Document Addressed to the Sukagawa City Council—Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures

Overview of the Document

Document title:
Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures

Date prepared:
May 8, 2026

Prepared by:
Toshio Tsumuraya

Submitted to:
Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council

Date submitted:
May 8, 2026

Method of acquisition:
Copy retained by the person concerned after submission to the Sukagawa City Council

Document type:
Application for relief from human rights violations and request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures, together with a copy bearing the receipt stamp

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

Original Japanese PDF:

View Fullscreen

Facts Confirmed by This Document

This document is a written application submitted to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council on May 8, 2026, following the response titled “Regarding the Written Questions and Request (Response),” issued by the Sukagawa City Council on April 23, 2026.

The document consists of eight pages and is titled “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures.”

The first page bears the Sukagawa City Council’s receipt stamp dated May 8, 2026, confirming that the Council received the document on that date.

The document was submitted directly in response to the Sukagawa City Council’s statement in its April 23 response that:

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 explains that it did not ask the Council to issue a final judicial determination like a court.

Rather, it requested that the Sukagawa City Council investigate and re-examine the series of resignation recommendation resolutions it had itself adopted, determine whether corrective measures were required, and, if it would not conduct such an examination or implement such measures, identify the specific legal grounds for that position.

The document cites Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Local Autonomy Act and points out that a council is an institution that decides matters concerning important decisions, exercises powers of inspection and investigation and other powers, and that council members must perform their duties faithfully under the mandate entrusted to them by residents.

It also cites Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12 of the Local Autonomy Act and points out that certain administrative appeals, institution of actions, settlements, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and other matters involving an ordinary local public entity are designated as matters requiring a council resolution.

The document further cites Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and points out that, where a council considers it necessary for its examination or investigation, it may have persons with relevant academic knowledge or experience investigate specialized matters.

Based on these provisions, the document argues that the Sukagawa City Council is not an institution that refrains from making all determinations concerning legal disputes or legal rights and obligations, and that it occupies an institutional position in which it may conduct investigations and examinations using specialized knowledge when necessary.

The document characterizes the residents’ lawsuit pending at the time as a proceeding concerning alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters.

By contrast, it explains that the Written Questions and Request dated April 10, 2026, and the present document concern the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence resulting from the series of resignation recommendation resolutions adopted in 2011 and 2012, as well as the subsequent failure to re-examine, correct, and provide remedies for those violations.

The document therefore states that the residents’ lawsuit and the Written Questions and Request and the present application differ in both their subject matter and purpose.

It asks the Sukagawa City Council to identify the specific legal grounds for avoiding a substantive determination concerning the alleged human rights violations and their re-examination, correction, and remedies on the ground that the residents’ lawsuit remained pending.

The principal legal standards cited in the document include Article 98, paragraph 2 and Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan; Article 14, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30; General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17; Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT); and Articles 89, 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.

The document argues that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions amounted to the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, effectively treating the person concerned as guilty before his criminal responsibility had been established, and that the resolutions were incompatible with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.

Regarding the First Resignation Recommendation Resolution, the document points out that it was adopted on October 26, 2011, while the person concerned was under arrest and detention and before he had been indicted, on the ground that he had been “arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.”

Regarding the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution, the document points out that it was adopted on December 1, 2011, after indictment but before the criminal judgment became final, and that it declared that “committing drunk driving was beyond the pale” and characterized the person’s explanation that he would wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign as “contrary to social justice.”

The document argues that, even if a resignation recommendation resolution is an expression of opinion without legally binding force, that fact does not mean that the resolution complies with the Constitution and the ICCPR.

It also states that the autonomy of a council permits a certain degree of discretion concerning the Council’s internal procedures and operation, but does not justify publicly treating a person whose criminal responsibility has not yet been established as guilty or violating the presumption of innocence.

The document does not deny that the Council may consult legal counsel or entrust legal counsel with acting as its representative.

It points out, however, that doing so does not extinguish the Council’s own duty to explain, its responsibility to re-examine its actions, or the council members’ duty to perform their functions faithfully.

The document contains eight matters on which a response was requested from the Sukagawa City Council.

It also contains seven requests for measures to be taken by the Council.

