The Issue of Comfort Women

Written Answer to the Second Question Submitted by Ms. Sanae Takaichi,
Member of the House of Representatives, on References to the “Comfort
Women” Issue in Textbooks (December 16, 1997) (excerpt)

Regarding II-2:

The study on the issue of so called wartime comfort women conducted by the Government of Japan could not confirm any accounts in the documents identified, which would directly indicate that comfort women were forcefully taken away by military or government authorities. On the other hand, the study also referred to other materials, including the contents of various collections of testimonies as well as results of testimony hearings of former comfort women in the Republic of Korea. The content of the Government study's findings are a result of a comprehensive consideration over those sources.

The Government study's findings are a compilation of all of the findings from the study which the Government made every effort to carry out faithfully. Therefore the Government considers that there is no reason at this time to revise the content of the Government study's findings.

Announcement by Foreign Ministers of Japan and the Republic
of Korea at the Joint Press Occasion
December 28, 2015

1. Foreign Minister Kishida

The Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) have intensively discussed the issue of comfort women between Japan and the ROK at bilateral meetings including the Director-General consultations. Based on the result of such discussions, I, on behalf of the Government of Japan, state the following:

(1) The issue of comfort women, with an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that time, was a grave affront to the honor and dignity of large numbers of women, and the Government of Japan is painfully aware of responsibilities from this perspective. As Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Abe expresses anew his most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.

(2) The Government of Japan has been sincerely dealing with this issue. Building on such experience, the Government of Japan will now take measures to heal psychological wounds of all former comfort women through its budget. To be more specific, it has been decided that the Government of the ROK establish a foundation for the purpose of providing support for the former comfort women, that its funds be contributed by the Government of Japan as a one-time contribution through its budget, and that projects for recovering the honor and dignity and healing the psychological wounds of all former comfort women be carried out under the cooperation between the Government of Japan and the Government of the ROK.

(3) While stating the above, the Government of Japan confirms that this issue is resolved finally and irreversibly with this announcement, on the premise that the Government will steadily implement the measures specified in (2) above. In addition, together with the Government of the ROK, the Government of Japan will refrain from accusing or criticizing each other regarding this issue in the international community, including at the United Nations.

2. Foreign Minister Yun

The Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Government of Japan have intensively discussed the issue of comfort women between the ROK and Japan at bilateral meetings including the Director-General consultations. Based on the result of such discussions, I, on behalf of the Government of the ROK, state the following:

(1) The Government of the ROK values the GOJ's announcement and efforts made by the Government of Japan in the lead-up to the issuance of the announcement and confirms, together with the GOJ, that the issue is resolved finally and irreversibly with this announcement, on the premise that the Government of Japan will steadily implement the measures specified in 1. (2) above. The Government of the ROK will cooperate in the implementation of the Government of Japan's measures.

(2) The Government of the ROK acknowledges the fact that the Government of Japan is concerned about the statue built in front of the Embassy of Japan in Seoul from the viewpoint of preventing any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, and will strive to solve this issue in an appropriate manner through taking measures such as consulting with related organizations about possible ways of addressing this issue.

(3) The Government of the ROK, together with the Government of Japan, will refrain from accusing or criticizing each other regarding this issue in the international community, including at the United Nations, on the premise that the Government of Japan will steadily implement the measures it announced.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Consideration of the seventh and eighth periodic reports (February 16, 2016, Geneva)
(Summary of remarks by Mr. Shinsuke Sugiyama, Deputy Minister
for Foreign Affairs in the Question and Answer session)
August 9, 2016

The combined seventh and eighth periodic reports were considered by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on February 16, 2016 at the United Nations Office in Geneva. The summary of remarks by Mr. Shinsuke Sugiyama, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Question and Answer session is as follows.

1. Domestic application of the Convention

(In answer to the questions from Mr. Bruun,)

Japan shall faithfully observe the treaties concluded by Japan and established rule of international law, based on Article 98-2 of the Constitution of Japan and considers that such treaties prevail over domestic laws.

