Prosecution Reform Initiatives in the Past Three Years
The Principles of Prosecution and PracticeI. Introduction
The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office has been promoting the reform of theProsecution Service through various initiatives while maintaining necessary cooperation
with High Public Prosecutors Offices and District Public Prosecutors Offices. The reform
is a response to the issuance of “Toward Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service”(March 31, 2011), a recommendation by the Advisory Panel to Study the Role ofProsecution, which was established in response to, inter alia, a case in which a former
director-general at the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare was found not guilty after
being prosecuted (hereinafter referred to as the “ex-MHLW director-general acquittalcase”), and “Initiatives toward Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” (April 8, 2011),
an instruction by the Minister of Justice. During the reform process, based on the resultsof discussions involving members of the Prosecution Service across Japan, the Principles
of Prosecution were formulated as the basic principles that clarify the missions and rolesof the Prosecution Service and specify the basic mindset that should serve as a guideline
for members of the Service when performing their duties. In addition, the progress madein the reform of the Prosecution Service through these initiatives was publicized on April
5, 2012, around one year after the start of the reform, in a document titled "Status ofProgress in Public Prosecutors Office Reforms," which also incorporated the progress
made through the initiatives conducted by the Ministry of Justice.
Subsequently, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office encouraged High Public
Prosecutors Offices and District Public Prosecutors Offices to communicate thePrinciples of Prosecution throughout their organizations and put them into practice fromthe perspective of dealing with the issues mentioned in “Toward Rehabilitation of theProsecution Service” and “Initiative toward Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service”
based on those principles, and called on them to make further reform efforts on suchoccasions as meetings and training sessions. As a result, seminars and meetings forexchanges of opinions concerning the Principles of Prosecution were held at prosecutors
offices across Japan. Consequently, members of the Prosecution Service came to a s haredperspective on problems and started to make efforts to put the Principles of Prosecution
into practice when performing their day-to-day duties. This has led to the implementationof various specific initiatives toward reform. In particular, in addition to the reform of theSpecial Investigation Department, which led to the ongoing reform of Public Prosecutors-1-Offices as a whole, and the expanded use of voice and video recording of interrogations,various initiatives contributing to improvement of the capability to conduct investigations
and trial proceedings and to enforcement of criminal justice are being carried out, with aview to adapting to the times, with society as a whole undergoing drastic changes.
Initiatives that lead to the enhancement of organizational management to promote thesereform measures have steadily been implemented.
Accordingly, three years after the issuance of “Toward Rehabilitation of theProsecution Service” and “Initiatives toward Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service”
we have reviewed the initiatives conducted so far and compiled and decided to publish
a report on the progress made in the three years on the reform of the Prosecution
Service with regard to each issue, mainly in relation to the initiatives implemented by
the Prosecution Service that may be described as the realization of the Principles ofProsecution. The report is intended to serve as a basic material for the future
management of the Prosecution Service.
II. Reform of the Special Investigation Department
1. Review of the organization of the Special Investigation Department(1) Regarding the review of the organization of the Special Investigation Department, it
was recommended in “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that “areview should be conducted with a view to reforming the organization, including its name,organizational system and framework, and staffing in order to enhance its investigation
capability and strengthen the function of checks and balances against the Special
Investigation Department”. In response, on July 8, 2011, the Supreme Public Prosecutors
Office decided that the Special Investigation Department should further strengthen its
measures to deal with cases related to finance and economics, and improve expertise incollaboration with expert committees on finance and securities and other areas. In
addition, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office instructed that the Special Investigation
Department should also further deepen its ties with national taxation bureaus, t he
Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, police and other relevantorganizations, and should implement reorganization accordingly.
*Based on this policy, the Special Investigation Departments of the Tokyo, Osaka andNagoya District Public Prosecutors Offices made revisions such as strengthening theorganization for investigating and processing cases related to finance and economics.
A. On October 1, 2011, the Special Investigation Department of the Tokyo District
Public Prosecutors Office shifted from the previous four-team system composed of (i)Team 1 dealing with special cases, (ii) Team 2 dealing with special cases, (iii)Team
dealing with financial and economic cases and (iv) Team dealing with private-2-accusation cases to a three-team system composed of ( i) Team dealing with financial
cases, (ii) Team dealing with economic cases and (iii) Team dealing with special
cases (including prosecutors responsible for receiving private accusation). Before thereorganization, the Finance and Economic Team processed tax evasion cases filed byregional taxation bureaus and cases of violation of the Financial Instruments andExchange Act and other cases filed by the Securities and Exchange SurveillanceCommission. After the reorganization, the Financial Team is mainly responsible forprocessing cases filed by regional taxation bureaus, while the Economics Team is
responsible for processing cases filed by the Securities and Exchange SurveillanceCommission as well as cases filed by the Fair Trade Commission and cases referred by
the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the Metropolitan Police Department, 2ndDivision, which the Criminal Investigation Department was previously handling. These
reorganization measures, coupled with the enhancement of the staffing of the Financial
Team and the Economics Team has made it possible to smoothly conduct
investigations of cases related to finance and economics. In addition, because theEconomics Team has become the unified liaison point with relevant organizations
other than regional taxation bureaus, the Special Investigation Department of theTokyo District Public Prosecutors Office has become capable of overseeing cases inwhich it, the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission and the Criminal
Investigation Bureau of the Metropolitan Police Department, 2nd Division, areconducting investigations and surveys simultaneously, for example. Thus, closer
cooperation with relevant organizations than before the reorganization has become
possible.
B. On August 31, 2011, the Special Investigation Department of the Osaka District
Public Prosecutors Office included cases referred by the Criminal Investigation
Bureau of the Osaka Prefectural Police Department Headquarters, 2nd Division, inthe scope of affairs under the jurisdiction of the Special Investigation Department. At
the same time, the Special Investigation Department, which previously did not havea team system, was changed into a two-team system comprised of Team 1 and Team2, with Team 1 responsible for cases related to finance and economics and cases
referred by the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the Osaka Prefectural Police
Department Headquarters, 2nd Division, and with Team 2 responsible for private
accusation cases. Moreover, the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office enhanced
the staffing of the Special Investigation Department and implemented measures tostrengthen cooperation with relevant organizations, including regional taxation
bureaus, the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission and the Criminal
Investigation Bureau of the Osaka Prefectural Police Department Headquarters, 2nd-3-

Division.
C. The Special Investigation Department of the Nagoya District Public Prosecutors
Office previously appointed several prosecutors responsible for each of private
accusation cases and cases related to finance and economics from amongprosecutors belonging to the Special Investigation Department. On August 1, 2011, it
appointed all prosecutors belonging to the Special Investigation Department except
for the director of the department as prosecutors responsible for cases related tofinance, politics and economics (including one prosecutor who is concurrently
responsible for private accusation cases), thereby expanding the lineup ofprosecutors responsible for such cases). As the Special Investigation Department of
the Nagoya District Public Prosecutors Office had already been responsible forcases referred by the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the Aichi Prefectural Police
Department Headquarters, 2nd Division, it was not reorganized into a team system inlight of its size.
2. Establishing the organizational system of checking investigations and court
proceedings(1) Superintendent prosecutor direction system and appointment of prosecutors at High
Public Prosecutors Offices and the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office at High Public
Prosecutors Offices, who are responsible for checking the activities of the Special
Investigation Department of the District Public Prosecutors Offices.
A. As of February 28, 2011, in order to improve the processing of custody cases handled
by the Special Investigation Department of the District Public Prosecutors Office, theso-called superintendent prosecutor direction system was introduced. Under thissystem, in custody cases (where the suspect is arrested or detained) handled by theSpecial Investigation Department of the district public prosecutors office, the chiefprosecutor of that public prosecutors office is required to be directed beforehand by
the superintendent prosecutor of the High Public Prosecutors Office when instituting
indictment or dismissing cases.
B. In addition, in order to appropriately assist the direction by the superintendent
prosecutor of the High Public Prosecutors Office and sufficiently examine evidence,
prosecutors responsible for cases handled exclusively by the Special Investigation
Department of the District Public Prosecutors Office have been appointed at theTokyo, Osaka and Nagoya High Public Prosecutors Offices. Prosecutors at High
Public Prosecutors Offices, who are responsible for checking the activities of theSpecial Investigation Department of the district public prosecutors office, identify
objective evidence, including physical evidence, regarding cases handled exclusively-4-

by the Special Investigation Department in which suspects are arrested, and check
written statements. In cases in which voice and video recording of interrogations ismade, the prosecutors at High Public Prosecutors Offices identify evidence in generalthrough means such as checking the recording media used in the recording(hereinafter referred to as “DVDs, etc.”) and then give instructions to the Special
Investigation Department of the district public prosecutors office as necessary andmake necessary reports to their superiors, including the superintendent prosecutor of
the High Public Prosecutors Office, thereby making it possible for the superintendent
prosecutor to make directional judgment effectively and appropriately. In addition,prosecutors responsible for checking the activities of the Special Investigation
Department of the district public prosecutors office have also been appointed at theSupreme Public Prosecutors Office. They receive reports regarding cases directed by
the superintendent prosecutor of the High Public Prosecutors Office and provide thatHigh Public Prosecutors Office and the relevant district public prosecutors officewith instructions necessary in investigations and court proceedings.
*The” cases handled exclusively by the Special Investigation Department” as referred to herein
include those filed by relevant organizations such as the Fair Trade Commission.

