REPORTS OF THE COURSEGROUP 1
EFFECTIVE COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION OF EVIDENCE
IN CRIMINAL CASES
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
M embers

Adviser

M r. Kawata Hiroshige
M s. Sudti-Autasilp Bhornthip
M s. Svitlana Oliynyk
M r. Vuke Gray Luawabani
M s. Kongsrisook Unchalee
M r. Dhungana Prakash
M r. Parajuli Parmeshwar
M r. Bah Almamy Moussa
M r. Kiyota Shuusuke
M s. Suzuki Miki
M r. Vitalii Snegirov
M r. Oleh Harnyk
Prof. Iwashita Shinichiro(Japan)(Thailand)(Ukraine)(Vanuatu)(Thailand)(Nepal)(Nepal)(Guinea)(Japan)(Japan)(Ukraine)(Ukraine)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 1 started its discussion on the 9th of September 2013.Upon consensus of the members of thegroup, M r. Kawata Hiroshige was elected as Chairperson, Ms. Sudti-Autalsilp Bhornthip as CoChairperson, Ms. Svitlana Oliynyk as Rapporteur, and Mr. Vuke Gray Luwabani as Co-Rapporteur.
The theme of the discussion of the group was “Effective Collection and Utilization of Evidence in
Criminal Cases”.The agenda for the discussion was as follows:A.Effective collection and utilizationof oral statements, 1. Significance of oral statements in criminal cases in each country, 2. Effective
methods of interview/interrogation, 3. Obtaining statements of suspects/accomplices ― utilization ofplea bargaining and immunity,4.Recorded statements of interviews/interrogation in each country;B.
Collection of objective evidence; C. Necessary measures to improve/develop investigation in eachcountry.

II. SUM M ARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS
A. Effective Collection and Utilization of Oral Statements
1. Significance of Oral Statements in Criminal Cases in Each Country
All participants emphasized the importance of the statements of witnesses,victims and suspects for
successful investigation of a specific criminal case and bringing the person who committed the crime
to justice. M ost of the group members agreed that to achieve the goal of appropriate sentencing, thefollowing elements of the crime must be established and proved during the pre-trial stage, as well as
at trial:
Person(s)(criminal(s))who committed the crime
M otive/cause of committing the crime
Direct/indirect intention in reference to committing the crime as well as to committing theresults of the crime
Specific actions executed by the criminal(s)Time, place
Accomplice(s)116155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
During the discussions,participants paid attention to obtaining confessions from suspects.Everyoneemphasized the importance of obtaining confessions. Also, most of the group members agreed that a
confession given by a suspect during an investigation has to be repeated by the suspect in open court.
At the same time in spite of the importance of confessions, corroborative evidence shall prevail.
When a suspect (accused)confesses, the suspect should be granted a lighter sentence by the court.
Also participants noted that all statements have to be admissible in court in order to bring a criminalor criminals before the court. All statements are subject to evaluation by the investigator, publicprosecutor and especially the judge who makes the final decision and orders sentencing.
Statements of witnesses, victims and suspects must be compared. The group referred to the very
important issue of statements of accomplices. During discussions moderated by the adviser, Prof.
Iwashita Shinichiro, the participants from each country discussed a criminal case. The group considered situations in which the victim,co-offenders,criminal organizers(masterminds)and witnesses wereinvolved. Everyone agreed that the relationship between the organizer and co-offenders has to beestablished during the investigation. The points to be proved by an investigator are the intent of theorganizer,commands given to co-offenders by the organizer,and the impacts and results of the crime.
The group agreed that corroborative evidence is most important. The investigators as well as
judges have to evaluate statements given by the co-offenders as they might merely be seeking benefits
for themselves. The statements of the co-offenders as well as of the victims have to be accurate andmust be evaluated together with the statements of witnesses and corroborative evidence.
Also the group discussed measures to identify suspects. Generally phone and video recordings aswell as fingerprints and DNA are used during the pre-trial stage. However, some countries reported
that they do not use DNA evidence to identify suspects (for example, Vanuatu).
2. Effective M ethods of Interview/Interrogation
Looking at effective interview/interrogation, the group members discussed not only the current
situation but also challenges. Each represented country follows the principles of respect for humanrights and the rule of law.In each country,the right to keep silence is provided for and guaranteed by
the Constitution or Criminal Procedure Code.There are no doubts in ensuring this right to keep silence.
Nevertheless, this is a significant challenge for the investigator to collect corroborative evidence. It
often happens that statements of a suspect are helpful for discovering a crime in cases where there are
few witnesses.
The group agreed that the task of an investigator is to detect crime. Accordingly, investigators
should take statements through the way of effective investigation and interrogation.Usually investigators of each represented country use the P.E.A.C.E. model to conduct investigations.The reason is toensure the admissibility of statements in court.
In some countries,interrogation techniques like REID are used as well.On the one hand,there are
no doubts that these techniques are very helpful.On the other hand in some countries the usage of the
REID technique raises a question of admissibility of statements in a court (violation of human rights
as well as the right to keep silence at any moment of interrogation without being forced to givestatements by an investigator).
The group discussed an issue on improving interrogation.This goal could be reached by participation of officials in need to improving their skills in special training programmes, including theexchange of knowledge at the international level. Also, textbooks/manuals are very helpful not only
for junior but also senior investigators. At the same time, the junior investigators must be taught by
the senior investigators how to conduct interrogation properly.
During the group workshop, participants shared their best practices in the field of successfulinterview/interrogation. One more question was raised concerning persuading the suspect to confess.
Speaking about confession,Japanese participants emphasized the necessity to persuade the suspect toconfess, especially in cases where the suspect denies having committed the crime. Also, confession is117

