MAIN ACTIVITIESMAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 1997 - 31 December 1997)
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 1961 pursuant to an agreement
between the United Nations and the Government of Japan. Its goal is to contribute tosound social development in Asia and the Pacific region by promoting regional cooperationin the field of crime prevention and criminal justice through training and research.
UNAFEI has paid the utmost attention to the priority themes identified by theCommission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its first session. 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., drug trafficking, drug abuse, organized crime, corruption, prison
overcrowding and juvenile delinquency) 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 Institute’s work programmes. In
the international training courses and seminars, participants discuss and study pressing
problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen
their understanding, with the help of lectures and advice by 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 (duration: threemonths) and one international seminar (duration: one month). Approximately 60
government officials from various overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA; a governmental agency for ODA programmes)
each year to participate in UNAFEI training programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japaneseparticipants. Overseas participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also
from the Middle and Near East, Latin America and Africa. These participants areexperienced practitioners and top-level administrators holding relatively senior positions
in criminal justice fields.
During its 36 years of existence, UNAFEI has conducted a total of 107 international
training courses and seminars, in which approximately 2,593 criminal justice personnel
have participated, representing 89 different countries. In their respective countries,
UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and holding important posts in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders and in related organizations.

3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1997
A. The 105th International Seminar
1. Introduction
From 27 January to 28 February 1997, 25 participants from 19 countries attended
the 105th International Seminar to examine the main theme of “The Effective
Administration of Criminal Justice for the Prevention of Corruption by Public Officials.”
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants respectively introduced their countries’ experiences
regarding corruption. Secondly, General Discussion sessions in the conference hall
examined the subtopics of the main theme. In sum, the causes and dynamics of corruption
were analyzed in order to seek concrete countermeasures. In order to conduct eachsession effeciently, the participants were divided into the following six groups under
the guidance of faculty advisers:
Topic 1: Current Situation of Corruption by Public Officials,
Topic 2: The Importance of the Independence and Neutrality of Investigative Agencies,
Topic 3: Corruption by Public Officials: Current Problems in Administrating Criminal
Justice and Solutions in General at the Investigation Stage,
Topic 4: Current Problems in Administrating Criminal Justice and Their Solutions
in Regards to Corruption by Public Officials at the Trial Stage,
Topic 5: General Measures to Prevent Corruption, andTopic 6: Corruption in the Criminal Justice System and Preventive Measures.
Each group elected a chairperson and rapporteur to organize the discussions.
Subsequently in the conference hall, all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty
seriously studied the designated subtopics and exchanged views. Final reports werecomplied based on said discussion, which were ultimately adopted as the reports of the
Seminar. These reports will be printed in their entirety in UNAFEI Resource Material
Series No. 52.
3. Outcome Summary
Regrettably, whether in developed or developing countries, some form of corruption
exists at all levels of government—including the criminal justice system. Of course, theideal solution would be to seek measures towards the eradication of corruption. However,such a task would be practically unrealistic. Thus, it is incumbent on the criminal
justice system of each country to fight corruption effectively as the second best option.
The complexity and the different facets of corruption made discussions quite
challenging. Obstacles included such factors as the absence of a clear and universal
definition of corruption and the multitude of interrelated causal factors (e.g., different
political systems, criminal justice systems, cultural values and beliefs, economic
development, etc.).
First and foremost, a sustained drive against bribery and corruption requires a wholly
independent and neutral investigative agency and judiciary. This should be sought inaccordance with the situation of the country, whether resulting in the establishment of
new agencies and courts or improving existing ones.
As to countermeasures, greater transparency is suggested at the recruitment andpromotion stages in order to prevent such factors as nepotism, favoritism, political

