June 5, 2026, 11:00 AM: Third oral argument of the appeal trial.

Tokyo High Court, 12th Civil Division (Presiding Judge Tetsuro Nakayoshi, Judge Mitsuko Nishino, Judge Tetsuya Uchida)

--------

Thank you very much to everyone who gathered to observe the proceedings on the scheduled date. The gallery was almost full, and we could feel your enthusiasm.

In this instance, the plaintiff in the first instance submitted the fourth and fifth preparatory briefs, and submitted as evidence the additional opinions of Associate Professor Hinako Takada of Osaka University, Associate Professor Hiromichi Matsuda of International Christian University, and Professor Hye-Feng Shin of Aoyama Gakuin University, who also wrote opinions in the first instance, as well as the works of Professor Masanao Murakami of Nara University.

In every opinion paper, it was reaffirmed that the original judgment's interpretation that Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires the conditions of "reason, necessity, and proportionality" is correct. Furthermore, it became clear that the "international customary law concerning the entry of foreigners," as argued by the government, is unrelated to immigration detention, and that the claim that rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are "protected within the framework of the immigration control system" is incorrect.

The plaintiff in the first instance requested the court to examine five witnesses who had submitted written opinions, but unfortunately, this request was not granted.

After that, the plaintiff in the first trial, Ms. Safari, and her attorney, Attorney Ogawa, presented their statements ( the attorney's statement can be found here). Ms. Safari read from a prepared statement up to a certain point, but then began speaking in her own words, as follows:

--------

I have lived in Japan for over 35 years.

My mother (who is in Iran) passed away while I was in Japan.

I want to go visit my mother's grave.

However, I can't go back because I would lose my life if I did.

I want the judge to understand that.

I'm not alone. There are many people who have gone through the same terrible experience as me, but they can't go to court because they're afraid of immigration.

I would like to request a fair verdict for the benefit of all.

There's something I want the judges to understand. We are human beings. We have human rights.

Up until now, the people who have supported me and my lawyers have been the ones who have helped me.

From this point onward, it is the judge who can help.

Because we are all equal, because we are all human beings, I would like to request such a judgment.

--------

The next hearing will take place on September 30, 2026, at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 824, where the verdict will be delivered. A debriefing session is also planned, so please come and join us.

March 13, 2026, 11:00 AM: Second oral argument of the appeal trial.

Tokyo High Court, 12th Civil Division (Presiding Judge Tetsuro Nakayoshi, Judge Kayoko Ishida, Judge Tetsuya Uchida)

--------

Thank you very much to everyone who gathered to observe the proceedings on the scheduled date.

After the previous hearing, the presiding judge and the associate judge on the right were replaced, and the first actual oral arguments were presented.

The plaintiffs in the first instance have now submitted a new opinion paper by Professor Yota Negishi of Seinan Gakuin University, along with a second and third preparatory document based on it. Professor Negishi's opinion paper cites the Human Rights Committee's extensive past views on individual complaints to discuss in detail whether the detention of Safari and Deniz was proportional, necessary, and reasonable, and it clarifies that the original judgment's evaluation of the three requirements does not satisfy the requirements of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Covenant.

Furthermore, the government has issued a response to the plaintiff's request for clarification . This revealed that the government still maintains that Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Covenant prohibits the deprivation of liberty without legally established reasons and procedures, meaning that arbitrary detention is not permitted as long as it is legally established. It is extremely regrettable that a government would make such an argument, which is virtually unacceptable in the international community, in a domestic court.

The plaintiff in the first instance presented arguments to clearly explain their claims throughout the first instance and the appeal. Please see the PowerPoint presentation that was shown on the day . Since the appeal began, the government has started arguing that the Immigration Control Act takes precedence over the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the government has not submitted any supporting documents or expert opinions. This also directly contradicts the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which sets out the basic rules of treaties, stating that "A State Party may not invoke its domestic law as a basis for justifying its failure to perform a Treaty" (Article 27). Such baseless arguments should not be allowed to prevail in court, and should be based on a correct interpretation of the treaty that is accepted in the international community.

The third oral argument will be held on June 5, 2026, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 824. The plaintiffs in the first trial plan to submit additional opinions and documents from the four scholars who provided opinions in the first trial. We encourage you to attend.

