With its long-time commitment and expertise in the area of human rights, the JCLU has taken up the issue of human rights of foreigners as one of the projects for its 50th anniversary, to be celebrated in November 1997. "White Paper of Human Rights of Foreigners in Japan," as the JCLU report is temporarily titled, will be published in October 1997. In preparation, the JCLU has held a lecture series exploring about various problems facing foreigners in Japan.
The first half of the session was a report on deportation procedure by Mr. Tadanori Onitsuka, a member of a group studying problems of immigration control. In 1995, deported foreigners numbered approximately 5,500. Illegal or inappropriate actions taken by immigration control officers are found at every stage of the deportation procedure, beginning with the initial physical restraint of the foreigner without having asked for the presentation of a passport, and ranging from actions taken during the arrest itself to the examination of the foreigner's objections to being arrested.
The period of physical restraint is limited by law to sixty days before a deportation order is issued. However, there is no limit to the detention period once the order is issued. In some cases, restraint will last up to one or two years due to the general rule requiring self-paying exit.
Facilities and treatment at immigration centers have various problems. When a center is crowded, as many as twenty persons are put together in a single cell of 26.4 square meters. Mattresses are sanitized only twice a year. Blankets are unsanitary, covered with hair and dust from previous users. An isolation cell, used for punishment, is five square meters without windows and is used to detain people under 24-hour surveillance. There have been cases in which a detainee was isolated in the cell for fifteen days while being handcuffed behind his back all the time, even at meals. Assault and injury by immigration control officers have continuously been reported.
Since the Ministry of Justice has been moving toward the amendment of the Immigration Control Law, his group sent the Ministry a paper at the end of 1995 making demands for institutional reform.
In the free discussion following Mr. Onitsuka's report, the opinion was expressed that this problem should be further addressed by an international organization. In addition, it was suggested that an opinion report be written up, based on clear legal grounds found in international human rights instruments and comparative studies of foreign laws.
In the second half of the session, Mr. Shoji Yanagawa reported on criminal procedure concerning newcomers (foreigners other than permanent residents and refugees). The number of criminal cases involving newcomers has increased sharply since around 1990, and various problems for foreigners have arisen due to 1) differences in customs and legal consciousness, 2) foreigners' lack of familiarity with Japanese criminal procedures, and 3) Japanese criminal laws that are not intended for foreigners, etc.
The number of interpreters available to foreigners involved in criminal cases has increased considerably in the Tokyo area. Nevertheless, since interpreters with good reputations remain limited and in high demand, it is difficult for these interpreters to find time in their schedules to attend out-of-court sessions with detainees or prisoners. Though interpretation in court and during investigations by police and prosecutors should be conducted by different interpreters, even in Tokyo a court interpreter is sometimes not available for pre-indictment detention hearings. Thus, in court foreigners must work with interpreters provided by prosecutors.
At the moment, neither the court nor bar associations have set up explicit standards regarding the qualification of interpreters and their behavioral code (including confidentiality). There must be clear standards for people put in such an important role.
In the case of forged passport with real name unknown, the criminal procedure holds that the identification of the accused is admissible by means of a photo attached to an indictment. While identification at the court is this simple, it is not the case with immigration control. Those who have had their sentences suspended and have been sent to an immigration center are sometimes detained there for long periods of time because their form of identification does not satisfactorily determine their nationality and other characteristics required by immigration control. This problem is caused by a criminal procedure that does not presuppose a situation in which identification of nationality matters. People accused of having overstayed their visas who are released on bail are to be detained at an immigration center. As the immigration office is considered to have no obligation to make the accused appear in court, a prosecutor's assistant must go all the way to the center with a writ of production to receive the accused. All these problems and inefficiencies are caused by the lack of coordination between the criminal and immigration control procedures.
While international instruments provide for advanced protection of the human rights of detainees, the significance of these international protections seems little appreciated in Japan. In court, defense counsels' claims -- when based on the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights -- are often dismissed due to the court's conventional interpretation of international law. As the court's understanding of international human rights law seems seriously lacking, high expectations are placed on the shoulders of scholars to formulate decent theses aimed at raising awareness among judges and other concerned parties.
Mr. Takayama reported on the ever-present shortcomings of the medical care system for foreigners in Japan. The situation is most serious for those who have recently immigrated (newcomers), or who do not hold residency status. For example, in 1990 the application of the livelihood protection system -- which guarantees a minimum standard of living -- was abolished for foreigners who do not have residency status. The Ministry of Health and Welfare abolished this 36-year-old custom by simply having its unit chief give a speech regarding the decision.
