Sources for Japan

The Constitution of Japan (日本国憲法), English translation

Ministry of Justice (Japanese Law Translation database) · Legislation · 1946-11-03 · link verified 2026-07-25

Cited from the official Japanese Law Translation database, whose stated policy is that translations are reference materials only and that the original Japanese text has sole legal effect. Supports: Article 41 ('The Diet shall be the highest organ of state power, and shall be the sole law-making organ of the State'); Article 76 (the whole judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and in inferior courts established by law; no extraordinary tribunal; all judges independent in the exercise of their conscience and bound by the Constitution and the laws); Article 92 (local self-government — the organisation and operations of local public entities fixed by law in accordance with the principle of local autonomy). Supports the unitary constitutional framework with national law-making and local self-government. The English is not authoritative; any precise legal point rests on the Japanese text. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same House of Representatives English text. The most important thing about it for this subject is what it does not contain. Supports Constitution of Japan (1946), Art. 54 — and the absence of any emergency chapter: “Article 54. When the House of Representatives is dissolved, there must be a general election of members of the House of Representatives within forty (40) days from the date of dissolution, and the Diet must be convoked within thirty (30) days from the date of the election. When the House of Representatives is dissolved, the House of Councillors is closed at the same time. However, the Cabinet may in time of national emergency convoke the House of Councillors in emergency session. Measures taken at such session as mentioned in the proviso of the preceding paragraph shall be provisional and shall become null and void unless agreed to by the House of Representatives within a period of ten (10) days after the opening of the next session of the Diet.”. Supports Constitution of Japan, Arts. 12 and 13 (cf. Arts. 22, 29 using the same formula): “Article 12. The freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare. Article 13. All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.”. Supports Constitution of Japan, Art. 76: “Article 76. The whole judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law. No extraordinary tribunal shall be established, nor shall any organ or agency of the Executive be given final judicial power. All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by this Constitution and the laws.”. Supports Constitution of Japan, Arts. 81 and 98: “Article 81. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort with power to determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or official act. […] Article 98. This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the nation and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government, or part thereof, contrary to the provisions hereof, shall have legal force or validity.”. NEGATIVE FINDING, and the one this record exists to carry: the Constitution of Japan contains no emergency chapter and no derogation or suspension clause, so limitation of Chapter III rights runs through the “public welfare” qualifier written into individual articles. It categorically prohibits extraordinary tribunals and carves out no emergency exception to constitutional review. This record supports no claim about proposals to amend the Constitution, and no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the Japanese Law Translation database's own XML export of the Constitution (s21Ak000010101en3.0.xml), fetched with the law page as referrer, article by article. English is a reference translation only; the Japanese text has legal effect. Supports Art. 12 (“The freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare”) and Art. 13 (“All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs”) — the public-welfare formula that does the work a limitation clause does elsewhere. Supports Art. 31, 32 and 33 (“No person shall be apprehended except upon warrant issued by a competent judicial officer which specifies the offense with which the person is charged, unless he is apprehended, the offense being committed”). Supports Art. 34 (no arrest or detention without being at once informed of the charges or without the immediate privilege of counsel; no detention without adequate cause, which upon demand of any person must be immediately shown in open court in the person's presence and that of counsel). Supports Art. 35 verbatim: “The right of all persons to be secure in their homes, papers and effects against entries, searches and seizures shall not be impaired except upon warrant issued for adequate cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized, or except as provided by Article 33. Each search or seizure shall be made upon separate warrant issued by a competent judicial officer.” Note two textual differences from the United States Fourth Amendment that the pages relying on this record state: Art. 35 does not include “persons” among what is protected, and it adds a separate-warrant requirement that has no American counterpart. Supports Art. 37 (speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal; full opportunity to examine all witnesses and compulsory process at public expense; competent counsel assigned by the State where the accused cannot secure it). Supports Art. 38 in full: “No person shall be compelled to testify against himself. Confession made under compulsion, torture or threat, or after prolonged arrest or detention shall not be admitted in evidence. No person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession.” Supports Art. 82: “Trials shall be conducted and judgment declared publicly. Where a court unanimously determines publicity to be dangerous to public order or morals, a trial may be conducted privately, but trials of political offenses, offenses involving the press or cases wherein the rights of people as guaranteed in Chapter III of this Constitution are in question shall always be conducted publicly.” Supports Art. 98(2), that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that Chapter III opens for “the people” (Arts. 11-14) while Arts. 31-40 switch to “No person” and “all persons”. VERIFIED NEGATIVE: Art. 38 imposes no duty to inform anyone of the privilege. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Supreme Court of Japan, no provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nothing about any other country.

Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法), English translation

Ministry of Justice (Japanese Law Translation database) · Legislation · 1948 · link verified 2026-07-25

Cited from the official Japanese Law Translation database (reference only; original Japanese text has legal effect). Supports, at the structural level: that police officials act as judicial police officials investigating offences (Article 189); that public prosecutors may themselves investigate offences (Article 191); and that prosecution is instituted by a public prosecutor (Article 247), who holds the discretion whether to prosecute. Supports the allocation of investigative and charging responsibility; the English is not authoritative and no operational detail is drawn from it. WAVE 22 ADDITION. Read again from the same Japanese Law Translation page, this time from the database's own XML export of the Code (s23Aa001310201en2.0_h18A36.xml), fetched with the law page as referrer. TEMPORAL LIMITATION, stated because it is load-bearing for this wave: the version identifier indicates a translation reflecting amendments to 2006, so it MAY LAG later amendments, and only structural propositions present in that version are drawn from it. Supports Art. 197(1): with regard to investigation, “such examination as is necessary to achieve its objective may be conducted; provided, however, that compulsory dispositions shall not be applied unless special provisions have been established in this Code.” Supports Art. 218(1), that a public prosecutor, a public prosecutor's assistant officer or a judicial police official may, if necessary for investigation of an offense, conduct search, seizure or inspection UPON A WARRANT ISSUED BY A JUDGE, and Art. 218(3), that the warrant is issued upon their request. Supports Art. 219(1), that the warrant shall contain the name of the suspect or accused, the charged offense, THE ARTICLES TO BE SEIZED or the place, body or articles to be searched, the place or articles to be inspected, the valid period, and a statement that the search, seizure or inspection shall not be commenced after the lapse of that period and that the warrant shall then be returned to the court. Supports Art. 222-2 in full: “Compulsory measures for the interception of electronic communications without the consent of either party shall be executed based upon other acts.” Cited for three propositions: that a national code can state as a general rule that a compulsory measure requires a specific statutory provision; that the warrant instrument itself distinguishes what may be seized from what may be searched; and that a system may place the interception power OUTSIDE its general procedure code. The Act to which Art. 222-2 refers was NOT read, and this record supports no claim about its content. The English is a reference translation and the Japanese text has legal effect.

Police of Japan 2020

National Police Agency (NPA), Japan · Government publication · 2020 · link verified 2026-07-25

The NPA's own English overview; figures and wording extracted directly from the report PDF. Supports: that the National Public Safety Commission (NPSC) and the National Police Agency (NPA) constitute the national police organisation and the NPSC supervises the NPA; that the Police Act empowers the national government to establish a central police organisation 'to control and supervise prefectural police forces on matters of national concern'; that the NPSC 'draws up basic policies and regulations, coordinates police administration on matters of national concern and sets general standards'; that each prefecture has 'the authority to carry out police duties'; that Regional Police Bureaus are subordinate to the NPA; that police boxes (Koban) and residential police boxes (Chuzaisho) are subordinate units of police stations; that the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department is the prefectural police of Tokyo; and that 'the Prime Minister is not empowered to exercise direct command or control over the Commission'. CRUCIALLY, it supports national COORDINATION, STANDARDS and SUPERVISION ON MATTERS OF NATIONAL CONCERN, with operational policing carried out by the prefectures — NOT a single nationally commanded operational police force. Does not support operational detail.

Judicial System in Japan / The Judicial System and Courts in Japan

Supreme Court of Japan (courts.go.jp) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-25

The Supreme Court's own English account of the court system, obtained by search retrieval of the official page (courts.go.jp truncates automated fetches). Supports: the courts established under the Court Act (1947) — Supreme Court, high courts, district courts, family courts and summary courts; that the Supreme Court is the highest court and exercises judicial review only in a concrete case, not in the abstract; that family courts also handle juvenile cases; and the Saiban-in (lay judge) system — begun 21 May 2009, in which randomly selected lay judges sit WITH professional judges in the district court for certain serious criminal cases only (offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, or intentional criminal acts causing death), described as having points in common with a jury system. Supports court structure and the lay-judge scope; not caseload figures. As the Supreme Court's own institutional description its facts are stated as such; it is not a statute.

History and Organization of Public Prosecutors' Offices

Ministry of Justice of Japan (moj.go.jp) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-25

The Ministry of Justice's own English account, read directly. Supports: that there are four types of Public Prosecutors' Offices — the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office, high public prosecutors' offices, district public prosecutors' offices and local public prosecutors' offices — located corresponding to their respective courts; and that prosecutors' offices are attached to the courts but are not part of them. Supports the prosecution structure and its correspondence to the court hierarchy. It does NOT here establish the Minister of Justice's power of direction over prosecutors: the Public Prosecutor's Office Act is marked 'not yet translated' on the official database, so that relationship is left unstated rather than asserted from an unread source.

Penal Institutions (Prisons / Juvenile Prisons / Detention Houses)

Ministry of Justice of Japan, Correction Bureau (moj.go.jp) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-25

The Ministry of Justice Correction Bureau's own English page, read directly. Supports: that 'in Japan, prisons, juvenile prisons and detention houses are collectively referred to as "penal institutions"'; and that 'these penal institutions are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice and are under the supervision of one of its internal departments, the Correction Bureau, and the eight regional correction headquarters which are the field offices'. Supports the NATIONAL administration of corrections by the Ministry of Justice — the structural point for the corrections page. It supports no figure about prison population, capacity or density; the pilot does not publish a Japanese detention-capacity statistic (see the model-findings document for why that claim was deferred).

Japanese Law Translation — database policy on translation status

Ministry of Justice (Japanese Law Translation database) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-25

The Ministry of Justice database's own statement of policy: the English translations it provides 'are to be used solely as reference materials to aid in the understanding of Japanese laws and regulations', and 'only the original Japanese texts have legal effect'. This is the source for the translation-status treatment applied across the Japan pages: every Japanese statute is cited in English for reference only, with Japanese authoritative. Supports the translation-authority position, not any institutional fact in itself.