Overview of the Document
Document title:
Administrative Notice from the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court — 2025 Rehearing Case No. 1, Road Traffic Act Violation Case
Date of creation:
May 2, 2025
Issuing body:
Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court
Court Clerk
Addressee:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Case number:
2025 Rehearing Case No. 1
Case title:
Rehearing Request Case concerning a Road Traffic Act Violation
How obtained:
Sent by the court
Type of document:
Court administrative notice concerning a rehearing request case
Publication format:
PDF with personal information and other necessary portions redacted
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document is an administrative notice sent to Toshio Tsumuraya by a court clerk of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court, dated May 2, 2025.
The document states the case number as “2025 Rehearing Case No. 1” and the case title as “Rehearing Request Case concerning a Road Traffic Act Violation.”
This confirms that the written opinion submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya on April 28, 2025, was treated by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court as 2025 Rehearing Case No. 1, a rehearing request case concerning a Road Traffic Act violation.
The document further requests, pursuant to Article 283 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, that a certified copy of the original judgment be submitted by June 6, 2025.
It also states that, if there are any evidentiary documents or physical evidence that the requester wishes to submit additionally, such materials should be submitted by the same date.
Accordingly, this document shows that, following the submission of the written opinion addressed to the court dated April 28, 2025, and its attached materials, the court treated the matter procedurally as a rehearing request case and issued submission instructions pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Important Statements
The first important point in this document is that the court expressly refers to the submission of the document titled “Written Opinion” dated April 28, 2025, and its attached materials.
This statement confirms that the written opinion addressed to the court and the attached materials were not treated merely as an external expression of opinion or reference materials, but as materials submitted to the court in relation to 2025 Rehearing Case No. 1, a rehearing request case concerning a Road Traffic Act violation.
Second, the document clearly states the case number as 2025 Rehearing Case No. 1 and the case title as a rehearing request case concerning a Road Traffic Act violation.
This confirms that the rehearing request was officially assigned a case number by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court and was handled as a rehearing request case.
Third, the document requests, pursuant to Article 283 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the submission of a certified copy of the original judgment and any evidentiary documents or physical evidence that the requester wishes to submit additionally.
This shows that, following the submission of the written opinion addressed to the court dated April 28, 2025, and its attached materials, the court requested the submission of materials required for the rehearing request procedure.
Therefore, this document is a court-side administrative processing document that connects the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials with the subsequent rehearing request procedure.
Questions Arising from This Document
This document itself is an administrative notice concerning the submission of documents in a rehearing request case. Therefore, this document alone does not immediately raise questions concerning the court’s substantive judgment.
However, this document was prepared on the premise that the written opinion addressed to the court dated April 28, 2025, and its attached materials had been submitted.
Accordingly, the main issue arising from this document is how the court handled, in the subsequent rehearing request procedure, the issues raised in that written opinion and its attached materials.
The written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials did not concern only the existence of the final criminal judgment itself. They raised issues concerning the Sugakawa City Council’s resignation recommendation resolutions before the criminal conviction became final, violations of the presumption of innocence, prejudicial statements by public authorities, the right to a fair trial, and the need for judicial relief.
Therefore, the subject of verification is not merely the submission instructions confirmed by this document. Rather, the point to be examined is how the court treated, in its decision on the rehearing request, the claims of violation of the presumption of innocence and violation of the right to a fair trial that were presented in the written opinion and attached materials.
In this sense, this document is not a primary document that directly gives rise to substantive questions. Rather, it is a procedural connecting document linking the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials with the later written inquiry and request, the petition for human rights relief and corrective action, and the decision on the rehearing request.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 283 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure:
This provision requires that a rehearing request be accompanied by a certified copy of the original judgment and evidentiary documents. This document is directly relevant because the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court requested, pursuant to this provision, the submission of a certified copy of the original judgment and any evidentiary documents or physical evidence that the requester wished to submit additionally.
Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision sets out the grounds for requesting a rehearing. In this case, the issue is not limited to the final criminal judgment itself, but also concerns violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial by public authorities before that judgment became final, as well as the need for judicial relief.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the guarantee of due process. If a public authority treats a person as guilty before criminal responsibility has been finally determined, questions may arise concerning due process in relation to the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole.
