Document Issued by Sukagawa City—Response Stating That the Matter Had Been Entrusted to Legal Counsel Because It Related to Pending Litigation

日本語版はこちら
Japanese version

Overview of the Document

Document title:
Regarding the Written Questions and Request（Response）

Document number:
8 Seikan No. 59

Date:
April 23, 2026

Created by:
Sukagawa City

Issuer:
Masaaki Otera, Mayor of Sukagawa City

Addressee:
Toshio Tsumuraya

Written Questions and Request concerned:
Written Questions and Request submitted on April 10, 2026

Method of acquisition:
Obtained as a response document sent to the person concerned

Document type:
Response document issued in the name of the Mayor concerning the Written Questions and Request

Publication format:
PDF with personal information and other information redacted to the extent necessary

Original Japanese PDF:

View Fullscreen

Facts Confirmed by the Document

This document is a response issued in the name of the Mayor of Sukagawa City on April 23, 2026, concerning the Written Questions and Request submitted to the Mayor of Sukagawa City and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council on April 10, 2026.

The document number is “8 Seikan No. 59,” and the office responsible is identified as the Citizens’ Activities Support Section of the Living Environment Division of Sukagawa City.

The body of the response consists of the following single sentence:

With regard to the Written Questions and Request submitted on April 10, 2026, because its contents relate to a matter currently in litigation, the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.

The document therefore confirms that Sukagawa City responded that the Written Questions and Request dated April 10, 2026, had been entrusted to legal counsel because its contents related to a matter currently in litigation.

The Written Questions and Request to which this response relates was not limited to a general inquiry or a voluntary request.

That document presented a specific claim that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the continued maintenance of their official records violated the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）.

It then requested, as effective remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, an investigation into the rights violations, a legal determination, withdrawal of the resolutions, deletion or correction of the official records, restoration of reputation, and public corrective measures.

The Written Questions and Request contained five questions and three requests.

However, this response does not provide an individual answer to any of the five questions.

Nor does it state whether the three requests were accepted, rejected, or remained under consideration.

The response does not identify the name of the “matter currently in litigation,” its case number, or the court before which it was pending.

Nevertheless, in light of the timing of the response and the subsequent related documents, it appears to refer to the residents’ lawsuit that was pending at the time.

The response does not, however, explain how each matter raised in the Written Questions and Request was considered to relate to that residents’ lawsuit.

The scope of the matters “entrusted to legal counsel” is also unspecified.

It is not stated whether legal counsel was entrusted only with handling the pending litigation, whether legal advice was sought, whether preparation of a response to the Written Questions and Request was delegated, or whether even the investigation of the alleged human rights violations, the legal determination, and the decision on the necessity of corrective measures were entrusted to legal counsel.

The response does not state what investigation or examination Sukagawa City conducted regarding the alleged violations and legal grounds presented in the Written Questions and Request.

Nor does it indicate what decision Sukagawa City made concerning the existence of human rights violations, the need for an effective remedy, or the corrective measures available within the City’s authority.

Key Statements

The central statement in this document is:

Because its contents relate to a matter currently in litigation, the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.

This statement confirms that Sukagawa City adopted the course of entrusting the matter to legal counsel on the ground that the Written Questions and Request dated April 10 related to pending litigation.

On the other hand, the response does not expressly state that Sukagawa City refused to answer the questions or respond to the requests.

Nor does it make any substantive determination that “no human rights violation occurred,” that “the legal claims presented in the Written Questions and Request were unfounded,” or that “corrective measures were unnecessary.”

Accordingly, the response should not immediately be interpreted as a legal rejection of the request for remedies.

Rather, it is necessary to confirm accurately that the response itself does not present a substantive determination, or the reasons for any determination, concerning the existence of human rights violations or the necessity of a remedy.

There is nothing inherently improper about a public institution seeking legal advice or entrusting legal counsel with the handling of pending litigation.

