*Translated by Google translate

Introduction

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

When you hear the word "interrogation," you probably have the image of a detective harshly pursuing a cowardly suspect who remains silent and forcing him to confess.

And don't you have the image that the investigator who makes that statement is a hero of justice?

In reality, these images are just false images created by dramas. There are important rules for interrogations that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Japanese Constitution guarantees all suspects the right to remain silent.

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

If you didn't do it, you might think that it would be better to maintain your innocence and not remain silent.

However, even if the suspect claims innocence, the interrogation does not end.

The investigator has a scenario that he or she imagines, and is left alone with endless questioning and persuasion until the investigator makes a statement that matches the investigator's wishes.

In such a situation, your heart may eventually break down and you may end up admitting guilt even though it's not really the case.

This risk is even higher if you are physically restrained and your body and mind are weakened.

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

Suspects' remaining silent during interrogations is a fundamental and legitimate right recognized in most countries.

However, actually exercising the "right to remain silent" is very difficult. When you try to exercise your right to remain silent, the investigators say, ``If you remain silent, your detention will be longer,'' ``You'll be at a disadvantage in court,'' and ``Listen to your lawyer, and you won't know what will happen.'' They will do whatever they can to get you to give a statement.

If a person is able to endure whatever is said during an interrogation and is able to remain silent in the end, can this be considered a state in which the right to remain silent is guaranteed? Is the right to remain silent really guaranteed in Japan?

In this case, Mr. Eguchi, who was suspected of a crime, was subjected to various abusive language, sarcasm, and insults by the prosecutor for approximately 21 days and approximately 56 hours under the guise of interrogation, despite declaring that he had exercised his right to remain silent. They kept showering me.

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

▲Mr. Eguchi speaking at the “Hostage Justice Survivor Assembly”（photo by Yoshiyuki Nishi)

Summary of the case

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

At the beginning of the interrogation following his arrest, Mr. Eguchi maintained his innocence and expressed his intention to remain silent, and consistently exercised his right to remain silent. However, prosecutors continued the investigation for 21 days, with the interrogation lasting more than 56 hours.

During the interrogation, prosecutors called Mr. Eguchi ``Boku-chan,'' ``Children,'' and ``Brat,'' and said things like ``He's annoying,'' ``How can he be such a lawyer,'' and ``He has a tendency to lie.'' He insulted the lawyer by calling him "a type of fraudster" and made comments that insulted the lawyer's activities.

These statements are completely unrelated to the purpose of the investigation.

In addition, there were scenes in which Mr. Eguchi's character was denied by referring to Mr. Eguchi's junior high school grades, which had nothing to do with the incident, and making fun of his abilities, and by using the burden on those around him, such as his family and supervisor, as a shield. There was also.

As a result of these actions, Mr. Eguchi suffered tremendous mental pain.

▲Memo written by Mr. Eguchi while in detention

In this case, the prosecutor filed a lawsuit with the government in March 2022, claiming that the prosecutor's actions violated Mr. Eguchi's rights and were illegal.

Three rights violations

We claim that the interrogation by the prosecutor violated Mr. Eguchi's rights as follows.

① Violation of the right to remain silent

At the beginning of the interrogation after his arrest, Eguchi made it clear that he intended to exercise his right to remain silent, saying, ``I have nothing more to say.'' However, prosecutors continued the investigation, interrogating him for more than 56 hours over 21 days.

Prolonged interrogation in a closed room, in isolation and without assistance, creates an atmosphere in itself that forces statements. The act of forcing a person to undergo an interrogation while ignoring the person's intention to exercise the right to remain silent is the very act of forcing a statement.

Furthermore, the prosecutor repeatedly made statements and actions that insulted Mr. Eguchi's character and ability as a lawyer.

Such behavior goes beyond the scope of questioning or persuading a suspect to speak, and is an attempt to coerce a statement through psychological pressure, which is an illegal violation of the right to remain silent. It's an act.

② Violation of the right to a lawyer

In Japan, the right to a lawyer is guaranteed.

This right to a lawyer not only means that the suspect should not be prevented from appointing a lawyer, but also that the suspect must appoint a lawyer, consult with the lawyer, and receive his advice. This essentially guarantees that you will have the opportunity to receive assistance from a lawyer.

In order for a suspect to receive assistance from a lawyer, a relationship of trust between the suspect and the lawyer is essential. If an interrogator acts in a manner that destroys the relationship of trust between a suspect and his or her defense attorney, this violates the suspect's right to have an opportunity to receive assistance from his or her defense attorney.

In this case, the prosecutor made comments about Eguchi's appointment of a defense attorney, saying things like, ``I don't want (the defense attorney) to cause any trouble. You should do it yourself.'' He has made insulting comments about the activities of defense attorneys, such as ``having a weak point of view'' and ``immature arguments.''

