Abstract
Cause: The prevention of infringement and the recovery of one's name damaged by the news medium are highly dificult, as prior broadcast suppression may potentially be unconstitutional and illegal. Moreover, the recovery of one's reputation once damaged is realistically unattainable. For this reason, there exists acmmon societal passiveness in requesting fundamental help and compensation thgrough legal assistance. ADR has therefore been suggested as a means to allow swift and appropriate measure be taken in restoring an individual's mane. However, there are still discrepancies in its definition and applicability. Main discussion: Based on the conclusions drawn by the BRO, The Japan Federation of Press Worker's Unions. The Japan Federation of Bar Association's Human Right's Protection Commitee, The Ministry of Justice's Civil Liberties Bureau, and the others on its effectiveness, the author reports on what he belives would be a valid press review board organization, as an institution upholding ADR. Conclusion: Since resolution of present circumstances as they exist today is considered difficult by each of the abovementioned oranizaions, The Ministry of Justice's Council for Human Rights Promotion report-stating how a system for human rights protection ought to be-should be relized immediatery. In paticurar, the establishment of "The Commitee of Human Rights (tending name)" is called for. In effect, steps such as mandatory cooperation of mass media during inquiries, the disclosing of inquiry processes, semi-compulsory measures in dealing with excessive coverage by mass media, et cetra, would be madepermissible. The effectiveness of ADR will consequently be enhanced and exeed that of each aforementioned organizaion, there by an adequate resolution is prvable.
