ISSN 1020-914X

UNAFEI

NEWSLETTERUNITED NATIONS ASIA AND FAR EASTINSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIME
AND THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS

No. 123
June 2007

Established1961
IN THIS ISSUE
Page

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR .............................................................................................................................. 1
THE 136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ............................................................................................. 3
EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND THEIRREINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY
Course Rationale ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Course Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Lecture Topics ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Individual Presentation Topics ....................................................................................................................... 11Group Workshop Sessions ............................................................................................................................. 13
Observation Visits .......................................................................................................................................... 16Group Study Tour ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Special Events ................................................................................................................................................ 18
Reference Materials ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Experts and Participants List .......................................................................................................................... 22
THE THIRD SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA ............................................................. 25
THE TWELFTH SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS OF THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA .............................................................................................................................. 27
THE SECOND COUNTRY SPECIFIC TRAINING COURSE ON THE REVITALIZATION OF THE
VOLUNTEER PROBATION AID SYSTEM FOR THE PHILIPPINES ...................................................................... 29
INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES ................................................................................... 31
The 137 th International Training Course ....................................................................................................................... 31
ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS ......................................................................................................................................... 35
Faculty Changes ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Overseas Trips by Staff .................................................................................................................................. 35
FACULTY & STAFF OF UNAFEI ................................................................................................................................ 36

UNAFEI IS AN AFFILIATED REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1-26, HARUMI-CHO, FUCHU, TOKYO 183-0057, JAPANTEL: 81-42-333-7021 ◆ FAX: 81-42-333-4656 ◆ E-MAIL: unafei@moj.go.jp
HOME PAGE: http://www.unafei.or.jp/

1

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR

It is my privilege to inform readers of the successful completion of the 136th International
Training Course on "Effective Measures for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders and their
Reintegration into Society", which took place from 23 May to 28 June 2007.
In this Course, we welcomed seven Japanese and fourteen overseas participants, and two
overseas observers: nine from Asia, three from Africa, two from Central America, one from the
Pacific and one from South America. They included police officers, correctional officers, publicprosecutors, judges, probation officers and other high-ranking public officials.
As this newsletter demonstrates, the Course was extremely productive. It consisted of individual presentations, group workshop and plenary sessions, visits to relevant criminal justice agencies, and presentations by visiting experts, faculty members and ad hoc lecturers.
Most states recognize the need to treat juveniles differently from adult offenders within thecriminal justice system. The international community has also established certain guidelines andrules to promote the rights of juveniles and to ensure that due process is followed. The most important of these are the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice(1985); UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (1990); and the UN Rules for
the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990). Although, these instruments havebeen adopted widely by the international community the actual situation in many countries concerning the treatment of juveniles falls far short of the applicable rules and guidelines.
In addition to improving the treatment of juveniles within the justice system, there is alsoa need to ensure there is an effective system in place to help juveniles reintegrate into the community upon their release. The Bangkok Declaration (2005) highlights the importance of developing restorative justice policies, procedures and programmes to promote, not only the interests ofvictims, but also the rehabilitation of offenders. Currently, few states have laws or procedures forthe reintegration of offenders, but it is hoped that instruments, such as this Declaration, will leadto greater awareness of their importance.
In view of the ongoing need for the implementation of effective measures for the treatmentof juvenile offenders and their reintegration into society, and the importance of such measuresstressed by the various UN instruments, UNAFEI, as a regional institute of the UN Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Network, decided to hold this Course.
During the Course the participants diligently and comprehensively examined the current
situation of effective measures for the treatment of juvenile offenders and their reintegration into
society, primarily through a comparative analysis. The participants shared their own experiences
and knowledge of the issues, and identified problems and areas in which improvements could be
made. After engaging in in-depth discussions with the UNAFEI faculty and visiting experts, theparticipants were able to put forth effective and practical solutions that could be applied in theirrespective countries.
I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to all the participants upon their successful
completion of the Course, made possible by their strenuous efforts. My heartfelt gratitude goes2

to the visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers who contributed a great deal to the Course’s success.
Furthermore, I appreciate the indispensable assistance and cooperation extended to UNAFEI byvarious agencies and institutions, which helped diversify the programme.
I would like to express my great appreciation to the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) for its immeasurable support throughout the Course. At the same time, a warm
tribute must be paid to the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF) and its branch organizations
for their substantial contributions to our activities. Lastly, I owe my gratitude to all the individuals whose unselfish efforts behind the scenes contributed significantly to the successful realizationof this Course.
Upon returning to their home countries, I genuinely believe that, like their predecessors, thestrong determination and dedication of the participants will enable them to work towards the improvement of their respective nation’s criminal justice systems, and to the benefit of the international society as a whole.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my best regards to the participants of the 136th
International Training Course. I hope that the experience they gained during the Course proves
valuable in their daily work, and that the bonds fostered among the participants, visiting experts
and UNAFEI staff will continue to grow for many years to come.

June 2007

Mr. Keiichi Aizawa
Director, UNAFEI

3

THE 136TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE"EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE TREATMENT OF JUVENILE
OFFENDERS AND THEIR REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY"

Course Rationale

The establishment within the criminal justice system of a separate process for juvenile offenders from adult offenders gained greater importance from the second half of the 19th centur
y1. At present, legal systems that, for example, ensure the physical separation of juveniles fromadults at all stages of the criminal justice process and provide special treatment, education andwelfare for juveniles, exist to some extent in many countries. However, the actual situation in regard to both the legal basis and practice concerning the treatment of juvenile offenders in many
countries is far from satisfactory. Thus it is necessary that more countries become aware of theimportance of this issue and take action to implement changes to their laws and/or practice to improve their juvenile justice systems.
In view of the importance of this issue, the United Nations has taken action to establish
standards for the administration of juvenile justice systems. At the United Nations congresses on
the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held every five years since 1955, themanagement of the treatment of juveniles and the prevention of juvenile delinquency/crime has
frequently been discussed. These discussions resulted in the "United Nations Guidelines for thePrevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines)"2 in 1985 and the "United Nations
Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty"3 in 1990. Paragraph 24 of theVienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century(A/CONF.187/4/Rev.3), adopted by the Tenth United Nations Congress held in Vienna in 2000,
also underlines the importance of taking measures to prevent juveniles in difficult circumstancesfrom becoming delinquent or candidates for recruitment by criminal groups. And paragraph 25
stresses developing crime prevention strategies addressing the root causes and risk factors of crimeand victimization (although these strategies do not cover only juveniles)4. The Convention on the
Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989, contains several provisions which call upon States Parties
to ensure a juvenile justice system based on humanitarianism, the guarantee of due process andthe expansion of diversion (particularly in Articles 37, 39 and 40)5 . Currently, more than 190
countries have ratified this Convention, and the Committee on the Rights of the Child6 is monitoring and examining the progress made by States Parties in realizing the obligations laid down in
1

2
3
4

5

6

The establishment of a juvenile court in the State of Illinois in the US in 1899 was noted by justicesystems around the world.
Ibid, p.77.
Ibid, p.87.
Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century. Para.
24, 25.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/res5559e.pdf.
Convention on the Rights of the Child: General Assembly Resolution 44/25 November 1989: Art. 37,
39, 40.
Established by sub-section 1, Art. 43 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

