Today, the appeal court handed down its ruling in the Arjun case.

We broke through the wall of mutual guarantees that had plagued us in the first trial, and, unlike the first trial, we won a ruling that the defendant had not violated the duty to transport the patient to a hospital, but rather violated the duty to prevent blood circulation outside of the lawsuit. As a result, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government was ordered to pay 39,429,698 yen. Although our claim against the national government was not accepted, the content of the case was almost a complete victory.

In addition to this point, there was another illegal act by Tokyo Metropolitan Government: that the requirements for the use of restraining devices may not have been met when the detainee was placed in a protective room. Ultimately, the requirements were met and the law was not found to be illegal in this case. However, the rule that "even when a detainee is placed in a protective room, if there is a risk that the detainee may harm themselves or others, and it is deemed difficult to prevent the occurrence of the circumstances specified in Article 213, Paragraph 1 of the Law by simply placing the detainee in a protective room, the detainee may be prevented from using restraining devices" is set forth, and this is likely to have an impact on the practice of detention operations in the future.

Considering that Arjun is not the only victim of handcuff belts, but that many others across the country, including Japanese people, have been victims, we have no choice but to say that these restraining devices, which easily impede blood circulation, are flawed. In order to prevent further victims, we believe that handcuff belts must be abolished immediately. Our legal team hopes that the verdict in Arjun's case will play a role in this regard.

This verdict could not have been won by the legal team alone. It was only possible thanks to Dr. Fushimi, Dr. Maeda, Professor Okada, and all of our supporters. We were able to win this verdict thanks to all of you for your kind support. We would like to express our deepest gratitude. We all share in the joy of having achieved this verdict. As previously announced, a trial report meeting will be held today at 5:00 PM at Waseda Legal Commons Law Office. Please attend if you are able to.

Everyone

Thank you for your continued support. The High Court ruling on November 19th is fast approaching.

After the High Court ruling, a report meeting will be held that evening as follows:

Please attend the sentencing hearing and join the evening report meeting.

Nepalese man dies during interrogation - State compensation lawsuit

Is the use of restraining devices appropriate? Article 6 of the State Compensation Act? Why avoid death?

[High Court ruling date]
November 19, 2025 (Wednesday) 11:30~ Tokyo High Court, Courtroom 809

[Highlights of the ruling]
Was the use of restraining devices (requirements, doctor's opinion) appropriate? Did the use of the devices cause excessive pressure that restricted blood flow? Were the restraining devices removed when they were no longer necessary? Why was the victim not taken to hospital due to swelling and congestion in the hands and feet? Why could death not be prevented? Is the interpretation of Article 6 of the State Compensation Act, which set the amount of damages at 1,003,000 yen, appropriate?

[Reporting Meeting]
Wednesday, November 19, 2025 17:30-19:30

[Report meeting information flyer]
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2ttxk9gc3k2lqugeotedm/AMTXz4GRRxeQYUu71Fq-rdI?rlkey=phe466qjcq7mdt8yq6wgxve2t&st=2km4z8bl&dl=0

[How to participate in the report meeting]
No registration is required for either face-to-face or online sessions.

<In-person venue>
Commons Space "Waseda Legal Commons Law Office"
https://legalcommons.jp/about
Chiyoda Kaikan 4th floor, 1-6-17 Kudanminami, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 3-minute walk from Exit 4 or 6 of Kudanshita Station on the Tozai Line, Hanzomon Line, and Toei Shinjuku Line

<Online venue>
Please join us via the Zoom link below.

Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/96356748188?pwd=sbOUQFIjotjwW5MKZUHsf7dCiNCsAT.1
Meeting ID: 963 5674 8188
Passcode: 539157

Organizers: Arjun's Trial Support Group, Arjun Case Defense Team

The Tokyo High Court hearing concluded today. I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who attended the hearing.