C. The number of cases directed by superintendent prosecutors of High Public
Prosecutors
Offices by the end of March 2014 came to 105.
*Comprehensive examination prosecutor system (establishment of a horizontal checking
system)A. It was recommended in “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that“regarding cases handled exclusively by the Special Investigation Department, theself-contained system in which investigations and decision-making are entirely
implemented internally within the department should be reformed and a horizontal
checking system should be established”. Accordingly, it was decided to establish andoperate the comprehensive examination prosecutor system, starting on May 1, 2011,as a horizontal checking system against cases handled exclusively by the Special
Investigation Department.
B. In other words, it was decided that when the Special Investigation Department isinvestigating cases recognized as being large-scale and/or complicated and difficultat the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office, the Osaka District Public Prosecutors
Office or the Nagoya District Public Prosecutors Office, the chief prosecutor of the
district public prosecutors office should appoint the comprehensive examination
prosecutor from among prosecutors belonging to the Court Proceedings Department-5-

or the Special Court Proceedings Department of that district public prosecutors office.
The following decisions were also made:(i) At the same time as the ongoing investigation of the case, the comprehensive
examination prosecutor should identify all evidence on the case, organize andanalyze it, and then examine, from a standpoint different from that of theexamining prosecutor in the Special Investigation Department, whether thatexamining prosecutor is making appropriate judgment as to the recognition offacts or interpretation of laws, while also maintaining the viewpoint of defense
attorneys involved in the court proceedings.
(ii) The comprehensive examination prosecutor should state necessary opinions to
the examining prosecutor in the Special Investigation Department based on theexamination results.
(iii) In order to enable the officer making the final decision to do so based on
proper understanding of the issues involved in the case, the comprehensive
examination prosecutor should indicate his/her opinions on whether there areissues related to the recognition of facts and interpretation of laws by attending
the decision-making meeting in which the decision on the case is given to theexamining prosecutor of the case in the Special Investigation Department, or
via other suitable means. The comprehensive examination prosecutor should
also indicate opinions as necessary or provide requested reports when requestedby the chief prosecutor and/or deputy chief prosecutor of the district publicprosecutors office, director and/or sub-director of the Special Investigation
Department, or prosecutors at higher Public prosecutors Offices who areresponsible for checking the activities of the Special Investigation Departmentof the district public prosecutors office, and such indication of opinions or
making of reports is recognized as suitable given the circumstances.
(iv) The comprehensive examination prosecutor should carry out the court
proceedings for the case by himself/herself if the suspect in the case is indicted.
Prior to the indictment, the comprehensive examination prosecutor is
authorized to carry out tasks necessary for preparing for the court proceedings
if an indictment is made, such as checking statements by persons believed tofunction as important witnesses, with the consent of the examining prosecutorof the case in the Special Investigation Department.
C. In 49 of all of the cases processed by the end of March 2014 by the Tokyo, Osakaand Nagoya District Public Prosecutors Offices, comprehensive examination
prosecutors conducted examination. As two or more comprehensive examination
prosecutors may be appointed in one case depending on the circumstances of the-6-case, a total of 53 comprehensive examination prosecutors were appointed in thosecases.
D. As described above, comprehensive examination prosecutors have been
appointed and conducted examination in a substantial number of cases.
Comprehensive examination prosecutors conduct examination while looking at
the same evidence as the examining prosecutors in the Special do and closely
communicating with the examining prosecutors in the Special and other officials.
Therefore, it is presumed that the comprehensive examination prosecutor system
is exercising the expected horizontal checking function, making it easier to
identify negative evidence and problems and to express necessary opinions to theexamining prosecutor in the Special, for example. There is another merit: as aresult of appointing the prosecutors responsible for court proceedings ascomprehensive examination prosecutors, it becomes possible to grasp the full
picture of the case and identify problems before the institution of prosecution andto quickly formulate evidence presentation plans after the request for court
proceedings and deal with the problems.
Meanwhile, prosecutors appointed as comprehensive examination prosecutors
belong to the Court Proceeding Department or the Special Court Proceeding
Department and engage in court proceeding activities in a number of cases as aroutine or are dedicated to court proceeding activities in specific serious cases. It
is necessary to conduct a further study on the comprehensive examination
prosecutor system because the following problem has emerged: prosecutors
appointed as comprehensive examination prosecutors face a heavy burden
because they are made responsible for examination of cases being investigated by
the Special Investigation Department and closely surveying a vast volume ofrecords in addition to performing their regular job duties.
*Use of expert knowledge in cases handled by the Special Investigation Department
A. It is recommended in “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that“a system to use expert knowledge and experience-based knowledge should be
developed” as one of the prosecution service’s systems of checking investigations
and court proceedings. Accordingly, a substantial number of prosecutors
responsible for processing cases handled by the Special Investigation Departmentof the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office (prosecutors at the Tokyo High
Public Prosecutors Office and the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, who areresponsible for checking the activities of the Special Investigation Department of
the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office), including the Sub-director of thedepartment, belong to the Expert Committee on Finance and Securities and other-7-

expert committees and use expert knowledge cultivated at the committees andexperience-based knowledge acquired through past cases when making decisions incases handled by the Special Investigation Department. The contents of referencematerials collected and studied by expert committees and lectures given by experts
are used by prosecutors’ offices across the nation in the process of making
decisions in investigations and court proceedings.
B. Moreover, in light of the significant growth in the importance of electromagnetic
records as evidence due to the advance of information and communication
technology and based on the lessons of the floppy disk record falsification
incident, the Digital Forensic (DF) Group was established at the Special
Investigation Department of each of the Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya District Public
Prosecutors Offices as an expert organization responsible for appropriately
collecting, preserving and analyzing electromagnetic records. When examining
and studying the contents of confiscated electromagnetic records, the DF Group
uses copies of the records instead of the originals. The DF Group also performs
jobs related to cases referred by police as necessary. In particular, as recent cases
investigated by the Special Investigation Department involve electromagnetic
records almost without exception, the DF Group’s activities are essential toinvestigations conducted by the department.
*Establishment of the organizational checking system during the court proceeding phase
A. It is recommended in “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that“in order to practice the “courage to go back” in the court proceeding phase, anorganizational checking system in the court proceeding phase should beestablished, for example by holding consultations involving High Public
Prosecutors Offices under certain conditions.” Accordingly, it was decided to put
in place the following system starting on April 26, 2011, regarding court
proceedings of cases for which the Special Investigation Department institutes
prosecution.
(i) Concerning cases for which the Special Investigation Department institutes
prosecution, the prosecutor in charge of the court proceeding of those cases
should notify the Director of the Special Investigation Department of the statusof pretrial arrangement proceedings and court proceedings as necessary via an
appropriate method and report to prosecutors at High Public Prosecutors Offices,
who are responsible for checking the activities of the Special Investigation
Department, and, if necessary, to prosecutors with similar responsibility at theSupreme Public Prosecutors Office as well.

-8-

(ii) Concerning cases for which the Special Investigation Department institutes
prosecution and for which the superintendent prosecutor of High Public
Prosecutors Office gives instructions to the chief prosecutor of the district publicprosecutors office, the Directors or Sub-directors of the Special Investigation
Department and the Court Proceeding Department of the district publicprosecutors office, the examining prosecutor of the case and the prosecutor in
charge of the court proceedings of that case will discuss, according to theprogress of pretrial arrangement proceedings if such proceedings are designatedfor the case, the policies for carrying out the court proceedings afterwards,
whether there are problems regarding the recognition of facts or interpretation oflaws, the policies for dealing with assertions and/or evidence presentation by the
defense attorney, etc.. The process and outcomes of the discussions will bereported to the public prosecutor at the High Public prosecutors Office, who areresponsible for checking the activities of the Special Investigation department of
the district public prosecutors office and, if necessary, to public prosecutors withsimilar responsibility at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office as well.
B. Since the start of the reform of public prosecutors offices, a judgment of acquittal
was finalized in one case for which the Special Investigation Department
instituted prosecution. In this case, requests for evidence survey related to neither
written confessions by the suspect nor written statements by witnesses were
rejected.
C. Regarding court proceedings in cases other than those for which the Special
Investigation Department instituted prosecution, the following arrangement was
adopted starting on July 8, 2011. If a serious problem that meets certain
conditions arises for a case in the first instance (e.g. cases where the admissibilityof written confessions given by the suspect during the investigation phase, which
are the key to the evidence presentation to prove guilt, is denied and a request forevidence survey is rejected, or where a witness who is the key to the evidence
presentation to prove guilt provides different testimony compared with theinvestigation phase and a request for evidence survey related to the records ofinvestigation prepared for the witness in front of the public prosecutor isrejected), the deputy chief prosecutor of the District Public Prosecutors Officeshould report promptly to the prosecutor in charge at a High Public Prosecutors
Office and hold consultations on policies for performing the court proceedings,
including the need to dismiss the prosecution or state innocence, while at thesame time reporting on the process and outcomes of the consultation to the publicprosecutor in charge at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office. By the end of-9-March 2014, in a total of 34 cases, consultations with prosecutors in charge athigh public prosecutors offices were held, and prosecution was dismissed in six ofthose cases and innocence was stated in four of them (excluding cases for which
prosecution was instituted due to false statements deliberately given to theinvestigative organization, such as those made by persons pretending to be theoffender).
3. Special Investigation Department’s attitude in investigation(1) Reflecting the Principles of Prosecution
A. The Special Investigation Department is striving to break away from the approachof overly relying on written statements in its investigation, which has been drawing
criticism, and to conduct investigation with increased emphasis on objective
evidence based on the following principles proclaimed in the Principles ofProsecution:*”We shall strive to the utmost to discover the truth in each case with all our
knowledge and skills to ensure that no innocent parties are found guilty and all
those responsible are brought to justice.” (Principle 3)*”We shall pay due attention to the assertions of suspects or defendants, endeavor
to collect all relevant evidence, both incriminating and exculpatory, aggravating
and mitigating, and make rational and sensible evaluation of evidence fromvarious perspectives.” (Principle 4)
In particular, because of the significant growth in the importance ofelectromagnetic records and the improvement of the evidence preservation
capability due to digital forensics, the volume of objective evidence collected has
increased steeply, and there are cases in which destructed conclusive evidence isfound through the restoration of deleted data based on digital forensics.
Under such circumstances, the Special Investigation Department’s investigation
approach is shifting toward collecting as much objective evidence as possible
through the allocation of increased investigation resources to the work,
implementing such measures as searches and confiscation at an early stage, taking
time to analyze and examine collected evidence and conducting investigation fromthe perspective of to what degree guilt can be proved based on objective evidence
without relying on statements in principle.
B. Regarding interrogations, the Principles of Prosecution stipulates that “we shallstrive to obtain true statements while securing their voluntary nature and the fairnessof the questioning” (Principle 5). In most cases, voice and video recording ofinterrogations are made, and in many of those cases, the entire process is voice- andvideo-recorded. As a result, the number of cases in which people interrogated and- 10 -

interrogating prosecutors disagree about what is said during interrogations has been
declining. In an overwhelming majority of cases, viewing of DVDs, etc. makes it
easy to make judgment as to the admissibilit y and credibility of statements made ininterrogations.
On the other hand, the Special Investigation Department makes voice and video
recording of interrogations in the live format (*) and secures sufficient time forinterrogations. In voice- and video-recorded interrogations, there is no change inprosecutors’ approach of striving to obtain truthful statements while patiently
pursuing points which should be pursued.
*In the live format, interrogations are conducted in a usual manner while voice and video recording
is made. It is distinguished from the review format, in which the process of confirming the contentsof past interrogations is voice- and video-recorded toward the end of the detention period, and thereading-and-review format, in which the process of the prosecutor reading recorded statements andasking for confirmation is voice- and video-recorded.

*Change in mindset
A.

