List of Issues:

1. Legislative, Bureaucratic, and Judicial Practice
   
   

   Please elaborate on measures taken and specific achievements of the Japanese government concerning the correction of discrimination against children born out of wedlock that exists in the legal system, bureaucracy, and society. Have there been any measures taken, including legal reform, in response to the Committee's 1993 recommendation to amend discriminatory legislation and practices regarding birth registration forms, the family register, and the right to inheritance for children born out of wedlock (paragraphs 11 and 17)? What future action planned? Please elaborate on court decisions on children born out of wedlock that have been handed down after the Committee's recommendation.
   
   

2. Discrimination in Inheritance
   
   

   The Japanese government states in its Report that it "is considering legal reform, which would equalize the statutory share in succession of an illegitimate child with that of a legitimate child." When will the reform be implemented? In parallel with the reform, are there plans for amendments in other areas?
   
   The Government Report states that, based on a 1996 opinion survey, "it is difficult to say that public consensus has been reached on the reform of the [current] system" of the unequal statutory shares of inheritance for "legitimate" children and "illegitimate" children. Please elaborate on the efforts made by the Japanese government after the Committee's recommendation in 1993 to advocate to Japanese society elimination of discrimination against children born out of wedlock. Is the Japanese government considering improving its role and responsibility in changing discriminatory conditions and seeing that the people do not discriminate against children born out of wedlock?

Background:

1. 
   
   Å@
   1. Birth Registration, Family Register
      
      

      In Japan, a birth registration form requires an entry of either "legitimate" or "illegitimate", and the distinction is recorded in the person's identification document. The status of children born out of wedlock has been explicitly differentiated as "illegitimate," intensifying the people's discriminatory mind-set against them. The Census Registration Law stipulates different entries to describe the relationship with the head of the family register between children born in wedlock and out of wedlock. The former is recorded "first son" or "second daughter," etc., while the latter is simply documented as "male" or "female," so that an "illegitimate" child be distinguished at a single glance.
      
      This type of discriminatory entry regarding the relationship between parent and child was deleted from residents' cards by a directive of March 1995 issued by the Home Affairs Ministry. However, such discriminatory entries still remain in birth registration forms and family registers. Unless the father acknowledges him/her while he/she was a fetus, a child born out of wedlock is deemed fatherless, and the law does not allow an entry to be made of the father's name or even for the father to be recorded on the form as the person registering the birth. If one refuses to enter "illegitimate," or if the biological father tries to enter himself as the person who is registering the birth, the birth registration form will not be accepted. Therefore the name of the child is not registered and he/she will not be able to have a resident's card (directive of the Home Affairs Ministry). There are children who do not have a resident's card throughout the country because of the authority's rejection of their birth registration form. These children are denied even a passport because those without a family register have no proof of their nationality (from the point of view of the Justice Ministry and the Foreign Affairs Ministry.) The Justice Ministry, while maintaining discrimination in birth registration, does not disclose, even to the child or to the child's guardians, the documents it sends to the local authorities that explain the reasons for its having decided to accept or reject the child's birth registration form, making it impossible to learn upon what grounds the decision was made to accept or reject the birth registration form.
      
      

   2. Child Welfare Allowance
      
      

      In the case of child welfare allowance, which is provided for children under 18 years of age in low-income single-mother households, it is only those who have out-of-wedlock children who are required to submit written evidence of their particular situation. By investigating the family's association with the child's father the requirement of written evidence places restrictions on the household. Until very recently, if the father acknowledged the child in any way the child welfare allowance would be cut off, regardless of whether or not the father did in fact provide any support for the family. This practice was finally reformed in August of 1998, but the requirement of written evidence for low-income single-mother families continues even after it was partially amended in June of 1998.
      
      

   3. Inheritance Share
      
      

      The Civil Code still maintains that the statutory share of inheritance for a child born out of wedlock shall be one-half that of a child born to a legally married couple (Article 900, Paragraph 4). This provision constitutes a basis for the discriminatory entry of a relationship under the Census Registration Law. The Japanese government has argued that this provision is necessary place value on legal marriage. However, there are no reasonable grounds to justify this discrimination thus the provision is an explicit violation of the Covenant.
      
      The Committee on the Rights of the Child also expressed its concern about Article 900, Paragraph 4 of the Civil Code and other discriminatory practice in its concluding observations of June 1998. The Committee is particularly concerned about legal provisions explicitly permitting discrimination, such as article 900(4) of the Civil Code which prescribes that the right to inheritance of a child born out of wedlock shall be half that of a child born within a marriage, and about mention of birth out of wedlock in official documents (paragraph 14). It also presented suggestions and recommendations as follows: "In particular, legislative measures should be introduced to correct existing discrimination of children born out of wedlock (paragraph 35)."
      
      

   4. Court Judgements
      
      

      Several court judgments have been handed down concerning children born out of wedlock after the Committee's recommendation of 1993. In March 1995, the Tokyo High Court ruled that it is illegal that the residence document requires the entry of a relationship that is discriminatory against children born out of wedlock. However, it rejected a claim for state compensation by holding that the public officers who were in charge of this entry were free of fault as they were in compliance with a directive of the national government. Concerning the Civil Code (Article 900, Paragraph 4), the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court held it constitutional in July 1995. The Covenant and other human rights instruments were not sufficiently appreciated by the Supreme Court, and an opportunity to rectify inheritance discrimination against children born out of wedlock was missed.
      
      The Japanese government should actively encourage the Diet, the law-making organ, to make an amendment to the Civil Code and the Census Registration Law that stipulates discriminatory inheritance. The Japanese government should also work on rectifying the following practices for which legislative reform is not necessary: -- Discrimination against children born out-of-wedlock concerning the registration of birth. Registration of names should be conducted immediately for those whose birth registration form was rejected; -- The invasion of privacy of single mother households who apply for child welfare allowance.
      
      

2. Based upon a report by the Legislative Council, the Japanese government issued a reform plan in 1979 to rectify discrimination against children born out of wedlock concerning the statutory share of inheritance. However, when the Civil Code Reform Bill was submitted to the Diet in 1980 the only thing that was missing from the 1979 plan was the reform of Article 900 paragraph 4. The government explained at that time that in light of the public opinion it was too early for reform. The Government Report also refers to the national consensus by employing an opinion survey of 1996. However, as pointed out by members of the Committee at the last review of 1993, it is responsibility of the Japanese government to rectify discriminatory thinking in society against out-of-wedlock children. The government, however, has not made active efforts to either publicize the Committee's 1993 recommendation to the general public and legal personnel, or to advance human rights education and legal reform in order to eradicate discrimination against children born out of wedlock. It is the government's attitude that is a problem as it justifies its inaction over legal reform by employing the public opinion. The government should also disclose the fact that despite the Legislative Council again issued a reform plan including the eradication of discrimination against children born out of wedlock in 1996, there are many lawmakers who object to the reform, thus the reform bill has not been brought to the Diet.