4
the Convention7.
While there is recognition of the necessity for the improvement of the juvenile justice system in many parts of the world, and the efforts by nations for the efficient treatment of juveniles
in conflict with the law in accordance with United Nations instruments have continued, states arestill faced with numerous challenges in administering juvenile justice.
Ensuring due process in the juvenile justice system is the number one priority.
In this8
respect, in some countries the international instruments are often disregarded. Juveniles are often
subject to long-term detention pending trial, insufficient investigation into their background andcircumstances of the offence they have committed, a lack of notification to parents/guardians, denial of legal counsel and incarceration with adult prisoners. These countries often face a host of
problems that impede them following the international instruments such as a lack of legislationthat specifically addresses juveniles, an inability to implement existing relevant legislation, poor
management and administration, and a lack of record/data keeping. In addition, officials often
lack an awareness of the rights and/or are insufficiently concerned about the well-being of the juveniles.
Efficient management and treatment of juvenile offenders in correctional institutions is anarea requiring particular attention. In some countries, due to the limited alternative measures ofdisposition and the insufficient management of diversion, many juveniles serve long periods incustody. In addition, young offenders and those in need of care and protection are often kept incustody with older juveniles/adult offenders. In other countries, where crime committed by juveniles is a serious social problem, the judicial organizations are urged to review and amend previous measures by which juvenile offenders have been treated in a ’protective’ and ’educational’
manner. In such countries, the juvenile’s responsibility for his/her crime and the necessity for theprotection of the community have being emphasized due to the fear and concern of the generalpublic and the victims’ complaints of a too lenient juvenile justice system. As a result juvenile justice has become progressively punitive, with the transfer of juvenile offenders to the criminal
courts, extended detention and increased supervision upon release from correctional institutions.
However, it remains to be seen whether these "harsher" measures are actually effective in preventing crimes committed by juveniles.
In addition, members of society are also increasingly voicing their concerns about the results of correctional treatment. The efficacy of the correctional treatment/education of juveniles(For example how the level of the juvenile’s ’Risk’ of offending/re-offending has been reduced; andhow the treatment has addressed the juveniles ’Needs’9 that have possibly led to their delinquency.)
is becoming increasingly important to the agencies in charge of the treatment of juveniles.
Furthermore, the importance of the provision of effective community-based treatment for ju7

89States Parties undertake to submit to the Committee reports on the measures they have adopted whichgive effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights
regularly. (Sub-section 1, Art. 44).
United Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children (2005). Summary Report on
the Thematic Meeting on Violence against Children in Conflict with the Law, 4-5 April 2005 Geneva.
Available at: http//www.violencestudy.org/r180.
In the juvenile justice system "needs" usually refer to the factors that are important for the rehabilitation of a particular juvenile offender. The offender may have problems relating to their physical/mental health, substance abuse, education, social skills, etc. The results of a needs assessment help
determine which interventions or programs would be most beneficial for the particular juvenile.

5venile offenders should be emphasized. Treatment in community settings is divided roughly into
three areas in accordance with the stage of disposition, namely, educational/protective diversion
without resort to trial; various final disposition measures including probation, community service
orders, electronic monitoring, treatment for specific problems (drugs, alcohol, etc.); and supervision
after release from correctional institutions. The provision of individualized treatment based on therisk/needs of each juvenile is required at each stage. In addition, investigation into the backgroundand circumstances of the juvenile offender, assessment of his/her risk/needs, proper record keeping
and the systematic coordination among the stakeholders is necessary. It is important that community-based treatment and institutional treatment are continuous and consistent ("Through-care").
Moreover, there is much debate concerning the reintegration of juveniles in conflict withthe law into society. At present, there are many judicial systems that are under pressure to reexamine the current aftercare system premised on early release from correctional institutions; thishas led to them being more cautious and thus subjecting juveniles to longer periods of incarceration. Society is increasingly demanding that juveniles take responsibility for their crimes, and therights of victims and the safety of society are being given greater priority. However, there is someconcern about the lack of ’socialization’ of juvenile offenders who have served long periods ofcustody. The development of a program which will be effective both for the reduction of reoffending (’risk’) of juveniles and for the juvenile’s re-integration into society, considering the feelings of victims and the demands for safety by the community, is required.
One of the recent practices which merit our attention within the area of the rights, needs
and interests of victims and communities and the reintegration of juvenile offenders has been therestorative justice approach. Recently, various types of restorative justice approaches such as"Victim Offender Mediation", "Family Group Conferencing", "Restorative Community Service","Victim Impact Panels", etc. have been used in the frontline of juvenile justice systems in several
countries. And more recently, a "Balanced and Restorative Justice Approach" has been introduced
which tries to balance three demands, namely, community protection (administering punishment or
supervision according to the risk posed by the juvenile), accountability of the juvenile (restoring
the damage to victims and the community through compensation, social service orders, etc.) andcompetency development of the juvenile (administering treatment to a juvenile according to his/herneeds to enable him/her to take a constructive and productive role in the community). The
Balanced and Restorative Justice Approach attempts to give juvenile offenders more support byproviding an educational, practical program for rehabilitation, taking into consideration both victims and the community. The above-mentioned Vienna Declaration referred for the first time to
the necessity of restorative justice polices mainly in support of victims of crime (para. 27 and 28).
In addition, the "Bangkok Declaration", adopted at the Eleventh United Nations Congress held in
Bangkok in 2005, stressed the importance of further developing restorative justice policies, procedures and programs to promote not only the interests of victims but also the rehabilitation of offenders (para. 32)10.
Giving due consideration to the above, this International Training Course intends to identify
the recurrent and newly raised challenges within the area of juvenile justice, especially the issueof the treatment of juveniles and their reintegration into society, as well as the best practices tomeet these challenges. By analyzing the actual situation and problems, and sharing experiences oftypes of treatment which have achieved a certain degree of success, it is hoped that we will arriveat the most effective measures for each participating country.

10

Bangkok Declaration: Synergies and Responses - Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice, Para. 32. http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/congress11/BangkokDeclaration.pdf.

6

3. Objectives
The focus of discussions in this Training Course will be as follows:(1) The current situation and problems faced by each jurisdiction throughout the legal proceedings for juveniles and their effective countermeasures(i) Current situation and legal framework of arrest, detention, transfer between agencies,
prosecution and trial(ii) Current situation and challenges in relation to the investigation and social inquiry(iii) Current situation and challenges in relation to the risk and needs assessment(iv) Current situation and challenges in adjudication and dispositiona) Challenges involved in introducing a diversion programb) Disposition considering the restitution/minimization of damage to the victim(2) Effective measures in the institutional treatment of juvenile offenders(i) Assessment of the degree of risk ("high risk" juveniles vs. "low risk" juveniles) andindividual needs and classification accordingly(ii) Development of an effective treatment program in accordance with the risk and needs
assessment(iii) Effective institutional treatment program considering victims/restitution of the harmcaused to the victim(iv) Appropriate administration of the institution and staff(v) Establishing and maintaining a complete record of each juvenile and linking it to a database(vi) Cooperation and collaboration with community-based treatment services("Through-care")(vii) Cooperation and collaboration with other organizations for effective institutional treatment (judicial, welfare, educational agencies, NGOs, etc.)(3) Effective measures for the community-based treatment of juvenile offenders(i) Assessment of the degree of risk ("high risk" juveniles vs. "low risk" juveniles) andindividual needs and classification accordingly(ii) Development of an effective treatment program in accordance with the risk and needs
assessment(iii) Cooperation and collaboration with Institutional treatment services("Through-care")(iv) Cooperation and collaboration with other organizations for effective Community-based
treatment (judicial, welfare, educational agencies, NGOs, etc.)(v) The possibility of using community resources, including volunteers, for effective community-based treatment(4) Effective measures to promote the reintegration of juveniles into the community(i) Measures for an aftercare system which allows the effect of the correctional treatment
to be maintained and reduces the risk of re-offending and also enhances the juvenile’s
ability to reintegrate into the communitya) Effective use of halfway houses/rehabilitation aid hostelsb) Cooperation among the related agencies (welfare/medical services, schools, NGOs,
volunteers, etc.)c) Effective programs to enhance the juvenile offender’s ability to reintegrate into thecommunity(ii) Effective measures to restore the harm/damage caused by juvenile offenders

