Country: Defendant's preparation document (2) Filed. 
Countering the previous plaintiff's allegations regarding breach of relief duty

乙 12 (video edited by the country), 乙 13 (certificate of body) submitted

Next time May 24 2:30 pm-
Mito District Court No. 302 Court Play DVDs submitted by both parties in court (total about 2 hours)

Plaintiff: Fourth preparation letter (specific allegation of breach of duty of caution), Submission 32-41 to support that allegation 

Prepare an edited video that the Japanese side thinks is necessary by the next time and a rebuttal to the fourth preparation document this time. 

The next date: March 22, 2019 4 pm-Mito District Court No. 302 court

Plaintiffs: Second and third papers (all pertaining to mutual assurance) submitted, A 28 edited video, and 27 and 29-31 submitted to Reciprocal 

【next time】 

On the plaintiff's side, organize the allegations against the national duty-of-attention on the basis of video footage and other evidence.

Defendant country: Preparatory letter 1, 、 7-11, submission of written statements for document submission order

Preparatory letter 1 claims “Reciprocal guarantee principle” under Article 6 of the National Liability Act, 
and plaintiffs that there is a legal system in which Japanese nationals in Cameroon can be compensated 
when they are damaged by national or local public entities. The state does not take responsibility unless it proves by the side.

The opinion for the document submission order is that the video is submitted arbitrarily.

A total of 35 hours of voluntary submissions have been filed, 
but the court wants the plaintiffs to examine whether they need to be regenerated and to have the necessary parts edited and put out.

In addition, the plaintiffs decided to make an objection / replenishment test on mutual assurance.

Plaintiff: Complaint, Filed 1-24 

Defendant country: Answer, submitted 1 to 6 

Defendant Kawamura: Do not appear in court, just submit a reply 

A petition to submit a document was filed for a video of a surveillance camera, but the national side considered whether it could not be disclosed arbitrarily.

There was a national answer and submission of evidence, but did not submit a video of the surveillance camera, so plaintiffs requested the submission of a document submission order petition

When I filed a lawsuit against the Mito District Court Tsuchiura Branch, the main office of the Mito District Court was notified that the case was circulated (the charge of the case was shown there), probably because it was a major case against the country.

Sued Mito District Court Tsuchiura Branch