If a country has signed a human-rights treaty, is that treaty part of its law?

The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 2008 (official English translation)

Government of the Netherlands (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) · Legislation · 2008 · link verified 2026-07-26

The official English translation of the Grondwet, fetched as a government.nl PDF and text-extracted. Supports Chapter 6 (administration of justice): Art. 112–113 (adjudication and trial of offences are the judiciary's), Art. 114 ("Capital punishment may not be imposed"), Art. 116 ("The courts which form part of the judiciary shall be specified by Act of Parliament"), Art. 117 (judges and the Procurator General at the Supreme Court appointed for life by Royal Decree — the independence guarantee), Art. 118 (the Supreme Court and cassation), Art. 120 ("The constitutionality of Acts of Parliament and treaties shall not be reviewed by the courts" — no constitutional review of statutes), and Art. 78a (the National Ombudsman). The authoritative text is the Dutch original; this English version is an official reference translation.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the official consolidated Dutch text of the Grondwet at wetten.overheid.nl (BWBR0001840), article by article; the Dutch text is authoritative. Supports Art. 10(1): “Ieder heeft, behoudens bij of krachtens de wet te stellen beperkingen, recht op eerbiediging van zijn persoonlijke levenssfeer”, with 10(2)-(3) on personal-data rules and access. Supports Art. 12(1)-(3): “1 Het binnentreden in een woning zonder toestemming van de bewoner is alleen geoorloofd in de gevallen bij of krachtens de wet bepaald, door hen die daartoe bij of krachtens de wet zijn aangewezen. 2 Voor het binnentreden overeenkomstig het eerste lid zijn voorafgaande legitimatie en mededeling van het doel van het binnentreden vereist, behoudens bij de wet gestelde uitzonderingen. 3 Aan de bewoner wordt zo spoedig mogelijk een schriftelijk verslag van het binnentreden verstrekt. Indien het binnentreden in het belang van de nationale veiligheid of dat van de strafvordering heeft plaatsgevonden, kan volgens bij de wet te stellen regels de verstrekking van het verslag worden uitgesteld.” The VERIFIED NEGATIVE this supports is textual: Art. 12 contains no requirement of judicial authorisation. Supports Art. 13: “1 Ieder heeft recht op eerbiediging van zijn brief- en telecommunicatiegeheim. 2 Beperking van dit recht is mogelijk in de gevallen bij de wet bepaald met machtiging van de rechter of, in het belang van de nationale veiligheid, door of met machtiging van hen die daartoe bij de wet zijn aangewezen.” Supports Art. 15(1)-(2): no one may be deprived of liberty outside cases determined by or pursuant to statute; a person deprived of liberty otherwise than by judicial order may request the court for release, is heard within a statutorily determined period, and the court orders immediate release if it judges the deprivation unlawful. Supports Art. 93: “Bepalingen van verdragen en van besluiten van volkenrechtelijke organisaties, die naar haar inhoud een ieder kunnen verbinden, hebben verbindende kracht nadat zij zijn bekendgemaakt.” Supports Art. 94: “Binnen het Koninkrijk geldende wettelijke voorschriften vinden geen toepassing, indien deze toepassing niet verenigbaar is met een ieder verbindende bepalingen van verdragen en van besluiten van volkenrechtelijke organisaties.” Supports Art. 120: “De rechter treedt niet in de beoordeling van de grondwettigheid van wetten en verdragen.” Supports Art. 121, that hearings take place in public and judgments state the grounds on which they rest, except in cases determined by statute. Reading Arts. 93, 94 and 120 together is what supports the finding that a Dutch court may not review a statute against the Constitution but must decline to apply it where it conflicts with a self-executing treaty provision. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Hoge Raad, no statute, nothing about any other country.

