MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2019 – 31 December 2019)
I. ROLE AND MANDATE
The Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI) was established in Tokyo, Japan, in 1962 pursuant to an agreement between the
United Nations and the Government of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social
development in the Asia and the Pacific region by promoting regional cooperation in the field of
crime prevention and criminal justice, through training and research.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent,contemporary problems in the administration of criminal justice in the region, especiallyproblems generated by rapid socio-economic change (e.g. transnational organized crime,
corruption, economic and computer crime, and the reintegration of prisoners into society) as themain themes and topics for its training courses, seminars and research projects.
II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute's work programmes. In theinternational training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of the criminal
justice field discuss and study pressing problems of criminal justice administration from various
perspectives. They deepen their understanding with the help of lectures and advice from the
UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers. This so-called "problem-solving throughan integrated approach" is one of the chief characteristics of UNAFEI programmes.
Each year, UNAFEI conducts two international training courses (six weeks’ duration) and
one international seminar (five weeks’ duration). Approximately one hundred government
officials from various overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA is an independent administrative institution for ODA programmes)
each year to participate in all UNAFEI training programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants.
Overseas participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from the Middle andNear East, Latin America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners andadministrators holding relatively senior positions in the criminal justice field.
By the end of 2019, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 173 international training courses andseminars. Over 5,800 criminal justice personnel representing 139 different countries andadministrative regions have participated in these training courses and seminars. UNAFEI also
conducts a number of other specialized courses, both country and subject focused, in which
hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In their respective
countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and hold important posts in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 171st International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 171st International Senior Seminar was held from 9 January to 7 February 2019. The
main theme was the “Criminal Justice Response to Crime Motivated by Intolerance and3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Discrimination”. Thirteen overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended theseminar.
2. Methodology
Firstly, the seminar participants introduced the roles and functions of criminal justiceagencies in their respective countries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from
UNAFEI professors and visiting experts, the participants were then divided into group
workshops as follows:
Group 1: The Challenges and Best Practices to Encounter Crimes Motivated by Intolerance
and Discrimination
Group 2:

Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination: Problems and Their
Resolution

