[1] The JFBA maintains English and Japanese versions of the Committee's Concluding Observations responding to the Third Periodic Report (1993) and Fourth Periodic Report (1998) in its online “Human Rights Library.” Link (http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/ja/kokusai/humanrights_library/materials/)

[2] The JFBA holds a unique status among Japanese NGOs. Because Japanese law requires that every private lawyer be a member of the national association, it can draw upon a large body of experts with professional understanding of the law who are accustomed to working in an adversary context. Moreover, unlike the other groups that would make presentations in Geneva, the JFBA is well- funded. The primary source of revenue is the mandatory annual fee paid by all members. In 2005, the total budget was approximately U.S. $40 million.

[3] Law, David S., “The Anatomy of a Conservative Court: Judicial Review in Japan,” (Texas Law Review, 2009). Texas Law Review, Vol. 87, 2009. Available here (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1406169).

[4] “The most significant Supreme Court decisions finding legislation or government action unconstitutional have involved voting and citizenship rights. Although these rights may be considered fundamental, they are generally not considered among the core human rights which are understood to be freedoms from government control. For a valuable recent discussion of these issues, see Shigenori Matsui, “The protection of ‘fundamental human rights’ in Japan,” in Peerenboom, Petersen, and Chen (eds.), Human Rights in Asia - A comparative legal study of twelve Asian jurisdictions, France and the USA (Routledge, 2006).

[5] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is “self-enforcing” in Japan, meaning its provisions can be applied directly in litigation in Japan's courts. The most authoritative text generally available in English on this issue and many others raised in this paper is Yūji Iwasawa, International Law, Human Rights, and Japanese Law: the Impact of International Law on Japanese Law (Oxford University Press, 1998). Professor Iwasawa currently serves as a United Nations Human Rights Committee member and served in that capacity during the 2008 Japan review

[6] This section of the text is based on Mr. Teranaka's essay in CRS Newsletter No. 56, published by the Center for Prisoners Rights. Link (http://www.jca.apc.org/cpr)

[7] The JFBA and others have mounted a campaign to gain Japan's ratification of the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which would enable individuals to bring complaints of government violation of Covenant obligations directly before the Committee. As of 2008, 109 states had ratified this Protocol.”

[8] The Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations related to interrogations tracked similar statements made by the United Nations Committee Against Torture following hearings held in May 2007. The Committee Against Torture wrote that Japan's practice of prolonged detention “coupled with insufficient procedural guarantees for the detention and interrogations of detainees, increases the possibilities of abuse of their rights, and may lead to a de facto failure to respect the principles of presumption of innocence, right to silence and right of defence.” Full text found here (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=46cee6ac2).

[9] Professor Yakushiji refers to the elimination of regular fingerprinting of non-citizen permanent residents of Japan. In 2007 Japan joined the United States in imposing biometric screening of all foreign visitors to Japan. (Non-citizen permanent residents need not submit to biometric screening.) See news accounts reporting introduction of this system here (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20071121a1.html) and here (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20071121a2.html).

[10] Kimio Yakushiji, “Interpretation and Application of Human Rights Covenants in Japanese Courts” (2003).

[11] After describing UN committee hearings as a “strange diplomatic ritual,” an Amnesty International lawyer writes “There is scope for NGOs to use the treaty bodies to achieve positive results； but to get such a positive result requires considerable investment.” Andrew Clapham, “United Nations Human Rights Regulatory Procedures: An NGO Perspective,” in Philip Alston and James Crawford (eds.) The Future of United Nations Human Rights Treaty Monitoring (Cambridge University Press, 2000).