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
not only a way to collect evidence but also to discover other criminals. At the same time there is noneed to persuade the suspect to confess if other evidence is sufficient.
The Ukrainian participants explained that confession is not obligatory;much more important iscorroborative evidence which proves guilt.Confession is the right of an offender for whom the right tokeep silence is guaranteed under the law.Deliberate and voluntary confession is a good way to collectsufficient evidence.The Nepalese participants also agreed that it is reasonable to persuade suspects toconfess.Ifthere is corroborative evidence in a case,a confession is evidence which is taken into accountby the court. Representatives from Thailand also agreed that the decision has to be made by a judge
on the basis of corroborative evidence, and confessions should not prevail in a specific criminal case.
Confession must be considered as one form of sufficient evidence.The participants from Vanuatu andGuinea stated that in cases with enough corroborative evidence,confessions are not necessary.In any
case it is obvious that, using all investigative techniques for effective interrogation and effective
collection of evidence, an investigator must follow the rules of the criminal procedure code of thecountry in which the investigator operates.
3. Obtaining Statements of Suspects/Accomplices ― Utilization of Plea Bargaining and Immunity
After discussion, it was found that plea bargaining is utilized in the following countries:Ukraine(covered by the Criminal Procedure Code), Guinea (covered by the Criminal Procedure Code), Nepal(there are no provisions of general criminal procedure but it is provided for in specific laws regarding
narcotic drugs,human trafficking,money-laundering,corruption and organized crime),Vanuatu (there
are no provisions in the criminal procedure code, but it is used in practice).
As for Japan, currently there is no plea bargaining in the criminal procedure code. This questionis under discussion for adoption bythe Legislative Council.As for Thailand,there is no plea bargaining
in the Criminal Procedure Code. Whether or not to adopt plea bargaining is a question that is underdiscussion.However,there are provisions which empower the court to lessen the sentence ifthe accusedgave useful information to the investigator or the court.
In Ukraine the following types of agreements may be concluded in criminal proceedings:
reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or the accusedplea agreement between the public prosecutor and the suspect or the accused about pleading
guiltyThe plea agreement may be concluded upon initiative of the public prosecutor, the suspect or theaccused. The plea agreement between the public prosecutor and the suspect or the accused may beconcluded in proceedings in respect of criminal misdemeanors, as well as crimes of minor or medium
gravity, grave crimes, the perpetration of which caused damage only to state or public interests.
Conclusion of the plea agreement in criminal proceedings with the participation of the victim shall not
be allowed.Conclusion of a reconciliation agreement or a plea agreement may be initiated at any time
between the moment of notifying the person of the suspicion and retirement of judges into thedeliberation room to pass the sentence/judgement.In case of failure to reach an agreement,the fact of
initiating conclusion of the agreement and the statements which were made to arrive at an agreement
may not be considered as refusal from prosecution or pleading guilty.The agreement shall indicate thedate of its conclusion and shall be signed by the parties. If an agreement was reached at the stage ofpre-trial investigation, the indictment together with the agreement signed by the parties to it shall bereferred to court without delay. The court shall verify whether the agreement complies with therequirements of the law.If the court makes sure that the agreement may be approved,it shall pass thejudgement by which it approves the agreement and imposes the punishment agreed between the parties.
4. Recorded Statements of Interviews/Interrogation in Each Country
At the end of discussion of Chapter A, participants also paid attention to the recording of statements. All participants noted that statements should be in a written form. At the same time video
recording is not used in Nepal and Vanuatu.These written and video records are admissible evidence
in a court.Also such video records prove the legality of the process of taking statements and prevent

