Japan's court rejects suit seeking financial aid for 2nd generation of nuclear bombing victims

By Riyaz ul Khaliq

ISTANBUL (AA) - A court in Japan on Monday rejected a suit by the second generation of nuclear bomb victims seeking government compensation.

“The state not providing aid to so-called second-generation hibakusha, who were born to atomic bomb survivors, did not violate the constitutional guarantee of equality under the law,” read a ruling by Nagasaki District Court.

Survivors of the atomic bombing are locally known as “hibakusha.”

Japan is the only country to have been the victim of nuclear bombs that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and affected the lives of future generations.

Nagasaki court’s ruling came after 28 petitioners had demanded 100,000 yen ($730) each from the government in aid.

A similar case is pending before a court in Hiroshima – the site of the world’s first atomic bombing by the US military planes on Aug. 6, 1945. Later, the US forces bombed Nagasaki, which resulted in the deaths of at least 140,000 people by the end of that year. The dead included more than 20,000 Koreans.

Hibakusha receive from the Japanese government “various forms of financial assistance” including the full cost of their medical expenses.

“Such aid does not extend to their children,” Kyodo News reported.

In their argument, the petitioners told the court their “parents’ exposure to radiation” in the 1945 US atomic bombing “had affected their health.”

Presiding Judge Hiroyoshi Amakawa ruled: “The genetic influence of radiation could not be determined.”

The Japanese government told the court the “effects of radiation exposure on the children were not confirmed and that there was therefore no legislative obligation to expand the scope of the financial aid.”

“The scope of the atomic bomb survivors’ assistance law will be left to the legislature's discretion,” he added.

Ruling out any “discriminatory” approach, the court said: “It can only be said that we cannot deny the possibility of a hereditary influence of atomic bomb radiation exposure.”

However, the petitioners called the ruling “unjust.”