Document Addressed to the Sukagawa City Council—Petition Requesting Investigation, Re-examination, Correction, and Measures to Prevent Recurrence Regarding Unlawful Human Rights Violations Caused by the Series of Resignation Recommendation Resolutions

Overview of the Document

Document title:
Petition

Subject:
Petition Requesting Investigation, Re-examination, Correction, and Measures to Prevent Recurrence Regarding Unlawful Human Rights Violations Caused by the Series of Resignation Recommendation Resolutions（Publication to the Wider Public Requested）

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 bearing the receipt stamp retained by Toshio Tsumuraya after submission to the Sukagawa City Council

Document type:
Petition requesting investigation, re-examination, correction, remedies, and measures to prevent recurrence concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions, 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 petition submitted to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council on May 8, 2026.

It consists of four pages, and the first page bears the Sukagawa City Council’s receipt stamp dated May 8, 2026.

The subject is stated as:

Petition Requesting Investigation, Re-examination, Correction, and Measures to Prevent Recurrence Regarding Unlawful Human Rights Violations Caused by the Series of Resignation Recommendation Resolutions（Publication to the Wider Public Requested）

The petition argues that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council in 2011 and 2012 constituted unlawful human rights violations contrary to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）, because the Council effectively treated Toshio Tsumuraya as guilty before his criminal responsibility had been established.

It therefore requests that the Sukagawa City Council investigate and re-examine the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and implement corrective measures and measures to prevent recurrence.

The petition states that four resignation recommendation resolutions against Toshio Tsumuraya were adopted on October 26 and December 1, 2011, and February 9 and March 1, 2012.

It identifies the resolutions dated October 26 and December 1, 2011, as particularly important in relation to the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence.

Regarding the First Resignation Recommendation Resolution, the petition points out that it was adopted while Toshio Tsumuraya was under arrest and detention and had not yet been indicted, on the ground that he had been “arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.”

The petition assesses this resolution as the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, effectively treating Toshio Tsumuraya as guilty at the pre-indictment stage, when the protection of the presumption of innocence was of particular importance.

Regarding the Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution, the petition points out that it was adopted after indictment but before the criminal judgment became final and that it declared that “committing drunk driving was beyond the pale.”

It further points out that the Council characterized Toshio Tsumuraya’s explanation that he would wait for the outcome of the trial before deciding whether to resign as “contrary to social justice.”

The petition argues that this assessment rejected the very act of awaiting a final judicial determination and constituted an official public assessment based on guilt before criminal responsibility had been established, thereby directly denying the institutional meaning of the presumption of innocence.

The petition states that Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR guarantees the presumption of innocence and that General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 indicates that the presumption of innocence applies not only to courts but to all public authorities.

It also points out that Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR requires effective remedies to be ensured for violations of rights protected under the Covenant.

General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17 are cited as indicating the need for remedies that include investigation of rights violations, cessation of continuing violations, restitution, public apology, and measures to prevent recurrence.

The petition states that Toshio Tsumuraya had also submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council in 2025 concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions, but that the Council could not be regarded as having conducted a substantive investigation or re-examination or implemented corrective or remedial measures.

According to materials subsequently obtained by Toshio Tsumuraya, an interpretation to the following effect was expressed during legal consultation on April 19, 2025:

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

The petition specifically identifies Sukagawa City document management numbers 590671 and 591988 as the source materials supporting this statement.

The petition treats this interpretation as an important circumstance potentially connected to the reason or background for the failure to conduct a substantive investigation, re-examination, correction, or remedial action in response to Toshio Tsumuraya’s request for correction in 2025.

It states that, if the series of resignation recommendation resolutions were justified or considered not to require correction on the basis of this interpretation, the compatibility of the interpretation itself with Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17, General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, and Articles 31, 98, paragraph 2, and 99 of the Constitution of Japan becomes an issue.

The petition states that, through the Written Questions and Request dated April 10, 2026, it had been pointed out that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions violated the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and that, in relation to the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3, the Sukagawa City Council bore responsibility to investigate, re-examine, correct, and implement remedial measures.

It also characterizes that request not as a mere appeal or voluntary request but as an exercise of the right to seek an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.

It explains that Toshio Tsumuraya did not request a final judicial determination of the kind made by a court.

Rather, he requested that the Sukagawa City Council investigate and re-examine the series of resignation recommendation resolutions it had itself adopted, determine whether correction and remedial measures were required, and, if it would not take such action, identify the legal grounds for that position.

The petition records that the Sukagawa City Council responded on April 23, 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 petition points out that, in 2011 and 2012, the Sukagawa City Council was the institution that adopted the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and formed an official public position after making assessments concerning Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal case before his criminal responsibility had been established.

