Sukagawa City Council Minutes—Proposal Reasons and Voting Record of the First Recommendation for Resignation

日本語版はこちら
Japanese version

Updated on July 20, 2026

Overview of the Document

Document title:
Minutes of the September 2011 Regular Meeting, October 26, 2011

Date of creation:
October 26, 2011

Created by:
Sukagawa City Council

Source:
Obtained from the Sukagawa City Council website, printed on June 25, 2025

Type of document:
Minutes of a city council plenary session

Relevant date:
October 26, 2011

Publication format:
PDF excerpt of the relevant parts of the original minutes

Original PDF:

View Fullscreen

Facts Confirmed by This Document

This document consists of the minutes of the plenary session of the September 2011 Regular Meeting of the Sukagawa City Council, held on 26 October 2011.

Agenda Schedule No. 5 listed Item 1 as “Council Member-Submitted Resolution Bill No. 1: Recommendation for the Resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya”.

The same matter was also listed among the matters placed before the meeting that day.

The minutes record that 27 council members were present.

One council member was recorded as absent: Council Member No. 1, Toshio Tsumuraya.

At that time, however, Toshio Tsumuraya was being held in pre-indictment detention following his arrest.

He had not voluntarily chosen to be absent from the plenary session. He was deprived of his physical liberty and was unable to attend.

Two days before the plenary session, the Sukagawa City Council Steering Committee met from 2:40 p.m. to 3:23 p.m. on 24 October 2011.

On the same day, an on-site inspection attended by Toshio Tsumuraya had been conducted from 1:40 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.

The Council Steering Committee therefore began approximately 35 minutes after the on-site inspection ended.

At the Council Steering Committee meeting, the wording of the proposed First Recommendation for Resignation and the procedure to be followed at the plenary session were discussed.

A direct reference to a local newspaper contained in an earlier draft was removed.

However, the structure of seeking Toshio Tsumuraya’s resignation on the basis of his arrest on suspicion of violating the Road Traffic Act, his alleged political and moral responsibility, public sentiment, the preservation of the council’s authority and the restoration of its honour was retained.

The Committee also organised a procedure under which the proposer would explain the reasons for the proposal, after which questions, referral to committee and debate would be omitted and the proposed resolution would be put to a vote.

At the beginning of the plenary session on 26 October 2011, the chair stated that Council Member No. 1, Toshio Tsumuraya, had submitted notice of absence and that the number of members present satisfied the quorum.

Item 1, the proposed recommendation for the resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya, was then taken up.

Council Member No. 14 appeared as the proposer and explained the reasons for the proposal.

The explanation stated that council members, having received the mandate of the citizens, were required to fulfil their responsibilities with high ethical standards and sound judgement for the advancement of municipal government and the well-being of the citizens.

It then stated that the arrest of Toshio Tsumuraya on suspicion of drunk driving was something that should never have occurred, that conduct undermining trust in council members and the council itself could not be tolerated, and that the matter was extremely regrettable and provoked anger.

It was further stated that the council had repeatedly met and discussed its response, that Toshio Tsumuraya could not avoid political and moral responsibility, and that the council should resolve that he resign from office of his own will.

After the explanation of the reasons for the proposal, the chair asked whether questions, referral to committee and debate on Council Member-Submitted Resolution Bill No. 1 should be omitted.

Voices of “no objection” were heard, and the chair decided that questions, referral to committee and debate would be omitted.

A vote was then taken on Council Member-Submitted Resolution Bill No. 1.

The vote was conducted by standing, and every council member present stood in favour.

The chair declared that all members present had stood in favour and that Council Member-Submitted Resolution Bill No. 1 had been adopted as originally proposed.

The plenary session opened at 10:00 a.m. and went into recess at 10:04 a.m.

Accordingly, the plenary-session proceedings concerning the First Recommendation for Resignation were conducted during the four minutes between the opening of the session and the recess, while Toshio Tsumuraya was unable to attend because he was being held in pre-indictment detention.

Important Statements

The most important point confirmed by this document is that the First Recommendation for Resignation was adopted while Toshio Tsumuraya was being held in pre-indictment detention.

The minutes record him as an absent council member.

However, he had not voluntarily chosen to be absent. He was unable to attend the plenary session because he was being held in pre-indictment detention following his arrest.

At that time, he had not been indicted.

The criminal trial had not begun, and no court had made any finding of fact or determination of guilt.

