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:
May 8, 2026
Created by:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Submitted to:
Mayor of Sukagawa City
Date submitted:
May 8, 2026
Method of acquisition:
Copy bearing the receipt stamp retained by Toshio Tsumuraya after submission to Sukagawa City
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:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by the Document
This document is an “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” submitted to the Mayor of Sukagawa City on May 8, 2026.
It consists of five pages, and the first page bears the Sukagawa City receipt stamp dated May 8, 2026.
The application was submitted directly in response to Sukagawa City’s document numbered “8 Seikan No. 59,” issued on April 23, 2026, which stated:
Because the contents relate to a matter currently in litigation, the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.
The application takes the position that the Mayor of Sukagawa City, as an executive organ of the City, bears a duty under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act to manage and execute the affairs of Sukagawa City faithfully, based on the Mayor’s own judgment and responsibility.
It argues that, where Toshio Tsumuraya has presented specific legal grounds based on the Constitution, international law, and the Local Autonomy Act, it is insufficient for Sukagawa City merely to state that the matter is “currently in litigation” or has been “entrusted to legal counsel” if it does not accept the legal standards presented.
It therefore requests that the Mayor identify the specific legal grounds permitting Sukagawa City not to conduct an investigation or implement corrective and remedial measures.
The application characterizes the residents’ lawsuit pending at the time as a proceeding concerning alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters.
By contrast, the Written Questions and Request dated April 10, 2026, and the present application concern the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence and the ICCPR caused by the series of resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council in 2011 and 2012.
They also ask whether Sukagawa City bears a duty to investigate, correct, and provide remedies in relation to the City’s response that the matter had been “properly handled,” without identifying specific legal grounds, and its continued failure to implement investigation, correction, or remedial measures.
The application therefore argues that the residents’ lawsuit, the Written Questions and Request dated April 10, and the present application differ in their subject matter and purpose.
It asks Sukagawa City to identify the specific legal grounds for declining to make a substantive determination concerning the alleged human rights violations and the subsequent refusal or failure to correct them merely because the residents’ lawsuit remained pending.
The principal legal standards cited in the application are Articles 31, 98, paragraph 2, and 99 of the Constitution of Japan; Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）; General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17; General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30; and Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties（VCLT）.
The application points out that 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, and that Article 99 imposes upon public officials the duty to respect and uphold the Constitution.
It also points out that Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR guarantees the presumption of innocence and that General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 indicates that all public authorities have a duty not to prejudge the outcome of criminal proceedings.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR is cited as requiring the State to ensure an effective remedy for violations of Covenant rights, to ensure that the right to a remedy is determined by a competent authority, and to ensure enforcement of remedies that are granted.
General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17 are cited as indicating the need for measures including investigation of rights violations, remedies, cessation of continuing violations, restitution, public apology, and prevention of recurrence.
Article 27 of the VCLT is cited as establishing that domestic law may not be invoked to justify failure to perform a treaty.
Based on these standards and Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act, the application argues that Sukagawa City cannot withdraw from issues concerning investigation, correction, and remedies merely by stating that the matter is “currently in litigation” or has been “entrusted to legal counsel.”
The application does not deny that Sukagawa City may consult a lawyer or entrust a lawyer to act as its representative in relation to the April 23 response.
It points out, however, that Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act requires the executive organ itself to manage and execute its affairs faithfully, based on its own judgment and responsibility.
It therefore argues that consultation with or delegation to legal counsel does not extinguish the legal responsibility of the Mayor of Sukagawa City or the City’s executive organ.
The application characterizes this matter as a serious human rights issue in which the Sukagawa City Council, a public authority, violated Toshio Tsumuraya’s presumption of innocence before his criminal responsibility had been established, and Sukagawa City subsequently failed to correct, or continued to justify, that situation.
It argues that the Mayor’s failure to make an independent determination and avoidance of a substantive decision on the ground that the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel are incompatible with Article 98, paragraph 2 and Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, and Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
The application also addresses the legal consultation conducted on April 19, 2025.
According to materials obtained by Toshio Tsumuraya, an interpretation to the following effect was expressed during that consultation:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.
The application argues that this interpretation directly contradicts the presumption of innocence protected by Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
It takes the position that the presumption of innocence continues until a judgment of guilt becomes final and does not diminish merely because a person has been arrested, detained, or indicted.
