Overview of the Document
Document title:
Written Questions and Request
Date:
April 10, 2026
Prepared by:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Submitted to:
Mayor of Sukagawa City
Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council
Document type:
Written questions and request
Method of acquisition:
Copies retained by the submitter after submission to Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council
Publication format:
PDF files with personal information redacted where necessary
Original Japanese Written Questions and Request PDFs Copy received by Sukagawa City:
Skip to PDF contentCopy received by the Sukagawa City Council:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by the Document
This document is a Written Questions and Request submitted in identical form to the Mayor of Sukagawa City and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council on April 10, 2026.
The copy received by Sukagawa City and the copy received by the Sukagawa City Council each bear a receipt stamp dated April 10, 2026. These stamps confirm that both Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council received the document on that date.
The document questions whether the series of resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council in 2011 and 2012, together with the continued preservation and publication of official records relating to those resolutions, are consistent with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）.
The document states that the human rights violations and the need for corrective action had already been raised in 2025, but that Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council had not provided the specific legal grounds supporting their responses.
It therefore addresses the resignation recommendation resolutions not merely as past acts, but as a continuing situation in which the resolutions and the public assessments connected with them remain preserved and published as official records, while no withdrawal, correction, restoration of reputation, or other remedial measure has been implemented.
The legal grounds cited in the document include Article 14, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, General Comments Nos. 31 and 32 of the Human Rights Committee, Articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties（VCLT）, Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and Article 98, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution of Japan.
The document contains five questions.
The first question asks that, if the position is that maintaining the resignation recommendation resolutions and their official records is consistent with the ICCPR and other obligations under international law and that no remedial action is required, the specific legal grounds for that position be provided in writing without relying on domestic law or the autonomy of the Council.
The second question concerns the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation obtained by Sukagawa City:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.
The document asks whether Sukagawa City still adopts this interpretation as its official position and, if so, requests the specific legal grounds for doing so.
The third question asks whether the response stating that the request for corrective action dated April 3, 2025, had been “handled appropriately” is regarded as a lawful fulfillment of the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, and requests the specific legal grounds for that position.
The fourth question asks that, if Sukagawa City claims that it bears no obligations under international law and is not subject to Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts because it is a local public entity, it provide the specific legal grounds for that claim.
The fifth question asks for a legally reasoned response to the assertion that, where no investigation or remedy is provided after a specific human rights violation has been alleged, a separate violation of the ICCPR continues independently of the original violation.
The document also contains three requests.
The first requests written answers to each question within fourteen days of receipt of the document.
The second requests that, if the existence of unlawful human rights violations and the need for corrective action are acknowledged, measures of restitution be taken, including withdrawal of the resignation recommendation resolutions and deletion or correction of the official records.
The third requests that, because the resignation recommendation resolutions were adopted through public Council proceedings, the corrective measures and restoration of reputation also be carried out publicly and announced through a plenary session of the City Council, the official website, a press conference, or other public means.
The attachments listed in the document include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs translation of the ICCPR, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs translation of the VCLT, the original text of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, the original texts of General Comments Nos. 31 and 32, and the report concerning the legal consultation obtained by Sukagawa City.
The document relies on General Comment No. 31 in asserting that failure to investigate an allegation of a rights violation and provide an appropriate remedy may itself constitute a separate breach of the Covenant, and that remedies may include restitution, public apology, restoration of reputation, and related measures.
The paragraph numbers cited in the document are each shifted by one paragraph from the corresponding passages in the official text. Accordingly, this article follows the official text of General Comment No. 31 and identifies the relevant provisions as paragraphs 15 and 16.
Key Statements
The central point of the document is that the issue is not limited to the resignation recommendation resolutions themselves.
It also concerns the continuing absence of withdrawal, correction of the records, restoration of reputation, and other remedial measures after the human rights violations and the need for corrective action had been specifically brought to the attention of the public authorities concerned.
Relying on Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32, the document presents the legal position that the presumption of innocence does not bind courts alone.
