Overview of the Document
Document title:
Request for Opinion by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court — Court Inquiry Concerning the Retrial Request
Date of creation:
June 13, 2025
Issuing body:
Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court
Court Clerk
Addressee:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Case number:
2025 Ta No. 1
Underlying case:
Road Traffic Act Violation Case
Original case number:
2011 Wa No. 177
Judgment at issue:
Judgment of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dated January 16, 2012
Type of document:
Request for opinion concerning a retrial 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 a request for opinion dated June 13, 2025, sent by a court clerk of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court to Toshio Tsumuraya, the requester.
The document states the case number as 2025 Ta No. 1.
This document concerns the Road Traffic Act violation case against Toshio Tsumuraya, namely 2011 Wa No. 177 before the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court, and the judgment rendered by that court on January 16, 2012.
The document states that, with respect to that judgment, a request for retrial had been made by the requester, and that the court seeks the requester’s opinion by order of the presiding judge.
The document also states that the written opinion should be submitted by July 11, 2025.
At the lower part of the document, there is a section for the requester to submit a written opinion addressed to the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
This document confirms that the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya on April 28, 2025, were treated by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and were handled as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
This document also confirms that, by order of the presiding judge, the court requested the requester to submit a written opinion by July 11, 2025.
This document follows the administrative notice dated May 2, 2025, and shows that, on the court’s side, this matter was procedurally treated and advanced as a retrial request case.
For details on the administrative notice, see “Administrative Notice from the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court — 2025 Ta No. 1, Road Traffic Act Retrial Request Case.”
For details on the judgment, see “Judgment of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court — Reasons for the Guilty Judgment and Issues to Be Examined in This Case.”
Important Statements
The first important point in this document is that the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya on April 28, 2025, as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and handled the matter as 2025 Ta No. 1.
This shows that, following the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials dated April 28, 2025, and the subsequent administrative notice, the matter was procedurally treated and advanced by the court as a retrial request case.
Second, this document makes clear that the judgment at issue was the judgment rendered by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court on January 16, 2012, in 2011 Wa No. 177, a Road Traffic Act violation case.
This confirms that the matter was not treated as a general expression of opinion, but as a retrial request case concerning a specific final criminal judgment.
Third, this document states that the court seeks the requester’s opinion by order of the presiding judge.
This statement shows that the court gave the requester an opportunity to submit an opinion before making its decision on the matter that it had treated as a retrial request case.
Fourth, this document states July 11, 2025, as the deadline for submitting the written opinion.
This deadline is an important chronological reference point when examining the written opinion later submitted, the court’s handling of the retrial request, and the decision dismissing the retrial request.
Accordingly, this document is a procedural document showing that the court treated the matter as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case, and requested the requester to submit an opinion.
Procedural Position in the Criminal Proceedings
This document was issued after the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials as if “a request for retrial had been made,” with respect to the judgment in the Road Traffic Act violation case pronounced on January 16, 2012, and finalized on January 31, 2012.
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials were submitted on April 28, 2025.
Thereafter, on May 2, 2025, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued an administrative notice requesting the submission of a certified copy of the original judgment and any evidentiary documents or physical evidence that the requester wished to submit additionally.
This document was issued later, on June 13, 2025, and shows the stage at which the court requested the requester to submit a written opinion in connection with the matter it was treating as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
Accordingly, this document is not merely a formal receipt notice in the handling of the matter as a retrial request case. It is a procedural document by which the court requested the requester’s opinion before making a decision on the retrial request.
The written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials submitted in this case did not concern only the final criminal judgment itself. They raised issues concerning the Sukagawa City Council’s resignation recommendation resolutions before the criminal judgment became final, violations of the presumption of innocence, prejudicial public expressions by public authorities, the right to a fair trial, and the need for judicial relief.
For that reason, this document is a document for confirming how those issues were connected to the opinion-submission procedure within the court’s handling of the matter as a retrial request case.
This document is also an intermediate procedural document leading to the written opinion later submitted, the decision dismissing the retrial request, the immediate appeal, the special appeal, and the later written inquiry and request as well as the petition for human rights relief and corrective action.
Questions Arising from This Document
1. What scope of opinion did the court seek?
This document states that the court seeks the requester’s opinion by order of the presiding judge.
