Japan’s Treatment of Faith Headed to The Hague?

Experts in international criminal law think Japan’s treatment of Family Federation may constitute “crimes against humanity” and end up before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague

The question of how far a democratic state can go in tolerating – or even enabling – violations of fundamental rights becomes particularly acute when those violations are directed at a religious minority. In their 4^th May 2026 article in Bitter Winter, Javier Ruiz and Cristian González, legal experts in international criminal law and human rights, argue that the situation surrounding members of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly known as the Unification Church) in Japan may cross a critical legal threshold: that of crimes against humanity under international law.

See also The Rome Statute: Safeguarding Religious Freedom?

See also Supreme Court Justice with Hostile Views

See also Was the Appointment of Hostile Judge Deliberate?

See also Believers’ Last Hope for Fair Trial Crushed

See also U.S. Pastors and Members Speak Out in Japan

See also When Media Narratives Become State Repression

See also Preserving Religious Activity After Dissolution

See also Japanese Court Order Fulfilling Terrorist’s Wish

Their analysis is not framed as advocacy in a narrow sense, but as a legal assessment grounded in the framework of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and supported by a wide range of publicly available documentation.

At the core of their argument lies a foundational principle of human rights law: no individual should be deprived of liberty without due process. This norm is not merely a domestic legal safeguard but a cornerstone of international legal order. When violations of this principle occur in a systematic or widespread manner – especially with the knowledge or tacit approval of state authorities – they may rise to the level of international crimes. Ruiz and González contend that this is precisely the concern raised by the longstanding treatment of Family Federation members in Japan.

Drawing on reports from NGOs such as Human Rights Without Frontiers, publications including Bitter Winter, testimonies from alleged victims, and observations issued by United Nations bodies, the authors describe a pattern of conduct extending over several decades. This pattern allegedly includes forced abductions, prolonged confinement, coercive attempts to compel individuals to abandon their religious beliefs, and the strategic use of legal mechanisms to weaken the targeted religious organization.

See also Settlements Used as Evidence of Wrongdoing

They emphasize that their conclusions are based on evidence already in the public domain, viewed through the interpretive lens of international criminal jurisprudence developed by institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and earlier tribunals.

A central focus of their analysis is the practice commonly referred to as “deprogramming” (faith-breaking) [See editor’s note below]. While the term suggests a therapeutic or voluntary process, the authors argue that it obscures a far more coercive reality. According to the evidence they cite, deprogramming in Japan has frequently involved the abduction and confinement of adult believers – often by their own family members acting under the guidance of religious or “anti-cult” actors. Victims are allegedly held in controlled environments, sometimes for extended periods, where they are subjected to sustained psychological pressure and, in some cases, physical abuse, with the aim of forcing them to renounce their faith.

The scale of this phenomenon is a key element of the legal argument. Reports indicate that thousands of individuals may have been subjected to such treatment since the 1980s. The authors stress that this is not a matter of isolated incidents but of a recurring and structured practice. The existence of manuals, coordinated actors, and consistent methods suggests a degree of organization that aligns with what international criminal law defines as a “systematic” pattern of abuse.

One illustrative case highlighted in the discussion involves Dr. Hirohisa Koide (小出浩久), a Japanese physician, who was allegedly abducted and held for many months under conditions designed to restrict his movement and isolate him from outside contact. Even when legal remedies were pursued, including a habeas corpus petition, enforcement appears to have been ineffective. According to the account, the individual ultimately secured release only by falsely claiming to have abandoned his beliefs. For Ruiz and González, such cases exemplify conduct that goes beyond mere family disputes or private interventions and enters the realm of unlawful detention.

To evaluate whether these acts could constitute crimes against humanity, the authors turn to Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the international treaty that founded the International Criminal Court in 2002. This provision defines such crimes as certain acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Crucially, the legal standard does not require the existence of armed conflict. Past decisions by ICC chambers have clarified that an “attack” can consist of a pattern of mistreatment, whether violent or non-violent, provided it is carried out in an organized manner.

Applying this framework, Ruiz and González argue that both the “widespread” and “systematic” criteria may be satisfied in the Japanese context. The number of alleged victims, the duration of the conduct, and its geographic spread all support the characterization of widespread impact. At the same time, the apparent coordination among different actors – families, religious figures, and legal professionals – along with the repeated use of similar tactics, points to a systematic approach rather than random or spontaneous occurrences.

However, what elevates the issue from a serious domestic concern to a potential matter of international criminal jurisdiction is the role attributed to the state. The authors highlight that Japanese authorities have, over many years, reportedly failed to intervene effectively in cases of alleged forced confinement, often treating them as private family matters.

This pattern of non-intervention is documented in reports and was explicitly noted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which urged Japan to take steps to protect individuals from coercion affecting their religious freedom.

