心の自由（第２０条）と表現の自由（第２１条）はどちらが欠けても成立しない

最近、統一教会の問題もあって、日本の憲法を調べてるんだけど、 第２０条では思想信条の自由 第２１条では結社や表現の自由 という二つがあって、非常に興味深いと思った。 つまり、２０条では思想信条という心の自由を保障してるんだけど、２１条ではその自分の思想信条を他人に対して表現する自由を保障している。憲法は単に心の内面の自由だけでなく、他人に働きかける、政治活動や布教の自由も保障されている、ということ。 それで考えたんだけど、思想信条の心の自由といっても、そもそも選択肢があってこそ初めて心の自由があるわけで、そういう選択肢が存在するためには、だれかが思想信条を社会の中で表現している、つまり誰かが誰かに思想信条を語りかけている状況が存在していて、自分もそれを聞くことのできる環境にあることが、自分の心の自由の前提になっている、と思ったんだ。 欲しくもない商品の宣伝も、興味のない宗教の勧誘も、自分の意見に反対する側の政治宣伝も、耳障りで聞きたくないものだけど、まさにそれを許している社会であることが、選択肢があることを証明しているわけで、そのことが個人それぞれの心の自由を保障している。 要するに、心の自由（第２０条）と表現の自由（第２１条）はどちらが欠けても成立しない、という結論にぼくは至った。

自分たちでは大きくできないパイの取り分を大きくするための「口減らし」

パナソニックの松下幸之助、ソニーの森田昭夫、ホンダの本田宗一郎、トヨタの豊田喜一郎、等々数多くの起業家の努力のおかげで日本は世界のトップを争う経済大国になり、その結実の上でいま老人たちは生活しているわけだが、どうやら現代の日本の若い者にはそういう起業力ややる気がまったく欠落していて、かれらの頭からでてくる唯一のアイデアは、パイを大きくすることではなく、自分たちでは大きくできないパイの取り分を大きくするための「口減らし」しかないらしい。

彼女にとってそれは一種の出家のようなもの

「しあわせ芝居」は失恋の歌だけど、 ♪わたしみんな気づいてしまった ♪しあわせ芝居の舞台裏 という一節を聞くたびに、彼女が芸能界を捨てて宗教生活にあこがれた理由にぼくは思いを馳せます。東北の田舎から出てきた純粋な心の中学生の女の子は、やがて大都会の華やかな芸能世界の醜い舞台裏に「気づいてしまった」のでしょう。彼女が宗教の道を選んだことを批判する声は多いけど、ぼくは彼女にとってそれは一種の出家のようなものだったと思っています。

Mueller Memo Advising Barr on Trump Findings Is Ordered Released

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-19/mueller-memo-from-justice-department-to-barr-is-ordered-released Mueller Memo Advising Barr on Trump Findings Is Ordered Released DOJ must release memo guiding Barr on handling report on Trump Appeals court upholds judge who found DOJ description was off Robert Mueller By Zoe Tillman August 19, 2022 at 12:50 PM EDT The US Justice Department must release a 2019 memo advising then-attorney general Bill Barr on how to handle the conclusion of the Mueller investigation and the department’s decision not to charge Donald Trump, a federal appeals court ruled. The 3-0 decision Friday, by a panel of judges of the appeals court in Washington, upholds a lower court that ordered the department to make the March 2019 document public after finding that DOJ lawyers failed to accurately describe it from the start. The district judge had found that the memo was about the kind of public statement Barr should make over special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings and not -- as she said she had been led to believe -- whether the Justice Department was seriously considering whether to bring charges against Trump. The memo to Barr came at the end of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump had tried to meddle with the probe. Mueller’s team declined to make a recommendation about whether to charge Trump, and Barr said the evidence was “not sufficient” to prosecute. The Justice Department had opposed releasing the full Office of Legal Counsel’s memo to Barr in response to a public records request from watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson last year found that the department had suggested the memo was privileged because it involved sensitive, pre-decision deliberations about whether Trump could be charged with obstructing the special counsel’s probe. The department released a redacted version of the memo, and Jackson agreed to keep the rest under seal while the government appealed. But as the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit noted in its decision on Friday, it later became clear that DOJ officials had planned to rely on longstanding department policy against prosecuting a sitting president, and the memo was instead about the department’s “public messaging” over the Mueller report. Attorney General Barr Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee Bill BarrPhotographer: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/Bloomberg CREW called the ruling “a major victory for transparency.” “Attorney General Barr cited this memo as a reason not to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice,” spokesperson Jordan Libowitz said in a statement. “The American people deserve to know what it says. Now they will.” A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the decision. ‘Thought Experiment’ DC Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was joined by Judges Judith Rogers and David Tatel, wrote that any analysis in the memo about bringing obstruction charges was more like a “thought experiment.” Srinivasan noted that the department expressed “regret” about leaving a “misimpression that an actual charging decision was under consideration,” but he wrote that it missed opportunities to address the true purpose of the memo. The court rejected the government’s request for another chance to make the case for keeping the full memo secret. Srinivasan wrote that the Justice Department might have successfully argued to keep the memo sealed if it had revealed the public messaging purpose from the beginning and then tried to invoke what’s known as the deliberative process privilege, but that it was too late now.

