【Documents to be submitted】

・ Plaintiff (Mr. Deniz): Third Brief, Exhibit A12,13 ・ Defendant (Country) Side: Defendant's Brief 3, Exhibit Otsu 22,23

[Interaction in court]

● Confirm the purpose of the allegation stated in the Defendant's Brief 3 The plaintiff alleges that the suppression act performed on the plaintiff after being taken to another room is based on the assault alleged by the plaintiff. When I asked him if he understood that he was doing it, he replied that he understood it.

● Future progress (about the order of claims)
・ First, based on the newly submitted video, the judge will insist on the plaintiff's progress of the exchanges in the plaintiff's room before the plaintiff's transfer to another room started. There was a suggestion to proceed with the case.
-On the other hand, from the plaintiff side, the positional relationship of the staff who claim that the defendant was assaulted is considered to be important, but the plaintiff side who is fighting for the assault is who the staff is on the video. Since it cannot be identified from, the defendant requested that it be identified first.
-Based on the above, the judge decided that the defendant would first identify the staff members appearing in the video, then the plaintiff would supplement the allegations, and then the defendant would make a collective counterargument.

[Schedule until next time]
(1) By February 25, 2021, the defendant identified which of the silhouettes of the staff appearing in the video of Exhibit Otsu No. 23 was the staff who claimed to have been assaulted by the plaintiff. , Reveal.

(2) Based on the contents of (1) above, a document that clarifies the plaintiff's recognition of the facts of the exchanges in the plaintiff's room (before being taken to another room) by the end of March. To submit.

(3) By May 24, the defendant submitted a document to refute the document submitted in (2) above and the plaintiff's third brief, and in that document, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had done so. Make it more specific when the assault, whose existence is being contested, took place.

It was decided that the next oral argument will be held at Tokyo District Court No. 415 from 10:30 am on May 28, 2021 .

【Documents to be submitted】

・ Defendant (country) side: Defendant briefs 2, Exhibit Otsu No. 21 ・ Plaintiff (Mr. Deniz): Second briefs, Exhibits A6-11

[Interaction in court]

● The court confirmed the content of the plaintiff's second brief, and the plaintiff responded as follows. ・ This document claims the illegality of the exchanges filmed in the video disclosed by the government. In the complaint, the plaintiff's memory was organized and detailed according to the video.
-Apart from this document, the quarantine measures against the plaintiff on the grounds of the exchange on the day of the case and the response of the East Japan Center regarding the plaintiff's complaint will also be submitted with a document claiming illegality.

● Re-disclosure of video by handy camera Request from plaintiff to defendant ・ Plaintiff: Although the video by handy camera is dark at the beginning and the communication is not easy to see, the room at that time was lit to some extent, so the source of the video If there is data or data that has been adjusted for readability, please disclose it. → Defendant: Take it home and consider it. I will reply in a few weeks.

[Schedule until next time]
-The plaintiff will submit a new allegation document by January 8, 2021.

It was decided that the next oral argument will be held at the Tokyo District Court No. 415 from 10:00 am on February 5, 2021 .

It has been decided that the 4th oral argument date, which had been postponed due to the issuance of the emergency declaration, will be held at 10:00 am (Tokyo District Court 103 Court) on November 13th.

【Documents to be submitted】

Plaintiff side: Plaintiff first preparation document

[Exchange in court]

From the plaintiff's side to the defendant's country, in the image of Otsu No. 12 certificate, the light of the fixed-point camera was in the room of Mr. Deniz, but the room of the handy-camera was dark at the same time. And asked why the images differ in brightness.

In response, the defendant replied to the plaintiff and the court that they would make a confirmation response.

【Documents to be submitted】

Defendant: Preparation document (1), evidence (Otsu 1 to 20)

*The Otsu No. 12 Certificate was two images of a fixed-point camera taken from the outside ceiling of Deniz's room toward the door of the same room, an immigration officer carried out Deniz and assaulted (the country claims This is a video disc (DVD) in which one video taken with a handy camera during "suppression" is stored.

Plaintiff: Petition for petition (*Written by the court to prompt the clarification of the unclear meaning of the other party's assertion)

[Exchange in court]

Based on the disclosure of the video of the handy camera, the court argued to the plaintiff side that the communication between Mr. Deniz and the immigration officer on the day of the case and the contents of the assault were specifically stated, and it was justified as a suppression act. Regarding the objection by the defendant, it was decided that the plaintiff would submit a document to supplement the argument, asking for specific objection.

【Documents to be submitted】

Plaintiff side: Complaint, petition for correction of complaint, evidence (Nos. 1 to 3)

Defendant: Answer

 【Interaction in court】

 Based on the reply that the defendant (country) will make a specific counterargument to the complaint by the next time, the court instructs the defendant to submit the counterargument document until the next time. 

Sued to the Tokyo District Court