Overview of the Document
Document title:
Decision in 2026 Shi No. 42
Date of creation:
February 6, 2026
Issuing body:
Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of Japan
Panel of justices:
Presiding Justice Masahiro Hiraki
Justice Michiharu Hayashi
Justice Eriko Watanabe
Justice Kimihiro Ishikane
Justice Mami Okino
Applicant:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Case number:
2026 Shi No. 42
Subject case:
Retrial request case
Challenged decision:
Decision of the Sendai High Court dismissing the immediate appeal, dated January 8, 2026
Original appellate case number:
2025 Ku No. 84
Type of document:
Decision dismissing the special 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 2026 Shi No. 42, prepared by the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of Japan on February 6, 2026.
This document is based on the fact that, in the retrial request case filed by Toshio Tsumuraya, a special appeal was filed against the decision of the Sendai High Court dated January 8, 2026, dismissing the immediate appeal.
The main text states that “the present appeal is dismissed.”
In the reasons, the Supreme Court states that the grounds for this appeal, including the points alleging constitutional violation, are in substance merely assertions of violation of law.
On that basis, the Supreme Court states that the grounds for this appeal do not constitute grounds for appeal under Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Supreme Court then decides, by unanimous opinion of all the justices, to rule as stated in the main text pursuant to Article 434 and Article 426, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
At the end of this document, the names of the panel of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court are stated as Presiding Justice Masahiro Hiraki, Justice Michiharu Hayashi, Justice Eriko Watanabe, Justice Kimihiro Ishikane, and Justice Mami Okino.
In addition, the certified-copy section states, dated February 6, 2026, that “this is a certified copy,” and also contains the name of a court clerk of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court.
For details on the Special Appeal Application, see “Special Appeal Application to the Supreme Court — Constitutional and Treaty-Based Issues Concerning the Dismissal of Retrial Relief.”
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.”
Important Statements
The first important point in this document is that the Supreme Court dismissed the present special appeal.
As a result, the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the retrial request and the decision of the Sendai High Court dismissing the immediate appeal were maintained at the special appeal stage before the Supreme Court.
Second, the Supreme Court held that the grounds for this appeal, including the points alleging constitutional violation, were in substance merely assertions of violation of law.
This statement is important.
In the Special Appeal Application, it was argued that the issue was not merely the correctness of factual findings, but 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 Article 31 and Article 32 of the Constitution.
However, in this document, the Supreme Court did not substantively treat those arguments as constitutional issues, but instead disposed of them as not constituting grounds for appeal under Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Third, this document does not show any individualized and specific judgment concerning Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (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 concerning the obligation to provide effective remedies, or General Comment No. 31, Paragraphs 15 and 16.
This point is important in this case.
In this case, the issue was that the Sukagawa City Council adopted resignation recommendation resolutions before the criminal conviction became final, and that those resolutions constituted public expressions of intent premised on criminal responsibility, raising the issue of violation of the presumption of innocence.
However, this document does not confirm any specific judgment as to how that issue should be evaluated in relation to the presumption of innocence and the obligation to provide effective remedies under the ICCPR.
Fourth, the reasoning in this document is extremely brief.
This document states that the grounds for this appeal, including the points alleging constitutional violation, are in substance merely assertions of violation of law and therefore do not constitute grounds for appeal under Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, this document does not confirm any individualized judgment on the issues raised in the Special Appeal Application, such as the lack of procedural direction toward a party who had indicated an intention to prove the facts, insufficient examination excluding facts based on publicly known and official materials from consideration, the duty to provide reasons, the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the effectiveness of appeals.
Fifth, this document is a unanimous decision of all the justices.
The Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the present special appeal by unanimous opinion of all the justices.
Accordingly, this document shows that, in the course of judicial relief in this case, the Supreme Court treated the constitutional and treaty-based issues presented in the Special Appeal Application as not constituting grounds for special appeal under Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Procedural Position in the Criminal Proceedings
This document is the decision by which the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal 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.
In response, Toshio Tsumuraya prepared a Special Appeal Application dated January 11, 2026, and filed a special appeal with the Supreme Court.
On February 6, 2026, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal by this document.
Accordingly, this document shows that the appeal against the decision dismissing the retrial request was not accepted by the Supreme Court, following the dismissal by the Sendai High Court.
By this document, the retrial request procedure before the courts and the appeals from its dismissal reached the Supreme Court’s 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 shows that, with respect to these issues, the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal on the ground that the appeal did not constitute grounds for special appeal under Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions Arising from This Document
1. Why were the claims of violations of Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution treated as “merely assertions of violation of law”?