“Message regarding the Reform of the Prosecution Service,” which was issued

by the Prosecutor-General on July 8, 2011, pointed out that the approach of placing
excessive priority on investigations conducted exclusively by the Special
Investigation Department could put too much pressure on prosecutors involved in
the investigations and distort the appropriateness of the investigations and warned
against developing a misguided elitist mindset and becoming arrogant.
B. Regarding the Special Investigation Department, various reforms have been carriedout, including further strengthening its measures to deal with cases related to financeand economics through reorganization. Through the reforms, a change is occurring in
the mindset of public prosecutors and assistant officers belonging to the Special
Investigation Department. Namely, since the start of the reform of the prosecution
service, the Special Investigation Department has been striving to enable relevantorganizations to exercise their capabilities by coordinating their cooperation as theirvital link with each other. As a result, the awareness has grown that quickly andaccurately investigating large-scale cases related to economics is also an importantrole to be played by the Special Investigation Department. The importance ofobjective evidence, including electromagnetic records, has also been recognized
anew.
C. The mindset reform cannot be achieved overnight, and it is difficult toquantitatively measure the degree of achievement. However, the Special
Investigation Department is striving to ensure that the mindset reform takes hold,with senior members repeatedly setting an example of reform during the- 11 -

performance of their day-to-day job duties.
III. Expansion of Voice and Video Recording of Interrogations of Suspects
1. Background to the trial of voice and video recordings(1) Since April 1, 2009, public prosecutors offices have made voice and video recordingsof interrogations of suspects as appropriate with regard to cases tried by courts involving
saiban-in, or lay judges (hereinafter referred to as “Saiban-in Trials), in order to ensure
effective and efficient evidence presentation.
The ex-MHLW director-general acquittal case led to the decision that the Special
Investigation Departments of the Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya District Public
Prosecutors Offices should make voice and video recordings, on a trial basis, ofinterrogations in cases exclusively conducted by the departments in which suspects
have been arrested by prosecutors of the departments, starting on March 18, 2011.
(2) Subsequently, in response to “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service,”
the Principles of Prosecution stipulated that “we shall strive to obtain true statements
while securing their voluntary nature and the fairness of the questioning” (Principle 5),
as mentioned earlier.
It was decided to apply the trial of voice and video recording of interrogations to theentire process of interrogation conducted by the Special Investigation Department. It
was also decided to expand the application of the trial to cases handled exclusively by
the Special Criminal Department at each of 10 other district public prosecutors offices
across Japan (Yokohama, Saitama, Chiba, Kyoto, Kobe, Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Sendai,
Sapporo and Takamatsu), starting on July 8, 2011. On November 1, 2012, theapplication of the trial was expanded to cases handled exclusively by departments otherthan the Special Investigation Department and the Special Criminal Department.
Meanwhile, following a pilot trial at the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office andother offices that started in April 2011, the trial of voice and video recording began on
July 8, 2011, with regard to interrogations of suspects in cases related to suspects withintellectual disabilities and communication problems (hereinafter referred to as “cases
related to people with intellectual disabilities”) mainly at the Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya
District Public Prosecutors Offices. The trial has been expanded to all other publicprosecutors offices since October 2011.
(3) On August 8, 2011, the Minister of Justice instructed that the coverage of the voice andvideo recording of interrogations of suspects in cases of Saiban-in Trials should be
expanded on a trial basis. Accordingly, such recording was expanded to cover not only
cases in which suspects have confessed their guilt but also cases in which suspects havedenied their guilt or remained silent, and the live format (which records an ongoing- 12 -

interview, rather than spoken remarks made according to a written statement) was
introduced on a trial basis.
(4)*Moreover, since November 1, 2012, the trial of the voice and video recording ofinterrogations of suspects has been conducted in cases related to suspects whose
criminal responsibility is suspected to have been partially or completely lost due tomental disorders (hereinafter referred to as “cases related to persons with mental
disorders”).
2. Implementation status(1) Voice and video recording of interrogations of suspects in cases of Saiban-in Trials
A. Number of recorded cases and the recording ratio
In the three years from April 2011 to the end of March 2014, voice and video
recording of interrogations was made in 10,021 out of the 11,886 reported casesthat were subject to such recording (which translated into a recording ratio of
approx. 84.3%). The number of cases in which voice and video recording was notmade at all was 1,865 (approx. 15.7%).
As for the number of recorded cases and the recording ratio on an annual basis,the number was 2,505 and the ratio was approximately 63.5% in the first year
(from April 2011 to March 2012), 3,680 and approximately 90.8% in the second
year (from April 2012 to March 2013), and 3,836 and approximately 98.6% in thethird year (from April 2013 to March 2014).
B. Breakdown of voice and video recording by recording scope
Of the 9,173 cases in which voice and video recording was made between
September 2011 and the end of March 2014, the entire interrogation process wasrecorded (full recording) in 5,166 cases (approx. 55.8% of the total), while someparts of the process were recorded (partial recording) in 4,057 cases (approx.
44.2% of the total).
On an annual basis, the number of full recording cases was 333 (approx. 20.1%)
and the number of partial recording cases was 1,324 (approx. 79.9%) in the firstyear (a seven-month period from September 2011 to March 2012), 1,890 (approx.
51.4%) and 1,790 (approx. 48.6%) in the second year, and 2,893 (approx. 75.4%)
and 943 (approx. 24.6%) in the third year.
C. The ratio of voice and video recording time to the interrogation time
In cases in which voice and video recording was made, the ratio of recording timeto the overall interrogation time was approximately 51.7% in the first year (aseven-month period from September 2011 to March 2012), approximately 74.3% in
the second year, and approximately 94.2% in the third year.
D. Summary- 13 -

As shown above, the ratio of cases in which video and sound recording ofinterrogation of suspects was made reached approximately 98.6% in the third year.
As the ratio of full recording cases and the ratio of voice and video recording timeto the interrogation time have also been rising year after year, it can be assessedthat voice and video recording is being made actively.
Among the reported reasons for non-implementation (including partial
non-implementation) of voice and video recording apart from the absence of thepossibility of requesting court proceedings under charges eligible for Saiban-in
Trials were that (i) voice and video recording was impossible due to the absence ofrecording equipment at the facility where the interrogation was conducted; (ii) thesuspects refused the use of recording; (iii) implementation and continuation ofvoice and video recording would have made it difficult to resolve the case because
there were circumstances that made it difficult for the suspects to make statements
regarding matters related to their organizations or accomplices; and (iv) there was astrong need to protect the honor and privacy of the victims.
*Voice and video recording of interrogations of suspects in cases related to persons withintellectual disabilities
A. Number of recorded cases and the recording ratio
In the three years from April 2011 to the end of March 2014, voice and video
recording of interrogations was made in 2,625 out of the 2,674 reported cases thatwere subject to such recording (which translated into a recording ratio of approx.
98.2%). The number of cases in which voice and video recording was not made at
all was 49 (approx. 1.8%).
As for the number of recorded cases and the recording ratio on an annual basis,the number was 489 and the ratio was approximately 97.8% in the first year (from
April 2011 to March 2012), 1,054 and approximately 97.9% in the second year
(from April 2012 to March 2013), and 1,082 and approximately 98.6% in the thirdyear (from April 2013 to March 2014).
B. Breakdown of voice and video recording by recording scope
Of the 2,625 cases in which voice and video recording was made between April
2011 and the end of March 2014, the number of full recording cases was 1,475(approx. 56.2% of the total), while the number of semi-full recording cases* was
401 (approx. 15.3% of the total), and the number of partial recording cases was 749(approx. 28.5% of the total).
On an annual basis, the number of full recording cases was 171 (approx. 35.0%),
the number of semi-full recording cases was 92 (approx. 18.8%) and the number ofpartial recording cases was 226 (approx. 46.2%) in the first year, 619 (approx.

- 14 -

58.7%), 163 (approx. 15.5%) and 272 (approx. 25.8%) in the second year, and 685(approx. 63.3%), 146 (approx. 13.5%) and 251 (approx. 23.2%) in the third year.
*In ”semi-full recording” cases, voice and video recording was not made initially after the referralof the cases to a public prosecutors’ office because the suspects’ communication problems due tointellectual disabilities had not been recognized, but the interrogations conducted by the prosecutors
after the problems were recognized were entirely recorded.

C. The ratio of voice and video recording time to the interrogation time
In cases in which voice and video recording was made, the ratio of recording timeto the interrogation time was approximately 64.9% in the first year, approximately
83.3% in the second year, and approximately 91.2% in the third year.
D. Advice from and attendance at interrogation sessions by psychiatric and welfare
experts
It was recommended in “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service”
that in interrogations of suspects with communications problems due to intellectual
disabilities, various measures should be tried, including requesting attendance bypsychiatric and welfare experts. Accordingly, in such interrogations, publicprosecutors offices are conducting trials of various measures, including soliciting
advice from such experts on the characteristics of statements made by persons withintellectual disabilities and questioning methods and having such experts attend
interrogation sessions. By the end of March 2014, both solicitation of advice fromand attendance by psychiatric and welfare experts were implemented in 24 cases.
In a substantial number of cases, advice was solicited, although it is difficult toaccurately identify the number statistically.
E. Summary
As described above, in cases related to persons with intellectual disabilities as
well, the ratio of cases in which video and sound recording of interrogations wasmade consistently exceeded 97% of all cases subject to recording. In addition, as
the ratio of full recording and semi-full recording cases and the ratio of voice andvideo recording time to the interrogation time have also been rising year after year,
it can be assessed that voice and video recording is being made actively.
Among the reported reasons for non-implementation (including partial
non-implementation) of voice and video recording apart from the absence of thepossibility of requesting court proceedings was that it was not necessary to record
interrogations because it was concluded from what the suspects said and how they
behaved during interrogations that they had no communication problem. Reasons
similar to the ones described in (1) D (i) and (iv) above were also reported.
*Voice and video recording of interrogations in cases related to persons with mental- 15 -

disorders
A. Number of recorded cases and the recording ratio
In the three years from November 2012 to the end of March 2014, voice andvideo recording of interrogations was made in 3,542 out of the 3,615 reported
cases that were subject to such recording (which translated into a recording ratioof approx. 98.0%). The number of cases in which voice and video recording was
not made at all was 73 (approx. 2.0%).
As for the number of recorded cases and the recording ratio on an annual basis,the number was 783 and the ratio was approximately 97.5% in the first year (afive-month period from November 2012 to March 2013), and 2,759 andapproximately 98.1% in the second year (from April 2013 to March 2014).
B. Breakdown of voice and video recording by recording scope
Of the 3,542 cases in which voice and video recording was made between
November 2012 and the end of March 2014, the number of full recording cases
was 1,685 (approx. 47.6% of the total), the number of semi-full recording cases*
was 612 (approx. 17.3% of the total), and the number of partial recording cases
was 1,245 (approx. 35.1% of the total).
On an annual basis, the number of full recording cases was 336 (approx. 42.9%),
the number of semi-full recording cases was 135 (approx. 17.3%) and the numberof partial recording cases was 312 (approx. 39.8%) in the first year, and 1,349(approx. 48.9%), 477 (approx. 17.3%) and 933 (approx. 33.8%) in the second
year.
*In ”semi-full recording” cases, voice and video recording was not made initially after thereferral of the cases because the possibility of the suspects having lost criminal responsibility
partially or completely due to mental disorders had not been recognized but the interrogations
conducted by the prosecutors after the possibility was recognized were entirely recorded.

