・ Preparation of country preparation document (3), submitted to B-14-18

There was an answer to the previous explanation from us.

It was very amazing.

It was not the immigration staff but the guard man who was entrusted that the video that the man suffered from moaning was confirmed. Although it is possible to listen to the audio, it seems that he was not listening to it (the country representative said he was not sure if it could be investigated).

In addition, the rest, movement, and custody diary that is open to the public states that there are no abnormalities in the situation of men on the day, but this diary was created by a guardman, not an immigration officer. I understood that.

・ It was August 16 that preparation documents were submitted by the government. We held a quick defense council meeting and filed a petition for petition 2

・ The next time, we decided to compile allegations of violations of relief duties by immigration staff based on the facts revealed by us.

-Next date November 15th 11:30-Mito District Court No. 302 Court Next time will be a public court again.

・ The plaintiff filed the following petition for petition on June 10th, and the court explained to the country to respond.

・ Next date: August 26, 3:30 pm- Mito District Court Civil Affairs Department (not disclosed)

Since the date when the courtroom was held was just Friday, it was not easy to schedule, so the next time it would be held as a “preparation proceeding” that can be made private and the schedule can be adjusted flexibly.

=======================

2017 (wa) No. 552 national compensation claim case

Plaintiff A

Defendant country and 1 other

June 10, 2019

Mito district court civil part 1 meeting A person in charge

Petition for petition

Plaintiff litigation agent attorney Koichi Kodama

Item 1

We ask for clarification to clarify the following facts in the defendant country:

(1) At the time of the incident, what was the movement monitoring system in the rest room No. 4 in the Immigration Containment Center East Japan where Mr. Wanji was?

(2) Who was monitoring Mr. Wanji's movement from 18:00 on March 29, 2014 to 7:00 am on the same month?

(3) What instructions were given by the doctor or supervisor regarding the Wangji's motion monitoring to the staff members who were monitoring (2) above?

(4) How did each immigration officer reflected in ID No. 12 look at Mr. Wanji's status, what was the situation, and what was the need for emergency transport?

⑤ What was the message sent by each immigration officer regarding Mr. Wanji?

⑥ Who created the rest / individual / protection room activity log (Exhibit A15)?

Second need

1 In this case, the main issue is whether Mr. Wanji who is struggling even if he / she screams was obliged to see a doctor or carry out ambulance (4th plaintiff dated January 11, 2018 Preparation document, Defendant country preparation document dated March 22, 2019 (2)).

2 Defendant countries are competing for all the violations of the duty of caution that the plaintiff claimed in the 4th preparation document in the above preparation document (2). From the defendant country's allegations and the video filed by the defendant country (B) At the time of the incident, what kind of monitoring system the immigration officers were taking, and who was watching the video, sometimes entered the rest room to look after Mr. Wanji, and monitor the movement from the corridor The specific facts such as who made the decision and who made the decision by looking at Mr. Wanji screaming in front of them are not clear at all.

On the 18th page of the Ministry of Justice internal report (Exhibit A2), it is not possible to confirm whether the sound can be confirmed simply by saying "It is mainly about 24-hour monitoring with a normal surveillance camera." Since it is “centered”, you can see that it had some other system, but I do n’t know what it was.

3 In addition, I do not know who wrote the rest / alone / protection room activity log (Exhibit A15) at what timing.

(1) The table on the right compares the movement journal with the video filed by the defendant country (the video time is the start time).

(2) Looking at this, the video was supposed to have been in motion monitoring at 22:55 on March 29 (Table 1), but there is no record in the motion diary.

Similarly, 23:54 on the same day (Table 3) March 30, 0:39 am (Table 6), same day 1: 1 (Table 7), 4:51 am (Table 13) , 5:46 am (15 in the table) is not listed in the diary journal.

(3) Also, although there is a description in the motion diary, there is no video, but it was March 29th 23:32 (Table 2), March 30 1:26 am (Table 8), It is 2:30 am on the same day (Table 9), 4:22 am on the same day (Table 12), 5:30 am on the same day (Table 14), and 6:18 am on the same day (Table 16).

A) I thought that these were simply cuts in video editing, but the defendant claimed, “After turning off, not only a 24-hour surveillance with a surveillance camera but also a maximum of 1 hour 30 Because I went to the rest room nine times at intervals of less than a minute, and confirmed the movement of the dead Wanji by visual observation and hearing (Evidence No. 12 (14) to (22)). Preparation document (2), p. 18), it can be seen that there were nine visits to the rest room after the lights were turned off.

In the motion diary (Exhibit A15), the number of motion monitoring including lighting at 6:56 on the next 30th is 9 times after the lighting time of March 29, 22:26, and the number of times is the same. Therefore, it is not considered that it was cut in the video editing though it was written in the journal.

C. If you do so, it is about 4 and 5, 10 and 11 and 17 in the above table that the video and the diary log (Exhibit A15) match.

D On the oral argument date of May 24, 2019, the designated representative of the defendant was orally claiming that the surveillance system was revealed in the journal of movement (Exhibit A15). As far as differences are concerned, the truth about the history of making a diary journal should be clarified in order to clarify what the monitoring was like as a premise to judge the duty of care of immigrants.

that's all

・ Play DVDs submitted by both parties for about 2 hours

・ From the plaintiff's side, he said, “I saw the video, but I don't know what the staff was doing, when and where. I was instructed to submit what I said in document by the next time.

Next July 19th 3:30 pm ~ Mito District Court 302

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.