Overview of the Document
Document title:
Regarding the Written Request (Response)
Document number:
The document number is 7市協第16号.
Date created:
April 28, 2025
Created by:
Sukagawa City
Issuer:
Masaaki Otera, Mayor of Sukagawa City
Addressee:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Written request concerned:
Written request submitted on April 3, 2025
Source of acquisition:
Obtained as a response document sent to Toshio Tsumuraya
Type of document:
Response document issued in the name of the mayor in response to a written request
Format published:
PDF with personal information and other information redacted to the necessary extent
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document is a response issued by Sukagawa City on April 28, 2025, to the written request submitted on April 3, 2025.
The document number is 7 Shikyo No. 16.
The issuer is Masaaki Otera, Mayor of Sukagawa City.
The addressee is Toshio Tsumuraya.
The subject is “Regarding the Written Request.”
The text first expresses appreciation for the addressee’s understanding and cooperation with various aspects of city administration.
It then states that, with respect to the request submitted on April 3, 2025, the City considers that it handled the matter appropriately, and asks for the addressee’s understanding.
The document further states that the Legal Affairs Bureau accepts consultations and reports of damage concerning human rights violations, conducts investigations from a neutral and fair standpoint, and has a relief system under which appropriate measures are taken as necessary.
The administrative section in charge is the Citizens’ Activities Support Section of the Citizens’ Collaboration Promotion Division.
This document confirms that, in response to the written request, Sukagawa City did not present substantive results of examination concerning the past recommendations for resignation or subsequent responses, but instead stated the conclusion that the matter had been “handled appropriately by the City.”
It also confirms that the City did not itself present specific corrective measures regarding the content of the request, but instead provided information about the human rights relief system of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
Important Entries
What is particularly important in this document is that Sukagawa City responded to the request dated April 3, 2025 by stating, “The City considers that it handled the matter appropriately.”
This response shows that Sukagawa City did not acknowledge illegality or impropriety concerning the issues raised in the written request.
However, this document does not state any specific reasons as to why the matter could be considered to have been handled appropriately.
Nor does it show any individual examination of the past recommendations for resignation, pre-judgment public assumptions of guilt, the presumption of innocence, due process, Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan, or Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan.
What is shown in this document is the conclusion that the matter was “handled appropriately by the City.”
Accordingly, this document is positioned not so much as a document showing substantive examination results by Sukagawa City in response to the request, but rather as a document showing the City’s final response to the request.
Another important point is that this document was issued after the legal consultation conducted on April 19, 2025.
In this case, the City side conducted a legal consultation on April 19, 2025.
In the internal materials concerning that legal consultation, an understanding is confirmed to the effect that, because the person had been arrested, there was no problem with making a presumption close to guilt.
This is a statement that goes to the core of this case.
That is because the very issue in this case is whether treatment by a public authority, before judgment, as if guilt were being assumed, is compatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Therefore, the statement in this document that the matter was “handled appropriately by the City” should not be read separately from the April 19 legal consultation.
Because the City responded on April 28 that the matter had been “handled appropriately” after the April 19 legal consultation, the legal premise on which the City made this response becomes an issue.
In particular, it is important whether the understanding that, because the person had been arrested, a presumption close to guilt was permissible, influenced the City’s decision in making this response.
If the City responded that the matter had been “handled appropriately” on the basis of such an understanding, then this document is not merely a response document. It becomes a document showing that the City refused correction on the basis of a legal understanding that may be contrary to the presumption of innocence.
This document also provides information about the human rights relief system of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
The text explains that the Legal Affairs Bureau accepts consultations and reports of damage concerning human rights violations, conducts investigations from a neutral and fair standpoint, and has a relief system under which appropriate measures are taken as necessary.
This statement shows that the City responded by referring to the Legal Affairs Bureau’s relief system, rather than itself conducting a substantive investigation or taking corrective measures concerning the alleged human rights violations in this case.
However, the issue in this case is not a dispute between private parties.
The issues are the recommendations for resignation adopted by the Sukagawa City Council, the subsequent responses of Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council, and the problems of the presumption of innocence and effective remedy involving public authorities.
Accordingly, the question is whether Sukagawa City’s own duty to examine, explain, or correct the matter is resolved by providing information about the Legal Affairs Bureau’s human rights relief system.
In particular, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for persons whose Covenant rights or freedoms have been violated.
Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31 also indicates that effective remedies are not limited to formal responses, but may include, as appropriate, compensation or reparation, restitution, rehabilitation, public apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices.