C. The ratio of voice and video recording time to the interrogation time
In cases in which voice and video recording was made, the ratio of recording
time to the interrogation time was approximately 80.8% in the first year andapproximately 83.7% in the second year.
D. Summary
As shown above, the ratio of cases related to persons with mental disorders inwhich video and sound recording of interrogation of suspects was made alreadyexceeded 97% in the first year. As the ratio of full recording and semi-fullrecording cases and the ratio of voice and video recording time to the interrogation
time have also been high, it can be assessed that voice and video recording is being
made actively.

- 16 -

Among the reported reasons for non-implementation (including partial
non-implementation) of voice and video recording are the reason described in E.
above and that it was not necessary to record interrogations because partial orcomplete loss of the suspects’ criminal responsibility was not recognized as a resultof psychiatric tests, etc.
*Voice and video recording of interrogations of suspects in cases exclusively
conducted by public prosecutors offices
A. Number of recorded cases and the recording ratio
In the three years from April 2011 to the end of March 2014, voice and video
recording of interrogations was made in 342 out of the 355 reported cases that were
subject to such recording (which translated into a recording ratio of approx.
96.3%). The number of cases in which voice and video recording was not made at
all was 13 (approx. 3.7%).
As for the number of recorded cases and the recording ratio on an annual basis,the number was 91 and the ratio was approximately 92.9% in the first year (from
April 2011 to March 2012), 128 and approximately 95.5% in the second year (from
April 2012 to March 2013), and 123 and 100% in the third year (from April 2013
to March 2014).
B. Breakdown of voice and video recording by recording scope
Of the 342 cases in which voice and video recording was made between April
2011 and the end of March 2014, the number of full recording cases was 219(approx. 64.0% of the total) and the number of partial recording cases was 123(approx. 36.0% of the total).
On an annual basis, the number of full recording cases was 39 (approx. 42.9%)
and the number of partial recording cases was 52 (approx. 57.1%) in the first year,
85 (approx. 66.4%) and 43 (approx. 33.6%) in the second year, and 95 (approx.
77.2%) and 28 (approx. 22.8%) in the third year.
C. The ratio of voice and video recording time to the interrogation time
In cases in which voice and video recording was made, the ratio of recording timeto the interrogation time was approximately 51.4% in the first year, approximately
73.6% in the second year and approximately 90.0% in the third year.
D. Summary
As shown above, the ratio of cases conducted exclusively by public prosecutors
offices in which video and sound recording of interrogation of suspects was madereached 100% in the third year. As the ratio of full recording cases and the ratio ofvoice and video recording time to the interrogation time have also been rising year
after year, it can be assessed that voice and video recording is being made actively.

- 17 -

Among the reported reasons (including partial non-implementation) for
non-implementation of voice and video recording were reasons similar to the ones
described in (1) D (i) and (iv) above.
3. Merits and problems of voice and video recording(1) Merits of voice and video recording
As a result of the trials, voice and video recording of interrogations was found tohave the following merits:
A. As the contents of interrogators’ questions and suspects’ responses, including theirattitudes when making statements, are objectively recorded, it becomes easier toassess the statements, contributing to judgment as to the admissibility andcredibility of suspects’ statements in the investigation phase.
○In judgments made in cases of Saiban-in Trials in which the admissibility of thesuspect’s written statements in the investigation phase was a point of dispute andDVDs, etc. were adopted as evidence, one judgment stated that “DVDs containrecords of scenes in which the suspect sufficiently checked the contents of thewritten statement and proactively said that what was written did not contravene
facts when asked to speak frankly by the prosecutor, and from the suspect’s
attitude, facial expressions and tone of voice, the atmosphere did not at all appear
to make it difficult to make statements voluntarily in the interrogation by theprosecutor” (a case in which the read-and-review format [which records spoken
remarks made according to a written statement]). Another judgment stated that “inthe interrogation, the interrogating prosecutor explained that the suspect may makestatements according to what was remembered at the moment because police and
the Prosecution Service are different organizations, that the suspect may refuse to
make statements and that the suspect may appeal for corrections. Indeed, thesuspect responded to the prosecutor by denying a murderous intent, made his (her)own assertions regarding important parts of the charges and circumstances, andappealed for corrections of the written statement before signing and fingerprinting
it. In addition, it can be recognized that the suspect expressed a complaint against
police officers, which would have been difficult to express under the influence ofthe police officers, regarding the interrogations of relevant persons and the way ofquestioning the suspect as to the presence or absence of a murderous intent.
Moreover, in light of the suspect’s frank way of speaking, facial expressions andattitude at the time of the interrogation, the suspect was able to make denials on
his (her) own judgment, so it cannot be recognized that the suspect was under the
influence of the police interrogation” (a case in which the live format was
adopted). In both cases, the admissibility of the written statement was recognized.

- 18 -

On the other hand, in a robbery-murder case in which the admissibility andcredibility of the suspect’s written confession of the intent of robbery was an issueof dispute, the judgment recognized the admissibility on the grounds that it wasinconceivable in light of the DVDs that the written confession was madeinvoluntarily. However, the judgment observed that the suspect’s talkativeness asrecorded by the DVDs, etc. appeared to be an attempt to please the prosecutor. The
judgment also observed that when encouraged to state the fundamental motivation
for murdering the victim or the reason for the confession, the suspect turned
taciturn and only concurred in response to leading questions from the prosecutor orappeared to be talking while being concerned over the contents of the written
statement. Regarding what the suspect felt when taking out the knife, it appearedthat the written confession was made based on the answer selected by the suspectfrom the two options proposed by the prosecutor, according to the judgment. As aresult, the credibility of the written confession was denied.
○

There was a reported case related to a person with an intellectual disability inwhich the admissibility and credibility of statements was ensured because voice
and video recording made clear that the prosecutor had not asked leading questions
or suggestive remarks in the interrogation and that the suspect clearly distinguishedbetween what was remembered and what was not remembered in making
statements. There was also a reported case related to a person with a mental
disorder in which although the suspect made an inscrutable statement to the effectthat he (she) had heard a voice urging robbery in an interrogation after extension of
the detention period, the voice and video recording of the entire interrogation
process made it clear that the suspect had not made such a statement in theprevious interrogation and that the reason given for not making such a statement
previously was unreasonable.

B. In cases where the suspect refuses to sign and fingerprint the written statement
while responding to the interrogation, the statement can be recorded.
○

For example, in a case related to arson of an inhabited building, although after
admitting to the crime initially in the investigation phase, the suspect later resorted
to silence and denial. As a result, the DVDs, etc. compiled in the initialinterrogation were the only evidence that recorded specific statements regarding
the development of the motivation and the circumstances of the crime, so theprosecutor requested examination of the DVDs, etc. in addition to the concise
written confession made by the suspect in front of a police officer for the purposeof presenting evidence regarding the sequence of events leading to the crime andthe circumstances of the crime. The DVDs, etc. were adopted as evidence to clarify- 19 -

the facts and circumstances of the crime (substantial evidence) and were indicatedin the evidence list.
C.

In some cases, as a result of the disclosure of evidence, including DVDs, etc., todefense attorneys,

the question of admissibility of and/or whether or not thesuspect stated what was included in the written statement is prevented frombecoming an issue of dispute, leading to the enhancement and speeding-up of court
examinations.
○

For example, there was a reported case in which the suspect refused to sign or

fingerprint the written statement compiled based an interrogation which was being
voice-and video-recorded but consent was given to adopting the written statement
as evidence in the court proceeding. There was also a reported case in which adefense attorney reserved an evidence opinion regarding an accomplice’s written
statement but consent was given to the written statement after the disclosure ofDVDs on which were recorded the interrogation of the accomplice and thecredibility was not disputed.
D.

The interrogation situation is objectively recorded, contributing to ensuring theappropriateness of the interrogation.
○ For example, there was a reported case in which a notification was submitted tothe effect that a written statement was not corrected despite repeated requests forcorrection, that the suspect had no option but to sign and fingerprint the written
statement because of exhaustion due to long hours of interrogations and that thedefense planned to dispute the admissibility and credibility of the statement but inwhich it was clear from DVDs, etc. that such a situation did not exist.
E. In cases related to persons with intellectual disabilities or mental disorders, voice
and video records may constitute useful evidence to judge the presence or absence
and the degree of disabilities and disorders and to prove facts.
○

