WORKSHOP REPORT

A/CONF.234/L.4

United Nations

Fourteenth
United Nations Congresson Crime Prevention andCriminal JusticeDistr.: Limited
9 March 2021
Original: English

Kyoto, Japan, 7–12 March 2021

Agenda item 4Integrated approaches to challenges facing thecriminal justice system
1.
Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders, which is part of the United Nations crime
prevention and criminal justice programme network, assisted the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in the preparation andorganization of the workshop. The Committee had before it thefollowing documents:(a) Background paper prepared by the Secretariat for theworkshop on reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing
solutions (A/CONF.234/9);(b) Working paper prepared by the Secretariat on developments
regarding crime prevention and criminal justice as a result of thecoronavirus
disease(COVID-19) pandemic (A/CONF.234/15);(c) Discussion(A/CONF.234/PM.1);

guideforthe

Fourteenth

Congress(d) Reports of the regional preparatory meetings for the
FourteenthCongress(A/CONF.234/RPM.1/1,
A/CONF.234/RPM.2/1,
A/CONF.234/RPM.3/1,
A/CONF.234/RPM.4/1
andA/CONF.234/RPM.5/1).
2.
At the 1st meeting of Committee II, on 8 March, the Chair of theCommittee opened the workshop. Opening remarks were delivered byKittipong Kittayarak of the Thailand Institute of Justice. The workshop
was moderated by Seto Takeshi, Director of the Asia and Far East
Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.
The keynote address was delivered by Fergus McNeill of the Universityof Glasgow, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Presentations were made by the following panellists: Vera Tkachenko,UNODC; Mariana Martin, Namibian Correctional Service; Emiliano
Blanco, Latin America Chapter of the International Corrections andPrisons Association; and Heidi Bottolfs, Directorate for Correctional
Services, Norway. Statements were made by the representatives of- 229 -- 229 -Morocco, Mexico and the Philippines. Statements were also made by
the observers for the Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention ofCrime and the Treatment of Offenders and the International Federationof Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture.
3.
At the 2nd meeting of Committee II, on 8 March, the keynote
address for the workshop was delivered by the Chair of the Committee.
Presentations were made by the following panellists: Jennifer Oades,
Parole Board of Canada; Jana Špero, Ministry of Justice and Public
Administration of Croatia; Teresia Matheka, High Court of Kenya; andManuel Co, Parole and Probation Administration of the Philippines.
Statements were made by the representatives of Japan, Honduras,
France, the Philippines and Italy.
4.
At the 3rd meeting of Committee II, on 9 March, presentations
were made by the following panellists: Imafuku Shoji, Ministry ofJustice of Japan; Sodiqa Williams, Safer Foundation; Olivia Rope,Penal Reform International; Ali Reunanen, Criminals Return into
Society (KRIS); and Maria Cristina Mattei, Hedayah. Statements weremade by the representatives of Canada, Japan, the United States ofAmerica and China.
Chair’s summary5.
During the opening remarks, the importance of employing aholistic approach to reducing reoffending, including through multistakeholder cooperation, was stressed. The keynote speaker, in his
opening of the first panel discussion, on creating rehabilitative prison
environments, emphasized the principle of proportionality that should
guide interventions aimed at the personal, judicial, moral and socialrehabilitation of offenders. He recalled the importance of evaluatinginterventions, including the offenders’ perspectives of them, with theaim of identifying barriers to reintegration. It was noted that the mostvulnerable populations suffered the most as a result of the State’s failure
to prevent reoffending. He concluded with the suggestion that criminal
justice systems should be assessed by their ability to enable social
reintegration.
6.
The first panellist highlighted the alarming rates of prison
overcrowding in the world, identified measures that contributed tocreating rehabilitative prison environments and shared the experiencesof Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The second panellist shared theNamibian experience in applying the “risk-need-responsivity” model,
which demonstrated potential for reducing reoffending. The third
panellist discussed corruption in prisons as a major obstacle torehabilitation efforts and the experience of Argentina in reducing
corruption and the risk of corruption in prisons, including through theenhancement of the status of prison staff and integrity training. The
fourth panellist shared the Norwegian experience in adopting the“principle of normality” in prison administration, by promoting
continuity of service and community participation, and other efforts that
increased the quality of life of prisoners.
7.
During the discussion, several speakers highlighted theimportance of establishing legislation and using non-custodial measures,combined with efforts to raise awareness of the benefits of suchmeasures among criminal justice practitioners and the wider public.
Some speakers shared national examples of rehabilitation programmes
in prisons and described the health, educational and vocational training
components of those programmes. One speaker noted that Governments- 230 -- 230 -must keep detailed statistics in order to measure and monitor
reoffending.
8.
The second panel discussion, on community-based approaches