Group 3: Best Practices for Supporting Victims of Crime Motivated by Intolerance andDiscrimination
Each group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) inorder to facilitate the discussions. During group discussion, the group members studied thedesignated topics and exchanged views based on information obtained through personal
experiences, the individual presentations, lectures and so forth. The groups presented theirreports during the report-back session, where they were endorsed as the reports of the seminar.
The full texts of these reports were published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 108.
3. Outcome Summary(i) The Challenges and Best Practices to Encounter Crimes Motivated by Intolerance andDiscrimination
Group 1 explored challenges faced by the participating countries in combating crimes
motivated by intolerance and discrimination (hereinafter, “intolerance crimes”), as well as
best practices to respond to such crimes. Recognizing that gender-based violence is acommon problem in all countries, the group reported that some countries face uniqueintolerance crimes (such as those related to ethnicity, political ideology, sorcery and tribal
conflict). The group offered recommendations to enhance the response to intolerance crimes,
stressing the importance of establishing legal frameworks to overcome intolerance crimes.
There are a number of underlying problems which limit the ability of criminal justiceauthorities to respond to intolerance crimes. These problems include: the lack of specificlegal frameworks, making it difficult to prosecute and impose appropriate sentences; lack ofrecognition by some within criminal justice systems that violence against women (VAW) anddomestic violence (DV) are crimes; the prevalence of revictimization; social stigma against
victims of abuse; lack of gender sensitivity; and lack of skilled human and financial resources.
To respond to these problems, specific recommendations were offered in reference to thefollowing categories: (1) legal framework and political will; (2) human resources and staff
training; (3) monitoring and reporting of intolerance crimes; (4) inclusion of victims’
perspectives in policymaking; and (5) public awareness and access to victim support services.
Further, it was noted that social barriers—such as socio-cultural beliefs, attitudes toward
domestic violence, lack of awareness of legal rights and options, and fear of retaliation—
weaken efforts to counter intolerance crimes.
4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Group 1 stressed the importance of establishing legal frameworks to overcome
intolerance crimes. Each of the countries participating in the group relied on international
conventions, constitutional provisions, penal codes and domestic violence legislation. Several
countries have established national action plans to respond to intolerance crimes, while others
have adopted specific legislation focused on vulnerable groups in need of protection.
(ii) Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination: Problems and Their Resolution
The members of Group 2 conducted a comprehensive review of the victim and witness
protection measures and legislative approaches to addressing intolerance crimes in theparticipating countries. Noting that intolerance crime is a global problem, each country
reported challenges, particularly in terms of public awareness of victim and witness
protection measures, lack of public confidence in the effectiveness of such measures, andlack of public and professional understanding of laws enacted to counter intolerance crimes.
The group’s analysis focused on intolerance crimes and responses in all five participating
countries. While the specific forms of intolerance crime and the target groups of these crimes
vary from country to country, the group agreed that intolerance crimes are a global problem.
Target groups include religious minorities, immigrants, racial minorities, the LGBT
community, indigenous communities, among many others.
The group’s review of key measures taken to counter intolerance crimes focused on
legislative measures to enhance victim and witness protection and legislative measures tocriminalize or enhance punishment of intolerance crimes. Regarding victim and witness
protection, the challenges identified include: (1) the lack of victim and witness protection
programmes in some countries, (2) lack of public awareness of victim and witness protection
measures, (3) lack of faith in the effectiveness of such measures, resulting in less cooperationfrom the public in law enforcement investigations, and (3) insufficient human and financial
resources.
From the perspective of legislative measures to criminalize or punish intolerance crimes,
some countries have elected to create new substantive offences to criminalize intolerance
crimes, while other have opted for penalty enhancement. Challenges identified include (1)lack of understanding of the new laws and reluctance to prosecute, (2) lack of sentencing
parameters for judges and (3) restrictive definitions of protected groups.
(iii) Best Practices for Supporting Victims of Crime Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination
Group 3 reviewed the current situation of intolerance crime in the participating countries
and identified best practices to support victims. Intolerance crimes target persons and groups
based on ethnicity, race, disability, religious beliefs etc. and include gender-based violence.
To counter these crimes, the group stressed the need to protect victims and witnesses
throughout all stages of the criminal justice process.
In response to intolerance crimes, a number of approaches used in various jurisdictions
were reported: legislative measures to protect victims and witnesses, special laws for genderbased violence, the creation of special-victim and witness-protection agencies and specificpolice units for gender-based violence, and measures to protect victims and witness
throughout the judicial process, including when giving testimony. While victim and witness
protection measures do encourage cooperation with law enforcement authorities, the group
found that cooperation can be limited due to lack of confidence in the criminal justice system,
5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

fear of revictimization, the attitude of the victims (including economic dependency,
community norms etc.), and insufficient levels of victim support.
To ensure sufficient support for victims and witnesses, their unique needs during the pretrial, trial and post-trial stages must be addressed. Throughout all stages, the confidentiality ofvictims’ identities should be maintained in order to prevent revictimization. During the pretrial stage, measures to facilitate reporting of crime include providing interpreters,
psychological and legal support, providing hotlines for reporting crimes and utilization of
specialized units for handling intolerance crimes. To facilitate police investigations, the group
recommended establishing safehouses and interview rooms suitable to victims, judicial andpolice protection, and the provision of financial support to victims. During the trial stage, thegroup recommended a number of measures including the use of video-link and witness
screening equipment, providing personal and legal support etc. During the post-trial stage, thegroup stressed the importance of ensuring adequate victim compensation. Further, the group
recommended providing psychological support, safehouses, and keeping the victim
appropriately informed of the status of the offender’s conviction and sentence.
B. The 172nd International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 172nd International Training Course was held from 15 May to 20 June 2019. The
main theme was the “Criminal Justice Response to Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of
Migrants”. Twenty-one overseas participants and seven Japanese participants attended the
Course.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the course were primarily realized through the individual presentations,lectures by visiting experts and group workshop sessions. In the former, each participant
presented the actual situation, problems and future prospects of his or her country with respect tothe main theme of the course. The group workshops further examined the subtopics of the main
theme. To facilitate discussion, the participants were divided into groups to discuss thefollowing topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Effective Measures to Ensure Cooperation of Witnesses and to Secure Their
TestimonyGroup 2:Prevention and Detention of Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants,
Including Suppression of Related Crimes

Group 3: International Cooperation, Focusing on the Deprivation of Illicit Profits
The three groups each elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and corapporteur(s) to organize the discussions. The group members studied the designatedsubtopics and exchanged their views based on information obtained through personal
experience, the individual presentations, lectures and so forth. The groups presented theirreports during the report-back session, where they were endorsed as the reports of the course.
The full texts of the reports were published in full in Resource Material Series No. 109.

