GROUP 2
EFFECTIVE COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION OF EVIDENCE
IN CRIMINAL CASES
Chairperson
Co-chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-rapporteur
Members

Advisers

M r. Mahmood Saleem
M r. Andrey M endonca
M r. Alexandru Victor Bejenaru
M r. Kinlay Wangdi
M r. Azer Ramiz Taghiyev1
M r. Abdulla Shatheeh
M r. Sonam Tashi
M r. Tandin Dorji
M s. Miwa Namekata
M r. Tetsuya Hagioka
M r. Toru Kodama
M r. Takayuki Fukushima
Prof. Yukako MioProf. Yusuke Hirose(M aldives)(Brazil)(M oldova)(Bhutan)(Azerbaijan)(M aldives)(Bhutan)(Bhutan)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group Two started its discussion on 9 September 2013 at 0940 hrs.The group elected,by consensus,
M r.Mahmood Saleem as its Chairperson,Mr.Andrey M endonca as its Co-chairperson,Mr.Alexandru
Bejenaru as its Rapporteur, and M r. Kinlay Wangdi as its Co-rapporteur. The Group, which was
assigned to discuss “Effective Collection and Utilization of Evidence in Criminal Cases”, agreed to
conduct its discussions in accordance with the following agenda:1)Effective collection and utilizationof oral statements;2)Collection of objective evidence;and 3)Necessary measures to improve/develop
investigation in each country.

II. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
M r. Andrey, the co-chairperson, suggested that for each subtopic, discussions should be based onquestions which could be formatted into a table to save time, and later converted into a report. All
participants agreed to proceed with the group work in the format as suggested by M r. Andrey. The
group decided to discuss the three broad topics of discussion country-wise and agreed to conduct its
discussion in accordance with the following format.
A. Significance of Oral Statements in Criminal Cases in Each Country
1. Significance of Statements of Suspects
The questions/points on the said topic to be discussed by the group as agreed and the prevailingsituation regarding these matters in the participating countries are summarized as follows:(a)The suspect has the right to remain silent
All the countries stated that the suspectʼs right to remain silent is in place in their respective
countries.There were some discussions on the pros and cons of the suspect having the right to silence.
Some participants stated that the right was not necessary while others said that it is crucial.However,
the group unanimously agreed that the right to remain silent is a basic human right conferred upon an
individual based on natural principles of justice.
(b)Can the suspect be punished if he lies? Any negative consequences?
Except for the countries of Bhutan and Moldova, the rest of the countries stated that they do nothave any punishment for the offence of lying by the suspects either during investigation or during trial.
In Bhutan, the Penal Code of Bhutan provides for the offences of deceptive practice, perjury and1Mr. Azer Ramiz Taghiyev had to leave training on 21st September, 2013 due to unavoidable circumstances.

