NGO Report in Response to the First and Second Report Prepared by the Government of JapanConcerning the International Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination（Buraku Issue）
February 10, 2001
Buraku Liberation League
Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute
1. Article 1 (Definition of Racial Discrimination)
(1) Paragraph 1: While the Government Report does not refer to Buraku discrimination, the Buraku discrimination issue should be covered by the Convention on the grounds as are described in the attached Data 1-1.
(2) Paragraph 2.
(3) Paragraph 3.
(4) Paragraph 4. (To be discussed in connection with Paragraph 2 of Article 2)
2. Article 2 (Undertakings of State Parties to Eliminate Discrimination)
(1) With regard to Paragraph 1 (a), Toyama city authorities in Toyama Prefecture have ignored a problem that arose from the reorganization of city town blocks. In reorganizing the town blocks, two town block assemblies that adjoined a Buraku community refused to be integrated into the same town block assembly as the Buraku community. As a result, the Buraku community has been forced to use a town block name that does not officially exist. The city authorities are urged to take immediate steps to resolve this problem. (Data 2)
Paragraph 1 (b).
Paragraph 1 (c).
With regard to Paragraph 1 (d), there have been several cases of discrimination in which those who practise discrimination against Buraku people do not stop doing so even though warnings are repeatedly given to them by the concerned parties. With regard to the case in Kishiwada City in Osaka Prefecture, as described in Data 3, the National Government, Osaka Prefectural Government and Kishiwada City Government should persuade the person involved to stop acting in a discriminatory manner and introduce legal measures to prohibit such practises.
Paragraph 1 (e).
(2) With regard to Paragraph 2 of Article 2, since the enactment of the "Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects" in July 1969, the Government of Japan has implemented a series of Special Measures laws with the aim of eliminating Buraku discrimination. On the basis of proposals made by the Consultative Council on Regional Improvement Measures in May 1996, the Special Measures laws will conclude at the end of March 2002. It is extremely important that a comprehensive survey be conducted by the Government so that they have a complete picture of the actual situation of Buraku discrimination. This is in order to know whether or not the planned expiration of the Special Measures laws is actually appropriate and what the next measures to be taken could be should it be found that it is. As of November 2000, the Government has not indicated any intention to conduct such a survey. The last Buraku survey to be conducted by the National Government was in 1993. (Data 4)
3. Article 3 (Prohibition of Apartheid)
4. Article 4 (Prohibition of Discrimination and Incitement Based on Racism)
(Data 5-1, 5-2)
(1) With regard to the introduction, there has been an increase in the number of discriminatory statements found in the forms of graffiti, reader's contributions and messages posted on the Internet. Examples of these statements include "Kill Buraku People", "Exterminate Buraku People" and so on. The Government has not yet taken any decisive action against such practises.
(2) With regard to Paragraph (a), the Government of Japan should immediately withdraw its reservations to enact a national law in compliance with this paragraph, considering the fact that discriminatory incidents are occurring more frequently, as mentioned above.
(3) With regard to Paragraph (b), propaganda of or incitement to discrimination against Buraku people in the forms of graffiti and Internet communications are often made under names of organizations. Since this violates human rights, the Government should immediately withdraw their reservations and enact a national law.
(4) (c)
5. Article 5 (Equality Before the Law and the Enjoyment of Rights Without Discrimination)
Paragraph (a): The Sayama Case is a case where a murder occurred in Sayama City, Saitama Prefecture, in 1963. Judicial proceedings were initiated on a biased presupposition that Buraku people are likely to commit such crimes. (Data 6)
Paragraph (b)
Paragraph (c)
Paragraph (d)
1) When Buraku people attempt to move outside their Buraku community and into a non-Buraku community they face opposition from residents of the non-Buraku community who attempt to prevent the Buraku people from moving in because of their prejudice against Buraku people. In order to prevent such disturbances, it is urged that more efforts should be made to raise awareness of the Buraku issue and to enact a law to eliminate Buraku discrimination. (Data 7)
2)
3)
4) When Buraku people marry non-Buraku people they face opposition and obstruction based on prejudice against Buraku people. Personal investigations into their family background are conducted by detective agencies and investigative agencies upon request of the family of the husband (or wife) to-be. This leads to Buraku discrimination. While some prefectural governments have implemented ordinances to prohibit these kinds of investigations, the National Government has not yet taken any administrative or legal measures to resolve the problem. For the complete elimination of Buraku discrimination in marriage, it is urged that more efforts be made to raise awareness and to enact a law to prohibit personal background investigation by investigative agencies. (Data 8)
5) Land prices for land lots where Buraku communities are located are remarkably lower than those for adjacent non-Buraku areas. Both national and local governments are urged to take the necessary steps to resolve such discrepancies. (Data 9)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Paragraph (e): In November 1975, the "Buraku Lists" scandal was discovered (Data 10-1, 10-2). In June 1998, the "Discriminatory Personal Investigation" conducted by the Nihon IB and the Rick private investigative agencies was disclosed (Data 11). In both cases there was an intention to prevent Buraku people from being employed by private companies. In Japan, there are no laws or regulations that prohibit discriminatory screening of Buraku people with regard to employment in the private sector so there is an urgent need to introduce such a law. For reference, Japan has not yet ratified ILO Convention No. 111 that prohibits discrimination in employment and occupation.
