PART ONE
ANNUAL REPORTFOR 2015⃝ Main Activities of UNAFEI⃝ UNAFEI Work Programme for 2016
⃝ Appendix

UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2015 – 31 December 2015)

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 theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in the Asia and the Pacificregion by promoting regional cooperation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, throughtraining 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, especially problems generated by rapid socio-economicchange (e.g., transnational organized crime, corruption, economic and computer crime and the reintegration of prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars andresearch projects.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute’s work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of the criminal justice field discuss andstudy pressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding, with the help of lectures and advice from the UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc
lecturers. This so-called “problem-solving through an 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 and Near East, Latin
America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators holding relatively senior positions in the criminal justice field.
By the end of 2015, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 161 international training courses and seminars.
Over 5,000 criminal justice personnel representing 137 different countries and administrative regions haveparticipated in these 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 inthe fields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 159th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 159th International Senior Seminar was held from 14 January to 12 February 2015. The main
theme was “Public Participation in Community Corrections”. Eighteen overseas participants (including one
course counsellor) and seven Japanese participants attended the Seminar.
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants introduced the roles and functions of criminal justice agencies in theircountries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from UNAFEI Professors and visiting
experts, the participants were then divided into two group workshops as follows:3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Group 1: Measures for Implementing and Promoting Community-Based Treatment
Group 2: Measures for Enhancing and Promoting Volunteer Participation in Cooperation with Governments (and Judiciaries) Involved in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order to facilitate the discussions. During group discussion, the group members studied the designated topics andexchanged views based on information obtained through personal experiences, the Individual Presentations, lectures and so forth. The Groups presented their reports 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. 96.
3. Outcome Summary(i)			 Measures for Implementing and Promoting Community-Based Treatment
In the context of offender rehabilitation and desistance among adults and juveniles, Group 1 considered(i) diversion mechanisms as alternatives to imprisonment and (ii) community-based treatment after imprisonment. These measures are crucial to offender rehabilitation because the process can only be completed
once the offender has adopted a non-criminal “replacement identity”, which is unlikely to be developed
during incarceration. Ultimately, reliance on alternative measures and rehabilitation will reduce the social
stigma against the offender and lower rates of recidivism.
Before conviction, alternative measures should be considered for minor offences. These measures
should be administered by public prosecutors for offences that implicate the public interest, whereas
offences that implicate private interests (such as common fist fights) are amenable to restorative justiceprocedures. After conviction, suspension of sentence should be utilized to avoid imprisonment but also to
impose alternative measures, such as supervision by probation officers, community service, fines, commitment to halfway houses (allowing offenders to remain in the community), and medical treatment and social–psychological assistance for drug users. For the imprisoned, community-based treatment should begin
on the first day of incarceration, and probation officers should continue to monitor the progress of rehabilitation through psycho-social reports. Moreover, for the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, it is importantfor society to focus on the juvenile, not the crime, and it is necessary to involve the family, victims and thecommunity in the rehabilitation process.
To achieve community involvement in offender rehabilitation, the following measures should be considered: (i) a professional probation service with emphasis on recruiting educated officers with strong interpersonal and counselling skills and a strong desire to rehabilitate offenders; (ii) a system of volunteer probation
officers to support offender rehabilitation in the community; (iii) effective community service programmes;and (iv) a commitment to changing the public mindset in favour of rehabilitation. It was recognized thatmany countries will face difficulties in implementing the proposed practices because of the difficulty ofenacting legislation and changing the mind-sets of societies and governments on offender rehabilitation.
Nevertheless, offender treatment requires “bridg[ing] the gap between offenders’ rehabilitation needs andthe extent of community involvement”.
