MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2016 ‒ 31 December 2016)

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 Pacific region
by promoting regional cooperation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, through training andresearch.
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 reintegrationof prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars and research
projects.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Instituteʼs work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of the criminal justice field discuss and studypressing 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 weeksʼ duration) and one
international seminar (five weeksʼ duration). Approximately one hundred government officials from various
overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA is anindependent 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 2016, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 164 international training courses and seminars.
Over 5,000 criminal justice personnel representing 136 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 in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 162nd International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 162nd International Senior Seminar was held from 13 January to 12 February 2016. The main theme
was “Multi-agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders”. Fifteen overseas participants
and six Japanese participants attended the Seminar.
3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2016

2.

Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants respectively introduced the roles and functions of criminal justiceagencies in their countries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from UNAFEI Professors
and visiting experts, the participants were then divided into three group workshops as follows:
Group 1: Effective Multi-agency Cooperation in Terms of Implementation of Non-custodial Measures at Each
Stage of the Criminal Justice Process
Group 2: Effective Models for Multi-agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
Group 3: Information Sharing in Multi-agency Cooperation
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson (s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur (s) in order tofacilitate 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 wereendorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports were published in UNAFEI Resource
Material Series No. 99.
3.

Outcome Summary(i) Effective Multi-agency Cooperation in Terms of Implementation of Non-custodial Measures at Each
Stage of the Criminal Justice Process
Group 1 stressed that multi-agency cooperation is necessary to reduce recidivism, facilitate reintegration,
promote non-custodial measures, and establish a safer community. Additionally, the group concluded thatmulti-agency cooperation is necessary at all stages of the criminal justice process, including the pre-trial, trial,and post-trial stages.
During the discussion, multi-agency cooperation was considered from several perspectives: (a) the typesof offenders who should be targeted, (b) the ideal structure of multi-agency cooperation, (c) information
sharing and analysis, (d) problems of legislation, and (e) evaluation.
Regarding the types of offenders that should be targeted, the group emphasized focusing on low-risk andfirst-time offenders, as well as offenders with special needs, such as the chronically ill, the disabled, the elderly
and juveniles. The group also felt that multi-agency cooperation would be facilitated by expanding sentencing
options available to judges other than incarceration.
The ideal structure for multi-agency cooperation should take a holistic approach to offender rehabilitation
by involving all relevant government agencies, the private sector and the general public (i.e., community
involvement). Examples of key organizations include NGOs, hospitals, welfare facilities and community
resources. Private entities should be encouraged to participate in offender rehabilitation through theavailability of government subsidies to, for example, businesses that employ ex-offenders.
Multi-agency cooperation cannot succeed without effective information sharing and analysis. Relevant
agencies need information about the offenders in order to match their treatment needs with available
services. However, information sharing raises the issue of confidentiality, as well as the willingness of theoffender to cooperate. To the extent possible, the group concluded that information sharing should be basedon the offenderʼs consent.
Regarding problems of legislation, the group explained that gaps exist between various forms of criminal
justice legislation, such as penal laws, criminal procedure codes, probation acts, and prison acts. These gaps
limit the ability of relevant agencies to collaborate with each other, and the gaps must be bridged by special
legislation, MOUs or other agreements between agencies.
Once these gaps are bridged and collaborative procedures are established, these procedures must be
evaluated by each agency involved and by independent bodies to assess effectiveness. Indicators of successinclude lowered recidivism rates, reduction in prison overcrowding, expanded sentencing options thatencourage diversion and non-custodial measures, and positive feedback from the private sector and the4MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