2)
3)
4)
5) There has been a clear gap in academic achievement between Buraku and non-Buraku people (Data 12). There has also been a high illiteracy rate among Buraku people (Data 13). Furthermore, there has been an apparent difference in the rate of entrance into higher education between Buraku and non-Buraku children (Data 14). It is urged that literacy activities should be promoted and that scholarship programs for Buraku children should be improved. With the advancement of IT, it is also urged that the use of the Internet among Buraku children should be promoted in order to avoid a possible digital divide. According to the Survey to Find the Actual Conditions of Buraku Communities, conducted by the Osaka Prefectural Government in 2000, the percentage of personal computer possession and Internet usage among Buraku people is half that of non-Buraku people. (PC possession: 36% national average vs. 16.9% Buraku communities; Use of Internet: 28.9% national average vs. 14.4% Buraku communities)
6)
Paragraph (f)
6. Article 6 (Remedies for Victims of Racial Discrimination)
* The Sayama Case demonstrates the reality of remedial measures made through court proceedings in Japan. The defence lawyers lodged a protest after the second request for a retrial was dismissed. The lawyers have faced problems such as the non-disclosure of evidence and the lack of investigation of facts that should have been investigated by the prosecutor. Since the UN Human Rights Committee recommended that the Japanese Government should ensure that its laws and legal practises enable the defence to have access to all relevant material, all evidence should be immediately disclosed to the defence lawyers. (Data 15)
* As an alternative means of dispute resolution, the Human Rights Protection Service is available at the Civil Liberties Bureau in the Ministry of Justice. However, it has not proven to be very effective. It is urged that a sufficiently effective human rights commission based on the Paris Principles be established. (Data 16-1, 16-2)
* Since May 2000, the Policy Office of Regional Improvement of the Management and Coordination Agency has been responsible for planning, implementing and coordinating comprehensive programs for the improvement of Buraku communities. In this way, the Government has had a function within the cabinet to address the Buraku problem. Along with the impending expiration of the "Law Regarding the Special Fiscal Measures for the Government for Regional Improvement Projects" at the end of March 2002, the Policy Office is also to be dissolved. Buraku discrimination, however, still exists. It is urged that an office be created within the cabinet that will function in coordinating and planning measures for Buraku communities, such as in the Cabinet Office, which was reorganized in January 2001, until Buraku discrimination is genuinely resolved.
7. Article 7 (Effective Measures in the Fields of Education and Culture to Combat Discrimination)
* Of all the 47 prefectures in Japan, only 23 have established and introduced Dowa Education in schools. Dowa Education refers to educational programs that aim at eliminating Buraku discrimination. It is urged that all prefectures across the nation introduce Dowa Education.
* Of all the 576 universities and colleges, only 228 (39.6%) have established a Chair of Dowa Education. All universities and colleges should provide lectures on Dowa Education. (Data 17)
* Based on the Law on the Promotion of Human Rights Education and Human Rights Awareness-Raising that were enacted in December 2000, all prefectural governments are urged to implement Dowa Education programs, and all universities and colleges are urged to provide lectures on Dowa Education.
Data 1-1
(1) Article 1 - Buraku Discrimination
Within the Scope of Application of the Convention
1. Buraku discrimination had long existed in Japan. To use an expression of the Government, the elimination of Buraku discrimination is a challenge for the entire nation. When the Government of Japan acceded the Convention it would not admit that the Convention was applicable to Buraku discrimination. Furthermore, the Government Report did not include any statements concerning Buraku discrimination. Based on our position that the application of the Convention is legitimate, we urge the government to accept the application of the Convention with regard to Buraku discrimination. We believe that our position on the Convention is compatible with the observations and recommendations the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has made.
2. Proposals that were made by the Cabinet Dowa Policy Council in 1965 stated, "The so-called Dowa problem is a most serious and important social problem for Japan because of the fact that a segment of the people of Japan, owing to discrimination based on a class system that was formed in the process of the historical development of Japanese society, is placed in such an inferior position economically, socially and culturally that their fundamental human rights are grossly violated even in present day society and that, in particular, their civil rights and liberties, which are ensured to all people as a principle of modern society, are not fully guaranteed in reality."
