COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF JAPAN

The Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined third to sixth periodic reports of Japan on how that country implements the provisions of the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Hideaki Ueda, Ambassador in Charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs of the Foreign Ministry of Japan, presenting the report, said that Japan was working actively to establish comprehensive policies for respecting the human rights of the Ainu people. The Government had recognized the Ainu people as an indigenous people, and had established the Advisory Panel of Eminent Persons on Policies for the Ainu People, with a representative of the Ainu people participating as a member. Following recommendations of the Panel, in August 2009, the Government had established the Comprehensive Ainu Policy Department to develop an all-encompassing Ainu policy.

In addition, the human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice had expanded and strengthened awareness-raising activities to disseminate and enhance the idea of respect for human rights. Various activities were conducted by the organs with a view to fostering human rights awareness, as appropriate in the age of globalization, for eliminating prejudice and discrimination against foreigners, as well as for promoting an attitude of tolerance and respect for diverse cultures, religions, lifestyles and customs of different origins, Mr. Ueda said.

In some preliminary concluding observations, Patrick Thornberry, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report Japan, noted that there was a broad agreement between Japan and the Committee in some respects, including on the importance of eliminating racial discrimination as far as humanly possible, and the importance of education in ensuring that. There was also agreement on the status of the Ainu, and there was a certain direction of movement in terms of creating a National Human Rights Institution. However, there remained areas of concern for the Committee, such as the question of the Buraku people, and Japan’s interpretation of the term "descent". The Committee would argue for laws on racial discrimination; controls on hate speech; the need for remedies; the need for human rights education and education of the general population on matters to do with racial discrimination and tolerance; and the need for education of officials, including those in most regular contact with non-Japanese.

Among questions and issues raised by Committee Experts over the course of the two meetings with the delegation was the situation of Koreans in the country, who had remained foreigners and could not obtain citizenship; more information on the impact of the educational policy on foreign children; and whether there were mechanisms to monitor xenophobia and racism in the country, including on the Internet. Japan was urged to organize consultations with the representatives of the Buraku people, and in that context Experts echoed the Rapporteur’s concerns with regard to the need to further address the issue of descent.

The delegation of Japan also included representatives of the Comprehensive Ainu Policy Department; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; and the Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. on Thursday 24 February, when it will take up the combined nineteenth and twentieth periodic reports of Iceland (CERD/C/ISL/20).

Report of Japan

The combined third to sixth periodic report of Japan (CERD/C/JPN/3-6) notes that the Constitution of Japan lays down that “all of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin”. Based on this principle, Japan has striven to realize a society without any form of racial or ethnic discrimination, and will continue to make efforts to achieve a society in which each person is treated without any discrimination and respected as an individual and can fully develop his or her own personality. Human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice conduct required surveys on alleged human rights abuses, including racial discrimination, and adopt measures most suitable for the case in question in accordance with the Investigation and Treatment Regulations of Human Rights Infringement Incidents and the Civil Liberties Commissioners Law. The Human Rights Protection Bill, which was repealed in October 2003 and is under further elaboration by the Ministry of Justice, expressly prohibits any unfair treatment or discriminatory acts based on race, ethnicity and other criteria. Moreover, in April 2004, the Government implemented a comprehensive revision of the Regulations of Human Rights Infringement Incidents Treatment to ensure quick, flexible and appropriate enforcement of investigation and relief activities, as well as educating the persons concerned with regard to respect for human rights.

The issue concerning the human rights of the Ainu people is taken up as one of the human rights issues in the Basic Plan for Promotion of Human Rights Education and Encouragement. The human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice have expanded and strengthened their promotion activities to spread and enhance the idea of respect for human rights with a view to realizing a society where the dignity of the Ainu people is fully respected by eliminating prejudice and discrimination against the Ainu people, while disseminating and deepening correct knowledge and understanding of the unique culture and traditions of the Ainu people. The Basic Plan also takes up the problems concerning the human rights of foreigners as one of the human rights issues to be addressed, and the Ministry of Justice is expanding their promotion activities to disseminate and enhance the idea of respect for human rights with the view to fostering a human rights awareness as appropriate for the age of globalization by eliminating prejudice and discrimination against foreigners, holding an attitude of tolerance towards and respect for diverse cultures, religions, lifestyles and customs that people of different origins practice. The situation of Korean nationals resident in Japan was also covered by this and other measures.

