No. 107
February 2002

Established1961
IN THIS ISSUE
Page

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR ...................................................................................................................................... 1

THE 12OTH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR.................................................................................................................... 3

EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POLICE AND THE PROSECUTION
IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Seminar Rationale .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Seminar Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Lecture Topics ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Individual Presentation Topics ................................................................................................................................ 7Group Workshop Sessions ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Topic 1
Topic 2
Topic 3Observation Visits .................................................................................................................................................. 21Group Study Tours............................................................................................................................................... ...22
Special Events .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
Reference Materials Distributed............................................................................................................................ 25
Visiting Exp erts ...................................................................................................................................................... 26
Participants ............................................................................................................................................................... 26
KENYA-UNAFEI JOINT SEMINAR…………………………………………………………………….……..…29
FOURTH TRAINING COURSE ON CORRUPTION CONTROL IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE………….………...31
PHILIPPINES-UNAFEI JOINT SEMINAR…………………………………………………………….……..…...38
INFORMATION ABOUT PROGRAMMES & ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................ 40
Training Programmes............................................................................................................................................. 40
The 121st International Training Course.............................................................................................. 40
The 122nd International Training Course............................................................................................. 42
Seventh Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People's Republic ofChina…………………………………………………………………………………….………42
Seminar on Judicial System for
Tadzhikistan………...………………………………………………………………………….42
Overseas Trips by Staff........................................................................................................................................... 42
FACULTY & STAFF OF UNAFEI ..................................................................................................................................... 44

UNAFEI IS AN AFFILIATED REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR

It is my privilege to inform readers of the successful completion of the 120th
International Senior Seminar on, “Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in
Criminal Justice” held from 15 January to 14 Februa ry 2002. In this Seminar, we welcomed 6
Japanese and 15 overseas participants: 7 from Asia, 1 from Oceania, 3 from Latin America, 1
from the Caribbean and 3 from Africa. They included police, public prosecutors, judges andother high-ranking public officials. As this newsletter demonstrates, the Seminar was
extremely productive. It consisted of Individual Presentations, Group Discussion sessions,visits to relevant criminal justice agencies, and presentations by visiting experts and ad hoc
lecturers.
During the five-week period, the participants diligently and comprehensively examinedmeasures to improve police systems and enhance methods of case screening by prosecutors.
They also looked at means of facilitating better cooperation between police and prosecutors.
This was accomplished primarily through comparative analysis of the current situation andproblems within police structures and the differing relationships between police and prosecutors.
Our in-depth discussions enabled us to put forth effective and practical solutions to emerging
problems in the investigatory and prosecutorial stages of the criminal justice process.
As crime has become more complex, diverse and sophisticated, the agencies that tackle
such crime need to respond effectively. Unfortunately, there are often shortfalls in the
expectations we have from our police and prosecution administrations and how effective theseadministrations actually are. It has been observed that investigations can be insufficient or cases
are not adequately screened by prosecutors before they to court. Factors such as these can cause
low conviction rates, delays in trial proceedings and an inability of the courts to keep up withever-increasing caseloads.
It is apparent that the power vested in prosecutors and police varies throughout the world.
In whichever way authority is exercised, however, effective police and prosecution systems
must be free from arbitrary political influences and there must be safeguards in place to ensurethat external pressures are not exerted on these criminal justice agencies.
This Seminar was timely in that it reflected the United Nations current concern about thesystematic and functional reform of the police and the prosecution. One of the topics to be
discussed by the Eleventh United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice, to be held in 2002, will be “Criminal Justice Reform”. The police and the prosecution,
by definition, have a symbiotic relationship yet in many countries we see these age ncies working,at best, separately from one another and, at worst, at odds with one another. Clearly these aresituations that need to be identified and reformed.

2

I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to all the participants for their successful
completion of the Seminar, made possible by their strenuous efforts. My heartfelt gratitude goesto the visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers who contributed a great deal to the Seminar's success.
Furthermore, I appreciate the indispensable assistance and cooperation extended to UNAFEI byvarious agencies and institutions, which helped diversify the programme.
A warm tribute must be paid to the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for
its immeasurable support throughout the Seminar. At the same time, I must express great
appreciation to the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF) and its branch organizations fortheir substantial contributions. Lastly, I owe my gratitude to all the individuals whose unselfish
efforts behind the scenes contributed significantly to the successful realization of this Seminar.
Upon returning to their home countries, I genuinely believe that, like their predecessors,
the strong 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 theinternational society as a whole.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my best regards to the participants of the 120th
International Senior Seminar. I hope that the experience they gained during the Seminar proves
valuable in their daily work, and that the bonds fostered among the participants, visiting experts,
lecturers and UNAFEI staff will continue to grow for years to come.

February 2002

Mikinao Kitada
Director, UNAFEI

3

THE 120TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR“EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POLICE AND
THE PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE”

Seminar Rationale

Crime is of major concern to all countries. As societies have been developing andchanging more rapidly, crimes have become more complex and sophisticated. What poses agreat threat to society is not only an upsurge of crimes but also an increase of more
complicated crimes such as organized crime and transnational crime. Whereas the agencies
involved in criminal justice systems have been making every effort to combat such crimes,
regrettably, the system does not always work fully and efficiently. Looking at the problems inthe system, a major obstacle to achieving the goals of criminal justice process (i.e., theinvestigatory and prosecutorial stages) is less efficient and successful than expected in spiteof their extremely important roles. In other words, insufficient investigation and inappropriate
screening of cases can cause vario us problems such as low conviction rates, overloading ofcourts, delays in trial proceeding, and the increase of prisoners awaiting trial, which seriously
violate the rights of defendants and have an impact on society.
Under such circumstances, the systematic and functional reform of the police andprosecution has been or is being carried out in some countries throughout the world. In
addition, one of the topics to be discussed at the eleventh session of the United Nations
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice to be held in 2002, will be “Criminal
Justice Reform”. Therefore, it is right time to reconsider the criminal justice system, inparticular the police and the prosecution, from the viewpoint improving the system as awhole. Unless both agencies function effectively and effectively, any law or international
conventions would not have the desired effect of fighting crime. Considering this situation,
we focus our discussion on how the police and the prosecution system should operate.
Essentially we must identify the problems that arise in the criminal justice process and findthe best way to make the process and system more effective.
In considering the issues of the police and prosecution, firstly, discussion has to befocused on the police structure. Needles to say, the police system itself should be sufficiently
organized to carry out its tasks successfully. Effective cooperation and coordination amongst
different investigative agencies, and between the national headquarters and the local police,
are furthermore required.
Of the problems that hinder effective investigations, arbitrary political influence is
one of the greatest concerns. It is, therefore, imperative to discuss how to structure safeguards
which do not allow undue external influences to be exerted by arbitrary political interventions
and pressure.
Secondly, there is the relationship between the police and prosecutors. Since they are
intrinsically linked and inseparable, in light of their roles, they must complement each otherin order to conduct investigation successfully. Effective cooperation between them must be
realized. In some countries, prosecutors consult with the police even at an early stage, and4give advice or instruction to them to complete the investigation while responding respecting
the independence of the police. Although the power vested with prosecutors differs
throughout the various systems worldwide, it is imperative to discuss and ascertain the bestsystem and practices for the effective and successful investigations ensuring between them.
Thirdly, we must discuss how to enhance prosecutorial functions, especially casescreening. Effective and appropriate case screening conducted by the competent agencies(public prosecutors, police prosecutors, magistrates, or courts) is crucial to secure a soundand efficient criminal justice system, although case screening systems and evidentiarystandards for prosecution differ from one country to another. This topic also looks at the issueof which agencies or systems would be more appropriate to conduct case screening
effectively.
Giving due consideration to the above rationale, this Seminar intends to explore more
effective administration of the police and the prosecution in criminal justice systems in eachof the participating countries. By clarifying and analyzing the actual situation and problems,
sharing experiences and knowledge, we will able to find the most appropriate direction
towards effective police and prosecution systems.
In the discussions of this seminar, focus will be placed on the following elements:

1. Effective police systems:(a)Current situations and problems(b)Conceivable measures to improve police systems(c)
Independence from arbitrary political and external influence
2. Cooperation between the police and prosecutors:(a)Systematic relationship between the police and prosecutors(b)
The role of prosecutors in criminal investigations, such as advice andinstructions to the police
3. Effective case screening by prosecutors or other competent agencies:(a)Current situations and problems(b)Countermeasures to improve case screening

5

Seminar Summary
Lectures
In total, 7 lectures were presented by visiting experts and 2 by ad hoc lecturers. Six
distinguished criminal justice practitioners from abroad served as UNAFEI visiting experts.
They lectured on issues relating to the main theme, and contributed significantly to the Seminarby encouraging discussions after their own lectures, participating in the discussions of otherprogrammes, and conversing with the participants on informal occasions. Additionally, ad hoc
lectures were delivered by distinguished senior officials of the Government of Japan. The
lecturers and lecture topics are listed on page 6.
Individual Presentations
During the first three weeks, each Japanese and overseas participant delivered a fortyfive minute and one-hour Individual Presentation respectively, which introduced the actual
situation, problems and future prospects of his/her country. These papers were compiled into abook entitled "COUNTRY REPORTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR IN CRIMEPREVENTION" and distributed to all the partic ipants. The titles of these Individual
Presentation papers are listed on pages 7 and 8.
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 ‘groupmembers’ for the sub-topics, based on their response to a questionnaire previously distributed.
Selected participants served as chairpersons, co-chairpersons, rapporteurs or co-rapporteurs,
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 and
UNAFEI faculty seriously 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 theconference hall. These reports were subsequently presented in the Report-Back Sessio n,
where they were endorsed as the reports of the Seminar. Summaries of the Group Workshop
reports are provided on pages 9 through 20.
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 Seminar's
academic agenda, many activities were arranged to provide a greater understanding of Japanesesociety and culture, with the assistance of various organizations and individuals, including the
Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF). For more detailed descriptions, please refer topages 21 through 24.