It argues that the Council’s subsequent avoidance of a substantive determination on the ground that it was “not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” when the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resolutions was later questioned, was inconsistent with its responsibility to explain and re-examine its own official decision-making.

Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act is cited as establishing that the council of an ordinary local public entity is an institution that decides matters concerning important decisions and exercises powers of inspection, investigation, and other powers.

Article 89, paragraph 3 is cited as establishing that council members must perform their duties faithfully under the mandate entrusted to them by residents.

The petition argues that, as a public authority, the Sukagawa City Council is required under Article 98, paragraph 2 and Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan to exercise its powers in a manner consistent with the ICCPR.

It therefore states that the Sukagawa City Council should investigate and re-examine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the series of resignation recommendation resolutions it adopted and consider necessary corrective and remedial measures.

The petition contains seven matters requested of the Sukagawa City Council.

The first requests investigation and re-examination of the relationship between the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.

The second requests investigation and 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.

The third requests deliberation on whether the resolutions dated October 26 and December 1, 2011, effectively treated Toshio Tsumuraya as guilty before his criminal responsibility had been established.

If the Council determines that the resolutions did not amount to treatment as guilty, the petition requests that the Council not rely merely on council autonomy, the characterization of the resolutions as expressions of opinion, or the absence of legally binding force.

Instead, it requests specific reasons explaining why the actual language used in the resolutions did not constitute an official public assessment based on guilt.

It also requests clarification of the compatibility of those expressions with Article 14, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan, and Article 27 of the VCLT.

The fourth requests that, if a violation of the presumption of innocence is recognized, the Council implement withdrawal of the resolutions, restoration of reputation, public apology, measures to prevent recurrence, and other necessary corrective and remedial measures under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17.

The fifth requests clarification as to whether the interpretation expressed during legal consultation on April 19, 2025—that there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt because Toshio Tsumuraya had been arrested—served as a reason or background for refusing correction or failing to act.

It further requests investigation and deliberation concerning the compatibility of that interpretation with Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17, General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, and Articles 98, paragraph 2 and 99 of the Constitution of Japan.

The sixth requests explanation and deliberation concerning the consistency between the Council’s adoption of the series of resignation recommendation resolutions based on Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal case before his criminal responsibility had been established and its subsequent response that it was “not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” in light of the Council’s responsibility to explain and the council members’ duty of faithful performance under Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Local Autonomy Act.

The seventh requests that the results of the investigations, re-examination, and deliberations under the first through sixth matters, together with the reasons for the Council’s determinations, be set out in writing, notified to Toshio Tsumuraya, and published through council materials, the Council’s website, or another appropriate method.

It also requests consideration of measures to prevent recurrence in order to ensure compliance with the law and protection of human rights.

Important Statements

An important feature of this document is that it was submitted on the same date as the separate request addressed to the Sukagawa City Council but was prepared as a formal petition with a distinct procedure and purpose.

The separate request dated May 8 questioned the legal grounds for the April 23 response and the Council’s own responsibility to explain and re-examine its decisions and requested written answers to specific matters.

By contrast, this petition is an independent document requesting that the Sukagawa City Council use its formal procedures to investigate, deliberate upon, re-examine, correct, remedy, and prevent recurrence concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.

The subject of the petition expressly states:

Publication to the Wider Public Requested

This expresses an intention that not only the submission and receipt of the petition but also its contents, the Council’s handling of it, the results of any investigation and deliberation, and the reasons for the Council’s decision should be disclosed through public council procedures.

The seventh matter requested in the petition also asks that the results of the investigation, re-examination, and deliberation be notified to Toshio Tsumuraya and published through council materials, the Council’s website, or another appropriate method.

The petition therefore did not seek only an individual written exchange between Toshio Tsumuraya and the Council.

It requested that the Council itself publicly examine suspected human rights violations arising from an official decision of a local council and disclose the reasons for its determination.

The petition did not request only that the Council accept Toshio Tsumuraya’s position as presented.

The third requested matter asks the Council to deliberate on whether the series of resignation recommendation resolutions effectively treated Toshio Tsumuraya as guilty.

If the Council determines that they did not, the petition requests specific reasons for that conclusion.

In particular, it asks the Council not merely to state that the resolutions lacked legally binding force, that the Council possessed autonomy, or that the resolutions were only expressions of opinion.

Instead, it asks the Council to explain why the specific expressions contained in the resolutions did not constitute an official public assessment based on guilt.

This structure makes the specific wording of the resolutions, the stage of the criminal proceedings at which they were adopted, the fact that Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal responsibility had not yet been established, and the substance of the public authority’s assessment themselves the subjects of examination.

The petition does not proceed on the assumption that the Sukagawa City Council made no assessment concerning the criminal case.

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

The petition directly asks whether it is consistent for that Council subsequently to state:

The Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations.

and to refrain from making a substantive determination when the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resolutions is questioned.

