COUNTER REPORT for the Japanese Government's Report to the Fourth Session of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Committee

The Center for Prisoners' Rights

The Center for Prisoners' Rights (CPR) is a Japan based non governmental human rights organization, which mainly focuses it's effort on the improvement of the human-rights situation in Japanese prisons.
Taking the opportunity that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Committee had a hearing from the Japanese government in October 1998, we sent our delegation to the session in order to submit our counter report and explained an actual state of the Japanese prisons. The following is our report:

There are numerous violations of the international human rights law in Japanese prisons. Japan routinely violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But the Japanese government did not correctly refer to the issues in the fourth periodic report of Japan. Center for Prisoners' Rights Japan hope that the Human Rights Committee will consider the report submitted by the Japanese government concerned with the problems in this alternate report. And CPR also hopes that the Committee will recommend the government to improve the treatment of prisoners, which violates the international human rights standards.

1. Ratification of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

1-1. Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

The Committee should inquire when the Japanese government plan to ratify the Convention.

The Committee should inquire the reason why the government cannot ratify the Convention.

If the government is to ratify the Convention, the inquiry should be made whether the government plan to make a reservation and whether it declares the individual communication under the article 22.

1-2. Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan,

The Committee should recommend the government that it should ratify the convention without the reservation and also declare the system of communication from individual under the article 22.

1-3. Current Situation

Japan has not ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Minister of Justice replied in the Diet that they are considering the ratification. Center for Prisoners' Rights Japan and Amnesty International Japanese Section hold the International Human Rights Seminar in May 1997 inviting Dr. Bent Sorensen, a member of CAT and CPT. When Dr. Sorensen visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to request the ratification of the Convention, the officer in charge of human rights affairs said, "it is so difficult to collect the evidence under the article of universal jurisdiction that he doubt whether it works." But this cannot be the reason of putting off the ratification. The government should ratify the convention without any reservation and also declare the system of communication from individual under the article 22

2. Article 2

2-1. Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

Are there any practical measures of remedy in Japanese prisons?

Is there any planning to establish the easy access mechanism for human rights remedy that is independent of prison authority.

Is it true that when a prisoner accuse a guard toward the public prosecutors office, other guards of the prison investigate the case?

2-2. Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan,

Easy access mechanism for human rights remedy, which is independent of prison authority, should be established.
When a prisoner accuses a prison guard, the police or the public prosecutor's office, which is independent of prison authority, should investigate the case.

2-3. The former Comments by the Committee

The Human Rights Committee recommended " that preventive measures of control against any kind of ill-treatment of detainees should be further improved. ", in the section D, "Principal subjects of concern" of their comments adopted at its 1290th meeting (forty-ninth session) on 4 November 1993.

2-4. Current Situation

The reason why there are so much human rights violation cases in Japanese Prisons is lack of practical mechanism for human rights relief. In Japan there are no systems like visiting board, Prison Ombudsman or Prison Inspector, which are independent of prison authority. A prisoner in Japan can make a petition to the Minister of Justice, and s/he can make a petition to a visiting officer ( the officer of correction bureau of MOJ) who visits once every two years. But these systems are not effective and not open to others. Besides these ways, the remedy by way of civil suits is possible, but it takes much time and money. And the system of collecting the evidence by prisoners is insufficient and this makes it more difficult to prove the human rights violation case by the plaintiff's proof. So the civil suit is not also an effective way of relief.
When a prisoner accuse a prison guard toward the public prosecutors office, other guards of the same prison investigate the case. So in this criminal procedures, there are also no independence and it is not effective.
Easy access mechanism for human rights remedy, which is independent of prison authority, should be established.

Case 1. Death of Detainee at Jono Medical Prison A sentenced prisoner being held at Jono Medical Prison died on August 29, 1992, after having been assaulted by a prison officer. Following this assault, he had complained of abdominal pain, but had been denied adequate medical treatment. This prisoner had just been placed at the facility on August 25, because he was suspected of being mentally impaired. The warden of the medical prison conducted a post-mortem examination. A funeral was held the next day, without an autopsy being conducted, and the body was cremated.
It was learned January 1995. Prison authority examined the case only after an anonymous handbill raised questions about the death of the inmate.
The male nurse was dismissed and later fined 200,000 yen for "an act of violence" in a summary indictment, because prosecutors concluded the violence was not the direct cause of the inmate's death.
On the morning of Aug. 28, 1992, the 58-year-old chief of the nursing staff and two others, angered after they heard the inmate had uttered " abusive words" to the medical staff at the prison, took him to a waiting room. The victim was made to lie on the floor, and the chief official then kicked him in the stomach several times. Later the same day, the inmate complained of stomach pain. They administered emergency treatment without reporting it to doctors at the prison. The inmate died next morning.
When an inmate dies in prison, a prosecution officer usually examines the body. But at that time the prison authority examines the body and concluded the inmate died of " heart failure caused by his chronic diseases, including diabetes." The prison cremated the body with the approval of his family.

3. Article 6-4

3-1. Questions that the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan:

Why is a prisoner whose death sentence is finalized ("death penalty prisoner") not informed about his/her execution until just before it is carried out, and why are members of his/her family not informed of the execution in advance?

3-2. Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan:

A death penalty prisoner is not informed on his/her execution until just before it is carried out and members of@his/her family are not informed of the execution in advance. Therefore, the death penalty prisoner is deprived of every means for protection from execution. These practices violate article 6-4, and Article 7 of ICCPR.
The date and time of execution should be notified to the prisoner and to members of his/her family in advance thus allowing sufficient time for all legal avenues of appeal to be employed on the prisoner's behalf.

3-3. Comments by the Committee and Comments by the Government of Japan in the Fourth Periodic Report:

The Human Rights Committee made the following comment " In particular, the Committee finds that ... the failure of notification of executions to the family are incompatible with the Covenant", in the section D, "Principal subjects of concern" of their comments adopted at its 1290th meeting (forty-ninth session) on 4 November 1993.
In its Fourth Periodic Report, the Government of Japan states that there is no legal provision that permits the notification to the family in advance. Therefore, the family is not to be notified the before execution. The government also points to the following practical reasons:
"the family might experience unnecessary mental anguish, if they are notified of the date of execution beforehand", and, if the death penalty prisoners "receive their family visit after they have been notified of the date of execution, they may become mentally distressed and be unable to maintain calmness".

3-4. Current Situation

(1) No notification to the prisoner

The death penalty prisoner is usually informed about one hour before his/her execution that he/she is to be executed on that day. Formerly, in Japan, the prisoner was notified the day before the execution and was able to write his/her will and meet with family members the night before the execution. Mr. Kiyohachi HORIKOSHI who was executed at Tokyo Detention Center on 7 December 1975 was allowed to meet his mother the day before his execution. However, on 22 January 1976, one month-and-a-half after Mr. HORIKOSHI's execution, Mr. Kiyoshi OKUBO was also executed at the same detention center but he was notified only on the morning of the day of his execution. From that time, notifications have been made in the morning of the day.
The execution of a prisoner usually takes place in the morning. Therefore the death penalty prisoner is exposed to the terror of execution every morning. Such sudden notification to the death penalty prisoners conflicts with the General Comments of the Human Rights Committee (adopted on April 3 1992) which state that when the death penalty is applied by a State party, it must be carried out in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering.

(2) No notification to the family of a death penalty prisoner

No system of notification to family members in advance has been instituted despite of the Committee's comments at its 1290th meeting. Family members learn that the execution has taken place when they are told: " We said good-bye to him/her today by an official of the detention center and are asked whether or not they want to collect his/her body (i.e. whether or not the prison can cremate the body).
The Government states that the detention institution usually gives advice to the prisoner on how to write his/her will and dispose of his/her estate. In fact, however the prisoner does not prepare a written will. He/she only leaves an oral message with as officer during the few minutes just before the execution.
For example, in the case of Mr. Shuji KIMURA, who was executed on 21 December 1995, when his mother and elder sister-in-law visited him on the morning of the day that was scheduled for his execution, they were told by the officer; "Could you come again at noon since we are very busy at the end of year? ". Then, when they visited again, they were told that he had already been executed in the morning. The officer didn't make any mention of the time of his execution. His family members said that although Mr. KIMURA had asked the detention center to notify the date of his execution to his family members in advance, it hadn't done so. In addition, he had hurriedly written a short letter to his family members during the few minutes just before his execution.
Furthermore, in the case of Mr. Norio NAGAYAMA who was executed 1 August 1997, notification of execution was not given to any family members, so there was no one to claim his body and he was cremated in the detention center. If the former his counsel had not found out the about the execution and claimed his ashes, his remains would have been buried in the cemetery with no one to care of them.

(3) No opportunity to defend oneself

Lack of notification of execution to the prisoner and his/her family members in advance is not only extremely cruel treatment it also means that the prisoner has no chance for whatsoever to defend him/herself with the help of his/her family members. (That is also why contact between death penalty prisoners and people other than close family members are strictly restricted.) This practice is inhuman and violates Article 7 and Article 6-4 which state "amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases".

4. Article 7

4-1 Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

(1) Ill-treatment within criminal detention facilities

The number of cases of ill-treatment of detainees in prison and detention center is increasing. Are the authorities conducting any investigations of these cases? Does the Government plan to provide human rights education to prison officers?

