Document Issued by Sukagawa City—Response Stating That the Legal Affairs Bureau Was the Point of Contact for the Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Maintaining Its Previous Response to the Request for Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures

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 Seikan No. 102

Date:
May 20, 2026

Created by:
Sukagawa City

Issuer:
Masaaki Oodera, Mayor of Sukagawa City

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 Mayor of Sukagawa City 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:

View Fullscreen

Facts Confirmed by the Document

This document is a response issued in the name of the Mayor of Sukagawa City 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 Mayor on May 8, 2026.

The document number is “8 Seikan No. 102.”

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 two sentences:

With regard to the application for relief from human rights violations submitted on May 8, 2026, the Legal Affairs Bureau is the point of contact for receiving such applications.

With regard to the request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures, our position remains as stated in our response numbered 8 Seikan No. 59, dated April 23, 2026.

The office responsible is identified as the Civic Activity Support Section of the Living Environment Division of Sukagawa City.

The response divided the document submitted on May 8 into two components: the “application for relief from human rights violations” and the “request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures.”

Regarding the former, it stated that the Legal Affairs Bureau was the point of contact for receiving such applications.

However, the response does not identify which Legal Affairs Bureau or department was intended, what procedure was to be used, whether Sukagawa City forwarded or transferred the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau, or whether Toshio Tsumuraya was required to submit a new application directly to that Bureau.

Nor does the response state whether Sukagawa City considered that, because the Legal Affairs Bureau was the point of contact, the City itself was not required to investigate or determine the existence of a human rights violation, its own previous handling of the matter, or corrective measures available within its authority.

Regarding the “request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures,” the response stated that the City’s position remained as set out in document No. 8 Seikan No. 59, dated April 23, 2026.

The April 23 response stated:

Because the contents relate to a matter currently in litigation, the matter has been entrusted to legal counsel.

Accordingly, the present document confirms that, even after new legal grounds and specific matters for clarification were presented in the May 8 application, Sukagawa City maintained the approach stated in its April 23 response concerning the request for legal grounds and corrective measures.

The May 8 application specifically cited Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act; Articles 31, 98, paragraph 2, and 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 pointed out that the executive organ of Sukagawa City had a duty under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act faithfully to manage and execute its affairs based on its own judgment and responsibility.

It therefore requested specific legal grounds and a substantive determination concerning the position that consultation with or delegation to legal counsel extinguished the responsibility of the Mayor or the City’s executive organ to make its own determination.

The application also argued that the residents’ lawsuit pending at the time concerned alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters, whereas the May 8 application concerned the violation of the presumption of innocence caused by the resignation recommendation resolutions, the City’s previous responses, and the absence of an effective remedy.

It further asked, as an independent matter for clarification, whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation 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.

The May 8 application contained six matters for clarification and five requested measures addressed to the Mayor of Sukagawa City.

The six matters concerned the legal grounds for not making a substantive determination because the residents’ lawsuit remained pending; the relationship between delegation to legal counsel and Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act; whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025; the compatibility of that interpretation with the presumption of innocence and related standards; whether Sukagawa City intended to conduct an investigation and implement remedial measures; and the compatibility of the City’s previous handling with its duty of faithful management and execution.

The five requested measures included investigation of the relationship between the resignation recommendation resolutions and the presumption of innocence; clarification of the relationship with the obligation to provide a remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR; a substantive determination concerning whether a human rights violation occurred; restoration of reputation, public apology, measures to prevent recurrence, and other corrective measures; and written identification of the specific legal grounds for not taking those measures.

The May 8 application requested a written response within 14 days of receipt and the implementation of necessary corrective measures.

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 six matters for clarification.

Nor does it state whether the five requested measures were accepted, rejected, or remained under consideration.

It does not state what factual findings, legal assessments, or administrative determinations the Mayor or the City’s executive organ made based on their own judgment and responsibility under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.

It does not answer whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025.

Nor does it provide a substantive determination concerning investigation and remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, the presumption of innocence under Article 14, paragraph 2, or General Comments Nos. 31 and 32.

The response states that the Legal Affairs Bureau is the point of contact for the application for relief from human rights violations.