6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Measures to Ensure Cooperation of Witnesses and to Secure Their Testimony
Group 1 addressed the topic of witness cooperation and witness protection in the context
of trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants (“TIP/SOM”). Securing witness
cooperation is fundamental to the criminal justice process and is vitally important to thesuccessful prosecution of TIP/SOM crimes. However, the group reported a number ofchallenges that prevent or discourage witnesses from cooperating with law enforcement, suchas the failure to report trafficking crimes, legal and procedural obstacles, and challenges thatprevent international cooperation.
Victims and witnesses fail or refuse to report trafficking crimes for a number of reasons.
These include lack of knowledge about the reporting process, distrust of the criminal justicesystem, fear of retaliation or punishment, language, cultural and social barriers, etc. Moreover,victims are discouraged from reporting due to the physical harm and psychological trauma
arising from the crime, including the secondary victimization that results from proceeding
through the criminal justice system. Legal and procedural obstacles, such as the failure torecognize trafficked persons as victims, the lack of legal support etc., discourage victims andwitnesses from cooperating with authorities. The group recommended the following
countermeasures: (i) establishing multi-agency and private-sector reporting channels that
accommodate multiple languages; (ii) establishing victim/witness protection and support
programmes; (iii) creating national strategies, specialized units and standards of operation for
combating TIP/SOM; (iv) overcoming legal challenges through the use of immunity inexchange for testimony and video recording of testimony and (v) enhancing international andinter-agency cooperation during investigations and in the provision of victim support.
Too often, the evidence collected from victims and witnesses is insufficient to prove thecase against the defendants in court. Numerous challenges related to the credibility of victim
testimony were discussed, including the cross-border nature of TIP/SOM cases, vulnerability
due to age, psychological status, fear of physical harm or reprisal etc. At the same time, thecriminal justice system faces the challenges of improperly obtained evidence, insufficientinvestigator skill or experience, insufficient testimony from forensic experts etc. Ultimately,
these challenges can result in false or fabricated evidence being presented in court orinsufficient evidence to obtain conviction. Accordingly, the group stressed the importance ofcorroborative evidence. Additionally, new investigative techniques and forensic examination
can provide credible and corroborative evidence, and the investigation and trial process mustbe speedy in order to avoid memory lapses of the testifying victims and witnesses. Finally,
capacity-building of investigators and prosecutors must be increased.
(ii) Prevention and Detention of Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants, Including
Suppression of Related Crimes
The members of Group 2 focused on the prevention and detection of TIP/SOM, noting
the importance of prosecuting such crimes in order to suppress both supply and demand.
Specifically, Group 2 addressed immigration issues including (i) entry by legal means, (ii)illegal entry across unmanaged borders and (iii) illegal entry with fake documents.
In the case of entry by legal means, immigrants enter the country legally but then overstay
their visas. Additionally, the group identified the practice of using forged or fraudulent
documents in the visa application process. Countries should enhance inter-agency
cooperation to ensure that fraudulent visa applications are identified, and training in
TIP/SOM should be provided to relevant government officials in order to facilitate detection.
7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