Presentation of the Report

HIDEAKI UEDA, Ambassador in Charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, introducing the report, said that Japan believed that all human rights and fundamental freedoms were universal values, and were a legitimate concern of the international community. It was with that belief that Japan was actively engaged in efforts to protect and promote human rights with the attitude of dialogue and cooperation. The Convention was the main mechanism for dealing with racial discrimination and all other forms of discrimination. Universal implementation of the Convention was important for creating a society without racial discrimination. In that regard, Japan had taken some major steps in its implementation.

First, Japan was working actively to establish comprehensive policies for respecting the human rights of the Ainu people, Mr. Ueda said. The Government had recognized the Ainu people as an indigenous people, and had established the Advisory Panel of Eminent Persons on Policies for the Ainu People, with a representative of the Ainu people participating as a member. The Panel members visited regions where many Ainu resided and exchanged views with them. In 2009, the Panel compiled a report and submitted it to the Government, expressing its view that the Government should listen sincerely to the opinions of the Ainu, and make efforts to establish Ainu policy reflecting the situations of Japan as well as the Ainu people. The report also made recommendations on concrete policy measures including promoting education and public awareness about the history and culture of the Ainu, and promoting Ainu culture and language. In August 2009, the Government established the Comprehensive Ainu Policy Department to develop an all-encompassing Ainu policy.

Second, the Government believed that everyone was entitled to human rights and thus should correctly understand other people's human rights and respect each other. The human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice had therefore expanded and strengthened awareness-raising activities to disseminate and enhance the idea of respect for human rights. Various activities were conducted by the organs, with a view to fostering human rights awareness, as appropriate in the age of globalization, for eliminating prejudice and discrimination against foreigners, as well as for promoting an attitude of tolerance and respect for diverse cultures, religions, lifestyles and customs of different origins.

The human rights organs of the Ministry of Justice had also been endeavouring to protect human rights through other activities, such as human rights counselling, investigation and disposition of human rights infringement cases, Mr. Ueda observed. When the human rights organs recognized the facts of a human rights abuse case, including acts of racial discrimination, they commenced relief activities immediately, and carried out the necessary investigation in cooperation with the administrative organs concerned. If it became clear, as a result of the investigation, that a human rights abuse had occurred, these bodies took various steps to relieve individual victims. They also endeavoured to prevent reoccurrence of acts of racial discrimination by educating the persons concerned with respect to human rights.

From the perspective of remedying human rights issues, Japan was currently working on studies aimed at the establishment of a national human rights institution, which, independently of the Government, would deal with human rights infringements and remedy the situation as quickly as possible. Currently, a bill on a new human rights remedy system was under review.

As part of its efforts to make international contributions and provide humanitarian assistance, Mr. Ueda said the Government of Japan had decided to start a pilot resettlement programme and admit Myanmar refugees staying in the Mae La camp in Thailand. Japan would admit approximately 30 people, once a year, for three consecutive years starting from 2010, and had dispatched a mission to the camp to interview candidate refugees. Japan was proud that it would become the first Asian country to introduce a resettlement programme, and would make the utmost efforts to live up to expectations from the international community. Refugees would be provided substantial support for resettlement, such as guidance for adjusting to Japanese society, Japanese language training, and employment consultation and job referral.

Japan, on the basis of the spirit declared in its Constitution and the preamble of the Convention, would not allow any discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity, and would continue to make tireless efforts to improve the human rights situation in Japan, Mr. Ueda concluded.