118

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
ill-treatment.
In Japan police officers and prosecutors conduct interviews or interrogation of suspects, victims,
witnesses and accomplices. Police officers and prosecutors write the statements, which have to bechecked by the interviewed or interrogated person.If there are no mistakes,the statement is signed by
the interviewed or interrogated person.Interviews or interrogation of suspects may be video recorded.
Also statements have to be disclosed to defence counsel. At trial the defendant has to be examined.
Video recording is a measure to prove at court that the statements were taken voluntarily and legally.
In Thailand it is required by law that the statements of suspects,victims,witnesses and accomplices
have to be recorded in written form.Interviews might be video recorded.However,in the case ofa childvictim/witness, the law requires that the investigator arrange a video and voice recorder for theinterview which is able to be continuously transmitted as evidence. All evidence collected during
investigation can be used at trial provided that they were obtained lawfully.
In Nepal suspectsʼstatements are recorded in written form by a police officer at the prosecutorʼ
soffice. The statements are not audio-visually recorded. The written statements are signed by theinvestigator,the public prosecutor and the suspect as well.Suspects must repeat the statements before
the judge at trial as well.
In Vanuatu whether or not there is a confession, there must always be sufficient evidence. At thesame time, corroborative evidence is very important. If there is no confession taken from the suspect
and only circumstantial evidence is provided, then a decision to prosecute depends on how muchcircumstantial evidence exists.
In Guinea a confession is not needed as evidence, but corroboration of evidence is important.
Offenders can be taken to court without having confessed.Suspects can be released and personal details
must be obtained by police to appear in court when all elements are established.
In Ukraine the course and results of a procedural action shall be entered in the record. If during
pre-trial investigation procedural action may be recorded with technical means,the appropriate entry
should be made in the record.Before signing the record ofprocedural action,participants shall be given
the possibility to review its text. Comments and amendments shall be placed in the record before
signatures. The record is signed by all participants to the conducted procedural action. If a person,
because of his physical disabilities or any other reasons,cannot personally sign the record,such person
may review the record in the presence of defence counsel (legal representative) who attests with hissignature contents of the records and to the fact that the disabled person cannot sign the record
personally. If a person who participated in the procedural action refuses to sign the record, this ismentioned in the record, and such person shall be given the right to explain in writing the reasons
therefore, these explanations being entered in the record. Refusal to sign the record or to provide
written explanations with regard to the reasons for the refusal shall be attested by the signature ofdefence counsel (legal representative),and where such is not available,this shall be signed by attesting
witnesses. Procedural actions during criminal proceedings may be recorded with the use of technicalmeans including video. Photographing, audio or/and video recording may be made during interviewing.
The decision on recording procedural action with the use of technical means during pre-trial
proceedings including examination of matters by the investigating judge,shall be made by the person
who conducts the procedural action concerned.Upon motion of the participants to a procedural action,
the use of technical means for recording is compulsory. If interrogation is recorded with technicalmeans, the text of the testimony may not be entered in the relevant record on condition that none ofthe participants in this procedure insist upon this.In such case,entry should be made in the record thatthe testimony has been recorded on a medium that is attached to the record. The testimonyofa suspect
which has been obtained by an investigator during an interviewing is evidence. If the examination isconducted in compliance with the law and it contains information that is relevant to criminal proceedings, the results of this investigation may be evidence of the guilt of the suspect. Simultaneously the
court may base its findings only on testimony taken directly during court sessions or those obtained