7

cffegtive measures to restore the loss and damage caused by juvenile offenders school,
NGOs, volunteers, etc.)a) General topics of restorative justice - theoretical basisb) The possibility of using restorative justice approaches within the field of juvenile
justice, such as victim-offender mediation programs (VOM), family groupconferencing (FGC) programs, balanced restorative justice approaches, etc.

8

Course Summary
Lectures
In total, six lectures were presented by visiting experts, five by ad hoc lecturers and sevenby the professors of UNAFEI. Three distinguished criminal justice practitioners and scholars fromabroad served as UNAFEI visiting experts. They lectured on issues relating to the main theme,
and contributed significantly to the Course by encouraging discussions after their own lectures,
participating in the discussions of other programmes, and conversing with the participants on informal occasions. Additionally, distinguished senior officials of the Government of Japan, university
professors and the president of an NGO, delivered ad hoc lectures. The lecturers and lecture topics are listed on pages 9 and 10.
Individual Presentations
During the first two weeks, each Japanese and overseas participant delivered an individual
presentation, which introduced the actual situation, problems and future prospects of his/her country. These papers were compiled onto a Compact Disc and distributed to all the participants. The
titles of these individual presentation papers are listed on pages 11 and 12.
Group Workshop Sessions
Group Workshop sessions further examined the subtopics of the main theme. In order to
conduct each session effectively, the UNAFEI faculty selected individuals to serve as group members for the sub-topics, based on their response to a questionnaire previously distributed. Selectedparticipants served as chairpersons, co-chairpersons, rapporteurs or co-rapporteurs, and visiting experts and faculty members served as advisers. Each group’s primary responsibility was to exploreand develop their designated topics in the group workshop sessions. The participants, experts and
UNAFEI faculty studied the topics and exchanged their views based on information obtained
through personal experience, the individual presentations, lectures and so forth. After the group
workshop sessions, reports were drafted based on the discussions in their groups. These reports
were subsequently presented in the plenary meetings and report-back session, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. Brief summaries of the group workshop reports are provided
on pages 13 to 15.
Visits and Special Events
Visits to various agencies and institutions in Japan helped the participants obtain a morepractical understanding of the Japanese criminal justice system. In addition to the Course’s academic agenda, many activities were arranged to provide a greater understanding of Japanese society and culture, with the assistance of various organizations and individuals, including the Asia
Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF). For more detailed descriptions, please refer to pages 16 to19.

9Lecture Topics

Visiting Experts’ Lectures
1)

Dr. Ann Skelton (South Africa)
・Reforming the Juvenile Justice System in South Africa: Policy and Law Reform・Reforming the Juvenile Justice System in South Africa: Parallel Developments

2)

Mr. Stephen O’Driscoll (New Zealand)
・Youth Justice in New Zealand: A Restorative Justice Approach to Reduce Youth Offending
・Youth Justice in New Zealand: Family Court Conferencing

3)

Dr. Robert Hoge (Canada)
・Advances in the Assessment and Treatment of Juvenile Offenders: Assessment Issues
・Advances in the Assessment and Treatment of Juvenile Offenders: Case Planning andManagement

UNAFEI Professors Lectures
1)

Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi, Professor, UNAFEI
・Challenges of the Koban (Police Box) System in the 21st Century

2)

Ms. Kayo Ishihara, Professor, UNAFEI・Investigation and Prosecution in Japan3)

Mr. Shintaro Naito, Professor, UNAFEI
・The Courts

4)

Mr. Jun Oshino, Professor, UNAFEI
・The Juvenile Justice System

5)

Mr. Tetsuya Sugano, Professor, UNAFEI
・Institutional Corrections in Japan6)

Ms. Tae Sugiyama, Professor, UNAFEI
・Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in Japan

7)

Mr. Takeshi Seto, Professor, UNAFEI
・The UN and Juvenile Justice

Ad Hoc Lectures
1)

Mr. Masanobu Fukuda
Director of Juvenile Protection Office, Juvenile Division, Community Safety Bureau, National
Police Agency, Japan
・Present Conditions of Juvenile Delinquency and the Police Measures

2)

Dr. Kei Someda
Senior Researcher, Research and Training institute, Ministry of Justice, Japan10・ Restorative Justice: Theoretical Base, World Trends and Current Practices, Especially
Focusing upon Juvenile Justice3)

Prof. Kenji Hirose
Professor of Rikkyo Law School, Japan
・Present Conditions and Trends of the Juvenile Law System

4)

Ms. Yukiko Yamada
President Victim-Offender Dialogue Programme Management Centre (incorporated Non-Profit
Organization), Japan・Juvenile Rehabilitation from the Viewpoint of Victim Support Practice by the VictimOffender Dialogue Programme Management Centre

5)

Prof. Emeritus Kei Maeda
Emeritus Professor, Japan Lutheran Theological College, Japan
・Social Skills Training (SST) to Improve Interpersonal Behavioural Skills

11

Individual Presentation Topics

Overseas Participants
1)

Mr. Karma Sonam (Bhutan)
・Country Report

2)

Ms. Iacy Monteiro Braga Caracelli・Country Report

3)

Mr. Ndama Henry
・Country Report

4)

Mr. Cesar Alexis Ruiz Rodriguez (Honduras)
・Country Report

5)

Mr. Abdelkhoder Mahdi Al-Taher (Iraq)
・Country Report

6)

Mr. Min Than Kyaw (Myanmar)
・Country Report

7)

Mr. William Antonio Parodi Pugliese (Panama)・Country Report

8)

Mr. Agustin Esperanza Senot (Philippines)
・Country Report

9)Mr. Braam Paul Korff (South Africa)
・Country Report(Brazil)Asaah Ngu (Cameroon)10) Mr. Herath Mudiyanselage T. N. Upuldeniya (Sri Lanka)
・Country Report11) Mr. Kapila Mudantha
・Country Report

Waidyaratne (Sri Lanka)12) Ms. Loupua Kuli (Tonga)・Country Report13) Mr. Thanh Quang Chu (Vietnam)
・Country Report14) Mr. Joseph Makwakwa (Zimbabwe)
・Country Report15) Mr. Shu-kan Kenny Cheung (Hong Kong, SAR)
・Country Report1216) Mr. Hee Ho Park (Korea)
・Country ReportJapanese Participants17) Ms. Suwa Imai・The Enforcement of Article 20-2 of the Juvenile Law18) Mr. Satoshi Imamura
・Exploitation and Practical Use of Social Resources in Community-based Treatment
19) Ms. Ayumi Ishikawa
・The Need for Risk Assessment and Management to Ensure Effective Juvenile Communitybased Treatment
20) Mr. Hisami Katsuda
・Juvenile Justice in Japan and the Role of Family Court Probation Officers21) Mr. Masaru Kiuchi
・Management Methods and Treatment Measures in Japanese Juvenile Training Schools22) Mr. Kenji Nagaike・Trials of Juvenile Delinquency Cases in the Criminal Courts23) Mr. Masaomi Nakazawa
・The Role of Public Prosecutors in the Japanese Juvenile Justice System