However, the document itself does not establish that Sukagawa City forwarded the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau, that the Bureau accepted it, or that the Bureau commenced an investigation or determination concerning the alleged human rights violation.

Nor does the reference to the Legal Affairs Bureau establish that Sukagawa City investigated or re-examined the materials held by the City, the legal consultation conducted by the City, the City’s previous responses, or its own administrative handling of the matter.

Key Statements

The two central statements in this document are:

With regard to the application for relief from human rights violations, the Legal Affairs Bureau is the point of contact for receiving such applications.

With regard to the request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures, our position remains as stated in our response numbered 8 Seikan No. 59, dated April 23, 2026.

The first statement demonstrates that Sukagawa City directed the application for relief from human rights violations to the Legal Affairs Bureau as the relevant point of contact.

Providing information about the human rights remedy procedures available through the Legal Affairs Bureau may have some significance as a means of informing a person alleging a human rights violation of another available system.

However, directing a person to another institution or procedure is not the same as Sukagawa City investigating and determining matters concerning the documents it holds, the legal consultation it conducted, its own previous responses, and corrective measures available within its own authority.

The matters raised in this case were not limited to the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council.

They also included Sukagawa City’s response in 2025 that the matter had been “properly handled,” the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025, that an inference close to guilt was permissible because Toshio Tsumuraya had been arrested, and the City’s continuing failure to provide a substantive determination concerning the existence of a human rights violation and the necessity of remedies.

Accordingly, the statement that the Legal Affairs Bureau was the point of contact for human rights remedy applications does not establish what investigation or re-examination Sukagawa City conducted concerning its own administrative handling and official determinations.

The response also does not state whether its reference to the Legal Affairs Bureau was merely informational, constituted a formal transfer or referral, or resulted from a determination that Sukagawa City itself lacked authority.

Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR does not require every institution receiving an application to act beyond its lawful powers or to implement every measure requested by the applicant.

It does, however, require the State Party to ensure an effective remedy for persons whose rights or freedoms under the Covenant have been violated, to ensure that the right to such a remedy is determined by competent judicial, administrative, legislative, or other authorities, and to ensure enforcement of remedies that are granted.

Accordingly, where Sukagawa City directs an application for relief from human rights violations to the Legal Affairs Bureau, it becomes necessary to clarify which matters the Bureau is expected to handle and under what authority, how the City distinguished matters for its own determination from matters requiring determination by the Bureau, and whether the application was actually connected to a determination by a competent authority.

If the City merely identifies a point of contact and no competent authority subsequently makes a substantive determination concerning the existence of a violation or the necessity of a remedy, the effective remedy and determination of rights required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR would not be realized in practice.

The second central statement demonstrates that Sukagawa City maintained its April 23 response concerning the request for legal grounds and corrective measures.

The April 23 response consisted of the statement that the contents related to a matter currently in litigation and that the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.

In response, the May 8 application specifically cited Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and pointed out that consultation with or delegation to legal counsel was separate from the duty of the Mayor and the City’s executive organ to make official determinations based on their own judgment and responsibility.

It also argued that the residents’ lawsuit and the application for relief from human rights violations differed in their subject matter and purpose.

It requested specific legal grounds if the pendency of the lawsuit was relied upon as a reason not to make a substantive determination concerning the alleged human rights violation or the necessity of remedies.

Nevertheless, the present response added no new explanation concerning those points and merely referred back to the April 23 response.

The response does not expressly state that Sukagawa City refused to clarify the legal grounds.

Nor does it make a substantive determination that no violation of the ICCPR occurred, that Sukagawa City bore no responsibility concerning investigation or remedies, or that the City continued to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025.

It 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 the response provides no individual determinations concerning the six matters for clarification or the five requested measures, the specific legal questions raised by Toshio Tsumuraya cannot be regarded as having been resolved.

An important feature of this response is that Sukagawa City divided a single, integrated application into two components.

It directed the “application for relief from human rights violations” to the Legal Affairs Bureau, while maintaining its previous response concerning the “request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures.”

However, those components were not unrelated.

