The lawsuit seeking state compensation in the Suraj case has concluded.

On Monday, February 3, 2014, the lawsuit seeking state compensation in the case of Ms. Suraj concluded.
The public gallery was full, and about 20 people hoping to attend were waiting in the waiting room.
This was the final argument, but only the plaintiff presented their case; the defendant did not.

(Statement by the plaintiff's wife)
First, the plaintiff's wife gave her final statement.

The statement, filled with memories of Suraj, including how she drew her illustrations, anecdotes about the soba noodle restaurant she frequented (she loved soba), and conversations they had while strolling in the park when the cherry blossoms were in bloom, moved some of the audience to tears.

At the beginning, the wife stated, "I have lost my emotional anchor, and my time has stood still."
This statement left me with the strong hope that a favorable verdict would be reached so that the wife's time could begin moving forward as soon as possible.
Following the final statement from Mrs. Suraj, the plaintiff's legal team presented their closing arguments.

(The defense team's closing arguments and report)
On March 22, 2010, the presentation began by outlining what happened on the day of the incident, followed by a review of the facts and legality of the actions taken over the approximately four years since the incident.
After the incident, the government never informed the bereaved family of the details of the incident.
Even after evidence preservation procedures were initiated, the government refused to disclose much of the evidence.
The video footage of the day of the incident, which finally surfaced, showed that recording stopped the moment Suraj and the immigration officer entered the aircraft.

In response to the government's attempt to conceal the truth of the incident, many brutal facts were revealed through questioning of immigration officials in the national compensation lawsuit.
The use of restraints (such as towels and cable ties) that are not permitted by the rules on Suraj.
Forcing Suraj into an unnecessary suppressive stance.
The immigration officer's statement that Suraj resisted was a lie.
Based on these facts that have come to light, it is clear that the actions of the immigration officers on the day of the incident were "excessive," "unnecessary," and "in violation of the law," and therefore illegal under the National Compensation Act.

He then spoke about the causal relationship between Suraj's death and the actions of the immigration officer.
The defense's claim that Mr. Suraj's heart stopped due to illness at the very moment he was forced into a dangerous restraining position by immigration officers is utterly unreasonable. Furthermore, the government's argument lacks any scientific basis, relying solely on the doctor's testimony. Considering all of this, it is clear to everyone that Mr. Suraj died as a result of the dangerous restraining.

The trial concluded in about 40 minutes, after which we moved to another location for a brief report. The defense attorneys gave a concise explanation of the final arguments, and there was also a report and explanation regarding the withdrawal of only the portion of the lawsuit concerning the nine immigration officials who were defendants. Afterwards, many questions were raised by the many people gathered for the report, and their enthusiasm was palpable as the next judgment approaches.