13Group Workshop Sessions
Group 1ENSURING DUE PROCESS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE
APPROPRIATE ADJUDICATION/DISPOSITION OF JUVENILES
Mr. Kapila Mudantha Waidyaratne
Mr. Masaomi Nakazawa
Mr. William Antonio Parodi Pugliese
Mr. Joseph Makwakwa
Mr. Thanh Quang Chu
Mr. Hisami Katsuda
Mr. Agustin Esperanza Senot(Sri Lanka)(Japan)(Panama)(Zimbabwe)(Vietnam)(Japan)(Philippines)

Visiting Experts

Mr. Stephen O’Driscoll
Dr. Robert Hoge

(New Zealand)(Canada)Advisers

Prof. Jun Oshino
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto
Prof. Kayo Ishihara
Prof. Shintaro Naito(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Chairperson
Co-chairpersons
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs

Report SummaryGroup One discussed the above subject according to the following agenda. (1) Current
situation and challenges in regard to the legal framework of arrest, detention, transfer between related agencies, prosecution and trial. (2) Current situation and challenges in regard to: (i) information gathering of offences and/or background of delinquency; (ii) information sharing; and (iii)
cooperation amongst stakeholders. (3) Assessment of the degree of risk of re-offending and thefactors important for the rehabilitation of each juvenile before disposition. (4) Measures for ensuring the appropriate adjudication/disposition of juveniles. (5) Adjudication/disposition considering
the restitution/minimization of damage to the victim and/or community and effective measures torestore the harm/damage caused by juvenile offenders.
The group then made the following recommendations. 1. Each country needs to establish
a specialized court system competent to deal with juvenile offenders. 2. The formulation and improvement of a framework of arrest, detention, prosecution and trial applicable to handling juvenile
offenders should be based on UN standards, norms and guidelines. 3. Judges should be given
comprehensive reports to enable them to make appropriate decisions. 4. Specialists in psychology,sociology and education, such as probation officers, etc., should be involved in the process of decision-making and their reports and recommendations taken into account in making dispositions.
5. The use of volunteers, (volunteer probation officers, etc.) in community support programmes
dealing with juvenile offenders, should be encouraged. 6. The competent authorities in their determinations should as a rule, give priority to the juvenile offender rather than the offence. 7. A restorative justice approach should be encouraged. 8. It is important to record methodically accurate
statistics on juvenile offenders.

14Group 2
EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS FOR
THEIR SUCCESSFUL REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY
Mr. Shu-kan Kenny Cheung
Ms. Ayumi Ishikawa
Mr. Karma Sonam
Mr. Herath Upuldeniya
Mr. Masaru Kiuchi
Mr. Min Than Kyaw
Mr. Hee Ho Park
Mr. Kenji Nagaike(Hong Kong SAR)
(Japan)(Bhutan)(Sri Lanka)(Japan)(Myanmar)(Korea)(Japan)Visiting Experts

Mr. Stephen O’Driscoll
Dr. Robert Hoge

(New Zealand)(Canada)Advisers

Prof. Tetsuya SuganoProf. Koji YamadaProf. Shintaro Naito(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteurs
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Report SummaryGroup Two discussed the above subject according to the following agenda. 1) The current
situation and problems faced by organizations that treat juveniles. 2) Measures of assessing individual characteristics. 3) Development of a treatment programme in accordance with the risk andneeds assessment. 4) Development of a treatment programme considering victims and/or restitution
to the victims. 5) Continuous collaboration and links with the community-based treatment service,and or related organizations, for the effective treatment of juveniles and their rehabilitation(Through care). 6) An aftercare system that maintains the effect of correctional treatment, reduces
the risk of re-offending and helps the juvenile reintegrate into the community.
The group then made the following recommendations. 1. When conducting Risk/Needs assessment the different characteristic of juveniles should be considered. 2. Treatment programmes
should be updated regularly by inviting experts from outside, etc. 3. An objective method shouldbe established to assess the effectiveness of treatment programmes, such as the rate of recidivism.
Accurate and up-to-date research and statistics should be kept. 4. Restorative justice mediation
programmes provide an opportunity for the juvenile to consider the feelings of the victims and theconsequences of crime. Juveniles should be given guidance before attending such programmes. 5.
Before discharging juveniles, pre-discharge training and preparation should be provided and the parole board should be involved, even while the juvenile is still in the institution. 6. For the juvenile
to lead a law-abiding life, employment is indispensable. Co-operation from private companies aswell as the community should be sought. 7. An effective system to monitor volunteers and NGOs
is necessary. 8. In order for the juvenile to maintain his motivation to rehabilitate himself after release, it is necessary to provide him with an innovative and creative programme. 9. Family plays
an important part in the rehabilitation process; therefore, more effort should be made to build atrusting relationship with the family members of the juvenile. 10. After-care supervision, with control and care elements, is significant for the re-integration of juveniles; for this purpose, juveniles’
needs should be assessed before release. 11. Staff should be given sufficient training and educationon the rationale and mission of rehabilitation.

15

Group 3
EFFECTIVE MEASURES IN THE COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT OFJUVENILE OFFENDERS AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE JUVENILE’SABILITY TO REINTEGRATE INTO SOCIETY
Ms. Loupua Kuli
Mr. Braam Paul Korff
Mr. Ndama Henry Asaah Ngu
Ms. Iacy Monteiro Braga Caracelli
Ms. Suwa Imai
Mr. Abdelkhoder Mahdi Al-Taher
Mr. Cesar Alexis Ruiz Rodriguez
Mr. Satoshi Imamura(Tonga)(South Africa)(Cameroon)(Brazil)(Japan)(Iraq)(Honduras)(Japan)Visiting Experts

Dr. Ann Skelton
Dr. Robert Hoge

(South Africa)(Canada)Advisers

Prof. Tae Sugiyama
Prof. Haruhiko Higuchi
Prof. Ryuji Tatsuya(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs
Members

Report SummaryGroup Three discussed the above subject according to the following agenda. 1) The current situation and problems faced by organizations that treat juveniles. 2) Measures of assessing
the individual characteristics, degree of risk and needs, and classification. 3) Development of aneffective programme in accordance with risk and needs assessment. 4) Development of a treatment
programme considering victims and/or restitution of the harm caused to victims. 5) Collaborationand links with institutional treatment services, etc. for the effective treatment of juveniles and theirrehabilitation (Through-care). 6) An aftercare system that maintains the effect of correctional treatment, reduces the risk of re-offending and enhances the juvenile’s ability to reintegrate into thecommunity. The group then made the following recommendations.
1. Community-based treatment must be in line with the needs of offenders. A board/governmental institution may screen these programmes and set relevant guidelines. 2. A treatment
programme for the type of risk and needs assessment should be developed by specialists, etc. incooperation with the department of justice, etc. 3. Communication and exchange of information between treatment agencies and the community is crucial in increasing collaboration and cooperation
between them, taking into consideration the juveniles’ right of privacy and best interests. Agencies
should use standardized documents to improve the enhancement of cooperation and collaboration
among stakeholders. 4. The use of community resources such as community and religious leaders,etc. should be considered. 5. Third parties are necessary for the successful conduct of victimoffender meetings but they need to be chosen carefully, taking into account both victims and offenders. 6. Aftercare residences (halfway houses, etc.) should be established/increased for thecontinuity of the juvenile’s treatment. 7. Continuous supervision, assessment and treatment of juveniles, and support for their parents/family should be maintained. 8. UN standards and norms
should be considered when establishing and implementing treatment programmes for juveniles. 9.
Treatment programmes should provide juveniles with healthy distractions and hobbies to reduce
negative peer influence and recidivism.

