MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2011 - 31 December 2011)
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 theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in 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 Institute’s work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of criminal justice discuss and studypressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding with the help of lectures and the advice of the UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc
lecturers. This so-called "problem-solving through an integrated approach" is one of the chief characteristics
of UNAFEI programmes.
Each year, UNAFEI conducts two international training courses (six weeks in duration) and one
international seminar (five weeks in duration). Over the same period, 149 government officials fromvarious overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),an independent administrative institution for Official Development Assistance (ODA) programmes, toparticipate 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.
During its 50 years of existence, UNAFEI has conducted a total of 149 international training courses
and seminars, in which approximately 3,571 criminal justice personnel have participated, representing 117
different countries. UNAFEI has also conducted a number of other specialized courses, both country- andsubject-focused, in which hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In theirrespective 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.

A.	The 147th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 147th International Senior Seminar was held from 13 January to 10 February 2011. The main
theme was “Community Involvement in Offender Treatment.” Ten overseas participants and six Japaneseparticipants attended this Seminar.
2. Methodology
First, the Seminar participants introduced the current position regarding the role and function of criminal
justice agencies in their respective countries in regard to the seminar’s main theme. The participants werethen divided into two group workshops as follows:
Group 1: Effective Measures for a Smooth and Sustainable Rehabilitation and Reintegration Process
through Community Involvement

3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2011

Group 2: Effective Measures to Improve Treatment Programmes and Interventions through Community
Involvement
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 experience, the Individual Presentations,lectures, and so forth. Later, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group
Workshop reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary Meetings, 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 ReportBack Sessions where they were endorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports are
published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 84.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Measures for a Smooth and Sustainable Rehabilitation and Reintegration Process throughCommunity Involvement
Group One discussed community involvement under three headings: (i) Obstacles to the Reintegration of
Offenders; (ii) Institutional Treatment of Offenders; and (iii) Community-based Treatment of Offenders. The
fourth topic they addressed was (iv) Measures/Recommendations to enhance Community Involvement in
the Treatment of Offenders.
Beginning their discussion, several participants said treatment of offenders was not a priority in many
developing countries, as there are many basic problems to be addressed first. Also, prisons traditionallyoperate as closed communities, which fuels public mistrust and discourages openness and transparency.
The situation is worsened by the media that only highlights negative occurrences. Participants agreed that
communities often fail to see any beneficial link between themselves and offenders and so are not motivatedto become involved in their treatment. In addition, society views treatment of offenders as an exclusivefunction of government and believes that what is most needed for offenders is punishment. All participants
agreed that public perception of prisons and prisoners was the single greatest barrier that militates against
community involvement in the treatment of offenders and agreed that the following intervention strategies
could be used to reduce obstacles: (i) public campaigns utilizing politicians, public figures, celebrities,
and ex-offenders to increase awareness of the treatment of offenders; (ii) using the media to promoterehabilitation efforts to help change public perception; and (iii) to allow or encourage private organizations
and NGOs to lobby government for legislative/policy changes to improve openness and transparency inprisons and promote public confidence. It was generally agreed that private organizations’ and NGOs’
support is invaluable, as governments struggle to adequately provide many critical requirements for the
successful reintegration of offenders. Individuals, private organizations, and NGOs can be useful resources
to help motivate offenders during rehabilitation.
The group agreed that poor socio-economic conditions, low self-esteem, and poor attitude were factors
impinging on prisoners’ levels of motivation to rehabilitate. Participants from Japan added that education
was also critical to improve motivation levels and reduce recidivism. The Chairman remarked that both selfesteem and stable jobs are critical to levels of motivation, as are close family relationships and a connection
with the community. Participants expressed the view that it is the responsibility of different tiers ofgovernment and criminal justice practitioners to engage the community in the treatment of offenders rather
than waiting on the community to make the initial contact. To encourage support, the community must be
convinced of the benefits to be achieved, and said benefits should be evidenced by tangible results.
Participants supported the view that the economic independence of ex-offenders contributes to a decisive
reduction in recidivism rates and a safer society in which to live and work. The Group further agreed thatthe first six months after release are the most critical for ex-offenders, who are often estranged from family
and without economic support, and, as such, accommodation and job placement are most important.
The group identified the following five issues as the main obstacles to community involvement in thetreatment of offenders: (i) stigmatisation of offenders; (ii) lack of public awareness of the relation between
rehabilitation and crime reduction; (iii) inadequate approaches to the community by criminal justice4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

practitioners; (iv) limitations in legal frameworks; and (v) social exclusion of offenders. Following theircomprehensive discussions, they agreed upon the following recommendations to respond to the aforesaid
obstacles.
1.