The minutes do not record that, before the resolution was adopted, the Sukagawa City Council heard an explanation from Toshio Tsumuraya while he was detained, gave him an opportunity to defend himself or secured any opportunity for rebuttal.

The Council Steering Committee had met two days earlier, on 24 October 2011.

At that meeting, the council discussed a proposed resolution that relied on the arrest as the basis for attributing political and moral responsibility to him and seeking his resignation.

At the same time, the Committee organised the procedure under which the proposer would explain the reasons for the proposal, after which questions, referral to committee and debate would be omitted before the vote.

The Council Steering Committee began at 2:40 p.m., approximately 35 minutes after the on-site inspection ended at 2:05 p.m. on the same day.

During the on-site inspection, Toshio Tsumuraya stated that he did not remember the route actually travelled. Nevertheless, a route from the Sukagawa City Hall car park to the scene and a distance of approximately 11.5 kilometres were recorded as investigative material.

Later that same afternoon, the council was formulating a proposed recommendation for resignation and its voting procedure on the basis of his arrest.

This chronological relationship does not, by itself, establish that the investigating authorities and the Sukagawa City Council communicated or acted in coordination.

It does establish, however, that the investigative process in which Toshio Tsumuraya’s statements and the alleged facts of the case were still being formed and the council process in which political and moral responsibility was being attributed to him overlapped during the same period of pre-indictment detention.

At the plenary session, the procedure previously organised by the Council Steering Committee was followed.

After the proposer’s explanation, questions, referral to committee and debate were omitted.

Every council member present then stood in favour of the proposed resolution.

The plenary session opened at 10:00 a.m. and went into recess at 10:04 a.m.

The First Recommendation for Resignation was therefore adopted within four minutes of the opening of the session, under a procedure organised in advance, while Toshio Tsumuraya was unable to attend because of pre-indictment detention and while no opportunity for explanation or rebuttal is confirmed in the minutes.

Position in the Criminal Proceedings

When the First Recommendation for Resignation was adopted on 26 October 2011, Toshio Tsumuraya had not been indicted.

The criminal trial had not begun, and there had been no finding of fact or determination of guilt by a court.

Following his arrest on 19 October 2011, Toshio Tsumuraya was interrogated while being held in pre-indictment detention.

Statement records were prepared by judicial police officers on 19, 20 and 22 October.

On 24 October, an on-site inspection was conducted while Toshio Tsumuraya stated that he did not remember the route actually travelled.

A route from the Sukagawa City Hall car park to the scene and a distance of approximately 11.5 kilometres were nevertheless recorded as investigative material.

Approximately 35 minutes after the on-site inspection ended, the Sukagawa City Council Steering Committee met and organised both the wording of the proposed First Recommendation for Resignation and the voting procedure to be followed at the plenary session.

On 25 October, the route diagram attached to the previous day’s on-site inspection record was shown to Toshio Tsumuraya, and a further statement record concerning the route, distance and intention to drive was prepared.

The following day, 26 October, the First Recommendation for Resignation was adopted.

His pre-indictment detention continued after the resolution.

On 2 November 2011, a prosecutor-recorded statement was prepared in which an alleged accident time of approximately 7:40 p.m. was derived from mobile telephone records, third-party sighting information and estimated travel times.

Toshio Tsumuraya was indicted on 9 November 2011.

Accordingly, the First Recommendation for Resignation was an official expression by the Sukagawa City Council attributing political and moral responsibility and seeking resignation while the statements and alleged facts forming the basis of the prosecution were still being developed during pre-indictment detention.

The materials currently confirmed do not establish that the resolution directly affected any particular interrogation, statement, extension of detention, prosecutorial decision or judgment.

However, whether the First Recommendation for Resignation and the reasons given for it were compatible with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR must be examined independently of whether a specific effect on the criminal proceedings can be proved.

Questions Raised by This Document

1. Does the absence of legal binding force permit pre-judgment public treatment as guilty?

A resignation recommendation resolution is sometimes described as a political expression of opinion by a council, without legal binding force to immediately deprive a council member of office.

However, the issue in this case is not limited to whether the resignation recommendation resolution immediately deprived the council member of his legal status.

The issue is that, before criminal responsibility had been determined, a public institution, namely a local council, officially expressed the view that the person concerned bore political and moral responsibility and should resign from office.

Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, guarantees the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, also indicates that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a criminal trial.

If so, even if a resignation recommendation resolution is, under domestic law, a non-binding political expression of opinion, does that permit a public institution to express an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment?