July 5, 2016 Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice: In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Comparing crime rates between undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in Texas

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117 不法入国者の犯罪率は、市民や正規移民者に比べて、一番少ない。 テキサス州において人口１０万人当たりの犯罪率（２０１２年から２０１８年まで）のデータは次のごとくです： 暴力犯罪（市民は２１３人、正規移民者は１８５人、不法入国者は９６人） 窃盗罪（市民は１６５人、正規移民者は９８人、不法入国者は３８人） 薬物犯罪（市民は３３７人、正規移民者は２３５人、不法入国者は１３６人） なぜ不法入国者は犯罪をあまり起こさないのかと言えば、警察に見つかると本国に送り返されるので、犯罪のような危険な行為を犯さないからですね。しかも、不法入国者は勤労意欲が極めて高く、現地人が嫌がる仕事もする。だからアメリカでは不法入国者を欲している労働市場が存在します。正規移民者であれ、不法入国者であれ、移民はアメリカ経済を活性化します。ニューヨーク市が歓迎するのは当たり前ですね。

Three sections of Title 18 of the United States Code are listed on the warrant (合衆国法典第18編第793条、第1519条、第2071条)

Three sections of Title 18 of the United States Code are listed on the warrant. Section 793 covers the unlawful retention of defense-related information that could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary. Section 1519 covers destroying or concealing documents to obstruct government investigations or administrative proceedings. Section 2071 covers the unlawful removal of government records. https://people.com/politics/espionage-act-explained-trump-first-president-investigated-potentially-violating-1917-law/ Title 18 of the United States Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (a)Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or (b)Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or (c)Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or (d)Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (e)Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (g)If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. (h) (1)Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (2)The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection. (3)The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to— (A)property subject to forfeiture under this subsection; (B)any seizure or disposition of such property; and (C)any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection. (4)Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy U.S. Code prev | next Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 18 U.S.C. United States Code, 2011 Edition Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 101 - RECORDS AND REPORTS Sec. 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov §2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap101-sec2071.htm 合衆国法典第18編の第703条、第1519条、第2071条 スパイ防止法グーグル翻訳 (a) 国防に関する情報を取得する目的で、その情報が合衆国を傷つけるため、または外国の利益のために使用されると信じる意図または理由を持って、船舶、航空機、防衛施設、海軍工廠、海軍基地、潜水艦基地、燃料補給所、砦、砲台、魚雷発射場、造船所、運河、鉄道、兵器庫、キャンプ、工場、鉱山、電信局、電話局、無線局、信号局、建物、オフィス、研究所、局、または米国が所有または建設した、または建設中または米国の管理下にある国防に関連するその他の場所、またはその役員、部門、または機関のいずれか、または米国の専属管轄内、または戦争時に使用される船舶、航空機、武器、軍需品、またはその他の材料または機器が置かれている場所g 米国、またはその省庁または機関との契約または合意、または米国を代表する人物との、またはその他の代理人との契約または合意に基づいて、作成、準備、修理、保管、または研究または開発の対象であるアメリカ合衆国の、または戦時中、または陸軍、海軍、または空軍の使用のための何かが準備、構築、または保管されている国家緊急事態の場合に大統領が布告によって指定した禁止された場所、情報大統領が国防に害を及ぼすと判断した禁止場所はどれか。また (b) 前述の目的で、同様の意図または信じる理由で、スケッチ、写真、写真のネガ、青写真をコピー、取得、作成、取得する、またはコピー、取得、作成、取得しようとする者、国防に関連するものの計画、地図、モデル、器具、器具、文書、文書、またはメモ。また (c) 前述の目的のために、文書、文書、コードブック、シグナルブック、スケッチ、写真、写真のネガ、青写真を受け取ったり、取得したり、同意したり、受け取ったり取得しようとしたりする人、または何らかの情報源からのもの国防に関連するものの計画、地図、モデル、器具、装置、またはメモであり、それを受け取った、または取得した、または受け取った、または取得しようとした時点で、それが持っていることを知っているか、または信じる理由がある.