EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP
Executive Summary of the Workshop on“Strategies and Best Practices
against Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities”
I. Introduction
Workshop 5 of the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice washeld in Salvador, Brazil, on 16 April 2010. The Workshop focused on the topic of Strategies and Best
Practices against Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities , as mandated by the General Assembly
resolution 63/193 of February 2009.
The Workshop was organized by the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Preventionof Crime and the Treatment of Oﬀenders (UNAFEI). In order to make organizational and substantive
preparations for the workshop, the organizer hosted three preparatory meetings in January 2009
(Tokyo), September 2009 (Tokyo), and April 2010 (Salvador), just prior to the Workshop.
The Workshop, held within the framework of Committee I of the Congress, was chaired by Dr.
Sitona Abdella Osman, Alternate Representative, Sudan, and assisted by a Moderator, Professor
Dr. Dr. h. c. Hans-Jörg Albrecht, Managing Director of the Max-Planck-Institute for Foreign andInternational Criminal Law, Germany, who facilitated the discussion throughout the Workshop. In
addition to the Rapporteur of Committee I, Mrs. Maggie Jackson, Attorney-General's Department,
Australia, the Workshop had as its Drafter Dr. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, Director of the National
Research Institute of Legal Policy, Finland.
The work of the Workshop consisted of four presentations and three panels: Strategies for
Reduction of Prison Populations through Diversion, Informal and Restorative Justice and Alternatives
to Pre-trial Detention; Strategies for Reduction of Prison Populations at the Sentencing and Postsentencing Stages; and Strategies for Securing Support for Reduction of Prison Population, followed
by interaction with the ﬂoor. The selection of the topics of the presentations and the panels, containedin document A/CONF.213/16, was made in accordance with the issues and elements contained in the
Discussion Guide of the Congress (A/CONF.213/PM.1) and the reports of the regional preparatory
meetings for the Twelfth Congress (A/CONF.213/RPM.1/1, A/CONF.213/RPM.2/1, A/CONF.213/
RPM.3/1, and A/CONF.213/RPM.4/1).

II. Proceedings of the Workshop
A. Opening

The Workshop was opened by the Chairperson on the morning of 16 April 2010. This was followedby an introductory statement by Ms. Claudia Baroni, a representative of the Secretariat, whoreferred to the negative impact of overcrowding in correctional facilities and stressed the importanceof addressing prison overcrowding in a comprehensive and multisectoral manner. After her statement,
there was welcoming statement from Mr. Masaki Sasaki, Director of UNAFEI, who emphasizedthat the workshop will pursue the subject matter through a practice-oriented, comprehensive andintegrated approach, addressing possible eﬀorts at the legislative level and all stages of the criminal
justice process, including the rehabilitation of oﬀenders, instead of simply focusing on the causes andcountermeasures within the prison settings.

25

B. Presentations

The ﬁrst presentation was intended to show the audience the current situation of overcrowding incorrectional facilities and its impact on human rights and the administration of criminal justice. The
second presentation analysed the causes of the overcrowding. The third presentation was intended tofacilitate the audience's understanding of the overview of the measures to prevent overcrowding andalleviate its impact, which were elaborated in the three panels following the presentations. At the endof the presentation session, a joint presentation took place to present the speciﬁc situations in middle
and low income countries.

1. Presentation on “Current Situation of Prison Overcrowding”

In his speech, Mr. Rob Allen, the Director of the International Centre for Prison Studies, King's
College London, presented the current situation of prison overcrowding around the world. At
the beginning of his presentation, he introduced, with several stunning pictures, the devastatingconsequences of overcrowding in correctional facilities e.g. death caused by insufficient air, thespread of tuberculosis, and rioting. He pointed out the diﬃculty in measuring overcrowding because
there was no universal agreement on how much space should be allocated for each inmate. Using thedatabase of the International Centre for Prison Studies on occupancy level, the best available proxymeasure of overcrowding, he showed the occupancy rate of countries all over the world, some ofwhich exceeded 300 percent, although he pointed out that prison capacity may be designated in anarbitrary manner. He argued that while high rates of over-occupation were not necessarily linked
with high rates of imprisonment, they were related to high proportions of pre -trial detainees in prison
populations.

