ISSN 1020-914X

UNAFEI

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

No. 163
February 2022

Established1961
IN THIS ISSUE

Page

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR ........................................................................................................................... 1
THE 176TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ......................................................................................... 3
ACHIEVING INCLUSIVE SOCIETIES THROUGH EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICIES AND
PRACTICES
Course Rationale .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Course Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 12
Lecture Topics.............................................................................................................................................. 13
Individual Presentations............................................................................................................................... 15
Action Plans ................................................................................................................................................. 17
Reference Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Expert and Participant List .......................................................................................................................... 20
INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES ............................................................................ 22
Training Seminar for the Officers Involved in Juvenile Justice in Kenya ................................................................ 22
Exchange Programme between the Japanese Prosecution Service andthe Supreme People's Procuracy of Viet Nam ........................................................................................................... 22
Comparative Study on the Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal ............................................................. 22
First International Training Programme on Building Inclusive Societies ................................................................. 22
FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI..................................................................................................................... 23

UNAFEI IS AN AFFILIATED REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

2-1-18, MOKUSEINOMORI, AKISHIMA-SHI, TOKYO, 196-8570, JAPANTEL: 81-42-500-5100 ◆FAX: 81-42-500-5195 ◆E-MAIL: unafei@i.moj.go.jp
HOME PAGE: http://www.unafei.or.jp/

1
1
LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR
It is my privilege to inform readers of the successful completion of the 176th International
Training Course on Achieving Inclusive Societies through Effective Criminal Justice Policies
and Practices, which took place online from 15 November to 9 December 2021. In this Course,
we welcomed 17 overseas participants: 9 from Africa, 7 from Asia and 1 from Oceania. The
participants included judges, prosecutors, police officers, government attorneys and otherpublic officials involved in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. As this newsletter
demonstrates, the Course was extremely productive. It consisted of lectures by visiting experts,
ad hoc lecturers, UNAFEI faculty members, individual presentations and interactive online
discussion sessions.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets a lofty but firm goal: to create a worldin which no one is left behind. Yet in the field of criminal justice, the unfortunate reality is thatmany offenders – who often have prior histories of trauma, victimization and abuse – are left
behind by society before they commit crime, and they are then stigmatized and marginalized
upon their return to society. At the same time, crime victims are routinely left behind by criminal
justice systems by being excluded from participation in the justice process and by being exposed
to secondary victimization by the very system charged with protecting them and vindicating
their rights. Consequently, criminal justice systems should give greater attention to the need forinclusive criminal justice policies and practices that consider the rights and interests of crime
victims and offenders.
UNAFEI, as one of the institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme Network, held this Course to offer participants an opportunity to clarify andanalyse the current situation of inclusive criminal justice policy and practice in eachparticipating country and to explore more effective practices for doing so. Additionally, theparticipants were able to share experiences, gain knowledge, and build a human network ofcounterparts.
During the Course, the participants diligently and comprehensively examined the main
theme, primarily through a comparative analysis. The participants shared their own experiences
and knowledge of the issues and identified problems and areas in which improvements could
be made. With the academic and practical input from the visiting experts, ad hoc lecturers and
UNAFEI faculty – and the in-depth discussions they had with each other – the participants are
now better equipped to enhance the policies and practices related to providing support to crime
victims and rehabilitation support to offenders in their respective countries.
I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to all the participants upon their successful
completion of the Course, made possible by their strenuous efforts. My heartfelt gratitude goesout 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 Course.
I would also 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 branchorganizations 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22
successful realization of this Course.
With the knowledge and perspectives gained through this training course, I genuinely
believe that, like their predecessors, the strong determination and dedication of the participants
will enable them to work towards the improvement of their respective nations’ criminal justicesystems, and towards the benefit of international society as a whole.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my best regards to the participants of the 176thInternational 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 will continue to grow for many years to come.
January 2022

