Introduction
This page provides an integrated chronological examination of the events from the requests for corrective action submitted on April 3, 2025, through the responses issued by Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council on May 20, 2026, against the background of the series of resolutions recommending resignation adopted in 2011 and 2012.
In this case, the Sukagawa City Council adopted a total of four resolutions recommending the resignation of Toshio Tsumuraya: two before his criminal responsibility had been finally determined, and two after the conviction became final.
The First Recommendation for Resignation was adopted before indictment, while Toshio Tsumuraya was in detention and unable to attend the plenary session.
The Second Recommendation for Resignation was adopted after indictment but before the first trial hearing and before any guilty judgment had been delivered.
The Third and Fourth Recommendations for Resignation were subsequently adopted after the conviction became final.
The issue examined in this case is not merely the fact that a guilty judgment was delivered and became final.
The issue is how the Sukagawa City Council, as a public institution, evaluated the facts and responsibility relating to the criminal case and called upon Toshio Tsumuraya to resign before the conviction became final.
A further issue is how those acts can be reconciled with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Japan has ratified, and with the prohibition on public authorities prejudging the outcome of a trial stated in paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32 of the Human Rights Committee.
Since 2025, Toshio Tsumuraya has repeatedly asked Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council to investigate, legally assess, correct, and remedy the alleged human rights violations arising from the series of resolutions recommending his resignation.
In response, Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council conducted internal deliberations and legal consultations and issued multiple written responses.
However, those responses do not make clear what substantive determinations, if any, were made concerning the existence of human rights violations, the applicable legal standards, the need for investigation and corrective action, or the necessity of an effective remedy.
This page examines whether, after a specific allegation of human rights violations, supporting documents, and applicable legal standards had been presented, a competent authority substantively investigated and determined whether a violation had occurred and whether a remedy was required.
It also examines whether, viewed across the entire sequence of submissions and responses, Japan can be regarded as having fulfilled its obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
This page is an integrated verification article that examines the primary materials published in the individual evidence articles and organizes what issues were raised with Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council, how each institution responded, and what issues remain unresolved.
The original documents, overviews of each document, and detailed examinations are available in the respective evidence articles.
Position of This Page
This page is not an evidence article introducing a single document.
It is an integrated verification article that places the following materials in chronological order and examines their relationships: the resolutions recommending resignation adopted in 2011 and 2012; the requests, petitions, internal deliberations, joint legal consultation, and responses in 2025; and the written questions and request, applications for human rights relief, renewed petition, and responses in 2026.
The individual evidence articles organize the contents of each document, the facts confirmed by it, its key statements, and the questions arising from it.
This page, by contrast, examines those documents across the record and organizes the overall structure of the responses to the requests for correction and relief, which is difficult to identify from any single document alone.
In particular, this page does not treat Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council as the same institution.
The Mayor of Sukagawa and the executive departments under the mayor have the authority and responsibilities of the executive organ of the local government.
The Sukagawa City Council, by contrast, is the deliberative and decision-making body and has its own authority and responsibility concerning the resolutions recommending resignation that it adopted, the official records of those resolutions, and the Council’s internal procedures.
The internal processing, responses, and referral to the Legal Affairs Bureau on the City side must therefore be examined separately from the Council’s internal deliberations, responses, and handling of petitions.
The legal consultation held on April 19, 2025, was jointly conducted by Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat.
However, separate internal documents and approval records were prepared and retained by the City side and the Council side concerning that single joint legal consultation.
The fact that both sides participated in the same consultation must therefore be distinguished from the question of what decisions and actions each institution took after receiving the results of that consultation.
The responses of both institutions are then examined together in order to determine which institution, if any, ultimately made a substantive determination concerning the existence of a human rights violation and the necessity of a remedy.
This page also distinguishes between facts directly confirmed by the documents and matters that cannot be confirmed from the documents.
It does not assert, without supporting documentation, that Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council intentionally avoided making a determination.
At the same time, by comparing the official documents and the submitted materials, it is possible to verify which matters were answered and which matters remained unanswered or unconfirmed after the repeated requests and petitions.
Timeline
October 26, 2011 First Recommendation for Resignation
The Sukagawa City Council adopted the First Recommendation for Resignation against Toshio Tsumuraya.
At that time, Toshio Tsumuraya had not yet been indicted and was in detention.
He was unable to attend the plenary session.
The minutes contain no record that the Council heard his account, afforded him an opportunity to explain, or secured an opportunity for him to respond.
Questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted, and the resolution was adopted by all council members present standing in favor.
December 1, 2011 Second Recommendation for Resignation
The Sukagawa City Council adopted the Second Recommendation for Resignation against Toshio Tsumuraya.
At that time, he had been indicted, but the first trial hearing had not yet taken place and no guilty judgment had been delivered.
At the meeting of all council members held on November 24, 2011, Toshio Tsumuraya had explained that he intended to decide whether to resign after awaiting the outcome of the trial.
Seven days later, the Second Recommendation for Resignation was adopted.
The reasons for the proposal characterized his conduct, including his position that he would await the outcome of the trial, as contrary to social justice.
They also contained a categorical assessment premised on the conclusion that Toshio Tsumuraya had driven under the influence of alcohol.
February 9, 2012 Third Recommendation for Resignation
A guilty judgment was delivered against Toshio Tsumuraya on January 16, 2012, and became final on January 31.
The Sukagawa City Council subsequently adopted the Third Recommendation for Resignation against him on February 9.
Unlike the First and Second Recommendations, the Third Recommendation was adopted after the conviction became final.
March 1, 2012 Fourth Recommendation for Resignation
The Sukagawa City Council adopted the Fourth Recommendation for Resignation against Toshio Tsumuraya.
On March 5, 2012, Toshio Tsumuraya submitted his resignation from the Council.
On the following day, March 6, the Sukagawa City Council approved his resignation.
April 3, 2025 Submission of a Written Request to Sukagawa City and a Petition to the Sukagawa City Council
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written request to Sukagawa City seeking an investigation and corrective measures concerning the human rights violations alleged to have arisen from the resolutions recommending his resignation.
At the same time, he submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council seeking an independent review and corrective measures concerning those resolutions.
The written request addressed to Sukagawa City and the petition addressed to the Sukagawa City Council were separate documents with different recipients and different forms of requested action.