4

MAIN ACTIVITIESinterference and bribery. A code of conduct and ethical standards should be adopted
also and stringently enforced. Other measures considered to be notable include effective
training programs, good working conditions guaranteed by a high salary and allowances,internal and external inspection, and the use of job rotation and job enrichment as
administrative tools. Also recommended is a system similar to the ombudsman office ofsome countries.
Additionally, the adoption of a system requiring the periodic submission andpublication of an official’s statement of assets and liabilities is seen as a strong
anticipatory measure to hinder the commission of corruption. Finally, it is reiterated
that a penalty system that is commensurate with the tremendous power andresponsibility placed upon the hands and shoulders of public officials should be put inplace as a deterrent to the commission of corruption.
However, even the implementation of all of the above measures would not suffice tocontrol corruption without the involvement of the public. To this end, public education
campaigns regarding corruption and the debilitating effects of corruption on their daily
lives would go a long way to sustaining the drive against this menace. Equally importantis establishing measures which encourage the public to play a proactive role in identifying
areas of corruption yet protect their privacy interests such as “Whistle Blowing” and“P.O. Box” systems.
B. The 106th International Training Course
1. Introduction
UNAFEI conducted the 106th International Training Course (from 14 April to 4 July1997) with the main theme, “The Quest for Effective Juvenile Justice Administration.”
This Course consisted of 29 participants from 19 countries.
The Institute’s selection of this theme reflects its concerns that juvenile delinquency
is becoming increasingly serious and rampant in the world, and that juveniles committing
heinous offences are becoming younger and younger and coming from all walks of life.
Criminal justice practitioners should seriously cope with such situations by improving
the juvenile justice administration.
2. Methodology
The participants identified the causes and nature of juvenile delinquency and searched
for effective countermeasures and prevention activities. Also considered were the proper
dispositions and treatment programs for juvenile delinquents, making reference to therole, use and application of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules).
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and theGroup Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation,
problems and future prospects of his respective country with respect to the main themeof the Course. The Group Workshops further examined the subtopics of the main theme.
To facilitate discussions, the participants were divided into the following three groups
under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Current Situation and Preventive Measures,Group 2: Dispositions Rendered by Criminal Justice Agencies, andGroup 3: Institutional Treatment and Community-Based Programmes.
5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1997
Each group elected a chairperson(s) and rapporteur(s) to organize the discussions.
The group members seriously studied the designated subtopics and exchanged theirviews based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual
Presentations, lectures and so forth. Nineteen sessions were allocated for Groupdiscussion.
In the eighth week, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of theGroup Workshop reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final
Plenary Meetings in the tenth week, drafts of the Group Workshop reports were examined
and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Based on these discussions,
the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back Session,
where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The full texts of the reports will
be published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 52.
3. Outcome Summary
The lack of a universally recognized definition for “juvenile” places limitations on
responses to the problem of juvenile delinquency worldwide. Moreover, the lack of astandard reference age makes comparative international evaluations difficult.
Juvenile delinquency cannot be entirely considered a criminal justice-related problem.
In effect there is ample evidence to suggest that delinquency is just one aspect of larger
antisocial behavior. Traditionally problems of juveniles were managed by the family
and extended family structures. However, increasingly the state has had to adopt arole in loco parentis. Consequently, special training on juvenile delinquency should be
imparted to criminal justice officers in order to create better understanding andcoordination amongst them to cope uniformly with such problems.
The need to establish a juvenile court system in the respective countries withprofessionally qualified personnel, as well as broad jurisdiction and decision-making
power, was emphasized by the participants as a major step in the improvement of thejuvenile justice system. Also underscored was the need for police or public prosecutors
to perform the prosecution role in juvenile courts to alleviate the difficulty of fact-finding,especially in a plea of not guilty.
Diversion has the major advantage of minimizing the stigmatization of the juvenile
offender. Moreover, aware of the fact that research suggests that the majority ofdelinquent children rarely re-offend, the participants were convinced that it should be
encouraged to minimize the adverse effects of the juvenile justice system.
The police cautioning programs in Australia and the suspension of prosecution ofjuvenile offenders on the condition of parental guidance in the Republic of Korea provide
good examples of diversion by the police and public prosecutors. Additionally, the disposalof juvenile offenders by agencies outside the criminal justice system like the family
conference system of New Zealand and the mediation system in Germany were seen as
good diversion measures.
In regards to criminal punishment, deprivation of liberty should be of the last resort,
limited to those cases in which a juvenile has been adjudicated of a serious act involving
violence against another person or persists in committing other serious offences andthere is not any other appropriate response.

