Court battle to seek crime victim benefits for same-sex partners goes to Supreme Court

On June 4, 2020, the Nagoya District Court held a lawsuit in which a same-sex partner requested the payment of survivor benefits under the Crime Victim Benefits System, and the Aichi Prefectural Public Safety Commission sought to cancel the ruling that the funds were not provided. We handed down a judgment dismissing the claim.

The reasons for the dismissal were: ``As long as taxes are the source of funding, it is reasonable to determine the scope of payment based on conventional wisdom'' and ``At the time of the disposition of this case (December 2017), there was no understanding regarding cohabitation relationships between people of the same sex.'' Although it can be appreciated that the movement toward eliminating discrimination and prejudice has permeated the general society to a considerable extent,... in Japan, where this case was disposed of, there is a possibility that a cohabitation relationship between people of the same sex can be considered the same as a marriage relationship. It is impossible to say that a conventional wisdom had been formed.''

Regarding issues related to the human rights of sexual minorities, the fact that they are not worthy of protection because they are not fully understood by the majority of the population because the funding source is tax means that discrimination and prejudice still persist in society. It can't be helped that the court does not protect human rights, and it must be said that the court has abandoned its role as a bulwark of human rights. This is a very sad verdict.

The incident occurred in December 2014. The person who was killed was Mr. A (male). The first discoverer was Mr. B (male), who had been living with Mr. A as a partner for over 20 years. The motive for Mr. C, the assailant, to kill Mr. A was out of resentment over Mr. A's warning to stop stalking Mr. B. Mr. C was sentenced to 14 years in prison, which he served. In this judgment, the relationship between Mr. A and Mr. B was recognized as ``a relationship equivalent to husband and wife.''

Mr. A was 13 years older than Mr. B. They had a husband-husband relationship in which Mr. B, who was innocent, was supported by Mr. A, who was firm and warm, like a father. Mr. B was deeply saddened by the loss of Mr. A, and was forced to quit his job due to the emotional impact. Since the home where he lived with Mr. A became the scene of the murder, Mr. B was forced to give up his home at a low price and suffered a major financial blow.

As was the case in this case, perpetrators of serious crimes such as murder serve long periods of time in prison, so victims of crimes and their families are often not compensated adequately. The Crime Victim Benefits System is a system that alleviates the economic and psychological damage to crime victims as a whole, based on the spirit of solidarity and mutual assistance, so that crime victims can live a peaceful life even after the incident. is.

The Crime Victim Benefits System lists spouses as the number one surviving family member eligible for benefits. The term ``spouse'' is clearly defined as ``a person with whom the circumstances are similar to that of a de facto marriage.'' In other words, it is possible to apply even if you are in a common-law marriage and have not submitted a marriage registration. The purpose of this law is to protect socially vulnerable groups such as crime victims and their bereaved families. This is because they are no different from the couple who submitted the application.

Furthermore, the gender of these "persons in similar circumstances to marriage" is not indicated. Whether or not same-sex partners are eligible for benefits is up to the judge's interpretation. If we go back to the purpose of the Crime Victim Benefits System, there should be no difference in the economic and psychological damage caused by losing a partner to crime, whether it is a heterosexual couple or a same-sex couple. However, the ruling did not address this point, instead denying the allowance on the one point that ``according to common social conventions, same-sex partner relationships cannot be considered the same as marriage relationships.''

After the verdict, Mr. B commented, ``I am very disappointed that the payment was not approved in this ruling.I think the pain of losing a same-sex partner due to a crime is no different from the pain of losing a male-female partner.'' did. Mr. B is not alone. Many people with same-sex partners felt that their relationships had been legally dismissed as not being marriages. I will turn that sadness, frustration, and anger into energy and take on the appeal (Supreme Court hearing).

We appreciate your understanding of this judgment and your support.