It may also be reasonable, to some extent, for a public institution to avoid making careless statements concerning pending litigation and to respond in consultation with legal counsel.

However, the Written Questions and Request did not merely seek arguments or responses to be made in the pending litigation.

It identified specific facts and legal standards concerning the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence.

It also asked Sukagawa City to provide the legal grounds supporting its previous conduct, to state whether it continued to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation, to state whether it considered that it had fulfilled the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, and to state whether it intended to implement corrective measures within its authority.

Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR does not require that every remedy requested by an applicant must always be granted exactly as requested.

It does, however, require that an effective remedy be ensured for a person whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated, and that the right to such a remedy be determined by competent judicial, administrative, or legislative authorities, or by another competent authority provided for by the domestic legal system.

The issue in this case is therefore not limited to whether Sukagawa City granted the remedies requested by the applicant.

The issue is whether the specific allegations of violations, the legal grounds, and the requested remedies were subjected to an investigation and to a substantive determination concerning the rights involved and the necessity of a remedy by a competent public authority.

A lawyer may provide legal advice to the City or act as its representative in pending litigation.

However, seeking advice from or delegating matters to legal counsel is not the same as the executive organ of Sukagawa City making an official determination regarding matters within the City’s authority and deciding and implementing the necessary administrative measures.

Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act does not directly impose a duty to provide individual and specific answers to every question submitted by a resident.

Its significance in this case lies in identifying the executive organ itself as the body responsible for faithfully managing and executing matters within the authority of Sukagawa City on its own judgment and responsibility.

The fact that a matter was “entrusted to legal counsel” therefore does not, by itself, reveal what investigation and decision Sukagawa City itself made regarding matters within its authority, or whether the City decided not to make a substantive determination.

The authority to withdraw the series of resignation recommendation resolutions or correct the official records of the Council fundamentally belongs to the Sukagawa City Council rather than to the Mayor of Sukagawa City.

However, this does not necessarily eliminate the need for Sukagawa City to investigate and make determinations concerning its own legal consultation, its administrative conduct, its official position, records managed by the City, and corrective measures available within its authority.

Even in relation to matters outside the City’s authority, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR raises the question of which institution possesses the relevant authority and how a determination by that competent institution was ensured.

The allocation of authority among public institutions, litigation strategy, and the delegation of matters to legal counsel may affect the method by which an investigation or response is conducted.

However, if such internal circumstances mean that no competent institution is required to make a substantive determination concerning the existence of a violation or the necessity of a remedy, the requirements of an effective remedy and a determination of rights under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR would lose their practical meaning.

Furthermore, Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan requires the treaties concluded by Japan and the established laws of nations to be faithfully observed.

Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties（VCLT）establishes the principle that treaties in force must be performed in good faith, while Article 27 does not permit a party to invoke its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

In relation to these provisions, the question arises whether the domestic allocation of authority, the existence of pending litigation, litigation strategy, or the delegation of matters to legal counsel can justify a situation in which the system of effective remedies required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR does not function.

In particular, the second question in the Written Questions and Request dated April 10 asked Sukagawa City whether it still adopted as its official position the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation to the effect that:

Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.

However, this response does not state whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain that interpretation, withdrew it, or considered that it was not the City’s official position.

The third question also asked whether Sukagawa City considered that its response stating that the 2025 request for correction had been “handled appropriately” fulfilled the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.

No specific answer to that question appears in this response.

Accordingly, this document is not a record showing what substantive determination Sukagawa City made after being presented with international human rights standards and a specific request for remedies.

Rather, it is a document confirming that, at that time, Sukagawa City responded by stating that the matter was “currently in litigation” and had been “entrusted to legal counsel.”

Questions Raised by the Document

1. How was the pending residents’ lawsuit considered to relate to the questions and the request for remedies as a whole?

The response does not identify the name or case number of the pending litigation.

