REMARKS BY PROGRAMMING
OFFICER
MAIN ACTIVITIES
1. The 107th International Training Course was conducted at UNAFEI
from 1 September to 20 November 1997 with the main theme, “The Roleand Function of Prosecution.” Twenty-nine participants (overseas: 18,Japanese: 11) attended the Course from various regions of the world.
2. Fundamentally, the rationale of the main theme can be summarized
as follows:
The prosecution of offenders and the appropriate request of punishment
are indispensable procedures in the realization of criminal justice. Theseprosecutorial functions are commonly established in the criminal
procedure of many countries. However, the personnel and organization
authorized to assume these functions, the breadth of their authority, andthe actual practices of prosecution differ among the various criminal
justice systems worldwide. Since prosecution is a fundamental componentof the criminal justice system, it is essential to deliberate on issues relatedwith its proper role and function in order to seek a better prosecution
system and ultimately a better criminal justice system.
Moreover, the role played by the prosecution system in each country
has grown even more important as crime becomes more sophisticatedand organized or new criminal phenomena appear. Thus there is a greatneed for the involvement of prosecutors in the promotion and developmentof national criminal policy by such means as planning and drafting
legislation related to criminal justice.
3. UNAFEI usually selects themes which relate to all fields of criminal
justice, invites participants from these different fields, and discusses
issues from much broader perspectives. This method is commonly called
the “integrated approach”. However, in this 107th International Training
Course, in consideration of participant evaluations in past programmes,
UNAFEI selected the above main theme focusing only on prosecution.
Moreover, the Institute invited overseas participants who were prosecutors
or whose profession was closely related to this field.
Prosecutors selected from prosecutorial organizations attended fromsuch countries as China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, the Philippines, theRepublic of Korea, Sri Lanka and Singapore. Police prosecutors
participated from such nations as Kenya, Ghana and Zambia. From suchcountries as Cameroon, India, Malaysia, Nepal and Pakistan, participantshad prosecution-related duties in their respective Ministry of Justice,Ministry of Interior, Criminal Investigation Department of Police and soon.

35

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1995

Eminent experts were invited from abroad as well as Japan to share
their knowledge and experiences. They too were mainly from theprosecution field.
4. Participants actively engaged in discussions during the IndividualPresentations, lectures by experts and UNAFEI faculty, and the Group
Workshop sessions regarding the role and function of prosecutors at thestages of investigation, initiation of prosecution, trial and so on. Discussion
results are summarized as follows:a. In regards to the investigation authority of prosecutors, there aremainly three types of legal systems: one which grants them authority toinvestigate all kinds of crimes (Japan and the Republic of Korea); one
which allows prosecutors to investigate specific types of crimes (Chinaand Indonesia); and one which does not provide prosecutors with theauthority to investigate (Ghana, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore,
Sri Lanka, Thailand and Zambia). Incidentally, Cameroon adopts a dualsystem: in the region of so-called English-speaking Cameroon, the thirdsystem applies and in the region of so-called French-speaking Cameroon,
the second system prevails.
Also there are countries which have the system of police prosecutors,
namely, India, Ghana, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka andZambia; while other countries are strangers to such system, that is, China,Costa Rica, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
In whatever system, when prosecutors give appropriate instructions
and supervision based on their ample legal knowledge and experience,the standard of quality of police investigation is enhanced. The police
can obtain from prosecutors precise guidelines as to what criminal facts
can be deduced, what evidence should be collected, and who should beprosecuted. Moreover, prosecutors prevent illegal investigation activities
as well as the undue infringement of human rights.
There are countries where prosecutors are given investigation authority
and they independently exercise it. This system helps to preclude politicalinfluence on the development of investigation and prosecution.
b. It is a fundamental mission of the police and prosecutors to selectcases which should proceed to criminal trial. In order to realize criminal
justice, prosecution must be initiated decisively and expeditiously when
there is sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused and criminal
punishment is warranted. At the same time, proceedings should not betaken against a person who is not likely to be found guilty.
36

