Overview of the Document
Document title:
Special Appeal Application
Date of creation:
January 11, 2026
Prepared by:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Submitted to:
Supreme Court of Japan
Special appellant:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Challenged decision:
Decision of the Sendai High Court in 2025 Ku No. 84, dated January 8, 2026
Original decision:
Decision of the Sendai High Court in 2025 Ku No. 84
Prior original decision:
Decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court in 2025 Ta No. 1 dismissing the retrial request, dated December 12, 2025
Type of document:
Special Appeal Application
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 Special Appeal Application submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya to the Supreme Court of Japan, dated January 11, 2026.
This document was submitted as a special appeal against the decision of the Sendai High Court in 2025 Ku No. 84, issued on January 8, 2026.
At the top of this document, a receipt stamp dated January 12, 2026, can be confirmed.
In this document, the purpose of the special appeal is stated as seeking a ruling revoking the original decision and the prior original decision and remanding the case to the court that issued the prior original decision.
This document clearly states that the special appeal does not dispute the correctness of the factual determination, namely whether the person was guilty or not guilty.
It further argues that, although the original decision and the prior original decision accepted this matter as a retrial request case and conducted certain procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure, including hearing the prosecutor’s opinion, they did not provide reasons showing that they judged the merits of the constitutionally important issue clearly raised by the special appellant, namely “violation of the presumption of innocence.”
This document organizes the issue in this case as not being merely whether the formal procedures for a retrial request under the Code of Criminal Procedure were followed, but whether a substantive judgment was made in response to the constitutional issue presented.
It also argues that the point at which the core of the request was rejected as “not clear” raises questions of conformity with Article 31 of the Constitution, which guarantees due process, and Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of access to the courts.
This document mainly asserts five constitutional violations as the grounds for the special appeal.
First, it argues that the lack of procedural direction toward a party who had indicated an intention to prove the facts violated Article 31 of the Constitution.
Second, it argues that insufficient examination, by excluding from consideration facts based on publicly known and official materials, violated Article 31 of the Constitution.
Third, it argues that, once the case had been accepted as a case, the court had a duty to provide sufficient reasons, and that the failure to do so violated Article 31 of the Constitution.
Fourth, it argues that dismissing the request without substantive judgment, despite the one-time nature of a retrial request and the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, violated Article 32 of the Constitution.
Fifth, it argues that defective reasoning deprived the appeal of its effectiveness and thereby violated Article 32 of the Constitution.
This document refers to Article 31 of the Constitution, Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as norms concerning the presumption of innocence.
In the conclusion, the document argues that the original decision violated Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution because it lacked procedural direction toward a party who had indicated an intention to prove the facts, failed to examine the external facts concerning “violation of the presumption of innocence” that were readily confirmable through websites and other sources, and rejected the request without substantive judgment or sufficient reasoning despite the legal effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It then seeks revocation of the original decision and the prior original decision, and remand so that the matter may be examined again after appropriate procedures have been fully conducted.
For details on the Sendai High Court decision dismissing the immediate appeal, see “Decision of the Sendai High Court Dismissing the Immediate Appeal — High Court Judgment Refusing Retrial Relief.”
For details on the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court 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 it clearly states that the special appeal does not directly dispute the factual determination of guilt or innocence.
This document does not directly dispute the factual findings of the final criminal judgment. Instead, it questions whether the original decision and the prior original decision sufficiently made a substantive judgment on the constitutionally important issue of violation of the presumption of innocence.
This confirms that the focus of the special appeal lies in constitutional procedural guarantees in the retrial request procedure, the duty to provide reasons, opportunities for clarification and supplementation, and the effectiveness of the right of access to the courts.
Second, this document proceeds on the premise that the original decision and the prior original decision accepted this matter as a retrial request case and conducted procedures such as hearing the prosecutor’s opinion.
On that basis, the document does not focus merely on whether procedures were formally conducted. Instead, it questions whether a substantive judgment was made in response to the constitutional issue presented.
This point is important.
Once the court treated this matter as a retrial request case, the question arises whether it was sufficient merely to reject the matter as “not clear,” or whether the court should have shown a framework of judgment and reasons, especially concerning the constitutional and treaty-based issue of violation of the presumption of innocence.
Third, this document argues that the special appellant had clearly indicated that he retained materials such as newspaper articles and council minutes and was willing to submit them if necessary.
Nevertheless, it argues that the original decision and the prior original decision dismissed the retrial request by stating that “the actual materials had not been submitted” and that the claims were “not clear,” without identifying which points were insufficient and without seeking supplementation or clarification.
This point is important in relation to the court’s procedural direction, duty of clarification, opportunity for supplementation, and due process toward a party who had indicated an intention to prove the facts.