In each country, the State organ responsible for justice and law and order should be the leader
in offender treatment. The first step is to ensure that judicial, police, and correctional officers
understand the necessity of giving treatment to inmates consistent with their inevitable return tosociety;2.

All correctional institutions should develop public relations strategies based on partnership withelectronic and print media;

3.

Public campaigns, including commercial spots on TV and radio, should also emphasise programmes
related to victims, especially compensation;

4.

Educational awareness should be developed and extended to schools and universities showing
the correlation between reintegration of ex-offenders and low recidivism. Reduction in social andfinancial costs should be highlighted.

5.

Successful strategies, such as Singapore’s Yellow Ribbon project, should be implemented, althoughnational strategies must reflect and respect the culture of the country for which they were developed;

6.

Present-day business analyses, such as SWOT and PESTLE, should be considered by judicial andcorrectional officers;

7.

Administrative frameworks of correctional facilities should allow correctional managers to search forand implement local solutions to specific problems;8.

Correctional managers should be encouraged to be proactive in garnering the support of bothindividuals and community organizations;

9.

Legal frameworks should be tailored to enhance community involvement in offender treatment aswell as to emphasise diversion and restorative-justice mechanisms;

10. Systems such as the Japanese Volunteer Probation Officer arrangment, which have been successfully
adopted by the Thai, Korean and Philippine criminal justice systems, should be considered,especially by countries with minimal community involvement in the treatment of offenders;
11. Correctional facilities should provide training focusing on employability skills, specifically related tocottage industries, in order to facilitate self-employment;
12. Government should provide tax incentives and subsidies for those private companies that accept
ex-offenders as their employees.

(ii) Effective Measures to Improve Treatment Programmes and Interventions through Community
Involvement
The group was assigned to discuss “effective measures to improve treatment programmes andinterventions through community involvement” and agreed to conduct its discussion in accordance with thefollowing agenda: 1) effective measures to rehabilitate offenders; 2) institutional treatment of offenders; 3)community-based treatment of offenders; 4) measures to enhance community involvement.
Regarding the rehabilitation of offenders, many participants stated that they are facing many difficult
problems because of their different social conditions, legal matters, governmental funding, etc. Many
countries wish to implement rehabilitation programmes, but they are expensive and priority has to be given
to other demands. Some countries are concentrating on matters such as pardon, amnesty, and gun control toboth prevent crime and to hasten the return of offenders to their communities. However, it is still important
to ensure that some rehabilitation should take place before offenders are released into their communities.
The Group discussed possible solutions to the problems in the institutional treatment of offenders. All
participants noted that the hesitance of institutional agencies to adopt open-door policies arises out of fear
and negative public perception. Participants therefore felt that private companies, non-governmental, andfaith-based organizations and individuals can play an important role in offender treatment and called foran open-door policy to incorporate them. The group also noted that the family has a great role to play to5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2011

facilitate offender treatment and resettlement and to curb recidivism. Another participant also suggested
the importance of proper criminogenic assessment of offenders’ needs, to stimulate participation of privatecompanies, organizations, and individuals.
All participants agreed that in some developing countries that have no alternatives to imprisonment,
review of existing legislation and enactment of new legislation should be introduced. Participants shared theviews that intensive media and public enlightenment campaigns should be implemented, like Singapore’s
Yellow Ribbon Project and the Japanese Movement for a Brighter Society, Thailand’s media and diplomats’open day visit to prisons, and the U.K.’s National Offender Management programmes. These programmes
have been proved to be effective in garnering community support in their respective countries.
All participants agreed that continuous community outreach should be reviewed to raise social awarenessand acceptance of offenders in society.
Additionally, some participants stated that HIV infection raises serious problems in offender treatment
and that the government and NGOs can support HIV infected inmates and help to reduce the stigma
attached to their diagnoses.
Following their discussions, the Group reached a set of conclusions, listed below, upon which they thenbased a set of recommendations, also listed below.

Conclusions
1.

From the lectures given by Visiting Experts, international evidence has clearly established that
offender treatment programmes are improved and more effective when appropriate cultural input
is allowed. Therefore all programmes adopted must be adapted to the cultural and socio-economic
situations of each country.

2.

Categories of serious crimes vary in each country. This depends on each country’s social conditions,
legal matters, and other realities. The levels of treatment of offenders are also varied from one
place to the other. Most developing countries are still faced with challenges that limit standards andrehabilitative assistance to offenders.

3.

The importance of offender rehabilitation needs to be emphasised throughout criminal justiceprocedure.

4.

