Overview of the Document
Document title:
Decision in 2025 Ku No. 84
Date of creation:
January 8, 2026
Issuing body:
First Criminal Division of the Sendai High Court
Panel of judges:
Presiding Judge Ryo Kato
Judge Masashi Shibata
Judge Kenta Igusa
Requester:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Case number:
2025 Ku No. 84
Underlying case:
Road Traffic Act Violation Case
Original decision:
Decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the retrial request, dated December 12, 2025
Original case number:
2025 Ta No. 1
Type of document:
Decision dismissing the immediate appeal
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 decision concerning 2025 Ku No. 84, prepared by the First Criminal Division of the Sendai High Court on January 8, 2026.
This document concerns the retrial request case relating to the final guilty judgment pronounced by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court on January 16, 2012, in the Road Traffic Act violation case against Toshio Tsumuraya.
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials dated April 28, 2025, were treated by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court as if “a request for retrial had been made.”
Thereafter, the requester submitted a written opinion dated July 9, 2025, and thereafter this matter proceeded as a retrial request case.
This document is based on the fact that the requester filed an immediate appeal against the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dated December 12, 2025, dismissing the retrial request.
The main text states that “the present immediate appeal is dismissed.”
In the reasons, this document first states that the grounds for the immediate appeal are as set forth in the Immediate Appeal Application and the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal prepared by the requester.
The document summarizes those grounds as arguing that the original decision lacked sufficient reasoning and that the proceedings of the original court were unlawful, and therefore seeking a decision revoking the original decision and remanding the case to the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court so that lawful proceedings could be conducted.
This document confirms that the final judgment found, as the criminal fact, that the requester drove an ordinary passenger vehicle on a road in Sukagawa City, Fukushima Prefecture, on October 18, 2011, while under the influence of alcohol and in a condition in which there was a risk that he could not drive normally.
Regarding the original decision, this document states that the original court understood the written document titled “Written Opinion” dated April 28, 2025, submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya, and the written opinion dated July 9 of the same year, as being unclear in content, but in substance as seeking a decision to commence retrial on the ground that circumstances existed under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the final judgment in this case.
The document then states that the original decision held that the retrial request did not fall under that item, and that, even after examining the requester’s remaining assertions, it was clear that none of the grounds for retrial prescribed in the items of that article applied, and therefore dismissed the retrial request.
This document summarizes the requester’s arguments as follows. First, the original decision merely stated that the claims were “not clear,” and therefore lacked sufficient reasoning.
Second, it summarizes the requester’s argument that the original court, while stating that the content of the requester’s claims was unclear, made a surprise decision without taking any procedure to confirm the requester’s true intention, which constituted unlawful insufficient examination and also violated the constitutional guarantees of due process and the right of access to the courts.
In response, the Sendai High Court stated that it examined the record and considered the matter, and that it took into account that the original court treated the retrial request document in this case as the statement of grounds for the retrial request, and that the written opinion in this case was said to assert a ground for retrial under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Furthermore, this document states that the original court also closely examined the contents of the document submitted by the requester titled “Structural Proof of Constitutional Violations in the Three-Layer Constitutional Framework — Analytical Materials Concerning the Sukagawa City Council Case,” as well as the document attached to the written opinion in this case titled “Notice Concerning the Human Rights Relief Petition,” and rendered the original decision after also hearing the opinion of the prosecutor.
On that basis, the Sendai High Court held that the original decision did not lack reasoning, and that no unlawfulness due to insufficient examination was found in the proceedings of the original court.
It also held that the argument of constitutional violation lacked its premise and was therefore without merit.
Finally, the Sendai High Court held that the arguments were without merit and dismissed the immediate appeal pursuant to Article 426, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
At the end of this document, the names of the panel are stated as Presiding Judge Ryo Kato, Judge Masashi Shibata, and Judge Takeshi Igusa.
In the certified-copy section, the document states, dated January 8, 2026, that “this is a certified copy”,Court Clerk of the Sendai High Court.
For details on the Immediate Appeal Application and Supplemental Statement of Reasons, see “Immediate Appeal Application and Supplemental Reasons Submitted to the Sendai High Court — Appeal Against the Decision Dismissing the Retrial Request.”
For details on the decision dismissing the retrial request, see “Decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court Dismissing the Retrial Request — Problems Concerning Violations of the Presumption of Innocence and the Retrial Judgment.”
Important Statements
The first important point in this document is that the Sendai High Court dismissed the present immediate appeal.
As a result, the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the retrial request was maintained at the immediate appeal stage.
Second, the Sendai High Court organized the requester’s grounds for immediate appeal as arguments alleging defective reasoning in the original decision and procedural illegality in the original court.
