TAGUSARI Maiko

Forum 90 is a Tokyo-based civic organization established after the 
Second Protocol of ICCPR had been adopted in 1989. I joined the group in 
Oct.1992, when I was a student of the law faculty. Several months later, 
3 people were executed after a 40 months' suspension. Since then, the 
Ministry of Justice has continued to authorize executions twice a year.

In Dec.1994, 2 death-row inmates were executed. One of them was Yukio 
Ajima. He didn't have a family. But shortly before his sentence was 
carried out, he was adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Ajima, both of whom were 
active anti-death penalty activists. After the conviction, the Tokyo 
Detention Center, where Yukio was detained, prohibited communications 
between the adopted son and his parents. The couple and Yukio filed a 
lawsuit with Tokyo District Court demanding compensation for the 
prohibition. Five years later the court ended examination of the 
evidence, but it failed to set a date for the ruling.  A year passed. It 
was during this waiting period that Yukio was executed. Only twelve days 
after the execution, the court rejected the request, saying the 
prohibition was reasonable.

On the very day of the execution, the couple was asked by a detention 
center official whether they would receive the body of Yukio. " It was 
the first time that the detention center authority treated us as Yukio's 
parents," they said. Since Yukio was a Christian, they took his body to 
a church, and held his funeral. I attended the funeral and 'met' Yukio 
for the first time there. There was a photo taken in his young days --- 
and he was smiling in the picture. When I saw him, I couldn't keep from 
crying. I didn't know him beforehand at all, but I mourned his death. No 
one should be able to say that 'You are a person who is not worth 
keeping alive.'  This experience is the root of my involvement in anti-
death penalty activities. 

Four months after Yukio's execution, I started to practice law and 
became one of the couple's attorneys, since the Ajimas had appealed to 
the Tokyo High Court. At the same time I got to handle death penalty 
cases as a criminal lawyer. Currently I am in charge of 6 death penalty 
cases.  Three of them are retrial cases (to be exact, we are requesting 
the opening of retrials), one is in preparation for requesting a 
retrial, and the other two are pending  before the Tokyo High Court and 
the Supreme Court. The High Court case will make its decision on June 
28.

Since March 1993, the Ministry of Justice has executed 39 death-row 
inmates, including a 70-year-old man, a person who had a serious mental 
disease, and a man who was only 19 when he committed crimes which led to 
capital punishment. In particular, after the Tokyo Subway gas attack, 
which is alleged to have been committed by the Aum Shinrikyo cult, 
demands for harsh punishment of criminals has escalated, and more and 
more people have been sentenced to death.  As of today, there are 55 
convicted death-row inmates in Japan. This is one of the highest levels 
in decades. Quite a few lawyers are in favor of the death penalty under 
this circumstance. Recently, a committee of the Japan Federation of Bar 
Associations, which is in charge of criminal affairs, made a statement 
that JFBA should not indicate a specific direction concerning resort to 
the death penalty, because people's opinions are seriously divided.

On the other hand, few lawyers devote themselves to capital punishment 
cases. In Japan, almost all criminals are considered 'guilty.'  
Therefore, it is quite common that defense counsels argue only on the 
basis of a criminal's circumstances and never challenge the facts shown 
in the indictment. Even a really serious crime, which typically lends 
itself to sensationalist reporting by the media, doesn't draw much 
attention once the district court has made a decision on it. Once that 
happens, the enthusiasm of defense counsels declines.  One of the main 
reasons is that in an appellate court examination of new evidence, so 
many restrictions apply that it is nearly impossible for defendants to 
overturn the original decision. Moreover, an accused person is not 
allowed to appear in the Supreme Court, because that court only examines 
the records of lower courts. The Supreme Court officials say that 
defense counsels don't have to visit their clients in detention centers 
because all they need to do is to examine documentary evidence and other 
written records. Thus, a number of capital punishment sentences became 
final.

After the sentences have been confirmed, death-row prisoners are 
basically prohibited from communicating with people outside except for 
their immediate family and attorneys. Even family members might be 
refused if the detention center authority regards the communication as 
inappropriate for the mental stability of prisoners, as happened in 
Ajima's case. Meetings  not only with family members but also with 
attorneys are monitored and limited to 30 minutes. Under such 
conditions, it's nearly impossible to defend our clients competently.

In detention centers death-row prisoners are not allowed to see any 
other prisoners. They are completely isolated.

The lack of notification concerning time of execution is another 
problem. Death-row prisoners are notified of their execution only 30 to 
40 minutes before the execution time. Of course their family or 
attorneys are never notified before the execution. There is no means to 
contest the legitimacy of the executions prior to its taking place. 
Seeking retrials is a de facto means to escape executions. Criminal 
Procedure Law says that only the loss of consciousness or pregnancy are 
permissible reasons for a stay of execution, whereas no prisoner who has 
been in the midst of a retrial procedure has been executed for nearly a 
half-century. Therefore the number of prisoners who file actions for 
retrial has increased, so that now half of the 55 death-row prisoners 
are seeking retrial.

However, in 1999, Teruo Ono, who was seeking retrial, was executed. 
Before that he had filed for a retrial several times and each time had 
been rejected. Just a few days before the execution he got an attorney 
for the case, and the attorney submitted documents to the court that 
offered detailed reasons for a retrial. Right after that, Ono was 
executed. After the execution, the attorney received a letter from Ono, 
saying that he was delighted to hear the news of the submission of the 
document.

The Ministry of Justice says that it is possible to execute prisoners 
who are seeking retrials if they have repeatedly filed similar requests 
that have already been rejected. Had that thinking always prevailed, Mr. 
Sakae Menda, who made six requests for a retrial and finally was found 
not guilty, wouldn't be here in Strausbourg with us today.

Now, death-row prisoners in Japan awake every morning fearful of being 
executed. The situations surrounding them are definitely inhuman.  But 
most lawyers in Japan don't know of such practices or, if they know, 
don't confront them. They have just about given up on reform efforts 
because of the conservative attitude of courts. In 1998, the Japan 
Federation of Bar Association issued an official letter to the Prime 
Minister, demanding suspension of current illegal executions, which are 
totally incompatible with the ICCPR. But we have not received any 
response to this letter.

Currently, a very limited number of lawyers is tackling retrial cases, 
trying to stop executions. In fact, conditions for reopening retrial are 
very limited; we are required to submit 'new and clear evidence.' Under 
these circumstances, few lawyers are making efforts to reopen trials. 
For example, prisoners in famous cases in which they are claiming 
completely innocence may get attorneys, because ordinary people support 
these prisoners. But in most cases it's extremely difficult to find 
attorneys with whom prisoners can simply consult. In retrial cases, 
there is no court-appointed lawyer system; one lawyer has to handle 
several cases without any reward.

The severe problem we now face is that most legal professionals in Japan 
don't recognize the cruel, inhuman circumstanceds surrounding death-row 
prisoners.  Therefore, we want your co-operation in notifying our 
colleagues, including judges and prosecutors, of human rights violations 
of those confined in isolation cells.

We admit our struggle needs much effort. But please allow me to say that 
recognition that we're wrong or need to undertake reforms often stems 
from comparison of Japan and other judicial systems. Unfortunately, the 
Japanese people still lack an understanding of the full meaning of 
"human rights." But the current situation demands that we move quickly 
to achieve the abolition of the death penalty. I look forward to 
cooperating with European friends and joining the front line of the 
abolition of death penalty.