The role of an offender’s family is important and needs to be included as early as possible in thecriminal justice process.

5.

Private organisations and individuals can play more important roles in institutional and communitybased offender treatment. Private enterprises can provide many services effectively or at low
cost. The huge resources derived from charitable organizations, voluntary associations, NGOs,
community-based organizations, including multi-national corporations, e.g. the Toyota Programme in
the U.K., should be harnessed to assist in offender treatment and management.

6.

Thorough needs assessment is important to guide community participation in offender treatment.

7.

Public relations campaigns, incentives, and awards are veritable motivational tools that canencourage community participation in offender treatment.

8.

Victim–offender reconciliation is necessary to enhance integration of offenders into society.

9.

Ex-offenders face difficulties in finding jobs and resettling after their prison terms due tostigmatisation, social exclusion, and rejection. Aftercare services for ex-prisoners are therefore
critical to help with reintegration.

10. Other obstacles that impede community involvement are: fear, stigmatisation, lack of understanding,indifference to offenders, sensational reporting by the media, lack of regulation or legislation, poor
funding, and inadequate resources.

Recommendations
1. Institutional Treatment Stage• To re-orientate the mindsets of the prison staff and offenders to allow the community to partner with6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

them, especially in the developing countries;• To ensure thorough assessment of the needs of offenders to guide the involvement of the community;• To promote vocational training for prisoners to increase their employability, including selfemployment;• To recommend an open-door policy for correctional institutions to enhance community involvement.
2. Community-Based Treatment Stage• To promote victim–offender reconciliation;• To promote government and community partnership in offender-aftercare services;• To recommend that the government support the community at the local level by providing funding toNGOs or CBOs, especially for the treatment of juvenile offenders;• To recommend that organizations, such as the U.N., promote voluntary associations targeted atoffender treatment;• To recommend that communities harness resources to establish and manage community-based
rehabilitation centres such as halfway houses and skill acquisition centres.
3. All Stages of Criminal Justice Procedure• To promote public-relations activities to raise public awareness;• To garner media support in public-relations activities;• To seek support for offenders’ families and offenders from relevant organizations;• To revise legislation and regulation to allow for community involvement;• To encourage charitable associations, NGOs, and multi-national corporations to be involved inoffender treatment;• To give incentives to organizations that employ ex-prisoners;• To educate young people about the harmful effects of crime and offer them a second chance;• To introduce collaborative court proceedings that involve lay people in sentencing;• To involve the community in the planning and delivery of offender treatment to encourage ownershipof the programmes;• To promote collaboration on human resources between the courts and the community;• To recommend that the government and NGOs support HIV infected inmates in an effort to reduce
stigmatisation.

B.	The 148th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 148th International Training Course was held from 11 May to 17 June 2011. The main theme
was “Drug Offender Treatment: New Approaches to an Old Problem.” Eight overseas participants, twointernational observers, and eight Japanese participants attended this Course.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the Course were primarily realised through the Individual Presentations and Group
Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems, and future
prospects of their country with respect to the main theme of the Course. The Group Workshops further
examined the subtopics of the main theme. To facilitate discussion, the participants were divided into twogroups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: The Criminal Justice Response to Treatment of Drug-Dependent Offenders
Group 2: Effective Interventions for Drug-Dependent Offenders
The two groups elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), rapporteur, and co-rapporteur(s) to organize
the discussions. The group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views basedon information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures, and so forth.
During the course, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group Workshop

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2011

reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary Meeting the drafts of the Group
Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Based onthese discussions, the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back Sessions
where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The full texts of the reports are published in full in
Resource Material Series No. 85.
3. Outcome Summary(i) The Criminal Justice Response to Treatment of Drug-Dependent Offenders
The Group’s discussions mainly focused upon treatment for drug-dependent offenders in the view ofcriminal justice policy rather than medical policy, which views drug addiction as a chronic and relapsing
disease. The criminal justice model of treatment considers drug-dependent offenders “criminals”, while
the medical model considers them “patients.” Each country represented in the discussions has a “criminalmodel” of treatment, but only three — Thailand, Indonesia, and Afghanistan — have already introduced the“patient model” in conjunction with the “criminal model.” The Group agreed that drug-dependent offenders
are indeed patients suffering from chronic disease and in need of appropriate treatment. Such understanding,however, did not lead directly to a conclusion that national policies should be switched to a solely “patientmodel.” Some participants presented different views referring to the actual situation of each country, suchas the national budget or public consciousness; others gave their opinions that some circumstances may
disturb the immediate transition to the “patient model.” The direct and simple question of which model ismore appropriate to a particular country is to be decided through long-term and comprehensive discussions
nationwide in each country. Furthermore, even in countries that adopt the patient model, it is not that thecriminal model must be abandoned. Punishment of offenders is imposed if needed. It is not a matter ofchoosing one or the other; the crucial point is to maintain the proper balance in choosing either punishment
or treatment.
The Group decided to exchange opinions about criminal justice policy from a viewpoint of “initialintervention” (intervention at the earliest possible stage of dependency, which the Group considered themost effective form of intervention) and “through care” for drug-dependent offenders, by comparing the“criminal model” and “patient model.” In particular, the Group examined: (1) diversion programmes, as
one outcome of the “patient model”; (2) drug courts, one option which has been adopted in the “criminalmodel” countries; and (3) partnership with governmental and non-governmental organizations. Each ofthese concepts was discussed with reference to both above-mentioned models of treatment, “patient” and“criminal.” The Group considered the advantages and challenges of each concept.
In terms of diversion programmes, the Group listed advantages including the reduction of reoffending;the minimizing of the label “criminal”; early reintegration of offenders; and reduced government
expenditure. With regard to drug courts, they noted that this allowed “initial intervention” within a “criminalmodel,” as well as motivating offenders. Finally, the Group noted that partnering with NGOs mobilises
the human and material resources of the private sector and can continue to engage offenders after theconclusion of the criminal process.
In conclusion, the Group advocated a balance between the “criminal” and “patient” models of treatment.
They agreed that diversion systems, drug courts, and partnerships with NGOs are factors which canhelp in the treatment of drug-dependent offenders; however, they felt that introducing such elements oftreatment into existing legal frameworks would be difficult. Despite this, they concluded that the advantagesof these programmes, particularly “initial intervention,” merited efforts to incorporate them into existing
frameworks. Regarding “through-care,” the Group highlighted the importance of cooperation with NGOs.
They noted that lack of transparency can be a problem in dealing with NGOs, but cautioned that excessive
attempts to regulate NGOs can erode the advantages of partnering with such organizations.

(ii) Effective Interventions for Drug-Dependent Offenders
Prior to the discussion, the group agreed that the drug-dependency situation differs substantially among
countries and regions. Therefore, treatment or intervention should be provided considering each country’s
specific situation. Treatment can be viewed in four different perspectives: the legal, spiritual, medical, andcognitive-behaviour models. There are treatment options under different models and in order to enhance
the treatment, the process must be implemented properly, with a focus on the individual’s background.
The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model is perhaps the most influential model for the assessment and8MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

treatment of offenders.
The Group then engaged in an in-depth discussion of the intervention programmes for the treatment ofdrug-dependent offenders currently provided in the participating countries. They elaborated upon various
models of treatment.
First, they addressed the therapeutic community (TC) modality programme, which is a self-help social
learning treatment model for clients with drug-abuse problems and other problems such as alcoholism,
stealing, and other anti-social tendencies. It is also used in working with special groups of individuals,
such as those in prisons. Although it contains five treatment modules, it does not specifically address drug
offender treatment. It is applied in the Maldives, the Philippines, and Thailand, although the discussion
reflected that it is a broad treatment programme that does not actually contain a specific module for thetreatment of drug-dependent offenders.
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), applied in Japan, with the introduction of Narcotics Anonymous,the Matrix Model, and Workbook, allows the patient to monitor his or her own thoughts and cognition andto control his or her behaviour. It is even possible for the inmate to change his or her behaviour to desired
behaviour. Since it is a package model, it is effective in the treatment of drug offenders. CBT is implemented
easily all over Japan using the Workbook. Although it is difficult to maintain in the community, Japaneseprobation officers find a way to effectively implement it with support from civil society.
For the purpose of stopping drug abuse, CBT directly benefits the offender by teaching a specific skill
through training, while the therapeutic model indirectly benefits the patient, because it has to first create
a community conducive to improving the patient’s self-esteem. In fact, the latter model addresses drugdependency and drug-addiction problems only haphazardly.
The group discussed the participation and utilization of family members in the treatment of drug
offenders, since all the participants agreed that the family, as a basic unit of human behaviour, plays animportant role in the treatment process. The Group acknowledged that there are uncooperative families,
too.
Facilities and equipment were considered major components in the treatment process. Ideally, theyrequire a large budget allocation, but treatment programmes can still be regulated and implemented basedon available resources. Cooperation with social resources, specialist-like-self-help groups, authorities thatoffer employment and social welfare, halfway houses, etc., is very important, thereby making use of thetalents, skills, and other abilities of the wider community. While being treated in the community, it is still
important to strongly and continuously motivate the ex-prisoner, probationer, or parolee to sustain an ideal
life, prevent relapse, and to be a dynamic member of the community. This means, for example, that theoffender is offered several choices rather than simply being given the necessities of life without requiring
him or her to make decisions.
The Group summarised its long discussion with this conclusion:
Treatment of drug-dependent offenders must be consistent and continuous and should have the following
characteristics:
E – Easy to implement and easy to train staff or operators
F – Focus on treating drug offenders in prison, jail, on parole and probation
F – Fair assessment of clients/inmates
E – Efficiently carried out by staff and supported by clients/inmates
C – Cost-benefit friendly or less costly
T – Tested well as model treatment in a particular period
I – Implemented well and prevents relapse and recidivism
V – Variety of approaches to address particular needs of client/inmate
E – Evidence-based evaluation is conducted
The group also made the following recommendations:9ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2011

1.

Intensify the implementation of the treatment programmes for drug-dependent offenders presently
administered and conduct in-depth research on its effectiveness.

2.

Adopt and adapt useful intervention programmes in the treatment of drug-dependent offenders thatwere learned and validated from the proponents and practitioners during the group discussions,lectures, and site visits to different facilities.

C.	The 149th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 149th International Training Course was held from 25 August to 30 September 2011. The main
theme was “Measures to Secure Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses and Whistle-blowers.” Tenoverseas participants and six Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants of the 149th Course explored the topic primarily through a comparative analysis of thecurrent situation and the problems encountered. The participants’ in-depth discussions enabled them to put
forth effective and practical solutions.
The objectives were primarily realised through the Individual Presentations and the Group Workshop
sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems, and future prospects of
their country with respect to the main theme of the Course. To facilitate discussions, the participants weredivided into two groups.
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur, and co-rapporteur(s) to organize thediscussions. 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.
Group 1: E ffective Measures to Secure Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses and Whistle-blowers
with Special Attention to Organized Crime and Corruption
Group 2: Effective Measures to Secure Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses
The Groups presented their reports in the Report-Back Sessions where they were endorsed as thereports of the Course. The reports will be published in full in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 86.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Measures to Secure Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses and Whistle-blowers with Special
Attention to Organized Crime and Corruption
The group discussed the current situation of witness and whistle-blower protection and cooperation ineach of the participating countries with regard to the following subtopics: legislation for witness and whistleblower protection; criminalisation and punishment of obstruction of justice; and mitigation of punishment
and/or immunity grants for persons who provide substantial cooperation in an investigation or prosecution.
They found that among the participating countries there is no formal legislation for witness protection,
save for in Indonesia and El Salvador. As for whistle-blower protection legislation, Japan has specificallylegislated for such matters, while other countries have provisions in various other pieces of criminal orlabour legislation. For countries with such patchy legislation, not all types of common and serious organizedcrimes are addressed, while even for countries with specific witness-protection legislation, the legislation
is not easily upheld due to budget constraints, shortage of human resources, and poor technology andother infrastructure. However, in all countries, there are various informal countermeasures, such as police
protection on an ad hoc basis.
With regard to criminalisation and punishment of obstruction of justice, participating countries reported
no specific legislation. However, all participating countries address this issue in other general pieces oflegislation. For example, some countries’ penal or criminal codes criminalise and provide punishment for
obstruction of justice, while others have an obstruction of justice clause in most of their separate pieces of10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

legislation. However, there is still much room for improvement to meet the requirements of Article 23 of
the UNTOC and Article 25 of the UNCAC, which provide for criminal sanctions against the use of threats,physical force or promise, offering or giving undue advantage to induce false testimony, or interfering withtestimony or the production of evidence in a proceeding.
With regard to mitigation of punishment and/or immunity grants for persons who provide substantial
co-operation in an investigation or prosecution, no specific legislation exists in the participating countries.
In discussing challenges to securing witness and whistle-blower protection and co-operation, the Group
noted the following issues:
1.

Lack of legislation is the major setback to successful implementation of protection programmes.
Most protective measures are implemented on ad hoc bases, and experience has shown that once
these ad hoc measures fail, there is no formal way of dealing with such issues. Legislation is required
to take care of this situation. Informal measures can create problems. For example, since most
cooporating witnesses are themselves criminals, accusations of corruption and conflict of interest
can arise against officials of the justice system.

2.

Witness protection programmes are capital intensive and most countries do not have the resources
needed to sustain them.

3.

For small countries, it is difficult or almost impossible to relocate witnesses within the country.

4.

Since there is no dedicated personnel for witness-protection programmes in the participating
countries, the issue remains in the hands of personnel who perform this job in an ad hoc mannerwithout any expertise.

5.

Since there is not one agency to co-ordinate amongst different departments, lack of adequate
information and ineffective communication often leads to failure in providing proper protection.

6.

There are acts that are not described as obstructions of justice but nevertheless have the power of
intimidating a witness, for example, an accused offender driving a car or loitering near the victim’s
home, work place, school, or family members and relatives.

7.

In countries with no whistle-blower and witness-protection legislation, there has been a rise inserious criminal acts, as many offenders are not caught, because witnesses hesitate to cooperatewith law enforcement agents for fear of their safety and undue treatment.

8.

Lack of legislation for mitigation of punishment and grant of immunity in these nations has worsened
the situation as junior members of crime gangs never volunteer to disclose any information that may
lead to the apprehension of the heads of those gangs.

9.

There is a need to balance the protection of witnesses with the upholding of the defendant’s right toa fair trial.

10. One of the challenges that some of the countries with witness-protection programmes are facingis the absence of any international/regional agreement/treaty with other countries. Thus, when it
is difficult to relocate witnesses within the country, it is not possible to relocate them outside thecountry. Lack of any agreement also results in no effective cooperation in investigation of crimeand control of criminals. Since organized crime has no boundaries, member states should not allow
criminals the luxury and advantage of a borderless field of operation.
11. Slow disposition of cases can contribute to a witness’s unwillingness to cooperate.
In response to these challenges, the group agreed on a number of recommendations, summarised below:
1.

Whistle-blower and witness-protection legislation should be enacted in all participating states, andeach country should seek to ratify the UN conventions (UNTOC and UNCAC).

2.

Mitigation-of-punishment, grant-of-immunity, separate-criminalisation, and punishment-forobstruction-of-justice legislation should be enacted by participating countries, including prohibitions
against actions, gestures, and any psychological threats to the witness.

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 20113.

There is a need for participating countries without witness-protection and whistle-blower protection
laws to, in the interim, formulate policies to guide the implementation of countermeasures.

4.

Since many participating countries, save for Japan, are developing countries with scarce resources,in the short-term, emphasis should be on procedural kinds of witness protection that are cost andtime effective.

5.

Bi-lateral, regional, and international co-operation is much needed and should be formalised in
the form of signed treaties and/or protocols, which should help in the relocation and protection of
witnesses, the cooperation in criminal investigations, the extradition of criminals, and mutual legal
assistance in controlling transnational organized crime.

6.

Better coordinating efforts from various stakeholding agencies and professionals, for example police,
judiciary, prosecutors, social welfare departments, etc. All should function under the umbrella of one
department for streamlining the functioning of the programme.

7.

There is a need to emphasise the human-resource capacity building of stakeholders.

8.

Member States are urged to review infrastructure available in court buildings or prosecutors’ offices
with a view to providing separate waiting rooms or separate entrances for witnesses. This would not
require a large budget and would increase the psychological and physical comfort of the witness.

9.

Member States should fast track all serious crimes, especially those involving witnesses needingprotection. A time frame for the disposal of the case should be formalised and adhered to, save under
special circumstances with due permission from the court.

(ii) Effective Measures to Secure Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses
The Group addressed the topic “Effective Measures to Secure Protection and Cooperation of witnesses,”with particular attention on non-organized crimes such as sex crimes, crimes involving child victims, andviolent crimes. The discussions were based on the following agenda: 1) effective legislation and measures toprotect witnesses; 2) criminalisation and punishment of obstruction of justice.
The Group verified that the police department of each respective country has responsibility forsecuring protection and cooperation of witnesses as one of their primary functions, and most countries
have guidelines for their police forces in executing this duty. The Group agreed that it was important forpolice officers to be specially trained to deal with this duty. Most represented countries had establishedprocedural measures at the trial stage to limit witnesses’ psychological stress. However, only El Salvador
has legislated for a standardised witness-protection programme. However, that country still faces problems
with international relocation resulting from the ineffective implementation of treaties.
Most represented countries have measures to limit witnesses’ exposure to the public or to psychologicalstress, and many countries have various kinds of measures to reduce fear through avoidance of face-to-faceconfrontation with the defendant and measures to make it difficult or impossible for the defendant to trace
the identity of the witness. For example, existing legislation in Japan permits the use of screens during thetestimony of witnesses. All participants’ countries consider it important to balance witness safety with thedefendant’s right to a fair trial.
In the matter of criminalisation and punishment of obstruction of justice, the Group noted that, with
one exception, all participating countries had criminalised this offence on the basis of the provisions of the
UNTOC and UNCAC. Again, with one exception, all countries define the offence of witness interference
as obstruction of justice. However, of those countries that have legislated for this issue, some experience
difficulties in enforcement.
Following their discussions, the Group made recommendations under each subtopic.
In the matter of effective legislation and measures to protect witnesses, the Group made the following
recommendations.
1.

12

The police should protect witnesses when necessary.

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

2.

It is crucial that countries legislate for and establish the organizational structure of witnessprotection measures.

3.

Witness-protection measures are necessary for all countries; those who lack such measures should
consider their introduction; those who have such measures should consider their improvement.

4.

A comprehensive protection programme is effective in protecting witnesses, but it is financiallyonerous and should be considered as a measure of last resort; if not introduced, other specificmeasures should be taken to protect witnesses.

5.

Protection programmes require a sufficient budget; countries should legislate to allow the proceedsof crime to be utilized to fund witness protection.

6.

For victims of sex crimes, it is important to prevent secondary victimisation; for child victims it isimportant to implement specific measures to allow them to testify as comfortably as possible.

In the matter of criminalisation and punishment of obstruction of justice, the Group made the following
recommendations:1.

To ensure the cooperation and protection of witnesses, it is necessary to criminalise obstruction ofjustice; countries with inadequate legislation in this regard must improve.

2.

Where legislation is adequate but enforcement is not, enforcement must be improved so that thelegislation functions effectively.

D.	Special Seminars and Courses
1. The Eleventh Country-Focused Training Course on the Juvenile-Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya
The Eleventh Country-Focused Training Course on the Juvenile-Delinquent Treatment System for
Kenya was held from 15 February to 11 March 2011. The main theme of the Course was “Capacity-Buildingof Child Care and Protection Officers in the Juvenile Justice System of Kenya.” Fifteen criminal justiceofficials from Kenya attended.
2. The Seventh Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Seventh Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 2 to 14 March 2011. The
main theme was “Addressing Corruption which Hinders Countermeasures for Drug Offences and Others;
Especially, Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Officials.” Seven
criminal justice officials from Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan)attended.
3. The 14th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
The 14th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme was held from 13 October to 10 November 2011. The
theme of the course was “Effective Legal and Practical Measures against Corruption.” In this Course, 16
overseas participants and six Japanese participants, all of whom were officials engaged in corruption control,
comparatively analysed the current situation of corruption, methods of combating corruption, and measures
to enhance international co-operation.
5. The 17th Seminar on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice for the People’s Republic of China
The 17th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China was heldfrom 15 to 30 November 2011. The main theme was “Public Dissemination of Legal Knowledge.” Fourteen
criminal justice officials from the People’s Republic of China attended.
6. The Fifth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
The Fifth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, hosted by UNAFEI
with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, was held from 7 to 9 December 2011 in Tokyo,
Japan. The main theme was “Preventing Corruption: Administrative and Criminal Justice Measures.”Approximately 25 senior criminal justice officials from eight South-East Asian countries and two visiting
experts attended.

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2011

III. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
A.	Regional Training Programmes
1. Short-Term Experts in Kenya
Two UNAFEI professors were dispatched to Kenya, from 5 August to 10 September 2011, to provide
technical assistance to the Project for Capacity Building of Child Care and Protection Officers in the Juvenile
Justice System of Kenya.
IV. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
The Institute continues to collect data and other resource materials on crime trends, crime prevention
strategies, and the treatment of offenders from Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe, and the Americas andmakes use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information and Library Serviceof the Institute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies,
governmental organizations, research institutes, and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, theInstitute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members,
visiting experts, and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2011, the 82nd, 83rd and 84th
editions of the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 134 to 137 of the UNAFEI
Newsletter (from the 147th Seminar to the 149th Course, respectively) were published, which included abrief report on each course and seminar and other timely information. These publications are also available
on UNAFEI’s website http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A.	Public Lecture Programme
On 28 January 2011, 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 147th
International Senior 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 increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues throughcomparative international study by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2011, Mr. Steve Pitts,
Head of International Relations and External Programmes, National Offender Management Services,
Ministry of Justice, UK, and Mr. Desmond Chin Kim Tham, Deputy Director of Prisons/Chief of Staff,
Singapore, were invited as speakers. They presented papers entitled “Changing Lives and Making
Communities Safer: Strengthening Rehabilitation through Involving Communities in England andWales” and “The Yellow Ribbon Project: Advocating Community Acceptance and Enhancing Community
Involvement,” respectively.

B.	Follow-Up Meeting to the Workshop on Strategies and Best Practices against Overcrowding in
Correctional Facilities
UNAFEI held the Follow-up Meeting on the Workshop on Strategies and Best Practices against
Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities, which was attended by the participants of the 147th Senior Seminar.
The Meeting aimed to disseminate the outcome of the Workshop on “Strategies and Best Practices against
Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities,” organized by UNAFEI and held in Brazil on 16 April 2010 within
the framework of the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The main
theme of the Meeting was “community involvement in offender treatment,” the importance of which wasrecognised by the panellists and audience of the Workshop.
UNAFEI invited five prominent experts to this Follow-up Meeting: Sir Judge David Carruthers,
Chairman of the New Zealand Parole Board; Prof. Yvon Dandurand, Senior Associate, International Centre
for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Canada; Mr. Desmond Chin Kim Tham, Deputy
Director of Prisons/Chief of Staff, Singapore Prison Service; Mr. Steve Pitts, Head of International Relations

14

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

and External Programmes, National Offender Management Service, Ministry of Justice, UK; and Ms. Elinor
Wanyama Chemonges, National Coordinator, Paralegal Advisory Services Project, Foundation for Human
Rights Initiative, Uganda. Some of the experts had served as panellists and moderators at the Workshop, andothers are experts on issues very relevant to the theme of this Meeting.

C.	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.
D.	Overseas Missions
Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa and Ms. Makiko Sasabe (Staff) visited Bangkok, Thailand from 28
February to 5 March 2011. Deputy Director Ukawa visited executive officers of various authorities, withwhom he held meetings to discuss recent activities of UNAFEI and criminal justice and anti-corruption
issues of mutual interest. Offices visited included the Supreme Court of Justice, the Office of the Attorney
General, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Anti-Money
Laundering Office, and the UNODC Regional Centre for East Asia and the Pacific. He also delivered lectures
on “The Role of Prosecutors in the Japanese Criminal Justice Process” at the Office of the Attorney General.
Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa and Professor Kumiko Izumi visited Vienna, Austria from 7 to 17 April
2011 to attend the 20th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice held in the
United Nations Office in Vienna. They also participated in a symposium on “Public-Private Partnerships
against Transnational Organized Crime” on 8 April, organised by the UNODC in conjunction with theCommission. At the symposium, Deputy Director Ukawa served as the moderator for the session on “Cyber
Crime: Working Together to Combat On-Line Child Exploitation.”
Professor Ayako Sakonji, Professor Mayu Yoshida, and Chief of Secretariat Takashi Hagiwara visited
China from 5 to 12 July 2011 to meet Chinese criminal justice officials in preparation for the 17th Seminaron Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice for the People’s Republic of China, to be held at UNAFEI in
November 2011.
Professor Ryo Tsunoda and Professor Yuichiro Wakimoto were dispatched to Nairobi, Kenya, from 12
August to 10 September 2011, and from 5 August to 3 September 2011, respectively, to provide technicalassistance to the Project for Capacity Building of Child Care and Protection Officers in the Juvenile Justice
System of Kenya.
Professor Ryo Tsunoda and Professor Yuichiro Wakimoto attended the 13th International Corrections andPrisons Association Annual General Meeting and Conference in Singapore from 11 to 17 September 2011.
Director Tatsuya Sakuma visited Cambridge, England from 3 to 7 September 2011 to attend 29th
International Symposium on Economic Crime. Director Sakuma made a keynote address at the Symposium.
Mr. Yuichi Tada (Professor) visited Courmayeur, Italy, from 30 November to 6 December 2011 to attend
the annual Co-ordination Meeting of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme
Network and the ISPAC International Conference.

E.	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
ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two is very strong.
VII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A.	Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative responsibility for running
the Institute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine professors are selected from among
public prosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probation, and the police. UNAFEI also has approximately
15

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 201115 administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, anda linguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training
course and seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts, volunteers,and related agencies in conducting its training programmes.

B.	Faculty Changes
Mr. Toru Kawaharada, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed to Senior
Probation Officer of the Sendai Probation Office on 1 April 2011.
Mr. Junichi Watanabe, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Correction Bureau of the
Ministry of Justice on 1 April 2011.
Mr. Ryo Tsunoda, formerly Chief Probation Officer at the Yokohama Probation Office, was appointed as aprofessor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2011.
Ms. Mayu Yoshida, formerly a corrections officer of Kasamatsu Prison, was appointed as a professor of
UNAFEI on 1 April 2011.
Director Masaki Sasaki was transferred and appointed to Chief of the Sapporo Public Prosecutor’s Officeon 1 August 2011.
Mr. Tatsuya Sakuma, formerly Chief of the Otsu Public Prosecutor’s Office, was appointed as the new
Director of UNAFEI and took office on 5 August 2011.

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

16