The May 8 application presented the existence of a human rights violation, its legal assessment, the duties of investigation and remedy, corrective measures, and the legal grounds for failing to take those measures as an integrated issue.

In particular, the third and fourth matters for clarification asked whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation 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.

If Sukagawa City continued to maintain that interpretation, it was requested to 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.

Those matters did not merely request that the Legal Affairs Bureau determine generally whether a human rights violation had occurred.

They concerned Sukagawa City’s own decision-making and official position—whether the City continued to maintain an interpretation expressed during a legal consultation conducted for the City and whether that interpretation remained a premise of its administrative handling.

Even if the Legal Affairs Bureau is the point of contact for human rights remedy procedures, it cannot state Sukagawa City’s official position on behalf of the City.

Whether that interpretation affected the City’s previous responses or handling of the request for correction, and whether the City re-examined that influence, are also matters directly related to materials held by Sukagawa City and its internal decision-making process.

Accordingly, if the existence of the human rights violation is directed to the Legal Affairs Bureau, while the questions concerning the interpretation central to that alleged violation are left unanswered because the City maintains its April 23 response, the division itself creates a further problem.

Even if the Legal Affairs Bureau accepts the application, the factual and legal issue of whether Sukagawa City continues to maintain the interpretation expressed on April 19, 2025 may remain unresolved unless the City itself provides an answer.

Conversely, if Sukagawa City regards that issue as part of the human rights remedy application to be handled by the Legal Affairs Bureau and therefore makes no substantive determination itself, a gap may arise in which neither Sukagawa City nor the Legal Affairs Bureau provides a substantive determination concerning the City’s official position and internal decision-making.

The response’s division of the integrated application may therefore make it unclear which institution is responsible for investigating the facts and legal assessments central to the alleged human rights violation, which institution must answer the relevant questions, and which institution must determine the necessity of a remedy.

If the existence of the violation is directed to the Legal Affairs Bureau, while Sukagawa City maintains its previous response concerning its own legal grounds and corrective measures, it becomes necessary to clarify who will make the substantive determination, and concerning which matters.

Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act does not confer powers upon the Mayor of Sukagawa City that do not otherwise exist under law.

The Mayor does not necessarily possess authority unilaterally to withdraw resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council.

However, the possible absence of authority 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 matters concerning documents held by the City, the legal consultation conducted by the City, the City’s previous responses, and its own administrative handling.

The issue is how the Mayor and the mayoral departments distinguished matters within their own authority from matters requiring determination by the Legal Affairs Bureau, the Sukagawa City Council, a court, or another institution.

It is also necessary to determine whether matters considered outside the City’s authority were actually connected to an investigation, determination of rights, and remedies by another competent authority, rather than merely being referred to another institution in general terms.

The fact that the response was issued within 14 days of submission of the May 8 application must be acknowledged in relation to the formal timing of the response.

However, issuing a response document within the requested period is separate from providing substantive determinations and specific legal grounds concerning the six matters for clarification and five requested measures.

The response must therefore be examined by distinguishing its formal timing, its division of the application between the Legal Affairs Bureau and the City’s previous response, the possible gap in substantive determination created by that division, and whether any competent authority actually determined the existence of the violation and the necessity of remedies.

Questions Raised by the Document

1. What specific legal grounds and procedures supported the statement that the Legal Affairs Bureau was the point of contact?

The response states that the Legal Affairs Bureau is the point of contact for the application for relief from human rights violations.

However, it does not identify which Legal Affairs Bureau or department was intended, what law or procedure applied, or how the application was to be submitted.

What specific system and procedure did Sukagawa City intend to identify?

2. Did Sukagawa City forward or transfer the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau?

The response does not state whether Sukagawa City forwarded the May 8 application, or its contents, to the Legal Affairs Bureau.

Nor does it state whether Toshio Tsumuraya was required to make a new application directly to the Bureau.

Was the reference to the Legal Affairs Bureau merely informational, or did it constitute a formal referral or transfer?

3. Did directing the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau eliminate the need for Sukagawa City to conduct its own investigation and determination?

The matters raised concerned not only the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council but also the legal consultation conducted by Sukagawa City, the City’s previous responses, and its own administrative handling.

