II. Information on Individual Articles of The Covenant

Appendix 1

1. Grand Bench Decision of the Supreme Court, 22 June 1983
   
   The following legal precedent was set, based on the view that restricting the freedom to read newspapers and others is not absolutely forbidden and that, in cases, where it is necessary for an overriding public interest, such restriction may inevitably be imposed within a reasonable limit.
   
   " Authorization must be given to the inevitable application of certain restrictions regarding the freedom of persons under pre-trial detention to read newspapers, books and so on, in those cases, in which it is for the purposes of the detention, that is to prevent escape and destruction of criminal evidence, or in which it is necessary, in order to maintain discipline and order within the prison as described above. However, whereas the pre-trial detention of a person not yet convicted is a restriction of personal freedom within a certain range, which is used as an unavoidable measure necessary to achieve the aforementioned purposes of criminal justice, at the same time and in principle freedoms, which general public enjoy, should be guaranteed for a detainee outside the bounds of the restrictions accompanying the reasons for detention. Therefore, even in cases where a detainee's freedom to read newspapers, books and so on is restricted in order to maintain discipline and order within the prison, such restriction should be limited only to the degree seen to be truly necessary in order to carry out the purposes described. Accordingly, before such restrictions can be permitted, it is not enough to say in general and abstract terms that there is a fear that permission to read such materials may threaten the aforementioned discipline and order. Instead, based on specific and concrete circumstances such as the detainee's propensities, his behavior, control conditions of the prison, security within the prison, the content of the newspapers, books and so on, it must be demonstrated that there is a high probability that permitting the detainee to read these items would likely inflict a non-negligible degree of damage in terms of maintaining discipline and order within the prison. Also, in such cases, the degree of the restrictions should be fairly interpreted to be only within the reasonable and necessary range for the prevention of the aforementioned damage."
2. Grand Bench Decision of the Supreme Court, 1 July 1992
   
   Based on the view that the right to assembly stipulated in Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution is not guaranteed without restriction in each and every case, but rather is, needless to say, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions, in terms of the interest of public welfare, the following legal precedent was set: " Whether or not restrictions on freedom of this kind are to be permitted as necessary and reasonable restrictions should be decided by weighing such factors as the degree, to which restrictions are necessary and the content and nature of the freedom to be limited along with the specific manner and degree of the restrictions and so on."
3. Petty Bench Decision of the Supreme Court, 7 March 1995
   
   In the matter of the interpretation and application of ordinances laying down reasons for refusing permission to use civic centers, which are public facilities, the following legal precedent was set, based on the view that it should be considered whether or not the freedom of assembly guaranteed under the Constitution is practically denied through the refusal of permission to use a civic center.
   
   " A superintendent of a public facility, which serves for purposes of assembly, should exercise his right of management in a manner appropriate to achieve the mission of the public facility, taking into consideration the type of facility, the scale, structural equipment and so on. Even in cases where, based on these perspectives, reasons making such use improper are not recognized, the superintendent may nevertheless refuse usage not only in cases, in which more than one party wishes to use the facility at the same time, but also in the limited instance, in which granting usage of the facility for purposes of assembly would infringe upon the basic human rights of others and be injurious to the public welfare. Thus, it must be stated that there are occasions when such restriction as within a necessary and reasonable range may be imposed on the holding of assemblies in the facility to avoid and prevent such infringement and injury. Furthermore, whether or not such restriction is indeed necessary and reasonable should be decided by weighing, at a basic level, the importance of the freedom of assembly as a fundamental human right versus other fundamental human rights, which would be infringed by the convening of such assembly, along with the level of danger which such infringement would incur, and so on."

1. Petty Bench Decision of the Supreme Court, 17 October 1991
   
   A decision was handed down, which rejected the appeal that the rules of Article 84 and Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 34 of the Income Tax Law, which excludes children and so on who are not acknowledged from dependency deductions, violate Article 26 and Article 23, Paragraph 1 of the Covenant.
2. Petty Bench Decision of the Supreme Court, 16 November 1992
   
   A decision was handed down, which ruled as " fair and admissible" an earlier decision that the denial of permission to re-enter the country does not violate Article 12, Paragraph 4 of the Covenant.
3. Petty Bench Decision of the Supreme Court, 22 February 1996
   
   A decision was handed down, which ruled that Article 14 of the Alien Registration Law, which regulates the system of fingerprinting, does not violate Articles 7 and 26 of the Covenant.

Crimes demanding the capital punishment

1. Ringleadership of insurrection
   (Penal Code, Article 77 Paragraph 1 Item 1)
2. Inducement of foreign aggression
   (Penal Code, Article 81)
3. Assistance to enemy
   (Penal Code, Article 82)
4. Arson to inhabited structure, etc.
   (Penal Code, Article 108)
5. Destruction by explosives
   (Penal Code, Article 117 Paragraph 1, Article 108)
6. Damage to inhabited structure, etc. by inundation
   (Penal Code, Article 119)
7. Overturn of a railroad train etc. resulting in death
   (Penal Code, Article 126 Paragraph 3)
8. Manslaughter caused by endangerment of traffic
   (Penal Code, Article 127, Article 126 Paragraph 3)
9. Addition of poisonous material into water main resulting in death
   (Penal Code, Article 146 latter part)
10. Murder
    (Penal Code, Article 199)
11. Robbery resulting in death
    (Penal Code, Article 240 latter part)
12. Rape on occasion of robbery resulting in death
    (Penal Code, Article 241 latter part)
13. Illegal use of explosives
    (Explosives Control Act, Article 1)
14. Duel and Murder
    (Law concerning Duel Crime, Article 3; Penal Code, Article 199)
15. Manslaughter by causing aircraft crash, etc.
    (Law Concerning the Punishments for Acts to Cause Aviation Danger, Article 2 Paragraph 3)
16. Manslaughter caused by seizure of aircraft, etc.
    (Law for Punishing the Seizure of Aircraft and Other Related Crimes, Article 2)
17. Homicide of hostage
    (Laws for Punishing Compulsion and Other Related Acts Committed by Those Having Taken Hostages, Article 4 Paragraph 1)