|
Tokyo
District Court Trial |
|
The South Korean
Association of The Bereaved of Pacific War Victims and a Japanese support group,
The Hakkirikai (Association to Clarify Japa's Post-war Responsibility), have
been supporting court battles in Japan, in which 40 Korean plaintiffs --
former ianfu (women put under sexual slavery in Japanese military
brothels), soldiers and gunzoku (paramilitary personnel) of the
now-defunct Japanese Military, or their bereaved families -- are demanding
state compensation for their victimization during the Asia-Pacific War. They
brought the case before the Tokyo District Court on 6 July 2001 through eleven
attorneys led by Ken'ichi Takagi acting as their agent, and the trial was
concluded on 26 March 2001, with all claims rejected. On the same day, the plaintiffs, their counsel, and the
two support organizations agreed upon appealing to the Tokyo High Court and
did so on 6 April. Following is an outline of the verdict delivered on 26
March 2001 on the redress suit made by the Korean victims and their bereaved
families of the Asia Pacific War (1991 No. 17461 and 1002 No. 50809). Note
that this is only a provisional translation and the part concerning names,
backgrounds and individual claims of the plaintiffs are largely omitted. For
more precise information, you should try other sources. |
[Hakkirikai-Japanese
original]
The Adjudication of the Tokyo District Court
1. The court declines all the claims made by plaintiffs.
2. The cost of the lawsuit shall be charged to the plaintiffs
Facts and Causes
The plaintiffs claim against the defendant (the state of Japan) for the payment of 20mn yen each, based on the following reasons.
The Outline of the Case
The plaintiffs argue that during
the Japan's colonial rule over the Korean peninsula (started with the
annexation of Korea upon the Japan-Korea Amalgamation Treaty concluded on 22
August 1910, following the gradual corrosion of the sovereignty of then-Korean
Empire since the second Korean-Japanese Accord on 17 November 1905, and lasted
until 1945) they suffered unbearable pains caused by the defendant, which
recruited Korean men to serve for its military as soldiers and gunzoku through
various methods ranging from promoting volunteers to de-facto conscriptions,
and Korean women to their military brothels. For the losses they suffered
during the service, the plaintiffs --former soldiers/gunzoku, their bereaved
families, or ianfu -- are claiming compensations against the state of Japan.
Some of the plaintiffs also lay claims on their unpaid salaries and frozen
balances of their postal saving accounts and demanding payback or compensation
for the loss if their claims are no longer valid.
As the legal ground of the part of
their claims that are related to human losses and damages (i.e. except claims
on unpaid salaries; this portion will hereinafter be referred to as
"compensation claims for human losses"), the plaintiffs raise the
following:
1. The right for compensation
claims stemming from the defendant's violation of the international laws,
including the commitment of "crimes against humanity."
2. The right to make
claims for the restitution of the original state provided by the Constitution
of Japan (the right for compensation claims based on the Preambles of the
Constitution as well as the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration).
3. The right of
making compensation claims based on Article 29-3 of the Constitution of Japan.
4. The right of
making compensation claims based on the principle of equality in the
international laws.
5. The right of
making compensation claims based on the principle of equality in the
Constitution of Japan.
6. The right for
compensation claims based on principles.
7. The right for
compensation claims based on the rule of trust (breach of the security care
obligation).
8. The right for
compensation claims based on the Japanese Civil Code.
9. The right for
compensation claims based on the provision of legislative nonfeasance defined
by Article 1-1 of the State Redress Law.
As for the
compensation claim on unpaid salaries, etc., which was made on an optional
basis separately from the main claim of "human loss" compensation, the
ten claimants base their claim on the right of compensation claim based on
Article 29-3 of the Constitution of Japan.
Points in Dispute
I. About Compensation Claims for Human Losses and Damages
I-1 Claims based on the international laws
(1) The compensation claims stemming from the defendant's
violation of the international laws, including the commitment of "crimes
against humanity."
--Validity of the
argument that the defendant violated the international laws / Whether or not
the alleged violation of the international laws entails civil liabilities.
(2) The compensation claim based on the right to demand the
restitution of the original state (the right for compensation claims stemming
from the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, etc.).
--Validity of the
compensation claim based on the acceptance of Potsdam Declaration, etc.
(3) The compensation claim based on the principle of equality in
the international laws.
--Validity of the
argument that the defendant violated the equality principle in the
international laws / Would the alleged violation entail in civil liabilities?
I-2 Claims based on domestic laws
(1)
Claims based on Article 29-3 of the Constitution of Japan.
-- Existence of the
right to make compensation claims based on Article 29-3
(2)
Claims based on the principle of equality in the Constitution of Japan.
--Validity of the
argument that the defendent violated the principle of equality in the
Constitution / Would that lead to civil liabilities?
(3) The
compensation claims based on principles.
--Validity of such
claims
(4) The
compensation claims based on the rule of trust (breach of the security care
obligation).
--Validity of the
argument that there was a violation of trust by the defendant. / Would that
lead to civil liabilities?
(5) The
compensation claims based on the Japanese Civil Code.
--Validity of the
argument that the defendant violated the Civil Code of Japan. / Would that lead
to liability for compensations?
(6) The
compensation claims based on the legislative nonfeasance provided by Article
1-1 of the State Redress Law.
--Does the defendant
bear responsibility based on the legislative nonfeasance in Article 1-1 of the
State Redress Law?
II About the claims for unpaid salaries, etc. and related compensation claims
2. Does the Sochi-ho's provision 1
violate Article 29-2 and 3 of the Constitution of Japan?
[Home] [Forum]
[Table] {Hakkirikai-Japanese}
|
|
|
