Introduction
On October 26, 2011 and December 1, 2011, the Sukagawa City Council adopted recommendations for resignation directed at Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya.
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted before he had been indicted, while he was in detention.
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted after indictment, but before the first hearing.
These two resolutions were not isolated events.
After the arrest, while the person concerned remained in custody and interrogation continued, newspaper reports were published, and the City Council adopted recommendations for resignation.
Thereafter, interrogation continued while he remained in detention, and the time of the accident, initially treated as around 7:50 p.m., was changed to around 7:40 p.m.
The changed time was then adopted in the indictment and in the judgment.
This page is intended to examine, across the primary materials published in the respective evidence articles, the sequence of events from arrest to the second recommendation for resignation.
The original documents, document summaries, and detailed examinations of individual materials can be found in the respective evidence articles.
Below, the sequence from arrest to the second recommendation for resignation is organized by placing criminal proceedings, media reports, changes in statements, and the response of the City Council alongside one another.
Position of This Page
This page is not an evidence article introducing a single document.
This page is an integrated verification article that places arrest, media reports, written statements, on-site inspection, indictment, release on bail, and the City Council’s response in chronological order, and organizes the relationship among these events.
The individual evidence articles organize the contents of each document, the facts confirmed by each document, important entries, and the questions arising from them.
By contrast, this page examines those materials across the board and organizes connections in the sequence of events that are difficult to see from any single document alone.
Timeline
October 18, 2011: Accident
The accident in this case occurred.
In the initial investigative materials and newspaper reports, the time of the accident was treated as around 7:50 p.m.
October 19, 2011: Voluntary Appearance and Arrest
The person concerned voluntarily appeared at the police station.
Thereafter, at around 1:10 p.m., he was arrested through an ordinary arrest.
In the police statement prepared on the same day, the time of the accident was stated as around 7:50 p.m.
October 20, 2011: Newspaper Report
Newspapers reported that the person concerned denied the allegation.
At the stage immediately after the arrest, the reports were not to the effect that he had admitted drunk driving.
October 21, 2011: Referral to Prosecutors and Newspaper Report
The person concerned was referred to prosecutors.
Newspapers reported that he had broadly admitted the allegation.
The report changed from denial on the previous day to broad admission on the following day.
At this point, the criminal trial had not begun.
He had not been indicted.
October 22, 2011: Police Statement
A police statement was prepared.
In this statement, the facts that the person concerned left the restaurant, walked to the city hall parking lot, and drove a car from the city hall parking lot were organized not as statements based on clear memory, but in a form that included inference.
October 24, 2011: On-Site Inspection
An on-site inspection was conducted.
The route from the city hall parking lot to the accident site was organized, and the driving distance was stated to be approximately 11.5 kilometers.
October 25, 2011: Police Statement
A police statement was prepared.
In this statement, the fact that the person concerned began driving from the city hall parking lot, the driving route, and the sequence leading to the accident were organized while explanations of the investigative results were being provided.
Rather than showing that the person concerned consistently explained the events based on clear memory, the statement confirms a process in which the content of the statement was built up while taking into account information presented through the investigation.
October 26, 2011: First Recommendation for Resignation
The Sukagawa City Council adopted the first recommendation for resignation directed at the person concerned.
At that time, the person concerned was in detention.
He had not been indicted, and the criminal trial had not begun.
He was absent from the plenary session.
The minutes contain no entry showing that the council heard from him, gave him an opportunity to explain, or secured an opportunity for rebuttal.
Questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted.
The resolution was adopted by the standing of all council members present.
According to the minutes, the plenary session opened at 10:00 a.m. and entered recess at 10:04 a.m.
The proceedings concerning the first recommendation for resignation took place within the four minutes between the opening of the session and the recess.
After October 26, 2011: Extension of Detention
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of detention for a suspect is, in principle, ten days.
Where unavoidable circumstances exist, a judge may extend the period of detention upon request by the prosecutor.
In this case, after the first recommendation for resignation was adopted, the prosecutor requested an extension of detention.
Thereafter, the person concerned remained in custody and interrogation continued.
The first recommendation for resignation was not adopted after the investigation had ended.
It was adopted while the person remained in custody and interrogation was continuing.
November 2, 2011: Prosecutor Statement
A prosecutor statement was prepared.
In this statement, the time of the accident was stated to be around 7:40 p.m.
The time was changed from around 7:50 p.m., which had been treated as the time of the accident in the initial investigative materials and reports, to a time ten minutes earlier.