In the Special Appeal Application, it was argued that the original decision and the prior original decision violated Article 31 of the Constitution, which guarantees due process, and Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of access to the courts.
In particular, the application raised the lack of procedural direction toward a party who had indicated an intention to prove the facts, insufficient examination excluding facts based on publicly known and official materials from consideration, the lack of sufficient reasoning, dismissal despite the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and loss of effectiveness of appeal.
However, in this document, the Supreme Court states that these claims, including the points alleging constitutional violation, are in substance merely assertions of violation of law.
The question therefore arises why these claims were not treated as issues under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution, but instead as merely assertions of violation of law.
2. Was the constitutional and treaty-based issue of violation of the presumption of innocence judged?
In this case, the Sukagawa City Council’s adoption of resignation recommendation resolutions before the criminal conviction became final was raised as a violation of the presumption of innocence.
In the Special Appeal Application, it was argued that, if a public authority’s adoption of a resolution premised on guilt before the judgment became final did 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.
However, this document does not show any individualized and specific judgment on whether a violation of the presumption of innocence existed.
This point is important in examining whether the Supreme Court substantively judged the core issue of this case, namely violation of the presumption of innocence.
3. How were the ICCPR and General Comments treated?
In this case, the issues raised included Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR concerning 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 concerning 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.
4. How was the relationship between the effect of Article 447, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and effective relief treated?
In the Special Appeal Application, it was argued 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, the application challenged 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.
However, this document does not show any individualized and specific judgment on this point.
Therefore, the question arises how the serious effect of restricting further retrial requests on the same grounds was treated in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of access to the courts, and Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, which guarantees effective remedies.
5. Does the Supreme Court’s brief reasoning respond to the issues raised in this case?
The reasoning in this document is very brief.
The Supreme Court states that the grounds for this appeal, including the points alleging constitutional violation, are in substance merely assertions of violation of law, and that they do not constitute grounds for appeal under Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, the Special Appeal Application presented issues concerning violation of the presumption of innocence, due process, the right of access to the courts, the duty to provide reasons, the effectiveness of appeals, the presumption of innocence under the ICCPR, and effective remedies.
Accordingly, whether the Supreme Court’s brief reasoning can be said to respond to the constitutional and treaty-based issues presented in this case is a matter for examination.
6. What forms of relief remained after this decision?
By this document, the special appeal against the decision dismissing the retrial request was dismissed.
However, after this, in this case, a “Written Inquiry and Request Concerning the Effect of a Final Criminal Judgment Under Violations of the Presumption of Innocence and Judicial Relief” and a “Petition for Human Rights Relief and Corrective Action Concerning Violations of the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to a Fair Trial” were submitted 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.
From this point, this document does not merely show that the process of judicial relief in this case ended with the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the special appeal. It also serves as a premise for the subsequent petitions for human rights relief and corrective action.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns the grounds for special appeal. In this document, the Supreme Court held that the grounds for this appeal, including the points alleging constitutional violation, were in substance merely assertions of violation of law and did not constitute grounds for appeal under this article.
Article 434 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns procedural matters relating to special appeal. In this document, the Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal pursuant to this article and Article 426, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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 Supreme Court dismissed the present 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 case, it was disputed 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. In this case, it was argued that dismissal without substantive judgment or sufficient reasoning, despite this serious legal effect, substantially impaired 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. In this case, it was raised 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 case, the lack of procedural direction toward a party who had indicated an intention to prove the facts, insufficient examination excluding facts based on publicly known and official materials from consideration, and breach of the duty to provide reasons once the matter had been accepted as a case were 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 case, 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, were 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 case, the issue was whether a public authority’s adoption of a resolution premised on guilt before the judgment became final could 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 case, 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 decision by which the Supreme Court dismissed the special appeal against the Sendai High Court decision dismissing the immediate appeal.
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.
Thereafter, Toshio Tsumuraya filed a special appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing 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.
In response, this document dismissed the special appeal, holding that the grounds for this appeal, including the points alleging constitutional violation, were in substance merely assertions of violation of law and did not constitute grounds for appeal under Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, this document is important for confirming how the issue of judicial relief in this case was handled by the Supreme Court.
This document reveals a structure in which, at the Supreme Court stage, it is difficult to confirm any individualized and specific judgment concerning 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 subsequent written inquiry and request addressed to the courts, as well as the petition for human rights relief and corrective action.
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.