MORINAGA Taro
Director, UNAFEI

3
3
THE 176th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
ACHIEVING INCLUSIVE SOCIETIES THROUGH EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICEPOLICIES AND PRACTICES
Course Rationale
1. Introduction
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 1 adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly in 2015, pledges that “no one will be left behind” and sets out 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). In particular, Goal 16 seeks to “promote peaceful and inclusive
societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective,
accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. Similarly, in the criminal justice context,
the Doha Declaration, 2 adopted at the 13th Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice, highlights “the importance of promoting peaceful, corruption-free and inclusive
societies for sustainable development, with a focus on a people-centred approach that provides
access to justice for all and builds effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”(paragraph 4).
Crime not only causes physical, economic and mental harm to victims but also has anegative impact on their sense of well-being and self-worth. However, victims often have torecover from such harm without necessary assistance. Moreover, victims sometimes sufferfrom additional harm through the criminal justice procedure – secondary victimization –which occurs not as a direct result of the crime but through the response of institutions andindividuals to the victims. In light of building a peaceful and inclusive society, when a crime
is committed, it is crucial to provide the victims with necessary support and assistance so as
to help them recover from the harm and damage they have suffered, as well as to avoid
secondary victimization in the criminal proceedings. The Kyoto Declaration, 3 adopted at the
14th Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, highlights “Safeguarding victims’rights and protecting witnesses and reporting persons” (paragraphs 31–34).
As another aspect, offenders, particularly those released from prison, experience
difficulties in their re-entry, due to stigmatization and a number of social barriers they face.
This hampers offenders’ rehabilitation and increases their reoffending risks. Because mostoffenders return to the community, it is important to facilitate their reintegration into society
as productive and law-abiding citizens, thereby reducing their risk of reoffending. Reducing
reoffending is one of the main topics discussed at the Kyoto Congress. The Kyoto Declarationemphasizes the importance of reducing reoffending through rehabilitation and reintegration,and it encourages Member States to promote a rehabilitative environment in correctional
facilities and in the community, to promote multi-stakeholder partnerships to reduce
reoffending, to raise awareness of the importance of public acceptance of offenders and so on(paragraphs 37-42).
In pursuit of the goal of establishing inclusive societies, criminal justice systems should
General Assembly resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015.
General Assembly resolution 70/174 of 17 December 2015.
3
A/CONF.234/16.
1
2

4
4
address the impacts of crime by making every effort to provide victim support and prevent
reoffending.
2. Victim Support
The traditional criminal justice system often left victims behind. In many jurisdictions,the role of victims in the criminal justice procedure was limited to giving evidence, andvictims did not have the opportunity to express their views and concerns at any point
throughout the criminal justice process. Also, there used to be no mechanisms or procedures
where evidence submitted at criminal trials could be used in civil litigation to obtaincompensation. Moreover, victims had to endure secondary victimization, which can occur at
any stage of the criminal justice process, from intrusive or inappropriate conduct ofinvestigation, in regard to prosecutorial decisions, during trial and sentencing, and concerning
the decisions on releasing offenders. Since the mid-20th century, such tendency has been
criticized, the rights of victims have increasingly been recognized, and the international
community has taken steps to emphasize the need to support and protect victims throughout
the criminal justice process. In particular, the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice forVictims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985 Declaration) 4 emphasizes that victims should betreated with compassion and respect for their dignity (paragraph 4), highlights the importanceof allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate
stages of the proceedings (paragraph 6(b)), stresses the necessity of a legal framework ofrestitution (paragraph 8-11), and emphasizes the protection of victims and measures to betaken to minimize inconvenience to victims, and to protect their privacy, when necessary(paragraph 6(d)). In line with these principles, measures to empower and protect victims havebeen developed and implemented. Also, later United Nations conventions are equipped withclauses for victim and witness protection and assistance. 5
a. Activating the Role of Victims in the Criminal Proceedings
There are various approaches and measures that have been and should be taken by or with
the involvement of criminal justice authorities to enhance victims’ rights and interests. In
order to give victims proactive roles in the process, and thereby give due consideration to
victims’ views and concerns in sentencing and other relevant decisions, victims are given
participatory roles. For instance, in some jurisdictions, victims can institute prosecution
privately, take part in the trial or other relevant proceedings, and state their views and theimpact of the offence before the court.
b. Restitution and Victim Support
As for the recovery of damage, in some jurisdictions, state compensation schemes havebeen established. Also, in some jurisdictions, mediation or restorative justice procedures areavailable. These procedures facilitate compensation and, moreover, ensure active victim
participation. Victims’ voluntary participation helps offenders to foster a more prosocial
attitude towards rehabilitation. In certain jurisdictions, civil procedures in which evidencecollected in the criminal procedure is used to establish the claim (e.g. restitution orders in
Anglo-American legal systems and action civile in the French legal system) are available. In
addition, traumatized victims should be given access to available health and social services.
In some jurisdictions, funds are available to provide victims with access to medical services
or trauma counselling.

4
5

General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985.
E.g. Article 24 and 25 of United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.