It was also pointed out that TIP victims are likely to be included among those persons whooverstay their visas. Thus, it is important to identify these victims and to obtain informationfrom them on the criminal organizations that trafficked them.
Whether a landlocked or an island nation, national borders are always challenging tocontrol. Illegal entry across unmanaged borders occurs when a person crosses a national
border without undergoing an immigration check. Such border crossings are criminalized, as
is providing assistance to those who cross. In many cases, criminal organizations facilitatesuch crossings, and a number of persons trafficked are exploited by being pressed into forced
labour or prostitution. To counter this threat, the group recommended the criminalization ofillegal hiring, the use of high-tech tools to manage borders, working with the community togather intelligence and leads, to pursue the leaders of criminal organizations (i.e. the “bigfish”), and to secure testimony through plea bargaining and grants of immunity.
Finally, illegal entry with fake documents involves entering based on fraudulent
information or by assuming the identity of another (spoofing). Thus, more effort needs to beplaced into procedures that ensure the passport holder is its true holder. Forgery has become
difficult due to the use of IC chips in passports, so bribery of immigration officers has
become a common practice. To counter corruption, the group recommended improving
recordkeeping in electronic databases to identify corrupt officials and enhancing ethics
education and training.
In conclusion, the group recommended enhanced efforts in the following areas to preventand detect TIP/SOM: (i) the adoption of legislative measures to ensure the protection of
victims; (ii) strengthening of international cooperation, particularly in terms of informationsharing on visa overstays between the country of residence and the immigrant’s homecountry; (iii) law enforcement officer training and introduction of modern technologies; and(iv) public awareness campaigns in countries of origin.
(iii) International Cooperation, Focusing on the Deprivation of Illicit profitsGroup 3 addressed the issue of international cooperation for the purpose of depriving
criminals of their illicit profits obtained through TIP/SOM crimes. In doing so, the groupconsidered financial investigations, informal cooperation and formal cooperation. To
properly identify, trace, freeze, seize or confiscate proceeds of crime, law enforcement
agencies need to know the type, location, ownership and transfer histories of relevant assets.
However, in conducting financial investigations, the group reported that bank secrecy is oneof the challenges to obtaining relevant financial information. To enhance the use of financial
investigation, the group encouraged states to: (i) develop more training courses for financial
analysis/investigation on TIP/SOM and (ii) improve their official websites to share more
information with other countries.
Informal cooperation is useful in financial investigations because it facilitates theexchange of information that can be used as leads and useful to complete investigations
without having to resort to formal requests for assistance. However, this information
generally cannot be used at trial. To enhance the use of informal cooperation, the groupencouraged states to: (i) develop more cooperation frameworks with other countries,
especially those with shared or related languages; (ii) exchange information through FIUs
etc.; (iii) create information-sharing networks among law enforcement officers.

8MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Finally, formal cooperation is governed by domestic legislation, bilateral agreements etc.
It is a time-consuming process, as diplomats act as intermediaries between the law
enforcement agencies of the requesting and the requested countries. Each country selects a“central authority” to serve as the primary point of contact for mutual legal assistance (MLA)
requests. Accordingly, it is always recommended to communicate with the requested central
authority prior to submitting the request. In order to facilitate formal cooperation, regional
associations and joint investigations have also been used. To enhance the use of formalcooperation, the group encouraged states to: (i) consider UNTOC as a legal basis for
extradition; (ii) accept MLA requests flexibly; (iii) contact counterparts in advance(exchanging MLA drafts); (iv) participating in international meetings to develop cooperation
frameworks; (v) stationing legal/police attachés abroad; (vi) preparing updated manuals on
MLA and conducting training programmes for officers on other legal systems.
C. The 173rd International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 173rd International Training Course was held from 21 August to 20 September 2019.
The main theme was “Tackling Violence against Women and Children through Offender
Treatment: Prevention of Reoffending”. Twenty-two overseas participants (including one
course counsellor) and five Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants endeavoured to explore the topic primarily through a comparative
analysis of the current situation and the problems encountered. The participants’ in-depth
discussions enabled them to put forth effective and practical solutions.
The objectives were primarily realized through the individual presentations, lectures byvisiting experts and the group workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented theactual situation, problems and future prospects of his or her country with respect to the main
theme of the course. To facilitate discussions, the participants were divided into groups
workshops.
Group 1:Introducing and Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in the Treatment of VAWC
OffendersGroup 2:Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation to Promote VAWC Offender Rehabilitation andPrevent Reoffending

Group 3:

Non-Custodial Measures for VAWC Offender Rehabilitation and Reoffending
Prevention

Each group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) toorganize the discussions. The group members studied the situation in each of their countries
and exchanged their views based on information obtained through personal experience, theindividual presentations, lectures and so forth. Both groups examined the course theme. The
groups presented their reports in the report-back sessions, where they were endorsed as thereports of the course. The reports were published in full in UNAFEI Resource Material
Series No. 110.