16

Observation Visits

Date

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

May 30Tokyo Probation Office・Ms. Haruko Otani(Probation Officer)

Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office・Mr. Shotaro Tochigi(Chief Prosecutor)

Ministry of Justice・Mr. Hiroshi Obayashi(Vice Minister of Justice)

June 7

Tama Juvenile Training School

・Mr. Noriyuki Kashimura(Deputy Director)

June 13

Tokyo Family Court

・Mr. Shouichi Yagi
(Deputy Chief Judge)

The Supreme Court

・Mr. Yuki Furuta (Justice)

June 15

Kawagoe Juvenile Prison

・Mr. Hiroshi Sasaki(Director-General of Education
Division)

June 25

Fuchu Prison

・Mr. Hiroyuki Shinkai(Principal Programme Supervisor)

17Group Study Tour

Location

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

June 20

Hiroshima

・With Hiroshima
Halfway House

・Mr. Kanichi Yamada
Deputy Director

June 2122

Kyoto

・Uji Juvenile Training
School・Mr. Shunichi Ozono
Superintendent

・Kyoto Prefectural
Police・Mr. Minoru Shoda
Assistant Section Chief

Date

18

Special Events

May 23

Welcome Party

May 25, 28, 29

Japanese Conversation Classes

The overseas participants attended three Japanese conversation classes and learned
practical Japanese expressions. The sensei (teacher) was Ms. Junko Toyoguchi of JICE.

May 26Grand Sumo Tournament and Party Hosted by the ACPF, Kisei-kai Branch
The participants attended the Grand Sumo Tournament at the Ryogoku Kokugikan,
Tokyo, and later enjoyed a party hosted by the ACPF, Kisei-kai Branch.

May 30Courtesy to the Ministry of Justice andReception by the Vice-Minister of Justice
After visiting the Ministry of Justice, a reception was held by the Vice-Minister ofJustice, Mr. Hiroshi Obayashi at the Lawyers Club, Tokyo.

June 1

UNAFEI Olympics
The UNAFEI Olympic Games were held on the grounds of the Training Institute for
Correctional Personnel. The participants competed in such events as racket relay, tug of
war and the true or false quiz. Afterwards, a friendship party was held at UNAFEI.

June 9 and 10

Home Visits

ACPF Fuchu Branch kindly organized dinners for the participants in the homes of
their members. The hosts were Mr. Rinshi Sekiguchi, Mr. Yoshiyuki Sakano, Ms. Yuriko
Arai, Ms. Hiroko Maekawa and Ms. Chitose Sashida.

June 13

ACPF Yokohama Cruise
The participants enjoyed a sunset cruise and dinner aboard the Marine Rouge hosted
by ACPF Yokohama branch.

June 16

The Way of Tea
The participants enjoyed lunch at Tanaka house in Kyodo-no-Mori park. This wasfollowed by "Cha-no-yu" or "Sado", a formal Japanese tea ceremony. These events werekindly hosted by Soroptimist International Tokyo, Fuchu.

19June 19

ACPF Fuchu Party
The ACPF Fuchu branch hosted an enjoyable party for the participants and their
host families at UNAFEI.

June 27

Suntory Brewery Visit
The participants visited the Suntory brewery where they were given a guided tour.
Afterwards the Fuchu Rotary Club hosted a very enjoyable party.

June 28

Farewell Party
A party was held to bid farewell to all the participants.

20

Reference Materials

A. UN Conventions, Standards and Norms in Juvenile Justice, and Related Materials
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
3. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
1984.
4. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989.
5. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1st UN Congress).
6. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985
(Beijing Rules).
7. United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, 1990 (the Riyadh
Guidelines).
8. United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 1990.
9. Guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System, 1997.
10. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures, 1990 (the Tokyo Rules).
11. Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice (10th UN Congress).
12. Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters, 2002.
13. Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice (11th UN Congress).
14. United Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children, 2005.
15. Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes, 2006 UNODC.
16. Juvenile Justice, Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit, 2006 UNODC.
B. Juvenile Justice System
1. Assessing the Youthful Offender: Issues and Techniques (Robert D. Hoge, D.A. Andrews)
Chapter 1, 2, 3, 8.
2. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing and the Law (Dean J. Champion)
Chapter 1, 3.
3. The Juvenile Act and Rules of Juvenile Proceedings contained in the Statutes on Family
Justice of Japan 2006 (excerpt) (General Secretariat Supreme Court of Japan).
4. Juvenile Hearings: Encouraging Sound Juvenile Development (transcript) Planned by theSupreme Court.
C. Treatment of Offenders in Juvenile Justice Systems
1. The Juvenile Offender: Theory, Research and Applications (Robert D. Hoge) Chapter 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9.
2. Multisystemic Therapy: Community-based Treatment for High Risk Young Offenders (Allan W.
Leschield) (UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 59).
3. Directions of Juvenile Justice Reforms in Singapore (Chomil Kamal) (UNAFEI Resource
Material Series No. 59).
4. Probation Services in Singapore (Chomil Kamal) (UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 67).
5. Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare (David M.Altschuler, Troy L.
Armstrong, and Doris Layton Mackenzie).
6. Aftercare Services (Steve V. Gies).
7. Girls at Risk? Reflections on Changing Attitudes to Young Women’s Offending (Ann Worral)
Probation Journal Vol. 48 No. 2 June 2001 p. 86-109.

21

D. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (D. J. Andrews, James Bonta)
1. Chapter 1- An Overview of the Psychology of Criminal Conduct.
2. Chapter 2- Defining Criminal Behaviour and Exploring Variability in Criminal Conduct.
3. Chapter 9- Prediction of Criminal Behaviour and Classification of Offenders.
4. Chapter 10- Prevention and Rehabilitation.
E.

Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming(Correctional Service of Canada http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca)
1. Principles of Effective Correctional Programs (Donald A. Andrews).
2. Offender Assessment: General Issues and Considerations (James Bonta).
3. Treatment Responsivity: Reducing Recidivism by Enhancing Treatment Effectiveness (Sharon
M. Kennedy).
4. Obstacles to Effective Correctional Program Delivery (Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin, and Paula
Smith).
5. Implementation of Effective Correctional Programs (Alan W. Leschied).
6. Programming for Offenders with Substance Abuse and Dependence Problems (Lynn O.
Lightfoot).
7. Contributing to Safe Reintegration: Outcome Measurement (Laurence L. Motiuk).
F.

