Document Issued by the Sukagawa City Council—Response Stating That the Council Was Not an Institution That Provides Legal Interpretations and That the Matter Had Been Entrusted to Legal Counsel

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 Gi No. 20

Date:
April 23, 2026

Created by:
Sukagawa City Council

Issuer:
Ryoji Sato, Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council

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 Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council 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 Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council 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 Gi No. 20,” and the office responsible is identified as the Proceedings and Research Section of the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat.

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

With regard to the Written Questions and Request submitted on April 10, 2026, the Council understands that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations, and because the contents relate to a matter currently in litigation, the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.

The document therefore confirms that the Sukagawa City Council responded that, first, it understood that the Council was not an institution that provides legal interpretations and, second, because the contents of the Written Questions and Request dated April 10 related to a matter currently in litigation, the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.

The Written Questions and Request to which this response relates did not seek general or abstract legal advice.

That document presented a specific claim that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council in 2011 and 2012, together with 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 as a whole contained five questions and three requests.

However, the second and fourth questions were directed to Sukagawa City and sought its views concerning the interpretation expressed during its legal consultation and the international legal responsibility of a local public entity. They did not directly request answers from the Sukagawa City Council.

By contrast, the specific legal grounds for maintaining the resignation recommendation resolutions and their publication, whether the response in 2025 fulfilled the obligation to provide an effective remedy, the Council’s view on the assertion that failure to provide a remedy itself constituted a separate issue, and the requested withdrawal of the resolutions, correction of the official records, and public restoration of reputation were matters directly connected to the judgment and authority of the Sukagawa City Council.

However, this response does not provide individual answers to the questions relevant to the Sukagawa City Council.

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, state how the examination of the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council itself, the handling of the official records, and the necessity of corrective measures were 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 responding to the residents’ lawsuit, whether legal advice was sought, whether preparation of the response to the Written Questions and Request was delegated, or whether even the factual investigation, legal assessment, and determination of the necessity of corrective measures that the Council itself might undertake were entrusted to legal counsel.

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

Nor does it indicate what decision the Sukagawa City Council made concerning the existence of human rights violations, the necessity of an effective remedy, or measures available within the Council’s authority, including withdrawal of the resolutions, correction of the official records, and restoration of reputation.

Key Statements

The central statement in this document is:

The Council understands that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations, and because the contents relate to a matter currently in litigation, the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.

This response adds a reason that does not appear in the response issued by Sukagawa City on the same date:

The Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations.

It is not disputed that a local council is not a court and is not an institution that provides final and authoritative interpretations of general or abstract legal questions.

Nor does a council have a general obligation to act as a legal consultation body and answer every legal question submitted by a resident.

However, the Written Questions and Request did not seek general or abstract legal advice.

It requested that the Sukagawa City Council investigate whether the resignation recommendation resolutions that it had itself adopted, the reasons and deliberative process underlying those resolutions, and the official records that continue to be maintained were compatible with the Constitution, the ICCPR, and other applicable legal standards, and that it determine whether corrective measures were required.

In 2011 and 2012, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and formed an official position as a council based on facts and assessments concerning the criminal case, even though the criminal responsibility of the person concerned had not yet been established.

Even if the resignation recommendation resolutions were political or ethical expressions of opinion rather than judicial determinations establishing criminal responsibility, the Council made certain assessments concerning the criminal case and publicly concluded that the person concerned should resign as a council member.

In particular, in connection with the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution of December 1, 2011, the Council presented the assessment that the person concerned had admitted to drunk driving and characterized his explanation that he would wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign as “contrary to social justice.”

The Sukagawa City Council therefore assessed facts relating to the criminal case and made a normative assessment of the conduct of the person concerned before his criminal responsibility had been established, and then adopted an official decision calling for his resignation.

When the constitutional and treaty compatibility of those resolutions was later specifically questioned, merely stating that “the Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations” does not explain why the Council should not investigate the resolutions it adopted, explain the grounds for its decision, re-examine that decision, and determine whether corrective measures are required.

If the Council adopted the resolutions after examining the relevant facts and legal standards at the time, it should be able to explain its decision-making process and the grounds on which it acted.

Conversely, if the Council made an official decision based on a criminal case in which criminal responsibility had not yet been established without examining the relevant facts and legal standards, the propriety of that decision-making process itself becomes an issue.

For a public institution to ensure that its own conduct complies with the law, it must identify the applicable legal standards, apply them to its own conduct, and assess the legal compatibility of that conduct.

The fact that a council is not a general legal consultation body is therefore not the same as saying that it need not investigate or determine whether its own resolutions complied with applicable law.