6MAIN ACTIVITIES
If a juvenile is institutionalized, the loss of liberty must be restricted to the minimum
possible degree with special institutional arrangements for confinement and differences
in kinds of offenders, offences and institutions. Additionally, more attention andimportance should be given to the treatment of the juvenile delinquent than to his
punishment. The objective of an institution should be to provide the juvenile with care,
protection, education and vocational skills with a view to assisting him to become agood and law-abiding citizen.
C. The 107th Inernational Training Course
1. Introduction
From 1 September to 21 November 1997, UNAFEI conducted the 107th International
Training Course with the main theme, “The Role and Function of Prosecution in the
Criminal Justice.” This Course consisted of 29 participants from 19 countries.
2. Methodology
Although the degree of prosecutors’ authority and responsibility varies from country
to country, it is commonly recognized that they play a crucial role in the effective andefficient administration of criminal justice. A large number of countries suffer from a
low conviction rate, shortage of staff, delayed proceedings in investigation and trial,and overcrowding. Based on such actual and specific problems faced by each country,
the 107th Course participants explored solutions to further improve prosecution systems
and practices from the prosecutors’ point of view, which would thereby contribute to thedevelopment of the whole criminal justice system. Particularly, during this Training
Course, the role and function of prosecutors at the stages of investigation, initiation ofprosecution and trial were extensively deliberated.
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and theGroup Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation,
problems and future prospects of his respective country with respect to the main themeof the Course. The Group Workshops further examined the subtopics of the main theme.
To facilitate discussions, the participants were divided into the following three groups
under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: The Relationship of the Prosecution with the Police and Investigative
Responsibility,
Group 2: The Role of Prosecution in the Screening of Criminal Cases, andGroup 3: Issues Concerning Prosecution in Relation to Conviction, Speedy Trial and
Sentencing.
Each group elected a chairperson(s) and rapporteur(s) to organize the discussions.
The group members seriously studied the designated subtopics and exchanged theirviews based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual
Presentations, lectures and so forth. Nineteen sessions were allocated for Groupdiscussion.
In the eighth week, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of theGroup Workshop reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final
Plenary Meetings in the tenth week, drafts of the Group Workshop reports were examined
and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Based on these discussions,7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1997
the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back Session,
where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports will be published infull in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 53.
3. Outcome Summary
Unquestionably, there is a need for sustained cooperation between prosecutors,
investigating agencies, defense counsel, judges, support staff and all persons involvedin the administration of criminal justice. In particular, investigation and prosecution
are fundamentally linked. In countries where prosecutors have an authorized role inpolice investigation or where they have the authority to investigate, the results ofinvestigation are good and the conviction rate is higher than in countries whereprosecutors are afforded neither role. For example, in Singapore, Sri Lanka andThailand, prosecutors can only depend on the police’s files in coming to a decision ofwhether to prosecute or not. However, coupled with the lack of coordination between
the police and prosecution, such practice often results in insufficient evidence due topoor investigation and consequently inadequate trial preparation.
Additionally, prosecution in many countries plays a very vital role in case screening.
In essence, prosecution acts as a quasi-judicial entity, operating at an intermediate
position between the Executive and the Judiciary. The participants identified several
presecution-related problems that affect screening such as a lack of investigative skills
and expertise due to the absence of powers of investigations.
The participants recommended enhancing the discretion of the prosecution towithdraw prosecution. In some deserving cases, the withdrawal of prosecution would
give offenders a chance to reform and reintegrate into society. It would also prevent
overloading the court with unnecessary and trivial cases, as well as the overcrowding ofprisons. However, the practice of withdrawal of prosecution should be safeguarded so
as to ensure transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
The importance of the role played by the prosecutor in a criminal trial cannot be
overemphasized. Prosecutors also have a professional duty as representatives of the
public interest to ensure that the appropriate sentence is meted out by the court. It is
for this reason that prosecutors in most jurisdictions are required to assist the courts bydisclosing as much information as possible relating to sentencing. Nonetheless, theparticipants discussed some problems which adversely affect appropriate sentencing,such as (1) the court’s failure to consider the opinion of the prosecutor; (2) the prosecutor
always requesting the maximum punishment; and (3) the police and the prosecutor
lacking information about the defendant’s past criminal record.
Finally, adequate initial and continued professional training are necessary for theefficient and diligent performance of prosecutorial functions. Furthermore, probity should
be a requisite for admission into the profession. Prosecutors should adhere to theestablished professional ethics throughout their career. The participants also recognized
the importance of the institution of police prosecutors in some jurisdictions. However it
was stressed that police prosecutors should receive sufficient legal training, since many
are not law graduates.

