The first hearing in the High Court regarding the lawsuit seeking state compensation in the Suraj case has concluded.

The first hearing of the appeal trial was held on Wednesday, July 30, 2014, at 3:30 PM.
This time, the plaintiff's side presented a statement from the wife and an explanation of the grounds for appeal from their legal representative.
Following that, the defendant (the state) also presented their reasons for appeal.

The plaintiff's grounds for appeal
① In the district court ruling, while the act of restraining Suraj by wrapping a towel around his mouth and forcing him into a bent-over position was deemed illegal, the court ruled that the other actions were not illegal.
② The court reduced the amount by 50% due to contributory negligence on the grounds that Suraj had instigated the illegal suppression.
③ The method for calculating compensation for damages, etc., is based on the Ghanaian standard.
These were listed.

The defendant's grounds for appeal
① The cause of Suraj's death was ultimately a fatal arrhythmia caused by a pre-existing heart condition, and the district court ruling denied this.
② The actions of the immigration officer were not illegal under the National Compensation Act.
These were listed.

In her statement, the wife spoke of the pain of continuing the trial, the memories of her husband Suraju that she recalls at various times, and the sense of loss she feels. Some of the spectators were moved to tears by her words.

The next hearing, the second session, will be held on Wednesday, October 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 825 of the Tokyo High Court.
While appeals trials often conclude in a single session, many spectators flocked to each hearing in Mr. Suraj's case.
The court also recognizes this as a high-profile case and appears to be taking a considerable amount of time to deliberate on it.
We would appreciate your continued cooperation in attending the proceedings!

*The following is the actual statement made by the attorney in court (Statement by attorney Koichi Kodama of the Suraj defense team).
Following this statement, there was applause from the audience.

Are you trying to say that Suraju's very existence was a mistake?
The first instance judgment was groundbreaking in that it recognized a causal relationship between the immigration officer's restraint and Mr. Suraj's death.
However, on the other hand, the court found that Suraj should have complied with the deportation order, and that his failure to do so had incited illegal activity, resulting in a reduction of 50% of his sentence due to contributory negligence.
Why should Suraj be blamed for refusing deportation because he wanted to stay with his wife of over 20 years?
As evidenced by his victory in the first trial regarding special permission to stay in Japan, Suraj was, in fact, someone who should have been granted special permission to stay in Japan.
Even if they lose in court, it's not uncommon for people in similar cases to be granted special permission to stay in Japan through a procedure called a request for retrial. It's only natural that Suraj would refuse deportation in order to live with his family.
It is clearly wrong to take this point and reduce the compensation for 50%, arguing that there was negligence.
In addition to this, we
* It was determined that it was not illegal to use handcuffs on the feet in violation of internal regulations, or to use cable ties and towels, which are not permitted under internal regulations.
* All lost profits were calculated based on the Ghanaian standard.
* The compensation for bereaved families was set at about one-fifth of what would be paid to Japanese citizens.
I think that's strange.
These are the main reasons why we filed an appeal.
I'd like to discuss one more point regarding the government's grounds for appeal.
Since the appeal trial began, the government has submitted five new expert opinions from doctors and other specialists. They have also translated and submitted numerous medical documents.
I believe the expenses incurred for these matters will exceed the 5 million yen in compensation awarded in the first trial.
What exactly is the country trying to protect to such an extent?
Last October, an incident occurred at the Tokyo Immigration Bureau in Shinagawa where a man died. Yesterday, I went to the Ministry of Justice to preserve evidence and viewed a video showing the man's condition before his death.
The footage shows staff members going to the room of a man who was vomiting and having seizures, but doing nothing and moving slowly. Paramedics arrived about an hour after the incident began.
In March of this year, an incident occurred at the Ushiku Immigration Bureau in which Iranians and Cameroonians died in quick succession.
These kinds of things happen because people fail to do something as basic as respecting others for who they are.
The immigration authorities have not learned a single lesson from Suraj's case.
Suraj's case was also a cause for concern at the UN Human Rights Committee meeting held in Geneva, where it was noted as a case of death caused by abuse.
I believe that the High Court will issue a ruling that guides the immigration authorities toward the basic principle of respecting people as human beings.
That's all.