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

3. Outcome Summary(i) Introducing and Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in the Treatment of VAWC Offenders
Addressing the issue of evidence-based practice (EBP) in the treatment of violenceagainst women and children (VAWC) offenders, the group began by reviewing the historicaldebate surrounding the effectiveness of offender treatment, noting that randomized control
trials, quasi-experiments, systematic review and meta-analysis are all scientific methods thathave been developed to measure programme effectiveness. In the 1980s, Andrews and Bonta
developed the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model, which establishes criminogenic needs(dynamic risk factors) as the appropriate targets for offender treatment. These needs shouldbe treated through effective evidence-based measures such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy(CBT) and Family Group Conferences (FGC).
Despite this well-established basis for offender treatment, the group identified a numberof challenges to the implementation of effective treatment programmes. In response, thegroup offered the following recommendations: (i) improve stakeholder awareness (including
the awareness and motivation of correctional staff) by promoting the benefits of EBP, such as
public safety, prevention of reoffending and cost effectiveness; (ii) increase the number of
specialists and trained staff by enhancing academic and legal studies and cooperation with
non-governmental organizations; (iii) enhance programme effectiveness by drafting detailed
manuals to standardize programme implementation; (iv) reduce disparities between researchand practice by ensuring that researchers perform their studies in realistic correctional
environments; (v) enshrine principles of inter-agency cooperation in relevant legislation; and(vi) motivate offenders to change, which can be achieved by ensuring that judges impose
rehabilitative sentences and by offering offenders incentives to participate in rehabilitation
programmes, such as meetings with family members, early release etc.
Noting the varied status of EBP in the participating jurisdictions, the group stressed theimportance of implementation of EBP and offered recommendations aimed toward ensuring
programme effectiveness. EBP must be objective (i.e. not based on subjective opinions), andthe results of such practices must be able to be replicated. However, because EBP is notuniversally known or understood, the first challenge is to raise awareness by explaining the
EBP philosophy to fellow practitioners. Second, implementing EBP throughout a system may
be an overwhelming, impossible task. Practitioners are encouraged to identify a specific areaof work, such as sexual offences or domestic violence, to focus on. Third, it is important tobuild capacity of correctional staff through education and training. Once these elements are inplace, the final step is the adoption of certified, effective programmes in accordance withlocal needs and requirements.
(ii) Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation to Promote VAWC Offender Rehabilitation and Prevent
Reoffending
Noting the linkages between criminal justice and promoting gender equality as
established by the Sustainable Development Goals, the group addressed the importance ofmulti-stakeholder cooperation to facilitate the treatment of VAWC offenders and to prevent
them from reoffending. The group concluded that, contrary to the traditional approach ofpunishment by incarceration, correctional systems should prioritize treatment andrehabilitation. The rehabilitative approach should prioritize alternatives to imprisonment,
enabling multiple institutions, both inside and outside the criminal justice system, to facilitate
offender treatment. Furthermore, multi-stakeholder cooperation promises to reduce rates ofimprisonment and recidivism, as well as costs to the correctional system.

