The fourth oral argument hearing was held on March 11, 2026, in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

The defendant submitteda brief (3) refuting the plaintiff's claims and also submitted a statement of objection to the document subpoena .

The plaintiff submitted briefs as new claims, including a claim of violation of the Constitution regarding procedural guarantees , a claim of violation of treaties regarding procedural guarantees , and a claim of violation of treaties regarding the right to use the right as a last resort , and oral arguments were made by attorneys representing each claim.

We also submitted Exhibit Ko 61-101 as evidence related to these claims.

The next hearing will be held on May 21, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

Please come and observe the proceedings.

Thanks to your generous support, we have successfully reached our initial fundraising goal. We sincerely thank everyone who has contributed.

We received donations from nearly 70 supporters, and more than 40 people also shared warm and encouraging messages with us. We are truly grateful for your support.

The “End Hostage Justice!” Lawsuit has now entered its middle stage. To date, we have submitted nine written briefs to the court, including the arguments that will be presented at the next hearing scheduled for March 11, 2026. Each of these briefs seeks to identify the root causes of Japan’s entrenched system of “hostage justice” and to propose concrete ways to address this problem within the criminal justice system.

Because this is a deeply rooted structural issue, it cannot be resolved overnight. However, we feel that the case is steadily moving forward step by step.

The funds donated so far have been used to cover litigation-related expenses, including court filing fees, transportation costs, copying expenses, and venue fees for post-hearing report meetings. The attorneys involved in this case are working without receiving legal fees.

Looking ahead, we plan to further deepen and expand the arguments we have presented so far. This may include requesting research and analysis from expert institutions in Japan and abroad, and, where appropriate, collaborating with international experts to incorporate additional specialized knowledge into the case. Achieving this will require additional funding.

For this reason, we would like to set a second fundraising goal of 2 million yen.
To help bring an end to hostage justice, we sincerely ask for your continued support.

Next Hearing

The next hearing will take place on March 11, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court, where the fifth oral argument hearing will be held in the “End Hostage Justice!” Lawsuit.

Based on the newly submitted briefs, the attorneys representing the plaintiffs will present oral arguments focusing on constitutional and treaty-based claims.

After the hearing, a report session will be held at a library located inside Hibiya Park, where we will share updates and discuss the progress of the case.

We would be delighted if you could attend the hearing and observe the proceedings.

We apologize for the late report.

The third oral argument hearing was held on December 16, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

At this hearing, the plaintiffs made oral arguments based on three major preparatory documents.

The first was a brief by Attorney Hiraoka based onthe preparatory brief (4)_20251121 . He pointed out that there is a fundamental contradiction in the fact that the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that there is reasonable cause to destroy evidence as a ground for excluding bail from the right of bail, and that granting bail to certain defendants would mean there is reasonable cause to destroy evidence, yet the court still grants bail at its discretion, and that such cases account for the majority of bail cases.

The second is the argument based onthe preparatory brief (5)_20251121 , presented by Attorney Saito. He rebutted the defendant's argument regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 60, Paragraph 1, Item 2 and Article 89, Item 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The third was an argument based onplaintiff's brief (6)_20251121 , delivered by Attorney Taniguchi. He stated that this will serve as an important guideline for the interpretation of the legal effect of general opinions issued by the Human Rights Committee and other bodies.

In addition, we issued a document production order requesting the submission of various data, such as bail rates by crime. Since all of the grounds for exclusion from bail severely restrict personal freedom, empirical evidence is required. While the government should be the one to assert and prove these claims, we aim to gather data to assert and prove our case. As evidence, we have submitted Exhibit A30-60.Exhibit A30-60: Explanation of Evidence (4) . Much of this is literature.

The next hearing will be held on March 11, 2026 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court. We plan to submit additional arguments and evidence.

The core argument of the next session will be to look back at the history of the Constitution and argue that the Constitution guarantees, as a procedural guarantee, the right of defense attorneys to access materials provided by investigative agencies regarding requests for detention, etc., and that treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, based on the guarantee of equality in arms, also guarantee defense attorneys the right to access investigative materials.

Both cases will be discussed orally by the attorneys in charge.

Please come and observe the proceedings.