Attorney Menjo introduced a case of a foreign woman who gave birth to a child with a Japanese father and was denied access to national health insurance by a local government. Though her marriage to a Japanese man and her registration as a foreigner were valid, the local government did not grant the insurance merely because she did not hold residency status.
Mr. Hatade summarized and analyzed the labor difficulties facing foreign workers in Japan in the last 10 years. He pointed out that the large difference in wages, income, and demand for labor between Japan and the countries of foreign workers create acute structural problems. Noting that South Korea has started offering partial amnesty to "illegal migrant workers," Mr. Hatade suggested that Japan also consider instituting this measure.
Women's House Sala was established in 1992 as a shelter for foreign women. Some of its founding members were directly involved in rescuing a Thai woman who escaped trafficking in 1991. The organization's office and shelter are now located on the premises of a Christian church, and the group is funded by membership fees and public assistance.
The shelter was started as a refuge for foreign women, the majority of whom were Thai, who survived trafficking and abuse by their employers and customers. These days, Ms. Fukushima remarked, the majority of the clients of Sala has shifted to women and their children, who fled abusive Japanese husbands or partners.
Mr. Abe is a member of the Refugee Studies Forum, which in August 1996 submitted "A Proposition for the Improvement of the Procedures of Granting Refugee Status," a compilation of its study from 1994 - 1995. The Forum, composed of experts in the field including Professor Shigeki Miyazaki of Meiji University, sent the proposition directly to the Prime Minister and the Immigration Office of the Ministry of Justice.
In the lecture, Mr. Abe elaborated on problems with the granting process. He noted the underfunctioning of officers in charge of asylum seekers and the legally ambiguous status of the Advisory Committee to Grant Refugee Status, which is practically the final authority in granting refugee status.
On a more positive note, Mr. Abe reported that the Ministry of Justice has given careful consideration to the Forum's studies and proposals.
Mr. Ebashi summed up the implications of the partial deregulation of foreign workers since the beginning of the 1980s, and the measures taken by activists during that time. He pointed out that factors such as the diversification of residence qualifications and the increase of foreign residents have resulted in the sudden appearance of a variety of problems. To tackle these problems, victims and NGOs initiated actions and mobilized, first, liberal local governments, and then, the national government. The movement resulted in the formation of networks. He further indicated that the problem now being confronted was the need for reconstructuring concepts of human rights to replace former notions of national rights vs. human rights.
Mr. Tanaka began his report by indicating his reservations about the situation in the Japanese academic world, where research in nationality law falls within the domain of lawyers specializing in international private law, instead of specialists in public law. He went on to outline developments from the postwar period, when problems with nationality and naturalization arose from measures taken to deal with people from the former colonies, to more recent events such as the rebellion among "Koreans with Japanese nationality". At the root of the human rights situation of newcomers today, he pointed out, were various problems with the "oldcomers." In particular, Japanese authority's traditional conception of nationality as being proof of loyalty to a nation has caused the country's closed policy over nationality.
The meeting began with a report on education from Mr. Shigeto Aramaki. He focused on problems arising in the study of education and the law in Japan. Debate on the right to education, he pointed out, has been focused on that of Japanese nationals. The problem of foreigners' rights to education has been dealt with only in terms of the ethnic education of Koreans and North Koreans living in Japan, which has brought with it both advantages and problems. He also emphasized the need for changes in both the Constitution and basic education laws, based on rights to education included in international human rights instruments.
Attorney Ms. Mie Fujimoto gave a report on the rights of foreigners' children, based on several years' research carried out by the JCLU Foreigners' Rights Committee. Behind the recent prominence of the problem of foreign children's rights, she said, was the increasing tendency toward permanent residence. Guarantees to these children's rights, centering on nationality acquisition and residence, have become even more important than they were in the past.
Mr. Menjo reported that both in terms of the system and in actuality, resident qualifications for foreign spouses was gradually progressing toward the real establishment of rights to residence. He went on to bring forward the problem of an amnesty (or legalization) for so-called "illegal foreign workers".
Mr. Niwa gave a report on the actual situation of the movement in Kansai, which was quite different from the situation in the Kanto region. Centering on the activities of RINK (a Kansai network which protects the rights of all foreign workers and their families), he talked about various subjects, including the results of negotiations with the administration and the immigration authorities since 1990, and efforts made in collaboration with minorities (historically outcast population and Korean residents) and migrant workers.