Furthermore, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, VCLT, provides that a party may not invoke its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

Therefore, the question arises whether the domestic-law explanation that “a resignation recommendation resolution is merely a political expression of opinion” can avoid the issue of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.

In this case, what must be examined is not only whether the resignation recommendation resolution had legal binding force, but whether the public institution’s pre-judgment expression of an evaluation premised on guilt itself violated the presumption of innocence — and this question does not depend on whether the first recommendation for resignation actually affected the later outcome of the criminal trial.

The fact that a public institution expressed an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment is itself an independent issue under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.

Whether and how that act affected the later criminal proceedings is a separate question to be examined additionally.

2. What issues does a pre-judgment council resolution raise in relation to the allocation of judicial power and the fairness of the trial?

Article 76, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan provides that the whole judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law.

Article 76, paragraph 3 provides that all judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by the Constitution and laws.

In this case, the First Recommendation for Resignation was adopted at a stage when Toshio Tsumuraya was unable to attend the plenary session because he was being held in pre-indictment detention.

At that time, the criminal trial had not begun, and no court had made any determination of guilt.

Nevertheless, a public institution, namely a local council, adopted a recommendation for resignation on the basis of his arrest for alleged drunk driving.

Such a pre-judgment public expression raises issues in relation to the fact that the determination of criminal responsibility belongs to the judiciary and that judges must decide independently without external influence.

The First Recommendation for Resignation must therefore be examined not only in relation to the presumption of innocence, but also in relation to the allocation of judicial power and the fairness of the trial.

3. Was it appropriate to adopt a recommendation for resignation when Toshio Tsumuraya was unable to attend because of pre-indictment detention?

The minutes record Toshio Tsumuraya as an absent council member.

However, he had not voluntarily chosen to be absent.

He was unable to attend the plenary session because he was being held in pre-indictment detention.

At that time, he had not been indicted, and the criminal trial had not begun.

The Sukagawa City Council nevertheless relied on his arrest to attribute political and moral responsibility to him and adopted an official resolution seeking his resignation while he was deprived of the ability to attend, explain or respond at the plenary session.

How can this procedure be justified in relation to the presumption of innocence, due process, his elected political status and the mandate conferred by the citizens who elected him?

4. Is it permissible to make assertive political and moral evaluations on the basis of arrest?

In the explanation of reasons, on the basis of the arrest on suspicion of drunk driving, the proposer stated that the conduct undermined trust in the council, was extremely regrettable, caused anger that could not be suppressed, and that political and moral responsibility could not be avoided.

However, an arrest is not a conviction.

The resolution was adopted before indictment.

A person must be presumed innocent until a final finding of guilt is made according to law.

Is it consistent with the principle of the presumption of innocence for a public institution to evaluate the person’s responsibility in assertive terms and call for resignation on the basis of arrest?

5. Can the expression “political and moral responsibility” avoid the issue of the presumption of innocence?

The explanation of reasons states that the person concerned could not avoid political and moral responsibility.

However, the factual premise for that evaluation was the arrest on suspicion of drunk driving.

Before criminal responsibility had been determined, does deriving political and moral responsibility from the fact of arrest and calling for resignation not amount, in substance, to an evaluation premised on guilt?

Even if a resignation recommendation resolution is a non-binding political expression of opinion, when a public institution expresses an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, does an issue remain under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30?

6. At what stage was Toshio Tsumuraya given an opportunity to explain or rebut the allegations and evaluations made against him?

When the First Recommendation for Resignation was adopted, Toshio Tsumuraya was unable to attend the plenary session because he was being held in pre-indictment detention.

At the plenary session, the proposer explained the reasons for a resolution concerning him, after which questions, referral to committee and debate were omitted and the vote was taken immediately.

Neither the plenary-session minutes nor the Council Steering Committee minutes confirm that, before the resolution, the Sukagawa City Council heard an explanation from him while he was detained, showed him the proposed resolution, permitted him to submit a written defence or secured an opportunity for him to respond through a representative.

At what stage, and by what method, was he given an opportunity to explain or rebut a resolution capable of seriously affecting his political status, honour, social reputation and ability to continue serving as an elected council member?

7. Was it appropriate to omit questions, referral to committee, and debate?

This document records that the chair asked whether questions, referral to committee, and debate should be omitted, and that no objection was raised.