6Lecture Topics
Visiting Experts' Lectures
1)

Mr. Eberhard Siegismund (Germany)• The Competence of the Police in Investigation Proceedings• The Public Prosecution Office in Germany – Legal Status, Functions and Organization

2)

Mr. Young Chul Kim (Republic of Korea)• The Effective System of Criminal Investigation and Prosecution in the Republic of
Korea

3)

Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle (Pakistan)• Reforming Pakistan Police: an Overview

4)

Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak (Thailand)• The Thai Constitution of 1997 and its Implication on Criminal Justice Reform

5)

Mr. Peter Boeuf (United Kingdom)• Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in the Criminal Justice

System in England and Wales
6)

Prof. Anthony Didrick Castberg (United States of America)• The Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in the United States

Ad Hoc Lectures
1)

Mr. Yuuki Furuta
Director General of the Criminal Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan• Current Issues within the Criminal Justice Administration of Japan2)

Mr. Hayato Takagi
Deputy Director, Legal and Planning Affairs, Division of Commissioner General’s
Secretariat, National Police Agency, Japan• The Reform of the Japanese Police

7

Individual Presentation Topics
Overseas Participants
1)

Mr. Marcos Aurélio Vitoriano Matias (Brazil)• Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in Brazil

2)

Mr. Sergio Andrés Muñoz (Chile)• Carabineros from Chile

3)

Mr. Rosendo Armando Vásquez Bonilla (El Salvador)• County Report

4)Mr. Maninder Singh Sandhu (India )• Country Paper

5)

Ms. Titiek Syamsiar Mokodompit (Indonesia)• The Role and Function of the Public Prosecution Service in the Indonesian Criminal Justice
System

6)

Mr. Gaguk Harijanto (Indonesia )• The Implementation of the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia

7)

Mr. Daniel Kenduiywa Chesimet (Kenya)• Crime Prevention in Kenya

8)

Mr. Azmi Bin Ariffin (Malaysia )• Effective Administration of the Police and Prosecution in Malaysia

9)

Mr. Lok Jung Shah (Nepal)• Country Paper

10)

Mr. Ejaz Husain Malik (Pakistan)• Effective Administration of the Police and Prosecution in Pakistan

11)

Mr. John Haroro Maru (Papua New Guinea)• Effective Administration of the Police and Prosecution in the Criminal Justice of Papua
New Guinea

12)

Mr. Merton Meredith Charles (St. Christopher and Nevis)• Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in Criminal Justice: Case Studyon Juveniles

13)

Mr. Laurean Mutahunwa Tibasana (Tanzania )• Effective Administration of the Police and Prosecution in Criminal Justice: the Practice andExperience of the United Republic of Tanzania

14)

Mr. Seni Pimolsiri (Thailand)• Country Report

815)

Ms. Nassuna Juliet (Uganda)• Effective Administration of the Police and Prosecution in Criminal Justice in Uganda

Japanese Participants
16)

Mr. Mitsuru Itaya (Japan)• Collaboration between Criminal Justice Related Organizations in Relation to Victims of
Crime

17)

Mr. Hiromichi Iwakura (Japan)• Effective Screening of Cases by Prosecutors or other Authorities

18)

Mr. Nobuyuki Kawai (Japan)• Effective Management of the Police and Prosecution in Criminal Justice in Japan19)

Mr. Masahiro Takeishi (Japan)• Amendments to the Japanese Juvenile Law – Recent Drastic Change

20)

Mr. Takashi Yamashita (Japan)• The Cooperation between the Police and Public Prosecutors in Japan21)

Mr. Hidetsugu Yamane (Japan)• The Discretionary Power of Prosecution and the Prevention of its Abuse

9Group Workshop Sessions
The following section summarizes the Group Workshop Session reports. The full text of
the reports will be included in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 60.
Topic 1

EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF POLICE SYSTEMS

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur

Mr. Laurean M. Tibasana
Mr. Marcos Aurélio Vitoriano Matias
Mr. Maninder Singh Sandhu
Mr. Rosendo Armando Vásquez
Bonilla(Tanzania)(Brazil)(India)(El Salvador)

Advisers

Professor Yasuhiro Tanabe
Professor Hiroshi Tsutomi
Professor Mikiko Kakihara(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryI.

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing determination in most countries of the world to introduce reforms
in their respective criminal justice systems. Police institutions play an important role in theoverall criminal justice system of any country. For reforms in the criminal justice system tohave a meaningful impact, police institutions must also undergo reforms in order to renderthem more effective and efficient.
II.

DEFINITIONSIn deliberating on the efficiency and effectiveness of the various police systems andthe problems common to almost all police systems, which affect their service delivery
negatively we agreed that, taking into account the areas of responsibility and mode of control
or supervision, the police systems of the world fall into three broad classifications, namely:A.
Centralized or National Police Systems – which have jurisdiction throughout the
territory of the respective country.
B.
Semi-centralized (Dual Control) Police Systems – where police agencies are duallycontrolled by both the central governments and the governments of the states, provinces orprefectures.
C.
Decentralized Police Systems – where responsibility for police matters is the
exclusive domain of the provincial or state governments in a federal constitutionalarrangement.

10

III.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE POLICE SYSTEMS

In conformity with the classification we found that the following countries: Chile, El
Salvador, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Thailand andUganda have centrally controlled national police systems. We also found that Brazil andJapan have semi-centralized or dually controlled police systems while India and Pakistan
have decentralized police systems with police agencies exclusively under the control of thestate or provincial governments.
IV.

PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN RELATION TO THE POLICE SYSTEM

Our analysis of all the said police systems led us to identifying a number of problems,common to all police systems, which militate against their efficiency and effectiveness, thus
negatively affecting their service delivery. The following are the main problems identified:A.

Budgetary Constraints

Most police agencies, irrespective of the police system, are forced to operate under
severe budgetary limitations. As a consequence they are unable to plan meaningfully forrecruitment, training of officers, providing logistical support or to acquire necessary
equipment for performing routine functions, such as vehicles, uniform, radio communicationequipment and other necessity items. Severe budgetary limitations are thus the main cause of
ineffectiveness among police agencies.
B.

Lack of Training

Police agencies have no clear criteria for recruitment, gloss over continued educationand training of their personnel and tend to waste skilled personnel.
C.

Lack of Co-operation

Police agencies tend to build empires, are bureaucratic and do not readily share
information internally or externally even where the sharing of information would be
beneficial to the attainment of their goals.
D.

Corruption

Though it is well known that police wo rk exposes police officers to potentiallycorruptive situations, few police agencies have put in place sustainable mechanisms toeliminate corruption within their agencies.
E.

Arbitrary External Interference

Some police agencies are subjected to arbitrary external interference in the exercise of
their functions which compromises the rule of law and democratic practice.

11

F.

Lack of Personnel

In some instances police agencies do not have enough personnel to attend to routine
police functions.
V.

CONCEIVABLE MEASURESWe propose the following measures to address the problems we identified.

A.

Budgetary Constraints

Severe budgetary limitations affect the delivery of service to the citizens. Countries,
irrespective of their other national priorities, should give special attention to sufficient andsustainable budgets for their police agencies.
B.

Accountability of Police

Governments, Ministries or other organs under which police agencies fall should
consider putting in place various mechanisms which enhance the police agencies’
transparency and accountability.
C.

Arbitrary External Interference

Governments, in collaboration with Ministries under which police agencies fall, must
endeavor to put in place structural safe guards in order to ensure the exercise of police
functions is not arbitrarily interfered with.
D.

Politicization of Police Officers

In order to avoid the harmful effects which result from the intrusion of politics into
the exercise of the police functions, governments should ensure that police agencies stayaway from politics.
E.

