On June 12, 2025, the third oral argument in the "State Funeral Document Concealment Trial" was held at the Tokyo District Court.

At the previous hearing, presiding judge Kenji Shinoda asked the government to respond to "the contents of the discussions that took place over three days between the Cabinet Legislation Bureau and the Cabinet Secretariat and Cabinet Office regarding the state funeral." The government responded in the form of "preparatory documents," and this explanation from the government became the focus of the current hearing.

However, the government's explanation was that "there were no specific indications from the Cabinet Legislation Bureau" and "the emails were destroyed," avoiding a direct explanation. In response, Presiding Judge Shinoda pointed out that "I didn't really understand the explanation even after reading it." He added that he would "keep the 5W1H in mind" and ordered the government to re-examine the events of those three days and provide a new explanation by September 17th.

Please see the article for details.

https://tansajp.org/investigativejournal/12054/

The courtroom on this day was Main Courtroom 103, and the spectator seats were almost all filled, demonstrating the high level of interest in the court.

The next oral argument will be held on Thursday, October 9th at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

We appreciate your continued support.

On March 12, 2025, the second oral proceedings for the "State Funeral Document Concealment Lawsuit" were held at the Tokyo District Court.

On this day, Presiding Judge Kenji Shinoda addressed the government’s claim that no records exist of the tripartite discussions among the Cabinet Secretariat, the Cabinet Office, and the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. He pointed out, "Previously, when ministries explained matters to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, the bureau’s councilors would ask questions. Ministry officials would then take those questions back as assignments, so they would take notes." He further commented, "I have difficulty imagining that no records exist in this case. Given that officials might have been concerned about the reactions of councilors, department heads, and the director-general of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, I ask the government to provide further clarification on this matter." With this, the judge assigned the government a task to complete by the next hearing.

For more details, please refer to the article:

The first oral argument in the state funeral document concealment trial was held on Wednesday, December 25, 2025, from 3:30 p.m.

Many people attended the hearing, exceeding the capacity of the room. Thank you very much for coming out in the cold and showing an interest in this lawsuit.

At the beginning, the plaintiff, Tansa editor-in-chief Makoto Watanabe, made a 10-minute statement . The judges could be seen listening to him,  occasionally nodding and drawing lines on their documents.

Presiding Judge Kenji Shinoda asked the defendant to confirm the following regarding the "attached documents" regarding the content of the consultation from the Prime Minister's Office to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, which were recorded in the meeting record of Exhibit 5 submitted by the plaintiff.

1. Clarify whether or not the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has the attached documents.

2. If they have them, can you submit them as evidence without discarding them?

3. If they do not have the information, clarify the date and reason for destruction.

The defendant agreed that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau official was not in the courtroom and that he would check before the next hearing.

The next hearing will be on Wednesday, March 12 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 522. Please come and observe.

About 50 people attended the report session after the oral arguments, including about 10 people who said it was their first time observing a trial.

At the briefing session, we received some enthusiastic comments and questions, such as, "Can't the government's actions be held accountable for violating the Public Records Management Act?", "The public must not be led to believe that they will forget the pain once the danger is over," and "Even if the decision not to disclose documents is revoked, are there cases in which the government will not disclose the documents? In that case, what measures will be taken next?"

 We are considering holding more presentations after the next session. We will announce them on the CALL4 case page and in Tansa newsletters.