All public authorities must refrain from publicly affirming criminal guilt or prejudging the outcome of criminal proceedings before a person has been found guilty according to law.
On that basis, the document states that the Sukagawa City Council adopted resignation recommendation resolutions before indictment and before the criminal judgment became final, and that the reasons presented for the resolutions and the related deliberations expressed public assessments that treated the alleged criminal conduct or guilt as established.
The document also relies on Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31 in presenting the legal position that public authorities receiving an allegation of a rights violation are required to investigate it and, where a violation is established, secure an effective remedy.
It further states that failure to investigate an allegation of a rights violation and provide an appropriate remedy may itself constitute a separate violation of the ICCPR, distinct from the original human rights violation.
The remedies addressed in the document are not limited to monetary compensation.
They include withdrawal of the resignation recommendation resolutions, deletion or correction of official records, restitution, public apology, restoration of reputation, and measures to prevent recurrence.
Under this legal structure, the document treats not only the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted in 2011 and 2012, but also the conduct of Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council after receiving specific allegations of human rights violations from 2025 onward, as an independent subject of examination.
In relation to Articles 26 and 27 of the VCLT, the document presents the position that treaties in force must be performed in good faith and that domestic law, local government arrangements, Council autonomy, or domestic practice cannot be invoked to justify failure to comply with obligations under the ICCPR.
It also cites paragraph 4 of General Comment No. 31 as indicating that public authorities at the national, regional, and local levels are involved in fulfilling obligations under the ICCPR, and that domestic law or the internal distribution of authority cannot justify failure to perform treaty obligations.
The document further cites Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and states that the conduct of local public entities and local councils may be attributable to the State as the conduct of State organs under international law.
By connecting these standards, the document presents the position that Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council cannot avoid questions concerning investigation, correction, and remedies under the ICCPR merely because they are institutions of local government or because of the domestic allocation of authority.
A particularly important issue raised by the document is the interpretation recorded in the legal consultation report listed as Attachment No. 6:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.
Arrest is not a finding of guilt.
Nor does the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR cease to apply because a person has been arrested, detained, or indicted.
The document asks whether this interpretation is consistent with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and the prohibition on prejudging criminal proceedings stated in paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32.
It also asks whether Sukagawa City still maintains that interpretation as its official position and, if so, on what specific legal grounds.
The document further addresses the response to the 2025 request for corrective action, which stated that the matter had been “handled appropriately.”
It states that the response did not identify what facts had been investigated, which legal standards had been applied, or for what reasons it had been concluded that no human rights violation had occurred or that no remedial action was required.
The document therefore requests disclosure not merely of the conclusion that the matter had been “handled appropriately,” but also of the specific factual findings and legal grounds supporting that conclusion.
The requests further state that, if a human rights violation and the need for correction are acknowledged, the resignation recommendation resolutions should be withdrawn and the official records should be deleted or corrected.
Because the resolutions were adopted through public Council proceedings and continue to be published as official records, the document also requests that correction and restoration of reputation not be completed solely through non-public internal procedures.
It asks that such measures be taken publicly, including through a plenary session of the City Council, the official website, a press conference, or similar means.
In its concluding remarks, the document refers to the fact that the person concerned had expressed his intention to wait for the outcome of the criminal proceedings before deciding whether to resign, and that the City Council side had characterized that position as contrary to social justice.
The document itself does not specify the date or the name of the meeting at which that explanation was given.
Separately, the minutes of the Sukagawa City Council plenary meeting held on December 1, 2011, confirm that, at an all-members conference held on November 24, 2011, the person concerned explained that he would “wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign.”
In the reasons presented for the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution, as recorded in those minutes, that explanation was characterized as “contrary to social justice.”
Against this background, the document states that, if Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council now refuses to answer or take corrective action on the ground that related litigation is pending, the consistency of that position with the position previously demanded of the person concerned is open to question and may also raise an issue under the principle of estoppel.