Police Corruption

In order to eliminate corruption police agencies should establish codes of conduct
which emphasize professional ethical standards. All police officers should receive training in
ethical values during their initial training and regular ethics courses should be conducted aspart of continuous training. Governments should review the working environment of police
agencies on a regular basis.
F.

Lack of Training

Since training is the life-blood of effective and responsible policing, police agencies
should put in place adequate training programmes on initiation and during the service of theirofficers. Governments or relevant ministries should ensure sufficient budgetary allocations
for sustaining training programmes for police agencies.

12

G.

The Role of Police Associations

In accordance with local custom, practice, law, the nature of the police agencies andwhere it is feasible, the establishment of police associations should be considered because
they play an important role in raising professional ethical standards and may therefore assistin various areas of police reforms.
VI.

CONCLUSION

The problems we have identified manifest themselves in varying degrees of intensity
in all police systems of the world. No single police system seems to be immune in its entirety
from situations and circumstances that harm its effectiveness; hence no particular police
system can be said, in respect of its structural arrangement, to be a panacea.
Reforms in the Criminal Justice System of which police agencies are an importantcomponent are aimed at making the various organs in the Criminal Justice System more
responsive to the needs of the public. The principal objective of police agencies is to deliver
service to the public. Police agencies however may not succeed in doing so if the various
problems, which militate against their efficiency and effectiveness are not resolved, be it by
the police agencies themselves or the various ministries under which they fall.
There is therefore an urgent need for governments to take concerted action to create
an enabling environment for sustainable reforms in the police agencies in order to enhanceand sustain the quality of the service they deliver to the public.

13

Topic 2COOPERATION BETWEEN THE POLICE AND PROSECUTORSChairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur

Mr. John Maru
Mr. Ejaz Husain Malik
Ms. Nassuna Juliet
Mr. Nobuyuki Kawai(Papua New Guinea)(Pakistan)(Uganda)(Japan)Advisers

Prof. Yuichiro Tachi
Prof. Kei Someda(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryI.

BACKGROUNDA.

Establishment of the Rule of Law

The purpose of the criminal justice system is to realize the rule of law, which is one of
the most fundamental conditions for the sustainable development of society. Prosecutors are
vested with the responsibility of checking the police investigation against the due process oflaw.
B.

Consideration of Effectiveness

1.

Growing Challenges from Crime in Terms of Complexity and Magnitude
An increasing complexity, diversity and magnitude of crime in this modern society has
been posing more and more challenges to criminal justice authorities, especially to the policeand prosecutors. Such circumstances require the police to improve their capability in scientificanalysis, information and data processing, international cooperation and so forth, which resultsin, at least to some extent, prosecutorial dependency on the specialized knowledge of the police.
The police are also expected to react flexibly and expeditiously to the modern forms of crime,
which calls for more police discretion in criminal proceedings.
2.

Increasing Responsibility in Terms of De-regulation
Currently, some countries, including Japan, are in the process of transition fromsocieties of preconditioned ambiguous governmental regulations into societies of deregulation with clearly stipulated rules and strict individual responsibility especially in thearea of business activitie s. With such de-regulation, law enforcement authorities should be
expected to take more responsibilities in dispensing justice to those who violate the rules.
II.

ROLE OF PROSECUTORS IN INVESTIGATIONSApart from their responsibility to prosecute criminal cases, prosecutors in every country
play some important roles in criminal investigations despite the differences in basic legal
principles. In some countries, prosecutors have an overall responsibility over investigations,while in others they have a limited role in carrying out investigations.

14

A.

Giving Guidance/Instructions to Police Investigators

One of the most important and common roles of prosecutors is to check police
investigation against the due process of law, while maintaining the effectiveness of police
investigations. In order to meet the rule of law standards, promote acceptance of court
decisions by the accused and strengthen public confidence in the police’s right to conduct
searches and seizures in private premises, the investiga tion work of the police should be, atleast in principle, critically monitored. Prosecutors’ authorities in supervising and giving
advice/instructions to police investigators can be viewed in this regard. The extent of such
authorities varies from country to country, from non-binding advice to complete control overpolice investigations.
B.

Supplementing Police Investigations

In the countries where prosecutors are empowered to conduct investigations,prosecutors, if needed to ensure convictions in cour t, can supplement police investigations.
In some countries, prosecutors are empowered to instruct police officials to assist theirinvestigations. In this context, some participants pointed out that a conflict could occur
between such an instruction to the police officer from prosecutors and the organizational
chain of command of the police.

C.

Conducting their Own Investigations

In the countries where prosecutors are empowered to conduct investigations,prosecutors can initiate their own investigations. In many cases, prosecutors conduct theirown investigations in such areas where prosecutors have a competitive advantage over thepolice. These areas include large-scale economic crime, political corruption cases, and soforth.
III.

PROBLEMS DISCUSSEDA.

Psychological Traits of the Police and Prosecutors

B.

Conflicting Views over Case Disposition

Despite the difference in the legal system of each country, which governs therelationship between the police and prosecutors, most of the participants reported that the police
feel frustrated when the prosecutors’ case-disposition conflicts with the expectations of thepolice. It is totally disappointing for investigators if an arrested suspect is set free by prosecutors
on the ground that the prerequisites have not been fulfilled for keeping the suspect in custody, or
where investigatory activity, despite a great deal of time and effort involved, leads to thetermination of the proceedings.
C.

Lack of Shared Common Goals

A lack of sharing common goals with prosecutors as such can cause difficulty forprosecutors to motivate police to produce quality files on their investigations, especially insome of the countries with common law traditions where the prosecutors are empowered only
to prosecute, but not to investigate.

15

D.

Lack of Objectivity

In some of the countries with common law traditions such as Australia, Kenya,
Pakistan, Papua New Guinea and Tanzania, most criminal prosecution in the lower courts are
conducted by prosecutors who are full- time serving members of the police force. Even
though there should be no disagreement between police investigators and prosecutors on thedisposition of cases in such a system, several participants from those countries reported that alack of independence of prosecutions in such a system leads to a lack of objectivity amongprosecutors, which results in inappropriately screened prosecutions.
E.

Lack of Discretion in Police Investigations

In the countries with civil law traditions such as Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Germany,
Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea, prosecutors are entrusted authorities concerninginvestigations, which include authority to implement investigations of their own, andauthority to supervise, at least to some extent, police investigations.
Some of the participants from those countries, however, reported their concern overthe excessive interference of prosecutors into police investigations. In some of thosecountries, the police are given very little discretion in the course of their investigation,
resulting in a lack of flexibility in police investigation.
IV.

SYSTEMATIC RELATIONSHIPPROSECUTORSBETWEEN

THE

A.

Systematic Checks and Balance Mechanism of Criminal Justice

POLICE

AND

Participants were of the view that, it is rather natural and desirable for the twoorganizations, which bear different responsibilities to have conflicting views over certain casedispositions. Such conflicts between the police and prosecutors should be considered as
evidence of the proper functioning of the checks and balances mechanism of the criminal
justice system. Accordingly, the police should welcome, or at least try not to avoid, suchchecks from prosecutors. On the other hand, the prosecutors’ supervisory functions such as
giving advice/instructions to police investigators should be always accompanied with clear
and reasonable explanations of their grounds.
B.
1.

Elaboration of the Relationship

Sharing Common Values
Effective criminal justice management requires concerted action of all relevant
authorities in the government, which have the same ultimate goal of realization of the rule oflaw. Those authorities should share substantial common values which are supported bystrong political will, such as the "Joint Business Plan for the Criminal Justice System" inEngland and Wales. Such notion of "joined- up working" should surely promote the practicalcooperation between the police and prosecutors.

16

2.

More Communication
Participants were of the view that the key to good working relations between thepolice and prosecutors is the promotion of mutual understanding through informal person-toperson contact, through, for example:~Intensive Early Stage Consultation~Regular Meetings, Workshops, Seminars~Close Liaison
3.

Legislation
Some participants were of the view that there should be legal provisions to clearly
define the role of prosecutors and the police
4.

Cooperation Models for Simplified Proceedings/Diversion
It was suggested that consideration should be given to the question of whether closer
cooperation between the police and prosecutors in the form of delegation of responsibilities or
preliminary examinations could simplify and speed up the conclusive handling of criminal
proceedings.
V.

CONCLUSION

In order to realize the rule of law, prosecutors’ guidance in police investigations issine qua non for civilized and democratic societies. Modern police forces are highly
professional, well trained and well equipped while prosecutors on the other hand have highly
qualified legal brains. It is apparent that the police and prosecutors are getting more andmore mutually dependent due to the increasing complexity, magnitude and other challengesof crime emerging in modern societies. Considering the heavy workload the police andprosecutors are facing, it is quite understandable that, in some countries, various ways ofeffective distribution of labor between the two organizations are being experimented.