Since the Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects was enacted in July 1969, a series of special laws have been implemented that have resulted in solving the Dowa issue to some extent. It does, however, remain unresolved and is still a serious social problem for Japan. This fact is confirmed by the comments and proposals that were made by the Consultative Council for Regional Improvement Measures in 1996 with the following statement; "The Dowa issue, as a specific human rights problem in our society, is the most serious and grave problem that violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Japan. It has been more than a quarter of a century since the measures to address the Dowa problem were fully implemented. While, owing to the efforts of many people, we have been moving towards a solution of the Dowa problem, we have to admit with regret that, even today, it is still a very important issue in Japan. In such a context, the genuineness of the postwar democracy of Japan is in question. As a responsible member of the international community, Japan has to fulfill its international responsibilities by solving its various human rights problems, including the Dowa problem, as early as possible."
3. As explained above, there is no doubt that Buraku discrimination is one of the most serious human rights problems that Japan still faces. While Buraku discrimination is not racial discrimination in the general sense, we believe that it constitutes discrimination based on "descent", as provided in Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Convention. This reminds us of the concluding observations that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination adopted after consideration of the Periodic Report that was submitted by the Government of India.
In the observations, the Committee noted that the caste system is one of the factors that impedes the full implementation of the Convention (A/51/18, para. 342). It also stated that the term "descent", mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention, does not solely refer to race, and affirms that the situation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes falls within the scope of the Convention (Ibid., para. 352).
We welcome and support the above interpretation of the Committee as it will help to promote remedial measures for various groups who suffer from discrimination in different parts of the world in accordance with the Convention. As mentioned above, the caste system of India and Buraku discrimination in Japan are of basically the same nature. In considering the observations that the Committee made on the report from India, we conclude that the application of the Convention to Buraku discrimination is due.
In addition to this, various steps that can be taken in order to eliminate racial discrimination are stipulated in the Convention. Specifically, we believe that prohibition of discrimination in the private sector (para. 1-(d) of Article 2), special measures for vulnerable groups (para. 2 of Article 2), prohibition of incitement to discrimination (para. (a) and (b) of Article 4), effective remedies against acts of discrimination (Article 6), and effective measures to promote awareness-raising (Article 7) are all effective and useful for solving the problem of Buraku discrimination. The Convention holds the key role in our efforts to put an end to Buraku discrimination. This also supports the fact that the Convention is closely related to the Buraku issue.
4. On August 11, 2000, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights adopted a resolution concerning discrimination based on work and descent. The resolution indicated that discrimination based on the caste system in South Asia, Buraku discrimination in Japan, and similar discrimination in Africa are all identified as forms of discrimination that are prohibited by international human rights law, and it urges governments to take legislative and administrative measures to eliminate discrimination and to exercise appropriate legal penalties and sanctions to individuals or entities who have engaged in discriminatory practices. (Data 1-2)
5. On the basis of the above, we request the Government of Japan:
1) To accept application of the Convention to Buraku discrimination.
2) To make further efforts towards the elimination of Buraku discrimination in accordance with provisions and the objectives of the Convention.
<Reference> Brief Outlines of the Buraku Issue
1) Proposals made by the Cabinet Dowa Policy Council in 1965 stated, "The so-called Dowa problem is a most serious and important social problem for Japan because of the fact that a segment of the people of Japan, owing to discrimination based on a class system that was formed in the process of the historical development of Japanese society, is placed in such an inferior position economically, socially and culturally that their fundamental human rights are grossly violated even in present day society and that, in particular, their civil rights and liberties, which are ensured to all people as a principle of modern society, are not fully guaranteed in reality."
2) Since the Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects was enacted in July 1969, a series of special laws have been implemented that have resulted in solving the Dowa issue to some extent. It does, however, as yet remain unresolved and is still a serious social problem for Japan. This fact is confirmed by the comments and proposals that were made by the Consultative Council for Regional Improvement Measures in 1996 with the following statement; "The Dowa issue, as a specific human rights problem in our society, is the most serious and grave problem violating the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Japanese Constitution.
It has been more than quarter of a century since measures addressing the Dowa problem were fully implemented. While the Dowa problem has been moving towards a solution, owing to the efforts of many people, we have to admit with regret that it is still a very important issue in Japan today. In such a context, the genuineness of the postwar democracy of Japan is in question. As a responsible member of the international community, Japan has to fulfil its international responsibilities by solving the various human rights problems around the country, including the Dowa problem, as early as possible."
3) In the Council's comments and proposals, the reality of Buraku discrimination is illustrated more specifically. It states, "Outcomes of the survey indicate that the implementation of certain measures has contributed to the improvement of the living environment and physical infrastructure of Buraku communities, as well as narrowing some of the gaps that existed between Buraku people and mainstream Japanese. However, there are still gaps in some areas, such as education, as is attested by lower entrance rates into higher education, unstable employment due to insufficient educational background, and problems in industrial activities in Buraku communities.
While discriminatory consciousness among non-Buraku people has been steadily dissolved, deep-rooted discrimination still remains in some areas, particularly in marriage. Human rights violations against Buraku people still occur and the Government's human rights protection service has not proven to be very effective in preventing these violations. The implementation of measures should therefore be fairly adjusted in accordance with the actual situation surrounding the Buraku issue."
