai High Court against the decision by which the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissed the matter it had treated as a retrial request based on the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials.
In this case, public expressions of intent were made by the Sukagawa City Council before the criminal conviction became final, including the first resignation recommendation resolution on October 26, 2011, and the second resignation recommendation resolution on December 1, 2011.
The issue in this case is not merely the existence of the guilty judgment itself.
The issue is whether, before the guilty judgment became final, a local assembly as a public authority made public expressions of intent premised on criminal responsibility and thereby engaged in prejudicial treatment contrary to the presumption of innocence.
In addition, in this case, the criminal proceedings from arrest, detention, extension of detention, prosecutor’s interrogation, indictment, first hearing, and judgment raise issues concerning the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m., the process of statement formation, statement records of council members who voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolution, and the sentencing evaluation of the defendant’s status as a city council member in the judgment.
Against this background, Toshio Tsumuraya raised issues before the court concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, and the need for judicial relief.
In response, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court evaluated the requester’s claims as “not clear,” organized them as an issue concerning newly discovered evidence under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and dismissed the retrial request.
These documents challenge that original decision by arguing that it violated due process and the right of access to the courts because the original court described the claims as “not clear” while failing to seek clarification, failing to provide an opportunity to submit evidence, and failing to give concrete reasons before dismissing the matter.
Accordingly, these documents do not merely challenge the conclusion of the decision dismissing the retrial request. They challenge the legality of the procedure leading to that conclusion.
These documents show that the issues in this case expanded beyond whether grounds for retrial existed. They also included whether the court gave the appellant a substantive opportunity to present claims and evidence, whether it provided reasons, and whether it made an effective appeal possible for a person asserting violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
In this sense, these documents are important materials connecting the issue of effective relief in the retrial request procedure to the immediate appeal proceedings.
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.