Fourth, this document argues that the official records currently available on the official website of the Sukagawa City Council were external facts that the court could easily confirm ex officio.
The document argues that rejecting such facts based on publicly known and official materials as “not clear,” without showing the process of confirmation and recognition or the reasons for adopting or rejecting them, and without conducting substantive examination, constitutes insufficient examination lacking reasons and violates Article 31 of the Constitution.
This point relates to the structure of this case, in which the underlying facts concerning violation of the presumption of innocence were not subjective evaluations or speculation, but external facts confirmable through official records.
Fifth, this document argues that, once the matter was accepted as a case, the court had a duty to provide sufficient reasons.
The document argues that, if the matter was truly “not clear,” the court should have ordered correction at the acceptance stage, and that accepting it as a proper filing and later rejecting it as “not clear” without providing reasons betrays the stability of procedure and public trust in the court.
This point questions the procedural consistency between the court’s treatment of the matter as a retrial request case and its later dismissal on the ground that the claims were “not clear.”
Sixth, this document places the seriousness of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the forefront.
That paragraph provides that, when a retrial request has been dismissed, no person may make a further request for retrial on the same grounds.
This document argues that, despite this serious legal effect, the original decision rejected the claims as “not clear” without providing a substantive judgment on serious claims such as violations of the presumption of innocence and constitutional violations, while attempting to produce only the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This point does not merely concern the dismissal of a retrial request.
If only the effect of restricting future retrial requests on the same grounds arises without substantive judgment or sufficient reasoning, the party is left with the core of his claims unjudged while the path to further relief is narrowed.
For that reason, this document argues that such handling substantially impairs the right of access to the courts and violates Article 32 of the Constitution.
Seventh, this document argues that, if a court concludes that the external fact that a public authority adopted a resolution premised on guilt before the final judgment does not violate the presumption of innocence under Article 31 of the Constitution, Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other norms, then the court should at least state the reasons by identifying the norms, judgment framework, and factual relationships on which that conclusion is based.
This statement is at the core of this case.
This document does not merely seek retrial as a conclusion. It demands that, if the court concludes that no violation of the presumption of innocence occurred, it should state the reasons for that conclusion in light of the norms under the Constitution, the ICCPR, and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Eighth, this document argues that defective reasoning deprives the appeal of its effectiveness.
If the original decision merely states that the claims are “not clear” and does not indicate which part of which claim was evaluated as “not clear,” or why the matter was dismissed without seeking supplementation or clarification, the special appellant cannot precisely formulate points of rebuttal based on the reasoning process of the original decision.
This point is important in relation to the clarity of the subject matter for review by the higher court, the effectiveness of appeals, and the right of access to the courts.
Procedural Position in the Criminal Proceedings
This document is the Special Appeal Application filed with the Supreme Court against the decision of the Sendai High Court dated January 8, 2026, dismissing the immediate appeal.
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 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.
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 because it dismissed the matter while describing the claims as “not clear” and without giving an opportunity for clarification or supplementation.
On January 8, 2026, the First Criminal Division of the Sendai High Court dismissed the immediate appeal.
This document is the Special Appeal Application filed with the Supreme Court against that decision dismissing the immediate appeal.
Accordingly, this document was submitted after the appeal against the decision dismissing the retrial request had not been accepted by the Sendai High Court, and it sought revocation of the original decision and the prior original decision, and remand, mainly on the basis of violations of Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
This document connects to the later Supreme Court decision dismissing the special appeal.
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.
This document asked the Supreme Court to judge these issues from the perspective of constitutional procedural guarantees and the right of access to the courts.
Questions Arising from This Document
1. Did the Supreme Court substantively judge the constitutional issue of violation of the presumption of innocence?
This document argues that the original decision and the prior original decision did not provide reasons showing that they judged the merits of the constitutionally important issue clearly raised by the special appellant, namely “violation of the presumption of innocence.”
The question arising from this point is how the Supreme Court judged the claims presented in this document concerning violation of the presumption of innocence, due process, and the right of access to the courts.
Even if the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal, it is important whether it provided a concrete judgment on these constitutional and treaty-based issues.
2. Why was supplementation or clarification considered unnecessary for claims described as “not clear”?
This document argues that, although the special appellant had clearly indicated that he retained materials such as newspaper articles and council minutes and was willing to submit them if necessary, the original decision and the prior original decision dismissed the matter without identifying which points were insufficient and without seeking supplementation or clarification.
This raises the issue of how much clarification, correction, or opportunity for supplementation must be given before a court rejects a party’s claims as “not clear.”
In particular, because dismissal of a retrial request may produce the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case, this issue concerns the substance of procedural guarantees.