4) Despite the fact that Buraku discrimination has had a serious negative impact on Buraku people, especially during the time of the prolonged depression, the Government has become less and less willing to approach a solution. The current Law on Special Measures will expire at the end of March, 2002. The Government has indicated its intention not to renew the law after its expiration. At the very least, there is a need to conduct a survey to assess the actual conditions of Buraku communities as soon as possible. It appears, to date, that the government has no intention to do so.
According to the 1993 Survey to Grasp the Actual Conditions of Dowa Areas made by the Policy Office of Regional Improvement of the Management and Coordination Agency, the number of areas that have been covered by the Regional Improvement Projects amount to 4,442 with a total number of 298,385 households and a total population of 892,751 Dowa people. These figures, however, only represent the households and populations of those Buraku communities that have been designated as Dowa areas by the Government. It is estimated that there are more than 6,000 Buraku communities with a total of 3,000,000 people of Buraku origin.
<Notes>
Dowa issue: An administrative term for the issue of discrimination against Buraku people
Dowa people: An administrative term for the people of Buraku origin
Dowa area: An administrative term for a Buraku community where Buraku people live
Regional Improvement Projects: An administrative term for the measures to improve the inferior living conditions of Buraku communities and Buraku people. (They are also called Improvement Projects for Dowa Areas)
Data1-2
Discrimination based on work and descent
2000/
DRAFT RESOLUTION
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,
Affirming that, as declared in article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,
Aware that discrimination based on work and descent has historically been a feature of societies in different regions of the world, and has affected a significant proportion overall of the world's population,
Acknowledging the constitutional, legislative and administrative measures taken by relevant Governments to abolish practices of discrimination based on work and descent,
Concerned, however, at the persistence of discrimination based on work and descent in such societies,
1. Declares that discrimination based on work and descent is a form of discrimination prohibited by international human rights law;
2. Requests Governments to ensure that all necessary constitutional, legislative and administrative measures (including appropriate forms of affirmative action) are in place to prohibit and redress discrimination on the basis of work and descent, and that such measures are respected and implemented by all State authorities at all levels;
3. Urges Governments to ensure that appropriate legal penalties and sanctions, including criminal sanctions, are prescribed for and applied to all persons or entities within the jurisdiction of the Governments who may be found to have engaged in practices of discrimination on the basis of work and descent;
4. Decides to entrust Mr. Goonesekere with the task of preparing, without financial implications, a working paper on the topic of discrimination based on work and descent, in order to:
a) identify communities in which discrimination based on work and descent continues to be experienced in practice,
b) examine existing constitutional legislative and administrative measures for the abolition of such discrimination, and
c) make any further concrete recommendations and proposals for the effective elimination of such discrimination as may be appropriate in the light of such examination;
5. Decides to continue consideration of this question at its fifty-third session under the same agenda item.
Data 2
Town A/B in Toyama city is a Buraku community of 70 households with 280 people. Because of a national route running through in the middle of the town, it was supposed to divide into two town blocks of A and B under the administrative block division of the city government. However, residents of both town A and town B did not accept to integrate residents of the Buraku community into their town block. Thus, residents of the Buraku community have to identify their town block with a combined name "Town A/B", which does not actually exist under the administrative block division.
Data 3-1
Posting of a Bill with Discriminatory Statements
- a Case in Kishiwada City, Osaka Prefecture:
1. Outlines:
In October 1993, Kishiwada City Hall was informed by some citizens that there was a bill with discriminatory statements on the wall nearby their house.
It was found that a house under reform work was posting a bill with a statement to slander a court judge using derogatory terms.
Officers of the city hall and management of the company where the man who posted the bill worked have tried to convince him not to do that. However, he has consistently refused the advice. The man has repeatedly made remarks such as, "Judges are all born as thefts or 'eta' (extreme filth referring to Buraku people)." "Thefts are born thefts, while 'eta' are born 'eta'".
The person who was slandered by the man on the bill took an action asking for a provisional injunction to remove the bill. In January 1998, the court ruled out to exercise the provisional injunction.
Nevertheless, the man again posted the bill, which was later removed under the court decision. Yet, the man posted it again. The bill has still been on the wall of his house.
2. Development:
Oct 28, 1993 Residents nearby found the bill on the windows
Since 1994 City office repeatedly advised him to stop
discriminatory acts.
Jan. 13, 1997 Court decision was made on a provisional injunction.
The bill was removed under the decision.
Jan. 18, 1997 The man posted it again.
Feb. 4, 1997 The bill was removed again under the court decision.
Feb. 5, 1997 The bill was posted for the third time.
3. Problems:
The bill has been posted on the wall of his house, a personal property. The man has no intention to take it off. Under the provisional injunction, the bill was taken off twice. Yet, he has never given up. It is really a malicious act. To date, no effective solution has been found, including legal means to remove the bill.
