List of Issues:

1. The Legal Status of Detainees at Immigration Detention Centers and the Non-Disclosure of the Rules Regarding Their Treatment Have the regulations regarding the treatment of detainees at immigration detention centers been disclosed? Is the treatment of the detainees conducted in compliance with the regulations?
   
   
2. Physical/Sexual Violence by Immigration Officers against Detainees Have there been any reports of physical/sexual violence by immigration officers? If so, how did the authorities concerned respond to the incident(s)?
   
   
3. Solitary Confinement What is the purpose for maintaining isolation cells in immigration detention centers? In addition, please clarify how frequently isolation cells were used, and the amount of time detainees were held in isolation cells at detention centers during 1997. In addition, please clarify whether or not there are laws and regulations or internal notices concerning the specific standards for the use of isolation cells. Have there not been cases where isolation cells are utilized for punishment or as a warning against others?
   
   
4. Restraining Devices Please elaborate on the type and mechanism of restraining devices which are allowed to be used in immigration detention centers, and the criteria for the use of such devices, including leather handcuffs. Have there not been any cases where they were employed for punishment or as a warning against others?
   
   
5. Complaints about Treatment at Immigration Detention Centers Is there a system whereby complaints about treatment at immigration detention centers can be raised? If so, please elaborate on its content, the record of processed complaints, as well as the structure and function of the complaint review board.
   
   
6. Appeals against Detention Orders Is it possible to file an appeal in court against a detention order? If so, please provide the record for 1997 concerning the content of appeals and the subsequent judgement of the court.
   
   
7. The Period of Detention and Deportation of a Litigant Is there a limit on the period of time between the issuing of a deportation order and the carrying out of the deportation? Please provide the record for 1997 regarding the amount of time between the issuing of deportation orders and actual deportations, and the concrete reasons for long-term detentions before deportation. Is review by a court necessary in order to extend the period of detention?
   
   Has there been a case in which a person was deported while his/her suit seeking state compensation for maltreatment by immigration officers was still pending? Please provide the criteria of deportation of a litigant.

Background:

1. There is only one provision in the law concerning the treatment of detainees at immigration detention centers: Article 61-7 of the Immigration Control Act. The manner in which this provision is to be administered is described in the Regulations on the Treatment of Detainees, which are Justice Ministry regulations, and in the Detailed Regulations on Treatment of Detainees. The latter is a creation of the directors of immigration detention centers or local immigration bureaus, and its contents are not disclosed.
   
   This situation is problematic because 1) such regulations on civil liberties should as far as possible be provided for by law, not by mere memoranda written by the authorities, and 2) the disclosed provisions are limited to only one article of the Immigration Control Act and forty-five articles of the Regulations on the Treatment of Detainees, both of which are written in rather general and abstract terms.
   
   As the objectives of confinement under the Immigration Control Act are to prevent a detainee from fleeing and to secure his/her presence, the legal status of detainees at immigration facilities should be analogous to that of unconvicted prisoners under the Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated in Article 61-7 of the Immigration Control Act, as much freedom as possible should be given to detainees at immigration facilities. Therefore regulations that concern matters within immigration facilities should be limited only to management of the facilities. However, the current practice imposes regulations that go far beyond management of immigration facilities.
   
   
2. Cases of physical/sexual violence by immigration officers have been reported frequently. Some of the victims have testified that the violence was of a daily as well as a systematic nature.
   
   A Chinese woman filed a suit for compensation against the state, alleging that she sustained injuries on her face and other parts of her body during questioning at the Second Tokyo Immigration Bureau Building. In this case, the Immigration Bureau admitted to the violence that led up to her injury, and agreed to comply with an out-of-court settlement.
   
   The publication "Human Rights Violations Behind Closed Doors," which is compiled by the Immigration Review Task Force, has reported on collective abuse by immigration officers, sometimes by more than ten of them at one time. In one cited example, several officers punched and kicked a woman in her face, head, shoulders, and legs, while their colleagues, who were in the immediate vicinity, never attempted to stop them, but just stood by and watched. Sexual harassment and other sexual violence by immigration officers are also reported in the said publication as well as in the news media. For example, a female detainee filed a lawsuit alleging sexual abuse by immigration officers. There is also a case in which several female detainees jointly went on hunger-strike in protest of sexual harassment by immigration officers.
   
   
3. Solitary confinement cells are installed in the immigration detention centers. Article 18 of the Justice Ministry's Regulation for the Treatment of Detainees dictates that the use of the isolation cells be limited to cases in which a detainee acts in such a way as to violate the Penal Code, or when a detainee attempts suicide or self-mutilation.
   