It further states that General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 makes clear that the presumption of innocence applies not only to courts but to all public authorities.
It therefore argues that the interpretation that “because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt” is incompatible with Articles 31, 98, paragraph 2, and 99 of the Constitution of Japan, Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, and Article 27 of the VCLT.
The application contains six matters on which a response was requested from the Mayor of Sukagawa City.
The first requests identification of the legal grounds permitting Sukagawa City not to make a substantive determination concerning the duties of investigation and remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17, on the ground that the residents’ lawsuit remained pending.
The second requests identification of the legal grounds permitting Sukagawa City not to perform the duty of faithful management and execution based on its “own judgment and responsibility” under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act on the ground that the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.
The third requests clarification as to whether Sukagawa City continues to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025, that there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt because Toshio Tsumuraya had been arrested.
The fourth requests that, if Sukagawa City continues to maintain that interpretation, it explain its compatibility with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan, and Article 27 of the VCLT.
The fifth requests clarification as to whether Sukagawa City intends to investigate the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence caused by the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and implement remedial measures including correction, restoration of reputation, public apology, and measures to prevent recurrence.
If it has no intention of taking such measures, the application requests identification of the specific legal grounds permitting non-performance of the duties of investigation, correction, and remedy required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
The sixth requests identification of the legal grounds on which a response that provides no substantive determination concerning the constitutional, international legal, and local-government-law grounds presented by Toshio Tsumuraya, and that implements no investigation, correction, or remedial measures, is compatible with the duty of faithful management and execution based on the executive organ’s “own judgment and responsibility” under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
The application also contains five requested measures addressed to the Mayor of Sukagawa City.
The first requests investigation 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 clarification of the relationship between the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the duty to provide remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17.
The third requests that Sukagawa City make a substantive determination concerning whether the series of resignation recommendation resolutions violated the presumption of innocence.
The fourth requests that, if a violation of the presumption of innocence is recognized, Sukagawa City implement restoration of reputation, public apology, measures to prevent recurrence, and other necessary corrective measures.
The fifth requests that, if the measures set out in the first through fourth matters are not implemented, Sukagawa City identify in writing the specific legal grounds on which that failure to act is permissible under the Constitution, the ICCPR, the VCLT, and the Local Autonomy Act.
The application states that the matter does not merely concern whether a past political judgment was appropriate.
It takes the position that, if investigation, remedies, and correction are not provided, the failure to comply with the duty to provide remedies may itself constitute a new unlawful human rights violation.
It also states that the constitutional and treaty compatibility of a situation in which a public authority effectively treated Toshio Tsumuraya as guilty before his criminal responsibility had been established and subsequently left that situation uncorrected continues to be at issue.
It argues that, because Sukagawa City is a local public entity that executes its affairs in accordance with law, it cannot avoid making a substantive determination concerning investigation, correction, and remedies for human rights violations through a formal response stating only that the matter is “currently in litigation” or has been “entrusted to legal counsel.”
The application requests that the Mayor provide a written response to the matters raised within 14 days of receipt and implement the necessary corrective measures.
Key Statements
The central issue raised by this document concerns the relationship between Sukagawa City’s April 23 response—
Because the contents relate to a matter currently in litigation, the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.
—and the judgment and responsibility of the executive organ itself under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
There is nothing inherently improper about an administrative authority obtaining legal advice or entrusting legal counsel with matters relating to pending litigation.
It may also be reasonable, to some extent, to avoid careless statements concerning pending litigation and to respond with the benefit of legal advice.
However, consultation with or delegation to legal counsel is not the same as the Mayor of Sukagawa City and the City’s executive organ making an official determination based on their own authority and responsibility.
Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the executive organ of an ordinary local public entity shall faithfully manage and execute affairs based on ordinances, budgets and other resolutions of the council, laws, regulations, rules, and other applicable provisions, on its own judgment and responsibility.
Accordingly, even where an outside lawyer provides legal advice or handles litigation, it remains necessary to identify which public authority made the factual findings, legal assessments, and administrative decisions of Sukagawa City.
The application argues that entrusting the matter to legal counsel does not extinguish the responsibility of the Mayor or the City’s executive organ.
Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act does not, however, confer powers upon an executive organ that it does not otherwise possess under law.
It cannot necessarily be said that the Mayor of Sukagawa City has authority unilaterally to withdraw resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council.