For example, the following cases were reported:*Voice and video recording of the attitude of the suspect that was difficult to
describe in a written statement made it possible to provide accurate andappropriate materials for assessment.
*The suspect refused to be subjected to simple mental diagnosis but DVDs,
etc. on which were recorded extraordinary remarks and behavior of thesuspect made it objectively clear that the suspect’s criminal responsibility was
doubtful.
*The suspect appeared to be suffering from a severe degree of mental
disorder during the detention period because of withdrawal due to alcoholism
but DVDs, etc. showed that initially after the arrest, the appearance of the- 20 -

suspect did not indicate the presence of a mental disorder and they were usedas evidence to provide useful material for judging the suspect’s criminal
responsibility.
F. In cases related to persons with intellectual disabilities, it is possible to obtainadvice regarding interrogation from psychiatric and welfare experts by showing
DVDs, etc. to them.
○For example, there were reported cases in which it became possible to receive

advice from psychiatric and welfare experts with regard to the characteristics of thesuspects’ disabilities and statements at an early time by showing them DVDs, etc. on
which were recorded the procedure for recording explanatory statements and inwhich the voice and video records were useful from the perspective of selecting themethod of questioning the suspects in subsequent interrogations and ensuring theadmissibility of statements.
G. It is possible to identify problems in individual prosecutors’ interrogations and toprovide practical instructions that suit their respective qualities.
(2) Problems of voice and video recording
As a result of the trials, the following problems of voice and video recording wereidentified:
A. In voice- and video-recorded interrogations, depending on the nature of the cases
and the characteristics of the suspects, suspects may find it difficult to makestatements based on their own free will, or may change their attitude or tone down
their statements as a result of becoming nervous or becoming wary about theirstatements and attitude being recorded as they are (and the records may be seen byother people in the future) due to fears about retaliation from their organizations.
○ For example, the following cases were reported:*The suspect made statements regarding the background to the crime in the
non-custodial investigation stage but denied factual matters or remained silent
after voice and video recording started following the arrest.
*The suspect made explanatory statements profusely in the non-custodial
investigation stage but made few statements and kept looking down after
voice and video recording started following the arrest.
*The suspects confessed to their guilt in the post-arrest interrogation but
downplayed their involvement in interrogations that were being voice-andvideo-recorded or refused to make statements regarding the crime motivationor the usage of money.
B. In some cases, it is difficult for the prosecutor to develop a relationship of trustwith the suspect in interrogations that are being voice- and video-recorded- 21 -

because the prosecutor finds it hard to talk to the suspect with compassion out ofconsideration for the victim, for example. In other cases, the prosecutor may failto thoroughly question the suspect making irrational assertions about points ofcontraction due to concerns over how his/her remarks and behavior are evaluatedlater, a situation which may impede the clarification of the facts of the case.
C. If the suspect made a statement regarding personal information concerning
relevant people (the statement may contain both facts and fictions), suchinformation is entirely recorded. As a result, there is the risk that the relevant
people’s honor or privacy may be significantly infringed if DVDs, etc. aredisclosed.
D. As a result of the expansion of trials of voice and video recording of interrogations,
including of the entire interrogation process, the number of hours of voice and video
recording have increased, imposing a heavy burden on prosecutors who review therecords, including officers responsible for making final decisions and prosecutors incharge of examining a case and/or its court proceedings. In particular, in cases
conducted exclusively by public prosecutors offices, making long hours of voice
and video recording is a usual practice, and as a result, the officer responsible formaking final decisions needs to spend long hours reviewing DVDs, etc. This burden
is so heavy that its effects on the entire investigation cannot be ignored.
It is necessary to pay attention to these problems when making voice and video
recording of interrogations.
４

New policy for voice and video recording of interrogations
The current trials are applied to four types of cases, including cases of Saiban-in
Trials. Although the abovementioned problems were observed in some cases, it isrecognized that voice and video recording generally made some achievements inrealizing fair court trials, as DVDs, etc. contributed to judgment as to theadmissibility and credibility of statements made in the investigation phase as
reference materials that objectively recorded the interrogation situation regardless ofwhether the statements are favorable or unfavorable for the prosecutors. Therefore, itis presumed that voice and video recording of interrogations should be made more
actively based on the results of the trials so far conducted. From now on, thefollowing two new initiatives will be conducted:(1) Shift from trial to full implementation
Voice and video recording of interrogations will shift from the trial to full
implementation with regard to the cases to which it is now applied, including (i) casesof Saiban-in Trials, (ii) cases related to persons with intellectual disabilities, (iii)
cases related to persons with mental disorders, and (iv) cases conducted exclusively- 22 -

by public prosecutors’ offices will shift from trial to full implementation under thesame framework.
*New trial (expansion of the scope of cases to which voice and video recording ofinterrogation is applied)
Recently, it has been recognized that DVDs, etc. are the most suitable evidence toprove the interrogation situation, so when a dispute arises as to the admissibility andcredibility of statements made in the investigation phase, it is necessary to accurately
prove the situation using DVDs, etc. on which the interrogation is recorded. In light of
this, in order for prosecutors who have the burden of proof in court proceedings to
make such proof, voice and video recording of interrogations of persons making
statements is made in the following cases, with care taken not to hinder thefact-clarifying function of the interrogation:(i) Cases for which voice and video recording of the interrogation of the suspect isdeemed necessary, such as custody cases in which a request for court proceedings
is expected and in which a statement made by the victim is important for proving
facts in light of the nature of the case and evidence and other materials and cases
in which a dispute may arise as to the situation of the interrogation of the suspectin light of evidence and other materials as well as the statement situation(ii) Cases in which a request for court proceedings is expected and in which voice
and video recording of the interrogation of the victim and witnesses is necessary
due to specific circumstances such as that statements by the suspect andwitnesses are expected to constitute the core of the evidence presentation to provefacts.
IV. Enhancing the Capability to Execute Investigations and Court Proceedings inOrder to Respond to Changes of the Time
Amid significant changes in the environment surrounding investigations and court
proceedings, including the introduction of Saiban-in Trials, expansion of voice and video
recording of interrogations, the advance of science and technology and the development of
information and communication technology, enhancing the capability to execute
investigations and public proceeding has become a major task. In “Toward the
Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service,” it was pointed out that the Prosecution Service
should always pay attention to society and acquire the capability to detect social changes
and look toward the future. Accordingly, the Prosecution Service stipulated in the
Principles of Prosecution that “we shall continue our efforts to acquire and improve ourknowledge and skills on laws and legal issues and seek to attain broader knowledge andeducation which will enable us to cope with diverse and evolving issues (Principle 9) and- 23 -

has been conducting a study on ways of improving scientific investigation methods andcompiling written statements in the new era and has been conducting various initiatives toenhance the internationality of public prosecutors offices. At the same time, theProsecution Service, in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, has been expanding
various relevant training programs, etc.
1. Improvement of scientific investigation methods(1) Activities of the Expert Committee on Forensic Science and feedback to thefrontlines of investigation
Following the introduction of Saiban-in Trials, there has been a tendency among
courts to strictly evaluate the credibility of statements and evidence. In addition, insome cases, written statements are judged to be unnecessary and are not adopted. As aresult, investigation that does not overly rely on written statements has become
important, resulting in increased importance of objective evidence. On the other hand,in line with the advance of science and technology, forensic assessment technology
has improved and forensic assessment has been adopted in various fields. Moreover,due to the development of information and communication technology, computers andsmart phones have become social life infrastructure, making it possible to collect agreat variety of objective evidence, including electromagnetic records. While
objective evidence obtained through scientific investigation methods plays animportant role in the clarification of facts and evidence presentation to prove facts incourt proceedings, there are many cases in which the defendants and their defense
attorneys actively make objective evidence and evaluation thereof a point of dispute.
While objective evidence may serve as positive evidence, it may also be used asconclusive negative evidence. In light of this, it is important to strive to appropriately
collect, analyze and evaluate objective evidence based on the most up-to-dateknowledge and technology.
In view of these circumstances, on July 8, 2011, in order to collect and makeeffective use of knowledge concerning forensic science, the Expert Committee on
Forensic Science was established at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office. This
committee is comprised of members who have expert knowledge and experience in awide range of fields, including prosecutors with the experience of working at thecriminal forensic division of the National Police Agency and prosecutors’ assistant
officers belonging to the Digital Forensic (DF) Group. So far, the committee has
strived to collect the most up-to-date information concerning forensic science byconducting observations of and exchanging opinions with external organizations,
including the National Research Institute of Police Science and the Fingerprint Center
under the National Police Agency. The Expert Committee on Forensic Science collects- 24 -

cases investigated and processed using knowledge concerning forensic science andcases in which such knowledge was used for evidence presentation to prove facts incourt proceedings and feeds back information to public prosecutors offices with
explanations of basic knowledge and points of attention concerning various forensic
assessments to facilitate information sharing so that prosecutors can easily acquire
advanced knowledge concerning forensic science. Fields covered by feedback
information are wide ranging, including matters related to various forensic
assessments, such as DNA type, illegal drugs/toxic substances, voice prints, facial
features, fingerprints, firearms and handwriting as well as matters related tocybercrimes and digital forensics. Public prosecutors offices use knowledge
concerning scientific investigation not only as reference materials when giving
instructions to police or soliciting opinions from university professors but also as
materials for seminars. The feedback is thus used to improve the expert knowledge ofprosecutors and other prosecution staff in general concerning forensic science.
*Response to digital forensics and cybercrimes
As mentioned in II2*B, the DF Group was established in April 2011 at the Special
Investigation Department of each of the Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya District Public
Prosecutors Offices. The DF Group is responsible for appropriately collecting,preserving and analyzing electromagnetic records, mainly in cases investigatedexclusively by the Special Investigation Department. Efforts are made to share themost up-to-date knowledge and technology concerning digital forensics by organizing
information exchange meetings between the DF Groups of the three district publicprosecutors offices and by having DF Group members attend consultation meetings
with digital forensic personnel organized by relevant organizations. Some
prosecutors’ assistant officers belonging to the DF Group of the Tokyo District Public
Prosecutors Office are also members of the Expert Committee on Forensic Science,and they strive to acquire expert knowledge and experience-based knowledge incoordination with the activities of the expert committee. Moreover, the DF Promotion
Group was established on April 1, 2012, at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office inorder for public prosecutors in general to acquire and share knowledge and technology
concerning digital forensics. The DF Promotion Group at the Supreme Public
Prosecutors Office strives to acquire the most up-to-date information and technology
concerning digital forensics by actively participating in lecture sessions andequipment explanation meetings organized by private companies for law enforcement
agencies. It also feeds back knowledge and technology in the form of advice andtechnical support provided in response to inquiries from public prosecutors offices.
Since fiscal 2012, the Ministry of Justice, with cooperation such as dispatch of- 25 -

lecturers from the DF Promotion Group of the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, hasbeen implementing digital forensic training programs for prosecutors and prosecutors’
assistant officers at public prosecutors offices across the country in order to help themacquire basic knowledge concerning digital forensics and practical techniques forappropriately collecting, preserving and analyzing electromagnetic records in criminalcases. Since fiscal 2013, the ministry has been implementing a digital forensic
practical training program for prosecutors’ assistant officers who have basic
knowledge, including those who have finished the digital forensic training program, inorder to help them acquire more advanced expert knowledge and technology.
Meanwhile, in response to the so-called personal computer remote control incident, a
prosecutor in charge of cybercrimes was appointed at the Expert Committee on Forensic
Science of the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office and prosecutors in charge ofcyber-related matters were appointed at the Tokyo and Osaka District Public
Prosecutors Offices. In addition, by the end of July 2013, a total of 18 prosecutors incharge of cyber-related matters were appointed at 13 public prosecutors offices of a
relatively large size (Tokyo, Yokohama, Saitama, Chiba, Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe, Nagoya,
Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Sendai, Sapporo and Takamatsu), resulting in the development ofa nationwide system to deal with cybercrimes. Moreover, the Supreme Public
Prosecutors Office has held seminars, attended by prosecutors in charge of cyber-related
matters at those district public prosecutors offices, to share knowledge that should beacquired in light of the actual circumstances of cyber and other crimes reflecting thesophistication of information processing in recent years. It has also developed a systemthat can adapt to the increasing specialization and sophistication of investigation
methods by establishing a network of prosecutors in charge of cyber-related matters at
district public prosecutors offices in order to share information concerning c ybercrime
techniques and their characteristics identified during investigation of individual cases
and to more accurately deal with cases through mutual cooperation. In March 2014,
several personnel of the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, including the prosecutor in
charge of cybercrimes, conducted observations of and exchanged opinions with relevant
U.S. organizations, thereby deepening knowledge concerning ways of dealing withcybercrimes in Japan.
The Ministry of Justice implements an information system expert training programfor prosecutors at public prosecutors offices across the country in order to help themunderstand the basic mechanisms of computer networks and security systems andtechniques used in cybercrimes and acquire basic knowledge concerning investigation
methods, including log analysis. In this program, specialist private companies provide
lectures and practical training concerning computer networking, illegal access,- 26 -

