Religious Freedom in Jeopardy After Dissolution

Human rights expert points to dangerous precedent for faith and freedom in Japan as dissolution order puts Japan’s basic human rights in jeopardy

The legal controversy surrounding Japan’s dissolution order against the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification raises profound concerns about the protection of fundamental human rights, particularly the freedom of religion.

See more by Patricia Duval: Law Expert: Too Weak Legal Basis for Dissolution

See also Hostile Interpretation of Belief in Tokyo Court

See also Japanese Court Order Fulfilling Terrorist’s Wish

See also The Return of Labeling Faith as Manipulation

See also Civil Lawsuits as Weapons Against Religion

In an analysis published in Bitter Winter on 21^st April, international human rights lawyer Patricia Duval frames the Tokyo High Court’s 4^th March 2026 decision not as a routine administrative measure, but as a potentially serious breach of both domestic constitutional guarantees and binding international legal obligations. At the core of the issue lies a tension between state authority and individual liberties: whether the dissolution of a religious organization can occur without infringing on the essential rights of its adherents.

Japan’s Constitution explicitly mandates adherence to international law through Article 98, paragraph 2, which requires the faithful observance of treaties ratified by the state. Among these is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a cornerstone document that protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article 18. This provision extends beyond private belief to include the public and communal expression of religion – through worship, teaching, and the establishment of institutions necessary for religious life. Duval argues that any state action interfering with these dimensions must meet strict criteria: it must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate to legitimate aims such as public safety or the protection of others’ rights.

The Tokyo High Court’s ruling, however, appears to downplay these obligations. By devoting minimal attention to international law considerations, the decision suggests a narrow interpretation of the legal consequences of dissolving a religious entity. The court maintains that stripping an organization of its legal personality affects only its “secular” functions – such as property ownership or financial management – while leaving believers’ religious practices untouched. This distinction forms the backbone of the court’s justification: if religious acts themselves are not directly prohibited, then no violation of religious freedom has occurred.

Yet this reasoning is deeply contested. Duval highlights a critical inconsistency in the court’s own acknowledgment that dissolution inevitably leads to the liquidation of assets, including places of worship. Such outcomes, the court admits, may create obstacles for believers attempting to continue their religious activities. This concession undermines the claim that the measure is purely administrative. If the practical effect of dissolution is to disrupt communal worship, limit access to religious spaces, and dismantle organizational structures, then it constitutes a tangible interference with the exercise of religion.

From a human rights perspective, this distinction between “legal personality” and “religious practice” is artificial. Religious freedom, as protected under international law, is not confined to internal belief or isolated acts of worship. It encompasses the collective dimension of religion – the ability of individuals to organize, gather, and sustain their faith communities over time. Removing the legal framework that enables these activities effectively erodes the substance of the right itself.

This interpretation is reinforced by international jurisprudence. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which oversees the implementation of the ICCPR, has consistently held that dissolving a religious organization can violate Article 18. In the 2023 case of Vladimir Yurlov and others v. Russia, the Committee found that the dissolution of a local religious association deprived its members of essential rights. Although the state argued that individuals remain free to practice their beliefs informally, the Committee emphasized that the loss of legal status stripped them of critical capacities: owning or renting property, maintaining bank accounts, securing legal protection, and conducting public religious activities. These are not peripheral privileges but integral components of religious life in modern societies.

The same principle is echoed in European human rights law. The European Court of Human Rights has characterized the dissolution of a religious organization as one of the most severe forms of interference with religious freedom. Such a measure, it has stated, requires exceptionally strong justification to be considered necessary in a democratic society. The rationale is clear: dismantling an established religious structure does not merely regulate it – it effectively disables the community’s ability to function.

Applying these standards to the Japanese context raises serious doubts about the proportionality and necessity of the High Court’s decision. Even if the state pursues legitimate objectives, such as addressing alleged misconduct, the means chosen must be the least restrictive available. Dissolution, by its nature, is an extreme remedy. It eliminates the institutional foundation upon which believers rely to practice their faith collectively. As such, it risks overstepping the permissible limits of state intervention.

Moreover, the implications extend beyond freedom of religion alone. Duval underscores that other rights protected under the ICCPR are also at stake, including freedom of expression and freedom of association. Religious organizations often serve as platforms for collective expression and social engagement. Their dissolution can therefore silence voices, fragment communities, and restrict individuals’ ability to associate around shared beliefs. These overlapping areas reinforce the argument that the High Court’s ruling cannot be viewed in isolation; it affects a broader ecosystem of civil liberties.

The upcoming review by Japan’s Supreme Court is thus of critical importance. It presents an opportunity to reassess the balance between state authority and individual rights, and to ensure that domestic law aligns with international commitments. A failure to do so would not only impact the members of the Family Federation but could set a precedent with far-reaching consequences for religious freedom in Japan.

In essence, the dissolution order is not merely about one organization but about the integrity of human rights protections in a democratic society. If the dissolution of a religious entity can proceed under the assumption that it leaves believers’ rights intact, despite clear evidence of practical rights violations, then the safeguards enshrined in both national and international law risk becoming hollow. Duval’s analysis calls for a more rigorous and principled approach – one that recognizes that the deprivation of institutional support is, in effect, a deprivation of the freedom it is meant to sustain.

See more by Patricia Duval: Law Expert: Too Weak Legal Basis for Dissolution

See also Hostile Interpretation of Belief in Tokyo Court

See also Japanese Court Order Fulfilling Terrorist’s Wish

See also The Return of Labeling Faith as Manipulation

See also Civil Lawsuits as Weapons Against Religion

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Attorney Patricia Duval, member of the Paris Bar Association, specializing in international human rights law. Earned a degree in public law from Sorbonne University. Has defended the rights of religious and faith minorities both in France and internationally, including at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Council of Europe (CE), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the European Union (EU), and the United Nations. Author of numerous academic papers on religion and freedom of belief. Here, speaking at the UN Office in Geneva 16^th June 2025. Edited screenshot from UPF video.

Related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

Still more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to religious freedom in jeopardy: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to religious freedom in jeopardy: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to religious freedom in jeopardy: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

And still more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

Even more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression

Still more, related to religious freedom in jeopardy: Dissolution Case: Rule of Law on Trial 4th March