The document requested that the Council provide a written response to the eight matters within 14 days of receipt and implement the necessary corrective measures.

Important Statements

The central feature of this document is that it directly challenges the Sukagawa City Council’s explanation that:

The Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations.

It argues that this explanation does not provide a reason for the Council not to investigate and re-examine the legal compatibility of the resignation recommendation resolutions it had itself adopted.

The document does not dispute that a local council is not a court and does not issue final judicial determinations on general or abstract legal questions.

However, it explains that the Written Questions and Request dated April 10 did not seek a final determination equivalent to a judicial judgment.

It constituted an exercise of rights under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and requested that the Sukagawa City Council investigate, re-examine, correct, and determine whether remedies were required concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions that the Council had itself adopted.

The document points out that, in 2011 and 2012, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and formed an official public position based on assessments concerning the criminal case, even though the criminal responsibility of the person concerned had not yet been established.

It therefore takes the position that:

Since the Council adopted resolutions based on an assessment concerning a criminal case, it bears responsibility, as a council, to explain and re-examine whether those resolutions complied with the Constitution and the applicable treaty obligations.

The document further states:

If the Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations or legal determinations, the fact that it adopted the series of resignation recommendation resolutions based on the criminal case of the applicant before his criminal responsibility had been established itself becomes an issue.

This point addresses the asymmetry between the Sukagawa City Council’s April 23 response and the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted in 2011 and 2012.

When adopting the resignation recommendation resolutions, the Council assessed facts concerning the criminal case and the conduct of the person concerned and formed an official public position that he should resign as a council member.

However, when the constitutional and treaty compatibility of those resolutions was later questioned, the Council did not provide a substantive determination, stating instead that it was not an institution that provides legal interpretations.

Even if the resignation recommendation resolutions were political or ethical expressions of opinion rather than judicial determinations establishing criminal responsibility, it cannot be denied that the Sukagawa City Council made factual and normative assessments concerning the criminal case and adopted an official public decision calling for resignation.

The document therefore presents the following structure.

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

Conversely, if it adopted an official public position based on a criminal case in which criminal responsibility had not yet been established without sufficient examination, the propriety of the decision-making process itself becomes an issue.

The document connects this issue to the powers and institutional capacity of a council under the Local Autonomy Act.

It treats Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Local Autonomy Act as provisions demonstrating that the Sukagawa City Council is the body responsible for making important decisions and conducting necessary inspections and investigations, and that council members bear a responsibility to perform their duties faithfully under the mandate of the residents.

It uses Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12 of the Local Autonomy Act to demonstrate that a local council is not an institution that refrains from making all determinations concerning legal disputes or legal rights and obligations, but is, in certain circumstances, an institution that adopts resolutions based on legal assessment.

It uses Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act to demonstrate that, even where specialized or legal knowledge is required, a council has access to an institutional mechanism through which it may use specialized investigations conducted by persons with relevant academic knowledge or experience.

The document therefore does not argue that the Sukagawa City Council is an institution that provides final legal interpretations in the same manner as a court.

Rather, it argues that, because the Council possesses the institutional authority and means to investigate, explain, and re-examine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of an official decision it adopted and determine whether corrective measures are required, the general explanation that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations does not justify the absence of a substantive determination.

The document also distinguishes the present matter from the residents’ lawsuit pending at the time.

The residents’ lawsuit concerned alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters, whereas the present application concerns the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence caused by the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the subsequent failure to investigate, re-examine, correct, and provide remedies.

The document therefore states that, if the existence of the residents’ lawsuit is relied upon as a reason not to make a substantive determination concerning a human rights remedy request with a different subject matter and purpose, the specific legal grounds for that position must be identified.

The document also addresses arguments based on the absence of legally binding force in the resignation recommendation resolutions and the Council’s autonomy.

According to the document, the issue concerning the presumption of innocence is not whether the person concerned immediately lost his status as a council member as a result of the resolutions.

The issue is whether, before his criminal responsibility had been established, the Sukagawa City Council, as a public authority, prejudged the outcome of the criminal proceedings and made an official public assessment based on guilt.

