【仁比聡平】検察組織ぐるみの証拠隠しとえん罪について　2026.6.18【国会質問】

#Satoshi Nihi's Question at the House of Councillors' Judicial Affairs Committee: "Retrial Law" - Evidence Concealment and Wrongful Convictions by the Prosecution System From the "Akahata" Newspaper Article "Expanded Evidence Submission" is a Deception Regarding the government's proposed amendment to the Retrial Law (amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure), which will begin deliberation in the House of Councillors on the 19th, Japanese Communist Party member Satoshi Nihi pursued the government's explanation that "the scope of evidence submitted to the court will expand" at the House of Councillors' Judicial Affairs Committee on the 18th, arguing that it is a deception. The government explains that it will create a system of court-ordered evidence submission, based on the premise of the existing system of evidence disclosure based on court recommendations. While this is said to "expand" the scope of submitted evidence, the scope of evidence submitted under this system will be limited by its "relevance" to the grounds for the retrial request, and will not be disclosed to the retrial requester. Mr. Nihi pressed the issue, asking if the proposed changes would actually broaden the scope of evidence disclosure, as former judges involved in retrials have issued a joint statement severely criticizing the changes, stating that they would "clearly narrow the scope of evidence disclosure compared to the current situation, and are nothing but a deterioration of the system." Mr. Sato, Director-General of the Criminal Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, could only respond that it would be "difficult" to determine how to interpret the scope of evidence disclosed in practice. Mr. Nihi criticized this as "completely unclear" and pointed out that "the fundamental problem lies in the fact that the prosecutors have held the power to decide whether or not to disclose evidence." Mr. Nihi pointed out that in the Fukui case, where the defendant was acquitted in a retrial, the prosecutors had obtained an investigation report indicating the defendant's innocence, yet appealed the first-instance acquittal and continued to appeal the decision to grant a retrial. He criticized that a vast number of prosecutors, including senior officials at the High Public Prosecutors Office and the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, were involved in concealing evidence, and that a wrongful conviction was created through organizational efforts. He emphasized that reflection and clarification are necessary when considering legal reform.