本章の規定に反して、いかなる人物によっても取得、取得、作成、または処分された、または今後行われる;また (d) 文書、文書、コードブック、シグナルブック、スケッチ、写真、写真のネガ、青写真、計画、地図、モデル、機器、器具、または国防に関するメモ、または国防に関連する情報であって、所有者が、米国の損害または外国の利益のために使用される可能性があると信じる理由がある情報で、故意に通信、配信、送信、または原因となるもの受信する資格のない人に通信、配信、送信、または通信、配信、送信、または通信、配信、または送信させようとするか、または意図的に同じものを保持し、要求に応じて配信することに失敗します。それを受け取る資格のある米国の役員または従業員。また (e) 文書、文章、コードブック、信号帳、スケッチ、写真、写真のネガ、青写真、計画、地図、モデル、機器、電化製品、またはメモに関連する文書を許可なく所有、アクセス、または管理している者。国防、または国防に関連する情報であって、所有者が、米国の損害または外国の利益のために使用される可能性があると信じる理由がある情報で、故意に通信、配信、送信、または通信、配信される原因となるもの、または送信された、またはそれを受け取る資格のない人に同じものを通信、配信、送信、または通信、配信、または送信させようとするか、または故意に同じものを保持し、その役員または従業員に配信しない米国はそれを受け取る資格があります。また (f) 文書、文書、コードブック、信号帳、スケッチ、写真、写真のネガ、青写真、計画、地図、模型、器具、電化製品、メモ、または情報を委託されているか、合法的に所有または管理している者、国防に関連して、(1)重大な過失により、適切な保管場所からの移動、信頼に反する第三者への引き渡し、または紛失、盗難、没収、または破壊を許す、または (2)同じ物が適切な保管場所から不法に持ち出された、またはその信頼に違反して誰かに届けられた、または紛失、盗難、抽象化、または破壊されたことを知り、そのような紛失、盗難、抽象化の迅速な報告を怠る、または彼の上司への破壊

on Oct. 4, 1963, the prime ministers of Iraq and Kuwait met and signed an agreement wherein "the Republic of Iraq recognizes the independence and complete sovereignty of the State of Kuwait" and the boundary between them.

But on Oct. 4, 1963, the prime ministers of Iraq and Kuwait met and signed an agreement wherein "the Republic of Iraq recognizes the independence and complete sovereignty of the State of Kuwait" and the boundary between them. The agreement was deposited with the United Nations, which published it with Kuwait's certificate that it was intended to take effect upon signature. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/17/opinion/l-iraq-recognized-kuwait-s-borders-in-63-852589.html A treaty was signed in Baghdad by Iraq's new Prime Minister, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, and Kuwait's Prime Minister, Sheikh Sabah Al-Salim Al-Sabah. Iraq renounced territorial claims to Kuwait and the two nations agreed to establish diplomatic relations immediately.[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_1963#October_4,_1963_(Friday) Noting that Iraq and Kuwait, as independent sovereign States, signed at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", thereby recognizing formally the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and the allocation of islands, which were registered with the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations and in which Iraq recognized the independence and complete sovereignty of the State of Kuwait within its borders as specified and accepted in the letter of the Prime Minister of Iraq dated 21 July 1932, and as accepted by the Ruler of Kuwait in his letter dated 10 August 1932, Conscious of the need for demarcation of the said boundary, http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/peace/docs/scres687.html On February 8, 1963, Qasim was overthrown in a coup carried out by the Arab Socialist Resurrection (Ba'th) Party. The new Ba'thist government in Baghdad (in which Saddam Husayn, ironically, was ajunior figure) described Qasim's attitude toward Kuwait as erroneous, and on October 4, Iraq recognized Kuwait's independence.' On May 14, 1963, Kuwait became the 111th member of the United Nations. https://li.proquest.com/elhpdf/histcontext/CRS-1991-FND-0006.pdf