124

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
hindering prosecution for lying during an investigation or during trial.In M oldova,the suspect may bepunished for lying only during trial at the court.
(c) Do you ask further questions if the suspect remains silent?
The participants stated that asking further questions after the suspect chooses to remain silent is
not illegal. Participants of some countries stated that further questions are asked to the suspect even
if the suspect remains silent. This is done so that the investigator can allow the suspect speak on
different issues which may be relevant for the case,and so that there is every chance that the suspect
might speak on some other issues though he remains silent on some issues. On the other hand, somecountries stated that once the suspect remains silent, they do not ask any further questions to thesuspect because they see no reason to ask anything to somebody who remains silent. Further, theparticipant from Brazil stated that in Brazil, police officers do not ask questions to suspects who
remain silent. By doing this, the suspect would not be able to prepare and anticipate the questions
which could be asked in court.
(d)Can defence counsel be with the suspect during interrogation?
The participants from Azerbaijan and Moldova stated that it is mandatory for the defence counsel
to be present with the suspect during interrogation.The participants from Brazil and Maldives statedthat the defence counsel may be present with the suspect during interrogation if the suspect so desires.
The participants from Bhutan stated that presence ofdefence counsel with the suspect during investigation is not a right and the investigating officer has the discretion to disallow counsel if his presence islikely to hamper the investigation. However, during the trial, defence counsel can be present if hewishes to.Lastly,the participants from Japan stated that defence counsel is not allowed to be present
with the suspect during investigation.
(e) Can the suspect be convicted just based on confession?
Except for the participants from Bhutan and Maldives, other participants stated that a suspect
cannot be convicted based on confession, and other strong evidence is required to support the confession.The participants from Bhutan stated that in Bhutan,the judge may convict a suspect based on his
confession but in such cases the judge has to be fully satisfied of the commission of the offence by thesuspect, and it also depends case by case and happens rarely. The Maldivian participants stated thatthe accused could be convicted based on his confession during trial provided that the accused is in asound state of mind and confesses in court.
(f) Whether or not defendants who confess should receive lighter sentences?
Except for Japan,in the remaining five countries,the defendants who confess could receive lighter
sentence. M oreover, in Brazil, such a defendant is even granted a pardon if his confession was usefuland significant to the prosecutor, and in M aldives, a suspension of sentence may also be given to thedefendants who confess to drug-use offences.On the other hand,the Japanese participants stated thatin Japan, their laws do not provide for any lighter sentences for the defendants who confess but inpractice, the sentencing could be more lenient if they confess.
(g)Relationship between the suspect and defence counsel during investigation; can defence counsel
answer on behalf of the suspect during interrogation?
Some participants stated that defence counsel may guide the suspect but cannot advise him during
interrogation and cannot answer on behalf of the suspect.However,police officers sometimes allow thedefence lawyer to be present during interrogation. Some participants stated that the defence lawyer
could advise the suspect only during their visits and the investigator may allow the presence of the
defence lawyer if his presence does not hamper the interrogation. Some participants stated that thedefence lawyer could ask questions to the suspects to clarify a suspectʼs statement.
(h)Coercion during interviewing/interrogation of suspects during investigation
Participants from Brazil and Bhutan stated that in their countries,suspects are sometimes coercedor tortured to make them confess during their interrogation.Statement obtained in such cases are notadmissible in court and the burden of proof lies with the defendant.Participants from Japan,Azerbaijan, M aldives and Moldova stated that in their countries, the prosecutors have to prove in court thatthe statement produced by them in the court was taken voluntarily without any coercion, duress or

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
undue influence.
(i) Problems faced by countries relating to the statements of the suspects were discussed as follows:
1) Participants from some countries stated that they had problems in the investigation process.
There was a lack of professional training of the investigating officers on interviewing andinterrogation. There was either a lack of or shortage of scientific aids to investigation like
video and audio recording,lie detectors,etc.in manypolice stations,and there were no properinterrogating rooms in many police stations of some countries.
2) Some participants stated that the possibility of the suspect or defendant to retract theirstatements during investigation or during trial is very high.The lack of laws to penalize thesuspects during the investigation stage itself tempts the suspect to retract his statement in acourt of law during trial.
3) Some participants stated that the right to remain silent may sometimes be used as a strategy
by defence counsel and there should be a difference between the right to remain silent anddenial or telling lies.
4) Some participants stated that it is very difficult to prove perjury in some countries due to thestrict standard and it is impossible to establish perjury as an offence. Since a lot of resources
are spent in verifying the statements of the suspects, lying by suspects should be controlled
by punishment.
5) Some participants stated that if the suspect remains silent during investigation and starts
talking in court, thatʼs something which should be objected to as it takes a lot of time toprove, and if the suspect starts talking aat trial, the suspect could be questioned about thecredibility of the suspectʼs statement.
6) Some participants stated that there should be a difference between the right to remain silent
and telling lies and the two should not be taken together. The right to remain silent should
be a human right whereas lying should be made an offence by the concerned state.
7) The lack of sentencing guidelines such as a separate sentencing law also affects the judges
in rendering just and appropriate sentences for the offenders. The participants from Japan,
Bhutan and Maldives stated that there are no sentencing guidelines.However in Brazil,there
is a guideline for the judge to award sentences.In M oldova and Azerbaijan,there are generalprinciples written in the criminal procedure but there are no separate guide books on thematter.
2. Significance of Statements of Victims
The significance of statements of victims was discussed as follows:(a)SignificanceAll the countries agreed that the statements of victims are very significant in the investigation of
criminal offences. Some participants stated that a victimʼ
s statement could be considered as evidence
in a court of law, and could be used for the discovery of evidence and to establish the commission of
an offence. It could be used to identify a crime scene and could also be used in court to corroborate
other evidence.Some participants stated that victimʼ
s statement is very valuable evidence especially in
sex-related offences and other offences like robbery, sex offences against children, domestic violence
and assault cases where there are no other witnesses. However in most cases,the victimʼ
s statement
should be accompanied by other evidence.Some participants stated that the victimʼ
s statement is very
important since it gives clues to the investigator.
(b) Whether victims could be punished for perjury for lying during investigation and during trial
The participants from all countries except Brazil stated that the victims could be punished for
perjury for lying during an investigation and during trial. The participant from Brazil stated that126

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
victims cannot be punished for lying as they do not take oaths, but they could be liable for false
denunciation. The participants from Japan stated that victims could be punished for perjury only
during trial, with some exceptions.
(c) Can the court convict the defendant solely based on the victimʼ
s statement
The participants from Azerbaijan,Bhutan,M aldives and Moldova (with some exceptions for somecountries) stated that the defendant cannot be convicted by the court solely based on the victimʼ
sstatement as it has to be corroborated by other strong evidence.On the other hand,participants from
Brazil and Japan stated that the defendant could be convicted based solely on the victimʼ
s statement
especially in sex offences and crimes where there are no witnesses,but it depends on the reliability ofthe statement of the victims and the full satisfaction of the judge.
(d)Problems faced by countries in relation to the statements of victims
1. M ost of the participants stated that they do not have a system of proper protection of victims
or programmes for their protection,and that they lack experts,trained manpower or specialized agencies to interrogate and interview or to protect the victims.Some participants statedthat the victimʼ
s statement may give a wrong impression to the investigator. The victimʼ
sstatement might make the offence appear heinous but may turn out to be a minor offence.
Therefore in order to obtain the most truthful statement,the investigator should be properly
trained and professional.
2. Some participants stated that victims may sometimes retract their statements due to fear or
due to coming to an agreement with the accused. The non-cooperation from the side of thevictim in the investigation adversely affects the prosecution of crime.
3. The participants from Japan also stated that it is verydifficult to prove the offence ofperjury
in a court of law.
3. Significance of Statements of Witnesses
The significance of the statement of witnesses in each country and the problems faced werediscussed as follows:(a)SignificanceThe participants from all countries agreed that the statement of witnesses in a criminal case is verysignificant.The participants from Brazil,Bhutan and M aldives stated that the statements of witnesses
could be used as oral evidence or testimony in a court of law.The participant from Azerbaijan statedthat the statements of witnesses can be significant only in certain criminal cases.The participants fromJapan stated that when the objective evidence is not very strong, statements of witnesses are very
important.
(b) Whether prosecutor can prepare the witness before trial
The participants from all countries stated that the prosecutors can prepare their witnesses before
trial, although it is not commonly practiced in some countries, like Azerbaijan and Brazil. The
participants from Japan stated that as per their criminal procedure rules,there is an obligation on thepart of the prosecutor to confront and prepare witnesses before trial but during such times, theprosecutors do not try to guide and direct the witnesses but rather confirm the testimony of the witness
as required by law and refresh and make the witnesses anticipate questions from defence counsel.
(c) Type of witnesses ― interested and disinterested witnesses
The participants from Azerbaijan, Moldova and Japan stated that in their respective countries,
some witnesses who are related as family members of the suspect can refuse to stand as witnesses orgive statements against the suspect. The participants from Bhutan stated that in their country, inpractice, the statement of witnesses who are related (interested witnesses) is not admissible during
investigation or trial. The participant from Brazil stated that familymembers and interested witnesses
could be refused by law to be witnesses but the judge could oblige if he deems it important,but in suchcases, they do not swear an oath. The participant from Maldives stated that as per their Sharia law,