However, in light of the timing and the subsequent related documents, the phrase “matter currently in litigation” appears to refer to the residents’ lawsuit pending at the time.

That residents’ lawsuit concerned alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters.

By contrast, the Written Questions and Request dated April 10 concerned the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence, the City’s official position, the legal grounds for its previous administrative conduct, and the necessity of an effective remedy.

Sukagawa City did not explain how each question and request related to the residents’ lawsuit or why the entire matter was dealt with by entrusting it to legal counsel.

2. What matters were entrusted to legal counsel, and what was the scope of that delegation?

It cannot be determined from the response whether legal counsel was entrusted only with handling the residents’ lawsuit, whether preparation of the response to the Written Questions and Request was included, or whether the investigation of the alleged human rights violations, the legal assessment, and the determination of the need for corrective measures were also included.

What matters were delegated to legal counsel, and how was the scope of that delegation defined?

3. What investigation and decision did Sukagawa City itself make concerning the existence of human rights violations and the necessity of a remedy?

This response was issued in the name of the Mayor of Sukagawa City.

However, it does not state what investigation, examination, or determination Sukagawa City itself conducted regarding the facts of the alleged violations and the legal grounds presented in the Written Questions and Request.

Did the City receive advice from legal counsel and then make its own substantive determination?

Or did it decide not to make a substantive determination itself because the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel?

4. Did Sukagawa City consider that this response completed its handling of the five questions?

The Written Questions and Request dated April 10 asked about compliance with international human rights standards, the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation, the relationship between the City’s previous response and its obligation to provide an effective remedy, the application of the Articles on State Responsibility, and the assertion that failure to provide a remedy could itself constitute a separate violation.

This response provides neither an individual answer nor specific legal grounds concerning any of those questions.

Did Sukagawa City intend to answer those questions separately, or did it consider that this response completed its handling of them?

5. How were the three requests handled?

In addition to requesting a written response, the Written Questions and Request dated April 10 requested that, if the human rights violations and the need for correction were acknowledged, measures be taken to withdraw the resolutions, delete or correct the official records, and restore the person’s reputation publicly.

Even if the Mayor of Sukagawa City lacked authority to withdraw a resolution adopted by the City Council directly, the City could distinguish between matters within its own authority and matters within the authority of the City Council or another institution.

The response does not state whether each request was accepted, rejected, remained under consideration, or was referred for determination by another competent authority.

6. Does Sukagawa City continue to maintain as its official position the interpretation that there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt?

The Written Questions and Request dated April 10 asked whether Sukagawa City continued to adopt as its official position the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation to the effect that:

Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.

An arrest is not a finding of guilt, and the presumption of innocence does not cease to apply because a person has been arrested, detained, or indicted.

Does Sukagawa City continue to maintain this interpretation, has it withdrawn the interpretation, or has it determined that the interpretation was not the City’s official position?

7. How does the decision to entrust the matter to legal counsel relate to the judgment and responsibility of the executive organ itself?

Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act requires the executive organ of an ordinary local public entity to manage and execute the affairs of that local public entity faithfully, on its own judgment and responsibility.

Consulting legal counsel or entrusting litigation matters to legal counsel does not in itself contravene this provision.

However, such delegation does not transfer the executive organ’s own status as the body responsible for making decisions.

After receiving advice or assistance from legal counsel, what factual findings, legal assessments, and official decisions did Sukagawa City make concerning matters within its authority?

8. If a determination on remedies is not made because of circumstances internal to public institutions, how are the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR ensured?

Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR requires that an effective remedy be ensured for a person whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated and that the right to such a remedy be determined by competent judicial, administrative, legislative, or other authorities.

It does not require that every remedy requested by an applicant must always be granted.

It does, however, presuppose that a specific allegation of a rights violation will be investigated and that a competent authority will determine whether a violation occurred and whether a remedy is required.

This response does not establish whether Sukagawa City made a substantive determination concerning the existence of human rights violations and the necessity of a remedy, or whether it ensured a determination by another competent authority.