The matters that the Mayor and the mayoral departments can investigate or correct must therefore be distinguished from matters that require a determination by the Council or another competent authority.
Possible matters within the authority of the Mayor and the mayoral departments may include investigation of materials held by the City, re-examination of the City’s own previous responses and internal decision-making, expression of the City’s legal position, correction of erroneous administrative action, restoration of reputation through measures within the City’s authority, and connection of matters outside the Mayor’s authority to another competent institution.
The possible absence of authority for the Mayor directly to withdraw a council resolution is not the same as an absence of any duty on the part of Sukagawa City to investigate, explain, or determine the alleged human rights violation and the City’s own previous conduct.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR does not require every public authority receiving an application to implement every remedy requested, regardless of the scope of its legal powers.
It requires the State Party to ensure an effective remedy for persons whose Covenant rights or freedoms have been violated, to ensure that the right to a remedy is determined by competent judicial, administrative, legislative, or other authorities, and to ensure enforcement of remedies that are granted.
Accordingly, even if it is determined that the Mayor has no authority directly to withdraw the resignation recommendation resolutions, Sukagawa City must clarify which matters it can determine itself and which matters require a determination by another competent authority.
Where the City determines that it lacks authority, identification of the extent of that lack of authority and the competent authority to which the request for remedies should be connected is important to ensuring an effective remedy.
Another central issue in this document concerns the relationship between the residents’ lawsuit pending at the time and the present request for investigation, correction, and remedies for human rights violations.
The application argues that 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 resignation recommendation resolutions and the subsequent failure to provide remedies.
This does not necessarily deny that some background facts or legal assessments may overlap between the two matters.
The issue is which matters in the present application specifically overlap with the pending litigation and what litigation-related or legal grounds prevented an administrative investigation, explanation, or determination on remedies.
Sukagawa City’s response did not identify specific reasons why the pendency of the residents’ lawsuit prevented substantive answers to all six matters for clarification and all five requested measures.
The present application therefore requested not merely that the City refrain from referring generally to “pending litigation,” but that it explain the specific relationship between the litigation and each matter raised, together with the legal grounds for declining to answer or investigate.
The document also independently asks whether Sukagawa City continues to maintain the interpretation allegedly expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.
This issue does not concern only what opinion an outside lawyer expressed in the past.
It asks whether that opinion continues to be maintained as Sukagawa City’s official position or as a premise underlying its response to the requests for correction, its internal decision-making, or its April 23 response.
If Sukagawa City no longer adopts that interpretation, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation and the City’s current official position.
If that interpretation influenced the City’s previous handling, the question arises whether the previous decisions and administrative processing were re-examined and whether correction was considered.
Conversely, if Sukagawa City continues to maintain that interpretation, a specific explanation of its compatibility with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 is required.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR guarantees that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 indicates that the presumption of innocence is fundamental to the protection of human rights and that all public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, including through public statements affirming the guilt of an accused person.
The interpretation that an arrest permits an “inference close to guilt” therefore requires specific examination in light of the fact that arrest does not establish the commission of an offence and in light of the treatment required of a person by public authorities before guilt is proved.
The application also cites Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan.
Article 31 requires that no person be deprived of life or liberty, nor be subjected to any other criminal penalty, except according to procedure established by law.
Although Article 31 does not expressly state the presumption of innocence, the application raises the alleged public treatment as guilty before criminal responsibility had been established and the adequacy of the subsequent remedial process in relation to that provision.
The application further takes the position that the failure to provide a remedy may not merely leave a past violation uncorrected but may itself constitute a new human rights violation arising from non-performance of the duty to provide remedies.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 15 indicates the need for prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of alleged violations and that failure to investigate may itself give rise to a separate breach of the ICCPR.
Paragraph 16 indicates the need for appropriate reparation, which may include restitution, rehabilitation, public apology and other measures of satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition.
Paragraph 17 indicates that measures extending beyond remedies for an individual victim may be required to prevent similar violations from recurring.
The present application therefore asks Sukagawa City to re-examine not only the past resignation recommendation resolutions but also whether the City’s investigation, decision-making, responses, and connection to remedies after receiving the requests for correction were appropriate.
Article 27 of the VCLT provides that a State Party may not invoke its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.
That provision does not require every domestic authority to act beyond the powers granted to it by law.