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 the grounds for its determination.

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

The petition connects this point to the Council’s decision-making and investigative powers under Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act and the council members’ duty of faithful performance under paragraph 3.

Even if the Council is not a court and is not an institution that finally determines general or abstract legal interpretations, this does not eliminate its responsibility to explain the grounds for the resolutions it adopted or to investigate and re-examine their constitutional and treaty compatibility.

The petition also places the issue of an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR at its center.

That provision does not require the Council to grant every measure requested by Toshio Tsumuraya exactly as requested.

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

In this case, the Sukagawa City Council itself adopted the resignation recommendation resolutions and is in a position to determine the handling of its official records and corrective measures available within its authority.

If neither the Council nor another competent authority makes 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 question arises as to which institution will provide the effective remedy and determination of rights required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.

The petition further seeks not only withdrawal or correction of past resolutions but also public apology, restoration of reputation, and measures to prevent recurrence.

Based on General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17, it requests investigation, cessation of any continuing violation, restitution, public apology and other remedies, together with measures to prevent similar violations from recurring.

The petition is therefore not limited to an objection to past resolutions.

It requests institutional examination and prevention of recurrence so that a local council will not again adopt a resignation recommendation resolution that violates the presumption of innocence by making an official public assessment based on a criminal case before criminal responsibility has been established.

Questions Arising from This Document

1. Through what formal procedure was this petition handled by the Sukagawa City Council?

This document confirms that the Sukagawa City Council received the petition on May 8, 2026.

However, the document alone does not establish whether the petition was distributed to council members, referred or transmitted to a competent committee or the Council Steering Committee, subjected to examination or discussion, reported at a plenary meeting, or formally accepted, rejected, or otherwise disposed of.

Through what formal procedure did the Sukagawa City Council handle this petition, which expressly requested publication to the wider public?

2. What investigation and re-examination were conducted concerning the relationship between the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the presumption of innocence?

The petition requested investigation and re-examination of the relationship between the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.

What examination did the Sukagawa City Council conduct of the proposed resolutions, the reasons given for them, the council records, the materials relied upon at the time, statements by council members, and other relevant documents?

What investigation, deliberation, and determination did it undertake concerning official public assessments made before criminal responsibility had been established and the presumption of innocence?

3. What determination was made as to whether the series of resignation recommendation resolutions effectively treated Toshio Tsumuraya as guilty?

The First Resignation Recommendation Resolution was adopted while Toshio Tsumuraya was under arrest and detention and before he had been indicted.

The Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution stated that “committing drunk driving was beyond the pale” and characterized his explanation that he would wait for the outcome of the trial as “contrary to social justice.”

What deliberation and determination did the Sukagawa City Council make as to whether these specific expressions constituted official public assessments based on guilt?

4. If the Council determined that the resolutions did not constitute treatment as guilty, what were its specific reasons and legal grounds?

The petition requested more than an explanation that the resignation recommendation resolutions lacked legally binding force, that the Council possessed autonomy, or that the resolutions were merely political expressions of opinion.

If the Sukagawa City Council determined that the specific expressions used in the resolutions did not constitute official public assessments based on guilt, how did it explain the specific reasons for that conclusion and their compatibility with Article 14, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan, and Article 27 of the VCLT?

5. Were investigation, correction, and remedial measures under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17 considered?

The petition requested that, if a violation of the presumption of innocence was recognized, the Council withdraw the resolutions, restore Toshio Tsumuraya’s reputation, issue a public apology, implement measures to prevent recurrence, and take other necessary corrective and remedial action.

What investigation and determination did the Sukagawa City Council conduct concerning the existence of a human rights violation and the necessity of remedies?

Did it accept, reject, or continue to examine each requested measure?

6. Did the interpretation expressed during legal consultation on April 19, 2025, serve as a reason or background for the Council’s response?

The petition requested clarification as to whether the interpretation:

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

served as a reason or background for refusing correction or failing to act.

The petition identified Sukagawa City document management numbers 590671 and 591988 as the source materials relating to this interpretation.

Did the Sukagawa City Council adopt this interpretation, reflect it in its own determinations, or conclude that it was not the Council’s official position?

How did it investigate and deliberate upon the compatibility of this interpretation with the presumption of innocence, the right to an effective remedy, the duty of faithful treaty performance, and the constitutional duty to respect and uphold the Constitution?

7. Is it consistent for the Council that decided on the resignation recommendation resolutions subsequently to state that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations?

Before Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal responsibility had been established, the Sukagawa City Council made factual and normative assessments concerning his criminal case and formed an official public position that he should resign.

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

How is this response consistent with the Council’s decision-making and investigative powers under Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act and the council members’ duty of faithful performance under paragraph 3?

