The court dismissed both parties' appeals and upheld the ruling ordering the government to pay 220,000 yen.

The reasons for the judgment have been amended to include the following: Please refer to the judgment uploaded today for details.

・"Immigration Control Officer A still has no awareness of having committed any illegal acts in this case, and it appears that the person in charge of the prison guards in this case does not consider these acts to be illegal either. Therefore, there are doubts as to whether the guidance given to the prison guards, including Immigration Control Officer A, in the post-incident measures in this case was not merely formal, but sufficient, and whether measures to prevent recurrence were not merely formal but sufficient were taken at the East Japan Center."

・"According to the evidence (Otsu 12③), after the Chief Guard arrived at the treatment room, immigration control officers, including the Chief Guard, repeatedly referred to the isolation measures as a 'punishment' while speaking to the plaintiff in the first instance. This suggests that the immigration control officers considered the isolation stipulated in Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Treatment Regulations to be a punishment for detainees."

Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed documents.

When the plaintiff filed a motion for recusal on the grounds that the presiding judge in charge was serving as Director of the Litigation Department of the Tokyo District Legal Affairs Bureau, a decision was made to suspend or postpone the trial for consideration.

Since around July 22, 2023, multiple social media accounts have been posting content suggesting that Mr. Deniz, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, was arrested for sexual crimes in the past. However, there is no fact that Mr. Deniz has committed a sex crime, nor has he been arrested on suspicion of sex crimes. These posts are posts with false content that defame Mr. Deniz, and we believe that these posts not only fall under the torts stipulated in the Civil Code, but can also fall under the crime of defamation under the Criminal Law. increase.

Therefore, on behalf of Mr. Deniz, with this notice, we will immediately delete the relevant post to the person who posted it and the person who spread it, and then notify the same account that the content of the post was incorrect and the content of the error. I request you to notify me above. In addition, Mr. Deniz is considering pursuing liability against the contributors in both criminal and civil matters regarding this matter.

In addition, not only posting but spreading acts can be illegal, so I warn you not to spread the above posts in the future.

Attorneys representing Mr. Deniz in this lawsuit (Ohashi and Okamoto)

I filed an appeal dated May 3, 2023.

An appeal has also been filed by the defendant country.

A ruling was handed down, recognizing the illegality of some of the acts, including assaults, of the immigration officials during the suppression, and ordering the defendant country to pay 220,000 yen.

Plaintiff and defendant each filed a final brief.

The court closed the hearing and set a judgment date.

A party hearing of the plaintiff was conducted.

The witnesses requested by the defendant, immigration control officer A (the employee claimed by the plaintiff as the person who committed the assault in this lawsuit) and the guard officer (the person in charge on the day of the incident who was present at the scene from the middle of the incident) were questioned as witnesses. each was carried out.

The plaintiff's spouse witness, who was the witness requested by the plaintiff, was then conducted.

・The defendant is (1) immigration control officer A (the immigration officer who mainly assaulted the plaintiff in this case), (2) the person in charge of this case guard (the person in charge who decided each disposition of the plaintiff in this case and was present at the scene from the middle) I applied for the cross-examination of a witness.

・The plaintiff applied for the interrogation of (1) the plaintiff himself, (2) the plaintiff's spouse, (3) immigration control officer A, and (4) the person in charge of the prison guard.

・As a result of the above, the court adopted both types of interrogation, and the interrogation schedule was adjusted according to the date of the interrogation (it was necessary to secure a courtroom with appropriate space and equipment, and to adjust the schedule of the Turkish interpreter, etc.). Therefore, no decision was reached in this oral argument.)