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.

10th oral argument date

December 5, 2023, 2:00 p.m. - 10th Oral Argument Date

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

--------

Thank you very much for coming to see us this time.

We would like to inform you of the date of the 10th oral argument.

(Past flow)

The interpretation of Article 9 (right to freedom of person) of the ICCPR was the first issue in this case, with the plaintiffs arguing for the interpretation of Article 9 (1) (arbitrary detention) and Article 9 (4) (judicial review). We have discussed that there is a right to compensation under Article 9, Section 5.

(Contents of the day)

This time, the plaintiff side has submitted written opinions prepared by four international law researchers regarding the interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR, and has also submitted a fifth preliminary document (litigation document) based on these written opinions. (published in the materials) was submitted. The written opinion is as follows.

① “How to interpret the ICCPR – Focusing on the specific application of the rules of interpretation in Articles 31 and 32 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the legal significance of the general opinion of the ICCPR” Osaka University Associate Professor, Graduate School of International Public Policy, Yonako Takada

② “Opinion paper” (interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR, especially regarding the validity of the interpretation of the ICCPR Committee) Masanao Murakami, Professor Emeritus of Osaka University

③ “Opinion Paper: Domestic Implementation of Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the Covenant on Human Rights” by Hiromichi Matsuda, Associate Professor, International Christian University

④ “Written Opinion” (Regarding that this detention is arbitrary detention that violates Articles 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Covenant on Human Rights, and that relief should be granted in accordance with Article 9, Paragraph 5) Shin Hye-hyeong, Professor, Faculty of Law, Aoyama Gakuin University

It is groundbreaking that experts were able to write such detailed opinions on how to interpret international human rights treaties. We were able to receive the cooperation of researchers because this case has important significance for the interpretation and application of international human rights law in future trials. We hope that you share our belief that we must use an interpretation that is valid in the international arena, rather than a uniquely Japanese interpretation as advocated by the national government.

The government stated that it would not object to the fifth preliminary document and the four researchers' opinions. I wondered what it meant to not ``refute'' the plaintiff's new argument based on a written opinion, and attorney Ogawa, who represented the plaintiff, said, ``I want the state to make a solid counterargument. The government has a responsibility to explain why it interprets the treaty in the way it does.''The presiding judge also asked the government if it would not make a counterargument, but the government's stance did not change. .

Since the defendant has stated that he will not refute the plaintiff's claims, the plaintiff will next submit a preliminary document that applies the treaty interpretation detailed in the current preliminary document to the immigration detention of the two plaintiffs. I did.

The state stated, ``We will make a counterargument after the next brief,'' but the court reminded us, ``Once again, we would like to ask if there are any objections to the current brief.'' .

The next hearing will be held on February 13, 2024 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom No. 415 of the Tokyo District Court.

I would like to work with everyone who has listened and supported me to realize a new trial regarding international human rights treaties and immigration detention. Thank you for your continued support.

(Added on 2023/12/13)

Associate Professor Yonako Takada's written opinion (A54) has been uploaded to "Litigation Materials" > "Evidence". Please read it.

Date of the 9th Oral Argument

September 5, 2023, 1:30 p.m. - 9th Oral Argument Date

Tokyo District Court Civil Division 26 (Presiding Judge Takahito Otake)

--------

Thank you very much for coming today.

I would like to report the date of the 9th Oral Argument.

(Previous flow)

The interpretation of Article 9 (right to freedom of person) of the ICCPR was the first issue in this case, with the plaintiffs arguing for the interpretation of Article 9 (1) (arbitrary detention) and Article 9 (4) (judicial review). and the right to compensation under Article 9(5).

In response, the government stated in its preliminary document (5) that the term "illegal", which is subject to compensation in Article 9, Paragraph 5, is understood to mean a violation of domestic law, and that the detention of the plaintiffs is detention based on the Immigration Control Act. Therefore, it argued that there was no "illegal" and there was no obligation to compensate, and the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 5 became a point of contention.

(Contents of the day)

This time, the plaintiffs submitted the fourth preliminary document (published in the litigation materials), which asserted Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the Covenant on Civil Rights and the State Reparation Act.

The contents are: (1) Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the Covenant on Human Rights stipulates that compensation must be paid in the case of illegal physical restraint, and (2) Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the Covenant on Human Rights stipulates that compensation must be made by directly applying Article 9, Paragraph 5. (3) Regardless of the method, if compensation is not achieved, there will be a violation of Article 9, Paragraph 5. It is written what happens.

In this case, the plaintiff made detailed claims based on Article 2 of the ICCPR (obligations of state parties) and the General Comment 31 of the ICCPR Committee, so normally the defendant would not have made a counterargument. I thought it was, but the defendant said that he would not make a counterargument.

The court asked the plaintiff whether he would assert the illegality of the individual detention of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff has currently requested an opinion from an international law researcher. He replied that he would also discuss the illegality of individual detention of the plaintiffs.