Questions Raised by the Document
1. Did Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council substantively examine the international human rights standards presented in the document?
The document specifically cites Article 14, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, General Comments Nos. 31 and 32, the VCLT, and the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
How did Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council investigate and examine the relationship between these standards and the resignation recommendation resolutions and the continued maintenance of their official records?
2. What specific legal grounds support the continued maintenance of the resignation recommendation resolutions and their official records?
The fact that the resignation recommendation resolutions did not have legally binding force, or that a local council possesses a degree of institutional autonomy, does not in itself eliminate the need to examine their compatibility with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
If Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council consider the continued maintenance of the resolutions and their official records to be consistent with the ICCPR, what specific legal standards and reasons support that conclusion?
3. Is the interpretation that an inference close to guilt is permissible because the person had been arrested still maintained?
Arrest is not a finding of guilt.
The presumption of innocence does not cease to apply because a person has been arrested, detained, or indicted.
Does Sukagawa City still adopt the interpretation recorded in the legal consultation report as its official position?
If so, how does it explain the consistency of that interpretation with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32?
4. Did the response stating that the matter had been “handled appropriately” fulfill the obligation to provide an effective remedy?
The 2025 response did not specifically state what factual investigation had been conducted, which legal standards had been applied, or what determination had been made regarding the violation of the presumption of innocence and the need for corrective action.
Did such a response satisfy the requirements of investigation, determination, and effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31?
5. Are Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council excluded from obligations under international law because they are institutions of local government?
Paragraph 4 of General Comment No. 31 indicates that public authorities at the national, regional, and local levels are involved in fulfilling obligations under the ICCPR.
Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts also indicates that the conduct of State organs may be attributable to the State under international law regardless of their functions or status under domestic law.
If Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council consider themselves outside the scope of these standards, what are the specific legal grounds for that position?
6. Was any substantive response provided to the assertion that failure to provide a remedy itself constitutes a separate violation?
Relying on General Comment No. 31, the document states that failure to investigate an allegation of a human rights violation and provide an appropriate remedy may itself constitute a separate violation of the ICCPR, independently of the original human rights violation.
How did Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council assess their failure to investigate, correct, and provide a remedy after becoming aware of the specific allegation, in relation to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31?
Did they provide any substantive investigation or legal response to this assertion?
7. How should correction and restoration of reputation be carried out in response to a public act by a public institution?
The resignation recommendation resolutions were adopted through public Council proceedings and remain preserved and published as official records.
If a human rights violation is acknowledged, should the correction and restoration of reputation also be carried out through a public method corresponding to the manner in which the resolutions were adopted and the extent to which they were publicized?
8. Is it consistent to criticize the person concerned for waiting for the outcome of the trial while refusing to make a determination now because litigation is pending?
In connection with the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution in 2011, the person’s stated intention to wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign was characterized as contrary to social justice.
If Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council now relies on pending litigation as a reason not to provide a legal assessment or determine whether corrective action is required, are those two positions consistent?
Relevant Legal Standards
The following legal standards are relevant to the issues raised by this document. Their detailed interpretation and application to this case are examined separately in the legal analysis section of this website.
Constitution of Japan
Article 98, paragraph 1: The Constitution of Japan is the supreme law of the nation, and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript, or other act of government contrary to it has legal force or validity.
The document raises the question of whether official acts by a local public entity and a local council comply with constitutional human rights protections.
Article 98, paragraph 2: Japan must faithfully observe the treaties it has concluded and the established laws of nations.
The document raises the question of how domestic public authorities, including local public entities and local councils, are required to fulfill obligations arising under the ICCPR and the VCLT.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）
Article 2, paragraph 3: An effective remedy must be ensured for persons whose rights or freedoms under the ICCPR have been violated, and such remedies must be determined and enforced by competent authorities.
The document raises the question of the investigation, restitution, restoration of reputation, public apology, and measures to prevent recurrence that may be required if the resignation recommendation resolutions are found to have violated human rights.
