ISSN 1020-914X

UNAFEI

NEWSLETTERUNITED NATIONS ASIA AND FAR EASTINSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIME
AND THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS

No. 138
June 2012

Established1961
IN THIS ISSUE

Page

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR ................................................................................................................................ 1
THE 151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ............................................................................................... 3
EVIDENCE-BASED TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
Course Rationale ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Course Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Lecture Topics ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Individual-Presentation Topics ........................................................................................................................ 8Group-Workshop Sessions ............................................................................................................................... 10
Observation Visits ........................................................................................................................................... 12Group Study Tour ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Special Events ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Reference Materials ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Experts and Participants List ........................................................................................................................... 19
The Twelfth Country-Focused Training Course on the Juvenile-Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya .................. 22
The Eighth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia ............................................................................................. 24
INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES .................................................................................... 26
The 15th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme ......................................................................................................... 26
The 152nd International Training Course ....................................................................................................................... 26
ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Faculty Changes ............................................................................................................................................................. 29
Overseas Trips by Staff ................................................................................................................................................... 29
FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI ........................................................................................................................... 30

UNAFEI IS AN AFFILIATED REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1-26, HARUMI-CHO, FUCHU, TOKYO 183-0057, JAPANTEL: 81-42-333-7021 ◆ FAX: 81-42-333-4656 ◆ E-MAIL: unafei@moj.go.jp
HOME PAGE: http://www.unafei.or.jp/

1

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR
It is my privilege to inform readers of the successful completion of the 151st International
Training Course on “Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders”, which took place from 16 May to 22
June 2012.
In this Course, we welcomed eight Japanese and 15 overseas participants: four from Africa, fivefrom Asia, one from Latin America and the Caribbean, and five from Oceania. Two international
observers also attended, both from Asia. The participants and observers included corrections officers,
probation officers, police officers, prosecutors, and other high-ranking public officials.
As this newsletter demonstrates, the Course was extremely productive. It consisted of individual
presentations, group-workshop and plenary sessions, visits to relevant criminal justice agencies, andpresentations by faculty members, visiting experts, and ad hoc lecturers.
The ultimate goal of any correctional intervention is to prevent and reduce reoffending, and there
is a growing recognition that programmes solely based upon experience and intuition do not produce
satisfactory results. Information about “what works”, generated through research or evaluation using
accepted scientific methods, should guide the treatment of offenders. This is the essential philosophy of
the “evidence-based approach.”
There are two major components to the evidence-based treatment of offenders: appropriate risk
assessment and proper implementation of treatment programmes. Offender risk assessment is important
for two reasons. First, there are risk factors that can be changed and that cannot be changed. In order tobring about behavioural change, treatment programmes need to address risk factors that can be changed.
This in turn requires the offender’s risk factors to be properly identified. Second, research has shown that
reoffending cannot be reduced unless the service level (such as intensity, frequency and duration) of thetreatment programme is matched to the offender’s risk level.
The evidence-based approach also requires the proper implementation of treatment programmesthat are proven to be effective. For a programme to be effective, literature suggests that the following
conditions have to be met: (1) the programme must be provided at the correct service level that matches
each offender’s risk of reoffending; (2) the programme must be designed to address risk factors that canbe changed; and (3) the style and modes of treatment must match the learning style of each offender.
The evidence-based approach to offender treatment is relatively new. UNAFEI, as a regional
institute of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network, decided tohold this Course to offer participants an opportunity to deepen their understanding and share experiences
and knowledge on the subject. Another objective of the programme was to establish a global network ofcounterparts to facilitate the exchange of updated information on country practices.
During the Course, the participants diligently and comprehensively examined the current state ofevidence-based treatment of offenders in the participating countries and existing countermeasures,primarily through a comparative analysis. The participants shared their own experiences and knowledgeof the issues and identified problems and areas in which improvements could be made. With theacademic and practical inputs from UNAFEI faculty and the visiting experts and the in-depth discussions
they had with each other, the participants are now better equipped to cope with the realities anddifficulties of offender reintegration in their own countries.

2
I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to all of the participants upon their successful
completion of the Course, made possible by their strenuous efforts. I would like to extend my heartfelt
gratitude to the visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers who contributed a great deal to the Course’s success.
Furthermore, I appreciate the indispensable assistance and cooperation extended to UNAFEI by various
agencies and institutions that helped diversify the programme.
I would like to express my great appreciation to the Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA) for its immeasurable support throughout the Course. At the same time, a warm tribute must be
paid to the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF) and its branch organizations for their substantial
contributions to our activities. Lastly, I owe my gratitude to all the individuals whose unselfish efforts
behind the scenes contributed significantly to the successful realisation of this Course.
Upon returning to their home countries, I genuinely believe that, like their predecessors, thestrong determination and dedication of the participants will enable them to work towards the
improvement of their respective nations’ criminal justice systems and to the benefit of internationalsociety as a whole.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my best regards to the participants of the 151st International
Training Course. I hope that the experience they gained during the Course proves valuable in their daily
work and that the bonds fostered among the participants, visiting experts, and UNAFEI staff willcontinue to grow for many years to come.

June 2012

Tatsuya Sakuma
Director, UNAFEI

3

THE 151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE“EVIDENCE-BASED TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS”