FORUM on Corrections Research (Correctional Service of Canada http://www.cscscc.gc.ca)
1. Dynamic Factors(i) Offender needs - Providing the Focus for our Correctional Interventions (Gilbert Taylor).
(ii) The Case Needs Review Project: Background and Research Strategy (Shelley L. Brown).
(iii) Using Dynamic Factors to Better Predict Post-release Outcome (Larry Motiuk).
(iv) Dynamic Factors and Recidivism: What Have we Learned from the Case Needs Review
Project? (Shelley L. Brown).
2. "What Works" in Corrections(i) Defining Correctional Programs (James McGuire).
(ii) Offender Assessment: General Issues and Considerations (James Bonta).
(iii) Treatment responsivity: Reducing Recidivism by Enhancing Treatment Effectiveness (Sharon
M. Kennedy).
(iv) Treatment Resistance in Corrections (Denise L. Preston).
(v) What Works With Young Offenders: Summarizing the Literature (Alan W. Leschied)(UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 59).
G. Restorative Justice
1. Juvenile Justice Reform and Restorative Justice: Building Theory and Policy from Practice,2005 (Gordon Bazemore, Mara Schiff) Chapter 1, 2, 6.
2. Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles, A Framework for Juvenile Justice in the 21stCentury, 1997 OJJDP (Gordon Bazemore, Mark Umbreit).
3. Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early Response to Young Offenders, 2001(Edmund F.
McGarrell).
4. Youth Court: A Community Solution for Embracing At-Risk Youth.

22

Experts and Participants List

Visiting Experts
Dr. Ann Skelton

Litigation Project Director
Centre for Child Law,
Faculty of Law,
University of Pretoria,
South Africa

Mr. Stephen O’Driscoll

Judge
Dunedin District Court,
New Zealand

Dr. Robert Hoge

Emeritus Professor of Psychology andDistinguished Research Professor
Carleton University,
CanadaOverseas Participants
Mr. Karma Sonam

Officer In-charge
Royal Bhutan Police,
Division III,
BhutanMs. Iacy Monteiro Braga Caracelli

Special Agent
Civil Police of the Federal District,Brasilia,
BrazilMr. Ndama Henry

Administrator of Prisons
Service Head for Probation and Training,
Department of Penitentiary
Administration,
Ministry of Justice,
Cameroon

Asaah Ngu

Mr. Cesar Alexis Ruiz Rodriguez

Criminal Police Inspector
Criminal Investigations General
Directorate,
Honduras

Mr. Abdelkhoder Mahdi Al-Taher

Deputy Minister of Interior for Southern
Iraq
Ministry of Interior,
Iraq

23

Mr. Min Than Kyaw

Deputy Director
Prison Department,
Director General’s Office,MyanmarMr. William Antonio Parodi Pugliese

Lawyer
General Prosecutor’s Office,Public Ministry,
PanamaMr. Agustin Esperanza Senot

Police Superintendent
Chief of Firepower Section,
Directorate for Logistics,
Philippine National Police,
Philippines

Mr. Braam Paul Korff

Superintendent
Division of Training Research andDevelopment
South Africa Police Service,
South Africa

Mr. Herath Mudiyanselage T. N.
Upuldeniya

Assistant Superintendent of Prisons
Kegalle Remand Prison,
Department of Prisons,
Sri Lanka

Mr. Kapila Mudantha Waidyaratne

Deputy Solicitor General
Attorney General’s Department,
Sri Lanka

Ms. Loupua Kuli

Probation Officer
Officer in Charge of the Probation andYouth Justice Division,
Ministry of Justice,
Tonga

Mr. Thanh Quang Chu

Legal Specialist
The Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam,
VietnamMr. Joseph Makwakwa

Principal Law Officer (Public Prosecutor)
Legal and Parliamentary Affairs,
Attorney General’s Office,Ministry of Justice,Zimbabwe

Mr. Shu-kan Kenny Cheung

Chief Officer
Correctional Services Department,
Hong Kong, SAR

24

Mr. Hee-Ho Park

Japanese Participants
Ms. Suwa Imai

Chief Inspector
Correction Bureau,
Ministry of Justice,
Korea

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Satoshi Imamura

Probation Officer
Hiroshima Probation Office Fukuyama
BranchMs. Ayumi Ishikawa

Probation Officer
Kanto Regional Parole Board

Mr. Hisami Katsuda

Family Court Probation Officer
Osaka Family Court

Mr. Masaru Kiuchi

Assistant Chief Programme Supervisor
Nagoya Prison

Mr. Kenji Nagaike

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Masaomi Nakazawa

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutor’s
Office25

THE THIRD SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICEFOR CENTRAL ASIA

The Third Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 26 February to 16
March 2007 at UNAFEI. The Seminar was entitled "Effective Measures and Enhancement ofTreatment for Drug Abusers in the Criminal Justice Process". Thirteen participants from Central
Asian countries participated.

Mr. Sabyrzhan Kappassov

Head of Division
Law Department,
Ministry of Economy and Budget
Planning,
Kazakhstan

Mr. Azamat Achubayev

Senior Investigator
Drug Control Agency,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Marat Turgunbaevich Djamankulov

Head of Department of Penal Reform
Ministry of Justice,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Baktybek Suiumbaev

Senior Investigator
Drug Control Agency,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Az-zaybek Urustemov

Head of Department
Main Department Fighting Crime
Committed by Public Officials,
The Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Habibullo Saifulloevich Aliev

Deputy Chairman of Court
City Court of Tursun-Zadeh,
Tajikistan

Ms. Muhabbat Abdukahorovna Azizova

Chairman
Khatlon Region Court,
Tajikistan

Ms. Basbi Mizoevna Holova

Judge
Supreme Court,
Tajikistan

Mr. Anvarzhon Ibrogimovich Yusupov

ChairmanMatcho District Court of Sogd Region,
Tajikistan

26

Mr. Yorkin Abdullaev

Prosecutor of the Department
General Prosecutors Office,Uzbekistan

Mr. Fakhriddin Shamsitdinovich
Djamolov

Senior Prosecutor of the Department
General Prosecutors Office,Uzbekistan

Mr. Bahtiyorjon Satvoldievich Nizamov

Judge
The Criminal Court of Andijan Region,
Uzbekistan

Mr. Doniyor Bahtiyarovich Tashkhodjaev

Deputy Head
Anti Corruption Unit,
The Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Uzbekistan

27

THE TWELFTH SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIOR CRIMINALJUSTICE OFFICIALS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINAThe Twelfth Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republicof China was held from 5 to 23 March 2007. The theme of the Seminar was "Globalization of
Crimes and International Criminal Justice Cooperation".
Thirteen senior criminal justice officials and the UNAFEI faculty comparatively discussed
contemporary problems faced by China and Japan in relation to the above theme.
Mr. Dong Kaijun

Director General
Judicial Research Institute of Ministry ofJusticeMs. Li Jing

Vice Director of Education andCorrection
Bureau of Prison Administration,
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Lei Jianbin

Deputy Director
Criminal Legislation Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission,Standing Committee of NPC China

Mr. Xu Yongan

Section Chief
Criminal Legislation Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission,Standing Committee of NPC China

Mr. Wu Wenhe

Judge
The Criminal Trial Division,
Fourth Division,
Supreme People’s Court of the PR of China

Mr. Sun Jiang

Judge
The Third Criminal Division,
Supreme People’s Court of the PR of China

Mr. Qi Zhanzhou

Vice Section Chief of Letter Section
Procuratorial Department for Accusation,
Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the PR of
China

Mr. Zhang Xiaojin

Vice-Director of Lodging Protest Section
Public Prosecution Department ofSupreme People’s Procuratorate

28

Mr. Xiang Dang

Professor, Vice Dean
Chinese People’s Public Security
University

Mr. Yin Yuanfang

Associate Professor
Chinese People’s Public Security
University

Mr. Sun Yong

Division Director
Department of Mutual Legal Assistanceand Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of Justice

Ms. Zhang Pingying

Division Deputy Director
Bureau of Education through Labour,
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Han Xiutao

Division Director
Research Office,Ministry of Justice29

THE SECOND COUNTRY SPECIFIC TRAINING COURSE ON THE
REVITALIZATION OF THE VOLUNTEER PROBATION AID SYSTEMFOR THE PHILIPPINESThe Second Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the Volunteer
Probation Aid System for the Philippines was held from the 17 to 26 April 2007. Eleven Paroleand Probation Officers and one Volunteer Probation Aid from the Philippines attended.