2. Issue of comfort women

(In answer to the questions from Ms. Hofmeister,)

As stated in the written answer to the questions posed by the Committee, the Government of Japan conducted a full-scale fact-finding study on the comfort women issue in the early 1990s. That was when the issue started to be taken up as a political and diplomatic issue between Japan and the Republic of Korea. However, “forceful taking away” of comfort women by the military and government authorities could not be confirmed in any of the documents that the Government of Japan was able to identify in this study.

The reason behind the widespread belief that comfort women were “forcefully taken away” is a fabricated story by the late Seiji Yoshida in his book entitled “My War Crime” published in 1983. In this book, Yoshida illustrates himself hunting many women by order of the Japanese military in Jeju Island of the Republic of Korea. At the time, the content of his book was widely reported as if it were a true story by the Asahi Shimbun, a major Japanese newspaper. It eventually made a tremendous impact not only on public opinion in Japan and the Republic of Korea, but also in the entire international community. The reality is, Yoshida's story has later been proven to be entirely a product of imagination by scholars.

In fact, the Asahi Shimbun later published articles several times including on August 5 and 6, and later in September, 2014, admitted having published erroneous articles, and officially apologized for it to their readers.

The truth is that the figure “200,000 persons” as the number of comfort women also lacks concrete evidence. The Asahi Shimbun clarified in its article dated on August 5, 2014 that “‘Women volunteer corps' refer to the ‘women volunteer labor corps' that were organized to mobilize women as a work force during the war in Japan proper as well as in the former colonies on the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan” and that “With the objective of using the women as a work force, the corps were different from comfort women who were made to serve as sexual partners for military personnel.” The Asahi Shimbun admitted that the figure “200,000” which it had reported was originated from its confusion with comfort women of the Women Volunteer Corps who were mobilized as a war-time labor force.

I would also like to point out that the expression “sex slaves” contradicts the facts.

After intensive consultations between the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea on the issue of comfort women toward an early conclusion, as I explained earlier, the Foreign Ministers of both nations had a meeting on December 28 last year and reached an agreement on the issue. With this agreement, the two Governments confirmed that the issue of comfort women is resolved finally and irreversibly. Later on the same day, a phone call between the leaders of both nations was held and the leaders confirmed that both sides had reached an agreement and honored such development.

As I said at the outset, documents on this agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea are attached with our written answer, thus, I will not repeat the detailed content of the agreement here.

What should be recognized is that the Government of Japan has been sincerely dealing with this issue through measures such as the Asian Women's Fund even before the most recent agreement. Building on such experience and under the most recent agreement, the following has been decided: first, the Government of the Republic of Korea establish a foundation for the purpose of providing support for the former comfort women; second, its funds of approximately 1 billion yen be contributed by the Government of Japan as a one-time contribution through its budget; and third, projects for recovering the honor and dignity and healing the psychological wounds of all former comfort women be carried out under the cooperation between the two Governments.

Each government is currently making efforts to faithfully implement the content of the agreement, and there is no change at all on this point. The understanding of the international community regarding such efforts by the two Governments would be very much appreciated. In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the international community is now welcoming the agreement, as expressed by, for instance, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I would like to add one more point. Ms. Hofmeister pointed out examples of other countries' situations. Regarding issues of reparations, property, and claims pertaining to the Second World War, including the point that Ms. Hofmeister pointed out, the Government of Japan dealt with such issues through the San Francisco Peace Treaty concluded with 45 countries, including the US, the UK, and France, and through bilateral treaties, agreements and instruments, which include the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea and settlement between Japan and China. Based on these agreements, I will not go into the legal details, but, the Government of Japan's consistent position has been that we have dealt with these issues sincerely and that these issues had already been legally settled with the relevant parties to those agreements including issues of claims by individuals.