10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEIThe group stressed that rehabilitation programmes must be country specific and musttarget appropriate individuals and identified the following as factors that lead VAWC
offenders toward recidivism: (i) reintegration issues (social stigma, problems finding
accommodations, lack of funds for sustainable treatment); (ii) the lack of aftercare and othersupport services, which leads offenders to return to their antisocial peers and criminal
enterprises; (iii) the failure to leverage key stakeholders throughout the lengthy process ofoffender rehabilitation; (iv) the underreporting of crimes against women due to their fear of
losing social and financial security, lack of access to justice etc.; and (v) lack of educationand guidance for juveniles, which damages their self-esteem, leading them toward a life ofcrime.
In response to these challenges, the following best practices and recommendations wereidentified, inter alia: (i) enhancing the role of public prosecutors by enabling them tocommence rehabilitation at the initial stage by making referrals to psychologists,rehabilitation volunteers and other religious or community resources; (ii) establishingmechanisms to share information and statistics between stakeholders involved in offender
treatment; (iii) enhancing responses to children in conflict with the law through the use of
specialized judges, Gesell Chambers for interviews with and counselling for juveniles,
maintaining juveniles’ confidentiality etc.; (iv) conducting continuous assessments for
VAWC offenders using the RNR and Good Lives models; (v) making use of restorative
justice and alternative dispute resolution programmes.
By providing rehabilitative treatment and support to VAWC offenders continuously andas early as possible, criminal justice systems can improve the offenders’ chances torehabilitate themselves and avoid repeating their crimes. This requires a team-based, multistakeholder approach drawing on specialized expertise of public officials and privateorganizations.
(iii)Non-Custodial Measures for VAWC Offender Rehabilitation and Reoffending Prevention
The group considered the importance of non-custodial measures to the rehabilitation of
VAWC offenders and recidivism prevention, finding that imprisonment is no panacea forprevention of recidivism. Non-custodial measures have the following advantages: thereduction of incarceration, the reduction of recidivism, the effectiveness of rehabilitation andthe enhancement of community involvement. Such measures should be implemented at all
relevant stages of the criminal justice system, particularly the pre-trial stage, the trial andsentencing stage, and the post-sentencing stage.
At the pre-trial stage, the principal non-custodial measure is non-prosecution orsuspension of prosecution. This enables the prosecutor to consider factors such as the gravityof the offence, the age and other characteristics of the offender, the circumstances underwhich the offence was committed etc. During the trial stage, the sentencing authority should
consider the nature of the offence, the purpose of the sentence, the personality of the offenderand the protection of the victim. In implementing non-custodial measures, the following
practices are widely used: suspension of execution of sentence, economic sanctions (fines),confiscation of property, community service orders and the “Weekend Jail System”, whichenables the offender to work during weekdays in order to support his or her family. At the
post-sentencing stage, probationers and parolees are permitted to serve all or a portion of
their sentences in the community, which allows them to work and maintain their liberty
subject to supervision by the relevant governmental and/or community authorities. They mustalso abide by certain conditions that steer them toward rehabilitation. Community support,
11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019such as accommodation at halfway houses and other counselling or mentoring programmes,is also available.
After identifying a number of challenges facing the implementation of non-custodial
measures (lack of awareness, lack of educational/vocational programmes, lack of community
acceptance, and ongoing threats to victim and public safety), the group made the following
recommendations: (i) ensuring that non-custodial measures are sufficiently incorporated into
legislation and guidelines for prosecutors and judges; (ii) exploring the use of electronicmonitoring as a tool to support the effective implementation of non-custodial measures; (iii)
implementing community-based treatment measures and support, such as volunteer probation
officers, halfway houses, cooperative employers, Circles of Support and Accountability(CoSA) etc.; (iv) establishing crisis shelters to provide protection, guidance and support for
victims.
III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. The Follow-Up Seminar on the Third Country Training Programme forDevelopment of Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMVCountries
From 22 to 24 April 2019, UNAFEI co-hosted the Follow-Up Seminar on the Third
Country Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Viet Nam).
B. The Comparative Study of Myanmar and Japan to Improve Prison Management
From 8-19 July 2019, 10 participants from Myanmar attended to study and compare
prison management practices.
C. The 22nd UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEI’s annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training
Programme, took place from 9 October to 15 November 2019. The main theme of theProgramme was “Detection, Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of High-Profile
Corruption”. 26 overseas participants and 6 Japanese participants attended.
D. The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam 2019 RTI-SPP
Exchange Programme (Japan Session)
From 25 to 29 November 2019, two Vietnamese participants discussed effective
questioning of witnesses and coordination between superior offices and subordinate offices.
E. The Third Training Course on Legal Technical Assistance for Viet Nam
From 25 November to 3 December 2019, ten Vietnamese participants discussed witness
examination and cooperation between high prosecutors’ offices and lower prosecutors’
offices.
F. The Thirteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast AsianCountries
From 17 to 19 December 2019, UNAFEI held the Thirteenth Regional Seminar on Good
Governance at UNAFEI in Tokyo, Japan. Approximately twenty anti-corruption practitioners
from the ASEAN member countries and Timor-Leste attended as official delegates to address
anti-money-laundering measures and asset recovery.
12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

IV. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
The Institute continues to collect data and other resource materials on crime trends, crime
prevention strategies and the treatment of offenders from Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe andthe Americas, and makes use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The
Information and Library Service of the Institute has been providing, upon request, materials andinformation to United Nations agencies, governmental organizations, research institutes andresearchers, both domestic and foreign.
V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since
1971, the Institute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by
the faculty members, visiting experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In
2019, the 107th, 108th and 109th editions of the Resource Material Series were published.
Additionally, issues 158 to 160 (from the 171st Senior Seminar to the 173rd International
Training Course, respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published, which included abrief report on each course and seminar and other timely information. These publications arealso available on UNAFEI’s website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.
VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 25 January 2019, the Public Lecture Programme was conducted in the Grand Conference
Hall of the Ministry of Justice. In attendance were many distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni
and the participants of the 171st International Senior Seminar. This Programme was jointly
sponsored by the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society(JCPS) and UNAFEI.
The Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues,
through comparative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In
2019, Ms. Santanee Ditsayabut, Provincial Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney Generalof Thailand, and Dimosthenis Chrysikos of the Organized Crime and Illicit Trafficking Branch,
Division for Treaty Affairs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), wereinvited as speakers. They presented on "Thailand’s Effort to End Violence Against Women
Which is One Form of Crime Motivated by Gender Discrimination" and "International
Efforts to Follow-Up on the Doha Declaration of the Thirteenth United Nations Congress on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice", respectively.
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about tocommence, research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is, therefore, one of
the important tasks of UNAFEI to support these contributions to improve the crime situationinternationally.

