先日の話になるが、国連の拷問禁止条約委員会（The Committee against Torture）で、日本における条約とかの遵守状況について質問が行われた。
その際、上田 秀明（Hideaki UEDA）人権人道担当大使が「日本は中世世界にいるわけじゃない（Japan was not in the Middle Ages）」云々という発言をしていた模様。
・日本審査（2013年5月23日 桜井 昌司『獄外記』）
色んな意味でコメントに困るこの話。
とりあえず、2013年5月23日分 桜井 昌司『獄外記』の『日本審査』から問題の発言部分を紹介した部分を（略
ただし、[] 内は俺が追加した補足。
---- 以下引用 ----
（中略）
日本審査は3時[引用者注：おそらくスイスの標準時間。言うまでもなく午後3時]から。
法務省、警察庁、外務省の順に回答していったが、言われたことを理解していないと言うか、全く世界の常識を理解しない回答ばかりで呆れてしまった。
日本の回答を録音して来たので、帰国後に、その馬鹿さ加減を披露するつもりだが、日本政府の馬鹿さ加減を示すエピソードが上田大使の発言だった。
拷問禁止条約委員会の委員が、日本の回答に対して再質問し、「日本の取り調べの在り方は中世的だ」と、かなり鋭く指摘した。
我々は、よし！と喜んだが、上田大使は面白くなかったらしい。
最後の発言で、「日本は世界の先進的な近代国家だ！」と、大声で反論した。
もちろん、我々は大使の激怒と反論の馬鹿馬鹿しさに笑ったところ、「シャラップ！」と２度も叫んだのだ。
公式会場で、こともあろうに大使たる者が、感情を露にしてシャラップと叫ぶとは、中世的なのは司法だけではなくて国家そのものだと、上田大使は暴露してしまったねぇ。
最後の最後に上田大使がシャラップと叫んだのを聞いて、今回の傍聴に参加した意味があった。
（以下略）
---- 引用以上 ----
他の国の大使も、表沙汰になってないだけでその手の罵声を傍聴席にいる人達に浴びせてる気がしないでもないが・・・。
国連側が公開していた記録によると、上田大使の発言は違う意味でぶっ飛んでいた。
・Committee against Torture examines report of Japan（2013年5月22日 ohchr.org；一応非公式、らしい）
参考までに、2013年5月22日分 ohchr.org『Committee～』から問題の発言部分を（略
---- 以下引用 ----
（中略）
HIDEAKI UEDA, Ambassador in charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, expressed his thanks to the Committee and said that Japan was not in the Middle Ages but one of the most advanced countries in this field.
There were shortcomings which Japan was trying to sincerely address.
The promotion and protection of human rights was a long process for each country and the discussion with the Committee today, in which Japan tried to answer questions in good faith, would enhance Japan’s cooperation with the international community.
（以下略）
---- 引用以上 ----
中世じゃない、か。
どんだけ質問での指摘にイラついてたんだ、って話だよ（謎）。
というか、委員会の後半で行われてたと思われるフォローアップとコメントへの日本側のコメントがこれまた酷いものでさ・・・。
以下、2013年5月22日分 ohchr.org『Committee～』からその部分を（略
---- 以下引用 ----
（中略）
Follow up Questions and Comments by the Committee Experts
FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, noted that detention could last for 72 hours and that interrogation could stretch over 20 days; access to a lawyer was not consistent during this period of 23 days and the delegation was asked to explain the system and to inform the Committee why audio-visual recordings of interrogations were implemented on a case-by-case basis.
Once the person was in prison, either in pre-trial detention or serving a sentence, could they submit claims of ill-treatment?
The appeals against decisions by the Ministry of Justice denying asylum were virtually never successful, while the extension of detention of migrants due to be expelled could be deemed cruel treatment; could the delegation comment on the situation of refugees and asylum seekers?
The situation of people on death row was an issue of concern to the Committee and Japan needed to address the stay of executions and the notification of executions.
GEORGE TUGUSHI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, took up the issue of the use of restraints and asked for the clarification of the system in place and how the state of insanity of a death row inmate was determined, given that their execution was prohibited by law.
What measures were in place to ensure the oversight of mental health institutions and to ensure that people were not confined without their will?
Were any steps being taken to address the issue of extended detention for persons scheduled for deportation?
There was no particular legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; what was being done to prevent violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons?
Other Experts noted that from the psychological point of view, it was important to be prepared and notified about an impending execution and in that sense not notifying families about pending executions caused additional stress. Were there plans to introduce a total prohibition of corporal punishment of children as a first step to curbing domestic violence?
In 2008, three persons had been executed, including a person suffering from schizophrenia; was there a possibility in the regulations to stop the execution of mentally ill individuals or even pardon them?