Course Rationale
The ultimate goal of any correctional intervention is to prevent and reduce reoffending, and there
is a growing recognition that programmes solely based upon experience and intuition do not produce
satisfactory results. Information about “what works”, generated through research or evaluation using
accepted scientific methods, should guide the treatment of offenders. This is the essential philosophy of
the “evidence-based approach.”
There are two major components to the evidence-based treatment of offenders: appropriate risk
assessment and proper implementation of treatment programmes. First, each offender’s risk factor mustbe identified, and then, programmes proven to be effective and corresponding to the identified risk must
be properly implemented.
Offender Risk Assessment
Offender risk assessment is important for two reasons. First, there are risk factors that can bechanged and that cannot be changed. In order to bring about behavioural change, treatment programmes
need to address risk factors that can be changed. This in turn requires the offender’s risk factors to beproperly identified. Second, research has shown that reoffending cannot be reduced unless the service
level (such as intensity, frequency and duration) of the treatment programme is matched to the offender’srisk level.
Various tools have been developed to assess the risks of the offender. Such tools must be usedwith sufficient understanding of their underlying theoretical components, and the result must be reflectedin each offender’s treatment plan.
Offender Treatment Programmes
The evidence-based approach also requires the proper implementation of treatment programmesthat are proven to be effective. For a programme to be effective, literature suggests that the following
conditions must be met:
(1) The service level of the programme is linked with each offender’s risk of reoffending;(2) The programme is designed to address risk factors that can be changed; and(3) The style and modes of treatment match the learning style of each offender.
To properly implement the programme, the facilitator must understand its theoretical bases, theconditions under which it is to be applied, and its anticipated course and expected outcomes. Further, theimplementation should be monitored and evaluated to ensure feedback on each offender’s treatment planand for the improvement of the programme itself.
Objectives of the Programme
The evidence-based approach to offender treatment is relatively new. This programme offeredparticipants an opportunity to deepen their understanding and share experiences and knowledge on thesubject. Another objective of the programme was to establish a global network of counterparts to4facilitate the exchange of updated information on country practices.
In order to achieve these objectives, this programme provided an opportunity to identify andexamine current situations and challenges existing in participants’ countries and to build participants’knowledge of possible measures to improve current practice.
These objectives were achieved via lectures and participants’ dialogue and discussions.
Major topics studied were the following:1) Understanding of the current situation
Discussed the following matters regarding offender treatment in each country:(i) Methods to assess offenders (classification, risk assessment, etc.)(ii) Utilization of result of the assessment(iii) Type, outline, and evaluation of offender treatment programmes
2) Theory/PracticeStudied the theory and practice of evidence-based treatment of offenders(i) Offender risk assessment• Theory and tools• Methods of developing the tools• Practical problems and solutions• Examples of advanced practices(ii) Offender treatment programme• Conditions of effective treatment programmes• Methods of developing effective treatment programmes• Methods of evaluating the effectiveness of the programmes• Practical problems and solutions• Examples of advanced practices
Each participant submitted an Individual Presentation Paper regarding the above-mentioned topic
as it applies to the participant’s country and explained these topics in the participant’s individual
presentation.

5

Course Summary
Lectures
In total, 19 lectures were presented - nine by the visiting experts, four by ad hoc lecturers and six
by the faculty of UNAFEI. Three distinguished criminal justice practitioners from abroad served as
UNAFEI visiting experts. They lectured on issues relating to the main theme and contributed
significantly to the Course by encouraging discussions after their own lectures, participating in thediscussions of other programmes, and conversing with the participants on informal occasions.
Additionally, distinguished senior officials of the Government of Japan delivered ad hoc lectures. The
lecturers and lecture topics are listed on pages 6 to 7.
Individual Presentations
During the first two weeks, each Japanese and overseas participant delivered an individual
presentation, which introduced the actual situation, problems, and future prospects of his or her country.
These papers were compiled onto a USB memory stick and distributed to all the participants. The titlesof these individual presentation papers are listed on pages 8 to 9.
Group-Workshop Sessions
Group-workshop sessions further examined the sub-topics of the main theme. In order to conduct
each session effectively, the UNAFEI faculty selected individuals to serve as group members for the subtopics based on their responses to questionnaires previously distributed. Selected participants served aschairpersons, co-chairpersons, rapporteurs or co-rapporteurs, and faculty members served as advisers.
Each group’s primary responsibility was to explore and develop their designated topics in the groupworkshop sessions. The participants and UNAFEI faculty studied the topics and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the individual presentations, lectures, and soforth. After the group-workshop sessions, reports were drafted based on the discussions in their groups.
These reports were subsequently presented in the plenary meeting and report-back session, where they
were endorsed as the reports of the Course. Brief summaries of the group-workshop reports are provided
on pages 10 and 11.
Visits and Special Events
Visits to various agencies and institutions in Japan helped the participants obtain a more practicalunderstanding of the Japanese criminal justice system. In addition to the Course’s academic agenda,
many activities were arranged to provide a greater understanding of Japanese society and culture withthe assistance of various organizations and individuals, including the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation(ACPF). For more detailed descriptions, please refer to pages 12 and 13.

6

Lecture Topics
Visiting Experts’ Lectures
1)

Dr. Laurence Louis Motiuk• Risk/Needs Assessment: From Theory and Methods to Policy and Practice• The Effectiveness, Efficiency and Relevancy of Correctional Programmes: A System’s
Perspective• The Evolution of Evidence-Based Correctional Programmes in Canada

2)

Dr. Edward James Latessa• Overview of Correctional Programmes in the USA• Designing More Effective Correctional Programmes Using Evidence-Based Practices• Evaluating Correctional Programmes

3)

Mr. Timothy Leo• The Introduction of Evidence-Based Practice within an Organisation UndergoingTransformational Change• Current Evidence-Based Practices (EBP) in the Singapore Prison Service• Using Evidence-Based Knowledge to Create a Throughcare System

UNAFEI Professors’ Lectures
1)

Mr. Naoya Oyaizu, Professor, UNAFEI• Activities of the Japanese Police in the Great East Japan Earthquake

2)

Mr. Shinichiro Iwashita, Professor, UNAFEI• The Criminal Justice System in Japan – Investigation/Prosecution

3)

Mr. Yuichi Tada, Professor, UNAFEI• The Criminal Justice System in Japan: The Courts

4)

Mr. Koji Yoshimura, Professor, UNAFEI• Institutional Corrections in Japan – Penal Institutions and Treatment of Inmates5)

Ms. Mayu Yoshida, Professor, UNAFEI• Institutional Corrections in Japan: Juvenile Correctional Institutions

6)

Mr. Ryo Tsunoda, Professor, UNAFEI• Community-Based Treatment of Offenders System in Japan7
Ad Hoc Lectures
1)

Ms. Kiyoko Nishioka
Specialist, Juvenile Treatment Division, Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice• Development of the Ministry of Justice Risk-Assessment Tool

2)

Ms. Kayoko Tajima
Special Assistant to the Director, Supervision Division, Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry of Justice• Current Situation and Issues of Treatment Programmes for Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders in Japan3)

Mr. Kazuhiko Hikasa
Assistant to the Director, Prison Service Division, Ministry of Justice• Treatment Programmes for Institutional Correction in Japan and the System for Verifying theEffects4)

Ms. Yuko Matsushima & Mr. Yusuke Inozume
Classification Officers, Fuchu Prison• Treatment Programmes for Institutional Correction in Japan and the System for Verifying theEffects

8

Individual-Presentation Topics
Overseas Participants
1)