The City was asked to conduct an investigation, make a legal assessment, and take corrective measures within its institutional capacity.
The Council was asked to examine and correct the resolutions recommending resignation that it had itself adopted.
April 8, 2025 Caucus Representatives’ Meeting
A Caucus Representatives’ Meeting was held within the Sukagawa City Council concerning the handling of the petition.
The fact that the meeting was held confirms that the petition became the subject of internal deliberation within the Council.
However, the related internal documents and subsequent processing must be examined in order to determine what factual investigation, legal assessment, or substantive determination was conducted concerning the matters raised in the petition.
April 19, 2025 Joint Legal Consultation Conducted by Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat
Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat jointly conducted a legal consultation concerning their response to the written request and petition.
The consultation was held from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on April 19, 2025.
Separate internal documents and approval records concerning this single joint consultation were prepared and retained by the City side and the Council side.
The consultation record contains the following interpretation:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with drawing an inference close to guilt.
April 28, 2025 Final Response from Sukagawa City
Sukagawa City issued a final response concerning the written request of April 3, stating in substance that the matter had been handled appropriately.
The response does not state the specific legal basis for concluding whether no human rights violation existed, whether a violation existed but corrective measures were unnecessary, or whether the City considered itself to lack the authority to investigate or take corrective action.
It also does not state whether Sukagawa City formally adopted the interpretation recorded in the joint legal consultation of April 19 or whether it continued to maintain that interpretation.
April 10, 2026 Written Questions and Request
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted the same written questions and request to the Mayor of Sukagawa and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council, seeking correction of the resolutions recommending his resignation and an effective remedy.
The document questioned whether the series of resolutions and the continued maintenance of their official records were consistent with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
It also referred to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, General Comments Nos. 31 and 32, Articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan.
The questions included the specific legal basis for refusing to correct the resolutions and their official records, whether the interpretation recorded in the joint legal consultation of April 19, 2025, continued to be maintained, and whether the response taken in 2025 fulfilled the obligation to provide an effective remedy.
The document contained five questions and three requests.
The requests included written answers to the questions and, if a human rights violation was recognized, withdrawal of the resolutions, deletion or correction of the official records, and public corrective and reputational restoration measures.
April 23, 2026 Response from Sukagawa City
Sukagawa City responded to the written questions and request of April 10 as follows:
Because the matter relates to a case currently pending, we have entrusted it to legal counsel.
The response does not explain the specific relationship between the resident litigation pending at that time and the requests for investigation, legal determination, and effective relief stated in the written questions and request.
It also does not state whether the matters entrusted to legal counsel were limited to litigation strategy or extended to determining the existence of a human rights violation, making a legal assessment, and deciding whether corrective measures were necessary.
No individual answer was provided to any of the five questions or three requests.
April 23, 2026 Response from the Sukagawa City Council
The Sukagawa City Council responded to the written questions and request of April 10 as follows:
The Council understands that it is not an institution that provides legal interpretations. Moreover, because the matter relates to a case currently pending, we have entrusted it to legal counsel.
The Council’s response added a reason that did not appear in the City’s response:
The Council is not an institution that provides legal interpretations.
The Council’s response likewise provided no individual answer to any of the five questions or three requests.
May 8, 2026 Application for Human Rights Relief and Related Request Addressed to the Mayor of Sukagawa
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted to the Mayor of Sukagawa an “Application for Human Rights Relief, Inquiry Concerning the Legal Basis, and Request for Corrective Measures.”
The document was submitted in response to the April 23 reply referring to pending litigation and stating that the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel.
It cited Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and stated that seeking legal advice or entrusting litigation to an attorney was distinct from the obligation of the mayor and the City’s executive organs to make public decisions on their own judgment and responsibility.
It also stated that the resident litigation and the application for human rights relief differed in their subject matter and purpose.
The document again asked whether Sukagawa City continued to maintain the interpretation recorded in the joint legal consultation of April 19, 2025.
It contained six inquiries and five requests.
May 8, 2026 Application for Human Rights Relief and Related Request Addressed to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council
Toshio Tsumuraya also submitted an “Application for Human Rights Relief, Inquiry Concerning the Legal Basis, and Request for Corrective Measures” to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council.
Although the document had the same title as the document addressed to the Mayor, it was a separate document with a different recipient, different statutory provisions, different inquiries, and different requested measures.
The document addressed to the Council Chairperson referred to Article 89, paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act.
It did not ask the Council to make a final judicial determination of the kind made by a court.
Instead, it asked the Council to investigate and re-examine the resolutions it had adopted and to determine whether correction and relief were required.
The document contained eight inquiries and seven requests.
May 8, 2026 Petition Addressed to the Sukagawa City Council
On the same day, Toshio Tsumuraya separately submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council seeking an investigation, re-examination, correction, and measures to prevent recurrence through formal Council procedures concerning the alleged human rights violations caused by the series of resolutions recommending his resignation.
The petition was separate from the application addressed to the Council Chairperson and created a separate procedural route seeking formal examination and determination by the Council.
Its title also stated that broad public disclosure was requested.
May 20, 2026 Response from Sukagawa City
Sukagawa City responded to the application for human rights relief as follows:
The Legal Affairs Bureau is the point of contact.
Regarding the inquiry concerning the legal basis and the request for corrective measures, it responded:
As stated in our response dated April 23, 2026, Ref. No. 8生環第59号.
The response divided the single submitted document into two components: the application for human rights relief and the inquiry concerning the legal basis and request for corrective measures.
The response was issued 12 days after the May 8 submission, confirming that a written response was issued within the 14-day period requested in the document.
However, the response does not state whether Sukagawa City transmitted or referred the application to the Legal Affairs Bureau, whether Toshio Tsumuraya was required to file a separate application with the Bureau, or whether the Bureau had begun an investigation or determination.
It also provided no individual answer to any of the six inquiries or five requests.
May 20, 2026 Response from the Sukagawa City Council
The Sukagawa City Council responded to the application of May 8 as follows:
As stated in the “Response Concerning the Written Questions and Request” dated April 23, 2026, Ref. No. 8議第20号.
The response was issued 12 days after the application was submitted, confirming that a written response was issued within the requested 14-day period.