55c. Preventing Secondary Victimization
In terms of protecting victims and preventing secondary victimization, criminal justiceauthorities should acknowledge the vulnerability of victims and behave in a manner to avoid
further harm, and crime victims should be provided with necessary support and assistance so
as to lessen any negative impacts. In particular, the 1985 Declaration states the need to take“measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary, andensure their safety, as well as that of their families and witnesses on their behalf, from
intimidation and retaliation” (paragraph 6(d)).
More specifically, first, in order to protect victims’ dignity, it is necessary for criminal
justice authorities to understand victims’ vulnerabilities, needs and feelings. Second, it isimportant to inform victims of their role in the proceedings, as well as the scope, timing andprogress of the proceedings. Keeping victims informed of the developments in their cases
prevents secondary victimization and helps to ensure they are treated by the authorities with
dignity and respect. Third, protection measures in the court proceedings are important toprotect their privacy, safety and dignity. For instance, in many jurisdictions, one or more of
the following measures are available: use of pre-trial statements as an alternative to in-court
testimony; shielded testimony through the use of a screen, curtain or two-way mirror andtestimony via closed-circuit television or audio-visual links as measures to minimize or
eliminate the harm caused by confrontation in the courtroom; anonymous testimony as ameasure to protect privacy and ensure safety.
d. Access to Legal Representation
Even where the criminal justice system is fully equipped with these mechanisms andmeasures, victims may not be able to utilize them effectively. This is due to the vulnerabilityof victims suffering from the negative impact of victimization and, thus, having difficulty
exercising their rights or even contacting criminal justice authorities, the complicated natureof the legal process, or the lack of knowledge of available measures and procedures.
Therefore, it is essential to provide assistance to victims, including providing necessary
information in a timely manner. Moreover, legal assistance is of vital importance, in particularwith respect to legal aspects. However, because victims are quite often unable to afford legal
representation, adequate legal aid mechanisms are necessary.
This contributes to the achievement of equal access to justice for all, as stated in Goal 16of the SDGs.
3. Preventing Reoffending
In order to effectively reduce reoffending, it is crucial to ensure rehabilitative processes
and environments throughout all stages and pathways leading to successful reintegration. The
attainment of rehabilitative processes and environments requires continued efforts by criminal
justice actors, including all criminal justice authorities and stakeholders in the community.
Investigators, prosecutors and judges can play a key role for offender rehabilitation at the
pre-trial, trial and sentencing stages, as they have the authority to take the initiative to drive
the process and make decisions in the criminal proceedings. Although the main purpose of
criminal proceedings is to clarify the facts of the offence through investigation prosecution
and adjudication, and then to impose a proportionate penalty (which may involve
imprisonment and/or alternative sanctions), the importance of offender rehabilitation should
not be underestimated in such decisions. Investigators, prosecutors and judges should take6
6
due account of offender rehabilitation at each stage of the criminal justice process, inparticular, through: i) proper decisions in sentencing, case dispositions, and arrest, detention
or bail applications, with adequate and active use of non-custodial measures, ii) proper casemanagement ensuring speedy trial, and iii) ensuring access to justice by guaranteeing the rightto legal representation in criminal proceedings for both suspects and defendants.
a. Sentencing or Case Dispositions and Arrest/Detention and Bail Applications
It is well known that imprisonment has a large adverse effect on social reintegration due
to stigmatization. On the other hand, community-based approaches, including non-custodial
measures and restorative justice processes, can ensure that offenders receive appropriate
support and treatment, and maximize the opportunities for them to live productive andindependent lives in the society without suffering a period of restricted contact with theoutside world. Imprisonment should be imposed as a measure of “last resort”, without
prejudice to the principle of proportionality, protection of society and the rights of the victims.
Also, to facilitate prison-based rehabilitation, it is important for prisons to maintainrehabilitative environments that enable use of the period of imprisonment to ensure, so far as
possible, the reintegration of such persons into society. However, overuse of imprisonmentand detention leads to prison overcrowding, which negatively impacts the quality and quantityof rehabilitative interventions in prisons. Furthermore, we have witnessed overcrowded
prisons vulnerable to Covid-19 outbreak risks having been unable to provide rehabilitativeinterventions. By nature, prison settings are hazardous environments for the spread of viruses.
Globally, the impact of Covid-19 in prisons has been found to be significantly more severe
compared to the general population. In addition, restrictions imposed to contain the spread of
the virus, including “prison lockdowns”, have seriously impacted prisoners’ daily lives,
including their participation in rehabilitation programmes and contacts with the outside world,
isolating them further and directly affecting their rehabilitative prospects. The Kyoto
declaration expresses “grave concern about the vulnerability of prisons, especially in terms ofhealth, safety and security, to the real risk of a rapid spread of the virus in closed settings,
which can be further aggravated by long-standing challenges such as prison overcrowding
and poor prison conditions” (Paragraph 14).
The Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) shows that in about 120 jurisdictions,the prison population, which includes those who are sentenced to imprisonment and detainees
at the pre-trial or trial stage, exceeds the official capacity. 6 Moreover, in many jurisdictions,the prison populations are growing. 7
Therefore, active and adequate use of non-custodial measures in the pre-trial dispositionand sentencing decisions, as well as in the decisions to arrest, detain and release, facilitatessocial reintegration of offenders, giving them better opportunities for successful rehabilitation,
and avoiding negative impacts stemming from prison overcrowding. This has been widely
recognized more than ever before due to the Covid-19 crisis. The United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) 8 admonish unnecessary useof imprisonment and encourage a wide range of non-custodial measures.

