Alternative Report
To the List of Issues Prior to Reporting to Seventh Periodic Report of Japan
on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
List of Issues Prior to Reporting
－Suggested List of Issues to Country Report Task Force on Japan–
121th Session of the Human Rights Committee, Geneva
16 Oct ~ 10 Nov ,2017
Japanese Association for the Right to Freedom of Speech
(JRFS)
Submitted by
24 July, 2017
Pending Human Rights Issues the Japanese Government Should Tackle As Member of Human Rights Council for the Fourth Time, 70 Years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 60 Years after Joining the UNO and 70 Year after the Adoption of the Constitution
1. Violation of the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights (ICCPR Article 20, para. 1) by Changing the Constitution to Allow the Anti-Constitutional Self-Defense Forces to Make War Instead of Assigning Them to Disaster Rescue Operations
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on May 3, 2017, the 70th anniversary of Japan’s Constitution declared that he “would amend the Constitution so as to acknowledge explicitly the existence of self-defense forces by 2020”, meaning that the self-defense forces would be considered as full-fledged armed forces with the main task of fighting a war.
Japan is an Asian country that waged a war of aggression in the Second World War. To have armed forces itself constitutes a violation of Article 9 paragraph 2 of its Constitution. Also, Japan was refused of entry into the United Nations for 11 years since the founding of this international body. The declaration by the Prime Minister of such a country that the “existence of military forces would be explicitly provided for by the Constitution” violates not only its Articles 9 and 99, but also Article 20, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR.
In the leaflet published by the Foreign Ministry on the occasion of 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Government, referring to Article 20 of the ICCPR, claims that “Japan has renounced war by virtue of Constitutional article 9 and there is no need for legally penalizing something abstract such as war propaganda”.
In 1999, the Government forced through the Diet a law making mandatory the use of “Hinomaru” as the national flag and singing of “Kimigay” as national anthem. In January 2000, it partially modified the law on the Diet so as to set up in both Houses “Commission on the Constitution”. The first “Abe Cabinet” that took office again revised the Diet Law to replace these “Commissions” with “Constitution Examination Commissions” on August 7, 2007 to prepare for the revision of Article 9. Since then, the Government has repeatedly modified national laws and promoted those officers who have contributed in preparing the ground for constitutional revision, especially Article 9.
Question1：
ⅰ Has the Government examined if the declaration made by the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe would constitute a violation of Article 20, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR?
ⅱ Has the Government examined if setting up the “Commissions on Constitution” without instituting a national law for the application of Article 20 para.1 of the ICCPR would constitute a violation of the Article in question?
ⅲ Please report how these Commissions were set up and what discussions have these bodies made regarding the Constitution and the ICCPR and other human rights instruments.
2. Japan has not ratified the individual complaints mechanism and established the rule of law.
The Government of Japan at the meeting of the Human Rights Council in July 2016 announced its candidacy and made pledges to be elected Council member for the fourth time.
When Japan ratified in 1979 the ICCPR and ICCSR at the Diet, the Foreign Affaires Commissions of the both Houses unanimously adopted the resolution for an early ratification of the ICCPR First Optional Protocol. However, the resolution has not yet been implemented.
Question 2：
ⅰ Why the Japanese Government has not implemented the 1979 Diet Resolution calling for the ratification of the individual complaints mechanism although it has become member of Human Rights Council?
ⅱ Should the Government be held responsible for the failure to ratify that mechanism for 38 years despite the Diet resolution, which is contrary to its obligation to comply with international instruments and regulations which is provided for by Article 98 of Japan’s Constitution?
ⅱ When does the Government intend to implement the Diet resolution?
3.Human rights instruments are not taken into consideration when examining drafting laws in the Diet.
The Government fails to educate or inform its employees about the international human rights instruments and recommendations.
The Ministry of Education and Science (hereafter MEXT) does not make it mandatory to study human rights instruments in university law faculties. No question is asked about human rights instruments in the examination to become lawyer. During 2 year- training, the trainees have only 2 hours to study about human rights instruments. No precedent court decision has ever given by Japanese courts at all levels calling for revising the national laws to make them compatible with the international covenants.
Question3: In accordance with Article 98 para.2 of the Constitution, the Government should report measures it has implemented for the education of all public employees and judicial personnel.
4. The right to vote is not yet established and protection of privacy at risk (ICCPR Articles 17, 19 and 25)
Supreme Court in December 2012, in total disregard of ICCPR/C/JPN/CO/5 Concluding observation, paragraph 26, decided not to prosecute the political police that had committed serious crime by arresting Mr. Akio Horikoshi for the charge of violation of the State Public Service Act. The court did not order any remedy for the serious violation of human rights suffered by Mr. Horikoshi. The prejudice he incurred therefore remains without any remedy although he won a non-guilty judgement that he naturally deserved.