(2) "Protection cells" and leather handcuffs

Some cases have been reported in which detainees are subjected to ill-treatment through the use of protection cells and leather handcuffs. The design of leather handcuffs force detainees to eat like dogs and to go to the toilet without using their hands. Shouldn't such instruments be abolished on the grounds that they are degrading? Furthermore, what is the legal basis for *protection cells*?

(3) Making prison rules and regulations public

Administrative regulations prepared by the Ministry of Justice, and Prison rules and regulations are kept secret. Should not such regulations and rules be made public, in accordance with Rule 29 and 30 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners?

(4) Collaboration with non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

When NGOs conduct an investigation of a prison, are they allowed to meet prisoners in private, without a guard in attendance?

(5) The strip searching of detainees

Some prisons strip-search all convicted prisoners every day. Is this practice not tantamount to degrading treatment if no reasons are given for the necessity of such an examination?

4-2. Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan,

(1) Ill-treatment within criminal detention facilities

Measures to eradicate ill-treatment by prison officers, particularly the establishment of an effective remedy mechanism to protect prisoners' rights and promote human rights education.

(2) Protection cells and leather handcuffs

Leather handcuffs are instruments of torture; they should be abolished in accordance with Rule 33 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

(3) Making prison rules and regulations public

Administrative regulations prepared by the Ministry of Justice, and Prison rules and regulations should be made public in accordance with Rule 27, 28 and 29 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and Principle 30 and 30(2) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
The authorities should distribute to detainees pamphlets listing the rights of prisoners in detention facilities in a language they can understand.

(4) Collaboration with NGOs

Prisons should accept visits by NGOs.

(5) Strip searching of detainees

The systematic strip-searching of all detainees must be abolished.

4-3. Current Situation

(1) Frequent ill-treatment within criminal detention facilities

Cases of ill-treatment in detention centers are now well documented by international NGOs including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as well as Japanese NGOs. An Amnesty report states, "Prisoners in Japan suffer from systematic cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and are at high risk of being subjected to abusive forms of punishment." (Amnesty International, "JAPAN: Abusive Punishment in Japanese Prisons," June 1998)
These reports state that the authorities often consider those prisoners who lodge an appeal against them, resort to the assistance of a lawyer, or try to write the to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as "defiant", and that they engage in systematic ill-treatment. Human rights education for prison officers would play an essential role in eliminating such ill-treatment and changing the culture and practice within detention facilities.

(2) Ill-treatment through the use of protection cells and leather handcuffs

Two Amnesty International reports published in November 1997 and June 1998 make particular reference to numerous cases of ill-treatment by the use of protection cells and leather handcuffs. Amnesty International is concerned that these instruments are utilized as means of punishment. Leather handcuffs have the same characteristics as medieval instruments of torture; the purpose of which is to destroy human dignity. Protection cells are not based on a law specifying the conditions of use. Common practice in the use of protection cells involves fastening leather handcuffs so tightly that its application may result in severe aftereffects. In 1998, a Tokyo High Court sentenced that leather handcuffs are illegal because the handcuffs fix the arms of a prisoner around the waist giving him or her unnecessarily high degrees of physical and mental pain; they prevent the prisoner from using the toilet by himself or herself; and they force a prisoner to eat like a dog. The use of the handcuffs, however, is not banned yet.

Furthermore, a convicted prisoner confined in a protection cell at Hamada Branch of Matsue Prison, died from heatstroke in July 1996. (See cases of Hamada Branch of Matsue Prison)

Protection cells should only used under specific conditions. They should be under the supervision by medical section of a detention center instead of the security section. Leather handcuffs must be abolished.

(3) The secrecy surrounding prison rules and administrative regulations

It is serious sources of concern that the administrative regulations by the Ministry of Justice and internal prison rule are not made public.
Japan Federation of Bar Associations has obtained a copy of the internal rules of a prison. The rules are difficult to follow - for example, they stipulate that a prisoner must obtain permission from a guard to go to the toilet, talk to other prisoners or wipe their body with a towel. Extracts from the rules attached to as an appendix f this report. Since they are not made public, it is difficult to examine the reasoning behind such rules. These circumstances demonstrate a clear absence of safeguards against human rights violations. Thus the practice of the government of Japan is in violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 and Article 7.
Detainees are notified of their duties the rules they have to obey, but are not given a detailed account of their rights. For examples, many detainees at Tokyo Detention Center believe they can send only one letter a day although, they can write up to three letters a day if granted special permission. Another example is the regulations concerning a prisoner's personal belongings. Yokohama Branch Detention House tells its detainees that they can hold personal belongings up to the volume of two boxes, but the size of those boxes is kept secret.

(4) Lack of co-operation with NGOs

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) provides very limited co-operation with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The ministry does not allow NGOs to conduct direct interviews with prisoners. During a research trip to Japan in 1994, Human Rights Watch requested permission to visit Asahikawa and Niigata Prisons. However, the organization was denied. access. Even at the prisons they were allowed to visit, Human Rights Watch could not interview prisoners directly. Furthermore, when they requested interviews with prisoners in another institution, the MOJ replied that it would only allow interviews on a condition that the Ministry could choose interviewees. The imposition of such conditions prevents adequate third-party monitoring by NGOs. Human Rights Watch decided that requesting co-operation from the Ministry of Justice was unproductive and they conducted their own research. When the organization published its report, the Ministry criticized it claiming that there was a bias in the selection of interviewees. The Ministry, however, is in no position to criticize Human Rights Watch considering how little co-operation it had extended.

(5) The strip-searching of detainees

Contrary to the claims in the Governments report, most of the detention centers and prisons conduct naked body-checks on all prisoners. In some prisons strip body search is imposed to convicted prisoners in every morning and night. Strip body search may be acceptable under specific conditions -for example, if a detainee is suspected of possessing weapons or drugs. However, carrying out strip-searches of all detainees as a matter of policy constitutes degrading treatment within the scope of Article 7 and is not acceptable.

Case 2. Hamada Branch of Matsue Prison : Death in custody, protection cell

On 25 July 1996, at Hamada Branch of Matsue Prison, very early morning, a convict (Mr. B, 44 years-old) had died in a protection cell. Postmortem says he dies from heat attack. Yet, official report on his forensic autopsy is yet publicized.
Mr. B had been detained in the Detention House since 19 July 1996, to serve 2 months prison sentence for Road Traffic Law violation (drunken driving). At that time, the region was hit by heat wave. From July 21, he complained, "I feel all my energy left me as alcohol went away." On July 22, at night, he shouted out, "There are worms here!" "Let me out of here!", and banging and shaking the cell windows. Having shown some motion that looked like jumping at them, he was handcuffed by the guards, he was put into protection cell with both metal handcuffs and a leather handcuff. It happened around 9 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m. At 9 o'clock in the morning, July 24, a part-time prison doctor checked his condition. The prison authority did not provide him with psychiatrist check. Around 9 o'clock and 10 minutes at night, they released him from leather handcuff.
He was asleep and appeared to be OK around AM 1 o'clock and 20 minutes of July 25. After 10 minutes, a patrolling guard found him motionless, leaning against the wall. They fetched him to a hospital, only to be announced dead an hour later.
On his admission, the Hamada Detention House recognized he had alcoholic records. Behavior Check Record notes his syndromes since July 20 on, detailed observance since July 22 on in particular, are highly indicating the syndromes of recovery from alcoholism, so fatigued that he could not sleep nor have meals. The Prison Authority had known his conditions as such, but they not only neglected him for providing any appropriate medical help but also confining and leaving him to appalling conditions of protection cell, thus driving him to death with heat-stroke caused by the syndromes of recovery from alcoholism. This case is now filed against the government for compensation, against 7 Prison officials (including the Director himself) for public servant's violent homicide, and against that part-time doctor for professional negligent homicide.

Case 3. Fuchu Prison :Kevin case, Protection cell.

Kevin Niel Malla, an American male prisoner, had been in Fuchu Prison since March 1993. There is a regulation stating that prisoners must close their eyes before meals. In June 1993, Kevin's name was called and he opened his eyes. That was regarded as "resistance," and he received 10 days' solitary confinement as punishment.
Before the execution of this punishment, he was stripped and confined to a "protection cell" for two days. In this cell he was put in confinement clothes and a restraining belt for 20 hours. The restraining belt and metal handcuffs were very tight, to the extent that he had difficulty in breathing. While he was in the protection cell he was issued pants with a slit in the crotch, so that he could use the toilet without using his hands.
When Kevin was working in the prison factory on December 14, 1995, a prison officer warned him not to look outside the window. He apologized but the officer kept yelling at him. After the officer left, he murmured "crazy." Later Kevin was punished for this with 15 days of solitary confinement.
On February 13, 1996, Kevin scooped up some water in order to comb his kinky hair. This action was regarded as a violation of the prison rule barring prisoners from washing their hair at any time other than bathing. As a result, he was punished for 5 days.
In March 1996, Kevin sent a letter requesting the Japan Federation of Bar Associations to send him a lawyer to handle the preparation of his law suits challenging the arbitrary punishments in the prison. Because he sent this letter, the prison confined him to a strict solitary cell. He had been confined in a solitary cell, and is only allowed 30 minutes outside the cell for exercise two or three times a week and bathing two or three times a week. The window of the cell is covered by plastic, and it has insufficient sunlight and ventilation.
In July 2 Kevin filed a lawsuits demanding 10 million yen (about 70,000 US$) as compensation for the ill treatment he has suffered in Fuchu Prison.
Kevin had been transferred to Tokyo Immigration Center after serving his sentence in January 1998 and soon deported to US. His litigation is still going on at Tokyo district court.

