Violation of Judicial Independence and Due Process in the Unification Church Case in Japan. Executive Summary

The summary of Attorney Duval’s report sent to the relevant Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations on June 30, 2025.

By Bitter Winter

July 15, 2025

Read the four articles summarized here: article 1, article 2, article 3, and article 4.

Unification Church members protesting in Nagoya for their religious liberty, 2024.

This is a summary of the report filed with various Special Rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council concerning violations of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR” or “Covenant”) relating to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in Japan. 

The present case is brought by the members of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly named the Unification Church, hereafter “Family Federation” or “Unification Church” or the “Church”). 

The Tokyo District Court issued an order dissolving the Church’s religious corporation status on March 25, 2025, and the case is currently under appeal at the Tokyo High Court. 

Should this decision be upheld on appeal, the corporation, which has to date provided vital support to over 600,000 believers and pastoral care to the entire religious community nationwide, will be disbanded, its real estate and all other assets, including money, confiscated. This will leave all believers isolated and deprived of a supportive faith community and the financial capacity to carry on its multifarious activities. 

Conclusive evidence of the lack of judicial independence: the government is already organizing the liquidation of the Church’s assets while the High Court has yet to rule on the case, sure of the outcome of the appeal. 

Under Article 81.1 of the Religious Corporations Act, the government can apply to the court for a dissolution order against a religious corporation if “in violation of laws and regulations, it commits an act which is deemed to substantially harm public welfare.” 

The whole process that led to the dissolution order constituted a violation of the due process of law on multiple grounds, as follows: 

-First, the interpretation of the law on religious corporations was changed overnight to allow dissolution: “violation of the law” has been interpreted to include civil torts, thus enabling an order for the dissolution of the Unification Church to be issued merely based on civil claims filed by former members.

-The civil tort rulings on which the dissolution decision relies are based on a violation of “social appropriateness,” and they were deemed to constitute a serious harm to “public welfare.” These concepts are so vague that they inevitably lead to an arbitrary and discriminatory application; recurrent UN Human Rights Committee recommendations have urged Japan to stop using “public welfare” to restrict freedom of religion or belief. 

The UN Human Rights Committee at work. From X.

-Most plaintiffs in those tort rulings were subjected to “deprogramming,” i.e., abduction, confinement and coercion to recant their faith, as mentioned in civil courts’ findings. They were coerced into filing civil claims to prove their real intention to leave the Church and be released from confinement, which demonstrates their profound faith at the time of the events and undermines their claims. 

-The non-scientific and discredited theory of “mind control” was used to reject all the evidence provided by the Church of the plaintiff’s faith at the time and to deny application of the statute of limitations. Ancient facts were admitted against the Church as the plaintiffs were deemed to be under mind control until they met with anti-Unification Church lawyers.

Also, as the Court found that there were no claims against the Church in recent years, the same theory was used in the dissolution decision to include hypothetical victims who never filed any claims and who, it was claimed, would need to be considered still to be under undue influence, to inflate the number of victims and the “harm” done to “public welfare.” 

-The hearings were held behind closed doors because the procedure for dissolving religious corporations is considered “non-contentious.” This resulted in the fabrication of testimonies and the violation of the right to a fair public hearing to ensure that justice was properly served.

Prominent anti-Unification-Church lawyers Masaki Kito (left) and Hiroshi Yamaguchi (right). Screenshot.

Conclusion: Due to incessant stigmatization campaigns that pressure the judiciary and lobbying of the government by an association of politically motivated anti-Unification Church lawyers (the National Network of Lawyers against Spiritual Sales), the Church and its members have been unable to make their voices heard and obtain justice before domestic Courts in Japan. 

Even before the Tokyo High Court hearings, the government was organizing the liquidation of the Church’s assets as if the dissolution of the religious corporation had been a foregone conclusion. As of June 27th, the Agency for Cultural Affairs presented draft “Guidelines for Asset Liquidation Procedures Aimed at Relief for Victims of the Former Unification Church.”

The outline of the guidelines states that, since it “may be difficult for victims to immediately report damages,” the liquidator should be proactive in seeking compensation for victims. 

In the absence of any such victims, and based on the vague and arbitrary theory that they might still be under mind control, the Agency is organizing calls and public announcements by the liquidator to encourage former members to come forward with financial claims to ensure that the Church is stripped of all its assets.

The Agency aims to finalize the guidelines sometime this autumn, which is also the anticipated period during which hearings at the High Court are expected to be held. 

All this amounts to no less than a scheduled execution of the Unification Church’s religious corporation. It constitutes a severe violation by Japan of its obligations under the ICCPR, and of the principle of judicial independence that is enshrined in its Constitution. 

Source: bitterwinter.org