After the last hearing date for Dr. Nakajima's questioning, we asked our cooperating physician, Dr. Maeda, to prepare a written opinion on the content of the questioning, which we submitted along with our preparatory documents. Dr. Nakajima then submitted a rebuttal opinion last week in August. He revised the content of the questioning, which stated that there was a 50% chance of saving the patient's life, to state that there was no chance of saving the patient's life. We then asked Dr. Maeda for his cooperation again, and yesterday we were finally able to submit his own opinion in response to Dr. Nakajima's original opinion. We would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest gratitude to Dr. Maeda for his cooperation, even on weekends.

Regarding the issue of mutual guarantees, I was also extremely grateful to a university professor. Thanks to his dedicated cooperation, we were able to obtain a letter of opinion from Nepal's National Human Rights Institution. This letter confirmed that there is no upper limit on the amount of compensation under the Nepalese Constitution, and that even foreigners can receive compensation in cases like this one. This gave me a renewed understanding of the importance of a national human rights institution (an independent government agency responsible for human rights), which does not yet exist in Japan. The Nepalese Embassy in Japan also accompanied me, and we requested their cooperation.

At today's hearing, Kawakami and Ogawa gave oral statements. Kawakami stated that it is necessary to clarify the relationship between Article 213 of the Criminal Detention Facilities Act (use of ropes, handcuffs, restraining suits, and sound-deadening devices) and Article 214 (confinement in a protective room), and that the use of restraining devices after confinement in a protective room should be understood to be prohibited unless there are special circumstances. He also stated that the Tokyo District Court ruled on June 11, 2025, that the use of the same belt handcuffs on a Japanese suspect at the same Shinjuku Police Station was illegal, and appealed for no more victims to be created.

Ogawa explained that both Nepal's national human rights organization and the Nepalese Embassy are concerned about this case, and that it has attracted international attention. He also noted that the case has received significant support from CALL4, a platform supporting public litigation, with attendees attending the trial and being invited to speak at events about the case, drawing national attention. He also noted that the number of victims of handcuffs is not limited to foreigners, but is also increasing nationwide among Japanese people, as in the example above. He also noted that judges must have experienced firsthand how inhumane handcuffs are through their own investigations. The goal of this lawsuit is to abolish handcuffs and prevent further victims from being created. Arjun and his wife, Ambika, expressed their desire to prevent further victims like them from being created again, and urged the court to issue a fair ruling to stop this harm.

The next hearing will be the verdict. It will be held on Wednesday, November 19th at 11:30am in Courtroom 809. Please come and observe.

It's not a class action lawsuit, and I think it's rare to have such a large number of people supporting us and offering their devoted cooperation across the ocean. I'd like to express my gratitude once again for all your support. I hope you'll see the outcome.

At the hearing on June 25th, we cross-examined the defendant Tokyo Metropolitan Government's cooperating doctor (Dr. Nakajima, Toranomon Hospital). The doctor stated that Arjun died because he moved around on his own while wearing the restraints in the protective room, and that the restraints themselves were not the cause of his death. He also stated that even if he had contacted the doctor at the time of his transfer, there was no chance that his life would have been saved. The plaintiff's side cross-examined Arjun based on the fact that even the detention officer testified in the first trial that the belt handcuffs, even when tightly fastened, cause severe pain that cannot be endured for even five minutes, and that Arjun was suffering from the pain caused by the restraints in the protective room and had asked for help in Nepali. After the hearing, the plaintiff's cooperating doctor, who had observed the hearing, pointed out that Dr. Nakajima's testimony contained many factual errors, so we plan to prepare and submit an additional opinion for the next hearing and request another questioning of our cooperating doctor.

To all supporters

Yesterday was the first day of the appeal hearing. We are of course appealing the trial court's decision, which awarded compensation of only around 1 million yen to the bereaved family of Mr. Arjun, who died due to the illegal actions of a public servant in Tokyo. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government has also filed an appeal against the first instance judgment that affirmed the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's liability for damages (this type of appeal by both parties is called a "bilateral appeal"). The state has not filed an appeal because the first instance judgment did not recognize the responsibility of the public prosecutor's office who interrogated Mr. Arjun. Please note that both parties' letters of appeal, statements of grounds for appeal, and written answers have been uploaded to CALL4.