Case 4. Fuchu Prison : Iranian prisoner B, ill treatment and use of protection cell

B, 32-year-old Iranian male prisoner, had been detained in Fuchu Prison since October 8, 1994 until January 28, 1997. On April 1, 1994, when B was taking a shower, another prisoner pushed him and then he pushed back him in return. The prison authority thought he is to be punished and investigated him. The senior officer said to him angrily "Iranians are all liars." He answered "Some Japanese are good, and others aren't. " They regarded his answer as "retort" and investigated him again.
Then he was sentenced to 10 days' minor solitary confinement in addition to prohibition of reading any books and papers for that period. At the moment of being sentenced, he failed to give a salute to an officer in Japanese style. The officers were outraged by his discourtesy and slapped him on the face. They both metal- and leather- handcuffed him and tightened a string of the leather-handcuff very strongly. They held him down on his back and covered his head with a cloth bag to make him blind. Then they kicked him on the back and the abdomen. Bahman had been leather-handcuffed tightly for 5 hours and then confined in a protective cell for 2 days. Leather-handcuffing gave him an aftereffect at his left leg and it still remains.
On May 14, 1994, when Bahman , under punishment at that time, brushed his teeth standing on his feet, the chief officer told him "why don't you sit on a special stool for punishment." He answered that "I'm brushing my teeth (therefore, it is allowed to stand now)." Then, surprisingly, the officer hit him on his left ear with his right fist very strongly. Afterwards he leather-handcuffed him and assaulted him again as he did in the first incident. Then Bahman had been leather-handcuffed for 9 hours and confined in a protective cell for 2 days. As a result pus oozed from the wound in his left ear continuously and difficulty in hearing still remains as an aftereffect.
On July 19, 1994, the officers assaulted, leather-handcuffed, and confined him in a protective cell without a good reason as they did in the second incident.
From December 1994 to February 1995, Bahman applied for permit to write to Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations in order to communicate these mistreatments to them, but the prison authority did not allow it. On February 27, 1995 he went on hunger strike for permit of dispatching a letter to the Commission on Human Rights. But on the next day he was confined in a protective cell. On March 1, only three days after he went on the strike, he was injected a certain medicine without any explanation and put food into his mouth forcibly.
From October 23, 1995 until July 15, 1996, totally about for 9 months, he had been confined in a special cell for the mentally disordered. His cell was located next to a really insane prisoner hitting himself on the wall, and talking to himself almost all day and night long without a break. The authority told him that he should be in a special cell because he had swallowed a razor. But that story is totally groundless.
He filed a lawsuit claiming \15,000,000 against Japanese government as compensation for these ill treatments.

Case 5. Chiba Prison: leather handcuff

K and T had been detained in Chiba Prison since 7 November 1990.

On 20 February 1991, K asked a prison guard the reason why prices of canned food had been raised. The guard didn't answered K's question, so K requested to prepare another opportunity to give him the answer. But instead of giving K the answer, the guard kicked K's left leg. K immediately protested against this violence, and then the guard holds K's head wildly and struck K's back against the wall. After that, the guard and his fellows lifted K and brought to the protection cell. In the cell, the guards put both metal handcuffs and leather handcuff on both his hands behind him. He was kept in handcuffs for 5 days and confined in the cell for 6 days.

On 29 March 1991, T was just walking along toward the ground with slightly dragging feet. But he was investigated by guards on the suspicion of "disobeying and using abusive language".
In the investigation the guard was happened to be kicked the desk he was sitting at. Then the guards turned him over on his face, kicked on his back, and put metal and leather handcuffs on both his hands behind him. He was confined for 5 days in the protection cell.

K and T filed a suit for damages to Chiba District Court, but the case went against them. They appealed to the Tokyo High Court. The High Court reversed the District Court's decision and decided that confinement of K and T in protection cells was not illegal, but putting metal and leather handcuffs on both their hands behind them was obviously over least restrictive means for custody which forced them to suffer not only physically but also mentally, and ordered the Government to pay 1,200,000yen for K and T. The Government didn't appeal to the Supreme Court, and the judgment became final.

Case 6. Chiba Prison : leather handcuff Mr. U case

Mr. has been detained in Chiba Prison since 17 August 1993. He was confined in the patient cell owing to diabetes, a chronic disease with him.
At about 8:40 am on 30 August 1993, When he was lying on the bed, one guard told him, seeing his head pointed to the opposite side against the rule, "Whatever is this? Point your head to the right side." Mr. A answered to the guard "I see", and rose on the bed in order to change the direction. At that time, the guard got angry at his answer called other guard shouting loudly.
Mr. A was held down by several guards and taken away to the investigation room. In the room, Mr. A was ordered by a guard to stand up. He tried to stand at attention, but could not stretch his fingers because of physical handicap. The guard ordered him to stretch the fingers, and gave his left hand a wring. Mr. A asked the guard, "Why do you strike me without any provocation?" Then, the guard called other guards. Mr. A was wrenched the arms and kicked by more than 10 guards in the room.
Moreover, about 10 guards took him to the protection cell, tore his clothes and put handcuffs and restraining belt on him. Then, the guards held his head down with their shoes on the concrete floor, and gave him a sprain on the forehead. Besides, the guards committed violence on him wrenching the left arm toward the back. As the result, Mr. A was seriously injured by the guards such as sprains on the forehead and the left forearms, bruises on the inside of right arm and right calf.
The court-appointed attorney revealed this case just after the violence owing to the interview. The attorney, as the representative of Mr. A, applied the preservation of evidence soon after the interview, and brought a suit for request of the compensation by the State and made a criminal complaint against the parties concerned, after his transference to Fuchu Prison. However, after that, Mr. A asked the attorney to withdraw the suit and the criminal complaint. When the attorney visited him in the prison, he only said, being nervous about the guard attending during interview, "I can't tell you anything now. Please imagine my painful heart." Inevitably, the attorney withdrew the suit and the criminal complaint according to Mr. A's demand.
After Mr. A came out of the prison in February 1996, the attorney was asked again by him to bring the suit for request of the compensation by the State and made the procedure on 7 March 1996.

5. Article 8

5-1. Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

(1) The monitoring of prison work by personnel of private companies

In their monitoring of prison work, do any personnel of private companies have direct control over convicted prisoners? If so, does this not constitute a violation of Article 8 of the ICCPR and Sub-Paragraph C, Paragraph 2, Article 2 of Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labor (ILO Convention No. 29)

(2) Prohibiting prisoners from taking their eyes off their work and engaging in conversation in prison workshops

In prison workshops, it is prohibited for prisoners to look away from their work to talk among themselves, and to talk to guards. Does such a practice not violate Article 8 prohibiting forced labor?

(3) Unpaid Labor

Prisoners receive approximately 3700 yen (approximately US$ 25.69 base on the exchange rate US$ 1=JPY 144) per month for their labor. Is this approximately 1 per cent of ordinary workers? Is such a system not a violation of Article 8? Is it possible for prison officers to confiscate prisoners' salaries (in whole or in part) as a form of punishment?

5-2. Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

(1) The authorities must review the monitoring of prison work by the personnel of private companies.

(2) The authorities should abolish excessively strict prison rules regarding prison working, such as prohibiting prisoners from looking away from their work or engaging in conversation.

(3) Prisoners should receive payment in proportion to his/her work; his/her salary should not be confiscated as a punitive measure.

5-3. Current Situation

(1) The involvement of private companies in prison work

Prison work is recognized as an acceptable form of labor in the ICCPR (Article8-3-c-i). However, if such labor is administered directly by private companies, it violates Article-2-C of the Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labor" (ILO Convention No. 29). Personnel private companies often give directions to prisoners in prison workshops.

The UN Congress has discussed the situation in Fuchu Prison as an example of such a practice. The views of the Government of Japan should be clarified regarding a possible violation of Article 8-3-a of ICCPR and Article 2-2-C of the Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labor (ILO No. 29)

(2) Excessive restriction imposed on prisoners while they are working

The government states in its report that "prison work is conducted in nearly the same way as at any company in the private sector in terms of work hours, work environment, work methods, etc" ((I) Prison Work, Treatment of Correctional Facilities, in the section under Article 10). However, in practice, prison work is not administered in this way.
Prisoners do not receive appropriate payment in proportion to their labor. Prisoners must raise their hand to ask permission before engaging in any activity that does not relate directly to their work. Even if a prisoner wants to pick up something only one-meter way, he/she must ask a guard for permission. Consultations, which are necessary for a prisoner's work, must be initiated in the same manner. Prisoners must also raise their hands for permission to go to the toilet. Even glancing away for a second or engaging in a word of conversation may lead to punishment. Prisoners are thus deprived of their autonomy and forced to work in a robotic fashion.
In August 1997, the Research and Training Institute (affiliated to the Ministry of Justice) published a report in which they conduct a survey of 769 prisoners who were due for release in April 1996. According to this report, the rules which prisoners found most difficult to follow or the rules which they most strongly wanted to change included the prohibition of conversation and looking away from one's work, restrictions on the frequency of use of the toilet, forced meditation, and restrictions on posture and movement in their cells.
Prison work is conducted under such strict rules provide prisoners with pain, and constitutes forced labor and inhuman treatment violating Articles 8 and 10 respectively.

