This chapter describes the history of child abuse detection and prevention in Japan and how the fight against child abuse became a social agenda especially during the 2000s. The SBS/AHT hypothesis became a commonly accepted notion during the same period and was used in criminal cases to prosecute carers and in administrative cases to separate them from their children in order to ‘protect’ the children. However, as we shall see in this chapter, the SBS/AHT hypothesis has become a controversial topic of debate recently and there have been a number of court decisions in criminal cases since 2018 questioning the hypothesis or diagnoses based on the hypothesis . This chapter overviews these recent developments and show the current status of debate around SBS/AHT in Japan with an emphasis on criminal cases.

The joint trial of Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo fell apart soon after closing arguments. Faced with insufficient evidence for convicting the pair as joint “masterminds” of a single ethnic-motivated attack against civilians, the Trial Chamber acquitted Ngudjolo but undertook to reconfigure the trial with a new theory about Katanga’s mode of liability. The military structure posited by the Prosecutor (taken from NGO reports) came under careful scrutiny, as it appeared that neither Katanga nor Ngudjolo matched the profile of the mastermind commander. Acting in striking independence of the Prosecution, two of the three trial judges found Katanga guilty under an improvised theory of criminal responsibility, based in part on questions put to Katanga during his testimony by the Presiding Judge. Although Katanga’s conviction and twelve-year sentence were not appealed, there was a powerful dissent by the third trial judge, clarifying some central controversies of the case. More controversy surrounded a later appeal of the Ngudjolo acquittal, which was upheld by a split judicial panel.

The joint trial of Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo fell apart soon after closing arguments. Faced with insufficient evidence for convicting the pair as joint “masterminds” of a single ethnic-motivated attack against civilians, the Trial Chamber acquitted Ngudjolo but undertook to reconfigure the trial with a new theory about Katanga’s mode of liability. The military structure posited by the Prosecutor (taken from NGO reports) came under careful scrutiny, as it appeared that neither Katanga nor Ngudjolo matched the profile of the mastermind commander. Acting in striking independence of the Prosecution, two of the three trial judges found Katanga guilty under an improvised theory of criminal responsibility, based in part on questions put to Katanga during his testimony by the Presiding Judge. Although Katanga’s conviction and twelve-year sentence were not appealed, there was a powerful dissent by the third trial judge, clarifying some central controversies of the case. More controversy surrounded a later appeal of the Ngudjolo acquittal, which was upheld by a split judicial panel.