Does the fact that the Legal Affairs Bureau is the point of contact for human rights remedy applications provide a legal basis for Sukagawa City not to investigate, explain, or re-examine its own administrative conduct?

4. Why did Sukagawa City divide an integrated application into two components?

The May 8 document integrated an application for relief from human rights violations, a request for clarification of the legal grounds, and a request for corrective measures.

The response treated the human rights remedy application as a matter for the Legal Affairs Bureau while maintaining the previous response concerning the legal grounds and corrective measures.

On what basis were the related facts, legal assessments, and requested remedies divided in this manner?

5. Did the division create a situation in which no institution made a substantive determination concerning the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025?

The third and fourth matters for clarification in the May 8 application asked whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation 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.

They also requested that, if the City continued 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.

Those questions concerned Sukagawa City’s own official position and internal decision-making.

They were not matters that the Legal Affairs Bureau could answer on behalf of Sukagawa City.

However, the present response directed the human rights remedy application to the Legal Affairs Bureau and merely maintained the April 23 response concerning the request for legal grounds, without stating whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation.

Did this result in a gap in which the Legal Affairs Bureau could not determine Sukagawa City’s official position, while Sukagawa City itself provided no substantive answer because it had directed the human rights remedy application elsewhere and maintained its previous response?

Which institution was responsible for investigating, answering, and determining the necessity of remedies concerning the facts and legal assessment central to the alleged human rights violation?

6. What did the statement that the City’s position remained as stated in the April 23 response mean in relation to the six matters for clarification?

The May 8 application contained six specific matters for clarification.

However, the present response did not answer them individually and merely referred back to the April 23 response.

Did Sukagawa City refuse to answer the matters, decide not to make a determination because litigation remained pending, or leave them under continued consideration by legal counsel?

7. Were the five requested measures accepted, rejected, or left under continued consideration?

The May 8 application requested investigation, a substantive determination, restoration of reputation, public apology, measures to prevent recurrence, and other corrective measures.

The present response does not state whether those measures were accepted, rejected, or remained under consideration.

How did Sukagawa City handle each requested measure?

8. What determination did the Mayor make under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act?

The May 8 application specifically questioned the duty of the Mayor and the City’s executive organ faithfully to manage and execute their affairs based on their own judgment and responsibility.

After receiving legal advice, what official determinations did the Mayor make concerning the facts, applicable standards, the City’s authority, the existence of a human rights violation, and the necessity of remedies?

9. Does Sukagawa City continue to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025?

The May 8 application asked whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation:

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

The present response did not answer that question.

Did Sukagawa City adopt the interpretation as its official position, rely upon it in its previous decision-making, or cease to maintain it?

10. Which institution ensures the determination of rights and remedies required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR?

Sukagawa City directed the application for relief from human rights violations to the Legal Affairs Bureau.

At the same time, it maintained its previous response that the request for legal grounds and corrective measures concerned pending litigation and had been entrusted to legal counsel.

Under this division, which institution—the Legal Affairs Bureau, Sukagawa City, the Sukagawa City Council, a court, or another authority—is responsible for making a substantive determination concerning each aspect of the alleged violation and the necessity of remedies?

If Sukagawa City merely identified the Legal Affairs Bureau as a point of contact without actually connecting the matter to an investigation and determination by that Bureau, was the effective remedy required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR secured?

11. Is issuing a response within the requested period the same as providing a substantive answer?

The response was issued within 14 days of submission of the May 8 application.

However, it provided no individual substantive determination or specific legal grounds concerning the six matters for clarification or the five requested measures.

Did issuing a response document within the requested period, directing the human rights remedy application to the Legal Affairs Bureau, and referring to the previous response fulfil the requirements of an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR or the responsibility of the executive organ under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act?

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 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, determination, and connection to remedies by Sukagawa City, the Legal Affairs Bureau, the Sukagawa City Council, and other competent authorities.

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 own administrative handling with the Constitution and treaty obligations after receiving a specific allegation of human rights violations and took the 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 an 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 or another institution has been identified as a point of contact.

The question in this case is what official determination the Mayor made, based on the Mayor’s own judgment and responsibility, separately from directing the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau and entrusting litigation matters to legal counsel.