December 22, 2025, 11:30 AM First oral argument of the appeal trial

Tokyo High Court, 12th Civil Division (Chief Judge Keiichiro Umemoto, Judge Tadashi Kudo, Judge Tetsuya Uchida)

--------

Thank you very much to everyone who attended the hearing on the day.

I would like to report on the first oral argument date for the appeal hearing.

Both the plaintiffs (Mr. Safari and Mr. Deniz) and the defendant (the state) appealed the first-instance ruling on June 17th of this year.

Therefore, at the first hearing, the plaintiff in the first instance filed a petition for appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal, and the defendant in the first instance filed a petition for appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal, as well as a reply to each of the defendants' petitions for appeal. In addition, the plaintiff in the first instance also submitted a request for clarification to the government to confirm the points of contention.

The main argument of the plaintiffs in the first instance was that the first instance judgment was correct in interpreting "arbitrary detention," prohibited by Article 9, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as meaning detention that lacks rationality, necessity, or proportionality, but was incorrect in finding that the Immigration Control Act's "principle of detention" does not violate Article 9, paragraph 1. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that the first instance judgment's consideration of the proportionality requirement was insufficient in that it only considered whether the detainee was in a "health condition that made him unable to withstand detention," and that the disadvantages that would result from a prolonged detention period must also be taken into account when determining proportionality, and that it is wrong to continue detention until the detainee's "health condition becomes unbearable." The court then argued that Safari's detention for more than three years was lacking in rationality, necessity, and proportionality because he had been working while on provisional release, and that his detention for more than three years was for the purpose of "prohibiting illegal residence activities," and that his detention for more than three years was also lacking in rationality, necessity, and proportionality, and that the repeated detention of both Safari and Deniz for a second and third time, separated by two weeks of provisional release, did not meet the three requirements (Appeal Statement by the First-Instance Plaintiff).

The main argument of the defendant in the first instance was that while the first instance judgment set out three requirements for detention, it was an incorrect interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 1, and cited several lower court precedents to argue that in Japanese court precedents, the rights and interests protected by Article 9, Paragraph 1 are understood to be protected only within the framework of the immigration and residence control system based on the Immigration Control Act (first instance defendant's appeal statement).

In response, the plaintiff in the first instance argued that the interpretation of Article 9, paragraph 1 must be made in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and that such an interpretation is incorrect (Answer from the plaintiff in the first instance).

The second oral argument will be held on March 13, 2026 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 824.

The plaintiff's statement and the attorney's argument, which were originally scheduled for the first hearing, were decided to be held at the second hearing due to a last-minute notice from the court. We hope you will be able to join us again next time.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed the first-instance ruling of June 17, 2025, on June 30.

The trial will now move to the Tokyo High Court (12th Civil Division), where the appeal hearing will begin.

The first oral argument will be held on December 22, 2025, at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 824 of the Tokyo High Court. Please come and observe. Both the plaintiff and his/her attorney will be making statements.

June 17, 2025, 3:00 p.m. - Judgment date

Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 26 (Chief Judge: Tomoko Honda, Judge: Naoki Ando, Judge: Fumikazu Ueda *Judgment read on behalf of Judge HONDA due to transfer)

(Main sentence of the judgment)

1 The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Deniz 600,000 yen plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum from March 24, 2020 until payment is made.

2 The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Safari 600,000 yen, plus interest on 300,000 yen of the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from January 7, 2020 until payment is made, and interest on the 300,000 yen of the amount at the rate of 3% per annum from April 3, 2020 until payment is made.

3 All of the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

4 The costs of the proceedings shall be divided into 25 parts, 24 of which shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

****

Today, spectator tickets were distributed at the last minute, and more than 31 people gathered to take part in the hearing.Unfortunately, some people were unable to get into the spectator seats, and the verdict was handed down in a full courtroom.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Deniz and Safari, and awarded them 600,000 yen in compensation each.

Following the pronouncement of the judgment, the following summary of the judgment was given:

Regarding "arbitrary detention" prohibited by Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR, the interpretation of Article 9, paragraph 1 was presented with explicit reference to the general comment of the Human Rights Committee, etc., and stated that, in the context of immigration-related detention, it refers to detention that does not meet any of the following three requirements: not only detention not based on reasons and procedures prescribed by law, but also detention that is based on reasons and procedures prescribed by law, but also detention that does not meet any of the following three requirements, based on the individual and specific circumstances of each case of detention: that it is based on a legitimate purpose (rationality), that the detention is necessary to achieve that purpose and that purpose cannot be achieved with less burdensome measures (necessity), and that the need to achieve that purpose outweighs the seriousness of the measure, which is the deprivation of individual liberty through detention (proportionality).