We are disputing the unconstitutionality, treaty violation, and interpretation of Article 6 of the National Reparation Act (mutual guarantee principle), which is the reason why only an extremely low amount of liability was recognized as described above. Furthermore, in addition to the violation of the duty to provide medical care recognized by the first instance judgment, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government has also committed a violation of the duty of care in the use and method of use of the martial arts equipment, and the national government also has problems with its response during the interrogation. These points are disputed.

On the other hand, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government stated that there was no violation of the obligation to provide medical care because it was not foreseeable, and that the cause of Arjun's death was not the use of restraints but the rampage in the protection cell, etc. The case was contested at the appellate court by submitting a medical opinion written by Dr. Kan Nakajima of Toranomon Hospital as evidence and requesting that the doctor be questioned as a witness.

At the first meeting, we submitted a written opinion written by Professor Masanori Okada of Waseda University regarding the above-mentioned Article 6 of the National Reparations Act. This written opinion is very powerful, and I believe that it will not only be of great help in this case, but also serve as a reference in other cases in which foreign nationals claim national compensation as plaintiffs.

The first trial period has ended, and the key points in the appeal court are becoming clearer. We would like to hold a debriefing session to explain the points of these appeals, and in particular to share Professor Okada's written opinion, before the second session. At the time of the debriefing session, Professor Okada's written opinion will also be uploaded to CALL4 and will be shared as a public resource. We will contact you later with details of the report meeting plan.

Lastly, as mentioned above, medical issues have come up in the appeals court, so we also need to request assistance from medical experts. If possible, we would like to obtain cooperation from experts (local experts in Nepal, etc.) regarding other points. This case is a constitutional lawsuit and must be considered before the Supreme Court. I am sorry to hear that we have received a large amount of donations, but during this time we have had to pay for things such as fees for experts and stamp fees for appeals. We would appreciate it if you could support us again to the extent possible. Thank you very much.

All the defense team (Yuichi Kaito, Ryutaro Ogawa, Masato Kawakami)

Dear Supporters

Thank you for your help. This is ogawa from the defense team.

At present, the defense team is proceeding with the fact-finding and preparation of the written opinion in preparation for the submission of the grounds for appeal at the end of August. In order to investigate the irrationality of Article 6 of the National Liability Law, we are collecting information from researchers in Japan and local organizations in Nepal. We are not in a position to report the details to you yet, but we will let you know as soon as they are ready.

As some of you may have noticed, Kyota Tanaka, a reporter from the Asahi Shimbun, has recently published an in-depth article about this incident.

Asahi Shimbun dated May 27, "Death due to police misconduct, acknowledged compensation, but 1 million yen because I am Nepali"

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR5S7DP1R58UTIL034.html

Asahi Shimbun dated the same date, "GHQ once paid attention to the mystery of 'Article 6 of the National Compensation Law' that limits compensation to foreigners"

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR5S7DPGR5SUTIL004.html

(quoted from the second article)

Katsuya Uga, a scholar of administrative law and currently serving as a justice of the Supreme Court, describes the discussion at that time in "Complete Works of Japanese Legislative Materials 42: National Compensation Law (1947)", which he edited and published in 2015 before he became a judge. Introducing.

According to his book, after the law was enacted, the General Headquarters of the Allied Forces (GHQ) also noted that it was "unconstitutional." It is said that he inquired with the Legal Affairs Agency (currently the Ministry of Justice) about his recognition.

In 1948, the Legal Affairs Agency conveyed its recognition that "the phrase 'according to the provisions of the law' is permitted by the Constitution," but also replied:

"As a practical matter, there is little need to retain this article, so I plan to submit a bill to delete the article at the next ordinary session of the Diet."

