The Tokyo High Court Unification Church Decision. 5. Violating International Law

B IT T E R HO M E ABOUT CH I NA v FROM TH E WO RLD v I NTERVI EWS DOCU M E NTS AND TRANSLATIO NS v ABOUT E DITORIAL BOARD TOPICS £> W I NT E R

You a re here: H o me » From th e Wo rld » Op-eds G l oba l Sea rch

Th e To kyo H igh Co u rt U n ifi cati o n N EWS L ETT E R C h u rch D eci si o n . 5 . Vi o l ati ng I nte rnati o n a l Law E m a i l a d d re ss:

Yo u r ema i l add ress by M assi m o I ntrovigne | M a r 3 1 , 2026 | O p-ed s G loba l

Restri cti ng freed o m of re l igi o n o r be l i ef o n the Sign u p grou n d s of “socia l a cce pta bi l ity” a n d “p u b l ic we lfa re” is p ro h i b ited by th e I nternatio n a l Cove n a nt o n C ivi l a n d Po l iti ca l Rights. S U P P O RT B I TT E R W I N T E R by Massimo Introvigne

Article 5 of 6. Read a rti cle 1 , a rticle 2, a rti cl e 3 a n d a rti cl e 4. Don a te

M OST READ Wo m en’s H istory M o nth M ust N ot Forget Uygh u r Women

Th e N ew Law on Eth n i c U n ity: A Th reat to Ti beta n Bu dd h ism

Th e Tokyo H igh Cou rt U n ificatio n Posters celebrating the adoption ofthe ICCPR by the UN General Assembly in 1 966. It entered Ch u rch Decisi o n . 2 . The G host of into force ten years later, in 1976. “B ra i nwash i ng” Ch i n a H a ils Ja pa n’s Disso l ution of I n 1 978, Ja pa n s ign ed th e U n ited Natio ns I nternation a l Covenant on Civi l a nd the U n ifi cation Ch u rch Pol itica l Rights (ICC PR) a nd ratified it i n 1 979.

The re a re seve ra l I CC P R issu es i n the Tokyo H igh Cou rt d ec ision u p h o ld i ng the Th e Tokyo H igh Cou rt U n ification d issol utio n of th e U n ification Ch u rch as a rel igi ou s corpo ratio n . So m e con ce rn the Ch u rch Decisi o n . 5. Vi olati ng right to a fa i r tria l a nd to pu bl ic hea ri ngs. U nd er Article 1 4. 1 of th e ICC P R, se riou s I ntern ati o na l Law rea sons sho u ld j ustify th e decisi o n to co n d u ct the proceed i ngs without pu bl ic Ch i n a’s N ew Yea r G ift to M ou nt hea ri ngs. The H igh Co u rt d efend s its d ecision not to hold pu bl ic hea ri ngs o n Ka i lash Pi lgri ms: M o re rnn^fiti itinn^ l ornn nrk Ar^ rlpm i r AYnprfc; d i^^orpp ^nd dnnht<; rema i n The right to a fa i r tria l was a l so viol ated by the M i n istry’s i ntrod u ctio n of state m e nts th at th e U n ification Ch u rc h attorneys be l ieve a re fa l se. Th e H igh Cou rt offers a rath e r wea k a nswer to th i s obj ection, focusi ng on a case whe re a n al leged L E GA L victi m’s atto rn ey repo rted that h i s c l ie nt h a d fe lt “th reatened” by the C h u rch i nto Privacy Policy d on ati ng. I n a n a u d io reco rd i ng su b m itted by the Ch u rch , th e a l leged vi cti m stated that th e “th reat” was a fa b ri cation by the atto rney. Th e H igh Cou rt a nswered that i n th e reco rd i ng, th e su p posed victi m was h avi ng a conversatio n with “active be l ievers” of th e U n ificati on Ch u rch . H e “m ay have sa id so m eth i ng to them that d iffered fro m what the clai m ant ha d to ld the atto rney.” Eve n i n th is case, why on ly what he su pposed ly to ld the attorney shou ld be accepted as tru e is not expla i ned .