Based on this, the provisions of the Immigration Control Act must be interpreted reasonably so as to harmonize the principle of detention adopted by the Immigration Control Act in deportation procedures (in principle, those who have been issued a deportation order are detained in a designated place) with the interpretation of Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR, as well as the provisional release system and its contents (a system that allows for the release of detainees at their request or at their own discretion). In addition, the court stated that if these three requirements are not met, the detainee must be immediately provisionally released and released.

Regarding Deniz's third detention, the court ruled that his physical and mental condition had deteriorated to such an extent that his doctor had advised him not to be detained, and therefore the requirement of proportionality was not met, thus violating Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR and the Immigration Control Act.

In addition, with regard to Safari's third and fourth detentions, his physical and mental condition had deteriorated to the point that he was diagnosed with depression at the time of his detention, and it could not be said that the need for detention outweighed the physical and mental harm caused to him. The court therefore found that the detentions did not meet the requirement of proportionality and therefore violated Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR and the Immigration Control Act.

On the other hand, regarding the allegation that there was a violation of Article 9, paragraph 4, which provides for judicial review of detention, the court ruled that there was no evidence that either of the detainees had been prevented from taking judicial proceedings, and therefore no violation of Article 9, paragraph 4, of the ICCPR was found.

This ruling is significant in that it not only provided guidelines for the interpretation of international human rights law, but also directly applied Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR, explicitly determining that the detention of Deniz and Safari was in violation of Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR.

However, the first three-year or more long-term detention of Deniz and Safari, and the subsequent two-week provisional release followed by repeated detention, were not recognized as violating Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR. Additionally, indefinite detention with no upper limit on the detention period was not recognized as a violation of Article 9, paragraph 1. We consider these to be future issues.

We would like to report the above information and express our sincere gratitude to everyone for their support thus far.

January 28, 2025, 3:00 pm - 3:15 pm 15th Oral Argument Date (Conclusion)

 Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 26 (President Tomoko Honda, Judge Naoki Ando, Judge Fumikazu Ueda)

 --------

 The trial, which was filed on January 13, 2022, concluded today, exactly three years later.

 Thank you to everyone who has attended the hearings so far.

 This day was the session for the submission of preparatory briefs based on the previous examination of Deniz and Safari. The Plaintiff submitted Preparatory Brief No. 12 , the Defendant submitted Preparatory Brief (7) , and the Plaintiff submitted Preparatory Brief No. 13, which was a rebuttal to the Defendant's Preparatory Brief (7).

 Afterwards, the plaintiff's attorney gave oral argument , asserting the contents of Preparatory Brief No. 12 and Preparatory Brief No. 13.

 In the defendant's preparatory brief, they argued that the detention of Deniz and Safari was necessary based on the principle of detention in Japan's Immigration Control Act, but we stated that the principle of detention itself is in violation of the principle of physical freedom in Article 9, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR, and that it is meaningless to use the Immigration Control Act as a standard. We then requested the judge to interpret Article 9 of the ICCPR without fail and to determine whether Japan's Immigration Control Act and the detention of Deniz and Safari were in violation of Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR.

 We hope that the wishes of Deniz and Safari, who have stood up for all people to prevent indefinite detention and other inhumane detention at immigration bureaus, will bear fruit.

 The sentence will be handed down in Courtroom 415 at 3:00 pm on May 13, 2025. A sentence report session will also be held, so please come along.

 (Added on March 5th)

 The verdict date was scheduled for Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 3:00 PM, but has been rescheduled to Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 3:00 PM (Courtroom 415). We will also hold a verdict report meeting, the location and time will be posted once they have been decided.

October 29, 2024 10:00am-4:30pm 14th Oral Argument Date

Tokyo District Court Civil Division 26 (President Tomoko Honda, Judge Naoki Ando, Judge Fumikazu Ueda)

--------

With the public gallery packed, the plaintiffs, Deniz and Safari, were questioned in person.

Thank you to everyone who listened to the proceedings for a long period from morning through the afternoon.

