The Death Penalty in Japan
Conclusion and recommendations
As a signatory to the ICCPR, Japan is under an obligation to submit periodic reports to the Human Rights Committee, to respond to concerns raised by the UN Human Rights Council (formerly the Commission), and to take whatever measures are necessary to bring its domestic law into conformity with its international treaty obligations. It is clear from this survey of Japanese law and practice that Japan has repeatedly failed to respond to the concerns previously raised by the HRC regarding the use of the death penalty. Te comments of the HRC on Japan’s fourth periodic report almost 15 years ago (in 1998)73
are still very much relevant today. At that time, the HRC highlighted its profound
concern about conditions of detention and treatment on death row, the lack of procedural guarantees concerning-pre-trial detention, the high number of capital convictions based on confessions, and the limited recourse to habeus corpus. Te concerns identified by the HRC in 1998 have still not been addressed in Japan as successive governments have failed to reform outdated death penalty laws and practices that clearly fail to meet the minimum standards as reflected in the Safeguards. Tese Safeguards provide obligatory minimum legal standards that must be applied in all countries still intent on imposing capital punishment pending abolition – the ultimate goal under Article 6(6) of the ICCPR.
In 2007, the UN Committee against Torture expressed grave concern “at the large number of convictions in criminal trials based on confessions, in particular in light of the lack of effective judicial control over the use of pre-trial detention and the disproportionately high number of convictions over acquittals”. It further expressed concern about “the lack of means for verifying the proper conduct of interrogations of detainees while in police custody, in particular the absence of strict time limits for the duration of interrogations and the fact that it is not mandatory to have defence counsel present during all interrogations.”
Te Committee recommended that interrogation of detainees be “systematically monitored” through video or other recordings. It further recommended that detainees have access to a lawyer during interrogation.74
which added that the state should “acknowledge that the role of the police during criminal investigations is to collect evidence for the trial rather than establishing the truth, ensure that silence by suspects is not considered inculpatory, and encourage courts to rely on modern scientific evidence rather than on confessions made during police interrogations”.75
Both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture also expressed concerns that the daiyo kangoku system violates fair trial standards – undermining the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, the right of defence, the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself or confess guilt, and the right not to be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment.
Until these concerns are addressed, Japan will continue to violate its treaty obligations as well as general binding principles of international law. Te recommendations and decisions of international
73 74 75
Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, Japan, CCPR/C/79/Add.102, 19 November 1998 Note 73 above
Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Japan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5, 18 December 2008, at paragraph 19 28
Tese recommendations were echoed in 2008 by the UN Human Rights Committee,
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68