Mr. Carlos Alberto Restrepo Salazar (Colombia)• Structure of Police and Prison System in Colombia

2)

Mr. Pierre Bulenge Shindano (Democratic Republic of the Congo)• Treatment of Offenders – the Democratic Republic of Congo Case

3)

Mr. Mahmoud Ibrahim Al-Qudah (Jordan)• Treatment Programmes for the “Special Categories” of Inmates in Jordan (Takfiri Inmates)

4)

Mr. Nick Maingi Makuu (Kenya)• Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders (Current Situation of Offenders’(Risk) Assessment orTreatment Programme in Kenya)

5)

Mr. Charles Mutembei Gerrard (Kenya)• Current Situation of Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders in Kenya

6)

Mr. Moosa Rameez (Maldives)• Treatment and Rehabilitation of Offenders in the Maldives

7)

Mr. Abderahim Rahouti (Morocco)• “Reception and Orientation Commission” as a Prison Reform Measure to Improve Offenders’
Treatment in Morocco

8)

Mr. Samuel Morales Ramarui (Palau)• Prison Operation and Treatment of Offenders in Palau

9)

Ms. Mari Angeli Lucero Rafanan (Philippines)• Treatment of Offenders in the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology10) Ms. Faagutu Natalie Samuelu-Vaalotu (Samoa)• Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders in Samoa
11) Ms. Fonethip Cholchaipaisal (Thailand)• Enhancing Self-Esteem Programme for Juveniles under Probation
12) Mr. Padet Ringrawd (Thailand)• Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders: Treatment of Drug-Addicted Offenders in Thailand13) Mr. Jacob Bani (Vanuatu)• Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders
14) Mr. Trevor Rex Rarua (Vanuatu)• The Vanuatu Probation Services

915) Ms. Florina Shem (Vanuatu)• Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders
Observers16) Mr. Chun-kit Lawrence Chow (Hong Kong)• Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders: Risk and Needs Assessment and Management Protocol
for Offenders in Correctional Services Department of Hong Kong17) Mr. Jong-won Yoon (Korea)• Risk Assessment of Offenders in Korea
Japanese Participants18) Mr. Keishi Kawai• Suspension of Prosecution in Japan19) Mr. Taiki Matsuura• Social Investigation Support Tools as a Challenge of Evidence-Based Practice in the Family
Court20) Mr. Akinobu Mizobuchi• The Sentence and Offender Risk Assessment in Japanese Criminal Trials21) Mr. Takashi Nozaki• The Wide Range of Japanese Statutory Penalties and their Use in Practice22) Ms. Minako Ogawa• Overview and Challenges: Japan’s Evidence-Based Offender Treatment Programmes in theCommunity23) Ms. Mariko Yabuuchi• Risk Assessment of Juvenile Sex Offenders – Through the Analysis of Existing Tools
24) Ms. Mana Yamamoto• Evidence-Based Practice in Japanese Prisons: A Focus on the Sex Offender Treatment
Programme

10Group-Workshop Sessions
Group 1
RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF OFFENDERS
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Advisers

Mr. Abderahim Rahouti
Ms. Florina Shem
Mr. Chun-kit Lawrence Chow
Mr. Akinobu Mizobuchi
Mr. Carlos Alberto Restrepo Salazar
Mr. Pierre Bulenge Shindanao
Mr. Mahmoud Ibrahim Al-Qudah
Mr. Charles Mutembi Gerrard
Mr. Samuel Morales Ramarui
Ms. Cholchaipaisai Fonethip
Mr. Taiki Matsuura
Ms. Mariko Yabuuchi
Prof. Ryo Tsunoda
Prof. Mayu YoshidaProf. Yuichi Tada
Prof. Shinichiro Iwashita(Morocco)(Vanuatu)(Hong Kong)(Japan)(Colombia)(DR of the Congo)(Jordan)(Kenya)(Palau)(Thailand)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup 1 discussed risk/needs-assessment tools in terms of their definition, importance, use,
effectiveness, and limitations. Following their discussions, they noted that challenges to the successful
implementation of such tools include resistance from supervisors, staff, inmates, and the community;
overcrowding in correctional institutions; lack of financial support; and lack of facilitating legislation.
Nevertheless, the Group is strongly committed to promoting the use of such tools and made thefollowing recommendations: 1. evidence-based treatment of offenders is preferable to systems that rely
on professional experience and subjective evaluation; 2. participants are urged to make considerable
efforts to contribute to the development or implementation of risk/needs-assessment in their respective
countries; 3. many of the represented countries are urged to review and amend their laws to incorporate
risk/needs-assessment tools; 4. represented countries are urged to establish bilateral, regional, andinternational partnerships to enhance evidence-based practices, to exchange experiences, and to share
updated information; 5. most of the represented countries are urged to hire qualified staff in sufficientnumbers to allow adequate implementation of risk/needs-assessment tools; 6. most of the represented
countries are recommended to reconsider correctional infrastructure, which directly impacts the outcomeof risk/needs-assessment classification, accommodation, and programming; 7. all participants, bothGroup 1 and Group 2, are requested to strive to continuously exchange experiences and updated
information.
The Group concluded that while experience from all countries demonstrates that risk/needsassessment tools and evidence-based treatment of offenders is a new concept, the Group’s study during
this course shows that evidence-based assessment is important to better decision making and better
management of offenders. Not all represented countries have yet developed risk/needs-assessment tools,
but all agree that they shall endeavour to do so or to enhance existing risk/needs tools in their respective
countries. Finally, the Group noted that the ad hoc lecturers and Visiting Experts highlighted theeffectiveness and importance of risk/needs assessment as evidence-based treatment to reduce reoffending
and to improve correctional management in a systematic and scientific way.