Data 3-2
Discriminatory Place-cards
A man living in Kishiwada city, in Osaka prefecture, has been posting place-cards on the outside wall of his home that display discriminatory messages. He does this because he is unhappy with the judgment of a lawsuit that he lost. The card says, "I have been harassed by eta [extreme filth]". He uses derogatory terms such as 'eta' in order to attack other people who were involved in the lawsuit. Despite repeated attempts to convince him to stop, he has not yet done so.
Data 5-1
Propaganda of and incitement to Buraku discrimination on Internet have been increasing. Such practices are roughly classified into the following three categories.
1. Propagation of information regarding locations of Buraku communities
2. to name famous persons, such as in the worlds of sports and show business, and propagate their backgrounds, such as being of Buraku or Korean origin.
3. to incite discrimination, for example, saying "Exterminate Buraku people."
(See data 5-2 for a concrete case.)
At present, any of these practices is not prohibited by law in Japan.
Data 5-2
Discrimination on the Internet
Along with the advancement of information technology, the internet has become very popular throughout the world. Also, with the popularity of electronic communication devices, discriminatory messages such as attacks on Buraku people, in the form of humiliating remarks and derogatory terms, are being transmitted more and more often. Discrimination has been expanding its way into the new types of media.
Data 6
Sayama Case
For the murder of a high school student taken place in May 1963 in Sayama City, Saitama Prefecture, Mr. Kazuo Ishikawa was falsely arrested and charged when he was 24 years old.
On May 1st, 1963, Ms. Yoshie Nakata, aged 16, was lost on her way back home from school. Later at night of that day, a blackmail demanding for a ransom was delivered to her house. The police failed to arrest a possible suspect. In order to make it up, the police went into a Buraku community where Mr. Ishikawa lived and arrested him for a different charge on May 23.
While in custody, the police forced him to make a false confession by threatening him and in exchange of some unfulfilled promises. He was charged for the murder of Yoshie, and the case was brought to the Urawa District Court. On September 4 of the same year, Mr. Ishikawa pleaded guilty before the court. Although the defense counselors pleaded not guilty on the grounds of his unreasonable confession and inconsistency in the course of finding evidence, he was sentenced to death on March 11, 1964.
After Mr. Ishikawa was transferred to the Tokyo Detention Center, the first hearing of his appeal case was held at the Tokyo High Court on September 10, 1964. He pleaded not guilty and revealed how he was deceived by the detectors to make a false confession. Although the expert judged his handwriting not identical to the one in the blackmail, the Judge Terao of the Tokyo High Court sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
On August 9, 1977, the Supreme Court dismissed his final appeal and confirmed the decision at the appeal court. On August 30, the defence lawyers group made a request for retrial before the Tokyo High Court, with the presentation of new evidence proving a discrepancy between the threatening letter and his confession regarding a portion of a correction of the date of the letter. However, the High Court did not make any further examination on witnesses or on-the-spot inspection.
On February 7, 1980, the court made a decision to dismiss the retrial request. The defendant lawyers submitted again new evidences, such as forensic evidence, attesting a discrepancy between the way the victim was actually killed and the confession of the defendant, and new testimonies made by the ex-detector involved in the investigation of the murder case. The lawyers group requested the court to make a fact-finding inspection while requesting the public prosecutors office to disclose evidences held by the office. These requests were also taken up at the Diet session.
The group of lawyers made the second request for retrial to the Tokyo High Court on August 21, 1986. On December 21, 1994, Mr. Ishikawa was released on parole after the detention for 37 years and seven months. Since then, he has been fighting for his innocence and retrial. However, the Tokyo High Court again dismissed the second request for retrial on July 8, 1999. On July 12, the lawyers lodged a protest against the dismissal.
("Buraku Mondai Jiten" edited by the BLHRRI, published by the Kaiho Shuppansha)
Data 7
Case 1
In late June 1990, Mr. K, of Buraku origin, moved to a town-run housing in Akeshina-cho, Higashi Chikuma County, Nagano Prefecture. However, H, an inhabitant of the housing, circulated a rumor that a family from a Buraku community moved in. As a result, Mr. K was harassed by the inhabitants, being told "Buraku people must get out of our housing."
Case 2
In 1993, Mr. A, of Buraku origin, bought a piece of land to build a house in Asuka Village, Nara Prefecture. However, a rumor spread among the inhabitants of the village that a family from a Buraku community would move in and cause trouble. Prompted by the rumor, Mr. B, who sold the land to Mr. A, began to obstruct the construction of Mr. A's house.
Data 8
According to the 1993 Survey to Grasp the Actual Conditions of Dowa Areas conducted by the government, one of three persons from Buraku communities has experienced discrimination. Incidents of marriage discrimination are the largest cases among their discriminatory experiences.
When the Buraku List Scandal was disclosed in 1975, T, an investigative agent and a publisher of a Buraku list revealed that 99% of the investigations they undertook in relation to marriage are inquiries whether or not a fiance / fiancee was of Buraku origin.