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

C. Overseas Missions in 2019
Deputy Director Ishihara and Professor Hirano visited Bangkok, Thailand from 22 to 24
January to attend the Asia and Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Fourteenth
United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Professor Yamada visited Attard, the republic of Malta from 31 January to 1 February toattend the workshop titled “IIJ Global Central Authorities Initiative: Expert Meeting –Curriculum Development”.
Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor Ohinata
visited Santiago, Chile, from 2 to 8 February to attend the Latin American and Caribbean
Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor Futagoishi, Chief International Administration
Officer Fujita and International Training Officer Oda visited Singapore from 4 to 8 March tohave meetings with the Home Team Academy and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau(CPIB).
Professor Yamamoto visited Manila, Philippines, from 5 to 13 March to have meetings
about offender treatment with the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), theBureau of Corrections (BuCor) and the Parole and Probation Administration (PPA).
Director Seto and Professor Futagoishi visited Santiago and Valparaíso, Chile, from 13 to
15 March to attend the IPPF Colloquium 2019.
Director Seto and Deputy Director Ishihara visited Beirut, Lebanon, from 18 to 21 March
to attend the Western Asian regional preparatory meetings for the Fourteenth United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and International Training
Officer Iinuma visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia, from 20 to 22 March to have meetings about
the situations and preparation for community corrections in Cambodia with the Ministry ofInterior and the Ministry of Justice.
Director Seto, Professor Futagoishi and Professor Furuhashi visited Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, from 9 to 11 April to attend the African regional preparatory meeting for the
Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Professor Yamamoto visited Manila and Davao, Philippines, from 22 to 26 April to hold ameeting about the Workshop on Management of Offenders to Prevent Violent Extremism.
Director Seto, Professor Futagoishi and Professor WATANABE Machiko visited Vienna,
Austria, from 23 to 25 April to attend the European Regional Preparatory Meeting for the
Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Director Seto, Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor Yamamoto, Professor Morikawa,
Chief International Administration Officer Fujita, Senior International Training Officers
Yamada and Saito visited Vienna, Austria, from 23 to 25 May to participate in the twentyeighth session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
14

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Director Seto and Professor Yamamoto visited Manila, Philippines, from 10 to 14 June tohold the Workshop on Management of Offenders to Prevent Violent Extremism.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 17 to 19 June toattend a UNODC Expert Meeting.
Professor Yamamoto visited Jakarta, Indonesia, from 24 to 25 June to attend theCountering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group Workshop on Counter and Alternative
Narratives.
Professor WATANABE Machiko stayed in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, from 10
July to 1 August to attend the Program on Countering Transnational Organized Crime.
Professor Yamamoto visited Dili, Timor-Leste, from 16 to 19 July to hold a workshop
entitled the “Management of Offenders to Prevent Violent Extremism: Strengthening theAssessment System in Prisons”.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki, Professor Morikawa and International Training
Officer Matsuda visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 23 to 27 July to attend the Regional
Workshop on Community-based Treatment for Terrorists and Violent Extremist Offender(VEO).
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki visited Bangkok, Thailand, on 30 August to attend theConference on “40 Years of Probation with Probation 4.0”.
Professor Otani visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 4 to 6 September to attend theInternational Seminar on Conflicts of Interest (hosted by the Office of the National AntiCorruption Commission).
Professor Kitagawa visited Arlington, USA, from 15 to 18 September to attend the forum
on Criminal Justice hosted by the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) and theInternational Community Corrections Association (ICCA.)
Professor Furuhashi and Senior International Training Officer Onda visited Ulaanbaatar,
Mongolia, from 22 to 26 September to attend the 39th Asian and Pacific Conference ofCorrectional Administrators (APCCA) 2019.
Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki, Professor Hosokawa andProfessor Morikawa visited Nairobi, Kenya, from 23 to 28 September to attend the JICA
meeting with juvenile justice authorities.
Professor Futagoishi visited Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, from 23 to 28
September to attend the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice – Supreme
People's Procuracy Exchange Programme, Viet Nam Session.
Professor Furuhashi visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 28 to 29 October to deliver a lecture
at the 4th Training on the Management of Women Prisoners hosted by Thailand Institute ofJustice.

