Overview of the Document
Document title:
Regarding the Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures（Response）
Document number:
8 Gi No. 42
Date:
May 20, 2026
Created by:
Sukagawa City Council
Issuer:
Ryoji Sato, Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council
Addressee:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Application concerned:
Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures dated May 8, 2026
Method of acquisition:
Obtained as a response document sent to Toshio Tsumuraya
Document type:
Response document issued in the name of the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council concerning the Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures
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 a response issued in the name of the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council on May 20, 2026, concerning the “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” submitted to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council on May 8, 2026.
The document number is “8 Gi No. 42.”
The title of the document is:
Regarding the Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures（Response）
The body of the response consists of the following single sentence:
With regard to the above-referenced application submitted on May 8, 2026, our position remains as set out in “Regarding the Written Questions and Request（Response）,” document No. 8 Gi No. 20, dated April 23, 2026.
The office responsible is identified as the Proceedings and Research Section of the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat.
The application dated May 8, 2026, to which this response relates was submitted after the Sukagawa City Council stated in its response dated April 23:
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 May 8 application presented specific standards under the Local Autonomy Act, the Constitution, and international human rights law and again requested the legal grounds and a substantive determination concerning the reasons stated in the April 23 response—that the Council was not an institution that provides legal interpretations, that the matter was in litigation, and that it had been entrusted to legal counsel.
Specifically, the application cited Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 98, paragraph 2 and Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan; 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 did not request that the Sukagawa City Council make a final judicial determination in the manner of a court.
It requested that the Council investigate and re-examine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the series of resignation recommendation resolutions that it had itself adopted and determine whether corrective and remedial measures were required.
It also requested that, if the Council would not conduct such an investigation or re-examination or implement corrective or remedial measures, it identify the specific legal grounds for not doing so.
The May 8 application contained eight matters for clarification and seven requested measures.
The matters for clarification concerned the relationship between the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the presumption of innocence; the relationship with the duties of investigation, correction, and remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR; the consistency of the April 23 response with the Local Autonomy Act and other applicable standards; the legal grounds for not making a substantive determination because the residents’ lawsuit remained pending; and the legal grounds for not providing an explanation or re-examining the Council’s own actions because the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.
The application also questioned the consistency with Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Local Autonomy Act of the Sukagawa City Council having adopted the series of resignation recommendation resolutions based on Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal case before his criminal responsibility had been established, while subsequently responding that the Council was “not an institution that provides legal interpretations” when the constitutional and treaty compatibility of those resolutions was questioned.
The requested measures included investigation and re-examination of the relationship between the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and the presumption of innocence; clarification of the relationship with the obligation to provide remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR; a specific determination concerning whether a human rights violation occurred; withdrawal of the resolutions; restoration of reputation; public apology; measures to prevent recurrence; and other necessary corrective and remedial measures.
The application further requested that, if those measures were not taken, the Council identify in writing the specific legal grounds on which such inaction was permissible under the Constitution, the ICCPR, the VCLT, and the Local Autonomy Act.
The May 8 application requested that the Sukagawa City Council provide a written response to the matters for clarification and implement the necessary corrective measures within 14 days of receipt.
The present response was issued on May 20, 12 days after the application was submitted on May 8.
Accordingly, the date of the document confirms that a response was issued within the 14-day period requested in the application.
However, the response does not provide individual answers to the eight matters for clarification.
Nor does it state whether the seven requested measures were accepted, rejected, or remained under consideration.
It contains no individual determination or explanation concerning Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12, or Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
It also provides no substantive determination concerning Article 2, paragraph 3 or Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17, or General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30.
The response refers to document No. 8 Gi No. 20 dated April 23 and states that the Council’s position is “as set out” in that earlier response.
The wording may therefore be understood as maintaining, in relation to the May 8 application, the approach stated in the April 23 response:
The Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations.
The contents relate to a matter currently in litigation.
The matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.
However, the reasons stated in the April 23 response are not reproduced in the present response itself.
Nor does the response describe whether the Council examined the provisions of the Local Autonomy Act, the standards of international human rights law, or the specific counterarguments newly presented in the May 8 application before deciding to maintain the April 23 response.
The response does not state what materials the Sukagawa City Council reviewed or what investigation, deliberation, or re-examination it conducted.