(ii)		Measures for Enhancing and Promoting Volunteer Participation in Cooperation with Governments (and Judiciaries) Involved in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
The group commenced its discussions by defining a volunteer as “A person or an organization withparticular life skills and experiences who is willing to contribute his/her/its skills, experiences, time andresources for community-based treatment of offenders without remuneration”. It was agreed that volunteers are necessary for community-based treatment because of their local character, their role as non-governmental officials, and their ability to provide “continuity of activities” within the community. Further, volunteers are necessary to remedy the lack of sufficient treatment for released offenders or those serving
non-custodial sentences. The objective of volunteer participation is “to establish, organize and enhance
public participation in crime prevention and community-based treatment of offenders”.
Human resources within communities should be harnessed to reintegrate offenders into the mainstream of society. The recruitment and appointment of volunteers is critically important to achieving successful volunteer participation in community corrections by identifying “mature, credible and dependable,
4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
volunteers with key life skills and experiences who will impart value to the rehabilitation process of the
ex-offender”. The importance of legislation, proper procedures and specified criteria regulating the appointment of volunteers was stressed by the group. It was also stressed that ex-offenders should not be
excluded from volunteering merely due to their status, and the group cited at least one example of ex-offenders serving in such roles.
In addition to recruitment and appointment, the group identified several other areas that require particular attention from practitioners and policymakers: (i) capacity building, training and morale development of volunteers, (ii) resources, funding and organization of volunteers, (iii) welfare and safety of volunteers, and (iv) community resources and public understanding and cooperation.
The group recognized that crime is born in the community and, thus, concluded that volunteer participation is indispensable for offender rehabilitation. Nine specific recommendations—addressing legislation on
volunteer programmes, volunteer training, government support, international standards, and networking
among criminal justice systems, and so on—were detailed in the group workshop report, which was
published in UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series No. 96.
B. The 160th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 160th International Training Course was held from 13 May to 17 June 2015. The main theme was“The State of Cybercrime: Current Issues and Countermeasures”. Twenty-two overseas participants andseven Japanese participants attended this Course.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the Course were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations, lectures byvisiting 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 to the main theme of the
Course. The Group Workshops further examined the subtopics of the main theme. To facilitate discussion,
the participants were divided into three groups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of
faculty advisers:
Group 1: Effective Cybercrime Legislation from the Perspective of Enforcement Practices
Group 2: Measures for Effective Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of Cybercrime Cases
Group 3: Effective Measures for Strengthening the System for Suppression and Prevention of Cybercrime
The three groups each elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) toorganize the discussions. The group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth. The Groups presented their reports 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. 97.
3. Outcome Summary(i) 		 Effective Cybercrime Legislation from the Perspective of Enforcement Practices
Focusing on the development of cybercrime legislation, Group 1 used the Convention on Cybercrime (theBudapest Convention) as a basis for discussion and formulation of its recommendations. The group reported
that four of the nine participating countries have adopted the Convention and encouraged all states to
ratify the Convention as it is the current and foremost global framework on cybercrime.
In considering how long internet service providers should be required to preserve data, the group noted
the difference between data preservation (suspicion of crime) and retention (no suspicion of crime). The
group members concluded that legislation should require the retention of data for one year; a warrant
should be required for data preservation, and the group agreed with the Convention’s 90-day preservation
period, which can be extended.
5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
The group agreed that domestic legislation must provide for the admissibility of digital evidence.
Because this issue is not addressed in the Convention, the group recommended borrowing strategies fromregional cybercrime approaches. Conditions for admitting digital evidence should (1) require a chain ofcustody to guarantee authenticity, (2) maintain victim privacy, and (3) ensure that digital evidence issubjected to forensic examination.
Regarding Internet anonymity, the group agreed that privacy and freedom of expression must be
protected. Thus, in line with the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on Freedom ofCommunication on the Internet (2003), the group supports Internet anonymity and noted that a prohibition
against such anonymity would be difficult to enforce. The group members also considered whether Internet
users should be forced to disclose encryption keys during criminal prosecutions and unanimously
concluded that users should not be required to do so. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and theright to remain silent should not be abridged in cybercrime cases. However, law enforcement should bepermitted to use advanced investigation techniques that mitigate the problems posed by data encryption.