Bunreacht na hÉireann / Constitution of Ireland — Articles 15.5.2, 28.3, 38, 40.4

Office of the Attorney General (electronic Irish Statute Book) · Legislation · 1937 · link verified 2026-08-26

The consolidated text on the electronic Irish Statute Book, read directly. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 28.3.3 (definition of "time of war"): “In this subsection "time of war" includes a time when there is taking place an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of which each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that, arising out of such armed conflict, a national emergency exists affecting the vital interests of the State”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 15.5.2 (read with Article 28.3.3): “2° The Oireachtas shall not enact any law providing for the imposition of the death penalty.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.1 and 40.4.2: “4 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law. 2° Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.3: “3° Where the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is produced before the High Court in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section and that Court is satisfied that such person is being detained in accordance with a law but that such law is invalid having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall refer the question of the validity of such law to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated and may, at the time of such reference or at any time thereafter, allow the said person to be at liberty on such bail and subject to such conditions as the High Court shall fix until the Court of Appeal has determined the question so referred to it.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.5: “5° Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit, control, or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 38.3.1, 38.4.1, 38.5: “3 1° Special courts may be established by law for the trial of offences in cases where it may be determined in accordance with such law that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order. [..] 4 1° Military tribunals may be established for the trial of offences against military law alleged to have been committed by persons while subject to military law and also to deal with a state of war or armed rebellion. [..] 5 Save in the case of the trial of offences under section 2, section 3 or section 4 of this Article no person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury.”. Cited for four findings the general accounts get wrong: that the Article 28.3.3 shield is switched on and off by resolutions of BOTH Houses rather than by the Government; that it does not lapse when the conflict ends; that special courts are constitutionally PERMITTED where the ordinary courts are determined inadequate, which is the counter-example to the prohibition found elsewhere; and that the habeas corpus section is expressly disapplied as against acts of the Defence Forces during war or armed rebellion. It records no emergency, states no instance of any of these provisions being used, and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read again from the same Irish Statute Book text of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Supports Art. 29.6 verbatim: “No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas.” Supports Art. 40.4.1°: “No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.” Supports Art. 40.4.2°, and specifically that the remedy is worded more widely than the right it enforces: “Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.” Supports Art. 40.5: “The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.” Supports Art. 40.6.1° i, that the State guarantees liberty for the exercise of “the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions”, subject to public order and morality. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that Art. 40 repeatedly words rights for the citizen while Art. 40.4.2° words the habeas remedy for any person. IMPORTANT LIMITATION, stated on every page relying on this record: this establishes what the constitutional TEXT says about who holds the right. How the Irish courts have construed “citizen” in Article 40 was NOT researched for this wave, and this record supports no claim about it. WAVE 31 EXTENSION — Article 38 read in full at the same address rather than duplicated into a second record. Supports Art. 38.5 verbatim: “Save in the case of the trial of offences under section 2, section 3 or section 4 of this Article no person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury.” Supports the three exceptions it points to: Art. 38.2 (“Minor offences may be tried by courts of summary jurisdiction.”), Art. 38.3.1° (special courts where it is determined that “the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order”), and Art. 38.4 (military tribunals). DOES NOT SUPPORT the size of an Irish jury or how jurors are selected: Article 38 states neither.

Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988

Presidência da República — Casa Civil (Planalto) · Legislation · 1988-10-05 · link verified 2026-07-25

