Human rights in Japan

The Constitution and the Criminal Code include safeguards to ensure that no criminal suspect can be compelled to make a self-incriminating conviction. In 2003, the use of leather restraining body belts was abolished. Softer leather handcuffs without body belts were instituted as substitute restraining devices. Amnesty International has urged Japan to reform its police interrogation methods.[12]

There have been accounts of prisoners in Japan that have died under suspicious circumstances while in custody.

• On June 20, 1994, Iranian national Arjang Mehrpooran died from unknown causes while in custody for a visa violation at the Minami Senju police station. Allegations have been made that his death was caused by assault.[13]
• On August 9, 1997, Mousavi Abarbe Kouh Mir Hossein, an Iranian national, had his neck broken and died while in the custody of the Kita Ward Immigration Detention Center.[14]
• In 2001, two Nagoya prison guards reportedly sprayed a high-power water hose at an "unruly" inmate's anus, resulting in his death the following day.[15] In the outcome of his March 2003 trial, the warden was warned to prevent further abuses by his subordinates.
• In 2002, an inmate at Nagoya Prison died after guards, as a disciplinary measure, used leather handcuffs and body belts too tightly clinched.[16]
• On March 22, 2010, Abubaka Awudu Suraj, a citizen of Ghana, died while in the custody of the Japanese Immigration Bureau while being deported from Japan.[17][18]
• On March 6, 2021, Wishma Sandamali, a Sri Lankan woman, died in custody at an immigration detention facility in Nagoya after her requests for provisional release and adequate medical care were denied.[19][20]

In 2003, Justice Ministry formed a special team to investigate 1,566 prisoner deaths from 1993 to 2002. A preliminary report suggested that nearly one third of the cases involved suspicious circumstances. However, in June, the Ministry announced that there was evidence of abuse only in the two Nagoya fatalities. Regarding the other suspicious deaths, the Ministry said that approximately 10 deaths could be attributed to poor medical care. The authorities reported they had lost the documentation on nine deaths in Tokyo's Fuchū Prison. The remaining deaths were determined to be "not suspicious".[21]

As of May 2019, Japan has not signed nor ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Prison conditions met international standards;[22] although some lacked adequate medical care and sufficient heating in the winter or cooling in the summer and some facilities were overcrowded. Prisoners were not allowed to purchase or receive supplementary food. While death records are kept for 10 years, many of them were missing, which sparked an ongoing review of the prison system. Prisons operated at an average 117% capacity.[23] In some institutions, two inmates were placed in cells designed for one inmate, and thirty or sixty in cells meant for 15.

According to prison officials at Fuchū and Yokohama prisons, medical attention was inadequate. The MOJ's Corrections Bureau likewise acknowledged that correctional facilities lacked medical preparedness. The Government's Project Team on Medical Issues of Correctional Institutions continued to consult with related organizations on such issues as increasing medical staff, upgrading medical conditions during nights and weekends, and strengthening cooperative relationships with medical institutions in the community. In May, the Minister formed a subcommittee to improve prison medical facilities.

In some institutions clothing and blankets were insufficient to protect inmates against cold weather. Most prisons did not provide heating during nighttime hours in winter despite freezing temperatures, subjecting inmates to a range of preventable cold injuries. Foreign prisoners in the Tokyo area continued to present to visiting diplomats during the year fingers and toes affected by chillblains of varying severity, the direct result of long-term exposure to cold.[24]

According to the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, the authorities are permitted to read letters sent or received by prisoners and they are not required to disclose this practice to prisoners. If the content is deemed "inappropriate", the letter may be censored or confiscated. All visits with convicted prisoners were monitored; however, prisoners whose cases were pending were allowed private access to their legal representatives.

The MOJ is not required to inform a condemned inmate's family prior to the person's execution. Human rights organizations reported that lawyers also were not told of an execution until after the fact and that death row prisoners were held for years in solitary confinement with little contact with anyone but prison guards. Parole may not be granted for any reason, including medical and humanitarian reasons, until an inmate has served two thirds of his or her sentence.