However, even after that, the law was not amended to delete it, and the provision still remains.

Mr. Uga wrote in his book, "It is interesting to know why the revision was not realized, but the reason is not clear."

In 1982, the House of Representatives Judicial Committee also took up the validity of Article 6 of the National Liability Law.

A bill to revise the Alien Registration Act, which was later abolished, became the subject of discussion, and was the focus of attention as lawmakers questioned the government's views on the "rights and obligations of foreigners in the country."

In response to the question, "If it happens that compensation is not provided because of Article 6, public opinion will not be accepted," the government responded as follows.

“Approving application regardless of the presence or absence of mutual guarantees is, on the one hand, highly desirable. If the law is to be amended in the future, it must be carefully considered. I have heard that there is no place for

The lawmaker reiterated, "The public will not be satisfied if they say, 'You are a foreigner. There is no mutual guarantee with your country. Therefore, we will not compensate you.'"

The government explained, ``It is possible for the government to pay compensation without questioning this point.

(quote here)

Contrary to such a statement in the Diet, the government made a completely contrary claim, and the Tokyo District Court followed that claim. Such double standards should not be allowed. It is also a problem of disregard for the Diet of the country that is the executive branch. In order to provide relief for Mr. Arjun's damages, and in order to prevent the creation of foreign victims whose path to relief is blocked by Article 6 of the National Compensation Act, we decided to render Article 6 of the National Compensation Act unconstitutional and invalid. I think we have to win. As mentioned in the article, other than this case, there were victims who drank tears in the base lawsuits and nuclear power lawsuits. I believe that this fight is not limited to the issue of how suspects are treated at police stations, but is also a lawsuit to abolish the anachronistic law called Article 6 of the National Liability Law and to confirm the universality of human rights. .

Please lend us your support.

Dear Supporters,

On March 17, 2023, there was a judgment of the first instance in this case. The judgment was uploaded to CALL4 on the same day, and it has been reported, so as you may already know, I would like to report it again, including the appeal filed on March 28.

In the judgment, the defendant Tokyo detention officer's breach of duty of care was recognized, the causal relationship with Mr. Arjun's death was recognized, and the defendant Tokyo's liability for damages to Mr. Arjun was recognized. If I just write an outline like this, it is an undeniable victory judgment, and I believe that I was able to achieve a certain result. We would like to express our deepest gratitude for the support we have received from all of you.

However, a detailed examination of the content of the judgment reveals that it is not necessarily convincing as follows.

The first is the content of breach of duty of care. In the morning of March 15, the ruling recognized that the detention officer failed to provide appropriate medical care to Arjun, whose hands and feet were red and swollen, as a breach of duty of care while preparing to refer him to the public prosecutor's office. . However, we believe that there was no need to use restraints against Arjun in the first place. Mr. Arjun was able to converse with the detention officer in broken English the day before on the 14th. He did not go on a rampage and followed the instructions of the detention officer. On the morning of March 15th, even if there was some confusion in the process of putting away the futon, Mr. Arjun was just clinging to the iron bars. I just wish I had waited. We think that is what it means to treat Mr. Arjun as a person. In the first place, there was no need to yell, "Defiance!" Also, even if it is necessary to take them to a shelter, taking them to a shelter is enough to prevent them from harming themselves or others or escaping. The circumstances did not meet the requirements for the use of restraining devices. Furthermore, even if it was necessary to take Arjun to the protection room and use the restraining device, the specific method of using the restraining device was to strongly admonish Arjun so that his hands were red and black and swollen on the morning of March 15. I shouldn't have used a tool to tighten and re-tighten too many times. However, the ruling states that it cannot be denied that the red-black swelling may have been due to Arjun's rampage and movement. Police records only state that Mr. Arjun slept defiantly while wearing the restraining device. The video shows Arjun tumbling around on the floor of the protection cell, but it was only because he was in pain. In this way, although there were several violations of the duty of care from the stage before the obligation to provide medical care when preparing for escort, the judgment did not recognize such violations of the duty of care. In particular, the fact that they did not admit violations of their duty of care (obligation to use them so as not to impede blood circulation) regarding how to use restraints is a big problem, and the court will firmly recognize violations of their duty of care from the perspective of preventing recurrence. is needed.