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
all statements of witnesses either related or not are admissible in a court and moreover statements offamily members against their other family members are strongly considered.
(d)Special measures for protection of vulnerable or intimidated witness ― which measures
M ost countries have special measures for the protection of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses like
video conferencing or linking,in-camera hearings,distortion of voice and image,use of intermediaries
and masks,separation of witnesses from the suspects,excusing the witnessʼ
s presence at trial,providing police protection and witness shielding.In all participating countries,the protection of vulnerable
and child witnesses is prioritized. Some of the countries like Azerbaijan, Moldova and Bhutan havespecial laws relating to the protection of vulnerable and child witnesses while in most of the countries,
special measures of protection are provided in practice though not provided by law. In most of thecountries, children and vulnerable witnesses are investigated in the presence of their parents or legal
representatives and psychologists.
(e) Problems faced by the countries in relation to statements of witnesses
1. Some participants stated that there is a risk of retraction of statements by the witnesses ina court of law if the statement of the witness is not supported by other evidence,which would
lead to the failure of the case.
2. Some participants stated that there is a lack of proper interviewing rooms in most of thepolice stations and also the interviewers are not trained in the interviewing techniques,
especially such techniques for interviewing children and vulnerable witnesses. In mostcountries, advanced witness protection programmes and trained personnel are also not inplace. The participant from Moldova stated that the procedure to obtain permission for theprotection of witnesses is very difficult.
3. Some participants stated that since the prosecutors do not prepare their witnesses for trial,
it becomes difficult to get the best testimony from the witnesses during trial.
4. Some participants stated that in their country,there are no laws regarding witness protection
and they lack institutional and human resource capacity.There is also the problem oflengthy
trial or delay in trail which greatly hampers criminal justice.
5. Some participants stated that it is impossible or very difficult to change the identities of
witnesses and to re-locate them.
4. Significance of Statements of Accomplices
The significance of the statement of accomplices in each country and the problems faced werediscussed as follows:(a)SignificanceAll the participants stated that the statements of accomplices in their respective countries is verysignificant mainlyin cases where the accomplices confess to committing the crime,and in countries like
Japan, it could also be one of the main pieces of evidence. The statements of the accomplices are
required to prove the conspiracy in committing the crime and to indict the accomplice himself. The
participants from M aldives and Moldova stated that statements of the accomplices should be accompanied by other evidence and as per the participant from Brazil,if one of the accomplices made anagreement with a prosecutor to tell the truth, he must do so in court or else he may be punished for
obstruction of justice.As per the participant from Azerbaijan,the accomplicesʼstatement is importantfor cross examination and the accomplices must be provided legal aid by the state.
(b) Whether a judge can convict an individual solely based on the statement of the accomplice
The participants from all countries except Japan stated that in practice,a judge will not convict anindividual solely based on the statement of the accomplice, and it has to be corroborated by otherrelevant evidence. In Japan, a judge could convict the suspect solely based on the accomplicesʼstatement but the judge must be satisfied with the credibility of the accomplice.

128

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE(c) Could the accomplices be cross examined by the other defendant
The participants of all the countries stated that in their countries, the accomplices could be crossexamined by the other defendant.
(d)Problems faced by the countries in relation to the statements of accomplices
1. Some participants stated that accomplices do not usually cooperate with the police for fearof being indicted and at times retract their statements in court.
2. Participants from Brazil and Japan stated that it is very common that accomplices makeuniform false statements and most of the time in cases of organized crime they are protectedby their organization.
3. The participants from Maldives stated that the same lawyer can represent many suspects
who are accomplices and accomplices may be intimidated by the suspects, and moreover
there were no written laws on the subject.

III. EFFECTIVE M ETHODS OF INTERVIEWING/INTERROGATION
A. Current Situation in Each Country
The current situation and challenges of interviewing/interrogation in each country and theapproaches to enhance the ability of interrogators were discussed as follows:
1. Current Problems/Challenges of Interviewing/Interrogation
Participants from most countries stated that in their respective countries there are no properinterviewing/interrogation rooms in most of the police stations and and that they lacked scientific aids
to investigation like audio-and video-recording systems, etc. The participants also stated that there
was a lack of trained,specialized,skilled and professional/expert interviewers and interrogators andan absence of a set of reference guidelines for interviewing and interrogation. The participant from
Azerbaijan further stated that in his country, there were many investigative agencies for various
specific crimes,and,due to this,there were separate research institutes and academies but no uniform
institute specifically for interviewing/interrogation. The participant from Brazil also stated that
disclosure of all evidence to the suspect and his lawyer at any time during investigation and trial,even
before interrogation, is a disadvantage for the interviewers/interrogators. The participants fromM aldives stated that in their country there was a different set up of interviewing and interrogation ofsuspects whereby it is mandatory to have the presence of two officers besides the investigator towitness the interview/interrogation and both officers have to sign the defendantʼ
s statement,confirming that the suspect has been interviewed and given his statement in their presence.Therefore,it is feltthat it is not necessary to have the presence of the two officers. Lastly, the participants from Japan
stated that in Japan,there is no organized,systematic or set techniques of investigation and mainly thetechniques are taught by the seniors to juniors. Moreover in some cases, investigators obtain false
statements,and in cases where the the recording and use of other investigative aids would be requiredby law, it would be a challenge for the Coast Guard in Japan.
(a)Current approaches to enhance the ability of interrogators
1. All the participants stated that more domestic and foreign training programmes in interviewing/interrogation for the investigators were needed and programmes for training of trainers
in the field of interviewing/interrogation in countries with professionalized and developed
systems are required so that they could train the officers back home.
2. The participants stated that proper, well-equipped and modernized interview/interrogation
rooms in all the police stations of the respective countries need to be established, and thelatest and modernized scientific aids to investigation like audio and video recording, lie
detectors, etc., should be developed and provided to all police stations.
3. Some participants also stated that a manual of uniform guidelines for interrogation and