The second oral argument hearing was held today, September 24, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

At the beginning, a procedure was undertaken to update the arguments as one of the judges had been replaced.

The documents submitted by both parties were then collated.

The defendant submitted a brief (1) containing a comprehensive rebuttal to the complaint, and Exhibit 1-17.

As part of its rebuttal to Defendant Brief (1), Plaintiff submitted Brief (2) and (3), as well as Exhibits 28 and 29, which are related to (3). However, the court refrained from formally submitting Brief (3) and the evidence, stating that it was difficult to find time to review them due to the submission being six days before the hearing, which fell on a weekend and a public holiday. Plaintiff is scheduled to make a comprehensive rebuttal to Defendant Brief (1) by the next hearing, and Brief (3) will also be submitted at that time.

The plaintiff also filed a petition for clarification , requesting the defendant to submit evidence to justify Article 89, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in preparation for a rebuttal to the defendant's brief (1) .

Afterwards, the plaintiff's attorney, Attorney Yoshida, spent about five minutes orally arguing the preparatory document (2) .

After completing the above procedures and sorting out the homework for both parties until the next hearing, the next hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, December 10th at 10:30am in Courtroom 103.

Please come and listen again next time.

The first hearing was held on July 9, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 626 of the Tokyo District Court.

The gallery was full, and fewer than 10 people wanted to stand, but unfortunately they were not able to watch the trial as the presiding judge asked them to leave, saying that standing spectators were not permitted.

Based on this exchange, at the beginning of the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel requested that the next trial be held in a larger courtroom, and it was decided that the next trial would be held in Courtroom 103.

At the hearing, the plaintiff first presented the complaint and preparatory brief (1) and submitted relevant evidence. The defendant then submitted an answer.

At the next hearing, the defendant will make his substantive rebuttal by August 22nd, and the next hearing will be held in Courtroom 103 at 11:00 on Wednesday, September 24th.

Afterwards, Takano, the attorney, made a statement regarding the complaint, and the four plaintiffs then made their statements. For Shibata and Amano, their respective attorneys read their statements. They all unanimously appealed for the judge to know that hostage justice is a violation of human rights, and that this practice actually exists.

The contents of each statement will be published as legal documents at a later date.

At the next hearing, the defendant will mainly make a rebuttal, but since there is about a month until the hearing date from the defendant's written submission, the plaintiff is also considering making some kind of rebuttal. If necessary, we also plan to make a statement regarding our claims.

I hope you will be able to attend the next session as well.

On April 1st, a press conference was held at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan (FCCJ).

Attorney Takano, head of the defense team, and plaintiff Asanuma took the stage.

You can watch the press conference here.

https://www.youtube.com/live/ i8GMqz5GDmU?feature=shared

We will continue to send out our message until an end is put to this hostage justice system. Thank you for your continued support.

On March 24, 2025, we filed a lawsuit to put an end to hostage justice!

Our 13-person legal team will do everything in our power to restore the dignity of the four plaintiffs, put an end to hostage justice, and prevent further harm.

A press conference announcing the lawsuit was held at the Tokyo District Court's Judicial Press Club from 3:00 p.m.

At the press conference, head of the defense team, Attorney Takano, explained the outline of the lawsuit and the problems with the criminal justice system to date, after which plaintiff Asanuma spoke about his feelings that led him to file the lawsuit.

Afterwards, lawyers Kobayashi and Ukai read out messages that had been received from two of the plaintiffs who were unable to attend the press conference, and finally, Secretary-General Miyamura explained the social significance of this lawsuit.

The journalists asked lively questions, such as, "Mr. Takano said that this problem is unique to Japan, but are there no such problems in other countries?", "What is the difference between this lawsuit and other lawsuits?", "What specific damages did Mr. Asanuma and the other plaintiffs suffer?", "Why was this problematic practice of physical restraint created and why is it still continuing today?", etc. We answered each question carefully as members of the legal team and as plaintiffs.

We are considering posting the questions you have asked today in the form of an FAQ on the case page.

It has been covered in several media outlets.

Kyodo News: https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/ec088611006471d5588610dfa062a504a128d0a3

Tokyo Shimbun: https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/393909

Bengo4.com: https://www.bengo4.com/c_18/n_18603/

We would be grateful for your support.