2. Presentation on “Causes of Prison Overcrowding”

The second presenter, Dr. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, explored the causes of prison overcrowding andlisted the following factors: excessive use of pre-trial detention; punitive tough on crime policies;
lack of alternatives to imprisonment; rigid sentencing systems; restrictive and rigid early releasepractices and rigid revocation procedures; high reoﬀending rates, resulting from missing or inadequate
in-prison and community rehabilitation programmes; and criminal justice systems adopting tasks that
could be better managed by social, health and other services. He also pointed out that more general
structural and cultural factors such as public fears and concerns over safety and security, publicpressures, media impact, socio-economic equality and security, and political culture also aﬀect prison
overcrowding. At the end of his presentation, he introduced a promising Finnish example of prison
population reduction as a result of political will, without any notable eﬀects on national crime rates.

3. Presentation on “Countermeasures against Prison Overcrowding”

The third presenter, Professor Dr. Dr. h. c. Hans-Jörg Albrecht, argued that overcrowding
problems were associated with problems of governance, a weak economy and factors inherent tothe criminal justice system. He emphasized that projection of the prison population was importantand information systems were essential for that purpose. Although it was obvious that reductionof admission to prison and in the length of the stay was eﬀective in reducing prison populations, theconstituency for prisons was narrow, specialized and not influential, and implementation of thosemeasures was difficult. He discussed the following measures for preventing overcrowding: prison
construction and amnesty are effective in the short term, but avoid dealing with the causes ofovercrowding; impact assessment when introducing new sentencing legislation is an essential element
in good governance; prison litigation could become a means to and a part of prison reform; community
sanction and parole were successful in reducing prison populations, but revoking them might increasesuch populations. Finally, he called for well-designed and longitudinal research to identify the reasonsfor success and failure of these measures and to propose measures policy makers should take.

4. Joint Presentation on “Specific Situations in Middle and Low Income Countries”

The fourth presenter, Mr. Elias Carranza, Director of the United Nations Latin American Institutefor the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Oﬀenders (ILANUD), explained the current situationin the Latin American and Caribbean countries, in some of which the incarceration rate had doubled

26

or tripled since the 1980s and 1990s. He emphasized that inequality of income distribution had great
impact on crime and on prison overcrowding. He stressed that crime prevention and criminal justicepolicies should be accompanied by policies to reduce this inequality. He introduced constructive casesin Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, which took a holistic approach to addressing overcrowding,including training of prison personnel and improving prison conditions.
The ﬁfth presenter, Dr. Nsimba Masamba Sita, Director of the United Nations African Institutefor the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFRI), explored the relationshipbetween Human Development and overcrowding in correctional institutions in African countries. He
pointed out that there was a negative correlation between them, with a few exceptions, and argued
that overcrowding in low Human Development Index countries is mainly the result of prolonged pretrial detention caused by ineﬃcient criminal justice procedure.

C. Panels
1. Panel I on “Strategies for Reduction of Prison Populations through Diversion, Informal and
Restorative Justice and Alternatives to Pre-trial Detention”