17

Topic 3

EFFECTIVE CASE SCREENING BY PROSECUTORS OR
OTHER COMPETENT AGENCIES

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur

Mr. Azmi Bin Ariffin
Ms. Titiek Syamsiar Mokodompit
Mr. Merton Meredith Charles

Co-Rapporteur

Mr. Takashi Yamashita(Malaysia)(Indonesia)(St. Christopher andNevis)(Japan)Advisers

Prof. Toru Miura
Prof. Kenji Teramura
Prof. Sue Takasu(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryI.

INTRODUCTIONA.

Necessity and Importance of Case Screening

The importance and necessity of case screening is in the interests of justice. There are
two types of case screening. One is the test whether there is sufficient evidence to obtainconviction. It ensures expeditious prosecution of cases, helps to ensure that no innocent
person is charged and where appropriate the accused is punished for the crime he/she
committed. Another type of case screening is the test whether or not to prosecute even when
there is sufficient evidence. This test helps to reduce overloading of the courts with trivial orminor cases, and in other cases where it would not be in the public interest to prosecute all ofthem but only the most serious cases. When the courts are overloaded with criminal cases, theconsequential effect would be delayed trials. As far as the accused is concerned, it ensures theright of the accused to a speedy trial so that the stress that the accused has to undergo would
be obviated. In addition, prosecutors can consider diversion and so-called “restorative
justice” at the case screening stage.
B.

Who Conducts Case Screening

In some countries, the court is also involved in this process. Since the main theme ofthis seminar is effective administration of the police and the prosecution in criminal justice,therefore we would like to focus our attention solely on the case screening segment which is
conducted by the police and prosecutors.
II.

HOW CASE SCREENING IS DONE

A.

Case Screening by Prosecutors

1.

Authority given to Investigate or otherwise
In certain countries, prosecutors do not have the authority to investigate crimes on
their own. In these countries prosecutors scrutinize or screen the investigation paper referredby the police and decide whether or not to prosecute the suspects based on the evidence
available.

18

In other countries like Korea and Germany, prosecutors play a significant role in theinvestigation. Prosecutors in these countries can initiate investigation or direct the police
regarding all crimes.
2.

Suspension of Prosecution

In some countries, prosecutors have the discretionary power to suspend or not initiate
prosecution even if there is sufficient evidence to convict a suspect. This is called thePrinciple of Discretionary Prosecution.
3.

Evidentiary Test and Public Interest Test to Initiate Prosecution

There are two tests applied by the prosecutors in making a decision to prosecute. The
first test is the evidential test. If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead,no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does meet the evidential test,
prosecutors must decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest.
4.

Plea Bargaining

In certain countries, plea bargaining is an acceptable practice. To prevent the abuse of
power, especially in serious crimes and public interest cases, prosecutors will have to lay
down the reasons for reduction or amendment of charges before the investigation papers are
submitted to their superiors for approval.
5.

Victim’s Request

In some countries, there are times where a victim will lodge a police report against thesuspect but later decide not to pursue the matter.
6.

Summary Proceedings

Summary Proceedings are proceedings in some countries such as Korea and Japan
whereby the court usua lly imposes a fine or pecuniary penalty on the accused. In suchcountries, the public prosecutors have the authority to screen and to decide whether toproceed with the case to the court, by summary or formal proceedings. In Germany, there arealso penal order proceedings to dispose criminal cases. Public prosecutors may apply forissuance of a penal order if a prison sentence is to be expected not exceeding one year.
B.

Case Screening by the Police

1.

Non-recognition of the Offense

When there is no offense disclosed on the surface of the victim police report and it is only
a minor/trivial offense, the police will not open the investigation paper.

19

2.

Fine/Pecuniary Penalty by the Police

In certain countries, for minor cases such as traffic offenses, the police will issue aticket to the offender who has committed the offense. If he/she pays the fine or pecuniary
penalty within a certain period, the offense is considered settled.
3.

Completion of the Investigation

At the end of the investigation, the senior officers will review the evidence. If he/shethinks there is no sufficient evidence, he/she will determine whether or not to send the file tothe prosecutor.
III.

PROBLEMS IN CASE SCREENING

A.

Problems Faced by the Prosecutor in Case Screening
1. Lack of knowledge, skill and expertise
2. Delay of receiving files from the police
3. Abuse of power and corruption
4. Political influence
5. Lack of manpower
6. Lack of budget for public prosecutors officeB.

Problems Faced by the Police in Case Screening
1. Lack of manpower and management
2. Lack of budget, equipment and other resources
3. Inadequate legal and investigative knowledge
4. Lack of co-ordination between prosecutor, police and other enforcement agencies
5. Political influence
6. Lack of legal materials
7. Abuse of power
8. Lack of cooperation from public and witnesses

IV.

RECOMMENDATION TO IMPROVE CASE SCREENING

A.

Sufficient Budget for the Police and Prosecution

20

B.

Independency of Prosecution

In order to ensure that the prosecution is independent and immune from criminal orcivil sanction, an officer of the public prosecution should be guaranteed by having its status
protected by the law. Having such security, the prosecutor will have no fear to exercise thepowers of screening.
C.

Checks and Controls on Prosecutors ’ Decisions

1.

Internal control

By superior, general and special guidelines in performing their duties found in aprosecutors manual, appeal of decisions of non-prosecution to High Public Prosecutors office
and appeal to the courts for abuse of prosecutorial discretion, such as selective prosecution.
2.

External control

In Japan, if the prosecutor decides not to prosecute and the victim is not satisfied withthis decision, the latter can apply to a Committee for Inquests into Prosecution. Also theprosecutor has to give reasons to the victims and other enforcement agencies of his/herdecision not to prosecute. This is important for the purpose of accountability andtransparency.
D.

Time Frame to Complete Investigations

The investigation and screening of cases should be undertaken as rapidly as possible,
taking into consideration the rights of the suspect, the feelings of the victim, and the overall
interests of justice.
E.

Increase the Number of Prosecutors

F.

Adopt a Variety of Proceedings other than Trials

Trials are time-consuming and expensive. Therefore, in order to maintain theefficiency of the criminal justice system as a whole, we should avoid trials if the suspect isprepared to accept his/her guilt, and try to proceed with other procedures when appropriate.
G.

Coordination between Prosecutors, the Police and other Enforcement Agencies

Coordination between prosecutors, police and other enforcement agencies areimportant. Police should begin consulting with the prosecutor in the early stage of theinvestigation to establish close collaboration and to solve problems faced by them with regard
to criminal investigation. Discussion and meetings should take place more frequently
between them.

21

Observation Visits
Date

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

Jan 16

National Police Academy•

Jan 23

Tokyo District Public
Prosecutors Office•

Jan 23

Ministry of Justice• Ms. Mayumi Moriyama
Minister of Justice

Jan 25

Tokyo District Court• Mr. Fumihiro Abe
Deputy Chief Judge

Mr. Seisaki Taniguchi
Director of International Research and Training
Institute for Criminal Investigation
Mr. Kunitaro Saida
Chief Prosecutor• Mr. Megumi Yamamuro
Presiding Judge
Fifth Criminal Division• Mr. Takashi Matsumoto

Judge
Fifth Criminal Division

22Group Study Tours
Date

Group

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

Jan
20~21

Nagasaki• Nagasaki Customs Office•

Mr. Junji Shihara
Public Relations Officer
•

Feb
11~13

Hokkaido• Nagasaki Prison

Mr. Masahiro Shigenaga
Nagasaki Prison Governor• Sapporo High Public Prosecutors Office•• Sapporo District Public Prosecutors Office•• Hokkaido Prefectural Police Headquarters

Mr. Kenji Koroyasu
Superintending Prosecutor
Mr. Hiroshi Sakurai
Chief Prosecutor•

Mr. Mitsuo Uehara
Chief of Police

23

Special Events
January 15

Welcome Party

January 17, 18 & 22
Japanese Conversation Classes
The overseas participants attended Japanese conversation classes provided by JICA.
They learned practical Japanese expressions. The Sensei (teachers) were Ms. Yukiko Shiina
and Ms. Nobuko Ishida. Iroiro Arigato Gozaimashita.

January 20~21
Nagasaki Trip
In addition to official visits to the Nagasaki Customs Office and Nagasaki Prison, theparticipants enjoyed sightseeing, including visits to the Glover Garden, the Nagasaki Atomic
Bomb Museum and the Dejima History Museum.

January 23
Courtesy Visit to the Minister of Justice
Minister of Justice, Ms. Mayumi Moriyama greeted the participants during their visit
to the Ministry of Justice.
Reception by Vice-Minster of Justice
After visiting the Ministry of Justice, a reception was held by Vice-Minister of Justice,
Mr. Keiichi Tadaki at the Lawyers Club, Tokyo.