From this perspective, this document is important for confirming how Sukagawa City substantively examined the request and what relief or corrective measures it considered.
At the same time, this document is also a document confirming that, after the April 19 legal consultation, the City responded that the matter had been “handled appropriately” without showing specific examination details or corrective measures.
Questions Raised by This Document
1. What is the reason for stating that the matter was “handled appropriately by the City”?
This document states that, with respect to the request dated April 3, 2025, the City considers that it handled the matter appropriately.
However, the reasons for that conclusion are not stated specifically.
The written request raised constitutional issues, issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the presumption of innocence, due process, and effective remedy in relation to the past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses.
Nevertheless, this document does not state what facts were confirmed, what legal norms were applied, or for what reasons the City determined that the matter had been handled appropriately.
Accordingly, the question arises whether the conclusion alone, that the matter was “handled appropriately,” can be considered a substantive response to the written request.
2. How should this response be evaluated in light of the fact that it was issued after the April 19 legal consultation?
This document is a response dated April 28, 2025.
Before that, on April 19, 2025, a legal consultation was conducted on the City side.
In the internal materials concerning that legal consultation, an understanding is confirmed to the effect that, because the person had been arrested, there was no problem with making a presumption close to guilt.
The issue in this case is precisely whether, at the pre-judgment stage, treatment by a public authority as if guilt were being assumed is compatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
For that reason, it is important that, after the April 19 legal consultation, the City responded on April 28 that the matter had been “handled appropriately by the City.”
Was this response based on the legal understanding shown in the April 19 legal consultation?
Did the City determine that correction was unnecessary on the premise that, because the person had been arrested, a presumption close to guilt was permissible?
This point requires examination.
3. Is the understanding that “because the person had been arrested, a presumption close to guilt is permissible” compatible with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32 also states that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
In addition, the same paragraph states that the length of pretrial detention should never be taken as an indication of guilt or of its degree.
In light of these norms, the understanding that, because a person has been arrested or detained, a presumption close to guilt is permissible raises serious questions in relation to the presumption of innocence.
In this case, the first recommendation for resignation was adopted before indictment, while Toshio Tsumuraya was in detention and absent from the plenary session.
If, in the 2025 legal consultation, an understanding was adopted to the effect that, because the person had been arrested, a presumption close to guilt was permissible, that understanding itself becomes an issue under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32.
Therefore, the statement in this document that the matter was “handled appropriately” must be examined together with the validity of the legal understanding on which it may have been based.
4. Did the City substantively examine the issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
In this case, the pre-judgment recommendations for resignation raise issues in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, the failure to examine and correct the matter after 2025 raises issues in relation to effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, this document does not contain any specific examination of Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32, or paragraphs 15 or 16 of General Comment No. 31.
Japan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979.
Therefore, obligations under the Covenant existed for Japan both in 2011 and in 2025.
For that reason, the question arises how the City examined the issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in this document.
5. Does providing information about the Legal Affairs Bureau’s human rights relief system mean that the City fulfilled its own duty to examine the matter?
This document provides information about the human rights relief system of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
However, the issue in this case concerns acts or responses of public authorities, namely the Sukagawa City Council and Sukagawa City.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that an effective remedy be ensured for persons whose Covenant rights or freedoms have been violated.
It also provides that an effective remedy must be ensured even where the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Accordingly, the question is whether the City’s responsibility to examine the content of the request and consider necessary explanations or corrective measures disappears merely because it provided information about the Legal Affairs Bureau’s system.
At the very least, this document alone does not make clear whether Sukagawa City itself substantively examined the content of the written request.
6. Can a merely formal response be considered an effective remedy?
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that an effective remedy be ensured for persons whose Covenant rights or freedoms have been violated.
Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31 indicates that effective remedies are not merely formal responses, but may include, as appropriate, compensation or reparation, restitution, public apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant practices.
This document contains the conclusion that the matter was “handled appropriately by the City” and provides information about the Legal Affairs Bureau’s human rights relief system.
However, it does not state what investigation the City conducted concerning the past recommendations for resignation, what legal assessment it made, or what corrective measures it considered.
Accordingly, the question arises whether the response in this document satisfies the content of effective remedy required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31.
7. Does the response that the matter was “handled appropriately” fix the problem in the present?
In this case, recommendations for resignation were adopted by the Sukagawa City Council between 2011 and 2012.
