www.debito.org

JAPAN'S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD
Correspondence between the Government of Japan (GOJ) and the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
1999-2004
Reports and Counter-Reports on how Japan deals with domestic issues of discrimination.
(Compiled by ARUDOU Debito, naturalized Japanese citizen and resident of Hokkaido, Japan)
(First made public June 20, 2003)

This website contains the following information (click to page down):


INTRODUCTION: By website author ARUDOU Debito

1) JAPAN'S FIRST AND SECOND PERIODICAL REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS (1999),
2) THE UN'S RESPONSE (March 2001), AND JAPAN'S RESPONSE (October 2001) (interspliced for ease of reading)
3) EXCERPTED RESPONSES FROM DOMESTIC HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS TO JAPAN'S 2001 RESPONSE (2001)

4) ADDITIONAL LINK: CCPR Committee Report (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/79/Add.102 19 November 1998): UN scolds Japan: "human rights standards are not determined by popularity polls".

Japan also essentially states that the CERD does not cover anyone within Japan, as ethnic minorities who are citizens are the same race as Japanese, while foreigners, while racially different, are not citizens, therefore unentitiled the same protections. Page down to that section.


Note: The GOJ has not responded to any domestic counter-reports under Item 3 above. Moreover, even though signatories are obligated to report every two years or so, Japan has still not submitted its periodic reports to the CERD or the CCPR Committees on domestic human rights, both due 2002, to this day (June 2003).


Introduction by ARUDOU Debito, website author

Japan has a very mixed record on human rights, especially towards ethnic minorities, non-citizens, and other people born of distinction within its society. The Government of Japan (GOJ) signed The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979, then the UN's International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1995 (effected January 14, 1996). Under the CERD, Japan promised to take measures (including legislation) at all levels of government to eliminate racial discrimination "without delay". Despite this, Japan to this day remains the only developed country without any form of a law at any level outlawing discrimination by race.

Japan officially maintains (see below) that its legal system provides adequate protection against and redress for racial discrimination, therefore a specific law against it is unnecessary. But as demonstrated in

the government's claims of sufficient protection from and redress for racial discrimination are simply not true.

In the face of Japan's internationalizing society (where more than 30,000 international marriages happen every year in Japan, giving birth to thousands of international children--who as Japanese citizens are not statistically registered as "foreigners", yet whose appearance is not necessarily "Japanese") has led to a legal paradox: these abovementioned discriminatory acts, clearly "unconstitutional" under Article 14 of Japan's Constitution, are not "illegal". This means that anti-discrimination measures are unenforcable outside of a Japanese courtroom (which in Japan requires great financial and time investments for little compensation, not to mention weathering the social stigma of going to court in Japan). Moreover, Japan's conservative judiciary has been criticized by the UN for not implementing international agreements (see below), making the GOJ's claims of an adequate system of social checks and balances ring even more hollow.

The UN is aware of this situation. Japan's recent history of interactions with the UN has shown a legacy of official scoldings, broken treaty promises, and "excessively late" reports from the GOJ--visible below and within a 1998 CCPR Committee Report (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/79/Add.102 19 November 1998). They indicate that the UN routinely criticizes the GOJ on its human rights record, even to the point of sarcasm ("human rights standards are not determined by popularity polls", CCPR, 1998).

The following information site, focussing on the interaction between the GOJ and the CERD Committee, will demonstrate how Japan's government wilfully abdicates its international responsibilities, and lay bare what ideology is used to justify it. The website author has compiled three reports in one place for ease of reference and readability. Readers are asked to bear in mind that official papers like these are by their nature long and bureaucratic in tone, but for the record, three official responses--one from the UN, two from Japan--are enclosed in full, with occasional comments and links inserted by the author to demonstrate that GOJ claims are often misrepresentations of the truth. Emphases have also been added in red by the author to highlight contentious points. With this information site, the author hopes that a wider knowledge of the situation may persuade a recalcitrant Japanese government to keep its international promises, and enshrine in law the fundamentals of a society with more opportunities for all its members and residents--regardless of race, color, historical or national origin, or other criteria socially preordained by birth.


1) JAPAN'S FIRST AND SECOND PERIODICAL REPORT (combined into one by the GOJ) ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, June 1999 (NB: submitted over a year after the January 1998 deadline)

Courtesy of Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human/race_rep1/intro.html
(Japanese original at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/jinshu/99/1.html)
NB: Emphases in red and links to evidence contradicting GOJ claims have been added by Arudou Debito, the creator of this information site.

Introduction

1. Japan acceded to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on 15 December 1995. The Constitution of Japan stipulates in Paragraph 1 of Article 14 that all the people are equal under the law. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Japan became party in 1979, also prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnicity. Based on the above principle of the Constitution and the Covenants, Japan has been striving to realize a society without any form of racial or ethnic discrimination. In concluding the Convention, Japan reconfirmed the principle of the Constitution, and will continue to make efforts to achieve a society in which each person is respected as an individual and can fully develop his or her own personality.

2. Guided by this principle, Japan engages in various activities against racial discrimination in international settings. Japan consistently expresses its position against racial discrimination in the United Nations fora by calling for the necessity to adopt all necessary measures to eliminate any racial or ethnic prejudice. It also contributes to international society by supporting adoption of resolutions aiming at elimination of racial discriminations, establishment of related funds and convening related conferences as well as by making contributions to the Trust Fund for the Programme for the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination each year.

Respect for Fundamental Human Rights in the Constitution of Japan

3. The Constitution of Japan, the supreme law in Japan's legal system, is based on the principle of people's sovereignty. Respect for fundamental human rights is one of its important pillars, together with pacifism. The fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution are "conferred upon this and future generations in trust, to be held for all time inviolate" (Article 97), and the philosophy of respect for fundamental human rights is clearly shown in Article 13, which provides that "all of the people shall be respected as individuals." The fundamental human rights include: (1) civil liberties such as the right to liberty, the right to freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion; and (2) social rights such as the right to receive education and the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living. Paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Constitution provides that "all of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin," guaranteeing equality before the law without any discrimination, including either racial or ethnic discrimination, which is the subject of this Convention. Foreign residents in Japan are also guaranteed fundamental human rights under the Constitution except the rights which, owing to their nature, are interpreted to be applicable only to Japanese nationals (*1).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1 In this report, the fact that the treatment of foreigners in Japan has been focused on does not mean that Japan considers distinction based on nationality as the subject of the Convention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. These provisions stipulated in the Constitution bind together the three sources of power, the legislative, administrative and judicial. The three powers of legislation, administration and judicature belong to the Diet, the Cabinet and the Court, respectively. The protection of human rights, including the elimination of racial discrimination, is ensured through rigorous mutual restraint.

The Diet, the highest organ of State power, consists of duly elected representatives of the people and exercises legislative power to protect the people's rights and freedom as the sole legislative organ. The Cabinet (the administrative organ) protects the people's rights and freedom by duly implementing the laws enacted by the Diet. (See Article 6 for the structure of Human Rights Organs established within administrative organs to protect human rights) Furthermore, in cases where the rights of the people are infringed, the Court can offer them redress. (Article 32 of the Constitution provides that "no person shall be denied the right of access to the courts.")


The Constitution guarantees the judges of their tenure and ensures independent and fair trials, providing that "all judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by this Constitution and the laws." (Article 76, Paragraph 3)

5. Provisions of treaties concluded by Japan have legal effect as a part of domestic laws in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 98 of the Constitution, which provides the obligation to observe treaties and international laws and regulations. Whether or not to apply provisions of the conventions directly is judged in each specific case, taking into consideration the purpose, meaning and wording of the provisions concerned.


Land and Population
Land
6. Japan's total land area is 377,819 square kilometers and is comprised of 6,852 islands including the four major islands of Honshu (227,909 square kilometers), Hokkaido (77,979 square kilometers), Kyushu (36,719 square kilometers), and Shikoku (18,294 square kilometers). (See Annex 1 for economic and social indexes.)

Population
7. As of 1 October 1997, Japan's total population was estimated at 126,166,000. However, the ethnic characteristics of Japan are not clear since Japan does not conduct population surveys from an ethnic viewpoint. (*2)

On the other hand, the Ainu, who lived in Hokkaido before the arrival of Wajin (*3), continue to maintain their ethnic identity with continuous efforts to pass on their own language and culture. Their population in Hokkaido was estimated at 23,830 according to the Survey on the Hokkaido Utari Living Conditions conducted by the government of Hokkaido Prefecture in 1993. (*4 See Annex 2.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*2 The number of naturalized Japanese nationals was 301,828 as of the end of 1998. The ratio of naturalized people to Japan's total population is not clear since it is difficult to obtain information on the exact number of persons deceased after naturalization.
*3 Wajin refers to all other Japanese, except the Ainu themselves.
*4 In this survey, "Ainu" refers to "the people in the local community who are considered to have inherited the Ainu blood and those who reside with the Ainu people due to marriage or adoption." However, a person is not included in the survey when that person refuses to be identified as Ainu in spite of the likelihood of his or her being of Ainu descent. "Ainu" are sometimes called "Utari." In the Ainu language, "Ainu" means a "human being"; "Utari", "a compatriot."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Recently, the number of registered aliens in Japan has been increasing. (*5 See Annex 3) According to Ministry of Justice statistics on alien registration, the number of foreigners registered in each municipality as of the end of 1998 is 1,512,116 (1.20% of Japan's total population), a record high. This figure is 191,368 (14.5%) larger than that of five years ago (end of 1999), and 571,111 (60.7%) larger than that of ten years ago (end of 1988). As for classification by nationality (birthplace), Koreans are the largest (42.2% of the total), followed by Chinese (18.0%), and Brazilians (14.7%). (See Annex 4 and 5.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*5 A foreigner is to apply for his/her registration to the head of the municipality in which his/her residence is located within ninety days of the day of his/her entry into Japan (within sixty days of the day of his/her birth, etc.), and the registration is closed due to departure from Japan, naturalization as a Japanese citizen, or death. Often no registration takes place when a foreigner leaves Japan within ninety days of entry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. With regard to refugees, Japan concluded, in 1981, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, and in 1982, the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967. As a result, Japan revamped the Immigration Control Order as the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, establishing the refugee recognition system and has implemented it since January 1982. In all, 234 persons have been recognized as refugees as of the end of June 1999. Japan allows settlement of the refugees from three Indochinese countries (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), and its number reached 10,465 persons as of the end of June 1999.