However, it does not state what consideration was given to the provisions of the Local Autonomy Act and the international human rights standards newly presented in the May 8 application.
It also provided no individual answer to any of the eight inquiries or seven requests.
The response addressed the application submitted to the Council Chairperson on May 8 and did not refer to the separate petition submitted on the same day.
The response alone therefore does not establish how the petition was handled within the Council.
Institutional and Chronological Overview of the Responses
The following table briefly organizes the principal submissions, internal processing, and responses from 2025 onward, together with the matters that remained unresolved.
The table is not a substitute for the body of the article.
The contents and legal significance of each document are examined in the following sections and in the individual evidence articles.
| Date | Institution or procedural route | Document or action | Confirmed response or handling | Principal matters remaining |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| April 3, 2025 | Sukagawa City | Written request seeking investigation and corrective measures concerning human rights violations | Proceeded to the joint legal consultation and a written response | Existence of a human rights violation and necessity of investigation and correction |
| April 3, 2025 | Sukagawa City Council | Petition seeking review and correction of the resolutions recommending resignation | Proceeded to the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting and joint legal consultation | Formal substantive determination concerning the petition |
| April 8, 2025 | Sukagawa City Council | Caucus Representatives’ Meeting | Internal deliberation concerning the handling of the petition | Standards applied, substantive examination, and formal conclusion |
| April 19, 2025 | Sukagawa City and Sukagawa City Council Secretariat | Joint legal consultation | Separate internal records were prepared by the City and Council sides concerning one consultation, and an interpretation permitting an inference close to guilt based on arrest was recorded | Whether the City or Council formally adopted and continues to maintain that interpretation |
| April 28, 2025 | Sukagawa City | Final response | Response stating in substance that the matter had been handled appropriately | Specific legal basis and determination concerning relief |
| April 10, 2026 | Sukagawa City and Sukagawa City Council | Same written questions and request submitted to both institutions | Separate responses issued by the City and Council | Individual determinations concerning the five questions and three requests |
| April 23, 2026 | Sukagawa City | City response | “Pending litigation” and “entrusted to legal counsel” | Specific relationship with the litigation and scope of the attorney’s mandate |
| April 23, 2026 | Sukagawa City Council | Council response | “Not an institution that provides legal interpretations,” “pending litigation,” and “entrusted to legal counsel” | Specific legal basis for not explaining or re-examining its own resolutions |
| May 8, 2026 | Sukagawa City | Application for human rights relief and related request addressed to the Mayor | Proceeded to the May 20 response | City’s own decision-making responsibility and the interpretation recorded in the joint legal consultation |
| May 8, 2026 | Sukagawa City Council | Application for human rights relief and related request addressed to the Council Chairperson | Proceeded to the May 20 response | Council investigation, re-examination, and determination concerning correction |
| May 8, 2026 | Sukagawa City Council | Separate petition | Receipt confirmed by official stamp | Distribution, referral, examination, vote, and response |
| May 20, 2026 | Sukagawa City | City response | Referred to the Legal Affairs Bureau and maintained the previous response concerning the legal inquiries | Actual connection to the Bureau’s procedure and substantive determination by the City |
| May 20, 2026 | Sukagawa City Council | Council response | Maintained the April 23 response | Response to the newly presented legal grounds and handling of the separate petition |
Differences Between the 2025 Request and Petition and the 2026 Written Questions, Request, and Subsequent Submissions
The written request and petition submitted on April 3, 2025, initiated the requests that Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council investigate, legally assess, and correct the alleged human rights violations arising from the resolutions recommending resignation adopted in 2011 and 2012.
By contrast, the written questions and request of April 10, 2026, were submitted after the 2025 request, internal deliberations, joint legal consultation, and response.
They sought more specific legal grounds and answers, with particular emphasis on the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
The same April 10 document was submitted to both the Mayor of Sukagawa and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council.
It presented the matter as one affecting the local government as a whole while requesting that the City and Council respond in accordance with their respective authority and responsibilities.
The document contained five questions and three requests.
By contrast, the documents addressed to the Mayor and the Council Chairperson on May 8 were separately drafted to reflect the authority and responsibilities of each recipient.
The document addressed to the Mayor centered on Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and questioned the obligation of the mayor and the executive organs to conduct administrative affairs on their own judgment and responsibility.
The document addressed to the Council Chairperson centered on Article 89, Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12, and Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act and questioned the Council’s responsibility to investigate and re-examine its own resolutions and determine whether correction and relief were required.
A separate petition was also submitted on May 8 seeking examination and determination through formal Council procedures.
The series of documents therefore did not merely repeat the same request in different forms.
The 2025 request and petition sought an investigation and correction of the underlying issue.
The April 10, 2026, written questions and request sought specific legal grounds and an effective remedy in light of the 2025 response.
After the April 23 responses, the May 8 applications sought renewed answers based on the respective legal authority and responsibility of each institution concerning the explanations that the matter was pending, had been entrusted to legal counsel, and that the Council was not an institution that provided legal interpretations.
The separate petition submitted on the same day sought investigation, re-examination, correction, and measures to prevent recurrence through formal Council procedures.
Differences Between the Responses of Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council
Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council are institutions connected with the same local government, but they are not the same institution.
In 2025, Sukagawa City processed the written request addressed to the City, while the Sukagawa City Council processed the petition addressed to the Council.
The legal consultation of April 19, 2025, was jointly conducted by Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat.
However, the public decisions made by the mayoral administration and the Council after receiving the results of that consultation must be examined separately according to their respective authority and internal procedures.
The differences between the two institutions became clear in their responses of April 23, 2026.
Sukagawa City stated that the written questions and request related to a pending case and had been entrusted to legal counsel.
The Sukagawa City Council added to those reasons that the Council was not an institution that provided legal interpretations.
The issue arising from the City’s response is what the executive organ decided for itself and what it entrusted to the attorney.
The issue arising from the Council’s response is how a Council that had adopted resolutions containing assessments of a criminal case understood its responsibility to explain the legal basis for those resolutions and their compatibility with human rights standards.
The differences also appeared in the responses of May 20, 2026.
Sukagawa City divided the single submitted document into two components, referring the human rights relief application to the Legal Affairs Bureau while maintaining its previous response to the inquiry concerning the legal basis and the request for corrective measures.
