Overview
Between Germany and Japan there is neither a bilateral extradition treaty nor is Japan a party to the European Convention on Extradition. Extradition therefore takes place on a non-treaty basis under Sections 1 ff. IRG. On the Japanese side, the Act on Extradition (Tōbōhannin Hikiwatashi Hō, Act No. 68/1953) applies.
Japan is a firmly established rule-of-law state with a high quality of justice, but two structural particularities exist: the death penalty, which is still carried out, and the system of "Daiyo Kangoku" (police pre-charge detention with long interrogation periods), which is criticized internationally as a violation of Article 14 ICCPR.
The granting practice toward Japanese requests is not refused as a matter of principle, but it regularly requires assurances regarding the death penalty and detention-related treatment.
Legal basis
In the absence of any binding international agreement, only the provisions of the IRG apply on the German side, in particular Sections 1 ff., 8, 73 IRG. Extradition relations operate in the non-treaty sphere; the strictest protective provisions are applicable.
Under Section 3(1) IRG, extradition is only admissible where the offense is punishable under the law of both states by a custodial sentence of at least one year in the maximum. Section 8 IRG bars extradition where the death penalty is threatened and it is not ruled out that it will be imposed or carried out.
Japan is a state party to the ICCPR and to the UN Convention against Torture (CAT). The First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR has not been ratified; individual communications to the UN Human Rights Committee are therefore not available. The UN Convention against Torture allows individual communications (Article 22 CAT), but Japan has not accepted the relevant jurisdiction clause.
Country-specific issues in Japan
Death penalty (Section 8 IRG): Japan still carries out the death penalty; the most recent execution was carried out in 2022. Those affected are often informed only on the morning of the execution. The death penalty is imposed for murder and certain aggravated offenses. An assurance of non-imposition or non-execution must regularly be obtained and is as a rule granted.
Daiyo Kangoku: The system of police pre-charge detention permits detention in police custody for up to 23 days before charges are brought (Articles 203 ff. of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure). The UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee against Torture have repeatedly criticized this system, because interrogations take place over long periods without the continuous presence of a lawyer. The result is a confession culture with conviction rates of over 99 %.
Fair trial: Despite the Daiyo Kangoku problem, the Japanese judiciary is regarded as rule-of-law in its core. Structural political influence is not documented; the independence of the courts is guaranteed under the constitution.
Detention conditions: Japanese prisons are marked by strict discipline and high occupancy density, but are generally clean and orderly. CPT-equivalent visits do not take place (Japan is not a member of the Council of Europe); individual NGO reports occasionally document excessive disciplinary measures.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
By international comparison, Japanese prisons have good material standards (hygiene, food, structural facilities). What is critical, by contrast, are certain disciplinary regimes and solitary-confinement practices, which the UN Committee against Torture has repeatedly criticized.
The main point of criticism, however, remains the Daiyo Kangoku pre-charge detention with up to 23 days of police custody before charges are brought — a phase in which, according to UN criticism, interrogations take place without the continuous presence of a lawyer and confessions largely determine the course of the proceedings.
In German case law, the Daiyo Kangoku problem has so far not been assessed as a general bar to extradition; an individual review nonetheless remains necessary, in particular where concretely imminent interrogation phases are relevant.
Lines of defense
The defense in Japan extradition cases concentrates on two structural points of review and accompanying technical objections:
- Section 8 IRG (death penalty): in cases involving murder charges or other capital offenses, the mandatory obtaining of an assurance of non-imposition or non-execution. Japanese assurances are as a rule regarded as reliable.
- Daiyo Kangoku / Article 14 ICCPR: where pre-charge detention is concretely imminent, presentation of the UN criticism (HR Committee, CCPR/C/JPN/CO/6, 2014; CCPR/C/JPN/CO/7, 2022). In practice, however, not a regular ground for refusal.
- Article 16(2) of the Basic Law: excluded in the case of German citizenship. Dual nationals are treated equally.
- Dual criminality (Section 3 IRG): review where there are Japanese particularities of criminal law (conspiracy provisions, organizational criminal law).
- Statute of limitations (Section 9 IRG): review under the law of both states.
- Rule of specialty (Section 11 IRG): limitation to the offenses granted.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): for any remaining fundamental-rights objections, in particular concerning the death penalty.
Legal representation in Japanese extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol notice, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.