11
Group 2
EVIDENCE-BASED-OFFENDER-TREATMENT PROGRAMMESChairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Advisers

Ms. Mana Yamamoto
Mr. Trevor Rex Rarua
Ms. Mari Angeli Lucero Rafanan
Mr. Keishi Kawai
Mr. Takashi Nozaki
Mr. Nick Maingi Makuu
Mr. Moosa Rameez
Ms. Faagutu Natalie Samuelu-Vaalotu
Mr. Padet Ringrawd
Mr. Jacob Bani
Mr. Jong-won Yoon
Ms. Minako Ogawa
Prof. Koji Yoshimura
Prof. Akiko Tashiro
Prof. Kumiko Izumi
Prof. Fumihiko Yanaka(Japan)(Vanuatu)(Philippines)(Japan)(Japan)(Kenya)(Maldives)(Samoa)(Thailand)(Vanuatu)(Korea)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report Summary
The Group based its discussion on the following agenda: 1. ideas learnt from the Visiting
Experts’ lectures; 2. the current situation of correctional programmes in each participant’s country; 3. thechallenges of implementing an evidence-based programme. From the VE’s lectures, the participantslearnt essential elements of effective treatment programmes, such as the risk, need, and responsivity(RNR) principle, cognitive behaviour treatment, and new trends such as the Good Lives Model andDesistence Theory. The Group also examined the issue of Process and Outcome Evaluation. Based on
their discussions, the Group identified four general categories of challenges. Each challenge is followed
by a recommendation.
1. Staff: A number of issues can contribute to staffing challenges, including poor or insufficienttraining, frequent rotation, lack of technical staff, poor motivation, and resistance to change.
Recommendation: Proper training of assured quality; increased consideration for retention ofknowledgeable staff for longer periods of time; simplified tools for exchange of information when staff
rotation/turnover is inevitable; hiring of technical staff for implementation of treatment; stressmanagement support for staff experiencing work or family-related problems.
2. Programming: Cultural conflict, inconsistency, lack of evaluation tools, and low offendermotivation can be detrimental to treatment programming. Recommendation: Programmes developed inforeign countries must be adapted to suit the respective countries in which they might later be used.
3. Capital Resources: Funding and infrastructural challenges are common to the introduction of
new treatment programmes. Recommendation: In the event that requests for increased budgets are
unsuccessful, donors can be tapped. The media can promote public awareness of and support fortreatment. Reduced recidivism will reduce prison costs and should lead to raised budget allocations.
4. Information: Poor communication between stakeholders (often in differing locations) hinders
the success of treatment programmes. Recommendation: Appropriate IT databases should be provided toallow easy access to, and retrieval of, information by all stakeholders. Modern IT should redress the
problem of physical isolation and distance.

12

Observation Visits
Date

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

23 MayTokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office• Mr. Keiichi Watanabe(Chief Prosecutor)

Ministry of Justice• Mr. Toshio Ogawa(Minister of Justice)

31 MayTraining Institute for Correctional Personnel• Ms. Yuka Saeki(Director, General Affairs Section)

1 JuneYokohama Probation Office• Mr. Mutsumi Muto
(Principal Probation Officer)

Yokohama Juvenile Classification Home

• Ms. Akiko Baba
(Director)

4 JuneFuchu Prison• Mr. Yukihisa Fukui(Senior Researcher)

5 JuneTokyo District Court• Mr. Ryosuke Fujimaki

Supreme Court• Mr. Tomoyuki Yokota(Justice)

7 JuneTokyo Family Court• Mr. Fumio Shimahara(Acting Chief Judge)

18 JuneMedical Juvenile Training School“Kanagawa Iryo Shonenin”• Ms. Makiyo Ishibashi(Superintendent)13Group Study Tour
Date

Location

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

13 JuneHiroshima

Chugoku Regional Parole Board andHiroshima Probation Office• Ms. Kyoko Yamada(Board Member, Chugoku
Regional Parole Board )14 JuneHiroshima

Halfway House “With Hiroshima”• Mr. Kanichi Yamada(Director)

ShimaneShimane Asahi Rehabilitation Program
Center• Mr. Fumiya Tezuka(Warden)

Osaka

Juvenile Training School for Girls“Katano Joshi Gakuin”• Mr. Takeji Imazu(Superintendent)

Kyoto

Volunteers of Rehabilitation Chion-in
Temple• Mr. Takamichi Mitsunari(Volunteer Probation Officer)

15 June14

Special Events
16 MayWelcome Party

18, 21, 22 May

Japanese Conversation Classes

The overseas participants attended three Japanese conversation classes and learned
practical Japanese expressions. The sensei (teachers) were Ms. Mariko Hirano and Ms. Kazuko
Syukuya from Nihongo-no-kai.
19 MayGrand Sumo Tournament Visit and ACPF Kisei Branch Party

Following a tour of Asakusa, including a visit to Sensoji Temple, the participants attended
the Grand Sumo Tournament at the Ryogoku Kokugikan, Tokyo. They later enjoyed a party
hosted by the Kisei Branch of the ACPF, held at the Daiichi Ryogoku Hotel.
23 MayCourtesy Call to the Ministry of Justice andReception by the Vice-Minister of Justice

At the conclusion of their courtesy visit to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Toshio Ogawa, a
reception was held for the participants by the Vice-Minister of Justice, Mr. Katsuyuki Nishikawa,at the Danwa-shitsu lounge on the 20th floor of the ministry building, overlooking Hibiya Park.
25 May

UNAFEI International Table Tennis Tournament

The UNAFEI Table Tennis Tournament was held in the auditorium. Mixed teams ofinternational participants, Japanese participants and UNAFEI faculty and staff were formed, andcompeted against each other. All participants, faculty and staff celebrated later in Lounge B.
29 MayThe Way of Tea (Tea Ceremony)

The participants participated in a “cha-no-yu” or “sado”, a formal Japanese tea ceremony,kindly hosted by Soroptimist International Tokyo, Fuchu.
30 MaySocial with Volunteer Probation Officers

The participants had an opportunity to exchange views with Japanese Volunteer Probation
Officers at a social at UNAFEI.
1 JuneYokohama Bay Dinner Cruise
The participants enjoyed a sunset cruise and dinner aboard the Marine Rouge, hosted by
the ACPF Yokohama Branch.

