2025年6月17日午後3時~ 判決期日
東京地方裁判所民事第26部(本多智子裁判長、安藤巨騎裁判官、上田文和裁判官 ※異動のため判決は代読)
(判決主文)
1 被告は、原告デニズに対し、60万円及びこれに対する令和2年3月24日から支払済みまで年5%の割合による金員を支払え。
2 被告は、原告サファリに対し、60万円及びうち30万円に対する令和2年1月7日から支払済みまで年5%の割合による金員を、うち30万円に対する同年4月3日から支払済みまで年3%の割合による金員を支払え。
3 原告らのその余の請求をいずれも棄却する。
4 訴訟費用は、これを25分し、その24を原告らの負担とし、その余を被告の負担とする。
****
本日は直前に傍聴券配布となりましたが、31の傍聴席以上の方にお集まりいただき、残念ながら傍聴席に入れない方もいらっしゃる中、満席の法廷で判決が言い渡されました。
判決は、原告デニズさん、サファリさんそれぞれに対して60万円の慰謝料を支払うという一部勝訴判決が言い渡されました。
判決主文の言渡しに続いて、以下のような判決要旨の説明がされました。
自由権規約9条1項が禁止する「恣意的拘禁」については、自由権規約委員会の一般的意見などを明示的に参照し、出入国管理関係の収容の文脈においては、法律で定められた理由及び手続によらない場合のみならず、法律で定めた理由及び手続によっていたとしても、当該収容ごとの個別具体的事情のもとで、正当な目的に基づくものであること(合理性)、当該目的を達成するために収容が必要であり、より負担の少ない措置では当該目的を達し得ないこと(必要性)及び当該目的を達成する必要性が収容による個人の自由の剥奪という措置の重大性を上回っていること(比例性)の3要件のいずれかを満たさない拘禁をいうと解されるとして、自由権規約9条1項の解釈が示されました。
そのうえで、入管法の規定は、退去強制手続において入管法が採用している原則収容主義(退去強制令書の発付を受けた者は所定の場所に収容されることを原則とする)と、仮放免制度やその内容(被収容者等の請求又は職権により身柄の釈放を認める制度)を上記の自由権規約9条1項の解釈と調和し得るように合理的に解釈しなければならず、これら3つの要件を満たさない場合には.当該収容者を直ちに仮放免し、身柄を釈放すべきことを必要としているというべき、としました。
そして、デニズさんに対する収容のうち、3回目の収容については、収容当時の心身の状態は、医師が収容を避けるべきとの意見を付す程度に悪化しており、比例性の要件を欠くため、自由権規約9条1項と入管法に違反するとしました。
また、サファリさんに対する収容のうち、3回目、4回目の収容については、収容当時の心身の状態は、うつ病と診断される程度に悪化しており、収容の必要性が、心身に与える不利益を上回る事情があるとはいえず、比例性の要件を欠くため、自由権規約9条1項と入管法に違反するとしました。
一方、収容に対する司法審査を定めた9条4項違反の主張に対しては、2人とも裁判手続をとることが妨げられていたとの事情は認められないとして、自由権規約9条4項違反は認められないとしました。
今回の判決は、国際人権法の解釈指針を示した上、自由権規約9条1項を直接適用して、デニズさんとサファリさんの収容が自由権規約9条1項に反すると明示的に判断した点で、意義があるものとなりました。
もっとも、デニズさんとサファリさんになされた収容のうち、最初の3年以上の長期収容や、その次の2週間仮放免後の繰り返し収容については、自由権規約9条1項が認められませんでした。また、収容期間の上限のない無期限収容についても9条1項違反とは認められませんでした。これらについては、今後の課題と考えています。
以上の内容をご報告するとともに、これまでの皆様のご支援に厚く御礼を申し上げます。
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.