As some of you may already know from the news, the Supreme Court (Second Petty Bench) made a decision on February 26, 2025 not to accept the appeal in this case, and I received the decision on the following day, the 27th.

https://www.asahi.com/articles/AST2W2HC4T2WUTIL01JM.html https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUF27A5L0X20C25A2000000/ https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/388789 etc.

As a result, the judgment was finalized, ordering the government to pay 1.65 million yen, as the immigration officials' violation of their obligation to provide emergency transport had violated the reasonable possibility that the victim had survived at the time of his death.

We must never let such a tragedy happen again, and for 11 years, all of our legal team members have been fighting for this without any support, with the belief that we must find out the cause and hold the government accountable. However, as you know, on March 6, 2021, Wishma Sandamali passed away at the Nagoya Immigration Bureau without receiving proper medical care. We deeply regret that we were unable to prevent this incident.

We are extremely indignant at the fact that no causal relationship to the death was recognized, and that no question was raised about imposing an excessive burden of proof on the victim in a case where a death occurred in a closed room while in custody. However, we would like to view this as a step forward in that it is the first final judgment in an immigration detention case to acknowledge, even if only partially, the government's responsibility.

This really must be the last time. Even though the causal relationship with the death was not found, I sincerely hope that the government will take seriously the result that it was ordered to pay compensation for violating the emergency transport obligation.

Thank you very much for your support over the years.

The plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the high court ruling that did not recognize a causal relationship to the death, filed a notice of appeal and a petition for acceptance of appeal on May 30, 2024.

The notice of filing of appeal and acceptance of appeal was received on June 4th, and a statement of reasons must be submitted within 50 days from that date (Civil Procedure Rules, Article 194).

Once the explanation has been submitted, it will be posted here again.

After the statement of reasons is submitted, the case will be submitted to the Supreme Court for written review. If there is a possibility that the high court decision will be reviewed, oral arguments are usually held at the Supreme Court. However, it is overwhelmingly more common for a dismissal decision to be suddenly sent out in about one to three months after the statement of reasons is submitted. There are very few lawyers who have argued in the Supreme Court, and the vast majority never do so.

When a decision will be made or whether the Supreme Court will notify us that an oral argument date will be set varies from case to case, so it is completely unpredictable, and the court will not tell you even if you ask.

The appeal court ruling has been handed down. As has already been reported, the court dismissed the appeals of both the plaintiffs and the government, upholding the conclusion of the first instance ruling.

There are many unsatisfactory aspects to this ruling, such as the fact that a causal relationship with the death was not recognized, but it is certainly the first ruling at the high court level to acknowledge state responsibility in a case involving death in immigration detention, and in that sense I believe it deserves praise.

[Plaintiff of first instance]

・Appeal second preparatory document dated January 9, 2024 Supplementation of arguments based on previous witness examination

・Third appellate preparatory document dated January 19, 2024 Refutation of the first instance defendant's preparatory document (2)

・Kou75～79

[First instance defendant]

・Preparatory document dated January 9, 2024 (2)

As there was no further argument or proof on either side, the argument was concluded and a judgment was handed down at the next time.

On March 29, 2014, an immigration officer who was working in the rest room where the deceased Mr. W was located was questioned as a witness.

The audience seats of about 40 people were almost full. Thank you for your support!

The next hearing is scheduled for January 23, 2024 from 2:00 p.m.

The government submitted the following written opinion during the deadline. When we submitted a counterargument, the court said that it would be held in a way that would be visible to the audience.

Also, during the deadline, the plaintiff of the first instance also applied for questioning of an immigration official as a witness.

Next time, the state will conduct questioning for 30 minutes, and the plaintiff of the first instance will conduct questioning for 60 minutes.

Next session will be on October 12th from 2:00 pm - Courtroom No. 717

[About the method of questioning witnesses]

State side: When showing the video during interrogation, I would like it to be made so that it is not visible to the audience. Security issues arise and there is a risk that witnesses may not be able to testify properly.

We: This violates the principle of open trial. Absolutely against it.

Court: The government should compile its opinion in writing by the next time.

Discussing the cross-examination of witnesses by immigration control officers

[Witness application from the plaintiff of the first instance]

Court: Will the plaintiff of the first instance also apply as a witness?

→Yes. Submit a witness application by the next meeting.

[Regarding the method of questioning witnesses]

Government side: When showing the video during the interrogation, please do not show it to the audience. It creates security problems and the risk that witnesses will not testify properly.

Me: It goes against the principle of open trial. Absolutely against.

Tribunal: The state side should summarize their opinions in writing by the next meeting.

Date of next consultation

July 11, 16:00-Tokyo High Court

[Plaintiff of the first instance] Submission of the first brief of the appeal and written opinion on the immigration officials' request for examination of witnesses

[Defendant of the First Instance] Brief dated April 7, 2023 (1), Otsu No. 36 (Immigration Control Officer Statement)

【court】

The plaintiff of the first instance has expressed the opinion that the examination of witnesses is unnecessary, but the court believes that it is necessary. Next time, in order to discuss the method and time of the interrogation, it will be designated as a progress discussion date.

[Next date]

May 31, 13:30- High Court 24th Civil Division

February 16, 2023 (Thursday) 15:00-Tokyo High Court Court No. 717

[Attorneys for the plaintiff in the first instance] Kodama, Ikuta, Uragi, Takahashi, Honda

[Representatives of the defendant in the first instance] 6

[Documents to be submitted]

Plaintiff side of the first instance: Written appeal, statement of grounds for appeal, written answer to the statement of grounds for appeal by the government Evidence Kou 61-74

Defendant of the first instance: Written appeal, statement of reasons for appeal, written answer to the statement of reasons for appeal by the government Evidence Otsu 28-35, personal identification (Immigration control officer who was on site on the day)

[Plaintiff's Counsel for the First Instance Statement] Kodama

【Until next time】

Both sides argue against the allegations in the written answer (until April 7)

Consolidating opinions on national identification applications

Next date April 27 (Thursday) 11:00 am Tokyo High Court No. 717 court

2022/11/17 We submitted the plaintiff's grounds for appeal and evidence (Ko 61-66) to the Tokyo High Court (24th Civil Division) and the other party.