REPORTS OF THE COURSEGROUP 1MEASURES FOR EFFICIENT TRIAL PROCEDURES
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
M embers

Adviser

M r. Zafarbek A. Nurmatov
M r. Masashige Kuramoto
M s. Shamra Shameem
M r. Suvas Kumar Bhattarai
M s. Mariame Djelle
M r. Nyouaher Xiayee
M s. Sunart Harnpianpong
M r. Vipat Rujipavesana
M s. Pham Thi Trang
M r. Takafumi Ohata
Prof. Kazuhiko M oriya(Uzbekistan)(Japan)(M aldives)(Nepal)(Cote dʼIvoire)(Laos)(Thailand)(Thailand)(Viet Nam)
(Japan)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 1 started its discussion on 3 September 2014. The Group elected,by consensus,Mr.Zafarbek
from Uzbekistan as its Chairperson,Mr.Kuramoto from Japan as its Co-chairperson,M s.Shamra fromM aldives as its Rapporteur,and M r.Suvas from Nepal as its Co-Rapporteur. The Group was assigned
to discuss “M easures for Efficient Trial Procedure”in order to shorten trials. Under the abovementioned theme, the group agreed to discuss the following issues as sub-topics.
1. Identifying and narrowing issues and evidence to be dealt with at trial in order to shorten trials.
2. Securing attendance of the accused, victims and witnesses at trial.
3. Utilization of simplified procedures in cases which are suitable for disposition by simplified
procedures.

II. SUM M ARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS
A. Identifying and Narrowing Issues and Evidence to Be Dealt with at Trial in Order to Shorten
Trials
1. Importance of Preparation for Identifying and Narrowing Issues and Evidence
All participants introduced current procedures and practices in order to shorten trials bycomparing
the legal systems that each country has practiced, and this was the general information that all
participants had discussed during the couple of weeks in their individual papers. M eanwhile allparticipants agreed to share and discuss legal systems that their countries have practiced in order tohave better comprehension of the current procedures and practices.
M oreover the Group discussed identifying and narrowing issues and evidence to be dealt with attrial in order to shorten trials considering the difference of criminal justice systems in the participantsʼ
countries between adversarial systems and inquisitorial systems.
Finally,all participants agreed that it is important to prepare and cooperate between judges,publicprosecutors and defence counsel for identifying and narrowing issues and evidence,in order to shorten
trials. The judges, public prosecutors and defence counsel should focus on necessary issues andevidence at an early stage,without distinction between adversarial systems and inquisitorial systems.
If judges, public prosecutors and defence counsel do not have prospects on necessary issues andevidence at all,there is a risk that public prosecutors or defence counsel repeatedly submit additional
allegations and request examination of additional evidence without reasonable cause,and that causes
the delay of trials.