Questions and Comments by Experts

PATRICK THORNBERRY, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, noted that there were a number of cases in which instruments relevant to the Convention should engage Japan's further consideration, such as International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions Nos. 111 (concerning discrimination in employment) and 169 (concerning indigenous and tribal peoples), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention against Discrimination in Education. The Genocide Convention of 1948 had also not been ratified, but the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court had been accepted.

Mr. Thornberry recalled that Japan had made a pioneering effort at the time of the founding of the League of Nations to insert a provision on the equality of nations and peoples, after which the world had to wait for the Charter of the United Nations for such a step to be adopted.

The report and the responses contained many statistics, Mr. Thornberry noted, including figures disaggregated by citizenship and nationality. However, the report said that Japan did not conduct surveys from an ethnic viewpoint, and some figures were therefore not available. That had caused difficulties in getting a grip on relevant figures, such as on the situation of Koreans in the country. All countries had some provision on equality before the law, but that did not prevent statistics, ethnic or otherwise, being offered, preferably on the basis of self-definition.

Turning to some of the key issues of interest to the Committee, Mr. Thornberry observed that there was not much information in the report on Okinawan people. The question of visibility of minorities arose significantly, and the Committee had no information on ethnic minorities who had Japanese citizenship. There was information on foreigners, but not adequate information for the Committee to reach its own judgement on national ethnic minorities.

The Committee had also noted that there was still no general law in Japan prohibiting racial discrimination. Japan’s position was that it was not necessary to adopt general legislation in that regard, as the Constitution forbade discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex, social status and family origin – a more restrictive list than that offered by the Convention. In that connection, how was the Convention applied to private conduct, Mr. Thornberry asked, and was there any prohibition of indirect discrimination in the law of Japan?

On how the Convention reached down into the law, it was fairly clear that certain elements in the Convention required legislation. There were cases where the Convention had acted as a method of interpretation of laws, but that was insufficient. It would guarantee a greater measure of legal certainty, and influence the conduct of future perpetrators and victims of racial discrimination, should such legislation be adopted.

Another concern highlighted by Mr. Thornberry was that the report claimed that "descent" had no separate meaning, and was subsumed in other forms of discrimination. However, the Committee disagreed entirely in that regard. The Convention, specifically included descent as a category covered in the definition of racial discrimination set out in Article 1, and the Committee had further elaborated its views on this matter in a General Comment (No. 29 of 2002).

With regard to the situation of specific groups in the population, Mr. Thornberry asked if there was a Government department or ministry that addressed the Burakumin (also know as “eta”; a caste of “untouchables”), and if there were no special measures, what kind of general measures were applied to ensure that the situation of the Burakumin remained positive.

Mr. Thornberry was further concerned that there was a fairly tolerant approach to hate speech, in particular with regard to class derogation or in reference to a group of individuals as a whole, which might not be caught as easily as incidents of individual defamation, and thus not remedied or corrected. There were dangers to society in what could be called a "coarsening" of public debate, and there had been reports of incidents of rather gross statements made in public in Japan.

On the Ainu, the Committee welcomed the Government’s decision to recognize them as an indigenous people, and also welcomed in that regard Japan’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons. In that regard, the Committee was interested in the immediately proximate steps to be taken in concert with Ainu representatives to translate Governmental good intentions into positive progress.

With regard to the reluctance to extend the term indigenous people to inhabitants of Okinawa, they did seem to the Committee to have a distinct language, culture and history, with a significant presence on Okinawa before 1879. Mr. Thornberry believed that many countries would recognize them as an indigenous group, and wondered what was keeping Japan from doing so.

With regard to the treatment of foreigners, Mr. Thornberry asked what exactly the term "special status" implied for residents of Japan who were of Korean or Chinese descent, and if there were a special set of rules applying to them that was different to those applying to Japanese nationals or nationals of other countries. The Committee did not believe that distinctions should be made between nationals and foreigners when it came to human rights, as the broadest possible framework of human rights was the best possible situation for all.

On general social conditions, there was a focus on particular groups, but there was also evidence of a widespread social difficulty between Japanese and non-Japanese on a range of levels, Mr. Thornberry felt, including ethnic. There also appeared to be cases of discrimination in access to areas that were open to the public, which was clearly contrary to the Convention, and that was something that could be changed, in due course, by the adoption of a law.

