＃11 Against the constitutional principle

As described earlier, the procedure was different when we met our father at the Court, and there were other different things.

Specifically, this "instruction on the procedure" was given without notifying the defense attorneys.  The Japanese Constitution has a principle to hold a trial in a public courtroom (Article 82 or the Constitution).  As the defense attorneys were disputing our father's litigation capacity, conviction for litigation capacity must be established in a public courtroom.

The Court probably thought what they were doing was not a normal action.  They secretly met our father, and concluded that he was normal and had vision.

If the defense attorneys were present, a false claim cannot be made against the facts.  If the Court claims that our father was able to "understand" because of the "noise" he uttered, the defense attorneys would have corrected it, explaining that he was only making an "irrelevant noise that sounded like nodding" by clarifying the anteroposterior relationship between the noise that sounded like nodding and the story in the situation.

Therefore, we imagine that the Court had to meet our father in a secret place while he did not even know where he was.

They crossed the line as a supposedly fair court.

"Diagnosis" of our father passed by the Court led to a reckless attempt; that is, the Court later uprooted fairness of "expert opinion".