The Sukagawa City Council did not divide the application and simply stated that its April 23 response remained applicable.
The City’s response referred to the Legal Affairs Bureau, while the Council’s response did not.
The Council’s response also did not address the separate petition submitted on the same day.
The issue on the City side is therefore the relationship between referring the matter to the Legal Affairs Bureau and the City’s own responsibility to investigate and make a determination.
The issue on the Council side is not only the maintenance of its previous response to the application, but also how the separate petition was handled through formal Council procedures.
Structure Revealed by the Chronology
The chronology confirms that this case did not end with the resolutions recommending resignation adopted in 2011 and 2012.
At the first stage, the Sukagawa City Council adopted a total of four resolutions recommending Toshio Tsumuraya’s resignation: two before his criminal responsibility had been finally determined and two after the conviction became final.
The First Recommendation was adopted before indictment, while he was in detention and unable to attend the plenary session.
The Second Recommendation was adopted after indictment but before the first trial hearing and before any guilty judgment had been delivered.
At the second stage, in 2025, Toshio Tsumuraya asked Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council to investigate and correct the alleged human rights violations arising from those resolutions.
This resulted in internal deliberation at the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting and a joint legal consultation by the City and the Council Secretariat.
The record of the joint consultation contains an interpretation approving an inference close to guilt on the basis of arrest.
Sukagawa City subsequently issued a response stating in substance that the matter had been handled appropriately.
At the third stage, in 2026, further questions and requests for relief were submitted with specific reference to Article 2, paragraph 3 and Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, General Comments Nos. 31 and 32, the VCLT, and the Articles on State Responsibility.
The City and Council responded by referring to pending litigation, entrustment to legal counsel, and the Council’s position that it was not an institution that provided legal interpretations.
Further applications were then submitted based on the respective authority and responsibility of each institution.
The City nevertheless referred to the Legal Affairs Bureau while maintaining its previous response, and the Council also maintained its previous response.
The significance of this chronology is not merely that time passed.
In both 2025 and 2026, repeated requests for investigation, substantive determination, correction, and relief were made with reference to specific facts, primary documents, and legal standards.
At each stage, the City and Council received documents and conducted internal deliberations, a joint legal consultation, or issued responses.
What now exists is therefore not mere silence.
There is an accumulated record of official and submitted documents showing what was requested, what responses were provided, and which matters were not the subject of a specific determination.
That record makes it possible to examine concretely whether a substantive determination and remedy by a competent authority were secured.
Cross-Cutting Issues Specific to This Case
Consistency Between a Council That Assessed a Criminal Case and Its Response That It Is Not an Institution That Provides Legal Interpretations
In 2011 and 2012, the Sukagawa City Council adopted four resolutions recommending Toshio Tsumuraya’s resignation on the basis of his criminal case.
In particular, the First and Second Recommendations were adopted before his criminal responsibility had been finally determined.
The reasons for the Second Recommendation contained categorical assessments premised on criminal conduct.
On April 23, 2026, however, when the Council was asked to explain the legal basis for its own resolutions and their compatibility with human rights standards, it responded that the Council was not an institution that provided legal interpretations.
The Council did not expressly state in 2011 that it was an institution that provided legal interpretations.
The two positions therefore do not constitute a simple formal contradiction.
However, there is an institutional and explanatory inconsistency when a Council that made a public decision containing an assessment of a criminal case denies a role in explaining the legal basis for that decision and its compatibility with human rights standards.
The issue is not whether the Council serves as a general legal advisory body.
The issue is whether it can explain the facts and standards on which its own public decision was based and, where necessary, re-examine that decision.
Relationship Between the Reason That the Matter Was “Pending” and the Request for Human Rights Relief
The responses issued by the City and Council on April 23, 2026, stated that the written questions and request related to a pending case.
Resident litigation was pending at that time.
That litigation concerned requirements under the resident litigation framework and the existence of a financial accounting act or an omission relating to financial administration.
The written questions and request, by contrast, asked whether the series of resolutions recommending resignation violated the presumption of innocence, whether an investigation and corrective measures had subsequently been carried out, and whether an effective remedy had been secured.
Although the two matters involved some related facts, their causes of action, decision-making bodies, applicable requirements, and requested remedies were not necessarily the same.
It is also unclear what law would prohibit Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council from examining documents in its possession, explaining its own public conduct, and considering corrective measures within its authority merely because litigation was pending.
It is therefore necessary to examine separately whether the fact that litigation was pending was sufficient to justify not making a substantive determination concerning the alleged human rights violation and the need for relief.
Entrustment to Legal Counsel and the Decision-Making Responsibility of the Public Institutions Themselves
It is not unreasonable for Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council to seek expert legal advice from an attorney.
Entrusting litigation to an attorney may also occur in the ordinary course.
An attorney, however, is not Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council itself.
Legal advice and litigation strategy provided by an attorney must be distinguished from administrative decisions made by the mayor and the executive organs and decisions made by the Council in its institutional capacity.
The responses in this case do not state the subject matter or scope of what was entrusted to legal counsel.
It is therefore unclear whether only the resident litigation was entrusted to the attorney, whether preparation of the responses to the written questions and requests was entrusted, or whether even the public determination concerning the existence of a human rights violation and the necessity of corrective measures was delegated.
If a substantive determination was also entrusted to legal counsel, it remains necessary to identify what final public determination the City or Council itself made after receiving that advice.
Relationship Between the “Inference Close to Guilt” Recorded in the 2025 Joint Legal Consultation and the Presumption of Innocence
The record of the joint legal consultation held on April 19, 2025, contains the following interpretation:
Because he had been arrested, there was no problem with drawing an inference close to guilt.
Arrest is a form of physical restraint imposed by investigative authorities; it is not a guilty judgment.
A person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32 states 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.
The issue is therefore whether an interpretation permitting a public institution to draw an inference close to guilt because a person had been arrested is compatible with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32.
The responses also do not make clear whether this interpretation was formally adopted as the position of the City or Council, whether it formed the basis of their responses in 2025 and 2026, or whether it continues to be maintained.
Fragmentation of Substantive Determination Through Referral to the Legal Affairs Bureau and Maintenance of the Previous Response
In its response of May 20, 2026, Sukagawa City stated that the Legal Affairs Bureau was the point of contact for the application for human rights relief.
