Overview of the Document
Document title:
Minutes of the Steering Committee, October 24, 2011 (Heisei 23)
Date created:
October 24, 2011 (Heisei 23)
Created by:
Sukagawa City Council
How obtained:
Obtained through an administrative document disclosure request to the Sukagawa City Council
Type of document:
Minutes of the City Council Steering Committee
Relevant period:
October 24, 2011 (Heisei 23)
Publication format:
Extracted relevant pages from the original Japanese PDF
Original Japanese PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document is the minutes of the Sukagawa City Council Steering Committee meeting held on October 24, 2011 (Heisei 23).
The meeting opened at 2:40 p.m. and closed at 3:23 p.m.
The attending committee members were Hisao Yaginuma, Yasuyoshi Sekine, Masaaki Otera, Kunihira Shiota, Yoshihiko Hirose, Kazuki Kato, Tadao Kikuchi, and Kenji Hashimoto.
There were no absent committee members.
Council secretariat staff also attended, including Mamoru Ichikawa, Secretary General of the Council Secretariat, Motohiro Sato, Assistant Secretary General and Chief of the Proceedings Section, and Yukie Yokokawa, staff member.
The meeting dealt with matters including the schedule for the final day of the session, reports from the Steering Committee executive meeting, and discussions concerning general questioning.
The point most relevant to this case is that a proposed resolution recommending the resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was handled as a council-member-submitted proposal.
The Secretary General of the Council Secretariat explained the proposed recommendation for resignation concerning Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya, which had been discussed at a prior council-wide meeting.
The explanation recorded that the wording discussed at the representatives’ meeting had been partially revised.
Specifically, the original draft contained wording referring to “a local newspaper issued on October 19, 2011 (Heisei 23).”
That reference was deleted.
The wording was revised to state, in substance, that it was extremely regrettable that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had been arrested on suspicion of violating the Road Traffic Act.
This point shows that wording directly relying on newspaper reporting was removed from the final draft of the resolution.
However, even after that revision, the structure of the draft remained the same in substance: the council proceeded on the basis of the fact of arrest and sought resignation by referring to political and moral responsibility, public sentiment, preservation of the council’s authority, and restoration of its honor.
The draft resolution stated that a city council member, as a representative of the citizens, must deeply recognize the weight of that office, maintain high ethical standards and insight, and strive for the development of municipal government and the welfare of citizens.
It then stated that the arrest of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya on suspicion of violating the Road Traffic Act was extremely regrettable.
The draft further stated that such conduct by a city council member seriously damaged the trust and dignity of the solemn council entrusted by the citizens.
It also stated that the matter called into question his qualifications even as an ordinary citizen before being a council member, that he could not avoid political and moral responsibility, and that, from the standpoint of public sentiment, the matter could not be tolerated.
The draft then stated that the Sukagawa City Council, in order to preserve the authority of the council and restore its honor, resolved that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya should resign from office of his own will.
The minutes further record the planned proceedings for the day.
The proposed resolution recommending the resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was to be taken up as the first item on the agenda.
The proposer would explain the reasons for the proposal.
Questions, referral to committee, and debate would be omitted.
The proposed resolution would then be put to a vote.
Therefore, this document confirms that the first recommendation for resignation was not handled suddenly or incidentally at the plenary session.
Rather, on October 24, 2011 (Heisei 23), the Steering Committee had already organized the procedural steps: explanation of reasons, omission of questions, omission of referral to committee, omission of debate, and voting.
Important Entries
The most important point in this document is that, as of October 24, 2011 (Heisei 23), the proposed recommendation for resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was already being handled by the Steering Committee as a council-member-submitted proposal.
At that time, Mr. Tsumuraya had been arrested and was under detention.
He had not yet been indicted.
The criminal trial had not begun.
The document also records the revision history of the draft resolution.
The original draft included wording referring to a local newspaper.
That wording was removed.
The final draft was revised to state, in substance, that it was extremely regrettable that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had been arrested on suspicion of violating the Road Traffic Act.
This point is important because it shows that wording directly relying on newspaper reporting was removed, while the council still maintained a structure in which it sought his resignation based on the fact of arrest, political and moral responsibility, public sentiment, preservation of the council’s authority, and restoration of its honor.