ヨーロッパ人権裁判所は2003年12月16日，フランスの裁判所がエホバの証人のセラフィーヌ･パラウ-マルティネスに対して宗教上の差別を行なったとしました

フランスのストラスブールにあるヨーロッパ人権裁判所は2003年12月16日，フランスの裁判所がエホバの証人のセラフィーヌ･パラウ-マルティネスに対して宗教上の差別を行なったとしました。 1996年にセラフィーヌは，その2年前に自分を捨てた夫との離婚を認められました。二人の子どもの親権はセラフィーヌに与えられました。しかし，子どもたちと3年半近く暮らした後の1997年に，以前の夫が子どもたちを面会期間の終わりに母親の元に帰そうとしないという事態が生じました。セラフィーヌはこう説明します。「わたしが子どもたちを学校に迎えに行くと，校長は警察を呼びました。警察官のいるところでしか子どもと会わせてもらえませんでした。子どもに信仰について話さないよう見張られていたのです。犯罪者のように扱われました。そして，神や聖書について子どもに話すこともクリスチャンの集会に連れて行くこともしない，という誓約書にサインしなければ子どもを連れ帰ることはできない，と言われました」。 セラフィーヌはこの件を裁判に訴えました。ところが，1998年にニーム控訴院は父親に親権を与える決定を下しました。控訴院はその決定の正当性を示すため，エホバの証人が子どもに教えている行動規範を十把一からげに厳しく批判しました。「とてもつらく感じました」とセラフィーヌは語ります。「子どもに有害な影響を与えていると非難されたからです。わたしはただ子どもたちにとって最善のものを与え，キリスト教の方法で育てようとしていたのです」。 フランスの最高上訴裁判所である破棄院が控訴院の決定を支持したため，セラフィーヌはこの件をヨーロッパ人権裁判所に持ち出すことにしました。人権裁判所は6対1で次のような判決を下しました。「当裁判所の見地からすると，[フランスの]控訴院が申立人の宗教に基づいて二親に対する措置に相違を生じさせたことに疑問の余地はない。……そのような措置上の相違は差別である」。人権裁判所は，フランスの控訴院の判決がセラフィーヌの養育能力 ― 全く問題とはされていない ― に基づくものでも，確かな事実に基づくものでもなく，「エホバの証人についての一般的な観察」に基づいている，と述べました。この宗教上の差別とセラフィーヌの権利の侵害を考慮し，人権裁判所はフランスに対して損害賠償金と訴訟費用の支払いを命じました。 この判決は，ヨーロッパ人権裁判所が1993年6月に同じような訴訟で下した判決と調和しています。人権裁判所はその訴訟で，オーストリアがエホバの証人のイングリート･ホフマンをその宗教を理由に差別した，と判断しました。* フランスの法律専門誌「ラ･スメヌ･ジュリディク」はこう述べています。「今回の判決は『ホフマン』の判決と調和して，おもに宗教を考慮して親権に関する判決を下すことは決してできない，という点を裏付けている」。セラフィーヌの弁護士は次のように述べています。「この判決は非常に重要なものです。人権裁判所によって確立された判例法は，不公正な判決に対するエホバの証人の親の権利を一貫して擁護しているからです」。 現在スペインに住んでいるセラフィーヌは判決についてどう思うかと尋ねられ，こう語りました。「大変うれしく思いますし，ほっとしました。宗教を理由に子どもたちと引き離されて5年も会えなかったのは，本当につらい経験でしたが，エホバがずっと支えてくださいました。この判決が，わたしと同じような状況にある他の人たちの助けになればと思います」。 https://wol.jw.org/ja/wol/d/r7/lp-j/102004844