The response does not expressly state that the Council 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 “withdrawal of the resolutions or correction of the official records was 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 whether the Council’s own resolutions caused human rights violations or whether remedies were required.

There is nothing inherently improper about the Council seeking legal advice or entrusting legal counsel with matters relating to pending litigation.

It may also be reasonable, to some extent, for the Council to avoid making careless statements concerning pending litigation and to respond with the benefit of legal advice.

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 the Sukagawa City Council to provide the legal grounds for maintaining the resolutions it had adopted and their publication, to state whether it considered that it had fulfilled the obligation to provide an effective remedy, and to state whether it intended to withdraw the resolutions, correct the official records, restore the person’s reputation, or implement other corrective measures.

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.

A local council does not necessarily possess authority, as a “competent legislative or other authority” within the meaning of that provision, to provide every form of remedy for every human rights violation.

However, the Sukagawa City Council is the institution that itself adopted the resignation recommendation resolutions at issue, and it is in a position to determine the handling of the Council’s official records and public assessments and the corrective measures available within its authority.

The issue in this case is therefore not limited to whether the Sukagawa City Council 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 the Council that adopted the resolutions or by another competent public authority.

A lawyer may provide legal advice to the Council or assist it in responding to pending litigation.

However, seeking advice from or delegating matters to legal counsel is not the same as the Sukagawa City Council, acting as a deliberative organ, making an official determination concerning the legal compatibility of the resolutions it adopted and the necessity of corrective measures.

Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the council of an ordinary local public entity shall decide matters concerning important decisions of that local public entity and shall exercise powers of inspection, investigation, and other powers prescribed by law.

Article 89, paragraph 3 requires council members, who hold a mandate from the residents, to perform their duties faithfully so as to contribute to the appropriate exercise of the Council’s powers.

These provisions do not directly impose upon the Council a duty to provide answers to general requests for legal advice.

Their significance in this case lies in showing that the Council is not merely an institution that communicates the response of an outside lawyer. It is itself the body that decides important matters, conducts necessary inspections and investigations, and exercises its own authority.

Furthermore, Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12 of the Local Autonomy Act designates certain administrative appeals, institution of actions, settlements, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration involving an ordinary local public entity as matters requiring a council resolution.

This provision does not mean that a local council makes final judicial determinations in the same manner as a court.

It does, however, demonstrate that a council is not an institution that never makes decisions concerning legal disputes or legal rights and obligations. In certain circumstances, it occupies an institutional position in which it makes decisions based on legal assessment.

Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act also provides that a council may have persons with relevant academic knowledge or experience investigate specialized matters necessary for the examination of bills or the investigation of the affairs of the local public entity.

That provision does not directly require a specialized investigation in every case.

It does, however, demonstrate that the need for specialized or legal knowledge does not make examination by the Council itself institutionally impossible and that the Council may conduct an investigation using specialized expertise when necessary.

Accordingly, the facts that “the Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations” and that the matter was “entrusted to legal counsel” do not, by themselves, reveal what factual investigation, legal assessment, or determination on corrective measures the Sukagawa City Council made concerning the resolutions it had adopted, or whether the Council decided not to make a substantive determination.

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, including the Council that adopted the resolutions, 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 institutional characterization that the Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations, the domestic allocation of authority, the existence of pending litigation, 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.

Accordingly, this document is not a record showing what substantive determination the Sukagawa City Council 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, the Sukagawa City Council responded by stating that it was “not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” that the matter was “currently in litigation,” and that it had been “entrusted to legal counsel.”

Questions Raised by the Document

1. Is it consistent for the Council, after deciding on resignation recommendation resolutions based on a criminal case, to state that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations when the legal compatibility of those resolutions is questioned?

The Sukagawa City Council adopted the series of resignation recommendation resolutions based on facts and assessments concerning the criminal case before the criminal responsibility of the person concerned had been established.

In particular, in connection with the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution, the Council presented the assessment that the person concerned had admitted to drunk driving and characterized his explanation that he would wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign as “contrary to social justice.”

Even if the resignation recommendation resolutions were not judicial determinations establishing criminal responsibility, it cannot be denied that the Council made certain assessments concerning the criminal case and formed an official position that the person concerned should resign as a council member.

When the constitutional and treaty compatibility of those resolutions was later questioned, is it consistent with the Council’s earlier decision-making for it to state that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations and then provide no substantive investigation or determination?

If the Council considers itself to have no role in making legal assessments, how does it justify having adopted public resignation recommendation resolutions concerning the conduct and political status of the person concerned based on a criminal case in which his criminal responsibility had not yet been established?