The next hearing will be held on December 5th at 14:00 at Courtroom 415 of the Tokyo District Court.

Next time, we plan to submit a written opinion by a researcher of international law as evidence. I would like to make repeated assertions and evidence so that the court can make judgments on the interpretation and application of the ICCPR. We appreciate your continued support.

June 27, 2023, 11:30 a.m. - 8th Oral Argument Date

Tokyo District Court Civil Division 26 (Presiding Judge Keito Otake)

--------

 Thank you very much for coming today.

 We would like to inform you about the date of the 8th Oral Argument.

 (Previous flow)

The interpretation of ICCPR Article 9 (the right to liberty of the body) was the first point of contention in this trial, and the plaintiff sought to interpret Article 9, paragraph 1 (arbitrary detention) and Article 9, paragraph 4 (judicial review). have argued.

In response, the government made almost no claims regarding the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, saying, "Does Article 52, Paragraph 5 of the Immigration Control Act violate Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR?" There is no obligation to compensate under the State Indemnity Law, even without clarifying."

However, as the core of the plaintiff's claim is not a claim under the State Reparations Act, but a claim under Article 9(5) of the ICCPR (the right to compensation for unlawful detention), the plaintiff filed a claim against the state under Article 9(5). It asked for clarification of its claims regarding the paragraph.

(contents of the day)

This time, the government made a statement in the defendant's brief (5) (published in the litigation materials), which asserted Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the ICCPR. There is

・Regarding Article 9, Paragraph 5, it is sufficient if an appropriate framework is provided in domestic law, and so far Japan has dealt with it through the State Reparations Law.

・The text of Article 9, Paragraph 5 is not clear

・"Illegal", which is the subject of reparations under Article 9(5), is interpreted as a violation of domestic law. The detention of the plaintiff is based on the Immigration Control Law, which is a domestic law, so there is no "illegal".

And so on.

Regarding this third point, Attorney Ogawa, the plaintiff's attorney, said, "On page 8 of the government brief, ``The detentions in this case are based on the Immigration Control Act, which is a law of Japan, and are measures that violate domestic law. I think it is particularly strange to argue that there is no illegality in Article 9, Paragraph 5 because there is no illegality in Article 9, Paragraph 5. In Japan, if a treaty is concluded, it will directly take effect as a domestic law. Even if the detention this time did not violate the Immigration Control Act, which is a domestic law, if it violated Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, it would be "illegal" as defined in Article 9, Paragraph 5. , I have the right to receive compensation.”

The presiding judge commented, ``I understand that the plaintiff is focusing on the claim based on Article 9, Paragraph 5, and the defendant probably thinks that it is based on the State Reparation Law.'' bottom.

The next hearing will be held at 1:30 p.m. on September 5th at Courtroom 415 of the Tokyo District Court.

The plaintiff plans to submit a brief by August 28, which will include a claim on Article 9(5) of the ICCPR and a claim on the State Reparations Act.

We are having a new discussion that has not been in the trial so far. Please continue to pay attention.

April 25, 2023, 2:30 p.m.- 7th Oral Argument

Tokyo District Court Civil Division 26 (Presiding Judge Keito Otake)

--------

Numbered tickets were distributed today, but thank you for coming to many people.

I would like to inform you about the date of the 7th Oral Argument.

(Previous flow)

Since the interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR became the first point of contention, the plaintiff submitted the second brief (published in the litigation materials) on the fifth date, stating that "detention without necessity, proportionality, or rationality" constitutes arbitrary detention."

However, in the brief (4) presented at the 6th meeting, the government made almost no claims regarding the interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR, stating that "Article 52, Paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act is , There is no obligation to compensate under the State Compensation Law without clarifying whether it violates paragraph 4."

The plaintiff said that the country should show the grounds for its interpretation, and the court asked the country to make any claims regarding Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, as well as claims regarding Article 9, Paragraph 5. urged to clarify.

(Date of this time)

Last time, despite the court's urging, the state side did not submit any briefs.

The plaintiff also made a statement in the 3rd Brief, supplementing the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR.

In response, the defendant stated that he would submit a brief to argue against Article 9(5) of the ICCPR by June 16, and if he had any objections to the plaintiff's third brief, he would do so. said.

The presiding judge asked the plaintiffs whether they would refute the defendants' claims regarding the state compensation law, and whether they would make further claims about the illegality of the plaintiffs' individual detention. The plaintiff said that after the defendant's counterargument on Article 9, Paragraph 5, he would also make a counterargument on the State Compensation Law one after another, and then consider the plaintiff's individual claim on detention. rice field.

Next time, the 8th Oral Argument Date will be held on June 27th at 11:30-415 Courtroom.

It is expected that the seats will be close to full, but please continue to pay attention.