MAIN ACTIVITIESThe evidentiary standard is not uniform as to when prosecution or nonprosecution is determined: prima facie (India, Kenya, Pakistan and SriLanka); reasonable prospect for obtaining guilty judgment (Singapore);and proof beyond reasonable doubt (China, Japan and the Republic ofKorea).
Prosecutors should make this selection of prosecution or non-prosecution
objectively, legally and independently. The establishment of an
independent prosecutorial organization contributes to guarantee such
desirable exercise of prosecution powers. It is also important to improve
the internal and external checking systems for prosecutorial abuse; toguarantee the systematic independence of prosecution; and to secure
capable human resources through sound appointment practices andcontinued education.
Even if there is sufficient evidence to prove the accused guilty, it may
not always necessary to impose punishment on him. In such cases, thesystem of suspension of prosecution is of great use, as is employed insuch countries as Japan and the Republic of Korea. Such a decision ismade by public prosecutors on the merits of each individual case. Saidsystem has contributed to preventing the unnecessary imposition ofpunishment, reducing the number of cases handled by the courts, andmitigating the overcrowding situation in prisons and jails. Therefore,barring insurmountable hindrances, it is worthwhile for some countries
to introduce this system.
c. In regards to judgment by the courts, some jurisdictions enjoy ahigh conviction rate (Indonesia, Japan and the Republic Korea), but others
suffer from a low conviction rate (India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka).
There are conceivable circumstances which lead to such differences: theability of investigation agencies to collect evidence; the evidentiarystandard for indicting a suspect; the exactness of selection of cases byprosecutors for bringing cases to the courts; the strictness of rules ofevidence; the credibility of witness testimony; and the speediness of trial.
The conviction rate cannot be the sole and absolute standard, but it isan indicator for measuring how effectively the criminal justice system
functions. It shows the results of effective investigation, the precise
selection of cases for trial, and the prosecution’s appropriate performancein the courts. Too low of a conviction rate reflects unsuccessful endeavors
at any of these stages.
Prosecutors must play an important role in realizing speedy trial. The
causes of trial delays are manifold. For example, some derive from the37ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1995

court’s organization and its administration of cases (shortage of judges,sporadic trial dates, etc.); others relate to prosecution’s activities (lack ofpreparation, inappropriate assessment of cases, etc.); some are caused
causes by the defence (dilatory tactics, uncooperative attitude, etc.); andothers include such issues as the non-appearance of witnesses. Whatever
the circumstances, prosecutors are required to make a plan forestablishing their case, to sufficiently prepare the necessary proof, andto secure witnesses to appear in the courts.
In addition, prosecutors should contribute to securing an appropriate
sentence by proffering sufficient evidence to the court of first instance toassist in its decision-making or even, when necessary, making an appeal
to a higher court.
5. It is my firm belief that, by creating a forum of participants mainly
from the prosecution field, the 107th International Training Course
profoundly and substantially discussed the current problems in the areaof prosecution and successfully identified some effective countermeasures.
In particular, the participants comparatively studied the characteristicfeatures of the various prosecution systems represented in the Course,and compiled concrete means for the improvement of their own respectivesystems.
The materials provided in this volume carry salient features of theCourse materials and discussion results, but of course are not exhaustiveof the entire results of the Course. As to administrative information
concerning this Course, please refer to UNAFEI Newsletter No. 94.
I applaud all the participants of the 107th International Training Course
for their tireless dedication to achieve better training results, thereby
contributing to the development of criminal justice throughout the world.
I also extend my deep appreciation to all the people concerned whoprovided valuable assistance to the successful completion of the Course.
I sincerely hope that the day will come in the near future when theseeds of knowledge sown during the 107th International Training Coursebear fruit in the form of the better administration of criminal justice inthe respective countries of the participants.

Yuzuru Takahashi
107th Course Programming Officer andChief of Training Division38