that support desistance, began with a keynote speech in which it wasemphasized that community-based approaches were less costly andoften more effective than imprisonment in supporting desistance. It wasnoted that community-based approaches could strengthen
implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, for example,
through improved access to social services, education, employment andreduced social inequality.
9.
During the first presentation, the use of community-based
approaches to reduce reoffending in Canada was shared, and thefundamental importance of effective partnerships within and outside thecriminal justice system was stressed. The role of the parole board in
Canada in reviewing the conditional release of offenders was also
outlined. The second presentation covered the Croatian experience increating a professional probation system, which had significantlyincreased the use of non-custodial measures and reduced the prison
population since its establishment in 2009. The promotion of theconcept, benefits and results of probation were mentioned as critical toits expanded use. In the third presentation, the panel heard about the
judiciary-driven multi-agency approach in Kenya in cases involving
children, which had led to more children benefiting from non-custodial
measures and to reduced pretrial detention, increased provision ofcounselling and successful diversion from the criminal justice system.
The focus of the fourth presentation was the barangay (village) justicesystem of the Philippines, under which the smallest unit of local
government facilitated access to justice through restorative justice.
Information was also shared on the parole and probation administrationin that country.
10. During the discussion, many speakers highlighted that having awide range of community-based approaches was effective inrehabilitating and reintegrating offenders. One speaker noted theefficacy of using community probation volunteers as a measure toinvolve the community and mobilize its resources in rehabilitating
offenders. One speaker stressed the need to provide systemic support
for children in conflict with the law, with a strong emphasis on
prevention. Speakers stressed that providing fair and effective
opportunities for rehabilitation to former offenders was the mosteffective way of reducing reoffending and promoting public safety.
11. The third panel discussion, on a multifaceted approach to ensure
continuous support and services for the rehabilitation and reintegrationof offenders, began with a presentation on the Japanese experience inpreventing reoffending through identifying and meeting diverse needs
for rehabilitation, including housing, employment and social welfare.
The second presentation covered the disproportionate impact ofcriminal justice policies on minority communities and highlighted theneed for government and private investment in effective rehabilitation
and reintegration programmes. The third presentation was focused on agender-sensitive approach to rehabilitation, covering identified needs,
common barriers and appropriate services for rehabilitating women inprisons. In the fourth presentation, the importance of providing support
that met the individual needs of the offender, including byunderstanding the offender’s history and background, was highlighted.
The role of civil society in that effort was also highlighted. The fifth
presentation featured the panellist organization’s step-by-step- 231 -- 231 -monitoring and evaluation framework, called masar (“pathway” inArabic), designed to help policymakers and practitioners design
effective programmes for rehabilitation and reintegration.
12. During the discussion, several speakers shared their nationalexperiences and reiterated the importance of employing a multistakeholder approach in reducing reoffending. It was noted thatrehabilitation programmes should provide support that met individual
needs, and that housing and employment opportunities were often themost critical needs of former offenders. One speaker noted theimportance of collecting and maintaining detailed statistics onreoffending rates so as to inform the development of criminal justicepolicies. Another speaker stressed the importance of funding forcommunity-based programmes that supported reintegration.
13. The Chair recalled that reducing reoffending was critical tobuilding inclusive, sustainable societies as envisaged in the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. He emphasized that criminal
justice interventions should be in line with the principle of the least
restrictive sanction and the principle of proportionality, with the aim ofrehabilitating offenders in the community whenever possible, and that
programmes to reduce reoffending needed to be multifaceted, involve
all relevant stakeholders and ensure the necessary continuity of carewithin rehabilitative environments. In that context, he invited
participants to consider the following points raised during thediscussions:(a) With a view to reducing reoffending, Member States should
undertake to collect relevant statistics, identify the root causes ofoffending and reoffending, including the impact of poverty,
unemployment, homelessness, discrimination and health – in particularmental health – issues, evaluate social reintegration approaches, andshare data, research and evaluation outcomes nationally andinternationally;(b) Member States are encouraged to develop effective
interventions for the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders,