The JFBA and human rights groups have criticized the prison system, with its emphasis on strict discipline and obedience to numerous rules. Prison rules remained confidential. While the Prison Law Enforcement Regulation stipulates that the maximum time prisoners may be held in single cells is 6 months, activists claim that wardens continued to have broad leeway in enforcing punishments selectively, including "minor solitary confinement", which may be imposed for a minimum of 1 and not more than 60 days. Claims have also been made that prisoners were sometimes forced to kneel motionless in an empty cell for several hours at a time; however, foreigners and the handicapped were allowed to sit on a hard stool, at the discretion of the prison warden.

In December, the Upper House passed both a Crime-Victims law and a revision to the 1908 Prison Law. The Crime-Victims law calls for compensation and counseling for crime victims, upholding victims' rights, and providing victims with criminal investigation information. Aimed at toughening penalties against felons, the Penal Code revision establishes new charges for gang rape, increases maximum prison terms and penalties for life-threatening crimes, and extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting capital offenses from 15 to 29 years.

In February 2003, the government ratified the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, allowing foreign prisoners to petition to serve their sentences in their home country. The government added the stipulation that prisoners must serve at least one third of their sentence in Japan before petitions will be considered. As of June 2007, 10 American prisoners have been transferred to the United States to complete their sentences.[25]

Women and juveniles were housed separately from men; however, male prison guards sometimes guarded female prisoners. During the year, a male prison warden was charged with "violence and cruelty by a special public officer" for engaging in sexual acts with a female inmate awaiting trial. During the year, some women's detention facilities were operating over stated capacity. Pretrial detainees were held separately from convicted prisoners.

While the government limited access by human rights groups to detention facilities, prison visits were allowed. However, Amnesty International claimed that human rights groups were not allowed access to Nagoya prison because of ongoing court cases related to alleged abuses.[26]

The Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and the Government generally observes these prohibitions. The law provides for judicial determination of the legality of detention. Persons may not be detained without charge, and prosecuting authorities must be prepared to demonstrate that probable cause exists to detain the accused. Under the law, a suspect may be held in detention at either a regular detention facility or "substitute" (police) detention facility for up to 72 hours. A judge must interview suspects prior to detention. A judge may extend preindictment custody by up to two consecutive 10-day periods based on a prosecutor's application. These extensions were sought and granted routinely. Under extraordinary circumstances, prosecutors may seek an additional 5-day extension, bringing the maximum period of preindictment custody to 28 days.

The National Police Safety Commission oversees the National Police Agency (NPA). In addition, each prefecture has a prefectural police safety commission as well as a prefectural police agency, which was primarily funded by the prefecture's budget. Corruption and impunity were not problems within either the national or the prefectural police forces.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, police and prosecutors have the power to control or limit access by legal counsel when deemed necessary for the sake of an investigation. Counsel may not be present during interrogations at any time before or after indictment. As a court-appointed attorney is not approved until after indictment, suspects must rely on their own resources to hire an attorney before indictment, although local bar associations provided detainees with limited free counseling. Critics charged that access to counsel was limited both in duration and frequency; however, the Government denied that this was the case. Incommunicado detention could be used for up to 23 days.

Critics charged that allowing suspects to be detained by the same authorities who interrogated them heightened the potential for abuse and coercion. The Government countered that cases of persons sent to police detention facilities tended to be those in which the facts were not in dispute. An MOJ regulation permits officials to limit the amount of documentation related to ongoing court cases retained by prisoners.

The Law for Expediting Court Procedure became effective in 2003. The average trial period in 2005 was 3.2 months for criminal cases[27] and 8.2 months for civil cases. The length of time before a suspect was brought to trial depended on the nature of the crime, but rarely exceeded 3 months from the date of arrest; the average was 1 to 2 months.

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and the Government has generally respected this provision in practice. The Cabinet appoints judges for 10-year terms, which can be renewed until judges reach the age of 65. Justices of the Supreme Court can serve until the age of 70, but face periodic review through popular referendums.