15

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor Yamamoto visited Buenos Aires,
Argentina, from 27 October to 1 November to attend the annual conference of theInternational Corrections and Prisons Association Conference (ICPA).
Director Seto and Professor Morikawa visited Canberra, Australia, from 30 October to 1
November to attend the 2019 Autumn Coordination Meeting of the United Nations Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network and the 2019 conference of theAustralia and New Zealand Society of Evidence Based Policing (ANZSEBP)
Professor Otani, Professor Hosokawa, Professor Kitagawa and International Training
Officer Kondo visited Kathmandu, Nepal, from 3 to 5 November to hold a meeting with the
Office of the Attorney General of Nepal, the Supreme Court, the National Judicial Academy
and the Nepal Police.
Professor Yamamoto visited Davao, Philippines, from 11 to 15 November to hold aworkshop entitled the “Management of Offenders to Prevent Violent Extremism”.
Deputy Director Ishihara and Professor Yamamoto visited Glasgow, Scotland, from 24 to
28 November to have a meeting with Dr. Fergus McNeill, Professor of Criminology andSocial Work at the University of Glasgow.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki, Professor Furuhashi and Senior International Training
Officer Hirose visited Mandalay and Insein, Myanmar, from 15 to 20 December to havemeetings about prison management and offender treatment with the Myanmar Prison
Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates and collaborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention andcriminal justice administration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similargoals, and a large part of the ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationshipbetween the two is very strong.
VII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative
responsibility for running the Institute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine
professors are selected from among public prosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probationand the police. UNAFEI also has approximately 15 administrative staff members, who areappointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and a linguistic adviser.
Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training courseand seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts,
volunteers and related agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty and Staff Changes
Ms. WATANABE Machiko, formerly an attorney, General Affairs and Planning
Department, Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, was appointed as aprofessor of UNAFEI in April 2019.

16

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Mr. HOSOKAWA Hidehito, formerly a judge, Kumagaya Branch, Saitama Family Court,
was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI in April 2019.
Mr. MORIKAWA Takeshi, a probation officer of the Tokyo Probation Office, wasappointed as a professor of UNAFEI in April 2019.
Mr. YAMADA Masahiro, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the
Yamaguchi District Public Prosecutors’ Office in April 2019.
Mr. HIRANO Nozomu, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Nagoya
District Court in April 2019.
Mr. OHINATA Hidenori, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Second
Training Department, Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, in April
2019.
Mr. KOSEKI Takahiro, formerly an officer of the Tokyo District Prosecutors’ Office,
was appointed as the chief of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of
UNAFEI in April 2019.
Mr. ONDA Keisuke, formerly an instructor of the Kakogawa Juvenile Training School,
was appointed as a senior officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of
UNAFEI in April 2019.
Mr. KONDO Tomohiro, formerly an officer of the International Cooperation Department,
Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, was appointed as an officer of theTraining and Hostel Management Affairs Section of UNAFEI in April 2019.
Ms. KIKUCHI Yoshimi, formerly a chief of the Financial Affairs Section of UNAFEI,
was transferred to the Finance Division, Minister's Secretariat, Ministry of Justice, in April
2019.
Mr. KIGUCHI Ryo, formerly a senior officer of the Financial Affairs Section of UNAFEI,
was transferred to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors’ Office in April 2019.
Mr. OTA Masaru, formerly an officer of the Financial Affairs Section of UNAFEI, wastransferred to Kasamatsu Prison in April 2019.
Ms. TSUJII Yayoi, formerly an officer of the General Affairs Section of UNAFEI, wastransferred to the Kansai Airport District Immigration Office in April 2019.
Mr. TOYODA Yasushi, formerly a chief of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs
Section of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International Cooperation Department, Research
and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, in April 2019.
Ms. NAGAHAMA Arisa, formerly a senior officer of the Training and Hostel
Management Affairs Section of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International Affairs
Division, Minister’s Secretariat, Ministry of Justice, in April 2019.

17

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Ms. ODA Michie, formerly an officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs
Section of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors’ Office in April
2019.
VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute’s budget. UNAFEI’s total budget for
its programmes is approximately ¥70 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF
provide assistance for the Institute's international training courses and seminars.

18