Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Japan (Ratification: 2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Legal framework establishing compulsory prison labour and impact on the application of Article 1 of the Convention. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s information, in its report, that the Act Partially Amending the Penal Code, and so on (Act No. 67 of 2022) came into effect on 1 June 2025 thereby establishing a new form of imprisonment. According to the text of the Act, section 9 of the Penal Code is amended as follows: “imprisonment, imprisonment without work” becomes only “deprivation of liberty”. Under the new sections 12(2) and (3) of the Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment shall be deprivation of liberty in a penal institution, and a person sentenced to deprivation of liberty may be required to work for the purposes of improvement and rehabilitation. Act No. 67 of 2022 also contains provisions amending the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and Treatment of Inmates and Detainees. Section 93 permits the head of a penal institution to require inmates to perform work when it benefits their improvement, rehabilitation, or reintegration, unless doing so is deemed inappropriate.

In this regard, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Justice has issued a notice to the wardens of penal institutions to ensure that inmates who have been sentenced to imprisonment for violations of the various legislative provisions that would have allowed sanction involving compulsory prison labour to be imposed in circumstances covered by Article 1 of the Convention will not be forced to work against their will if they do not have the voluntary intention to do so. The provisions in question are found in various laws, including: (1) the National Public Service Act (section 111-2(ii)); (2) the Local Public Service Act (section 62-2); (3) the Self-Defence Forces Act (section 119-2); (4) the Postal Act (section 79(1)); (5) the Postal Transport Entrustment Act (Article 19); (6) the Heat Supply Business Act (section 34(3)); (7) the Telecommunications Business Act (Article 180(2); and (8) the Supplementary Provisions of the Act Partially Amending the Electricity Business Act (Article 65). The Government indicates that it is up to the inmate’s free will to decide whether they engage in work, and that an inmate will not be engaged in the work unless he or she submits a document stating that he or she intends to work. The Committee requests the Government to provide further details on the issuance of the notice to wardens instructing them to refrain from requiring work from inmates imprisoned under the above-mentioned legislative provisions, and to explain how the effective implementation of this notice is monitored. It also requests the Government to specify the number of persons convicted and imprisoned under these provisions, and to describe the measures in place to ensure that these inmates are informed of their right to refuse work and that any consent to work is freely given.

Article 1(a). Articles of the Penal Code on defamation and insults. The Committee previously noted that article 230(1) of the Penal Code criminalizes the defamation of a person by making allegations in public, regardless of whether such facts are true or false. Under article 230-2, when an act prescribed under article 230(1) is found to relate to matters of public interest and to have been conducted solely for the benefit of the public, the truth or falsity of the alleged facts are to be examined, and punishment is not imposed if they are proven to be true. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these provisions, including information on number and nature of cases examined before the courts, the penalties applied and the facts that led to these penalties.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that, in 2023, 73 persons were charged under article 231 of the Penal Code, which provides that a person who insults another person in public, irrespective of whether the accusation alleges facts or not, is punished by penal detention or a petty fine, and tried in court. The Government also indicates that, pursuant to the supplementary provisions of Act No. 67 of 2022, it shall review the status of enforcement of the provisions of Article 231 of the Penal Code, to examine whether this provision is able to appropriately deal with slander on the Internet and whether it is unjustifiably restricting freedom of expression and other freedoms, three years after the enforcement of Act No. 67 of 2022 (therefore in 2025). Based on the results, the Ministry of Justice will proceed with the necessary measures. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the follow-up given to the 73 cases brought under article 231 of the Penal Code, including the underlying facts and the penalties imposed. It also requests the Government to provide information on the results of the examination undertaken on the application of section 231 of the Penal Code, and the measures adopted as a result.

Prohibition of the right to organize of certain public servants. The Committee previously noted, on the basis of its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and of articles 108-2(5) and 110(1)(xx) of the National Public Service Act, that firefighting personnel and prison officers (other than those with the specific duties of the judicial police) are prohibited from forming and joining an organization of their own choosing to defend their occupational interests. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the acts prohibited by these provisions do not fall under the subparagraphs of Article 1 of the Convention and that, as such, it should not be categorized as an act that is under the protection of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that the right to express views critical of or opposed to the established political, economic and social system is closely linked to the exercise of collective rights, including the right to organize, to freedom of association and to participate in peaceful assemblies. Accordingly, the limitation of these rights may have implications on the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention and, in such cases, should not be enforced with sanctions that involve compulsory labour. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which such restrictions are enforced in practice in order to assess whether firefighting personnel and prison officers could be sanctioned with penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory work for expressing views opposing the established political, economic and social system.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s first report.

Legal framework establishing compulsory prison labour and impact on the application of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s information regarding the amendments made to legislative provisions that would have allowed compulsory prison labour to be imposed in circumstances covered by Article 1 of the Convention. These amendments, adopted through the Act on the Arrangement of the Related Acts to Sign the Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour (No. 105) (Act No. 75 of 2021), replace earlier penalties that involved compulsory labour, in accordance with section 12(2) of the Penal Code, with penalties of imprisonment without labour. The provisions in question are found in various laws, including: (1) the National Public Service Act (section 111-2(ii)); (2) the Local Public Service Act (section 62-2); (3) the Self-Defense Forces Act (section 119-2); (4) the Postal Act (section 79(1)); (5) the Postal Transport Entrustment Act (Article 19); (6) the Heat Supply Business Act (section 34(3)); (7) the Telecommunications Business Act (Article 180(2); and (8) the Supplementary Provisions of the Act Partially Amending the Electricity Business Act (Article 65).