8. Were the reasons for the Council’s determinations concerning the requested matters documented and published?

The petition requested that the results of the investigation, re-examination, and deliberation concerning the first through sixth matters, together with the reasons for the Council’s determinations, be set out in writing and notified to Toshio Tsumuraya.

It also requested publication through council materials, the Council’s website, or another appropriate method.

Did the Sukagawa City Council document, notify, and publish the reasons for its determinations concerning the matters raised in the petition?

9. Were measures to prevent recurrence considered?

The petition requested consideration of measures to prevent recurrence in order to ensure compliance with the law and protection of human rights.

Did the Sukagawa City Council consider deliberative procedures, council member training, legal review systems, use of specialized investigations, or other measures to ensure respect for the presumption of innocence when considering resignation recommendation resolutions concerning persons whose criminal responsibility has not been established?

Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards

Domestic Law

Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan

This provision states that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty, nor shall any other criminal penalty be imposed, except according to procedure established by law.

The question in this case concerns its relationship to the alleged official public assessment based on guilt by a public authority before criminal responsibility had been established and the adequacy of the subsequent investigation and remedial procedures.

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 investigation, deliberation, correction, remedies, and measures to prevent recurrence 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 decision-making with constitutional human rights guarantees and considered necessary corrective and preventive 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, deliberation, and determination the Council and its members conducted concerning the legal compatibility of the resolutions they adopted and the necessity of remedies after receiving a specific allegation of human rights violations and a request for remedies.

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 the petition alleging a specific violation of the presumption of innocence and requesting remedies, investigation, determination of the rights and remedies involved, and implementation of necessary remedies 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 adopted by the Sukagawa City Council before Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal responsibility had been established, and the specific official public assessments contained in them, 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 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 a petition identifying specific facts of 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 Toshio Tsumuraya’s resignation, based on assessments concerning his criminal case before his 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

In 2025, Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council requesting investigation, re-examination, and corrective measures concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.

However, it has not been confirmed that, in response to that petition, the Sukagawa City Council conducted a substantive investigation or re-examination concerning the existence of human rights violations or implemented necessary corrective or remedial measures.

Sukagawa City internal documents subsequently obtained by Toshio Tsumuraya, identified as Sukagawa City document management numbers 590671 and 591988, confirmed that, during legal consultation on April 19, 2025, an interpretation to the following effect had been expressed:

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

On 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.

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.

Following this response, on May 8, 2026, Toshio Tsumuraya submitted two independent documents to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council: the “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” and the present petition.

The separate application dated May 8 questioned the legal grounds for the April 23 response and the Council’s own responsibility to explain and re-examine its decisions and requested written answers to specific matters.

By contrast, the present petition requested that the Sukagawa City Council use its formal procedures to investigate, deliberate upon, re-examine, correct, remedy, and prevent recurrence concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.

Although the two documents share the same date of submission and the same fundamental concerns, they differ in their nature and the council procedures requested and must not be conflated.

The present petition expressly states that publication to the wider public is requested.

The seventh matter requested in the petition also asks that the results of the investigation, re-examination, and deliberation, together with the reasons for the Council’s determinations, be set out in writing, notified to Toshio Tsumuraya, and published through council materials, the Council’s website, or another appropriate method.

The petition therefore requested that the suspected human rights violations caused by the series of resignation recommendation resolutions not be handled only as an internal council matter but be investigated, deliberated upon, and determined through a process accompanied by public disclosure.

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

However, that response dated May 20 concerned the separate application submitted on May 8.

It does not, by itself, establish through what internal procedures the present petition was handled by the Sukagawa City Council or what investigation, deliberation, or determination was undertaken concerning it.

This document is therefore important evidence confirming that, separately from the renewed request for clarification concerning the April 23 response, Toshio Tsumuraya requested that the Sukagawa City Council use its formal procedures to investigate and re-examine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and implement necessary correction, remedies, and measures to prevent recurrence.

The document also requested that the consistency between the Sukagawa City Council’s assessment of Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal case and adoption of resignation recommendation resolutions before his criminal responsibility had been established, on the one hand, and its subsequent response that it was “not an institution that provides legal interpretations” when the constitutional and treaty compatibility of those resolutions was questioned, on the other, be made a formal subject of council deliberation.

The petition did not request only that the Sukagawa City Council accept Toshio Tsumuraya’s claims or requested remedies as presented.

It requested investigation and deliberation concerning the specific expressions in the resolutions, the stage of the criminal proceedings at the time the resolutions were adopted, and the relationship between the resolutions and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.

It further requested that, even if the Council determined that no violation had occurred, it identify specific reasons and legal grounds for that determination.

If neither the Council that adopted the resolutions nor another competent authority conducts a substantive investigation and determination after specific facts of alleged human rights violations, applicable legal standards, and requested remedies have been presented, 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 council autonomy, the domestic allocation of authority, 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 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.