Human Rights Forum 21
Representative: Kinhide Mushakoji
Secretary-General: Koshi Yamazaki

At its plenary session today, the House of Councilors decided to carry the draft Human Rights Protection Bill over to the next session. No substantial discussions were conducted on the draft Bill during the current confused regular Diet session, and the draft will be up for deliberations again in the next extraordinary session.
There are numerous human rights violations in Japan, such as discrimination in employment or marriage against Buraku people, Ainu people, or foreigners, child abuse, domestic violence, discrimination against disabled persons, etc. Countries are beginning to set up human rights remedies organizations, independent from the government, to provide "inexpensive, simple, swift" and effective remedies to victims of such violations. Establishment of a "human rights committee" and enactment of an "anti-discrimination law," which would provide the legal framework of its activities is a matter of urgency for Japan. The draft Human Rights Protection Bill is a first step towards a new system of human rights protection law.
The committee envisaged by the draft, however, involves fundamental problems shown below, and therefore requires drastic amendments.

1. The draft Bill does not ensure the organizational independence of the committee.
The committee would be an agency of the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry's Civil Liberties Bureau will be restructured into the committee secretariat, which will be staffed by Ministry officials. We cannot, therefore, expect adequate remedies for victims of human rights violations by public authority, which occur in facilities under the jurisdiction of the Ministry, such as prisons and detention and immigration facilities.

2. The draft Bill establishes a committee only at the center, and none in other areas.
There is almost no room for local governments to be involved in the remedies procedures of the human rights committee. According to the draft, the District Legal Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice will act as the regional secretariat of the committee. The committee's work is likely to be centralized, and such a system is incompatible with the current call for promotion of decentralization, or the actual situation regarding human rights issues, which arise often within the daily lives of people, from a background of the local characteristics, customs and history. Effective solution of such issues requires human rights committees in all prefectures and designated cities, with independent authorities to provide remedies.

3. The draft Bill minimizes the seriousness of human rights violations by public authority.
The procedures for investigation and remedies in the draft Bill are the same for human rights violations between individuals, and those by public authority. Violations by public authority, however, are characterized by power relations and intransparency, and are of a different nature to violations among generally equal individuals. Special investigation and remedies procedures for administrative organs, such as powers for unconditional site inspections at detention centers for the committee, are necessary. Procedures for both violations should be provided for separately, as a matter of legislative structure as well.

4. Human rights violations by the media should be excluded from the provisions for special remedies, which grant large authority for recommendation and publication to the committee.
The draft's standards for violations of privacy and excessive coverage are unclear, and the risk of unnecessary pressure on the media based on an arbitrary decision by the committee cannot be excluded.

5. The draft Bill places the current Civil Liberties Volunteers system, almost unchanged, under the committee.
The Civil Liberties Volunteers system, however, has not won the trust of the citizens, and is not fulfilling its role of providing human rights remedies effectively. The system requires drastic reforms, such as lowering the average age of the volunteers, improving the gender balance, strengthening the training system, and enhancing the quality of the volunteers.

6. The committee's authority for policy proposal is inadequate.
The draft provides for the committee's right to submit its opinions to the Prime Minister and the Diet. For the committee to become truly independent of the government, however, the draft should explicitly stipulate a clear authority of the committee to submit policy proposals, and accountability and duty to respond on the side of the head of the administrative organ or the Diet, to which the proposal is addressed.

The above indicates the major problems in the current draft Bill. The draft must be radically amended at the next Diet session. Human Rights Forum 21 will propose the direction towards a radical reform of the Human Rights Protection Bill later this month.