(3) Labor without payment

The average payment a prisoner receives for his/her labor in a prison is 3,733 yen (as of 1996) a month, or approximately US$ 25.92 (base on the exchange rate US$ 1=JPY 144, the same rate is applied to figures hereafter). This falls short of the minimum payment of 5252 yen or approximately US$ 36.47, which is stipulated by regulation in Tokyo (in effect since October 1996).
Prisoners' salaries are clearly insufficient for paying compensation to the victims or for supporting their families life and their own life after their release. They do not have full access to their salary during their detention. The authority may confiscate their salary as part of a punitive measure. The average amount of payment a prisoner receives upon his/her release is 42,545 (as of 1996, approx. US$ 295.45). And yet in 1995 prisoners' labor generated a total of 12.7 billion yen (approx. US$ 88.2 million) for the national treasury. This means that income generated by a prisoner exceeded 300,000 yen (approx. US$ 2083.33). These figure means that prisoners receive virtually no payment for his/her labor. Such a system of employment constitutes forced labor in violation of Article 8.

6. Article 10-1

6-1. Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

(1) Solitary Confinement

Some pre-trial detainees, all death penalty prisoners some convicted prisoners are held in solitary confinement and deprived of human contact with other inmates. The Government should disclose the exact number of detainees who are held under such conditions and the average/maximum duration of solitary confinement.
Is even casual conversation between guards and detainees prohibited? Are there any cases of detainees contracting psychological disorders while being held in solitary? If so, could the Government disclose the kinds of symptoms and the number of people who have suffered in this way?
It is prohibited for detainees to lean on the wall or stretch their legs if they are held in solitary confinement through the day and night. What is the reason for imposing such restrictions on body movement?

(2)Lack of Outdoor Exercise

At detention houses and prisons, outdoor exercise is permitted two or three times a week and for periods of just 30 minutes. Does this not violate Article 10 of the ICCPR and Rule 21 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners?

(3) Lack of Heating

Since many detention facilities are not equipped with heaters, many detainees suffer from frostbite during the winter months. And even when cells are equipped with a heater, detainees have been forbidden from switching it on. What are the reasons for this? Surely such treatment constitutes a violation of Article 10?

(4) Insufficient Medical Care

The Government should clarify the number and substance of cases where detainees have sued for compensation on grounds of insufficient medical care. Could a prisoner's request for a medical examination be refused? Could a medical examination be conducted by a member of the medical staff who is not a qualified doctor?

(5) Cells without Windows

On what grounds and in which facilities may the windows of a cell be covered with a blind? Does the Government plan to reform this practice in the future?

(6) Forcing prisoners to march in a military fashion

When moving from one place to another in a prison, prisoners are forced to proceed in a military fashion. Why was this practice introduced?

(7) Guarantee of Translation for Foreigners in Detention.

Are foreign prisoners guaranteed a translation when being told about the regulations or forced to undergo punishment?

6-2. Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

(1) Solitary Confinement

We request that a pre-trial detainee should be able to spend the daytime with other prisoners who are not his/her accomplices. Solitary confinement should be imposed on sentenced prisoners only when necessary and for a limited period.
We also request that death penalty prisoners should be able to spend the daytime with other prisoners.
As for prisoners who are confined within solitary cells for day and night, extreme regulations such as forbidding them to lean against a wall or to stretch their legs should be abolished.

(2) Lack of Outdoor Exercise

Periods of outdoor exercise should be extended to at least one hour every day.

(3) Lack of Heaters

Detention facilities located in places, which are cold in the winter, should be equipped with heaters. These should be turned on when it is cold and prisoners should be given sufficient clothes and bedding to maintain health.

(4) Insufficient Medical Care

When a prisoner requests a medical examination, he/she should be allowed to undergo an examination by a doctor as soon as possible. We also request that the system be modified so that individual with health insurance is allowed to continue to use their health insurance while in prison.

(5) Cells without Windows

The practice of covering windows with blinds should be abolished. We also urge that cells in new facilities be constructed in such a way that prisoners can view the outside world.

(6) The Imposition of Military Marching upon Prisoners

When moving from one place to another, prisoners should not be forced to proceed in a military fashion.

(7) Guarantee of Translation for Foreigners in Facilities

Translation should be guaranteed to foreign detainees when they are announced of regulations, and when they are imposed in the process of punishment.

6-3. Current Situation

(1) Solitary Confinement

A particular characteristic of Japanese prisons is that many prisoners are placed in solitary confinement for 24 hours a day. Pre-trial detainees are placed in either single or communal cells. While inmates in communal cells may talk among themselves, it is forbidden for detainees in single cells to talk to the detainees in neighboring cells. Most prisoners work together in prison workshops during the daytime, but about 10% (exact number is not made public) of prisoners are placed in solitary confinement for 24 hours a day, because they are judged to be unsuited to working and living with others, This may be because they suffer from a mental disease or have a history of causing trouble with other inmates. It may also be because they have filed a suit for compensation against the prison authority. When detained in a single cell, prisoners are prohibited from walking around and lying down freely. They are also forced to be maintaining a particular sitting posture. If they break these rules, they may be punished. These conditions make the life of a detainee in a single cell worse than that of an animal in a zoo. In the case of Hiroshima Detention House, the detainee was punished only because he was reading newspaper with his elbow on a mattress in his cell. (See the case of Hiroshima Detention House).
Sentenced prisoners held in solitary confinement are not allowed to lean against the wall and must work alone sitting in a fixed position. Their work generally consists of making paper bags and similar products. Such strict restrictions on posture and movement may result in severe physical and psychological illness if they are maintained for a long period of time. Many prisoners who have been held in long-term solitary confinement have made complaints about lumbago.
A lawsuit is currently being brought against Asahikawa Prison where a prisoner was placed in solitary confinement for 13 years. (See the case of Isoe in Asahikawa Prison)
In Niigata Prison, a prisoner was asked to change his glasses because they were slightly tinted. When he refused, he was placed in strict solitary confinement for 1 year and 10 months until released from prison in March 1996.
All the death penalty prisoners are held in solitary confinement all day long. Some death prisoners used to be allowed to eat or pray together, but in February 1997 this treatment was abolished and now all death penalty prisoners are placed in complete solitary confinement. Moreover, the prohibition of conversations between guards and detainees exacerbates the feeling of solitude.
General Comment 20 (adopted 3/4/1992) states as follows: "(T)he Committee notes that prolonged solitary confinement of the detained or imprisoned person may amount to acts prohibited by article 7." It is clear that long time solitary confinement such as that mentioned above is a violation of Article 7 and 10.

(2) Outdoor Exercise

At detention centers and prisons, there are no exercise on Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays, or on rainy days, or on days when prisoners are allowed to bathe (twice a week in winter, three times a week in summer). As a result, the exercise is only possible on approximately 160 days a year. It is impossible for those, who are held in solitary confinement for over 200 days of the year, to go outdoors.
The duration of exercise is within 30 minutes, which includes walking to and from the exercise yard. According to the Rule 21 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners", every prisoner shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits. The current practice which amounts to less than a quarter of one hour exercise every day obviously violates this rule. (*See the case of the Masunaga).
The Tokyo Detention Center is planned to be reconstructed and will become high-rise building. According with the current plan, it is possible for detainees not to able to have the chance to touch the earth during the exercise time. This treatment violates Rule 21 of the "the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners".

(3) Lack of heaters, insufficient clothes and bedding to provide warmth

Except in the Hokkaido located in the far north area of Japan, a heating system in the cells of penal facilities do not work. In the case of the Nagoya Detention Center, reconstructed as a high-rise building, the heating system has not worked for many years. In facilities without a heating system and facilities with inoperative systems, detainees are not provided with sufficient clothes and bedding to cope with the winter cold. Although prisoners held in detention centers are allowed to use hot-water bottles or disposable pocket body-warmers, they have to pay for these items themselves. Many detainees suffer from chapped skin, chilblains, and neuralgia from the cold. In particular, the cold causes severe problems for foreign detainees who come from warm countries. In the above-mentioned questionnaire by the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, to the question: "What did you find difficult or painful about life in prison? ", 10.2 % of prison!
ers answered: "The extremes of heat and cold. Such conditions of detention (where physical illness is caused by a lack of heating) constitute a violation of Article 7.

(4) Insufficient Medical Care

Reportedly, some prisoners are troubled with bad health and have become dead due to insufficient medical care. On July 25, 1996, a prisoner died of heatstroke in a cell at the Hamada Branch of Matsue Prison in Shimane Prefecture. The extremely high temperature in the closed cell is thought to be the cause of death.
If prisoners ask for a medical examination, they are, at first, suspected of feigning illness. In many cases they are not treated until their disease has progressed too far for treatment. In the Questionnaires by the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, to the question: "What did you find difficult or painful life in prison", 5.5 % of the prisoners answered: "They didn't prescribe medicine to me." A person who was released from Asahikawa Prison still has to receive constant medical treatment as a result of insufficient medical care while in prison. In February 1993, prisoner was suffering from tubercular spinal caries in the prison, and complained of pains in the loins and the chest. However, he was suspected of feigning illness and the complaint was totally ignored. He became suffering with illness of consciousness on August 1993, and after then he has needed medical treatment still now.
It is very rare for a prisoner to be transported to an outside hospital at his/her request. On June 1997 the Hiroshima District Court decided that "In principle, the decision whether a detainee should be treated in a hospital outside the prison is at the discretion of the warden of the prison." regarding to the case where a prisoner complained of insufficient mental healthcare in the prison.
A pregnant Chinese woman, who was arrested for staying after her visa had expired, was taken by Ueno Police Station to a hospital without an obstetrics department. The hospital mistakenly diagnosed her condition as "acute gastritis." Accordingly, after being transported to Tokyo Detention Center, she was not given sufficient medical care. The final outcome was that she miscarried. (On March--April 1997) (* See also case in Tokushima Prison and Zhu case of miscarriage).
In addition, many cases have been reported which suggest that conditions of detention are worse in medical prisons than in ordinary prisons. (*See the case of the Jono Medical Prison).
Except for the periodic medical examinations, such as a dental check-up, prisoners have to pay for the treatment themselves. They can't use health insurance, so they need a large amount of money. Spectacles and false teeth, which are necessary for prisoners of advanced ages, cannot be obtained without prisoners paying for them out of their own pocket. These practices violate Article 10.

(5) Cells without Windows

There are a growing number of cases of prisoners being placed in solitary confinement for 24 hours a day in cells that have blinds on the windows so that prisoners cannot see outside. Although the Government Report states "Windows are large enough to permit inmates to read under natural light conditions", there are many cases in which windows are covered and prisoners cannot read by natural light. As described above, prisoners are subjected to severe restrictions concerning their posture in their cells. (Addressee the cases of the Hiroshima Detention House and of the Sawachi Window Suit)
Tokyo Detention Center, the largest among all of Japanese penal facilities, is currently under reconstruction. When this is completed in 2004, it will become a high-rise building, which consists of 12 stories above the ground and 2 levels of below the ground, accommodating total 3000 prisoners. According to the reconstruction plans, there will be corridors for patrol between detainees' cells and windows, so inmates will not be able to see the outside directly. Further, since most of parts of these windows are frosted glass; it will be extremely difficult for detainees to see outside at all.
In addition, the sports ground will be made of concrete with an artificial lawn for exercise. These features are likely to exacerbate prisoners' feelings of confinement and further restrict their contact with the world of nature and the outside world. This will have serious long-term psychological effects on the large number of prisoners who are detained in Tokyo Detention Center for periods of ten years or more.
Provisional cells were completed in 1997. In these facilities a patrol corridor runs outside each cell, and its outer windows are covered with a blind consisting of 16 white opaque slats. After the three Bar Associations in Tokyo called for reform, two of the 16 slats were removed, enabling prisoners to see the sky through the gap. It is almost impossible to see the outside landscape whether outside or inside the facilities. Further reforms and improvements are necessary.
Cells with such a closed structure violate Rule 11 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and detaining prisoners in such a cell violates Article 10.

(6) Military March

Prisoners are forced to march as if taking part in a military parade. This was Introduced to force prisoners to obey military-style rules, e.g. "Subject yourself absolutely to the commands of superior officers." This practice deprives prisoners of their sense of self and destroys their individuality. It therefore violates Article 10.

(7) Guarantee of Translation for Foreigners in Facilities

There are great communication problems between the penal authorities and foreign criminal detainees. Foreign detainees cannot understand Japanese and often cannot communicate with the authorities. Even if they can understand Japanese a little, most of them cannot comprehend the detail of criminal cases and the complex rules in detention facilities.
Although the state is obliged to provide translation services for every stage of a criminal investigation and a criminal hearing, there is no such obligation during the execution of a sentence. Thus, communication often breaks down between penal authorities and foreign detainees. When they are imprisoned, foreign detainees should be told of their rights and obligations and the rules of the facilities in a language they understand. It is also important to guarantee access to translation when detainees are punished for serious infringements of the rules.
The reality, however, is that the authority leaves the work of translation to those prison guards who can speak foreign languages or to those foreign detainees who can speak Japanese. Thus, foreign detainees are not provided with proper translations in terms of both quantity and quality.
There have been many cases where problems with communication have led to disciplinary punishment and violence by prison guards. For example, at Kurobane Prison, a foreign prisoner is reported to have gone on a hunger strike, after being refused the services of an interpreter during a punishment procedure. (*See the Saied case in Kurobane Prison). To foreigners interpretation should be guaranteed when being announced of the rules, and in the procedure of punishment.

Case 7. Zhou case, Miscarriage in Tokyo Detention House

On March 3, 1997, Zhou Bi Zhu, 35 years old Chinese woman, was arrested for overstaying her visa. Her physical condition was poor from the beginning, and 3 days after the arrest, on March 6, she vomited badly and confirmed that she was pregnant. The Police, however, took her to the hospital without a department of obstetrics and gynecology, and the doctor diagnosed her sickness as acute gastritis and gave her gastritis medicine. She finally managed to consult an obstetrician and gynecologist on March 17 and was diagnosed as seven weeks pregnant.
In a cell at the Police Station, for several consecutive days she vomited after eating and at its worst she vomited 10 times a day. Zhou thought she needed to take more nourishment for the fetus and asked to prison officers many times for some fruits, which she would not vomit, but they refused. She asked if she could have at least a glass of milk, but the officers refused it because it was against the regulations.
On March 26, Zhou consulted an obstetrician and gynecologist again. Though the doctor diagnosed her fetus as normal, she thought there was a danger of miscarriage because she had been bleeding from her genital area.
On April 2, she was transferred to Tokyo Detention House. Three days after from her transference, she developed a pain in her abdomen, which became unbearable and she felt as if half of her body was paralyzed. She asked to a prison officer on night duty for help. The officer, however, replied "There is no one here but night officers. Since it is Sunday tomorrow, you will have to wait until Monday to see a doctor."
But on Monday, it was not a doctor who came to examine her but a nurse. "Where does it hurt?" the nurse asked her through the window of the cell and She answered that she had pangs in the back and the abdomen. "That's because you slept too much," the nurse chastised her. Even though Zhou complained that she actually had a pain in her abdomen, the nurse turned a deaf ear to her words and deserted her. She kept waiting for a doctor hopefully, but none came.
It was not until 17 days later, on April 22, that she could see a doctor. The fetus was dead and the doctor said, "The baby was gone. Poor woman." The doctor's words left her with profound grief.
On June 20, 1997, Zhou filed a suit for damages with the Tokyo District Court against the Japanese government and the Tokyo Metropolitan government.
Zhou was sentenced to 2 years in prison with forced labor suspended for 3 years for overstaying her visa, and the day after she filed the suit, she was deported to her own country as part of enforced repatriation procedures.

Case 8. Solitary Confinement: Asahikawa Prison Yoichi ISOE case

Yoichi Isoe, a 55 year-old male prisoner serving a life sentence had been kept in solitary confinement since the day of his arrival in Asahikawa Prison, on September 3, 1982.The prison prohibited him from contacting other inmates. He was kept in total isolation. He works in his cell, exercises alone and bathes by himself. He can go out of the cell except when he goes for an exercise or bathing. The size of a solitary cell is 3.31 meters long, 1.63 meters wide and 2.55 meters high. He spends more than 23.5 hours a day in the cell.
He never spoke to anyone and is feared to be losing his faculty of speech. Because he is held in far away from his place of residence and his only blood relative, his mother is very old and has great difficulty traveling, he received only two family visits in 16 years. Three or four times a year a lawyer representing him in his ongoing suit visit him.
He filed a lawsuit against the Prison in December 1984. But the Prison authority repeatedly extend the three months solitary confinement every three-month. The reason of the extension is that "he cannot get along with other inmates"
In January 1995, at the fiftieth session of UN commission on human rights, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, Special Rapporteur on Torture, submitted the report. Isoe case was included in the report. In 23 October 1995 Isoe was suddenly moved to normal single cell. But he had been kept in solitary confinement for about 13 years. His lawsuits are still going on in Asahikawa District Court.

Case 9. A Death Row Prisoner Toshiaki MASUNAGA

Toshiaki MASUNAGA has been in Tokyo Detention House since 1975. In April 1987, the Supreme Court passed his death sentence verdict. He was renounced as a member of his natural family and was left in a state of human isolation. In 1982, he became the adopted child of Sumiko MASUNAGA, one of his supporters. Sumiko fostered a solid and trusting relationship with Toshiaki through numerous letters, visit and court hearing attendance.
However, in April 1987 when his death sentence was passed and his treatment as a death row prisoner began, Tokyo Detention House refused to grant permission for communications between him and his foster family.
At present, he is only permitted outside communications with his natural immediate family and with lawyers coordinating the retrial and civil suits.
Tokyo Detention House refused to grant permission of outgoing correspondences to him for the purpose of filing letters of redress to the UN Human Rights Commission. Claiming the fact that prison inmates in Japan suffered human rights violations by being limited to deficient outdoor physical exercise conducted only two to three times per week for 30 minute period, he made three attempts to send letter of redress to the UN Human Rights Commission. In response, Tokyo Detention House took an obdurate stance in repeatedly denying such a correspondence is sent.
He had attempted to send letters to a widely read newspaper in Japan specifically about problems concerning the death penalty system. However, the prison authority has prohibited him from this form of outgoing correspondence. The reason given was that he was not allowed communications with that newspaper.
Everyday, for almost 24 hours, he lived in total isolation in a cramped, dark, stuffy cell from where hi could not even gaze out at the world outside for very long. Every movement hi made was constantly being monitored by the camera in his cell.
He was completely isolated from all the other inmates. Even when taking baths or participating in outdoors physical exercise, he was completely alone. All death row prisoners are prohibited from participating in coffee meetings and television watching activities. They suppressed from any and all contact with people.