The authoritative Portuguese text, read in full. THE backbone of the Brazil pages. Supports: the federation of the Union, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities, 'todos autônomos' (Art. 18; Art. 1); separation of powers (Art. 2); the criminal-justice guarantees of Art. 5 — devido processo legal (LIV), contraditório e ampla defesa (LV), presumption of innocence 'ninguém será considerado culpado até o trânsito em julgado de sentença penal condenatória' (LVII), and habeas corpus (LXVIII); that penal and procedural law are the EXCLUSIVE (privativa) competence of the Union (Art. 22, I) while direito penitenciário is CONCURRENT (Art. 24, I) and the States hold the reserved/residual competences (Art. 25 §1); public security through the six órgãos of Art. 144 (I polícia federal; II rodoviária federal; III ferroviária federal; IV polícias civis; V polícias militares e corpos de bombeiros militares; VI polícias penais, added by EC 104/2019), with the polícias civis 'dirigidas por delegados de polícia de carreira' exercising 'as funções de polícia judiciária e a apuração de infrações penais, exceto as militares' (§4), the polícias militares holding 'a polícia ostensiva e a preservação da ordem pública' (§5), and both subordinate to the Governors (§6); the Judiciary organs of Art. 92 (STF, CNJ, STJ, TST, TRFs/Juízes Federais, and the labour, electoral, military and state courts), the STF as guardian of the Constitution (Art. 102), the CNJ (Art. 103-B) and state justice (Art. 125); the Ministério Público as 'instituição permanente, essencial à função jurisdicional do Estado' defending 'a ordem jurídica, o regime democrático e os interesses sociais e individuais indisponíveis', with autonomy and the principles of unidade, indivisibilidade e independência funcional (Art. 127), its structure MPU (MPF/MPT/MPM/MPDFT) + MPE (Art. 128), its functions including promoting 'privativamente, a ação penal pública' (Art. 129 I) and the inquérito civil / ação civil pública for interesses difusos e coletivos (Art. 129 III), and the CNMP (Art. 130-A); and that the Union organizes and maintains the Judiciary, Ministério Público and police of the Federal District (Art. 21, XIII–XIV). The Portuguese text alone has legal effect. WAVE 12 ADDITION, further clauses of Art. 5 read directly from the same Planalto text: XXXV a lei não excluirá da apreciação do Poder Judiciário lesão ou ameaça a direito; XXXVI the law shall not impair a vested right, a perfect juridical act or res judicata; XXXVII não haverá juízo ou tribunal de exceção; XXXIX não há crime sem lei anterior que o defina, nem pena sem prévia cominação legal; XL a lei penal não retroagirá, salvo para beneficiar o réu; LVI evidence obtained by unlawful means is inadmissible in the process; LXXV the State shall indemnify a person convicted by judicial error and one held beyond the term fixed in the sentence; LXXVIII reasonable duration of proceedings and the means guaranteeing the speed of their handling, in the judicial and administrative spheres. WAVE 14 ADDITION, further provisions read directly from the same Planalto text: Art. 5º LXXIV “o Estado prestará assistência jurídica integral e gratuita aos que comprovarem insuficiência de recursos”; Art. 5º LXXVI that civil birth registration and the death certificate are free, in the form of the law, for the recognisedly poor; Art. 5º LXXVII that actions of habeas corpus and habeas data are free, as are, in the form of the law, the acts necessary to the exercise of citizenship; Art. 103-B § 4º that the Conselho Nacional de Justiça has competence for “o controle da atuação administrativa e financeira do Poder Judiciário e do cumprimento dos deveres funcionais dos juízes”, including safeguarding the autonomy of the Judiciary and issuing regulatory acts (I), reviewing the legality of administrative acts of members or organs of the Judiciary and annulling, revising or setting a period for compliance (II), and receiving complaints against members or organs of the Judiciary including its auxiliary services and delegated notarial and registry services, taking over disciplinary proceedings in course and ordering removal, availability or retirement and applying other administrative sanctions (III); Art. 133 “O advogado é indispensável à administração da justiça, sendo inviolável por seus atos e manifestações no exercício da profissão, nos limites da lei”; and Art. 134 in its current wording, that the Defensoria Pública is a permanent institution essential to the jurisdictional function of the State, incumbent on it, as an expression and instrument of the democratic regime, fundamentally to provide legal guidance, the promotion of human rights and the defence, in all degrees, judicial and extrajudicial, of the individual and collective rights of the needy. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Planalto text. Brazil states its emergency architecture as a closed system: two regimes, an exhaustive list of measures for each, and an express preservation of liability afterwards. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136, caput: “Art. 136. O Presidente da República pode, ouvidos o Conselho da República e o Conselho de Defesa Nacional, decretar estado de defesa para preservar ou prontamente restabelecer, em locais restritos e determinados, a ordem pública ou a paz social ameaçadas por grave e iminente instabilidade institucional ou atingidas por calamidades de grandes proporções na natureza.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 § 2º, added after adversarial review found this platform quoting it from a record that did not carry it, and re-verified against the Planalto text: “§ 2º O tempo de duração do estado de defesa não será superior a trinta dias, podendo ser prorrogado uma vez, por igual período, se persistirem as razões que justificaram a sua decretação.” Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §1º, I–II: “I - restrições aos direitos de: a) reunião, ainda que exercida no seio das associações; b) sigilo de correspondência; c) sigilo de comunicação telegráfica e telefônica; II - ocupação e uso temporário de bens e serviços públicos, na hipótese de calamidade pública, respondendo a União pelos danos e custos decorrentes.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §3º, I–IV: “§ 3º Na vigência do estado de defesa: I - a prisão por crime contra o Estado, determinada pelo executor da medida, será por este comunicada imediatamente ao juiz competente, que a relaxará, se não for legal, facultado ao preso requerer exame de corpo de delito à autoridade policial; II - a comunicação será acompanhada de declaração, pela autoridade, do estado físico e mental do detido no momento de sua autuação; III - a prisão ou detenção de qualquer pessoa não poderá ser superior a dez dias, salvo quando autorizada pelo Poder Judiciário; IV - é vedada a incomunicabilidade do preso.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §§4º–7º: “§ 4º Decretado o estado de defesa ou sua prorrogação, o Presidente da República, dentro de vinte e quatro horas, submeterá o ato com a respectiva justificação ao Congresso Nacional, que decidirá por maioria absoluta. § 5º Se o Congresso Nacional estiver em recesso, será convocado, extraordinariamente, no prazo de cinco dias. § 6º O Congresso Nacional apreciará o decreto dentro de dez dias contados de seu recebimento, devendo continuar funcionando enquanto vigorar o estado de defesa. § 7º Rejeitado o decreto, cessa imediatamente o estado de defesa.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 138, caput: “Art. 138. O decreto do estado de sítio indicará sua duração, as normas necessárias a sua execução e as garantias constitucionais que ficarão suspensas, e, depois de publicado, o Presidente da República designará o executor das medidas específicas e as áreas abrangidas.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 139: “Art. 139. Na vigência do estado de sítio decretado com fundamento no art. 137, I, só poderão ser tomadas contra as pessoas as seguintes medidas: I - obrigação de permanência em localidade determinada; II - detenção em edifício não destinado a acusados ou condenados por crimes comuns; III - restrições relativas à inviolabilidade da correspondência, ao sigilo das comunicações, à prestação de informações e à liberdade de imprensa, radiodifusão e televisão, na forma da lei; IV - suspensão da liberdade de reunião; V - busca e apreensão em domicílio; VI - intervenção nas empresas de serviços públicos; VII - requisição de bens. Parágrafo único. Não se inclui nas restrições do inciso III a difusão de pronunciamentos de parlamentares efetuados em suas Casas Legislativas, desde que liberada pela respectiva Mesa.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 141 and parágrafo único: “Art. 141. Cessado o estado de defesa ou o estado de sítio, cessarão também seus efeitos, sem prejuízo da responsabilidade pelos ilícitos cometidos por seus executores ou agentes. Parágrafo único. Logo que cesse o estado de defesa ou o estado de sítio, as medidas aplicadas em sua vigência serão relatadas pelo Presidente da República, em mensagem ao Congresso Nacional, com especificação e justificação das providências adotadas, com relação nominal dos atingidos e indicação das restrições aplicadas.