Other Committee Experts then made comments and asked questions including on the need for education to serve as a bridge to bring together all children and citizens of Japan. It was felt that teaching children the lessons of history would eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, as it would teach unity, based on equal rights. Other concerns included the situation of Koreans in the country who had remained foreigners and could not obtain citizenship; more information on the impact of the educational policy on foreign children, and whether there was special support so that children of foreigners or Koreans could be better integrated into the educational system; whether there were mechanisms to monitor xenophobia and racism in the country, including on the Internet; whether there were any statistics on such phenomena and their impact on victims; and more information about the composition of the Advisory Panel on the Ainu, and how they were chosen.

Experts also noted the similarity of the situation of the Burakumin to those who were affected by the caste system. There was a need to move beyond any form of stigma, and the Government had a duty in that regard. Moreover, Experts echoed the Rapporteur’s concern about the Ruku/Okinawa population.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to questions and comments, Mr. Ueda first wished to highlight that Japan had experienced its first-ever real change of Government in 50 years recently, and thus questions relating to some aspects could not be answered, as the issues were under significant review.

Another member of the delegation continuing to provide answers, noted that Japan had not made a declaration under Article 14 of the Convention to accept the Committee’s competence to consider individual communications, and that was true for other Conventions as well. Japan was aware of the importance of the issue, but in order to make such a system useful for Japan it was considering how to best proceed. As of yet, no conclusion had been reached.

With regard to the situation of the Ainu people, the delegation said the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the international conventions on indigenous peoples had made it necessary to reinforce and expand the rights of the Ainu people. The Diet (parliament) had passed the recognition of the Ainu as an indigenous people unanimously. The Advisory Panel of Eminent Persons had been established, and had submitted a report to the Government suggesting that it take the initiative in administering Ainu policy and establishing a new Office – the Comprehensive Ainu Policy Department, under which policies and coordination were established.

The Government could take special measures to ensure the equal human rights of all indigenous people, the delegation confirmed.

In December 2009, the Council for the Promotion of Ainu Policy had been established, and work was being done to move forward in a comprehensive manner. It had a membership of 15, 5 of whom were Ainu. The Advisory Panel was made up of seven persons, of which one was an Ainu representative. The Panel members made onsite visits to areas where the Ainu were living in large numbers, and their voices were listened to in discussions on how to promote Ainu policy in the future. The first meeting for the promotion of the Ainu was held in January 2010.

There was no clear information on the living situation of the Ainu, or their employment, and further study needed to be done on the status of those living outside Hokkaido, the delegation said. However, the protection of privacy made the methodology of that undertaking somewhat difficult, although that issue would be examined, while taking into account the views and voices of the Ainu themselves. The Government was ready to encourage the Ainu and to be proud of their identity, and to encourage them also to preserve their history and culture.

It was recognized that the Government's policy of modernization had caused serious damage to the Ainu culture, leading to discrimination and prejudice, which could have prevented them from taking pride in their identity. However, despite significant damage done, by reviving the Ainu identity it could be maintained as something very meaningful for Japan, as diversity in culture was a common asset for mankind. The Government wished to create a society in which the Ainu could identify themselves with pride.

Ainu access to fisheries was not limited, the delegation said. The Advisory Panel had indicated that the Government should take legal measures promoting in a secure manner Ainu policies, and pass legislation to that effect. The Government was taking the issue under consideration.

On the issue of whether there was any discrimination against Okinawan people and if any measures to combat such discrimination should be put in place, the delegation said it should be noted that those people were also Japanese nationals and could rely on the same remedies as other nationals. Everybody was allowed to enjoy their own culture, and practice their own religion, and there was no restriction on the use of their language.

Regarding Japan’s interpretation of the term "descent", that had been clearly given in the last review, as well as in the periodic report and in the answers to the list of questions.

