November 11, 2008
The Nagasaki District Court on November 10 ruled that it is illegal for the government to refuse to issue a Hibakusha certificate to a bedridden A-bomb survivor living in South Korea.
The court ordered the national and Nagasaki prefectural governments to issue to Chong Nam Su a Hibakusha certificate and pay her her health benefits.
Both the national and prefectural governments refused to accept the application of the 88-year-old woman Hibakusha living in Pusan in South Korea on the grounds that she did not come to Japan to apply for the certificate and benefits.
The presiding judge concluded that all Hibakusha living outside of Japan are entitled to receive a Hibakusha certificate if they meet requirements that prove them to be Hibakusha even if they cannot travel to Japan to submit their application due to reason of health.
Hibakusha living in other countries had to come to Japan to apply for the certificate and health benefits until the revision in June of the Hibakusha Aid Law, which abolished this requirement. After that, the Hiroshima District and High courts in succession ruled that this requirement is illegal.
The court ordered the national and Nagasaki prefectural governments to issue to Chong Nam Su a Hibakusha certificate and pay her her health benefits.
Both the national and prefectural governments refused to accept the application of the 88-year-old woman Hibakusha living in Pusan in South Korea on the grounds that she did not come to Japan to apply for the certificate and benefits.
The presiding judge concluded that all Hibakusha living outside of Japan are entitled to receive a Hibakusha certificate if they meet requirements that prove them to be Hibakusha even if they cannot travel to Japan to submit their application due to reason of health.
Hibakusha living in other countries had to come to Japan to apply for the certificate and health benefits until the revision in June of the Hibakusha Aid Law, which abolished this requirement. After that, the Hiroshima District and High courts in succession ruled that this requirement is illegal.