ICPR, World Prison Brief Database <https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-tolowest/occupancylevel?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All>.
7
R. Walmsley “World Prison Population List twelfth edition” 2018,<https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf>.
8
General Assembly resolution 45/110 of 14 December 1990.
6

7
7
Non-custodial penalties and pre-trial case dispositions include the decision not toprosecute, conditional discharge, suspension of prosecution and diversion from criminal
proceedings, such as through the mediation process and use of therapeutic measures for
substance abusers. Options at the sentencing phase include fines, community sanctions andsuspension of imprisonment sentence. Options at the post-sentencing stage for imprisoned
persons (relevant to this course where prosecutors or the judiciary is involved in the decision
to grant early release from prison) include parole and conditional release. Some of these noncustodial options themselves involve supervision or other interventions, treatment or support
in the community. Other non-custodial measures can be applied in combination with orwithout community supervision or other treatment, etc. Further, restorative justiceprogrammes at various phases can pave the way for or be used in conjunction with noncustodial measures.
Sentencing or case disposition decisions should take rehabilitative perspectives into
account while ensuring the principle of “proportionality”, as well as taking due considerationof the rights of victims, offenders and concern for public safety. However, there are challenges
to doing this.
First, the availability of such options and the extent to which they can be applied differsfrom jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in a number of jurisdictions, non-custodial
penalties are only applicable to certain less serious crimes. Second, even where a wide range
of non-custodial penalties or dispositions is stipulated by law, some jurisdictions may haveapplied them quite restrictively in practice for a number of reasons. For instance, a“proportionate” penalty for a specific crime is understood in certain jurisdictions as
disfavouring the wide and effective use of non-custodial sanctions. Also, some jurisdictions
have little or no practical experience with non-custodial sanctions due to low levels of public
understanding and acceptance (providing adequate support for victims can foster
understanding and acceptance of the victims, and then, of the general public), and the lack ofauthorities or institutions responsible for, or capable of, delivering community-based
treatment. In addition, in many jurisdictions, few judges and prosecutors are aware of thepotential benefits of incorporating rehabilitative perspectives into their decisions, and thus
these professionals need to be sensitized in this respect. Also, developing prosecution andsentencing policies incorporating rehabilitative perspectives can help to ensure proper
decision-making. Rehabilitative perspectives that should be considered refer particularly tothe importance of reducing the use of imprisonment (both in terms of controlling prison
populations and avoiding increasing the individual’s reoffending risks), to the roles of prisonand community-based treatment and to the advantages of non-custodial measures.
On the other hand, it should be noted that non-custodial sanctions or dispositions are notalways the best option to prevent reoffending and facilitate offender rehabilitation.
Imprisonment in a rehabilitative environment may, in some cases, be the “hook for change”
in the lives of offenders, generating positive impacts towards desistance from crime. In somecases, non-custodial measures will not be effective without appropriate community
supervision and support, whereas in other cases, excessive use of supervision, etc. for lowrisk offenders may result in mass supervision and net-widening that actually increases theirreoffending risk due to unnecessary interventions.
Having this in mind, in deciding adequate penalties and their alternatives, and providing
necessary interventions and treatment for rehabilitation, it is necessary to conduct anassessment to identify the offenders’ individual needs and social environments representing

88
their risk factors and protective factors for their social reintegration. For this purpose, it is also
necessary to have mechanisms to collect adequate information at relevant phases of thecriminal justice process. For instance, to make a decision at the pre-trial and sentencing stages,
in addition to collecting evidence of the offence and its impact on victims, information on risk,needs and strengths of the offender should be collected in order to take account of
rehabilitative perspectives. Such information includes the offender’s accommodation andemployment situation, available support from the community, and so on. The Tokyo Rules
highlight the role of social inquiry reports (paragraph 7.1), in which such information isprovided in some jurisdictions. In others, such information is collected during criminal
investigations. However, these mechanisms and practices are not in place in every jurisdiction,and its importance is underestimated.
Furthermore, unnecessary use of arrest, detention and remand at the pre-trial and trial
stages (hereinafter, simply referred to as “detention”), coupled with restricted use andapplication of bail and other types of release, result in a long-term stay in custody having thesame negative effect as overuse of imprisonment. Suspects and defendants may be detained
only where there is probable cause to believe an offence has been committed and under certain
conditions stipulated by law, such as the risk of absconding, interference with the course ofjustice and recommission of a serious offence. The Tokyo Rules state that “pre-trial detention
shall be used as a means of last resort in criminal proceedings, with due regard for theinvestigation of the alleged offence and for the protection of society and the victim”(Paragraph 6.1).
However, in a number of jurisdictions, detention is used in the majority of cases regardlessof the type of crime. Moreover, options for release, such as bail, are often not used sufficiently,
due to lack of legal representation or to the inability to afford bail money.
b. Speedy Trial
Overuse of detention, lengthy detention and little application of bail or other release
options increase the prison population and negatively impact prison environments by
exhausting prison capacity and resources, which as a result, hampers offender rehabilitation.
Although there are no global statistics on unnecessary detention, the very high ratio of
detained inmates to the total prison population implies the prevalence of unnecessary
detention in many countries. It is reported that the median rate of global detainees is 29.5 per
cent, but in over 60 jurisdictions, the rate exceeds 40 per cent. 9 The Kyoto Declaration
highlights the importance of “tak[ing] measures to address overcrowding in detention
facilities and to improve the overall effectiveness” (paragraph 36).
Overly lengthy detention is usually attributable to delay in trial procedure. Althoughcauses of delay may vary, the prosecution and the judiciary can improve the situation throughproper case management.
First, as prosecution is the gateway of the trial procedure, measures should be taken fromthe stage of instituting prosecution. Given that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution,
charging decisions can be expedited by narrowing the scope of allegations or evidence
required to institute criminal proceedings. Description of counts in the charge or indictment
should be simple, clear and to the point in order to avoid unnecessary contests or arguments
R. Walmsley “World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List fourth edition” 2020,<https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_pre-trial_list_4th_edn_final.pdf >.