8

MAIN ACTIVITIES
III. THIRD SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIOR CRIMINAL JUSTICEOFFICIALS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINAThe Third Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s
Republic of China was conducted from 1 to 19 December 1997 with the main theme of“The Quest for Effective Juvenile Justice Administration”. Ten senior criminal justiceofficials and the UNAFEI faculty comparatively discussed the problems faced by Japanand China in the realization of criminal justice, with particular attention to juvenile
justice issues.
IV. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
A. Joint Seminars
Since 1981, UNAFEI has conduced 17 joint seminars under the auspices of JICA andin collaboration with host governments in Asia including China, the Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines. With the participation of policy-makers
and high-ranking administrators, including members of academia, the joint seminars
attempt to provide a discussion forum in which participants can share their views andjointly seek solutions to various problems currently facing criminal justice administrationin both the host country and Japan.
In March 1997, UNAFEI was to have held the Bangladesh-UNAFEI Joint Seminarin the Bangladeshi capital city of Dhaka. Unfortunately, unexpected budgets cuts by
JICA at the end of the fiscal year prevented the realization of the Joint Seminar. The
Bangladesh-UNAFEI Joint Seminar has been rescheduled for March 1998.
B. Regional Training Programmes
1. Thailand
In January 1997, UNAFEI dispatched two experts to Thailand to assist the Office of
the Narcotic Control Board (ONCB) in organizing the Fifth Regional Training Course
on Effective Countermeasures against Drug Offences and the Advancement of Criminal
Justice Administration. The training course was held with the cooperation of JICA andthe Royal Thai Government. Participants from various Asian-Pacific countries attended
this two-week seminar and discussed such issues as the implementation of the Vienna
Convention in their respective countries and international cooperation based upon theConvention, as well as the improvement of investigative techniques.
2. Costa Rica
From 28 July to 8 August 1997, UNAFEI assisted the Latin American Institute for
the Prevention and the Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD) in organizing the Tenth
Regional Seminar, “Effective Measures for Combatting Drug-related Crimes andImproving the Administration of Criminal Justice” in San Josè, Costa Rica. The seminar
was held with the cooperation of JICA and the Government of Costa Rica. About 20
representatives from Latin America and the Caribbean, mostly high-ranking judges,
public prosecutors and administrators were invited to ILANUD. With the help of several
experts on drug offences, including the Deputy Director and a professor of UNAFEI, therepresentatives exchanged views on tackling drug-related offences, including money
laundering.

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1997
V. COMPARATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT
Reflecting its emphasis on the systematic relevance of training activities and priority
themes identified by the Commission at its first session, the research activities of theInstitute are designed to meet practical needs, including those for training materials
for criminal justice personnel. For example, UNAFEI is updating its research byrequesting several experts from countries in the Asia-Pacific region to report on theirrespective probation systems. UNAFEI will subsequently compile and publish thesereports for international distribution in a book tenatively titled “Criminal Justice Profilesof Asia: Probation”.
VI. 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 andseminars. The Information and Library Service of the Institute has been providing,upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies, governmentalorganizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.
VII. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute.
Since 1971, the Institute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains
contributions by the faculty members, visiting experts and participants of UNAFEI. In
1997, the 49th and 50th editions of the Resource Material Series were published.
Additionally, issues 92 to 94 of the UNAFEI Newsletter include a brief report on eachcourse and seminar (from the 105th to the 107th respectively) and provide other timely
information.
VIII. THE NINTH MEETING OF THE AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF
EXPERTS ON UNAFEI WORK PROGRAMMES AND DIRECTIONSThe Ninth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee of Experts on UNAFEI Work
Programmes and Directions convened on 27 October 1997. The experts comprised
distinguished criminal justice officials from the United Nations, overseas and Japan.
The purpose of the meeting was twofold: to review and assess the work accomplishedby UNAFEI in the past, and to consider proposals to improve and enhance future
programmes.
The Report of the Ninth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee of Experts on
UNAFEI Work Programmes and Directions will be published in its entirety in Resource
Material Series No. 53.