There are several levels of court, including high courts, district courts, family courts, and summary courts, with the Supreme Court serving as the final court of appeal. Normally a trial begins at the district court level, and a verdict may be appealed to a higher court, and ultimately, to the Supreme Court. The government generally respected in practice the constitutional provisions for the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal in all criminal cases. Although most criminal trials were completed within a reasonable length of time, cases occasionally took several years to work their way through the trial and appeals process.

In July 2003, the Diet passed legislation aimed at reducing the average time required to complete criminal trials and civil trials that include witness examination. Its provisions include hiring substantial numbers of additional court and MOJ personnel, revising bar examinations, establishing new graduate law schools to increase the overall number of legal professionals threefold by 2010, and requiring that courts and opposing litigants jointly work to improve trial planning by allowing for earlier evidence collection and disclosure. The advisory panel on judicial reform released the official standards for setting up graduate law schools, and in March 2004, 68 universities (22 public and 46 private) opened new law schools.[28]

The July 2003, law also makes the Supreme Court responsible for accelerating proceedings in lower courts, imposes a 2-year time limit for courts to bring criminal and civil trials to conclusion, and requires the government to take the legal and financial measures necessary to accomplish these goals. A defendant is informed of the charges upon arrest and is assured a public trial by an independent civilian court with defense counsel and the right of cross-examination. There was no trial by jury; however, a judicial reform bill passed in May will allow serious criminal cases to be tried by a six-person, randomly selected jury and panel of judges. The law was scheduled to take effect in 2009.

The defendant is presumed innocent. The Constitution provides defendants with the right not to be compelled to testify against themselves as well as to free and private access to counsel; however, the Government contended that the right to consult with attorneys is not absolute and can be restricted if such restriction is compatible with the spirit of the Constitution. Access sometimes was abridged in practice; for example, the law allows prosecutors to control access to counsel before indictment, and there were allegations of coerced confessions. Defendants are protected from the retroactive application of laws and have the right of access to incriminating evidence after a formal indictment. However, the law does not require full disclosure by prosecutors, and material that the prosecution does not use in court may be suppressed. Critics claimed that legal representatives of defendants did not always have access to all needed relevant material in the police record. A defendant who is dissatisfied with the decision of a trial court of first instance may appeal to a higher court.

No guidelines mandate the acceptable quality of communications between judges, lawyers, and non-Japanese speaking defendants, and no standard licensing or qualification system for certifying court interpreters exists. A trial may proceed even if the accused does not understand what is happening or being said. Foreign detainees frequently claimed that police urged them to sign statements in Japanese that they could not read and were not translated adequately.

As of May 2019, Japan has not signed nor ratified the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

There were no reports of political prisoners.

• The Constitution does not prohibit arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence but prohibit them by case law on interpretation on Article 13 of the Constitution, and the government generally respects these prohibitions in practice. In April 2003, the Public Security Investigation Agency extended surveillance of the terrorist group Aleph (formerly known as Aum Shinrikyo) because the government declared the group still posed a danger to society. In 2002, the Defense Agency confirmed reports that it had violated a law protecting personal information when it compiled lists of citizens seeking official documents. A privacy bill to prevent such actions passed the Diet on May 2, 2003.
• The government's attitude regarding international and nongovernmental investigation of alleged violations of human rights is generally cooperative and responsive to human rights groups' views, although the government restricts their access to detention facilities. A number of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without governmental restrictions, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases. Government officials generally were cooperative and responsive to their views, although the Government restricted access by human rights groups to detention facilities.
• In December 2008 United Nations Human Rights Committee gave a recommendation to Japan relating to public welfare in Article 12 and 13 of the Constitution that "while taking note of the State party's explanation that 'public welfare' cannot be relied on as a ground on placing arbitrary restrictions on human rights, the Committee reiterate its concern that the concept of 'public welfare' is vague and open-ended and may permit restrictions exceeding those permissible under the Covenant (art. 2)."[29]

The Japanese Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press. In theory, an independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combine to ensure freedom of speech and of the press. However, Japan's system of exclusive press clubs has been criticised by press freedom groups. The clubs often provide major media outlets with exclusive access to news sources, while generally barring foreign and freelance reporters. The clubs provide the establishment press with access to official press conferences and background briefings with politicians, lawyers and business leaders. Critics say the club system allows the authorities to suppress news that they consider unfavorable to them and that it lowers the quality of news coverage.