In addition to its recommendations above, the group members identified numerous enforcement challenges and proposed measures to address them. The challenges identified were: (1) lack of specialized cybercrime laws in most jurisdictions, (2) lack of adequate sanctions to deter cybercrime, (3) the Convention
has not been universally adopted, (4) lack of public–private sector coordination, (5) lack of specialized
personnel, (6) prohibitive costs of cybercrime investigation and enforcement, and (7) lack of international
cooperation frameworks that utilize mutual legal assistance treaties.
(ii) Measures for Effective Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of Cybercrime Cases
Group 2 considered the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of cybercrime cases by engaging in
an intensive review of the current practices in each of the participating countries and by identifying challenges to overcome and approaches and measures to improve current practices. In summarizing their discussions, the group focused on effective measures for: (1) generating cybercrime leads, (2) identifying
criminals and collecting evidence, and (3) prosecution and adjudication.
A majority of the group members reported that their countries do not conduct cyberpatrolling;members whose countries do conduct cyberpatrolling reported that the private sector is often reluctant tovoluntarily submit data records to investigators due to customer-privacy concerns. The group concluded
that all countries should adopt laws requiring service providers to furnish necessary information to authorities. All members agreed that it is critical for investigators who receive or generate leads on cybercrimeto have sufficient technical skills.
When identifying criminals and collecting evidence of cybercrime, the group agreed that obtaining information such as IP addresses and SIM cards is necessary but not sufficient evidence. IP addresses areoften only the beginning of the investigation because perpetrators use proxy servers, TOR onion routers
and applications to immediately erase access logs. Requiring registration of SIM cards and the use of cybercrime experts, international cooperation and traditional investigation methods are also necessary to
trace cybercriminals.
Regarding prosecution and adjudication, common challenges include document authentication and chainof custody issues; the inadequacy of existing criminal procedure laws at handling cybercrime evidence; anddelays in the prosecution of cybercrime cases due to the need for expert witnesses. Solutions to these
problems include the adoption of specialized cybercrime laws and procedures, access to forensic laboratories, specialized training for criminal justice professionals and collaboration between prosecutors andexpert witnesses to present the cybercrime evidence clearly and simply in court.
The group concluded that there are four key elements to proper investigation, prosecution and adjudication of cybercrime: (1) capacity-building of relevant criminal justice professionals; (2) improving publicawareness of cybercrime, which involves recognizing and reporting cybercrime to the relevant governmental contact point; (3) encouraging public-private partnerships to collect evidence and share investigation
techniques; and (4) enhanced international cooperation coupled with the harmonization of legislation on cybercrime. In addition to the recommendations above, many others were detailed in the group workshop
report, which was published in UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series No. 97.
6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(iii) Effective Measures for Strengthening the System for Suppression and Prevention of Cybercrime
Addressing the topic of suppression and prevention of cybercrime, Group 3 discussed the following
issues: (1) establishment of special organizations or units against cybercrime and measures of capacitybuilding for criminal justice practitioners, (2) facilitating international, regional and domestic cooperation
among cybercrime agencies, and (3) facilitating public-private partnerships against cybercrime.
Most of the group members agreed that forensic laboratories and other specialized cybercrime units
are necessary to handle the complexity of cybercrime cases, but some group members expressed concerns
over the organization and administration of such units, as well as conflicts that may result from the overlapping functions of other governmental agencies. Regarding capacity-building, the group members agreed
that two levels of training should be offered. First, all cyberpractitioners, including police officers and otherfirst responders, should be trained on basic knowledge for handling cybercrime cases and to preserve
evidence of cybercrime so that it will be admissible in court. Second, specialized training and certificationis necessary for experts who conduct cybercrime investigations.