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 60 §§1º and 4º: “§ 1º A Constituição não poderá ser emendada na vigência de intervenção federal, de estado de defesa ou de estado de sítio. […] § 4º Não será objeto de deliberação a proposta de emenda tendente a abolir: I - a forma federativa de Estado; II - o voto direto, secreto, universal e periódico; III - a separação dos Poderes; IV - os direitos e garantias individuais.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 142, caput and §1º: “Art. 142. As Forças Armadas, constituídas pela Marinha, pelo Exército e pela Aeronáutica, são instituições nacionais permanentes e regulares, organizadas com base na hierarquia e na disciplina, sob a autoridade suprema do Presidente da República, e destinam-se à defesa da Pátria, à garantia dos poderes constitucionais e, por iniciativa de qualquer destes, da lei e da ordem. § 1º Lei complementar estabelecerá as normas gerais a serem adotadas na organização, no preparo e no emprego das Forças Armadas.”. Cited for the closed lists of permitted measures, the immediate judicial communication of an arrest, the congressional role, the express preservation of liability for unlawful acts after the regime ends, and the bar on amending the Constitution while one is in force. It records no declaration of either regime and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Article 5 read incisum by incisum from the same Planalto consolidated text. Supports the caput, and specifically its rights-holder scope: “Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes”. Supports Art. 5º X: “são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação”. Supports Art. 5º XI: “a casa é asilo inviolável do indivíduo, ninguém nela podendo penetrar sem consentimento do morador, salvo em caso de flagrante delito ou desastre, ou para prestar socorro, ou, durante o dia, por determinação judicial” — note that judicial authorisation is textually confined to daytime, which is the narrowest such qualifier found in this wave. Supports Art. 5º XII: “é inviolável o sigilo da correspondência e das comunicações telegráficas, de dados e das comunicações telefônicas, salvo, no último caso, por ordem judicial, nas hipóteses e na forma que a lei estabelecer para fins de investigação criminal ou instrução processual penal” — the exception reaches the LAST-NAMED category only, requires a judicial order, and is confined to criminal investigation or criminal procedural instruction. Supports Art. 5º LIV (“ninguém será privado da liberdade ou de seus bens sem o devido processo legal”), LV (contraditório and ampla defesa in judicial and administrative proceedings), LVI (“são inadmissíveis, no processo, as provas obtidas por meios ilícitos”) and LVII. Supports Art. 5º LXI: “ninguém será preso senão em flagrante delito ou por ordem escrita e fundamentada de autoridade judiciária competente, salvo nos casos de transgressão militar ou crime propriamente militar, definidos em lei”. Supports LXII (arrest and place of custody communicated immediately to the competent judge and to the family or a person indicated). Supports LXIII: “o preso será informado de seus direitos, entre os quais o de permanecer calado, sendo-lhe assegurada a assistência da família e de advogado” — a constitutional notification duty coupled with a silence right, and worded for “o preso”. Supports LXIV, LXV (“a prisão ilegal será imediatamente relaxada pela autoridade judiciária”) and LXVI. Supports § 1º (“As normas definidoras dos direitos e garantias fundamentais têm aplicação imediata”), § 2º (rights expressed in the Constitution do not exclude others deriving from the regime and principles it adopts, or from international treaties to which Brazil is party) and § 3º (“Os tratados e convenções internacionais sobre direitos humanos que forem aprovados, em cada Casa do Congresso Nacional, em dois turnos, por três quintos dos votos dos respectivos membros, serão equivalentes às emendas constitucionais”, added by Emenda Constitucional nº 45 de 2004). VERIFIED NEGATIVE: Article 5 contains no general limitation clause of the Canadian, South African, Kenyan or Swiss kind; limits appear inside individual incisos. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Supremo Tribunal Federal, no statute, nothing about any other country.

