*Translated by Google translate

[The target amount was increased on February 19, 2025]

Since the case page was published in March 2024, we have received your kind support, which has enabled us to translate foreign precedents and submit them as evidence, as well as to hold a report meeting and publish a video to provide a detailed account of the results of the first-instance ruling. We are deeply grateful for your support. We would like to appeal this case and ask the Supreme Court to make a direct decision on the violation of the right to remain silent. We would like to ask for your continued support in order to cover the costs of our future activities.

Introduction

When you hear the term "right to remain silent," you probably think of it as a cowardly way of keeping quiet about inconvenient things.

When you hear the word "interrogation," you probably imagine a detective rigorously questioning a cowardly suspect who remains silent, forcing him to confess.

And you probably have the image that the investigator who gets them to talk is a hero of justice.

In fact, these images are merely false images created by TV dramas etc. There are important rules for interrogations guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Constitution of Japan guarantees all suspects the right to remain silent.

Remaining silent during interrogation is an exercise of your constitutional right.

You may think that if you didn't do it, you should not remain silent and claim innocence. However, even if the suspect claims innocence, the interrogation does not end. The investigator has a scenario that the investigator imagines, and the suspect will be questioned and persuaded endlessly until he or she gives a statement that the investigator wants. In such a situation, you may eventually break down and end up admitting to a crime that you did not actually commit. This risk is even higher if you are restrained and your mind and body are weak.

In Japan, there is a history of innocent people being falsely accused of crimes they did not commit through harsh interrogations. In order to eliminate harsh interrogations that lead to false accusations, the importance of guaranteeing the right to remain silent cannot be overemphasized.

A suspect's right to remain silent during interrogation is a fundamental and legitimate right recognized in most countries.

However, exercising the "right to remain silent" is actually very difficult. If you try to exercise the right to remain silent, the investigator will try all sorts of ways to get you to confess, saying things like "If you remain silent, you will be detained longer," "It will be disadvantageous in court," "Listen to your lawyer, and we won't tell you what happens." If you endure whatever is said during interrogation and end up remaining silent, can we say that your right to remain silent is guaranteed? Can we say that the right to remain silent is really guaranteed in Japan?

In this case, Mr. Eguchi, who was suspected of a crime, declared that he would exercise his right to remain silent, but for approximately 21 days and 56 hours, the prosecutors continued to subject him to a variety of abusive, sarcastic and insulting language under the guise of interrogation.

This lawsuit aims to make it clear through justice that such interrogations are illegal and to create a society where the right to remain silent is truly guaranteed.

▲ Eguchi appears at the "Hostage Justice Survivors Diet" (Photo by Nishi Airei)

Overview of the case

Eguchi, who was a lawyer at the time, was arrested by the Special Criminal Division of the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office.

At the beginning of the interrogation after his arrest, Mr. Eguchi maintained his innocence and expressed his intention to remain silent, and consistently exercised his right to remain silent. However, the prosecutors continued the interrogation for 21 days, totaling more than 56 hours.
During the interrogation, the prosecutors called Mr. Eguchi "little boy," "little brat," "a brat," and made insulting remarks to him, such as "annoying," "how does a lawyer like this turn out," "he has a tendency to lie," and "he's like a con artist," as well as making insulting remarks about his work as a lawyer. These remarks are completely unrelated to the purpose of the investigation.
There were also instances where the comments about Eguchi's middle school grades, which had nothing to do with the incident, were made, leading to mockery of his abilities, and he was used as an excuse to deny Eguchi's character by blaming the burden he was causing to those around him, including his family and supervisors.

These actions caused Mr. Eguchi severe mental distress.

▲Notes that Eguchi wrote while in detention

In this case, a lawsuit was filed in March 2022 against the government seeking damages, alleging that the prosecutors' actions violated Mr. Eguchi's rights and were illegal.

Three types of infringement

We claim that the prosecutor's interrogation violated Mr. Eguchi's rights in the following ways:

1. Violation of the right to remain silent

At the beginning of the interrogation after his arrest, Eguchi stated, "I have nothing more to say," making it clear that he exercised his right to remain silent. However, the prosecutors continued their interrogation, questioning him for more than 56 hours over a period of 21 days.

Long interrogations in closed rooms leave a person isolated and without support, which in itself creates an atmosphere that forces a testimony. Forcing a person to undergo interrogation while ignoring his will to exercise his right to remain silent is in itself an attempt to coerce a testimony. Moreover, the prosecutors repeatedly made statements and took actions that insulted Mr. Eguchi's character and his abilities as a lawyer.
Such words and actions go beyond questioning a suspect who remains silent or persuading them to speak; they attempt to coerce a suspect into a statement by exerting mental pressure, and are therefore illegal acts that violate the right to remain silent.

② Violation of the right to counsel

In Japan, the right to a lawyer is guaranteed.

This right to counsel not only means that a suspect must not be hindered from selecting a counsel, but also essentially guarantees that a suspect, after selecting a counsel, has the opportunity to consult with the counsel, receive advice, and otherwise receive assistance from the counsel.

In order for a suspect to receive assistance from a defense attorney, a relationship of trust between the suspect and defense attorney is essential. If an interrogator takes any action that destroys the relationship of trust between the suspect and defense attorney, this will violate the suspect's right to the opportunity to receive assistance from a defense attorney.