Free speech and press issues include:

• In July 2003, the Diet passed legislation prohibiting the solicitation of sex from minors through the Internet. The Japan Internet Providers Association and the Telecom Services Association expressed concerns about the definitions of child prohibited sites and about the actions providers are required to take to prevent illegal use of Internet sites.
• In 2015 journalists and political experts report that the government of Prime Minister Shinzō Abe is engineering a fundamental shift in the balance of power between his administration and the news media, using tactics to silence criticism that go beyond anything his predecessors tried.[30] These include:
  • more aggressive complaints to the bosses of critical journalists and commentators, causing some reporters and commentators to lose their jobs;
  • more blatant retaliation against outlets that persist in faulting the administration;
  • appointing a new chairman to the national public broadcaster, NHK, who declared that the network will not deviate too far from the government's views; and
  • openly hinting at revoking the broadcasting licenses of overly critical networks under a law that requires that TV news reports not intentionally twist facts.

Journalists, commentators and media experts say that news outlets are now censoring their own coverage or removing critical voices to avoid drawing official ire.

Under Article 4 of the Broadcasting Law, Japanese television broadcasting requires political fairness, and there are penalties such as license revocation. This law has existed since before the Abe administration. The license revocation issue was an answer to the opposition party's question on the Broadcasting law.[31] However, Japanese media strongly opposed this. UNCHR calls for the removal of Article 4,[32] but many Japanese media strongly oppose the removal of Article 4.[33]

Ichiro Furutachi is a journalist who lost his job. He told Sankei Shimbun, “The administration is not putting pressure,” “If our report is lie, our program will be crushed, so there is a self-regulation to make a safe report afraid of it.”[34]

Freedom House rated Japan's Internet access as “free” with scores as low as 22.

Internet access in Japan is absolutely unrestricted. There are neither government restrictions on Internet access nor reports that the government checks on e-mail or Internet chat rooms without appropriate legal authority in the country. The constitution and law broadly protects free expression, and the government respects this right in practice. The government does not interfere with access to Internet publications.[35] Individuals and groups engage in the pleasant expression of views via the Internet, including e‑mail. The law and constitution prohibit arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and the government generally respects these prohibitions in practice.

The Constitution provides for the freedom of assembly and association, and the Government generally respects these rights in practice.

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion.

Article 20 states:

Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority.

(2) No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice.

(3) The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.[36]

Members of the Unification Church alleged that police did not respond to allegations of forced deprogramming of church members. While deprogramming cases decreased during the year, a Unification Church spokesman reported that prosecutors dropped two cases due to insufficient evidence. Although one member reportedly was kidnapped by her family during the year, the Unification Church did not report the case to police. Concerns remained regarding the tendency of officials to judge deprogramming as a family matter. Unlike in previous years, Jehovah's Witnesses reported that their religious rights were respected by the Government during the year.

The Constitution provides for the freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, immigration, and repatriation, and the Government generally respects them in practice. Citizens have the right to travel freely both within the country and abroad, to change their place of residence, to emigrate, and to repatriate voluntarily. Citizenship may be forfeited by naturalization in a foreign country or by failure of persons born with dual nationality to elect citizenship at the required age. The law does not permit forced exile, and it is not used.[27]

The law provides for the granting of refugee status or asylum to persons in accordance with the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. In practice, the government provided protection against refoulement, the return of persons to a country where they feared persecution, but did not routinely grant refugee or asylum status. The Government cooperated with the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in assisting refugees.