This panel was intended to explore effective and efficient measures to reduce overcrowding incorrectional facilities at the pre-adjudication stage. As previous presenters mentioned, large numbersof inmates under pre-trial detention is one of the dominant contributors to overcrowding, especiallyfor developing countries. Possible measures to reduce pre-trial detention are to reduce admission
to detention facilities and length of detention through diversion, informal and restorative justice,alternatives to pre-trial detention and speedy trial. Mr. Rob Allen moderated this panel and six
panellists made presentations.
The first panellist, Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak, Permanent Secretary for Justice, Ministry ofJustice, Thailand, introduced oﬀender treatment reform in Thailand. From 1996 to 2000, there wasa sharp increase in prisoner numbers, the largest proportion of whom were drug-related oﬀenders.
As a reform initiative in response to overcrowding, the Thai government introduced the following
measures: a drug diversion scheme accompanied by compulsory treatment programmes; restorative
justice interventions for juvenile offenders; and enhancing the scope of probation work. Several
lessons were drawn from the implementation of these measures. First, to convince the public
and policy makers, political dialogue, such as campaigning, is important. Second, co-ordinatedmanagement of the dual track diversion scheme, voluntary and compulsory treatment programmes, isneeded. Third, community participation is essential to support the programme as well as to persuadedrug addicts to undergo the programme. Fourth, a foundation including a legal framework, capacity
building and budget allocation is important to make these reform eﬀorts a sustained enterprise. In
conclusion, he emphasized that, being sustainable, these measures should be eﬀective in preventing
recidivism and promoting re-education and social protection; reducing overcrowding is not the primary
purpose.
The second panellist, Ms. Elinor Wanyama Chemonges, National Coordinator of the Paralegal
Advisory Services, Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Uganda, presented strategies used in
Uganda to reduce the prison population. Speciﬁc intervention included: the use of alternative dispute
resolution, such as traditional justice mechanisms, Local Council Courts, and dispute resolution
by family and religious leaders; weeding out cases in which there is no possibility to proceed;
institutionalization of pro bono services to encourage faster case disposal; dispute resolution within
the formal justice system before commencement of formal trial; legislation in supporting use ofincarceration as a last resort; and legislative and policy amendments allowing lower courts to handle
cases, which quickens case disposal. She argued that the Paralegal Advisory Services programme
which addressed overcrowding in police cells and prisons, as well as delays in the criminal justicesystem, had been successful.
The third panellist, Mr. Cliﬀord Wayamuka Msiska, National Director of the Paralegal Advisory
Service Institute, Malawi, made a presentation on the success of paralegal services in reducing thenumbers of pre-trial detainees in Malawi. He argued that a practical, aﬀordable and eﬀective legal aid

27

delivery scheme should be established, especially for the poor, who need not only legal representation,
but also advice on bail or appeal, and support for mediation. Because the government cannot provide
legal representation in every case, prisoners should be empowered to represent themselves andparalegals can assist them in applying the criminal law and procedures appropriately in their own
cases and getting out of prison as soon as possible. Paralegals also facilitated screening the remandcaseload, which contributed to the reduction of overcrowding. He stated that paralegal advisory
services succeeded in reducing the prison population by over 5,000 and diverted over 80 percent ofjuveniles out of the criminal justice system.
The fourth panellist, Mr. Toshihiro Kawaide, Professor, Graduate Schools of Law and Politics, theUniversity of Tokyo, described countermeasures against prison overcrowding at the pre-trial stage inJapan. He listed the following factors that eased overcrowding at the pre-trial stage: restriction of theuse of pre-trial detention, including limitation of the period of detention before prosecution; speedy
trial procedure for minor oﬀences, where, with the defendant and defence counsel's consent, trial issimpliﬁed and sentence is restricted to imprisonment with suspension of execution or ﬁne; moderate
use of pre-trial detention; diversion in the phase of prosecution under the discretionary power ofprosecutors; and de facto restorative justice practice, where prosecution is suspended as a result ofcompensation by the suspect.
The fifth panellist, Professor Dr. Dr. h. c. Hans-Jörg Albrecht, discussed three types ofapproaches to reduce pre-trial detention, and its length; criminal procedure reform such as restrictionof conditions of pre-trial detention; introduction of alternatives to pre-trial detention such as electronicmonitoring; and improvement of case management to reduce case-backlogs and mandatory assignmentof defence counsellors. He pointed out that these measures could be eﬀective, but long-term eﬀect
should be evaluated to detect whether there were causal relationships.
The ﬁnal panellist of Panel I, Sir David J. Carruthers, Chairman of the New Zealand Parole Board,described the restorative justice process. He stated that there were many diﬀerent types of restorative
justice processes. In New Zealand, a restorative justice process for juveniles was introduced in
1989, and the number of custodial institutions for juveniles had dropped from 18 to four. Recently,
restorative practice was increasingly used not only in the criminal justice system but also in the
education system, and in workplace disputes and other types of community disputes. He argued that
overwhelming research showed that restorative justice signiﬁcantly contributed to the reduction in
the use of imprisonment. Several research studies pointed out that restorative justice had the eﬀectof reducing reoﬀending and also increasing victim satisfaction. Restorative justice methods introducedin school had succeeded in reducing expulsion and exclusion from school by 30 percent and eventuallycontributed to preventing crimes.