Case 10. Saeid case Iranian prisoner in Fuchu Prison

Mr. Saeid PILHVAR is an Iranian national, 27 year-old male prisoner.
The life of Saeid PILHVAR, an Iranian detainee in Fuchu Prison near Tokyo, is in great danger as a result of ill-treatment and lack of adequate medical attention.
Saeid PILHVAR was sentenced to six years' imprisonment of for robbery in 1995 by a Japanese court. In July 1997, Saeid PILHVAR went on hunger-strike after he was interrogated for having a "private conversation " at Kurobane Prison, Tochigi District. According to his lawyers, he breached the prison rule intentionally in order to seek a chance to meet high rank officials of the prison. That is, he thought he could meet them and talk to them in the punishment procedure. He wanted to tell the prison officials that his family in Iran was in financial difficulties because he could not send them money any more. However, during the tribunal of the punishment, he was not allowed to talk and they refused even to bring a translator.

The prison authorities reacted to Mr. Pilhvar's hunger strike by forcibly inserting an intravenous drip into his right leg. His leg apparently became severely swollen and painful, but the authorities disregarded Mr. Pilhvar's complaints and kept the drip in place for about two weeks. At the end of that period, his leg was numb. He became to be unable to walk and started using a wheel chair.

In August 1997, Mr. Pilhvar was transferred to Fuchu Prison in Tokyo, where he resumed his hunger strike, demanding access to a translator and an improvement in his conditions of detention. Then he was force fed with a drip inserted through his nose. However, he soon became unable to digest most of his food, and started vomiting. In October 1997, he was sent for six weeks to a prison hospital where his leg was treated. However, his malnutrition was not successfully treated. After his return to Fuchu Prison in December 1997, he continued to be unable to digest food, and can now only absorb liquids. According to lawyers who visited him in June 1998, his weight has dropped from about 78 kilograms (172 lb.) in 1995 to about 42 kg (92 lb.) now, (his height is 172 cm), a loss of some 45 % of his body weight. He appears to be at grave risk of dying if not given specialist treatment in a civilian hospital soon.

---

Background Information

(quoted from AI Index: ASA 22/01/98)

Conditions of detention in Japanese prisons are very harsh, and in many respects amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Medical treatment is often cursory. It is often difficult for inmates to obtain adequate medical treatment; very few complaints of ill-treatment have been upheld by courts. The Japanese Government regularly claims that treatment is adequate and accords with Japan's international obligations. However, patterns of ill-treatment remain, for Japanese as well as foreign detainees.

Case 11. Tokyo Detention House, Plastic panel of the cell window: Kazuo Sawachi

Mr. Kazuo Sawachi, detained in Tokyo detention House, is suing the State against violating his right to watch outside from his prison cell windows, which have special window screening. In May 1989, he was moved from a solitary cell of a new wing to another solitary cell on the ground floor of old wing called North 3rd Wing. In that wing, his windows were screened with wave-shaped plastic panel. From his former cell, he could watch flowers and tress in the yard, relieved and comforted with the outside scenery. But, in the North 3rd Wing, due to that screening, all he could see was only a glimpse of the bit of the soil and sky. In addition, he could enjoy less sunshine and wind in his new cell, causing him hot summer, and colder winter. Having been deprived of a look of outside the cell, he suffers more than before from his confinement nearly around-the-clock.
In April of 1991, he complained to the Director to take off the screening. In August, they cut 50 cm of the upper part of the screening. Yet, it made no change at all to let him watch the outside scenery from his cell windows. On April 6 of 1992, he filed a suit to Tokyo District Court demanding state compensation for damages inflicted by window screening. The defendant, the State, claimed the screening is not illegal, because the detainees would be able to talk with or exchange signs through windows with other detainees outside or in the playground, which would compromise detention objectives or internal order of the Center. The Court held the defendant claims, telling that the screening in question is necessary and reasonable device to achieve detention objectives, while pointing out "Generally speaking, it complies with international standard not to screen windows of detention center". Tokyo Higher Court held that judgment. So on May 26 of 1995; he put his case to the Supreme Court.

Case 12. Hiroshima Detention House: Y case

Mr. Y has been detained in Hiroshima Detention House since 5 November 1993. He had suffered from loss of the left hip-joint function, suffering from slight fever from the beginning of his detention. The Prison Authority recognized his handicap on the left hip-joint.
Around 3 in the afternoon of 12 December 1993, Mr. Y was sitting in his cell, leaning his back against the wall because of his physical handicap and ill condition. The guard on duty checked his sitting style as "not decent". Mr. Y gave his reason, with no avail, and his explanation was deemed "oral disobedience". He was put on "Reprimand Committee" and punished with minor solitary confinement for 10 days. Mr. Y sued the State for 1 million yen (about 7000 US$) compensation on September 8, 1994, to the Hiroshima District Court. However, he lost on 25 December 1996. The Court held imposing specific posture by the "Rules" is necessary as well as reasonable control, stressing on such a highly idealistic interests of keeping order of Prison and preventing detainees from suicide or self-inflicted injuries. "Measure to prevent suicide" by making detainees sit in the same spot with the same posture is nothing but convenience for patrolling guards. Detaining suspects is to prevent them from fleeing or destroying proofs. Furthermore, the sentence did not touch on whether that control infringes not only the Constitution. Mr. Y appealed Hiroshima High Court on January 7, 1997.

Case 13. Osaka Prison, insufficient medical care

Mr. A, whose sentence of imprisonment with labor had become final on 31/10/1991, had confined in Osaka Prison since January 1992. He had been suffered from "cirrhosis" and other disease and went out hospital many times during his trial. Despite of this situation of his health, the prison authority had not taken care of him sufficiently. The authority had merely carried out medical examinations like general persons, that is why the result of the examination in 1992 didn't have problem and Mr. A didn't complaint of his subject of symptom.
After that, on 11 July 1994, Mr. A vomited and complained of pain of his stomach. He was found out to get liver cell cancer after some examinations, so that he was transferred to the medical prison and treated for protect himself from cancer. However, he died on 23 August 1994.
It is the common knowledge in medical field that liver cancer is easily to break out when the condition of "cirrhosis" has kept for a long time. His family members filed a suit for state compensation and claimed it was the duty for the authority to carry out the examination for finding out the cancer earlier.
Regarding to the medical treatment in prison, the "Prison Law" provides that prisoner can choose his/her doctor of outside and be given appropriate medical treatment (article 42). Furthermore, it provides the authority has to confine and give treatment the prisoner suffered from disease in the medical prison (article 40).

7. Article 10-3.

7-1 Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

(1) Education Activities for Prisoners

What kind of education course can the prisoners take? Are they allowed to choose any courses whatever they want?
Regarding to "guidance prior to release" which the Government explained in the report, please provide more details concerning the statement that "these standards now being equally applied nationwide at all facilities".

(2) Support after Release

What kind of support are prisoners given regarding to employment and accommodation after they have been released?

(3) The Rights to Receiving a Pension

What kind of information on pensions do prison authorities give their inmates who will released at an advanced age?

7-2. Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

(1) Education Activity

Prisoners should be able to undergo educational activities according to their own interests and desires.

(2) Support after Release

We also request that sufficient support regarding employment and accommodation be given to prisoners who are released on the expiration of their term. There should be appropriate cooperation between the authorities of the institution and the probation division.

(3) The Right to Receive a Pension

We request the prisoners who will be released at an advanced age be given with sufficient information for about receiving his/her pension.

7-3 Current Situation

(1) Insufficient Education Program

Because there is a lack of variety of correspondence courses, prisoners cannot often follow the course they request. Only prisoners who show the potential to pass and obtain a license are allowed to take a course. This is because the prison authorities want to keep the pass-rate at a high level.
Although "guidance prior to release" is given to prisoners who are released on parole, it is hardly ever given to those prisoners who are released on the expiration of their term.

(2) Support after Release

After release on parole, prisoners continue to be supervised by the probation division or live in a Rehabilitation Aid Society. Therefore, they can receive support in their daily life. However, many prisoners who are released on the expiration of their term have reoffended since it is difficult for them to find employment and accommodation. Moreover, the small remuneration they receive for their work in prison means that their money runs out very quickly.
We request enough support regarding employment and accommodation to be provided for the prisoners who are released on the expiration of their term with better cooperation between the authorities of the institution and the probation division.

(3) Right of Receiving Annuity

Prisoners are not given information about how to obtain their pension. We know of cases where prisoners who have been released at an advanced age cannot receive their pension because they were not informed about the appropriate procedures during their term of imprisonment.
For example, Mr. Masao AKAHORI whose death sentence was finalized on December1960. The current pension system started in April 1961. However, Mr Akahori was not given any information about the pension system by the authorities of Miyagi Prison where he was detained. He therefore did not join the pension system. He is still unable to receive his pension despite his release in 1989 when he was acquitted of murder at his retrial. It is therefore essential that the prison authorities provide prisoners with clear and detailed information about the pension system.