Deniz spoke about how after coming to Japan in 2007, he was detained by immigration for over three years, from May 2016 to August 2019, despite being married to his wife, and how, after two periods of provisional release of about two weeks each, he was detained until March 2020. He also talked about the treatment he received during his detention, and how he was assaulted and insulted by staff. He asked why the immigration bureau does not follow UN rules, and asked for the years he lost due to detention to be returned.

Safari came to Japan in 1991, applied for refugee status and was on provisional release in June 2016 when his provisional release was terminated for "the convenience of the immigration bureau," and he was detained for more than three years until July 2019. He spoke of how he was detained until April 2020, with three provisional releases of about two weeks each, the pain of indefinite detention, and the miserable feelings he had during his two-week provisional release. He also appealed for the United Nations to protect their human rights by issuing an opinion that their case was a violation of international human rights law, but next he asked the court to help him.

The next oral argument hearing is scheduled to take place on January 28, 2025 at 3:00 pm in Courtroom 415. The plaintiff's attorney will make a closing argument based on the arguments and questioning presented so far.

We hope that everyone, both those who have been attending the hearings up until now and those attending for the first time, will come along.

13th Oral Argument Date

 June 25, 2024, 11:00 a.m. ~ 13th Oral Argument Date

 Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 26 (Chief Judge: Tomoko HONDA, Judge: Naoki ANDO, Judge: Fumikazu UEDA)

 --------

 Thank you to everyone who attended this hearing again.

 We would like to report on the date of the 13th oral argument.

 (The flow so far)

 Last time, the defendant (the government) submitted a preparatory brief (6) that, without touching upon the interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, argued that "the decision to grant provisional release to the two plaintiffs should have been made with great care, both from the perspective of the need to prohibit them from engaging in activities while in residence and from the perspective of the risk of them fleeing," and that "the plaintiffs' argument is without merit, since the denial of provisional release was deemed appropriate, even taking into account the individual circumstances of the plaintiffs." In response, the plaintiffs were scheduled to submit a preparatory brief in rebuttal.

 (Contents of the day)

 This time, the plaintiff requested examination of the two plaintiffs and the four experts who submitted their opinions, and also submitted the ninth preparatory brief.

 In the ninth preparatory brief, the court stated that (i) the defendant's individual arguments are meaningless because they do not discuss the reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality of the detention, which are the requirements for the detention of the plaintiffs to be lawful, and (ii) the defendant's argument that the purpose of the detention is to "prohibit activities while in Japan" is contradictory to the definition of activities while in Japan that the defendant itself presented, and is therefore flawed, and (iii) the defendant has only listed what it considers to be undesirable past actions and behaviors and argued without any logic that the detention in this case is lawful, which is an arbitrary detention without rules. It also pointed out that (iv) the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs were detained after the recovery of their health after two weeks of provisional release is contrary to the facts.

 Afterwards, Masako Suzuki, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, gave a speech summarizing the plaintiffs' arguments and their rebuttals to the defendants. We have uploaded the screened presentation and the reading version , so please take a look. This lawsuit was started from the adoption of an opinion (Ko A26) by the United Nations Human Rights Council's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in 2020 that Japan's immigration detention system violates Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , and we emphasized that we started the lawsuit with the desire to eliminate arbitrary immigration detention.

 The next oral argument date will be held on July 17th, and will be a closed web conference date to discuss the questioning. Once the next oral argument date has been decided, we will announce it on this Call4 website, so we hope you will join us.

April 25, 2024, 3:00 p.m. ~ 12th Oral Argument Date

 Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 26 (Chief Judge: Tomoko HONDA)

 --------

 Thank you to everyone who attended this hearing again.

 We would like to report on the date of the 12th oral argument.

 (The flow so far)

 The plaintiffs discussed the interpretation of Article 9, paragraph 1 (prohibition of arbitrary detention) and Article 9, paragraph 4 (right to judicial review without delay) of the ICCPR, and also argued that Article 9, paragraph 5 gives them the right to compensation, submitting opinions in support of this argument by four international law researchers.

 The defendant was to file a brief in rebuttal to this.

 (Contents of the day)

 From this time on, the presiding judge has been replaced by Judge Honda Tomoko.

 The defendants, again, did not make any new claims or counterarguments regarding the interpretation of the treaty, but instead submitted preparatory briefs arguing that there was no problem in denying provisional release to the plaintiffs, Deniz and Safari, due to their behavior and speech while in detention.

