I. General Comments

The Initial, Second and Third Periodic Reports described the institutional aspects of human rights protection in the Japanese legal system in which the constitution is the supreme law, and the relation between domestic laws and the " International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" . The following are supplementary explanations to them.

The Concept of the Public Welfare in the Japanese Constitution

Article 11 of the Constitution stipulates that the people shall not be prevented from enjoying any of the fundamental human rights and that these fundamental human rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be conferred upon the people of this and future generations as eternal and inviolable rights. But, at the same time, Article 12 stipulates that the freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare, and Article 13 stipulates that all the people shall be respected as individuals, their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.

These articles imply that human rights are eternal and inviolable rights, but that they may be restricted by their inherent nature so that conflicting fundamental rights can be coordinated and each individual's rights are respected at an equal level. For example, the punishment for infringing on other people's honor may restrict the freedom of expression, but it is inevitable to protect other people's honor. This kind of restriction can be explained under the concept of the " public welfare."

There is, however, no room for restriction under the concept of " public welfare" on all those human rights which bear no possibility of interfering with other people's rights. The freedom of inner thought and conscience (Article 19 of the Constitution), for example, is interpreted to be absolute, and no restrictions are permitted.

Furthermore, as to whether laws and regulations restricting human rights can be justified as reasonable in light of the " public welfare," court precedents permit relatively broader discretion of legislature on laws and regulations which restrict economic liberty such as the freedom of business. On the contrary, they employ strict criterion in interpretating those which restrict mental freedom, permitting little discretion of legislature.

The concept of the " public welfare" has been thus defined by court precedents and depending on the nature inherent in each right, while the Constitution has no provisions articulating the " public welfare" . There would be therefore very little room for arbitrary use of the concept of the " public welfare" by the state.

Since the Constitution refers only to the " public welfare" as ground to restrict human rights, it seems to be different from the " International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" which specifies the grounds to restrict individual rights. However, the Constitution applies substantially the same grounds as the Covenant to restrict human rights, through elaborating the content of the " public welfare" , as explained above.

Court precedents are found in Appendix 1 on cases in which a right could be restricted under the " public welfare" .

Relation between the Covenant and Domestic Laws (including the Constitution)

Provisions of treaties concluded by the Government of Japan have legal effects as part of its internal law in accordance with Article 98, Paragraph 2, of the Constitution. Whether or not to apply directly provisions of treaties should be judged in each specific situation and taking into consideration the purpose, meaning and wording of the provisions concerned. This applies also to the Covenant.

Appendix 2 contains courts decisions on whether domestic laws, regulations and measure were in violation of the provisions of the Covenant. In no case found the Supreme Court, however, that laws, regulations and measures were in violation of the provision of the Covenant .

The Constitution is Japanese supreme law ,and the Constitution supersedes the Covenant in domestic effects. However, since the Constitution can be interpreted as covering the same range of human rights as that of the Covenant, as outlined above, there can be no conflict between the Constitution and the Covenant.

Human Rights Protection Mechanisms in Japan

(a) Human Rights Protection by Human Rights Organs

Appendix 1 of the Second Periodic Report showed the mechanism of the human rights organs established as government agencies whose primary purpose is to protect human rights. The detailed procedures of human rights counselling, research and settlement of cases involving human rights violations are as specified below.

As of 1 January 1996, 13,735 civil volunteers were serving as Civil Liberties Commissioners.

(i) Human Rights Counselling

(ii) Investigation and Settlement of Cases involving Human Rights Violation

The procedure mentioned above seeks the victim relief by raising awareness of human rights in its investigation and settlement process and letting the violator and people concerned voluntarily end or prevent the infringement. It is the violators themselves who decide if they accept the outcome of the process. However, the said measures do neither aim at delimiting specific rights of citizens, nor at eliminating violation by force. Rather, they aim at encouraging people's efforts to end or prevent human rights violation through raising their awareness of human rights. The human rights organs have contributed to the elimination and prevention of human rights violations by educating the people concerned and they have produced considerable outcome in raising public awareness.

(iii) Civil Liberties Commissioners for the " Rights of the Child"

The human rights organs have been concerned deeply with the issue related to rights of child, such as " bullying" , physical punishment, refusal to attend school and so on. Further, since 1994 some Civil Liberties Commissioners have been appointed as Civil Liberties Commissioners for the " Rights of the Child" in order to deal specially with the problems concerning children's rights. As of 1 January 1996, 515 Commissioners are appointed to this position in whole country. They are engaged in activities such as organizing lectures, symposia and other activities for children, parents and others to further the protection of children's rights.

(b) Measures for the " United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education"

The United Nations General Assembly adopted in 1994 at its 49th session a resolution proclaiming the ten-year period starting from 1995 to be the " United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education" . The Government established on 18 March 1996, by cabinet decision, a " Headquarters for the Promotion of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education" , with a view to promote measures for the decade by the Government as a whole, in close cooperation of relevant ministries and agencies. The ministries and agencies concerned have discussed and considered national measures for the Decade. The Government confirmed its commitment to promote measures for the decade at the first time meeting of the Headquarters held on 18 March 1996.

The ministries and agencies are continuing their urgent work of elaborating the " National Plan of Action" for the acceleration and furtherance of national measures for the " United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education" .

---

Back to Index