community.
(ii) Effective Models for Multi-agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
Group 2 was tasked with developing ideal models for multi-agency cooperation and considered suchmodels from the perspective of types of offenders to be targeted, the ideal structure for cooperation, andnecessary legislation. The group members agreed that although there is no single programme that can beconsidered the most effective, an effective model should be designed to reduce recidivism, using evidencebased practices.
Criminal justice systems should be prepared to provide assistance to both low-risk and serious offenders.
Typically, multi-agency cooperation is believed to benefit offenders who do not pose a risk to society.
Offenders should be assessed individually, based on each offenderʼs specific crimes and rehabilitation needs,
by applying the analytical framework of the Risk-Needs-Responsivity Model. However, there is an emerging
trend in which reformed serious offenders, drug offenders and sexual offenders are being given second
chances to re-enter the community, and the group agreed that the individualization of sentences andtreatment is the preferred model.
The group reported that multi-agency cooperation exists where there is complementary and overlapping
provision of services to the offender by both government and NGOs. Agencies that provide services tooffenders include cooperative employers, labour organizations, hospitals, special schools, self-help groups, e.g.,“AA”, community settlement support centres, community justice centres and local government. The group
identified numerous challenges to multi-agency cooperation and proposed solutions in its group workshop
report.
After reviewing the participating countriesʼ legislation to facilitate multi-agency cooperation, the groupproposed that the following topics should be addressed in ideal legislation: (1) monitoring and controls
instituted by the government on how resources are spent on offenders, (2) information sharing between
agencies, (3) financial auditing and reports, and (4) each ministry directly related to the services being
provided by an NGO should take direct control.
The importance of programme evaluation was discussed by the group, which acknowledged that the
reduction of the recidivism rate is one important measure of effectiveness. However, satisfying the offendersʼcriminogenic needs, such as employment, housing and medical care is fundamentally important for the
rehabilitation process. Accordingly, other measures of effectiveness include the number of offenders who
receive support upon re-entry and the number of offenders who start and continue to work successfully.
The group concluded that successful models for multi-agency cooperation will include: (1) the
development of mutual understanding between agencies and individuals, (2) active information sharing,
employing the “through care” model, (3) the enactment of legislation that encourages community-based
treatment, and (4) securing sufficient budgetary resources, political will, and the support of the public.
(iii) Information Sharing in Multi-agency Cooperation
Group 3 reported on issues surrounding information sharing in the context of multi-agency cooperation incommunity-based treatment of offenders by considering the types of offenders and offences that should betargeted, information sharing and analysis, and problems in legislation.
Collaborative multi-agency partnerships are necessary to ensure successful implementation of offender
treatment programmes. Although practices and opinions differ from country to country, the group concluded
that the treatment needs of all offenders should be addressed through multi-agency cooperation and thatrecidivists should be prioritized due to their great need for support. Information sharing between relevant
agencies plays a crucial role in achieving the desired treatment goals.
Recognizing the need to protect personal information and that laws vary among the participating
countries, the group agreed that it is necessary to share the following categories of information among
relevant agencies: (1) the offenderʼs biographical data, (2) the nature of the offence, (3) the offenderʼs history ofprevious offences, (4) the offenderʼs general health and mental conditions, (5) behaviour and conduct while in acorrectional facility, (6) behaviour and conduct while in a residential community, (7) education and skills
5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2016

training/level, (8) employment history, (9) the offenderʼs compliance with previous court orders andsentences, and (10) the circumstances and environment of the victim, and any compensation or civil
commitment condition to which the offender is subjected by the court.
Due to the sensitivity of such information, the group identified numerous problems associated with multiagency information sharing. However, the group also recommended solutions, such as establishing standard
operating procedures to ensure that personal information is properly protected, obtaining the offenderʼsconsent when necessary, establishing secure IT systems, and conducting periodic review of informationsharing practices.
The group stressed the importance of formal written procedures for requesting information between
agencies. However, proper information sharing can be ensured by establishing shared databases that can beaccessed by agencies that need the information. While the offenderʼs personal information should be shared
among relevant agencies, information shared with private agencies should be limited to that which isnecessary to complete the offenderʼs treatment, and private agencies must use discretion when handlingpersonal or sensitive information.
On the topic of legislation, the group agreed that distinct legislation is necessary to establish a legal basis
for multi-agency cooperation and information sharing. However, legislation cannot address all issues that will
be encountered, making the execution of multi-agency MOUs, regular meetings between agencies, and theestablishment of better professional rapport between agencies important factors for successful multi-agency
cooperation.
B. The 163rd International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 163rd International Training Course was held from 11 May to 22 June 2016. The main theme was“Children as Victims and Witnesses”. Twenty-three overseas participants and seven Japanese participants
attended the 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 weredivided into three groups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Special Measures in Dealing with Child Victims and Witnesses in the Criminal Justice Process
Group 2: Ideal Measures to Protect Children as Witnesses in the Investigation and Trial PhasesGroup 3: Improving Skills and Practices in Interviewing Child Victims and Witnesses during Inquiry andTestimony
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 thereports of the Course. The full texts of the reports were published in full in Resource Material Series No. 100.
3.

Outcome Summary(i) Special Measures in Dealing with Child Victims and Witnesses in the Criminal Justice Process
Group 1 reviewed the status of special measures for the protection of child victims and witnesses in eachof the participating countries and proposed detailed recommendations for such special measures that should
be considered for adoption. The recommendations are intended to ensure that the criminal justice system issensitized to child victims and witnesses.
The group identified weaknesses in investigation and adjudication of cases involving violence against

6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

children (VAC) that are common among many countries. VAC is under-reported and under-detected. Many
counties lack training and special procedures for investigating VAC cases, as well as special provisions toprotect child victims and witnesses. Likewise, the adjudicatory process lacks training and special provisions
that elicit credible testimony from children, such as child-friendly hearing rooms, video-link testimony, etc.
To improve detection and reporting, the group recommended a number of measures. Increasing publicawareness is important for effective reporting, and countries are encouraged to identify target groups, focus
on issues of VAC that are relevant to the country and use social media and other marketing strategies toreach the public. Also, countries should identify the risk factors and indicators of VAC using an evidencebased approach. Reporting should be confidential and easily accessible by establishing a 24/7 toll-free helpline,
and mandatory reporting of VAC should be legally required.
During investigation and trial, special measures should be implemented to protect child victims andwitnesses from re-victimization and to ensure the credibility of their statements. Skilled and trained
investigators are needed to conduct child-sensitive forensic interviews. At trial, children should be permitted
to testify from special rooms by video link so that the child cannot see the accused, and questions directed tothe child should be asked by a qualified expert.
Throughout the criminal justice process, special protective measures should be used to safeguard the bestinterests of the child. To do so, the group also pointed out that the rights of the suspect/defendant must not
be taken for granted. Only when necessary and as a last resort, the child should be placed in temporary
protective custody with a relative, foster family, shelter for victims of abuse, etc. All relevant criminal justiceand social welfare agencies should be involved in this process, and guidelines should be developed to monitor
the status of the child. Additionally, the childʼs identity should be protected by the issuance of a nondisclosure order by the court, and court proceedings related to children should be conducted as closed
hearings.
(ii) Ideal Measures to Protect Children as Witnesses in the Investigation and Trial PhasesGroup 2 considered measures to protect child witnesses during the investigation and trial phases. The
group agreed to focus on child witnesses because such laws, measures and practices are particularly lacking
in many jurisdictions, whereas legislation on violence against children is more prevalent. Throughout theworkshop, the group drew on a number of international resources, particularly the Convention on the Rightsof the Child and the United Nationʼs Model Law on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnessesof Crime and Related Commentary, as well as the best practices of the participating countries.
The purpose of the investigation phase is to obtain the best evidence possible to secure a conviction and tosecure justice for the child. This can only be accomplished if child witnesses receive the necessary support.
For child witnesses, the prevention of re-victimization, e.g., reliving a traumatic experience that was enduredor observed by the child in multiple interviews, takes high priority. The group found that victim support
agencies and specially trained support persons are necessary to provide care, comfort and counselling to childwitnesses throughout the criminal justice process. Likewise, specially trained investigators are needed to
conduct child-sensitive forensic interviews to elicit a complete and credible account of the offence and toprotect the childʼs psychological well-being. Other measures to be employed during the investigation stage
include the use of child-friendly interview rooms, the use of technical communication aids, e.g., dolls, to help
the child explain what happened, and the limitation of the number and duration of interviews, based on theage and mental state of the child.
Child witnesses also require support during the trial phase. It is important to protect a childʼs privacy byprohibiting the disclosure of his or her identity through the criminal justice process. Further, the childʼsphysical safety and mental state should be protected by avoiding direct contact with the offender, which canbe achieved though measures such as witness shielding and the admission of video-recorded testimony into
evidence. Additionally, child-friendly waiting areas are important to ease the childʼs state of mind so that heor she can testify comfortably.
The group offered the following recommendations for the protection of child witnesses: (1) enacting
special laws that provide for measures such as limiting the number of interviews, requiring that questioningof children be conducted according to the childʼs age and mental capacity, requiring in camera sessions,7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2016