This is an attempt to make Mr. Eguchi unsure whether it is okay to continue requesting the defense attorney and to sow distrust in the defense attorney's activities. This 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 moral rights

Throughout the interrogation of Mr. Eguchi, the prosecutor repeatedly used words and actions that insulted Mr. Eguchi's character, ability as a lawyer, defense policy, etc.

These words and actions are illegal acts that violate Mr. Eguchi's personal rights.

In response to these claims, the government acknowledged that the interrogation lasted more than 56 hours and that the prosecutor's statements during the interrogation did not infringe on Ms. Eguchi's right to remain silent, and that the interrogation was a lawful interrogation. It is claimed that it was.

▲ Comparison table of the state's claims regarding the prosecutor's statements (prepared by the defense team). Click here for the full text.

At issue is the fact that the prosecutor conducted an interrogation that lasted more than 56 hours, and how the court will evaluate the prosecutor's words and actions during the interrogation.

social significance

Improving Japanese investigative practices

Mr. Eguchi's case is not the only case in which people are subject to interrogation even if they exercise their right to remain silent.

Situations that demand patience from suspects exercising their constitutional rights occur widely on a daily basis.

Is it really permissible to interrogate people who are exercising their right to remain silent, and is it okay or wrong for investigators to say anything?

These points regarding the right to remain silent are issues common to all countries around the world.

The Covenant on Human Rights (International Covenant on Human Rights), which Japan ratified in 1979, requires full and equal guarantees that ``no person shall be forced to make statements that are detrimental to him or confession of guilt'' (Article 14, Paragraph 3). g)).

Until now, Japanese investigative practices have been left out of global discussions.

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 to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Regarding Japan's investigative practices, it stated that ``Japanese interrogators inflict psychological abuse'' and ``Japan violates the right not to be forced to incriminate oneself or the right not to be forced to confess.'' It was pointed out sternly that the
*Ryuichi Hirano, “International Federation of Human Rights Report (Parker-Jordel Report),” Hou Jiho Vol. 61, No. 7, p. 92 (1989)

Thirty-five years have passed since then, and Japan's investigative practices have not improved.

The ruling in this case will undoubtedly cast a major shake-up in Japan's investigative practices, which have disregarded the right to remain silent.

Publication of interrogation video

Since 2019, interrogations have been videotaped in some cases in order to make interrogations more appropriate, but until now, footage of these interrogations has almost never been used in lawsuits seeking compensation from the government. .

In this case, a petition was filed with the state to submit the actual interrogation footage, which became evidence in the trial and was played publicly in court. This fact itself has precedential significance. (For details on the circumstances leading up to the release of the interrogation footage, please see the defense team's commentary here .)

We, the plaintiff's legal team, released the footage on the Internet in order to let as many people know about the reality of the interrogation.

▲Video of Mr. Eguchi's interrogation uploaded to YouTube. Click here to watch.

What are the actual conditions of interrogations, what kind of consequences will they face if they exercise their right to remain silent, and are they in line with the spirit of the Constitution? These issues are common to all of us living in this society.

Use of funds

To date, we have incurred procedural costs when filing a lawsuit and costs for requesting researchers to write opinions.

In addition, we are planning to create a video in the future to disseminate information to widely inform people in Japan and abroad about the actual state of the interrogation conducted against Mr. Eguchi, and costs will be incurred for this purpose.

The funds we receive from you will be used not only to cover the costs necessary to carry out this trial, but also to cover the costs of activities to disseminate information about the actual state of the interrogation.

Plaintiff's thoughts

It wasn't until I became a suspect myself that I learned the reality of interrogations.

I wanted as many people as possible to know what kind of interrogations actually take place.

I also wanted the court to rule on whether it is illegal for investigators to endlessly abuse suspects in the name of "interrogation."

That is why I filed this lawsuit.

Being interrogated can happen to anyone at any time.

We decided to make the trial documents public and conduct crowdfunding because we want everyone to know the reality of the interrogation and think about it as their own problem, not just one person.

Message from the lawyer in charge

It is our mission, as those in charge of this case, to clarify the reality of the interrogation and to make everyone aware that the current practice is far from guaranteeing the right to remain silent as envisaged by the Constitution. .

To that end, we first released a video of the interrogation. Next, we plan to release a video that will tell you how Mr. Eguchi felt after undergoing such an interrogation.

I would like to continue to actively disseminate information and make everyone aware of the reality of interrogations in order to change the current state of interrogations.

▲Mr. Eguchi and his defense team filming a video. The video will be published here

Introduction of the lawyer in charge

Keita Miyamura Daini Tokyo Bar Association Miyamura & Igeta Law Office
Cho Seiho Daini Tokyo Bar Association Kollect Arts Law Office
Suguru Takano Daini Tokyo Bar Association Waseda Legal Commons Law Office

in conclusion

In our current society, the right to remain silent cannot be guaranteed.

I would like to tell everyone about the reality of the illegal interrogations that are being carried out even now.

We ask for your support in achieving this goal.

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