999for clarification. Second, the persons responsible for the conduct of the case with respect toall criminal justice actors—the prosecution, defence and the court—should be identified
quickly and efficiently. Clarifying those actors will ensure swift and effective communication
among parties and contributes to efficient and focused preparation. Third, wide and effective
use of “fast track” procedures, such as simplified procedures upon guilty pleas, should be
encouraged. Such procedures shorten the criminal justice process and minimize the financial
and other burdens of uncontested cases. They also ensure that sufficient resources areallocated to difficult and complicated cases. Fourth, efficient trial preparation to identify theissues in contested cases reduces the number of hearings, thus helping to expedite the trial
process. Fifth, periodical checks and reports on pending cases as to their number, duration,
status of progress, reasons for delay, etc. and statistics (e.g. caseload, duration for each caseand process) enable the identification of undue delay in individual cases and assist in ensuringaccountability in case management. Moreover, such practices can cultivate the consciousnessof the prosecutors and judges to improve case management.
These adequate measures can also have the effect of minimizing delays under unexpecteddifficult situations such as the Covid-19 pandemic.
c. Access to Legal Representation
Suspects and defendants have the right to defend themselves, but exercising this right isusually difficult without the assistance of legal counsel. Suspects and defendants can avoid
unnecessary detention, wrongful conviction and disproportionately long imprisonment if
properly represented by defence counsel. Proper assistance by defence counsel also helps
ensure speedy trial. Moreover, defence counsel will pursue more rehabilitative options onbehalf of his or her client. Those options may include alternatives to imprisonment or
incarceration, as well as restorative options such as mediation and settlement.
Although suspects and defendants have the right to defence counsel, in reality, manycannot afford a lawyer. Thus, legal aid is of essential importance, in particular where theinterests of justice so require, such as in urgent situations and complex cases, where thepotential penalty is severe, and for vulnerable groups. “The United Nations Principles andGuidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems” 10 highlights that legal aid isan essential element of a fair, humane and efficient criminal justice system that is based on
the rule of law. There are different models of legal aid mechanisms which may involve publicdefenders, private lawyers, contract lawyers, pro bono schemes, bar associations, paralegals
and others. In many jurisdictions, there are institutions with the chief responsibility for the
management and administration of legal aid. Also, the Kyoto Declaration emphasizes thenecessity of access to legal aid (paragraph 49).
Key Topics of the Programme
The following are key topics that were addressed during the programme:
1) Effective measures to support victimsa) Activating the role of victims in criminal proceedings- Victim participation in criminal proceedings- Ensuring the opportunity for victims to express their views and concerns in
10

General Assembly resolution 67/187 of 20 December 2013.