However, the document itself does not list in detail the specific issues on which the court sought an opinion.
Therefore, the first issue arising from this document is what scope of opinion the court expected the requester to submit.
In the court’s handling of this matter as a retrial request case, the issues were not limited to a mere reconsideration of the evaluation of evidence. They also concerned violations of the presumption of innocence by public authorities before the final criminal judgment, violations of the right to a fair trial, the process of statement formation, the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m., and the relationship with resignation recommendation resolutions adopted before judgment.
Accordingly, how these issues were organized in the written opinion submitted by the requester, and how the court later handled them, become matters for examination.
2. How did the court handle the claims of violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial?
The issue in this case is not merely the existence of the guilty judgment itself.
The issue is how the fact that, before the guilty judgment became final, a local assembly as a public authority made public expressions of intent premised on criminal responsibility should be evaluated in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and the right to a fair trial.
This document shows that the court requested the requester’s opinion.
Accordingly, it is important to examine how the court later handled the claims of violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial in the written opinion and in the decision on the retrial request.
This document alone does not immediately answer that question.
However, this document is the starting point for that examination.
3. How did the opportunity to submit an opinion connect to effective relief?
This document confirms that the court gave the requester an opportunity to submit an opinion.
However, in relation to Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, the issue is not merely whether an opportunity to submit an opinion was formally provided, but whether that opinion was substantively examined and connected to effective relief.
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials raised issues concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, and the need for judicial relief.
If, following those submissions, this document requested the requester to submit an opinion, it is necessary to examine how the court evaluated that opinion and the submitted materials.
Accordingly, this document is not merely a formal request for opinion. It is a procedural foundational document for examining whether effective relief was provided.
4. What is the relationship with the later decision dismissing the retrial request?
This document is a request for opinion created at the stage before a decision was made on the retrial request.
Therefore, this document should not be examined in isolation. It must be examined together with the written opinion later submitted and the decision dismissing the retrial request.
Because this document requested the submission of an opinion, the question arises how the requester’s opinion and claims were organized and judged in the later decision.
In particular, this case involves issues concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment, the process of statement formation, and the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m.
Accordingly, this document is a prerequisite document for examining the reasoning in the decision dismissing the retrial request.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision sets out the grounds for requesting a retrial. 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. In this case, the issues include the fact that a public authority made a public expression of intent premised on guilt before criminal responsibility had been finally determined, and the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole thereafter.
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial. In this case, the issues include whether a fair trial was secured in relation to resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment, the process of statement formation, the admission of evidence, and the reasons for the judgment.
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).
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision imposes on judges, ministers of state, members of the Diet, local assembly members, and other public officials the obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution. In this case, the issue is how the court, local assembly, and administrative authorities should have responded to clear constitutional and treaty-based issues.
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial. In this case, 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 Sukagawa 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 retrial 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 retrial 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 retrial 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.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the interrelationship among these provisions are examined in “Legal Claims and the Structure of Constitutional and Legal Violations.”
Relationship to This Case
This document shows that the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and requested the requester to submit an opinion.
In this case, public expressions of intent were made by the Sukagawa 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, the criminal proceedings from arrest, detention, extension of detention, prosecutor’s interrogation, indictment, first hearing, and judgment raise issues concerning the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m., the process of statement formation, statement records of council members who voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolution, and the sentencing evaluation of the defendant’s status as a city council member in the judgment.
Against this background, Toshio Tsumuraya raised issues before the court concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, and the need for judicial relief.
This document shows that, within that procedure, the court requested the requester to submit an opinion.
Accordingly, this document is a foundational document for examining how the court received the requester’s claims in this matter and how those claims were reflected in the later decision.
This document itself does not directly prove violations of the presumption of innocence or the right to a fair trial.
However, this document is important for confirming how the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials, which raised claims of violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, were treated by the court as a retrial request case.
In particular, this document must be examined together with the written opinion later submitted and the decision dismissing the retrial request.
This document confirms that the court requested the requester to submit an opinion.
At the same time, the next issue to be examined is how the court later handled the requester’s claims concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment, the process of statement formation, and effective relief.
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.