In addition, a sequence of times was organized concerning the departure time, the time of passing near the construction site, and the time of the accident.
November 9, 2011: Indictment and Release on Bail
The person concerned was indicted.
He was released on bail on the same day.
In the indictment, around 7:40 p.m. was adopted as the time of the accident.
Instead of the initial time of around 7:50 p.m., the time of around 7:40 p.m. organized in the prosecutor statement of November 2, 2011 became the basis for the subsequent criminal proceedings.
November 24, 2011: All-Council-Members Conference
An all-council-members conference was held.
In later plenary-session minutes, it was explained that the person concerned had admitted drunk driving at this all-council-members conference.
On the other hand, the person concerned stated his intention to continue serving as a council member on the grounds that he would work to restore trust through council activities, that his support group had requested that he continue as a council member, and that he would decide his course after awaiting the outcome of the trial.
The specific circumstances of this all-council-members conference will be examined separately on the basis of related materials.
December 1, 2011: Second Recommendation for Resignation
The Sukagawa City Council adopted the second recommendation for resignation directed at the person concerned.
At that time, the person concerned had already been indicted.
However, the first hearing had not yet been held, and no guilty judgment had been rendered.
The person concerned was present at the plenary session, but was required to leave the chamber on the basis of Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act.
After he left the chamber, the reasons for the proposal were explained.
In the explanation of the reasons, it was stated that the person concerned intended to continue serving as a council member on the grounds that he would work to restore trust through council activities, that his support group had requested that he continue as a council member, and that he would decide his course after awaiting the outcome of the trial.
On that basis, the following evaluation was stated concerning those responses:
This is not only contrary to social justice, but also shows a serious disregard for the decision of the council.
Furthermore, the following statement was made:
Above all, committing drunk driving while in office is outrageous, and such a person should not continue serving as a city council member.
Questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted.
The resolution was adopted by the standing of all council members present.
Difference Between the First and Second Recommendations for Resignation
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted while the person concerned was in detention and before he had even been indicted.
He was absent from the plenary session.
The minutes contain no entry showing that the council heard from him, gave him an opportunity to explain, or secured an opportunity for rebuttal.
By contrast, the second recommendation for resignation was adopted after indictment, but before the first hearing.
The person concerned was present at the plenary session, but was required to leave the chamber on the basis of Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act.
In the second resolution, the person’s response, including his position that he would await the outcome of the trial before deciding his course, was evaluated as contrary to social justice.
In the first resolution, the recommendation for resignation was adopted before indictment and while the person was absent.
In the second resolution, in addition, the very act of continuing as a council member, including the position of waiting for the outcome of the trial, was evaluated negatively.
Structure Revealed by the Timeline
The first recommendation for resignation was not adopted after the investigation had ended.
It was adopted while the person concerned was in detention and interrogation was continuing.
Thereafter, the period of detention was extended.
Interrogation continued, and the time of the accident was changed from the initial time of around 7:50 p.m. to around 7:40 p.m.
The changed time was adopted in the indictment and in the judgment.
In light of this sequence, the first recommendation for resignation cannot be understood as a political event unrelated to the criminal proceedings.
The second recommendation for resignation was also adopted before the first hearing.
The person’s response, including his position that he would await the outcome of the trial before deciding his course, was evaluated as contrary to social justice.
The existence or absence of criminal responsibility is, in principle, to be determined by a criminal trial based on evidence.
Arrest or indictment is not a guilty judgment.
A person before a guilty judgment becomes final is presumed innocent.
Accordingly, in this case, criminal proceedings, custody, interrogation, changes in statements, newspaper reports, and the response of the City Council must be examined not as separate and unrelated events, but as part of a continuous sequence.
Relationship with Media Reports
In this case, newspaper reports were published immediately after the arrest.
The report on October 20, 2011 stated that the person concerned denied the allegation.
The report on the following day, October 21, stated that he had broadly admitted the allegation.
Thereafter, on October 26, 2011, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the first recommendation for resignation.
Newspaper reports and resolutions by the City Council are separate acts.
However, when media reports and a resolution by a public authority overlap, there is a possibility that social evaluation premised on the person’s guilt was formed and expanded.
What is particularly important is that the Sukagawa City Council is a public authority.
An arrest is not a guilty judgment.
An indictment is not a guilty judgment.
A person before a guilty judgment becomes final is presumed innocent.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）, ratified by Japan, also 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 of the Human Rights Committee also indicates that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
Nevertheless, the Sukagawa City Council adopted recommendations for resignation before judgment.
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted before the person concerned had been indicted and while he was in detention.
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted after indictment, but before the first hearing.
In the explanation of the reasons for the second recommendation for resignation, a categorical evaluation was stated that committing drunk driving while in office was outrageous.
Such pre-judgment assumptions of guilt by a public authority cannot be dismissed merely as political or moral expressions of intent.
The issue is not only whether actual influence was later proved.
In light of Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Japan, and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 of the Human Rights Committee, it is necessary to examine the very fact that a public authority determined criminal facts before judgment and that this evaluation spread through media reports into society.
In this case, the facts that the person concerned was arrested, referred to prosecutors, and that the City Council adopted recommendations for resignation were widely reported.
On the other hand, it cannot be said that the same weight was given in society to the fact that the person had not yet received a guilty judgment, the issue of the presumption of innocence, the duty of public authorities under the Covenant ratified by Japan to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, and the question whether the person had been guaranteed sufficient opportunity to explain or rebut.
As a result, the facts of arrest and the recommendations for resignation were placed in the foreground, while the perspectives of the presumption of innocence and due process were not sufficiently shared. There is a possibility that social evaluation premised on guilt was formed and expanded.
Accordingly, in this case, it is necessary to examine not only the newspaper reports themselves, but also how the pre-judgment assumptions of guilt by the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, were disseminated through media reports and social evaluation, and how they may have exerted external pressure on the investigation, trial, and judgment.
Questions Arising from This Timeline
1. Was it necessary to adopt a recommendation for resignation while the person was in detention before indictment?
At the time the first recommendation for resignation was adopted, the person concerned had not been indicted.
The criminal trial had not begun.
At that stage, was it necessary for the City Council, as a public authority, to demand his resignation?
2. Is it permissible to adopt such a resolution while the person is absent and no opportunity for explanation or rebuttal is secured?
In the first recommendation for resignation, the person concerned was absent from the plenary session.
The minutes contain no entry showing that the council heard from him, gave him an opportunity to explain, or secured an opportunity for rebuttal.
From the perspective of due process, is it permissible to adopt a resolution capable of seriously affecting the person’s political status, honor, and social reputation under such circumstances?
3. At what stage of the criminal proceedings was the first recommendation for resignation adopted?
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted while the person concerned remained in custody and interrogation was continuing.
He had not yet been indicted.
The criminal trial had not begun.
Thereafter, the period of detention was extended, and interrogation of the person concerned continued.
The first recommendation for resignation was not adopted after the investigation and criminal trial had ended.
How should the chronological position of a recommendation for resignation adopted by the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, while the person was in detention before indictment be explained?
4. How should the change in the time of the accident from around 7:50 p.m. to around 7:40 p.m. be evaluated?
In the initial investigative materials and reports, the time of the accident was treated as around 7:50 p.m.
However, in the prosecutor statement of November 2, 2011, the time of the accident was stated as around 7:40 p.m.
Thereafter, the changed time was adopted in the indictment and in the judgment.
Why was the case not indicted with the time remaining at around 7:50 p.m.?
Why was it necessary to move the time of the accident ten minutes earlier?
5. Is it consistent with the presumption of innocence to evaluate negatively the person’s response of waiting for the outcome of the trial?
The person concerned stated that he would await the outcome of the trial before deciding his course.
Criminal responsibility is to be determined by a criminal trial.
A person before a guilty judgment becomes final is presumed innocent.
If the presumption of innocence is taken as the premise, was it not natural for the person to state that he would await the outcome of the trial before deciding his course?
Nevertheless, is it consistent with the principle of the presumption of innocence to evaluate that response as contrary to social justice?
6. Did the City Council anticipate the judgment of the criminal court?
In the explanation of the reasons for the second recommendation for resignation, although the first hearing had not yet been held, the following statement was made:
Committing drunk driving while in office is outrageous, and such a person should not continue serving as a city council member.
The existence or absence of criminal responsibility is a matter to be determined by a court based on evidence.
Did the City Council, as a public authority, anticipate the judicial determination by categorically evaluating criminal facts before judgment?
7. How can the conduct in this case be explained in light of Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30?
Japan has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Covenant guarantees the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
In General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, the Human Rights Committee indicates that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
The Sukagawa City Council is a public authority.
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted before the person concerned had been indicted and while he was in detention.
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted before the first hearing.
