Overview of the Norm
Name of the norm:
The Rule of Law and Constitutionalism
Common name:
The rule of law and constitutionalism
English name:
The Rule of Law and Constitutionalism
Applicable norms:
The rule of law, constitutionalism, the basic principles of the Constitution of Japan, Article 98, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, and Article 99 of the Constitution
Provision or content:
This is not a norm derived from a single specific provision. It is a fundamental principle that binds public authority to the Constitution and law, and protects the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Relationship to Japan:
The Constitution of Japan provides for respect for individuals, the guarantee of fundamental human rights, due process, fair trial, judicial independence, treaty observance, and the duty of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. These provisions are closely related to the principles of the rule of law and constitutionalism.
Type of norm:
A fundamental principle of the constitutional order
Method of confirmation:
Confirmed through the Constitution of Japan, related laws and regulations, international human rights norms, and general constitutional theory
Form of publication:
Summary and relationship to this case
About This Norm
The rule of law and constitutionalism are not norms derived from a single specific provision. They are fundamental principles developed through the formation of modern constitutional states and concretized through the provisions of the Constitution of Japan.
The rule of law is the principle that rejects arbitrary rule and requires public authority itself to be bound by law, thereby protecting individual rights and freedoms.
The law referred to here does not mean only commands or regulations that public authority applies unilaterally to citizens.
What is important in the rule of law is that public authority itself is bound by law, including the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and human rights guarantees.
Therefore, the rule of law does not mean that only citizens must obey the law.
A structure in which public authority uses law to govern citizens while exempting itself from the restraints of the Constitution and human rights guarantees is not the rule of law.
Constitutionalism is the principle that limits public authority through the Constitution and protects the rights and freedoms of individuals.
The Constitution is not merely a document for justifying public authority.
The Constitution is the supreme law that sets limits public authority must not cross and guarantees individual dignity, fundamental human rights, due process, fair trial, and treaty observance.
Therefore, the rule of law and constitutionalism require not only that public authority apply law to citizens, but also that public authority itself comply with the Constitution and law.
In this case, the issue is how the Sukagawa City Council, Sukagawa City, and the courts are bound by the Constitution and law in relation to public presumption of guilt before judgment, the presumption of innocence, fair trial, the prohibition on compelled self-incriminating statements, effective remedy, and treaty observance.
What Can Be Confirmed From This Norm
The rule of law and constitutionalism are both principles for limiting public authority.
The rule of law prevents arbitrary exercise of public authority and binds public authority itself to law.
Constitutionalism limits public authority through the Constitution and protects the rights and freedoms of individuals.
The Constitution of Japan provides for respect for fundamental human rights, popular sovereignty, separation of powers, judicial independence, treaty observance, and the duty of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution.
These are connected to the rule of law and constitutionalism in that they do not permit public authority to be exercised without limits.
Article 98, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, and that no law, ordinance, imperial rescript, or other act of government, or part thereof, contrary to its provisions shall have legal force or validity.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan provides that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations must be faithfully observed.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan imposes on the Emperor or the Regent, as well as Ministers of State, members of the Diet, judges, and all other public officials, the obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution.
Therefore, Japanese public authority is bound not only by the form of domestic law, but also by constitutional human rights guarantees and treaty obligations undertaken by Japan.
In this case, the issues include the fact that the Sukagawa City Council, a public institution, adopted resignation recommendation resolutions premised on guilt before judgment, that criminal proceedings then proceeded and a conviction became final, and that even after requests for relief and corrective measures were made, no substantive remedy has been provided.
This issue is not limited to the propriety of past council resolutions or the existence or nonexistence of grounds for retrial under domestic procedure.
It is an issue concerning the rule of law and constitutionalism themselves, namely how public authority is bound by human rights guarantees under the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Important Content
What is especially important in this norm is that both the rule of law and constitutionalism are principles that bind public authority.
The rule of law does not merely mean that citizens must obey statutes.
The core of the rule of law lies in rejecting arbitrary exercise of public authority and binding power to the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and human rights guarantees.