119

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
under the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.The court may not base court decisions on
testimony given to investigators, public prosecutors, or refer to such.
5. Some Basic Provisions of the Criminal Procedure in Selected Countries
JAPAN
Effective collection and utilization of oral statements
The police are the primary investigative agency in Japan.The vast majority of criminal cases
are investigated by the police and referred to public prosecutors. As the police do not have thepower to make charging decisions,all cases investigated by the police must be sent to publicprosecutors for disposition. Public prosecutors are fully authorized to conduct criminal
investigations, and they actively supplement police investigation by directly interviewing
witnesses and interrogating suspects.
Police officers and public prosecutors may ask suspects to appear in their offices for interrogation, and suspects under arrest or detention are obligated to comply. However,the Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination, and the CCP requires investigators to
notify the suspect, in advance of the questioning, that he or she is not required to make any
statement against his or her will.
In order to be admissible at trial, confessions must be voluntarily made. In this regard, CCP
provides that “
confession made under compulsion,torture or threat,or after prolonged arrest
or detention,or which is suspected not to have been made voluntarily shall not be admitted inevidence.”
Written statements are admissible as evidence if the defendant consents to their use, or they
are admissible as one of the hearsay exceptions provided for in the CCP.
When a witness is unavailable to testify at trial, written statements taken by a publicprosecutor and signed by the witness may be admitted as a hearsay exception. Likewise,if thewitness takes the stand but the testimony differs from previous statements,prior inconsistentstatements taken by a public prosecutor and signed by the witness may be admitted as hearsay
exceptions, provided there is a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.
UKRAINEOn 20 November 2012, the New Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine came into force. This Codeestablished a new procedure for an electronic record of crime that is an Integrated Register of
Pre-Trial Investigations. Most important aspects of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are thefollowing:
enhancing protection of victims
widening rights of defence
specialization of the investigators and judges in criminal proceedings in respect of minors(juvenile justice)humanization of preventive measures (detention is an exceptional restraint measure)investigative judges
reasonable period of timejury trial
agreements in criminal proceedings (reconciliation and plea agreements)

120

155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
cancellation of additional investigation
public prosecutor leads an investigation
VANUATU
Victim impact statement and protection of victims
Juvenile legislation
M odern technology legislation (phone calls, video recording, etc.)
Evidence Act
Leadership Code Act
B. Collection of Objective Evidence
The main aim for collection of objective evidence is to establish the objective truth in a specificcriminal case. Scientific investigation techniques gain importance in the course of effective investigation.Nowadays DNA,fingerprints,autopsies,analysis of security camera footage,GPS,digital forensics, etc., are widely used and support the sufficiency of the effective investigation.
In Thailand all types of possible scientific techniques are used,for example,fingerprints,autopsies,
forensic pathology, toxicology and chemistry, document examination, firearms and gunshot residues,
analysis of security camera footage, GPS, and DNA analysis. Usage of DNA started about twenty
years ago. The new DNA testing techniques have been used over the last ten years. DNA analysis ismostly used in criminal case. This technique is also used in other cases including missing-person
identification and parentage testing. However, DNA analysis can be used only in identifying whose
DNA it is.But why it was attached to such evidence is the responsibility of the investigator to find out.
The challenge of DNA analysis is to establish a DNA database system and legislation,and standardize
the system as an intelligence tool in order to solve and prevent crime before crime commission occurs,
to save money and to exonerate the innocent from accusations of crime. Since digital evidence is in
its infancy in Thailand,another challenge is the improvement of digital forensic techniques to keep up
with the development of technologies.
In Nepal there are two forensic labs.Forensic techniques such as DNA analysis are widely used incases of identification of the deceased as well as for the purpose to identify bodies in criminal cases.
DNA examination facilities are available at the National Forensic Laboratory only.A DNA databaseis being established. Also, autopsies are used in Nepal, and they are done in every district at thehospital (a separate Autopsy Department is situated in Kathmandu). There is also the group SOCO
(scene of crime officials)in Nepal which is very effective for observation and investigation of a crime
scene with appropriate tools.SOCO exist in each district of Nepal.At the same time fingerprint experts
are available only in the capital of Nepal ― Kathmandu. Security cameras are used in some public
places and offices but are not very sufficient. GPS and digital forensics are used. In Nepal, it is also
possible to determine the location of a suspect who uses a cell phone at the moment it is being used.
In Japan effective investigation includes scientific investigation techniques. But some scientificforensic techniques such as GPS must still be adopted.Currently,it is necessaryto enhance wiretapping
for specific criminal cases.
In Vanuatu DNA is not used, in situations where DNA is collected it is send to Australia for
analyzing. Fingerprints are widely used but fingerprint experts need to spread across the country.
There are no security cameras anywhere, but they exist in the airport.
In Guinea DNA analysis, fingerprint analysis and video recording are essential technologies used
to identify and locate the suspect. The central information committee is in charge of collecting andanalyzing evidence.