Although this issue had been legally settled, the Government of Japan established the Asian Women's Fund and carried out its projects using the budget of the Government of Japan and contributions from the people of Japan. I will not go into the details of the activities of the Asian Women's Fund, but, I believe that most of you here today are familiar with the story.

(In answer to the questions from Ms. Zou,)

I believe that if you read the documents attached with our written answer, it should be clear to you that the issue (of comfort women) is resolved finally and irreversibly between Foreign Minister Kishida and Foreign Minister Yun on December 28 last year.

Therefore, I have to say that criticism such as comments that the Government of Japan denies historical fact or has not taken any measures related to this issue contradicts the facts.

I have explained that “forceful taking away” of comfort women could not be confirmed in our study, but in the agreement concluded by Foreign Minister Kishida, it says that, “The issue of comfort women, with an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that time, was a grave affront to the honor and dignity of large numbers of women, and the Government of Japan is painfully aware of responsibilities.” This agreement also states that the Japanese Government expresses its most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women, and a foundation will be established, and its funds will be contributed by the Government of Japan, the amount of which is 1 billion Yen. Since we only have limited time, I will not go into the further details. As for the phrase “With an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that time,” the Government of Japan has admitted that comfort stations were established in response to the request of the military authorities at that time, that the then Japanese military had been involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women, and that the recruitment of the comfort women had been conducted by private recruiters who acted in response to the request of the military. Based on the above-mentioned facts, I gave an explanation earlier in order to clarify that the newspaper that published the article admitted that the number of 200,000 was completely mistaken, for example.

I also would like to reiterate that the expression “sex slave” contradicts the facts. It is also the case that the expression “sex slave” does not appear even once in the joint announcement by the Foreign Ministers of Japan and the Republic of Korea, which is attached with our written answer.

Therefore, highly regrettably, I must make it clear that the Government of Japan can not only accept any of the points made by Ms. Zou, but I also have to say that her statement contradicts the facts.

(Regarding the question by Ms. Zou on the agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea,) The agreement that we provided to you is the agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea and both governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea are currently making efforts to faithfully implement the content of the agreement. This has not changed at all. I would like to ask for your understanding on this point.

The Government of Japan Files Amicus Curiae Brief supporting petitioners at the Case Against Comfort Woman Statue in Glendale, U.S. (February 2017)

1. The comfort woman statue installed in the City of Glendale, California, is subject to a lawsuit filed against the City of Glendale by Japanese residents of California and organizations as plaintiffs. Two cases are simultaneously pending before a U.S. federal court and a California court. The former case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2017. In this connection, the Government of Japan filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court on February 22.

2. To date, the Government of Japan has provided appropriate explanations regarding its basic position and efforts concerning the comfort women issue to various parties concerned and sought their accurate understanding. This amicus curiae brief was submitted as part of these efforts.

3. The amicus curiae brief that was submitted explains the reasons that the appeal should be accepted, citing the positions expressed in the past by the U.S. Government judicial and precedents in the U.S. It also states the basic position and efforts of the Government of Japan regarding the comfort women issue

Amicus Curiae Brief for the Government of Japan (Excerpt)

Japan strongly disagrees that the inscription on the Glendale monument accurately describes the historical record, which Japan has studied at length. Last year at the Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, in Geneva, Japan's Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs testified about the results of Japan's full-scale fact-finding study in the 1990s. See Summary of Remarks by Mr. Shinsuke Sugiyama, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Question and Answer Session, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Feb. 16, 2016) (discussing the results of Japan's investigation, including a lack of evidence to support a claim that 200,000 women were coerced into sexual slavery).

The claims of individuals, including comfort women, are addressed by a 1965 Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation. This 1965 Agreement underscores that the comfort women issue should be handled as a matter of government-to-government diplomacy. Indeed, Japan and Korea's ongoing diplomacy on the issue, supported by the United States, led to an aforementioned agreement in 2015 as well. The Government of Japan honors the 2015 Agreement and continues to implement it in a very faithful manner.

