11th oral argument date

February 13, 2024, 2:00 p.m. - 11th Oral Argument Date

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

--------

I would like to thank many people for listening to this session.

We would like to inform you of the date of the 11th oral argument.

(Past flow)

The first issue was the interpretation of Article 9 (right to freedom of person) of the ICCPR, and the plaintiffs discussed the interpretation of Article 9 (1) (arbitrary detention) and 9 (4) (judicial review). We argued that there is a right to compensation under Article 9, Section 5, and last time we submitted a written opinion by four international law researchers.

However, the government stated that it would not ``refute'' the claim, even though the plaintiff submitted a detailed written opinion and argued regarding legal interpretation. Therefore, it was decided that the plaintiff would proceed first and make a claim based on the plaintiff's individual circumstances.

(Contents of the day)

This time, the plaintiffs submitted the sixth preliminary document showing that the immigration detention of the two plaintiffs, Deniz and Safari, was in violation of Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4, based on their individual circumstances.

After completing all of the plaintiff's arguments, we held an ``argument'' in which we orally stated the arguments we had made in the preliminary documents. Unlike a statement of opinion, a "pleading" is a procedure in which arguments are made based on a prepared document. This time, the plaintiff's attorney decided to make an argument because he wanted to explain the issues at issue, the plaintiff's claims, and the position and content of the four written opinions in an easy-to-understand manner.

The court had a large screen set up so that the presentation could be seen by the audience. The presentation materials and reading version shown at the argument have been uploaded to the "Claims/Judgments" section of "Litigation Materials", so please refer to them. The items are as follows.

1 Points at issue in this case (Article 9, paragraphs 1, 4, and 5)

2 Key points of the four opinions

① How to interpret the ICCPR and the position of general opinions... Opinion written by Associate Professor Yonako Takada

② Specific interpretation of Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4... Opinion written by Professor Emeritus Masanao Murakami

③ Direct application of Article 9, Paragraph 5 and treaty-compatible interpretation...Associate Professor Hiromichi Matsuda's opinion statement

④ All of the above, specific examples, etc. Opinion written by Professor Shin Hye-bin

3. The detention of Mr. Deniz and Mr. Safari was illegal.

Next time, the defendant's attorney will argue to the extent necessary regarding the individual circumstances, and the defendant will submit a written preparation.

At the debriefing session after the session, we received comments from those who attended, saying that it was very easy to understand. We also have a lot to learn about international law and the ICCPR through this lawsuit. I would like to move forward while learning together with everyone and realize a new trial. We appreciate your continued support.

The next hearing will be held on April 25, 2024 at 3:00 pm in Courtroom 724 of the Tokyo District Court (a different courtroom than usual). Please join us next time.

10th oral argument date

December 5, 2023, 2:00 p.m. - 10th Oral Argument Date

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

--------

Thank you very much for coming to see us this time.

We would like to inform you of the date of the 10th oral argument.

(Past flow)

The interpretation of Article 9 (right to freedom of person) of the ICCPR was the first issue in this case, with the plaintiffs arguing for the interpretation of Article 9 (1) (arbitrary detention) and Article 9 (4) (judicial review). We have discussed that there is a right to compensation under Article 9, Section 5.

(Contents of the day)

This time, the plaintiff side has submitted written opinions prepared by four international law researchers regarding the interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR, and has also submitted a fifth preliminary document (litigation document) based on these written opinions. (published in the materials) was submitted. The written opinion is as follows.