If public authority avoids substantive examination of human rights guarantees on the basis of its own judgment or domestic procedural form, that becomes an issue in relation to the rule of law.
Constitutionalism is also a principle that limits public authority through the Constitution.
The Constitution is not merely something that justifies the authority of state organs or local public entities.
The Constitution is the standard for protecting individual dignity, fundamental human rights, due process, fair trial, judicial independence, and treaty observance when public authority is exercised.
Therefore, even if public authority explains that “there is no problem under the domestic system,” that “there is no legally binding effect,” that “a final judgment exists,” or that “the requirements for retrial are not satisfied,” those explanations alone do not eliminate constitutional and treaty-based issues.
In this case, the Sukagawa City Council adopted resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment.
The first resignation recommendation resolution was adopted before indictment, while the person concerned was detained, and in his absence.
The second resignation recommendation resolution was adopted after indictment but before the first trial hearing and before judgment.
If these resolutions were public expressions premised on guilt before judgment, they raise serious issues in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
What is important here is that even if a conviction later became final, that does not automatically justify the conduct of a public institution before judgment.
The presumption of innocence is a principle that governs the treatment of a person by public institutions before a conviction becomes final.
Therefore, the fact that a conviction later became final does not automatically cure the fact that a public institution made an assessment premised on guilt before judgment.
Nor does the issue disappear merely because resignation recommendation resolutions are described as having no legally binding effect.
Paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32 of the Human Rights Committee states that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
From this perspective, the issue is not limited to whether the act in question was a legally binding disposition.
The issue is whether a public institution made a public assessment, statement, resolution, or treatment that prejudged the outcome of a trial before judgment.
Furthermore, in this case, requests were later made to the courts, Sukagawa City, and the Sukagawa City Council for review, relief, and corrective measures concerning these issues.
If, despite this, the issues of violation of the presumption of innocence, violation of the right to a fair trial, violation of the prohibition on compelled self-incriminating statements, and violation of the obligation to provide an effective remedy are not substantively examined on the basis of domestic procedural form or the existence of a final judgment, that becomes an issue in relation to the rule of law and constitutionalism.
Public authority is not merely an entity that uses law to bind citizens unilaterally.
Public authority itself is bound by the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and human rights guarantees.
This is the core of the rule of law and constitutionalism in this case.
Questions Arising From This Norm
1 Does the rule of law mean only that citizens must obey statutes?
The rule of law does not mean only that citizens must obey statutes.
The core of the rule of law lies in preventing arbitrary exercise of public authority and binding public authority itself by law.
Even if citizens must obey the law, public authority must also comply with the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and human rights guarantees.
In this case, the issue is how the Sukagawa City Council, Sukagawa City, and the courts, each as public institutions, are bound by law in relation to public presumption of guilt before judgment, the presumption of innocence, fair trial, the prohibition on compelled self-incriminating statements, and the obligation to provide an effective remedy.
Therefore, this case is not a mere personal grievance or a reopening of a past incident.
It is an issue concerning the rule of law itself: to what extent public authority is bound by constitutional and treaty-based human rights guarantees.
2 Is constitutionalism satisfied merely by having a Constitution?
Constitutionalism does not simply mean that a document called a Constitution exists.
Even if a Constitution exists, constitutionalism cannot be said to function if public authority is not bound by that Constitution and human rights guarantees do not operate in substance.
What is important in constitutionalism is that the Constitution functions as an effective norm that limits public authority and protects the rights and freedoms of individuals.
In this case, issues arise in relation to Article 13, Article 31, Article 37, Article 38, Article 76, Article 98, paragraph 2, and Article 99 of the Constitution.
The question is whether these provisions functioned not merely in form, but substantively in relation to the problems of public presumption of guilt before judgment, the criminal proceedings, and the failure to provide an effective remedy.
3 Are local assemblies outside the rule of law and constitutionalism?
A local assembly is not a private voluntary association.
A local assembly is a deliberative organ of a local public entity, composed of members elected by residents.
Therefore, a local assembly is also a public institution that should respect the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and human rights guarantees.
In this case, the Sukagawa City Council adopted resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment.