Nor does it indicate what advice was received from legal counsel or what determination the Council itself made on the basis of that advice.
The title and body of the response identify the May 8 “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” as the document to which it responds.
On the same date, May 8, a separate petition was submitted requesting formal council investigation, deliberation, correction, remedies, and measures to prevent recurrence concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.
However, the present response contains no reference to that petition.
Accordingly, this is a response to the May 8 application. It is not a document showing how the separate petition submitted on the same date was handled within the Council or what determination was made concerning that petition.
Key Statements
The central statement in this document is:
Our position remains as set out in “Regarding the Written Questions and Request（Response）,” document No. 8 Gi No. 20, dated April 23, 2026.
Rather than providing new reasons or a substantive determination in response to the May 8 application, the present response adopts a form that refers back to the April 23 response.
Through that reference, the Sukagawa City Council may be understood, at least from the wording of the response, not to have changed the position stated on April 23.
However, the statement that its position remained “as set out in the April 23 response” does not specify what determination was made concerning each of the eight matters for clarification and seven requested measures contained in the May 8 application.
The response does not expressly state that the application was rejected.
Nor does it contain a substantive determination that no violation of the presumption of innocence occurred, that no remedies were required, or that the Council would not exercise its investigative powers under the Local Autonomy Act.
The response therefore cannot immediately be characterized as a substantive rejection of the request for remedies based on expressly stated legal reasons.
At the same time, because no substantive determination is given on the individual matters for clarification or requested measures, the specific legal questions raised by Toshio Tsumuraya cannot be regarded as having been resolved by the response.
The importance of this document lies in confirming that, even after specific counterarguments and legal grounds under the Local Autonomy Act, the Constitution, and international human rights law were presented in response to the April 23 reply, the Sukagawa City Council added no new substantive explanation and merely referred to its previous response.
The May 8 application did not seek general or abstract legal advice.
It requested that the Sukagawa City Council investigate and re-examine the constitutional and treaty compatibility of the resignation recommendation resolutions it had itself adopted and determine whether correction and remedies were required.
It also specifically questioned the consistency of the Council having adopted resignation recommendation resolutions based on assessments concerning a criminal case before criminal responsibility had been established, while later responding that it was “not an institution that provides legal interpretations” when the legal compatibility of those resolutions was questioned.
The present response does not explain what facts or legal standards the Council examined when it adopted the resignation recommendation resolutions.
Nor does it answer the argument that, if the Council conducted a legal examination at the time, it should be able to explain its decision-making process and the grounds for its determinations.
It also provides no determination concerning the alternative argument that, if the Council made an official public decision based on a criminal case in which criminal responsibility had not been established without sufficient legal examination, the propriety of the decision-making process itself becomes an issue.
The May 8 application cited the Council’s powers of decision-making, inspection, and investigation under Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act and the council members’ duty of faithful performance under paragraph 3.
It also cited Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12, which designates certain legal disputes and matters involving rights and obligations as matters requiring a council resolution, and Article 100-2, which establishes a system under which persons with relevant academic knowledge or experience may be asked to investigate specialized matters.
These provisions do not mean that the Sukagawa City Council makes final judicial determinations in the same manner as a court.
They were, however, presented to demonstrate that the Council is not institutionally incapable of making any decision concerning legal matters or of conducting specialized legal examination.
The present response does not explain why the Council continued to rely on the statement that it was “not an institution that provides legal interpretations” after these provisions had been specifically presented.
The May 8 application also explained that Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR does not require every measure requested by an applicant to be granted exactly as requested, but requires that the existence of a violation and the necessity of a remedy be determined by competent judicial, administrative, legislative, or other authorities.
The Sukagawa City Council is the institution that 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 the Council makes no substantive determination and does not indicate a connection to a determination by another competent authority, the question remains as to which institution will make the determination concerning rights and remedies required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
The response does not address that issue.
The fact that the present response was issued within 14 days of receipt of the May 8 application must be acknowledged in relation to the formal timing of the response.
However, the issuance of a document within the requested period and the provision of a substantive determination and specific legal grounds concerning the matters raised are separate issues.
The formal timing of the response must therefore be distinguished from the substance of its contents.
