A hearing-impaired couple in their 70s from Nagoya City will sue the government for a total of approximately 30 million yen, claiming that they were sterilized under the former Eugenic Protection Law
The Osaka District Court on Thursday dismissed a damages lawsuit filed against the government by a couple with disabilities over forced sterilization conducted under the now-defunct eugenic protection law.The ruling came even after Osaka and Tokyo high courts ordered the government to pay damages in similar suits on forced sterilization in February and March, respectively.
The Tokyo High Court overturned a lower court ruling, ordering the Japanese government to pay 15 million yen in damages to a 78-year-old man over forced sterilization under the now-defunct eugenic protection law.
Tokyo High Court Presiding Judge Yutaka Hirata concluded that the eugenic protection law was unconstitutional. The plaintiff, a Tokyo resident, had demanded the government pay damages of 30 million yen.
The Japanese government Monday 7th March appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge a high court verdict ordering damages payments to victims of forced sterilization performed under the now-defunct eugenic protection law.
This is the first high court ruling in suits seeking state compensation for the forced sterilization. It is also the first ruling that has recognized state responsibility for compensation over the matter. Plaintiffs had lost in all six lawsuits filed with district courts.
The Osaka High Court on Feb. 22 for the first time ordered the central government to compensate plaintiffs forcibly sterilized under a postwar eugenics policy.
The first oral argument in a lawsuit in which hearing-impaired people in Kansai sought compensation for damages from the government was held at the Osaka High Court on the 30th, alleging that they were forced to undergo fertility surgery under the former Eugenic Protection Law.
A Japanese court on Tuesday ruled as unconstitutional the now-defunct eugenics protection law that authorized the government to stop people with disabilities from having children, but rejected a claim for damages sought by five people.
However, the ruling said, “The possibility that she had the abortion due to economic reasons cannot be ruled out,” and stated it cannot be recognized that she was forced to have the surgery in accordance with the law. With regard to forced sterilization, the court said, “There is not enough evidence, such as a doctor’s opinion and photographs of surgery scars, to recognize that she underwent the surgery.”
Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
