6/25/2020 Details of 2001 (Gyo-Tsu) 82 | Judgments of the Supreme Court Next, we examine the degree of mental distress suffered by the jokoku appellants. Comprehensively considering that, if restricting Japanese citizens residing abroad from exercising the right to vote is judged to be illegal in this case, it would considerably relieve the mental distress suffered by the jokoku appellants from being unable to vote in the Election, it may be appropriate to order the State to pay each jokoku appellant 5,000 yen as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Therefore, there is no need to remand this case to the court of the second instance for reexamination as to the amount of loss suffered by each jokoku appellant, and it is reasonable for the Supreme Court to order payment of compensation mentioned above. Consequently, the claim made by the jokoku appellants for state compensation shall be upheld to the extent to seek payment of 5,000 yen per person and delay damages thereon at 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Code for the period from October 21, 1996, until the completion of payment, and other claims shall be dismissed on the merits. V. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the second instance can be accepted as justifiable for having dismissed the principal claims for declaration on the ground of a deficiency of procedural requisites, but it contains an apparent violation of laws that has affected the judgment for having dismissed the alternative claim for declaration on the ground of a deficiency of procedural requisites and also dismissed the claim for state compensation on the merits. According to the reasoning mentioned above, without needing to hear further arguments, the jokoku appellants' alternative claim for declaration is well-grounded and therefore should be upheld, their claim for state compensation is well-grounded and therefore should be upheld to the extent to seek payment of 5,000 yen per person and delay damages thereon, and other claims should be dismissed on the merit. The jokoku appellants' argument is well-grounded to the extent mentioned above, and without needing to examine their argument alleging violation of the treaty, the judgment of the second instance should be changed as mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the main text. Therefore, the judgment was rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices, except that there is a dissenting opinion by Justice YOKOO Kazuko and Justice UEDA Toyozo, and there is also a dissenting opinion by Justice IZUMI Tokuji regarding IV of the majority opinion shown above. In addition, there is also a concurring opinion by Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi. The following is the concurring opinion of Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi. I am in agreement with the majority opinion, but considering that there is a dissenting opinion that is negative about state compensation for deprivation or restriction of the right to vote of Japanese citizens residing abroad (opinion by Justice Izumi) and there is also a dissenting opinion arguing that deprivation or restriction of the right to vote of Japanese citizens residing abroad basically depends on the Diet's discretion and the existing overseas voting system has yet to raise an issue of unconstitutionality (Justice Yokoo and Justice Ueda), I would like to give my opinion as a concurring opinion. 1. Deprivation or restriction of the right to vote and state compensation The opinion presented by Justice Izumi that in the case of deprivation or restriction of the right to vote of Japanese citizens residing abroad, it is inappropriate to grant state compensation even if such deprivation or restriction is obviously unconstitutional, is understandable in a way and it largely arouses my sympathy. In particular, based on my personal view that, in a democratic nation under the representative democratic system, citizens' right to vote is the core of popular sovereignty and therefore we must avoid such a situation that would bring about a false recognition that the Diet or Diet members would be allowed to deprive citizens of the right to vote or continuously restrict them from exercising it if the State paid some compensation for such deprivation or restriction, I agree with the opinion that monetary compensation is basically not suitable for https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1264 15/21