The Court found that the government's refusal to provide health-care benefits to hibakusha living abroad was illegal.
[2] It was the first time the Court declared a government order illegal and upheld a ruling mandating the payment of damages.
[2] The Court's decision hinged on an examination of laws relating to treatment of hibakusha, governmental agency directives that interpreted those laws, and an earlier decision of the Court related to hibakusha who were not Japanese citizens:[1] "The purpose of this Act is, in light of the particular health conditions that survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima City and Nagasaki City are still experiencing, to have the State provide health checkups and medical care for such atomic bomb survivors, with the aim of maintaining and promoting their health" (Article 1).
"The purpose of this Act is to pay special allowance and take other measures for survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima City and Nagasaki City who were influenced by the injuring power of the atomic bombs and are still experiencing particular conditions, with the aim of promoting their welfare" (Article 1).
402 was prepared and issued, and even by examining the whole evidence of this case, we still cannot find that the appellant fully investigated or considered this issue....We should find the appellant, by doing so, to have breached its basic official duty of construing statutes faithfully, or at least neglected such duty.
(2) The plaintiffs, while being subject to unfair discrimination against atomic bomb survivors, harbored various feelings such as worries about their health and living, which were growing due to unavailability of proper medical treatment, and anger and resentment for being forced into such circumstances and left without receiving any relief because they were residing in South Korea.
At that time, triggered by the judgment of A's Suit,[5] a sign of hope appeared for the plaintiffs to receive relief under the Two Acts for Atomic Bomb Survivors, but just then, Directive No.
"In general, an act cannot be deemed to be illegal under tort law unless it infringes any legally protected interest, and even if an act committed by the State or its official in charge has hurt a person's feelings...such person cannot immediately claim damages by alleging that his/her interest has been infringed thereby."