129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
interviewing encompassing the best practices of other countries needs to be formulated anddisseminated for reference.
4. The participant from Brazil further stated that the problem of disclosure of evidence even
before interrogation in Brazil needs to be reconsidered.
5. The participants from Maldives stated that the adoption of different interview/interrogation
techniques may help in the improvement of the interviewing/interrogation and in theircountry investigators are encouraged to follow the PRICE (P-Preparation, R-Rapport, IInformation gathering, C-Confirmation and Clarification, E-Evaluation)method of interviewing/interrogation. However, these techniques adopted by the countries should be taken
into consideration to be implemented by the investigators and the investigators should also
possess legal knowledge.
6. The participants also stated that cooperation from other relevant agencies should be madepossible and encouraged.
7. The participant from Moldova stated that interviewing/interrogation techniques could be
improved with the assistance from more experienced investigators or a psychologist, andsince the behaviour of a suspect is the most important, the presence of a person trained inhuman behaviour should be encouraged.
8. The participants stated that the police and the prosecutorʼ
s office should come to a consensus
regarding the basic principle of interviewing/interrogation developed in their countries.Also,
specialized training of the interviewers of mentally disabled persons should be provided,and
recently in the police,the transfer of techniques from the senior to the junior officers has been
initiated.
9. Finally, all the participants agreed that countries should adopt and implement the various
developed and set techniques of interviewing/interrogation prevalent around the world but
these techniques could be modified and developed in such a manner that is most suitable andapplicable to the respective countries.
1. Effective Methods of Interviewing/Interrogation
The effective methods of interviewing/interrogation in each country were discussed as follows:(a) Methods of interviewing/interrogation (PEACE Model/Cognitive Interviewing (UK) or Reid
Technique (USA) or any other)
The participants from Japan stated that their technique of interviewing/interrogation is similar to
the PEACE model and at present, the Public Prosecutorʼs Office is researching both the PEACE and
REID models. The participant from Azerbaijan stated that in Azerbaijan, there are some elements of
the PEACE model but they have established their own model and there are provisions in laws on how
to interview/interrogate. The participants from Bhutan and M oldova stated that in their countries,
some elements of the PEACE model are adopted but there are no specific models.The participant from
Brazil stated that there were no specific models of interviewing/interrogation in his country,and theparticipants from M aldives stated that though the PRICE model is being practiced,there is no specificmodel in general.
(b)Can the suspect be persuaded to confess
All the participants agreed that the suspect could be persuaded to confess in their respective
countries. However the participants from Maldives stated that though it is possible to persuade thesuspect to confess, the need to do so is generally not felt,and the participants from Japan stated that
it is not only possible to persuade the suspect to confess but there is also a need to persuade the suspects
to confess though it takes much time.

130155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE(c) Will you still use the statement of the suspect in a court even if there is a risk of being rejectedby the court?
All the participants agreed that the statement of the suspect could be used in court even if there isa risk of being rejected by the court. However, the participants from Japan stated that it depends onthe case and if the risk of rejection by the court is minor and the statements are significant, publicprosecutors would try to use the statements as evidence.