Thereafter, in 2025, examination and correction were sought concerning the constitutional issues and issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights arising from the past recommendations for resignation.
This document is Sukagawa City’s response to that request, stating that the matter was “handled appropriately by the City.”
By this response, the City indicated a position that it did not acknowledge any problem concerning the past recommendations for resignation or subsequent responses, and that it would not take corrective measures.
Accordingly, this document is not merely a response document concerning a past issue. It is also a document showing how Sukagawa City treated the issue as of 2025.
In this respect, this document is important in examining whether a past human rights violation or suspected violation remained unremedied and was fixed in the present.
8. How should the relationship between the City and the City Council be understood?
The body that adopted the recommendations for resignation in this case was the Sukagawa City Council.
On the other hand, the issuer of this document is the Mayor of Sukagawa City.
Therefore, the mayoral department and the council are institutionally distinct.
However, after 2025, requests for examination and correction concerning the past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses were made to both Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council.
In addition, the City’s response also relates to issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, effective remedy, and the provision of information about the Legal Affairs Bureau’s human rights relief system.
Therefore, when examining this document, it is necessary to organize the extent to which the mayoral department of Sukagawa City bears responsibility, the extent to which the Sukagawa City Council should conduct examination or provide an explanation, and the relationship between the two.
At the very least, this document alone does not resolve the issue of examination or correction by the City Council itself.
9. Can providing information about the human rights relief system be regarded as providing an effective remedy?
This document explains that the Legal Affairs Bureau’s human rights relief system accepts consultations and reports of damage concerning human rights violations, conducts investigations from a neutral and fair standpoint, and takes appropriate measures as necessary.
However, this was not a remedial measure implemented by Sukagawa City itself.
It was merely information about a system operated by another institution, the Legal Affairs Bureau.
In relation to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the issue is whether a competent authority ensured an effective remedy in response to the claim of a rights violation.
Accordingly, whether merely providing information about the Legal Affairs Bureau’s system can be regarded as Sukagawa City itself having provided an effective remedy must be examined carefully.
In this case, the examination, explanation, and corrective measures taken by Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council themselves remain at issue.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
Domestic Law
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns respect for the individual, personal rights, honor, and social reputation. It is necessary to examine how the past recommendations for resignation and the subsequent response of the City affected Toshio Tsumuraya’s personal interests.
Article 16 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right of petition. Where a request or petition seeks examination and correction of a rights violation, the issue is how public authorities should respond.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns due process. The pre-judgment recommendations for resignation and the subsequent refusal to examine the matter or formal handling of it raise issues in relation to due process.
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. It is necessary to examine how pre-judgment public assumptions of guilt and the subsequent absence of remedy relate to the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision provides that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed. It is important in relation to the domestic significance of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision provides for the duty of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is how the heads and officials of local public entities should respect constitutional and treaty-based human rights guarantees.
Article 89, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Local Autonomy Act:
These provisions position local assemblies as deliberative organs composed of members elected by residents, and provide for the powers of assemblies and the duty of members to faithfully perform their duties. They are important in examining how a council should examine and explain its past official expressions of intent when constitutional and Covenant-based issues are later raised.
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision provides for the presumption of innocence. In this case, the pre-judgment recommendations for resignation raise issues in relation to this provision.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision provides for the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for persons whose Covenant rights or freedoms have been violated. In this document, the issue is whether the City provided an effective remedy in response to the request.
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision provides for the right to a fair trial. The issue is how pre-judgment public assumptions of guilt and the subsequent absence of remedy relate to the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns political participation. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation against an elected council member, and the subsequent responses of the City and the Council, affected political status and council activities.
General Comments
Paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32:
This paragraph states that, with respect to the presumption of innocence, all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial. It is important in relation to the first and second recommendations for resignation in this case.
Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31:
This paragraph indicates that effective remedies may include compensation or reparation, restitution, rehabilitation, public apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices. It is important in examining whether the response in this document, stating that the matter was “handled appropriately,” satisfies the content of effective remedy.
Paragraph 16 of General Comment No. 31:
This paragraph indicates that a failure to investigate allegations of violations, or a failure to bring perpetrators of certain violations to justice, could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. It is important in examining whether the City conducted a substantive examination in this document.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
This provision states that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. It is important in relation to the obligation to faithfully implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
This provision states that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The issue is whether the Covenant-based issues can be left unexamined on the basis of explanations concerning the domestic system, institutional distinctions, or the provision of information about the Legal Affairs Bureau system.