2. Panel II on “Strategies for Reduction of Prison Populations at the Sentencing and PostSentencing Stages”

In this panel, measures to alleviate overcrowding in correctional facilities at the sentencing andpost-sentencing stage were discussed. The possible measures are: appropriate sentencing such as
those based on sentencing guidelines and pre-sentencing reports, which can reduce the number ofadmissions to prisons; early release through parole and other measures, which can reduce the lengthof imprisonment; and institutional and community rehabilitation programmes, which can reduce
reoﬀending of released prisoners. Professor Yvon Dandurand, Senior Associate, International Centre
for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, moderated this panel and four panellists madepresentations.
The first panellist, Dr. Ela Wiecko Volkmer de Castilho, Member of the Federal Public
Prosecution Service and National Council on Criminal and Penitentiary Policy, Brazil, presented theBrazilian experience in introducing alternatives to imprisonment. Although the use of alternatives toimprisonment had been increasing steadily since 1987, it did not reduce the Brazilian prison population.
She argued that the major contributors to this situation were: punitive culture; a common sense28understanding that imprisonment was the only eﬀective response to certain crimes; and Brazilian law,which prescribed imprisonment for about 1,600 oﬀences and restricted the possibility of replacementby alternative penalties. She underlined that to make alternative measures successful in reducing
incarceration, the following actions were necessary: to reduce the punitive paradigm through global
and coherent effort; to limit the number of prisoners detained in prisons; to apply the restorative
paradigm not only to minor offences but also other type of offences; to amend laws to enlarge thepossibility of application of alternative measures; and to implement the rights of equality and nondiscrimination in Brazilian society.
The second panellist, Ms. Maria Noel Rodriguez, Director of the Programme on Woman and Jail,
United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Oﬀenders(ILANUD), introduced two strategies discussed at the Latin American and Caribbean Regional
Preparatory Meeting for this Congress, in which ILANUD actively participated. The ﬁrst strategy was
to determine the maximum capacity of correctional facilities. There were three initiatives related to
this: Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas,
approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which established minimum standards
for accommodation and stated that occupation over the maximum capacity should be prohibited bylaw; the standard proposed by the Latin American Standing Committee of the International Penal and
Penitentiary Foundation, which recommended that an impartial body should determine the maximum
capacity of each prison; and the project of Buenos Aires, Argentina, where an inter-ministerial bodydetermines the maximum capacity of each institution. The second strategy was increased use ofalternative measures to imprisonment. She described the practices in Uruguay, where 10 percent of
the prison population was released in 2005 because of serious overcrowding. The early release wasfollowed by individualized after-care such as provision of food coupons, transportation tickets andjob training. Of the released inmates, 25 percent were returned to prison; this percentage is much
lower than the average after usual release. At the same time, the use of house arrest was widened for
pregnant women, handicapped people and elderly people and a sentence redemption system throughwork and study was established.
The third panellist, Mr. Soh Wai Wah, Director of the Singapore Prison Service, described aholistic rehabilitative approach adopted by Singapore prisons to rehabilitate oﬀenders and to reduce
prison population though prevention of recidivism. Since 2000, Singapore has experienced a sharp
improvement in recidivism and prison population. He argued that this could partly be attributed to its
holistic approach to rehabilitation. In this approach, every prison oﬃcer took on the role of a personal
supervisor to the group of inmates in the cells under his or her charge and ensured that they attended
suitable rehabilitation programmes. There was a systematic in-care programme where prisoners went
through four phases - Admission, Deterrence, Treatment and Pre-release. Recognizing that aftercare
for ex-offenders was critical for successful reintegration, the Singapore Prison Service formed analliance with several other government and non-government agencies to help rehabilitate ex-prisoners.
This alliance was called the CARE Network and comprised social welfare agencies, including theministry responsible for welfare, the association for ex-prisoners, and a body for narcotics prevention
volunteers.
The fourth panellist, Ms. Christine Glenn, Parole Commissioner of Northern Ireland andImmigration Judge, emphasized that parole and the managed early conditional release of a prisoner
was one strategy to tackle prison overcrowding and also contributed to rehabilitation of offenders.
She underlined that parole was for public protection at its heart and also a part of human rights
engagement. Parole could be effective at tackling prison overcrowding and improving behaviour
in prison, although it was not a reward for that. She stressed that parole was not a soft option
even though it could be seen as one by public, media and victims. She listed the key factors of risk
assessment and the main indicators of risk: past behaviour and convictions; motivation for and attitude
towards oﬀending; access and proximity to victims; preparedness to use weapons; disinhibitors suchas alcohol and drugs; and situational triggers. Then, she described risk management strategies, which
consisted of external and internal strategies. The external strategies were to reduce triggers and29