   In practice, however, detainees who are placed in isolation cells include those who were not obedient to immigration officers, including those who would smoke cigarettes after the lights were put out at night. This fact indicates that the cells are used as a punishment or as a warning against others.
   
   The Immigration Bureau has refused to disclose either the specific criteria for the use of isolation cells or information on the actual use of the cells, thus leaving open the possibility that the cells are arbitrarily used by the immigration officers who are in immediate charge. There is testimony to the effect that a detainee was confined in an isolation cell for about one week with hands fastened to the bars of the cell by handcuffs.
   
   Information on the condition of isolation cells is limited because on-site investigations of the cells are almost never permitted. Still, it has been reported that the cells do not have windows or a ventilation system, and are placed just in front of a monitoring room for constant supervision. There is also a report that the toilet for isolated detainees has no partitions.
   
   
4. Article 19 of the Regulations for the Treatment of Detainees allows the use of restraining devices such as leather handcuffs, handcuffs, and rope, as a last resort to prevent a detainee from fleeing, committing suicide, or self mutilation. However, in practice, reports indicate that there are cases of the arbitrary use of restraining devices in order to punish detainees or to provide a warning to other detainees.
   
   Leather handcuffs, the use of which is permitted by the Regulations, take away free movement of the arms by tying them to the waste with a belt, and they also make it extremely difficult to move the upper body in any direction. Because of this, leather handcuffs fall into the category of "irons", whose use is prohibited under Paragraph 33 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Their use also breaches Article 7 of the Covenant.
   
   The Immigration Bureau has refused to disclose the criteria for the use of isolation cells and restraining devices, or a record of their use.
   
   
5. The Human Rights Committee's General Comment 7(16) on Article 7 of the Covenant states that the Article requires an effective supervisory organ as well as procedures and an organ to deal with complaints (See also Paragraph 33 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners).
   
   Regarding administrative complaints, in 1981 the Regulations for the Treatment of Detainees were amended, and a new measure was adopted to respond to complaints filed by detainees (Article 41). It provides that complaints from detainees must be reported to the head of the immigration detention center, and that the head of the immigration center must inform the detainee of the disposition of his/her complaint. However, in practice it appears that this system has not functioned effectively. Therefore, it is necessary to reform the present administrative complaint system so that it becomes a more effective system, and along with establishing legal remedies through civil, administrative, and judicial procedures, a monitoring organ must be established that is independent of the Immigration Bureau.
   
   
6. Orders of detention are issued by the chief investigating officer of the Immigration Bureau, and the courts do not participate at all in issuing such orders; that the detainee cannot receive the timely examination of a court regarding the legality of his/her detention does not meet the conditions of Article 9(4) of the Covenant.
   
   The Human Rights Committee's General Comment 8-1 on Article 9 of the Covenant states that Paragraph 1 of Article 9 is applicable to all deprivations of liberty in conjunction with mental illness, education, immigration, etc., and that Paragraph 4 of the Article is also applicable to all those who are deprived of liberty.
   
   In Japanese domestic law, court examinations under the Habeas Corpus Law and the Habeas Corpus Rule may be said to work as a safeguard of Paragraph 4 of Article 9, but they are not sufficient because the circumstances under which they may be used are limited: Article 2-1 of the Habeas Corps Law requires that claimants be "those who are detained without due legal process," and Article 4 of the Habeas Corps Rules limits the application of the rule only "to cases where the decision was made without due authority or with conspicuous contravention of designated procedures."
   
   
7. The authorities are allowed to detain a deportee when it is not possible to deport such a person immediately after a deportation order has been issued. However, in this case, unlike confinement under a detention order, the period of a deportee's detention is not limited by law. Detention orders are issued by a chief investigating officer of the Immigration Bureau, thus excluding the intervention of the courts in the process.
   
   In practice, due to the principle of self-funded exit, a deportee may be detained for a long period of time until he or she is able to afford travel expenses. There are many cases where deportees are confined for over six months. Some deportees have reportedly been held for over two years.
   
   It is necessary to limit the period of detention between the issuance and carrying out of deportation. In addition, the court should review every extension of detention.
   
   Finally, there was a case in which a person who was in the midst of filing a suit seeking compensation from the state for maltreatment by immigration officers during arrest and detention was suddenly deported. The basis for this sudden deportation has not been disclosed.