January 25
Courtesy Visit to Tokyo District Court
During their visit to the Tokyo District Court, the Deputy Chief Judge, Mr. FumihiroAbe, of Tokyo District Court received the participants in his private chambers.
ACPF Nangoku-kai Party
The Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF) Nangoku-kai Branch, affiliated with
ACPF Headquarters, hosted a dinner party in the Ruby Ballroom of the Hotel Pacific
Meridien Tokyo, Shinagawa, in honor of the participants.

February 1

Public Lecture Programme
The Public Lecture Programme is conducted annually to increase social awarenessof criminal justice issues through comparative international study. The Programme,sponsored by the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy
Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI, was held in the Grand Hall of the Ministry of Justice and wasattended by distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni and the participants of the120th International Seminar.

24This year, Mr. Peter Boeuf (Chief Crown Prosecutor of London, Crown
Prosecution Service, England) and Mr. Eberhard Siegismund (Deputy Director General in
the Judicial System Division, Germany) were invited as speakers to the Programme. They
delivered lectures respectively entitled “The Crown Prosecution Service” and “The Functionof Honorary Judges in Criminal Proceedings in Germany”.
February 1

UNAFEI Alumni Reception
A reception was held to introduce the participants to UNAFEI Alumni residing inJapan, hosted by the UNAFEI Alumni Association at the Lawyers Club, Tokyo.

February 4

Bowling Tournament
A Bowling Tournament was held in Fuchu for all of the participants. After the
Tournament the participants were able to enjoy a party at UNAFEI.

February 11~13
Hokkaido Study TourIn addition to the observation visits the participants were able to enjoy trips to
the Sapporo Odori Park where they observed the Sapporo Snow Festival, the Winter Sports
Museum and the Historical Museum of Hokkaido. The ACPF Sapporo Branch also put on a
party for the participants on 12 February.
February 14

Farewell Party

25

Reference Materials Distributed(1.) Compendium of United Nations Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice(2.) Reports of the Course (Resource Material Series No.53: 107th International Training
Course)The Relationship of the Prosecution with the Police and Investigative
Responsibility
The Role of Prosecution in the Screening of Criminal Cases(3.) Reports of the Seminar (Resource Material Series No. 55: International Senior
Seminar)Effective Measures for Better Detection of Crime and More ThoroughInvestigation
The Role of Prosecution in the Changing Society(4.) “Police Organization in the Twentieth Century” (Albert J. Reiss, Jr.: Modern
Policing-Criminal and Justice- (A Review of Research Volume 15))(5.) “Relations between Federal and Local Police” (William A. Geller and Norval Morris:
Modern Policing-Criminal and Justice-(A Review of Research Volume 15))
(6.) “Police Politician Interface: An Uneasy Equation (Prakash Singh: National Police
Academy)(7.) “Political Pressures and Influences on Police Executives: A Descriptive Analysis”(Kenneth D. Tunnell and Larry K. Gaines: Managing Police Organizations)(8.) “The Nation and the Police” (David H. Bayley: Forces of Order –Policing Modern
Japan-)(9.) “What does the CPS do?”(from website of Crown Prosecution Service)(10.)“Prosecutors Advising in Police Stations” (John Baldwin and Adrian Hunt: The
Criminal Law Review –August 1998-)(11.)“Police Summary Prosecutions: The Past, Present and Future” (Dr. Chris Corns)(12.)Prosecutorial Independence and the Democratic Requirement of Accountability in
Italy (Giuseppe Di Federico)

26

EXPERTS & PARTICIPANTS LIST

Visiting Experts
Mr. Eberhard Siegismund

Deputy Director General,
Judicial System Division,Federal Ministry of Justice,
Berlin, Germany

Mr. Young Chul Kim

Senior Prosecutor and Professor,
Judicial Research and Training Institute,Goyang, Korea

Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle

Inspector General of Police,
Balochistan, Pakistan

Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak

Director General
Department of Probation,
Ministry of Justice,
Bangkok, Thailand

Mr. Peter Boeuf

Chief Crown Prosecutor of London,
Crown Prosecution Service,
London,England, United Kingdom

Prof. Anthony Didrick Castberg

Professor of Political Science,
University of Hawaii at Hilo,
United States of America

Overseas Participants
Mr. Marcos Aurelio Matias

Major,
Federal District Police Department,
Brasília-DF, Brazil

Mr. Sergio Andrés Muñoz

Lieutenant Colonel,
Chilean Police,
Santiago, Chile

Mr. Rosendo ArmadoVásquez Bonilla

Police Chief,
Civil National Police of El Salvador,
San Salvador, El Salvador

Mr. Maninder Singh Sandhu

Joint Secretary,
National Foundation for Communal Harmony,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Delhi, India

27

Ms. Titiek Syamsiar Mokodompit

Assistant to Civil and State Administration,
North Sulawesi High Public Prosecution Office,Manado, Indonesia

Mr. Gaguk HarijantoHead of Community Policing Section,
Department of Community Policing,
Police Headquarters,
South Jakarta, Indonesia

Mr. Daniel Kenduiywa Chesimet

Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Criminal Investigation Department,
Eastern Province, Embu, Kenya

Mr. Azmi Bin Ariffin

Deputy Public Prosecutor,State Legal Advisor’s Office,Kelantan, Malaysia

Mr. Lok Jung Shah

Under Secretary/Prosecutor,
Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of
Authority,
Kathmandu, Nepal

Mr. Ejaz Husain Malik

Director,
Federal Investigation Agency,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Mr. John Haroro Maru

Director, Police Prosecution,
Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary,
Konedobu, Papua New Guinea

Mr. Merton Meredith Charles

Head of Criminal Investigations Department,
Royal St. Christopher and Nevis Police Force,
Basseterre, St. Christopher and Nevis

Mr. Laurean Mutahunwa Tibasana

Commissioner of Police,
Training,
Tanzania Police Force,
Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

Mr. Seni Pimolsiri

Superintendent, Staff Subdivision,
Nongkhai Provincial Police,
Nongkhai, Thailand

Ms. Nassuna Juliet

Secretary/Prosecutor,
Law Council Disciplinary Committee,
Ministry of Justice and Correctional Affairs,
Kampala, Uganda

Operations

and

28

Japanese Participants
Mr. Mitsuru Itaya

Chief of 1st Region Inquiry Section,
Kinki Regional Parole Board,
Osaka, JapanMr. Hiromichi Iwakura

Judge,
Osaka District Court,
Osaka, Japan

Mr. Nobuyuki Kawai

Deputy Director,
Firearms Division, Community Safety Bureau,
National Police Agency,
Tokyo, Japan

Mr. Masahiro Takeishi

Chief of the Medical Careand Classification Section,
Tokyo Regional Correction Headquarters,
Tokyo, Japan

Mr. Takashi Yamashita

Public Prosecutor,
Chiba District Public Prosecutors Office,Chiba, JapanMr. Hideotsugu Yamane

Professor,
Research and Training Institute,
Ministry of Justice,Tokyo, Japan

29

KENYA-UNAFEI JOINT SEMINAR

The Kenya-UNAFEI Joint Seminar was held in Nairobi on the theme of “Effective
Administration of Juvenile Justice” from 14 August to 17 August 2001. The Government of the
Republic of Kenya, through the Judicial Training Committee of the High Court, and UNAFEI
organized the Seminar.
The Joint Seminar was attended by high-ranking Kenyan government officials,
representing all sectors of the juvenile justice system as well as NGO members. The UNAFEI
delegation comprised of the Director, five professors, an officer from the National Police
Agency of Japan and a Family Court Probation Officer from the Osaka Family Court.
The Joint Seminar considered the below- mentioned topics, subdivided into presentations
by UNAFEI and Kenyan participants. The participants heard presentations, reactions and open
forums on the following five topics:
Topic One

Importance of Coordinating Juvenile Justice Agencies

Topic Two

The Role of Police and Prosecution in Juvenile Justice

Topic Three The Role of Judiciary in Juvenile Justice
Topic FourTreatment of Juvenile Delinquents

Topic Five

International Contribution to Kenyan Juvenile JusticeOn the morning of the final day of the Joint Seminar, the participants were organized
into five workshops, the discussion themes of which reflected the five different topics discussed.
Each group workshop formulated a draft of recommendations to be submitted to the final
plenary meeting.
The plenary meeting was held on the afternoon of the final day where recommendations
were discussed based on the recommendations of the five group workshops. The Joint Seminarconcluded with the oral presentation and adoption of the resulting recommendations for the
improvement of the administration of Kenyan juvenile justice.
The final recommendations, as adopted by the Joint Seminar, were as follows:
1. That a National Juvenile Training Institute should be set up to undertake the following;(a)Training juvenile justice personnel.
(b)
Conduct research and collate data on juvenile matters.
(c)Conduct public sensitization campaign on all juvenile matters.
2. The passing of the Children’s Bill should be done as a matter of urgency by Parliament.
In passing the Bill the guiding principle should be the best interests of the child. Upon
the passing of the Bill proper structures should be put in place to enforce the same. In
enforcing the new Children’s Bill, all pre-trial and trial issues should be disposed off

30

within 3 months save for capital offences. As for capital offences such matters should be
disposed off without undue delay.
3. Establishment of more Juvenile courts and the recruitment of adequate Juvenile Justicepersonnel in every District. (e.g. Children’s Officers, Probation Officers, etc.). to handle
juvenile matters which should be urgently undertaken.

