*Translated by Google translate

<Report on the Judgment>

On September 30, 2026, the appellate court judgment was handed down. The result was a reversal of the lower court's decision, with the portion of the lower court's victory overturned. The judgment is posted in the "Litigation Materials" section under the High Court and Court sections.

<Thank you for achieving the goal>

Since January 2022, we have received numerous court attendances, donations, and messages of support for the lawsuit alleging that "Japan's immigration detention violates international human rights law." All of these have been a great source of support for us, and we express our heartfelt gratitude to everyone. Thanks to your support, we received a donation of 2 million yen, which was our next step, and we have been able to use it to support researcher opinions, investigative activities, and interpretation services. The appellate court judgment was handed down on September 30, 2026, and we are currently preparing to appeal to the Supreme Court.

We will continue to advance the trial together with all of you, and we would appreciate your continued support.

What kind of incident?

This lawsuit seeks confirmation that the immigration detention of the plaintiffs, Safari and Deniz, constituted "arbitrary detention," which is prohibited under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and was therefore illegal, and seeks compensation for damages from the country that carried out the illegal detention.

Safari, originally from Iran, and Deniz, a Kurd from Turkey, have not been granted refugee status despite applying, and still lack legal residency. Immigration authorities detained them for this reason, and they have been deprived of their freedom for more than three and a half years since 2016.

In 2016, Deniz was detained by immigration authorities from May, and Safari from June.
A hunger strike was carried out around June 2019.
From July 2019, he was repeatedly granted two weeks of temporary release.
In October 2019, a report was submitted to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. (Deniz has been on provisional release since March 2020, and Safari since April 2020.)
In September 2020, the working group announced that the detention constituted "arbitrary detention and violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, etc."
In January 2022, a lawsuit was filed against the Japanese government alleging that its immigration system violates international human rights covenants.

The two were detained indefinitely by immigration authorities from 2016 onwards. As a result, they lost the freedom to do ordinary things like meeting family and friends, going out, eating meals together, and using the phone and internet. Furthermore, because there was no upper limit to the length of their detention, they spent agonizing days filled with anxiety and despair, like being in a tunnel with no exit, not knowing how long they would be detained.

There is a system called "provisional release" in which individuals detained by immigration authorities can be released upon payment of a security deposit. The two applied for provisional release multiple times after their detention, but their applications were denied.

In June 2019, a Nigerian man died of starvation at the Omura Immigration Center, which triggered a widespread hunger strike/fasting movement in immigration detention facilities. The two men, too, were driven to the brink of desperation by the harsh conditions of their detention and went on a hunger strike. However, the immigration authorities began a practice of granting temporary release to some detainees who had gone on a hunger strike, including the two men, for a short period of about two weeks, as if to make an example of them, only to detain them again two weeks later. The two men were deeply traumatized by the fear that, just when they were finally out, they would be returned to detention with no end in sight in two weeks. Even now, while on temporary release, they continue to suffer from the psychological after-effects of their detention.

The two decided to seek help from the international community regarding these inhumane acts by immigration authorities, and in October 2019, they reported the matter to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. As a result, the Working Group issued an opinion in response to their report stating that "the detention of the two constitutes arbitrary detention and violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other related laws."

By filing a lawsuit in a Japanese court, the two individuals aim to confirm that their immigration detention constituted "arbitrary detention," which is prohibited under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as pointed out by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and to seek compensation for damages from the country that illegally detained them, thereby aiming to reform the way immigration detention is conducted in Japan.

The problem

1. The problem of arbitrary and indefinite detention.  

The problem lies in the fact that the plaintiffs, Safari and Deniz, were subjected to "arbitrary detention" that lacked necessity, rationality, and proportionality.

Freedom is a fundamental principle and a right for all people. In particular, the freedom from physical restraint is one of the most important rights in a person's life, and if this is arbitrarily and indefinitely taken away, it will cause great pain and despair, as Safari and Deniz suffered. It is wrong to detain people for many years simply because they are foreign nationals and do not have legal residency status.

Article 9, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Japan ratified in 1979 (meaning it agreed to be bound by the treaty), states that "everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be arbitrarily arrested or detained," prohibiting "arbitrary detention" that lacks necessity, rationality, or proportionality.

The two plaintiffs are in the process of applying for refugee status and are not likely to flee or hide.

Deniz married a Japanese man, and they have shared both joys and sorrows for over 10 years. His wife has stayed by his side no matter how long he was detained.

Safari, who is fluent in Japanese and has a kind heart, has many Japanese friends, and they all eagerly await the day when Safari can live in Japan in peace. We argue that the aforementioned immigration detention of these two individuals constitutes "arbitrary detention" that lacks necessity, rationality, and proportionality, and therefore violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

2. Regarding the Immigration Control Act and its implementation  

Because the Immigration Control Act does not specify the requirements for detention, the maximum duration of detention, or the procedures for judicial review, the fact that immigration authorities can detain individuals according to their own policies is problematic, as it can lead to unnecessary detention and prolonged periods of detention.