In the explanation of the reasons, the following statement was made:
Committing drunk driving while in office is outrageous, and such a person should not continue serving as a city council member.
Was this not a determination of criminal facts by the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, before the court had rendered its judgment?
How can this conduct be explained in light of Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Japan, and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 of the Human Rights Committee?
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
Domestic Law
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the guarantee of due process. In this case, the issue is not only whether the person concerned was sufficiently given an opportunity to explain or rebut, but also whether the fact that the City Council, a public authority, made an evaluation premised on guilt before the judgment in the criminal trial is consistent with the purposes of due process and the presumption of innocence.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right of access to the courts. Where a public authority makes an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment and that evaluation spreads through media reports and social evaluation, the issue is whether the person’s position to receive fair judicial determination in the subsequent criminal trial was sufficiently guaranteed.
Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the right of a criminal defendant to a speedy and public trial by an impartial court. In a situation where pre-judgment assumptions of guilt by a public authority may exert external pressure on the investigation, trial, and judgment, the issue is whether a fair trial was guaranteed.
Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the requirement that judges exercise their authority independently and be bound only by the Constitution and laws. The fact that the City Council, which has no authority to determine criminal responsibility, categorically evaluated criminal facts before the first hearing raises issues in relation to the anticipation of judicial determination, the independence of judicial power, and the fairness of the trial.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision requires that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations be faithfully observed. It is at issue in relation to Japan’s obligation to faithfully perform the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Japan has ratified.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the duty of city council members and other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is whether the City Council, as a public authority, making an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment is consistent with that duty.
Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision requires acquittal where there is no proof of crime. It is at issue in relation to the principle of the presumption of innocence in criminal trials.
International Human Rights Treaty: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial. Where a public authority makes an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment and that evaluation spreads through media reports and social evaluation, the issue is whether the criminal proceedings and trial conducted under such influence sufficiently guaranteed the right to a fair trial.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision guarantees the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. In this case, the very fact that the City Council, a public authority, made an evaluation premised on guilt before the judgment in the criminal trial raises an issue in relation to the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties（VCLT）:
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 at issue in relation to Japan’s obligation to faithfully perform the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Japan has ratified.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties（VCLT）:
This provision states that domestic law cannot be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations. The issue is whether the relationship with obligations under the Covenant may be left unexamined on the ground that the acts were those of a local assembly, that the matter was internal to the council, or that no domestic procedure was provided.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 of the Human Rights Committee:
This paragraph is at issue as an international standard stating that public authorities must not express the guilt of the accused in a manner that anticipates the outcome of the criminal trial.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the relationship among these provisions are examined in “Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality.”
Relationship to This Case
The first and second recommendations for resignation were not isolated events.
The first recommendation was adopted while the person concerned was in detention and had not yet been indicted.
Thereafter, the period of detention was extended, and interrogation continued.
The time of the accident, initially treated as around 7:50 p.m., was changed to around 7:40 p.m.
The changed time was adopted in the indictment and in the judgment.
The second recommendation was adopted after indictment, but before the first hearing.
In the explanation of the reasons, the person’s response, including his position that he would await the outcome of the trial before deciding his course, was evaluated as contrary to social justice.
Accordingly, in this case, the first and second recommendations for resignation cannot be treated merely as political or moral expressions of intent.
It is necessary to examine them as part of a process in which criminal proceedings, custody, interrogation, changes in statements, newspaper reports, and evaluations by a public authority overlapped.
The Sukagawa City Council is a public authority.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）, ratified by Japan, guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 of the Human Rights Committee also indicates that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
Nevertheless, the Sukagawa City Council made an evaluation before a guilty judgment had been rendered that stated the person had committed drunk driving.
The issue in this case is not only whether actual influence occurred later.
In light of Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Japan, and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 of the Human Rights Committee, the issue is how the pre-judgment determination of criminal facts by the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, can be explained.
Related Evidence Articles
October 19, 2011:
Police statement
October 20, 2011:
Police statement
October 22, 2011:
Police statement
October 24, 2011:
On-site inspection report
October 25, 2011:
Police statement
November 2, 2011:
Prosecutor statement
October 20 and 21, 2011:
Newspaper reports
October 26, 2011:
First recommendation for resignation, adopted unanimously while the person concerned was absent
November 24, 2011:
Materials concerning the all-council-members conference
December 1, 2011:
Second recommendation for resignation, adopted unanimously after the person concerned left the chamber, negatively evaluating his response including his intention to await the outcome of the trial
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