In this case, the prosecutor made comments regarding Eguchi's selection of a defense attorney, such as, "I hope he doesn't cause any trouble for his defense attorney. He can just do it himself," and made insulting remarks about the defense attorney's activities, such as, "He has a vague perspective," and "His arguments are immature."
This is intended to make Mr. Eguchi unsure whether he should continue to rely on his lawyer and to sow doubts about the lawyer's activities. It is an act that destroys the relationship of trust between Mr. Eguchi and his lawyer and is an illegal act that violates his right to a lawyer.

3) Violation of personal rights

Throughout Mr. Eguchi's interrogation, the prosecutors repeatedly used words and actions that insulted Mr. Eguchi's character, his abilities as a lawyer, his defense strategy, etc. These words and actions are illegal acts that violate Mr. Eguchi's personality rights.
In response to these claims, the government acknowledges that the interrogation lasted more than 56 hours and the content of the statements made by the prosecutors during the interrogation, but claims that it did not violate Mr. Eguchi's right to remain silent and that it was a lawful interrogation.

▲Comparison table of the government's arguments regarding the prosecutor's remarks (created by the defense team). Click here for the full text .

The main issues at issue are the fact that the prosecutor conducted the interrogation for more than 56 hours and how the court will evaluate the prosecutor's words and actions during the interrogation.

Social significance

Improving investigative practices in Japan

Mr. Eguchi's case is not the only one in which suspects who exercise their right to remain silent are forced to endure interrogations. Situations in which suspects who exercise their constitutional rights are forced to endure are a common occurrence.
Is it really permissible to interrogate someone who is exercising their right to remain silent? What can investigators say or do not say? These points regarding the right to remain silent are common issues in all countries around the world.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Japan ratified in 1979, requires that all people be fully and equally guaranteed that they "shall not be compelled to make incriminating testimony or confess guilt" (Article 14, paragraph 3 (g)).

Japan's investigative practices have been left behind in global discussions until now.

In February 1989, Etienne Jodel, Secretary General of the International Federation for Human Rights, and others submitted a report summarizing the results of an investigation into Japan's criminal justice system to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The report harshly criticized Japan's investigative practices, stating that "Japanese interrogators inflict psychological abuse" and that "Japan violates the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself and the right not to be compelled to confess. " *Hirano Ryuichi, "The Report of the International Federation for Human Rights (Parker-Jodel Report)," Horitsu Jiho, Vol. 61, No. 7, p. 92 (1989)

Thirty-five years later, Japan's investigative practices have not improved.
The ruling in this case will undoubtedly have a major impact on Japan's investigative practices, which have traditionally disregarded the right to remain silent.

Release of interrogation footage

In order to improve the efficiency of interrogations, since 2019, interrogations in some cases have been filmed on video, but until now, this interrogation footage has almost never been used in lawsuits seeking compensation from the government.

In this case, the government was petitioned to submit the actual interrogation footage, which became evidence in the trial and was played in open court. This in itself is a precedent-setting event. (For the process leading up to the release of the interrogation footage, please see this explanatory article by the legal team.)
In order to let as many people as possible know the reality of the interrogation, we, the plaintiffs' legal team, posted the footage on the Internet.

▲A video of Eguchi's interrogation uploaded to YouTube. Watch it here .

What is the reality of interrogation, what happens if you exercise your right to remain silent, and whether or not these are in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution? These are common issues for all of us who live in this society.

Use of funds

Up until now, we have incurred costs in filing the lawsuit and in asking researchers to write opinions. In addition, we plan to create a video to disseminate information both in Japan and overseas about the actual interrogation conducted on Mr. Eguchi, and these costs will also be incurred.
The funds you have provided will be used to cover the costs of carrying out this trial, as well as for activities to disseminate information about the reality of interrogations.

*In the appeal hearing, in addition to deepening the discussion so far, we would like to seek the opinions of experts in psychology and international human rights law to provide more comprehensive evidence that interrogations after exercising the right to remain silent are a violation of human rights and should not be tolerated. We ask for your continued support to cover the costs of these activities (especially seeking the opinions of experts).

Plaintiff’s thoughts

It was only when I became a suspect myself that I learned the true nature of interrogation.

I wanted many people to know what kind of interrogations are actually taking place. I also wanted the court to decide whether it is illegal for investigators to endlessly insult suspects in the name of "interrogation." That is why I filed this lawsuit.

Being interrogated can happen to anyone at any time.

I wanted to let everyone know the reality of what interrogations are like and have them think of it as their own problem, not just someone else's, so I decided to make the court documents public and launch a crowdfunding campaign.

Message from the lawyer in charge

It is our mission to expose the reality of interrogations and to let everyone know that current practices are far removed from the guarantee of the right to remain silent as envisaged by the Constitution. To that end, we have first released a video of the interrogation. Next, we plan to release a video that will tell you how Eguchi felt after being interrogated in this way.

We would like to continue to actively disseminate information and let everyone know the reality of interrogations, in order to change the current situation.

▲The defense team and Eguchi filming a video. The video will be made public here .

Introduction of the lawyer in charge

Keita Miyamura , Miyamura & Igeta Law Office, Tokyo Bar Association
Cho Seong-ho, Second Tokyo Bar Association, Kollect Arts Law Office
Takano, Takeshi, Second Tokyo Bar Association , Waseda Legal Commons Law Office

Conclusion

In our current society, the right to remain silent cannot be guaranteed.
We will inform you of the reality of the illegal interrogations that are currently taking place.
We would appreciate your support in this endeavor.

This trial will change Japan's criminal justice system for the better. I hope to work with everyone to move towards a society where the right to remain silent is truly guaranteed and where mental torture is not practiced.