We can see no sign of an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. I understand that courts have maintained proceedings and administrative work without scaling down these operations, in light of expert knowledge. However, there is a concern that adverse effects of the prolonged pandemic will emerge in the future, such as reduction in the number of seats in the court gallery. Please tell us a policy on how courts will cope with mid to long-term challenges. At the same time, along with the spread of infections, the web-conferencing system has been used more frequently than before in proceedings for civil litigation and those for adjudication of domestic relations, and a new system has been introduced to allow the submission of documents in digital form in proceedings of civil cases. Thus, we see progress in the introduction of information technology (hereinafter "IT") in court proceedings. Then, what will you plan to do to ensure balance between enhancing the convenience for users and taking account of people who are unfamiliar with information communications equipment? In addition, the introduction of IT in criminal proceedings is under discussion. What do you think of the significance of this movement?

Regarding COVID-19, as I mentioned on the same occasion last year, we at courts carried out court operations by making various arrangements in court proceedings, such as using the web-conferencing system, and in this process, we gave top priority to achieving a balance between implementing infection control measures and properly maintaining the functions of courts as the juridical branch, while paying attention to the conditions of infection in the respective regions and the infection control policies of the national and local governments.
Since the press conference on last year's Constitution Memorial Day, we have carried out infection control measures with continuity, based on knowledge in such fields as public health, by periodically informing experts of the actual status of courtrooms and obtaining their advice. As expert knowledge on COVID-19 has progressed since the outbreak of this infection, we have reviewed the measures on an as-needed basis in accordance with the characteristics of COVID-19 variants.
I think that we will maintain the ongoing infection control measures for the time being according to the approach that we have taken so far. However, with a mindset of appropriately and flexibly applying the various experiences we have gained through our efforts over more than two years to the measures to be taken in the future, we should consider reviewing the current measures in a timely manner, including the current method of handling of seats in the court gallery which you just pointed out.
Regarding digitalization, as I mentioned in my address, I recognize that digitalization of court proceedings will lead to significant changes in the entirety of courts and trials in the future, and it is important to consider what courts should be like in the future digital society, in line with the lifestyles of citizens and the needs of court users. To put it another way, digitalization of court proceedings has an interactive nature in that they take place rapidly in response to digitalization of society, while, at the same time, digitalization of means of legal dispute resolution serves as the basis for digitalization of society.
In this respect, I recognize the importance of promoting digitalization of court proceedings, aiming to achieve the "balance" you mentioned, that is, bringing about the benefit of digitalization broadly to the public, including people who are unfamiliar with information communication equipment.
In the future, we will steadily carry out necessary initiatives to make court proceedings more user-friendly, through continued cooperation with related organizations, while paying attention to the circumstances of society where digitalization is progressing, and the trends of digital technology.
With respect to digitalization of criminal proceedings, the government has compiled a report of discussion results on measures to make use of information and communication technology in criminal proceedings. One such measure, for example, is to prepare evidentiary materials in a digital format and send and receive them online. We at courts expect that digitalization in criminal proceedings will form a new pillar to support the foundation for far speedier and better-quality trials.

Along with the diversification of values and the changes in social circumstances, disputes such as those related to family affairs and labor issues are becoming more complicated and difficult to solve. Lawsuits are filed in many places across the country in an attempt to formulate a policy through court proceedings, showing that people's expectations for fair and impartial judgments rendered by courts have been increasingly growing. I would say that there is a greater call for judges and court officials to improve their abilities to solve disputes promptly and properly and the individual qualities that support such abilities. In order to enable courts to continue to fulfill their important missions, how do you think you will secure opportunities for developing human resources and providing training programs?

It could be said that there are greater expectations on courts that undertake the mission of handing down proper and prompt judgments from a fair and impartial standpoint on various legal disputes arising due to diversification of people's values and other causes. There are not a small number of cases, among those brought to courts, which involve a fierce conflict of interests or values and require a court to make a decision that could have a significant impact on society. I agree with you that in such a situation, there is a call for individual judges and court officials, who deal with court operations, to further improve their abilities and qualities. I think that in order to make appropriate judgments and clarify the reasoning therefor, it is necessary for judges and court officials to have an acute awareness of changes in social and economic situations, absorb knowledge and information on the actual situation in a broad range of fields, and engage in their duties with a broad perspective and deep insights.
What is important to achieve this may be that judges and court officials should improve their own professional capabilities on a daily basis, that is, through on-the-job training. In the case of judges, it is very meaningful that they have opportunities to deliberate on each case as a panel. We are working to develop an environment where judges can enhance their capabilities by engaging in their duties while holding free and active discussions with each other regularly.
From the perspective of supporting this, we are also working to enhance and upgrade training programs provided at the Legal Training and Research Institute of Japan and the Training and Research Institute for Court Officials. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were forced to hold various training programs online instead of having participants actually gather at the training centers. However, we have recognized the advantage of online training as this allows judges and court officials deployed nationwide to participate in training and exchange opinions in a flexible manner. I feel that it is of great significance to, by employing such method, actively select topics while taking into consideration the needs of the new age in training programs for judges and court officials, invite outside experts as lecturers, and present and exchange views on the latest arguments in the field of law and various other fields. I expect that judges who have participated in training programs will gain encouragement to further better themselves. For example, a training program held last year took up issues arising from COVID-19. I viewed part of this program online together with my fellow Supreme Court Justices, and I understand that, overall, it was very well received.
In connection with the development of human resources, we have worked on digitalization of various court proceedings and started discussion and preparation on a full scale for digitalization of the entire operations at courts. We have also worked on employing specialists in digital technology as fixed-term or part-time officials. Our plan is to consider system development by utilizing, within courts, the knowledge and experience specialists in digital technology have gained at private companies. I expect that this approach may also encourage court officials, while working together with such specialists, to acquire a new point of view not only in their efforts for digitalization but also in their working practices in general, and become more acutely aware of various events taking place in society.
What I have mentioned is just one example. We, the courts as a whole, will strive to develop an environment that is helpful for judges and court officials in improving their qualities through proactive and independent efforts to better themselves.