The ma i n vio lation of th e I CC P R concern s Arti cl e 1 8 on freed om of rel igio n or bel i ef, wh ich Ja pa nese autho rities and co u rts a re accused of vi olati ng.

The U N H u m a n Rights Com m ittee, the body cha rged with i nte rpreti ng th e I CCP R o n be ha lf of the U nited Nati ons, ha s repeated ly exa mi n ed J a pa n’s constitutiona l a nd statuto ry li m itations on freedom of rel igion . Th e I CC P R l ists specifi c gro u nd s for restricti ng freed o m of rel igion o r be l ief, a nd th is list is d efi n itive rathe r tha n m erely suggestive. “Pu bl i c welfa re” is not i ncl u d ed .

Artic l e 1 2 of th e j a pa n ese Co nstitutio n states that h u ma n rights, i ncl u d i ng freed om of rel igio n or bel i ef, a re protected i nsofa r as they a re used “for pu b l i c we lfa re.” Articl e 8 1 of the 1 95 1 Rel igiou s Co rporation Act p rovides th at co u rts ca n o rder th e d isso l utio n of a rel igi o u s co rpo ratio n wh en “i n vio lati o n of l aws a nd regu latio ns, the re l igious co rporation co m m its a n act which is cl ea rly fo u nd to ha rm pu b l i c welfa re su bsta ntia l ly.”

As n oted by attorn ey Patricia D uva l i n h e r i n-de pth study of the issu e, fro m its ve ry fi rst re po rt to th e Co m m ittee i n 1 980, the j a pa nese govern me nt ha s d efen ded th e Constitutio n’s “pu b lic we lfa re” l i m itation o n rights with a si m p le assu ra nce : the notio n is i nte rpreted na rrowly a nd is not u sed to i m pose u n rea so na b l e restrictio ns.

For mo re tha n fou r decad es, the Com m ittee has rejected that expl a nation. I n every revi ew cycl e, it h as wa rned that the “pu b l ic welfa re” cla use is too vagu e a n d too b roa d, a nd that it risks a l l owi ng l i m itation s on freedo ms that go beyond what the Cove na nt pe rm its. The Co m m ittee has re peated ly re m i n ded Ja pa n that a ny restriction o n freedo m of tho ught, con sci e nce, re ligion, or exp ression m ust meet the strict tests set out i n a rti c l es 1 8(3) a n d 1 9(3) of th e ICC P R. Th i s co nce rn a p pea rs co nsi stently i n its concl u d i ng o bse rvati ons, i ncl u d i ng th ose issu ed i n 2008, 20 1 4, a n d m ost recently i n 2022.

Patricia Duva l co ncl ud es that Ja pa nese autho riti es have lo ng bee n awa re—for m ore th a n 45 yea rs—that thei r d om estic l ega l fra mework d oes not fu l ly a l ign with the Cove na nt’s sta n da rd s. Desp ite th is, they have not u nd erta ken the reforms need ed to b ri ng n ationa l law i nto conform ity with the ob l igati ons they accepted at the i nternatio na l l evel .

Afte r the fi rst-i nsta nce d ecisi on aga i nst the U nificati on Ch u rch was rend ered, i n 2025, the U n ited Nation s, th rough fou r of its Specia l Ra p po rte u rs, wa rn ed J a pa n that “Th e civi l tort ru l i ngs on wh ich the d isso l uti on d ecision was ba sed re ly on th e violations of ‘soc ia l a pprop riate ness’ wh i ch were deemed to con stitute a serious ha rm to ‘pu b l ic welfa re.’ As previously n oted by the H u ma n R ights Com m ittee, th e concept of ‘pu bl i c welfa re’ is vagu e a n d o pe n-en ded a nd may pe rm it restrictions exceed i ng th ose perm issible u n der th e I CC PR. .. Any restrictions o n the exercise of Article 1 8 rights m ust com p ly strictly with the l i m itations set out i n Article 1 8.3 of the I CCP R, as i nterpreted by th e U N H u ma n Rights Co m m ittee.”