IV. OBTAINING STATEMENTS OF SUSPECTS/ACCOMPLICES ―UTILIZATION OF PLEA BARGAINING IMMUNITY
The utilization of plea bargain immunity in countries which have the system and the status incountries which do not have the plea bargaining system were discussed as follows:
A. Adoption of Plea Bargaining (if yes, contents; if no, whether there is another system or thesystem is being considered)
All the participants unanimously agreed that there were two types of plea bargaining as explainedby the adviser, Professor M io: one was between the prosecutor and the defendant whereby theprosecutor may mitigate the charges for the defendant if the defendant cooperates with the prosecutor(Type 1),and the other was between the Prosecutor and the accomplice whereby the accomplice must
admit guilt,provide information to the prosecutor and testify against the defendant in return for lesser
charges (Type 2).The participants from Azerbaijan,M aldives and Japan stated that they do not haveboth types of plea bargaining in their countries,but in Azerbaijan,a similar principle is provided in thecriminal procedure code whereby if the defendants help in investigation,his sentence could be lighter.
In M aldives, their Constitution and the Prosecutor Generalʼs Act provides the prosecutor with discretion to prosecute a case or not, and this discretion is mainly exercised in offences against children,
corruption and other serious offences. And in Japan, the adoption of both types of plea bargaining,
especially Type 2, is currently being considered in the legislative committee. The participants from
Brazil,Bhutan and M oldova stated that in their countries,both types of plea bargaining are available
and provided for by law.
B. Typical Cases in Which the System is Utilized
The participant from Brazil stated that in Brazil Type 1 plea bargaining is used in crimes withpenalties of 2 years or less,and Type 2 is used mainly in organized and serious crimes.The participantfrom M oldova stated that in M oldova,Type 2 plea bargaining is utilized for corruption and organizedcrime, and the participants from Bhutan stated that plea bargaining is used when the defendant or
accomplice provides material evidence to the prosecutor for another more heinous offence in exchange
for lighter charges.
C. Statements of Accomplices in Organized Crime ― How Obtained?
The participants from Bhutan, Brazil and M oldova stated that statements of accomplices inorganized crime are obtained by utilizing the concept of plea bargaining. The participant from
Azerbaijan stated that if the accomplice helps in such an investigation,it could be taken into account.
The participant from M aldives stated that there is no specific method to obtain an accompliceʼsstatement, and the participants from Japan stated that such statements are obtained by persuasion.
D. Current Problems/Challenges:
1. The participant from Brazil stated that there is a risk to the accomplice due to lack of witness
protection and difficulty in providing protection due to inefficiency of the system, and accomplices are reluctant to cooperate because it is better for him to try to get acquitted without
confessing than to make an agreement with the prosecutor.M oreover,Type 1 plea bargaining,
even in the medium cases, should be considered ― not only in minor cases.
2. The participants from Bhutan stated that the principle of plea bargaining is rarely used due tothe lack of awareness on the part of the defendants, and the participant from M oldova statedthat in order to enter a plea agreement,it should be mandatory that the suspect pay restitution
to the victim or society.

131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
3. The participants from Japan stated that in Japan they are facing a lot of problems without thesystem and in the near future,the method of persuasion may be challenged by the people due totheir awareness of the law. Therefore, they are currently working on adopting the system.
4. The participants from M aldives stated that in Maldives there is presently no uniformity and noset rules on the discretion of the prosecutors,and the accomplice has no duty to cooperate withprosecutor.
5. The participant from Azerbaijan stated that in Azerbaijan the concept of plea bargaining could
be adopted in the future, but the adoption of such a concept would be difficult to achieve.

V. RECORDED STATEMENTS OF INTERVIEWS/INTERROGATION IN
EACH COUNTRY
A. How Statements Are Recorded
All the participants stated that in their respective countries, statements are recorded in written
documents with the signature of the persons giving the statement. The participant from Azerbaijan
further stated that as per their Criminal Procedure Code, audio/video and other forms of recording
statements could be used.The participants from Bhutan stated that audio/video recording is also done,
although it is not mandatory.The participant from Brazil stated that in Brazil sometimes audio/video
recordings are also done by the police but only in few cases especially in confessions, and during the
judicial phase,all statements are audio or video recorded.The participants from M aldives stated thataudio recording is mandatory while video recording is optional,and there is a regulation stating that
if the suspect demands an audio copy of the statement,it should be given to him.The participant from
M oldova stated that in Moldova, audio recording is not used while video recording, though notmandatory,is used for serious criminal cases in practice.The participant from Japan stated that audio/
video recording is done for suspects who are detained for some serious offences by the police andprosecutor and for an accomplice who is being interviewed as a suspect.
B. Utilization of Statements at Trial as Proof
All the participants stated that the statements of suspects, victims, witnesses and accomplices, if
relevant,could be used as corroborative evidence in a court of law.The participant from Brazil statedthat all the statements are submitted to the court with the indictment and statements must be taken
again in court to be used as corroborative evidence at trial. The participants from Japan stated that
if the reliability and voluntariness of the statement is in question, audio/video recording devices(DVDs)are used as evidence in court to prove the fact. However, all the participants agreed that thestatements to be utilized in court as corroborative evidence should have been obtained in accordancewith the requirement of the laws of the respective countries.
1. Collection of Objective Evidence
The current situation and the challenges of each country relating to the collection of objective
evidence in investigation were discussed as follows:(a)Current Situation (Scientific investigation techniques and aids to investigation ― search, seizure
and analysis of crucial evidence)
The participant of Azerbaijan stated that in Azerbaijan, there are two bodies dealing in forensic
analysis, one with the M inistry of Justice which deals with all except medical, and one with the
M inistry of Health which deals with medical forensics. Currently forensic examination provides 22
types and 44 specializations in Azerbaijan.He also stated that the forensic research centre establishedin 1938 bought a lot of modern forensic equipment and expertise,and this centre not only did analysis
but also research.
The participants from Bhutan stated that in Bhutan, except for simple fingerprint and document
analysis, complex issues of forensic examination including DNA analysis, etc., are done in India andsome other foreign countries,and autopsies are conducted rarely due to religious beliefs.They further
stated that though the police stations are well equipped for lifting,labeling and packaging evidence andforensics-trained manpower, proper and well-equipped forensic laboratories are not available, and132