The Ainu People
Survey on Hokkaido Utari Living Conditions

10. The government of Hokkaido Prefecture conducted four surveys in 1972, 1979, 1986 and 1993, respectively, on the living conditions of the Ainu people. (See Annex 2.) According to the "1993 Hokkaido Utari Living Conditions Survey," the Ainu people's living standard is continuing to improve as explained below, although the gap with other residents in the district of the Ainu people's residence has not yet diminished.

As for their education, the ratio of Ainu youth who go on to high school is 87.4%, and the ratio of Ainu youth who go on to university (including junior college) is 11.8%. The change of the ratio indicates a steady improvement in the Ainu access to high school and college. However, a gap still exists as 96.3% of all youth enter high school and 27.5% of all youth enter college in municipalities where the Ainu people reside.

Concerning the employment ratio by industry, 34.6% of the Ainu people work in primary industries (22.2% for fisheries), 32.4% work in secondary industries (22.3%in construction), and 32.0% work in tertiary industries (13.1% in the service industry). The ratio of workers in the primary industries decreased and the ratio of workers in the tertiary industries increased from the previous survey. This is the same trend as in the municipalities.

The ratio of application of public assistance for the Ainu (the ratio of public assistance recipients among the population of 1,000) is 38.8%, which is a 22.1 point decrease from the 1986 survey. The gap is slowly continuing to decrease. In the 1972 survey, the ratio for the Ainu was 6.6 times more than that of the total population in the municipalities where the Ainu people resided, but the difference dropped to 3.5 times in the 1979 survey, 2.8 times in 1986 survey, and 2.3 times in 1993 survey. The decrease in the public assistance application ratio shows the positive effects of the Hokkaido Utari measures, which include a facility improvement project to ameliorate overall living environment such as local roads and community centers, the consolidation of infrastructure in the area of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the development of small and medium enterprises to expand sales channels of Ainu arts and crafts, and measures for employment stability and technology training.

11. According to the 1993 survey, 17.4% of the Ainu answered that they have experienced discrimination at school, at job interviews or in making marriages, or that they knew of someone who had experienced such discrimination, although conditions had greatly improved since the previous survey.

Hokkaido Utari Welfare Measures

12. The government of Hokkaido Prefecture works to improve the living standard of the Ainu people, taking into account the results of the aforementioned Living Conditions Survey, to redress the imbalance with other Hokkaido residents by means of the "Hokkaido Utari Welfare Measures," which have been implemented four times since 1974. These measures include the promotion of education and culture, the maintenance of livelihood opportunities, and the promotion of industries. For example, the government offers entrance allowances and grants (loans for college students) to encourage Ainu students to attend high school and college to eliminate the existing gap in educational opportunities between the Ainu and other residents.

The Government of Japan held the "Joint Meeting of the Related Ministries Engaged in the Hokkaido Utari Measures " in 1974 to cooperate with and promote the above- mentioned measures led by the government of Hokkaido Prefecture. Thus, the Government ensures close cooperation among the related administrative organs to obtain sufficient budget for the Hokkaido Utari Welfare Measures.

13. The human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice promote nationwide public relations activities to raise awareness of the human rights of the Ainu. They have prepared and distributed a material titled "The Ainu People and Human Rights." Legal Affairs Bureaus in Hokkaido and District Legal Affairs Bureaus consider the motto, "Eliminate Discrimination against the Ainu People," as their major goal. They discuss the Ainu problem at lectures and study groups on human rights in general and hand out brochures and leaflets on such occasions as well as on the streets.

Round Table on the Policy for the Ainu People
14. Under these circumstances, a "Round Table on a Policy for the Ainu People" started up in March 1995, following a request by the Chief Cabinet Secretary to study the future measures for the Ainu people. The group discussed the status of the Ainu people in Japan from various angles, calling for hearings with specialists in academic spheres such as natural anthropology, history, ethnology and international law. They have also studied new fundamental concepts and policies for future concrete measures and submitted a report in April 1996 to the Chief Cabinet Secretary. The report states that, at present, the Ainu people lead lives that differ little from those of any other constituents of the society, linguistically as well as culturally; moreover, that there is an extremely limited number of people who can speak Ainu language. However, it states that the Ainu people are recognized to maintain their ethnic identity in view of their sense of belonging and their various activities. The report also states that, considering the characteristics and circumstances of the Ainu people, who have lived in Hokkaido, Japan's inherent territory, since the end of the middle ages even before the arrival of Wajin, the Government should take all possible measures, including legislative measures, to realize a society in which the pride of the Ainu people is respected, by conserving and promoting the Ainu language and traditional culture.

15. Having studied the content of the report with due respect to its spirit, the Government submitted the Law for the Promotion of the Ainu Culture and for the Dissemination and Advocacy for the Traditions of the Ainu and the Ainu culture, in view of the current situation of the Ainu tradition and culture (hereinafter "the Ainu tradition"), which is the source of their ethnic pride. The said law was adopted in May 1997 and took effect in July 1997, and accordingly, the Government, local governments and designated legal persons have carried out the necessary measures to promote the Ainu culture including the Ainu language and to raise awareness on the knowledge about the Ainu tradition.

Foreigners in Japan
16. Japan adopts a system of status of residence as a basic framework for foreigners to enter and stay in Japan. That is, to accept foreigners in harmony with the development of Japanese society, the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act sets "the status of residence" by categorizing activities which foreigners are authorized to engage in by entering and staying, or personal relationship or status with which foreigners are authorized to enter and stay. Foreigners are not allowed to enter or stay in Japan unless foreigners fall under any of the status of residence. Thus, the Government controls the entry and length of stay of foreigners. A foreigner is given one of the statuses upon permission of entry and stay. The Alien Registration Law requires a foreigner to register to the head of the municipalities in which his/her residence is located in order to put under proper control over the aliens residing in Japan by clarifying matters pertaining to their residence and status.

17. As for classification by status of residence as of the end of 1998, 41.4% of the total number of registered foreigners stay under the status of "Special Permanent Resident" or "Permanent Resident," 17.5% stay under "Spouse or Child of Japanese national" and 14.0% stay under "Long-Term Resident." Some 7.9% of all foreigners are under the statuses with which those foreigners are allowed to work. As of the end of 1998, their number reached 118,996 which is 11,698 (10.9%) more than in the previous year. As for classification by region of origin, 91.6% of the total number of registered foreigners under "Entertainer," 85.5% under "Engineer" and 88.2% under "Skilled Labor" are from Asia. Some 64.6% under "Instructor" and 53.7% under "Religious Activities" are from North America. (*6)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*6 "Entertainer" refers to activities to engage in theatrical performances, musical performances, sports or any other show business. "Engineer" refers to activities to engage in service, which requires technology and/or knowledge pertinent to physical science, engineering or other natural science field. "Skilled Labor" refers to activities to engage in service, which requires industrial techniques or skills belonging to special field. "Instuctor" refers to activities to engage in language instruction and other education at elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, advanced vocational schools or the other educational institutions equivalent to vocational schools in facilities and curriculum. "Religious Activities" refers to activities to engage in Missionary and other religious activities conducted by foreign religionists dispatched by foreign religious organizations.

Those who have already entered the country and illegally engaged in labor activities against the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act will be deported. Should cases of non-payment of wages or labor accidents (protection under workmen's compensation insurance applies also to illegal residents.) be discovered, however, related administrative organs will, in close cooperation with each other, take necessary remedial measures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. Regarding the acceptance of foreign workers, "the Eighth Employment Measure Basic Plan" in December 1995 in the Cabinet decided the principle as follows: the plan calls for acceptance of foreign workers in professional and technical fields as long as possible, and conditions for inspection regarding the statuses of residence should be reviewed in accordance with changes in the economic and social situation in Japan.

On the other hand, with respect to the matter of accepting workers for so-called unskilled labour, there is concern that a wide range of influences may occur in the Japanese economy and society as a result of this, such as pressure on older Japanese workers for whom employment opportunities are rather insufficient; occurrence of new dual structure in the labour market; concern about unemployment as a result of business fluctuations; occurrence of additional new social burdens; etc. These matters also have an extremely great influence upon foreign workers themselves as well as on the countries to which they belong. For these reasons, the plan requires careful consideration of this matter in accordance with consensus among the Japanese people. Based on the aforementioned policy, in principle, no foreigner is permitted to enter the country to engage in unskilled labour.