The issue is whether the domestic allocation of authority, the pendency of litigation, delegation to legal counsel, or internal administrative policy can justify a situation in which the State Party as a whole fails to provide the required investigation, determination of rights, and enforcement of remedies.
The legal structure of this document therefore does not simply assert that the Mayor of Sukagawa City must personally implement every measure requested by Toshio Tsumuraya.
It raises the issue that the Mayor and the City’s executive organ should clarify the scope of their own authority, conduct investigation and make determinations within that scope, and explain how matters outside their authority will be connected to determination and remedies by competent institutions.
Questions Raised by the Document
1. What is the specific relationship between the pending litigation and each matter for clarification and each requested measure?
The application characterizes the residents’ lawsuit pending at the time as a proceeding concerning alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters.
By contrast, the application raises the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence caused by the resignation recommendation resolutions, Sukagawa City’s previous responses, the obligation to ensure an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, and the responsibility of the executive organ under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
Even if some background facts overlap between the residents’ lawsuit and the present application, which particular matters could not be answered, investigated, or determined, and for what specific reasons?
2. What matters were entrusted to legal counsel, and what was the scope of that delegation?
The April 23 response does not establish whether the matters entrusted to legal counsel were limited to the residents’ lawsuit, included legal advice concerning this application, included preparation of the response document, or extended to the official determination of the existence of human rights violations and the necessity of remedies.
Which duties were delegated to legal counsel, and which determinations remained to be made by the Mayor of Sukagawa City or the City’s executive organ?
3. What official determination did the Mayor make after receiving legal advice?
Consulting a lawyer or appointing litigation counsel does not mean that the Mayor is relieved of the need to make an official determination.
After receiving legal advice, what determinations did the Mayor make concerning the facts, the applicable legal standards, the scope of the City’s authority, the existence of a human rights violation, and the necessity of remedies?
4. How were investigations and corrective measures within the authority of the Mayor and the mayoral departments considered?
The Mayor may not necessarily possess authority directly to withdraw resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council.
However, matters that may fall within the authority of the Mayor and the mayoral departments could include investigation of City-held materials, re-examination of the City’s own previous responses and internal decision-making, expression of the City’s legal position, correction of erroneous administrative action, and connection to another competent authority.
Which measures did Sukagawa City determine to be within its authority, and which did it consider outside its authority?
For matters considered to be outside its authority, how did the City seek to secure a determination and remedy by another competent institution?
5. Does Sukagawa City continue to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025?
The application requests clarification concerning the interpretation:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.
Did Sukagawa City adopt this interpretation as its official position, use it in its internal decision-making, or cease to adopt it?
6. If Sukagawa City does not maintain that interpretation, were its previous responses re-examined?
If Sukagawa City no longer accepts the interpretation that an arrest permits an inference close to guilt, did it re-examine its previous responses and administrative processing that may have been formed on the basis or against the background of that interpretation?
If the City determined that an erroneous legal premise influenced its decision-making, did it consider correction of its responses, explanation, restoration of reputation, or measures to prevent recurrence?
7. How were the six matters for clarification and the five requested measures handled?
The application raised six specific matters concerning the pending litigation, delegation to legal counsel, the interpretation expressed on April 19, 2025, investigation and remedies for the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence, and compatibility with Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
It also requested five measures concerning investigation, a substantive determination, restoration of reputation, public apology, prevention of recurrence, and other corrective action.
Did Sukagawa City answer, reject, continue to examine, determine that it lacked authority over, or refer each matter to another competent authority?
8. Which authority ensures the determination of rights and remedies required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR?
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR does not require the Mayor personally to implement every measure requested by Toshio Tsumuraya.
It does, however, require that the alleged violation of a Covenant right and the necessity of a remedy be determined by a competent authority.
Where the Mayor determines that certain matters fall outside the Mayor’s own authority, which competent institution is to determine those matters?
How did Sukagawa City secure access to that determination and remedy?
9. Does the absence of a substantive determination in response to the request for remedies itself create a new issue?
The application alleges not only the past human rights violation caused by the resignation recommendation resolutions but also that the continuing absence of investigation, remedies, and correction may constitute a new violation arising from failure to perform the duty to provide remedies.
Where specific facts of a rights violation, applicable legal standards, and requested remedies have been presented, but no competent authority conducts a substantive investigation and determination, how is that situation explained in relation to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17?
