Japan
Japan should end abusive detention conditions for transgender people
Mistreatment exacerbated by ‘hostage justice’ system

Tomoya Asanuma, a prominent transgender activist in Tokyo, faced the triple abuses of Japan’s “hostage justice” system, hostile detention conditions, and mistreatment trans people face in the absence of meaningful legal protections.
For Asanuma, March 14, 2024, was supposed to be another Thursday at work. At around 7 a.m., he woke up to the sound of someone repeatedly ringing his doorbell. Through the intercom, Asanuma saw three men wearing dark-colored clothes, this time pounding his front door. When he opened the door, the men identified themselves as police officers and showed him an arrest warrant.
This was the beginning of what Asanuma recently described to Human Rights Watch as being “difficult to put into words.” After Japanese police arrested him for sexual assault for allegedly hugging an acquaintance from behind, the authorities held him for months at a pre-trial detention center.
During this time, they mocked his transgender identity during interrogation, denied him access to medical services such as dental care, and initially denied hormone treatment until he obtained a recommendation from a doctor.
While some authorities showed a level of consideration for Asanuma, including letting him shower away from other detained men, the abusive treatment he faced led him to attempt suicide twice.
Trans people in Japan are in legal limbo. Historically, they have faced outright discrimination — including a law compelling them to be surgically sterilized for legal gender recognition — and barriers to accessing education, employment, and health care. A landmark Supreme Court decision in 2023 declared the sterilization requirement unconstitutional, but reform has stalled in parliament — leaving trans people’s basic rights in limbo.
The courts finally granted bail to Asanuma in July 2024 and found him not guilty in January 2025. But in a country with a 99.8 percent conviction rate for indicted cases, Asanuma had to live through acute fear as authorities forcibly tried to obtain a confession from him during interrogations without the presence of his lawyer.
His fears are grounded in a justice system with a well-earned reputation for abuse and arbitrariness. His experience is part of systemic treatment in Japan called “hostage justice,” under which criminal suspects are detained for prolonged periods, sometimes months or years, unless they confess to the charges. This denies them the rights to due process and a fair trial.
The authorities ultimately dropped the sexual assault allegations, but charged Asanuma with assault, which is punishable by up to two years in prison or up to a 300,000 yen fine ($2,000.) Prosecutors sought a 200,000 yen fine. Despite this, because he pleaded not guilty, a court rejected his request for bail four times and detained him for more than 100 days in pre-trial detention, punishing him disproportionately since the prosecutors did not even seek imprisonment for his alleged crime.
In Japan’s hostage justice system, authorities frequently subject suspects to harsh interrogations to coerce confessions from them during pre-indictment detention. Defense lawyers are not permitted to be present, and the questioning does not stop even when a suspect invokes their constitutional right to remain silent. Indeed, Asanuma invoked his right to remain silent, but authorities interrogated him for hours on 13 occasions.
The case of Iwao Hakamata highlights the dangers of this practice. Hakamata, a former professional boxer, was arrested on Aug. 18, 1966, for murdering a family of four. Following harsh interrogations by the police and prosecutors, he confessed nearly a month later. Based on this coerced confession, Hakamata was indicted and subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. He maintained his innocence and was eventually acquitted — 58 years after his arrest — on Sept. 26, 2024, following a retrial.
To prevent further abuses and wrongful convictions spurred by the “hostage justice” system, the Japanese government should not as a general rule deny bail to suspects in pretrial detention, and should end interrogations without legal counsel that often involve coerced confessions through manipulation and intimidation.
The Japanese government should also improve the conditions under which suspects are being held, including by ensuring adequate access to all medical services, and revising the Notice Regarding Treatment Guidelines for Detainees with Gender Identity Disorder by specifying that hormone replacement therapy and other gender-affirming medical interventions are medically necessary and should be made available to all imprisoned people who want them.
“My case is just the tip of the iceberg, as there are others who are detained much longer,” Asanuma said. “I think this experience gave me a good reason to speak up even more for the rights of suspects going forward,” he added.
Teppei Kasai is a program officer for Japan at Human Rights Watch.
Japan
Japan’s marriage equality movement gains steam
Nagoya High Court this month ruled lack of legal recognition is unconstitutional

Japan’s Nagoya High Court on March 7 ruled the lack of legal recognition of same-sex marriages violates the country’s constitution.
