ID :
210289
Thu, 09/29/2011 - 14:45
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/210289
The shortlink copeid
Court overturns ruling on disclosure of Okinawa reversion papers
TOKYO, Sept. 29 Kyodo -
The Tokyo High Court on Thursday overturned a landmark lower court ruling that had ordered the state to disclose diplomatic documents on the 1972 reversion of Okinawa to Japan from U.S. control, saying, ''It cannot be said that the state owns these papers.''
The lawsuit was filed in 2009 after the state rejected requests from the plaintiffs to disclose the series of documents that they say indicate the two countries had secretly concluded an agreement over the financing of the reversion.
Presiding Judge Kaoru Aoyagi said the papers could not be detected despite an intensive search by the state and that the state does not have any specific reasons to conceal them, as an independent panel of the Foreign Ministry already recognized last year that Tokyo had shouldered part of the reversion costs.
Aoyagi added it is credible that the state had searched for the papers.
On bilateral negotiations over the reversion, the ruling said that as the Japanese government did not want the public to think it had ''bought back Okinawa,'' it needed to conceal the negotiation process and the details of the cost burdens, recognizing the existence of the bilateral secret pact.
It could be assumed that the Foreign Ministry had tried to conceal the documents and ''it is highly likely these papers were kept in an unconventional way...and it cannot be denied they were secretly abandoned'' before the enactment of the information disclosure law so the ministry would not be criticized over its false explanations about the whole picture of the reversion, the ruling said.
The Finance Ministry also searched for the papers but could not find them, the ruling said. As it also tried to conceal the secret agreement on the financing of the reversion, it cannot be denied it secretly abandoned the documents or placed them out of its control, according to the ruling.
It is recognized that the state owned the documents and then abandoned them in unofficial ways, ''but there is no evidence to prove that the state possessed the papers at the time when it was requested to disclose them,'' the ruling concluded.
The papers in dispute include one indicating Japan secretly shouldered $4 million in costs that the United States was supposed to pay to restore farmland in Okinawa that had been used by U.S. forces.
Based on the testimony of a former high-ranking Japanese diplomat in which he said he had initialed one of the documents, as well as their declassification in the United States in the early 2000s, the plaintiffs argued the Japanese government must possess them.
The state said it could not locate the papers despite its search.
On this point, the Tokyo District Court said in its ruling in April last year, ordering the disclosure of the papers, that while it was the plaintiffs' responsibility to prove the state had compiled and still possessed the documents, it was the state's responsibility to prove it had lost them.
Unless the state could prove the documents had been destroyed, ''it should be effectively assumed that the state still possesses them,'' the district court ruled.
Following the high court ruling, Keiichi Katsura, leader of the 25 plaintiffs, said, ''The initial ruling clearly showed how the information disclosure system should be, but the latest decision is a total joke as it does not give consideration to our right to know.''
The district court also ordered the state to pay 100,000 yen in damages to each plaintiff, saying the state had destroyed their expectations that its information disclosure would enable people in Japan to better understand national policy and the history of Okinawa.
The plaintiffs include former Mainichi Shimbun reporter Takichi Nishiyama, who was convicted in the 1970s for his reporting on the negotiations over the Okinawa reversion.
Nishiyama said, ''We, the plaintiffs, achieved a victory as the district and high courts recognized the existence of the secret bilateral pact, but on the other hand we were defeated as the high court has trampled on the information disclosure law.''
2011-09-29 19:57:44
The Tokyo High Court on Thursday overturned a landmark lower court ruling that had ordered the state to disclose diplomatic documents on the 1972 reversion of Okinawa to Japan from U.S. control, saying, ''It cannot be said that the state owns these papers.''
The lawsuit was filed in 2009 after the state rejected requests from the plaintiffs to disclose the series of documents that they say indicate the two countries had secretly concluded an agreement over the financing of the reversion.
Presiding Judge Kaoru Aoyagi said the papers could not be detected despite an intensive search by the state and that the state does not have any specific reasons to conceal them, as an independent panel of the Foreign Ministry already recognized last year that Tokyo had shouldered part of the reversion costs.
Aoyagi added it is credible that the state had searched for the papers.
On bilateral negotiations over the reversion, the ruling said that as the Japanese government did not want the public to think it had ''bought back Okinawa,'' it needed to conceal the negotiation process and the details of the cost burdens, recognizing the existence of the bilateral secret pact.
It could be assumed that the Foreign Ministry had tried to conceal the documents and ''it is highly likely these papers were kept in an unconventional way...and it cannot be denied they were secretly abandoned'' before the enactment of the information disclosure law so the ministry would not be criticized over its false explanations about the whole picture of the reversion, the ruling said.
The Finance Ministry also searched for the papers but could not find them, the ruling said. As it also tried to conceal the secret agreement on the financing of the reversion, it cannot be denied it secretly abandoned the documents or placed them out of its control, according to the ruling.
It is recognized that the state owned the documents and then abandoned them in unofficial ways, ''but there is no evidence to prove that the state possessed the papers at the time when it was requested to disclose them,'' the ruling concluded.
The papers in dispute include one indicating Japan secretly shouldered $4 million in costs that the United States was supposed to pay to restore farmland in Okinawa that had been used by U.S. forces.
Based on the testimony of a former high-ranking Japanese diplomat in which he said he had initialed one of the documents, as well as their declassification in the United States in the early 2000s, the plaintiffs argued the Japanese government must possess them.
The state said it could not locate the papers despite its search.
On this point, the Tokyo District Court said in its ruling in April last year, ordering the disclosure of the papers, that while it was the plaintiffs' responsibility to prove the state had compiled and still possessed the documents, it was the state's responsibility to prove it had lost them.
Unless the state could prove the documents had been destroyed, ''it should be effectively assumed that the state still possesses them,'' the district court ruled.
Following the high court ruling, Keiichi Katsura, leader of the 25 plaintiffs, said, ''The initial ruling clearly showed how the information disclosure system should be, but the latest decision is a total joke as it does not give consideration to our right to know.''
The district court also ordered the state to pay 100,000 yen in damages to each plaintiff, saying the state had destroyed their expectations that its information disclosure would enable people in Japan to better understand national policy and the history of Okinawa.
The plaintiffs include former Mainichi Shimbun reporter Takichi Nishiyama, who was convicted in the 1970s for his reporting on the negotiations over the Okinawa reversion.
Nishiyama said, ''We, the plaintiffs, achieved a victory as the district and high courts recognized the existence of the secret bilateral pact, but on the other hand we were defeated as the high court has trampled on the information disclosure law.''
2011-09-29 19:57:44
