2003.5.2
"The Government submitted the Human Rights Protection Bill to the Diet in March 2002 in order to introduce a drastic reform of the current human rights protection system. The bill prohibits human rights violation[s] such as discrimination or ill treatment including gender discrimination or sexual harassment, and provides for the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, an independent administrative commission, and a new human rights remedy system to be operated mainly by the Commission. The new mechanism is designed to provide proper and prompt redress for and effective prevention of damages caused by human rights violations." (The Fifth Periodic Report P20)
The Human Rights Protection Bill referred to in the Government Report has the following problems.
The Bill regards human rights violations by public officials as almost the same as those of private citizens. It limits the range of human rights infringements by public officials (i.e. discrimination and physical abuse) that are subject to the Special Remedy of the Commission. Furthermore, public authorities are not obliged to obey orders issued as Special Remedies by the Commission in the Bill. The Bill merely imposes the same fine to public authorities as to private citizens.
According to the Bill, The Minister of Justice holds its jurisdiction over the National Human Rights Commission, and the Commission is placed as an external organ of the Ministry of Justice.
On the other hand, The Ministry holds Immigration Bureau and Correction Bureau which often causes human rights infringements against women, to be subject to the Commission, such as physical abuse in the Immigration Center and Detention Facilities. The UN Special Rapporteur on The Question of Torture also warns of severe inhuman treatment against asylum seekers in his brand new report submitted to Commission on Human Rights in April 2003 (See 'Background'.) So if the Ministry of Justice administrates the Commission, the Commission's fairness to these cases caused by its parent organization will be damaged.
There is no clear definition on composition and employment of the secretariat of the Commission that is responsible for actual work, so it is possible that the secretariat may be occupied by government officials.
Taking into consideration the aforementioned insufficient remedy for cases caused by public authorities, the Commission under this bill will not be independent from the government when it examines government-involved cases.
The Bill totally excludes discrimination against women in the field of employment and labour conditions from the authority of the Commission, and entrusts it to the Minister of Health and Welfare. This actually means preserving the status-quo, and there will be no special measures built into this field. The Dispute Adjustment Commission, the organ engaged in remedies under the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, is the institution that addresses conflicts of interest; it is an unsuitable remedy for human rights infringements. Such 'burden sharing' between ministries is meaningless to women facing real discrimination. The Commission also should hold its authority in this field as long as there are no barriers to do so.
As outlined above, the current bill has limitations in its effectiveness. Therefore, the bill does not provide effective remedies stipulated by Article 2(c) of the Convention.
The bill prohibits and targets a wide range of infringements based on race, lineage, disability, etc., as well as sex. As for discrimination against women, it is prohibited to: explicitly discriminatorily treat, insult, harass, abuse and sexually abuse on the grounds of sex. Damages caused by these acts are subject to remedies by the Commission.
The Commission can provide counselling, help in obtaining legal aid for victims, and raising awareness and guidance for perpetrators.
In some case, the Commission can make special inquiry (request for appearance and submission of related documents, inspection under entrance), conciliation, mediation, recommendation and involvement in legal proceedings.
One who does not obey the Commission's request for special inquiry is fined less than 300,000 JPY (about $2,500).
1. Male Personnel's Entrance into Detention House for Women
Male Personnel routinely patrol female detainee sections of Detention Houses. Some of them enter into the sections while detainees are taking a bath. In some detention facilities, scenes of a detainee's evacuation can be watched by patrolling personnel and this really happened with male personnel.
2. Rejection of Medical Treatment for Detainee Resulted to Miscarriage
A Chinese woman, arrested for her overstay in 1997, noticed her pregnancy after her arrest. She could not take the regular meals, so she asked police for fruits and milk during her detention in a substitute prison ('Daiyo Kangoku'), but was rejected. After she was moved to Tokyo Detention House, she had pain and bleeding from her abdomen. She repeatedly asked for medical treatment by a doctor. This was rejected by detention personnel. As a result she miscarried.
3. Report of UN Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Theo van Boven
In its report (E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1) the Rapporteur reports and warns of inhumane treatment of asylum seekers by immigration authorities. The report cites some testimonies revealing physical abuse as normal in Immigration Center and Land Prevention Facilities in international airports.