removal of the accused from the courtroom during the childʼs testimony, etc., (2) establishing special agencies
to support child witnesses during and after the judicial process, (3) initiating training for personnel dealing
with child witnesses, (4) providing experts to assist in interviewing child witnesses and (5) providing separate
child-friendly investigation and waiting rooms.
(iii) Improving Skills and Practices in Interviewing Child Victims and Witnesses during Inquiry andTestimonyGroup 3 focused on improving skills and practices for interviewing child victims and witnesses. The group
noted that for many years, child victims and witnesses were treated in the same manner as adults. As many
adults find the criminal justice processes to be intimidating and difficult to comprehend, this is particularly
true for children. In response, many countries have adopted special procedures to ease the burdens onchildren who take part in the criminal justice system, but further measures are needed to address theirunique needs as witnesses.
The group reviewed the current status of interviewing child victims and witnesses, finding that current
practices often jeopardize the collection of credible evidence. Children are routinely interviewed multiple
times, which causes re-victimization of the child and can result in inconsistent statements due to the fact thatchildren face the obstacles of language, mental development and maturity. Moreover, children are
particularly susceptible to the power of suggestion. Often due to a lack of training, many investigators lacksufficient interviewing skills, and many cases are dismissed when the investigator fails to elicit credible
evidence from the child. Additionally, many countries lack child-friendly interviewing rooms, which arenecessary to provide children with an environment in which the child feels comfortable explaining how he or
she was victimized. In situations where the child is forced to confront the perpetrator before the interview orgiving testimony, the child is likely to be overcome by fear, and the child may refuse give the statement.
Meanwhile, delays in the criminal justice procedure can cause memories to fade, making it impossible tocollect credible evidence. Lacking in many jurisdictions, support services for child victims and witnesses are
crucial to adequate fact-finding because these services provide children with the sense of security they needto tell their stories and the counselling they need to heal.
To overcome these challenges, the group identified 12 recommendations to improve interviewing of childvictims and witnesses: (1) the drafting of standard operating procedure manuals, (2) reducing the time gap
between the first interview and the giving of testimony, (3) establishing multi-disciplinary investigation
teams, (4) use of separate interview rooms for children, (5) providing interviewers with relevant training, (6)introduction of child-friendly practices, (7) asking questions designed to measure the childʼs memory, (8)asking open-ended questions during interviews, (9) audio or video recording of interviews, (10) use of video
link technology during trial testimony, (11) enhancing legal aid for children, and (12) conducting regulardebriefing for officers to reduce burnout. Finally, because children are less likely than adults to report abuseby filing a formal complaint, law enforcement agencies require legislative support to investigate abuse basedon suspicion.
C. The 164th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 164th International Training Course was held from 14 August to 23 September 2016. The main theme
was “Effective Measures for Treatment, Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration of Juvenile Offenders”.
Twenty-four overseas participants (including two observers) and seven Japanese participants attended.
2.