10
10
-

criminal proceedings (e.g. victim impact statements)
Challenges in giving participatory roles to victims, and possible solutionsb) Restitution and victim support- Measures to ensure or facilitate compensation or restitution (e.g. statecompensation schemes, mediation, restorative justice procedures, action
civile)- Ensuring legal support for victims (e.g. adequate legal aid)
- Access to social services and health carec) Preventing secondary victimization- Raising awareness among criminal justice actors about secondary
victimization risks- Providing adequate information to victims (e.g. progress of the proceedings,
protection measures)- Victim protection measures at trial and other stages (e.g. testimony via
closed-circuit television, protection of the victim’s identity)- Challenges in avoiding secondary victimization, and possible solutions
2) Effective measures in pre-trial, trial and sentencing stages to prevent reoffending andfacilitate offenders’ social reintegrationa) Current situation of, and challenges in, incorporating rehabilitative perspectives insentencing/case dispositions, and possible solutionsi) Adequate use of non-custodial sanctions- Availability of non-custodial sanctions at each stage of criminal proceedings- Legal impediments and practical challenges to broad and effective
application of non-custodial sanctions, and possible solutionsii) Measures to ensure proper sentencing and case dispositions to reduce
reoffending- Development of proper prosecution and sentencing policies incorporating
rehabilitative perspectives- Assessment and information-collecting mechanisms for offender
rehabilitation- Awareness of judges and other decision makers to incorporate rehabilitative
perspectives in their decisionsb) Current situation of, and challenges in, avoiding unnecessary detention andensuring adequate bail and other release options, and countermeasures to address
the challengesc) Effective case management for speedy trial- Causes of trial delays (e.g. unclear description of counts in indictments, lackof identifying persons responsible for the conduct of the case, little use of“fast track” procedures, insufficient preparation, lack proper casemanagement skills)- Good practices and roles of prosecutors, defence counsel and judges to
expedite the process

1111d) Current situation of, and challenges in, ensuring legal representation of suspects anddefendants, and possible solutions

12
12
Course Summary
Lectures
During the Course, the participants attended a variety of lectures, presentations anddiscussion sessions, including 2 presented by the visiting experts, 3 by ad hoc lecturers andlectures by faculty members of UNAFEI. The distinguished lecturers addressed issues relating
to the main theme of the Course and contributed significantly beyond their lectures byanswering the participants’ questions during pre-recorded question and answer sessions. The
visiting experts included an officer from the UNODC and a Circuit Judge from the United
Kingdom, and the ad hoc lectures included an official from the National Police Agency, a publicprosecutor and a legal aid attorney from Japan. The lecturers and lecture topics are listed on pages
13 to 14.
Individual Presentations
During the Course, all participants delivered individual presentations which introduced thesituation, problems and future prospects of the participants’ countries. These papers were
distributed to all the participants. The titles of these individual presentation papers are listed on
pages 15 to 16. In addition to their presentations, the participants were divided into two groups
and shared additional information on practices in their jurisdiction during three group-worksessions.
Action Plans
As the primary output of the Course, each participant prepared an individual action plan toimplement new or improved practices in the participant’s country. The action plans consisted of
two parts. Firstly, the participants were asked to summarize their key takeaways from the Course;
secondly, they were asked to create a measurable, practical plan for implementing new policies
or practices. These action plans were subsequently presented in the plenary report-back session,
where they were discussed by the participants and UNAFEI faculty members. The titles ofthese action plans are provided on pages 17 to 18.

13
13
Lecture Topics
Visiting Experts’ Lectures
1)

Ms. Vera Tkachenko
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer, United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime (UNODC)• Rethinking Incarceration: Promoting Partnerships to Reduce Reoffending2)

His Honour Judge Jonathan Cooper
Deputy Resident Judge for Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom• Community Sentences in England and Wales

UNAFEI Professors’ Lectures
1)

Mr. HOSOKAWA Hidehito, Professor, UNAFEI• Judicial Procedures for Victims of Crime in Japan• Case Management and Expediting Criminal Trials in Japan• Non-Custodial Sentences in Japan2)

Mr. OKUDA Yoshinori, Professor, UNAFEI• Case Management at the Investigation Stage in Japan3)

Mr. YAMANA Rompei, Professor, UNAFEI• Support for Victims of Crime by Public Prosecutors’ Offices in Japan

Ad Hoc Lectures
1)

Mr. MUTO Issei
Assistant Director, Crime Victim Support Office, Education, Training and Welfare Division,Commissioner-General's Secretariat, National Police Agency• Crime Victim Support Provided by the Police

14
14
2)

Mr. HONDA Yuichiro
Public Prosecutor, Chief, Social Reintegration Support Office, General Affairs Department,
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors’ Office• Efforts of the Social Reintegration Support Office

3)

Ms. TOMITA Satoko
Attorney at Law, Director, International Affairs Office, Japan Legal Support Center• Japan Legal Support Center15
15
Individual Presentations
Overseas Participants1)

Ms. Aya Marylin Nancy Kouakou (Cote d'Ivoire)• Criminal Protection of Victims in Ivorian Law: Description and Perspectives

2)

Ms. Eman Samir Elkamary (Egypt)• Protection of Witnesses in Egyptian Criminal Law

3)

Mr. Mahmoud Ahmed Hamdy Elsergany (Egypt)• Criminal Justice (Focus on Investigation, Prosecution, Adjudication and International
Cooperation)

4)

Ms. Meseret Bahru Temesghen (Ethiopia)• Criminal Justice Policies and Practices in Ethiopia

5)

Mr. Juste Ambourouet Ogandaga (Gabon)• Achieving Inclusive Societies through Effective Justice Policies and Justice6)

