6/25/2020 Details of 2001 (Gyo-Tsu) 82 | Judgments of the Supreme Court way to restore the right than to file a suit to make such claim with the aim of indirectly correcting unconstitutional legislation. Also, where legislation causes specific losses to a certain range of citizens due to the nature of the right and the type of violation of the right, a suit to seek state compensation may be more appropriate as a way to restore the right. However, it is indisputable that the right to vote is a personal right that is necessary to exercise the right to take part in national administration as a fundamental human right, but it is different from a purely personal right because it can also be regarded as an official duty to collectively take part in the official process of choosing Diet members or State organs. Furthermore, the mental distress that the jokoku appellants allege to have suffered from being unable to vote in the Election due to legislative defects seems to be shared among hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens residing abroad and therefore it is not so personal. For this reason, it must be said that the jokoku appellants' mental distress is difficult to evaluate in monetary terms and monetary compensation is not suitable for it. The United Kingdom and the United States have a system whereby nominal damages may be afforded even when no actual loss occurred due to violation of a constitutional right. However, the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation of Japan does not adopt such a system of nominal damages, so it is necessary to determine the amount of actual loss suffered by the jokoku appellants, which is a difficult task. If monetary compensation should be paid to relieve the jokoku appellants' mental distress, it would follow that pecuniary compensation should also be paid to voters who suffer discriminatory treatment, in electoral districts where underrepresentation occurs in terms of the value of each voter's vote due to imbalance in apportionment of seats. However, in light of the facts that it is difficult to evaluate their mental distress in monetary terms and there are a number of voters entitled to receive compensation, most of whom pay taxes, the source of the compensation, it must be said that monetary compensation is, by its nature, not suitable for such mental distress and it is not contemplated by the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation as an object to be compensated. Relief by monetary compensation will not be accepted or supported by all Japanese citizens. With respect to the issue of inequality in the value of each voter's vote, the Supreme Court has conventionally accepted, as a way of relief, suits disputing the validity of elections in accordance with Article 204 of the Pubic Offices Election Law, and in this jokoku appeal, the court also addresses, as the alternative claim for declaration, the jokoku appellants' claim for guarantee of the exercise of the right to vote of Japanese citizens residing abroad. With such a way of judicial relief available, there is no need to further afford monetary compensation. As mentioned above, courts should actively work toward correcting discriminatory treatment in terms of the exercise of the right to vote due to legislative defects, but if they use monetary compensation as a means of correction, it would impose excessive burden on taxpayers because of too wide a range of persons being entitled to compensation, which might affect freedom in court judgment. I recommend that courts should work unflinchingly toward correcting inequalities in the exercise of the right to vote without such financial concerns. Presiding Judge Justice MACHIDA Akira Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi Justice HAMADA Kunio Justice YOKOO Kazuko Justice UEDA Toyozo Justice TAKII Shigeo Justice FUJITA Tokiyasu Justice KAINAKA Tatsuo Justice IZUMI Tokuji Justice SHIMADA Niro Justice SAIGUCHI Chiharu https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1264 20/21