It is of the utmost importance to Japan that States or localities like Glendale may not insert themselves into foreign relations, especially on sensitive subjects like this one, so that they can not undermine the unified message that the United States of America must send in its foreign policy making.

Statement by Mr. Manabu Horii, Parliamentary Vice-Minister
for Foreign Affairs of Japan, at the High-Level Segment
of the 37th Session of the Human Rights Council (excerpt)
February 27, 2018

Mr. President,

On the comfort women issue, which the head of the Republic of Korea (ROK) delegation mentioned yesterday in her statement addressing this Human Rights Council session, the Government of Japan has been sincerely dealt with this issue for a long period of time. On top of it, as a result of considerable diplomatic efforts, the Japan-ROK agreement of December 2015 confirmed that the comfort women issue is resolved “finally and irreversibly,” and that Japan and the ROK will mutually refrain from accusing or criticizing each other regarding this issue in the international community. In accordance with the agreement, the Government of Japan contributed 1 billion yen to the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation, which was established by the Government of the ROK based on the agreement, and projects have actually been carried out for recovering the honor and dignity and healing the psychological wounds of former comfort women. Furthermore, the agreement has been appreciated by many former comfort women in the ROK: more than 70% of the 47 former comfort women who were alive at the time of the conclusion of the agreement have received support provided by the foundation. The Japan-ROK agreement is an agreement between two countries, and it is an international and universal principle that an agreement must be implemented responsibly regardless of the change of government. Japan has been sincerely implementing all the commitments made in the agreement, and it is important that the agreement is steadily implemented.

Furthermore, at the consideration of the ROK during the 69th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women held on February 22, the ROK delegation used the expression “sex slaves.” Japan is of the view that the expression “sex slaves” contradicts the facts and should not be used, and Japan confirmed this point with the ROK at the Japan-ROK agreement.

In this regard, the Government of Japan conducted a full-scale fact-finding study on the comfort women issue in the early 1990s, when the issue started to be taken up as a political and diplomatic issue between Japan and the ROK. However, “forceful taking away” of comfort women by the military and government authorities could not be confirmed in any of the documents in this study. The view that comfort women were “forcefully taken away” is a fabricated story by the late Seiji Yoshida in his book entitled “My War Crime” published in 1983. In this book, Yoshida illustrates himself “hunting many women by order of the Japanese military in Jeju Island of the ROK”. At the time, the content of his book was widely reported to the international community as if it had been a true story by a major Japanese newspaper. However, Yoshida's story has later been proven to be entirely a product of imagination. In fact, the major newspaper company later admitted having published erroneous articles, and officially apologized for it to their readers.

Remarks by Deputy Director-General / Deputy Assistant Minister (UN Ambassador)
of the Foreign Policy Bureau Otaka for the Consideration of the Tenth
and Eleventh Combined Periodic Report by the Government of Japan under
the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (August 2018) (excerpt)

On the comfort women issue, which many members have raised, I will not repeat Japan's legal position including in relation with the Convention and on claims of individuals, as I already explained yesterday.

Having said that, recognizing that the comfort women issue severely injured the honor and dignity of many women, the Government of Japan, together with the people of Japan, seriously discussed what could be done to express their sincere apologies and remorse to the former comfort women. As a result, the Asian Women's Fund (AWF) was established on July 19, 1995, through joint efforts made by the people and the Government of Japan, in order to extend atonement from the Japanese people to the former comfort women. The Government of Japan has extended its utmost cooperation to the projects of the AWF, which carried out “medical and welfare support projects” and provided “atonement money” to offer realistic relief to former comfort women, who were already advanced in years. When these projects were carried out, then-Prime Ministers of Japan sent a signed letter expressing apologies and remorse directly to each former comfort woman.

While the AWF was disbanded in March 2007, the Government of Japan is continuing its efforts to gain a better understanding of the sincere feelings of the people and the Government of Japan as embodied in the projects of the AWF. It will also continue its efforts to ensure that Japan's views and efforts on the comfort women issue are properly valued in the international community, based on an objective understanding of relevant facts.