Access to legal representation was not given during investigations in Japan as it was thought it would interfere with the investigative process of arriving to the truth; this was not a persuasive argument especially as all offences such as torture and ill-treatment were usually done during this period.
Responses by the Delegation
Deportation needed to take place immediately upon the issuing of a deportation order; if deportation was not possible, the person was kept in detention and provisional release was applied for on humanitarian grounds.
The matters to be considered for provisional release were published on the website of the migration agency[引用者注：入国管理局（Immigration Bureau of Japan）].
The hours necessary for interrogation depended on a case-by-case basis and if it went on for a long period of time, there were breaks; the internal rules strictly prohibited coercion and intimidation during interrogations.
The authority to prosecute or not was up to the prosecutor and judges could not refuse the case; any wrongdoings during the investigations could be used as a ground for appeal.
If the presence of a defense counsel was allowed during an interrogation, all the materials and evidence would be seen by the defense and the counsel could ask questions that could interrupt the interrogation; there was one point in the process where the counsel could interfere and review the material.
Establishment of a national human rights institution was currently under discussion.
（以下略）
---- 引用以上 ----
回答してない部分が多い上に、回答もどこかズレてるのは仕様なんだろうか？（違）
つか、性差別の問題に関しては、人権救済機関（？）の設立とも絡めて考えてるのかもしれんが・・・。
これじゃ、「中世的なのは司法だけではなくて国家そのもの」云々という桜井氏のコメントに反論できない気がする。
一体今は何時代だ？
それにしても。
「日本は世界の（人権状況に関して）先進的な近代国家」云々という発言って、色んな意味でどこかの市長様の発言と同じにほひがするのは俺だけ？
2013年6月10日追記：
上田大使による『Shut up, shut up!』という発言部分の動画が公開されてた模様。
国連拷問禁止委員会における上田人権人道大使の発言「シャラップ！」 / Japan's Human rights Ambassador Ueda yells "Shut Up!"
参考までに、上田大使が『Shut up, shut up!』と連呼した部分を文字起こしで・・・。
---- 以下文字起こし ----
I can be [said] that Japan was not in the Middle Ages but one of the most advanced countries in this field.
[会場から笑いが漏れる]
Don't laugh!
Why do you laugh it?
Shut up!
[それでも会場の笑いが止まらない]
Shut up!!
We are advanced countries in this field...
（以下略）
---- 文字起こし以上 ----
き が く る っ と る （呆）
その際、上田 秀明（Hideaki UEDA）人権人道担当大使が「日本は中世世界にいるわけじゃない（Japan was not in the Middle Ages）」云々という発言をしていた模様。
・日本審査（2013年5月23日 桜井 昌司『獄外記』）
色んな意味でコメントに困るこの話。
とりあえず、2013年5月23日分 桜井 昌司『獄外記』の『日本審査』から問題の発言部分を紹介した部分を（略
ただし、[] 内は俺が追加した補足。
---- 以下引用 ----
（中略）
日本審査は3時[引用者注：おそらくスイスの標準時間。言うまでもなく午後3時]から。
法務省、警察庁、外務省の順に回答していったが、言われたことを理解していないと言うか、全く世界の常識を理解しない回答ばかりで呆れてしまった。
日本の回答を録音して来たので、帰国後に、その馬鹿さ加減を披露するつもりだが、日本政府の馬鹿さ加減を示すエピソードが上田大使の発言だった。
拷問禁止条約委員会の委員が、日本の回答に対して再質問し、「日本の取り調べの在り方は中世的だ」と、かなり鋭く指摘した。
我々は、よし！と喜んだが、上田大使は面白くなかったらしい。
最後の発言で、「日本は世界の先進的な近代国家だ！」と、大声で反論した。
もちろん、我々は大使の激怒と反論の馬鹿馬鹿しさに笑ったところ、「シャラップ！」と２度も叫んだのだ。
公式会場で、こともあろうに大使たる者が、感情を露にしてシャラップと叫ぶとは、中世的なのは司法だけではなくて国家そのものだと、上田大使は暴露してしまったねぇ。
最後の最後に上田大使がシャラップと叫んだのを聞いて、今回の傍聴に参加した意味があった。
（以下略）
---- 引用以上 ----
他の国の大使も、表沙汰になってないだけでその手の罵声を傍聴席にいる人達に浴びせてる気がしないでもないが・・・。
国連側が公開していた記録によると、上田大使の発言は違う意味でぶっ飛んでいた。
・Committee against Torture examines report of Japan（2013年5月22日 ohchr.org；一応非公式、らしい）
参考までに、2013年5月22日分 ohchr.org『Committee～』から問題の発言部分を（略
---- 以下引用 ----
（中略）
HIDEAKI UEDA, Ambassador in charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, expressed his thanks to the Committee and said that Japan was not in the Middle Ages but one of the most advanced countries in this field.
