A lawsuit demanding compensation from the national government argued that it was unconstitutional for second-generation hibakusha, whose parents were survivors of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima, not to be covered by the law stipulating the support of atomic bomb survivors. The court dismissed the lawsuit, judging that ``the government's response is not unconstitutional.''
Based on the Atomic Bomb Survivors Aid Act, the government supports A-bomb survivors by eliminating their own medical expenses, but this law applies to second-generation A-bomb survivors whose parents are A-bomb survivors. Not targeted.
Regarding this, 28 people, including second-generation survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, commented, "It is against the Constitution, which stipulates equality under the law, that we cannot receive the same support as A-bomb survivors even though we cannot deny the genetic effects on our health." ', and filed a lawsuit with the Hiroshima District Court seeking compensation for damages of 100,000 yen per person.
In response, the government argued that ``various scientific studies have not confirmed the genetic effects of parental exposure to radiation,'' and demanded that the appeal be dismissed.
In the ruling of this trial, Chief Judge Masato Morizane of the Hiroshima District Court ruled that the government's response to refusing to apply the Relief Law to second-generation A-bomb survivors "cannot be said to be unconstitutional," and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. I was.
A lawsuit was also filed in Nagasaki over how to support second-generation survivors of the atomic bombing.