4. Diversion programmes should be undertaken at the police station and at the court level
coupled with the necessary welfare support for the effective integration of the juvenile
within the community.
5. The Government should enlist the support of the Law Society, NGOs, Volunteer
Organizations, private individuals, and other academic organizations to provide legal andwelfare services to the juvenile.

6. A National Juvenile Committee should be established headed by the Judiciary
incorporating all Juvenile Justice Departments/Agencies, NGOs, Civil Society
organizations to address problems relating to Juvenile Justice including sourcing for
funding.
7. The establishment of a special unit in the police force to handle juvenile matters is
recommended.
8. District Children’s Advisory Committees (DCAC’s) should be strengthened and the full
involvement of the local authorities in this Committee should be ensured.
9. The Government should ensure that the basic needs of children are provided for at alllevels of the Criminal Justice system.
10. Regular Forums for those involved in Juvenile treatment should be conducted to carryout research, establish data-sharing mechanisms (e.g. a common case file system)
improvise systems to share resources such as staff, funding and other amenities.
11. Juvenile Correctional Institutions should be classified to prevent contamination among
inmates, facilitate interaction with family members and to cater for children with special
needs such as mental illness.
12. Rehabilitative programmes, both at Institutional and community levels, should be
strengthened by appropriate staffing, staff training and use of relevant financial resources.
13. Institutional treatment should be linked with community-based treatment to ensure
appropriate after-care services such as tool provision, scholarships etc, are provided.

FOURTH TRAINING COURSE ON

31

CORRUPTION CONTROL IN CRIMINAL JUSTICEThe Fourth Training Course on Corruption Control entitled, “Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice” was held from 5 November to 30 November 2001. In this course, twelve
foreign officials and three Japanese officials, engaged in corruption control, comparatively
analyzed the current situation of corruption, explored current methods of corruption
prevention, and looked at measures to enhance international cooperation in this regard.
Participants
Mr. Sailendra Kumar Adhikary

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bangladesh

Mr. Chaudhary Vinay Veerendra

Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Anti Corruption Branch, Directorate ofVigilance,
Government of National Capital Territory ofDelhi, India

Mr. Toton Suprapto Sh.

Justice,
Supreme Court of Indonesia,
Indonesia

Mr. Kennedy Bosire Masita

Superintendent of Police,
Fraud Investigator,
Criminal Investigations Department,
Headquarters,
Nairobi, Kenya

Mr. Asan Kangeldiev

Prosecutor of the Department,
General Prosecutor Office of the,Kyrgyz Republic,
KyrgyzMr. Thomas Akin Jelimin

Deputy Public Prosecutor /Senior Legal Officer,
State Attorney General'sChambers, Sarawak,
Malaysia

Mr. Idham Bin Abd. Ghani

Deputy Public Prosecutor/
Head of Research Unit,
Anti-Corruption Agency,
Malaysia

Mr. Kumar Bahadur Khadka

Section Officer
Commission for theInvestigation of Abuse of Authority
Nepal

32

Ms. Christiana Ijeoma Onuogu

Legal Adviser /Head of Prosecution,
Independent Corrupt Practices Commission,
Nigeria

Ms. Grace Morales Hernaez

Graft Investigation Officer Ⅱ,
Office of the Ombudsman,
Mindanao,
Republic of the Philippines

Mr. Prasong Kunajiraporn

Judge,The Court of Appeals Region 9,
Thailand

Ms. Supinya Berkfah

Senior Officer,
The Office of the National
Counter Corruption Commission,
Thailand

Mr. Takushi Noguchi

Assistant Judge,
Yamaguchi Family Court (Iwakuni Branch),Japan

Ms. Saori Watanabe

Public Prosecutor,
Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office,Japan

Mr. Tsuyoshi Kishi

Public Prosecutor,
Sendai District Public Prosecutors Office,Japan

Discussion Topics

The Course had two topics of general discussion. Topic One considered the, “Current
Problems Relating to the Systems for Combating Corruption and Solutions for them from an
Investigative Perspective” and Topic Two considered the, “Judicial Perspective on Current
Problems Relating to the Systems for Combating Corruption and Solutions for them.” Thetables below are abbreviated versions of the ones produced by the participants of the Course
which give an overview of individual state’s situations in relation to the two topics.

Topic One: “Current Problems Relating to the Systems for Combating Corruption and Solutions for33them from an Investigative Perspective”
Country

Name Of Agency / Date
EstablishedControlling Or
Supervising Body

Investigation
And
Prosecution
PowersName Of Act/Law

General Remarks

Bangladesh

Bureau Of Anti-Corruption 1948

Prime Minister’s
OfficeInvestigation power
only

Prevention Of
Corruption Act - 1956

Not at all effective tocombat corruption

Independent
Commission Against
Corruption (Icac)
Ordinance

High political will of theadministration in
combating corruption

Prevention Of
Corruption Act 1988

High broadbased
political will is required
to be developed

Hong Kong

India

Independent Commission Against
Corruption (ICAC) / 1974

1.Central Vigilance Commission /1964

Independent
Committee
comprising
responsible
citizens drawn
from list of all
sectors ofcommunity by the
Chief Executive
1.NoneProsecuting lawyers areappointed by the
Ministry of Law
Possess investigation
powers under Sec. 12 of
ICAC Ordinance
Prosecution responsibility of Dept.
Of Justice1.None2. Supervised by
CVC in corruption
matters, othermatters by Central
Govt.

2. Both

1. None1. Both

2. None1.National &Prefectural Public
SafetyCommission

2. Investigation only
1.Investigation power
only

2.Public Prosecutors Office

2. Minister ofJustice, however,he/she can control
only theProsecutorGeneral
concerning theinvestigation anddisposition ofindividual cases

2. Both

Kenya

Kenya Anti Corruption Authority /1997

President

Both

KyrgyzGeneral Prosecutor’s Office

Parliament

Both

Malaysia

Anti-Corruption Agency/ 1997

Prime Minister

Both

2. Central Bureau Of Investigation/ 1961
3. Anti-Corruption Branches
Under Respective State Govt.
Indonesia

1.Public Prosecutor

3. Investigation power
only

Criminal Procedure
Code
Indian Evidence Act
CVC Ordinance 1988
1.Public Prosecutor Act
2.State Police Act

2. State PoliceJapan

1.Police

Penal Code, Code Of
Criminal Procedure And
OthersIndependence ofinvestigative andprosecutorial powerfrom political influenceis steadily secured. in
addition, since the publicprosecutors office,especially the Special
Investigation
Departments in Tokyo
and Osaka District
Public Prosecutors
OFFICE achieved
brilliant successes during
the last 50 years. As
such, prosecution andpolice effectively played
the role of an
independent
investigative authority
for corruption cases inJapan.
Prevention Corruption ActCurrently declared
Cap 65 (Amended 1997) unconstitutional by theConstitutional Court In
December 2000
1.Legal Act Of The
President Of The K.R.
“About Additional
Measures To Increase
Struggle With
Economical Crimes And
Corruption”
2. “Coordinate Activity
Of The Law
Enforcement Agencies”
Anti-Corruption Act
1997

For procedure andevidence we refer to the
Criminal Procedure

34
Criminal Procedure
Code And Evidence Act
1950
Nepal

Commission For The Investigation
Of Abuse Of Authority (CIAA) /1991

Parliament

Both

Nigeria

Independent Corrupt Practices And
Other Related Offences
Commission (I.C.P.C.)
Office Of The Ombudsman /Constitutionally Created In 1987

None

Both

None

Both

Singapore

Corrupt Practices Investigation
Bureau (CPIB) / 1952

Prime Minister’s
OfficeNo power ofprosecution. Publicprosecutor prosecutes.

ThailandThe National Counter Corruption
Commission (NCCC) / 1999

None

Resolution sent to theprosecutor general. If
no agreement, working
group finds moreevidence. If noresolution, NCCC canprosecute by itself.

