JCLU drafted and announced a " Domestic Violence Prohibition Law" and made an appeal to recline public comments on August 2, 2000. JCLU expected many and wide variety of comments which can promote legislation.
Having been awarded a grant aid from Gushin-Kai Foundation, JCLU established a project to draft DV Prohibition Law on August 1999 and pointed out the main issues as "Intermediate Report" on January 2000. Subsequently, the project members proceeded with studies and discussions of the issue and made a draft of concrete provisions.
Compared with former drafts announced by other groups, characteristic point of JCLU draft is the definition of Domestic Violence, which shall be limited to the violence between; 1) married couple including common law marriage; 2) past married couple; and 3) gay couple living together at the past or present, from the view point that DV is a violence occurred under the relation in which unbalanced power between male and female is existing.
Another essential point of the draft is Protection Order by a family court as a judicial relief system for DV victims. Differed with "Stalking Prohibition Law" legislated by recent Diet, under which an Administration Order by the police may restrict freedom of action of private individuals, JCLU draft of DV Prohibition Law is characterized that the decision to restrict assailant freedom is given by judicial procedure.
Raising the public comments (opinions from general public) is the manner recently employed under the Administration Procedure Law to listen to citizen's opinion to Government presented bill. As an NGO, JCLU is positive to adopt such means in order to collect broad and various comments within and out of the organization.
The Draft of DV Prohibition Law was announced by means of press conference and also published on the JCLU Web-site (Japanese).
On August 2, 2000, The project members held the press conference at two places, one is at the Judicial press Club and the other is at the Bar Association Hall, Bengoshi Kaikan, inviting journalists who specialized family women's issues.
At the conference, questions were focused to the system of "Protection Order" and " Temporary Protection Order". Most of all persons concerned with DV problems such as a volunteer in a shelter, lawyer and scholar, have a consensus that Protection Order and Temporary Protection Order by judge subject to criminal penalty is necessary and indispensable for preventing violence and keeping victim's safety. JCLU draft includes such Protection Order, Temporary Protection Order and criminal penalty for a violation against such orders, and expected influence to the bill to be submitted in the Diet.
The press conference was reported by YOMIURI, ASAHI, KANAGAWA and other papers with notable headlines such as " Original Draft by a citizen's group "(ASAHI), " Create a Stir - criminal penalty in civil case" (YOMIURI). Additionally, on the end of August, TV News Program introduced the draft with interviewing Ms. Hayashi, JCLU Director. Having successful announcements, JCLU received meaningful comments and questions from DV victims, lawyers and other various people concerned with DV problems. class="footer"[Jinken Shinbun, September 26, 2000, No.326]
After receiving significant comments and opinions, the discussion in the project team has been advanced and remaining issues are focused to two points. First point is the Jurisdiction of the Protection Order and Temporary Protection Order. The second is criminal penalty to an assailant violating Protection Order or Temporary Protection Order.
As to the first point, JCLU draft appealed that the Family Court should have the jurisdiction of both Protection Order and Temporary Protection Order, because it is superior to District Court to investigate the fact and analyzing the circumstances of the victims and assailants, and able to treat sensitive problems such as childcare and victim's mental issue. But from the view point of human right of assailant, Family Court procedure is inferior to the District Court where the cross examination is guaranteed.
The Second Point is relating to the principal of " nulla peona sine lege", the principal of legality. According to such principal, the action which constitute crime and its penalty should be definitely specified under the law. The discussion is criminal action such as "violation of Protective Order" could be enough specified under the law to give a prospect to every person. If not and it was deemed as specified by Judge, such penalty is against the principal of legality. The project members discussed and concluded that JCLU draft presented some specific pattern of order and such order could be clear enough to specify the act to be punished.
In 2001, the non-partisan members of the Diet are making efforts to realize the "Domestic Violence Prohibition Law" with spurring public opinion that we should immediately have DVPL really effective for DV eradication.