86158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
2. Pretrial Conference Procedure and Evidence Disclosure in Adversarial Systems
All participants agreed to discuss pretrial conference procedure and evidence disclosure in order to
identify and narrow issues and evidence in adversarial systems,in order to have efficient speedy trials
in the criminal justice system.
Among the participating countries, Japan and Thailand have practiced pretrial conference procedure. Participants from those countries, which basically have adversarial systems, stated as follows:
In Japan,the pretrial conference procedure is used basically for only especially serious cases,which
are dealt with at lay judge trials, or complex cases in which the accused has not confessed. The
procedure is also used for the cases which are dealt with at lay judge trials and in which the accusedhas confessed, because it is necessary to rebuild or summarize evidence for improving the lay judgesʼ
understanding during trial.So,in Japan,the pretrial conference procedure usuallylasts several months.
On the other hand, although Thailand has a similar system, Thailand does not use the pretrial
conference if the accused has made a confession.Also,the duration of time for the pretrial conferenceis shorter, and it takes less than one month.
It is important for judges to confer with parties about identifying and narrowing issues and evidence
at the pretrial stage. Especially, it is most important for public prosecutors to disclose evidence
speedily including voluntary evidence disclosure in the pretrial conference procedure.
Specifically,it is a difficult problem that judges cannot confirm the contents of evidence before trial
for identifying and narrowing issues and evidence. But there is room for judges to confirm partiesʼ
allegations and lists of evidence which parties will request. So judges should try to confirm thoseearlier, and to confer with parties for identifying and narrowing issues and evidence to be dealt withat trial in order to shorten trials.
M oreover, it is most important for public prosecutors to disclose evidence speedily and widely for
defence counsel before trial. If public prosecutors disclose evidence speedily and widely for defence
counsel before trial, defence counsel can examine the public prosecutorʼ
s evidence which is neither
requested nor disclosed by prosecutors earlier,and judges can confirm partiesʼallegations and lists ofevidence earlier. Finally judges can confer with parties for identifying and narrowing issues andevidence earlier.
Also,the participants from M aldives and Nepal stated that they should consider introduction of the
pretrial conference as mentioned above.Maldives and Nepal practice a hybrid system,but they do nothave the pretrial conference like other countries. Specifically, as a result of the system which thesecountries practice, legal provisions regarding criminal procedure do not provide for the pretrial
conference before the actual allegations. In those countries all the evidence is disclosed with thesubmission of the charge sheet in court. On the other hand,these countries provide the right to obtaina copy of all the documents submitted to the court, unless any documents are confidential, which theprosecution does not want to disclose to the accused.
3. Identifying and Narrowing Issues and Evidence by Judges in Inquisitorial Systems
Participants from Laos, Cote dʼIvoire, and Viet Nam, which introduced basically inquisitorial
systems, stated as follows:
Judges in inquisitorial systems can see contents of evidence before opening trial,so those countries,
which have inquisitorial systems,do not need pretrial conference procedure.(Especially,the participantfrom Cote dʼIvoire stated that in Cote dʼIvoire, there is pretrial examination for serious cases insteadof pretrial conference procedure.)
Although Uzbekistan has an inquisitorial system, the participant from the country stated that the
pretrial conference has to be introduced in the country in order to shorten trials.
However,it is important for judges to prepare for trial and cooperate with public prosecutors and87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
defence counsel at an early stage of the inquisitorial systems too.Specifically,it is hard for judges to
identify and narrow all necessary issues and evidence by themselves.Even though judges must finallymake such decisions, they should hear partiesʼcomments and order them to submit proposals for
identifying and narrowing issues and evidence. That reduces the burden of judges. In addition, thatenables parties to help the judge reach relevant decisions.
B. Securing Attendance of the Accused, Victims and Witnesses at Trial
1. Importance of Securing Attendance of the Accused, Victims and Witnesses at Trial
Firstly,all participants agreed that lack of attendance of the accused,victims and witnesses would
be one of the major causes of delaying trials, so it is important to secure attendance of the accused,victims and witnesses at trial.
2. Securing Attendance of the Accused(a) Problem and methods to summon the accused
All participants confirmed that, (1) the courts cannot perform trials when the accused is absent,(2)so the courts oblige the accused to attend trial by summons,(3)and when the accused is not placedin custody, and is missing, according to orders by judges or prosecutors, the police must search andarrest the accused. All participants agreed that it is important for public prosecutors and police tocooperate in order to secure the attendance of the accused at a trial.
(b) Sanctioning and trial procedure during the absence of the accused
Next,the Group discussed sanctioning the absence of the noncompliant accused and trial procedure
during the absence of the accused such as utilizing a judgement by default.All participants confirmedthat the courts in all countries can only deliver judgement after completing necessary examination ofevidence and confirmation of partiesʼallegations required by law if the accused is unreasonably absent(in Japan,only when the accused is placed in custody).M oreover the group thought that it is difficult
to introduce the systems and practices of other countries as they stand―because there are different
systems and practices in each country for maintaining balance between the speedy trial and theaccusedʼs right―but confirmed the interesting systems and practices of each country.
For example,(1)some participants stated that the courts impose non-penal fines on the accused as
sanctions for the absence of the noncompliant accused.(2)The participant from Nepal stated that ifthe
accused does not appear in the court during the court proceeding, the court summons the accused. If
the accused does not appear in court within two years,the court can issue judgement based only on the
public prosecutorʼ
s evidence. (3)The participant from Viet Nam stated that the courts can exceptionally open the hearing in the absence ofthe accused as follows:(i)if the accused is abroad and the courts
cannot receive the accused, (ii)in case the accused runs away, the chief of police issues a warrant topursue the accused if the police cannot find him/her.
3. Securing Attendance of Witnesses
Firstly,all participants agreed that it is important not only(1)sanctioning noncompliant witnesses
by judges, but also (2) protecting and supporting witnesses and victims, in order to secure the attendance of witnesses. And all participants agreed that if lack of attendance of the witness causes thedelay of trial, it is more difficult to secure attendance of the witness in the future because witnessʼsmemories will become vague, causing a vicious cycle. So, all countries should avoid the vicious cycle
by applying the following measures.
(a) Sanctioning noncompliant witnesses by judges
All participants agreed that (1)attendance of witnesses should be the duty of the nation,(2)so thecourts should impose fines or short-term imprisonment for unreasonable absence of a witness.And allparticipants agreed that it is important for public prosecutors and police to cooperate in order to secureattendance of witnesses, too.
(b) Supporting and protecting witnesses
The group agreed on the following recommendations which each country should consider introducing, step by step, while we should maintain balance between the accusedʼs rights and the witnessʼsrights and benefits.

88

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE(i) Protecting witnesses
Of course, the courts should impose severe penalties on the defendant if the defendant causes
witnesses (and victims) any harm or damage. In addition, the judge, investigator, prosecutor anddefence counsel should prevent that;specifically they must protect the privacy of the witness to theextent possible. For example, his/her residence should be kept confidential, because some of thewitnesses might fear revenge from the defendant if his or her residence etc.is identified.However,thecourts should consider the accusedʼs rights by noticing this information only to the defence counsel.
Likewise corresponding authorities should protect witnesses not only before and during trial,but also
after the trial.
(ii) Supporting Witnesses
In order to make it easy for witnesses to give testimony,of course,the courts should restrict partiesʼ
intimidating or insulting questions.And the courts,if necessary,should (1)establish partitions between
the witness and the accused,observer or both in the courtroom,or (2)use a video and audio link system
for testimony in another room and so on,in order to make it easy for the witness to give testimony incourt.The participants from Maldives stated that the courts should use voice-changing technology andso on if necessary.
M oreover when the witness is at a remote place, the court should examine the witness in places
other than courtroom,in order to enable the witness to easily attend trials.And when the witness hasreasonable cause not to attend on the day of trial,the court may examine the witness on another day.
In addition, the expense of attendance of witnesses, especially witnesses requested by publicprosecutors, will be basically covered by the government even though the accused finally will defray
the cost if he/she is convicted.That is difficult because the budget is limited,but even partly covering
expenses is efficient support for witness.
(iii) Alternative measures
The court should consider taking alternative measures for witnesses, for example, documents,
videos,pre-hearing,etc.,while the court should consider the defendantʼ
s right to question the witness.
C. Disposition of Cases by Simplified Procedures
1. Importance of Utilization of Simplified Procedures
All participants agreed that it is important to sort cases and utilize simplified procedures suitablefor disposition, specifically, relatively minor uncontested cases, cases in which there are alternative
measures for the criminalʼ
s rehabilitation, such as drug cases and so on, in order to dispose of manycases speedily and efficiently. On the other hand all participants agreed that it is important for the
defendant to have the right to appeal in all criminal proceedings as one of the fundamental rights.
M oreover this group discussed utilization of simplified procedures suitable for disposition in eachcountry, and all participants agreed that they should refer to that mutually.
2. Example of Each Country(a) The participant from Thailand stated that in Thailand there are simplified procedures asfollows:(1)The court can convict by only the accusedʼs confession at trial about cases involving offences
punishable with imprisonment for a definite term of less than 5 years.
(2)The participant from Thailand stated not to prosecute dishonored cheques in order todecrease the case load of the court trials, as a future task.
(b)The participant from Japan stated that in Japan there are simplified procedures as follows:(1)The court can impose a fine of not more than 1 million yen in cases involving offences
punishable fine by only documentary examination, without public trials, like traffic violations,simple theft cases and so on.This procedure is called “Summary Proceeding”in Japan.