More recent developments, according to the article, suggest a shift from passive tolerance to more active forms of institutional pressure against the large religious minority. Following high-profile political events in 2022, the Japanese government initiated legal proceedings aimed at dissolving the religious organization under existing religious corporation laws. Additional policy measures and public discourse have been criticized by some observers as disproportionately targeting the same community. Ruiz and González suggest that such actions may contribute to a climate (an environment) in which discrimination is normalized.

Within this broader context, the authors identify three specific categories of crimes against humanity that could be implicated. The first is the severe deprivation of physical liberty, which encompasses acts of unlawful detention such as those described in deprogramming [See editor’s note below] cases. The second is persecution, defined as the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights on discriminatory grounds – in this instance, religion. This can include not only physical coercion but also social and legal measures that collectively disadvantage a targeted group. The third is enforced disappearance, which involves both the deprivation of liberty and the concealment of the victim’s fate or whereabouts from those seeking information.

An additional dimension of the analysis concerns the role of National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales, a group of lawyers known for their opposition to the Family Federation. Ruiz and González argue that their activities, as described in various reports, may go beyond conventional legal advocacy. Instead, they suggest the possibility of coordinated efforts to undermine the religious organization through litigation strategies, support for deprogramming [See editor’s note below] practices, and the pursuit of dissolution proceedings. If accurate, such conduct could raise complex questions about the misuse of legal systems to achieve outcomes that are discriminatory in nature.

The issue of accountability is then framed in terms of the ICC’s principle of complementarity, which defines ICC as a court of last resort, designed to complement rather than replace national criminal systems. The Court is designed to act only when national systems are unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute serious crimes. In this case, the authors argue that the absence of criminal proceedings against those allegedly responsible for deprogramming [See editor’s note below] – combined with state actions directed against the victim group – may indicate a lack of willingness to address the underlying violations. This, in their view, strengthens the argument for potential international scrutiny.

The article concludes by emphasizing that the rule of law must apply consistently, regardless of the setting. Systematic abuses, even in stable and prosperous democracies, require serious examination when they affect fundamental rights on a large scale. Ruiz and González stop short of making definitive legal determinations but assert that the available evidence is sufficient to warrant careful consideration by international mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court.

Ultimately, their position is that accountability is both a legal obligation and an ethical necessity. Where domestic remedies have failed over extended periods, international law provides a framework – however complex and politically sensitive – for addressing patterns of abuse that might otherwise remain unresolved.

Javier Ruiz from Argentina is an ICC-qualified counsel with extensive experience appearing before international courts and tribunals.

Cristian González from Colombia is a legal consultant focused on international criminal law and human rights litigation, with broad experience in proceedings before international courts and tribunals.

See also The Rome Statute: Safeguarding Religious Freedom?

See also Supreme Court Justice with Hostile Views

See also Was the Appointment of Hostile Judge Deliberate?

See also Believers’ Last Hope for Fair Trial Crushed

See also U.S. Pastors and Members Speak Out in Japan

See also When Media Narratives Become State Repression

See also Preserving Religious Activity After Dissolution

See also Japanese Court Order Fulfilling Terrorist’s Wish

See also Settlements Used as Evidence of Wrongdoing

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: The International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Tony Webster / Wikimedia Commons. License: CC Attr 2.0 Gen

[Editor’s note 1: Coercive faith-breaking (“deprogramming”) in Japan refers to the practice of coercively attempting to separate individuals from their religious affiliations or beliefs, typically through intervention by family members, professional faith-breakers (deprogrammers) or organizations hostile to new religious movements (NRMs). This phenomenon often targets members of such movements, e.g. relatively large faiths like the Family Federation or Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also smaller groups like Happy Science (Kōfuku no Kagaku) and other newer religious movements.

However, also Soka Gakkai, a Buddhist-based lay organization with more than 8 million Japanese members, and affiliated with Nichiren Buddhism, has occasionally been subject to faith-breaking attempts.

The practice gained attention in the latter half of the 20th century, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Parents or concerned family members often hired faith-breakers who taught them how to abduct and forcibly detain believers. Almost all such cases involved confining the individual believer and cutting him or her off from the religious community. During the confinement, the believer was subjected to intense questioning or indoctrination designed to break his or her faith. The aim was to “rescue” the person from what the family often had been tricked by faith-breakers or lawyers to regard as harmful influence from the religious organization.

Critics of forced de-conversion argue that it violates fundamental human rights, including freedom of thought, religion, and association. Reports of psychological trauma and accusations of unlawful detention have sparked debates over its ethical and legal implications. In response, some religious groups, particularly NRMs, have lobbied for greater protections against such practices.

Japanese courts have been inconsistent in addressing cases of coercive faith-breaking. While some verdicts have condemned the practice as illegal detention, others have been more lenient, citing family concerns about “mental health” or alleged “exploitation” as mitigating factors.]

Related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

Still more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

And still more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

Even more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression

Still more, related to Japan’s treatment of FFWPU: Dissolution Case: Rule of Law on Trial 4th March