21 JuneFarewell Party
A party was held to bid farewell to the participants.

15

Reference Materials
A. Evidence-Based Practice - General
1. Roger K. Warren and the Crime and Justice Institute, Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce
Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Corrections, 2007).
2. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Evidence Based Correctional Practices (2007), available at
http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/docs/CCJJ_EBP_rpt_v3.pdf.
3. Ralph C. Serin and the Crime and Justice Institute, Evidence-based practice: Principles forEnhancing Correctional Results in Prisons (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Corrections, 2005).
4. Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, Implementing Evidence-Based
Policy and Practice in Community Corrections, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Institute ofCorrections, 2009).
5. James Bonta and D. A. Andrews, Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment andRehabilitation (n.p.: Public Safety Canada, 2007).
6. Guy Bourgon et al., Translating “What Works” into Sustainable Everyday Practice: Program
Design, Implementation and Evaluation (Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2009).
7. James Bonta et al., The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-NeedResponsivity in the Real World (Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2010).
8. J. Stephen Wormith, Adhering to principles of effective correctional treatment: Academic musingsof a former clinician and administrator (2007).
9. Shelley L. Brown, Cost-Effective Correctional Treatment (2000).
10. Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin and Paula Smith, Cumulating Knowledge: How Meta-Analysis canServe the Needs of Correctional Clinicians and Policy-Makers (2000).
11. Chris Trotter, Effective Supervision of Offenders (2010).
12. Adult Probation Services Division, Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions &Timeline of Significant Events in Arizona Probation (2010).
13. Stephen D. Howell, Evidence Based Practice in Community Corrections: The British Columbia
Experience (2006).
14. Elyse Clawson, Brad Bogue, and Lore Joplin, Implementing Evidence-based Practices in
Corrections (2005).
15. Implementing Evidence-Based Principles in Community Corrections: A Case Study of Successes
and Challenges in Maine (U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Corrections, 2001).
16. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective
Intervention (U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Corrections, and Crime and JusticeInstitution, 2004).
17. Motivational Interviewing in Corrections a Comprehensive Guide to Implementing MI in
Corrections (U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Corrections, 2012).
18. Reducing re-offending framework: Setting the scene PAPER NO. 1 (Corrections Victoria, 2004).
19. Paul Gendreau et al., Running Head: PRACTICING PSYCHOLOGY IN CORRECTIONAL
SETTINGS (2006).
20. National Offender Management Service, The impact of corrections on re-offending: a review of ‘whatworks’ (2004).
21. Don A. Andrews, The Importance of the Appropriate Management of Risk and Reintegration
Potential (1999).
22. D.A. Andrews & R.D. Hoge1, The psychology of criminal conduct and principles of effective
prevention and rehabilitation (1999).
23. Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Edward J. Latessa & Alexander M. Holsinger, The Risk Principle in

16

24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

Action: What Have We Learned From 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs? (2006).
Paul Gendreau, Paula Smith, and Sheila French, The Theory of Effective Correctional Intervention:
Empirical Status and Future Directions (2006).
National Institute of Corrections, U. S. Department of Justice, and Maryland Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services, Tools of the trade a guide to incorporating science in to practice(n.d.).
Sharon M. Kennedy, Treatment Responsivity: Reducing Recidivism by Enhancing Treatment
Effectiveness (2000).
Lore Joplin et al., Using an Integrated Model to Implement Evidence-based Practices in
Corrections (2004).
Friedrich Lösel, What Works in Offender Rehabilitation: A Global Perspective (2010).

B. Risk/Needs Assessment
1. Don A. Andrews, Recidivism Is Predictable and Can Be Influenced: Using Risk Assessments to
Reduce Recidivism (1989).
2. Larry Motiuk, Classification for Correctional Programming: the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA)
Process (1999).
3. James Bonta, Do we need theory for offender risk assessment? (1997).
4. Gilbert Taylor, Implementing risk and needs classification in the Correctional Service of Canada(1999).
5. James Bonta, Offender Assessment: General Issues and Considerations (2000).
6. Laurence L. Motiuk, Offender Risk Assessment: A Critical Role (2006).
7. Laurence L. Motiuk and Frank J. Porporino, Offender Risk/Needs Assessment: A Study ofConditional Releases (1989).
8. International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Risk Assessment & Risk
Management: A Canadian Criminal Justice Perspective (n.d.).
9. Larry Motiuk, The Community Risk/Needs Management Scale: An effective supervision tool (1999).
10. Shelley L. Brown and Laurence L. Motiuk, The Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis (DFIA)(2005).
11. Laurence L. Motiuk and Shelley L. Brown, The Validity of Offender Needs Identification andAnalysis in Community Corrections (1993).
12. Thomas Blomberg et al., Validation of the Compas Risk Assessment Classification Instrument (2010).
C. Correctional Programmes
1. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation & University of California, Irvine,
Effective Correctional Programmes (2006).
2. James McGuire, Defining Correctional Programs (2000).
3. ––– Development of a Program Logic Model to Assist Evaluation (2000).
4. Dennis J. Stevens, Education Programming for Offenders (2000).
5. Friedrich Lösel, Effective correctional programming: What empirical research tells us and what it
doesn’t (1999).
6. Daryl G. Kroner & Masaru Takahashi, Every Session Counts: The differential impact of previous
programmes and current programme dosage on offender recidivism (2011).
7. David Robinson, Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Cognitive Skills Training (1999).
8. Alan W. Leschied, Implementation of Effective Correctional Programs (2000).
9. Mark Gornik, Moving from Correctional Program to Correctional Strategy: Using Proven
Practices to Change Criminal Behavior (n.d.).
10. Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin, and Paula Smith, Obstacles to Effective Correctional Program
Delivery (2000).
11. Christa A. Gillis, Offender Employment Programming (2000).
12. Paul Gendreau, Principles of Effective Correctional Programming (1999).

17
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Donald A. Andrews, Principles of Effective Correctional Programs (2000).
Audrey Concilio, Correctional program and site accreditation in Canada (2003).
Gerry Gaes, Program Evaluation: Guidelines for Asking the Right Questions (2000).
Ralph C. Serin, Program Evaluation: Intermediate Measures of Treatment Success (2000).
Claude Tellier and Ralph C. Serin, The Role of Staff in Effective Program Delivery (2000).