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 every authority receiving an application to implement all requested remedies beyond the scope of its lawful powers.

The question in this case is whether Sukagawa City’s reference to the Legal Affairs Bureau actually secured an investigation, determination of the rights and remedies involved, and implementation of necessary remedies by a competent 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 series of resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council before Toshio Tsumuraya’s criminal responsibility had been established, the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025, and Sukagawa City’s subsequent responses 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 within its own authority after receiving the application and how it connected the matter to an investigation by the Legal Affairs Bureau.

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 its 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 have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial.

The question in this case is whether Sukagawa City adopted or continued to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025, 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, directing the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau, the pendency of litigation, delegation to legal counsel, or internal administrative policy can justify a situation in which no competent authority investigates the alleged violation, 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 document No. 8 Seikan No. 59, stating:

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 the “Application for Relief from Human Rights Violations and Request for Clarification of the Legal Grounds and Corrective Measures” to the Mayor of Sukagawa City.

That application specifically cited Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and pointed out that consultation with legal counsel or delegation of the response to pending litigation was separate from the duty of the Mayor and the City’s executive organ to make official determinations based on their own judgment and responsibility.

It also argued that the residents’ lawsuit concerned alleged illegality in financial and accounting matters, whereas the application concerned human rights violations, Sukagawa City’s previous handling, the subsequent refusal or failure to correct the matter, and the absence of an effective remedy.

Through six matters for clarification and five requested measures, it asked whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation expressed during the legal consultation on April 19, 2025, whether it intended to investigate and remedy the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence, and what specific legal grounds permitted it not to take those measures.

The present document was issued in response.

It was dated May 20, 2026, within 14 days of submission of the application.

However, regarding the application for relief from human rights violations, it stated only:

The Legal Affairs Bureau is the point of contact for receiving such applications.

Regarding the request for clarification of the legal grounds and corrective measures, it stated only:

Our position remains as stated in our response numbered 8 Seikan No. 59, dated April 23, 2026.

The document therefore confirms that Sukagawa City divided the May 8 application into two components, directed the human rights remedy application to the Legal Affairs Bureau, and maintained its previous response concerning the legal grounds and corrective measures.

However, the document does not establish whether Sukagawa City actually forwarded or transferred the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau, whether the Bureau accepted the application, or whether it commenced an investigation or determination.

Nor does it provide individual determinations concerning the six matters for clarification or five requested measures, the Mayor’s official determination under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act, whether the interpretation expressed on April 19, 2025 continued to be maintained, or investigations and corrective measures available within Sukagawa City’s authority.

On the same date, May 20, the Sukagawa City Council issued a separate response concerning the application submitted to the Chairperson of the Council on May 8, stating that its position remained as set out in its April 23 response.

However, the application addressed to the Mayor and the application addressed to the Chairperson of the Council were separate documents with different addressees, legal grounds, matters for clarification, and requested measures.

The present response issued by Sukagawa City is distinguishable from the Council’s response because it addresses the responsibility of the Mayor and the City’s executive organ under Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and directs the human rights remedy application to the Legal Affairs Bureau.

This document confirms that the Mayor was requested to provide clear answers concerning the relationship with the residents’ lawsuit, the scope of the matters entrusted to legal counsel, the Mayor’s own judgment and responsibility, whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation expressed on April 19, 2025, whether it intended to investigate and remedy the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence, and the legal grounds for not taking those measures.

Nevertheless, no individual substantive determination concerning those matters was presented.

The issue is not limited to whether the Mayor possessed authority personally to withdraw resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council.

It also concerns whether the Mayor and the mayoral departments determined what investigations, 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 determinations of rights and remedies by the Legal Affairs Bureau, the Sukagawa City Council, a court, or another competent institution.

If, as a result of directing the human rights remedy application to the Legal Affairs Bureau and maintaining the previous response concerning the legal grounds and corrective measures, neither Sukagawa City nor another competent authority makes a substantive determination concerning the existence of a violation or the necessity of remedies, the requirements of an effective remedy, determination by a competent authority, and enforcement of remedies under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR 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, directing the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau, 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.

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.