October 4, 2022, 11:30 a.m.- 4th oral argument

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

--------

Thank you very much for coming to the hearing today.

We would like to inform you about the date of the 4th Oral Argument.

(Previous flow)

Last time (August 30), the court asked the defendant that, of the written clarifications submitted by the plaintiff before the first date, ``Under international law, immigration detention is rational, necessary, and proportional. I was asked to clarify the point "Do you recognize that is required?"

In response to this, the defendant submitted a [preparatory document (3)] on September 30, and the plaintiff submitted a [written opinion on proceedings] dated October 3 to confirm the contents. rice field. Both are uploaded to the lawsuit materials, so please take a look.

(contents of the day)

After the defendant made a statement in the brief (3), the presiding judge said, "The court also believes that the plaintiff is as written in the [written opinion on proceedings], so please proceed accordingly." Told. This means that the court also understood that ``the defendant has argued that ``reasonability, necessity, and proportionality are not sought'' in Article 9(1) of the ICCPR.

Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney asked the defendant, "Is it okay for the defendant to have the same understanding?" Then, the defendant repeated the inarticulate answer, "Please interpret what is written (in brief (3)) as it is written." The presiding judge reiterated, "If you read it normally, I think you can read (the defendant's allegations) as the plaintiff says," but the defendant's attitude did not change.

In this way, the defendant's response was disingenuous as a country, but it was confirmed that the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR was the point of contention, so the plaintiff's next attempt to interpret Article 9 of the ICCPR was confirmed. I am going to make a claim about With this, we finally have a forum for the court to discuss the interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR head-on.

The next date is the 5th Oral Argument, which will be held on December 20th at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 415. Please pay attention next time.

August 30, 2022, 2:00 p.m.- 3rd Oral Argument Date

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

--------

Thank you for your warm support.

We would like to inform you about the date of the 3rd Oral Argument.

(Previous flow)

At the first hearing, the plaintiff submitted a "statement of clarification" in response to the defendant's written answer, and requested the defendant to clarify the meaning of important parts of the written answer.

However, the "Defendant's brief (2)" submitted by the defendant on July 15 clearly clarifies the first and fourth points of the four questions in the "Plaint for clarification" submitted by the plaintiff. It was something I didn't answer.

Therefore, on August 23, 2022, the plaintiff submitted the "Plaintiff's First Briefing" to the court, and requested the court to have the defendant answer the first and fourth questions of the "Written Request for Clarification". The court requested the defendant to exercise the right of explanation under the Code of Civil Procedure, and further requested the defendant to show the grounds for the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 4.

This is the flow before the third oral argument date.

(What happened on the date of the 3rd oral argument)

First, the defendant stated "Defendant's brief (2)", and the plaintiff stated "Plaintiff's first brief" (also stated "Plaint correction petition").

Then, Attorney Ogawa, the plaintiff's attorney, verbally explained the purpose of the Plaintiff's First Briefing Document.

The plaintiff alleges that the Immigration Control Act violates Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR.

Unless it is clarified what kind of norm this is, the judgment cannot be made.

However, the defendants have not provided the grounds for their assertion of Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4.

If the government says that the Immigration Control Act does not violate the ICCPR, please state it clearly.

Even now, there are people who are detained indefinitely at immigration.

Please be accountable to the public.

Show it at this trial .

Next, the presiding judge said, "Regarding the exercise of the right of explanation, if the parties' claims are not clear, we will seek explanations. Whether or not to show the grounds for the claims is left to the judgment of the parties." , said the following three contents.

Regarding the first point, the plaintiff has shown the options and asked which one of the "Petition for clarification", but I think that the court will also agree with the claim if it is clarified, so please clarify.

Second, regarding 4 of the petition for clarification, the plaintiff asked, "Does this mean that Article 9, 1 of the ICCPR will not be violated as long as the detention follows the reasons and procedures stipulated by law?" However, the court cannot read it that way, so it does not ask the defendant any more.

As for the third point, the court believes that it would be beneficial to indicate the grounds for the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 4, so the defendant should consider this.

Regarding the second point, the plaintiff's attorney did not understand how the court understood the defendant's brief (2), so he asked the presiding judge the reason, and there was some exchange. According to the court's understanding, the defendant argued that "this provision (*Article 9, Paragraph 1) is construed as prohibiting deprivation of liberty without the grounds and procedures stipulated by law" (Reply 51 page), but it seems that he does not claim that "as long as the detention follows the reasons and procedures stipulated by law, there is no violation of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR" (4th point of the plaintiff's request for clarification). is.

As for the subsequent procedures, the defendant will submit a brief on the above three points by September 30, 2022, and the fourth oral argument will be held at Court No. 415 from 11:30 on October 4. I was.

If you are able to attend the hearing on the next date, please do so.

July 6, 2022, from 2:30 p.m. 2nd Oral Argument

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

--------

Thank you for your continued support.

We would like to inform you about the date of the second oral argument.

At the first hearing, the plaintiff submitted a "Plaint for clarification" and requested the defendant to clarify the meaning of the important parts of the answer.

By the second date, the defendant was supposed to answer ``whether or not he will answer the petition for clarification,'' but the defendant said, ``I will submit a written answer by July 15.'' said.

However, since it was not known that a sufficient answer would be given, the plaintiff will confirm the defendant's written answer by the third date and decide on the subsequent progress.

The next 3rd Oral Argument will be held from 2:00 pm on August 30, 2022 at Courtroom 415 of the Tokyo District Court. If you are able to attend the hearing, please do so.

*On July 15, the defendant submitted a "brief (2)" in response to the petition for clarification. It will be uploaded to Call4 after the 3rd deadline.

May 31, 2022, 3:00 p.m. - 1st Oral Argument Date

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

--------

Thank you for your warm support and follow-up.

We are pleased to report that the 1st oral argument date was held at Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

The plaintiff stated the complaint and submitted documentary evidence (A1-35, B1-9, and C1-6).

The defendant stated his answer and re-numbered the evidence to be examined at the next session.

In addition, the plaintiff filed a motion for clarification requesting the defendant to explain his written answer.

After this, the plaintiffs, Mr. Deniz and Mr. Safari, and plaintiffs' counsel, Ms. Chie Komai and Ms. Tomoko Uraki, made statements. In their own words, Mr. Deniz and Mr. Safari clearly stated that they had been subjected to mental anguish that could be described as torture as a result of their long-term incarceration and re-incarceration, and that this suffering continues even now that they have been released on provisional release.

"The immigration authorities tell us to follow the rules, but we don't follow the rules," 

"Please stop destroying human beings."

Please see the summary of the statement of opinion uploaded under "Litigation Documents.

The court then instructed the defendant to consider the "Request for Clarification" submitted by the plaintiff before the next date. The reason why the plaintiff asked the defendant for a request for clarification is because it was not clear from the defendant's written answer what part of the plaintiff's argument the defendant was disputing - whether the defendant was saying that immigration detention does not require necessity, reasonableness, or proportionality as required by international law, or whether the defendant was saying that there was no problem because immigration law requires necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality. The plaintiffs strongly requested the defendant to respond responsibly as the government.

The next hearing will be held on July 6 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 415 of the Tokyo District Court.

The results of the defendant's examination of the request for clarification are scheduled to be presented.

Tickets for the hearing were distributed on the day of the hearing, and all 49 people who lined up were able to attend the hearing, out of a maximum capacity of 50, making it a full house.

Thank you for your continued support.