D. Sexual Offenders
1. R. Karl Hanson et al., Effectiveness of Treatment for Sexual Offenders: Risk, Need, and Responsivity(2009).
2. Arthur Gordon, Applying the risk principle to sex offender treatment (1999).
3. Franca Cortoni & Kevin L. Nunes, Assessing the Effectiveness of the National Sexual Offender
Program (2007).
4. Leslie Helmus et al., Assessing the Risk of Older Sex Offenders: Developing the Static-99R andStatic-2002R (2011).
5. R. Karl Hanson et al., Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The
Dynamic Supervision Project (2007).
6. W.L. Marshall and Sharon Williams, Assessment and treatment of sexual offenders (2000).
7. Amy Phenix et al., Coding Rules for Static-2002 (2002).
8. Lawrence Ellerby et al., Current Practices in Canadian Sexual Abuser Treatment Programs: The
Safer Society 2009 Survey (2010).
9. R. Karl Hanson, The Accuracy of Recidivism Risk Assessments for Sexual Offenders: A MetaAnalysis (2007).
10. Kelly M. Babchishin, R. Karl Hanson, and Leslie Helmus, The RRASOR, Static-99R and Static2002R All Add Incrementally to the Prediction of Recidivism among Sex Offenders (2011).
11. R. Karl Hanson and Andrew Harris, The Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR): A
Method for Measuring Change in Risk Levels (2000).
12. R. Karl Hanson, The Validity of Static-99 with Older Sexual Offenders (2005).
E. Drug Offenders
1. Ojmarrh Mitchell et al., The Effectiveness of Incarceration-Based Drug Treatment on Criminal
Behavior (2006).
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Matrix Clients Handbook (2006).
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Matrix Clients Treatment Companion (2006).
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Matrix Counselor Treatment Manual (2006).
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Matrix Family Education Manual (2006).
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal
Justice Populations – Second Edition (2009).
7. Lynn O. Lightfoot, Programming for Offenders with Substance Abuse (2000).
8. Dan Kunic, The Computerized Assessment of Substance Abuse (CASA) (2006).
F. Violent Offenders
1. Franca Cortoni, Kevin Nunes, and Mark Latendresse, An Examination of the Effectiveness of theViolence Prevention Program (2006).
2. Craig Dowden, Kelley Blanchette, and Ralph Serin, Anger Management Programming For Federal
Male Inmates: An Effective Intervention (1999).
3. Mary Ann Campbell, Sheila French, and Paul Gendreau, Assessing the Utility of Risk Assessment
Tools and Personality Measures in the Prediction of Violent Recidivism for Adult Offenders (2007).
4. Larry Motiuk, Carson Smiley, and Kelley Blanchette, Intensive programming for violent offenders:
A comparative investigation (1999).
5. Ralph C. Serin and Denise L. Preston, Programming for violent offenders (2000).
6. D. Elaine Pressman, Risk Assessment Decisions for Violent Political Extremism (2009).

18
7.
8.
9.

Guy Bourgon and James Bonta, Risk Assessment For General Assault And Partner Abusers (2004).
Ralph Serin and Shelley Brown, Strategies for enhancing the treatment of violent offenders (1999).
Ralph C. Serin and Donna L.Mailloux, The Utility of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Assessments for
Offenders in Pre-Release Psychiatric Decision-Making (2000).
10. R. Karl Hanson, Leslie Helmus, and Guy Bourgon, The Validity of Risk Assessments for Intimate
Partner violence: A Meta-Analysis (2007).
11. Ralph C. Serin and Denise L. Preston, Violent Offender Programming (2000).
G. Female Offenders
1. Doris Fortin, A correctional programming strategy for women (2004).
2. D. A. Andrews & Craig Dowden, A meta-analytic investigation into effective correctional
intervention for female offenders (1999).
3. Kelley Blanchette, Classifying female offenders for correctional interventions (1999).
4. ––– Effective Correctional Practice with Women Offenders (2000).
5. Nancy L. Stableforth, Effective corrections for women offenders (1999).
6. Larry Motiuk and Mark Nafekh, Reintegration potential profiles for federally sentenced women(1999).
H. Juvenile Offenders
1. Robert D. Hoge, Advances in the Assessment and Treatment of Juvenile Offenders (2008).
2. ––– Issues In The Assessment of Juvenile Offenders (2009).
3. ––– Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Assessment and Treatment (2009).

19

Experts and Participants List
Visiting Experts
Dr. Laurence Louis MotiukSpecial Adviser
Infrastructure Renewal Group
Correctional Service Canada
CanadaDr. Edward James Latessa

Professor & Director
School of Criminal Justice
University of Cincinnati
USA

Mr. Timothy Hee Sun Leo

Chief Psychologist & Director
Psychological & Correctional Rehabilitation
Division
Singapore Prison Service
Singapore

Overseas Participants
Mr. Carlos Alberto Restrepo Salazar

Major
Intelligence Division
National Police of Colombia
Colombia

Mr. Pierre Bulenge Shindano

Vice Proesecutor
High Court Prosecutor Office
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Mr. Mahmoud Ibrahim Al-Qudah

Deputy Director
Correction and Rehabilitation Center
Correction and Rehabilitation Department
Public Security Directorate
JordanMr. Nick Maingi Makuu

District Probation Officer
Probation and Aftercare Service
Office of the Vice-President and Ministryof Home Affairs
Kenya

Mr. Charles Mutembei Gerrard

Senior Superintendent
Meru Main Prison
Kenya Prisons Service
Office of the Vice President and Ministry of Home
AffairsKenya

20
Mr. Moosa Rameez

Senior Administration Officer
Parole Unit
Department of Penitentiary and Rehabilitation
Services
Ministry of Home Affairs
Maldives

Mr. Abderahim Rahouti

Director of the Training Academy
Division of Recruitment, Training and
Improvement of Competences
The Directorate of the Penitentiary
Administration and Insertion
MoroccoMr. Samuel Morales Ramarui

Police Supervisor
Bureau of Public Safety
Ministry of JusticePalau

Ms. Mari Angeli Lucero Rafanan

Chief
Administrative Division
Directorate for Investigation and Prosecution
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
Philippines

Ms. Faagutu Natalie
Samuelu-Vaalotu

Principal Probation and Parole Officer
Probation and Parole Services
Ministry of Justice and Courts Administration
Samoa

Ms. Fonethip Cholchaipaisal

Senior Probation Officer
Probation Development Bureau
Rehabilitation Offender Group
Department of Probation
Ministry of Justice
Thailand

Mr. Padet Ringrawd

Director
Office of Drug Suppression andPrevention
Department of Corrections
Ministry of Justice
Thailand

Mr. Jacob Bani

Prison Manager
Correctional Centre/Prison
Department of Correctional Services
VanuatuMr. Trevor Rex Rarua

Probation Officer
Corrections – Probation Services Section

21
Department of Correctional Services
Vanuatu
Ms. Florina Shem

Custodial Assessment Officer
Luganville Correctional Centre
Department of Correctional Services
Vanuatu

Observers
Mr. Chun-kit Lawrence Chow

Principal Officer
Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre
Hong Kong

Mr. Jong-won Yoon

Chief Inspector
Seoul Detention Center
Korea

Japanese Participants
Mr. Keishi Kawai

Public Prosecutor
Utsunomiya District Public Prosecutor’s
OfficeMr. Taiki Matsuura