In May 2003, the Diet passed a bill abolishing the 60-day application deadline previously required for aliens seeking refugee status. The previous refugee recognition law stipulated that those seeking refugee status had to apply within 60 days upon arriving in Japan or within 60 days of learning that they were likely to be persecuted in their home country. An alien recognized as a refugee has access to educational facilities, public relief and aid, and social welfare benefits.[37]

Government records indicated that 523,617 persons were detained in 2003 at immigration detention centers. According to media reports, several deportations were carried out in secret. In July, two Kurdish families staged a 72-day protest against their deportation orders in front of the United Nations University in Tokyo.[28]

As of 2005, the government has granted refugee and asylum status to those claiming fear of persecution in only a small number of cases.[38] A nongovernmental organization (NGO), in a statement to the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, noted that, from 1982 to December 2002, 301 persons were accepted as refugees. The Government considered that most persons seeking asylum in the country did so for economic reasons. In 2003, there were approximately 7,900 refugees and asylum seekers in the country, of whom an estimated 7,700 were Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees. Out of 336 refugee claims submitted in 2003, the Government granted asylum to 10 persons from Burma, Burundi, and Iran and issued long-term residence permits based on humanitarian considerations to 16. As part of its ongoing family-reunification program for close relatives of Indochinese refugees resettled in earlier years, the Government admitted 147 refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia in 2003.[28]

In May 2003, a law was passed granting the Justice Minister authority to issue temporary stay permits to persons seeking asylum.[37] While this law provides a way for asylum seekers to have legal status in the country during the refugee recognition process, in practice it was quite difficult to obtain such permits. In January 2003, the Immigration Bureau began to give detailed, written explanations of decisions not to grant refugee status to asylum-seekers and opened an information office at Narita Airport for potential asylum seekers.

For the first time ever, MHLW, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and MEXT issued ministerial regulations and formal notices requiring corporations, local governments, and schools attend to issues pertaining sexual orientation and gender identity harassment and publicly outing a person as LGBT. This took place in May 2019.[41]

When couples divorce there is a strong bias in Japanese family courts which gives 80% of the mothers custody of children according to 2004 statistics from the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research.[47] Joint physical custody or shared parenting is uncommon.

There is major criticism about divorced Japanese parents and foreign parents who are denied access to their children post-divorce.[48] Many of these divorced people lose access and contact with their children.[48] Foreign parents post-divorce can suffer from child-abduction.[48] In 2020, lawmakers of the European Union adopted a non-binding resolution for Japan to adhere to parental access, visitation rights and to return abducted children.[48]

In February 2020 all use of corporal punishments against children in Japan ended after the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) issued guidelines to implement 2019 amendments made to laws on children.[41]

Public attention has focused increasingly on reports of frequent child abuse in the home.[49] The law grants child welfare officials the authority to prohibit abusive parents from meeting or communicating with their children, although due to Japanese cultural views on family matters being "private", this enforcement option is rarely exercised. The law also bans abuse under the guise of discipline and obliges teachers, doctors, and welfare officials to report any suspicious circumstances to 1 of the 182 nationwide local child counseling centers or to a municipal welfare center. In May 2003, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare reported that 108 children died as a result of child abuse since the enactment of the Child Abuse Prevention Law in 2000.

In 2003, there were a record 23,738 cases of child abuse, up almost 2% from 2002, according to the Cabinet Office. Approximately 50% of the cases involved violence, and 40% were cases of parental neglect. Child welfare centers likewise reported a record 26,573 calls in 2003, an increase of 2,800 calls from the previous year. Generally accepted statistics indicate that upwards of 70% of child abuse cases involve a female perpetrator, usually the child's mother. Although the Government offered subsidies to local governments to combat record-high child abuse, only 13% accepted the offer. Most of the local governments declining the subsidies stated they could not afford to pay their share of the bill.

in 2014 the police reported 13,037 cases of child abuse including sexual abuse and death.[50][51][52][53][54]

On July 20, 2020, a report by HRW revealed that child athletes in Japan have routinely suffered physical, sexual and verbal abuse from their coaches, which led some of them to take their own lives. The report “‘I Was Hit So Many Times I Can’t Count’: Abuse of Child Athletes in Japan,[55] documented the country's history of corporal punishment in sport, known as taibatsu in Japanese, and revealed child abuse in sports training throughout Japanese schools, federations, and elite sports.[56]

Trafficking of women and girls into the country has been a problem.[64] Women and girls, primarily from Thailand, the Philippines, and Eastern Europe, were trafficked into the country for sexual exploitation and forced labour. Women and girls from Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Malaysia, Burma, and Indonesia also were trafficked into the country in smaller numbers. The country was a destination for illegal immigrants from China who were trafficked by organized crime groups and held in debt bondage for sexual exploitation and indentured servitude in sweatshops and restaurants. The Government reported that some smugglers used killings and abduction to enforce cooperation.