At the same time, it maintained its April 23 response concerning the inquiry into the legal basis and the request for corrective measures.
Referring a person to the human rights relief system administered by the Legal Affairs Bureau may serve the purpose of identifying another available procedure.
However, some of the matters raised in the application could be answered only by Sukagawa City itself.
In particular, whether Sukagawa City continues to maintain the interpretation recorded in the joint legal consultation of April 19, 2025, as an official view or administrative premise concerns the City’s own institutional decision-making.
The Legal Affairs Bureau cannot express Sukagawa City’s official position on the City’s behalf.
If Sukagawa City also declines to provide a substantive answer on the ground that the matter should be handled by the Legal Affairs Bureau, a gap may arise in which neither Sukagawa City nor the Bureau addresses the City’s official position.
It is also unclear whether the reference to the Legal Affairs Bureau was merely the provision of information or constituted a formal referral or transfer of the application.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether the City’s divided handling made it unclear which institution would investigate which matters and determine the existence of the right and the necessity of relief.
Petition Routes in 2025 and 2026
A petition was submitted to the Sukagawa City Council on April 3, 2025.
It is confirmed that the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting and the joint legal consultation were conducted concerning that petition.
It therefore cannot be said that the petition received no internal handling whatsoever.
However, it remains unclear what substantive examination of the matters raised in the petition was conducted, what formal conclusion the Council reached, and whether the reasons for that conclusion were communicated to Toshio Tsumuraya.
A further petition was submitted on May 8, 2026.
That petition was separate from the application addressed to the Council Chairperson on the same date and sought investigation, re-examination, correction, and preventive measures through formal Council procedures.
The Council’s May 20 response, however, addressed the application submitted to the Council Chairperson and did not refer to the petition.
The current documents therefore do not establish whether the 2026 petition was distributed to the council members, deliberated at a Caucus Representatives’ Meeting or Council Steering Committee meeting, referred to a committee, examined, voted upon, or formally answered.
Determination of Rights and Remedies by a Competent Authority
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR does not require a single institution receiving an application to implement every measure sought by the applicant beyond the scope of its authority.
It does, however, require that a person claiming a violation of Covenant rights have the right to have the claim and the necessity of a remedy determined by a competent judicial, administrative, legislative, or other competent authority.
In this case, Sukagawa City referred to pending litigation and entrustment to legal counsel and later referred the matter to the Legal Affairs Bureau.
The Sukagawa City Council maintained its previous response that it was not an institution that provided legal interpretations, that the matter was pending, and that it had been entrusted to legal counsel.
The resident litigation and retrial proceedings also resulted in decisions based on their respective domestic procedural requirements.
However, it remains unclear which institution made a substantive determination as to whether the series of resolutions recommending resignation constituted a human rights violation contrary to Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and whether correction and relief were required.
If domestic institutions each decline to make a substantive determination by reference to their authority, procedures, or the existence of another institution, there is a risk that no determination of Covenant rights and remedies will be secured at the level of the State as a whole.
Questions Raised by This Chronology
1 What Re-examination Was Conducted Concerning the Resolutions Recommending Resignation Adopted in 2011 and 2012?
The submissions and petitions made in 2025 and 2026 requested an investigation and re-examination of the series of resolutions recommending resignation.
To what extent did Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council examine the plenary minutes, Council Steering Committee minutes, the stage reached in the criminal proceedings, the opportunities afforded to Toshio Tsumuraya to explain or respond, and the reasons given for each resolution?
What determination did they make concerning compatibility with the presumption of innocence?
2 What Was Determined to Have Been “Handled Appropriately,” and Under Which Legal Standards?
On April 28, 2025, Sukagawa City responded in substance that the request for correction of the alleged human rights violation had been handled appropriately.
What exactly did the City determine had been handled appropriately?
Did it determine that no human rights violation existed?
Did it determine that a violation existed but that no corrective measures were necessary?
Or did it determine that Sukagawa City lacked the authority to investigate or correct the matter?
What was the specific legal basis for that determination?
3 Is the Interpretation Recorded in the Joint Legal Consultation of April 19, 2025, Still Maintained?
The joint legal consultation record states in substance that there was no problem with drawing an inference close to guilt because Toshio Tsumuraya had been arrested.
Did Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council adopt this interpretation as an official view or policy governing its response?
If so, how did it determine that the interpretation was compatible with Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32?
If the interpretation is no longer maintained, when and for what reasons was it changed?
4 What Formal Determination Did the Council Make Concerning the 2025 Petition?
The Caucus Representatives’ Meeting and the joint legal consultation were conducted concerning the 2025 petition.
How were the substantive determination, formal conclusion, and reasons concerning each matter raised in the petition decided?
Was the determination documented as a decision of the Council and communicated to Toshio Tsumuraya?
5 Why Did the Fact That Litigation Was Pending Constitute a Reason Not to Make a Substantive Determination?
The resident litigation pending at the time and the written questions and request seeking a determination concerning human rights violations and effective relief differed in their subject matter, requirements, and requested determinations.
What specific legal rule prohibited the City or Council from investigating and explaining its own public conduct and considering corrective measures within its authority while the litigation was pending?
6 What Was the Subject Matter and Scope of the Matters Entrusted to Legal Counsel?
What exactly did the City and Council entrust to legal counsel?
Was only the resident litigation entrusted?
Was the preparation of responses to the written questions and requests entrusted?
Or was even the public determination concerning the existence of a human rights violation, the legal assessment, and the necessity of a remedy entrusted?
What advice was received from legal counsel, and what final decision did the City or Council make on the basis of that advice?
7 Is It Consistent for a Council That Assessed a Criminal Case to State That It Does Not Provide Legal Interpretations?
In 2011 and 2012, the Sukagawa City Council adopted resolutions recommending resignation on the basis of the criminal case.
When asked about the legal compatibility of those resolutions, it responded that the Council was not an institution that provided legal interpretations.
Is the fact that the Council is not a general legal advisory body separate from its responsibility to explain the legal basis for its own resolutions and re-examine them where necessary?