The document further records that the proposed resolution would be placed as the first item on the agenda, that the proposer would explain the reasons, and that questions, referral to committee, and debate would be omitted before the vote.
Thus, this document shows that, while Mr. Tsumuraya was detained before indictment and before the commencement of any criminal trial, the Sukagawa City Council was preparing to submit a recommendation for resignation to the plenary session and to proceed to a vote after omitting questions, referral to committee, and debate.
In light of Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 32, the planned handling of the first recommendation for resignation raises a direct issue concerning the presumption of innocence and the duty of public authorities not to prejudge the outcome of a criminal trial.
Questions Raised by This Document
1. Was it appropriate to submit a recommendation for resignation while the member was detained before indictment?
As of October 24, 2011 (Heisei 23), Mr. Tsumuraya had not yet been indicted.
The criminal trial had not begun.
He was under detention after arrest.
Was it consistent with the presumption of innocence, due process, and the fairness of criminal proceedings for a public body such as a city council to organize the submission of a recommendation for resignation under such circumstances?
2. Was it permissible to seek resignation on the basis of arrest?
This document records that the draft resolution was revised to state, in substance, that it was extremely regrettable that Mr. Tsumuraya had been arrested on suspicion of violating the Road Traffic Act.
However, an arrest is not a conviction.
A person who has been arrested is not thereby legally established to have committed the alleged offence.
A person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Was it consistent with the presumption of innocence for the City Council to seek resignation on the basis of arrest, political and moral responsibility, public sentiment, preservation of council authority, and restoration of council honor?
3. Was the member given any meaningful opportunity to explain or rebut?
This document records that the proposed recommendation for resignation would be handled as the first agenda item, followed by explanation of reasons, omission of questions, omission of referral to committee, omission of debate, and voting.
At that time, however, Mr. Tsumuraya was under detention.
He was not in a position to attend the plenary session and personally explain or rebut the allegations and evaluations made against him.
For a resolution that could seriously affect his political position, reputation, social standing, and ability to continue serving as an elected representative, at what stage and in what manner was his opportunity to explain or rebut secured?
4. Was it appropriate to omit questions, referral to committee, and debate?
This document records that, after the proposer’s explanation, questions, referral to committee, and debate would be omitted before the vote.
A recommendation for resignation may not have binding legal force in form.
However, it can seriously affect the member’s political position, reputation, social standing, and ability to continue serving as an elected representative.
Was it appropriate, from the standpoint of due process and careful deliberation by a public body, to omit questions, referral to committee, and debate in such a matter?
5. Did the City Council prejudge matters that should have been determined by the criminal court?
This document shows that the City Council was preparing to proceed with a recommendation for resignation based on the fact of arrest.
At that time, no indictment had been filed.
The first trial had not been held.
No guilty judgment had been rendered.
The determination of criminal responsibility must be made by a court based on evidence.
For a public body such as a city council to process a recommendation for resignation on the basis of arrest before any criminal judgment raises the question of whether the council prejudged matters that should have been determined by the judiciary.
6. How can this document be explained under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32?
Japan has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR guarantees that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Paragraph 30 of Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 32 indicates that all public authorities have a duty not to prejudge the outcome of a criminal trial.
The Sukagawa City Council is a public authority.
How can it be explained, under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32, that this public authority organized the handling of a recommendation for resignation while the member was detained before indictment?
Relevant Domestic Law, Treaties, and International Standards
Domestic Law
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan: The relationship between the recommendation for resignation, the internal council process leading to it, and the individual’s dignity, reputation, social standing, and political position is at issue.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan: The guarantee of due process is at issue. The issue is not limited to whether the member had a sufficient opportunity to explain or rebut. It also concerns whether a public body’s pre-judgment evaluation of guilt before a criminal judgment is consistent with due process and the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan: The right of access to the courts is at issue. If a public body expresses an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, and that evaluation spreads through reporting and social perception, it must be examined whether the person’s position to receive a fair judicial determination was adequately protected.
Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan: The right of a criminal defendant to a fair and public trial by an impartial court is at issue. The issue is whether a fair trial was secured under circumstances in which a public body’s pre-judgment evaluation could have exerted external pressure on the criminal proceedings and judgment.
Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Japan: Judges must exercise their conscience independently and are bound only by the Constitution and the laws. The issue is whether a city council, which has no authority to determine criminal responsibility, entered the sphere of judicial determination by proceeding on the basis of arrest before indictment and before trial.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan: Treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations must be faithfully observed. This is relevant to Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the ICCPR.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan: Public officials, including local assembly members, have a duty to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is whether a public body’s pre-judgment handling of a recommendation premised on arrest is consistent with that duty.
Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: A judgment of not guilty must be rendered when there is no proof of crime. This is related to the principle of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.
International Human Rights Treaty: ICCPR
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The right to a fair trial is at issue. If a public body expresses an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, and that evaluation spreads through reporting and social perception, it must be examined whether the subsequent criminal proceedings and trial sufficiently secured the right to a fair trial.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The issue is whether the City Council’s handling of a resignation recommendation before indictment and before trial conflicted with the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Standards on Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed in good faith. This is relevant to Japan’s duty to perform the ICCPR in good faith.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): A party may not invoke its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The fact that the matter concerns a local council, internal council procedure, or domestic procedural arrangements does not by itself remove the need to examine the matter under the ICCPR.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30: Public authorities have a duty not to prejudge the outcome of a trial or express guilt before a conviction.
The detailed interpretation of these provisions, their application to this case, and their interrelationship are examined in the page on legal arguments and the structure of constitutional and international-law violations.
Relationship to This Case
This document shows how the first recommendation for resignation, adopted on October 26, 2011 (Heisei 23), was scheduled to be handled by the Sukagawa City Council before the plenary session.
The document records that the proposed recommendation for resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was explained as a council-member-submitted proposal.
It also records that the planned procedure was explanation of reasons, omission of questions, omission of referral to committee, omission of debate, and voting.
At that time, Mr. Tsumuraya had not yet been indicted.
The criminal trial had not begun.
He was under detention and was not in a position to attend the plenary session to explain or rebut the allegations and evaluations made against him.
Nevertheless, the Sukagawa City Council, as a public body, had organized the handling of the proposed recommendation for resignation in the Steering Committee.
This shows that the first recommendation for resignation was not treated incidentally at the plenary session.
Rather, on October 24, 2011 (Heisei 23), the Steering Committee had already organized the procedural sequence of omitting questions, omitting referral to committee, omitting debate, and voting before the proposed resolution was submitted to the plenary session.
The document also records that wording referring to newspaper reporting was removed from the draft resolution.
However, even after the removal of that wording, the structure of seeking the member’s resignation on the basis of arrest remained.
This point shows that the first recommendation for resignation was not merely a quotation from a newspaper report.
Rather, it was organized as the City Council’s own public institutional judgment to seek resignation from a member who was detained before indictment.
In this case, it is necessary to examine how such council procedure can be explained in relation to the presumption of innocence, due process, the fairness of the criminal trial, and the possible prejudgment of judicial matters.
In particular, this document is important for examining the procedural structure of the first recommendation for resignation because Mr. Tsumuraya was detained before indictment, no criminal trial had begun, and the council was preparing to omit questions, referral to committee, and debate before voting.
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 entries:
October 18, 2011:
The alleged incident was said to have occurred.
October 19, 2011:
Toshio Tsumuraya voluntarily appeared at the police station and was then arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant. This was not an arrest in flagrante delicto. Detention began.
October 24, 2011,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the First Resolution Recommending Resignation
October 26, 2011,
First Resolution Recommending Resignation
November 9, 2011:
He was indicted and was later released on bail.
November 28, 2011,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Second Resolution Recommending Resignation
December 1, 2011,
Second Resolution Recommending Resignation
January 16, 2012,
Conviction
January 31, 2012,
Conviction became final and binding
February 7, 2012,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Third Resolution Recommending Resignation
February 9, 2012,
Third Resolution Recommending Resignation
February 27, 2012,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Fourth Resolution Recommending Resignation
March 1, 2012,
Fourth Resolution Recommending Resignation