19. The number of foreigners illegally overstaying in Japan was 106,497 as of 1 July 1990, and increased dramatically in 1991 and 1992, hitting a peak of 298,646 on May 1, 1993. Since then, the number, though still large, has slightly declined. It was 271,048 as of 1 Jan. 1999. More than half of the total number of these illegal foreign used to work for a period of less than one year, but recently, approximately 70% of the total illegal aliens have been working for a period of more than one year, indicating a trend toward a longer illegal working period.

The increase of illegal workers not only makes the proper management of immigration control difficult but also gives rise to criminal acts such as intermediary exploitation, forced labor and infringements on human rights. To prevent illegal labor, the authorities concerned, in cooperation with each other, give several guidance to the employers and apprehend job brokers, organized crime members and disreputable employers who might have connections with illegal workers' entry and/or employment. The human rights protection authorities of the Legal Affairs Bureau offer counseling services regarding human rights to even illegal workers and illegal foreign residents to protect their human rights. In counseling, the authorities treat these people equally as any other foreigners, and take care to protect their privacy.

Human Rights of Foreigners in Japan
20. The Constitution of Japan guarantees fundamental human rights to foreign residents in Japan except the rights which, owing to their nature, are interpreted to be applicable only to Japanese nationals. Thus, the Government actively pursues the goals of (1) ensuring equal rights and opportunities for foreigners, (2) respecting foreigners' own cultures and values, and (3) promoting mutual understanding to realize a society in which Japanese and foreigners can live together comfortably.

In 1979, Japan ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Japan acceded in 1981 to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 and in 1982 to the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967. In accordance with these conventions, the Government ensures equality between Japanese nationals and foreign nationals in many areas.

21. With regard to education, for example, Japan guarantees equal rights to education and equal treatment (no tuition fees, free textbooks, etc.) for the children of foreign nationals who wish to study at public schools for compulsory education. Employment exchange service is also provided to all people without racial or ethnic discrimination. Moreover, discriminatory treatment with regard to labor conditions based on nationality is prohibited and punishable by law. Furthermore, public housing is available for foreign nationals as well as Japanese nationals as long as they register their domicile and identity at the municipalities of their residence. Social security is also granted on the basis of the principle of equality regardless of nationality. For example, the nationality requirement for joining the National Pension and the National Health Insurance as well as for receiving Child Allowance and Child-Rearing Allowance has been abolished. In addition, permanent residents and settled residents residing in Japan in the same way as Japanese nationals can be provided, as an administrative measure, public assistance under conditions identical to those of Japanese nationals. (See Article 5.)

To improve administrative services for foreigners, local governments provide various kinds of information in major foreign languages by distributing brochures, offering counseling services and taking measures for Japanese language education. Moreover, foreign language training is conducted for civil servants who have frequent contact with foreign residents on the job.

22. On the other hand, with the rapid increase in the number of foreign residents, there are reported incidents of human rights violation against foreigners among individuals due to differences of language, religion, custom and practice. These include discriminatory treatment of foreigners in various daily life situation. Some of the cases handled by the human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice include the refusals of apartment rental or entrance to a public swimming pool on the grounds of being a foreigner. The Government takes these incidents as serious human rights violations against foreign residents in Japan, and it requests that the related groups and authorities remove the prejudice and misunderstanding against foreigners at all possible times with a view to realizing a society in which all Japanese nationals and foreigners can live comfortably together. It also promotes nationwide campaigns to raise public awareness of this issue. (See Articles 6 and 7.)

Koreans Residents in Japan [sic]
23. The majority of Korean residents, who constitute about half of the foreign population in Japan, are Koreans or their descendants who came to reside in Japan for various reasons during 36 years (1910-1945) of Japan's so-called rule over Korea and continued to reside in Japan after having lost Japanese nationality, which they held during the time of Japan's rule, with the enforcement of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (April 28, 1952).

The Korean residents are divided into those who have obtained the nationality of the Republic of Korea of their own will and those who have not, under the current circumstances in which the Korean Peninsula is divided into the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

These residents stay in Japan under the status of "Special Permanent Resident". Its number is 528,450 as of the end of 1998. (The total number of "Special Permanent Resident" is 533,396, including 4,349 Chinese nationals and people of other nationalities) As for region of their residence, about half of these Korean residents live in the Kinki region centering around Osaka, and about 20 % of them live in the Kanto region such as Tokyo and Kanagawa Prefecture.

The number of "Special Permanent Resident" continues to decrease every year due to the settlement and naturalization of the Korean residents in Japanese society.

24. The Constitution guarantees the human rights of these people as mentioned before, although they do not have the rights that are not applicable to foreign nationals such as suffrage or freedom of entry into Japan, because they do not have Japanese nationality. Thus, Korean residents in Japan are basically treated in the same way as other foreign residents under the domestic law. However, in light of their historical background and their permanent living conditions, the Government has taken various measures so that these people can have a stable life in Japan.

25. The Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea had discussed the legal status of third- generation Korean residents and their descendants since 1988 based on the "Agreement on the Legal Status and the Treatment of Nationals of the Republic of Korea Residing in Japan." (*7) The negotiations came to an end when the (then) Prime Minister Kaifu visited the Republic of Korea in 1991, and a memorandum was signed by the Foreign Ministers of Japan and the Republic of Korea.

Following the above-mentioned consultations, the Government of Japan has been making sincere efforts to stabilize the life of Korean residents in Japan as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*7 It was concluded to normalize diplomatic relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea by solving various issues. This is an agreement which entered into force simultaneously with "the Agreement on the Basic Relationship between Japan and the Republic of Korea" (Agreement No. 25 in 1965), stipulating the permanent residence, education, public assistance, national health insurance, ownership of property, and remittance of the Korean residents in Japan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Legal Status

26. Following the said Agreement in January 1991, "the Special Law on the Immigration Control of Those Who Have Lost Japanese Nationality and Others on the Basis of the Treaty of Peace with Japan" (hereinafter, referred to as "the Immigration Control Special Law") was promulgated on 10 May 1991, and took effect on 1 November 1991. The said Special Law aims to stabilize the legal status of the people and their descendants who have continued to reside in Japan since before the end of World War II and lost their Japanese nationality with the enforcement of the Peace Treaty with Japan. The said Law was enacted on the basis of the results of discussions on the legal status agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea as mentioned above. However, the said Law is applicable, regardless of nationality, to the people and their descendants who lost Japanese nationality based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty, because it is appropriate to give the same legal status to the North Korean and the Taiwanese residents in Japan who have a similar historical background and settlement status to the South Korean residents in Japan.

The Immigration Control Special Law includes the following favorable measures:

(a) Special Conditions for Deportation

27. The reasons for deportation for special permanent resident are restricted to the extreme minimum to further stabilize the legal status of the special permanent residents: the reasons are restricted to crimes concerning insurrection and foreign aggression; crimes concerning foreign relations (damage or destruction of foreign flag, etc., preparation and plots for private war, violation of neutrality ordinances); crimes affecting diplomatic relations (violence and defamation of the heads of foreign states or diplomatic missions); and, crimes gravely harming national interests (the violation of the Explosive Control Act for the purpose of destroying the democratic judicial order, homicide, or arson). So far no one has been deported for the aforementioned reasons set out in Article 9 of the Immigration Control Special Law.

(b) Special Valid Period for Re-entry Permit

28. For cases in which the special permanent residents work abroad as corporate representatives or study abroad, the valid period for re-entry permit is set at within four years (one year for foreigners stayed under other status). One year of extension within five years in total from the original permit (within two years for foreigners stayed under other status) is permitted in the case of an application made outside of Japan. This facilitates the special permanent residents who live abroad for a long period of time.

(c) Special Conditions for Landing Examination

29. When the special permanent residents who have left Japan with a re-entry permit re-enter the country, Immigration Inspectors examine only the validity of their passport among landing conditions under Article 7, Paragraph 1, item 1 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, and do not examine items for landing refusal. Thus, the Government tries to stabilize the status of the permanent resident.

(2) Education

30. Japanese public schools at the compulsory education level accept foreign nationals if they wish to attend school. These persons are treated in the same way as Japanese nationals with regard to free tuition, free textbooks and qualification to enter upper schools. (See Article 5, Education.) Scholarship are also granted to Korean and other foreign residents with permanent resident status under the same conditions as Japanese nationals.

In the memorandum (refer to para. 25) of the Consultation between Japan and the Republic of Korea on the third-generation of Korean residents in Japan, it is stated that the Government of Japan would take proper measures to continue smoothly the extracurricular study of the Korean language and culture conducted with the concurrence of the local governments, with the understanding of the Korean society's wish to maintain their ethnic traditions and culture including the study of the Korean language. In line with the above-mentioned memorandum, the Japanese Government instructs the local governments to take appropriate measures so that such study can be continued without any difficulties. Actually, several local public entities offer such educational opportunities.

At the social education level likewise, opportunities to learn the foreign cultures of South/North Korea and the Korean language are offered, according to the local needs, in classes and lectures for youth, adults and women at social education facilities such as citizen's public halls.

