Introduction

 Have you ever imagined a life being arrested, detained, and placed under physical restraint?

You wouldn’t be allowed to go outside. You would have to spend your days in a small room, completely shut off from the outside world. Even when moving within the facility, you would be forced to wear handcuffs and a waist chain. Naturally, you wouldn’t be able to attend school or go to work.

You wouldn’t even be free to move around your room as you please. You couldn’t casually lie down. You wouldn't be allowed to have a mobile phone or a computer. Meal times and contents, how often you can bathe — all of that is predetermined. There’s no door on the toilet. You may not be allowed to take your usual medication. Even receiving treatment for something like a cavity can be difficult.

You also wouldn’t be free to meet with people. The number and length of visits would be very limited. In a small visiting room, a police officer sits right next to you, taking notes. You can’t go see someone — you can only wait and hope someone comes to see you.

This life can continue for up to 23 days before indictment — and after indictment, it can go on indefinitely, until the trial ends. You have no idea when it will be over. Even if you apply for bail, only about 30% of requests are granted.

Can you imagine the despair that comes from being held in indefinite detention, with no end in sight?

The right to personal liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of Japan. The ability to meet someone you want to see, take a walk through your neighborhood, or go to work — all of these are only possible if your freedom is protected.

Yet, in today’s Japan, physical detention is granted far too easily. In particular, if you do not confess or if you choose to remain silent, there’s a high chance you will remain detained. The way in which your confession becomes a condition for release has come to be known as “hostage justice.”

This system of “hostage justice” is extremely rare globally — Japan is considered the only liberal democracy where it exists. It has been strongly criticized as a serious human rights violation by bodies such as the UN Human Rights Committee and international NGOs like Human Rights Watch.

This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure that permit “hostage justice.” Our goal is to bring an end to this system once and for all.

Press Conference Announcing the Filing of the Lawsuit

 "Hostage Justice"

 What is "Hostage Justice"?

In Japan, if a person does not admit to the charges against them, they are often detained after arrest — and denied bail even after indictment — on the grounds that they might destroy evidence or flee. As a result, they may end up being held in custody for extended periods of time.

In some cases, this physical detention is accompanied by restrictions that effectively cut off all contact with the outside world, including family and friends.

 Is "Hostage Justice" the Norm?

Some people might think, “They must have done something wrong to be arrested or indicted,” or “If someone’s been arrested, they should be kept locked up.” In this way, hostage justice is often accepted as normal or even necessary.

However, Japan’s criminal justice system is built upon a fundamental principle: the “presumption of innocence” — meaning that no one should be treated as guilty until they are found to be guilty at the trial. A person who has been arrested, detained, or indicted is not yet guilty.

Even if someone has committed a crime, until their guilt is proven in court, their right to personal liberty should still be respected, just like anyone else.

Furthermore, wrongful convictions continue to occur in Japan. This means that anyone, even an innocent person, could be arrested or detained. Given the harsh conditions of long-term detention, it’s not hard to understand why someone might feel, “I just want to confess so I can get out.”

 Provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure that allow "Hostage Justice" 

The physical custody of suspects and defendants is carried out directly through detention and maintained after indictment by the denial of bail.

In this system, detention is requested by the prosecutor, and bail is requested by the defendant, with both requests submitted to a judge. The judge examines whether there is “probable cause to suspect that the accused may conceal or destroy evidence,” among other factors, and then decides whether to approve detention or bail.

In other words, being arrested does not in itself justify continued detention. Detention is only legitimate when “probable cause to suspect that the accused may conceal or destroy evidence,” or similar grounds, are found to exist.

However, in current practice, this requirement of “probable cause to suspect the concealment or destruction of evidence” is interpreted so broadly and abstractly that detention is granted with alarming ease.

Furthermore, there are also serious constitutional concerns regarding procedural safeguards. The individual is not given a clear explanation of the specific reasons for their detention, nor are they given an opportunity to challenge the basis of the detention.

There is no adversarial structure in place that allows for equality between the parties — the prosecutor's assertions and the defendant's rebuttals are not treated as competing positions in a fair hearing.

This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of these provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

 Background of the Lawsuit

 Physical Detention Imposed on Plaintiffs

 This lawsuit is brought by four individuals who are victims of “hostage justice.”