Senior Family Court Probation Officer
Tokyo Family Court

Mr. Akinobu Mizobuchi

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Takashi Nozaki

Public Prosecutor
Kochi District Public Prosecutor’s Office

Ms. Minako Ogawa

Probation Officer
Treatment Division
Chiba Probation Office

Ms. Mariko Yabuuchi

Classification Officer
Treatment Division
Wakayama Prison

Ms. Mana Yamamoto

Official
Prison Service Division
Ministry of Justice22

THE TWELFTH COUNTRY-FOCUSED TRAINING COURSE
ON THE JUVENILE-DELINQUENT TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR KENYAThe Twelfth Country-Focused Training Course on the Juvenile-Delinquent Treatment System for
Kenya was held from 14 February to 9 March 2012 at UNAFEI. Fourteen participants attended.
Mr. Justus David Muthoka

Acting Senior Assistant Director
Department of Children Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Mr. Philip Ngolya Nzenge

Principal Children’s Officer
Department of Children Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Ms. Esther Wasige

Chief Children’s Officer
Department of Children Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Mr. Alfred Bethwel Dieto Abomah

Chief Children’s Officer
Department of Children Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Mr. Francis Kisilu Katiku

Chief Children’s Officer
Department of Children Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Ms. Beatrice Mbera Obutu

Chief Children’s Officer
Department of Children Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Mr. Philip Omolo Nyagigo

Principal Probation Officer
Probation and Aftercare Services
Office of the Vice President andMinistry of Home Affairs

Ms. Serah Makaa John

Chief Probation Officer
Probation and Aftercare Services
Office of the Vice President andMinistry of Home Affairs

Mr. Andrew Kimunguyi Nyongesa

Chief Probation Officer
Probation and Aftercare Services
Office of the Vice President and23
Ministry of Home Affairs
Mr. Jacob Kiptuei A. Sum

Chief Probation Officer
Probation and Aftercare Services
Office of the Vice President andMinistry of Home Affairs

Ms. Susan Nyaboke Nyasinga

Senior Social Welfare Officer
Kenya Prisons Service
Office of the Vice President andMinistry of Home Affairs

Mr. Aggrey Adagi Obeli

Senior Superintendent of PrisonsShimo La Tewa Borstal
Kenya Prisons Service
Office of the Vice President andMinistry of Home Affairs

Ms. Ronaldine Mocho Washika Wachira

Senior Resident Magistrate
Kapenguria Law Court
Judiciary

Mr. Denis Wafula Wanjala

Sergeant
Police Headquarters
Kenya Police Service

24

THE EIGHTH SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA
The Eighth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 29 February to 15 March2012 at UNAFEI. The Seminar was entitled “Addressing Corruption which Hinders Countermeasuresfor Drug Offences and Other Crimes: Especially, Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors
and Law Enforcement Officials”. Nine participants attended from four Central Asian countries,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Mr. Kaken Kassabulatov

Judge
Almaty District Court
Kazakhstan

Mr. Aibek Nurakhmetov

Head of the Division
Department of International Cooperation
Kazakhstan

Mr. Azamat Ibraimov

Deputy Head
Office for the Supervision of the Legalityof Executive Organizations of Local
Governments
Prosecutor General’s Office
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Naimjon Bobokalonov

Head of the Division
Department of Internal Affairs in Sughd
RegionMinistry of Internal Affairs
Tajikistan

Ms. Mavzhyuda Kasymova

Judge
Council of Justice in Tursunzoda City
Tajikistan

Mr. Dzhamshed Sangov

Head of the Department
Department of Investigation of Special
Criminal Cases
General Prosecutor’s Office
Tajikistan

Mr. Jahongir Mamasoliev

Investigator
Main Criminal Investigation Department
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Uzbekistan

Mr. Djakhangir Mirsafaev

Senior Investigator of Cases of Special
Importance
Department on Combating Economic Crimes andCorruption
General Prosecutor’s Office

25
Uzbekistan
Mr. Yoqub Ziyodulloyev

Judge
Supreme Court
Uzbekistan

26

INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES1.

The 15th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
The 15th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme will be held from 11 October to 14 November
2012. In this Course, seven Japanese and 26 overseas officials engaged in corruption control willcomparatively analyse the current situation of corruption, methods of combating corruption andmeasures to enhance international cooperation.
2.