2. How was the pending residents’ lawsuit considered to relate to the questions and requests for remedies directed to the Council?

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 resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council itself, the continued maintenance of the official records, and the necessity of an effective remedy.

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

3. 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 responding to the residents’ lawsuit, whether preparation of the response to the Written Questions and Request was included, or whether the factual investigation concerning the resignation recommendation resolutions, 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?

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

This response was issued in the name of the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council.

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

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

Or did it decide not to make a substantive determination itself because it was not an institution that provides legal interpretations and because the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel?

5. Did the Sukagawa City Council consider that this response completed its handling of the questions relevant to the Council?

The Written Questions and Request dated April 10 contained five questions in total.

The second and fourth questions were directed to Sukagawa City.

However, the Sukagawa City Council was also asked to provide the specific legal grounds for maintaining the resignation recommendation resolutions and their publication, to explain the relationship between its previous response and the obligation to provide an effective remedy, and to state its position regarding the assertion that failure to provide a remedy itself constituted a separate issue.

This response provides neither individual answers nor specific legal grounds concerning those questions relevant to the Council.

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

6. 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 resignation recommendation resolutions, delete or correct the official records, and restore the person’s reputation publicly.

These matters directly concern the authority and public responsibility of the Sukagawa City Council, which adopted the resolutions.

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

7. How do the statements that the Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations and that the matter was entrusted to legal counsel relate to the Council’s decision-making and investigative powers and responsibilities under the Local Autonomy Act?

Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that a council shall decide matters concerning important decisions and exercise powers of inspection, investigation, and other powers.

Article 89, paragraph 3 requires council members, who hold a mandate from the residents, to perform their duties faithfully so as to contribute to the appropriate exercise of the Council’s powers.

Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12 of the Local Autonomy Act designates certain legal disputes involving an ordinary local public entity as matters requiring a council resolution.

This provision does not mean that a council makes final judicial determinations in the same manner as a court, but it demonstrates that a council is not an institution that never makes decisions concerning legal disputes or legal rights and obligations.

Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act also provides that a council may have persons with relevant academic knowledge or experience investigate specialized matters when it considers such an investigation necessary.

The fact that specialized legal examination may be required therefore does not mean that investigation and determination by the Council itself are institutionally impossible.

Consulting legal counsel or entrusting matters relating to pending litigation to legal counsel does not in itself contravene these provisions.

However, such delegation does not transfer the Council’s own status as the body responsible for investigation, deliberation, and decision-making.

After receiving advice or assistance from legal counsel, what factual findings, legal assessments, and official decisions did the Sukagawa City Council make concerning the resolutions it adopted and the corrective measures available 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 the Sukagawa City Council 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 Council’s understanding that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations, 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 internal administrative policy, 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 the Council’s internal understanding or by litigation-management policies?

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 resolutions adopted by a local council, the continued maintenance of their official records, and the Council’s subsequent responses 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 89, paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act

This provision states that the council of an ordinary local public entity shall decide matters concerning important decisions of that local public entity and shall exercise powers of inspection, investigation, and other powers prescribed by law.

It does not directly impose upon the Council a duty to answer general requests for legal advice.

The question in this case is what investigation, deliberation, and decision-making the Sukagawa City Council carried out concerning the resignation recommendation resolutions it adopted, the official records of those resolutions, and corrective measures available within the Council’s authority.

Article 89, paragraph 3 of the Local Autonomy Act

This provision requires council members, who hold a mandate from the residents, to perform their duties faithfully so as to contribute to the appropriate exercise of the Council’s powers.

The question in this case is what investigation and determination the Council and its members, acting under the mandate of the residents, undertook concerning the legal compatibility of the resolutions they adopted and the necessity of corrective measures after receiving a specific allegation of human rights violations and a request for remedies.

Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12 of the Local Autonomy Act

This provision designates certain administrative appeals, institution of actions, settlements, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration involving an ordinary local public entity as matters requiring a council resolution.

It does not mean that a local council makes final judicial determinations in the same manner as a court.

It does, however, demonstrate that a council is not an institution that never makes decisions concerning legal disputes or legal rights and obligations and that, in certain circumstances, it occupies an institutional position in which it makes decisions based on legal assessment.

The question in this case is whether the fact that the Sukagawa City Council is not an institution that finally and authoritatively determines legal interpretations provides a reason for it not to investigate or determine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resolutions it adopted.

Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act

This provision states that a council may have persons with relevant academic knowledge or experience investigate specialized matters necessary for the examination of bills or the investigation of the affairs of the local public entity.