Ms. Lynda Nzah Bekale (Gabon)• Achieving Inclusive Societies through Effective Criminal Justice Policies and Practices:
Case Study of the Juvenile Offender

7)

Ms. Stephanie Kartikamutiara Brennadiva (Indonesia)• Trends of Cyber Crimes During the Covid-19 Pandemic in Indonesia

8)

Mr. Mzonde Eric Geoffrey Mvula (Malawi)• Forgotten Suspects and the Malawi Justice System

9)

Ms. Nirmala Adhikari Bhattarai (Nepal)• Legal Aid: Necessary and Effective Means to Make the Criminal Justice System More
Efficient, Fair and Accountable

10)

Mr. Rajaram Dahal (Nepal)• Effective Measure to Support Victims in Nepal

16
16
11)

Mr. Mohammed Mahmood Halidu (Nigeria)• Analysis of the Challenges Accompanied with Restitution of Internet Fraud Victims in
Nigeria12)

Mr. Umar Faruk Yesufu (Nigeria)• The Role of the Nigeria Police Force in the Administration of Justice: Issues andChallenges

13)

Ms. Veleala Mautu (Samoa)• The Justice System in Samoa

14)

Mr. Poramba Liyanage Udara Karunatilaka (Sri Lanka)• Adoption of Modern Technological Mechanisms and Measures to Minimize Secondary
Victimization Prevailing in the Criminal Justice System of Sri Lanka with Emphasis on
Court System

15)

Ms. Samadari Udeshini Piyasena (Sri Lanka)• How to Minimize Psychological Trauma Faced by Victims of Sexual Abuse

16)

Ms. Tharsika Thirukumaranathan (Sri Lanka)• Importance of Restorative Justice in Preventing Reoffending

17)

Mr. Jasur Abdumurod Ogli Erkhonov (Uzbekistan)• Protection of Victims of Crime17
17
Action Plans
Overseas Participants1)

Ms. Aya Marylin Nancy Kouakou (Cote d’Ivoire)• Ivorian Penal Policy for an Inclusive Society by 2030

2)

Ms. Eman Samir Elkamary (Egypt)• Witness Protection

3)

Mr. Mahmoud Ahmed Hamdy Elsergany (Egypt)• Adequate Use of Non-Custodial Sanctions

4)

Ms. Meseret Bahru Temesghen (Ethiopia)• Mechanisms to Support and Protect Crime Victims in Ethiopia

5)

Mr. Juste Ambourouet Ogandaga (Gabon)• Judiciary Assistance to Victims

6)

Ms. Lynda Nzah Bekale (Gabon)• Effective Measures to Support Victims

7)

Ms. Stephanie Kartikamutiara Brennadiva (Indonesia)• Options for a Comprehensive Justice System in Indonesia

8)

Mr. Mzonde Eric Geoffrey Mvula (Malawi)• A New Dawn for the Forgotten Suspects in the Malawi Criminal Justice System

9)

Ms. Nirmala Adhikari Bhattarai (Nepal)• To Establish a Fair and Effective Criminal Justice System

10)

Mr. Rajaram Dahal (Nepal)• Protection of Victim’s Social Rights

11)

Mr. Mohammed Mahmood Halidu (Nigeria)• Challenges in Identification and Restitution of Internet Fraud Victims

18
18
12)

Mr. Umar Faruk Yesufu (Nigeria)• The Importance of the Victim Support System in Nigeria

13)

Ms. Veleala Mautu (Samoa)• Equal Access to Justice for All

14)

Mr. Poramba Liyanage Udara Karunatilaka (Sri Lanka)• Developing a Model Court as a Pilot Project15)

Ms. Samadari Udeshini Piyasena (Sri Lanka)• How to Minimize Psychological Trauma Faced by Victims of Sexual Abuse

16)

Ms. Tharsika Thirukamaranathan (Sri Lanka)• The Way Forward for Sri Lanka19
19
Reference Materials
UNAFEI’S 176TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
LIST OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

List of Reference Materials (176th International Training Course)

1

Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

Kyoto Declaration on Advancing Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice and the Rule ofLaw: Towards the Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development2
https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/Congress/2102815_Kyoto_Declaration_ebook_rev_cover.pdf
Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders – UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series,
3 No. 112 (UNAFEI, 2021)
https://www.unafei.or.jp/english/publications/resource.html

20
20
Expert and Participant List
Visiting Experts
Ms. Vera Tkachenko

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime(UNODC)His Honour Judge Jonathan Cooper

Deputy Resident Judge for Cambridgeshire
United Kingdom

Overseas Participants
Ms. Aya Marylin Nancy Kouakou

Substitute for Public Prosecutor
Abidjan Court of First Instance
Ministry of JusticeCote d'Ivoire