Some Committee members pointed out former comfort women in countries and regions other than the ROK. In fact, the AWF provided “atonement money,” welfare support project, and letters by then-Prime Ministers expressing apologies and remorse, not only to former comfort women in the ROK but also to those in the Philippines and Taiwan.

Moreover, the AWF provided financial support for building elder care facilities in Indonesia, where the Government of Indonesia found it difficult to identify former comfort women. In the Netherlands, where no authorities could identify former comfort women at the time of the AWF's establishment, the Fund provided financial support for a welfare project that helped to enhance the living conditions of those who suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds during World War II. I seek your understanding that Japan has also made its utmost efforts in countries and areas other than the ROK.

On the other hand, in the ROK, there were voices to demand the Government of Japan for state compensation, and some former comfort women who had received or wanted to receive benefit from the AWF's projects were subject to “harassment” or criticism.

Despite such a situation, the AWF was able to provide benefit to 61 former comfort women in the ROK. The former comfort women who received the benefit have expressed gratitude to the people and the Government of Japan. I believe this shows that the Government and people of Japan were able to get through to the former comfort women.

On the specific number 61, Japan had been refraining from making it public up until recently. This was out of consideration for the position of those former comfort women who received the benefit.

There are voices that claim Japan denies or distorts the facts. However, I would like to make clear that Japan does not deny the issue of comfort women. On the other hand, we believe that there are some inaccurate information and misunderstanding on this issue. I think that the background of why this issue has drawn such attention is somewhat unfortunate. For instance, in his book titled “My War Crime” published in 1983, the late Seiji Yoshida wrote a fabricated story by illustrating himself “hunting many women by order of the Japanese military in Jeju Island of the ROK”. At the time, the content of his book was widely reported to the international community as if it had been a true story by a major Japanese newspaper. This has drawn attention and become one of the major sources to create an image on this issue. In this sense, the story has had a strong impact However, Yoshida's story has later been proven to be entirely a product of imagination.

In fact, the major newspaper company later admitted to having published erroneous articles, and officially apologized for it to their readers. I think that such a background is not well-known enough, or in some ways ignored or neglected. I hope the issue is discussed or valued based on an objective understanding. In this respect, I would like you to read various publications by experts and academics, as some of them are translated in English.

As a result of considerable diplomatic efforts, the Japan-ROK agreement of December 2015 confirmed that the comfort women issue is resolved “finally and irreversibly”. This Japan-ROK agreement has not only been welcomed by the international community, including Mr. Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, but has also been positively received by many former comfort women in the ROK.

In accordance with the agreement, the Government of Japan contributed 1 billion yen to the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation, which was established by the Government of the ROK based on the agreement, and projects have actually been carried out for recovering the honor and dignity and healing the psychological wounds of former comfort women. So far, among the 47 former comfort women who were alive at the time of the agreement, 36 have already agreed to the projects, of which 34 have actually received such support as medical and welfare support.

In order to recover the honor and dignity and heal the psychological wounds of former comfort women, it is extremely important that the agreement, reached between Japan and the ROK and positively received by the international community as well as former comfort women, is steadily implemented. We must never let the future generations be responsible for this issue.

Japan is of the view that the phrase “sexual slavery” is not appropriate because it contradicts the facts. We strongly oppose the use of such phrase. Japan confirmed this point with the ROK at the timing of the Japan-ROK agreement, and notes that the phrase is not at all used in the agreement.

Letter from Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary for Human Rights Okamura
to Chair Janina of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances 30
November, 2018

Ms. Suela Janina

Distinguished Chair of the Committee

on Enforced Disappearances

Dear Ms. Janina,

On 19 November 2018, the Committee published concluding observations after a dialogue held on 5 and 6 November 2018 on the report submitted by the Government of Japan (GOJ). The GOJ would like to express its grave concerns and strongly protest the findings of the concluding observations, as they do not sufficiently reflect explanations made by the Japanese delegation during the consideration of Japan's report.