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial. In this case, the statements of two council members who voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolution were later submitted by the prosecutor as evidence in the criminal trial and were admitted by the court. For that reason, this article is important in examining the relationship between prejudicial public expressions by public authorities and the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision requires Japan to faithfully observe the treaties it has concluded and established international law. It is important in relation to the domestic significance of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial. It is important in examining how public assumptions of guilt before judgment and institutional pressure may have affected the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR:
This provision establishes the presumption of innocence. In this case, the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sugakawa City Council before the criminal conviction became final, and the reasoning underlying those resolutions, are at issue in relation to this principle.
Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to an effective remedy. In this case, it is important in examining what kind of judicial relief should have been secured within the rehearing request procedure for the alleged violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
General Comments
General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30:
This paragraph indicates that all public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial. In this case, it is important in relation to the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the city council before judgment and the public expressions of intent premised on criminal facts.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 15:
This paragraph states that allegations of violations must be investigated promptly, thoroughly, and effectively, and that a failure to investigate may itself give rise to a separate violation of the Covenant. In this case, it is important in examining how the issues raised in the written opinion and attached materials submitted to the court were handled in the subsequent rehearing request procedure.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 16:
This paragraph identifies forms of effective remedy, including compensation or reparation, restitution, rehabilitation, public apologies, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices. In this case, it is important in considering what kind of remedy was required for violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, rather than mere formal procedural handling.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith. It is important in considering whether domestic authorities must faithfully perform obligations under the ICCPR concerning the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and effective remedies.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. It is important in examining whether the requirements of the rehearing system, domestic procedural limitations, or the characterization of a resignation recommendation resolution as a non-binding expression of intent can justify avoiding consideration of obligations under the ICCPR concerning the presumption of innocence and effective remedies.
Relationship to This Case
In this case, public expressions of intent were made by the Sugakawa City Council before the criminal conviction became final, including the first resignation recommendation resolution on October 26, 2011, and the second resignation recommendation resolution on December 1, 2011.
The issue in this case is not merely the existence of the guilty judgment itself.
The issue is whether, before the guilty judgment became final, a local assembly, as a public authority, made public expressions of intent premised on criminal responsibility and thereby engaged in prejudicial treatment contrary to the presumption of innocence.
In addition, in this case, statements made by two council members who voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolution were later submitted by the prosecutor as evidence in the criminal trial and were admitted by the court.
Against this background, Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written opinion addressed to the court and attached materials on April 28, 2025, raising issues concerning the entire procedure underlying the final criminal judgment, including violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, and the need for judicial relief.
This document is an administrative notice issued by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court after the submission of that written opinion and the attached materials.
Therefore, this document shows that the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials were handled by the court in relation to 2025 Rehearing Case No. 1, the rehearing request case concerning a Road Traffic Act violation.
This document also serves as the procedural starting point for examining the later written inquiry and request, the petition for human rights relief and corrective action, and the decision on the rehearing request.
Accordingly, although this document does not directly prove the violations of the presumption of innocence or the right to a fair trial themselves, it is a foundational document for confirming how those claims were handled within the judicial procedure.
Related Materials
Related pages
The following core pages are currently available in Japanese only.
Record and Verification of the Case
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 1
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 2
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 3
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 4
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 5
Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality
Related evidence articles:
Written Opinion to the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court—Response to the Court’s Request for Opinion（Plans to post in the future）
Related normative articles:
Related timeline entries:
January 31, 2012
The guilty judgment rendered by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court became final.
April 28, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written opinion addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Fukushima District Court, and the Head of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
May 2, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court assigned the case number 2025 ta No. 1 and treated the matter as a retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On the same day, the court issued an administrative notice.
June 13, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued a request for opinion in the 2025 ta No. 1 retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
December 12, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissed the retrial request in the 2025 ta No. 1 retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
December 15, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya filed an immediate appeal against the decision dismissing the retrial request.
January 8, 2026
The immediate appeal was dismissed.
January 11, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya filed a special appeal.
February 6, 2026
The special appeal was dismissed.
March 31, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a “Questionnaire and Request Concerning the Effect of a Final Criminal Judgment and Judicial Remedies Under Violation of the Presumption of Innocence” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Division of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court. As of the present time, no response from the courts directly addressing the substance of this document has been confirmed.
May 15, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted an “Application for Human Rights Relief and Corrective Measures Concerning Violation of the Presumption of Innocence, Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial, and Related Violations” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Division of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court. As of the present time, no response from the courts directly addressing the substance of this document has been confirmed.