The Tokyo High Court on Tuesday decided to retry a 62-year-old man who served 17 years of a life sentence until a new DNA test suggested he was innocent. Mr. Toshikazu Sugaya was arrested in December 1991 for the May 1990 kidnapping and murder of a 4-year-old girl in Ashikaga, Tochigi Prefecture. Although he retracted earlier confessions during his first trial, the Utsunomiya District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment in July 1993 on the basis of DNA test results it considered decisive evidence. The Supreme Court finalized the sentence in July 2000.

The Tokyo High Court, which had been handling Mr. Sugaya's request for a retrial, ordered a new DNA test in December 2008. A forensic expert recommended by the prosecution and another recommended by the defense counsel carried out separate DNA tests and concluded that DNA from dried body fluid on the girl's clothing did not match Mr. Sugaya's. Adopting the results of the new DNA test by the former, the court concluded that "it is reasonably doubtful to recognize Mr. Sugaya as the culprit."

The defense counsel had demanded that 11 people, including the National Police Agency's crime laboratory officials who conducted the original DNA test, be questioned as witnesses in order to "dig out the truth behind the false accusation." But the high court turned down the demand, apparently to expedite the process of declaring Mr. Sugaya innocent. Thus a chance to clarify the truth before the high court was lost.

The focus now shifts to the Utsunomiya District Court, which will hold a retrial. The prosecution has already admitted that the arrest and indictment were erroneous and is expected to call for a not-guilty ruling in the retrial. Thus the retrial may end soon, without questioning people involved in the investigation.

Even if it takes a lot of time, the district court should use the retrial as a chance to find out how the police and public prosecutors erred in their investigation 17 years ago, how Mr. Sugaya was forced to make false confessions, and why the court could not detect the false charge. Otherwise, the credibility of the judiciary will be greatly tarnished.