31. Most of the Korean residents who do not wish to be educated in Japanese schools attend North/South Korean schools. Most of these schools have been approved by prefectural governors as miscellaneous schools (*8). However, because no specific legal provisions have been stipulated on the educational content of these schools, and because it is difficult to confirm that the graduates of these schools have an academic ability equal to or higher than that of graduates of regular high schools (*9), these graduates are not considered to meet college entry qualifications.

The Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture will decide to ease the qualification for taking the University Entrance Qualification Examination in September 1999 so that students studying in foreign schools in Japan can institutionally have a chance to enter Japanese universities. In addition, the Ministry will also decide in August 1999 to ease the qualification for entering Japanese graduate schools so that even persons who have not graduated from universities will be able to enter them through the examination of his/her research ability conducted in the graduate schools concerned.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*8 "Miscellaneous school" refers to an educational institution giving education as school education other than schools specified in Article 1 of the School Education Law. However, it does not include human resources development center, etc. which has special provisions under other laws and specialized school.

*9 "High school" refers to one of the educational institutions specified in Article 1 of the School Education Law, which gives high-level ordinary education and professional education according to physical and mental development based on the foundation laid by junior high school education. The high school educational curricula is based on the Course of Study prescribed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture in accordance with Article 43 of the School Education Law and Article 57-2 of the Regulation of the said Law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Employment

32. With regard to employment exchange and labor conditions, discriminatory treatment on the basis of race or nationality is strictly prohibited. The Government, for the sake of Korean residents in Japan, makes efforts to instruct and enlighten employers by conducting public relations activities to provide a proper understanding and recognition of equal employment opportunities and by giving individual guidance to companies engaged in improper businesses.

Japanese nationality is required for civil servants who participates in the exercise of public power or in the public decision-making, but it is understood that Japanese nationality is not necessarily required for civil servants who do not engage in the above-mentioned work. Korean residents in Japan have been employed as civil servants according to the above-mentioned principle.

33. The Government recognizes that an understanding of Korean residents among the Japanese people has deepened and there is less discrimination against them owing to such factors as the change of their social circumstances inside as well as outside of Japan, the dissemination of the spirit of respect for human rights among people, education to promote understanding of these people at school and in social education facilities, the guidance and awareness activities by each ministry including the human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice, and awareness-raising efforts of NGOs. On the other hand, however, discrimination among individuals still exists in daily life such as discrimination on occasions of employment and housing rentals, in discriminatory remarks and graffiti. (See Articles 4 and 6.) Under such circumstances, some Korean residents in Japan use Japanese names as common names in daily life for fear that they may face prejudice or discrimination if they use their native Korean names. The Government is seriously concerned that misguided prejudice and discrimination, which are counter to the principle of equality of all persons, still exists among the Japanese people. Thus, the Japanese government will make further efforts to consolidate measures on remedies for victims as well as to promote, through the related authorities, human rights education at school and social education facilities, continuous guidance, and PR activities to the related organizations and groups. (See Article 7.)

Refugees

(a) Treatment of Refugees
34. Japan concluded, in 1981, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, and in 1982, the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967. As a result, Japan revamped the Immigration Control Order as the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, establishing the refugee recognition system, and has implemented it since January 1982. When an application for the refugee recognition is submitted, the Minister of Justice conducts an investigation into the case and thereafter judges properly whether it is applicable to the difinition of Article 1 of the Convention and the Protocol or not. Therefore the Government sincerely and strictly implements its obligations provided in the Convention and the Protocol. Japan ensures, after accepting the person as a refugee, equal treatment for the refugee with its own nationals in accordance with the Convention, providing various protection and humanitarian aid including employment, education, social security and housing.

Data on the process of refugee recognition from 1982 to the end of June 1999 are as follows:
Applications accepted 1,790
Results:
Approved 234
Not approved 1,170
Withdrawal 277
Under process 109

(b) Indochinese Refugees

(i) Acceptance of settlement in Japan

35. After having permitted settlement of the Vietnamese refugees who had been staying in Japan temporarily in 1978, Japan expanded the condition of the settlement permit to include the Indochinese refugees staying in Asian countries in 1979. Japan then eased permit conditions twice, allowing settlement of those who had been staying in Japan as foreign students before the political changes took place in the three Indochinese nations and those who have entered Japan as family members under the Official Departure Program (ODP). With the development of the settlement facilitation system, the quata to accept has been gradually enlarged and the limit on the acceptance number was abolished in 1994. As of the end of June 1999, the number of Indochinese refugees settled in Japan is 10,465.

The breakdown is as follows:
Classification
Countries Total No. of settled residents From facilities in Japan From facilities abroad Former foreign students ODP
Vietnamese

7,900

3,534

1,814

625

1,927

Laotian

1,306

-

1,233

73

-

Cambodian

1,259

-

1,215

44

-

Total

10,465

3,534

4,262

742

1,927


(As of June, 1999)
(ii) Settlement Facilitation Measures for the Indochinese Refugees

36. With Cabinet approval in 1979, the Government decided to offer Japanese language education, occupational training and employment service to Indochinese refugees with a view to facilitating their settlement in Japan, and entrusted the implementation of these projects to the Asia Welfare Education Foundation. The said Foundation established the Refugee Project Headquarters followed by the Himeji Settlement Facilitation Center in Hyogo Prefecture (closed in March 1996) and the Yamato Settlement Facilitation Center in Kanagawa Prefecture in 1980 (closed in March 1998). In 1983, it opened the International Rescue Center in Tokyo. Most refugees stay in one of these centers for six months, at which time they learn the Japanese language and the means to adjust to life in Japan while receiving living expenses. Moreover, these centers arrange for adoption or seek foster parents for refugee children upon their request. They also offer employment exchange and occupational training to refugees who wish to get a job. The total number of users of the centers since their opening is 10,596 as of the end of June 1999.

(iii) Living Conditions

37. A Summary of the 1992 Survey of the Settlement Conditions of Indochinese Refugees (conducted by the Asia Welfare Education Foundation Refugee Project Headquarters), indicates a relatively smooth settlement of refugees. Employment conditions for these refugees have become somewhat more difficult, reflecting the recent sluggish Japanese economy. Therefore, the centers proclaim every November as "the Indochinese Refugee Employment Facilitation Month," and hold seminars for employers at many locations. As a result, all 54 refugees who had completed an occupational training course at the centers were employed in 1998. A large number of refugees work in metal processing, electric/machinery/automobile construction, printing and bookbinding.

38. As described above, most of Indochinese refugees settled in Japan are considered to be well adjusted to their work and the local communities, supported by the understanding and aid of employers and the local communities. With an increasing number of settled Indochinese refugees, however, there are cases of those faced with various problems in their daily life due to differences of language and custom. Therefore, the Refugee Project Headquarters places "counselors for refugees" in its Headquarters and the International Rescue Center to cope with the complicated and specialized details of consultation and offers thorough and continuous counseling for the refugees themselves, their family members, and their employers.

The understanding and cooperation of local residents is indispensable for the smooth settlement of the Indochinese refugees. The said Foundation annually holds a "Meeting with the Settled Indochinese Refugees" in major cities to promote exchanges with local residents and to deepen their mutual understanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 REPORT ENDS

2) THE UN'S RESPONSE (March 2001), AND JAPAN'S RESPONSE (October 2001)
(interspliced for ease of reading)

UN March 2001 Report courtesy http://www.bayefsky.com/html/japan_t4_cerd.php
(Japanese original at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/jinshu/saishu.html)
GOJ Oct 2001 Response courtesy http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human/comment0110.html
(Japanese original at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/jinshu/iken.html)

UN REPORT IS IN IN DARK BLUE.
JAPAN'S INTERSPLICED ANSWERS ARE IN LIGHT GREEN.
EMPHASES ADDED BY THE AUTHOR OF THIS WEBSITE ARE IN RED


JAPAN

CERD A/56/18 (2001)

159. The Committee considered the initial and second periodic reports of Japan, due on 14 January 1997 and 1999, respectively, at its 1443rd and 1444th meetings (CERD/C/SR.1443 and 1444), on 8 and 9 March 2001. At its 1459th meeting (CERD/C/SR.1459), on 20 March 2001, it adopted the following concluding observations.

A. Introduction

160. The opportunity to initiate a constructive dialogue with the State party is particularly welcome. The Committee was encouraged by the attendance of a large delegation representing a wide range of governmental departments and also by the involvement of the NGO community, as acknowledged by the State party, in the preparation of its initial report.

161. The Committee welcomes the detailed and comprehensive report submitted by the State party, prepared in accordance with its guidelines for the preparation of reports, and the additional oral information provided by the delegation in response to the wide range of questions asked by Committee members. It also welcomes the additional written responses provided, following the examination of the report.

B. Positive aspects

162. The Committee welcomes the legislative and administrative efforts made by the State party in order to promote the human rights and the economic, social and cultural development of some ethnic and national minorities, in particular: (i) the 1997 Law for the Promotion of Measures for Human Rights Protection; (ii) the 1997 Law for the Promotion of the Ainu Culture and for the Dissemination and Advocacy for the Traditions of the Ainu and the Ainu Culture; and (iii) the series of special measures laws for Dowa projects with the aim of eliminating discrimination against Burakumin.

163. The Committee notes with interest the recent jurisprudence recognizing the Ainu people as a minority people with the right to enjoy its unique culture.