While the concluding observations refer to descriptions of our legislation, such as the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the comfort women issue, they include grave factual errors in no small measures and ignore our explanations at the dialogue and comments which the GOJ sent to the Committee before its release. Please see the attached fact-sheet for more details.

First and foremost, it is inappropriate to take up the comfort women issue in the consideration of the Government report regarding the state of implementation of the Convention since the Convention does not apply retroactively to any issues that occurred prior to its entry into force. Article 35 (1) of the Convention states that “The Committee shall have competence solely in respect of enforced disappearances which commenced after the entry into force of this Convention.” While the GOJ understands that the Committee emphasizes continuous nature of the crime of enforced disappearance and the rights of victims to justice, the way that the Committee takes up the issue which happened more than 70 years ago without indicating any evidence is questionable in itself. As for the rights of victims, the GOJ has explained during the consideration that victims are eligible for reparations if there are reasonable grounds.

Despite this fact, the GOJ thoroughly and sincerely explained the result of a fact-finding study on comfort women conducted by the GOJ during the 1990s, and the reason behind why the widespread belief that comfort women were “forcefully taken away” is a fabricated story, as requested by members of the Committee. Nevertheless, paragraphs 25 and 26 of the concluding observations still refer to the comfort women issue in a one-sided manner based on fundamental misunderstanding and prejudice without showing any substantial grounds. This should be regarded as a matter of grave concern.

The GOJ would like to point out three main points on the comfort women issue with regard to the concluding observations. Firstly, it is a grave error for the Committee to make observations and recommendations on the assumption that the comfort women are subject to enforced disappearance as stipulated under the Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee should provide proper evidence in making such observations and recommendations. In other words, it is extremely inappropriate to include such reference without showing any substantial grounds. The GOJ requests the Committee to provide us the answers to the above question based on explicit legal grounds.

Secondly, it is also extremely inappropriate for the Committee to express its regret regarding the agreement between the GOJ and Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) that the issue “is resolved finally and irreversibly”. This disregards sincere efforts made by the both governments. Moreover, the observations do not take into account the background leading up to the agreement, specifically that both governments reached the agreement as a result of considerable diplomatic efforts, and that the agreement was widely welcomed by the international community, including the then Secretary General of the United Nations. Last but not least, the recommendations for the GOJ lack balance compared with those in the concluding observations on reports submitted on other countries.

Accordingly, the GOJ has no choice but to state that the way the Committee published the one-sided recommendations without addressing the GOJ's concerns lacks the impartiality required for the UN, and is extremely unfair to the State Party which has implemented the Treaty and has conducted its own examination in a sincere manner. Committees belonging to the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, including the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, should formulate and publish concluding observations that fully take into account reports submitted by the State Parties as well as their explanations during dialogues. The GOJ, in this regard, cannot help but conclude that the consideration of Japan's report as well as the concluding observations have taken place based only on information from limited and specific certain sources. The GOJ believes that additional efforts on the side of the Committee are crucial to ensure that the consideration is conducted in a fair manner.

Sincerely,

Yoshifumi Okamura

Representative

of the Government of Japan

Ambassador Extraordinary

and Plenipotentiary for Human Rights

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan

Fact-sheet: Position of the Government of Japan (GOJ)
with regard to the concluding observations
by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances
(CED) on the report submitted by Japan under article 29 (1)
of the Convention

1. Jurisdiction over offences of enforced disappearance (art. 9) (concluding observations para 21 and 22)

The Penal Code of Japan explicitly establishes extraterritorial jurisdiction over all the offence of enforced disappearance.

2. Reporting and investigating cases of enforced disappearances (art. 11 and 12) (concluding observations para 23 and 24)

(1) Article 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides “any person who believes that an offense has been committed may file an accusation”. Therefore, any individual is able to report an alleged enforced disappearance to the competent authorities, irrespective of his/her relationship to the disappeared person.