① “How to interpret the ICCPR – Focusing on the specific application of the rules of interpretation in Articles 31 and 32 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the legal significance of the general opinion of the ICCPR” Osaka University Associate Professor, Graduate School of International Public Policy, Yonako Takada

② “Opinion paper” (interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR, especially regarding the validity of the interpretation of the ICCPR Committee) Masanao Murakami, Professor Emeritus of Osaka University

③ “Opinion Paper: Domestic Implementation of Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the Covenant on Human Rights” by Hiromichi Matsuda, Associate Professor, International Christian University

④ “Written Opinion” (Regarding that this detention is arbitrary detention that violates Articles 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Covenant on Human Rights, and that relief should be granted in accordance with Article 9, Paragraph 5) Shin Hye-hyeong, Professor, Faculty of Law, Aoyama Gakuin University

It is groundbreaking that experts were able to write such detailed opinions on how to interpret international human rights treaties. We were able to receive the cooperation of researchers because this case has important significance for the interpretation and application of international human rights law in future trials. We hope that you share our belief that we must use an interpretation that is valid in the international arena, rather than a uniquely Japanese interpretation as advocated by the national government.

The government stated that it would not object to the fifth preliminary document and the four researchers' opinions. I wondered what it meant to not ``refute'' the plaintiff's new argument based on a written opinion, and attorney Ogawa, who represented the plaintiff, said, ``I want the state to make a solid counterargument. The government has a responsibility to explain why it interprets the treaty in the way it does.''The presiding judge also asked the government if it would not make a counterargument, but the government's stance did not change. .

Since the defendant has stated that he will not refute the plaintiff's claims, the plaintiff will next submit a preliminary document that applies the treaty interpretation detailed in the current preliminary document to the immigration detention of the two plaintiffs. I did.

The state stated, ``We will make a counterargument after the next brief,'' but the court reminded us, ``Once again, we would like to ask if there are any objections to the current brief.'' .

The next hearing will be held on February 13, 2024 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom No. 415 of the Tokyo District Court.

I would like to work with everyone who has listened and supported me to realize a new trial regarding international human rights treaties and immigration detention. Thank you for your continued support.

(Added on 2023/12/13)

Associate Professor Yonako Takada's written opinion (A54) has been uploaded to "Litigation Materials" > "Evidence". Please read it.

Date of the 9th Oral Argument

September 5, 2023, 1:30 p.m. - 9th Oral Argument Date

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

--------

Thank you very much for coming today.

I would like to report the date of the 9th Oral Argument.

(Previous flow)

The interpretation of Article 9 (right to freedom of person) of the ICCPR was the first issue in this case, with the plaintiffs arguing for the interpretation of Article 9 (1) (arbitrary detention) and Article 9 (4) (judicial review). and the right to compensation under Article 9(5).

In response, the government stated in its preliminary document (5) that the term "illegal", which is subject to compensation in Article 9, Paragraph 5, is understood to mean a violation of domestic law, and that the detention of the plaintiffs is detention based on the Immigration Control Act. Therefore, it argued that there was no "illegal" and there was no obligation to compensate, and the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 5 became a point of contention.

(Contents of the day)

This time, the plaintiffs submitted the fourth preliminary document (published in the litigation materials), which asserted Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the Covenant on Civil Rights and the State Reparation Act.

The contents are: (1) Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the Covenant on Human Rights stipulates that compensation must be paid in the case of illegal physical restraint, and (2) Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the Covenant on Human Rights stipulates that compensation must be made by directly applying Article 9, Paragraph 5. (3) Regardless of the method, if compensation is not achieved, there will be a violation of Article 9, Paragraph 5. It is written what happens.

In this case, the plaintiff made detailed claims based on Article 2 of the ICCPR (obligations of state parties) and the General Comment 31 of the ICCPR Committee, so normally the defendant would not have made a counterargument. I thought it was, but the defendant said that he would not make a counterargument.

The court asked the plaintiff whether he would assert the illegality of the individual detention of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff has currently requested an opinion from an international law researcher. He replied that he would also discuss the illegality of individual detention of the plaintiffs.

The next hearing will be held on December 5th at 14:00 at Courtroom 415 of the Tokyo District Court.

Next time, we plan to submit a written opinion by a researcher of international law as evidence. I would like to make repeated assertions and evidence so that the court can make judgments on the interpretation and application of the ICCPR. We appreciate your continued support.