Accordingly, the absence of legally binding force does not automatically establish the constitutional or treaty compatibility of the resolutions, and the autonomy of the Council does not justify a violation of the presumption of innocence.

The document also does not deny that legal advice may be obtained or that litigation matters may be entrusted to legal counsel.

However, it states that consultation with or delegation to legal counsel is not the same as the Sukagawa City Council itself explaining, investigating, re-examining, and determining whether correction and remedies are required.

It asks whether, in a serious human rights matter of this kind, the Council’s avoidance of a substantive determination by relying on the delegation of the matter to legal counsel is compatible with Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17, Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, and Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Local Autonomy Act.

The position of Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR in the document is also important.

That provision does not require that every measure requested by an applicant must always be granted exactly as requested.

It does, however, require that, where a specific violation of rights under the Covenant is alleged and a remedy is sought, the right involved and the necessity of a remedy be determined by competent judicial, administrative, legislative, or other authorities.

The Sukagawa City Council has a certain degree of authority concerning the resolutions it adopted and the handling of the Council’s official records.

Nevertheless, if no substantive determination is made because the Council states that it is “not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” that the matter is “currently in litigation,” or that it has been “entrusted to legal counsel,” the question arises as to which institution will make the determination of rights and remedies required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, and how that determination will be made.

The document takes the position that a failure to investigate or provide remedies may not merely leave a past violation uncorrected, but may constitute a new human rights violation arising from the failure to comply with the obligation to provide remedies.

Based on General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17, it also argues that prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of alleged rights violations, measures of reparation including restitution and public apology, and measures to prevent similar violations from recurring may be required.

In relation to Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 27 of the VCLT, the document further asks whether domestic institutions, practices, council autonomy, the domestic allocation of authority, or the domestic characterization that the Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations may be invoked as reasons for failing to perform obligations under the ICCPR.

This document is not merely a repeated request for another response.

It is a document that, based on the fact that the Sukagawa City Council itself assessed the criminal case and adopted resignation recommendation resolutions before criminal responsibility had been established, requested that the Council provide a specific investigation, explanation, and official determination concerning its decision-making process, the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resolutions, the necessity of remedies, and measures to prevent recurrence.

Questions Arising from This Document

1. Is it consistent for the Council, after making determinations concerning 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, the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution declared that “committing drunk driving was beyond the pale” and characterized the person’s 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, it cannot be denied that the Council made factual and normative assessments concerning the criminal case and formed an official public 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?

2. What investigation and re-examination did the Sukagawa City Council conduct concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions?

The document requested that the Council investigate and re-examine the relationship between the resignation recommendation resolutions and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.

It also requested a re-examination of the relationship between the resolutions and the obligations of investigation, correction, and remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17.

What materials did the Sukagawa City Council examine, what deliberations or investigations did it conduct, and what conclusion did it reach concerning the facts and legal standards presented to it?

3. Does the existence of pending residents’ litigation provide a basis for not making a substantive determination concerning a human rights remedy request with a different purpose and subject matter?

The document characterizes the residents’ lawsuit pending at the time as a proceeding concerning alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters.

By contrast, the present application concerns the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence resulting from the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the subsequent failure to re-examine, correct, and provide remedies.

If the Sukagawa City Council did not provide a substantive determination concerning the alleged human rights violation and the necessity of remedies because the residents’ lawsuit remained pending, what was the legal basis for that position?

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

The Sukagawa City Council’s response dated April 23 does not identify the matters entrusted to legal counsel or the scope of that delegation.

Was only the response to the residents’ lawsuit entrusted to legal counsel?

Was the preparation of responses to the Written Questions and Request and the present application entrusted to legal counsel?

Or were even the factual investigation, legal assessment, re-examination, and determination of the necessity of corrective measures that the Council itself should undertake entrusted to legal counsel?

What official determination did the Sukagawa City Council itself make after receiving legal advice?

5. How were the Council’s decision-making and investigative powers under the Local Autonomy Act exercised?

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

Article 89, paragraph 3 requires council members to perform their duties faithfully under the mandate of the residents.

Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12 designates certain matters concerning legal disputes and legal rights and obligations as matters requiring a council resolution.

