Criminal Procedures in Japan: The Need for Reform

By Ri Yoo, November 3, 2009

Japanese courts, prosecutors, and human rights organizations are closely monitoring the retrial of Toshikazu Sugaya, sentenced to life in prison and recently released when DNA testing did not connect him with the crime. Sugaya was convicted in 1993 of murdering a four-year-old girl after he confessed to the crime during a police interrogation. He later retracted his confession, arguing his statement was made under duress. Sugaya served 17 years of his sentence before his release in June of this year after DNA tests revealed that samples taken from Sugaya and from the victim’s clothing did not match. His retrial began on October 21, 2009. Sugaya pled not guilty and asked the court to justify why he was falsely accused and imprisoned for 17 years.

Sugaya’s wrongful conviction sparked calls for reform of Japan’s criminal justice system, which has long been the subject of criticism by international organizations and human rights groups. Specifically, Sugaya’s retrial highlights Japan’s lack of mechanisms for protecting defendants’ rights before and during trial. In Japan, suspects are detained in daiyo kangoku – holding cells in police stations – for as long as 23 days without being charged with any crime. Moreover, suspects can be questioned without legal representation and without a time limit on interrogation sessions.

The conviction rate in Japan is over 99 percent. One of the reasons for such a high rate is that most suspects confess to the crimes during interrogations at daiyo kangoku. Japan’s long-standing practice of relying on confessions as the basis of conviction encourages the use of unlawful measures, such as force or threat, to extract confessions from suspects. Amnesty International contends that measures, such as coercion, assault, and other inhumane treatment, including keeping suspects awake and forcing them to stand or sit in a fixed position for long periods, are used in daiyo kangoku. Thus, many suspects confess to crimes they did not commit in order to protect themselves from further abuse.

The United Nations Committee Against Torture was established under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which Japan acceded in 1999. Article 15 of the Convention requires States Parties to ensure that no statements made as a result of torture are used as evidence in any proceedings. In 2007, the 38th session of the Committee examined Japan’s criminal justice system. Among other human rights concerns during the pre-trial stage, the 38th session specifically addressed the use of torture in daiyo kangoku, stating that the lack of procedural guarantees for detainees during interrogation “may lead to a de facto failure to respect the principles of presumption of innocence, right to silence and right of defense.” The Committee recommended that Japan implement measures to guarantee that all detainees have legal representation, including during interrogations, and that independent monitoring of police conduct is carried out. The Committee also expressed concern with Japan’s high conviction rate and called for systematic monitoring of interrogations through electronic and video recordings.

However, Japan responded that the presence of defense counsel during interrogations may hinder the investigation process and inhibit effective questioning. Japanese police and public prosecutors also argue that recording or videotaping of interrogation sessions will decrease the level of trust between suspects and investigators, impeding the efficiency of the questioning process.

In Japan’s general election in August 2009, the Democratic Party of Japan overwhelmingly defeated the Liberal Democratic Party, which had governed for 54 years. The Democratic Party of Japan publicly promised to adopt monitoring mechanisms for interrogations at daiyo kangoku. With due consideration of human rights, the new Japanese government should keep its pledge in order to guarantee suspects’ rights and avoid wrongful convictions. Only through judicial procedures conforming to international standards can the Japanese criminal system fulfill its function to deter and punish the perpetrators, and to effectively protect Japanese society and its citizens.