The first plaintiff, Mr. Asanuma, was arrested on suspicion of indecency, later indicted on assault charges, and detained for a total of three and a half months before ultimately being acquitted. During this time, Mr. Asanuma repeatedly requested to be released on the grounds that sufficient evidence had already been collected and that there was no risk of contact with the alleged victim, but all of his requests were denied.

The second plaintiff, Mr. Shibata, was arrested and indicted for violating the Stimulants Control Act, and is currently serving a prison sentence. While detained, he applied for bail twice, but both requests were denied.

The third plaintiff, Mr. Amano, was arrested and indicted on charges of fraud. He requested bail but was denied. As of March 2025, Mr. Amano has been in detention for over six years since his arrest in 2018.

The fourth plaintiff, Mr. Morimoto, was arrested and indicted on charges of non-consensual indecency resulting in injury. He was detained for approximately four months before being released on bail after his second request for bail was granted, and he was subsequently acquitted in the first trial.

Mr. Asanuma, One of the Plaintiffs, at the Press Conference

 Harms Caused by Hostage Justice

The plaintiffs suffered serious physical and mental harm as a result of their detention, and much of their social lives were destroyed.

For example, Mr. Asanuma was forced to postpone events for the organization he worked as a representative, and he could no longer receive adequate medical treatment at the institution where he had been receiving care. Mr. Morimoto, meanwhile, lost the job offer he had received prior to his arrest.

The harm caused by hostage justice is not limited to the hardship of prolonged detention itself — which is already severe. In addition, as seen in the examples above, restrictions on personal freedom often lead to major setbacks in social life: being unable to participate in society, suffering health consequences, or losing employment. These are serious and lasting disadvantages that accompany the loss of liberty.

 "Hostage Justice" Could Happen to Anyone

Although the four plaintiffs have different circumstances and outcomes, they all share one thing in common: they are victims of hostage justice, having suffered the harm of unjust detention.

"Hostage justice" is not only something you hear about in the news; it is a problem that can happen to any ordinary person living their daily lives.

 Points in Dispute

We claim that the following three points are unconstitutional:

 1. Recognizing “probable cause to suspect that the accused may conceal or destroy evidence” based solely on abstract circumstances

The Constitution of Japan guarantees the right to personal liberty. On top of that, the Constitution particularly provides for protection with regard to criminal proceedings, in response to the serious human rights violations that occurred before the war.

The Code of Criminal Procedure must, of course, uphold the spirit and intent of the Constitution. Decisions regarding detention and bail are serious determinations that directly affect the personal liberty of suspects and defendants. For this reason, restrictions on personal liberty must be limited to exceptional circumstances, and such decisions must be made with the utmost care.

However, in practice, probable cause to suspect that the accused may conceal or destroy evidence is often found based solely on abstract circumstances, without any concrete facts indicating an actual risk of evidence concealment or destruction.

The deprivation of a suspect’s or defendant’s personal liberty — which should be allowed only as an exception — is being applied far too readily, as if it were the rule.

In the case of bail requests, judicial decisions have become formulaic, and are frequently denied based on generalized or abstract reasoning.

 2. Being deprived of liberty without the opportunity to respond or without stated reasons

 Decisions on detention and bail are serious determinations.

Nevertheless, suspects and defendants are not given any opportunity to know what evidence the prosecutor possesses or the arguments being made. Nor are they given a chance to respond to the prosecutor’s claims. In such circumstances, even defense counsel is left without any effective means to act.

Furthermore, decisions to order detention or deny bail are, by law, required to include reasons (Article 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). However, in practice, such decisions almost never provide any concrete reasoning.

These procedural deficiencies in the handling of detention and bail decisions are in clear violation of constitutional guarantees.

 3. Other issues (Concerning Article 89, Items 1 and 3, and Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)

Article 89 stipulates six conditions under which bail must not be granted. In this lawsuit, in addition to challenging the constitutionality of Item 4, we also challenge the constitutionality of Items 1 and 3.

Item 1 concerns cases where the accused is indicted for a crime punishable by a particularly severe statutory penalty.

Item 3 concerns cases where the accused is indicted for a serious offense allegedly committed habitually.