The second is the amount of damages. While acknowledging that Mr. Arjun died as a result of the defendant's illegal actions as described above, the court strictly applied the mutual guarantee principle stipulated in Article 6 of the State Compensation Law, and recognized only about 1 million yen as compensation for damages. bottom. In Nepal, the maximum amount of damages that a Japanese person can receive in the event of a similar incident is 1 million yen. We introduced a case in which a court in Nepal issued a compensation order of 1 million yen in a case where a person died after being assaulted by a public official. However, in that case, there is no upper limit in the constitution of Nepal, which is the legal basis, just because it was an order for compensation of 1 million yen. The judgment is erroneous at the level of finding the facts. In addition, even if the maximum amount of compensation for damages in Nepal is 1 million yen, applying the mutual guarantee principle up to the maximum amount of compensation is excessive and is not acceptable from the perspective of international human rights protection. . The right to life should be guaranteed equally to all people, no matter what country they come from. I believe that the value of life should not be different just because people come from different countries. In the case of this case, if the amount of compensation for damages is only 1 million yen, it may encourage abuse and discrimination against people from Nepal and other countries where national compensation is not recognized. I don't know. This was also done in the first instance, but in the future, we will further strengthen the claim that Article 6 of the National Liability Law is unconstitutional and violates the treaty, and the court has decided that Article 6 of the National Liability Law is unconstitutional and violates the treaty. We want to prevent unfair judgments from being created.

The third is national responsibility. This time, in the interrogation room of the public prosecutor's office, Mr. Arjun died immediately after the public prosecutor's assistant officer in charge removed the handcuff. At that time, Mr. Arjun was in a wheelchair and entered the interrogation room not only with escort handcuffs, but also with his legs tied with arresting ropes. The restraints used around the ankles were too tight and could not be released during preparations for the escort. Moreover, the defendants allege that Mr. Arjun yelled during the interrogation. His hands were so strangely swollen, red and black that the detention officer testified that he thought it was necessary to take him to the hospital. If a suspect in such a strange state is brought to the interrogation room, the public prosecutor's assistant officer, as the person in charge of taking care of him, should, of course, ascertain the reasons and circumstances. And based on the fact that he had been using restraints for a long time, he should have taken measures such as providing appropriate medical care. However, the public prosecutor's assistant officer did not give any special consideration to this point, and conducted the interrogation aimlessly. did not. It is also necessary to pursue the responsibility of the government so that such irresponsible interrogation will not be conducted in the future.

For these reasons, we appealed against this judgment. The stage will move to the appeals court (Tokyo High Court). Considering the fact that abuse cases have been reported one after another in the same Shinjuku Police Station and other police stations and prisons, I feel that the importance of this case is increasing more and more. Our fight never ends. Until justice is done for Mr. Arjun's death and the same mistake is not repeated. I don't think this case will end in the High Court. The battle will continue until the Supreme Court. I think that it will be a long relationship. In the future, it will be necessary to submit an expert opinion. I would appreciate it if you could give me further support. Thank you very much.

Dear Supporters,

We become indebted to. We have been fighting this case for many years, with your support, and finally, on March 17, the judgment will be handed down. In recent years, there have been frequent incidents of human rights violations in detention facilities and prisons. Japanese people are also victims. I can't believe that Mr. Arjun's reflection on the incident is being utilized. I would like to ask the government to make a good judgment and to reform the system to eliminate human rights violations in penal detention facilities and human rights violations against foreigners.

TBA

The next trial date will be held at 10:00 on January 15, 2021, at room no. 609 of Tokyo District Court.

 Please come to the court.