If the existence of pending litigation, the delegation of the matter to legal counsel, the domestic allocation of authority, or other internal circumstances of public institutions mean that no competent institution is required to make a substantive determination on the request for remedies, the requirements of an effective remedy and a determination of rights under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR would effectively be deprived of meaning.

If the failure to realize the treaty obligation to provide a remedy may be justified by domestic institutional arrangements, the allocation of authority, or administrative convenience, how can that position be reconciled with Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 26 of the VCLT, which require treaties to be performed in good faith?

Furthermore, Article 27 of the VCLT provides that even domestic law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

In light of that rule, can the failure to make a determination on remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR be justified by administrative or litigation-management policies that stand below domestic law?

Relevant Legal Standards

Domestic Law

Article 98, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan

This provision establishes the Constitution of Japan as the supreme law of the nation and provides that no law, ordinance, imperial rescript, or other act of government contrary to it has legal force or validity.

The question in this case is whether the administrative handling and official responses of a local public entity must also comply with the Constitution and the human rights it protects.

Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan

This provision requires the treaties concluded by Japan and the established laws of nations to be faithfully observed.

The question in this case is how the obligations arising under Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR were faithfully fulfilled through concrete investigation, determination, and remedial measures by national and local public authorities.

Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act

This provision requires the executive organ of an ordinary local public entity to manage and execute the affairs of that local public entity faithfully, on its own judgment and responsibility.

It does not directly establish a duty to provide an individual response to every question submitted by a resident.

The question in this case is what investigation, determination, management, and execution the executive organ itself carried out concerning matters within Sukagawa City’s authority in response to a request for remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.

International Human Rights Treaty — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）

Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

This provision requires that an effective remedy be ensured for a person whose rights or freedoms under the ICCPR have been violated, that the right to such a remedy be determined by competent judicial, administrative, or legislative authorities, or by another competent authority provided for by the domestic legal system, and that remedies granted be enforced by the competent authorities.

The question in this case is whether, after receiving a specific allegation of human rights violations and a request for remedies, an investigation, a determination of the rights involved, and the implementation of any necessary remedy by a competent authority were ensured.

Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

This provision guarantees that 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 what investigation and legal assessment Sukagawa City conducted in response to the claim that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions adopted before the criminal judgment became final, and the public assessments associated with them, violated the presumption of innocence.

General Comment No. 31, paragraph 4

This paragraph indicates that all branches of government, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and other public or governmental authorities at the national, regional, and local levels are involved in fulfilling the obligations under the ICCPR.

It also indicates that the internal allocation 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 can automatically exclude itself from issues concerning investigation and remedies under the ICCPR on the ground that it is a local public entity or that the resolutions at issue were adopted by the City Council.

General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15

This paragraph indicates that allegations of violations of rights under the ICCPR must be investigated promptly, thoroughly, and effectively.

It also indicates that 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 Sukagawa City conducted after receiving the Written Questions and Request setting out the specific facts of the alleged violations and their legal grounds.

General Comment No. 31, paragraph 16

This paragraph indicates that appropriate reparation must be provided to a person 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, 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 how Sukagawa City considered correction of official records, restoration of reputation, public apology, and measures to prevent recurrence within the scope of its authority.

General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30

This paragraph indicates that the presumption of innocence is fundamental to the protection of human rights and that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.

The question in this case is what substantive determination Sukagawa City made in response to a request for remedies concerning public treatment as guilty before the criminal judgment became final.

Standards Concerning the Performance and Interpretation of Treaties

Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties（VCLT）

This provision establishes that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith.

The question in this case is whether the obligations arising under Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR were performed in good faith through concrete responses by domestic public authorities.

Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties（VCLT）

This provision establishes that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

The question in this case is whether the local government system, the domestic allocation of authority between Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council, the existence of pending litigation, or the delegation of the matter to legal counsel can justify the absence of an investigation and a determination on remedies by a competent authority.

Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts

This provision indicates that 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.

It also 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 administrative handling and response of Sukagawa City relate to Japan’s obligations under the ICCPR and to the international responsibility of the State.

※ Detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the relationship among these standards will be examined in the section addressing the legal claims and the structure of the alleged constitutional and legal violations.

Relevance to This Case

On April 3, 2025, the person concerned requested that Sukagawa City investigate the series of resignation recommendation resolutions in relation to the Constitution and the ICCPR and implement corrective measures.

Officials connected with Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council subsequently obtained legal consultation on April 19, 2025, concerning how to respond to the request.

During that legal consultation, an interpretation was expressed to the effect that:

Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.

An internal document also recorded a policy on the City side not to take various measures based on the contents of the request.

On April 28, 2025, Sukagawa City issued a response stating in substance that the request had been “handled appropriately.”

However, that response did not specifically identify what investigation had been conducted, which legal standards had been applied, or what determination had been made regarding the human rights violations and the necessity of corrective measures.

The person concerned therefore submitted a Written Questions and Request to the Mayor of Sukagawa City and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council on April 10, 2026.

That document specifically cited Article 14, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, General Comments Nos. 31 and 32, the VCLT, the Articles on State Responsibility, and Article 98, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution of Japan.

Through five questions and three requests, it asked for the legal grounds supporting the previous response, whether the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation was still maintained, whether Sukagawa City considered that it had fulfilled its obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, and whether it intended to withdraw the resolutions, correct the official records, restore the person’s reputation, or take other measures.

The present document was issued in response.

It stated that the contents of the Written Questions and Request related to a matter currently in litigation and had therefore been entrusted to legal counsel.

However, it did not provide individual answers to the five questions, state how the three requests had been handled, specify the scope of the matters entrusted to legal counsel, identify any factual investigation or legal determination made by Sukagawa City itself, or explain how a determination on remedies by another competent authority had been ensured.

Following this response, on May 8, 2026, the person concerned submitted to the Mayor of Sukagawa City a document titled “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures.”

That document set out the relationship between the obligations of investigation, determination, and remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, and the judgment and responsibility of the executive organ itself under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.

It requested specific legal grounds for the position that Sukagawa City itself was permitted not to conduct a substantive investigation, make a determination, or implement corrective measures because the matter was pending in court or had been entrusted to legal counsel.

On May 20, 2026, Sukagawa City responded that the Legal Affairs Bureau served as the receiving office for applications for relief from human rights violations and that, regarding the request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures, the City’s position remained as stated in its response dated April 23.

This document therefore occupies an intermediate position between the 2025 response stating that the matter had been “handled appropriately” and the renewed request in May 2026 expressly citing Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and the City’s subsequent response.

It is also an important document confirming that, after Sukagawa City had been presented with the specific facts of the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence, a request for an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, and the obligations of good-faith treaty performance under Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and the VCLT, it responded by referring to the existence of pending litigation and the delegation of the matter to legal counsel rather than presenting a substantive determination concerning the existence of the rights violation and the necessity of a remedy.

The ultimate issue in this case is not limited to whether Sukagawa City granted the requested remedies.

The issue is whether, despite being presented with specific facts of a rights violation and the legal grounds for an effective remedy, no competent authority was required to make a substantive determination concerning the existence of the violation and the necessity of a remedy because of the allocation of authority among public institutions, litigation strategy, or the delegation of the matter to legal counsel.

If such handling were permitted, the requirements under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR concerning an effective remedy, determination of the right to such a remedy by a competent authority, and enforcement of remedies would not function in practice.

The document therefore also raises the question of whether justifying that situation by reference to domestic institutional arrangements or circumstances internal to public institutions is compatible with the good-faith performance of treaties required by Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Articles 26 and 27 of the VCLT.

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

Evidence Documents

Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality

Contact

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.