The current Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act stipulates that, after issuing a deportation order (an order for forced repatriation) to a foreign national who does not have a valid residence status, they can be detained "until they are able to be repatriated" (Article 52, Paragraph 5). Therefore, immigration authorities detain foreign nationals in immigration detention facilities indefinitely without going through a court decision.

Those who are detained can live outside if they are granted "provisional release," but a notice issued by the Director of the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice in 2018 introduced a policy of continuing detention without granting provisional release unless the person is ill or injured and cannot withstand detention, resulting in a generally longer detention period. As mentioned above, the provisional release and detention of those who went on hunger strikes as a deterrent is due to the fact that the Immigration Control Act does not stipulate the requirements for detention, allowing immigration authorities to operate with broad discretion regarding provisional release and detention.

3. Response to the opinions of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention  

As mentioned above, because the Immigration Control Act does not stipulate judicial review of immigration detention, detention has continued at the broad discretion of the immigration authorities. Since there are limited avenues for contesting detention, the two plaintiffs sought help from the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which was granted. However, even after the Working Group expressed the opinion that the detention of the two violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the government has refused to acknowledge responsibility and has not provided compensation.

The circumstances that led to the plaintiffs taking action

Safari and Deniz continue to endure the physical and mental suffering they suffered during their long period of detention, living under the hardships of provisional release while awaiting refugee status. The country has offered no apology to the victims of detention, which the United Nations has deemed illegal, nor has it offered any compensation or covered the medical expenses for the physical and mental injuries they sustained during their detention.

And even now, there are people like these two who suffer from long-term detention, and others who continue to suffer from the nightmares and scars of long-term detention even while on provisional release. Taking action against immigration authorities requires courage. However, Safari and Deniz decided to file this lawsuit not only for themselves, but also to stand up for the many oppressed people out there.

What I want to achieve through litigation

The opinion that the immigration detention of Safari and Deniz violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has already been expressed by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

The fact that immigration authorities have continued to arbitrarily detain people without necessity, rationality, or proportionality simply because they do not have a valid residence status is also a problem for us who live in Japan. Furthermore, we want to appeal to society at large that immigration law and the practice of immigration detention must be changed by having Japanese courts confirm that immigration detention in Japan violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

At the same time, I hope the government will do what is right: to compensate and make amends to those who have been detained for long periods and suffered physical and mental harm.

Use of funds

Stamp duty and postage for filing a lawsuit; fees for researchers and experts to prepare their opinions; transportation, communication, and copying costs; and interpretation and translation fees.
Venue rental fee *If any money remains after accounting for the above expenses, we would like to use it for legal fees.
*We achieved our initial goal of 1 million yen in August 2023. To further enhance our litigation activities, we are now aiming for 2 million yen as our next step. Your support would be greatly appreciated.

Message from the assigned attorney

The problem of long-term detention by immigration authorities has always been serious, but the treatment of two weeks of provisional release followed by re-detention after a hunger strike spread in immigration detention facilities in 2019 was utterly inhumane and unacceptable. This prompted us to file a complaint with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, but we decided to directly address the more fundamental issue of unconditional, indefinite, and unjudicial detention.

In this trial, the plaintiffs are citing Article 9, paragraph 1 (prohibition of arbitrary detention) and Article 9, paragraph 4 (right to judicial review before detention), both international human rights treaties, as their legal basis.

Unfortunately, international human rights treaties are not well understood in Japan, and the government has ignored recommendations issued by UN review committees based on these treaties. Regarding immigration detention, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee Against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination have all pointed out problems, but the Japanese government has completely ignored them.

By demonstrating in Japanese courts that immigration detention in Japan violates international human rights treaties, we hope to ensure that the Japanese government respects the recommendations of UN agencies and takes action in accordance with international human rights treaties regarding immigration detention and various other human rights issues.

Introduction of the assigned lawyer

▲The lawyer in charge, and the plaintiffs, Deniz and Safari

Tomoko Uraki, Tokyo Bar Association, Shinwa Law Office
Ryutaro Ogawa, Tokyo Bar Association, Tokyo Joint Law Office
Tomoe Komai, Tokyo Bar Association, Milestone General Law Office
Masako Suzuki, Tokyo Bar Association, Izumibashi Law Office
Shota Okamoto, Tokyo Bar Association, Shoei Law Office
Shunsuke Takada, Second Tokyo Bar Association, Asahi Law Office

We address human rights issues affecting foreign nationals, including refugee cases. Based on our belief that human rights know no borders, we aim to apply international human rights treaties to Japanese court proceedings.

The issue of immigration detention has become a topic of public attention in recent years. We would appreciate your support for this lawsuit, which directly challenges the violation of international human rights treaties by immigration detention.