121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 92
In Ukraine a variety of forensic techniques are used,especially DNA analysis,fingerprint analysis,
autopsies, digital forensics, analysis of security camera footage, etc. At the same time there is no
general DNA database.
C. Necessary Measures to Improve/Develop Investigation in Each Country
M ost of Group 1 agreed on the necessity to improve investigation,especially through upgrading of
personal skills of officials.
In Japana) The necessity to analyze the methods of interrogation.There must be training for investigators and prosecutors to upgrade their skills.
b) Reasonableness of recording the interrogation and to conduct effective interrogation.
c) The scientific investigation ― necessity to draft it in case it is not covered by the law.
d) Organized crime. Suspects and accomplices do not tell the truth.
e) Introduction of plea bargaining. But before doing so,it is necessary to study foreign experiences and to consider the effectiveness of plea bargaining.
In Vanuatu
There are laws that have been adopted for the apprehension of offenders anda) there are still trainings to be done in investigation;b) video and audio recording of interrogation,c) Interrogation methods,d) Forensic analysing of computers and mobile phones.
Though there are a number oflaws that address the collection ofevidence,there is a need to develop
an evidence act and other legislation.
In Guinea legislation provides for practices of investigation,such as phone call information,verbal
questioning, video recording, photographs, biomedical analysis, which are gathered by the police andthe general investigation service throughout the country. The service is under the control of the
Attorney General.
In Thailanda) Continuous training for personnel involved in law enforcementb) Domestic and international cooperationc) Amendment of laws to catch up with the new technologies
In Nepal
Evidence-based investigation and prosecution:a) Creating a separate Crime Investigation Police Branch of the Nepal Police.
b) Establishing well-equipped forensic labs in the five regions throughout the country.
c) Enhancing public security using security cameras in most public areas, offices and streets.

122155TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSEd) Enabling the Nepal Police to use digital forensic evidence bystrengthening their capacityandbuilding infrastructure for it.
e) Establishing well-equipped separate detention centres throughout the country.
f) M aking well-equipped office buildings for every District Public Prosecutorʼs Office andDistrict Police Office with sufficient physical resources including separate interrogation
rooms in every District.
g) By strengthening interviewing and interrogation techniques by using the PEACE and REID
models and improving other skills of Public Prosecutors and Investigating Police Officers
through On the Job Training (OJT) and making international training courses available tothem.
h) Enacting as soon as possible legislation (three unified bills)which have already been submitted to Parliament and which are necessary to modernize the criminal justice system of Nepal.
(Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and modernized sentencing and victim friendly
sentencing bills). Witness protection and perjury laws are also necessary to improve thecriminal justice system of Nepal.
i) Creating working environments in which the Nepal Police and Public Prosecutor can function
independently and effectively for the interest of society.
j) Creating effective cordial relationships between the Nepal Police and Public Prosecutors.
k) Developing international cooperation.
In Ukrainea) Improving, upgrading skills of investigators and prosecutors through personal studying aswell through specific trainingb) Setting up the general DNA databasec) Developing investigative and interrogation techniques, including the REID and P.E.A.C.E.
modelsd) Adoption of the New Criminal Misdemeanors Codee) Establishing the State Bureau of Investigation within the New Criminal Procedure CodeIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM MENDATIONSAt the end of the discussion, Group 1 agreed on the following recommendations ―Taking every possible measure to follow the rule of law in each presented country.
Enhancing the effectiveness of the investigation of criminal cases in each presented country;
adoption of appropriate legislation for effective interrogation methods.
Sharing the best practices in the field of criminal justice and criminal law.
Developing international cooperation in the field of criminal justice and criminal law.

123