Methodology
The participants of the 164th Course endeavoured to explore the topic primarily through a comparative
analysis of the current situation and the problems encountered. The participantsʼ 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 three groups.
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson (s), rapporteur and co-rapporteur (s) to organize the8MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

discussions. 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. 101.
3.

Outcome Summary(i) Dealing with Children: Diversion, Court Action, Cooperation
Group 1 focused on the role of diversion in the rehabilitation of juveniles in conflict with the law within thecontext of the participating countriesʼ juvenile justice systems and the international standards set forth in the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”).
Due to factors such as environment, lack of experience and stage of mental development, juveniles inconflict with the law are particularly responsive to rehabilitative and social reintegration approaches.
Measures that divert these juveniles from the traditional criminal justice system are more effective than a
traditional retributive approach. Thus, diversion redirects juveniles to the community support services theyneed to get their lives back on track.
The Beijing Rules establish standards for the administration of juvenile justice, and one of the fundamental
concepts is the establishment of a competent judicial authority, such as family or juvenile courts, thatspecializes in handling cases involving juveniles. Other key principles of a fair and effective juvenile justicesystem include: involvement of parents, guardians and legal counsel; the use of social inquiry reports; avariety of disposition measures so as to avoid institutionalization to the greatest extent possible; avoidance of
unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases; ensuring the confidentiality of case records involving juveniles;
and the need for professionalism and training for juvenile justice practitioners.
The group stressed the importance of inter-organizational cooperation with related governmental
agencies and other criminal justice practitioners, such as the police, prosecutors, the courts, probation, andjuvenile correctional facilities. Such cooperation is necessary for the smooth functioning of the juvenile justicesystem, and all countries reported some level of interaction between these agencies. Furthermore, all groupmembers agreed that public-private partnerships can support rehabilitation through the establishment ofprivate halfway houses, finding employment for juveniles and teaching them vocational skills, organizing
volunteers to support rehabilitation, and so on.
The treatment, rehabilitation and social reintegration of juveniles into society requires a holistic approachon the part of all stakeholders of the criminal justice system, as well as the active participation of thecommunity and the private sector. To ensure that these goals are met, the group recommended, among
others, (1) the use of enlightening and educational diversion programmes tailored to juveniles, (2) promoting
volunteerism to encourage citizens to work with juveniles, (3) information sharing by and between
governmental agencies and the private sector to enhance services provided to juveniles, and (4) the collectionof data on recidivism to assess current diversion methods.
(ii) The Ideal Juvenile Justice Model, Key Innovations and Practices
The group members considered the ideal model for juvenile justice by focusing on four main themes: (1)procedures for appropriate treatment; (2) risk/needs assessment and treatment programmes; (3) reintegration; and (4) inter-agency cooperation and governmental support.
Appropriate treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law requires specialized juvenile justice personnel,
such as police, prosecutors, family/juvenile courts, rehabilitation centres, and professional and volunteer
probation officers. The group identified the challenges of the lack of appropriate legislation, budget and skilledhuman resources. Additionally, more efforts should be taken to consider the rights of victims throughout thejuvenile justice process.
Risk/needs assessment was identified as a key component of an ideal juvenile justice system. Low risk
juveniles can be treated in the community while high risk juveniles can be treated in an institution to ensure
the best outcomes. While some countries have advanced standardized assessment tools to guide thetreatment of juveniles in conflict with the law, some countries have no tools at all. The group suggested that
9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2016