Almost 13 years have passed since the commencement of the Saiban-in trial system, and from next year, people aged 18 and 19 will become eligible to be Saiban-in. I think it will be further important to raise awareness of this system in collaboration with local communities. What do you think about the significance of having young people participate in this system? I also think that, while this system has been widely established and stably operated, it will be necessary in the future to explore what a better criminal justice system should be like, by making use of the knowledge gained through deliberations with Saiban-in. Please tell us your opinion on this point.

As your mentioned, people aged 18 and 19 will start to participate in the Saiban-in system from 2023. I recognize that this change is meaningful for the development of this system, because I think that if young people express their frank opinions in the deliberations from their respective viewpoints, it will be possible to reflect viewpoints and senses of a broad range of citizens in criminal trials. To achieve this, it is important to make more efforts to make proceedings easier to understand in each case. As I mentioned in my address, in order to encourage young people to actively participate in this system, we should strive to carry out publicity activities in consideration of the actual situation of legal education of young people, and reflect their voices heard through such activities in improving the operation of the system.
As I have repeatedly stated on various occasions, the Saiban-in system has been operated stably in general for more than a decade, even while going through the COVID-19 pandemic, and this owes much to citizens' understanding and cooperation.
In order to further develop this system and have it take root more deeply in Japanese society in the future, the approach of discussing, within the courts as a whole, how to operate and make decisions in Saiban-in trials should be passed down to the next generation as a common practice. In this respect, I think that in recent years, in particular, judges have engaged in discussions, based on their experiences in handling actual cases over more than a decade, regarding specific measures to promote substantial collaboration between judges and Saiban-in and appropriately reflect Saiban-in's viewpoints and senses in decisions to be handed down. There have been arguments on how proceedings in the second instance should be operated. I see that the dialogues between judges who are in charge of cases at high courts and judges who handled the cases at district courts are becoming deeper than before recently. Such discussions and dialogues can have an effect on the entirety of the criminal justice system. I think that judges are expected to continue to make ceaseless efforts to improve the operation of the system, while holding such discussions and dialogues consistently, aiming to design a future vision of the criminal justice system.

In connection with Saiban-in trials, you mentioned that you see the dialogues between high court judges and district court judges are becoming deeper than before. The data on the rate of reversal of district court judgments may show some signs of gradual change, but could you give some more comments or supplementary explanation on this point?

It is difficult to answer your question in a few words. There is a controversy as to the standpoint or stance that a high court should have under the existing criminal trial system when it reviews or examines a judgment rendered by a district court. This controversy has existed as an issue of legal construction since before the introduction of Saiban-in trials, and this issue will continue to be debated in the future because basically there has been no change to the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect. However, considering that only more than a decade has passed since the introduction of Saiban-in trials, apart from this point, there must be a common understanding regarding the ideal form of Saiban-in trials at district courts that is envisaged by high court judges, as they are supposed to review district courts' judgments in light of such ideal form. If such a common understanding is not shared with district court judges, or in other words, if there is a gap in understanding, it would be impossible to deal with Saiban-in cases in a sound manner. From this perspective, I have thought that it is better, or it may be essential, that high court judges and district court judges have opportunities to hold frank exchanges of opinions, which I described as "dialogues," regarding how high court judges considered the ideal form of Saiban-in trials to be through case records, including not only the operation of each case but also the operation of the Saiban-in system more in general. I personally think that this approach has been attempted at each court and judgments based on such ideal form envisaged by high courts have been handed down in some cases.