To coordinate the suppression of cybercrime, the group recommended the establishment of a 24/7 pointof contact on the international level that operates in line with the Convention on Cybercrime (the Budapest
Convention). In addition to accepting reports of cybercrime from governments and the general public, thecentre could share cybercrime intelligence reports and other relevant information. All members of thegroup agreed that greater cooperation between investigative agencies and digital forensic laboratories isnecessary, but there was no consensus on the need for the expertise of private institutions. The debate
focused on the perception that private institutions offer the advantage of technical expertise but raised
concerns over chain of custody issues involved in relying on a third party analysis of potential cybercrime
evidence.
The group agreed that public-private partnerships are essential to the suppression and prevention of
cybercrime, and recommended a broad cooperation strategy involving internet service providers (ISPs),
telecommunications companies (TELCOs), cooperation with universities and research groups, and enhanced
public awareness of cybercrime. The group’s recommendations included, among others: (1) requiring international regulation for all ISPs and a strict policy of regulatory permitting to ensure compliance; (2)requiring ISPs to preserve traffic data for at least 90 days with the possibility of extending the preservation requirement; (3) requiring TELCOs to register SIM cards to prevent criminals from concealing theiridentities; (4) the creation of CERT or CSIRT in each country in cooperation with the private sector. The
group concluded that although cybercrime will persist, governments, the private sector and citizens must
work together to suppress cybercrime.
C. The 161st International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 161st International Training Course was held from 19 August to 17 September 2015. The main
theme was “Staff Training for Correctional Leadership”. Fourteen overseas participants and four Japaneseparticipants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants of the 161st Course 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 by visiting
experts and the Group Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual 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 two groups.
Group 1: Enhancing the Organizational Strengths of Criminal Justice Organizations
Group 2: Developing Effective Training Curricula
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize the dis7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
cussions. The group members studied the situation in each of their countries and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth. Both groups examined the course theme. The Groups presented their reports in the Report-Back
Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports were published in full in
UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 98.
3. Outcome Summary(i) 		 Enhancing the Organizational Strengths of Criminal Justice Organizations
Group 1 addressed four common issues for improving organizational strength in the correctionalsetting: (A) developing an organizational culture of integrity, (B) stress management for correctional
personnel, (C) passing knowledge and experience to the next generation, and (D) promoting cooperation incapacity-building with other organizations.
Regarding organizational integrity, the group members reported that their systems have controlled systematic corruption, but they stressed the need for vigilance to address the potential for corruption, like theintroduction of contraband into correctional facilities. In response, the group identified a number ofmeasures such as regular vetting of officials, strict anti-corruption enforcement, payment of adequate
salaries, asset declaration, video-recorded investigations, and so on. In addition, all members recognized
the need to deal with issues of unnecessary force, abusive language, and human rights abuses. Appropriate
measures include oversight by human rights organizations, creating channels for reporting complaints, andcreating training programmes and standards of conduct for correctional officers.
The group also recognized that stress among correctional staff is common in all countries due to thestressful nature of the job, insufficient resources (including low pay and insufficient manpower), poor
working environments (including exposure to disease, poor housing, etc.), high expectations of each staff
member, and social development. Measures should be taken to reduce stress, such as “health and balanced
lifestyle” campaigns, promoting family relationships through sports, music, family fun days, etc., regularthematic talks among staff, improving staff quarters, and establishment of a “staff complaint register”.
Succession planning is extremely important to pass knowledge to the next generation and maintain institutional stability. The group reported that the following actions have been taken in some countries: (1)comprehensive training programmes, (2) job rotation and internship programmes for staff, (3) written
policy, emergency and training manuals, (4) mentoring and coaching schemes, (5) cooperation withacademic bodies to research the success of the training curriculum, (6) stipulation of clear career paths foryoung officers, (7) standardization of training materials and content to ensure the quality of training, and (8)the use of e-learning to expand training coverage and reduce the need for resources.