invasion methods and countermeasures as well as examination of attacked computersand log analysis. In addition, prosecutors and police officers provide lecturesconcerning high-tech crime investigation.
2. Study on ways of conducting interrogations and compiling written statements
As part of the review of investigation and court proceedings overly relying on
interrogations and written statements, a problem which was pointed out in “Toward the
Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service,” the Supreme Public Prosecutors Officecompiled and published a report titled “Verification of Voice and Video Recording ofInterrogations by the Prosecution Service” on July 4, 2012, and established the “Study
Team on Interrogations in a New Era.” Amid drastic changes in the environment
surrounding investigations and court proceedings, particularly the improvement ofscientific investigation methods, the study team conducted a series of studies based on an
exchange of opinions with prosecutors across the country in order to “strive to the utmost
to discover the truth in each case with all our knowledge and skills (Principle 3) while
practicing the principles prescribed in the Principles of Prosecution, such as ”We shall
pay due attention to the assertions of suspects or defendants, endeavor to collect all
relevant evidence, both incriminating and exculpatory, aggravating and mitigating, andmake rational and sensible evaluation of evidence from various perspectives” (Principle4) and “In interviewing witnesses and suspects, we shall strive to obtain true statements,
while securing their voluntary nature and the fairness of the questioning” (Principle 5).
As a result, on April 9, 2013, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office sent a report titled“Regarding Ways of Interrogating Suspects and Compiling Written Statements,” whichsummarized mainly the basic concept concerning ways of interrogating suspects andcompiling written statements and general points of attention, to public prosecutors officesof a relatively large size and instructed them to enhance their interrogation capability
through the practice of appropriate interrogations suited to individual cases. Regarding
the basic approach to interrogation, this report stipulates as follows:*Although interrogation is important for clarifying the facts of a case, it should not be
conducted solely for the purpose of obtaining a confession (statements admitting tosuspected facts).
*Interrogation is no more than one of the investigation methods and it can exercise its
fact-clarifying function only if it is conducted in close coordination with otherinvestigation methods.
The report points out that it is important to make sufficient preparations, develop
relationship that makes it easier for the suspect to talk and adequately listen to what thesuspect has to say, and it also examines ways of pursuing questions and persuading andhow written statements should be compiled.

- 27 -

Based on the recognition that in order to enhance the investigation capability of theProsecution Service as a whole while practicing the points cited in the report, it isessential for officers responsible for making final decisions to continue to provide
practical instructions and training, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office established the“Study Team on Training and Instructions concerning Ways of Interrogating Suspects andCompiling Written Statements” in October 2013. This study team, in cooperation with the
Ministry of Justice, studied curriculums that contribute to the improvement ofinterrogations and scientific investigation methods in various training programs for publicprosecutors, assistant public prosecutors and assistant officers and enhanced the contentsof the programs. In addition, in order to optimize investigation techniques in ways thatsuit voice- and video-recorded interrogations, the study team conducted such initiatives asholding meetings to exchange opinions with psychology experts regarding questioning
techniques while viewing DVDs on which interrogations useful as a reference wererecorded, sending prosecutors abroad to participate in training programs in order to foster
interrogation instructors (in fiscal 2014, senior prosecutors participated in interrogation
training in the United Kingdom), and studying how to feed back information to be used in
the training of prosecutors and assistant officers and how officers responsible fo r making
final decisions should give instructions.
3. Enhancement of the internationality of the Prosecution Service
In recent years, cross-border crimes have increased in line with the advance of
globalization and the development of IT technology. To cope with this situation, theProsecution Service should not only develop a system to appropriately deal withinternational crimes but also enhance its internationalization by deepening mutual
understanding with organizations in other countries. In light of these circumstances, theExpert Committee on International Affairs was established at the Supreme Public
Prosecutors Office on July 8, 2011. This expert committee collects knowledge
necessary for engaging in the Prosecution Service’s various international operations andstudies ways of making effective use of such knowledge. It also studies issues related tointernational investigations through exchanges of opinions with relevant organizations
and its own discussions.
Moreover, in order to go beyond the scope of the expert committee’s activities, suchas collecting, accumulating and providing knowledge, and plan specific initiatives toenhance the internationality of the Prosecution Service, a prosecutor in charge ofinternational affairs was appointed at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office on
October 1, 2013. In addition to planning specific initiatives to enhance theinternationality of the Prosecution Service, the prosecutor in charge of international
affairs at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office engages in such activities as overall- 28 -

coordination between the Prosecution Service and a diverse range of relevantorganizations. Furthermore, on January 31, 2014, a total of 17 prosecutors in charge ofinternational affairs were appointed at 13 district public prosecutors offices of a
relatively large size. On May 1, a prosecutor in charge of international affairs was also
appointed at the Okinawa District Public Prosecutors Office as well. The job duties
performed by prosecutors in charge of international affairs at the district publicprosecutors offices include: (i) acting as a liaison with the International Affairs
Division, Criminal Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice and the prosecutor in
charge of international affairs at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office; (ii) collecting
and accumulating information concerning mutual legal assistance, etc. provided by theInternational Affairs Division, Criminal Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice andthe prosecutor in charge of international affairs at the Supreme Public Prosecutors
Office, improving relevant knowledge and communicating it to prosecutors and otherprosecution staff as appropriate; (iii) holding liaison consultations with the International
Affairs Division Criminal Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice and giving advice to otherprosecutors and prosecution staff when mutual legal assistance is deemed to benecessary; and (iv) handling matters related to visits by personnel from foreign
investigative organizations.
The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office is striving to enhance the expert knowledgeof prosecutors in charge by securing a system for close liaison with prosecutors incharge of international affairs at district public prosecutors offices of a relatively large
size, the International Affairs Division Criminal Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice,etc., holding consultation meetings to consider response to international crimes andcheck ways of cooperation, and sharing information on procedures for and problems
with mutual legal assistance through consultations and exchanges of opinions
concerning various problems based on specific example cases of such assistance.
4. Enhancement of various training programs
It was recommended in “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that itis necessary to strengthen prosecutors’ basic capabilities, centralize and utilize advanced
expert knowledge systematically, change senior prosecutors’ mindsets and improve andreform leadership. In light of the recommendation and in order to strengthen thecapability to execute investigations and court proceedings, the Ministry of Justice and theProsecution Service are enhancing various training programs. Accordingly, individual
public prosecutors offices are conducting various initiatives.
(1)

Enhancement of training programs for prosecutors and assistant prosecutors tostrengthen the basic capabilities
From the perspective of making prosecutors recognize anew the mission and role of- 29 -

the Prosecution Service and ensuring thorough awareness about the Principles ofProsecution, training programs for prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors
incorporate many lectures by prosecutors belonging to the Public Prosecution Reform
Promotion Office of the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, which was involved in thedevelopment of those principles as well as lectures related to the reform of theProsecution Service. In addition, in light of the status of the study conducted by the“Study Team on Interrogations in a New Era,” it is recognized that the basic
fact-clarifying capabilities required of prosecutors are the capability to accurately
understand changing points of dispute and evidence of a case in the investigation phase,the capability to identify evidence that should be collected and facts that should berecognized and collected, the capability to analyze and evaluate objective evidence
based on these capabilities, and the interrogation capability in terms of obtaining
appropriate statements as evidence. Based on this recognition, the contents of lecturesand seminars concerning the recognition of facts (including consideration of acquittal
cases), methods of collecting objective evidence (including scientific and laboratory
investigation as well as forensic assessment), the approach to interrogation andquestioning techniques have been improved so as to contribute to strengthening basic
capabilities through an increase in the number of lessons and upgrading of the contents
according to the training level. In addition, there are initiatives to strengthen the basic
capabilities by having trainees recognize and reflect on the level of their own growththrough mutual comparison between them, for example through the introduction ofseminar-type curriculums and indictment drafting curriculums in which participantsconsider mock processes and decisions using simulated case records and sort out
evidence and then hold debates and evaluate the results, in preparation for OJT at
individual public prosecutors offices following the training program.
In light of the recommendation in “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution
Service” that “in order to strengthen individual prosecutors’ job performance capability
and improve their skills, ways of passing competent prosecutors’ job capabilities on to
future generations and institutionally sharing them should be devised,” officers
responsible for making final decisions and senior prosecutors at many individual publicprosecutors offices are playing the leading role in further enhancing existing periodic
study meetings. Regarding the office space arrangement under which each pair ofprosecutor and assistant officer work in an individual office room, an increasing
number of public prosecutors offices have shifted to an arrangement under which two
or more prosecutors, assistant prosecutors and assistant officers – the number of
personnel sharing the room depends on the floor space size – perform job duties in acommon office room while sharing information. There is also an initiative to share- 30 -