Ms. Eman Samir Elkamary

Judge
International Cooperation Department
Egyptian Public Prosecution
Egypt

Mr. Mahmoud Ahmed Hamdy
Elsergany

Public Prosecutor
International Cooperation Department
Egyptian Public Prosecution
Egypt

Ms. Meseret Bahru Temesghen

Public Prosecutor
Corruption Crimes Directorate
Federal Attorney General
Ethiopia

Mr. Juste Ambourouet Ogandaga

President of Chamber
Civil Department
Ministry of JusticeGabon

Ms. Lynda Nzah Bekale

President of Chamber
Civil Department
Ministry of JusticeGabon

Ms. Stephanie Kartikamutiara
Brennadiva

Senior Inspector Police (Cybercrime Investigators)
Cybercrime Directorate of Criminal Investigation
Board
Indonesian National Police
Indonesia

21
21
Mr. Mzonde Eric Geoffrey Mvula

High Court Judge
Civil Division
Malawi Judiciary, High Court of Malawi
MalawiMs. Nirmala Adhikari Bhattarai

Joint Secretary
International Law and Treaty
Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
Nepal

Mr. Rajaram Dahal

Under Secretary
Administration
Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs
Nepal

Mr. Mohammed Mahmood Halidu

Senior Legal Officer
Legal and Prosecution Department
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
Nigeria

Mr. Umar Faruk Yesufu

Staff Officer Logistics
Inspector General of Police Secretariat
Nigeria Police Force
Nigeria

Ms. Veleala Mautu

Senior Officer – Supreme Court
Civil and Criminal Court Division
Ministry of Justice and Courts Administration
Samoa

Mr. Poramba Liyanage Udara
Karunatilaka

State Counsel
Criminal Division
Attorney General's Department
Sri Lanka

Ms. Samadari Udeshini Piyasena

State Counsel
Criminal Division
Attorney General's Department
Sri Lanka

Ms. Tharsika Thirukumaranathan

State Counsel
Criminal Division
Attorney General's Department
Sri Lanka

Mr. Jasur Abdumurod Ogli Erkhonov

Prosecutor
Department for Ensuring the Powers of theProsecutor in Criminal Courts
General Prosecutor's Office
Uzbekistan

22
22
INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES
1.

Training Seminar for the Officers Involved in Juvenile Justice in Kenya
From 7 to 10 February 2022 (tentative), UNAFEI will host the Training Seminar for the
Officers Involved in Juvenile Justice in Kenya online. The purpose of the seminar is to train
the trainers of the “Child Care Protection Officers Training Programme”. Approximately 40
participants from Kenya will attend.
2. Exchange Programme between the Japanese Prosecution Service and the Supreme
People's Procuracy of Viet Nam
On 18 February 2022, UNAFEI will host the Exchange Programme between the Japanese
Prosecution Service and the Supreme People's Procuracy of Viet Nam online.
3. Comparative Study on the Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
From 28 February to 4 March 2022, UNAFEI will host the Comparative Study on the
Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal online. Twelve Nepalese participants will attend
to study and discuss “Challenges to the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Codein Nepal”.
4.

First International Training Programme on Building Inclusive Societies
From 2 to 17 March 2022, UNAFEI will host the First International Training Programme
on Building Inclusive Societies online. This programme deals with issues on protection of therights of crime victims including children. Approximately 10 overseas participants will attend.

23
23
FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI
Faculty:

Mr. MORINAGA Taro
Ms. IRIE Junko
Ms. WATANABE MachikoMr. HOSOKAWA Hidehito
Mr. OKUDA Yoshinori
Mr. YAMANA Rompei
Ms. MIYAGAWA Tsubura
Ms. TAKAI Ayaka
Ms. SASAKI Ayako
Mr. OTSUKA Takeaki
Ms. TANAKA Mii
Mr. Thomas L. Schmid

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
176th Course Programming Officer
Professor
Professor
Professor
Chief of Research Division
Professor
Professor
Professor
Chief of Information and Public Relations
Professor
176th Course Deputy Programming Officer
Linguistic Adviser

Secretariat:
Mr. TADA Ryosei

Chief of Secretariat

Mr. YAMAMOTO Shinichi

Chief of Training and Hostel Management
Affairs Section

Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section:
Mr. TATSUKAWA Masashi Senior Officer
176th Course Assistant Programming Officer
Mr. FUJISAKI Takuma
Senior Officer
Mr. YOSHIHARA Daiki
Senior Officer
Ms. MUKAI Saori
Officer
176th Course Assistant Programming Officer
Ms. OTANI Makiko
OfficerInternational Research Affairs Section:
Ms. IWAKATA Naoko
Librarian
Secretarial Staff:
Ms. YAMADA Hisayo

Officer

24
24
JICA Coordinator for the 176th International Training Course:
Ms. YAMAMOTO Miki
JICA

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