Hideko Hakamada testified before the House of Representatives Committee on Judicial Affairs on June 9 to advocate for the reform of Japan's retrial system [1].

Her testimony highlights a critical struggle within the Japanese legal system regarding the speed and fairness of retrials for those claiming wrongful conviction. By challenging the current legal framework, Hakamada seeks to prevent future defendants from enduring decades of imprisonment based on incomplete evidence.

Hakamada, 93 [2], spoke to the committee about the obstacles her brother, Iwao Hakamada, faced. Reports on Iwao's age vary between 89 [5] and 90 [4]. She specifically pointed to the role of prosecutorial appeals in delaying the start of retrials [3].

"It is not a law made by God. It is a law made by humans," Hakamada said [1]. "I believe it is possible to amend it" [1].

During the proceedings, the committee discussed a proposed amendment that would, in principle, prohibit prosecutors from filing appeals against decisions to grant a retrial [1]. Hakamada said such a change is necessary to stop the state from prolonging legal battles while defendants remain incarcerated.

She also called for a total shift in how evidence is handled during the judicial process to ensure transparency. Hakamada said she wants the courts to conduct trials using all evidence, regardless of whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the prosecution [1].

This appearance marks a rare instance of a family member of a long-term prisoner testifying directly to lawmakers to influence legislative change. Hakamada's testimony emphasizes the human cost of a system where the prosecution maintains significant control over the timing and scope of retrials [3].

“"It is not a law made by God. It is a law made by humans."”

This testimony places direct pressure on the Japanese Diet to limit the power of prosecutors to block retrials through appeals. If the proposed amendment passes, it would fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Japanese judiciary, making it faster for defendants to challenge original verdicts when new evidence emerges and reducing the likelihood of prolonged wrongful imprisonments.