(2) Article 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides “a judicial police official shall, when he/she deems that an offense has been committed, investigate the offender and evidence thereof”. Accordingly, police officers have no discretion whether to investigate or not but have to initiate investigation.

(3) There is no limit or exception in the course of executing a search warrant. Therefore, all places of detention or any other place where there are grounds to believe that a disappeared person may be present is subject to unconditional search with a warrant.

(4) Japan has no military jurisdiction, and all cases of enforced disappearance are under the ordinary courts' jurisdiction.

3. The situation of the so-called “comfort women” victims of enforced disappearance (art. 1, 8, 12, 24 and 25) (concluding observations para 25 and 26)

(1) Since the Convention does not apply retroactively to any issues that occurred prior to its entry into force, the GOJ considers that the comfort women issue should not be taken up in the examination of the government report regarding the state of implementation of the Convention. Having said that, no “complaint” pursuant to Article 12 of the Convention, including the comfort women issue, has been raised against the GOJ to date.

(2) The GOJ has conducted a full scale fact-finding study on the comfort women issue in the early 1990s. This fact-finding study included 1) research and investigation on related documents owned by relevant ministries and agencies of the GOJ, 2) searching documents at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 3) hearings of relevant individuals including former military parties and managers of comfort stations and 4) analysis of testimonies collected by the Korean Council, a Korean NGO. However, “forceful taking away” of comfort women by the military and government authorities could not be confirmed in any of the documents that the GOJ was able to identify in this.

(3) Every single result of such study is disclosed to the public and accessible on the internet through the websites of related government organizations as well as the Asian Women's Fund (AWF). There is no ground for criticism that the GOJ is concealing related facts and materials on the comfort women issue.

(4) We believe that there is some widespread misunderstanding on the comfort women issue. The reason behind such belief that the comfort women were “forcefully taken away” is a fabricated story by the late Seiji Yoshida in his book entitled “My War Crime” published in 1983. In this book, Yoshida illustrates himself hunting many women by order of the Japanese military in Jeju Island of the Republic of Korea (ROK). At the time, the content of his book eventually made a tremendous impact not only on public opinion in Japan and the ROK, but also in the entire international community. The reality is, Yoshida's story has later been proven by scholars to be entirely a product of imagination. In fact, a major Japanese newspaper which actively reported this book as if it were a true story later admitted to having published erroneous articles, and officially apologized for it to their readers. This background is not widely known. The comfort women issue should be discussed or assessed based on all the objective facts.

(5) The expression “comfort women who may have been subjected to enforced disappearance” was used in the concluding observations. The GOJ understands that such observation by the Committee is based on the premise of the possibility of “comfort women” being subject to victims of enforced disappearance. Nevertheless, if the Committee gives such observation, it is necessary for the Committee to provide adequate evidence in drawing such conclusions.

(6) Also, with regard to the clause in paragraph 25, which states “It is further concerned at the lack of adequate reparations to the victims in accordance with article 24 (5) of the Convention”, no “complaint” pursuant to article 12 of the Convention has been made in the first place. In addition, the GOJ has sincerely dealt with issues of reparations, property and claims pertaining to the Second World War under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which the GOJ concluded with 45 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and through other bilateral treaties, agreements and instruments. These issues, including those of claims of individuals, have already been legally settled with the parties to these treaties, agreements and instruments. (With regard to the ROK, it was confirmed in the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Cooperation between Japan and the Republic of Korea that the issues concerning property and claims “have been settled completely and finally.” The GOJ, in accordance with the said Agreement, provided 500 million US dollars to the ROK as economic cooperation.)