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Act Partially Amending the Penal Code, etc. (Act No. 67 of 2022) – scheduled to come into effect on June 1, 2025 – will introduce a new form of imprisonment and abolish the previous distinction between “imprisonment with work” and “imprisonment without work”. Under the amended section 9 of the Penal Code, the terms “imprisonment, imprisonment without work” will be replaced with a single designation: “deprivation of liberty.” Additionally, section 12 of the Penal Code will be revised to state that individuals sentenced to deprivation of liberty may be required to engage in necessary work or may be provided with necessary guidance for purposes of improvement and rehabilitation. Further amendments include changes to section 93 of the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and Treatment of Inmates, according to which the wardens of penal institutions can require inmates to perform work if deemed necessary for their improvement, rehabilitation, and smooth reintegration into society. The Government indicates that following these amendments, the Ministry of Justice plans to issue directives, such as formal notices, instructing the wardens of penal institutions to ensure that individuals sentenced to deprivation of liberty for the offences referred to in the paragraph above are not compelled to engage in labour against their will.

The Committee notes that the amendments to the Penal Code and the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and Treatment of Inmates permit the imposition of labour on individuals sentenced to deprivation of liberty, without any mention of requiring the inmate’s consent. The Committee recalls that compulsory prison labour, even if designed for rehabilitation purposes, has an impact on the application of the Convention when it is imposed with respect to one of the circumstances covered under Article 1 of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government intends to adopt a ministerial instruction (administrative decision) aimed at exempting certain convicted prisoners from the obligation to perform prison labour, as a means of addressing the potential impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of the Convention, particularly in relation to offences covered under Article 1(a), (c) and (d). The Committee considers that this approach may lead to legal uncertainty and pose practical challenges in its implementation.

In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that persons convicted to the penalty of deprivation of liberty, when such convictions are related to the provisions referred to above, are not compelled to work, whether by replacing the sanctions of imprisonment by fines or other administrative sanctions or by ensuring the voluntary character of prison labour. The Committee also requests the Government to provide more specific information regarding the issuance and enforcement of the Ministry of Justice’s directives to the wardens of the penal institutions, as well as the measures in place to ensure that inmates' consent to work is freely given.

Based on the forthcoming information provided by the Government on the framework governing compulsory prison labour, the Committee may revisit its assessment of the provisions of the national legislation relating to circumstances which may be covered by Article 1 of the Convention, mentioned above.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee further takes note of the provisions below which currently establish penalties of imprisonment in circumstances covered by Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee observes that when Act No. 67 of 2022 enters into force, the penalties in these provisions will be amended to deprivation of liberty, which may involve compulsory work.

Articles of the Penal Code on defamation and insults. Article 230(1) of the Penal Code criminalizes the defamation of a person by making allegations in public, regardless of whether such facts are true or false. Under article 230-2, when an act prescribed under article 230(1) is found to relate to matters of public interest and to have been conducted solely for the benefit of the public, the truth or falsity of the alleged facts are to be examined, and punishment is not imposed if they are proven to be true. The Committee further notes that 231 of the Penal Code provides that a person who insults another person in public, irrespective of whether the accusation alleges facts or not, is punished by penal detention or a petty fine. The Committee observes that, under the supplementary provisions of Act No. 67 of 2022 it is stipulated that the Government shall examine the status of enforcement of the provisions of Article 231 of the Penal Code three years after the promulgation of the Act (therefore in 2025), with the participation of external experts, from the viewpoint of whether this provision is able to appropriately deal with slander on the Internet and whether it is unjustifiably restricting freedom of expression and other freedoms. Based on the results, necessary measures shall be taken.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention protects those who, in a peaceful manner, express their views or oppose the established political, social or economic system and that the expression of such views can take place orally or through the press or other type of publications or communication media, including social media platforms. The Committee further recalls that the excessive use of defamation provisions may restrict the exercise of freedom of expression, particularly by journalists and human rights defenders.

In order to assess the compatibility of these provisions of the Penal Code with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice, including information on number and nature of cases examined before the courts, the convictions and the facts that led to these convictions, and the penalties applied. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the results of the examination undertaken on the application of section 231 of the Penal Code, and the measures adopted as a result.

Prohibition of the right to organize of certain public servants. The Committee notes that Articles 108-2(5) and 110(1)(xx) of the National Public Service Act, prohibits police officials and officials from the Japan Coast Guard or in penal facilities from organizing or joining an organization whose purpose is the maintenance and improvement of their working conditions, and which conducts negotiations thereon with the proper authorities. The Committee recalls that the expression of views opposed to the established economic and social system, as articulated under Article 1(a) of the Convention, is closely linked to the exercise of collective rights such as the right to organize or take part in peaceful assembly.

The Committee also refers to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), where it has long called for the Government to ensure the right of firefighting personnel and prison officers (other than those with the specific duties of the judicial police) to form and join an organization of their own choosing to defend their occupational interests. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it ensures, in both law and practice, that no punishment involving compulsory labour may be imposed on persons who exercise their right to organize and associate peacefully.