10

MAIN ACTIVITIESIX. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 12 February 1997, the Public Lecture Programme was conducted in the Grand
Conference Hall of the Ministry of Justice. In attendance were many distinguishedguests, UNAFEI alumni and the 105th International Seminar participants. This
Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF),
the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes purport to increase the public’s awareness of criminal
justice issues through comparative international study by inviting distinguished speakers
from abroad. This year, the Programme sponsors invited Dr. Prasit Damrongchai(Secretary General, Office of the Commission of Counter Corruption, Kingdom ofThailand) and Dr. David L. Carter (Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan
State University, United States of America). Their lectures were entitled “Money
Laundering Law and Corruption Investigation” and “The Identification and Preventionof Police Corruption”, respectively.
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in various countries have commenced or areabout to commence research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is,therefore, one of the important tasks of UNAFEI to support these contributions toimprove the crime situation.
C. Overseas Missions
Mr. Toichi Fujiwara (Director) and Ms. Kayo Konagai (Professor) visited Hong Kong
to attend the Pacific Rim Regional Conference, “Re-integration of Discharged Prisoners:
Rehabilitation, Employment and Prevention of Recidivism”. In a keynote address,
Director Fujiwara discussed the general activities of UNAFEI. Professor Konagai
delivered a lecture entitled “The Japanese Approaches to Facilitate the Re-integrationof Discharged Prisoners into the Community” in Plenary Session 1. Additionally, they
visited various Hong Kong criminal justice agencies during their stay.
Mr. Terutoshi Yamashita (Professor) and Mr. Ryosuke Kurosawa (Professor) attended
the Fifth Regional Training Course on Effective Countermeasures against Drug Offenses
and Advancement of Criminal Justice Administration in Bangkok, Thailand. Mr.
Yamashita contributed to the course from 19 to 26 January 1997, and Mr. Kurosawa
assisted from 16 January to 1 February 1997. They delivered lectures respectively
entitled “Confiscation of Illicit Proceeds and Anti-Money Laundering Law of Japan”
and “Treatment of Drug Abused Offenders in Asia and the Pacific”. Additionally, they
visited various Thai criminal justice agencies during their stay.
Mr. Mikinao Kitada (Deputy Director) attended an organizational meeting at theUnited Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch in Vienna, Austria from
8 to 16 February 1997. The meeting concerned a United Nations project entitled“Information-Gathering and Analysis of Firearms Regulation.” This project focuses on
the regional and international exchange of data and information on firearms regulation.
It will also assist the United Nations Secretariat in pursuing the possible establishmentof a database and biennial publication of relevant reports. The Deputy Director attended
in his capacity as Project Expert for the Asia-Pacific region.

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1997
Mr. Yuzuru Takahashi (Professor) and Mr. Chiaki Iizuka (Administrative Staff) visited
three Southeast Asian countries in preparation for the 107th International Training
Course. Specifically, Mr. Takahashi traveled to Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia from
8 to 22 March to study the unique prosecution systems of these respective nations.
Ms. Tomoko Akane (Professor) attended the Fortieth Session of the Commission on
Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations Economic and Social Council in Vienna, Austria
from 17 to 29 March 1997. Ms. Akane attended various plenary meetings and focused
primarily upon issues relating to the implementation of international drug control
treaties and money laundering.
Mr. Toichi Fujiwara (Director) attended the Sixth Session of the United Nations
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Vienna, Austria from 28
April to 12 May 1997. During a plenary meeting, the Director delivered a statement
regarding the recent activities of UNAFEI.
Mr. Toichi Fujiwara (Director) and Mr. Hiroyuki Yoshida (Professor) visited thePhilippines from 30 May to 2 June 1997 to attend the inauguration and turn-overceremonies for the first halfway house established in that nation. This event, known as
the Muntinlupa Project, involved the joint efforts of various organizations including thePhilippine Department of Justice and ACPF.
Mr. Terutoshi Yamashita (Professor) in his capacity as UNAFEI-ACPF Liaison Officer
attended the ACPF Working Group Meeting on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Matters held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 27 to 31 May 1997.
Mr. Toichi Fujiwara (Director) and Mr. Ryosuke Kurosawa (Professor) visited four
Southeast Asian countries from 13 to 28 July 1997. Specifically, they traveled toIndonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand to study the unique criminal justicesystems of these respective nations. During their visits, UNAFEI Alumni Association
receptions were held in each of the countries.
Mr. Masahiro Tauchi (Deputy Director) and Ms. Tomoko Akane (Professor), attended
the Tenth Regional Seminar, “Effective Measures for Combatting Drug-related Crimes
and Improving the Administration of Criminal Justice” in San José, Costa Rica from 28
July to 8 August 1997. They presented papers respectively entitled “The Confiscationof Drug Trafficking Proceeds” and “Effective Countermeasures against Drug Trafficking:Anti-Money Laundering Policies, Legislation and Practices by Law Enforcement”. The
seminar was organized by the United Nations Latin American Institute for thePrevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD), under the sponsorshipof the Government of Costa Rica, JICA, UNAFEI and the Supreme Court of Costa Rica.
Mr. Toichi Fujiwara (Director) and Mr. Masahiro Tauchi (Deputy Director) served as
members of the Japanese Evaluation Team of the ten ILANUD Regional Seminars,
which have been conducted in Costa Rica since 1989. Towards this purpose, a series ofmeetings were held in San José, Costa Rica from 7 to 15 August 1997 in collaboration
with representatives of ILANUD and the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The
team, headed by Mr. Fujiwara, also comprised JICA officials, specifically, Mr. Osamu
Makino and Mr. Masahiro Nakai.