8 Did the City’s Divided Handling Create a Gap in Substantive Determination?
Sukagawa City referred the application for human rights relief to the Legal Affairs Bureau while maintaining its previous response concerning the legal inquiry and request for corrective measures.
However, only the City itself can answer whether it continues to maintain the interpretation recorded in the joint legal consultation of April 19, 2025.
Did the City’s handling result in a situation in which neither Sukagawa City nor the Legal Affairs Bureau made a determination concerning the central facts and legal assessment?
9 Did the Referral to the Legal Affairs Bureau Actually Lead to an Investigation and Relief Procedure?
Did Sukagawa City transmit or refer the application or related materials to the Legal Affairs Bureau?
Did the Bureau accept the application and begin an investigation or determination?
Was Toshio Tsumuraya required to file a separate application?
Can merely identifying a point of contact be regarded as securing substantive determination and relief by a competent authority?
10 How Was the Petition of May 8, 2026, Handled?
Was the petition distributed to the council members?
Was it deliberated at a Caucus Representatives’ Meeting, Council Steering Committee meeting, or another meeting?
Was it referred to a committee?
Was it examined or voted upon by a committee or the plenary Council?
Were a formal response and reasons provided concerning the matters raised in the petition?
11 Is Issuing a Written Response Within the Requested Period the Same as Providing a Substantive Response?
The City and Council issued their May 20 responses 12 days after the May 8 submissions.
A written response was therefore formally issued within the requested 14-day period.
However, issuing a document within the period is not the same as providing individual findings of fact, legal assessments, and determinations concerning the requested relief.
Which questions and requests were substantively addressed by the responses?
12 Which Competent Authority Determined the Existence of the Violation and the Necessity of a Remedy?
Which institution—Sukagawa City, the Sukagawa City Council, the Legal Affairs Bureau, the courts, or another authority—made a substantive determination as to whether the series of resolutions recommending resignation violated the presumption of innocence?
Which institution determined whether relief such as withdrawal of the resolutions, correction of official records, restoration of reputation, public apology, or measures to prevent recurrence was required?
If no institution made such a determination, how was the determination of rights and remedies required by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR secured?
13 Could the Failure to Investigate and Provide an Effective Remedy Itself Constitute a Separate Issue?
Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31 states that a failure to investigate allegations of human rights violations may in itself give rise to a separate breach of the ICCPR.
In this case, repeated submissions presented specific facts, primary documents, and applicable legal standards.
If no substantive investigation and determination by a competent authority can be confirmed despite those submissions, could that situation raise a separate issue under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, distinct from the original alleged violation of the presumption of innocence?
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan
Article 31 provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty, nor shall any other criminal penalty be imposed, except according to procedure established by law.
The provision does not expressly state the presumption of innocence.
In this case, however, the relationship between public assessments made before criminal responsibility was finally determined, the opportunity to explain and respond, and the fairness of the subsequent investigation and relief procedures is at issue.
Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan
Article 98, paragraph 2 provides that the treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed.
The issue in this case is how the obligations arising under Article 14, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR were faithfully performed through local governments, local councils, the Legal Affairs Bureau, the courts, and other domestic institutions.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan
Article 99 imposes a duty to respect and uphold the Constitution upon the Emperor or Regent, Ministers of State, members of the Diet, judges, and other public officials.
The issue in this case is whether the mayor, City officials, council members, Council Secretariat officials, and other public officials examined the compatibility of their public conduct with the Constitution and Japan’s treaty obligations and took necessary measures after receiving specific allegations of human rights violations.
Article 89, Paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act
Article 89, paragraph 2 concerns the exercise by a local council of its powers to decide important matters and conduct inspection, investigation, and other functions relating to the local government.
The issue in this case is what investigation, deliberation, and re-examination the Sukagawa City Council conducted concerning the resolutions it adopted and their official records.
Article 89, Paragraph 3 of the Local Autonomy Act
Article 89, paragraph 3 requires council members, who have received a mandate from the residents, to perform their duties faithfully so that the Council’s authority is properly exercised.
The issue in this case is what consideration council members gave to the legal compatibility of the resolutions and the necessity of relief after receiving specific allegations of human rights violations and requests for a remedy.
Article 96, Paragraph 1, Item 12 of the Local Autonomy Act
Article 96, paragraph 1, item 12 makes certain objections, initiation of litigation, settlements, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and related matters concerning a local government subject to a decision of the council.
The provision does not mean that a local council makes judicial determinations equivalent to those of a court.
It does, however, demonstrate that a council has an institutional role in making decisions involving legal rights, obligations, and disputes that require legal assessment.
Article 100-2 of the Local Autonomy Act
Article 100-2 allows a council to have persons with relevant expertise investigate specialized matters for the examination of bills or investigation of local government affairs.
The need for specialized constitutional or international human rights analysis does not necessarily mean that investigation and re-examination by a council are institutionally impossible.
Article 138-2-2 of the Local Autonomy Act
Article 138-2-2 requires the executive organs of a local government to administer and execute their affairs faithfully on their own judgment and responsibility.
The provision does not grant the mayor powers that do not otherwise exist under law.
At the same time, it does not provide that consultation with or entrustment to legal counsel, or referral to another institution, relieves the executive organ itself from determining the facts, making a legal assessment, identifying the scope of its authority, and deciding the appropriate administrative response.
International Human Rights Treaty: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR
Article 2, paragraph 3 requires States Parties to ensure an effective remedy for persons whose Covenant rights or freedoms have been violated.
It also requires that a person claiming such a remedy have the right determined by competent judicial, administrative, legislative, or other competent authorities and that remedies granted be enforced.
The issue in this case is whether a substantive determination concerning the alleged human rights violation and the necessity of relief was secured through Sukagawa City, the Sukagawa City Council, the Legal Affairs Bureau, the courts, or other domestic institutions.
Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR
Article 14, paragraph 2 guarantees that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
The issue in this case, particularly in relation to the First and Second Recommendations for Resignation, is whether a public institution’s categorical assessment of criminal conduct and responsibility before criminal responsibility was finally determined was compatible with that guarantee.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4 of General Comment No. 31 states that the obligations under the ICCPR bind the State as a whole and that acts of all branches of government and public authorities at national, regional, and local levels may engage the responsibility of the State Party.