In response, Osaka Prefecture enacted the Ordinance to Regulate Personal Background Investigation Conductive to Buraku Discrimination in 1985. However, a law to prohibit investigation that leads to Buraku discrimination has not enacted yet at national level.
Data 9
Land Prices
Prices of the land where Buraku communities are located are relatively low. Low land prices lead to lower valuation of the properties that Buraku people own, giving negative impacts when using it as collateral for financing. It has been widespread among the public that land prices of Buraku communities are cheap, as frequently attested by many housing contractors during interviews and investigations looking into discriminatory incidents. However, a specific survey focusing on the discrepancy in land prices between Buraku and non-Buraku areas has never been done by the administration. Meanwhile, there are several ways to indicate land values, such as 'officially rated prices,' 'prices set by road routes,' 'market prices,' and etc.
These different prices are determined based on the "basic values for property appraisal." These basic values are reasonably set up without any prejudice against Buraku areas. However, outcomes of the long history of Buraku discrimination negatively work in setting up these basic values, resulting in relatively lower prices of land located in Buraku communities. This attributes to disadvantageous geographical location of the Buraku community, the long exclusion of Buraku communities from the mainstream of social development, financial capacity of, and deep-rooted tabooing against Buraku areas.
So far, nothing has been done to address this problem, because land prices for transactions are determined in the market in which the government cannot interfere. The government's special measures for Buraku areas have not contributed to eradicate the discrepancy. Also, a low liquidity in transaction of Buraku land due to the long history of Buraku discrimination has hindered its solution.
While improvement in living environment of Buraku communities has helped reduce negative factors in determining land values for Buraku areas, a discrepancy in the land prices between Buraku areas and non-Buraku areas still remains. In order to find a solution, a comprehensive approach is required, such as promotion of the community development not only in Buraku communities but also their adjacent communities, democratization of business practices in the real estate market, and awareness-raising among general public.
By Hitoshi Okuda
("Buraku Mondai - Jinken Jiten" edited by the BLHRRI, published by the Kaiho Shuppansha)
Data 10-1
Denunciation Struggle against the "Buraku Lists"
The "Buraku Lists" were first disclosed in the end of 1975. Since then, through the efforts of investigation and fact-finding by the Buraku Liberation League and government agencies concerned, nine different types of "Buraku Lists" and as many as 220 purchasers have been identified by January 1996. (see Data 10-2)
A "Buraku List" is a book containing information on the names and locations, the number of households and major occupations of Buraku communities. These lists were sold at 5,000 yen to 45,000 yen for one copy. They were published by private investigative and detective agencies. Most of the purchasers were private companies.
During the investigation to know the motives of publication and the purchase of the lists, it has been made clear that "Buraku Lists" were published and purchased for discriminatory screening, such as in employment and marriage. It was disclosed that "Buraku Lists" were traded as a "counter-measure" to the rising trend of Buraku liberation movement that brought about the unified job-application form for high school students and the restriction of the perusal of family registers.
Though twenty years have already passed since the "Buraku Lists" were disclosed, the whole picture of the scandal has not been revealed until today. As recent cases, information on the locations of Buraku communities in Osaka and Wakayama Prefectures were disseminated through the packet communication in February 1984 and July 1993, and a copy of "Buraku List" was collected from a company based in Osaka in May 1996.
By looking into the motives of the companies which bought "Buraku Lists", it was also disclosed that discriminatory practices in employment had been shrewdly done, in addition to obtaining the "Buraku List"; They recruited students only from designated schools, and used the applicant form made by themselves that have discriminatory questionnaires and tried to know the personal background of the applicants as much as possible through interviews and examinations.
Being strongly denounced, the companies which bought the lists have repented. Companies, such as based in Tokyo and Osaka, have formed federations to commit themselves to eliminating Buraku discrimination. Since 1977, by the instruction of the Ministry of Labor, companies with more than one hundred employees have to assign a staff member to promote Dowa education as an in-house training.
Osaka Prefecture enacted the Ordinance to Regulate Personal Background Investigation Conductive to Buraku Discrimination in 1985. Similar ordinances have been enacted in Kumamoto, Fukuoka, Kagawa and Tokushima Prefectures. Efforts to eliminate "Buraku Lists" have been accumulated.
("Buraku Mondai Shiryo to Kaisetsu 3rd edition" edited and published by the Kaiho Shuppansha June 1981)
Data 11
Discriminatory investigation incident caused by the Nihon IB and the Rick
In June 1998, it was disclosed that two investigative agencies, Nihon IB (parent company) and Rick (subsidiary), had conducted discriminatory investigation, such as identifying the Buraku origin of a job applicant.
The incident was made known when the two agencies voluntarily reported their discriminatory inquiries to the Buraku Liberation League Osaka (BLL Osaka) that tried to find out the fact. On July 1, they submitted information, including a list of their 1,400 clients, including public corporations, in response to the request of the BLL Osaka.