Article 100-2 establishes a mechanism under which a council may have persons with relevant academic knowledge or experience investigate specialized matters when necessary.

Given the existence of these powers and institutional mechanisms, what investigation, deliberation, and decision-making did the Sukagawa City Council undertake concerning the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resignation recommendation resolutions?

6. Does the absence of legally binding force in the resignation recommendation resolutions or the autonomy of the Council resolve the issue concerning the presumption of innocence?

The issue in this case is not whether the person concerned immediately lost his status as a council member as a result of the resignation recommendation resolutions.

The issue is whether, before criminal responsibility had been established, the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, assessed the criminal case on the premise of guilt and formed an official public position calling for the person concerned to resign.

Does the fact that the resolutions lacked legally binding force, or that the Council possesses autonomy over its internal operation, provide a reason not to examine their compatibility with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30?

7. How were the eight matters for clarification and the seven requested measures handled?

The document presented eight matters for clarification and requested seven measures from the Sukagawa City Council.

These concerned the presumption of innocence; the obligations of investigation and remedy; the consistency of the April 23 response with the Local Autonomy Act and other applicable standards; the legal grounds for not providing a substantive determination because the residents’ lawsuit remained pending or the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel; and the withdrawal of the resolutions, restoration of reputation, public apology, and prevention of recurrence.

Did the Sukagawa City Council accept, reject, continue to examine, or refer each matter to another competent authority?

8. If no substantive determination is made by a competent authority in response to a request for remedies, how is Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR implemented?

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.

The Sukagawa City Council itself adopted the resignation recommendation resolutions and is in a position to determine the handling of the Council’s official records and corrective measures available within its authority.

If the Council does not make a substantive determination on the grounds that it is “not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” that the matter is “currently in litigation,” or that it has been “entrusted to legal counsel,” and no determination by another competent authority is ensured, how are the requirements of an effective remedy and a determination of rights under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR implemented?

9. Were measures to prevent recurrence considered?

The document requested that the Council consider measures to prevent future resignation recommendation resolutions from being adopted against persons whose criminal responsibility has not been established in a manner or form that violates the presumption of innocence.

General Comment No. 31, paragraph 17 indicates that the obligation under Article 2 includes measures to prevent violations of the Covenant from recurring.

Did the Sukagawa City Council consider council member training, deliberative procedures, systems for legal review, or other measures to prevent recurrence in light of the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the Council’s subsequent responses?

Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards

Domestic Law

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 performed through concrete investigation, determination, correction, and remedial measures by the Sukagawa City Council.

Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan

This provision requires the Emperor or Regent, Ministers of State, members of the Diet, judges, and all other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution.

The question in this case is whether the local council and its members investigated and re-examined the compatibility of their own official decisions with constitutional human rights guarantees and considered necessary corrective measures.

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 exercise powers of inspection, investigation, and other powers prescribed by law.

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

Article 89, paragraph 3 of the Local Autonomy Act

This provision requires council members to perform their duties faithfully under the mandate of the residents 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 conducted 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 issues final judicial determinations in the same manner as a court.

It does, however, demonstrate that a council is not an institution that refrains from making all determinations 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 statement that the Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations supplies a reason for not investigating or re-examining the legal compatibility of its own resolutions.

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 using specialized expertise where examination concerning the Constitution or international human rights law is necessary.

The question in this case is whether the need for specialized legal examination permits the Council not to conduct its own investigation and re-examination.

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 a violation of the presumption of innocence and a request for remedies, an investigation, a determination concerning the rights and remedies involved, and the implementation of any necessary remedy by a competent authority, including the Sukagawa City 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 whether the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the public assessments made by the Sukagawa City Council before the criminal responsibility of the person concerned had been established were compatible with this guarantee.

General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15

This paragraph indicates the need to establish accessible and effective remedies for alleged violations of rights under the ICCPR and to conduct prompt, thorough, and effective investigations.

It also indicates that failure to investigate an allegation of a rights violation may itself give rise to a separate breach of the ICCPR and that the cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of an effective remedy.

The question in this case is what investigation the Sukagawa City Council conducted after receiving the application setting out the specific facts of the alleged violations and the applicable 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 fulfil the obligation to provide a remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.

Depending on the circumstances, reparation 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 other corrective measures.

General Comment No. 31, paragraph 17

This paragraph indicates that the obligation under Article 2 may require measures to prevent violations of the ICCPR from recurring and that measures extending beyond remedies for an individual victim may be necessary to prevent similar violations.

The question in this case is what measures the Sukagawa City Council considered to prevent future resignation recommendation resolutions from violating the presumption of innocence in cases where criminal responsibility has not been established.

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 whether the Sukagawa City Council’s official decision calling for resignation, based on assessments concerning a criminal case before criminal responsibility had been established, was compatible with this standard.

Standards Concerning the Performance and Interpretation of Treaties

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, council autonomy, 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 residents’ litigation, or the delegation of the matter to legal counsel can justify a failure to perform the obligations of investigation and remedy under the ICCPR.

※ 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.

Relationship to This Case

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

That document addressed the relationship between the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the continued maintenance of their official records, on the one hand, and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, on the other.

It also requested, as effective remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, an investigation, a legal determination, withdrawal of the resolutions, deletion or correction of the official records, restoration of reputation, and public corrective measures.

On April 23, 2026, the Sukagawa City Council responded:

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 present document was submitted in response to that statement.

It pointed out that the fact that the Sukagawa City Council is not a court that finally determines legal interpretations is separate from the question of whether it should investigate and re-examine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resignation recommendation resolutions it had itself adopted.

It also took the position that, because the Sukagawa City Council had adopted the series of resignation recommendation resolutions based on assessments concerning a criminal case before criminal responsibility had been established, it was necessary for the Council to explain the grounds for its resolutions, re-examine their legal compatibility, and determine whether corrective measures were required.

Articles 89, paragraphs 2 and 3, 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act were specifically identified as the domestic legal grounds supporting that position.

The document then requested that, if the Council relied on the explanations that it was “not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” that the residents’ lawsuit remained pending, or that the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel as reasons for not conducting its own investigation and re-examination, it identify the specific legal grounds for each position.

The document contained eight matters for clarification and seven requested measures and sought a written response within 14 days of receipt, together with the implementation of necessary corrective measures.

On the same date, May 8, 2026, a separate 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 present application concerns the legal grounds for the April 23 response and the Council’s own responsibility to explain and re-examine its decisions.

By contrast, the petition submitted on the same date is an independent document requesting investigation, deliberation, and corrective measures through the Council’s formal procedures.

Although the two documents share the same date of submission and general subject matter, their nature and procedural positions must not be conflated.

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

This document therefore presented specific standards under the Local Autonomy Act, the Constitution, and international human rights law in response to the reasons stated in the April 23 reply—that the Council was not an institution that provides legal interpretations, that the matter was currently in litigation, and that it had been entrusted to legal counsel—and requested another substantive determination before the Council issued its May 20 response.

The document also directly questions the consistency between the fact that the Sukagawa City Council assessed a criminal case and adopted resignation recommendation resolutions before criminal responsibility had been established and its subsequent statement, when the constitutional and treaty compatibility of those resolutions was questioned, that it was not an institution that provides legal interpretations.

The document confirms that the Sukagawa City Council was requested to make specific determinations concerning the investigation and re-examination of the resolutions it adopted, the availability of remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, withdrawal of the resolutions, correction of the official records, restoration of reputation, public apology, and measures to prevent recurrence.

The issue is not limited to whether the Sukagawa City Council was required to accept the claims or grant the remedies exactly as requested.

The issue is whether, after being presented with specific facts of alleged human rights violations, applicable legal standards, and requested remedies, a substantive investigation and determination concerning the existence of a violation and the necessity of remedies were made by the Council that adopted the resolutions or by another competent authority.

If no competent authority is required to make a substantive determination because the Council states that it is “not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” that the matter is “currently in litigation,” or that it has been “entrusted to legal counsel,” 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 human rights violations committed by a local council.

The document therefore also raises the question of whether that situation can be justified by domestic institutional arrangements, council autonomy, the domestic allocation of authority, or the Council’s internal handling policies consistently with Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 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.