3. Why were facts confirmable through official records not substantively judged?
This document argues that the fact that the Sukagawa City Council adopted resolutions premised on guilt before the final judgment was confirmable through official records currently available on the official website of the Sukagawa City Council.
This raises the question whether a court may reject official records that it can easily confirm ex officio without showing the process of confirmation and recognition, and without conducting substantive examination.
In particular, where the underlying facts concerning violation of the presumption of innocence are confirmable through official records, how the court treated those facts is important in relation to the duty to provide reasons and insufficient examination.
4. How much substantive judgment is required when the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to arise?
This document argues that, because Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restricts further retrial requests on the same grounds, dismissing the request without substantive judgment violates the right of access to the courts.
In particular, this document takes issue with the original decision’s rejection of the claims as “not clear” without providing reasons, while attempting to produce only the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
From this point, the question arises how much reasoning and substantive judgment a court must provide when dismissing a retrial request, especially where serious issues such as violations of the presumption of innocence and constitutional violations have been presented.
This is a question concerning the boundary between a merely formal dismissal decision and effective judicial relief.
5. How was Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR treated?
This document argues that, if a court concludes that the fact that a public authority adopted a resolution premised on guilt before the final judgment does not violate the presumption of innocence under Article 31 of the Constitution, Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other norms, then the court should state the reasons for that conclusion by identifying the norms, judgment framework, and factual relationships on which it relies.
This raises the question of how the court evaluated the pre-judgment public attribution of guilt by a public authority in light of Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30.
It is also necessary to examine, in relation to Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, whether domestic retrial procedures or procedural forms can be used to avoid consideration of the treaty-based obligations concerning the presumption of innocence and effective remedies.
6. How were the claims under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution treated in the special appeal?
This document is structured mainly around violations of Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the question arises how the Supreme Court treated, as constitutional issues, the claims in this document concerning violation of due process, infringement of the right of access to the courts, defective reasoning, and the effectiveness of appeals.
This point becomes a central issue when examining the Supreme Court decision dismissing the special appeal.
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. This document is the Special Appeal Application against the Sendai High Court decision dismissing 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 lack of substantive judgment on the constitutional issue of violation of the presumption of innocence is challenged on the premise that the original decision and the prior original decision treated the matter as an issue under this item.
Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision states that, when a retrial request has been dismissed, no further request for retrial may be made on the same grounds. This document argues that dismissal without substantive judgment or sufficient reasoning, despite this serious legal effect, substantially impairs the right of access to the courts.
Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision states that, when there is no proof of a crime, the court must pronounce an acquittal by judgment. This document refers to it as a domestic legal norm related to the presumption of innocence.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the guarantee of due process. In this document, the lack of procedural direction toward a party who had indicated an intention to prove the facts, insufficient examination excluding facts based on official materials from consideration, and breach of the duty to provide reasons once the matter had been accepted as a case are asserted as violations of this article.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right of access to the courts. In this document, the lack of substantive judgment despite the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the deprivation of the effectiveness of appeal due to defective reasoning, are asserted as violations of this article.
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, violation of the presumption of innocence, 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 judicial relief for those issues was handled.
Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR:
This provision establishes the presumption of innocence. In this document, the issue is whether a public authority’s adoption of a resolution premised on guilt before the judgment became final can be said not to violate the presumption of innocence under this paragraph.
Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to an effective remedy. In this document, the issue is whether the courts gave an effective opportunity for examination and relief to a party 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 case, it is important in examining the extent to which the courts 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 Special Appeal Application submitted by Toshio Tsumuraya to the Supreme Court after the Sendai High Court dismissed the immediate appeal, mainly alleging violations of Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
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, 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.
Against this High Court judgment, this document argued before the Supreme Court that no substantive judgment had been made on the constitutionally important issue of violation of the presumption of innocence, and that rejecting the core of the request as “not clear” violated Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, this document is important for confirming how the issue of judicial relief in this case was presented to the Supreme Court as a constitutional issue.
This document confirms that, at the stage of the special appeal to the Supreme Court, the issues presented were not a mere reevaluation of factual findings, but violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, due process, the right of access to the courts, the duty to provide reasons, the effectiveness of appeals, and the relationship with the presumption of innocence under the ICCPR.
This point forms the premise for examining the later Supreme Court decision dismissing the 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）
関連する規範記事：
規範篇―自由権規約（ICCPR）第14条第2項：無罪推定の原則
規範篇―一般的意見32号第30項：公的機関による判決前の裁判結果の予断禁止
規範篇―一般的意見31号第15項：調査義務と救済不実施それ自体の問題
規範篇―条約法に関するウィーン条約（VCLT）第27条：国内制度を理由に条約義務を免れられるのか
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.