opportunities of oﬀending through restrictive conditions such as curfew, electronic tagging, prohibitionof access to particular places and people; and to be delivered through external limits and controls suchas mandatory drug testing and attendance of a sex oﬀender programme. The internal strategies were
to be delivered through rehabilitation programmes such as victim awareness and anger management,
and restorative justice. In making risk assessment, protective factors should be considered, which
includes factors derived from oﬀenders themselves, their family and their community. In conclusion,
she stressed that although there were no no risk decisions, with robust information and supervision,parole was an eﬀective tool in managing overcrowding and in contributing to rehabilitation.

3. Panel III on “Strategies for Securing Support for Reduction of Prison Populations”

Panel III was aimed at discussing the strategies to secure the understanding and support of the
public and other stakeholders for the measures discussed in Panel I and II. Every detained oﬀender
returns to society sooner or later by bail, probation, parole, expiration of sentence, etc. If society
is not ready to accept offenders, it will become an impediment to his or her reintegration and will
increase the possibility of his or her reoffending. In addition, rehabilitation programmes and otherinterventions for oﬀenders that the government, especially those of developing countries, can oﬀer
are limited because of the lack of financial and human resources. NGOs, individual experts andcommunities can provide these resources and sometimes have better expertise in the speciﬁc ﬁelds
than the government. Lastly, as discussed in the presentations, public fear of crime and punitive toughon crime policies are one of the factors that cause overcrowding. To implement alternative measures
to detention and imprisonment, the understanding of the public and policy-makers is essential. Dr.
Tapio Lappi-Seppälä moderated this panel and ﬁve panellists made presentations.
The ﬁrst panellist, Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak, introduced the Thai experience in running alternative
programmes. First, he mentioned the initiative aimed at introducing alternative measures against
drunk driving through a nationwide comprehensive campaign. Probation was the least known agency,
he argued, and convincing policy-makers to advocate probation and allocate ﬁnancial recourses was key
to the success of probation. The Drink-Don't Drive Campaign was implemented to make probation
work more visible to the public. The campaign included community services by drunk drivers, whichwere speciﬁcally tailored to sensitize them to reform their behaviour and to satisfy the public view thatthe treatment of these oﬀenders should not be too lenient. Celebrities from popular TV shows havebeen involved in the campaign. Second, he emphasized the essential role of community participation.
In Thailand, Volunteer Probation Oﬃcers provided linkage between probation oﬃcers and community
members. Another measure to facilitate community participation was the Community Justice
Network, which was piloted in 2003 and is based on Thai tradition. It established partnership between
state and community and was responsible for community justice issues such as crime prevention,
alternative dispute resolution, aftercare and reintegration. Third, he underlined the importance ofthe legislative framework in making the reform initiative sustainable and the sharing of the researchoutcome with the public.
The second panellist, Mr. Soh Wai Wah, presented Singapore's collaboration with the community
to reduce recidivism through the Yellow Ribbon Project (YRP), which was a nation-wide initiative withthe aim of creating awareness in the public of the message of unlocking the second prison , to makethe public conscious of its role in the rehabilitation of ex-prisoners. Several activities were organized
to champion the YRP in Singapore, such as the annual 'Wear-A-Yellow-Ribbon' activity; the YRP Run;and the Yellow Ribbon Art Exhibition. He emphasized that the real ambassadors of the YRP were theex-prisoners themselves because involvement of ex-prisoners gave a human face to the perception of exprisoners. After six years of championing the YRP, on average, about 38 percent of the population had
worn a yellow ribbon on their shirt for a day. About six percent of the population had participated in a
Yellow Ribbon event, on average. There had been an increase by 13 times in the number of volunteers
involved in rehabilitation activities.
The third panellist, Dr. Nsimba Masamba Sita, explored the reasons for the success and failureof implementation of alternatives to imprisonment in Africa. First, the outcome depended on the30

