English 
Japanese 
Spanish 
French 
Bengali 
Myanmar 
Nepali 
Tagalog 
Urdu 
Thai 
Persian 
apfseditor On January 18, 2016, the appeal court ruling on Suraj's lawsuit against the state was delivered in Tokyo High Court, courtroom 825. Spectator tickets were distributed and the courtroom seats were filled to capacity.
The presiding judge ruled that the original judgment was vacated and that the claims of the plaintiffs in the first instance were dismissed.
The following reasons for the decision were read out:
As for the sequence of events leading to death, Suraj had already lost consciousness before he assumed the bending over position that the plaintiffs have raised as an issue.
Regarding the cause of death, there were no obvious signs of asphyxiation, but on the contrary, the CTAVN had grown to a considerable size in Suraj's heart and must have caused considerable damage. As the six doctors (doctors commissioned by the defendant) said, the cause of death was fatal arrhythmia caused by the CTAVN.
Regarding illegality under the State Compensation Act, the restraining action taken by the security officer was reasonable, and even if the stress of the restraint had induced the symptoms of CTAVN, the security officer could not have foreseen it. Therefore, the restraining action was not illegal.
Regarding the violation of the duty to render aid, deaths during CTAVN cannot be saved by AEDs or other devices, so even if the security officer neglected his duty to render aid, there is no causal relationship between that and Mr. Suraj's death.
As described above, everything that had been won in the district court ruling was overturned, and based on the documents of renowned doctors (some of whom did not even remember the exact name of the disease, CTAVN) whom the government had hired at any cost, the court ruled that Suraj had died of a rare disease called CTAVN before the security officers restrained him. It was determined that the security officers were not at fault, since such a disease could not have been foreseen by the security officers, and it would have been difficult for them to save his life.
Even after the court adjourned, voices were heard from the audience, such as, "We didn't come here to hear a verdict like this," "Is such a verdict possible?" and "Is this a verdict made by a human being?"
I have quickly reported the details of the ruling.