164. The Committee welcomes efforts made to raise awareness about existing human rights standards, particularly the publication of the full texts of fundamental human rights treaties on the Web site of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It also welcomes the similar dissemination of the State party's reports on the implementation of treaties and the concluding observations of the respective United Nations monitoring bodies.

C. Concerns and recommendations

165. While taking note of the State party's point of view on the problems involved in determining the ethnic composition of the population, the Committee finds that there is a lack of information on this point in its report. It is recommended that the State party provide in its next report full details on the composition of the population as requested in the reporting guidelines of the Committee and, in particular, information on economic and social indicators reflecting the situation of all minorities covered by the scope of the Convention, including the Korean minority, Burakumin and Okinawa communities. The population on Okinawa seeks to be recognized as a specific ethnic group and claims that the existing situation on the island leads to acts of discrimination against it.

166. With regard to the interpretation of the definition of racial discrimination contained in article 1 of the Convention, the Committee, contrary to the State party, considers that the term "descent" has its own meaning and is not to be confused with race or ethnic or national origin. The Committee therefore recommends that the State party ensure the protection against discrimination and the full enjoyment of the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights contained in article 5 of the Convention of all groups, including the Burakumin community.


JAPAN REPLIES:

Comments of the Japanese Government on the Concluding Observations adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 20, 2000 [sic], regarding initial and second periodic report of the Japanese Government

1. With regard to the ethnic composition ratio of the population in paragraph 7, regarding the recommendation of providing information on economic and social indicators of all minorities covered by the scope of the Convention, including the Korean minority, Burakumin and Okinawa communities;

(1) First of all, in relation to economic and social indicators of the Ainu, we will also make a report next time as we did in the initial and second periodic reports. Furthermore, we will consider what information can be offered on economic and social indicators of Koreans residing in Japan.

(2) On the other hand, we consider the scope of application of the Convention as follows.

a. In the first place, Article 1(1) of the Convention provides "racial discrimination" subject to the Convention as "all distinctions based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin...". Therefore, the Convention is considered to cover discrimination against groups of people who are generally considered to share biological characteristics, groups of people who are generally considered to share cultural characteristics and individuals belonging to these groups based on the reason of having these characteristics. Those who live in Okinawa prefecture or natives of Okinawa are of the Japanese race, and generally, in the same way as natives of other prefectures, they are not considered to be a group of people who share biological or cultural characteristics under social convention, and therefore, we do not consider them to be covered by the Convention.

b. Furthermore, concerning "descent" provided in Article 1(1) of this Convention, in the process of deliberation on the Convention, there was the problem that the words "national origin" may lead to the misunderstanding that the words include the concept of "nationality" which is a concept based on legal status. In order to solve the problem, "descent" was proposed together with "place of origin" as a replacement for "national origin". However, we know that the wording was not sufficiently arranged after that, and "descent" remained in this provision.

Based on such deliberation process, in application of the Convention, "descent" indicates a concept focusing on the race or skin color of a past generation, or the national or ethnic origins of a past generation, and it is not understood as indicating a concept focusing on social origin.

At the same time, with regard to the Dowa issue (discrimination against the Burakumin), the Japanese government believes that "Dowa people are not a different race or a different ethnic group, and they belong to the Japanese race and are Japanese nationals without question."

(3) The Population Census in Japan is a statistical survey conducted by obliging all people living in Japan to answer, therefore it is carried out by limiting the number of census topics to the minimum for performance of national basic policies in consideration of the burden of those filling it out.

2. With regard to "the population in Okinawa seeks to be recognized as a specific ethnic group and claims that the existing situation on the island leads to acts of discrimination against it" in paragraph 7;

  1. We know that some people claim that the population in Okinawa is a different race from the Japanese race; however, we do not believe that this claim represents the will of the majority of the people in Okinawa. Also, as described in 1(2)(a), those who live in Okinawa prefecture or natives of Okinawa are of the Japanese race, and they are not generally considered to be a group of people who share different biological or cultural characteristics from the Japanese race.

  2. It is not necessarily clear what "the existing situation on the island leads to acts of discrimination against the population on Okinawa," which the Committee pointed out, specifically means. However, concerning U.S. military facilities and their areas in Okinawa, in order to relieve the burden on residents of Okinawa due to the concentration of 75% of all U.S. military facilities and areas in Japan, the Japanese government has been working on steady implementation of the final report by SACO (Special Action Committee on Okinawa), which aims at arrangement, integration and reduction of the U.S. military facilities and areas with full force in cooperation with the U.S. government.

  3. (Also, for prevention of incidents and accidents by U.S. personnel, the Japanese government has been requesting enforcement of official discipline and prevention of reoccurrence to the U.S. side on repeated occasions, including at the ministerial level. The government will work on the U.S. side to make efforts to prevent incidents and accidents from occurring in the future. In relation to this, the cooperative system has been implemented since fall of 2000. Under the system, a working team composed of related parties such as the U.S. military, the Japanese government, local authorities, the local police force and the chamber of commerce and industry studies and decides concrete measures which can be taken especially for prevention of recurrence of incidents and accidents involving drinking.

3. (1) With regard to the meaning of "descent" in Article 1(1) of the Convention mentioned in paragraph 8, the Japanese government's understanding is as described in the above 1(2)(b), and therefore, the government does not share the interpretation of "descent" with the Committee.

(2) At any rate, on the basis of the spirit declared in the preamble of the Convention, we take it for granted that no discrimination should be conducted including discrimination such as the Dowa issue (discrimination against the Burakumin). For those related to the Burakumin, the Constitution of Japan stipulates not only guarantee of being equal as Japanese nationals under the law but also guarantee of equality of all rights as Japanese nationals. Therefore, there is no discrimination at all for civil, political, economic and cultural rights under the legal system.

(3) With the aim of resolving the problem of discrimination against the Burakumin through improvement of the low economic level, living environment, etc., of Burakumin communities, the government enacted three special measures laws, which are the Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects, the Law on Special Measures for Regional Improvement and the Law Concerning Special Government Financial Measures for Regional Improvement Special Projects, and has been actively promoting various measures for more than 30 years.

We believe that as a result of long-standing activities to resolve the problem of discrimination against the Burakumin by both the government and local public entities, gaps in various aspects have been largely reduced, including completion of establishment of a physical foundation such as improvement of the living environment in Burakumin. We also believe that education and enlightenment for relieving the sense of discrimination have been promoted based on various plans, and the sense of discrimination among the people has certainly been lessened.



THE UN CONTINUES:

167. The Committee notes with concern that although article 98 of the Constitution provides that treaties ratified by the State party are part of domestic law, the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination have rarely been referred to by national courts. In light of the information from the State party that the direct application of treaty provisions is judged in each specific case, taking into consideration the purpose, meaning and wording of the provisions concerned, the Committee seeks clarifying information from the State party on the status of the Convention and its provisions in domestic law.

168. The Committee is concerned that the only provision in the legislation of the State party relevant to the Convention is article 14 of the Constitution. Taking into account the fact that the Convention is not self-executing, the Committee believes it necessary to adopt specific legislation to outlaw racial discrimination, in particular in conformity with the provisions of articles 4 and 5 of the Convention.



JAPAN REPLIES:

4. Paragraph 9 of the concluding observations

(1) The government is not in position to make comments on the ideal way of application of provision of the Convention related to individual cases at the courts. When generalizing, it is not concluded that the courts are reluctant to apply the Convention immediately because there are few cases referring to provision of the Convention in opinions in consideration of the following: 1) There is a constraint that applying law by the court premises a fact authorized by the court based on facts claimed or evidence submitted by the parties concerned: 2) Since the purport of the Convention has already been reflected in the provision of domestic law, there are considerable cases in which the conclusion would be the same even if the provision of the Convention itself is not applied.

(2) With regard to status of both the Convention and provisions thereof in domestic law, Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan provides that "The treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed." Therefore, treaties, etc. which Japan concluded and published have effect as domestic law. There is no express provision concerning relation between treaties concluded by Japan and laws in the Constitution of Japan, however treaties are considered to be superior to laws.
However, since the substantive provision of the Convention (Article 2 to 7) provides "the States Parties undertake...," the Convention shall be considered not originally to establish individual rights and obligations but to place an obligation of elimination of racial discrimination on the States Parties. Japan has been fulfilling the obligations which the Convention places on the States Parties as reported in the initial and second periodic report of the Japanese Government.



THE UN CONTINUES:

169. The Committee notes the reservation maintained by the State party with respect to article 4 (a) and (b) of the Convention, stating that "Japan fulfils the obligations under those provisions to the extent that fulfilment … is compatible with the guarantee of the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression and other rights under the Constitution of Japan". The Committee expresses concern that such an interpretation is in conflict with the State party's obligations under article 4 of the Convention. The Committee draws the attention of the State party to its general recommendations VII and XV, according to which article 4 is of mandatory nature, given the non-self-executing character of all its provisions, and the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the rights to freedom of opinion and expression.


JAPAN REPLIES:

5. Paragraph 10 of the concluding observations

(1) Article 4 (a) and (b) put the States Parties under an obligation of penalization, however, as mentioned in 6 below, Japan puts reservation stating that the country fulfils obligations of Article 4 as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution. Since Article 4(c) does not provide any concrete measures which the States Parties should take, it is understood to be left to the rational discretion of each States Party.

