Job Discussion Forums

[taikibansei]

THE OSAYUWAMEN IDUBOR CASE
AND THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN JAPAN
HELD IN POLICE CUSTODY FOR SIX MONTHS
DESPITE NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND DETERIORATING HEALTH

By Arudou Debito (www.debito.org, [email protected])
Released August 22, 2007
Freely Forwardable

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

On January 22, 2007, exactly seven months ago, Osayuwamen IDUBOR, a Nigerian national and owner of a cafe/bar in Yokohama (see photo of Mr. Idubor at http://www.debito.org/index.php/?p=537; you may recognize him from Asahi TV show "Koko Ga Hen Dayo Nihonjin"), was arrested by police. He was formally charged on February 9, 2007, of raping a Japanese woman in the early morning hours of November 1, 2006. He had been held since arrest in the Kagamachi Police Station awaiting trial, and on May 11, he was transferred to the Yokohama Detention Center (kouchi shisho) where he remains to this day. His lawyer, a Mr Tsurusaki of Yokohama, petitioned for his release on May 21, but was refused by the court.

I have been told by both Mr Idubor's wife, a Polish national, and his lawyer (see below), that there is no material evidence to justify holding him in police custody. Nevertheless, since other sources have told me that foreigners in Japanese criminal cases are considered more of a flight risk than Japanese, he remains in custody even after seven months. "We are waiting for a ruling from the court to find him innocent. That is the Japanese system," Lawyer Tsurusaki told me.

One cannot wait in this case. Mr Idubor's wife also told me in several
phone conversations that her husband's health is deteriorating. She has seen in prison visits that he has a rash all over his scalp, his hair is falling out, and there is blood coming from his ear. She says that police have denied him access to a hospital and sufficient medical treatment (similar to the Valentine Case, http://www.debito.org/valentinecase.html).

Mr Idubor's wife contacted Amnesty International Japan about this case, and they advised her to contact Debito.org directly for more exposure. I
hereby send this information out in both English and Japanese.

After more than half a year of detention without speedy trial or sufficient
care while in custody, it is imperative that the public and the mass media
know more and consider investigating this case. Contact details and a
statement from Mr Idubor's lawyer follow below. The next hearing on this case is scheduled for September 3, 2007, from 2:30 PM, at the Yokohama District Court. Please be in touch with Mr Tsurusaki if you wish to attend.

Arudou Debito
Sapporo, Japan
August 22, 2007

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

LEGAL STATEMENT FROM TSURUSAKI LAW OFFICES
REGARDING THE OSAYUWAMEN IDUBOR CASE
(Japanese original, translation and summarization by Arudou Debito)

231-0011 Kanagawa Ken Yokohama shi Naka-ku Oota Machi 1-20 Sanwa Bldg 4A
Tsurusaki Houritsu Jimusho, Tsurusaki Motoyuki, Lawyer
Tel 045-663-6874, FAX 045-663-6895, email [email protected]
July 5, 2007

DISCREPANCIES IN DEFENDANT OSAYUWAMEN IDUBOR'S ALLEGED RAPE CASE

1) FACTS OF THE CASE IN DISPUTE
On November 1, 2006, between around 6:30 AM and 9:30 AM, the Defendant Idubor, owner of a bar, is said to have raped or attempted to rape a woman who was disabled by alcohol and unable to defend herself.

2) REGARDING THE EVIDENCE IN GENERAL
There is no material evidence whatsoever to indicate that any rape
occurred. Just the word of the allegedly-raped Plaintiff.

Of course, the Defendant rejects any claims that he raped her, let alone committed any adultery whatsoever.

3) DISCREPANCIES IN PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY
The Plaintiff has made a number of statements for the record, and one public testimony in court as a witness, but claims differ from statement to
statement.

For example, Plaintiff testified that she downed shots of tequila three
times at the bar in question, but in another testimony she said that after
downing one shot she was knocked off her feet and fell asleep in the bar; in another she says that even after three shots she was not even drunk. Also, when she was allegedly being raped, once she said she saw Defendant's face in front of her face, and another time she testified that she couldn't see Defendant's face at all.

In addition, there are points within Plaintiff's testimony that do not
qualify as objective evidence.

For example, after alleged relations with the Defendant, Plaintiff claimed
her underwear was bloodstained. However, photos of her underwear submitted to the court as evidence showed no bloodstain. In addition, Plaintiff testified that she was dragged along the floor of the bar by the Defendant, but photos submitted to court as evidence indicated there was no indicative dirtying of her clothing whatsoever.

There are many other aspects of Plaintiff's testimony itself that are
unnatural. For example, even though Plaintiff said she was too drunk to resist being raped, she also said she was able to get up right afterwards and head towards the entranceway. Moreover, even though she shouldn't be able to move in any particular direction, she said she was able to get on a high bar stool where her feet could not touch the ground. Not only should she not have the strength to do that, she didn't even try to flee the premises, even though the bar door was not locked.

Also, after the alleged rape, it is incredible that she testified that Defendant then drove her to a friend's house in his car.

Also, regarding the circumstances of the rape itself, it is very difficult
to believe Plaintiff's testimony that after a minute or two of alleged relations, Defendant quit halfway without ejaculating due to second thoughts about committing adultery.

There is also something odd about the very day this alleged rape took place. That same morning afterwards, even though Plaintiff stated that she was too drunk to fight off the rape, she also stated she met her friend's boyfriend for lunch at a restaurant. This is completely unnatural.

4) THE LAWYER'S THOUGHTS
After close examination of the evidence, and meetings with the Defendant as well as other lawyers, we are convinced that Defendant is completely
innocent of the charges in this case. It is our earnest wish that the court find him innocent.

5) OUR REQUESTS

From time to time, we have heard in the news about criminal cases where
even though "facts" turned out to be untrue, a guilty verdict was still handed down, then overturned in a later decision. We believe cases like those are but the tip of the iceberg.

It is a fact that in 99.9% of criminal cases which reach a courtroom in
Japan reach a guilty verdict. Regardless of the facts of the case or the
efforts of the defense counsel.

Thus it is probably common knowledge amongst lawyers that judges favor the Prosecution.

Even then, in order to influence the outcome of a criminal case, it's
undesirable to put direct political pressure on judges since it would damage the fairness of the court.

More effective is having cases draw the attention of the public. If the
court is aware of being observed, there is more of a possibility of a prudent decision rather than something merely patched together.

For example, if sitting in on courtrooms was more established as a right,
and if more people actually sat in on courtrooms, courts would be more aware that they are being watched.

So I think that if during our next hearing [September 3, 2007, 3:30 to 5PM] we have more people sitting in, enough for us to get a larger courtroom, we would send a message to the court that the case is an important one for them to be careful about.

LAWYER TSURUSAKI STATEMENT ENDS
IDUBOR REPORT ENDS

[SeasonedVet]

Wow, this is some serious stuff.
I am not even in the area.