On July 2, the Osaka Prefectural Government entered and inspected the investigative agencies on suspicion of violating the 1985 Prefectural Ordinance to Regulate Personal Background Investigation Conductive to Buraku Discrimination.
The parent company acted as a business consultant firm and the subsidiary took on the discriminatory investigation.
While the clients seemingly asked the agencies for management consulting as a member of the parent company, many of them registered for the purpose of getting information including the background of their job applicants.
In fact, it was found out through the fact-finding sessions that 70 to 80 percent of the entire contract of the parent company was undertaken by the subsidiary.
According to the findings from the 6 times fact- finding sessions held by the BLL Osaka from July to October 1998, the agencies received copies of the curriculum vitae of job applicants for the clients and conducted investigation regarding Buraku origin, ethnic background, nationality, ideology, religion, reputation and political affiliation.
After taking several factors into consideration, they made ranks from A to D (A: excellent, B: ordinary, C: attention is needed, D: advisable not to hire). If an applicant lives in a Buraku community, they put a mark ※ without rating.
In order to avoid the reoccurrence of such discriminatory investigations, practices and systems in society should be reformed as below:
Drastic measures should be taken to improve the business ethics of investigating firms and to eliminate the discriminatory nature in investigation; Comprehensive measures should be taken by concerned government agencies to avoid similar incidents. A national law should be enacted to regulate discriminatory investigation and provide remedial measures; the business sector should take a drastic action in relation to employment; and social practices that bring about discriminatory investigations should be changed.
By Suehiro Kitaguchi
("Buraku Mondai - Jinken Jiten" edited by the BLHRRI, published by the Kaiho Shuppansha)
Data 15
Discrimination and the right to a fair trial
In 1963 a high-school girl was kidnapped and killed in Sayama City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan. This murder case, which is called the "Sayama Case" after the place of the killing, led to the arrest of Mr. Kazuo Ishikawa, who belongs to the Buraku people or Burakumin, a group who still face serious discrimination. Mr. Ishikawa was first arrested on a minor charge by the police who had been hunting for a criminal in a matter involving prejudice against Burakumin, allegedly forced to falsely confess to murder in the Sayama Case after a long interrogation and examination in a substitute prison (Daiyo Kangoku), and convicted. For over 37 years, Mr. Ishikawa has called for a retrial of the case, claiming his innocence.
Nearly 13 years have passed since Mr. Ishikawa's defence counsel filed a plea for retrial with the Tokyo District High Court and demanded the interrogation of particularly important unsworn witnesses and legal advisers and a fact-finding investigation. In the Sayama Case, an examination of the evidence has not been done for almost 25 years. Mr. Ishikawa's defence counsel has also demanded the full disclosure of all evidence possessed by the prosecutors. Despite the continuous negotiations with the prosecutors, however, the evidence has yet to be disclosed, though the Prosecutors Office has admitted the possession of a large volume of evidential materials and items. Even disclosure of the list of all evidence, which the defence counsel demands as a first step, has not yet been made.
The prosecutors argue that some of the evidence relates to the privacy of the persons involved, and that making it public would put at risk citizens' cooperation with police investigations in the future. However, we believe that after 37 years, disclosure of such items cannot be considered an obstacle to police investigation and, besides, they would not be used outside the court. The principle of the retrial system, "giving relief to the innocent", should be respected. Moreover, as the prosecutors have an obligation to find out the truth, they should disclose all evidence possessed by them on their own initiative. Without disclosure of the list of all the evidence, the defence counsel is deprived of any effective means of knowing their contents and cannot identify the items to be disclosed. It is unfair and an injustice.
The Human Rights Committee, having examined the fourth periodic report of Japan (CCPR/C/115/Add.3 and Corr.1) in October 1998, recommended, among other things, that Japan should ensure "that its law and practice enable the defence to have access to all relevant material in order that the right of defence is not hampered" (CCPR/C/79/Add.102, para.26). It is noteworthy that during the consideration of Japan's report, a question was raised by a member of the Committee as to how Japan's legal system guarantees access to evidence unknown to defence lawyers, and the Sayama Case was specifically mentioned as a case in point.
Responding to the recommendation of the Human Rights Committee, several Japanese legal experts and law practitioners are now discussing how the guarantee of disclosure of evidence should be promoted. In parliament, government leaders are being questioned in this regard. To guarantee the disclosure of evidence for the defence is indeed one of the major issues in the current legal reform of criminal proceedings in Japan.
Encouraged by the Committee's recommendation, the defence counsel for Mr. Ishikawa has filed an appeal with the Tokyo High Prosecutors Office, in which it particularly demands the disclosure of evidence that may not be deemed as infringing on anyone's privacy. In Japan, submission of new evidence is the prerequisite for a retrial.
The Japanese Government, as a State party to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, should be urged to take immediate action to ensure that Mr. Ishikawa is guaranteed a fair trial and that all evidence is disclosed, in compliance with article 14.3 (b) of the Covenant which stipulates that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his/her defence.
