The fourth periodic report of Japanese Government submitted in accordance with Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was examined by the Human Rights Committee at its sixty fourth session, held on 28 and 29 October, 1998.
The Committee issued the Concluding Observations for the report on 6 November.
The Japanese Government sent a delegation of twenty-six bureaucrats for the examination.
Member of Japanese NGOs were also present. The Examination by the Committee usually extends over two sessions, in the morning and in the afternoon, but this time, the Committee allocated three and half sessions for the examination. This shows partly the high interests in the report by the Japanese Government and at the same time, due to Japanese interpretation, it required longer time period than usual.
Fifteen Japanese human rights NGOs had sent delegations to meetings of a working group and the main session, working on lobbying activities. From JCLU, Mr. Yoichi KITAMURA (a board member), Ms. Yoko HAYASHI (Secretary-General), and Ms. Noriko OSANAI (secretariat staff) were sent to Geneva.
At the examination of the third Report in 1993, Japanese NGOs’ lobbying activities toward the Members of the Committee were deemed excessive and counterproductive.
Reflecting on the last experience, NGOs in Tokyo area tried to coordinate by holding a prior meeting, exchanging information as well as organizing, joint meetings with members of the Committee. They also had consultations with the Japanese Government and Diet members.
In addition through the International Human Rights NGO Network, they issued a newsletter entitled “Watch! The Human Rights Committee” and published information on the examination of the Committee. In Geneva, after coordinating NGO's views on 13 October, they participated in a NGO's oral hearing upon the working group, in which two of eighteen members of Human Rights Committee took part. Furthermore, on 23, Japanese NGOs sponsored a lunch time briefing, which nine Members of the Committee joined, and on 26 October, it held a briefing session for the press. At the same period of time, there was a joint press conference by Diet members and NGOs in Tokyo.
At the examination of the Japanese Government’s Report, many Members of the Committee made comments on welcoming the participation of NGOs, and resultant positive comments were included in the Concluding Observations. The JCLU’s Alternate-Report to the Committee, which included model questions and their background information on 30 items, was widely utilized.
Especially, in regard to those issues on the rights of the child, women (labor issues,and the waiting period for re-marriage), information disclosure, a problem of wiretapping and the law on terrorism, members of the Committee made comments following the model questions.
The Concluding Observations issued on 6 November include 29 item of concern and recommendations, which is more than the double of the former observations on 12 items. In the part of “major concern and recommendations”, it starts with expressing concern of not implementing the major part of the former recommendation.
While raising the issues that were pointed out last time, the Observations include recommendations on training judges about the ICCPR establishment of the domestic human rights commission, eradication of violence against women,discrimination against women in regard to marriage (prohibition of the waiting period for re-marriage).
Ten Japanese NGOs and members of the Committee on Human Rights participated in the NGOs’s briefing session held on 13 October. Two members who took part in the meeting were Mr. Bhagwati(India) and Elshafi (Egypt). Ms. Hayashi and Ms. Osanai joined the meeting from JCLU, and Ms. Hayashi made an oral presentation.
Firstly, a representative from the JFBA (Japan Federation of Bar Association ) Expressed its gratitude to the work of the Committee on behalf of Japanese NGOs, followed by presentation on the human rights situation in Japan.
He informed that Japanese government ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and in 1998, it made a move toward the eradication of fingerprinting imposed on foreigners. In addition, it was reported that the government plans to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, an indication of a certain progress on human rights situations after the last examination.
However, it was also pointed out that many issues remained, and NGO jointly made preparation for the present examination of the report.
It was particularly mentioned that Koreans residents in Japan, drafted during the Second World War face discrimination in terms of pensions, which had not been remedied through the judicial procedure, and this indicated that the Japanese courts are reluctant to take positive steps against violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(Several NGOs made comments upon this matter.).
Furthermore, JFBA criticized then there is no prosper for the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and expressed its hope that such unresolved issues as “Daiyo Kangoku”, the rights of detainees, and discrimination against women would be taken up by the Committee.
Other NGOs which made statements are as follows
At the end of the briefing, with the introduction of the alternate report prepared by JCLU, I made the following statement.
As for the validity of the ICCPR under the Japanese domestic law, the Government’s report states that the provisions are identical with ones under Japanese Constitution, which makes it unnecessary to identify the violation of the Covenant.
However, this misunderstands the Covenant’s interpretation as well as validity. An opportunity should be given to judges to study International Human Rights documents, including the International Human Rights Covenants. After the examination of the third report, there was no improvement in this matter is accordance with recommendations.
In particular, in regard to the draft of revised civil law submitted by government’s legislative council, it had not been presented to the Diet as a government’s bill despite the support of many women’s organizations and civic groups.
I myself attended this working group, and Ms. Osanai observed the examination of the government report.
The most strong impression I received from the concluding observations was that the rights of women and children held a center of attention along with the issues of the last examination, i.e. that of detainees, capital punishment, minority. In particular, focus was on issues of sexual violence, such as rape, domestic violence, prostitution and pornography.
I also had a fresh impression as a member of the Committee took up the issue of forced sterilization, which no NGO mentioned. I felt strongly that women’s rights, especially the right of self-control on sex constitute a mainstream of the human rights discourse.
Under the auspices of twelve NGO that submitted alternate reports to the Human Rights, a lunchtime briefing meeting was held on 23 October. Nine out of eighteen HRC members participated the briefing. I attended the meeting as an observer from JCLU and also served as the chair.
Firstly, the chairperson described the process of NGOs’ coordination over several months, and a press conference was held in Tokyo on the same day. She showed a period of positive evaluation on the list of issued which included many issues on the rights of women and Korean residents in Japan. After the introduction, each organization made five-minute presentation then moved to discussion.
