UN Expert: “Japan’s Illegal Dissolution Request”

At Geneva side event on religious cleansing, legal expert accuses Japan of violating 45 years of UN human rights obligations in Family Federation dissolution case

1st part of a message by Attorney Patricia Duval, a leading expert in legal matters at the intersection of religion, belief, and state regulation, delivered at a civil society side event 26^th September organized by the NGO the Universal Peace Federation (UPF) in conjunction with the 60th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC60) in Geneva. The side event had as theme “Japan and Human Rights – Religious Cleansing in Japan: Eradication of an Entire Faith Community”.

See 2nd part: Using Schools to Break Faith: Japan’s Policy

See also Religious Minorities: UN Experts Caution Japan

See also Breakthrough: High Court to Hear Active Members

See also Media-Driven Religious Cleansing in Japan Today

See also Outrage: Abe Killing Called “Socially Justified”

See Japan: 2nd-Gen Believers Being Abused in Schools

I would like to address two points here today which are of serious concern under United Nations standards.

1) The illegality of dissolution under international human rights law:

The dissolution of the Unification Church [See editor’s note 1 below] is based on Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Law which provides that a court may order dissolution if:

(i) in violation of laws and regulations, the religious corporation commits an act which is clearly found to harm public welfare substantially.

In the present case, the Ministry which oversees religious matters, filed a request for a dissolution order from the Tokyo District Court and maintained the following (quote):

“From around 1980 to 2023, Unification Church believers caused significant damage to many people by making them donate by restricting their free decision and preventing their normal judgment – [Comment by Duval: ‘This is the accusation of brainwashing.’] – which resulted in disrupting the peaceful life of many people including the family members.”

But, as Dr. Figel stated, Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Japan has committed to, does not allow for such a limitation to the right to manifest one’s religion or belief.

Disturbing the life of many people is NOT a motive of public order [See editor’s note 2 below] making state interference necessary to limit this right.

Displeasing some people is actually called freedom of belief.

I would like to underline here that for all the period of time which the Ministry is relying on in its claim, the government has given carte blanche to extremist lawyers and consensual religions to “deprogram” [See editor’s note 3 below] Unification Church [See editor’s note 1 below] members by force: kidnappings by trickery and illegal confinements by families, and imposed indoctrination against the church [See editor’s note 1 below] beliefs by protestant pastors.

So, my question is: who disturbed who exactly?

Those deprogrammers and their supporters broke families by the thousands. Around 4,300 members were coercively subjected to “deprogramming” [See editor’s note 3 below] over the four decades mentioned by the ministry, with the government’s blessing and voluntary inaction which resulted in thousands of families devastated and unable to repair.

Thousands of parents were abused and talked into submitting their adult children believers to deprogramming [See editor’s note 3 below].

The government should actually be the one held accountable for those family breakings.

In its claim of “disturbance”, the Ministry relied on 32 adverse civil court decisions in cases filed by former members some 20 to 40 years before, after their “deprogramming” [See editor’s note 3 below]. Those members were coerced by their deprogrammers and lawyers to file financial claims against the church to prove their real intention to abandon the faith and to be released from confinement.

In each of these civil cases, the courts found torts against the church [See editor’s note 1 below] based on the allegation that it violated so-called “social norms”.

But “social norms” is a vague and arbitrary concept that has no place in matters of religious beliefs and practices and violates, alike “public welfare”, the duty of neutrality of Japan in religious matters and its commitment to abide by the Covenant (ICCPR).

The UN Human Rights Committee, which has been created by the Covenant (ICCPR) to monitor its implementation by state parties, has consistently urged Japan to stop using the notion of public welfare to limit freedom of religion or belief.

Japan ratified the Covenant (ICCPR) in 1979 and therefore accepted the Committee’s (HRC) authority for this monitoring.

Since 1980 – so one year later – the Committee (HRC) has denounced the inclusion in Japanese law of the concept of public welfare to limit civil liberties and made the following recurrent demand:

“The Committee reiterates its concern that the concept of ‘public welfare’ is vague and open-ended […] and urges the State party to refrain from imposing any restriction on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion unless they fulfil the strict conditions set out in article 18.”

It can be concluded that the Japanese authorities have known for 45 years that they had to review their internal laws in order to conform to the Covenant (ICCPR) but have consistently refused to do so under fake pretense and therefore have consistently violated their international commitments.

They are actually about to eliminate an entire religion on this illegal basis.

Additionally, the concept of “social appropriateness” opens the door to discrimination and domination by consensual religions (like what happened with the Protestant deprogrammers).

It directly conflicts with all the standards set by the Human Rights Committee in its Comment n° 22 on article 18 (quote):

“The terms ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community.”

Therefore, in the absence of any statute law violation or crime, public opinion hostility can never be a justification for courts to limit the right to manifest one’s religion or beliefs on the basis of religious practices lacking “social appropriateness”.

Yet, this has been the basis for the 32 civil tort decisions on which the dissolution order was issued.

Continued in 2nd part: Using Schools to Break Faith: Japan’s Policy

See Japan: 2nd-Gen Believers Being Abused in Schools

See also Religious Minorities: UN Experts Caution Japan

See also Breakthrough: High Court to Hear Active Members

See also Media-Driven Religious Cleansing in Japan Today

See also Outrage: Abe Killing Called “Socially Justified”

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 16th June 2025. Edited screenshot from UPF video.

[Editor’s note 1: Although Patricia Duval uses the name “Unification Church” and also the word “church”, please be aware that the Unification Church in Japan in 2015 changed its name to Family Federation for World peace and Unification.]

[Editor’s note 2: “NOT a motive of public order” – Duval is here arguing that “disrupting the peaceful life of many people” (the Ministry’s claim) does not legally qualify as a public order justification under the ICCPR. People being upset, displeased, or harmed by someone else’s religious practices is not enough for the government to dissolve a religious group. “Public order” in international law means serious threats to societal stability or safety (e.g., riots, violence, terrorism, large-scale lawlessness) – not just that some individuals suffered emotionally, financially, or socially.

So, “disturbing people’s lives” is not a valid public order concern. “Public order” is a high threshold involving social peace and security. Duval is pointing out that Japan is framing the issue as harm to individuals, but international human rights law requires a much stronger reason (a real public order threat) to restrict religious freedom. By saying “NOT a motive of public order,” the writer is underlining that the ministry’s justification does not meet the legal standard for restricting or banning a religion under the ICCPR.]

[Editor’s note 3: 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 UN expert accuses Japan: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

Also related to UN expert accuses Japan: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to UN expert accuses Japan: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to UN expert accuses Japan: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to UN expert accuses Japan: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to UN expert accuses Japan: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to UN expert accuses Japan: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to UN expert accuses Japan: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to UN expert accuses Japan: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

Yet more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Kishida’s Self-Defeating Populist Decisions

And still more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

And even more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Tendentious Reporting by New York Times

Still more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Japan Criticized for Glaring Rights Violations

Even more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to UN expert accuses Japan: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression