Last updated: December 2007
Japan Detention Profile
Detention Conditions
Immigration detention facilities are prison-like, using cells to confine the immigration detainees. Reports from human rights groups illustrate a number of abuses that detainees have suffered, including physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; substandard detention conditions, including overcrowding and poor sanitation; denial of access to medical services and insufficient opportunity to undertake physical exercise; and excessive restrictions on detainee’s ability to communicate with family members and legal representation (Amnesty International 2002; Human Rights Watch 2000; Dean 2006; CAT Network Japan 2007; Japan Federation of Bar Associations 2007). Also, there are reports of incredibly long periods of isolation as a disciplinary measure. Immigration centers have isolation rooms to seclude detainees in order to “protect the life and body of the detainees and to maintain order within the facility” (Commission Against Torture 2007). According to one report, there have been “several cases,” in which these types of rooms have been “the locality for the abusive treatment of detainees” (CAT Network Japan 2007). There have also been complaints regarding the discretionary authority given to the director of immigration centres to decide the period of isolation, which, in one case, led to an unsuitably long isolation period (Japan Federation of Bar Associations 2007).
According to official reports, “detainees are housed in a group room for two or more people” (Committee Against Torture 2007). However, NGOs report that many detention cells become overcrowded as the facilities often held more detainees than their capacity (Amnesty International 2002; Japan Federation of Bar Associations 2007). Detainees in the immigration centers have the rights to communicate with the outside world and can receive visits (Immigration Bureau). However, it is reported that letters from detainees are censored (Committee Against Torture 2007) and telephone calls are limited (CAT Network Japan 2007). Severe conditions are reported of those detained in the landing prevention facilities. The facilities were overcrowded and lack windows and exercise spaces. Moreover, communications are restricted and there is a limited access to medical care (Japan Federation of Bar Associations 2007). Further, in an email message to the Global Detention Project, Misaki Yagishita, Refugee coordinator of Amnesty International Japan, said that because detention houses are located inside local immigration branch offices, they are usually small and in some cases do not have required facilities such as exercise areas and public phones (Yagishita 2007).
One NGO report alleges that foreign nationals—including asylum seekers—who have been denied entry to Japan have suffered ill treatment during the interrogation process and detention period. Some were denied access to interpreters during the interrogation process, and there are cases of detainees at an LPF not being allowed to contact their families, consular, diplomatic mission in Japan, or a legal advisor. Information about the refugee status determination process was not available freely or in languages that the detainees could understand. There have been accusations that asylum seekers are not receiving a fair and satisfactory asylum process. According to Amnesty International, there are numerous cases of asylum seekers being rejected and then deported without due consideration of their claims (Amnesty International 2002).
As part of its effort to combat trafficking in persons, the Government of Japan has partially amended the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act in mid 2005. The ICRRA FY 2005 Amendment stipulates that victims of trafficking are eligible for special permission for residence and shall not be deported. If the trafficking victims wish to return to their home country, their departure will be facilitated as “a legal resident” (Immigration Bureau 2005). However, an earlier report from Human Rights Watch (Human Rights Watch 2000), which predates the 2005 amendment, alleged that victims of trafficking were subjected to arbitrary and prolonged detention.