There were shortcomings which Japan was trying to sincerely address.
The promotion and protection of human rights was a long process for each country and the discussion with the Committee today, in which Japan tried to answer questions in good faith, would enhance Japan’s cooperation with the international community.
（以下略）
---- 引用以上 ----
中世じゃない、か。
どんだけ質問での指摘にイラついてたんだ、って話だよ（謎）。
というか、委員会の後半で行われてたと思われるフォローアップとコメントへの日本側のコメントがこれまた酷いものでさ・・・。
以下、2013年5月22日分 ohchr.org『Committee～』からその部分を（略
---- 以下引用 ----
（中略）
Follow up Questions and Comments by the Committee Experts
FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, noted that detention could last for 72 hours and that interrogation could stretch over 20 days; access to a lawyer was not consistent during this period of 23 days and the delegation was asked to explain the system and to inform the Committee why audio-visual recordings of interrogations were implemented on a case-by-case basis.
Once the person was in prison, either in pre-trial detention or serving a sentence, could they submit claims of ill-treatment?
The appeals against decisions by the Ministry of Justice denying asylum were virtually never successful, while the extension of detention of migrants due to be expelled could be deemed cruel treatment; could the delegation comment on the situation of refugees and asylum seekers?
The situation of people on death row was an issue of concern to the Committee and Japan needed to address the stay of executions and the notification of executions.
GEORGE TUGUSHI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, took up the issue of the use of restraints and asked for the clarification of the system in place and how the state of insanity of a death row inmate was determined, given that their execution was prohibited by law.
What measures were in place to ensure the oversight of mental health institutions and to ensure that people were not confined without their will?
Were any steps being taken to address the issue of extended detention for persons scheduled for deportation?
There was no particular legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; what was being done to prevent violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons?
Other Experts noted that from the psychological point of view, it was important to be prepared and notified about an impending execution and in that sense not notifying families about pending executions caused additional stress. Were there plans to introduce a total prohibition of corporal punishment of children as a first step to curbing domestic violence?
In 2008, three persons had been executed, including a person suffering from schizophrenia; was there a possibility in the regulations to stop the execution of mentally ill individuals or even pardon them?
Access to legal representation was not given during investigations in Japan as it was thought it would interfere with the investigative process of arriving to the truth; this was not a persuasive argument especially as all offences such as torture and ill-treatment were usually done during this period.
Responses by the Delegation
Deportation needed to take place immediately upon the issuing of a deportation order; if deportation was not possible, the person was kept in detention and provisional release was applied for on humanitarian grounds.
The matters to be considered for provisional release were published on the website of the migration agency[引用者注：入国管理局（Immigration Bureau of Japan）].
The hours necessary for interrogation depended on a case-by-case basis and if it went on for a long period of time, there were breaks; the internal rules strictly prohibited coercion and intimidation during interrogations.
The authority to prosecute or not was up to the prosecutor and judges could not refuse the case; any wrongdoings during the investigations could be used as a ground for appeal.
If the presence of a defense counsel was allowed during an interrogation, all the materials and evidence would be seen by the defense and the counsel could ask questions that could interrupt the interrogation; there was one point in the process where the counsel could interfere and review the material.
Establishment of a national human rights institution was currently under discussion.
（以下略）
---- 引用以上 ----
回答してない部分が多い上に、回答もどこかズレてるのは仕様なんだろうか？（違）
つか、性差別の問題に関しては、人権救済機関（？）の設立とも絡めて考えてるのかもしれんが・・・。
これじゃ、「中世的なのは司法だけではなくて国家そのもの」云々という桜井氏のコメントに反論できない気がする。
一体今は何時代だ？
それにしても。
「日本は世界の（人権状況に関して）先進的な近代国家」云々という発言って、色んな意味でどこかの市長様の発言と同じにほひがするのは俺だけ？
2013年6月10日追記：
上田大使による『Shut up, shut up!』という発言部分の動画が公開されてた模様。
国連拷問禁止委員会における上田人権人道大使の発言「シャラップ！」 / Japan's Human rights Ambassador Ueda yells "Shut Up!"
参考までに、上田大使が『Shut up, shut up!』と連呼した部分を文字起こしで・・・。
---- 以下文字起こし ----
I can be [said] that Japan was not in the Middle Ages but one of the most advanced countries in this field.
[会場から笑いが漏れる]
Don't laugh!
Why do you laugh it?
Shut up!
[それでも会場の笑いが止まらない]
Shut up!!
We are advanced countries in this field...
（以下略）
---- 文字起こし以上 ----
き が く る っ と る （呆）
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm4DUM7_Coo