10. How did Sukagawa City respond to the request for a written answer and corrective measures within 14 days of receipt?
The application requested that the Mayor provide a written response to the six matters for clarification within 14 days of receipt and implement the necessary corrective measures.
What response did Sukagawa City provide within that period?
Did that response present substantive determinations and specific legal grounds concerning each matter for clarification and each requested measure?
Relevant 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.
Although it does not expressly state the presumption of innocence, the issue in this case concerns its relationship to alleged official treatment as guilty before criminal responsibility had been established and the adequacy of the subsequent administrative investigation and remedial process.
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 under Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR were faithfully performed through concrete investigation and decision-making by national and local public authorities and through connection to effective remedies.
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 head and officials of a local public entity examined the compatibility of their administrative responses with the Constitution and treaty obligations after receiving a specific allegation of human rights violations and implemented necessary measures.
Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act
This provision requires the executive organ of an ordinary local public entity faithfully to manage and execute, based on its own judgment and responsibility, affairs based on ordinances, budgets and other resolutions of the council, and affairs based on laws, regulations, rules, and other applicable provisions.
It does not confer upon the executive organ powers that do not otherwise exist under law.
However, it also does not provide that the executive organ need not make determinations concerning the scope of its authority, factual findings, legal assessments, and administrative responses because legal advice or litigation matters have been entrusted to a lawyer.
The question in this case is what official determination the Mayor made after receiving legal advice and how the Mayor considered investigations and corrective measures available within the authority of the City’s executive organ.
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 competent authorities.
It does not require each authority receiving an application to implement every remedy beyond the scope of its lawful powers.
The question in this case is whether the Mayor and the mayoral departments conducted investigation and made determinations within their authority and whether a determination and remedy by another competent authority were secured for matters outside that authority.
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 how the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council before Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal responsibility had been established, and Sukagawa City’s subsequent handling of the matter, relate to 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 Sukagawa City conducted after receiving an application 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 Sukagawa City considered restoration of reputation, public explanation, correction of its previous responses, and other corrective measures available within the City’s authority.
General Comment No. 31, paragraph 17
This paragraph indicates that measures extending beyond remedies for an individual victim may be required to prevent violations of the ICCPR from recurring.
The question in this case is whether Sukagawa City considered legal review procedures, staff training, or other measures to prevent the interpretation that an arrest permits an inference close to guilt from being used in future administrative practice.
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 must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, including through public statements affirming the guilt of an accused person.
The question in this case is whether Sukagawa City adopted or continued to maintain the interpretation that there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt because Toshio Tsumuraya had been arrested, and whether that interpretation 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.
It does not require every domestic authority to act beyond the powers conferred upon it by law.
The question in this case is whether the domestic allocation of authority, the pendency of litigation, delegation to legal counsel, or internal administrative policy can justify a situation in which no competent authority conducts the required investigation, determines the rights and remedies involved, or enforces remedies that are granted.
※ 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
In 2025, Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a request to Sukagawa City seeking examination and correction of the human rights violations allegedly caused by the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.
Sukagawa City responded in substance that the matter had been “properly handled,” without identifying specific legal grounds.
Sukagawa City internal documents subsequently obtained indicated that, during the 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 subsequent official responses, 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, 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, Sukagawa City issued its response numbered “8 Seikan No. 59,” stating:
Because the contents relate to a matter currently in litigation, the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.
The present document was submitted to the Mayor of Sukagawa City on May 8, 2026, in response to that reply.
It specifically cited Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and pointed out that consultation with legal counsel or delegation of pending litigation is separate from the Mayor’s duty, as the executive organ, to make an official determination based on the Mayor’s own judgment and responsibility.
It also took the position that the residents’ lawsuit concerned alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters, whereas the present application concerned human rights violations, the subsequent refusal or failure to correct them, and the non-provision of an effective remedy.
It therefore requested that, if the pendency of the residents’ lawsuit was relied upon as a reason not to make a substantive determination concerning investigation, correction, and remedies for human rights violations, the specific legal grounds for that position be identified.
The application further raised, as an independent matter for clarification, whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025, that there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt because Toshio Tsumuraya had been arrested.
The document contained six matters for clarification and five requested measures and requested a written response within 14 days of receipt together with implementation of necessary corrective measures.
On the same date, May 8, 2026, an “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” and a separate “Petition” were submitted to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council.