12

MAIN ACTIVITIES
Mr. Terutoshi Yamashita (Professor) attended the Second Annual Conference andGeneral Meeting of the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) held in Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada from 2 to 6 September 1997. During the Workshop “A View from
Asia”, Mr. Yamashita made a short presentation concerning the role of UNAFEI ininternational cooperation.
Mr. Masahiro Tauchi (Deputy Director) attended the Twelfth Co-ordination Meetingof the Network of U.N. Institutes in Courmayeur Mont Blanc, Italy from 2 to 3 October
1997.
Mr. Masahiro Tauchi (Deputy Director) attended the International Scientific andProfessional Advisory Council of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme (ISPAC) International Conference, “Violent Crime and Conflict:
Towards Early Warning and Prevention Mechanisms” in Courmayeur Mont Blanc, Italy
from 4 to 6 October 1997.
Mr. Hiroyuki Yoshida (Professor) and Ms. Kayo Konagai (Professor) traveled to Nairobi,
Kenya from 5 to 18 October to lecture at the JICA Seminar for the Prevention of Juvenile
Delinquency and the Treatment of Young Offenders. Additionally, during their stay,they visited various Kenyan criminal justice agencies where they delivered additional
lectures on juvenile delinquency and prevention.
D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates and corroborates with ACPF to further improve crime prevention
and criminal justice administration in the region. Since UNAFEI and ACPF have many
similar goals and a large part of ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, therelationship between the two is strong. Some examples of cooperation and corroboration
can be seen as follows:
1. UNAFEI has assisted ACPF extensively in all its World Conferences, as both anorganizer and a contributor, including the Sixth ACPF World Conference which
was held in Tokyo from 28 to 31 October 1997. Additionally, the participants of
the 107th International Training Course attended the Symposium held on October
29, which focused on the theme of prosecution.
2. An ACPF Working Group meeting was held at UNAFEI in October 1996, and the104th Course participants joined the meeting to discuss international cooperation.
Also, a UNAFEI faculty member attended another ACPF Working Group meeting
held in Malaysia in May 1997 regarding international cooperation, drug-related
crimes and environmental protection.
3. UNAFEI dispatched faculty members to Manila to corroborate with ACPF andAsia Crime Prevention Philippines, Incorporated (ACPPI) in establishing the firsthalfway house in the Philippines. (Established in June 1997.)
4. To proceed with an ACPF project to foster volunteer leaders in the crime prevention
field, UNAFEI sent two professors to Thailand in December 1995 and one professor
to Papua New Guinea in December 1996.

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1997
IX. 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 sevenprofessors are selected from among public prosecutors offices, the judiciary, corrections
and probation. UNAFEI also has approximately 20 administrative members, who areappointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and a linguistic adviser.
Moreover, visiting experts from abroad are invited by the Ministry of Justice to eachtraining course or seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance fromvarious experts, volunteers and related agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty Changes
Mr. Mikinao Kitada, formerly Deputy Director of UNAFEI, was transferred to theInternational Affairs Division of the Criminal Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice
and appointed Director on 1 April 1997.
Mr. Masahiro Tauchi, formerly Cabinet Councillor of the Cabinet Councillors’ Officeon Internal Affairs, was appointed Deputy Director of UNAFEI on 1 April 1997.
Mr. Tatsuhiko Araki, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the
Rehabilitation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice and appointed Specialist on 1 April
1997.
Mr. Shoji Imafuku, formerly a Probation Officer of the Tokyo Probation Office, joined
UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 1997.
X. FINANCESThe Institute’s budget is primarily provided by the Ministry of Justice. The total
amount of the UNAFEI budget is approximately ¥350 million per year. Additionally,
JICA provides assistance for the Institute’s international training courses and seminars.
Through its financial contributions, ACPF is another constant and reliable supporter of
UNAFEI activities.

14