June 27, 2023, 11:30 a.m. - 8th Oral Argument Date

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

--------

 Thank you very much for coming today.

 We would like to inform you about the date of the 8th Oral Argument.

 (Previous flow)

The interpretation of ICCPR Article 9 (the right to liberty of the body) was the first point of contention in this trial, and the plaintiff sought to interpret Article 9, paragraph 1 (arbitrary detention) and Article 9, paragraph 4 (judicial review). have argued.

In response, the government made almost no claims regarding the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, saying, "Does Article 52, Paragraph 5 of the Immigration Control Act violate Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR?" There is no obligation to compensate under the State Indemnity Law, even without clarifying."

However, as the core of the plaintiff's claim is not a claim under the State Reparations Act, but a claim under Article 9(5) of the ICCPR (the right to compensation for unlawful detention), the plaintiff filed a claim against the state under Article 9(5). It asked for clarification of its claims regarding the paragraph.

(contents of the day)

This time, the government made a statement in the defendant's brief (5) (published in the litigation materials), which asserted Article 9, Paragraph 5 of the ICCPR. There is

・Regarding Article 9, Paragraph 5, it is sufficient if an appropriate framework is provided in domestic law, and so far Japan has dealt with it through the State Reparations Law.

・The text of Article 9, Paragraph 5 is not clear

・"Illegal", which is the subject of reparations under Article 9(5), is interpreted as a violation of domestic law. The detention of the plaintiff is based on the Immigration Control Law, which is a domestic law, so there is no "illegal".

And so on.

Regarding this third point, Attorney Ogawa, the plaintiff's attorney, said, "On page 8 of the government brief, ``The detentions in this case are based on the Immigration Control Act, which is a law of Japan, and are measures that violate domestic law. I think it is particularly strange to argue that there is no illegality in Article 9, Paragraph 5 because there is no illegality in Article 9, Paragraph 5. In Japan, if a treaty is concluded, it will directly take effect as a domestic law. Even if the detention this time did not violate the Immigration Control Act, which is a domestic law, if it violated Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, it would be "illegal" as defined in Article 9, Paragraph 5. , I have the right to receive compensation.”

The presiding judge commented, ``I understand that the plaintiff is focusing on the claim based on Article 9, Paragraph 5, and the defendant probably thinks that it is based on the State Reparation Law.'' bottom.

The next hearing will be held at 1:30 p.m. on September 5th at Courtroom 415 of the Tokyo District Court.

The plaintiff plans to submit a brief by August 28, which will include a claim on Article 9(5) of the ICCPR and a claim on the State Reparations Act.

We are having a new discussion that has not been in the trial so far. Please continue to pay attention.

April 25, 2023, 2:30 p.m.- 7th Oral Argument

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

--------

Numbered tickets were distributed today, but thank you for coming to many people.

I would like to inform you about the date of the 7th Oral Argument.

(Previous flow)

Since the interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR became the first point of contention, the plaintiff submitted the second brief (published in the litigation materials) on the fifth date, stating that "detention without necessity, proportionality, or rationality" constitutes arbitrary detention."

However, in the brief (4) presented at the 6th meeting, the government made almost no claims regarding the interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR, stating that "Article 52, Paragraph 5 of the Immigration Act is , There is no obligation to compensate under the State Compensation Law without clarifying whether it violates paragraph 4."

The plaintiff said that the country should show the grounds for its interpretation, and the court asked the country to make any claims regarding Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, as well as claims regarding Article 9, Paragraph 5. urged to clarify.

(Date of this time)

Last time, despite the court's urging, the state side did not submit any briefs.

The plaintiff also made a statement in the 3rd Brief, supplementing the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR.

In response, the defendant stated that he would submit a brief to argue against Article 9(5) of the ICCPR by June 16, and if he had any objections to the plaintiff's third brief, he would do so. said.