The application addressed to the Sukagawa City Council questioned the Council’s responsibility to explain and re-examine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resignation recommendation resolutions it had adopted, in relation to Articles 89, 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
The petition submitted on the same date requested that the Council use its formal procedures to investigate, deliberate upon, re-examine, correct, remedy, and prevent recurrence concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.
By contrast, the present document concerns the responsibility of the Mayor and the mayoral departments as the City’s executive organ, the duty of faithful management and execution under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act, and whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025.
The three documents submitted on May 8 therefore share the general issue of investigation, remedies, and correction of the alleged human rights violations, but differ in their addressees, legal grounds, requested determinations, and procedural character and must not be conflated.
This document confirms that the Mayor was requested to provide clear answers concerning the specific relationship with the residents’ lawsuit, the scope of the matters entrusted to legal counsel, the Mayor’s own judgment and responsibility under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act, whether the interpretation expressed on April 19, 2025 continued to be maintained, whether Sukagawa City intended to investigate and remedy the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence, and the legal grounds for declining to take such measures.
The issue is not limited to whether the Mayor had authority personally to withdraw resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council.
It also concerns whether the Mayor and the mayoral departments determined what investigation, factual findings, legal assessments, re-examination of previous responses, and corrective measures could be undertaken within their own authority.
It further concerns how matters considered outside their authority were connected to determination of the rights and remedies involved by the competent council, administrative authority, or judicial institution.
If neither the Mayor nor another competent authority conducts a substantive investigation or determination because the matter is “currently in litigation” or 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 involving a local public entity.
The document therefore also raises the question of whether that situation can be justified by the domestic allocation of authority, the pendency of litigation, delegation to legal counsel, or internal administrative policy consistently with Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 27 of the VCLT.
Related Documents
Related pages
The following core pages are currently available in Japanese only.
Record and Verification of the Case
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 1
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 2
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 3
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 4
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 5
Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality
Related evidence articles:
2011（Heisei 23）
Document Distributed in Sukagawa City—Group Calling for the Resignation of Toshio Tsumuraya
2012（Heisei 24）
2025（Reiwa 7）
2026（Reiwa 8）
Related normative articles:
Related timeline:
2025（Reiwa 7）
April 3, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written request to Sukagawa City seeking an investigation into and correction of the human rights violations caused by the resignation recommendation resolutions. On the same date, he submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council seeking an independent review and corrective measures concerning those resolutions.
April 8, 2025
A conference of caucus representatives was held within the Sukagawa City Council to discuss the handling of the petition.
April 19, 2025
Separate legal consultations were conducted on the Sukagawa City side and the Sukagawa City Council side concerning their responses to the written request and the petition.
During the legal consultation conducted on the Sukagawa City side, an interpretation was expressed to the effect that:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with making an inference close to guilt.
April 28, 2025
Sukagawa City issued its final response to the written request, stating in substance that the matter had been “properly handled.”
2026（Reiwa 8）
April 10, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a Written Questions and Request to the Mayor of Sukagawa City and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council, seeking correction of the resignation recommendation resolutions and an effective remedy.
The document requested written responses concerning the relationship between the resignation recommendation resolutions and the presumption of innocence, the need for investigation and corrective measures by Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council, and the effective remedy required under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights（ICCPR）.
April 23, 2026
Sukagawa City responded that, because the contents related to a matter currently in litigation, the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.
On the same date, the Sukagawa City Council responded that it was not an institution that provides legal interpretations and that, because the contents related to a matter currently in litigation, the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.
May 8, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted an “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” to the Mayor of Sukagawa City.
On the same date, he submitted a separate “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council, structured in accordance with the Council’s own powers and responsibilities.
Also on the same date, he separately submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council requesting that the Council use its formal procedures to investigate and re-examine the human rights violations caused by the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and take corrective measures and measures to prevent recurrence.
May 20, 2026
Sukagawa City responded that the Legal Affairs Bureau was the point of contact for receiving the application for relief from human rights violations and that, regarding the request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures, its position remained as stated in its April 23 response.
On the same date, the Sukagawa City Council responded that, regarding the Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures submitted on May 8, its position remained as stated in its April 23 response.
The Council’s May 20 response contained no reference to the separate petition submitted on May 8. The response alone therefore does not establish how that petition was handled within the Council.