Even if a resignation recommendation resolution does not have the legal effect of immediately removing the council member from office, if a local assembly, as a public institution, made a public expression premised on criminal responsibility before judgment, that becomes an issue in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
Therefore, the issue under the rule of law and constitutionalism does not disappear merely because the act is described as a political expression by a local assembly.
4 Does a final judgment cure public presumption of guilt before judgment?
In this case, a conviction later became final.
However, the presumption of innocence is a principle that governs treatment before a conviction becomes final.
Therefore, even if a conviction later became final, it does not automatically justify the fact that a public institution treated the person as if guilty at an earlier stage.
If public presumption of guilt before judgment existed, it must be independently examined what effect it had on the subsequent criminal proceedings, the formation of statements, the plea at trial, and the conviction.
If the existence of a final judgment is used as a reason to avoid any examination of public presumption of guilt before judgment or violation of the presumption of innocence, that becomes an issue in relation to the rule of law and constitutionalism.
5 Can treaty-based human rights guarantees be excluded solely by domestic procedural form?
Japan has ratified the ICCPR.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan also provides that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations must be faithfully observed.
Furthermore, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Therefore, treaty-based human rights guarantees under the ICCPR cannot be excluded solely by domestic procedural form.
In this case, explanations based on domestic systems may include the requirements for retrial, the existence of a final judgment, the lack of legally binding effect of resignation recommendation resolutions, and their characterization as political expressions internal to the council.
However, those explanations alone do not mean that there is no need to examine the issues of the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
6 Can the rule of law be said to function when no effective remedy is provided?
The rule of law is connected to mechanisms for reviewing suspected illegality or human rights violations and, where necessary, providing relief or corrective measures.
If a rights violation is pointed out, yet no institution examines it substantively and the matter is avoided on the basis of domestic procedural form, the rule of law cannot be said to function in substance.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR provides for an effective remedy for violations of rights under the Covenant.
In this case, the issue is whether an effective remedy has been provided for public presumption of guilt before judgment, violation of the presumption of innocence, violation of the right to a fair trial, and violation of the prohibition on compelled self-incriminating statements.
If no remedy has been provided, then the failure to provide a remedy itself becomes a serious issue in relation to the rule of law and constitutionalism.
7 Does public authority have no obligation to review its own past decisions?
When there is a suspicion that an act of public authority involved a human rights violation, a public institution later asked to review or correct that act cannot avoid the issue merely because it concerns a past decision.
In particular, where constitutional and ICCPR issues are raised, such as public presumption of guilt before judgment, violation of the presumption of innocence, violation of the right to a fair trial, and failure to provide an effective remedy, substantive review is required.
In this case, the objects of verification include not only the resignation recommendation resolutions in 2011, but also the responses of each institution to the requests for corrective measures, petitions, legal consultations, refusals to respond, retrial request, appeals, written inquiry and request, and petition for human rights relief and corrective measures made from 2025 onward.
This is because the rule of law and constitutionalism also serve as standards for reviewing past exercises of public authority.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
Provides for respect for individuals and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this case, it is relevant to the impact of public presumption of guilt before judgment on the person’s personality interests and social reputation.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
Provides for due process. In this case, it is relevant to the fact that the first resignation recommendation resolution was adopted before indictment, while the person concerned was detained, and in his absence, and to the fact that a public institution made an assessment premised on guilt before judgment.
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan:
Relevant to the right to a fair trial by an impartial court. The issue is how public presumption of guilt before judgment affected the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 38 of the Constitution of Japan:
Relevant to the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself and to the exclusion of confessions whose voluntariness is in doubt. In this case, statements and the plea at trial formed under the existence of public presumption of guilt before judgment are at issue.
Article 76, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
Provides that the whole judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as are established by law. The determination of criminal responsibility should originally be made by the courts, and this provision is relevant where a public institution makes an assessment that anticipates the outcome of a trial before judgment.
Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Japan:
Provides for judicial independence. Where public presumption of guilt before judgment exists, the issue is how the court should have excluded its influence and secured a fair trial.