Article 14, paragraph 2: Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
The question in this case is whether the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted before indictment and before the criminal judgment became final, together with the official assessments expressed in the reasons and deliberations relating to them, were consistent with this guarantee.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties（VCLT）
Article 26: Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith.
The question is whether Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council faithfully implemented obligations under the ICCPR within the domestic legal system.
Article 27: A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
The question is whether local government arrangements, Council autonomy, the internal distribution of authority, or domestic practice may be invoked to justify the failure to investigate, correct, or provide remedies required under the ICCPR.
Human Rights Committee General Comments
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 4: All branches of government, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and other public or governmental authorities at the national, regional, or local levels are involved in fulfilling the obligations under the ICCPR.
The internal distribution of authority or constitutional and other domestic law cannot justify failure to comply with obligations under the ICCPR.
The question in this case is whether Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council are excluded from obligations under the ICCPR because they are institutions of local government.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15: Allegations that rights under the ICCPR have been violated must be investigated promptly, thoroughly, and effectively.
Failure to investigate an allegation of a rights violation may itself give rise to a separate breach of the ICCPR.
The question in this case is what investigation and determination Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council carried out after the human rights violations were specifically brought to their attention.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 16: Appropriate reparation must be provided to persons whose rights have been violated in order to fulfill the obligation to provide a remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
Depending on the circumstances, such remedies may include restitution, rehabilitation, public apology and other measures of satisfaction, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes to relevant laws or practices.
The question in this case is whether withdrawal of the resignation recommendation resolutions, correction of the official records, restoration of reputation, and a public apology are required as effective remedies.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30: The presumption of innocence is fundamental to the protection of human rights, and all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.
The question in this case is how this standard applies to the public assessments and resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council before the criminal judgment became final.
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
Article 4: The conduct of any State organ is considered an act of the State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial, or any other functions.
This applies regardless of whether the organ belongs to the central government or to a territorial unit or other local entity.
The question in this case is how the conduct of Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council relates to the international responsibility of the State.
Relevance to This Case
On October 26, 2011, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the First Resignation Recommendation Resolution while the person concerned was under arrest and detention and before he had been indicted.
On December 1, 2011, the Council adopted the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution after indictment but before the first trial hearing and before any criminal judgment had been issued.
The issue raised by these resolutions is that public assessments treating the person concerned as having committed the alleged offence were expressed before his criminal responsibility had been established.
In documents dated April 3, 2025, and related submissions, the person concerned stated that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions raised issues under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32, and requested investigation, reconsideration, and corrective action.
Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council subsequently issued responses stating in substance that the matter had been “handled appropriately.”
Those responses did not specifically identify the facts investigated, the legal standards applied, or the conclusions reached concerning the human rights violations and the need for corrective action.
Separately obtained internal materials indicate that officials connected with Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council obtained legal consultation on April 19, 2025, concerning how to respond to the requests for corrective action.
The consultation record contains the following interpretation:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.
The specific date of April 19, 2025, does not appear in the text of the Written Questions and Request dated April 10, 2026, which is the subject of this article.
The document instead addresses the content of the legal consultation report listed as Attachment No. 6. The specific date of the consultation is a fact confirmed by separately obtained records.
The concluding remarks in the document also refer to the fact that the person concerned had expressed an intention to wait for the outcome of the criminal trial and that the City Council side had criticized that position.
The document itself does not state the specific date or the name of the meeting.
Separately, the minutes of the Sukagawa City Council plenary meeting held on December 1, 2011, confirm that, at an all-members conference held on November 24, 2011, the person concerned explained that he would “wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign.”
The reasons presented for the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution, as recorded in those minutes, characterized this explanation as “contrary to social justice.”
Against this background, the document reframes the issue not merely as one concerning past resignation recommendation resolutions, but as a continuing situation in which no investigation, legal assessment, corrective action, or remedy has been provided after a specific allegation of human rights violations was made.