Philippines

Prevention Of
Corruption Act, 1960
CIAA Act, 1991
Corrupt Practices And
Other Related Offences
Act 2000
Republic Act No. 3019
(Anti-Graft And Corrupt
Practices Act)
Revised Penal CodeAnd Others

The Act targets mainly
public officers and not
private office workers
The office wasenvisioned to be an
independent body, adispenser of justice freefrom any politicalinterference.
Prevention Of
Political leadership is
Corruption Act
key factor. Once thepolitical will to control
corruption is high,everything else will fallin place
Organic Act On Counter The constitution
Corruption, 1999
intended to lay a strong
foundation for reforming
the political andadministrative structures tobe more legitimate,transparent, stable andaccountable to the people

Topic 2: “Judicial Perspective on Current Problems Relating to the Systems for Combating

35

Corruption and Solutions for them”
Country

Appointing bodyWho handles thebudgetSecurity of tenure of Disciplinary
Judgesauthority

Bangladesh

1. Chief Justice; President Ministry of Financewith the consent of Prime
Minister
2. Other Justice of the SC;
Government prepare
proposal in consultation withChief Justice, for approval of
President
3. Judges; Public Service
Commission is the recruiting
authority. Ministry of Law is
the appointing authority.
4. Magistrates; PublicService Commission is therecruiting authority.
Ministry of Establishment is
the appointing authority.

Hong-Kong

Chief Executive on the
Recommendation of the
Judicial Officers
Recommendation
Commission

India

President on advice ofJudiciary budget is part 65yrs
Cabinet in consultation with of the main budget but
a collegium of senior judges once the funds are put atthe disposal of the CJI,
the discretion to incur
expenditure rests withhim.

Impeachment Burden of proof
procedure
whetherdifferent forcorruption cases

Secured in case of SC 1. Supreme
Parliament with No
Justice. Lower Judicial Judicial
2/3rd majority
Officers job also
Counsel, headed can impeach, asecured, except, a few, by Chief Justice HC/SC Justice,transfer, harassment has authority of Departmental
supervise
action may be
subordinate
taken against
Courts.
Judges/Magistra
2. Ministry of tes as per
Law and Justice Discipline andworks asAppeal Rulecontrolling
authority for the
Judicial Cadreof officials
3. Ministry of
Establishment
works ascontrolling
authority for theMagistrates
belonging toAdministrative
Cadre

For lower
By two third
General rule
judiciary, it isVoting in a joint applies except
the High Court session ofwhere tainted
and theUpper andbribe money isSupreme Court Lower House
recovered or he isbut for SC there after address is in possession ofis no controlling given
assetsauthority. For committee on disproportionate
provenjudicial account to income.
misconduct,ability and athey can be
nominatedremoved only person on
by impeachment behalf of theproceedings
judge.

36

Indonesia

President

Justice Department

1) 65 yrs for Justices The Supreme
2) 63 yrs for Judges in Court
the Appeal Court
3) 60yrs for Judges inthe District Court

President

Yes. But it's not
reduce the dutyof Public
P rosecutor toprove thedefendant is
guilty.

Japan

1. The Chief Justice of SC; T he Cabinet shall1) 70yrs for Justices
the Emperor (as designated prepare and submit to and Summary Court
by the Cabinet)
the Diet (however, the Judges
2. The other Justice of SC; Cabinet is expected to 2) 65 yrs for Judges in
the Cabinet
pay particular attention the other Court
3. Judges of the other courts; to the original bill by thethe Cabinet (from a list of SC)
persons nominated by the
SC)

Kenya

The President of the
The Judiciary
Republic appoints the Chief
Justice, Judges of Appealand High Court Judges

Available
The President Yes1) 75 yrs for Chiefthrough a
Justice
Judicial Inquiry2) 73 yrs for Court ofAppeal Judges3) 65yrs for High
Court Judges

No

KyrgyzParliament (President
introduce candidate andParliament votes)

Work for 5yrs term

No

Malaysia

King on adviceof Prime Minister

Government

Nepal

His majesty on therecommendation of
constitutional council forchief Justice of SC and forothers Judicial Council

Government

Nigeria

President on the
The Senate
recommendation of the
National Judicial Council
subject to confirmation by
the Senate

1. Not for
The Court ofNo
dismissing; SC Impeachment, aor HClegislative body
2. Forcomposed of
dismissing; The Representatives
Court ofand Councilors
Impeachment drawn from theDiet.

1. Council of
the SC
recommends to
the Parliament
2. SC supervises
subordinate
courtsYes, judges to retire at Judicial enquiry YesNoage 65yrs.
(tribunal)
appointed by
the King
Chief Justice 7yrs-of Judicial Council 2/3 majority of No
office,House of
SC Justices 65yrs,
Representatives
others 63yrs old

Yes

The President Yes
on therecommendatio
n of theNational
Judicial Council

Yes

37

Philippines

Appointed by the President 1987 Constitution
Yesfrom a list of at least three provides:” The Judiciary
nominees prepared by the shall enjoy fiscal
Judicial and Bar Council
autonomy.
Appropriations for the
Judiciary may not be
reduced by thelegislature below theamount appropriated forthe previous year and,after approval, shall be
automatically andregularly released."

Supreme Court VerifiedNo
complaint or
resolution of
impeachment
filed by at least
one-third of all
the Members ofthe House shallconstitute theArticles of
Impeachment
and trial by the
Senate shallforthwithproceedSingapore

President on advice of Prime Usual budgeting process Yes
Minister and in consultation through Financewith chief Justice
Ministry

Only formisconduct onrecommendatio
n of a tribunal
handed by the
Chief Justice

ThailandThe King with the advice of Ministry of Finance will 60-year-old age and 5 The Judicial
the Judicial Commission
prepare and submit to year extension as
Commission
the Parliament (Both senior judges
institutions should
approve original bill
requested by the Officeof the Court of Justice)Yes

The President
and the VicePresident of theSupreme Court
may beimpeached

Prosecutor(corruption
charge)Offender(unusual
wealthiness)

38

PHILIPPINES-UNAFEI JOINT SEMINAR

The Philippines-UNAFEI Joint Seminar was held in Manila on the theme of“Community Involvement in the Criminal Justice Administration” from 5 to 8 December 2001.
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines, through the National Police Commission,and UNAFEI organized the Joint Seminar.
The Joint Seminar was attended by high-ranking Filipino government officials,
members of NGOs and persons representing all sectors of the criminal justice system. The
UNAFEI delegation comprised of the Director, Deputy Director, four professors, the Linguistic
Adviser and an officer of the National Police Agency of Japan.
The Joint Seminar considered the below-mentioned topics, subdivided into presentations
by UNAFEI and Filipino participants. The participants heard presentations, reactions and open
forums on the following five topics:
Topic One

Community Involvement in Law Enforcement

Topic Two

Community Involvement in the Prosecution of Crimes

Topic Three

Community Involvement in the Courts

Topic Four

Community Involvement in the Rehabilitation and Treatment of
Offenders

Topic Five

Mobilizing the Community for Improved Criminal Justice
Administration

On the penultimate day of the Joint Seminar the participants were organized into fivegroup workshops, the discussion themes of which reflected the five different topics discussed.
Each group workshop formulated action plans after identifying the issues and problems that
arose within their groups.
A Plenary Session was held on the final day where recommendations were formulated
based on the recommendations of the five group workshops. The Joint Seminar concluded
with the oral presentation and adoption of the resulting recommendations for the furtherance
and improvement of community involvement in the Filipino criminal justice system.
The Final Recommendations, as adopted by the Joint Seminar, were as follows:1.

Appropriate measures should be undertaken to promote the coordination andcooperation of law enforcement agencies, prosecution, courts and corrections visà-vis the community through more effective sharing of information, for example,
by strengthening the National Crime Information System (NCIS).

39

2.

Public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system should be further
developed through community involvement in the operations and workings ofeach criminal justice agency.

3.

In order to attain full community involvement in the criminal justiceadministration, criminal justice agencies should observe the principles oftransparency, integrity and impartiality.

4.

Adequate legislation should be enacted to strengthen community involvement andparticipation in crime prevention and the administration of criminal justicethrough such programmes as the Volunteer Probation Programme (VPP),
Volunteer Information Programme for Youth (VIPY), and the CommunityOriented Policing System (COPS).

5.

The active participation of witnesses in the prosecution of cases should be assured
by amending the existing law like the Witness Protection, Security and Benefits
Programme.

6.

Congress, local government councils, and community-based organizations (NGOsand private sectors, among others) should be encouraged to provide personnel andresources to correctional agencies in order to achieve the full implementation ofcorrectional activities.

7.

Credibility of all agencies in the criminal justice system should be improved
through continuing capability training, seminars, etc. in order to attain swift andfair dispensation of justice.

8.

The active participation of the community should be ens ured in national policymaking bodies as a means through which agencies of government can work withthe community.

9.

Effective measures should be undertaken to build and strengthen communitybased groups, where seminars/training/dialogues should be undertaken for the
purpose of enhancing cooperation and coordination between law enforcement
agencies and prosecutors.

10.

The Department of Justice should encourage the community to assist in the
recruitment of qualified and competent lawyers for the prosecution service.

11.

Public information education programmes through responsible media should beenhanced in order to increase community awareness on crime prevention and thetreatment of offenders.