As a result, the resolution was adopted after omitting questions, referral to committee, and debate.

Even if a resignation recommendation resolution is formally non-binding, it can have serious effects on the political status, honor, social reputation, and council activities of the person concerned.

Was it appropriate, from the perspectives of due process and careful deliberation by the council, to omit questions, referral to committee, and debate on such a resolution?

8. Did a procedure organised in advance and completed within four minutes allow sufficient and careful examination?

Two days before the First Recommendation for Resignation was adopted, the Council Steering Committee organised not only the wording of the proposed resolution but also the procedure under which questions, referral to committee and debate would be omitted after the proposer’s explanation and before the vote.

The plenary session opened at 10:00 a.m. and went into recess at 10:04 a.m.

During those four minutes, the proposer explained the reasons, questions, referral to committee and debate were omitted, the vote was taken, and the resolution was adopted.

Toshio Tsumuraya was unable to attend because he was being held in pre-indictment detention, and the minutes confirm no opportunity for him to explain or rebut the allegations and evaluations made against him.

Can it be said that this procedure involved sufficient and careful examination of the facts, the stage of the criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence, his rights and interests, and the electoral mandate conferred by the citizens?

9. What is the significance of unanimous approval by standing vote?

The minutes record that every council member present stood in favour and that the proposed resolution was adopted as originally submitted.

Accordingly, the resolution was adopted with the support of every council member present while Toshio Tsumuraya was unable to attend because he was being held in pre-indictment detention.

This means that the First Recommendation for Resignation was not merely the statement of an individual council member or a particular political group, but was expressed as the official will of the Sukagawa City Council at that time.

How should the effect of such a unanimous resolution on Toshio Tsumuraya’s honour, social reputation, political status and subsequent public perception be evaluated?

10. How did the council consider both the rights and interests of the person concerned and the mandate of the citizens?

The explanation of reasons refers to the citizens’ mandate, trust in the council, political responsibility, and moral responsibility.

However, the person concerned had also been elected as a council member through the votes of citizens.

How did the Sukagawa City Council consider the will of the citizens who voted for him, his political status, his opportunity to be heard, and the principle of the presumption of innocence?

11. Did the Sukagawa City Council later verify this resolution?

This resolution has not been withdrawn.

On April 3, 2025, a petition was submitted seeking verification and correction of the resignation recommendation resolutions.

Did the Sukagawa City Council conduct an objective investigation and verification of the content, procedure, impact, and legal evaluation of the first recommendation for resignation?

Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards

Domestic Law

Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to personal dignity and personality interests. The effect of the resignation recommendation resolution on the honor, social reputation, and political status of the person concerned is at issue.

Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to due process. In this case, the issue is not only whether the person concerned had a sufficient opportunity to explain or rebut, but also whether the fact that a public institution, the city council, expressed an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment is consistent with the purposes of due process and the presumption of innocence.

Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to the right of access to the courts. When a public institution expresses an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, and that evaluation spreads through reporting and social perception, the issue arises whether the person concerned’s position to receive fair judicial judgment in the subsequent criminal trial was sufficiently protected.

Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to the right of a criminal defendant to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal. The issue is whether an impartial trial was secured under circumstances where pre-judgment public treatment as guilty by a public institution could exert external pressure on the investigation, trial, and judgment.

Article 37, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision guarantees an accused person full opportunity to examine all witnesses.
The judgment in this case lists statement records from five third parties, but none of those five persons was examined as a witness or cross-examined by the defence.
Two of them were Sukagawa City Council members who had voted in favour of both the First and Second Recommendations for Resignation.
The issue is whether Toshio Tsumuraya had a substantive opportunity to challenge the content and credibility of their statements.

Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to the requirement that judges exercise their authority independently and be bound only by the Constitution and laws. The fact that the city council, which had no authority to determine criminal responsibility, expressed an evaluation premised on criminal facts before judgment raises issues in relation to the anticipation of judicial judgment, judicial independence, and the fairness of the trial.

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 relevant to Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the ICCPR.

Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to the constitutional duty of council members and other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is whether a public institution, the city council, acted consistently with that duty when it expressed an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment.

Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision requires an acquittal when there is no proof of a crime. It is relevant to the principle of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.

International Human Rights Treaty: ICCPR

Article 14, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision is relevant to the right to a fair trial. When a public institution expresses an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, and that evaluation spreads through reporting and social perception, the issue arises whether the criminal proceedings and trial conducted under that influence sufficiently protected the right to a fair trial.

Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR:
This provision guarantees that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. In this case, the issue is whether the city council, a public institution, violated the presumption of innocence by expressing an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment.

Article 14, paragraph 3(e) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision guarantees an accused person the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him.
In this case, the judgment lists statement records from five third parties, none of whom was examined as a witness or cross-examined by the defence.

Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation

Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, VCLT:
A treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith. This is relevant to Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the ICCPR, which Japan has ratified.

Article 27 of the VCLT:
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The issue is whether Japan can avoid examining its obligations under the ICCPR on the ground that the act was taken by a local council, that it was an internal council matter, or that no domestic procedure is provided.

General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 of the Human Rights Committee:
This international standard is relevant to whether public authorities may express the guilt of an accused person in a manner that prejudges the outcome of a criminal trial.

General Comment No. 32, paragraph 39 of the Human Rights Committee:
This paragraph explains that, as an application of the principle of equality of arms and the right to an effective defence, an accused person and defence counsel must be given an adequate opportunity to examine and challenge witnesses against the accused.
In this case, the issue is whether there was a substantive opportunity to challenge the statements and credibility of the five third parties, including the two council members who had voted in favour of both the First and Second Recommendations for Resignation.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the relationship among these provisions are examined in the page “Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality.”

Relationship to This Case

On 26 October 2011, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the First Recommendation for Resignation before Toshio Tsumuraya had been indicted.

At that time, the criminal trial had not begun, and no court had made any finding of fact or determination of guilt.

Toshio Tsumuraya was unable to attend the plenary session because he was being held in pre-indictment detention following his arrest.

Two days before the resolution, on 24 October 2011, the Council Steering Committee met.

That meeting began at 2:40 p.m., approximately 35 minutes after the on-site inspection ended at 2:05 p.m.

At the Council Steering Committee meeting, the council organised a proposed resolution that relied on the arrest as the basis for attributing political and moral responsibility to Toshio Tsumuraya and seeking his resignation.

The Committee also organised the plenary-session procedure under which the proposer would explain the reasons, questions, referral to committee and debate would be omitted, and the proposed resolution would then be put to a vote.

Two days later, the plenary session followed that procedure.

After the proposer’s explanation, questions, referral to committee and debate were omitted.

Every council member present stood in favour, and the proposed resolution was adopted.

The plenary session opened at 10:00 a.m. and went into recess at 10:04 a.m.

The critical point is that an arrest is not a conviction and does not determine criminal responsibility.

Nevertheless, the explanation of reasons relied on the arrest to state that conduct undermining trust in the council could not be tolerated, that Toshio Tsumuraya could not avoid political and moral responsibility and that he should resign.

The issue is therefore not limited to whether the recommendation for resignation had legally binding force.

The fact that a local council, acting as a public authority, officially attributed responsibility and sought resignation before criminal responsibility had been determined must itself be examined independently under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.

The evidential structure of the subsequent criminal proceedings must then be examined separately.

The judgment lists statement records made by three third parties to judicial police officers and statement records made by two third parties to a public prosecutor.

None of the five third parties was examined as a witness or cross-examined by the defence.

The two persons whose statements were recorded by a public prosecutor were Sukagawa City Council members who had voted in favour of both the First and Second Recommendations for Resignation.

These facts do not, by themselves, establish that the two council members gave false statements, that the statement records were legally inadmissible or that the First Recommendation for Resignation directly affected the criminal trial.

Nor does the absence of witness examination and cross-examination, by itself, automatically establish a violation of the right to examine witnesses.

However, statement records made by council members who had supported official resolutions seeking Toshio Tsumuraya’s resignation before the determination of criminal responsibility were included in the evidential structure of the same criminal case.

The memory, perception, process of statement-taking, involvement in the resolutions, position and credibility of those persons were not tested through their examination as witnesses and cross-examination in open court.

The formal legal basis on which each statement record was admitted, and whether the defence consented to its admission, must be distinguished from the separate question of whether there was a substantive opportunity to challenge the content and credibility of the adverse statements.

Accordingly, this document is important not only for examining whether the First Recommendation for Resignation itself was compatible with the presumption of innocence.

It is also important for examining the connection between the council’s official pre-judgment treatment of Toshio Tsumuraya as responsible and the subsequent criminal proceedings from the perspectives of the right to a fair trial, due process and the right to examine witnesses.

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

Evidence Documents

Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality

Contact

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