One year after the first trial date on May 31, 2022, we were able to reach our first goal of 1,000,000 yen.

With your donation, we were able to ask a researcher of international law to prepare an opinion report to be submitted to the court. Our team would like to express our sincere gratitude to you.

In order to enhance our litigation activities further, we have decided to aim for 2 million yen as the next step. Although the Immigration Law was revised in June 2023, it does not change the fact that the Immigration Bureau decides whether to detain a person or not and that there is no judicial review.

We ask for your continued cooperation in clarifying in court that immigration detention in Japan does not meet the standards of the Covenant on Civil Liberties.

　Summary of the case　

This case is a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the immigration detention of the plaintiffs, Mr. Safari and Mr. Deniz, was illegal because it constituted "arbitrary detention," which is prohibited under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and to seek compesation from the government for the illegal detention of the plaintiffs.　 

Mr. Safari, from Iran, and Mr. Deniz, a Kurd from Turkey, were not recognized as refugees when they applied for refugee status and still do not have living status. As a result, the two have been detained by the immigration authorities for more than three and a half years since 2016 and have not been able to live freely.　 

2016: Mr. Deniz has been detained at the immigration center since May and Mr. Safari since June.
Around June 2019: Went on a Hunger strike. From July 2019: Got provisional release for 2 weeks repeatedly.
October 2019: Report to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD)
(Mr. Deniz has got provisional release since March 2020 and Mr. Safari has got provisional release since April 2020 to the present)
September 2020: the WGAD expressed the opinion that "the immigration detention of the plaintiffs was arbitrary and violates the ICCPR”.

The two had been detained indefinitely by the immigration authorities since 2016. As a result, they were no longer free to do the things they take for granted, such as seeing family and friends, going out, eating together, making phone calls, using the Internet, and so on. Furthermore, because there was no upper limit to the length of their detention, they spent many painful days in anxiety and despair, as if they were in a tunnel with no way out, not knowing how long they would be detained for. 

There is a system of "provisional release" for immigration detainees, whereby the detainees are released after paying a deposit. Although they applied many times for it, they were not approved. 

In June 2019, a Nigerian national starved to death at the Omura Immigration Center, which led to widespread hunger strikes/fasting in immigration detention facilities. Mr. Safari and Mr. Deniz also fasted because they were trapped in their minds by the harsh conditions of detention. However, as if to make an example of some of the fasting detainees, including the two, the immigration authorities began to grant them provisional release for a short period of time, around two weeks, and then detain them again two weeks later. The fear that after two weeks they would be returned to the detention center with no way out deeply damaged their spirits. Currently they are out of detention center as they got provisional release, still they are suffering from the aftereffects of their detentions. 

The two decided to seek help from the international community regarding these inhumane practices of the immigration authorities, and in October 2019, they notified the WGAD. As a result, the WGAD issued an opinion in response to their report, stating that the detention of the two men was arbitrary and violated the ICCPR, etc. 

By filing this lawsuit in the Japanese courts, the two will seek confirmation that their immigration detention was illegal as it constitutes "arbitrary detention," which is prohibited under the ICCPR, as pointed out by the WGAD, and will seek damages from the Japanese government that illegally detained them, with the aim of changing the immigration detention system in Japan.

　The issues　

1. Arbitrary and indefinite detention issues 

The problem lies in the fact that "arbitrary detention" was carried out against the plaintiffs, Mr. Safari and Mr. Deniz, without necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. 

Liberty is the principle and right of every person. In particular, freedom from physical restraint is one of the most important rights in a person's life, and arbitrary and indefinite deprivation of this right will cause great suffering and despair, as Mr. Safari and Mr. Deniz have suffered. It is wrong to detain them for years because they are foreign nationals and do not have living status. 

Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR, which Japan ratified (agreeing to be bound by) in 1979, states that "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention." It prohibits "arbitrary detention" that lacks necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality. 

Both plaintiffs are in the process of applying for refugee status, and there is no possibility of them running away and hiding. Mr. Deniz is married to a Japanese national, with whom he has shared his struggles for more than a decade. 

Mr. Deniz's wife has been there for him no matter how long he has been detained. 

Mr. Safari speaks fluent Japanese and has many Japanese friends, all of whom are looking forward to the day when he can live in Japan with peace of mind. 

We have complained that the aforementioned immigration detention of two such persons constitutes "arbitrary detention" without necessity, reasonableness, or proportionality, and is therefore contrary to the ICCPR. 

2. Immigration Act and its Operation 

Since the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act does not stipulate requirements for detention, maximum periods of detention, or procedures for judicial review, the operation allows the Immigration Bureau to conduct detention based on its own policy is problematic because it leads to unnecessary detention and prolongation of the detention period. 