knowledge and experiences, including regarding various investigation methods andinterrogation techniques, through a system under which a senior prosecutor can beeasily consulted as a mentor by several young prosecutors across office walls, andthrough periodic meetings of prosecutors, assistant prosecutors and assistant officers atlarge prosecutors offices operating on a group system under which they bring together
their respective cases and consider them together to explore solutions.
(2) Enhancement of the prosecutor dispatch system and the law office experience system
The Ministry of Justice is operating a prosecutor dispatch system under which
prosecutors are dispatched to work at private companies, private organizations
engaging in public interest activities and local governments for a certain period of timein order to cultivate a broad perspective and knowledge through opportunities tointeract and exchange opinions with diverse people. Under this system, threeprosecutors were dispatched in fiscal 2010, followed by the dispatch of four in fiscal
2011, six in fiscal 2012, and six in fiscal 2013, to work at private companies in various
industries and private organizations engaging in public interest activities (anorganization supporting crime victims, a child consultation center, etc.).
The Ministry of Justice is also operating the law office experience system under which
prosecutors work at law offices for a certain period of time in order to further enhancetheir capabilities and qualities as prosecutors through the experience of working as
lawyers. Under this system, five prosecutors worked at law firms in fiscal 2010,
followed by six in fiscal 2011, seven in fiscal 2012, and eight in fiscal 2013, with eachof them engaging in the lawyer’s job for two years.
(3) Enhancement of training of senior prosecutors
The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office and the Ministry of Justice are implementing
the prosecution management seminar for new chief prosecutors of district publicprosecutors offices. In this seminar, trainees receive lectures that contribute tocultivating leadership, which is the objective of this seminar, including external
lecturers’ lectures concerning organizational management. In fiscal 2013, thecurriculum was so formulated as to enable new chief prosecutors to deepen theirrecognition of various matters which have recently been required of the Prosecution
Service and enhance their organizational management capability, which forms thefoundation of investigation and court proceedings activities. For example, new chiefprosecutors received not only lectures concerning leadership and human resource
development but also lectures given by external experts with regard to prosecutors’court proceedings activities and handling of victims as seen from the viewpoints ofjudges and defense attorneys and lectures concerning cybercrimes and criminal
policy-related initiatives conducted by public prosecutors offices and other relevant- 31 -

organizations.
In addition, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office and the Ministry of Justice are
implementing a seminar for new officers responsible for making final decisions. In theseminar, practical lectures (e.g., coaching), including concerning how to give instructions
to subordinates and how to make final decisions, are given. Moreover, since fiscal 2013, a
training program for deputy chief prosecutors of district public prosecutors offices has
been implemented for new deputy chief prosecutors who participated in the seminar for
new officers responsible for making final decisions in the previous year. This program isprovided as follow-up training for those who have served as new deputy chief prosecutors
for several months. It incorporates a mechanism to check the job performance capabilityof trainees as officers responsible for making final decisions through practical methods,
such as final decision-making exercises.
V. Initiatives Contributing to Criminal Policies
１

Support for social rehabilitation of suspects and defendants intended toprevent repeat offenses
The Prosecution Service characterized contributing to the objectives of criminal policy,
such as prevention of repeat offenses, as an important task due to the following
circumstances:* At a meeting of cabinet ministers on countermeasures against crimes on July 20,
2012, the “Comprehensive Package of Measures Intended to Prevent Repeat
Offenses” was adopted, so the need for initiatives to prevent repeat offenses grew.
*There is widespread awareness about the importance of providing welfare support todisabled and elderly people not only when they are released from correction facilities
but also when they are suspects or defendants, and as a result, collaboration between
criminal justice and welfare services has started.
*It is stipulated in the Principles of Prosecution that “Obtaining conviction by anymeans in all cases is not our goal, nor should we seek to impose harsh sentences
without regard to the nature of the case. Our objective is to achieve proper dispositions
and proper sentencing for each case, corresponding to its nature and representing thecommon sense of the people” (preamble) and that “We shall endeavor to contribute to
the prevention of crime, the rehabilitation of offenders and other aims of criminal
justice, in cooperation with police and other law enforcement authorities, correctional
and probation services and other relevant agencies and organizations” (Principle 8).
In light of this situation, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office established theExpert Committee on Criminal Policy on June 12, 2012, as a major pillar of theinitiative to prevent repeat offenses and is obtaining and feeding back information- 32 -

concerning individual prosecutors offices’ activities to prevent repeat offenses andother up-to-date information to public prosecutors offices across the country while
conducting various studies in cooperation with relevant organizations.
Moreover, individual public prosecutors offices provide advice and perform
coordination work regarding the treatment of disabled and elderly people who havecommitted crimes in specific cases in accordance with their own circumstances. For
example, they may employ social workers as social welfare advisers on a part -timebasis in order to enhance support for social rehabilitation by securing places ready toaccept such people following their release due to dismissal of the case or conviction
with a suspended sentence. In addition, public prosecutors offices are making efforts
to strengthen systems, including by seeking closer cooperation with probation offices
and welfare organizations. Meanwhile, during investigations and court proceedings,
public prosecutors offices study the possibility of preventing repeat offenses throughsuch support on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the specific contents of thecases and make decisions and demand punishment so as to ensure that measures
suited to the cases are implemented.
2. Support for victims
Regarding the protection of and support for crime victims, public prosecutors offices
across the country have been conducting various initiatives based on the Basic Act on
Crime Victims and the Second Crime Victim, etc. Basic Plan. In light of the importanceof the growing move to support crime victims, the Prosecution Service has stipulated in
the Principles of Prosecution that “We shall pay due attention to the opinions and viewsof victims of crime or their family members and uphold their legitimate rights andinterests (Principle 6). Based on the recognition that supporting victims is one of the mostimportant tasks for the Prosecution Service, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office has
adopted prevention of repeat offenses and support for victims as the two major initiativesof the Expert Committee on Criminal Policy. It is obtaining information concerning
various victim support initiatives conducted within and outside the Prosecution Service
and new initiatives and, after analysis and evaluation, is feeding back information
concerning useful initiatives to public prosecutors offices across the country. The
Supreme Public Prosecutors Office is also enhancing training concerning support for
victims and cooperation with relevant organizations so as to be able to quickly respond to
new movements related to support for victims.
In order to put into practice the principle of “paying due attention to the opinions andviews of victims of crime or their family members,” which is among the Principles ofProsecution, individual public prosecutors offices support crime victims, adequately hearfrom them on the actual status of crime damage, make use of the results for investigating- 33 -

and processing the cases and reflect them in court proceedings activities. Moreover, they
are conducting such initiatives as providing explanations concerning criminal proceedings
in general and explanations at each stage of the proceedings and explanations concerning
various programs to support victims; appointing victim-supporting officers and opening a
hotline for victims; operating a system to notify victims of matters related to criminal
proceedings; making records of non-prosecuted cases available for viewing; protecting
victims in questioning of witnesses; operating a victim participation system; enhancing
training concerning support for victims; and cooperating with relevant organizations
regarding support for victims. Large public prosecutors offices are organizationallystrengthening support for victims by establishing a new section dedicated to support for
victims in order to systematically and efficiently conduct victim support activities andimplement cooperation with relevant organizations.
VI. Reform Intended to Enhance Organizational Management
1.

Establishment of the Public Prosecution Reform Promotion Office and outlineof activities
The reform of the Prosecution Service can be realized only if public prosecutors offices
make continuous reform efforts. To that end, it is necessary to establish a section
dedicated to promoting reform of the Prosecution Service, as was pointed out in “Toward
the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service”. Accordingly, on April 8, 2011, the Public
Prosecution Reform Promotion Office was established at the Supreme Public Prosecutors
Office. The Public Prosecution Reform Promotion Office, which aims to actively andsteadily promote reform of the Prosecution Service, promotes reform measures while
periodically verifying the implementation of reform measures and making necessary
revisions. It is also continuously conducting initiatives to ensure organizational
management that puts into practice Principle 10 of the Principles of Prosecution: “Weshall act with constant reflection on past experience and build an organization withvitality and with a culture of free and active discussion, as well as mutual assistance andcooperation.” Its main initiatives are conducting the Survey on the Status of
Organizational Operations, which is intended to improve prosecution organizations ingeneral, and establishing and operating expert committees, which are intended to enhance
expertise.
(1) Conducting the Survey on the Status of Organizational Operations
Since fiscal 2012, the Public Prosecution Reform Promotion Office has been
conducting the Survey on the Status of Organizational Operations and the opinion
survey on subordinates concerning senior prosecutors and has analyzed the survey
results.

- 34 -

The Survey on the Status of Organizational Operations is intended to identify thecurrent status of organizational operations and problems by surveying the attitudes
and opinions of prosecutors and other prosecution staff at individual publicprosecutors offices with regard to such matters as communication between seniors andsubordinates and between colleagues, response to harassment practices and thedivision of work and to contribute to the improvement of organizational operations byfeeding back the results to senior prosecutors responsible for organizational
operations.. Individual public prosecutors offices receive feedback of the survey
results, which are analyzed by senior prosecutors and communicated to prosecutors
and other prosecution staff. In addition, individual public prosecutors offices arecontinuously conducting improvement initiatives by establishing study councils onorganizational operations and project teams for improving organizational operations
and by holding rank-by-rank meetings among prosecutors and other prosecution staff.
Moreover, high public prosecutors offices actively use the survey results for diverse
purposes by holding consultations and exchanging opinions with district publicprosecutors offices in the areas under their jurisdiction at various meetings. Therefore,
it is presumed that improvements are being made in line with the purpose of creatingenergetic organizations in which free-wheeling discussion and mutual support are
possible.
The opinion survey on subordinates concerning senior prosecutors is intended tohelp senior prosecutors cultivate and enhance their organizational operation capability
by identifying the opinions of subordinates with regard to such matters as theappropriateness of their judgment, advice and guidance regarding job execution andby giving the feedback to senior prosecutors so as to enable them to reflect on their
daily activities, consider improvements and solutions and reflect the results in future
activities. Many senior prosecutors appear to be taking opinions expressed bysubordinates seriously and using the feedback for making decisions. Therefore, thissurvey is also presumed to be useful for human resource development.
The status of implementing the surveys concerning organizational operations is asfollows:
A. Fiscal 2012(i) Survey on the Status of Organizational Operations
Conducted at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office and 23 public prosecutors
offices in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Tokyo, Sapporo and Takamatsu
High Public Prosecutors Offices(ii) Opinion survey on subordinates concerning senior prosecutors
Conducted with regard to a total of 104 senior prosecutors at district public- 35 -

prosecutor offices in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Osaka, Nagoya,
Hiroshima, Fukuoka and Sendai High Public Prosecutors Offices
B. Fiscal 2013(i) Survey on the Status of Organizational Operations
Conducted at 36 public prosecutors offices in the areas under the jurisdictionof the Osaka, Nagoya, Hiroshima, Fukuoka and Sendai High Public Prosecutors
Offices(ii) Opinion survey on subordinates concerning senior prosecutors
Conducted with regard to a total of 201 executives at all district publicprosecutors offices
C. Fiscal 2014 (planned)(i) Survey on the Status of Organizational Operations
To be conducted at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office and 23 publicprosecutors offices in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Tokyo, Sapporo andTakamatsu High Public Prosecutors Offices(ii) Opinion survey on subordinates concerning senior prosecutors
To be conducted with regard to senior prosecutors at all district publicprosecutors offices.
(2) Field-specific expert committees
Regarding field-specific expert committees, it was recommended in “Toward the
Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that “in order to collect and utilize advanced
expert knowledge systematically, field-specific expert committees which have the thinktank function in expert fields such as finance and securities should be established.”
Accordingly, on July 8, 2011, expert committees consisting of public prosecutors andother prosecution staff were established at the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office withregard to finance and securities, special negligence, forensic science, intellectual
disabilities, international affairs and organizational management. In addition, on June 12,2012, an expert committee on criminal policy was established. The expert committees
have been conducting various activities in order to accumulate necessary expert
knowledge through exchanges of opinions with advisers, who are external experts,
lecture meetings, and collection and analysis of reference cases and related materials andto use such knowledge for supporting prosecution operations at worksites in various
fields and for developing human resources.
2. Establishment of the Inspection Department and records of inspection(1) Establishment of the Inspection Department and the outline of activities
It was recommended in “Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that“it is necessary to develop an inspection system to receive complaints about illegal and- 36 -