JCLU prepared a comprehensive alternate report and, based upon the list of issues that serve as basis for “constructive dialogue” between the Committee and the Japanese government, explained on items, which were not covered by other organizations.
They were as follows:
Despite a report by the legislative council, the government did not bring a bill born out of wedlock to the Diet ostensibly for reasons of lack of public support.
In the list of issues, it was stated as “de fact” revision of the Labor Standard Law. It was concerned that due to the revision, expected to be in effect in April 1999, labor conditions of women may worsen.
As for the Equal Employment Opportunities Law, already enacted, but de fact discrimination continues. The Japanese Government has to make further efforts, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The Government gave reason of “independence of judiciary”, as an explanation of non-ratification of the Optional Protocol. There are many states which ratified Optional Protocol without unpromising the judicial independence.
The Committee is required to pose a question on the particular circumstances of Japan.
Furthermore, JCLU made an explanation on mental health review and publicity of information.
Receiving these NGOs report, members posed various questions such as the revision on the Labor Standard Law, an issue on returnees of guilty sentences through confession, the current situation of the use of “Daiyo Kangoku”, which the Japanese government gave a material reason due to the limited capacity for detention, and the positive efforts by the government after the previous examination.
The interests shown by Members were quite high, and in the examination, based upon information given at this briefing, many questions were posed to the government. For example Ms. Medina Quiroga used exact expressions such as “Ippannshoku” and “Sogoshoku” (terms meaning gender based wage discrimination), which were used in the JCLU’s alternate report. Mr. Bhagwati questioned “independence of judiciary” in regard to the ratification of the Optional Protocol. As for the concluding observations, I believe that my presentation on this issue at the briefing meeting had played a certain effect.
At the lunchtime briefing meeting, sandwiches and soft drinks were served. It cost five Swiss francs for each organization to cover the fee for members of the Committee. This is quite simple lunch, but this is sufficient when reflecting upon the fact that the absolute poverty is one of the key issues for the United Nations. Negative impression would be given if NGO offers more than that.
Seeking “effective lobbying ways”, the lunchtime briefing was indeed a climax for the coordinating activities among NGO initiated in June. It was positively evaluated, its validity was confirmed, and furthermore, a sentence was inserted welcoming the participation of NGOs in the Concluding Observations. Efforts by those concerned should be appreciated and the further task is to find a better use of this knowledge and skills.
The another would on editing the alternate reports, during her stay in Geneva from 12 till 30 October, and acquired valuable experiences there.
I would like to express my appreciation to those who made contributions against their busy schedule, volunteers of translation as well as proof reading, and those who gave financial support for this mission. NGO activities in Geneva were strongly supported by Ms. Atsuko TANAKA of IMADR. I would like to express my gratitude to her too.
An examination of the fourth periodic report of the Japanese government was held on 28 and 29 October. It was firstly reported that the examination would one day, but due to the extensive questions, the examination continued until the afternoon of the second day.
In the beginning, Ambassador Akao made an opening remark, followed by the comprehensive by Mr. Kaitani, a chief of Human Rights and Refugees Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs based upon the list of issues submitted to the government by the Committee beforehand.
The government, however explained that the issues on the eradication of discrimination in inheritance against extramarital children, or the eradication of capital punishment were not required by the Covenant.
Members gave questions upon the report, and they showed doubts the government’s news on the treatment of extramarital children and condemned criminals. In addition the issues on “Daiyo Kangoku”, taken up since the second report, was also mentioned.
JCLU raised issues on refugee determination, the protection of privately owned information, wiretapping by state agencies, law preventing terrorism, and Members also touch upon these issues. In particular, issues on rights of children, procedure for forced hospitalization of mentally disordered, were raised by members.
Furthermore, when, taking by the issue of the Ainus, Mr. Yalden (Canada) mentioned “As described in the report by the JCLU”, clearly referring to the report of the JCLU.
Alternate reports from NGOs were piled up on tables of Members of the Committee. It seems that Members mainly referred to counter report prepared by JCLU and JFBA. By attending the examination, I felt the positive contribution of JCLU’s report toward the activities of the Committee.
After the Questions by the Commuter members, the government responded to them. Officials from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, National Police Agency, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labor, and Ministry of Education, those ministries related to the provisions of the Covenant take the floor. These responses were far from straightforward. As for the issue of extramarital children, many Members were not satisfied with an explanation given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and regardless of their news that this is a clear violation of the Covenant, an official of Ministry of Justice repeated the identical explanation to that of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Members gave additional questions to the government because they are not satisfied with the initial response to it. New answers should be given were a new questions. Repeating the same answer is not only is counterproductive but were it shuts out an otherwise constructive dialogue.
Some members even mentioned that one feels “deja vu” facing the fact that the recommendation five years ago had not been implemented, and one had to repeat the same questions.
If Japanese Government keeps this attitude, there would be further irritation within the Human Rights Committee.
Japanese government’s official response to the issue of ratification of the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant was that she has to examine the relationship with “the independence of judiciary”. When one sees the attitude of Japanese government, which keeps ignoring the recommendations, one tends to think that the main reason was that the government does not wish to be bound by the interpretation by the Committee. (Regardless the ratification of the Optional Protocol, interpretation by the Committee shall be respected therefore such attitude itself is to be blamed.)
Despite such an attitude by the Japanese government, the examination by the Committee was held intensively and sincerely. When the Japanese government referred to public opinion in an attempt to show that the current Japanese situation did not violate the Covenant, a Member of the Committee promptly pointed out that “the validly of the Covenant shall not be afflict by the result of such a survey”, which gave me a strong impression. Through attending the examination, I reflected on the bases on human rights and concluded that the foundation of human rights is not changing public opinion but human rights are there for those who are social minorities.