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
there is a requirement of court order to obtain bank and financial records and phone records asprovided by the code of procedure.
The participant from Brazil stated that in Brazil DNA examination is done, though it is very
expensive, and they have developed a system for analyzing bank and financial records whereby astandard procedure for all banks to submit documents has been developed.He also stated that in Brazil
there is no automated system of analyzing security cameras and there is no DNA database,though it
is in the process of developing.
The participants from M aldives stated that in Maldives the Maldives Police Service has established
a forensics department,including crime scene investigation,fingerprint development and comparison,
digital-evidence analysis (mobile/computer), audio and video analysis, drug analysis, DNA analysis,
document analysis and polygraph examinations. They also stated that no autopsies are done due toreligious beliefs and the lack of legal framework. By law, it is obligatory for the banks to disclose
information if requested in writing by the police.
The participant from M oldova stated that in Moldova no DNA analysis or voice recognition
analysis is done. Such requests must be sent to other countries for analysis.Though there are experts,
there is no equipment. There is also an absence of facilities from internet providers to track cybercrimes, and old equipment is used for forensic scientific examination which is time consuming, andthere are three forensic laboratories in M oldova.
The participants from Japan stated that in each prefecture,there is a forensic laboratory,and DNA
and fingerprints are analyzed in these laboratories.For autopsies,in each prefecture,the body is sent
to the medical-forensics laboratory for examination. In Japan,security cameras are set up at various
places,and the videos from these cameras are collected by the police for analysis. Digital forensics isdone by the forensics laboratories of police bureaus and some private companies. For bank transactions, there is no need to get warrants as the banks would give information just by referral by thepolice,but to obtain call histories,warrants from the courts are required.In the Japanese Coast Guard,
there is a special division for analysis of oil, water and GPS.
(b)Challenges/problems faced
The participant from Azerbaijan stated that in Azerbaijan, there is no DNA database and noequipment for analyzing helicopter and airplane accidents.In Azerbaijan,there is a need of warrants
for searches, seizures and analysis of evidence.
The participants from Bhutan stated that in Bhutan, most police stations around the country lackthe latest scientific aids for investigation,and complex issues of forensic analysis are sent to India andother countries, which delays investigations. In Bhutan, there is a lack of proper and well-equipped
forensics laboratories and limited tools or scientific aids to investigation for the investigators. The
requirement by law to obtain court orders for the search, seizure and analysis of bank and financial
records, phone records, etc., delays and hampers investigations.
The participant from Brazil stated that in Brazil a DNA database and analysis of security cameras
should be developed.He further stated that wiretapping and detection of cyber-crimes is very difficult
as there is no digital-forensics expertise or equipment and the forensic analysis of computer evidence
takes very long. In Brazil, there is a lack of internet laws and regulation, and there is no national
database of fingerprints.There are also no rules in cyber cafes,so it becomes difficult to identify who
uses them;since there are no rules about mobile phone chips/sim cards, they could be misused bycriminals.
The participants from M aldives stated that in M aldives, there is a lack of specialist training
opportunities and limited budgets,and also admissibility of forensic evidence in courts is very difficult.
In Maldives, the banks and communication authorities are reluctant to provide information, and theservice providers are also very reluctant to provide information due to privacy issues, etc.;there areno laws mandating them to keep records.Security cameras are available but not maintained properly
due to limited budgets.