countries without advanced tools perform a S. W. O. T. analysis to assess the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats with respect to juveniles in need to treatment. Once an assessment is conducted,
treatment programmes such as life skills training with a focus on criminogenic needs, emotional developmenttraining and vocational training can be implemented as appropriate. Other novel approaches discussed by thegroup include initiatives to improve juvenilesʼ self-reliance and decision-making abilities and the practice ofincluding various members from the juvenilesʼ communities, such as village elders, police officers and social
welfare officials, in the process of diversion and treatment.
The group members agreed that the purpose of criminal sanctions should be the successful reintegrationof the offender upon release, noting that juveniles in conflict with the law face numerous challenges during
the process of reintegration into society. These challenges include the lack of resources, employment andsocial support, psychological problems, and difficulty dealing with the transition period, including dealing withsocial stigma. Noting that an ideal system would allow the individual to return to society with a “reinvented”
identity, practices such as pre-release and re-entry programmes and family support measures weresuggested as measures to facilitate reintegration.
Inter-agency cooperation and governmental support are also important to facilitate reintegration. Key
practices identified by the group include the sharing of information between agencies through shared
databases, the establishment of funds aimed at assisting ex-offenders upon their release, the implementationof risk management models, and human-resources exchanges between relevant agencies. Private sector
support was also encouraged through the establishment of partnerships with businesses, non-profit
organizations and faith-based organizations.
(iii) Social Reintegration
Group 3 addressed the challenges of social reintegration of juveniles in conflict with the law. The groupmembers agreed that detention is not always the appropriate way to deal with juvenile offenders, and, thus,
they proposed solutions in reference to the following points: diversion and alternative sentencing; crime
prevention; and inter-agency cooperation with the community and the private sector.
Diversion, as described in the Beijing Rules, is a process through which the police, prosecutors and otheragencies are empowered to dispose of cases involving juveniles without proceeding to a formal hearing.
Diversion measures include cautioning, reparations, restorative justice measures, etc. Alternative sentencing
is applied to juveniles who have been formally processed through the juvenile justice system, and thesemeasures avoid typical custodial sentences. Alternative sentencing measures include probation, community
service, conditional or unconditional discharge, training and rehabilitation treatment.
The group identified challenges facing social reintegration of juveniles, particularly stigmatization, lack of
employment opportunities, lack of professionals with specialized skills and knowledge, the lack of availabilityof community resources, etc. To address these challenges, Group 3 proposed the promotion of diversion andalternative measures through professional training and use of the media, relying on volunteers to supplement
the work of trained professionals, and adopting legislation that formalizes the use of diversion and alternative
sentencing.
Some countries reported that they lack specific laws and strategies relating to crime prevention at thenational level. It was also recognized that where such laws exist, it is often the case that crime prevention
programmes lack sufficient resources and are not coordinated or sustained by various agencies involved. The
group stressed the importance public awareness and education to promote crime prevention and social
reintegration. These measures should be directed both at juveniles in conflict with the law and the generalpublic through various methods including community supervision, annual crime prevention campaigns, anduse of the electronic and print media.
Finally, the group agreed that inter-agency cooperation with non-governmental agencies, as well as
governmental agencies, is important to foster the social reintegration of juveniles. Nevertheless, many
countries lack policy guidelines and legislation, lack of awareness, and lack of sufficient resources. Countries
should develop strategies, legislation and procedures for inter-agency cooperation, increase resources andincentives for such cooperation, and involve the community in seeking solutions.

