English 
Japanese 
Spanish 
French 
Bengali 
Myanmar 
Nepali 
Tagalog 
Urdu 
Thai 
Persian 
ZWC_yamada 
On Monday, May 13th, at 3:30 PM, the ninth hearing of the Suraj case national compensation lawsuit was held in courtroom 706 of the Tokyo District Court. The public gallery was full, and some people had to wait outside because there were no seats available.
At this hearing, the plaintiff's side (Suraju's legal team) presented their arguments. This time, the courtroom allowed for the viewing of videos and other materials, and the legal team used PowerPoint to clearly explain their arguments regarding the circumstances of Suraju's deportation, the illegality of the immigration officers' actions, and the cause of Suraju's death. Following this, they showed a video of Suraju's deportation as evidence to support their claims.
The video that was shown only contained the essential five minutes of footage showing immigration officers taking Suraj from a van parked next to the aircraft onto the plane. Suraj was not resisting at all and was calmly speaking Japanese. Despite this, the immigration officers quickly handcuffed his feet as if it had been planned from the beginning, and several of them lifted him up and carried him onto the plane. This was far removed from the immigration officers' claim that they took action because Suraj was resisting.
Although it was only a few minutes long, the spectators watched intently, holding their breath, as they witnessed Suraj's deportation. Even if they had heard about it before, seeing the reality of Suraj's deportation on video must have been a shock to everyone in attendance. Suraj's cousin was also in attendance, but he couldn't bear to watch Suraj's final moments and left the courtroom midway through.
After the video was shown, the presiding judge said that if they wanted a verdict within this fiscal year, they should plan an immediate examination and expedite the determination of the facts. The defendant, the government, said they wanted three months to obtain a doctor's opinion, to which the presiding judge himself stated, "We cannot wait that long."
After the trial, a question-and-answer session was held in a separate room regarding the content of the arguments presented. Many spectators remained and asked numerous questions. Some of the opinions expressed were those that could be useful for future proceedings.
The date for the next hearing will be announced on our website and blog as soon as it is decided. Your presence as an observer is a great source of strength. We would appreciate your cooperation in attending the hearing.