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.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, No. I-14668)

United Nations · International organisation · 1966 · link verified 2026-07-23

Authentic treaty text as registered in the UN Treaty Series; registered ex officio 23 March 1976. Supports the fair-trial guarantees of Article 14, including the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and the presumption of innocence (Art. 14(2)). Binding only on states party to it; does not support claims about states that have not ratified, nor about how any individual state applies it. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same authentic treaty text in the UN Treaty Series PDF, text-extracted locally. Supports Article 14(5) in full: "Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law." The qualifier "according to law" is part of the provision and is load-bearing: the right is to review as the law of the state provides, not to appeal without limit or by any chosen route. Supports Article 14(6): where a person has by a FINAL decision been convicted of a criminal offence and the conviction has subsequently been reversed or the person pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to that person. Supports Article 14(3)(g), that no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt, and Article 14(4), that the procedure for juvenile persons shall take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation. WAVE 20 ADDITION. PROVENANCE, stated precisely because this record's url is a different copy: the Article 4 material below was read on 2026-08-26 from OHCHR's official PDF of the Covenant at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf. The United Nations Treaty Series copy at this record's url timed out repeatedly this session and was not re-read, so nothing in this addition rests on it. Article 4 is the derogation clause, and its four cumulative conditions are the point. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(1): “1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(2), read with Arts. 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 18 as printed in the same document: “2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.”. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(3): “3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.”. The Covenant binds States Parties to it. It is NOT evidence of any particular state's domestic law, and no country claim on this platform rests on it. It designates no organ to proclaim an emergency, assigns no role to any national legislature, and creates no civil-protection institution. The Human Rights Committee's interpretation of this article is cited separately and attributed to the Committee.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the same United Nations Treaty Series PDF, text-extracted and searched. Supports Art. 9(1)-(4), and specifically that the Covenant polices ARBITRARINESS rather than closing a list of grounds: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law”; with 9(2) (informed at the time of arrest of the reasons and promptly of any charges), 9(3) (brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power; it shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody) and 9(4) (entitlement to take proceedings before a court which decides without delay on the lawfulness of the detention). Supports Art. 14(1): “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”, with the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the closed grounds on which press and public may be excluded, and the rule that judgment shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. Supports Art. 14(3)(e) (“To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”), 14(3)(f) (free assistance of an interpreter) and 14(3)(g) (“Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt” — note that the Covenant adds the confession limb, which the European Convention text does not contain). Supports Art. 14(5). VERIFIED NEGATIVES from exhaustive search of the Covenant text: “proportion” occurs zero times, “equality of arms” zero times, and “remain silent” zero times. This is treaty text binding states party to it; it is not evidence of any state's domestic law, and the corpus invariant forbidding a treaty from standing in for a country applies to it.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), Arts. 4(3)(c), 15, 19, 32 and 34

Official treaty text as published by the Government of the Netherlands (Overheid.nl, Verdragenbank BWBV0001000) · International organisation · 1950-11-04 · link verified 2026-08-26

ACCESS LIMITATION, stated first because it affects how this record should be read: the Council of Europe's own Convention PDF at echr.coe.int returned HTTP 403 to an automated request and to a direct request with a browser user-agent, and IT WAS NEVER READ. The text used is the authentic English text as published in the official treaty database of the Government of the Netherlands, a state party, read in the version in force from 1 August 2021 and cross-checked against the version in force from 10 June 2010. Supports ECHR Art. 15(1): “1 In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”. Supports ECHR Art. 15(2), read with Arts. 2, 3, 4(1) and 7 as printed in the same document: “2 No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.”. Supports ECHR Art. 15(3): “3 Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.”. Supports ECHR Art. 4(3)(c), read with Arts. 5, 6 and 15(2): “3 For the purpose of this Article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include: [..] (c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;”. Cited for the STRUCTURE of the Convention's derogation clause and for its non-derogable list. It binds the States Parties to the Convention and is NOT evidence of any particular state's domestic law — no national claim on this platform rests on it. It establishes nothing about whether any derogation has ever been lodged, nothing about the Court's case law, and nothing about states outside the Council of Europe.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read in full from the same official Dutch treaty-database text. Supports Art. 5(1), and specifically that it states an EXHAUSTIVE list: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, followed by six lettered grounds (a) to (f). Supports Art. 5(2) (informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons for arrest and of any charge) and Art. 5(3) (anyone arrested or detained under 5(1)(c) brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial). Supports Art. 6(1) in full, including that judgment “shall be pronounced publicly” while the press and public may be excluded on the grounds it lists. Supports Art. 6(2) and Art. 6(3)(a)-(e), including (b) adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and (d) “to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”. Supports Art. 8(1)-(2): “1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Supports Art. 11(1)-(2) in the same two-limb form. VERIFIED NEGATIVES, each established by exhaustive search of the Convention text and each stated as a fact about the text rather than about the Strasbourg case law, which was NOT researched: the words “proportion”, “equality of arms”, “silence” and “self-incrimination” occur ZERO times in the Convention. This record establishes treaty text binding the states party to it. It is not evidence of the domestic law of any state, and the corpus invariant forbidding a treaty from standing in for a country applies to it.