40

INFORMATION ABOUT PROGRAMMES & ACTIVITESForthcoming Programmes
1.

The 121st International Training Course

The 121st International Training Course, entitled “Enhancement of Community- Based
Alternatives to Incarceration at all Stages of the Criminal Justice Process”, is scheduled to beheld from 20 May to 14 July 2002. The 121st International Training Course will examine
current initiatives and the use of non-custodial measures at every stage of the criminal justiceprocess.
Rationale
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo
Rules) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the basis of arecommendation by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders in 1990, which provides guidelines and basic principles fordiversified non-custodial measures. The Tokyo Rules aim at reduc ing the use ofincarceration and rationalizing criminal justice policies by enhancing community-based
approaches in order to alleviate problems relating to prison overcrowding and encourage thereintegration of offenders into the community.
Since its adoption, according to the survey results of the Tokyo Rules submitted to theCommission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its tenth session in 2001, the Tokyo
Rules have been recognized as important in their administration of justice by most states anda number of states have undertaken special efforts to align national systems with the Rules byprescribing the introduction and use of non-custodial measures by law or other regulations.
However, efforts to reduce the use of incarceration by adopting alternatives have generally
not proven successful in most states. Indeed, currently, the continuous increase of the prison
population and overcrowding is one of the major pressing problems to be solved in criminal
justice in many countries.
In response to this situation, “The Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting
the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century”, adopted by the Tenth United Nations Congresson the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Vienna in 2000, stressed
the importance of promoting effective alternatives to incarceration in order to contain thegrowth and overcrowding of correctional facilities’ populations (para.26). As a follow-up,
draft plans of action for the implementation of the Vienna Declaration is to be adopted by thenext Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in 2002, where a paragraph on
action on prison overcrowding and alternatives to incarceration is included. It encourages
member states to prioritize non-custodial measures to imprisonment where possible, and todeal with minor offences using community-based options such as mediation between
concerned parties. It also recommends conducting public awareness and education
campaigns on alternatives to imprisonment and how they work.

41

No one would say with certainty that all offenders can be rehabilitated, however,considering that the vast majority will return to the community, every effort should be madeto encourage and assist offenders to become law-abiding citizens, which is ultimately in thebest public interest. Overcrowded correctional facilities cannot effectively treat, manage andreturn offenders to the community as law-abiding citizens, as it puts a strain on staff, budgets,
programming and so on. More importantly, it is commonly believed that, unless offenders
need to be separated from society, community-based programmes should be pursued as muchas possible, because such programmes are more effective and appropriate than incarcerationin terms of the rehabilitation of offenders and the efficient allocation of resources for criminal
justice.
In this context, recognizing the urgent necessity of making a variety of communitybased measures and programmes available, it is important to earnestly examine and review
why alternatives to incarceration have not been adopted more effectively and efficiently andto find out what needs to be done to enhance community-based measures and programmes asalternatives.
Among the various obstacles to the development and further adoption of communitybased alternatives might be the lack of support and understanding of the criminal justicepractitioner. Because of this, in many countries, suitable community-based measures exist,
but the y are not used. Lack of public support and understanding may also be obstacles as it isnecessary for practitioners to work in partnership with communities to successfully
implement community-based measures. Scarcity of resources is also a problem, which was
highlighted by the above-mentioned survey results, in terms of both funds and personnel. It
would be appropriate, as recommended in the conclusion of the survey results of the Tokyo
rules, for each government to review the allocation of funds and other resources foralternatives to incarceration in criminal justice systems.
There are many forms of community-based alternatives, which can be provided atvarious stages of the criminal justice process from the pre-trial stage, such as at the police orprosecution stage to the post-sentencing stage. Some of these are community service,probation or other forms of supervision in the community, conditional sentences that allow
offenders to serve their sentences in the community with certain conditions such as obtaining
treatment for drug problems, fines, restitution, electronic monitoring, conditional release suchas parole, which are all initiatives that attempt to either avoid the use of custody or reduce thelength of custody. Besides these relatively traditional alternatives, there are some examples
of innovative community-based alternatives under way in some countries, one being therestorative justice approach, which has implications for the reduced use or length of custody.
This approach is usually used as community diversion programmes at the pre-trial stage, thatis, when a police officer or a prosecutor determines diversion is appropriate, the case isreferred to a resolution conference programme that involves the victim, families, friends andthe community. All forms of these alternatives, as well as other forms, can be exploredduring the course.

The purpose of this International Training Course is to offer participants opportunities toshare experiences and views on the challenges faced in the course of adopting communitybased alternatives to incarceration and find out what kinds of measures should be taken toenhance community-based programmes and measures to encourage minimal incarceration

42

and the rehabilitation of offenders at all stages of the criminal justice process. Among the
major topics to be discussed are the following items:(1) To assess needs for enhancing community-based alternatives in each country(2) To examine the current administration of community-based alternatives – scope ofavailability and utilization at each stage of the criminal justice process in eachcountry(3) To analyze problems in the administration of alternatives to incarceration and to
explore any solutions.

2.

The 122nd International Training Course

The theme of the 122nd International Training Course is, as yet, undecided. It isscheduled to be held from 2 September to 3 November 2002.

3.
Seventh Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s
Republic of China
The Seventh Special Seminar for Senior Officials in criminal justice in the People’s
Republic of China, “International Cooperation in Criminal Matters”, is scheduled to be held at
UNAFEI from 25 February to 15 March 2002. Ten senior criminal justice officials and
UNAFEI faculty will discuss contemporary problems faced by China and Japan in relation to
the above theme.

4.

Seminar on Judicial System for Tadzhikistan

The First Special Seminar for Officials involved in criminal justice from Tadzhikistan
will be held from 4 March until 21 March at UNAFEI. The objectives of this course will be to
study the Tadzhikistan criminal justice system from a comparative perspective, including an
overview of the Japanese criminal justice system and to study the current situation, problems
and countermeasures in respect of transnational crime.
Overseas Trips by Staff
Mr. Mikinao Kitada (Director), Mr. Keiichi Aizawa (Deputy Director), Mr. Toru Miura(Professor),Mr. Yuichiro Tachi (Professor) Mr. Kenji Teramura (Professor), Ms. Mikiko
Kakiha ra (Professor), Mr. Sean Eratt (Linguistic Adviser) and Mr. Takuma Kai (Staff)
represented UNAFEI at the Philippines-UNAFEI Joint Seminar on “Community Involvementin the Criminal Justice Administration”, in Manila, the Philippines, from 5 December to 8
December 2001.

43

Mr. Mikinao Kitada (Director) and Mr. Yasuhiro Tanabe (Professor) represented
UNAFEI at the Coordination Meeting of the United Nations Prevention and Criminal Justice
Programme Network on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of HEUNI. This was held in
Helsinki, Finland from 12 December to 17 December 2001.
Mr. Yuichiro Tachi visited Indonesia from 6 January to 19 January 2002 where heconducted research on behalf of UNAFEI into judicial reform in Indonesia.

UNAFEI Home Page: http://www.unafei.or.jp/
UNAFEI Email: unafei@moj.go.jp

44

STAFF & FACULTY OF UNAFEI
Faculty
Mr. Mikinao Kitada
Mr. Keiichi Aizawa
Mr. Toru Miura
Mr. Kenji Teramura
Mr. Kei Someda
Mr. Yuichiro Tachi
Mr. Yasuhiro Tanabe
Ms. Sue Takasu
Mr. Hiroshi Tsutomi
Ms. Mikiko Kakihara
Mr. Sean Brian Eratt

Director
Deputy Director
Chief of Training Division, Professor
Chief of Information & Library Service Division, Professor
Chief of Research Division, Professor and 120th
Course Sub-Programming Officer
Professor,
Professor, 120th Course Programming Officer
Professor
Professor
Professor
Linguistic Adviser

Secretariat
Mr. Yoshinori Miyamoto
Mr. Kunihiko Suzuki

Chief of Secretariat
Deputy Chief of Secretariat

General and Financial Affairs Section
Mr. Masuo Tanaka
Mr. Kimihiro Suga
Ms. Ikumi Yoshida
Mr. Wataru Inoue
Mr. Shokichi Kai
Mr. Teruo Kanai
Mr. Noboru Kaneko

Chief

Driver
Maintenance
MaintenanceTraining and Hostel Management Affairs Section
Mr. Takuma Kai
Mr. Makoto Nakayama
Ms. Aya Saito
Ms. Mayu Hayashi
Mr. Hiroyuki Koike
Ms. Kyoko Matsushita

Chief120th Course Assistant Programming Officer

International Research Affairs Section

Secretarial Staff

Mr. Kouichirou Iida

Ms. Akiko Tsubouchi
Ms. Shinobu Nagaoka

45

LibrarianMs. Mayumi Sako

Kitchen, Chef
Mr. Tomohiko Takagi

JICA Coordinator
Ms. Etsuko Mitani