ハンセン病 司法の差別、決着せぬ

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 26
EDITORIAL: Doubts remain after top court apologizes for leprosy trials
（社説）ハンセン病　司法の差別、決着せぬ

The Supreme Court has officially admitted it made a serious mistake by allowing lower courts to hold criminal and other trials for leprosy patients outside regular courtrooms. But the mea culpa from the top court, which is regarded as the “bastion of human rights,” doesn’t answer key constitutional questions.
　「人権の砦（とりで）」たる最高裁として、これで問題が決着したといえるのだろうか。

The Supreme Court on April 25 officially apologized to former leprosy patients and other people who suffered from this practice, saying it “deeply regrets having degraded the personalities and dignity of the patients and apologizes.”
　ハンセン病患者の裁判がかつて、隔離された「特別法廷」で開かれていたことをめぐり、最高裁はきのう、元患者らに「患者の人格と尊厳を傷つけたことを深く反省し、お詫（わ）びする」と謝罪した。

The top court acknowledged that its approvals of the special separate trials for leprosy sufferers were discriminatory in nature and violated the court organization law.
　裁判を隔離した判断のあり方は差別的だった疑いが強く、裁判所法に違反すると認めた。

It is extremely unusual for the nation’s highest court to admit having made a misjudgment concerning judicial procedures and offering such an apology. It took a step in the right direction by examining the issue.
最高裁が司法手続き上の判断の誤りを認めて謝罪するのは極めて異例であり、検証作業をしたこと自体は評価できるだろう。

However, the key question in this controversy was the constitutionality of the policy. The top court concluded that the “special trials” didn’t violate the constitutional principle of open trials.
　だが、注目された違憲性の判断に関しては、憲法上の「裁判の公開」の原則には反しない、と結論づけた。

The Supreme Court should ask itself whether this conclusion is acceptable to former patients and their families who suffered from discrimination and prejudices against leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease.
　果たしてハンセン病への差別や偏見に苦しめられてきた元患者や家族に受け入れられる判断だろうか。

The opinions of the court’s expert panel on the issue, released at the same time, raised two important constitutional questions.
　同時に公表された最高裁の有識者委員会の意見は、憲法上の二つの点で疑問を突きつけている。

First, the panel said there is no denying that the special trials for leprosy patients violated the constitutional principle of equality under the law. Secondly, the panel argued that it is hard not to suspect that the policy also violated the constitutional principle of public trials.
まず、法の下の平等に照らして特別法廷は「違反していたといわざるを得ない」と断じている。さらに裁判の公開原則についても「違憲の疑いは、なおぬぐいきれない」とした。

In 2005, an independent inquiry panel set up by the health ministry had already pointed out similar constitutional questions concerning the practice.
　すでに０５年、厚生労働省が設けた検証会議も、同様の憲法上の問題点を指摘していた。

It is difficult to claim that the Supreme Court’s conclusion, issued after many years of failing to respond to the criticism, offers convincing, straightforward answers to these questions.
それを長く放置してきた最高裁が出した今回の判断は、たび重なる指摘に正面から答えたとは言いがたい。

The health ministry’s panel referred to a controversial murder trial of a man from Kumamoto Prefecture who was said to have leprosy. In this case, known as the “Kikuchi Incident,” the defendant was eventually executed despite claiming his innocence.
　検証会議はこの時、ハンセン病患者とされた熊本県の男性が殺人罪に問われ、無実を訴えながら死刑執行された「菊池事件」にも言及していた。

The ministry panel said the man had effectively been tried in a closed-door proceeding.
男性が裁かれた特別法廷について、「いわば『非公開』の状態で進行した」と指摘していた。

The Supreme Court started looking into this issue after it received a demand for an examination of the legitimacy of the special trials. The demand came from lawyers and former leprosy patients who were seeking a retrial for the Kumamoto man.
　事件の再審を求める弁護団や元患者らが、特別法廷の正当性の検討を最高裁に求めて始まったのが今回の検証だった。

Unsurprisingly, an organization of former leprosy patients involved in this campaign has denounced the top court’s failure to acknowledge the unconstitutionality of the practice. The organization said it strongly demands that the court “sincerely admit its own mistake.”
それだけに元患者団体は「自らの誤りを真摯（しんし）に認めることを強く求める」と、違憲性を認めなかったことに反発している。

In its probe into the matter, the Supreme Court avoided making any judgment about individual cases on the grounds of the independence of judges.
　今回の最高裁の検証では、「裁判官の独立」を理由に、個別の事件の判断は避けられた。

But flawed judicial procedures could cast doubts on the appropriateness of the trials themselves.
だが、手続きに問題があれば、裁判そのものに疑いが生じかねない。

The top court should have scrutinized individual cases for possible relief for victims and restoration of their honor.
本来なら個別事件も検証し、被害救済や名誉回復まで考慮すべきだろう。

The judiciary should seriously consider any request for a retrial from a victim of the system.
今後、再審請求があれば、裁判所は真剣に対応すべきだ。

The challenge facing the Japanese judiciary is how to use the results of the investigation to promote efforts to eliminate discrimination and prejudices from society.
　差別や偏見のない社会に少しでも近づけるために、今回の検証をどう役立てるのか。

The Supreme Court should move beyond this apology and continue performing its responsibility to tackle this challenge.
謝罪を超え、最高裁はさらにその責任を負い続けなくてはならない。