On the issue of cooperation with other organizations, criminal justice authorities are expected to do
more than just lock up offenders. To enhance the ability of these authorities to meet modern correctional
expectations, it is necessary to collaborate with outside organizations, such as academic institutions, local
governmental agencies, and overseas counterparts.
(ii) Developing Effective Training CurriculaGroup 2 addressed the topic of “Developing Effective Training Curricula” based on the following agenda:(1) training staff with high expertise, (2) understanding and respecting international standards as guidance,and (3) the use of effective training methods. The group emphasized that it is important to improve service
delivery by implementing effective training curricula. Training must be in line with the mission, vision andgoals of the correctional system.
Effective training for correctional personnel should be interdisciplinary and designed to address theneeds of specific groups of offenders; offender classification and risk assessment are very important tools inthis regard. Disciplines like sociology, criminology and psychology are important for addressing thetreatment needs of drug, sex and human-trafficking offenders, as well as offenders with links to terrorism.
For example, training for the treatment of drug offenders should include measures ranging from effective
search methods to sensitizing correctional staff to the negative effects of drug abuse, signs of withdrawal
and so on.

8MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEIThe group agreed that training curricula should be in line with United Nations standards and norms,
such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Mandela Rules) and theStandard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules). For example, training curricula
should incorporate the Tokyo Rules by emphasizing concepts of de-penalization and de-criminalization, encouraging the use of diversion programmes, legal safeguards to protect the dignity and privacy of theoffender and the confidentiality of personal records, and training on the preparation of factual and objective
social inquiry reports.
To create effective training programmes, the group emphasized the importance of selecting the best
training methods by conducting a needs assessment before implementing the training. To conduct such anassessment, it is important to identify: key characteristics of the trainer and the participants (human characteristics), the social and cultural conditions of the participants (social factors), key subject areas, and timeand material factors. Once the proper needs have been identified, the training must be matched with themost appropriate training method, such as brainstorming, lectures, group discussion, role playing, mentorship, case studies, study tours, the use of experts, and demonstrations. Likewise, effective training
materials must be created, such as training manuals and lesson plans, relevant laws and policies, the use ofexperts, photographs and pictures, radio and television documentaries, and working tools.
In conclusion, Group 2 stressed the importance of developing a national systematic training frameworkand conducting impact evaluation of all training programmes. Further conclusions and detailed examples
of correctional training curricula and objectives are contained in the group workshop report, which was
published in UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series No. 98.

III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. The Second Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries
From 25 February to 20 March 2015, UNAFEI held the Second Criminal Justice Training Programme
for French-Speaking African Countries. Thirty-two participants attended from eight African countries andJapan. The participants discussed the themes of “Enhancing the capacity of investigation, prosecution,
advocacy, and adjudication” and the “Criminal Justice Response to Organized Crime”.
B. Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Viet Nam and Japan
From 22 to 26 June 2015, two officials from Viet Nam were invited to Japan to study the criminal policy
and the current situation and issues of criminal justice in Japan and Viet Nam.
C. The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam 2015 RTI-SPP Exchange
Programme Japan Session
From 21 to 27 July 2015, UNAFEI hosted the Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam
2015 RTI-SPP Exchange Programme Japan Session in Tokyo, Japan. The theme of the programme was“Current issues of crime and prosecutorial practice in Viet Nam and Japan” and “white papers on crime”.
D. The Training Seminar for Prison Officers in Myanmar
From 3 to 21 August, UNAFEI co-hosted a seminar in Myanmar in which 90 prison officials from
Myanmar studied prison management in line with international standards and norms.
E. The 25th Anniversary Seminar of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules)
From 7 to 9 September 2015, 13 criminal justice experts and the participants of the 161st International
Training Course shared best practices and challenges related to the implementation of the Tokyo Rules.