Mr. Rosalio De Guzman Balane

Deputy Administrator
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Arturo Ortega Gabrieles

Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice,Region VIII

Mr. Jose Lino Matias Vibar

Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice,
Cordillera Administrative Region

Mr. Leo Sarte Carrillo

Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice,Region XI

Mr. Angelito Aviguetero Ilano

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Manila Parole and Probation Office,
Office No. 6,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Neneitte Lopez Eugenio

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Community Services Division,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Maria Lourdes Santos Guangco

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Zamboanga Sibugay Parole and Probation
Office,Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice30

Mr. Edgardo JR Geronimo Acuna

Probation and Parole Officer II
Bulacan Parole and Probation Office,
Office No. 2,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Lloyd Daria Barrion

Probation and Parole Officer II
Davao City Parole and Probation Office,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Olivita Agton Alvaro

Volunteer Probation Aid
Office of the Barangay Council,
Davao City

Ms. Olivia Angobung Sales

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Isabela City Parole and Probation Office
Parole and Probation
Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Corzena Taray Gentindatu

Supervising Probation and Parole Officer
Davao City Parole and Probation Office,
Office No. 2,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice31

INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMESThe 137th International Training Course
The 137th International Training Course entitled "Corporate Crime and the Criminal
Liability of Corporate Entities" will be held from 5 September to 12 October 2007.
Rationale
1. Increasing Threat of Corporate Crime
Economic crime by a corporate entity, or its representatives acting on its behalf, is a critical issue for the international community. Large corporations wield tremendous power and influence due to their enormous resources, and thus have the ability to do considerable harm.
Especially in recent years, improvements in communications and technology have shrunk distances
between states, made state frontiers porous and opened up previously unimaginable opportunities
for commercial, political and social interaction, and consequently have dramatically expanded international commercial transactions. We now live in a world of increasing economic interdependence
where global markets provide attractive opportunities for firms to do business all over the world,
24 hours a day. This process of globalization has led to not only unprecedented opportunities forcorporate activity, but also to an increase in the potential risk of economic crime or abuse committed by corporations in the course of their business.
This Course will deal with the most common types of crime as they relate to corporate entities such as fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust, tax evasion, submission of securities reports
containing false information, insider trading, private monopolization, bid rigging, foreign bribery,bankruptcy fraud, money-laundering, etc. The Course will examine crimes involving corporations
not only as criminals but as victims, such as when an employee abuses his/her position. However,
we will not deal with corporate crimes which have no direct relation to economic crime, such asenvironmental crime and minor regulatory violations, etc.
2. Response to the Increasing Threat of Corporate Crime
It is common knowledge that many large-scale corporate scandals have occurred recently,
for example, Enron and WorldCom in the United States, Barings in Singapore and others such as
Livedoor in Japan, which were committed in the course of doing business. In developing countries, economic crime has also become a critical issue and it is likely that corporate crime will become more prevalent as these countries develop.
Following the increased threat of illegal economic activities in the course of business, theinternational community has begun to recognize that such activities are a grave threat to the political, economic, and social fabric of their respective countries, and this has led many states tocriminalize economic abuse.
Among the various types of economic abuse that have been criminalized, money launderingand concealment are two of the most damaging. Shell companies, which have no active businessand usually exist only in name as a vehicle for another company’s business operations, are often
used to launder and conceal the proceeds of crime from illicit corporate activities. Complex corporate structures can effectively hide the true ownership of the proceeds, or particular transactions
related to serious crime. In addition, criminals take advantage of easier capital movement, advances in technology and increases in the mobility of people and commodities, as well the diversity of legal provisions in different countries. Exploiting legal asymmetries, criminals transfer
illegal assets instantly from place to place through both formal and informal channels, and they
may appear finally as legitimate assets available in any part of the world.
In recognition of the fact that serious and sophisticated crimes are frequently committed,

32

through or under the cover of legal entities such as corporations, international agreements havebeen made in which each state adopts such measures as may be necessary, consistent with its
legal principles, to establish the liability of legal persons for participation in corporate crime.
The principle that corporations cannot commit crime (societas delinquere non potest) used to be
widely accepted, although, the debate on whether legal entities can bear criminal responsibility has
shifted to the question of how to define and regulate such responsibility.
Each country has its own legal framework defining criminal liability of legal persons. For
example, in Japan this kind of penal provision is called "Double Punishment". In order to apply
this Double Punishment provision to a corporate entity, investigative authorities have to first determine the identity of the natural person(s) who, acting on behalf of the corporate entity, committed
the crime. When such person(s) have been proven to have committed the crime then the criminal
liability of the legal person is presumed. In addition, in recent years in Japan, amendments havebeen made to the legislation to increase the penalties on legal persons for economic crime.
In addition, in order to properly investigate corporate crime, the authorities have to conduct inves
tigations with the help of mutual legal assistance and other measures in cooperation withother agencies.
In this Course, we will focus on the current situation of corporate crime and the responseto the increasing threat in the respective countries.
3. Practical Issues in Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication
An economic crime involving corporate activities is often complicated and sophisticated sothat investigators need sufficient knowledge and experience of accounting, finance and taxation,etc. The Government needs to train investigators and organize special task forces or units to handle corporate crime.
There remain many difficult issues in regard to substantive and/or procedural laws concerning corporate crime which have not been agreed upon by judicial precedents. Investigators andprosecutors have to examine the interpretation closely prior to indictment in some cases.
It is sometimes essential that the investigative authorities conduct the investigation of a large scale
corporate crime in cooperation with other authorities; therefore, a close relationship with such
authorities, founded on mutual trust, is indispensable to accomplish the task.
Corporate crime is usually committed secretly so that it is difficult for the investigative
authorities to fully grasp the situation. It is true that there are some cases in which an investigative authority can obtain information from a secret informant inside the corporation, but most people are afraid to come forward because of reprisals from the corporation, which is very often theiremployer.
In order to secure a conviction, in a case involving a corporate crime, it is often necessary
to obtain material and electronic evidence (financial statements, e-mail correspondence, etc.).
Therefore, it is necessary for investigative authorities to seize and analyze, in an effective andthorough manner, the vast quantity of such evidence.
In addition, it is also critical for investigative authorities to take statements from witnesses
and suspects in the investigation of corporate crime. In this regard, some countries judicial systems
allow for the possibility of mitigating the punishment of an accused person and/or the possibilityof granting immunity from prosecution to a person who provides substantial cooperation with theinvestigation or prosecution.
Especially in regard to the finding of facts in the trial of corporate crime, there is an enormous amount of evidence and disputes on legal and/or factual matters so that a vast amount oftime and effort is required by judges, prosecutors, defendants and defence attorneys.
As globalization and the development of information technology make corporate activities
more transnational, the geographical range of investigation has been widened to include foreign jurisdictions; international cooperation is therefore essential to properly execute the investigation.
We will focus on these practical issues of corporate crime in this Training Course.