8. Article 14 -1 para2

(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;

8-1 Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

(1) Communication with Counsel

Prison guards are present at meetings between prisoners (including death penalty prisoners) and their counsel. The guards monitor their conversation and make notes on what they say to each other. Furthermore, letters between prisoners and their counsel are censored by the prison authorities. These practices violate Article 10, 14-1, 3(b) and Principles 18-3 and 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

(2) Restrictions on the Quantity of Articles kept in Prison

Since 1997, a new rule has been enforced which restricts the quantity of articles a prisoner may keep in prison. Although this rule may be used to restrict the quantity of a prisoner's personal items, can it also be used to restrict the quantity of legal documents relating to a prisoner's criminal or civil trial?

(3) Prisoners' Rights to Appear in Court

When a prisoner brings a case, the prison authorities do not allow him/her to appear in court. Does this practice not violate Article 14-1?

(4) Due process for the Application of Disciplinary Punishment

Are the conditions for disciplinary punishment laid down in any laws or regulations?
Are the rights of the prisoner guaranteed during the procedure for disciplinary punishment (e.g. the right to be notified in writing of the reasons for the disciplinary punishment; the right to examine evidence and question witnesses; and the right to request counsel to represent him/her during the punishment procedure)?

8-2 Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

(1) Confidentiality of Communication with Counsel

The Government should abolish its practice of allowing prison guards to monitor meetings between prisoners and their counsel and censor their correspondence.

(2) New Rule for Restriction of Articles kept in prison

This rule should not be applied to documents concerning a prisoner's criminal or civil trial and should take into consideration the term of imprisonment of each prisoner.

(3) Prisoners' Rights to Appear in Court

When a prisoner brings a case, the prison authority should allow him/her to appear in court.

(4) Due process for the Application of Disciplinary Punishment The punishment procedure should guarantee the rights of the prisoner to be notified in writing of the reasons for disciplinary punishment; to examine the evidence and question witnesses; and to request counsel to represent him/her during the punishment procedure.
Prisoners should also have the right to appeal against the decision and against the form of punishment.

8-3 Current Situation

(1) Confidentiality of Communication with the Counsel

Pre-trial detainees can have private meetings with their counsel. However, when convicted prisoners or death penalty prisoners meet with their counsels in order to discuss appeals for judicial review and hearings for state compensation concerning alleged ill-treatment in prison, the officers of the prisons attend such meetings and make notes on their conversation. A further restriction is that the lengths of such meetings are limited to less than 30 minutes. In other words, when a prisoner is preparing a case against the detention authorities due to problems in the institution, the defendant is always present at meetings between the plaintiff and his/her representative and may read all their correspondence. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to realize an impartial tribunal.
During a case against Asahikawa Prison, the Head Judge recommended that the prison warden should not attend such meetings. However, this practice has continued. The same conditions apply to death penalty prisoners. (See the case of Mr. ISOE at Asashikawa Prison)
In a judgment of the Takamatsu District High Court of 25 Nov 1997 concerning a case for state compensation due to alleged human rights violations by prison guards, it was ruled illegal for a prison to limit meetings between a prisoner and his/her counsel to 30 minutes and to monitor the contents of the conversation. This judgment is epoch-making because it shows that provisions in the ICCPR have a direct impact on the domestic legal system. It also shows that both the "Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment" and case law from the European Court of Human Rights can be used as a reference for interpreting the ICCPR.
(See the case of Tokushima Prison)
All letters written to counsel by prisoners (including pre-trial detainees) are censored and parts of letters are sometimes deleted. These practices violate Article 14-1, 3(b) and Principle 18-3 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

(2) New rules which restrict the number of items a prisoner may possess in prison

Since 1 October 1997, by ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, a new rule has been enforced which restricts the quantity of articles that a prisoner may keep in prison. Prior to this date, there were no limitations on the quantity of articles that could be kept in prison. This ordinance restricts the quantity of possessions per prisoner according to the size and capacity of the institution. For instance, the standard is 98 liters at Nagoya Detention Center, 115 liters at Tokyo Detention Center, 150 liters at Osaka Detention Center, and 129 liters at Fuchu Prison. When a prisoner exceeds these standards he/she is prohibited from receiving articles from outside or from buying more articles. Therefore, many prisoners have been forced to throw away their possessions or send them back to their family.
The restrictions also apply to the quantity of documents pertaining to a prisoner's trial as well as books and materials for study; moreover, it is applied uniformly without taking into account the length of a prisoner's sentence. These practice are obstacle to the defense activity for prisoners in criminal and civil trial, therefore, violates Article 10, 14-1and3(b).
Furthermore, the kinds and quantity of private items that prisoners may keep in their cells are strictly limited. At Tokyo Detention Center, since November 1997, prisoner has only been allowed to keep a limited number of documents in their cells. For documents pertaining to a trial the limit is 2 meters (when piled up) and for other documents the limit is one meter. In particular, prisoners who are involved in a complex criminal case have great problems preparing their case because they do not have free access to all the necessary documents

(3) Rights to Appear in Court

When prisoners sue for state compensation on grounds of ill-treatment, they are generally not allowed to appear in court. This is also the case for prisoners who are called as a witness. Although those involved with the trial visit the institution where the plaintiff is detained, the hearing is not public. The conditions are particularly restrictive for death penalty prisoners.
These practices violate Article 14-1, which guarantees the right to be entitled to fair hearing.

(4) Due Process for the Application of Disciplinary Punishment

Rule 29 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provides that conduct constituting a disciplinary offense, the types and duration of punishment, which may be inflicted, and the authority competent to impose such punishment, shall always be provided by law or regulation of the competent administrative authority.
Article 30-1 also states that a prisoner is not to be punished except in accordance with the terms of such laws or regulations. Furthermore, Principle 30-1 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment requests that such laws or lawful regulations are duly published.
However, in Japan, provisions for disciplinary punishment are not listed as part of the Prison Law or the Prison Law Enforcement Regulations. They are only described in the "Handbook for Life in Prison". As stated in Section 4 (pertaining to article 7), these rules are not published. Prisoners who "answer back" to a prison officer ("kouben") can be given a disciplinary punishment regardless of the reason. Even if a prisoner asks an officer for an explanation of the reasons for an order, he/she can be accused of "kouben" and punished. Judges also tend to recognize this practice.
Although a "disciplinary punishment council" in the prison has to examine the case before imposing a punishment, this council consists of prison officers and the prisoner is only given a verbal explanation of the reasons for the punishment.
Moreover, the prisoner cannot examine the details of his/her case and is not guaranteed the right to call witnesses or appoint a counsel for his/her defense. These practices violate Article 14-3(b)(d)(e) of the ICCPR, which guarantee due process for the application of serious punishment. (See the case of Mr. Kevin)

Case 14. A Death Row Prisoner Yukio AJIMA

Yukio AJIMA whose death sentence had finalized on 05/27/1985 on charge of the murder was prohibited to communicate with his adoptive parents by the authority of Tokyo Detention House where he had detained. He had been adopted by Mr. and Ms. AJIMA after the sentence and both he and his adoptive parents requested the authority to meet and send letters.
Then, they filed a suit for state compensation to claim it was illegal not to permit correspondence with his family on 10/1988. However, on 1/12/1994, Yukio executed and then, on 13/12/1994, they failed in the case for the judgment that prohibition of their correspondence by the authority of Tokyo Detention Center was not illegal. Although the adoptive parents appealed to high court, they also failed. They have appealed to the Supreme Court but not been given the sentence yet.

Case 15. A Death Row Prisoner Nagata case

Ms Nagata was imprisoned in Tokyo Detention House in June 12, 1992 as a unconvicted prisoner. Ms A sent a copy of a letter in English into the prison. The letter was written by one of the international secretariat member of Amnesty International. The governor requested Nagata to pay the translation fee in June 16, according to the internal prison rules that the prison authority censor the letter in Japanese before they make a judgment whether they permit the prisoner to read it or not. However, because Nagata rejected to pay the fee, the governor forbids her to read it.

The letter is as follows:
Amnesty international INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, ---/ Mr. (name) (address) / Dear Mr. (name) / We have received the 240 copies of the "Plea for International Support to allow Nagata Hiroko to get Medical Treatment " which you sent us in January 1991, as well as several petitions from other sources in the following months. / We have discussed the case of Ms Nagata with medical doctors in the UK are supportive of Amnesty International's work and we understand they subsequently mate inquiries with the authorities about the medical condition of Ms Nagata. / Please let us know if there are any changes in her condition and in the medical treatment she is receiving.
Ms A and Ms Nagata took a lawsuit for the state compensation. The judgments of Tokyo District Court and Tokyo High Court said "there is no mistake in the governor's judgment." The Supreme Court supported those judgment and refused the appeal. Since now, the prisoner must pay the translation fee to the authority if he/she wants to read a letter in foreign language.

9. Article 17-1

9-1 Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

(1) Correspondence between prisoners and their friends or NGO

Is it violates Article 10 and 17 that prisoners are not allowed to meet or correspond with their friends and NGO members?

(2) Censorship of letters

What is the practical reason for censoring all of letters from and to prisoners?

(3) Meeting

Do you plan to permit meetings on Saturdays and on public holidays?

(4) Meeting and correspondence in a foreign language

Have there been cases where a prison has prevented a meeting between a foreign prisoner and a visitor because there are no guards in the prison who understand the language well enough to monitor the meeting? Have there been cases where a letter written in a foreign language did not reach a prisoner until very late because censoring of the letter was impossible in that institution?

9-2 Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

(1) Correspondence between prisoners and their friends or NGO

The current Prison Law should be amended so that prisoners, including death penalty prisoners, can meet and correspond with their friends and members of supporting NGOs.