It does not directly require a specialized investigation in every case.

It does, however, demonstrate that the Council possesses an institutional means of conducting an investigation with the benefit of specialized expertise when examination concerning the Constitution or international human rights law is required.

The question in this case is whether the Council may decline to investigate and re-examine the legal compatibility of the resolutions it adopted merely by stating that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations.

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, including the Council that adopted the resolutions, 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 the Sukagawa City Council conducted in response to the claim that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions it 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 the Sukagawa City Council can automatically exclude itself from issues concerning investigation and remedies under the ICCPR on the ground that it is a local council or that it understands itself not to be an institution that provides legal interpretations.

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 the Sukagawa City Council 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 the Sukagawa City Council considered withdrawal of the resignation recommendation resolutions, correction of the 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 the Sukagawa City Council, which adopted the resolutions, 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, including local councils.

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 Council’s understanding that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations, 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 resolutions, administrative handling, and response of the Sukagawa City Council 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 submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council requesting an independent examination of the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the implementation of any necessary corrective measures.

The Sukagawa City Council subsequently discussed how to handle the petition and the requests for correction at meetings including a conference of political group representatives and meetings of the Council Steering Committee.

Officials connected with Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council also obtained legal consultation on April 19, 2025, concerning how to respond to the requests for correction.

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.

The person concerned subsequently 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 for maintaining the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and their publication, whether the previous handling fulfilled the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, the Council’s position regarding the assertion that failure to provide a remedy itself constituted a separate issue, and whether the Council intended to withdraw the resolutions, correct the official records, restore the person’s reputation, or take other measures.

The second and fourth questions in that document were directed specifically to Sukagawa City and must be distinguished from the questions directed to the Sukagawa City Council.

The present document was issued in response.

It stated that the Sukagawa City Council understood that it was not an institution that provides legal interpretations and that, because the contents of the Written Questions and Request related to a matter currently in litigation, the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.

However, it did not provide individual answers to the questions relevant to the Sukagawa City Council, 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 the Council 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 a further request to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council expressly citing Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12, Article 100-2, and other provisions of the Local Autonomy Act.

That request reiterated that the Written Questions and Request did not seek general or abstract legal advice but requested that the Sukagawa City Council investigate the legal compatibility of the resolutions it had itself adopted and determine whether corrective measures were required.

It also pointed out that, because the Sukagawa City Council had adopted the resignation recommendation resolutions based on assessments concerning a criminal case before criminal responsibility had been established, it was necessary for the Council to explain and re-examine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of those resolutions.

The request further stated that Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12 of the Local Autonomy Act designates certain matters concerning legal disputes and legal rights and obligations as matters requiring a council resolution, and that Article 100-2 establishes a system under which the Council may have persons with relevant academic knowledge or experience investigate specialized matters when necessary.

It therefore stated that the fact that the Council was not a court or a general legal consultation body was separate from the question of whether it should investigate, re-examine, and consider corrective measures concerning the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resignation recommendation resolutions it had itself adopted.

On the same date, a separate formal petition was submitted to the Sukagawa City Council requesting investigation, deliberation, correction, and measures to prevent recurrence concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.

The request and the petition are documents of different legal and procedural character and must not be conflated.

On May 20, 2026, the Sukagawa City Council responded to the request dated May 8 by stating that its position remained as set out in its response dated April 23.

That response dated May 20 concerned the request submitted on May 8. It does not, by itself, indicate how the separate petition submitted on the same date was handled internally by the Council.

This document therefore occupies an intermediate position between the requests for correction and legal consultation in 2025 and the renewed request in May 2026 expressly citing Articles 89, 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act, followed by the Council’s subsequent response.

It is also an important document confirming that, after the Sukagawa City Council 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 stating that it was not an institution that provides legal interpretations, that the matter was in litigation, and that it had been entrusted 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 the Sukagawa City Council granted the requested remedies.

The issue is whether the Council that adopted the resolutions may decline to make a substantive determination concerning the existence of a violation and the necessity of a remedy on the ground that it does not consider itself an institution that provides legal interpretations, that litigation is pending, or that the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel, despite having been presented with specific facts of a rights violation and the legal grounds for an effective remedy.

The Sukagawa City Council made assessments concerning a criminal case before criminal responsibility had been established and formed an official position that the person concerned should resign as a council member.

If that same Council later declines to make a substantive determination when the constitutional and treaty compatibility of those resolutions is questioned, on the ground that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations, the consistency between the assessments made when the resolutions were adopted and the Council’s subsequent position concerning explanation and re-examination becomes an issue.

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 in relation to violations committed by a local council.

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.