Also, the preamble of Article 5 states, "In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in Article 2 of this Convention...", therefore, it is understood as not exceeding the scope of obligations provided in Article 2. However, on the other hand, as it is obvious from the provision "by all appropriate means" in Article 2 (1), legislative measures are required by circumstances and are requested to be taken when the States Parties consider legislation appropriate. We do not recognize that the present situation of Japan is one in which discriminative acts cannot be effectively restrained by the existing legal system and in which explicit racial discriminative acts, which cannot be restrained by measures other than legislation, are conducted. Therefore, penalization of these acts is not considered necessary.

(2) Furthermore, with regard to dissemination and expression of ideas of racial discrimination, if the idea includes content which damages the honor or credit of a certain individual or group, it is possible to penalize them under the crime of defamation, insult or damage of credit/obstruction of business under the Penal Code. In addition, it is possible to penalize them under the crime of intimidation under the Penal Code if the ideas contain intimidatory content aimed at a certain individual. Also, violent actions with a motivation or background of a racially discriminatory idea can be penalized under the crime of inflicting injury, crime of violence, etc. under the Penal Code.

(3) Also, with regard to discrimination by private individuals, when an illegal act is committed, liability for damage arises for those who have conducted such act (Article 709 of the Civil Code, etc.). Also, in case of a juristic act of violation of public policy or good morals, the act shall be invalidated based on Article 90 of the Civil Code.

(4) The Council for Human Rights Promotion established in the Ministry of Justice has been intensively examining and deliberating "basic matters regarding the improvement of relief measures for the victims in cases of human rights infringement" since September 1999, and submitted a report on the ideal framework of the human rights remedy system in May 2001.
The report proposes that the new human rights remedy system the central core of which is the Human Rights Committee (tentative name), independent of the government, should be created and that the said committee should provide active relief measures with more effective investigatory procedure and remedial methods for the victims of certain human rights infringements. It also says that it is necessary to define the scope of human rights infringement against which active relief measures should be taken on the basis of the purport of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, including discriminatory treatment based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, etc. in social life and harassment relating to race, etc. The government, having the utmost regard for the recommendations of the Council, will make every endeavor to establish the proposed new human rights relief mechanism.



THE UN CONTINUES:

170. Regarding the prohibition of racial discrimination in general, the Committee is further concerned that racial discrimination as such is not explicitly and adequately penalized in criminal law. The Committee recommends the State party to consider giving full effect to the provisions of the Convention in its domestic legal order and to ensure the penalization of racial discrimination as well as the access to effective protection and remedies through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions against any acts of racial discrimination.


JAPAN REPLIES:

6. Expression of concern by the Committee about reservation of Article 4 (a) and (b) in paragraph 11
We are sufficiently aware of General Recommendations VII and XV of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. However, the concept provided by Article 4 may include extremely wide-ranging acts both in various scenes and of various modes. Therefore, to regulate all of them by penal statute exceeding the existing legislation is liable to conflict with guarantees provided by the Constitution of Japan such as freedom of expression, which severely requires both necessity and rationality of the constraint, and the principle of the legality of crimes and punishment, which requests both concreteness and definiteness of the scope of punishment. For this reason, Japan decided to put reservation on Article 4 (a) and (b).

Also, the government does not think that Japan is currently in a situation where dissemination of racial discriminatory ideas or incitement of racial discrimination are conducted to the extent that the government must consider taking legislative measures for punishment against dissemination of racial discriminatory idea, etc. at the risk of unjustly atrophying lawful speech by withdrawing the above reservation.



THE UN CONTINUES:

171. The Committee notes with concern statements of discriminatory character made by high-level public officials and, in particular, the lack of administrative or legal action taken by the authorities as a consequence in violation of article 4 (c) of the Convention and the interpretation that such acts can be punishable only if there is an intention to incite and promote racial discrimination. The State party is urged to take appropriate measures to prevent such incidents in the future and to provide appropriate training of, in particular, public officials, law enforcement officers and administrators with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination, in compliance with article 7 of the Convention.



JAPAN REPLIES:

7. Recommendation of paragraph 12, ensuring both penalization of racial discrimination and effective protection from and remedies for racially discriminatory acts

As described in the above 6, Japan puts reservation of implementing obligations of Article 4 (a) and (b) as long as not conflicting with the above guarantee at the conclusion of the Convention in consideration of the importance of freedom of expression, etc. guaranteed under the Constitution. However, legislative obligation for punishment within the scope is sufficiently secured, as described in the above 5, by existing penal statute such as defamation, and claim for damages is also possible through Civil procedure, therefore there are sufficient domestic laws to secure fulfillment of the obligations under the Convention with the above reservation.

In addition, the Human Rights Organs of the Ministry of Justice actively conduct promotional activities concerning all forms of discrimination including racial discrimination with the aim of disseminating and enhancing respect for human rights. Human rights counseling rooms are set up to accept inquiries from those who have suffered discrimination. In addition, when specifically recognizing incidents of alleged infringement of fundamental human rights, the Organs promptly investigate the incidents as human rights infringements cases, find out the fact of the infringement, and based on the results, take proper measures for the case.

The Council for Human Rights Promotion established in the Ministry of Justice considered remedy measures for racial discrimination based on the purport of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It submitted a report on the ideal framework of the human rights remedy system in May 2001. The report proposes that a new human rights remedy system the central core of which is the Human Rights Committee (tentative name), independent of the government, should be created , and that the said committee should provide active relief measures with more effective investigatory procedure and remedial measures for the victims of certain human rights infringements including discriminatory treatment based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, etc. in social life. The government, having the utmost regard for the recommendations of the Council, will make every endeavor to establish the proposed new human rights relief mechanism so that it can provide effective remedies for victims of discriminatory treatments based on race etc.

8. With regard to "the Committee notes with concern discriminatory statements made by high-level public officials and, in particular, the lack of administrative or legal action taken by the authorities as a consequence in violation of Article 4 (c) of the Convention and the interpretation that such acts can be punishable only if there is an intention to promote and incite racial discrimination" in paragraph 13;

  1. The main paragraph of Article 4 limits subjects to be condemned by the States Parties to all propaganda, etc. which is based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race, etc., or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination. As it is clear from the limitation, the article places an obligation of taking certain measures against acts with the intention of promoting racial discrimination on the States Parties. Therefore, it is considered that acts without such intention are not the subject of the article.

  2. Japan is not the only country which makes such interpretation. For example, Article 18, Paragraph 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986 in the UK provides that "a persons who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words, or behavior, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that might be. threatening, abusive or insulting."

  3. Furthermore, the Joint Statement on "Racism and the Media" (a joint statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS (Organization of American States) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression) defines laws for discriminatory statements as follows: "No one should be penalized for the dissemination of hate speech unless it has been shown that they did so with the intention of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence."

9. With regard to "the Committee urges the States Parties to provide appropriate training to public officials, law enforcement officers and administrators" in paragraph 13;

The government has been conventionally taking subjects related to human rights in the curricula of various training programs for national public officials and thoroughly educating them on various conventions related to human rights and the idea of the Constitution of Japan which declares respect for human rights.

For police officers, the government has been providing classes related to human rights protection including respect for human rights and various human rights-related conventions at training provided for newly-employed police officers and promoted police officers at police academies. These classes are included in classes on the Constitution, a fundamental law for human rights, on ethics of duties and on social studies

Also, since police practices are duties deeply related to human rights, education is conducted based on the purport of the various human rights-related conventions and the Constitution on every occasion such as training at the working place, aiming at execution of duties in consideration of human rights.

Judges acquire qualification for the legal profession after receiving a course for legal apprentices at the Legal Research and Training Institute as well as public prosecutors and attorneys. In lectures during the course for legal apprentices, the International Covenants on Human Rights and various problems related to human rights are covered. Furthermore, after appointment to a judge, curriculums related to human rights problems such as the International Covenants on Human Rights are set up at various workshops at the Legal Research and Training Institute.

As such, Japan has been educating public officials, law enforcement officers and administrators about human rights including elimination of racial discrimination, and will continue to make further efforts for enrichment of the said education in the future.



THE UN CONTINUES:

172. The Committee is concerned about reports of violent actions against Koreans, mainly children and students, and about the inadequate reaction of the authorities in this regard and recommends that the Government take more resolute measures to prevent and counter such acts.


JAPAN REPLIES:

10. In relation to "the Committee is concerned about reports on violent actions against Koreans, mainly children, students and about inadequate reaction of the authorities in this regard and recommends the Government to take more resolute measures to prevent and counter such acts," in paragraph 14;

(1) In Japan, such violent actions are criminalized based on the punishable violations of the law stipulated in the penal code, such as murder, infliction of bodily injury, and acts of violence. The Japanese government is exerting efforts to make impartial dispositions regarding violent actions motivated by racial discrimination based on law and evidence.

(2) The police have already taken measures to prevent further occurrence of such violent actions by keeping stricter watch at places where such actions are likely to take place and during the times in which students go to and leave school, as well as by collaborating with related organizations and cooperating with schools.

In addition, Article 189 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that police officers shall, when they consider that there exists an offense, investigate the offender and evidence. Accordingly, active investigations have been made to resolve cases irrespective of whether the injured party was Japanese or non-Japanese by observing the equality under the law stipulated in Article 14 (1) of the Constitution of Japan. Therefore, "inadequate reaction" pointed out in the Concluding Observations is not true.