This confirms that the immediate appeal in this case did not merely dispute the applicability of grounds for retrial, but challenged the procedure itself, in which the original court dismissed the matter while describing the claims as “not clear” and without giving an opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
Third, this document states that the original court treated the contents of the document titled “Written Opinion” dated April 28, 2025, and the written opinion dated July 9 of the same year as unclear, but understood them as seeking a decision to commence retrial on the ground that circumstances existed under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This point shows the procedural structure of this case as a whole.
That is, what Toshio Tsumuraya first submitted was the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials dated April 28, 2025.
Thereafter, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated those submissions as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and handled the matter as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
Furthermore, the requester submitted a written opinion dated July 9, 2025, and thereafter this matter proceeded as a retrial request case.
The Sendai High Court also decided the immediate appeal on the premise of this handling by the original court and the existence of the later written opinion.
Fourth, the Sendai High Court states that the original court closely examined the contents of the requester’s submitted document titled “Structural Proof of Constitutional Violations in the Three-Layer Constitutional Framework — Analytical Materials Concerning the Sukagawa City Council Case” and the document titled “Notice Concerning the Human Rights Relief Petition.”
This statement is important.
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials raised issues concerning violations of the presumption of innocence by public authorities before the final criminal judgment, violations of the right to a fair trial, resignation recommendation resolutions, the process of statement formation, and the need for judicial relief.
Therefore, while the Sendai High Court states that these submitted materials were “closely examined,” the extent to which it made individualized and specific judgments concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, the ICCPR, General Comments, and obligations to provide effective relief becomes a matter for examination.
Fifth, the Sendai High Court held that the original decision did not lack reasoning and that no unlawfulness due to insufficient examination was found in the proceedings of the original court.
However, this document does not provide detailed explanations as to what specific content the original court evaluated as “not clear,” on which points clarification or supplementation was deemed unnecessary, or why it was unnecessary to invite supplementation regarding materials that the requester had expressed willingness to submit.
Sixth, the Sendai High Court also held that the claim of constitutional violation lacked its premise and was therefore without merit.
However, this document does not show an individualized and specific examination of Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan concerning due process, Article 32 concerning the right of access to the courts, or Article 37 concerning the right to a fair trial.
Accordingly, this document is important for examining the scope within which the Sendai High Court reviewed the immediate appeal and which issues it did not specifically address.
Procedural Position in the Criminal Proceedings
This document is the decision by which the Sendai High Court dismissed the immediate appeal against the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the retrial request.
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials were submitted on April 28, 2025.
Thereafter, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated those submissions as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and handled the matter as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
On May 2, 2025, the 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.
On June 13, 2025, the court issued a request for opinion, asking the requester to submit a written opinion by July 11, 2025.
In response, the requester submitted a written opinion dated July 9, 2025, and thereafter this matter proceeded as a retrial request case.
Subsequently, on December 12, 2025, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued a decision dismissing the retrial request.
In response, Toshio Tsumuraya prepared an Immediate Appeal Application dated December 15, 2025, seeking revocation of the original decision and remand.
Furthermore, on January 6, 2026, he submitted a Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal, supplementing the argument that the original decision violated Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution of Japan because it dismissed the matter while describing the claims as “not clear” and without giving an opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
This document is the decision by which the Sendai High Court dismissed that immediate appeal on January 8, 2026.
Accordingly, this document shows that the appeal against the decision dismissing the retrial request was not accepted by the Sendai High Court.
This document connects to the later special appeal to the Supreme Court.
The issues in this case were not limited to a mere reconsideration of the evaluation of evidence.
The issues raised included the Sukagawa City Council’s resignation recommendation resolutions before the final criminal judgment, violations of the presumption of innocence, prejudicial public expressions by public authorities, 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 need for judicial relief.
For that reason, this document is a document for examining how those issues were treated by the immediate appeal court and how far that court made a judgment.
Questions Arising from This Document
1. What was the scope of the court’s judgment regarding the materials said to have been “closely examined”?
This document states that the original court closely examined the contents of the document submitted by the requester titled “Structural Proof of Constitutional Violations in the Three-Layer Constitutional Framework — Analytical Materials Concerning the Sukagawa City Council Case,” and the document titled “Notice Concerning the Human Rights Relief Petition.”
However, this document does not specifically show which parts of the claims concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, the ICCPR, General Comments, and the obligation to provide effective relief contained in those materials were judged, or how they were judged.
Therefore, the question arises how far the Sendai High Court’s characterization of “close examination” involved a substantive judgment in actual terms.