The fact that Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council are not organs of the central government does not therefore remove their conduct from the scope of Japan’s treaty obligations.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31 identifies the need to ensure accessible and effective remedies and to conduct prompt, thorough, and effective investigations of alleged violations of Covenant rights.
It also states that a failure to investigate allegations of violations may in itself give rise to a separate breach of the ICCPR.
The issue in this case is which institution conducted what investigation after specific allegations and supporting materials were repeatedly presented.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16 of General Comment No. 31 states that appropriate reparation must be provided to persons whose Covenant rights have been violated in order to comply with the obligation to provide an effective remedy under Article 2, paragraph 3.
Depending on the circumstances, reparation may include restitution, rehabilitation, public apology and other forms of satisfaction, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes to relevant laws or practices.
The issue in this case is what consideration was given to withdrawal of the resolutions, correction of official records, restoration of reputation, public explanation, apology, and related measures.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17 of General Comment No. 31 states that measures extending beyond individual relief may be required to prevent the recurrence of similar violations of the ICCPR.
The issue in this case is whether procedures for legal review, Council procedures, training for officials and council members, or other measures to prevent recurrence were considered in relation to public assessments made before criminal responsibility was finally determined.
General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32 states 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.
The issue in this case is whether the resolutions recommending resignation and the interpretation recorded in the joint legal consultation of April 19, 2025, were compatible with that standard.
Standards Governing Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 26 provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith.
The issue in this case is whether the obligations arising under the ICCPR were actually performed through domestic institutions, including local governments, rather than being limited to formal ratification of the treaty.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 27 provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
The provision does not require domestic institutions to exercise powers that they do not possess under domestic law.
The issue is whether domestic divisions of authority, Council autonomy, the existence of pending litigation, entrustment to legal counsel, or referral to another institution can justify a situation in which no investigation, determination of rights, or remedy required under the treaty is provided by the State as a whole.
State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts
Article 4 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
Article 4 provides that the conduct of any State organ exercising legislative, executive, judicial, or other functions is considered an act of the State under international law, whether the organ belongs to the central government or to a territorial unit of the State.
The provision does not itself determine that a human rights violation or treaty breach has occurred.
It is a rule of attribution explaining that the conduct of a local government or local council is not unrelated to the State’s treaty performance and international responsibility.
※ 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
The resolutions recommending resignation adopted in 2011 and 2012 and the requests for correction and relief made in 2025 and 2026 are not isolated events.
The resolutions adopted in 2011 and 2012 constitute the underlying acts at issue in this case.
In particular, the First and Second Recommendations were adopted before criminal responsibility had been finally determined.
The existence of an initial violation of the presumption of innocence is therefore at issue under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and paragraph 30 of General Comment No. 32.
The requests, petitions, internal deliberations, joint legal consultation, and responses from 2025 onward form the subsequent record of what investigation, determination, and corrective action were taken concerning the original issue.
An important point in this case is that the later finalization of a conviction does not necessarily eliminate the issue concerning the conduct of a public institution before judgment.
The presumption of innocence regulates the treatment of a person by public authorities before guilt has been finally established.
It must therefore be examined independently whether a later conviction can retrospectively justify public treatment premised on guilt before judgment.
The alleged original violation of the presumption of innocence must also be distinguished from the subsequent question of whether the obligation to provide an effective remedy was fulfilled.
One issue is whether the effects of the public conduct in 2011 and 2012 remain uncorrected.
A separate issue is whether an investigation, determination of rights, reparation, and measures to prevent recurrence were secured after specific allegations of human rights violations and requests for relief were submitted in 2025 and 2026.
Paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31 does not state that every failure to investigate automatically constitutes a treaty violation.
It does, however, state that where a specific allegation of a violation is made and supporting materials and applicable standards are presented, failure by a competent authority to investigate may itself give rise to a separate breach of the ICCPR.
In this case, the sequence began with the request and petition submitted on April 3, 2025, and proceeded through the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting, the joint legal consultation, the City’s final response, the written questions and request of April 10, 2026, the City and Council responses of April 23, the renewed applications and petition of May 8, and the further responses of May 20.
This sequence confirms that the City and Council had multiple opportunities to consider the existence of the alleged human rights violation and the necessity of relief.
The official documents also establish what responses were provided on each occasion and which questions and requested remedies remained unanswered or unconfirmed.
The materials presently examined do not confirm that Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council issued a specific legal determination that the series of resolutions did not violate the presumption of innocence.
Nor do they confirm that either institution recognized that the resolutions violated the presumption of innocence and determined that correction and relief were required.
The materials examined on this page also do not confirm that the Legal Affairs Bureau or another institution made a substantive determination concerning the existence of the alleged violation and the necessity of relief.
The present position of this case is therefore that the alleged original violation of the presumption of innocence has not been substantively determined and may remain uncorrected, while separate issues concerning investigation and the securing of an effective remedy have accumulated since 2025.
The question is not whether Sukagawa City or the Sukagawa City Council alone can implement every form of relief required at the level of the State as a whole.
The question is whether each institution clarified what it could investigate, determine, and correct within the scope of its authority.
Another question is whether matters considered outside an institution’s authority were actually connected to investigation, determination of rights, and relief by a competent authority, rather than merely being referred to another institution.
If the City, Council, Legal Affairs Bureau, courts, and other domestic institutions each decline to make a substantive determination by reference to their respective systems or authority, and no determination of Covenant rights and remedies is consequently made at the level of the State as a whole, it must be explained how that situation is compatible with Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 31, Articles 26 and 27 of the VCLT, and Article 4 of the Articles on State Responsibility.
This case does not concern only the propriety of past resolutions recommending resignation.
It concerns how a public institution’s pre-judgment assessment was subsequently examined, who determined the existence of the alleged human rights violation and the necessity of relief, and what measures of reparation and prevention of recurrence were taken.