(2) Censoring of letters

We request that the censoring of letters, books, pamphlets and other items sent or received by prisoners should be abolished. We further request that prisoners should not be forced to pay the translation charges incurred through the censoring of such materials by the institution.

(3) Meeting

We request that meetings on Saturdays, Sundays and other holidays be permitted and that prisoners be allowed to meet their visitors for a minimum of 30 minutes.

(4) Meeting and correspondence in foreign language

The practice of restricting meetings and correspondence in a foreign language because the prison authorities are unable to censor them should be abolished.

9-3 Current situation

(1) Correspondence between prisoners and their friends or NGO

Pre-trial detainees are allowed to meet with their friends. Sentenced prisoners and death penalty prisoners are not allowed to meet and correspond with friends or members of NGOs. Therefore, if the prisoner has no family he/she has no point of contact with the outside world. In the case of prisoners whose family members are living far away or in a foreign country, It is possible to correspond with them but impossible to meet them.
A death penalty prisoner is not allowed to meet anyone except close family members. Mr. Y, who was executed in December 1994, was not allowed to meet and correspond with the members of the family who had adopted him just before his death sentence was finalized . His adoptive parents only saw his dead body. (See the Case 11. AJIMA case p.31)
These strict restrictions on contact with the outside world are not only inhuman, they also hinder the rehabilitation of prisoners.

(2) Censoring of letters

Some problems have occurred resulting from the censoring of letters books, pamphlets and other items that prisoners send or receive. The kinds of newspaper prisoners can subscribe to are also limited because of strict censorship. Documents or letters written in a foreign language must be translated into Japanese at the expense of the prisoner before they are censored by a prison officer. (See the cases of Mr.MASUNAGA and Ms. NAGATA)
As a rule when events such as an escape from custody or articles concerning a prisoner appear in print, these parts are deleted during censoring. In the case of death penalty prisoners, anything concerning the execution of a death sentence is deleted in order to "ensure the prisoner's mental stability". However, in practice, these measures play no role in preventing escapes or ensuring a prisoner's mental stability. (See the case of Mr. ISOE )

(3) Meeting

Since April 1990 it has become completely impossible for prisoners to meet visitors on Saturdays. It has, therefore, become very difficult for people who work to visit a prison, particularly if they live a long way from the institution. It is therefore highly desirable to allow meetings on Saturdays, Sundays and other public holidays.
Although, in theory, meetings can last up to 30 minutes, in practice they have been limited to between five and ten minutes. It is up to each prison to decide how often and how many persons a prisoner is permitted to meet in one day. For example. Tokyo Detention Center has severely restricted such meetings to one meeting per prisoner per day, and no more than three visitors can come at one time. Therefore, a prisoner cannot meet friends or family members in the morning and afternoon of the same day.

(4) Meeting and correspondence in a foreign language

With the exception of English, Chinese and a few other languages available at some institutions, the language used between visitors (except for counsel) and foreign prisoners/pre-trial detainees at meetings is limited to Japanese. When correspondence is written in a foreign language, the authorities request a translation from the relevant embassy and then censor the translations. We have heard of many cases where there was a great delay between the sending and receiving of correspondence.
Efforts have been made to increase the availability of foreign languages within institutions. For example, a Division for International Issues has been established in Fuchu Prison. Information in foreign languages is very important for criminal detainees deprived of their liberty in a foreign country. However, in Japan there is a real lack of newspapers and books written in foreign languages.. Large prisons or detention centers have some English language newspapers and books but very few written in other languages; smaller prisons have very few books in any foreign language. In addition, foreign prisoners are not allowed to watch or listen to foreign language programs on the radio or on television.

10. Article 18

2." No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice."

10-1 Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

Have Islamic prisoners ever been forced to eat meals during Ramadan (they continue fast until sunset )?

10-2 Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

The religion of prisoners should be respected. For example, Islamic prisoners must not be forced to eat meals during Ramadan.

10-3 Current Situation

It has been reported that an Islamic prisoner in Tokyo Detention Center was forced to take liquid food during Ramadan by the insertion of a tube into his nose.

11. Article 19

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

11-1 Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

Is it permissible for a journalist to meet a prisoner for the purpose of gathering information?

11-2 Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

Meetings between journalists and prisoners for the purpose of gathering information should be permitted.

11-3 Current Situation

Meetings between journalists and prisoners (including pre-trial detainees) for the purpose of gathering information are not permitted. The warden of Tokyo Detention Center did not allow a magazine editor to interview a pre-trial detainee who had been sentenced to death and was waiting for an appeal hearing. Futhermore, Tokyo District Court ruled that this decision was not illegal.
This practice violates Article 19, which guarantees freedom of expression, and the right to seek, receive and impart information

12. Article 20-2

12-1 Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

What measures have been taken to prevent racial discrimination by prison guards?

12-2 Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

The Government should implement effective measures to prevent racially discriminatory words and behavior by prison guards. These should be based on Articles 4, 6 and 7 of " the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". In particular, appropriate human rights education for prison officers should be introduced.

12-3 Current Situation

Many cases of racial discrimination against foreign prisoners by prison guards continue to be reported. An Iranian national imprisoned in Fuchu Prison was told by a guard that "all Iranians are liars", and a Nigerian national detained in Tokyo Detention Center was called a "gorilla".
( See Case 12 p37 and Mr. Bahman in Fuchu Prison )

Case 16. Tokyo Detention House : Physical assault to foreign prisoners

Yahia Radwan Allam, a 27 year-old Egyptian, had been confined in Tokyo Detention House since June 1993. Radwan was confined in "special room" in November 1993 and in March 1994 as punishment for what guards called his "ill manners". As a result of the first confinement, he contracted a skin disease because the room was extremely filthy and unsanitary, containing a lot of insects and human filth. During the second confinement, about 15 guards and security staff members assaulted him, causing serious injuries and leaving him nearly deaf in his right ear.

C, a 28-year-old Nigerian, had been confined in Tokyo Detention House since February 1994. One day C protested that one blanket was not enough and asked a guard to bring another blanket for him as it was cold. Then, five guards came into his cell and beat him many times. And he was taken to the protection cell ,where he was stripped. In the cell the guards beat him and kicked him.
The guard in charge of C's block sometimes called him a gorilla. One day when C had lunch, the guard again called him a gorilla, which caused C to shout back "bakayaro"(This means a fool in Japanese.)
In 4 August 1994, C was ordered a punishment of minor solitary confinement. When he said he would not obey the order, he was taken to the protection cell and a group of guards repeatedly lifted up his body and dropped it on the floor, and then threw him against a wall. As a result, he chipped a tooth and his nose bled for about 10 hour. Bloody discharge from his right ear continued for about two weeks, sight in his left eye became blurred and he suffered from serious back pains.

Radwan and C filed lawsuits against the government on 1 November 1994 seeking a total of about 44 million yen. But they lose in 1997 because of the lack of evidence.
They appealed to Tokyo High Court.

13. Article 22

13-1 Question which the Committee is urged to ask the Government of Japan

Are prison officers guaranteed the right to form unions and other rights to protect their interests as laborers?

13-2 Measures that should be taken by the Government of Japan

Prison officers should be guaranteed the right to form unions and other rights to protect their interests as laborers.

13-3 Current Situation

Article 108-2-5 of National Public Service Law completely denies prison officers, police officers and officers of the Maritime Safety Agency the basic workers' rights to, for example, form a trade union and engage in collective bargaining. There is not a "prison officers union" in Japan.
There is a National Personnel Authority, which deals with issues such as the working conditions of government employees but it is not very effective. The practical conditions of work for prison officers are appalling and officers have made many complaints about working at night and job transfers. Article 22-2 of the ICCPR admits the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right. However, this does not include prison officers.
An ILO expert committee stated that, based on Article 9 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention (ILO Convention No. 87), fire fighters and prison officers should not be exempted from the right to form trade unions. The ILO report lists the countries, which do not allow the right of prison officers to form a union as Cameroon, Malaysia, Mexico , Nigeria , Pakistan , Sri Lanka , Swaziland and others .

Case 17. Suicide of prison staff

A prison officer, Mr. M, who left for the head of department for prisoners' treatment in Tottori Prison, died by hanging himself on 20/05/1998 at his residence. The chief of medical section of the prison carried out inquest without autopsy and reported he died caused "heart attack ( myocardial infarction )" .
Mr. M had worked as the head of the medical department of Hiroshima Detention House. After he moved to the current position, he often grumbled about his unfamiliar job for treatment of prisoners.
Recently, it is reported that the number of prison staffs who commit suicide has been more than that of prisoners. The cases of prisoners have been published by some media and reported inside of the authority and expressed the Ministry of Justice. On the other hand, the suicides of prison staff have not been reported officially.
Since some accidents such as escape and payoff scandal have happened between 1996-1997, the transfer of the prison staffs has been taken place periodically. The reason has been explained "for prevention from close relationship between staff and prisoner". Therefore, the staff's work has changed in the cycle of very short period.
Furthermore, because of examination which jobs will be proper for each staff, the all prison staffs have to be interviewed twice a year. At this time, they are checked the information regarding to their privacy.
For these reason as the above, staff always have taken care of not to offend his superior and their moral for their job sagged. These situation of the staff have given bad influence to the treatment of prisoners. The secrecy of facts about the staffs' human rights situation as the Mr. M's case, has hidden these important problems.

14. Conclusion