Pre-sessional Working Group for the 63rd Session Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women List of Issues and Questions from NGOs For the Japan Seventh and Eighth Periodic Reports Japan NGO Network for CEDAW (JNNC) June 12th, 2015 Japan NGO Network for CEDAW (JNNC) JNNC is a coalition of Japanese NGOs which was established on December 23rd, 2002 in alignment with the consideration of the 4th and 5th periodic reports of Japan at the 29th session of the CEDAW in 2003. In order to maximize the effect and influence of the CEDAW Convention, NGOs which actively tackle various women issues in Japan banded together for effective lobbying towards the government and the committee. JNNC has been working on continued follow up for the CEDAW concluding comments after the consideration. Since the 44th session of Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, JNCC has been working on the matters included in the follow-up of the Concluding Observations. In fact, we are currently preparing a report which we wish to present at the working group meeting to be held in July 2015 prior to the 63rd session of the Committee. The document attached as reference to JNCC’s report is prepared also by JNNC and is entitled “Government Response and NGO Evaluation regarding the 6th Periodic Report of Japan”. Please look at the 4-grade evaluation of the Government response by the NGOs. In addition, we wish to draw the attention of the Committee to a particular term used by the Government of Japan in its report and other documents. We request the Committee to keep in mind the difference in meaning of the term in question when considering these documents. The term “ gender equality ” found in the Government documents corresponds to the term “ danjo kyodo sankaku ” in Japanese language that literally means “ equal participation of men and women ” in English. The expression “equal participation of men and women” signifies in the text of the “Basic Act for Gender Equal Society” equal enjoyment of interests and equal sharing of responsibilities between men and women, ensured primarily by equality in opportunity of participation. While Article 3 of this Act stipulates that the Act is aimed at eliminating discrimination against women, there is no provision directly defining the guarantee of equality or the prohibition of discrimination. Moreover the definition of discrimination in the Act is more narrow than that of the Convention. The Act was established in 1999 and has been the basis for the Basic Plan for Gender Equality as well as public policies for women. However, during the consultations held prior to the enactment of the Act, women’s groups called for an explicit reference to the elimination of discrimination as the aim of the Act but their opinion was not taken up. For this reason, “gender equality” used in the seventh and eighth reports of the Government does not necessary mean “equality” as defined by the Convention. It could lead to a misunderstanding of the scope and aim of the public policies for women if the term “ gender equality ” used by the government of Japan is read and understood as it is meant by the Convention. The Preamble of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women affirms that “the strengthening of international peace and security, the relaxation of international tension, mutual co-operation among all States irrespective of their social and economic systems, general and complete disarmament ( … ) will contribute to the attainment of full equality between men and women ” . However, 30 years after the ratification of the Convention, we fear that the policies implemented by the Government of Japan tend not to strengthen but to threaten such spirit of the Convention. We fear that the policy that the Government is boasting of inside and outside Japan as a strong measure for “encouraging women to play more active role in society” might turn to another leverage for making women serve the profit-first economic activities. We hope to stop the policy of Japanese Government that runs counter to the spirit of the Convention by eliminating discrimination against women and promoting gender equality. We do hope therefore that the Committee will take up issues that will be useful to resolve the problems pointed out by the NGOs. Article 1: Definition of Discrimination <Questions> The Committee has called on the Government to incorporate a definition of discrimination into domestic legislation in accordance with article 1 of the Convention. What obstacles have prevented the Government from doing so to date? How can these obstacles be overcome? What progress has been made with regard to domestic legislation? <Backgrounds> In para. 358 of its 2003 concluding comments, the Committee“recommends that a definition of discrimination against women, encompassing both direct and indirect discrimination in line with article 1 of the Convention, be included in domestic legislation.” Para. 21 of the 2009 concluding observations states that “the Committee remains concerned at the absence of direct and clear incorporation of the Convention and of a specific definition of discrimination against women in accordance with article 1 of the Convention in domestic legislation, ” and para. 22 states that “ [t]he Committee calls on the State party to take urgent steps to incorporate the Convention and the definition of discrimination against women, as contained in article 1 of the Convention, fully into domestic legislation and to report on progress made in this regard in its next periodic report.” However, the Government’s reports to the Committee have never reported on the definition of discrimination in accordance with article 1. This ignores the Committee’s concluding observations and is a violation of the Government ’ s obligations as a State party. It is necessary to immediately incorporate a definition of discrimination encompassing both direct and indirect discrimination into domestic legislation. Article 2: Duties of States Parties <Questions> 1. In the Government’s understanding, what is the domestic legal effect of the Convention? 2. Has the Government taken any measures to ensure that the Convention is fully applicable within the domestic legal system? 3. In order to disseminate the Convention and the Committee ’ s concluding observations and general comments, would the Government consider incorporating these documents into school curricula, training for civil servants, briefings to Diet members, and subjects covered in the bar examination? 4. Why does the 7th & 8th report contain many references to content in the 6th report, instead of presenting new information? <Backgrounds> 1. In paras. 19 & 20 of its 2009 concluding observations, the Committee urged the Government to take measures to address the fact that it has failed to ensure the domestic legal effect of the Convention in accordance with article 98 (2) of the Constitution. 2. A March 28, 2014 judgment of the Tokyo High Court stated that “ the Court cannot recognize the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as directly applicable or self- executing. ” If Japanese courts do not recognize the Convention as directly binding, it is necessary for the Government to take measures to ensure it becomes fully applicable in the domestic legal system. If the Government does not take such measures, it cannot fulfill its duty as a State party to observe the Convention. 3-1. Only 35% of Japanese citizens are aware of the Convention. It is necessary to include dissemination of the Convention as part of the school curricula. 3-2. To date, distribution of materials on the Convention to Diet members has been restricted to those who are members of the Committee on Judicial Affairs. 3-3. According to the 7th & 8th report, dissemination of the Convention to prosecutors and judges is still restricted to the provision of lectures. A more proactive approach is required, including incorporation into the 4.barIn exam.the 7th & 8th report, about one-tenth of the 395 paragraphs refer the reader back to the 6th report. This demonstrates the lack of progress in the six and a half years since the 6th report and the failure of the Government to take appropriate action. Article 2: Promotion of Ratification of the Optional Protocol <Questions> In its concluding observations, the Committee has repeatedly called on the Government to ratify the Optional Protocol. Please explain why ratification has not been possible to date. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) says it has been conducting a study group on ratification of the Protocol; what issues has this group been examining? What has the Division for Implementation of Human Rights Treaties been doing with regard to ratification? When does the Government expect to ratify the Protocol? <Backgrounds> * The Optional Protocol is an indispensable tool for promoting the application of the Convention in the Japanese judiciary and ensuring its domestic effectiveness. It is the earnest desire of Japanese women that the Government ratify the Protocol as soon as possible. * In para. 375 of its 2003 concluding comments, the Committee stated that it “ strongly believes that the mechanisms available under the Optional Protocol would strengthen the independence of the judiciary and assist it in understanding discrimination against women,” and in para. 20 of its 2009 concluding observations, it reiterated its “strong belief that the mechanisms available under the Optional Protocol would strengthen the direct application of the Convention by the judiciary and assist it in understanding discrimination against women.” * While the 7th & 8th report notes that the Government considers “the individual communications procedure … to be noteworthy in the sense that it could effectively guarantee the implementation of the Convention, ” it goes on to state only that the Government “is aware of and has been making internal studies on various issues to consider, ranging from whether it could pose any problems in relation to Japan ’ s judicial system or legislative policy, as to what possible organizational framework would be required for implementing the procedure in the case that Japan is to accept it” (para.