The Tokyo High Court, in spite of the public opinion calling for a retrial, dismissed the appeal for a retrial on 8th July 1999.
The Tokyo High Court should immediately start a retrial on the basis of the stipulation of Article 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, on effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against racial discrimination.
Data 16-1
A Critique Based on the Present State of Discrimination
Against Buraku People
by Kenzo Tomonaga
Director, Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute
III. There are No Effective Remedy Institutions for Victims of Human Rights Violations
The third problem is that despite continuing occurrences of discrimination against Buraku people, at present there is neither a legal system to regulate Buraku discrimination nor effective remedy institutions.
I would like to explain about the absence of remedy institutions by referring to Graph 1 (Data16-2), based on the fact-finding surveys conducted in 1993.
First, I would like to explain a little about this graph. During the survey, Buraku people were asked if they had experienced discrimination. One-third of Buraku people responded yes. This graph shows the results of responses given to a multiple choice question asking how people reacted when they were discriminated against.
We can see several important points form this data. First, 46.6% of Buraku people answered that they simply endured it with silence. This suggests that the incidents of Buraku discrimination reported in newspapers, on television and in newsletters published by Buraku liberation organizations reflect only the tip of the iceberg.
Why is it that about half of the Buraku people decided to keep silent when they experienced discrimination? We have to guess the answer to this question because it was not asked during the surveys. It is probably because they fear that protesting directly to the person who committed the discriminatory act would result in an acknowledgement that they are Buraku people and thereby could make them potential targets for further discrimination in the future. Thus, analyzing this data, we can see how deep-rooted discrimination continues to exist.
The second problem which must be pointed out is that only 0.6 % of people answered that they consulted with Civil Liberties Commissioners. Under the present legal system, human rights violations, including Buraku discrimination, are to be taken to the District Legal Affairs Bureaus or the Civil Liberties Commissioners.
However, these systems have not been effective in dealing with discrimination against Buraku people. There are several reasons for this.
First, with respect to the District Legal Affairs Bureaus, about 200 staff are assigned to handle human rights issues in the offices. However, this number is not sufficient. Nor do the staff workers have expertise in human rights. For example, a public officer, who used to be a registrar until yesterday, is suddenly assigned by a government order to become a staff member handling human rights issues the next day.
There is also a system of Civil Liberties Commissioners, which serve voluntarily to assist the staff handling human rights issues at District Legal Affairs offices. Civil Liberties Commissioners are recommended to the Ministry of Justice by mayor upon approval by the local Diet. Commissioners are formally appointed by the commission of the Justice Minister. There are about 13,000 Commissioners nationwide. However, there are some problems with this system as well.
The most serious problem is that most of the Commissioners are not experts on human rights. Also, Commissioners tend to be senior citizens, and only Japanese nationals are eligible (foreign residents are excluded). Moreover, Civil Liberties Commissioners sometimes are the cause of discrimination against Buraku people.
In addition, staff handling human rights issues in the District Legal Affairs Bureaus and Civil Liberties Commissioners can only collect information given voluntarily when investigating a possible human rights violation. Even when a party is found to have violated another's human rights, the only course of action available is to urge that human rights be respected in the future. No effective course of action is available, even for those guilty of vicious human rights violations.
Many of the problems mentioned above regarding the present system of human rights protection were already pointed out in the report of the Dowa Policy Council in 1965(3).
Furthermore, the Recommendation of the Consultative Council on Regional Improvement Measures on 17 May 1996, pointed out that "In order to take prompt and effective measures, including the fact-finding surveys and remedial measures for the victims, in response to all forms of human rights violations, a study should be conducted to establish a system to provide remedies for the victims, suitable for the twenty-first century and in line with the international mainstream, by reviewing the present system of human rights protection."
With respect to the "international mainstream", the UN has recommended establishing and strengthening the national human rights institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Paris Principles were adopted as a link to it. In this document the importance of the independence, level of expertise, specialization, and plurality of structure of National Human Rights Institutions are stressed(4). However, the present system of human rights protection in Japan has problems on each level.
(Note 3) For example, the report of the Dowa Policy Council pointed out the problems as follows;
"The protection of basic human rights is considered the task of the Civil Rights Bureau, an internal section of the Justice Ministry. The Legal Affairs Bureau and its local branches, which are responsible for civil administration, manage on-the-spot jobs now. But this system should be reconsidered. It is also inadequate that officials who were formerly engaged in the management of family registers and registration are transferred to jobs related to human rights protection.
It should also be noted that less than 200 officials are directly engaged in the protection of basic human rights and the budget is extremely low."
"Reorganizing the human rights protection system by studying and considering the placement, organization and structure of human rights protection bodies and matters concerning civil rights commissioners, in order to promote activities of human rights protection bodies.
(Note 4) "National Human Rights Institutions - A handbook on the establishment and Strengthening of the National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection on Human Rights", published by the UN, was translated into Japanese by the Minority Issue Study Group, sponsored by the BLRI.