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95(2)The court can sentence imprisonment with or without work for a definite term of not morethan 3 years,always suspended,or fine in minor uncontested cases,excluding offences which
are punishable by the death penalty,life imprisonment or imprisonment with or without work
for a definite term of not less than 1 year. On the other hand,the court must basically set a
trial date within 14 days after indictment,and must rule on that trial date.This procedure iscalled “Speedy Trial Procedure”in Japan.
(c) The participant from Maldives stated that in M aldives there are simplified procedures asfollows:(1)Maldives introduced an arrangement procedure system by giving warning or caution to thefirst instance cases.This kind ofarrangement procedure would reduce the crime rate and also
it would give a second chance for the accused to clear his or her criminal record and remain
in society as a clean person.This arrangement is made through the prosecution.However,theparticipant from Maldives stated that as recommendations, this kind of arrangement procedure might be introduced to the courts as an effective way such as reconciliation andmediation or other ADR methods of disposition of cases rather than imposing criminal
sanctions.
(2)Maldives does not charge traffic violation cases, but as an administrative action, the policeor the regulatory body impose fines on the traffic violators.
(3)In M aldives,depending on the case being submitted,the courts do prioritize cases for prompt
disposition. Usually speedy trial procedure applies in drug-abuse or drug-possession andconfession-based cases.
(4)The participant from Maldives also stated not to prosecute dishonoured cheques in order todecrease the case load of the court trials as a future task.
(d)The participant from Cote dʼIvoire stated that there is simplified procedure in Cote dʼIvoire forcases involving offences punishable with imprisonment for a definite term of under or equal to twomonths, or fine.
(e) The participant from Nepal stated that there is a simplified procedure in Nepal for cases
involving offences punishable with imprisonment for a definite term of less than six months.There isa special court act and as per the act some specific procedure will be applied to simplify and shorten
the trial process for those cases which are under the jurisdiction ofthe special court.Corruption-relatedcases and money-laundering-related cases are now under the jurisdiction of the special court.Likewisein the case of minor traffic violations, the traffic police can impose the fine on the violator without
formal trial.
(f)The participant from Viet Nam stated that in Viet Nam summary procedure is stipulated by thecriminal procedure code.Under that code,the prosecutorʼ
s office is entitled to decide cases which will
apply the summary procedure. The requirements for the case are as follows:― The persons committing criminal acts are caught red-handed;― The cases are simple with obvious evidence;― The committed offences are less serious ones;― The offenders have clear personal identifications and records.
In practice, there are few cases in Viet Nam which apply the summary procedure because of not
fulfilling the first condition above.

90

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSAt the end ofthe discussion,the Group reached a consensus that the following should be recommended as measures for efficient trial procedure in order to shorten trial:
1. Firstly, it is important to sort cases and utilize simplified procedures suitable for disposition ofcases as relatively minor uncontested cases and so on, in order to dispose of many cases speedilyand efficiently. Coordination between investigator, public prosecutor and adjudicator is necessary
to provide justice and to guaranty the rule of law.
2. Next, after sorting cases, if necessary because the defendant contests the charges and so on, it isimportant for judges,public prosecutors and defence counsel to prepare and cooperate by identifying and narrowing issues and evidence in order that judges,public prosecutors and defence counsel
can focus on necessary issues and evidence at an early stage.
3. M oreover,it is surely important to secure attendance of the accused,victims and witnesses at trial.
Especially,in order to secure attendance of witnesses,it is important not only to sanction noncompliant witnesses by judges,but also protecting and supporting witnesses and victims.In addition,allparticipants stated that establishing video and audio link systems for testimony would be the best
way of speeding up the trial, and it protects the witnesses and victims. Likewise the system forobtaining the testimony of witnesses should be simplified,and judges should be careful to avoid theharassment of witnesses by lawyers.
4. Finally, as a whole, before transplanting any legal methods, countries will have to consider theirculture and may not find it best to depend on one system,but also transplant the effective methods
that are used in other systems.The criminal justice system is the body which provides justice to thewhole society;therefore, it needs to have a balance between the defendant, the witnesses and thevictims. Disposition of cases would be one of the effective and speedy ways to complete the lessserious criminal cases. However, countries must have systems of checks and balances. Criminal
justice stakeholders are recommended to build better coordination and cooperation with each otherin order to improve the whole criminal justice system.

91