Relationship to This Case
This document is a response issued by Sukagawa City on April 28, 2025, to the written request submitted on April 3, 2025.
In this case, recommendations for resignation were adopted by the Sukagawa City Council between 2011 and 2012.
In particular, the first recommendation for resignation was adopted before indictment, while Toshio Tsumuraya was in detention and absent from the plenary session.
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted after indictment, but before the first hearing and before judgment, and after Toshio Tsumuraya had left the chamber.
These recommendations for resignation raise issues in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Thereafter, on April 3, 2025, Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written request to Sukagawa City seeking examination and correction of the past recommendations for resignation and subsequent responses.
After receiving that request, the City side conducted a legal consultation on April 19, 2025.
In the internal materials concerning that legal consultation, an understanding is confirmed to the effect that, because the person had been arrested, there was no problem with making a presumption close to guilt.
After that, the response document that is the subject of this article was issued on April 28, 2025.
In other words, this document is a document in which Sukagawa City, after the April 19 legal consultation, ultimately responded that the matter had been “handled appropriately by the City.”
This timeline is important.
The reason is that the understanding shown in the April 19 legal consultation, to the effect that because the person had been arrested, a presumption close to guilt was permissible, directly concerns the issue of the presumption of innocence in this case.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32 also states that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
Furthermore, the length of pretrial detention must not be treated as an indication of guilt or of its degree.
In light of these norms, an understanding that permits a presumption close to guilt on the ground that a person has been arrested or detained contains serious problems in relation to the presumption of innocence.
Therefore, the response in this document, stating that the matter was “handled appropriately by the City,” should not be read in isolation.
It must be read as a response issued after the April 19 legal consultation.
This response can be understood as indicating that Sukagawa City did not acknowledge a problem in response to the request and did not take corrective measures.
However, this document does not specifically state what factual confirmation the City conducted concerning the past recommendations for resignation, what legal assessment it made, or why it determined that the matter had been handled appropriately.
Nor does it show individual examination of the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32, or paragraphs 15 and 16 of General Comment No. 31.
In this respect, this document is not so much a document showing substantive examination results by Sukagawa City in response to the written request, but rather a document stating the conclusion that the matter had been “handled appropriately.”
This document also provides information about the human rights relief system of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
However, the issue in this case concerns the recommendations for resignation adopted by the Sukagawa City Council and the subsequent responses of Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council.
In other words, the central issue concerns the acts and responses of public authorities themselves.
Accordingly, the question is whether the issue of examination, explanation, or correction that Sukagawa City itself should undertake is resolved by providing information about the Legal Affairs Bureau’s human rights relief system.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that an effective remedy be ensured for persons whose Covenant rights or freedoms have been violated.
Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31 indicates that the content of effective remedy is not limited to a merely formal response, but may include, as appropriate, compensation or reparation, restitution, public apology, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant practices.
Paragraph 16 of General Comment No. 31 also indicates that a failure to investigate allegations of violations may itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.
From this perspective, this document is important for examining what relief or corrective measures Sukagawa City took in 2025 in response to the allegations of human rights violations in this case.
If, in response to the request, no substantive factual confirmation, legal assessment, explanation, apology, guarantee of non-repetition, or review of practices was carried out, and the City merely responded that the matter had been “handled appropriately,” the question arises whether that can be regarded as an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This document is also a document for examining whether the problem of the past recommendations for resignation remained unremedied and uncorrected as of 2025.
Accordingly, this document is important both as a document for examining the recommendations for resignation themselves from 2011 to 2012, and as the final response of Sukagawa City issued after the legal consultation on April 19, 2025, for examining the issue of failure to provide remedy or merely formal handling.
Related Materials
Related pages
The following core pages are currently available in Japanese only.
Record and Verification of the Case
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 1
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 2
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 3
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 4
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 5
Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality
Related evidence articles:
Document Distributed in Sukagawa City—Group Calling for the Resignation of Toshio Tsumuraya
Related normative articles:
Related timeline:
April 3, 2025:
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a request to Sukagawa City seeking redress for human rights violations arising from the resignation recommendation resolutions, and also submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council.
April 8, 2025:
On the Sukagawa City Council side, a meeting of the Conference of Faction Representatives was held concerning the petition.
April 19, 2025:
Legal consultations were conducted on the Sukagawa City side and the Sukagawa City Council side concerning the request and the petition.
April 28, 2025:
Sukagawa City issued its final response to the request, stating that the matter had been “properly handled.”