inappropriate acts conducted by prosecutors and other prosecution staff from bothwithin and outside the Prosecution Service, examine facts and take appropriate
measures by establishing within the Prosecution Service a section in charge ofmonitoring illegal and inappropriate acts. It is also necessary to develop a mechanism toobtain opinions and advice from external experts with regard to the status of activities
of such a section.” Accordingly, the Inspection Department was established at theSupreme Public Prosecutors Office on July 8, 2011.
The Inspection Department identifies and collects information, from both within andoutside the Prosecution Service, concerning wrong acts conducted by prosecutors andassistant officers in relation to their job duties, mainly illegal and inappropriate acts
related to investigations and court proceedings and acts that are suspected to be illegal
and inappropriate, analyzes and examines such information and conducts inspection if
necessary. The Department reports the inspection results periodically, mostly on aquarterly basis, or as necessary to advisers who are external experts, and writes reports on
the inspection results while receiving opinions and advice from them. It sends the reports
to the public prosecutors offices to which relevant prosecutors and other prosecution staff
belong and provides guidance on making improvements so as to prevent the recurrence ofsimilar illegal and inappropriate acts. During the two years and 10 months from theestablishment of the Department to April 30, 2014, 3,187 reports were received, as will bementioned again later. The 447 reports, which remained after excluding those whose
contents were unclear and those which do not constitute incidents subject to inspection,
were filed as inspection cases. After necessary inspection, instructions for improvements,
etc. (22 cases) and alerts intended to prevent recurrence (35 cases) were issued. Regarding
cases for which continuous efforts are regarded as necessary, the public prosecutors
offices to which relevant prosecutors and other prosecution staff belong were required toreport on the status of efforts and the status of improvement by around one year later so
as to ensure that guidance for improvement is provided. The Inspection Department
compiles reference materials that summarize the key points of reports on the inspection
results on a quarterly basis and sends them to deputy chief prosecutors of high and district
public prosecutors offices. In light of the inspection results, at various meetings the
Department also calls attention to the points to which attention should be paid whensenior prosecutors provide guidance to and supervise subordinates.
As will be mentioned later, if reports received by the Inspection Department aresorted by type, “Complaints about interrogations” accounts for a substantial proportionof the reports. Therefore, in inspection related to such reports, the Inspection
Department also conducts inspection regarding a wide range of matters other than the
points mentioned in the reports, points out problems and provides advice and guidance- 37 -

regarding improvement measures and recurrence prevention measures that may be takenby the public prosecutors offices to which relevant prosecutors and other prosecution
staff belong. In this way, the Department is conducting inspection and providing
guidance mainly for the purpose of making interrogations more appropriate. Moreover,in the training of prosecutors, assistant public prosecutors and assistant officers, theInspection Department places emphasis on sharing of information concerning inspection
results and education and awareness-raising activities, providing guidance mainly on
how to deal with defense attorneys, victims, etc.
Through these activities, the Inspection Department is promoting initiatives to ensurethat the Prosecution Service as a whole appropriately conducts investigation and court
proceedings activities and appropriately performs job duties. It can be recognized thatsuch initiatives are taking hold at public prosecutors offices across the country and thatprosecutors and assistant officers are conducting interrogations, investigation and court
proceedings activities while being conscious of the Inspection Department’s viewpoints
of inspection and guidance.
*Records of inspection, etc.
A.

By source, of the total of 3,187 reports received during the two years and 10
months between the establishment of the Inspection Department and April 30,
2014, 2,249 reports (approx. 71%) came via email, letter, telephone, etc. in theform of direct provision of information from external sources, while 938 reports(approx. 29%) came from within the Prosecution Service. By type, 505 reports
indicated “Complaints about interrogations” and 506 indicated “Complaints about
investigation and processing of cases and court proceedings activities,” with eachof the two accounting for approximately 16% of the total. The 2,087 reports(approx. 65%) that were classified as “others” included a substantial number ofreports whose contents were too unclear to be classified.

B. Of the total of 3,187 reports received, 447 (approx. 14%) were adopted as
inspection cases and inspection was started. As of April 30, 2014, a total of 61
cases were pending, which means that what to do with them remained undecided
because information was still being collected.
C. By source, of the 447 reports regarding which inspection was started, the largest
number, 343 (approx. 77%), came from defense attorneys, while by type, the largest
number, 358 (approx. 80%), indicated complaints about interrogations. As of April
30, 2014, 10 cases were under inspection (pending).
As for the inspection results, in 22 cases (approx. 5%), the Prosecutor-General issued
instructions for improvement to the chief prosecutor the district public prosecutors office,and in 35 cases (approx. 8%), the Prosecutor-General issued a written alert regarding the- 38 -

inspection results to the chief prosecutors. In 92 cases (approx. 21%), measures such asprovision of guidance by the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office were judged to beunnecessary because caution and guidance had already been issued to relevant prosecutors
and other prosecution staff by the public prosecutors offices to which they belong. In 288
cases (approx. 64%)，taking measures was judged to be unnecessary because the presenceof an illegal or inappropriate act was not recognized.
3. Employment of competent personnel from a wide range of fields and assignmentof personnel
Regarding the employment and assignment of personnel, it was recommended in“Toward the Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that “it is necessary to diversify
personnel by employing competent persons from a wide range of fields and promoting
the appointment of female employees to senior positions, and it is also necessary toconsider the assignment of personnel from a nationwide perspective.” Accordingly, inorder to diversify personnel of the Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Justice set thegoal of increasing the proportion of women in persons employed as prosecutors andassistant officers to more than 30% by the end of fiscal 2015 in the “Plan for
Expanding Employment and Appointment of Female Employees at the Ministry ofJustice,” which was adopted on November 22, 2011. The Ministry of Justice is striving
to expand the employment of women as prosecutors and assistant officers and theappointment of women to senior posts by steadily implementing the plan. The
proportion of women in people employed as prosecutors was 30.6% in fiscal 2012 and37.8% in fiscal 2013, while the proportion of women in people employed as assistant
officers was 38.3% in fiscal 2012 and 38.4% in fiscal 2013. These figures attained theemployment goal. Taking account of the government’s goal of increasing the
proportion of women in leadership positions, the Ministry of Justice will strive tocontinue to expand employment and appointment of female employees. The Ministry ofJustice is also striving to employ people with expert knowledge and experience
working at private companies.
From the perspective of promoting gender equality in the Prosecution Service as
well, various initiatives are being conducted. At the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office,
the Committee on Promotion of Gender Equality in Public Prosecutors Offices wasestablished as an advisory body to the Prosecutor-General. After listening to theopinions of prosecutors and other prosecution staff across the country, this committee
submitted to the Prosecutor-General on February 19, 2013 a recommendation report
titled “Toward Further Promoting Gender Equality in the Prosecution Service.” In therecommendation report, the committee stated that the Prosecution Service should tackle
three additional tasks: promoting career formation for female prosecutors and other- 39 -

prosecution staff, facilitating mutual support in order to realize an appropriate work -lifebalance, and developing a working environment friendly for women. In light of thisrecommendation, public prosecutors offices across the country are conducting specificinitiatives, including revising the way that female staff are assigned so as to assign
women to jobs to which few women have previously been assigned, holding discussion
and lecture meetings intended to raise the morale of female staff and improving thesystem for support, including support for returning to work after a long leave, after
identifying their own respective circumstances.
As for personnel assignment, it is required that during the education period of five
years or so after joining the Prosecution Service, prosecutors be assigned to publicprosecutors offices located in the areas of jurisdiction of three different high publicprosecutors offices in order to better enforce the personnel assignment policy of placing
the right person in the right job from a nationwide perspective. Subsequently, it isrequired that prosecutors be assigned to areas under the jurisdiction of high publicprosecutors offices other than those of their own preference twice or more before they
become officers responsible for making final decisions (deputy chief prosecutors at
small and medium-size public prosecutors offices and directors of departments at large
public prosecutors offices). It is also required that plans for the appointment of officers
responsible for making final decisions be considered centrally from a nationwide
perspective.
4. Meetings of the Advisers' Board on Overall Public Prosecution Operations
Regarding overall public prosecution operations, it was recommended in “Toward the
Rehabilitation of the Prosecution Service” that “it is necessary to establish amechanism to report the actual situation of the general public prosecution operations toexternal experts and to obtain appropriate opinions and advice with regard to publicprosecution operations that take into consideration changes in the social and economic
situations as well as changes in people’s consciousness.” It was also pointed out that itwas necessary to continuously and periodically incorporate external viewpoints andtrends into general public prosecution operations. Accordingly, on July 8, 2011, theSupreme Public Prosecutors Office decided to hold meetings of the Advisers' Board on
Overall Public Prosecution Operations. So far, six such meetings (on September 15,
2011, March 15, June 19 and November 27, 2012, and April 11 and December 10,2013). At the meetings, the actual situation of overall public prosecution operations,
including the status of the reform of the Prosecution Service, was reported to advisers.
At the same time, opinions and advice regarding overall prosecution operations wereobtained from the advisers. The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office will continuously
and periodically hold meetings of the Advisers' Board on Overall Public Prosecution- 40 -

Operations in order to incorporate external viewpoints and trends.
As of the end of May 2014, the advisers participating in the meeting were as follows:
Hitoshi Saeki, professor, Graduate Schools for Law and Politics, University ofTokyo
Hiroaki Jin, lawyer
Shunsuke Takahashi, project professor, Graduate School of Media andGovernance, Keio University
Yoshiaki Tajima, board member, Nankoairinkai (social welfare corporation)
Masakazu Hayashi, chairperson of the board of directors, Japan Exchange GroupInc.
Kunio Harada, lawyer
Atsushi Yamaguchi, professor, Law School, Waseda University
Yozo Yokota, director, Center for Human Rights Affairs, special adviser to the
Ministry of Justice.

- 41 -