*Translated by Google translate

1. Introduction

How would you feel if you couldn't eat rice as your staple food at every meal, and could only eat porridge and mushy side dishes that were very bland in flavor?

What if, instead of eating meat or fish, you had to eat processed soy products?

What if you could no longer eat fried foods?

At Osaka Detention House, "alternative meals" are provided to inmates with illnesses such as gastroesophageal reflux disease.
The "replacement meals" are as described above, all mushy and very bland in flavour.

Mr. A, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, has been suffering from gastroesophageal reflux disease for over 10 years.

That said, I was able to eat normal meals until I was admitted to Osaka Detention House.

Since entering Osaka Detention House, Mr. A has continued to be provided with "substitute meals" despite his protests.

For over two years now, Mr. A has not been able to eat a normal meal.

This lawsuit is seeking to provide Mr. A with normal meals, and ultimately to ensure that people detained in correctional facilities are able to live a decent life.

▲A breakfast recreated based on the menu at the penal institution and Mr. A's story. This menu is served almost every day.
The cafe au lait is half the amount of a regular meal, and the porridge is flavorless, simply topped with sea bream miso.

2. Overview of the case

Mr. A suffers from a disease called gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a condition in which the stomach contents (mainly stomach acid) reflux into the esophagus, causing inflammation of the esophagus. In Japan, it is estimated that 10-20% of adults suffer from this disease. Treatment involves oral medication and lifestyle changes. However, dietary restrictions are not mandatory. In fact, before being transferred to Osaka Detention House, Mr. A was able to eat ramen, katsudon, and other foods while taking medication.

However, when Mr. A was transferred to Osaka Detention House, the staff told him, "If we are going to prescribe you medicine, you will have to eat a substitute meal." Mr. A refused at first, but the staff continued to insist, so he reluctantly agreed to be provided with the "substitute meal." However, the "substitute meal" was less tasty than he had expected, so he had no appetite and was unable to eat it. As a result, Mr. A tried to make do with bread brought to him by his wife or bread he bought himself, but Mr. A's weight, who is 160 cm tall, dropped rapidly from 57 kg to 44 kg in just nine months.

Mr. A has requested the Osaka Detention House many times to provide him with normal meals because he was able to eat normal meals outside. However, the Osaka Detention House still does not provide Mr. A with normal meals.

Therefore, Mr. A decided to sue the Osaka Detention House, claiming that it was illegal for them to not provide him with regular meals.

▲ Regular meal monthly menu for February 2024 (excerpt from Exhibit No. 7 )

▲ Planned alternative menu for soft-vegetarian meals for February 2024 (excerpt from Exhibit No. 7 )

3. Issues at stake in the trial

The issues in this case are roughly as follows:

Whether A was opposed to the provision of alternative meals from the beginning

Furthermore, according to the medical records, Mr. A expressed his intention to refuse alternative meals at the latest three months after being transferred to Osaka Detention House, and there is no dispute on this point.

How much discretion does the Osaka Detention House have in deciding what meals to provide?

In lawsuits involving penal institutions, penal institutions are often given broad discretion.
In this lawsuit, the government argues that broad discretion is granted in medical care within correctional facilities, and that the replacement meals provided in this case fell within the scope of that discretion.

We believe that meals are a fundamental part of life and that it is inappropriate to grant broad discretion to the director. Even if discretion were granted, we believe that it would be an excess of discretion, given that Mr. A was forced to eat porridge despite his refusal.

4. Social Significance

In lawsuits involving penal institutions, the institution is often given broad discretion. Simply put, the courts tend to consider the actions of the penal institution to be lawful, thinking, "The warden of the penal institution has made a professional judgment, so we should respect that judgment."

However, is it acceptable to ignore the dignity of those incarcerated in penal institutions when it comes to something as fundamental as food? Certainly, certain restrictions may be unavoidable while incarcerated in a penal institution. However, isn't it excessive to be unable to even eat normal meals without needing them? There are likely to be people in penal institutions across the country who are subject to unreasonable restrictions on their diet, like Mr. A, and there are likely to be a significant number of people in penal institutions across the country who are subject to unreasonable restrictions on their lifestyle, not just their diet.

This lawsuit aims to shed light on what should be a given - that a decent life should be guaranteed even inside a correctional facility - through the issue of food.

5. Use of funds

• Expert fees (we believe that we will need a legal opinion and, depending on the circumstances, a gastroenterologist's opinion) Total: 400,000 yen
• Attorney's fees: 500,000 yen
• Actual expenses (travel expenses for meetings with the person and experts, postage, etc.): 100,000 yen

6. Plaintiff’s thoughts

The forced intake of alternative meals is a medical issue. I think it is wrong that I should have to go to trial without receiving appropriate medical care. I am suffering from a false accusation, and if I continue to be forced to eat alternative meals, it will break my spirit. Therefore, the forced intake of alternative meals is an issue related to the right to defense. I believe that other detainees may also have medical issues, not limited to alternative meals. I also believe that the reason medical issues arise is because the situation inside the detention center cannot be seen from the outside. I would like to shed light on the problems inside the detention center and be of help to other detainees in need.

7. Message from the lawyer in charge

I believe that the reason why the Osaka Detention House is forcing Mr. A to eat "alternative meals" despite his refusal is because they are not treating him as a person, but only as an object to be managed. This kind of attitude can be seen throughout the detention house. Mr. A and I are not asking the detention house to "serve high-class meals to inmates" or "provide the highest quality medical care." We are simply asking that they treat us like human beings. I would like to win this lawsuit, both for Mr. A's sake and for the sake of improving the detention house environment.

8. Introduction of the lawyer in charge

Takayasu Tsugane Kyoto Bar Association Kollect Plus Law Office

9. Conclusion and Request for Donations

Your support will help improve Mr. A's diet and free him from his harsh living conditions. We would appreciate your support.