Top > Foreign Policy > Human Rights > Fourth Periodic Report by the Government of Japan under Article 40 Paragraph 1(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights > II. Information on Individual Articles of The Covenant (Article 4-6)

II. Information on Individual Articles of The Covenant

Article 4

As is stated in the Third Periodic Report,

(a) In the legislation referring to public emergency, there is no provision which restricts fundamental human rights.

(b) In Japan, in case of emergency, necessary measures would be taken in consistent with the Constitution as well as the Covenant.

Article 5

As is stated in the Third Periodic Report,

(a) Japan does not, in any way, either interpret the provisions of this Covenant in such a way to destroy the rights and the freedoms recognized in the Covenant, or to limit them to a greater extent than that the Covenant provides.

(b) In Japan, nobody can use the absence of reference to some rights in the Covenant as a pretext for violating these rights.

Article 6

The Issue of Capital Punishment

(a) Circumstances under which Capital Punishment is applied

In Japan, the application of capital punishment is limited to the 17 crimes, which were stated in the Third Periodic Report (See Appendix 3. After the simplification of texts in accordance with the revision of the Penal Code, " crime of capsize of a vessel or a railroad train resulting in death." is now called " crime of overturn of a railroad train etc. resulting in death." However, the constituent elements of these crimes did not change.) In addition, for these crimes, except for the incitement of foreign aggression, life imprisonment or imprisonment for a limited period is provided as optional punishment. Hence, in the Japanese legal system, capital punishment is applied only to particularly serious crimes (murder or international acts involving serious risk of injury to human life). Moreover, in concrete cases, capital punishment is applied very strictly and carefully in accordance with the judgment delivered on 8 July 1983 in Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court. The judgement states: " Capital punishment can be applied only when the criminal's responsibility is extremely grave and maximum penalty is unavoidable from the viewpoint of the balance between crime and penalty as well as that of general prevention, taking into account the circumstances, such as the nature, motive and mode of crime, especially the persistence and cruelty of the means of killing, the seriousness of the consequences, especially the number of victims killed, the feeling of the bereaved, social effects, the age and previous convictions of the offender, the circumstances after the commitment of the crime."

Actually, 23 persons were sentenced to death for five years since 1991 until 1995. All of them committed brutal murder or murder on the occasion of robbery. Moreover, under the present condition, the majority of the Japanese people insist that capital punishment should be maintained to penalize those who committed extremely atrocious offenses. This attitude was surveyed by public opinion surveys (the last survey was surveyed in September 1994).

(b) Treatment of Prisoners whose Capital Punishment became final

(i) Grounds for Detention, General Treatment and Application of Amnesty for Prisoners, whose Capital Punishment Sentence became final

Same as is stated in the Third Periodic Report.

(ii) Communication with the Outside by Prisoners, whose Capital Punishment Sentence became final

The Prison Law provides that the head of the prison considers each case in accordance with the purpose of the detention to decide, whether the prisoners, whose capital punishment sentence became final, may receive visitors or (in any other way) communicate with the outside world (Article 45, Paragraph 1 and Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Prison Law). In practice the prisoners, whose capital punishment sentence became final, are permitted to communicate with relatives, lawyers and so on, except for certain cases, which require inevitable restrictions considering following situations. The prisoners, whose capital punishment sentence became final, are placed in extreme position that is waiting for execution. Therefore, it is strongly required to keep them securely in custody. It is also necessary for prisons to ensure the mental stability of the prisoners, whose capital punishment sentence became final, and who should, needless to say, feel extremely uneasy and anguished, because of the nature of his/her detention.
Japanese civil law suits regarded the above-mentioned treatment of communication of persons sentenced to capital punishment as rational and lawful (for example, in the Judgement of the Tokyo District Court on 15 March 1996). Referring to that system of communication with the outside by prisoners, whose capital punishment sentence became final, no court has ever deemed it unlawful.

(c) Notification to the Family of the Execution of a Death Sentence

Article 74 of the " Prison Law" and Article 178 of the " Prison Law Enforcement Regulations" provide that the prisoner relative should be notified of his/her death, after the execution of a death sentence and that the body or ashes should be delivered to the relative or the like, if they request. Except for the above provisions, there is no other legal provision concerning notification to the family or the like of the execution of a death sentence. Therefore, no outside persons, including family members, are to be notified in advance of the date of execution. Reasons for this treatment are as follows: the family might experience unnecessary mental anguish, if they are notified of the date of execution beforehand, and, if the prisoners, whose death penalty have become final, receive their family visit after they have been notified of the date of execution, they may become mentally distressed and be unable to maintain calmness.

The detention institution verifies beforehand the wishes of the prisoners, whose capital punishment sentence became final, concerning succession of estate, donation of the body to medical institutions, which must be arranged with the family in advance, and instructs them to complete the necessary arrangements in the visit and correspondence with the family. Thus, from this point of view as well, it is not especially necessary to notify the family of the date of the execution beforehand.

(d) The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty

As is stated in the Third Periodic Report, abolition of the death penalty is directly related to the national sentiments and the domestic legislation, which is based on such sentiments. The conclusion of this Optional Protocol (which aims at the abolition of the death penalty), must therefore be examined carefully.

Back to Index