Related Materials
Related Fixed Pages:
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 4
Record and Verification of the Case—Part 5
Evidence and Documents
Legal Claims and the Structure of the Alleged Constitutional and Legal Violations
Related Integrated Verifications:
Integrated Verification—From Arrest to the Second Recommendation for Resignation
Integrated Verification—From the Written Opinion Submitted to the Court to the Application for Human Rights Relief and Corrective Measures
Related Evidence Articles:
2011
Sukagawa City Council Minutes—Proposal Reasons and Voting Record of the First Recommendation for Resignation
Sukagawa City Council Minutes—Proposal Reasons and Voting Record of the Second Recommendation for Resignation
Sukagawa City Council Steering Committee Minutes—Internal Deliberations Leading to the First Recommendation for Resignation While in Detention Before Indictment
Sukagawa City Council Steering Committee Minutes—Internal Deliberations Leading to the Second Recommendation for Resignation Before the First Hearing
Document Distributed in Sukagawa City—Group Calling for the Resignation of Toshio Tsumuraya
2012
Sukagawa City Council Minutes—Proposal Reasons and Voting Record of the Third Recommendation for Resignation
Sukagawa City Council Minutes—Proposal Reasons and Voting Record of the Fourth Recommendation for Resignation
Sukagawa City Council Steering Committee Minutes—Internal Deliberations Leading to the Third Recommendation for Resignation After the Judgment Became Final
Sukagawa City Council Steering Committee Minutes—Internal Deliberations Leading to the Fourth Recommendation for Resignation
2025
Written Request Submitted to Sukagawa City Seeking an Investigation and Corrective Measures for Human Rights Violations
Petition Submitted to the Sukagawa City Council Seeking an Independent Review and Corrective Measures Concerning the Resignation Recommendation Resolutions
Sukagawa City Council Internal Document—Report on the Caucus Representatives’ Meeting Concerning the Petition Seeking Correction of Human Rights Violations
Sukagawa City Internal Documents: Legal Consultation Conducted After a Request for Corrective Measures Concerning Human Rights Violations
Sukagawa City Council Internal Documents: Legal Consultation Conducted After a Petition Seeking Corrective Measures for Human Rights Violations
Document Issued by Sukagawa City—Final Response to the Request for Correction of Human Rights Violations
2026
Document Addressed to Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council—Written Questions and Request Seeking Correction of the Resignation Recommendation Resolutions and Effective Remedies
Document Issued by Sukagawa City—Response Stating That the Matter Had Been Entrusted to Legal Counsel Because It Related to Pending Litigation
Document Issued by the Sukagawa City Council—Response Stating That the Council Is Not an Institution That Provides Legal Interpretations and That the Matter Had Been Entrusted to Legal Counsel
Document Addressed to Sukagawa City—Application for Human Rights Relief, Inquiry Concerning the Legal Basis, and Request for Corrective Measures
Document Addressed to the Sukagawa City Council—Application for Human Rights Relief, Inquiry Concerning the Legal Basis, and Request for Corrective Measures
Document Addressed to the Sukagawa City Council—Petition Seeking Investigation, Re-examination, Correction, and Measures to Prevent Recurrence Concerning the Unlawful Human Rights Violations Caused by the Series of Resolutions Recommending Resignation
Document Issued by Sukagawa City—Response Stating That the Legal Affairs Bureau Is the Point of Contact for Applications for Human Rights Relief and Maintaining the Previous Response to the Inquiry Concerning the Legal Basis
Document Issued by the Sukagawa City Council—Response to the Application for Human Rights Relief and Related Matters Stating, “As Set Forth in the April 23 Response”
Related Normative Articles:
Normative Standards—The Rule of Law and Constitutionalism: Principles That Bind Public Power to the Constitution and Law
Normative Standards—Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR: The Presumption of Innocence
Normative Standards—General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30: Prohibition on Public Authorities Prejudging the Outcome of a Trial Before Judgment
Normative Standards—Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR: The Right to an Effective Remedy
Normative Standards—General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 15: The Duty to Investigate and the Separate Issue Arising from a Failure to Provide Relief
Normative Standards—Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Domestic Law and Treaty Obligations
Related Chronology:
2011
October 26, 2011 The Sukagawa City Council adopted the First Recommendation for Resignation before indictment, while Toshio Tsumuraya was in detention and unable to attend the plenary session.
December 1, 2011 The Sukagawa City Council adopted the Second Recommendation for Resignation after indictment but before the first trial hearing and before any guilty judgment had been delivered.
2012
January 16, 2012 A guilty judgment was delivered against Toshio Tsumuraya.
January 31, 2012 The guilty judgment became final.
February 9, 2012 The Sukagawa City Council adopted the Third Recommendation for Resignation.
March 1, 2012 The Sukagawa City Council adopted the Fourth Recommendation for Resignation.
March 5, 2012 Toshio Tsumuraya submitted his resignation from the Council.
March 6, 2012 The Sukagawa City Council approved his resignation.
2025
April 3, 2025 Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written request to Sukagawa City seeking an investigation and corrective measures concerning the alleged human rights violations arising from the resolutions recommending resignation. He also submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council seeking an independent review and corrective measures concerning those resolutions.
April 8, 2025 A Caucus Representatives’ Meeting concerning the handling of the petition was held within the Sukagawa City Council.
April 19, 2025 Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council Secretariat jointly conducted a legal consultation concerning the response to the written request and petition. Separate internal documents and approval records concerning this single consultation were prepared and retained by the City side and the Council side.
April 28, 2025 Sukagawa City issued a final response stating in substance that the written request had been handled appropriately.
2026
April 10, 2026 Toshio Tsumuraya submitted written questions and a request to the Mayor of Sukagawa and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council seeking correction of the resolutions recommending resignation and an effective remedy.
April 23, 2026 Sukagawa City responded that the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel because it related to a pending case. On the same day, the Sukagawa City Council responded that it was not an institution that provided legal interpretations and that the matter had been entrusted to legal counsel because it related to a pending case.
May 8, 2026 Toshio Tsumuraya submitted separate applications for human rights relief, inquiries concerning the legal basis, and requests for corrective measures to the Mayor of Sukagawa and the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council, drafted according to their respective authority and responsibilities. He also separately submitted a petition to the Sukagawa City Council seeking investigation, re-examination, correction, and measures to prevent recurrence through formal Council procedures.
May 20, 2026 Sukagawa City responded that the Legal Affairs Bureau was the point of contact for the application for human rights relief and that its April 23 response remained applicable to the inquiry concerning the legal basis and request for corrective measures. On the same day, the Sukagawa City Council responded that its April 23 response remained applicable to the application submitted on May 8.