recognizing that this is crucial to public safety and social inclusiveness,
applying a realistic, step-by-step approach that considers theavailability of resources and the feasibility of steps to be taken within acertain time frame, refers to experiences in other jurisdictions andexplores the cost-effective use of information technology;(c) Member States are also encouraged to apply a multistakeholder approach towards the social reintegration of offenders,involving the public sector at both the State and local levels, the private
sector, faith-based organizations, academia, volunteers and community
members. Member States should seek to promote public-public andpublic-private partnerships, to ensure continuity of support and to help
offenders to secure employment and housing and access to legal, socialand medical services, as well as educational opportunities andvocational training;(d) Acknowledging that public understanding and cooperationare key elements of the reintegration of offenders into society, Member
States are invited to undertake awareness-raising activities directed at
the general public, the private sector, non-governmental organizations,
volunteers, employers and the family members of offenders to increase
understanding of the impact of both imprisonment and non-custodial
measures on victims, on the social reintegration of offenders and on- 232 -- 232 -public safety, and elicit public support for the community reintegrationof offenders;(e) Member States are invited to recognize the effectiveness ofrehabilitative community-based interventions and ensure that amandated, sufficiently resourced and adequately staffed public entity,
such as a dedicated probation service, is in place to manage, supervise
and support offenders in the community. Member States are also invited
to take inspiration from successful experiences with the involvement ofcommunity volunteers who support the reintegration of offenders;(f) Member States are encouraged to implement penal responses
guided by the principle of proportionality and assessed by their ability
to enable the reintegration of offenders; use imprisonment as a lastresort, recognizing that the prison environment is generally lessconducive to rehabilitation and social reintegration than communitybased measures; make use of an adequate and innovative array of noncustodial measures as alternatives to imprisonment and to pretrial
detention, building on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) and the United Nations
Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial
Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules); and consider theuse of gender-responsive, child-friendly and human rights-compliant
restorative justice interventions, in view of their potential benefits forvictims, their value for the community affected by crime and theirpositive impact on the social reintegration of offenders;(g) Member States are invited to establish rehabilitative prison
environments, in line with the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok
Rules, by ensuring that prisoners are treated fairly, with the respect due
to their inherent dignity as human beings, and supported in theirpersonal, judicial, moral and social rehabilitation; ensuring that
prisoners’ lives in prison reflect life in the community; ensuring proper
prison administration and case management and addressing
overcrowding, poor prison conditions, violence in prisons andcorruption; providing interventions, treatment programmes, education,
vocational training and work that are responsive to each individual’s
specific risks and needs; enabling offenders to maintain theircommunity and family ties; and ensuring the recruitment of prison staff
who display an attitude supportive to the rehabilitation of offenders andinvesting in multidisciplinary training for staff;(h) Member States are encouraged to tailor interventions andtreatment to the needs of each offender, in particular for those withspecific needs, such as young people, the elderly, persons withdisabilities, the poor and marginalized groups, and eliminate barriers tosocial reintegration;(i) Member States are also encouraged to develop andimplement specific gender-responsive rehabilitation and reintegration
policies and programmes in line with the Bangkok Rules, based on
research on specific barriers faced by women in their rehabilitation,such as stigmatization, and on existing good practices;(j) In dealing with alleged offenders who are children, Member
States are further encouraged to widen the use of diversion from judicial
proceedings
andnon-custodial measures and to ensure that deprivation of liberty is used
as a measure of last resort and that any action taken promotes therehabilitation and social reintegration of the child. Multisectoral- 233 -- 233 -cooperation was identified as a key requirement for achieving thoseobjectives;(k) Member States are encouraged to share information on
promising practices and consider the development, under the auspicesof the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and withthe support of UNODC, of model strategies to reduce reoffending thatreflect, among others, the good practices discussed during theworkshop;(l) Member States are also encouraged to support capacitybuilding efforts for criminal justice practitioners aimed at reducing
reoffending and are invited to consider seeking technical assistancefrom UNODC, the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justiceprogramme network, other international and regional organizations andrelevant non-governmental stakeholders.

- 234 -- 234 -