33

Objectives
This Training Course aims at examining and analyzing the current situation, problems andchallenges in the investigation, prosecution and trial of corporate crime. The objectives and theirsubtopics are as follows:(1) Liability of legal persons and criminalization in relation to corporate crime(a) Liability of legal persons: (i) Current situation of criminal liability of corporate entities
in respective countries, (ii) Legal framework of criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, (iii) Various kinds of criminal liability, (iv) Others(b) Criminalization in relation to corporate crime(NB: Participants are requested to refer to the current situation and legal framework of thecriminal liability of corporate entities in their respective countries).
(2) Current situation and issues concerning corporate crime listed below in the respective countries:
・Economic crime committed by a corporate entity or its representatives acting on its behalf
・Fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust, etc.
・Tax evasion
・Submission of securities reports containing false information, spreading rumours, market
manipulation, insider trading, etc.
・Private monopolization, unreasonable restraint of trade, illegal acts of trade associations, bid
rigging, price fixing, etc.
・Foreign bribery
・Bankruptcy fraud・Money laundering
・Others(NB: Participants are requested to focus on any one or more of these offences for the purposeof preparing their individual presentation papers. Please note that domestic corruption in the
public sector is excluded from the scope of this Training Course, since it has little direct relation with corporate crime.)(3) Issues concerning the investigation(a) Specialized investigative authorities and training methods for investigators(b) Cooperation between investigative authorities concerned at the state level(c) Acquisition of information on corporate crime: (i) Complaint, (ii) Mass media, (iii)
Confidential informants, (iv) Whistleblower protection, (v) Others(d) Material and electronic evidence: (i) Identify, obtain and preserve, (ii) Obtain relevant
computer data and recovery of deleted data, (iii) Forensic analysis, (iv) Others(e) Measures to obtain statement evidence: (i) Techniques of interrogation, (ii) Plea bargaining, (iii) Immunity(f) Special investigative techniques: (i) Electronic and other forms of surveillance, (ii)
Undercover operations, (iii) Other special investigative techniques, (iv) Use of special investigative techniques at the international level34(4) Issues concerning the prosecution(a) Mitigating punishment of an accused person who provides substantial cooperation in theinvestigation and/or prosecution(b) Granting immunity from prosecution to a person who provides substantial cooperation in
the investigation and/or prosecution(c) Considerations in the prosecution of a corporate entity(5) Issues in the trial and adjudication(a) Disclosure of evidence before the trial(b) Clarification of disputes before the trial(c) Effective methods of fact finding: (i) Witness protection, (ii) Expert witnesses, (iii)
Others(d) Sentencing process(6) International cooperation(a) Current situation of, and problems and challenges in, the investigation, prosecution andtrial of the above-mentioned offences, in relation to international cooperation(b) Problems and challenges in obtaining and providing mutual legal assistance(c) Problems and challenges in the use of other types of international cooperation: i) Joint
investigations, ii) Law enforcement cooperation (e.g. exchange of information).
(NB: Extradition issues are excluded from the main scope of this Course, which focuses onpractical issues pertaining to the investigation, prosecution and trial of corporate crime).

35

ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS

Faculty Changes
Mr. Keisuke Senta, formerly Deputy Director of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed
Senior Legal Expert in Terrorism Prevention (Asia and the Pacific), Terrorism Prevention Branch,
UNODC on 22 February 2007.
Mr. Hiroyuki Shinkai, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed
Principal Programme Supervisor, Education Division, Fuchu Prison on 1 April 2007.
Ms. Megumi Uryu, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Professorof Nihon University Law School and Shinshu University School of Law on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Iichiro Sakata, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Judge at
Sapporo District/Family Court on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Takeshi Seto, formerly Senior Attorney for the International Affairs, Criminal Affairs
Bureau was appointed Deputy Director of UNAFEI on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya, formerly Chief Specialist for the Observation and Treatment Unit, Chiba
Juvenile Classification Home, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Jun Oshino, formerly Judge of Ichinomiya Branch, Nagoya District/Family Court,
joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano, formerly Chief of the Case Review and Assessment Section, Nagano
Juvenile Classification Home, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2007.
Overseas Trips by Staff
Director Mr. Keiichi Aizawa and Ms. Kayo Ishihara (Professor) visited Vienna, Austria
from 21 to 29 April 2007 to attend the 16th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice. The Director made a presentation and statement and Ms. Ishihara made a statement to the Commission.
Mr. Shintaro Naito (Professor) and Ms. Yoko Hosoe (Staff) visited Bangkok, Thailand from
3 to 9 June 2007 to make preparations for the Regional Seminar on Good Governance to be heldin December. While in Bangkok, they had meetings with personnel from the Office of the
Attorney General, Thailand and UNODC.
Ms. Kayo Ishihara (Professor) visited Guangzhou, China from 16 to 27 June 2007 to attend
the First IAACA Seminar. Ms. Ishihara gave a presentation on "Anti-Corruption Measures inJapan".
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited Vientiane, Laos from 25 to 28 June 2007 to attend
the Fourth and Fifth ASEAN Senior Officials Meetings on Transnational Crime (SOMTC).
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited Bangkok, Thailand from 29 June to 4 July 2007 to
prepare for UNAFEI’s Regional Seminar on Good Governance to be held in December 2007.

36

FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI

Faculty:
Mr. Keiichi Aizawa
Mr. Takeshi Seto
Mr. Motoo Noguchi
Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi
Ms. Tae Sugiyama

Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya
Mr. Koji Yamada
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano
Ms. Kayo Ishihara
Mr. Shintaro Naito
Mr. Jun Oshino
Mr. Simon Cornell
Secretariat:
Mr. Sakumi Fujii
Mr. Kazuyuki Kawabe
Mr. Hitoshi Nakasuga

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
Professor, Chief of Information and Library
Science Division, 136th Course Programming
Officer
Professor
Professor
Professor, Chief of Research Division
Professor
Professor
Professor, Chief of Training Division, 136th
Deputy Course Programming Officer
Linguistic Adviser

Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat

General and Financial Affairs Section:
Mr. Hideshi Ohashi
Chief
Mr. Fumihiro Nakayasu
Mr. Ikuo Kousaka
Ms. Mariko Tsuruoka

Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section:
Mr. Seiji Yamagami
Chief
Mr. Etsuya Iwakami
Senior Officer, 136th Assistant Course
Programming Officer
Ms. Yoko Hosoe
Mr. Atsushi Takagi
Mr. Yuichi Shirakawa
Ms. Eiko Shibuki
International Research Affairs Section:
Mr. Yuichi Kitada
Chief
Ms. Masumi Tomita
Librarian
Secretarial Staff:
Ms. Akane Uenishi
Ms. Aiko Ota

37

Kitchen:Mr. Yuji Matsumoto

Chef

JICA Coordinator for the 136th International Training Course:
Ms. Kazue Obayashi

UNAFEI Home Page: http://www.unafei.or.jp/
UNAFEI E-mail: unafei@moj.go.jp