Japanese Court Expands Scope of Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Victims

Former Prime Minister Abe Rejected Scope Expansion, Court Recognizes It

Plaintiffs in the so-called "Black Rain Lawsuit," concerning the scope of victims of the Hiroshima atomic bombing, are walking in front of the Hiroshima High Court on the afternoon of the 14th.
[Photo by Kyodo News Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Suhwan] The plaintiffs who have been fighting against the Japanese government over the scope of relief for victims affected by the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima during the final stages of the Pacific War won again in the second trial.

This second trial ruling is notable because it concerns a case where the cabinet of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which lost in the first trial, appealed despite domestic criticism, and the second trial court recognized that Abe's decision was wrong.

According to Kyodo News, on the 14th, the Hiroshima High Court accepted the plaintiffs' claims in the appeal trial regarding the cancellation of the refusal to issue health handbooks for atomic bomb victims, filed by 84 people who were exposed outside the government-designated relief target area at the time of the U.S. atomic bombing in 1945, against Hiroshima Prefecture and Hiroshima City, and dismissed the state's appeal.

The second trial court maintained the first trial's judgment that the plaintiffs qualify as relief-targeted atomic bomb victims, stating that "it is sufficient to prove that health damage caused by radiation cannot be denied" regarding the victim recognition requirements under the Atomic Bomb Victims Relief Act.

Previously, the Japanese government, based on investigation data from the Hiroshima Meteorological Observatory immediately after the atomic bombing, designated an elliptical area measuring 19 km in length and 11 km in width northwest of the presumed center of the black rain fallout in Hiroshima City as a "special relief zone" in 1976.

People in the special relief zone were given free health checkup benefits, and if they had certain diseases, they were issued atomic bomb victim health handbooks to receive various relief benefits.

To this end, the Atomic Bomb Victims Relief Act was enforced starting in 1995.

However, Hiroshima residents located about 8 to 29 km from the bombing center outside the special relief zone actually suffered damage from the "black rain" but were excluded from benefits, raising issues that led Hiroshima Prefecture and Hiroshima City to conduct resident surveys.

Plaintiffs in the so-called "Black Rain Lawsuit," concerning the scope of victims of the Hiroshima atomic bombing, are seen clapping and celebrating after winning the second trial following the first trial on the 14th afternoon.
[Photo by Kyodo News Yonhap News]

Based on the survey results, Hiroshima Prefecture and others concluded that almost the entire Hiroshima City and surrounding areas, five times the size of the existing special relief zone, should be recognized as a special relief zone and recommended this to the central government, but it was not accepted.

Atomic bomb victims who did not receive health handbooks filed lawsuits on this issue from 2015 to 2018, and on July 29 last year, all 84 plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit won in the first trial.

The first trial court ruled that the damage should be recognized because black rain may have fallen outside the government-designated relief zone.

Hiroshima Prefecture and Hiroshima City, responsible for issuing atomic bomb victim health handbooks and defendants in the lawsuit, decided to abandon the appeal immediately after the first trial ruling and requested approval from the central government.

However, then-Prime Minister Abe, who was in power at the time, ordered an appeal, citing the lack of scientific and rational grounds to overturn the existing special relief zone policy, leading to the second trial, where the state ultimately lost.

After the Abe cabinet's appeal, public criticism surged within Japan.

Especially considering that all victims are elderly, some media argued that the state's appeal, which neglected victim relief, should be withdrawn.

During this lawsuit process, 14 plaintiffs died due to old age, and their bereaved families inherited the plaintiff status and continued participating in the lawsuit.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.