Both provisions justify denying bail based on the assumption that defendants charged with such offenses are more likely to reoffend or flee. However, there is no empirical basis for this assumption. In fact, international research has shown that such patterns do not exist.

Moreover, at the indictment stage, these are merely allegations made by the prosecutor — no determination of guilt has been made. Continuing to detain someone based solely on one-sided claims by the prosecutor stands in direct opposition to the presumption of innocence.

Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates the requirements for the disposition of a no-contact order. When such a restriction is imposed, the accused is prohibited from meeting with anyone other than their lawyer. In practice, courts routinely impose these restrictions in co-defendant cases, drug-related offenses, and organized crime cases, particularly when the accused denies the charges or remains silent. These restrictions are often applied automatically.

When a ban on visits is imposed, the defendant is prohibited from meeting with anyone other than his or her lawyer. In court practice, if a defendant denies the allegations or remains silent in cases of complicity, drug, or organized crime, the no-contact order is almost automatically imposed.

In addition to long-term detention, being cut off from family and friends places enormous psychological pressure on the accused. The ability to communicate with others is a fundamental human right. This lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of Article 81, which enables such severe restrictions on communication to be imposed far too easily.

 Social Significance

 This is the first civil lawsuit in which multiple victims have come forward as plaintiffs to directly challenge the constitutionality of the legal provisions underpinning “hostage justice.” The case aims to go beyond the individual circumstances of each victim and expose the fundamental problems in the very laws that allow for such unconstitutional practices.

The constitutionality of how detention and bail provisions are applied with minimal scrutiny is often challenged in criminal proceedings. However, those proceedings are not public, lack an adversarial structure, and the courts typically provide only minimal reasoning.

This, however, is a civil lawsuit. Public hearings will be held. Both the arguments and the final judgment will be made public. This will allow citizens to judge for themselves which side’s claims are more persuasive, and whether the court’s reasoning is sound and in line with common sense.

We invite you to pay close attention to this case. Examine the government’s claims and the court’s rulings through the lens of common sense and reason. We hope this lawsuit will shed light on the unconstitutionality of these provisions — and ultimately bring an end to hostage justice.

 Use of Donations

•  Litigation expenses: Actual expenses for stamps, photocopies, etc.
• Opinion writing expenses for scholars: We plan to commission written opinions from experts such as scholars in criminal procedure law and constitutional law.
• International comparative research: We plan to conduct research into foreign legal systems and court cases.
• Translation expenses: This refers to the cost of translating materials necessary for the research above.
• Legal service fees etc.: If there is any remaining balance after covering the above expenses, we plan to use it for attorney retainers, success fees, travel allowances, and other related costs.

 Message from Attorneys

  Takashi Takano, Lead Counsel, Attorney at Law

 Keita Miyamura, Attorney at Law

 Seiho Cho, Attorney at Law

 Michiko Kameishi, Attorney at Law

 Message from Supporter

Masayuki Suo, Filmmaker

 Takuya Kawasaki, Director of Innocence Project Japan / Attorney at Law

 Marcus Cavazos, Office Worker (Survivor of hostage justice system

Legal Counsel Team

Takano Takashi (Takano Law Office)
Kyoko Yoshida (Takano Law Office)
Hiromi Ukai (Takano Law Office)
Keita Miyamura (Miyamura and Igeta Law Offices)
Daisuke Igeta (Miyamura & Igeta Law Offices / Secretary-General, LEDGE)
Seiho Cho (Kollect Arts Law Office)
Eikou Kobayashi (Kollect Arts Law Office)
Motoki Taniguchi (Tokyo Public Law Office / Executive Director, LEDGE)
Hisashi Shizuka (Tokyo Public Law Office)
Miku Mabuchi (Kitasenjyu Public Law Office)
Hikari Ando (Kitasenjyu Public Law Office)
Michiko Kameishi (Law Office Eclat Umeda / President, LEDGE)
Yoshitaka Toda (Law Office LEDGE)

 About LEDGE

This lawsuit is supported by LEDGE, a collective of professionals dedicated to promoting human rights and social change in Japan through strategic litigation. Some of the lawyers in this lawsuit are members of LEDGE.

https://ledge.or.jp/en/