The current Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Immigration Act) stipulates that after a deportation order (a written order to deport) is issued to a foreign national without living status, he/she may be detained "until such time as he/she can be deported" (Article 52, paragraph 5). Therefore, the Immigration Bureau can detain foreign nationals in immigration detention facilities indefinitely without a court decision. 

Detainees can live out if they are granted "provisional release". However, a notice issued in 2018 by the Director of the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice began operating under the practice of continuing detention without granting provisional release unless the person is too injured or ill to endure detention, thus lengthening the duration of detention. As mentioned above, the reason why the detention after short provisional release of hunger strikers was carried out is that the Immigration Act does not stipulate the requirements for detention, so the Immigration Bureau operates provisional release and detention at its own wide discretion. 

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

As noted above, because the Immigration Act does not provide for judicial review of immigration detention, detention has been carried out at the wide discretion of the Immigration Bureau. Because the way for contesting detention are limited, the two plaintiffs sought help from the WGAD and it was granted. 

However, even after the WGAD expressed the opinion that the immigration detention of the two violated the ICCPR, the government has refused to acknowledge its responsibility and has not made any compensation.

　The circumstances of the plaintiffs stood up　

Mr. Safari and Mr. Deniz remain on provisional release, waiting to be recognized as refugees, and enduring the physical and mental anguish caused by their long-term detention. The Japanese government has never apologized to the victims of the detention, which the WGAD has deemed illegal, and has refused to provide any compensation or to pay for the medical treatment of the physical and mental injuries they have suffered. 

And even today, there are people like the two who are suffering from long-term detention, and are still suffering from the traumas and damages of long-term detention in their lives on provisional release. It takes courage to take action against the immigration authorities. However, Mr. Safari and Mr. Deniz decided to file this lawsuit not only for themselves, but for many others who are being oppressed. 

　The achievement we want with this lawsuit　

The WGAD has already issued an opinion that "immigration detention against Mr. Safari and Mr. Deniz violated the ICCPR." 

The fact that the Immigration Bureau has continued to arbitrarily detain people without necessity, reasonableness, or proportionality simply because they lack living status is also a problem for those of us living in Japan. We would like to further appeal to the Japanese courts to confirm that immigration detention in Japan is in violation of the ICCPR, thereby appealing society more broadly to change the Immigration Act and the operation of immigration detention. 

Also, we want the Japanese government to take responsibility and pay compensation to those who have been physically and mentally injured by long-term detention. 

　How the funds are used　

Fiscal stamps, postage stamps, etc. for the trial expenses.
Researcher / expert’s opinion expenses
Fees for transportation, communication, photocopying, etc.
Interpretation / translation fees
Venue rental fees
*If there is any money left after accounting for the above expenses, we would like to use it for legal fees. 

　Message from the attorneys in charge　

The problem of long-term detention in Japan has always been serious, but the operation of two weeks of provisional release and re-detention after widespread hunger strikes/fasting in immigration detention facilities in 2019 was so inhumane and inexcusable. This led us to make a report to the WGAD, but also to ask the more fundamental issue of detention without conditions, indefinitely, and without judicial review, head on. 

The case is based on the international human rights treaties, Article 9(1) of the ICCPR (prohibition of arbitrary detention) and Article 9(4) (right to judicial review in detention). 

Unfortunately, international human rights treaties have not been well received in Japan, and the government has ignored recommendations made by the UN treaty-based review. The Japanese government has not followed the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the issue of immigration detention. 

We hope that Japanese courts will clarify that immigration detention in Japan violates international human rights treaties, so that the Japanese government will respect the points made by UN organizations on various human rights issues including immigration detention, and follow the international human rights treaties. 

　Attorneys in Charge　

▲Attorneys in charge and the plaintiffs, Mr. Deniz and Mr. Safari 

Tomoko Uraki, Tokyo Bar Association, Shinwa Law Office
Ryutaro Ogawa, Tokyo Bar Association, Tokyo-kyodo Law Office
Chie Komai, Tokyo Bar Association, Milestone Law Office
Masako Suzuki, Tokyo Bar Association, Izumibashi Law Office
Shota Okamoto, Tokyo Bar Association, Shoei Law Office 

We work on human rights issues for foreign nationals, including refugee cases. Based on our belief that there is no border in the human rights, we hope to use international human rights treaties in the Japanese courts procedure. 

The issue of immigration detention has become a topic of public attention in the past few years in Japan. We hope that you will support this lawsuit, which seeks to challenge the violation of international human rights treaties by immigration detention.