The plaintiffs argued Japan’s Civil Code and Family Registration Act, which does not recognize same-sex marriages, violates the country’s constitution. They cited Article 14, Paragraph 1, which guarantees equality under the law and prohibits discrimination based on factors that include race, creed, sex, or social status. The plaintiff also invoked Article 24, Paragraph 2, which emphasizes that laws governing marriage and family matters must uphold individual dignity and the fundamental equality of the sexes.
The plaintiffs sought damages of 1 million yen ($6,721.80) under Article 1, Paragraph 1, of the State Redress Act, which provides for compensation when a public official, through intentional or negligent acts in the course of their duties, causes harm to another individual. The claim centered on the government’s failure to enact necessary legislation, which prevented the plaintiff from marrying.
The court noted same-sex relationships have existed naturally long before the establishment of legal marriage. It emphasized that recognizing such relationships as legitimate is a fundamental legal interest connected to personal dignity, transcending the confines of traditional legal frameworks governing marriage and family.
The court further observed same-sex couples encounter significant disadvantages in various aspects of social life that cannot be addressed through civil partnership systems. These include housing challenges, such as restrictions on renting properties, and financial institutions refusing to recognize same-sex couples as family members for mortgages. Same-sex couples also face hurdles in accessing products and services tailored to family relationships. While the court deemed the relevant provisions unconstitutional, it clarified that the government’s failure to enact legislative changes does not constitute a violation under the State Redress Act.
The lawsuit, titled “Freedom of Marriage for All,” brought together a large coalition of professionals, including more than 30 plaintiffs and 80 lawyers. They filed six lawsuits in five courts throughout Japan.
“We filed these lawsuits on Valentine’s Day, Feb. 14, 2019, in Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, and Sapporo, and in September of that year in Fukuoka,” noted Takeharu Kato, director of Marriage for All Japan. “Then, in March 2021, the Sapporo District Court handed down the first ruling declaring the current laws unconstitutional, which received extensive worldwide media coverage. Subsequently, the Osaka District Court unfortunately ruled that the current law is constitutional, but among the 10 rulings handed down so far, nine have ruled that not recognizing marriage equality is unconstitutional.”
Kato is a lawyer who is part of the legal team in the Sapporo case. He is also a board member of Marriage for All Japan, a marriage equality campaign.
“The MFAJ (Marriage for All Japan) is fully supporting the lawsuits by publicizing the current status of the trials and the rulings in our websites and social networks, setting up press conferences at the time of the rulings,” Kato told the Washington Blade. “We also make the best of the impact of the lawsuits in our campaign by holding events with the plaintiffs of the lawsuits and inviting them to the rally at Diet (the Japanese parliament) members’ building.”
Kato said the campaign has significantly shifted public opinion, with recent polls indicating more than 70 percent of Japanese people now support marriage equality — up from approximately 40 percent before Marriage for All Japan launched. He also noted 49 percent of Diet members now back marriage equality.
Japan is the only G7 country that does not legally recognize same-sex couples. Taiwan, Nepal, and Thailand have extended full marriage rights to gays and lesbians.
Expressing disappointment, Kato said many Japanese politicians continue to resist marriage equality, despite overwhelming public support. Kato added Marriage for All Japan expects the Supreme Court to rule on their lawsuits in 2016.
“We believe that the Supreme Court will also rule that the current laws are unconstitutional,” he said. “However, the Supreme Court’s ruling alone is not enough to achieve marriage equality under the Japanese legal system. We should put more and more strong pressure on the Diet to legalize marriage equality in Japan as soon as possible.”
Several municipalities and prefectures issue certificates that provide limited benefits to same-sex couples, but they fall short of equal legal recognition.
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s government has faced mounting pressure on the issue as public support for marriage equality has surged in recent years. Kishida has yet to push reforms within his own party; encountering fierce opposition from its traditional leadership.
His government in June 2023 passed Japan’s first law addressing sexual orientation and gender identity, aiming to “promote understanding” and prevent “unfair discrimination.” Activists, however, widely criticized the legislation on grounds it fails to provide comprehensive protections or extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.
-
The White House4 days ago
White House has ‘no plans’ to recognize Pride month
-
District of Columbia3 days ago
D.C. church removes Pride decorations from house rented to gay tenants
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
D.C. police chief rescinds request to close Dupont Circle Park for WorldPride
-
Opinions3 days ago
Making sense of a dark Pride season