The present response concerns the May 8 application.
The separate petition submitted on the same date requested investigation, deliberation, correction, and measures to prevent recurrence through the formal procedures of the Sukagawa City Council.
The present response cannot be interpreted as showing that the separate petition was answered or otherwise processed.
This document therefore confirms the content of the Sukagawa City Council’s response to the May 8 application while also demonstrating the need separately to examine the Council’s internal procedures and records concerning the petition submitted on the same date.
Questions Raised by the Document
1. What did the statement that the Council’s position remained “as set out in the April 23 response” mean in relation to the eight matters for clarification?
The May 8 application contained eight specific matters for clarification.
However, the present response did not answer each matter individually and merely stated that the Council’s position remained as set out in its April 23 response.
It is unclear whether the Sukagawa City Council refused to answer each matter, decided not to make a substantive determination for the reasons previously stated, or continued to leave the matters under consideration by legal counsel.
2. Did the Council intend to maintain all three reasons stated in the April 23 response?
The April 23 response stated that:
The Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations.
The contents relate to a matter currently in litigation.
The matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.
Does the statement that the Council’s position remained “as set out in the April 23 response” mean that all three reasons continued to be relied upon?
Or did the Council maintain only one or some of those reasons?
3. How did the Council examine the provisions of the Local Autonomy Act newly presented in the May 8 application?
The May 8 application specifically cited Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
These provisions were presented after the April 23 response in order to challenge the legal validity of that response.
How did the Sukagawa City Council examine those provisions, and on what basis did it nevertheless decide to maintain the April 23 response?
4. Which institution ensures the determination of rights and remedies required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR?
The May 8 application pointed out the need for a substantive determination by a competent authority concerning the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence and the necessity of remedies.
If the Sukagawa City Council does not make that determination, which competent judicial, administrative, legislative, or other authority will determine whether a violation occurred and whether remedies are required?
How did the Sukagawa City Council ensure access to such a determination?
5. What investigation, deliberation, and re-examination did the Sukagawa City Council conduct after receiving the application?
The response does not state what materials the Sukagawa City Council reviewed or what investigation or deliberation it conducted after receiving the May 8 application.
Was the decision to maintain the April 23 response made by the Chairperson or the Council Secretariat?
Was the application discussed by the Council Steering Committee, a conference of political group representatives, the plenary Council, or another council body or meeting?
Was the content of the application shared with all council members?
6. What advice was received from legal counsel, and what determination did the Council itself make?
In its April 23 response, the Sukagawa City Council stated that the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.
However, entrusting the matter to legal counsel is not the same as investigation, explanation, and decision-making by the Council itself.
What advice did legal counsel provide after the May 8 application was received, and what official determination did the Sukagawa City Council itself make on the basis of that advice?
7. Were the seven requested measures accepted, rejected, or left under continued consideration?
The May 8 application requested investigation, re-examination, a specific determination concerning whether a human rights violation occurred, withdrawal of the resolutions, restoration of reputation, public apology, measures to prevent recurrence, and other measures.
The response does not state whether those requests were accepted, rejected, or remained under consideration.
How did the Sukagawa City Council handle each requested measure?
8. Is issuing a response within the requested period the same as providing a substantive answer?
The response was issued within 14 days of receipt of the May 8 application.
Accordingly, in terms of formal timing, a document was issued within the period requested in the application.
However, the response provides no substantive determination or specific legal grounds concerning the individual matters raised.
Does issuing a response document within the requested period establish that the requirements of an effective remedy or the Council’s responsibility to explain its actions were fulfilled?
9. Through what procedure was the separate petition submitted on the same date handled?
On May 8, 2026, a separate petition was submitted in addition to the application addressed by this response.
That petition requested investigation, deliberation, correction, and measures to prevent recurrence concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.
The present response contains no reference to the petition.
Was the petition distributed to council members, referred or transmitted to a committee, examined or discussed, or subjected to any formal council determination?
10. How is the maintenance of the previous response without a substantive determination characterized in relation to the obligation to provide a remedy?
The May 8 application presented specific facts concerning alleged human rights violations, applicable legal standards, and requested remedies.
Despite this, the present response did not provide a substantive determination concerning whether a violation occurred or whether remedies were required and merely referred back to the previous response.