(3) Furthermore, the human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice promptly gathered information on these incidents of violence, and aggressively conducted awareness raising activities in order to prevent such violent actions by calling public attention to the prevention of discrimination on the streets, distributing information booklets and putting up posters in school-commuting roads and public transport that are used by many Korean children and students residing in Japan. The government will continue conducting positive investigations and implementing measures appropriate for each case regarding the cases that are suspected of infringing human rights, and making efforts to raise awareness of respect for human rights among those concerned.



THE UN CONTINUES:

173. With regard to children of foreign nationality residing in Japan, the Committee notes that elementary and lower secondary education is not compulsory. It further notes the position of the State party that "since the purpose of the primary education in Japan is to educate the Japanese people to be members of the community, it is not appropriate to force foreign children to receive that education". The Committee concurs with the proposition that force is completely inappropriate to secure the objective of integration. However, with reference to articles 3 and 5 (e) (v), the Committee is concerned that different standards of treatment in this respect may lead to racial segregation and the unequal enjoyment of the right to education, training and employment. It is recommended that the State party ensure that the relevant rights contained in article 5 (e) are guaranteed without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.


JAPAN REPLIES:

11. In relation to paragraph 15;

(1) In cases where children of foreign nationality residing in Japan did not choose to receive Japanese education, it is undeniable that they might find some kind of difference in subsequent education, training and employment compared with those that received Japanese school education.

(2) It goes without saying that such difference must not lead to an infringement on the economic, social and cultural rights contained in article 5 of the Convention. Under the Japanese system, these rights are guaranteed without distinction as to race, color, or national or ethnic origin.



THE UN CONTINUES:

174. The Committee is concerned about discrimination affecting the Korean minority. Though efforts are being made to remove some of the institutional obstacles to minority students from international schools, including Korean schools, entering Japanese universities, the Committee is particularly concerned that studies in Korean are not recognized and that resident Korean students receive unequal treatment with regard to access to higher education. It is recommended that the State party undertake appropriate measures to eliminate discriminatory treatment of minorities, including Koreans, in this regard and to ensure access to education in minority languages in public Japanese schools.


JAPAN REPLIES:

12. In relation to "the Committee is particularly concerned that studies in Korean are not recognized and resident Korean students receive unequal treatment with regard to access to higher education," in paragraph 16;

(1) In Japan, regulations were amended in September 1999 to enable graduates from foreign schools including Korean schools in Japan to acquire the qualification for entering a college or university by taking the University Entrance Qualification Examination. In addition, since 1979, the qualification for entering a college or university has also been recognized for international school graduates who have acquired the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma provided by the International Baccalaureate Organization, a nonprofit educational organization in Switzerland.

(2) As mentioned in (1) above, the Japanese Government recognize the qualification for entering a college or university to graduates from foreign schools that do not meet the standards of public education on condition that they satisfy certain academic requirements, and our understanding is that such a practice is common throughout the world. Therefore, the insistence on "unequal treatment" in the Concluding Observations is inadequate.

(3) In fact, even schools in which most of students are Korean can be authorized as regular schools if they meet the public education standards. As a matter of fact, the qualification for entering a college or university is recognized for graduates from such authorized schools. Each school can decide whether or not they apply for that authorization.

(Reference)
The Japanese government has conducted a survey on other countries' situations concerning the status of foreign schools and treatment of the qualification for entering a college or university, targeting 23 countries/regions including Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India,Italy, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States(Released in July 1999). According to the results, there are a small number of countries that leave the eligibility of foreign school graduates to enter a higher educational institution to the discretion of the respective colleges and universities. However, most countries/regions do not institutionally recognize the qualification to enter a college or university in that country merely by the graduation from a foreign school. In most cases, the students are required to have a certain qualification such as the IB Diploma or to make a certain score on the nationwide standardized test of that country in addition to the graduation from a foreign school in order to acquire the qualification for entering a college or university. (See Annex 1)

13. In relation to "the State party is recommended to....... ensure access to education in minority languages in public Japanese schools," in paragraph 16;

(1) It is not clear what kind of education is specifically intended by "education in minority languages" mentioned in the Committee's recommendation. While we believe there exist linguistic minorities in the respective State parties of the Convention, the Japanese government is not aware that many of these countries provide public education using only a minority language. Therefore, it is considered inadequate to state that Japanese public education is discriminatory merely for the reason that the government does not provide the entire public education only in a minority language.

(2) Secondly, with respect to guaranteeing the right to education stipulated in the Convention without distinction as to race, color, or national or ethnic origin, the Japanese government provides the children who use minority languages with the opportunity to enter public elementary and lower secondary schools to receive the same education as Japanese children, if so desired. Also, in such cases, best efforts are made so that the children who use minority languages can receive Japanese education smoothly by offering Japanese language lessons, support by teachers and even support by staff members who can speak their native language (minority language). For instance, staff members who speak Korean language and the teachers collaborate to provide Japanese language lessons and other supports to Korean children and students who do not have sufficient Japanese language skills in order to help them receive Japanese education smoothly.

(3) The Japanese government recognizes that the right to education stipulated in the Convention are already guaranteed in Japan through the efforts described above.



THE UN CONTINUES:

175. The Committee recommends that the State party take steps to further promote the rights of the Ainu, as indigenous people. In this regard the Committee draws the attention of the State party to its general recommendation XXIII on the rights of indigenous peoples that calls, inter alia, for the recognition and protection of land rights as well as restitution and compensation for loss. The State party is also encouraged to ratify and or use as guidance ILO Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.


JAPAN REPLIES:

14. In relation to "the Committee recommends the State party to take steps to further promote the rights of the Ainu, as indigenous people," in paragraph 17;
  1. As is incorporated in the Basic Policies on Measures for the Protection of the Ainu Culture and for the Dissemination and Advocacy for the Traditions of the Ainu and the Ainu Culture (Prime Minister's Office Announcement No. 25 of September 18, 1997), in Japan, the Ainu, who lived in Hokkaido before the arrival of Wajin at least at the end of medieval times, have been recognized as a race that has original traditions and that developed a unique culture including the Ainu language, which is based on a different linguistic system from the Japanese language, as well as original manners and customs.

  2. However, since there is no fixed international definition of the term "indigenous people," the question of whether the people of Ainu are actually "indigenous people" in the sense mentioned above needs to be examined carefully.

  3. At any rate, in order to smoothly promote the Utari welfare measures, which are implemented by the government of Hokkaido Prefecture for improving the social and economic status of the Ainu people, the Japanese government established the Joint Meeting of the Ministers concerned in the Hokkaido Utari Measures in May 1974 and has been striving to enhance the various measures while keeping close contact among the related ministries. In addition, the Japanese government is engaged in various schemes relating to the Ainu people, such as advancement of measures for promoting Ainu culture as well as disseminating knowledge and raising awareness of the Ainu tradition among the public, based on the Law for the Promotion of the Ainu Culture and for the Dissemination and Advocacy for the Traditions of the Ainu and the Ainu Culture (Law No. 52 of May 14, 1997) that was established for building a society in which the racial pride of the Ainu people is respected and having the Ainu culture and traditions contribute to development of diverse culture in Japan.


15. In relation to "the State party is also encouraged to ratify and or use as guidance the ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples," in paragraph 17;

Since the ILO Convention includes many provisions other than the protection of workers which is mandated to the ILO and the Convention still includes provisions that conflict with Japan's legislation, the Japanese government abstained from the vote for adoption of the Convention at the International Labor Conference. The Convention is considered to include too many difficulties for Japan to ratify it immediately.



THE UN CONTINUES:

176. Noting that although Koreans applying for Japanese nationality are no longer required, legally or administratively, to change their names to a Japanese name, the Committee expresses its concern that authorities reportedly continue to urge applicants to make such changes and that Koreans feel obliged to do so for fear of discrimination. Considering that the name of an individual is a fundamental aspect of the cultural and ethnic identity, the Committee recommends that the State party take the necessary measures to prevent such practices.


JAPAN REPLIES:

16. In relation to "the Committee expresses its concern that authorities reportedly continue to urge applicants to make such changes and that Koreans feel obliged to do so for fear of discrimination," in paragraph 18;
  1. The Japanese government is aware that there is discrimination against Koreans residing in Japan, but it has been making continuous efforts to create a society free of discrimination through school education programs and various awareness raising activities.

  2. In the meantime, there is no fact that the authorities are urging Koreans applying for Japanese nationality to change their names to Japanese names, but instead, the authorities are extensively informing applicants that they can determine their names freely after naturalization.



THE UN CONTINUES:

177. The Committee, while noting the recent increase in the number of refugees accepted by the State party, is concerned that different standards of treatment are applicable to Indo-Chinese refugees, on the one hand, and the limited number of refugees of other national origins on the other. Whereas Indo-Chinese refugees have access to accommodation, financial aid and State-funded Japanese language courses, such assistance is as a rule not available to other refugees. The Committee recommends that the State party take the necessary measures to ensure equal entitlement to such services to all refugees. In this context, it is also recommended that the State party ensure that all asylum-seekers have the right, inter alia, to an adequate standard of living and medical care.

178. The Committee is concerned that the national redress law offers remedies only on the basis of reciprocity, which is inconsistent with article 6 of the Convention.