10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. The Third UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries
The third criminal justice training programme for French-speaking African countries was hosted by
UNAFEI in Abidjan, Cote dʼIvoire from 15-26 February. 31 practitioners from 8 French-speaking Africancountries discussed capacity-building for investigation, prosecution and adjudication, and measures against
terrorism and organized crime.
B. The Seminar on Developing Standards on Community-based Treatment in ASEAN
From 2 to 4 March 2016 in Bangkok, Thailand, the Department of Probation of the Ministry of Justice ofThailand (DOP), the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ), and UNAFEI hosted the Seminar on DevelopingStandards on Community-based Treatment in ASEAN: Focusing on Treatment for Drug Use / Dependence
Offenders. 26 senior officials from 10 ASEAN member States and Japan shared information on needs andchallenges in community-based treatment.
C. The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal was held from 7 to 18 March, and
10 officials from Nepal studied effective measures of criminal procedure, including investigation, prosecution
and trial.
D. Training Seminar for Prison Officials in Myanmar
The UNODC and Asia and Far East Institute training seminar for prison officials in Myanmar was held
during two sessions from 6 June-15 July and 15 November-2 December. 231 participants studied prison
management in line with international standards and norms.
E. The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam 2016 RTI - SPP Exchange Programme(Japan Session)
During the third training course on legal technical assistance for Viet Nam (4-15 July) and the joint study
on the legal systems of Japan and Viet Nam (11-15 July), 12 officials from Viet Nam discussed problems
related to the enforcement of the amended code of criminal procedure in Viet Nam
F. The Tenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 26 to 28 July 2016, UNAFEI held the Tenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. The main theme of the Seminar was “Contemporary Measures for Effective International
Cooperation”. 21 practitioners from 10 ASEAN member States discussed contemporary measures for
effective international cooperation in the field of anti-corruption.
G. The Study Tour for Prison Officers in Myanmar
During the training course for prison officials from Myanmar in Japan (7-13 September), five prison
officials from Myanmar studied prison management and training for prison officials in Japan.
H. The 19th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEIʼs annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme, took
place from 12 October to 17 November 2016. The main theme of the Programme is “Effective AntiCorruption Enforcement (Investigation and Prosecution) in the Area of Procurement”. 30 practitioners from26 countries discussed effective anti-corruption enforcement (investigation and prosecution) in the area of
public procurement.

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

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2016

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 2016, the 98th, 99th and 100th editionsof the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 149 to 151 (from the 162nd Senior
Seminar to the 164th International Training Course, respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published,which include a brief report on each course and seminar and other timely information. These publications arealso available on UNAFEIʼs website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 29 January 2016, 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 162nd International Senior Seminar. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes increase the publicʼs awareness of criminal justice issues throughcomparative international study by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2016, Professor Robert
Canton of De Montfort University in Leicester, United Kingdom, and Ms. Diane Williams, President Emeritus
of Safer Foundation in Chicago, Illinois, United States, were invited as speakers. They presented papers
entitled “The Future of Community Penalties” and “Improving Efficiency and Outcomes ThroughCollaborations: an NGO Perspective”, respectively.
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,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
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Beijing, China from 27 to 28 January 2016 to serve as alecturer at a workshop on the structure and function of courts and prosecution offices held by JICA in
collaboration with the Office of State Law, the Legislative Affairs Commission, and the Standing Committee
at the National Peopleʼs Congress (NPC) of China.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro and Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Bangkok, Thailand andYangon, Myanmar to research the criminal justice systems in Myanmar and to discuss the “Myanmar
Country Programme” with related organizations.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Hanoi, Viet Nam and Yogyakarta and Jakarta, Indonesia to discuss
the “Tenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries” with related organizations.
Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Seoul, Korea from 13 to 19 March 2016 to attend the 5th Asian
Conference of Correctional Facilities Architects and Planners (ACCFA).
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Bangkok, Thailand from 11 to 13 May 2016 to attend the Expert
Meeting on the Nexus between Organized Crime and Terrorism as a threat to Security and Development
hosted by the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) and the Thailand
Institute of Justice (TIJ).
Director SENTA Keisuke and Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Vienna, Austria from 23 to 27
May 2016 to attend the 25th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro and Professor YAMAMOTO Mana visited Helsinki, Finland from 12
to 18 June to attend the expertsʼ meeting of the International Penal and Penitentiary Foundation (IPPF).