Article 98, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
Provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation. Where an act of public authority conflicts with constitutional human rights guarantees, its validity and legitimacy become issues.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
Provides that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations must be faithfully observed. It is important in relation to the domestic significance of the ICCPR and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
Important in relation to the duty of judges, members of the Diet, local assembly members, national public officials, local public officials, and other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution.
Article 89, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Local Autonomy Act:
Provides that an ordinary local public entity shall have an assembly, that such assembly is a deliberative organ composed of members elected by residents, that the assembly shall decide important matters and exercise powers such as inspection and investigation, and that members shall receive the mandate of residents and perform their duties faithfully. It is important in considering whether a local assembly, as a public institution, should respect constitutional and treaty-based human rights guarantees.
International Human Rights Treaty
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR:
Provides for an effective remedy for violations of rights under the Covenant. In this case, the issue is what remedy should be provided domestically for violation of the presumption of innocence, violation of the right to a fair trial, and violation of the prohibition on compelled self-incriminating statements.
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
Provides for the right to a fair trial. The issue is how public presumption of guilt before judgment affected the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR:
Provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. This is one of the central norms in this case.
Article 14, paragraph 3(g) of the ICCPR:
Provides for the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt. It is relevant to statements and the plea at trial formed under the existence of public presumption of guilt before judgment.
General Comments
General Comment No. 31:
States that obligations under the ICCPR extend to all branches of government, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and that an effective remedy is required for violations of rights under the Covenant. In this case, the issue is how the courts, Sukagawa City, and the Sukagawa City Council should respond to ICCPR issues.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30:
States, in relation to the presumption of innocence, that all public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial. It is important in relation to the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council before judgment.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
Provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. It is important in relation to the obligation to perform the ICCPR in good faith.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
Provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The issue is whether domestic procedural form can be used to avoid the issues of the presumption of innocence and the obligation to provide an effective remedy under the ICCPR.
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
Provides that a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with its context and in light of its object and purpose. It is important in relation to interpreting Article 14, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR as effective human rights guarantees.
Relationship to This Case
This case is not merely a past criminal case or an issue of a political judgment by a local assembly.
What is at issue in this case is the fundamental question of the rule of law and constitutionalism: whether public authority is bound by the Constitution and law.
On October 26, 2011, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the first resignation recommendation resolution while the person concerned had not yet been indicted, was detained, and was absent.
Thereafter, the process proceeded to extension of detention, interrogation, change in statements, and indictment.
On December 1, 2011, before the first trial hearing and before judgment, the second resignation recommendation resolution was adopted.
If these resolutions were public expressions premised on guilt before judgment, they raise serious issues in relation to the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
Here, the absence of legally binding effect of the resignation recommendation resolutions does not automatically eliminate the issue.
From the perspective of the rule of law and constitutionalism, what matters is whether a public institution made an assessment that prejudged the outcome of a trial before judgment.
Nor does the fact that a conviction later became final automatically cure public presumption of guilt before judgment.
The presumption of innocence is a principle that governs the treatment of a person by public institutions before a conviction becomes final.
Therefore, in this case, apart from the existence of a final judgment, the issue is how the conduct of the Sukagawa City Council before judgment should be evaluated under the Constitution and the ICCPR.
Furthermore, from 2025 onward, requests for review, corrective measures, and relief have been made to the courts, Sukagawa City, and the Sukagawa City Council.
If, despite this, the issues of violation of the presumption of innocence, violation of the right to a fair trial, violation of the prohibition on compelled self-incriminating statements, and violation of the obligation to provide an effective remedy are not substantively examined on the basis of domestic procedural form, final judgment, retrial requirements, or the absence of legally binding effect of the resignation recommendation resolutions, that becomes a serious issue in relation to the rule of law and constitutionalism.
Public authority is not merely an entity that applies law to citizens.
Public authority itself is bound by the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and human rights guarantees.
This case asks how the Sukagawa City Council, Sukagawa City, and the courts understood that binding force, how they explained it, and what relief or corrective measures they considered.
Therefore, this case must be examined from the perspective of the rule of law and constitutionalism.
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