2. Why was clarification or supplementation considered unnecessary for claims described as “not clear”?
In the Immediate Appeal Application and the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal, the requester challenged the fact that the original decision described the claims as “not clear,” but dismissed the matter without seeking clarification of their content and without giving a substantive opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
In response, this document held that the original decision did not lack reasoning and that no unlawfulness due to insufficient examination was found in the proceedings of the original court.
However, this document does not sufficiently state specific reasons why the court concluded that no opportunity for clarification or supplementation was necessary.
This point is important in relation to due process, the right of access to the courts, and the effectiveness of appeals in the retrial request procedure.
3. How was the requester’s indication of willingness to submit evidence treated?
In the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal, it was argued that the requester had stated in the written opinion dated July 9, 2025, that he retained materials such as newspaper articles and council minutes and was willing to submit them if necessary.
However, this document does not sufficiently show how the Sendai High Court evaluated the fact that the original decision relied in part on the non-submission of materials.
If the original court considered the materials insufficient or the factual relationship unclear, the question arises whether it should have indicated which materials were necessary and which points should have been supplemented.
This point is important in relation to surprise decisions, the duty of clarification, opportunities for supplementation, and the rights of defense.
4. Were the claims of violations of Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution substantively judged?
In the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for Immediate Appeal, it was argued that the original decision violated Article 31 of the Constitution, which guarantees due process, and Article 32, which guarantees the right of access to the courts, because it dismissed the matter without clarifying the appellant’s claims and without giving a substantive opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
In response, this document states that the claim of constitutional violation lacked its premise and was therefore without merit.
However, this document does not show a specific explanation of why the premise was lacking or what judgment was made in relation to Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
This point is important in examining the effectiveness of judicial relief in this case.
5. How were the ICCPR and General Comments treated?
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials raised issues concerning Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the presumption of innocence, General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30, the prohibition on public authorities prejudging the outcome of a trial before judgment, Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, which concerns effective remedies, and General Comment No. 31, Paragraphs 15 and 16.
However, this document does not confirm any individualized judgment concerning these treaty-based and international human rights law standards.
This point needs to be examined in relation to Japan’s treaty-observance obligation under Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
6. How did the High Court decision connect to the later special appeal?
This document is the decision of the Sendai High Court dismissing the immediate appeal.
Against this decision, Toshio Tsumuraya filed a special appeal with the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, this document does not stand alone, but connects to the special appeal to the Supreme Court and the later decision dismissing the special appeal.
How this document treated violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, due process, the right of access to the courts, and the ICCPR obligation to provide effective relief forms the premise for examining the later Supreme Court judgment.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 426, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns dismissal by decision when an appeal is without merit. In this document, the Sendai High Court dismissed the immediate appeal pursuant to this paragraph.
Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision sets out one of the grounds for retrial, namely the discovery of clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal. In this document, the immediate appeal was dismissed on the premise that the original decision had organized the requester’s claims as an issue under this item.
Article 447, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns dismissal by decision when a retrial request is without merit. This document dismissed the immediate appeal against the original decision based on this paragraph.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the guarantee of due process. In this case, the requester argued in the immediate appeal that the original court violated due process by describing the claims as “not clear” while dismissing the matter without giving an opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right of access to the courts. In this case, it was argued that the defective reasoning and lack of opportunity for supplementation in the original decision made an effective appeal difficult and infringed the right of access to the courts.
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 criminal 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).
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial. In this case, the issues include how public assumptions of guilt before judgment and institutional pressure may have affected the fairness of the criminal trial, and how those issues were handled in the retrial request procedure and immediate appeal proceedings.
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 document, the issue is what kind of remedial judgment was made by the immediate appeal court concerning materials asserting 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 document, it is important in examining the extent to which the immediate appeal court effectively examined the allegations of violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
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 a merely formal dismissal.
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 is the decision by which the Sendai High Court dismissed the immediate appeal against the original decision dismissing the retrial request, after the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials dated April 28, 2025, as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and after the requester submitted a written opinion dated July 9, 2025.
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.
In response, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court evaluated the requester’s claims as “not clear,” organized them as an issue concerning newly discovered evidence under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and dismissed the retrial request.
Furthermore, in this document, the Sendai High Court dismissed the immediate appeal, holding that the original decision did not lack reasoning, that no unlawfulness due to insufficient examination was found in the proceedings of the original court, and that the claim of constitutional violation lacked its premise and was without merit.
Accordingly, this document is important for confirming how issues concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, due process, the right of access to the courts, and effective relief were treated in the immediate appeal proceedings.
This document reveals a structure in which, in the process of judicial relief in this case, it is difficult to confirm that individualized and specific judgments were made, not only by the original court but also by the High Court, concerning the presumption of innocence and effective relief under the ICCPR.
This point forms the premise for examining the later special appeal to the Supreme Court and the decision dismissing that special appeal.
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.