F. The Seminar on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region
From 29 September to 1 October 2015, the Department of Probation, Ministry of Justice, Thailand(DOP), the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ), the Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan, and
UNAFEI hosted the Seminar on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region in Tokyo,
Japan. Keynote speeches were delivered by Ms Sonya Spencer, Executive Director of the John Howard
Society of Toronto and Mr YAMADA Kenji, Volunteer Probation Officer and Secretary General of the
National Organization for Employment of Offenders.
9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
G. The 18th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
The UNCAC Training Programme was held from 14 October to 18 November 2015. This Programme
dealt with the United Nations Convention against Corruption and examined countermeasures against corruption. The theme of the Programme was Effective Anti-Corruption Enforcement and Public-Privateand International Cooperation. Twenty-four overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended.
H. The Ninth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
UNAFEI hosted the Ninth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries from
14 to 26 November 2015 at the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia. The Seminar was co-hosted by
the Attorney General Office and the Corruption Eradication Commission. The main theme of the Seminar
was Current Challenges and Best Practices in the Investigation, Prosecution and Prevention of Corruption Cases—Sharing Experiences and Learning from Actual Cases. Nineteen participants and observers
from ten Southeast Asian countries attended. The Seminar featured Mr. Tony Kwok Man-wai, Anti-Corruption Consultant and former Deputy Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption,
Hong Kong.
I. The Second Training Course on Legal Technical Assistance for Viet Nam
From 3 to 15 December 2016, 10 officials from Viet Nam studied the experience of Japan surrounding
the preparation of its white paper on crime and discussed problems related to the enforcement of theamended code of criminal procedure in Viet Nam.

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 and the Americas, andmakes use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information and Library Serviceof the Institute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies,
governmental organizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, theInstitute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members,
visiting experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2015, the 95th, 96th and 97th
editions of the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 146 to 148 (from the 159th
Senior Seminar to the 161st International Training Course, respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were
published, which included a brief report on each course and seminar and other timely information. Thesepublications are also available on UNAFEI’s website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 30 January 2015, 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 159th 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, throughcomparative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2015, Dr. Bonita M.
Veysey, Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University-Newark, Center for Law and Justice, and
Ms. Bernadette Alexander, Deputy Director/Chief Probation Officer, Probation Services Branch, Rehabilitation and Protection Services, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore, were invited as
speakers. They presented papers entitled “Offender Rehabilitation and Reform” and “Community-based Rehabilitation of Offenders in Singapore”, respectively.
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,
10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
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 situation internationally.
C. Overseas Missions
Professor TASHIRO Akiko visited Hanoi, Viet Nam, from 2 to 5 February 2015 to attend the Consultative Workshop on the Draft of the Revised Penal Code of Viet Nam held at the Ministry of JusticeProfessor NAGAI Toru and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Vientiane, Lao
PDR, Hanoi, Viet Nam and Manila, Philippines from 27 February to 11 March 2015 to research thecriminal justice systems of the aforementioned countries.
Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Yangon, Myanmar from 23 February to 7 March 2015 to attend
the 4th Asian Conference of Correctional Facilities Architects and Planners (ACCFA), to research thecriminal justice system in Myanmar and to discuss the “Myanmar Country Programme” with related organizations.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Bangkok, Thailand and Yangon, Myanmar from 2 to 7
March 2015 to research the criminal justice systems in Myanmar and to discuss the “Myanmar Country
Programme” with related organizations.
Professor TASHIRO Akiko and Professor NAGAI Toru, and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited
Bangkok, Thailand from 22 to 28 March 2015 to attend the Seminar on Promoting Community-based
Treatment in the ASEAN Region.
Professor MORIYA Kazuhiko visited Jakarta, Indonesia from 23 to 27 March 2015 to research anti-corruption efforts in Southeast Asia.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi, Professor TASHIRO Akiko, Professor NAGAI Toru and Professor
AKASHI Fumiko visited Doha, Qatar from 12 to 19 April 2015 to attend the 13th United Nations Congress
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Congress).