The presiding judge asked the plaintiffs whether they would refute the defendants' claims regarding the state compensation law, and whether they would make further claims about the illegality of the plaintiffs' individual detention. The plaintiff said that after the defendant's counterargument on Article 9, Paragraph 5, he would also make a counterargument on the State Compensation Law one after another, and then consider the plaintiff's individual claim on detention. rice field.

Next time, the 8th Oral Argument Date will be held on June 27th at 11:30-415 Courtroom.

It is expected that the seats will be close to full, but please continue to pay attention.

March 1, 2023, 2:00 p.m.- 6th Oral Argument

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

--------

Thank you very much for coming to the hearing today.

I would like to inform you about the date of the 6th Oral Argument.

(Previous flow)

At the fourth date of the hearing, the plaintiff argued that ``detention without necessity, proportionality, or rationality constitutes arbitrary detention'' regarding the interpretation of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR. ``Arbitrary detention does not constitute arbitrary detention as long as the procedure is stipulated in the law (domestic law),'' confirming that the interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR was the first issue. I was.

On the fifth date, the plaintiff submitted the second brief (published in the litigation materials), and based on the general opinion of the Human Rights Committee,35 constitutes arbitrary detention."

(contents of the day)

This time, the government stated the defendant's brief (4) (published in the litigation materials). However, the content of the statement merely refutes the plaintiff's allegation, and the specific grounds for the government's assertion that ``if the procedure is stipulated in the law (domestic law), it does not constitute arbitrary detention'' is as follows: It wasn't written. And it said, "There is no obligation to compensate under the State Reparations Act without clarifying whether Article 52, Paragraph 5 of the Immigration Control Act violates Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR."

The plaintiff's attorney questioned, "Why should the country interpret the treaty in that way? Shouldn't it show the grounds?" bottom. The court urged the government to make any assertions regarding Article 9, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, and to clarify its assertions regarding Article 9, Paragraph 5.

By the next meeting, the plaintiff will submit a document to supplement the assertion on Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the ICCPR, and the government will consider the points urged by the court and submit a brief if possible. I said I can't.

The next hearing will be held on April 25th at 2:30 pm at Courtroom 415 of the Tokyo District Court. I hope that you will continue to pay attention to it.

December 20, 2022, 10:00 a.m.- 5th oral argument

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

--------

The audience seats were almost full today. Thank you for coming.

I would like to inform you about the date of the 5th Oral Argument.

(Previous flow)

Last time (October 4), the plaintiff stated a [Written Opinion on Proceedings], and the defendant asserted that "reasonability, necessity, and proportionality are not sought" with respect to Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR. I asked for confirmation. As a result, it became clear that the first point of contention in this trial was the ``interpretation of Article 9 of the ICCPR,'' as the defendant argued as such.

(contents of the day)

This time, the plaintiff stated [Plaintiff's second brief]. The main contents are (1) how the [general opinion] of the ICCPR Committee that should be respected in interpreting Article 9 of the ICCPR is formulated, and (2) according to the [general opinion], Article 1, paragraph 2 sentence is interpreted as prohibiting detention that is not necessary, proportional, or unreasonable, and that the Immigration Control Act violates this; Violating the [Right to take proceedings in court] guaranteed by Article 9, Paragraph 4 of the ICCPR.

Attorney Ogawa said, ``This year, the Human Rights Covenant Committee reviewed the report and issued a concluding opinion, which has been repeated until now. I didn't do it. Only the court can change this."

When the court asked the defendant if he would like to refute the plaintiff's brief, the defendant's attorney first said, ``I would like to consider whether or not a counterargument is necessary,'' but the court believes that a counterargument is necessary, so he will refute it. Defendants will have until February 20, 2023 to submit a counter-briefing.

The next 6th Oral Argument will be held on March 1, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 415.

I hope that you will continue to pay attention to it.

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.