Mr. Horikoshi were one of those public employees and political activists who were arrested and prosecuted on the basis of the State Public Service Act or for intruding in private house, although they only distributed flyers critical to the Government in people’s post boxes. Seven other people who were sentenced guilty by the Supreme Court are also left without remedy. The way they were treated by the police and the judiciary has a strong chilling effect on citizens.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs continues to ignore the paragraph 26 of the Concluding Observation and has not yet revised the Public Office Election Act and State Public Service Act. In postwar Japan, these two laws were invoked to severely restrict the freedom of opinion and expression, impeding the establishment of right to vote of the citizens. A fair election has never taken place in our country.
In addition to this, under the second Abe Cabinet, there are frequent cases of arrest and unauthorized detention of human rights NGO members and officers of citizens’ groups who oppose the construction of military bases, the re-start of nuclear power plants and the construction of high-rise condominiums.
The Government has already introduced the “my number system” which violates Article 17 of the ICCPR. It also forced the passage by the Diet of the Conspiracy Law in June 15 and enforced it on July 11 this year. It did not reply to the letter send to the Prime Minister Abe by Joseph Cannataci, Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council.
In 2013, Prime Minister Abe has also ignored the letter written jointly by Special Rapporteurs of Human Rights Council Frank La Rue and Anand Grover and the criticism made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay at a press conference. In fact, the Government pushed through the adoption in December 2013 of the “Law on the Protection of State Secrets” and the law establishing the Japanese version of National Security Council.
Question 4:
ⅰ The Government must report the initiatives it has implemented in response to the recommendation of the Concluding Observation CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5 paragraph 26.
ⅲ The Government must report the facts legitimizing the adoption of the State Secrets Protection Law.
ⅳ The Government must provide information about the details of its response to the letter of Joseph Canatacci addressed to the Prime Minister as well as the content of Prime Minister’s reply.
5. Mainstreaming of UN Human Security and Disaster Mitigation and Achievement of SDGs
Since the second Abe Cabinet took office in 2012, no consultation meeting has been held bringing together the head of human rights department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese government representatives to UN human rights bodies, NGOs and citizens that used to be held twice a year. For this reason, NGO representatives and citizens who speak only Japanese have lost the opportunity to obtain information in Japanese about the UN Human Rights Council and other UN Human Rights bodies.
Question 5： Japan became member of Human Rights Council for the first time in 2006 and is now member for the 4th time. How does the Government intend to ensure concretely the access to information of NGOs and citizens regarding the initiatives taken by the Human Rights Council and the UN in favor of mainstreaming of human security and disaster mitigation and attaining the SDGS.
6. The Government forced the passage through the Diet of the “War Laws” in violation of the ICCPR Article 20, para.1, just before the opening of the UN General Assembly in September 2015.
Question 6：
ⅰ Has the Government studied concretely whether these War Laws were really compatible with Article 20 of the ICCPR?
ⅱ If not, please explain why.
ⅱ Who and when was decided the national action plan based on the Security Council Resolution 1325 that Prime Minister announced at the UN General Assembly?
7. Recommendations in CCPR/C/JPN/CO/6 (para. 6, 7, 22, 23 and 24) have not been implemented.
After it had forced the adoption of the law regarding the national flag and national anthem in 1999, the Government imposed the use of “Hinomaru” and singing of “Kimigayo” in school education on teachers, children as well as their parents. In addition, it has sanctioned the teachers who refused to abide by these provisions with cuts in salary and admonition. Teachers admonished are refused the re-hiring after their retirement at 60 years of age which would deprive them of source of income until pension is paid to them when they turn 65. Imposition of national emblems on schools by the Government is extending to childcare facilities including creches and kindergartens which constitutes a violation of Articles 18 and 19 of the ICCPR.
Moreover, after the March 11 Earthquake Disaster in Eastern Japan, the Government, on the pretext of disaster mitigation, tried to manipulate public opinion so that the population accepts the existence of self-defense forces by conducting joint exercises with US troops with the MEXT, the Ministry of Defense and 47 prefectures collaborating, taking advantage of a growing tension on Korean Peninsula. The ultimate goal of the Government is to build a state with capable of fighting war.
Using the pretext of North Korean missile launch, the Government stopped subways in Tokyo and municipalities started evacuation drills supposing a missile attack. It is a violation of Article 20 of the ICCPR that a government used disaster mitigation to hide the true nature of the self-defense forces and build mechanisms to be able to wage war.
Question 7: The Government must report the concrete initiatives it has implemented for CCPR/C/JPN/CO/6 (para. 6, 7, 22, 23 and 24).