How is that handling explained in relation to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17?
Relevant 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, remedies, and connection to competent authorities 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 remedial 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 remedies 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 makes no decisions concerning legal disputes or legal rights and obligations and that, in certain circumstances, it occupies an institutional position in which it makes decisions based on legal assessment.
The question in this case concerns the relationship between the Council’s continued reliance on the statement that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations and the institutional role demonstrated by this provision.
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 need for specialized examination concerning the Constitution or international human rights law does not make investigation and re-examination by the Council itself institutionally impossible.
The question in this case is what consideration the Sukagawa City Council gave to this provision after it was specifically cited in the May 8 application.
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.
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 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 what investigation and substantive determination the Sukagawa City Council conducted in response to the allegation that the series of resignation recommendation resolutions and public assessments it made before criminal responsibility had been established violated the presumption of innocence.
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 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 the Sukagawa City Council considered withdrawal of the 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 what re-examination the Sukagawa City Council conducted concerning its official decision calling for resignation based on assessments of a criminal case before criminal responsibility had been established.
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, 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.
Relevance to This Case
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, 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 issued document No. 8 Gi No. 20, titled “Regarding the Written Questions and Request（Response）,” stating:
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 that response, on 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 Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council.
That application specifically cited Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
It pointed out that the fact that the Sukagawa City Council is not a court or a general legal consultation body 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 and determine whether correction and remedies were required.
It also took the position that, because the Sukagawa City Council had adopted the series of resignation recommendation resolutions based on assessments concerning Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal case before his criminal responsibility had been established, it was necessary for the Council to explain the grounds for those resolutions and re-examine their legal compatibility.
The application further specifically addressed Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 31, paragraphs 15 through 17, Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, Articles 98, paragraph 2 and 99 of the Constitution of Japan, and Article 27 of the VCLT.
It contained eight matters for clarification and seven requested measures and requested a written response within 14 days of receipt together with implementation of necessary corrective measures.
The present document was issued in response.
It was dated May 20, 2026, within 14 days of receipt of the application.
However, its entire substantive response was limited to the following sentence:
Our position remains as set out in “Regarding the Written Questions and Request（Response）,” document No. 8 Gi No. 20, dated April 23, 2026.
The document therefore confirms that, even after receiving the May 8 application, the Sukagawa City Council did not change the position stated in its April 23 response.
However, it does not state how the Council examined the specific provisions of the Local Autonomy Act, the Constitution, or international human rights law newly presented in the May 8 application.
Nor does it provide individual determinations concerning the eight matters for clarification or seven requested measures, describe the investigation or re-examination conducted by the Council, identify advice received from legal counsel, or state the Council’s own official determination.
On the same date, May 8, a separate petition was submitted requesting that the Sukagawa City Council use its formal procedures to investigate, deliberate upon, correct, remedy, and prevent recurrence concerning the series of resignation recommendation resolutions.
The title and body of the present response identify the May 8 application as the document to which it responds. It is not a response to the separate petition submitted on the same date.
The issuance of the May 20 response therefore cannot be regarded as establishing that the separate petition was handled, investigated, deliberated upon, or determined by the Council.
This document is important evidence confirming that, after specific domestic and international legal counterarguments and eight matters for clarification and seven requested measures were presented in response to the April 23 reply, the Sukagawa City Council added no new substantive explanation and merely referred to its previous response.
The issue in this case is not limited to whether the Sukagawa City Council was required to accept Toshio Tsumuraya’s claims or grant the requested remedies exactly as presented.
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.
It also raises the question whether the issuance of a response within the requested period, by itself, ensured the effective remedy, determination of the right to such a remedy by a competent authority, and enforcement of remedies required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
If, even after the Council’s specific investigative powers and institutional mechanisms under the Local Autonomy Act were presented, the Sukagawa City Council may continue to rely on its previous statements that it is “not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” that the matter is “currently in litigation,” and that it has been “entrusted to legal counsel,” without making a substantive determination, the question remains as to which competent authority will determine the request for remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR and how that determination will be secured.
The document therefore also raises the question of whether that situation can be justified by the domestic allocation of authority, council autonomy, the pendency of litigation, or delegation to legal counsel 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.