 Meanwhile, the plaintiff has now submitted two preparatory briefs based on new materials.

 ① Preparatory document No. 7: We introduced the Human Rights Committee's "opinions" on three cases of the "individual communication system" of the ICCPR. These "opinions" stated that cases in which people were actually detained in immigration custody in Australia for between two and seven years constituted arbitrary detention, and that judicial review, which can only examine compliance with domestic law, does not meet the requirements of Article 9, paragraph 4.

 ② Preparatory Brief No. 8: In response to judicial decisions in Australia, South Korea, and Taiwan declaring indefinite detention unconstitutional, we requested translations of these documents as evidence and introduced them as trends overseas.

 Regarding the eighth preparatory document, Attorney Ogawa gave the following oral explanation:

 "Judicial decisions have been made in Australia, South Korea and Taiwan that indefinite detention violates the constitution and that review by an independent judicial body is required. Because these decisions are from other countries, they are not binding on Japan. However, they outline norms that are common to the interpretation of Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, and the fact that other countries are interpreting it in this way is significant. I hope the courts will have the courage to rule that it violates the treaty."

 By the next hearing, the plaintiff will submit a brief in rebuttal to the defendant's brief.

 The next hearing will be held on June 25, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 415 of the Tokyo District Court (a different courtroom from this time). At the next hearing, the plaintiffs will make an oral argument in court summarizing their arguments to date (approximately 20 minutes).

 The trial is nearing the end. Please come and observe the next trial.

11th oral argument date

February 13, 2024, 2:00 p.m. - 11th Oral Argument Date

Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 26 (Presiding Judge Yoshito Otake)

--------

I would like to thank many people for listening to this session.

We would like to inform you of the date of the 11th oral argument.

(Past flow)

The first issue was the interpretation of Article 9 (right to freedom of person) of the ICCPR, and the plaintiffs discussed the interpretation of Article 9 (1) (arbitrary detention) and 9 (4) (judicial review). We argued that there is a right to compensation under Article 9, Section 5, and last time we submitted a written opinion by four international law researchers.

However, the government stated that it would not ``refute'' the claim, even though the plaintiff submitted a detailed written opinion and argued regarding legal interpretation. Therefore, it was decided that the plaintiff would proceed first and make a claim based on the plaintiff's individual circumstances.

(Contents of the day)

This time, the plaintiffs submitted the sixth preliminary document showing that the immigration detention of the two plaintiffs, Deniz and Safari, was in violation of Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4, based on their individual circumstances.

After completing all of the plaintiff's arguments, we held an ``argument'' in which we orally stated the arguments we had made in the preliminary documents. Unlike a statement of opinion, a "pleading" is a procedure in which arguments are made based on a prepared document. This time, the plaintiff's attorney decided to make an argument because he wanted to explain the issues at issue, the plaintiff's claims, and the position and content of the four written opinions in an easy-to-understand manner.

The court had a large screen set up so that the presentation could be seen by the audience. The presentation materials and reading version shown at the argument have been uploaded to the "Claims/Judgments" section of "Litigation Materials", so please refer to them. The items are as follows.

1 Points at issue in this case (Article 9, paragraphs 1, 4, and 5)

2 Key points of the four opinions

① How to interpret the ICCPR and the position of general opinions... Opinion written by Associate Professor Yonako Takada

② Specific interpretation of Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4... Opinion written by Professor Emeritus Masanao Murakami

③ Direct application of Article 9, Paragraph 5 and treaty-compatible interpretation...Associate Professor Hiromichi Matsuda's opinion statement

④ All of the above, specific examples, etc. Opinion written by Professor Shin Hye-bin

3. The detention of Mr. Deniz and Mr. Safari was illegal.

Next time, the defendant's attorney will argue to the extent necessary regarding the individual circumstances, and the defendant will submit a written preparation.

At the debriefing session after the session, we received comments from those who attended, saying that it was very easy to understand. We also have a lot to learn about international law and the ICCPR through this lawsuit. I would like to move forward while learning together with everyone and realize a new trial. We appreciate your continued support.

The next hearing will be held on April 25, 2024 at 3:00 pm in Courtroom 724 of the Tokyo District Court (a different courtroom than usual). Please join us next time.