In terms of educational measures relating to minorities, the delegation said that at elementary and junior high schools students learned about the history of Japan, which was taught in conjunction with the history of neighbouring countries. The history of the world was a compulsory subject in senior high school, including political relationships with other countries and information about social and economic areas was provided for in this context. The wording used in education was aimed at promoting international standards, including human rights.

If foreign children wished to enrol in public schools, they were accepted on a free-of-charge basis. If they wished to enrol in a school for foreigners, they could also choose to do so. The Ministry of Education provided a school enrolment guidebook in seven languages, which contained information on the process and on the educational system in Japan. Furthermore, there were projects promoting the integration of foreign children, and a bilingual counsellor was allocated from the Educational Board to provide counselling. Support staff who spoke children’s own mother tongue were also enlisted to help them with Japanese language education.

On the situation of Koreans in Japan, the delegation said that Korean residents and all foreigners residing legally in Japan had the same Social Security system applied to them. As for harassment of students in Korean schools, the Ministry of Justice human rights body had been engaged in a campaign to educate people. There was a slogan to teach respect for the human rights of foreigners, and annual campaigns. Throughout the year there were educational activities on a nationwide basis, and there were human rights counselling centres that those students and related people could consult. If suspicious cases of human rights infringement were found, then expeditious action was launched and measures taken. The utmost efforts were made to continue prevention and education activities. Schools for Korean students also offered opportunities to study Korean language and culture.

Anybody who had graduated from a senior high school or had skills equivalent was eligible to attend higher education in Japan, the delegation affirmed. Therefore, it was not true that students from Korean schools were not eligible. Graduates of foreign schools that were accredited by international organizations were also allowed, and thus foreign nationals had also been admitted to University. The Bill to make tuition free of charge for senior high schools had been submitted to the Diet.

Human rights education and awareness-raising programmes had been considered, and respect for human rights was pursued through schooling and social education that sought to eliminate prejudice and discriminatory attitudes, and awareness-raising activities aiming at improving consciousness of discrimination-related problems. Human rights education was promoted in schools, as well as human rights research and methodology on how to teach those rights.

The Government considered it necessary to set up an independent national human rights institution in order to provide effective remedies for human rights victims, the delegation said. Currently, the issues relating to the establishment of such an institution were being looked into in earnest. The national human rights institution would be set up in accordance with the Paris Principles. At this point in time, there was no definite schedule in place, but efforts would be made for the related Bill to be presented to the Diet at the soonest possible date.

Explaining the situation of “special permanent residents”, the delegation said that, in accordance with treaties, those were people who had lost their Japanese nationality but had been living in Japan before the end of the Second World War, including their descendants, and there was a special law covering their situation. There were special consideration given to those people due to historical developments and also as they had been settled in Japan for a long time. They could acquire Japanese nationality through naturalization, and the conditions for those who had land or blood relationship with Japanese nationals were being relaxed. Those who had acquired Japanese nationality were not urged to change their name. They only did that if they wished to do so.

Refugee policy was not limited to Vietnamese, Chinese, Thai, or those from Myanmar, the delegation said. There were 24 languages of application for recognition of refugee status, and documentation was prepared in a range of languages. In the interview, the language of the applicant was used, and there was a verification that they understood the language used by the interpreter. The Government paid for the cost of the translation.

Article 14 of the Constitution (setting out the principle of anti-discrimination) did not directly apply to behaviour and acts of private persons. That area was controlled by the Civil Code, which, however, took the Constitution into consideration. Any act that infringed private human rights could be judged, and if it had caused harm, then responsibility would be borne through the payment of damages and fair and just compensation made. Everyone was guaranteed the right to bring their claims to court, and any victim of a discriminatory act could apply for relief based on the above-mentioned laws.

Regarding ILO Convention No. 111, aimed at eliminating discrimination in the field of work and employment, the delegation said that in order to ratify that Convention Japan had to continue scrutinizing its domestic laws and their compatibility. However, all persons were guaranteed equal treatment by law, and measures were implemented to combat discrimination. As for ILO Convention No. 169 on indigenous persons, there were a lot of issues to be dealt with before that could be ratified.

