Ever since the historic landslide victory of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in the Lower House elections, we have wondered how the new government will wield its power. In the area of human rights protection, at least, there is cause to expect dramatic change. One of the more startling appointments to the new Cabinet is that of Yokohama lawyer Keiko Chiba as minister of justice. The progressive attitude of the new minister contrasts sharply with what we've seen in the past. Her appointment will be heartily welcomed throughout the global legal community.

Chiba's opposition to the death penalty has made headlines, but that's only one example of her political philosophy. Among other things, she has supported local voting rights for foreign permanent residents, clear recognition of the injuries suffered by "comfort women" and other victims of Japan's past aggressions, and admission of more refugees to Japan.

Chiba's track record should provide clues to the kind of attitude she brings to her new post. If there was any doubt on this score, she wiped it away in formal comments released Sept. 16, the day the new Cabinet took office.

In her first message to the nation, the new minister declared that her mission is to help build a society that respects human rights and a judicial system that is "close to the people" (kokumin ni mijika na shiho). To achieve this, she listed three specific steps: (1) establishment of a new human rights agency, (2) ratification of "optional protocols" to human rights treaties, and (3) more transparency in criminal interrogations.

Her selection of these particular measures for the spotlight displays ambition to make significant institutional reform. They strike at the heart of an established regime that allows arbitrary power to police and other officials. All three measures have been recommended many times by U.N. human rights bodies and other international organizations, but were categorically rejected by Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) governments. The proposals for an independent human rights commission and the expansion of human rights treaties seek to provide individuals with the opportunity to bring their complaints to bodies outside the control of the government and the courts.

The effort to establish an independent human rights institution in Japan has had a tortuous history. Following hearings it conducted in 1998, the U.N. Human Rights Committee declared that it was "concerned about the lack of institutional mechanisms available for investigating violations of human rights and for providing redress to the complainants." It went on to say, "The committee strongly recommends to the State party (Japan) to set up an independent mechanism for investigating complaints of violations of human rights."

Why was this so important? The committee explained that "there is no independent authority to which complaints of ill treatment by the police and immigration officials can be addressed for investigation and redress."

More than 100 countries have established such an "independent authority." The Koizumi administration responded to this recommendation in a half-hearted manner, proposing a bill in 2002 that was roundly criticized as creating a vehicle that would rest securely under the thumb of the Ministry of Justice. As the debate moved forward, newspapers suddenly were filled with stories of the brutal treatment of inmates at Nagoya Prison and other penal facilities, including cases of excessive force leading to inmate deaths. One cannot imagine a better illustration of the need for investigation by an outside watchdog. The LDP proposal would have simply led to the government examining itself, yet the 2002 "human rights bill" was allowed to expire without formal Diet action. It has not been revived since.

Likewise, Chiba's second proposal would enable individuals to bring their complaints directly to new tribunals — to multinational committees charged with overseeing treaty compliance. Japan has ratified six major human rights treaties, but has never agreed to any protocol or treaty provision that would empower individuals to plead a case before such an international forum. This is a popular reform in the international community adopted by many countries. But the opposition of LDP governments to demands for this reform has been steadfast. Chiba, on the other hand, has long been a supporter. Her Sept. 16 declaration indicates that the government position on this issue has also been reversed.

The third item on the minister's shortlist is also familiar to international organizations. Japan's extended police interrogations have shocked international observers for years. In October 2008, the U.N. Human Rights Committee wrote that lengthy detention of suspects in police jails "increases the risk of abusive interrogation methods with the aim of obtaining a confession." These words echoed those of the U.N. Committee Against Torture issued the year before when that committee wrote that lengthy interrogations outside the presence of counsel "increases the possibilities of abuse of their rights, and may lead to a de facto disrespect of the principles of presumption of innocence, right to silence and right of defense."

U.N. committees have recommended video-recording the entire interrogation process as the best means of creating a reliable record and reducing the number of coerced confessions. Chiba agrees. In fact, she joined other opposition legislators in submitting a transparency bill in 2007, which was rejected by the LDP-controlled Diet at the time.

Implementing these measures will take work. Establishing an independent commission and ratifying treaty protocols requires Diet action. Although the DPJ holds strong majorities, there will surely be voices seeking to protect the status quo. Although video-recording interrogations will not require a new law, it strikes close to the bone of deeply entrenched practices of the police and prosecutors. Internal opposition could be fierce.

Following through on these promises will be a real test of political will. Whatever the result, there is no doubt that this government takes a fundamentally different view of its obligations under Japanese law and human rights treaties from what we have seen in the past.

Lawrence Repeta is a law professor at Omiya Law School in Japan and currently a visiting scholar at the University of Washington.