The four UN Special Rapporteurs who signed the 2025 statement criticizing the dissolution: from the left, above, Nazila Ghanea (freedom of religion or belief), and Nicolas Levrat (minority issues), below, Farida Shaheed (right to education), and Gina Romero (rights of children).

The H igh Cou rt decisi on repeats more tha n twe nty ti mes that the activiti es of the U n ification Ch u rch “exceed ed the bo u nd s d ee m ed socia l ly a ccepta b l e” i n J a pa nese society a nd shou ld therefo re be consid e red as ha rm i ng “pu b l ic welfa re.”

The cou rt is awa re of the o bjecti o n that “socia l accepta bi l ity” a nd “pu bl i c welfa re” a re outs id e the l ist of perm itted gro u n ds for restricti ng re l igio us l i berty u nder Article 1 8.3 I CC PR.

Its a nswe r rests o n two a rgu ments. The fi rst is that “socia l accepta bil ity” is j ust a crite rion a m ong oth e rs used to determ i n e whether a n a ct fa l ls outsid e th e sp h ere of “pu b l i c welfa re.” As fo r “p u bl ic welfare” i n itself, the cou rt a rgues that it is i m p l i citly, a lth ough not expl ic itly, i ncl u d ed i n the l ist of Article 1 8.3 .

The H igh Cou rt writes that “co n d u ct that constitutes a to rt u nd e r Arti cle 709 of the Civi l Cod e a nd is clearly recogn ized as sign ifica ntly ha rm i ng th e p u bl i c we lfa re m ay be u nde rstood as co nd u ct that i nfri nges ‘p u bl ic safety, p u b lic o rder, pu b l i c hea lth or morals, o r the fu nda menta l rights a nd freedoms of others,’ as referred to in Arti cl e 1 8(3) of th e ICCP R.”

H oweve r, th e H igh Cou rt of Tokyo is not the proper a uth o rity to d ec id e wh eth e r J a pa nese law vi olates i nte rnati o na l l aw. Th is assessme nt shou l d co m e from a su pra-nati ona l a utho rity, na m ely the U N H u m a n Rights Com m ittee i n the case of the I CCP R. The Com m ittee has a l ready expressed itself m ore tha n o n ce. It has told J a pa n that the i nte rpretation th e H igh Co u rt rel i es o n is wro ng. “Pu b l i c welfa re” is not pa rt of the l ist of perm itted restri ctions of rel igious l i be rty of Article 1 8.3. It is a n a bu sive ad d ition to it a n d s hou l d be el i m i nated fro m Ja pa nese law.

The seco n d a rgu me nt of the H igh Cou rt i s that th e d isso l uti on of a re l igi ou s corporati on is not a l i m itation of rel igious l i berty. Th e refore, it fal ls outside of the scope of the I CCP R. As a ration a le fo r th is stra nge cla i m, the H igh Co u rt offers that “a d issol ution ord e r me re ly d e prives a re l igious co rpo ration of its lega l pe rsona l ity a nd ca rri es no lega l effect whatsoever, p ro h i biti ng or restricti ng the re l igious activities of be l ieve rs.”

I wi l l a dd ress the factua l truth of th is stateme nt i n the n ext a rticle of th i s se ries. H e re, I focu s on th e vi olation of the I CCP R a n d th e H igh Co u rt’s obvi o us m iscon struction of the mea n i ng of “freedom of rel igion” i n th e Covena nt. It is a com mon a rgu me nt used by tota l ita ria n states s u ch as Ch i na (wh i c h ha s s igned the I CCP R, a ltho ugh it has not ratifi ed it—b ut it a pp l ies to Ho ng Ko ng a nd M aca u ) that restricti ng the pu bl i c activity of ce rta i n rel igious orga n izations d oes not violate freedom of rel igi on o r be l ief si nce be l ieve rs rema i n free to b e l ieve p rivate ly. Th is is not what the I CCPR is a l l a bout. Article 1 8. 1 p rotects “freed o m, eithe r i nd ivid u a l ly or in co m m u n ity with oth ers a n d i n p u bl i c or private, to m a nifest… re l igi on or bel ief i n wors h i p, o bserva nce, p ra ctice a n d teach i ng.”