Further Questions by Experts

In a further series of questions and comments, Experts raised, among other things, the issue of other indigenous peoples, as well as the Buraku/Burakumin; Japan should organize consultations with the representatives of the Buraku people, just as they had consultations with representatives of the Ainu. In that connection, Experts said there was a need to further address the issue of descent, but through the Convention and not outside it. Other comments included that legislation needed to be enacted so that judges had the opportunity to consider racial motivation in adjudicating cases; concern at a lack of coordination among Government mechanisms to fight discrimination; why Japan had joined the International Criminal Court but had not found it possible to join the Genocide Convention; a loophole in legislation that left Korean citizens unprotected against discrimination with regard to pensions; whether there was a change in access to personal data and whether that had affected the Burakumin; and whether discrimination against the Burakumin was related to certain prejudices and stereotypes among employers.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, Mr. Ueda observed that there was no clear definition of indigenous in the United Nations Convention or in any other document, and it was therefore difficult for Japan to define such persons. Japan was also in a different situation from countries like Australia and the United States, as the Japanese people had lived in Japan for a considerable length of time and had not arrived to displace an already-existing people. The Ainu were recognized as indigenous, as they had their own culture. The people of Okinawa had their own, rich culture, but their language was part of the Japanese language group.

With regard to pensions for Koreans, there was no nationality clause in the Pension Scheme. However, in the past, before 1982, there had been a nationality clause, which had been removed at that date.

Unfortunately, Japan had come for the review of its implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and thus the delegation was not able to explain the different positions on the International Criminal Court and the Genocide Convention, the delegation said.

With regard to the origin of the problems of the Buraku people, there had been a review of this issue, going back to the Edo period, but that had not clarified why there were these problems, or who exactly were the Burakumin. Thus no more information could be provided to the Experts on the issue.

Provisional Concluding Observations

PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Japan, said a genuine interactive dialogue had been provided, with a detailed account of the position of Japan given in response to questions on a wide range of issues.

Recognition of the Ainu as indigenous was a first step, Mr. Thornberry said, but other steps should follow in the process of engagement with indigenous rights, which should follow a path of mutual consultation. He noted that a wider degree of consultation with indigenous representatives had been urged by many Experts in the discussion.

There had also been a lot of discussion on education of minority groups, and many issues had been clarified, such as the regime of public and private schools. Here, Mr. Thornberry felt that public schools possibly had an insufficiently diverse curriculum, which may have encouraged others to look outside the public school system.

There was a broad agreement in some respects between Japan and the Committee, Mr. Thornberry observed, including on the importance of eliminating racial discrimination as far as humanly possible, and the importance of education against discrimination in ensuring that. There was also agreement on the status of the Ainu, on the spirit of the Convention, and there was a certain direction of movement in terms of the National Human Rights Institution. However, there remained certain areas of concern for the Committee, such as the question of the Buraku people. The Committee also did not agree with Japan on the interpretation of the term "descent", but it had its own position on that which had been developed over many years, and was acceptable to most states.

The nature of human rights education was a topic of interest, and it possibly did not have a sufficient diversity component as it referred to the rights of specific groups, Mr. Thornberry said.

The Committee also disagreed with Japan concerning the need for a law on racial discrimination. While Japan did not see the need for such a law, the Committee did. However, there was a broad convergence of spirit, even though there might not be among some of the details.

Although the Convention did not use the term "minority" or "indigenous peoples", those were the groups on which the Committee would focus in drafting its concluding observations, as those were the groups undergoing oppression. The Committee aimed to unblock situations, and assist the State party to take a broader, less rigid view on some matters.

The Committee would argue for laws on racial discrimination; controls on hate speech; the need for remedies; the need for human rights education and education of the general population on matters to do with racial discrimination and tolerance; and the need for education of officials, including those in most regular contact with non-Japanese, Mr. Thornberry concluded.


For use of the information media; not an official record


CERD10/010E