(7) Additionally, since the 1990s, the GOJ and Japanese nationals have extended its utmost cooperation to the projects of the AWF, which provided “medical and welfare support projects” and “atonement money” (totaling of 5 million yen per person in the ROK and Taiwan as well as 3.2 million yen per person in the Philippines) to offer material relief to former comfort women. When atonement money as well as the medical and welfare support were provided, the then-prime ministers (namely, PM Ryutaro Hashimoto, PM Keizo Obuchi, PM Yoshiro Mori and PM Junichiro Koizumi), sent a signed letter expressing apologies and remorse directly to each former comfort woman. As a result, 285 former comfort women (211 persons in the Philippines, 61 persons in the ROK, 13 persons in Taiwan) received funds. As a result of such efforts, the 1998 Japan-ROK Joint Declaration─A New Japan-Republic of Korea Partnership towards the Twenty-first Century ─ called upon both countries “to build a future-oriented relationship based on reconciliation as well as good-neighborly and friendly cooperation.”

(8) Despite such efforts, the comfort women issue became a political matter between the two countries. The GOJ and the Government of the ROK held intensive consultations on this issue toward an early conclusion to realize the healing of the former comfort women. Both countries held a meeting on December 28, 2015, and finally reached an agreement on this issue. With this agreement, the two governments confirmed that the comfort women issue is “resolved finally and irreversibly” and that the two governments will refrain from accusing or criticizing each other regarding this issue in the international community, including at the United Nations. In addition, in accordance with the agreement, the Government of the ROK established a foundation for the purpose of providing support for former comfort women and the GOJ contributed 1 billion yen to the foundation.

(9) This Japan-ROK agreement was welcomed by the international community, including Mr. Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the Government of the United States of America, as well as highly appreciated by the media in the European and American countries, including the New York Times. In addition, the agreement was also received positively by many former comfort women in the ROK. It is thus important that the agreement is steadily implemented for the sake of former comfort women who are now in their advanced years.

(10) As stated in the Statement by the Prime Minister of Japan issued in 2015, that we will engrave in our hearts the past, when the dignity and honour of many women were severely injured during wars in the 20th century. Japan is determined to lead the world in making the 21st century an era in which women's human rights are not infringed upon.

4. Expulsion, return, surrender and extradition mechanisms (art. 13 and 16) (concluding observations para 29)

(1) The Convention is, as a matter of course, not applicable to States which are not the party. Therefore, the GOJ shall not be blamed for such obstacles to extradition.

(2) It is very common for countries in the international community to require assurance of the principle of reciprocity in the absence of an extradition treaty. Indeed, not only Japan but also the other countries require this principle as well. Therefore, this requirement is not an obstacle to extradition.

5. Fundamental legal safeguards (art. 17) (concluding observations para 31 and 32)

(1) Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, any suspect in custody can have an access to and correspond with a lawyer with no restriction, prohibition nor examination.

(2) Under the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees and its related ordinances, when the suspect cannot bear the financial cost of translation or interpretation, the Prefecture supports the cost if it is necessary. Article 39 para (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure provides “the accused or the suspect in custody may, without any official being present, have an interview with, or send to or receive documents or articles from counsel or prospective counsel upon the request of a person entitled to appoint counsel”.

6. Registers of persons deprived of liberty (art. 17, 18, 20 and 22) (concluding observations para 35 and 36)

(1) Custodial records in Japan cover all the information set forth in article 17 of the Convention and such information shall be updated promptly.

(2) Any responsible officials who fail to record a deprivation of liberty, refuse to provide information or provide inaccurate information in violation of his/her official obligation is subject to disciplinary sanctions and may be subject to criminal punishment when conducting intentionally.

7. Measures to provide reparation and to protect children against enforced disappearance (art. 24 and 25) (concluding observations para 39)

(1) Although the “victim” in the Code of Criminal Procedure appears not to be literally fully mirroring the text of the Convention, prosecutors provides sufficient information and measures for “victims” in practice when requested by the victim himself/herself.

(2) The GOJ believes that the concluding observations sent from the Committee are not reasonable, as they do not reflect explanations by the GOJ and related legislation submitted before the consideration of Japan's report.