JAPAN REPLIES:

17. In relation to "the Committee is concerned that the national redress law offers remedies only on the basis of reciprocity, which is inconsistent with article 6 of the Convention," in paragraph 20;

(1) Japan's national redress law adopts reciprocity (Article 6 of the National Redress Law) based on the principle of sovereign equality of States in the international community, which is an internationally recognized principle.

In addition, if Japan acknowledges state tort liability regarding an injured foreign national when such liability is not at all acknowledged for Japanese nationals in the home country of the foreign national, it would unfairly discriminate against the Japanese people. Therefore, the current reciprocity can rather be considered to be virtually securing equality of Japanese and foreign nationals.

(2) Accordingly, no problems are expected to arise in relation to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination even if there are cases where the national redress law is not applicable to a foreign national, whose home country does not acknowledge state tort liability regarding Japanese nationals, based on the reciprocity in Article 6 of the law, as this Convention does not apply to distinctions based upon nationalities.


THE UN CONTINUES:

179. The Committee requests the State party to provide in subsequent reports, inter alia, information on jurisprudence relating specifically to violations of the Convention, including the awarding by courts of adequate reparation for such violations.

180. The Committee recommends that the next State party report contain socio-economic data disaggregated by gender and national and ethnic group and information on measures taken to prevent gender-related racial discrimination, including sexual exploitation and violence.

181. The State party is also invited to provide in its next report further information on the work and powers of the Council for Human Rights Promotion and on the impact of: (i) the 1997 Law for the Promotion of Measures for Human Rights Protection; (ii) the 1997 Law for the Promotion of the Ainu Culture and for the Dissemination of and Advocacy for their Traditions; (iii) the Law Concerning Special Government Financial Measures for Regional Improvement Special Projects and envisaged strategies to eliminate discrimination against Burakumin after the law ceases to apply, i.e. in 2002.



JAPAN REPLIES:

18. In relation to "the State party is also invited to provide in its next report further information on the impact of (i) the 1997 Law for the Promotion of Measures for Human Rights Protection and the work and powers of the Council for Human Rights Promotion," in paragraph 23;
  1. The Law for the Promotion of Measures for Human Rights Protection stipulates, for the purpose of contributing to protection of human rights, the nation's obligations to develop educational and promotional measures to enhance public mutual understanding on the concept of respecting human rights, and to improve relief measures for the victims in cases of human right infringement. At the same time, the Law stipulates establishment of the Council for Human Rights Promotion in the Ministry of Justice designed for deliberating basic matters concerning these measures.

  2. At the first meeting, the Council was asked to advise on "basic matters concerning the comprehensive development of educational and promotional measures to enhance public mutual understanding of the concept of respect for human rights" (Item 1), by Minister of Justice, Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and Minister of Pubic Management [sic], Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications and on "basic matters regarding the improvement of relief measures for the victims in cases of human right" (Item 2) by Minister of Justice. The Council submitted a report on Item 1 in July 1999, and a report on the ideal human rights redress system regarding Item 2 in May 2001. The Council will further proceed to deliberating the ideal system of Human Rights Volunteers.

  3. The Japanese government intends to respect the Council's recommendations to the fullest and to endeavor set up the proposed human rights remedy system. Information on the implemented measures will be provided in Japan's next report.


19. In relation to "the State party is also invited to provide in its next report further information on the impact of (iii) the Law Concerning Special Government Measures for Regional Improvement Special Projects and envisaged strategies to eliminate discrimination against Burakumin after the law ceases to apply, i.e. in 2002," in paragraph 23;

First of all, discrimination based on social origin is not covered under this Convention. In addition, the special measures limited to the Dowa district will be completed at the end of March 2002, and if any needs for additional measures would arise in and after April 2002, they will be dealt with by implementing required general measures in the same manner as for other areas.



THE UN CONTINUES:

182. It is noted that the State party has not made the optional declaration provided for in article 14 of the Convention, and the Committee recommends that the possibility of such a declaration be considered.

JAPAN REPLIES:

20. In relation to Paragraph 24,".... the Committee recommends that the possibility of such a declaration be considered."
  1. The Japanese government considers that the system of receiving communications from individuals or groups of individuals set forth in article 14 of the Convention is noteworthy in that it aims to effectively secure implementation of the Convention. However, concerns have been pointed out that it may cause problems in relation to Japanese judicial system, including the possibility that it may obstruct independence of judicial power, and the government is currently conducting serious and careful examination on these points. Thus, the Japanese government intends to be careful in determining whether or not to make the declaration, by taking these points into consideration.

  2. As for the problems that may occur in relation to Japanese judicial system, Japan adopts a three-instance trial system in order to conduct prudent examination, and provides the retrial system for filing appeals even after Judgement became final and binding. It also offers extraordinary relief procedures besides the system for filing appeals against decisions in the ordinary court procedures. Since Japanese judicial system is thus functioning sufficiently at present, there is a slight concern for the possibility that the declaration may confuse such domestic relief procedures.



THE UN CONTINUES:

183. The Committee recommends that the State party ratify the amendments to article 8, paragraph 6, of the Convention, adopted on 15 January 1992 at the Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention.


JAPAN CONCLUDES:

21. In relation to "the Committee recommends that the State party ratify the amendments to article 8, paragraph 6, of the Convention," in paragraph 25;
The Japanese government considers that obligations under the Convention are only binding upon the State parties in principle, so expenses relating to the Convention should be borne solely by the State parties, and the expenses should not be covered by the regular budget of the United Nations that is mainly financed by contributions from States including non-parties. Accordingly, it does not plan to ratify the said amendments at present.



THE UN CONCLUDES:

184. The Committee recommends that the State party's reports continue to be made readily available to the public from the time they are submitted and that the Committee's observations on them be similarly publicized.

185. The Committee recommends that the State party submit its third periodic report jointly with its fourth periodic report, due on 14 January 2003, and that it address all points raised in the present observations.



THE UN'S RESPONSE TO JAPAN'S FIRST AND SECOND PERIODICAL REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS (March 2001), AND JAPAN'S RESPONSE (October 2001) END



3) EXCERPTED RESPONSES FROM DOMESTIC HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS TO JAPAN'S 2001 RESPONSE (2001)
Note: The GOJ has not responded to any of these domestic counter-reports. Moreover, even though signatories are obligated to report to the CERD Committee every two years, Japan has still not submitted its third periodic report, due 2002, to this day (June 2003).

NGO Report in Response to the First and Second Report Prepared by the Government of JapanConcerning the International Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination（Buraku Issue）
February 10, 2001
Buraku Liberation League
Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute
(Excerpt)
Courtesy: http://blhrri.org/blhrri_e/other/002_e.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(....)
4. Article 4 (Prohibition of Discrimination and Incitement Based on Racism)
(1) With regard to the introduction, there has been an increase in the number of discriminatory statements found in the forms of graffiti, reader's contributions and messages posted on the Internet. Examples of these statements include "Kill Buraku People", "Exterminate Buraku People" and so on. The Government has not yet taken any decisive action against such practises.
(....)
(3) With regard to Paragraph (b), propaganda of or incitement to discrimination against Buraku people in the forms of graffiti and Internet communications are often made under names of organizations. Since this violates human rights, the Government should immediately withdraw their reservations and enact a national law.
(....)
5. Article 5 (Equality Before the Law and the Enjoyment of Rights Without Discrimination)
Paragraph (a): The Sayama Case is a case where a murder occurred in Sayama City, Saitama Prefecture, in 1963. Judicial proceedings were initiated on a biased presupposition that Buraku people are likely to commit such crimes. (Data 6)
(....)
Paragraph (e): In November 1975, the "Buraku Lists" scandal was discovered (Data 10-1, 10-2). In June 1998, the "Discriminatory Personal Investigation" conducted by the Nihon IB and the Rick private investigative agencies was disclosed (Data 11). In both cases there was an intention to prevent Buraku people from being employed by private companies. In Japan, there are no laws or regulations that prohibit discriminatory screening of Buraku people with regard to employment in the private sector so there is an urgent need to introduce such a law. For reference, Japan has not yet ratified ILO Convention No. 111 that prohibits discrimination in employment and occupation.
(....)
6. Article 6 (Remedies for Victims of Racial Discrimination)
* The Sayama Case demonstrates the reality of remedial measures made through court proceedings in Japan. The defence lawyers lodged a protest after the second request for a retrial was dismissed. The lawyers have faced problems such as the non-disclosure of evidence and the lack of investigation of facts that should have been investigated by the prosecutor. Since the UN Human Rights Committee recommended that the Japanese Government should ensure that its laws and legal practises enable the defence to have access to all relevant material, all evidence should be immediately disclosed to the defence lawyers. (Data 15)
* As an alternative means of dispute resolution, the Human Rights Protection Service is available at the Civil Liberties Bureau in the Ministry of Justice. However, it has not proven to be very effective. It is urged that a sufficiently effective human rights commission based on the Paris Principles be established.
(....)
Read more about these cases and the full report at: http://blhrri.org/blhrri_e/other/002_e.htm

4) ADDITIONAL LINK: CCPR Committee Report (International covenant on civil and political rights, CCPR/C/79/Add.102 19 November 1998): UN scolds Japan: "human rights standards are not determined by popularity polls".

Back to the Cover Page

"The Community" Page

Go to the "Residents Page"

Go to the "Activists Page"