Professor HIROSE Yusuke visited Hong Kong from 11 to 13 May 2015 to attend The 6th Independent
Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Symposium.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi and Professor NAGAI Toru visited Vienna, Austria from 18 to 22
May 2015 to attend the 24th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Professor MINOURA Satoshi and AKASHI Fumiko visited Tagaytay, Philippines from 20 to 21 May
2015 to attend the ASEAN Plus Three Forum on Probation and Community-Based Rehabilitation.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi visited Bangkok, Thailand from 4 to 5 June 2015 to attend the
AsianSIL Inter-Sessional Regional Conference 2015.
Professor HIROSE Yusuke visited Bangkok, Thailand on 11 June 2015 to attend the Thailand Instituteof Justice (TIJ) Seminar on Criminal Justice Human Resources.
Professor MINOURA Satoshi and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited Los Angeles, U.S.A., from 14 to
16 July 2015 to attend the Second World Congress on Community Corrections.
Professor NAGAI Toru visited Bangkok, Thailand on 3 August 2015 to attend the 2nd International
Meeting on Offender Rehabilitation.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Beijing, China from 22 to 23 August 2015 to attend the 6th International Forum of Contemporary Criminal Law.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Vienna, Austria from 31 August to 2 September 2015 to attend
the 6th Intersessional Meeting of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Prevention,
11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
UNCAC.
Professor HIROSE Yusuke visited Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, and Paris, France from 13 to 23 September
2015 to prepare for the Training on Criminal Justice in French Speaking African Countries, which will beheld in February 2016.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi and Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 4
to 11 October 2015 to attend the Expert Meeting on the Training Modules for Correctional Staff andTraining of Trainers on the Management of Prisoners in the ASEAN Region, and the 5th Anniversary of
the Bangkok Rules: International Perspectives on Good Practices and Lessons Learned.
Professor NAGAI Toru, Professor AKASHI Fumiko and senior officer SATO Marie visited Melbourne,
Australia from 25 to 30 October 2015 to attend the 17th ICPA (International Corrections and Prisons Association) Annual Conference.
Professor NAGAI Toru visited Bangkok, Thailand from 22 to 27 November 2015 to attend the 35th
Asia and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators (APCCA).
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi visited Seoul, Korea on 30 November 2015 to attend the KIC (Korean
Institute of Criminology) International Forum 2015: Criminal Justice Policies for a Safe Society.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi and Professor MINOURA Satoshi visited Lund, Sweden from 11 to
12 December 2015 to attend the Seminar on “Supporting Good Prison Practice”—Experiences and Lessons
Learned, hosted by the Raoul Wallenberg Institute (RWI) and to attend the PNI’s (UN Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice Programme Network Institutes) Coordination Meeting.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi and Professor HIROSE Yusuke visited Kathmandu, Nepal, from 13 to 22
December 2015 to prepare for the Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal,
which will be held in March 2016.
D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates and collaborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention and criminal justiceadministration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similar goals, and a large part of
the ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between 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, probation and the police. UNAFEI also has approximately 15
administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and alinguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training
course and 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
Mr. IWASHITA Shinichiro, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Kumamoto
District Public Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2015.
Mr. YUKAWA Tsuyoshi, a public prosecutor of the Sendai District Public Prosecutors Office, wasappointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2015.
Ms. MIO Yukako, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2015.
Ms. WATANABE Ayuko, formerly a public prosecutor of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office,12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2015.
Ms. TASHIRO Akiko, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Rehabilitation Bureau
on 1 May 2015.
Mr. MINOURA Satoshi, formerly the Chief of the General Affairs and Planning Section, Rehabilitation
Bureau, was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2015.
Mr. KAYA Tomonobu, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, will continue in his post as a member of theOrganized Crime Department, Criminal Investigation Bureau, National Police Agency, effective as of 24
July 2015.
Mr. TSUJI Takanori of the National Police Academy was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 24
July 2015.

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.

13