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
The participant from Moldova stated that in M oldova modern forensic and scientific equipment
including DNA analysis equipment and a DNA database need to be established, and special programmes to help investigation of financial and internet crimes also need to be developed.
The participants from Japan stated that in Japan there is onlya limited number ofsamples for DNA
databases,and though DNA is collected from crime scenes,for comparison,there is only limited data.
In Japan, requirement of conditions for wiretapping is very strict.The domestic financial institutions
are very cooperative in providing information on bank accounts but many transactions take place inoverseas banks with hidden transactions so it is very difficult to get international assistance ininvestigation.In Japan,sometimes suspects are found not guilty because the investigators erroneously
analyze, overestimate and present the objective evidence at court, so the police and prosecutors must
develop analytical ability regarding such evidence. In the Japanese Coast Guard, there is a need todevelop experts for forensic analysis.
C. Necessary Measures to Improve/Develop Investigation in Each Country
The necessary measures to improve/develop investigation in each country were recommended asfollows:
1. All the participants agreed that it is necessary to develop a system for exchange of information
regarding investigation,prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases between countries to becoordinated by an organization like UNAFEI.
2. All the participants agreed that there should be advocacy on interrogation and interviewing
techniques,proper collection and handling of evidence and printing of guidelines to research theissues.Research institutes regarding interviewing/interrogation techniques should be establishedin each country for all investigation agencies. The countries should develop guidebooks withminimum requirements for interviewing/interrogation techniques, and publish a series meant
exclusively for investigators with specific cases for sharing of experiences with law enforcement
agencies.
3. All the participants agreed to establishing a well-equipped separate room in each police office
for interviewing/interrogation, and to establish a practice for assistance during interview/interrogation by psychologists or more experienced investigators.
4. The majority of the participants agreed to considering the development of witness/victim/
accomplice protection programmes and funding for such programmes to be managed by aspecific and specialized Governmental agency or department.There should be development of alegal framework relating to witnesses,victims and accomplices,and easier procedures to change
the names.
5. All the participants agreed that the plea bargaining system should be considered in countries,
where possible, due to its advantages.
6. The participants agreed on establishing the position of“
assistants for investigators”to assist ininvestigative techniques where such a system is not in place.
7. All the participants agreed on formulating legal provisions and procedures for dealing withinternet issues regarding handling of evidence and cooperation from the service providers.
8. All the participants agreed on considering the audio-and video-recording system relating to oral
statements during criminal investigation, whenever necessary, especially in serious crimes.
9. The majority of the participants agreed to consider providing more powers of investigation to
the prosecutors in certain cases,especially when the police may not investigate independently.
10.All participants agreed to consider cooperation with private companies to develop digitalforensic analysis, such as the Japanese model, through a legal framework.

134155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
11.All the participants agreed on establishing an inclusive approach between the police and theprosecution to achieve better results for investigation and prosecution of cases, and the investigating officer and prosecutor should work as a team.
12.All the participants agreed on considering wider institutional opportunities in capacity building
for the stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system of countries for development of therespective institutions and staff. For instance, all new staff should have induction, formalmonitoring and be assigned a line supervisor. The line supervisor should discuss development
and performance issues with the member of staff in a formal way. Development should beperiodically reviewed, and also prosecutors should be trained for trial.
13.The participants agreed on considering the preparation of witnesses,victims and accomplices incases involving serious cases by the prosecution authorities prior to trial.
14.All the participants agreed that there should be enactment of relevant legislation to build astrong legal framework to investigate and prosecute cases to bring criminals to justice, especially the providing for the admissibility of confessions if obtained lawfully,in countries lacking
such provisions.
15.The participants agreed on establishing a quality and comprehensive evidence storage facility tostore, retain and utilize evidence effectively, in countries where it is lacking.
16.All the participants agreed on considering the development of techniques of interviewing/interrogation best suitable for the respective countries after considering models such as the PEACE
model and the REID model.
17.The participants agreed that in countries where coercive interrogation still exists, a system
where the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor with the use of video recording, medical andpsychological examinations should be established.
18.All the participants agreed on the significance of creation and development of a national DNA
and fingerprint database in their respective countries.
19.The participants agreed on reconsidering the obligations of the prosecutors to prosecute all thecrimes by establishing a discretionary model.
20.The participants agreed on considering the disclosure of evidence during the investigation phasein some countries.
21.All the participants agreed on considering the need to establish a standard procedure forfinancial institutions to provide information for investigation purposes, as developed in Brazil.
22.The participants agreed to regulate and develop the analysis of security cameras installed inpublic places.
23.All the participants agreed on the need for more training for investigators concerning interviewing/interrogation techniques.
24.All the participants agreed on the need to secure funds and equipment from the developed
nations and international organizations,and to provide various scientific aids to investigation to
the all the police stations of the respective countries.

VI. CONCLUSION
The group thoroughly deliberated and discussed the current issues and problems of each participating country relating to effective collection and utilization of evidence in criminal cases. Following
thorough discussions, the group developed certain recommendations and necessary measures to be

135

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
implemented in their respective countries for the development and improvement of the criminal justicesystem focusing mainly on investigation. However, it should be noted that the measures and therecommendations in this report should be adopted and implemented in the respective countries basedon the necessity and suitability in their countries with the goal of ultimately achieving an effective andefficient criminal justice system.

136