Japanese Lawyer: "Denial of Individual Claims by Comfort Women Ignores International Treaties"

"Ignore the Wording of the San Francisco Peace Treaty"

A Japanese lawyer criticized a Japanese court ruling that prevents former comfort women victims from claiming damages against the state in a South Korean court.

The Seoul High Court Civil Division 33 (Presiding Judges Gu Hoe-geun, Hwang Seong-mi, Heo Ik-su) held an appellate hearing on the 11th for a damages lawsuit filed by 17 plaintiffs, including Grandmother Lee Yong-soo and the families of the late Grandmothers Kwak Ye-nam and Kim Bok-dong, against the Japanese government.

Attorney Yamamoto Seita is heading to the courtroom on the afternoon of the 11th at the Seoul High Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, to appear as a witness in the second trial of a damages lawsuit filed by comfort women victims and their families against the Japanese government.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

On that day, Seita Yamamoto (山本晴太), a lawyer who represented the former comfort women victims in the so-called 'Gwanbu trial,' appeared as a witness for the plaintiffs. Lawyer Yamamoto referred to the highest court ruling in Japan regarding the comfort women issue, stating, "If comfort women victims file lawsuits in Japanese courts to hold the state accountable, the chances of winning are almost none." He explained, "In 2007, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled that individuals who were forced laborers or comfort women victims cannot dispute their claims through lawsuits," adding, "I believe this ruling reflects the current position of the Japanese government."

Yamamoto explained that the Supreme Court at the time based its judgment on the so-called 'San Francisco Peace Treaty,' signed in September 1951 in San Francisco between Japan and the Allied Powers to end World War II. He pointed out, "The San Francisco Peace Treaty does not contain a single phrase that prohibits civil lawsuits," and criticized, "This is clearly an act of ignoring the treaty's wording." He continued, "Until around 2000, the Japanese government did not claim that individual claims had expired, but as local court rulings accepting victims' claims emerged one after another, the government began to change its stance," interpreting that "the 2007 Supreme Court ruling can be seen as recognizing this government logic."

Yamamoto also argued that sovereign immunity should be limited in cases of serious human rights violations such as the comfort women issue. Previously, the first trial court in this case dismissed the victims' claims by recognizing sovereign immunity, an international law principle that a sovereign state cannot be sued in another country's court.

Yamamoto stated, "The comfort women case involves severe human rights violations, and the victims filed lawsuits in domestic courts as a last resort," adding, "I believe this is a typical case where sovereign immunity should be limited to guarantee their access to justice."

Yamamoto represented 10 victims, including comfort women and female labor corps victims, in a 1992 lawsuit demanding apology and compensation from the Japanese government, securing a partial victory in the first trial. The trial, which involved victims traveling between Shimonoseki (下?) in Japan and Busan (釜山) in Korea, is known as the 'Gwanbu trial.'

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.