effective involvement of the local community at the pre-trial and post-trial stages. This facilitatedeﬀective social rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates. Relatives, friends, neighbours and local
authorities should be involved in this process to reach a restorative outcome. The second aspect
was a shift from punitive and retributive logic to compensatory, conciliatory and therapeutic logic.
Restorative justice had already been used in practice, but needed to be better documented and folded
into the mainstream criminal justice system.
The fourth panellist, Ms. Christine Glenn, showed a video from the Parole Board for Englandand Wales used to promote its activities. She told of her experience at a victim's conference wherea victim said to her that parole was black arts because the victim had no idea how parole decisions
are made and who makes them. She emphasized the importance of educating the public and key
stakeholders, such as victims and judges, and explaining to them Parole Board activity so that theuse of parole can be facilitated. For that purpose, the Parole Board employed various programmessuch as inviting judges, ministers and other inﬂuential people to observe hearings for parole decisions
and developed a website. The video, which was shown at the Workshop, was made to show what the
Parole Board does.
The ﬁfth panellist, Dr. Mario Luis Coriolano, Vice President of the Subcommittee on Preventionof Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), focused on
responsibility and accountability in respect to prison overcrowding. He argued that inhumanesituations in prisons were caused by those at different levels of decision-making, such as those
involved in public policy, organizing institutions and sentencing. He underscored that the important
thing was how to limit the rate of imprisonment and who is to initiate the reduction of the prison
population and ensure the sustaining of such initiatives. He noted that some policies promoted bypoliticians resulted in increasing prison populations because they did not replace imprisonment withalternative measures but added to the number of imprisoned persons. He also stressed the importanceof independent bodies to monitor prisons and independent defence counsels in improving the humanrights of detained people. He argued that the capacity of each institution should be deﬁned by law or
superior regulations. He emphasized that it is important to detect who is responsible for accounting
how many people should be kept in a prison. With respect to the activity of SPT, he stated that coordination with other stakeholders is important and all relevant bodies should be on the same track.

D. Interaction with the Floor

After Panel I and Panel III, the chairperson invited the ﬂoor to make comments and ask questions.
After Panel I, Interventions were made by the representatives of Italy, Morocco, the RussianFederation, Azerbaijan, Brazil and the Dominican Republic, and the observers for the Friend World
Committee for Consultation and Penal Reform International. After Panel III, interventions weremade by the representatives of Canada, Brazil and Algeria, the observers for the International
Commission of Catholic Prison Pastoral Care, and an individual expert. They presented theirrespective national strategies to reduce overcrowding, such as increased access to justice, correctional
programmes, increase of prison capacity and legislative reform; referred to the beneﬁt of increasing
the use of alternatives to detention and imprisonment; and emphasized the importance of focusing onaccess to justice and restorative justice.

E. Closing

At the end of the workshop, Mr. Masaki Sasaki made closing remarks, where he indicated that
UNAFEI planed to further disseminate the outcomes of this workshop. This was followed by remarksby Professor Dr. Dr. h. c. Hans-Jörg Albrecht, who identiﬁed the following as conclusions emanatingfrom the discussion.
・・

Overcrowding in correctional facilities is: a serious obstacle to implementing standards
and instruments related to human rights; a serious risk to delivering services, inter alia
rehabilitative services; and a violation of human rights.
Crime is a social problem and can not be solved by criminal law alone. Good policy is social

31

・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・

policy.
Imprisonment should be a last resort.
The most effective countermeasures against overcrowding vary depending on the current
situation and criminal justice system of each State.
Measures against overcrowding should be comprehensive. There is no one single bullet thatcan solve the problem.
All alternative measures should be carefully designed and evaluated.
It should be deﬁned how many people can be detained without violating human rights.
In the case of pre-trial detention, provision of legal aid, including paralegal services, iseﬀective. It requires spending, but various research studies demonstrate that provision of legal
aid is less expensive than detaining a person in prison.
Measures against overcrowding cannot succeed without raising awareness among the public.
Although there are many blueprints, models and ideas about how to tackle and prevent
overcrowding and implement policies, overcrowding has remained a serious problem for
decades. However, practices presented in this Workshop can be implemented and succeed insolving this problem.

After these remarks, the Workshop was closed by the Chairperson on the afternoon of 16 April
2010.

32