12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Professor MINOURA Satoshi and AKASHI Fumiko visited Beijing, China from 17 to 19 June to attend theAsia Criminology Society 8th Annual Conference.
Professor YAMAMOTO Mana visited Manila, Philippines from 27 to 30 July to attend the workshop on
developing effective intake, risk assessment, and monitoring tools and strategies for incarcerated terrorist
offenders held by the Global Counter Terrorism Forum (GCTF).
Professor MINOURA Satoshi visited Bangkok, Thailand from 15 to 19 August to attend the seminar on
treatment of offenders in the ASEAN region.
Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Yangon, Myanmar and Bangkok, Thailand from 28 August to 3
September to discuss plans for the UNODC-UNAFEI Seminar for Myanmar Prison Officials in FY2017.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Abidjan, Cote dʼlvoire from 17 to 24 September 2016 to discussplans for the fourth UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited Toronto, Canada from 1 to 9
October 2016 to attend the International Community Corrections Association (ICCA) 24th Annual
International Research Conference.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia from 4 to 8 October 2016 to attend
UNODC workshops as a visiting expert.
Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Tianjin, China from 15 to 22 October 2016 to attend the 36th Asianand Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators (APPCA) Conference.
Professor YAMAMOTO Mana and Professor MINOURA Satoshi visited Bucharest, Romania from 21 to30 October 2016 to attend the International Corrections and Prison Association (ICPA) 18th Annual
Conference.
Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Nay Pyi Taw, Yangon and Insein, Myanmar from 7 November to 3
December 2016 to conduct the UNODC-UNAFEI Seminar for Myanmar Prison Officials.
Director SENTA Keisuke, Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro and Professor YAMAMOTO Mana visited
Bangkok, Thailand to attend the PNI Meeting (9 to 11 November 2016) held by the Thailand Institute ofJustice (TIJ). Director SENTA then visited Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam from 13 to 18 November toattend the Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam. Deputy Director MORINAGA visited
Yangon, Myanmar from 10 to 16 November 2016 to join the UNODC-UNAFEI Seminar for Myanmar Prison
Officials with Professor YOSHIMURA.
Professor YAMAMOTO Mana visited Batam, Indonesia from 30 November to 3 December 2016 to attend
the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF)ʼs Detention and Reintegration Working Group.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro, Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor AKASHI Fumiko
visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia and Vientiane, Lao PDR from 7 to 14 December 2016 to conduct a survey on
the status of community-based treatment of offenders. Professor WATANABE and Professor AKASHI thenvisited Bangkok, Thailand from 14 to 17 December 2016 to discuss plans for the Third-Country Group
Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-based Treatment of Offenders in Cambodia,
Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi and Professor HIRANO Nozomu visited Kathmandu, Nepal from 13 to 22
December 2016 to discuss plans for the Comparative Study on the Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and
Nepal.
Professor MINOURA Satoshi visited New Delhi, India from 14 to 20 December to attend the 18th World
Congress of Criminology.

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 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
ACPFʼs 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 theInstitute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine professors are selected from among publicprosecutors, 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 andrelated agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty and Staff Changes
Mr. YAMASHITA Terutoshi, formerly Director of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Supreme Public
Prosecutors Office on 11 April 2016.
Mr. SENTA Keisuke, formerly the Chief Prosecutor of the Saga District Public Prosecutors Office, wasappointed as Director of UNAFEI on 11 April 2016. He was Deputy Director of UNAFEI from 2005 to 2007.
Mr. MORIYA Kazuhiko, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Kurume Branch of the
Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2016.
Mr. YAMADA Masahiro, formerly manager of the Itami Branch of the Kobe District Public Prosecutors
Office, was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2016.
Mr. HIROSE Yusuke, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tachikawa Branch of theTokyo District Court on 1 April 2016.
Mr. HIRANO Nozomu, formerly a judge in the Nagoya District Court, was appointed as a professor of
UNAFEI on 1 April 2016.
Mr. NAGAI Toru, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to Chiba Prison.
Ms. YAMAMOTO Mana, formerly a psychologist in the classification division at Fuchu Prison, wasappointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2016. She is an alumna of the 151st International Training
Course.

VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Instituteʼs budget. UNAFEIʼs total budget for its
programmes is approximately ￥70 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provide assistance for
the Instituteʼs international training courses and seminars.

14