I have two questions. First, the deliberation on a bill for the digitalization and introduction of IT in civil proceedings has progressed, and I think that if this bill is passed by the Diet, details on measures and systems for preventing fraudulent use will be left to rules and practices developed by the Supreme Court. I would like to hear your view on the actual operation of digitalized proceedings, including such issues. Another bill for the introduction of proceedings to be concluded within a prescribed time is also under deliberation. Please tell us what meaning this type of proceedings will have if it is introduced and your opinion on this topic?

To state the conclusion first, as courts are supposed to wait for the design of a new system to be finalized, and then consider how to maximize the significance of the new system based on and within the finally adopted design, and if necessary, develop rules to operate the system, I find it difficult to give a comment at the present moment, in my position, regarding what the new system should be like, including the proceedings to be concluded within a prescribed time. Anyhow, the use of a web-conferencing system has been widely adopted at courts and this movement will lead to discussion on the ideal form of court proceedings. Accordingly, it may be necessary to accurately gather experience and opinions of judges who are considering this issue while actually dealing with cases, and create rules based on such experience and opinions or use them as a reference when discussing the actual manner of operating the new system. I will refrain from making comments that go further into this topic.

Defamation on the internet has become a social problem, and a report has been submitted by the Legislative Council regarding the amendment to the Penal Code that will introduce imprisonment for not more than one year as an additional statutory penalty for the crime of insult to punish such conduct. On the other hand, some people are worried that this could violate freedom of expression or discourage people from engaging in activities of expression. Please tell us your opinion on the issue of defamation on the internet in general, and also your opinion on its relevance with the Constitution, if you have any.

In my position, I find it difficult to give comments on your question as it concerns an issue that is now actually being taken up. As I mentioned in my address, disputes that are brought to courts, of course, have a conflicting nature, and along with the diversification of values, points of contention that involve a fierce conflict of values will emerge. It is always assumed that which constitutional values should be given priority will emerge as a new severe issue, and I think that the issues relating to the internet are exactly such points of contention. As I mentioned earlier, it is inappropriate for me to talk about what should be done with such issues, but, anyhow, a new law may be developed or a lawsuit may be conducted within the framework of the existing law, and with regard to the existence of such a conflict of values, courts should try to identify and understand the basis of each party’s argument, from a broad perspective and in an objective and sober manner. When a new issue is brought into a lawsuit, the court can request the parties to explain the details of the issue. I think, not only with regard to the issue you pointed out but in general terms, courts are expected, among other things, to see whether the debate between the parties properly targets the point of contention.

I would like to ask you about the introduction of IT in civil proceedings. Though this may be a repetition of a topic mentioned earlier, I think that there are expectations that the introduction of IT in civil proceedings will not only bring about benefits in technical aspects but provide a great chance to change the conventional operation of proceedings. In last year's press conference, you said that in order to promote the introduction of IT, it is indispensable to correctly ascertain problems of the current court operations. Then, I would ask you to explain the problems you are aware of in the current court operations and the viewpoints you consider important in the process of correcting such problems.

This is also a difficult question to answer in a few words. As trials at courts are expected to solve disputes promptly and properly, it is necessary to achieve various system reforms and legal amendments that are intended in this direction. In this respect, when seen from a long-term perspective, it could be said that trials at courts put a greater focus on the issues in dispute than before, and the time required for completing court proceedings has been shortened. However, when looking at the recent situation from a shorter-term perspective, there may be various criticisms as to whether trials at courts have certainly been reformed in line with that direction. In view of this, I would say that it is about time to review the current operations of civil proceedings, focusing on whether the existing Code of Civil Procedure functions well. Various principles were advocated when the existing Code was established, and based on these principles, the Code was designed to aim at arranging the issues in dispute properly and conducting constructive proceedings intensively. Reviewing the operations of civil proceedings from this viewpoint may not be completely consistent with the introduction of IT due to differences in viewpoints, so, after conducting the review on the court operations, if there is room for further improvement, the next viewpoint will be how to incorporate the introduction of IT or digitalization in the operations after the review. These issues should be addressed in combination, and I hope that the front-line judges will discuss these issues with such an awareness.

I would like to ask you about gender inequality, that is, women are the minority among persons involved in making important decisions in various fields of society, such as politics and economy, while men are majority. Justices of the Supreme Court deal with important issues on a daily basis and thus have a significant effect on society. Regarding the fact that there are only two women among 15 Justices, some people argue that it is necessary to increase the number of women among Supreme Court Justices. Please tell us your opinion on what is a desirable male-to-female ratio among Supreme Court Justices, and the reasons therefor.

If your question focuses particularly on Supreme Court Justices, I will refrain from giving comments because this is the issue of appointment of Supreme Court Justices by the Cabinet. If you are asking about the gender balance among judges except for Supreme Court Justices and court officials in general, you can see from data that the percentage of women among judges and court officials has been increasing steadily, and we will continue to take measures so that both men and women can actively work at courts, by promoting work-life-balance. This is what I think about this issue, as I have repeatedly mentioned.