“I n co m m u n ity” m ea ns that co rporate rel igiou s l i berty of ch u rch es a n d o rga n izations i s p rotected, n ot on ly i nd ivi d ua l freedo m of bel ief. To gu a ra ntee su ch co rpo rate l i be rty, states s ho u ld m a ke su re that the p reco n d iti ons for p u bl ic worsh i p, practice, a n d m issio na ry activity a re n ot restricted. I n J a pa n, whe n a rel igiou s corpo ratio n is d issolved, its assets, i ncl u d ing places of wo rsh i p a nd ba n k accou nts, a re tra nsfe rred to a l i q u i d ator. Bel i eve rs a re th u s d e p rived of th e m ateria l p reco nd itio ns to e njoy the freedom of rel igion of Articl e 1 8. 1 . 1 wi l l expl o re th i s issue fu rther i n the next a nd fi na l a rticle of th is se ries.

J a pa n, Re l igious Li be rty, U n ificatio n Chu rch

M a ssi m o I ntrovign e M a ss i m o I ntrovign e (born J u n e 1 4, 1 9 55 i n Ro m e) is a n I ta l ia n soci o logist of rel igions. H e is the fou nd er a nd ma nagi ng di rector of the Center fo r Stud ies on N ew Re l igi on s (C E S N U R), a n i nte rnationa l netwo rk of sch ol a rs who stu dy n ew re l igio us movements . I ntrovigne is the a uth o r of so m e 70 boo ks a nd m o re th a n 1 00 a rticles i n the fie l d of sociol ogy of rel igi o n . H e was the ma i n a uthor of the Enciclopedia delle religloni in Italia ( E n cycloped ia of Rel igi o ns i n Ita ly). H e is a mem ber of th e ed ito ria l boa rd fo r the I nte rd isc i p l i na ry j ou rna l of Resea rc h o n Re l igio n a n d of the executive boa rd of U n ive rsity of Ca liforn i a Press’ N ova Re l igio. Fro m Ja n ua ry 5 to Decem be r 3 1 , 20 1 1 , he h as served as th e “Representative o n com bati ng raci sm, xenoph ob ia and d iscri m i nation, with a specia l focu s on d iscri m i nati on aga i nst Ch ristians a nd mem be rs of oth e r rel igi o n s” of th e O rga n izati on for Secu rity a nd Co-operati o n i n Eu ro pe (OSC E ). From 20 1 2 to 20 1 5 he served as cha i rperson of the O bse rvato ry of Re l igious Li berty, i nstituted by the Ita l ia n M i nistry of Foreign Affa i rs i n ord e r to m o n itor probl e ms of rel igi ou s l i berty o n a wo rl dwide sca l e .

www.cesn u r.org/

R EA D M O R E

Th e To kyo H igh Cou rt Th e To kyo H igh Co u rt Th e To kyo H igh Co u rt U n ificati o n C h u rch U n ifi cati on Ch u rc h U n ifi cati o n C h u rch D ecis i o n . 6. Wh o Wi l l Dec i si o n . 4. Th e 2009 Decisi o n . 3 . “Sp i ritu a l Sa les” P rotect th e Be l i eve rs? “Co m p l ia n ce Dec l a rati o n” a n d Excessive Do nati o n s Ap r 1 , 202 6 M a r 3 0, 2026 M a r 28, 2026

E m a i l a d d ress: Via Co nfie nza 1 9 O x o 1 0 1 2 1 - Tori no You r ema i l add ress Italy i nfo@b itterwi nter.org Don a te