Statement Calling to Fully Redress the Victims of Eugenic Surgeries and Amend the Act on Lump-sum Payments Following the Verdict by the Supreme Court
Today, in the final appellate instance of five lawsuits against the government seeking compensation for a compulsory sterilization operation performed in accordance with the now-defunct Eugenic Protection Act (the "Act"), the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court handed down a unified judgement. It ruled that the statute of limitations for claiming compensation set forth in the second sentence of the Article 724 of the Civil Code prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017 does not apply to victims of the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the government to pay compensation to the victims (as for the lawsuit that proceeded before the Sendai High Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the high court for the further proceedings to deliberate issues such as the amount of the compensation).
This verdict acknowledged that the provision of the Act stipulating a sterilization operation targeting those with certain diseases and disabilities, among others, was "materially detrimental to individual dignity and the spirit of respecting personality," as well as discriminatory, thereby violating Articles 13 and 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that enacting such a provision was itself illegal.
In addition, the Supreme Court also ruled that applying the statute of limitations to damages caused by the Act is materially detrimental to the principles of justice and fairness and utterly unacceptable. This was based on the grounds that: (a) the purpose of such limitations, which is to stabilize legal relations, does not apply to cases where it is clear that legislation, an act of the state, illegally infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution; (b) the government bears an extremely grave responsibility for committing a severe human rights violation by discriminating against numerous individuals, including those with disabilities, and subjecting them to forced sterilization operations under a national policy over an extended period; (c) exercising the right to claim compensation for damages was extremely difficult for the victims; and (d) the Diet was strongly expected to properly exercise its legislative discretion by immediately enacting measures to compensate the victims after the Act was amended to the Maternal Health Act in 1996 but failed to do so for an extended period. Moreover, the "Act on Lump-sum Payments, etc. to Persons Who Underwent Eugenic Surgery or Other Operations in Accordance with the Now-defunct Eugenic Protection Act" (the "Act on Lump-sum Payments"), which was enacted in April 2019, does not acknowledge the government’s responsibility to provide compensation to the victims.
Local and high courts across the country have been divided on whether the statute of limitations for claiming compensation applies to the victims of the Act. However, with the verdict by the Supreme Court, it has been unequivocally established that the statute of limitations does not apply to claims under the Act and that the government is responsible to pay compensation to the plaintiffs of the lawsuits, who are the victims of the Act.
Enacted in 1948, the Act was aimed to "prevent the birth of descendants who are inferior from a eugenic point of view." Based on this ideology of eugenics, a total of approximately 84,000 surgeries, 25,000 sterilization operations and 59,000 induced abortions, were performed on people with disabilities until the Act was amended to the Maternal Health Act in 1996. The human rights violation caused by the Act represents one of the most extensive and severe human rights violations in Japan since the end of WWII.
The government must respect the Supreme Court’s verdict and make a decisive shift towards fully redressing the victims of the Act. The government should first immediately withdraw its petition for the acceptance of a final appeal against the high court’s judgement in two cases and seek to achieve a complete resolution through settlement discussions with the plaintiffs in all pending cases. Furthermore, the government must ensure the full redress of all victims of the Act, not limited to the plaintiffs of the lawsuits.
The Act on Lump-sum Payments is grossly insufficient as a measure to redress the victims, on the grounds that, among other reasons, such payments are small, and it does not have a provision stipulating such payments for the spouses of the victims. In addition, only 1,110 cases have been identified as eligible under the Act on Lump-sum Payments as of the end of May 2024.
To rectify this, the current legislation on the lump-sum payments should be fundamentally revised to include provisions explicitly acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the Act and to establish a system that provides sufficient compensation to make up for damages to all of the victims of the Act, including the spouses of those who underwent surgeries such as a sterilization operation.
Seventy-five years have passed since surgeries began under the Act in 1949, and 28 years have passed since the Act was amended to the Maternal Health Act in 1996. As the victims of the Act are now at an advanced age and many have already passed away, there is no time to lose in ensuring full redress for the victims.
In the proceedings and resulting verdict by the Grand Bench in this case, the Supreme Court made a historical step towards making the courts more accessible to all by providing various accommodations for parties and observers with disabilities, based on discussions with the plaintiffs’ attorney teams and other relevant parties. However, challenges remain, such as the costs related to arrangements, including those for sign language interpreters for the parties to the lawsuits, which are not covered by public funds. The government is continuously required to provide procedural and reasonable accommodations in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Act not only brought irreparable harm to many people with disabilities but also undermined their dignity by allowing discrimination and prejudice rooted in the eugenics ideology to take hold in society. People with disabilities are still suffering from discrimination and prejudice in every aspect of their daily lives, which is not limited to forming a family including marriage, pregnancy and childbirth, and child rearing.
Following the verdict by the Supreme Court, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations will further enhance and accelerate its effort, continuously working hard with sincerity until all victims of the Act are fully redressed. We will also strive to eliminate discrimination and prejudice rooted in eugenics ideology and work toward realizing a society where the dignity of the victims of the Act is fully restored, and everyone respects each other as equally unique individuals.
July 3, 2024
Reiko Fuchigami
President of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations