TRANSCRIPT of MEETING of Wednesday, March 16, 2005 Questions and answers on the case of former world chess champion, Bobby Fischer Representation to: Masaharu Miura, Bureau Chief, Ministry of Justice Immigration Bureau, Ministry of Justice, 9th Floor Tokyo, Japan Representation by: Mizuho Fukushima, House of Councilors Member Leader of the Social Democratic Party Mizuho Fukushima: With regard to the deportation of Bobby Fischer back to America, this time another country, Iceland, has come forward and offered to take him in. He has his ticket; therefore surely he must be allowed to leave Japan. The fact that he isn’t being allowed to is incomprehensible, and I believe this is sort of thing is unprecedented. I’ve come today to implore you to allow him to leave Japan. Masaharu Miura: Permitting deportation to a third country is a most exceptional step. Article 53, Subsection 2 of the Immigration Bureau code clearly states the exceptional nature of such a thing, declaring that “in cases where it is not possible to deport persons to the previously stated country…”. In this case, Bobby Fischer has American nationality, and there is no obstacle to his being taken in by the US. In other words, he can only be deported to the US. In the case of a Mandate Refugee, only in cases where it is deemed inappropriate or unsuitable to return persons to their home country is deportation elsewhere permitted. Mizuho Fukushima: In that case [of Kazan Kiran, a Kurdish Turk], why did you return him to his home country? Masaharu Miura: In that case, the courts decided that is what would happen, so it couldn’t be helped. Only in cases where Article 53, Subsection 3 is nonviable do we look at Subsection 2. We are really talking about war-torn nations when we refer to countries to which it would be unsuitable for the deported person to return. That doesn’t apply here [in Bobby Fischer’s case]. Mizuho Fukushima: Have there been cases in the past where the deported person has expressed his desire to be sent to a country that is not his home country, but a country that has given its permission and to which the deported person has been allowed to go? Masaharu Miura: There was a similar question asked yesterday in parliament. I can’t answer right away, but there have been cases in which countries have given their permission and persons have been confirmed as Mandate Refugees. There have also been cases in which a country has accepted a refugee midway through his/her trial and they have bonded with [their] family. However, these cases have been due to exceptional circumstances, and in these cases civil law has been correctly applied. In Bobby Fischer’s case, however, we only have Fischer saying he doesn’t want to go back to America, despite the fact that America is peerless as a democratic country, so in this case the only thing to do is have Fischer return to the US. Mizuho Fukushima: So, it is the case that you can be flexible to a certain extent with your application of Article 53, and regarding where to send Fischer, if another country is offering to take him in. That being the case, why can’t he go? Masaharu Miura: For example, if the country in question is offering to take him in while recognizing Fischer as one of their own citizens, it falls within the scope of Article 53, Subsection 1, and of course we would allow him to go. However, in this case, what the Iceland government offering is ultimately only a “foreign-citizen use passport”, it does not come under the scope of that article. Mizuho Fukushima: However, right now no progress is being made. Why are things just hanging suspended in mid-air? Masaharu Miura: Because the trial concerning the dismissal of Fischer’s deportation order is midway through. Mizuho Fukushima: Setting aside for the moment the question of whether he qualifies as a Mandate Refugee, I would have thought that the viewpoint of the Japanese government would be that they would “go with Subsection 1”. If that’s the case, how does that bear on that other case (in spite of the fact that Mandate Refugee status was confirmed, without finding another country to which to deport him, Kazan Kiran was deported to his country of birth)?

Masaharu Miura: In that case, we had to decide whether to follow Japanese law or the United Nations, and in such cases Japan can only follow Japanese criminal law. Mizuho Fukushima: That’s not what I mean. I didn’t come here this time to talk about that case. Rather, I’m talking about the application of Subsections 1 and 2. The Ministry of Justice objection/statement was that at that time the UNHCR had not found any other destination country, even though it was expected that they would. Even though that was the anticipated objection, why, in this case, can’t we use Subsection 2 with regards to Mr. Fischer? Masaharu Miura: In Kazan Kiran’s case, according to the judgment of the UN, there was a refugee mandate, and that was one important factor. Mizuho Fukushima: However, in this case too, the state of Iceland has said that it will take in Fischer. Surely that is also an important factor? Masaharu Miura: If we’re only talking about Fischer’s wishes, that’s a pretty weak basis. Mizuho Fukushima: Have there been any other cases in which even though another country made an offer and the deportee wanted to go, it was not permitted? Masaharu Miura: To my knowledge, there has not been any such case. In our judgment, this case does not qualify as that of a Mandate Refugee, which applies to cases in which there are some circumstances preventing the deportee from returning to their own country. In this case, he can return home, there is no obstacle to that, and yet he still will not go, and the processing of his deportation order goes on without end, which is unacceptable. Bearing that in mind as well, we’re in the middle of his trial now, and can expect to receive a verdict based on the law. There is also the exceptional provision provided into Subsection 3, which is considered the greatest limit. Mizuho Fukushima: Have you spoken with the Embassy of Iceland? Masaharu Miura: No, I have not. Mizuho Fukushima: Are you playing for time until a Grand Jury is convened in America on April 5? Masaharu Miura: No, that is not the case. Mizuho Fukushima: Fischer may not strictly speaking be a refugee under established refugee laws, but I imagine that bearing in mind what could happen if he returns to America, Iceland has made a commitment. I’d like you to look at and think about this from the perspective of the rest of the world. If a lawyer were to file a suspension order, would Fischer be allowed to go to Iceland? Masaharu Miura: The important principle here is that he returns to the country in which he holds nationality. I really can’t feel that his simply saying he doesn’t want to go back to America is sufficient. Ministry of Justice Secretary: [also present]: Not forgetting that America has issued a warrant for Fischer’s arrest… Regarding the question of tax evasion and prize money won in Yugoslavia… Mizuho Fukushima: I have heard that with regard to the matter of his passport expiring, Fischer did not receive any notification (Fischer’s passport was reissued in 1997 and was due to expire in 2007 when it was unilaterally cut short by the US government. Fischer was not informed of this fact and only found out when he tried to leave Japan for the Philippines in July 2004 and was incarcerated at Narita Airport). Ministry of Justice Secretary: Wasn’t that just a simple case of crossed wires that came about during processing? Masaharu Miura: In the case of totally lawless states, refugee status might be considered, but in this case, we’re talking about America. Mizuho Fukushima: What about the political circumstances from the Cold War and so on? This suspicion of tax evasion only came out afterwards, which strikes me as strange. Without Japan saying confused things, I think it would be better for America and Iceland to sort this out among themselves. Masaharu Miura: I have no knowledge of what sort of exchange is taking place between those two countries.

Mizuho Fukushima: It’s just a question of Japan letting Fischer leave this country. Why can’t he go to a country other than America? Masaharu Miura: Because the Immigration Bureau hasn’t adopted that sort of system. Ministry of Justice Secretary: Setting aside other countries, it is America we’re talking about. Even if we somewhat expand the scope of Article 53 Subsection 1, we still need to be thorough in our interpretation of the text. Broadly speaking, regarding those who cannot be thought of as refugees, a flexible application of Subsection 2 is not easy. Mizuho Fukushima: If you consider this from a humanistic, human perspective, a flexible interpretation of Subsection 2 must be applied. Ministry of Justice Secretary: If we were talking about an application for citizenship or something like that, then the situation would be different again… Mizuho Fukushima: If he had citizenship in Iceland, would he be allowed to go? Ministry of Justice Secretary: Yes, he could go. Masaharu Miura: That’s the legal interpretation. Mizuho Fukushima: For Europeans looking at this case, Japan must appear to be an incomprehensible country. I now ask you to take the appropriate steps to properly conclude this matter. END OF MEETING REFERENCE COPY OF JAPANESE LAW ARTICLE: IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND REFUGEE RECOGNITION ACT (Destinations of Deportees) Article 53. Any person subject to deportation shall be deported to a country of which he is a national or citizen. If a person cannot be deported to such a country as provided for in the preceding paragraph, such a person shall be deported to one of the following countries according to his desire: (1) A country in which he had been residing immediately prior to his entry into Japan; (2) A country in which he has resided once before his entry into Japan; (3) A country to which the port, where he boarded a vessel, etc. departing for Japan, belongs; (4) A country where his place of birth is located; (5) A country to which his birthplace had belonged at the time of his birth; (6) Any country other than those mentioned in the preceding items. Except for cases where the Minister of Justice finds it considerably detrimental to the interests and security of Japan, the countries provided for in the preceding two paragraphs shall not include the territories of countries stipulated in the Refugee Convention, Article 33, Paragraph 1.