It presents Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council with specific standards relating to the presumption of innocence, effective remedies, good-faith performance of treaties, the prohibition on invoking domestic law to justify non-performance of treaty obligations, and the international responsibility arising from the conduct of public authorities at the local level.
At this stage, identical questions and requests concerning issues common to Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council were submitted to both institutions.
On April 23, 2026, Sukagawa City responded that the matter concerned pending litigation and had therefore been entrusted to legal counsel.
The Sukagawa City Council responded that it did not consider itself an institution responsible for providing legal interpretations and that, because the matter concerned pending litigation, it had been entrusted to legal counsel.
Following these responses, separate requests were submitted to Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council on May 8, 2026, distinguishing the respective responsibilities of the two institutions.
With respect to Sukagawa City, Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act was cited as requiring the executive organ to administer and execute its affairs on its own judgment and responsibility.
The request therefore questioned the relationship between entrusting the matter to legal counsel, relying on the existence of pending litigation, and Sukagawa City’s own responsibility to investigate, determine, and take corrective action.
With respect to the Sukagawa City Council, Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Local Autonomy Act was cited in relation to the Council’s authority to deliberate, inspect, and investigate, and the duty of Council members to perform their functions faithfully in accordance with the mandate of the residents.
The Council was asked to investigate, reconsider, and correct the resignation recommendation resolutions that it had itself adopted.
This document therefore occupies an intermediate position between the requests for corrective action and responses made in 2025 and the institution-specific requests submitted in May 2026.
It is also an important foundational record for examining what allegations of human rights violations, legal grounds, and requests for corrective action were specifically brought to the attention of Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council, and how those institutions subsequently responded.
Related Documents
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:
2011（Heisei 23）
Document Distributed in Sukagawa City—Group Calling for the Resignation of Toshio Tsumuraya
2012（Heisei 24）
2025（Reiwa 7）
2026（Reiwa 8）
Related normative articles:
Related timeline:
2025（Reiwa 7）
April 3, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written request to Sukagawa City seeking an investigation into and correction of the human rights violations caused by the resignation recommendation resolutions. On the same date, he submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council seeking an independent review and corrective measures concerning those resolutions.
April 8, 2025
A conference of caucus representatives was held within the Sukagawa City Council to discuss the handling of the petition.
April 19, 2025
Separate legal consultations were conducted on the Sukagawa City side and the Sukagawa City Council side concerning their responses to the written request and the petition.
During the legal consultation conducted on the Sukagawa City side, an interpretation was expressed to the effect that:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.
April 28, 2025
Sukagawa City issued its final response to the written request, stating in substance that the matter had been “properly handled.”
2026（Reiwa 8）
April 10, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a Written Questions and Request to the Mayor of Sukagawa City and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council, seeking correction of the resignation recommendation resolutions and an effective remedy.
The document requested written responses concerning the relationship between the resignation recommendation resolutions and the presumption of innocence, the need for investigation and corrective measures by Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council, and the effective remedy required under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）.
April 23, 2026
Sukagawa City responded that, because the contents related to a matter currently in litigation, the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.
On the same date, the Sukagawa City Council responded that it was not an institution that provides legal interpretations and that, because the contents related to a matter currently in litigation, the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.
May 8, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted an “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” to the Mayor of Sukagawa City.
On the same date, he submitted a separate “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council, structured in accordance with the Council’s own powers and responsibilities.
Also on the same date, he separately submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council requesting that the Council use its formal procedures to investigate and re-examine the human rights violations caused by the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and take corrective measures and measures to prevent recurrence.
May 20, 2026
Sukagawa City responded that the Legal Affairs Bureau was the point of contact for receiving the application for relief from human rights violations and that, regarding the request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures, its position remained as stated in its April 23 response.
On the same date, the Sukagawa City Council responded that, regarding the Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures submitted on May 8, its position remained as stated in its April 23 response.
The Council’s May 20 response contained no reference to the separate petition submitted on May 8. The response alone therefore does not establish how that petition was handled within the Council.