Although reliable statistics on the number of women trafficked to the country were unavailable, human rights groups reported that up to 200,000 persons, mostly Southeast Asian women, are smuggled annually into the country and forced to work in the sex industry. In 2003, the NPA arrested 41 individuals for trafficking-related offenses, 8 of whom were traffickers. Of these individuals, 36 were convicted, 14 received prison terms, 17 received fines, and 5 received both a fine and prison term. In February 2003, 17 prefecture police offices and the Tokyo Metropolitan police simultaneously raided 24 strip clubs and rescued 68 trafficking victims.[65]

The Constitution provides for the right of workers to associate freely in unions.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Law of Japan created in 1972 only advises or recommends employers to take measures to prevent sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is the most reported category labor cases at the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare in Japan.

In 1999 the Equal Employment Opportunity Act was revised and a provision was added that required employers to take measures to prevent sexual harassment against women in the workplace. It was revised again in 2007 to include male victims, and it was revised again in 2014 to include same-sex sexual harassment.[70]

The Constitution provides unions with the right to organize, bargain, and act collectively.

The Constitution provides that no person shall be held in bondage of any kind. Involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime, is prohibited.

The Constitution bans the employment of children.

Minimum wages are set on a regional (prefectural) and industry basis, with the input of tripartite (workers, employers, public interest) advisory councils. Employers covered by a minimum wage must post the concerned minimum wages, and compliance with minimum wages was considered widespread. Minimum wage rates ranged according to prefecture from 606 to 710 yen per hour. Minimum wage rates were considered sufficient to provide a worker and family with a decent standard of living.

The Labor Standards Law provides for a 40-hour work week for most industries and mandates premium pay for hours worked over 40 in a week or 8 in a day. However, labor unions frequently criticized the government for failing to enforce maximum working hours regulations in smaller firms. Activist groups claimed that employers exploited or discriminated against foreign workers, who often had little or no knowledge of the Japanese language or their legal rights.

The government tried to reduce the inflow of illegal foreign workers by prosecuting employers of such workers. According to NPA figures, 175 persons were charged with "illegal employment assistance" during the first half of 2002. The Immigration Law provides for penalties against employers of undocumented foreign workers. Maximum fines for illegal employment assistance were raised to 3 million yen in December. Suspected foreign workers also may be denied entry for passport, visa, and entry application irregularities. The Government continued to study the foreign worker issue, and several citizens' groups were working with illegal foreign workers to improve their access to information on worker rights.

The Ministry of Labor effectively administered various laws and regulations governing occupational health and safety, principal among which is the Industrial Safety and Health Law. Standards were set by the Ministry of Labor and issued after consultation with the Standing Committee on Safety and Health of the Central Labor Standards Council. Labor inspectors have the authority to suspend unsafe operations immediately, and the law provides that workers may voice concerns over occupational safety and remove themselves from unsafe working conditions without jeopardizing their continued employment.

According to new reports from the Business & Human Rights Resource Center, approximately 197 allegations of human rights abuses have been revealed against renewable energy projects. In 2019, a London-based group that promotes human rights, documented 47 attacks, ranging from frivolous lawsuits to violence on individuals who raised concerns about human rights abuses in the industry.[71]

It is common practice for Japanese companies to take the passport of foreign employees.[72] It is illegal for companies to confiscate passports of Japanese citizens, but not of foreign workers.[72] There are only government guidelines against confiscation.[72] Companies fear that foreign employees could run away.[72] According to activist lawyers, forcing people to work while taking their passports is akin to forced labor.[72] They have implored the Japanese government to make it illegal in order to protect human rights.[72] The specific number of cases is unclear, but many cases are underreported due to language barriers and threats of deportation.[72]