The 152nd International Training Course
The 152nd International Training Course is scheduled for 23 August to 28 September 2012. The
main theme of the Course is “Trafficking in Persons – Prevention, Prosecution, Victim Protection andPromotion of International Cooperation”. Sixteen overseas participants and six Japanese participants willattend.
Rationale
Trafficking in persons is a heinous crime that grievously harms its victims. Every year, thousandsof men, women, and children are trafficked and subjected to sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery
or other forms of exploitation. Many of them are exposed to multiple and chronic traumatising events
such as restriction of movement, direct physical violence, and verbal and psychological abuse, causing a
number of physical and mental health problems that are difficult to recover from.
The growing recognition that trafficking in persons is a global problem resulted in the adoptionof the “Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women andChildren,” supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
The Protocol entered into force on 25 December 2003, and its purposes are: (a) to prevent andcombat trafficking in persons, paying particular attention to women and children; (b) to protect and assist
the victims of such trafficking, with full respect for their human rights; and (c) to promote cooperation
among States Parties in order to meet those objectives (Article 2).
Prevention
Human trafficking is difficult to detect, and once committed, its negative impacts on victims are
difficult to redress. Therefore, prevention should be a major component of any anti-human-trafficking
policies or programs. In this regard, the Trafficking in Persons Protocol requires States Parties tostrengthen border control (Article 11) and take measures to prevent the misuse of travel and identity
documents (Article 12). Awareness-raising efforts (Article 9) are also essential as they can alert
vulnerable groups to the risks of victimisation; mobilise public support for measures to detect andprevent trafficking; and encourage victims to come forward.
Prosecution
Trafficking in persons is carried out by several actors in an organized and clandestine way.
Traffickers change methods and routes constantly, and victims are often transported across national
borders. These elements make trafficking in persons a particularly difficult crime to investigate andsuccessfully prosecute. Witness protection, measures to encourage accomplice testimony, and special
investigative techniques such as controlled delivery, electronic surveillance, and undercover operations
are examples of useful tools to prosecute sophisticated, organized criminal activity.
Another characteristic of trafficking in persons cases is the often-encountered difficulty inobtaining the full cooperation of the victims. They are placed under a blend of control measures such as27
violence, coercion, and deception by the traffickers, and many victims are led to believe it
disadvantageous to cooperate with the authorities. They may even show hostility towards law
enforcement officers. Investigators and prosecutors need to know how to deal with these challenges.
Victim Protection
The Trafficking in Persons Protocol contains several specific provisions calling for protection of
trafficking victims. States Parties are required to consider implementing measures to provide forphysical, psychological, and social recovery of victims, including provision of appropriate housing;
medical, psychological and material assistance; and employment, education and training opportunities(Article 6, paragraph 3). In addition, States Parties are required to consider adopting measures that
permit victims to remain in their territories (Article 7), and they should also cooperate and facilitate therepatriation of the victims (Article 8).
Promoting International Cooperation
A significant proportion of trafficking-in-persons cases are transnational, and even domestic cases
may involve victims or offenders who originate from an outside jurisdiction. These transnational
elements aggravate the complexity and difficulties of investigation and prosecution.
Varying legal requirements and restrictions, jurisdictional problems, differences in criminal law
and procedure, lack of coordination, and translation and language problems are some of the mostfrequently experienced barriers to international cooperation and mutual legal assistance.
Objectives of the Programme
The objective of this Course is to offer participants an opportunity to share experiences, gain
knowledge, and examine measures against trafficking in persons. In order to achieve this purpose, theCourse programme will provide an opportunity to examine the current situations and problems existingin the respective countries.
Specific topics to be addressed are the following;1) Definition of trafficking in persons
2) The actual situation of trafficking in persons(i) The current situation of trafficking in persons(ii) Modus Operandi and means of trafficking in persons(iii) Forms of exploitation(iv) Analysis of the causes of trafficking in persons
3) Measures for Prosecution(i) Criminalisation of trafficking in persons and related acts(ii) Obstacles to the investigation of trafficking in persons(iii) Detecting trafficking in persons(iv) Victim-related issues (Identification of victims, interviewing victims, and victim protection during
investigations)(v) Witness protection and measures to encourage cooperation (immunity grants, mitigation ofpunishment, etc.)(vi) Special investigative techniques (controlled delivery, electronic surveillance, undercover
operations, etc.)(vii) International cooperation (extradition, mutual legal assistance, law-enforcement cooperation)(viii) Confiscation of proceeds of crime284) Measures for Protection(i) Immigration Status(ii) Assistance for living (residence, translation, medical care, psychological care, etc.)(iii) Reintegration (education, vocational training, etc.)(iv) Assistance to return home(v) Assistance for restitution and compensation
5) Measures for Prevention(i) Border control(ii) Measures against misuse of travel and identity documents(iii) Awareness raising.

29

ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS
Faculty Changes
Mr. Naoyuki Harada, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo District
Public Prosecutor’s Office on 1 April 2012.
Mr. Yuichiro Wakimoto, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to Fukuoka Prison on
1 April 2012.
Ms. Ayako Sakonji, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to Wakayama Probation
Office on 1 April 2012.
Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was appointed as a professor of the
National Police Academy on 1 April 2012.
Mr. Shinichiro Iwashita, formerly a public prosecutor of Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s
Office, Tachikawa Branch, was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2012.
Mr. Koji Yoshimura, formerly an officer of the International Affairs Division of Yokohama
Prison, was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2012.
Ms. Akiko Tashiro, formerly an officer at Yokohama Probation Office, was appointed as aprofessor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2012.
Mr. Naoya Oyaizu, formerly a staff member of the Policy Research Center of the National Police
Academy, was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2012.
Overseas Trips by Staff
Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa, Professor Naoyuki Harada, Professor Kumiko Izumi, andProfessor Fumihiko Yanaka visited Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand and Indonesia from 14 to 24 February
2012, to hold preparatory meetings for future Good Governance Seminars for Southeast Asian Countries.
The UNAFEI delegation also discussed the possibilities of future co-hosting cooperation with the
Malaysian and Indonesian anti-corruption authorities.
Professor Yuichiro Tada, Ms. Yoshiko Tani (Staff) and Mr. Takashi Okaniwa (Staff) visited
Beijing, China from 6 to 9 March 2012 to attend the Seminar on Regional Cooperation in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice, held at the College for Criminal Law Science of Beijing Normal
University. Professor Tada gave an introduction of UNAFEI’s activities to the Seminar.
Director Tatsuya Sakuma and Professor Shinichiro Iwashita visited Vienna, Austria from 22 to 29
April to attend the 21st session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, held at theUnited Nations Office in Vienna.
Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa visited Hong Kong, China from 8 to 12 May 2012 to attend
the Fifth session of the Independent Commission against Corruption.

30

FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI
Faculty:
Mr. Tatsuya Sakuma
Mr. Haruhiko Ukawa
Mr. Motoo Noguchi
Ms. Kumiko Izumi
Mr. Fumihiko Yanaka
Mr. Shinichiro Iwashita
Mr. Yuichi Tada
Mr. Naoya Oyaizu
Mr. Ryo Tsunoda
Mr. Koji Yoshimura
Ms. Akiko Tashiro
Ms. Mayu Yoshida
Ms. Grace Lord
Secretariat:
Mr. Takashi Hagiwara
Mr. Seiichi Sugiyama
Mr. Takeshi Fujita

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor, Chief of Training Division
Professor
Professor, Chief of Information and LibraryService Division
151st Course Programming Officer
Professor, Chief of Research Division
Professor, 151st Course Deputy Programming Officer
Professor, 151st Course Deputy Programming Officer
Linguistic Adviser
Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat

General and Financial Affairs Section:
Mr. Hiroki Miyazaki
Chief Officer
Mr. Masato Honda
Officer
Ms. Aoi Hichiguro
OfficerTraining and Hostel Management Affairs Section:
Mr. Shinichi Yamamoto
Chief Officer
Mr. Yoshiki Fukuta
Chief Officer
Ms. Rie Suzuki
OfficerMr. Shinichi Inoue
Officer, 151st Course Assistant Programming Officer
International Research Affairs Section:
Mr. Takuya Furuhashi
OfficerMs. Naoko Iwakata
Librarian
Secretarial Staff:
Ms. Hisayo Yamada

Officer

Kitchen:Ms. Sae Sakai

Chef

JICA Co-ordinator for the 151st International Training Course:
Ms. Kiyomi Hoshino
JICA

31

UNAFEI Home Page: http://www.unafei.or.jp/
UNAFEI E-mail: unafei@moj.go.jp