ISSN 1020-914X

UNAFEI

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

No. 129
June 2009

Established1961
IN THIS ISSUE
Page

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR ............................................................................................................................... 1

THE 142ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE................................................................................................. 4
EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST OVERCROWDING OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
Course Rationale .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Course Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Lecture Topics ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Individual Presentation Topics ....................................................................................................................... 10Group Workshop Sessions ............................................................................................................................. 12
Observation Visits .......................................................................................................................................... 15Group Study Tour .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Special Events ................................................................................................................................................ 17
Reference Materials ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Experts and Participants List ......................................................................................................................... 24
THE FIFTH SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA .............................................................. 27
THE 14TH SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS OF THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA ................................................................................................................................................. 29
INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES .................................................................................. 31
The Fourth Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide System
for the Philippines .......................................................................................................................................................... 31
The Twelfth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption ........................................ 31
The 143rd International Training Course ........................................................................................................................ 31
ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS ......................................................................................................................................... 34
Faculty Changes ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Overseas Trips by Staff .................................................................................................................................................. 34
FACULTY & STAFF OF UNAFEI ............................................................................................................................... 35

UNAFEI IS AN AFFILIATED REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

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

1

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR

It is my privilege to inform readers of the successful completion of the 142nd International
Training Course on "Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities",
which took place from 11 May to 19 June 2009.
In this Course, we welcomed eight Japanese and 14 overseas participants: two from Africa,
four from Asia, five from Latin America and the Caribbean, and three from Oceania. Twointernational observers also attended, both from Asia. The participants and observers included
corrections officers, police officers, judges, prosecutors and other high-ranking public officials.
As this newsletter demonstrates, the Course was extremely productive. It consisted ofindividual presentations, group workshop and plenary sessions, visits to relevant criminal justiceagencies and presentations by visiting experts, faculty members and ad hoc lecturers.
Correctional administration and the treatment of offenders have developed steadily andshown successful results in many countries, yet overcrowding in correctional facilities remains an
issue in many parts of the world. According to the recent World Prison Population List survey,
more than 9.25 million persons are detained in penal institutions worldwide, and the number ofprisoners has been increasing in many places. Overcrowding brings about obstacles in the living
environments of inmates, discipline and order of correctional facilities, and appropriate provisionof correctional treatment. Therefore, it is of great importance that smooth and appropriate administration and management of correctional facilities must be secured, maintaining the optimal/controllable number of inmates.
Regarding appropriate administration and management of correctional facilities, the Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners was adopted in the First United Nations Congresson the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955. Also, theStatement of Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners was adopted by the General
Assembly in December 1990. Although not formally binding, the Member States have strived to
fully implement the said Rules and Basic Principles, but the population growth of correctional
facilities has made it increasingly difficult for some Member States to adhere to them.
It is believed that the issue of overcrowding of correctional facilities differs from country tocountry, and it has always changed in accordance with modern developments. Therefore, it isnecessary to explore effective countermeasures to tackle the issue, and cope with changing times.
To make this possible, effective countermeasures to alleviate the overcrowding of correctional
facilities within the criminal justice system as a whole must be studied. In this context, measures
to cope with the growing number of inmates at each stage of criminal justice proceedings should
be examined first, and then, measures within the framework of correctional administration should
be explored.
In order to avoid detention of an accused or a defendant at a detention or remand centre,
measures such as investigation without arrest or subsequent detention of the accused, house arrest,
bail on bond, electronic monitoring, suspension of prosecution, etc., need to be effectively utilized.
Also, trial should be concluded with as much speed as possible to avoid the undue detention of
inmates awaiting a trial (or remand prisoners) in detention facilities. Further, alternative measures
to incarceration such as community service orders, intensive probationary supervision, treatment

2

programme orders, etc., after rendering such criminal sentences as fine, suspension of pronouncement of sentence, suspension of execution of sentence, etc., should be efficiently utilized so as toreduce the number of inmates in detention facilities.
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo
Rules), which were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the basis of a recommendation by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders in 1990, provides guidelines and basic principles for diversified non-custodial measures.
Further, the Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders, held in Vienna in 2000, stressed the importance of effective alternatives to incarcerationin order to contain the growth and overcrowding of correctional facilities’ populations (Para. 26).
In addition, the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, heldin 2005, encourages that Member States prioritize non-custodial measures rather than imprisonment
where possible, and it further recommends that Member States utilize measures which can be
implemented in the community such as reconciliation among the persons concerned.
It is of great importance that the concerned criminal justice agencies, including the police,prosecution service, judiciary, corrections or prison service, probation service, etc., alleviate theovercrowding of correctional facilities at all stages of criminal justice proceedings. Effective countermeasures against overcrowding of correctional facilities should include diversion, alternatives toincarceration, effective administration of correctional facilities, correctional programmes effective
for the prevention of reoffending, and other measures, in order to successfully address the issue.
These countermeasures are implemented to accomplish the substantive objectives of correctional
facilities to prevent offenders from committing further crimes, to protect society, and to rehabilitate
offenders.
UNAFEI, as a regional institute of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme Network, decided to hold this Course in order to provide an opportunity forcriminal justice and corrections personnel to consider the various issues for the purpose of clarifying challenges and discovering solutions suitable for their own countries.
During the Course the participants diligently and comprehensively examined the current
situation of overcrowding of correctional facilities in the participating countries and existing countermeasures, 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. After engaging in in-depth discussions with the UNAFEI faculty and visiting experts, theparticipants were able to put forth effective and practical solutions that could be applied in theirrespective 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 goes tothe visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers who contributed a great deal to the Course’s success.
Furthermore, I appreciate the indispensable assistance and co-operation extended to UNAFEI byvarious agencies and institutions, which helped diversify the programme.
I would like to express my great appreciation to the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) for its immeasurable support throughout the Course. At the same time, a warm
tribute must be paid to the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF) and its branch organizations
for their substantial contributions to our activities. Lastly, I owe my gratitude to all the individuals
whose unselfish efforts behind the scenes contributed significantly to the successful realization ofthis Course.

3Upon returning to their home countries, I genuinely believe that, like their predecessors, thestrong determination and dedication of the participants will enable them to work towards the
improvement of their respective nation’s criminal justice systems, and to the benefit of international society as a whole.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my best regards to the participants of the 142nd
International Training Course. I hope that the experience they gained during the Course proves
valuable in their daily work, and that the bonds fostered among the participants, visiting experts
and UNAFEI staff will continue to grow for many years to come.

June 2009

Keiichi Aizawa
Director, UNAFEI

4

THE 142ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE"EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST OVERCROWDING OF
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES"

Course Rationale

Correctional administration and the treatment of offenders have developed steadily andshown successful results in many countries, yet overcrowding in correctional facilities remains an
issue in many parts of the world. There is no single reason that can explain the population growthof prisons. Possible factors include the growth of crime; changes in legislative and sentencing
policy; public preference for punitive reactions to crime; etc. According to the recent World Prison
Population List survey, more than 9.25 million persons are detained in penal institutions worldwide, and the number of prisoners has been increasing in many parts of the world.
Overcrowding in correctional facilities may worsen the living conditions of the inmates, anda congested living environment causes stress, which has an unfavourable psychological influence
on inmates. Further, overcrowding causes many difficulties in the overall administration andmanagement of correctional facilities. For example, stress due to a congested living environment
triggers trouble among inmates and violence against prison officers. In this context, discipline andorder in a correctional facility must be prioritized. In addition, overcrowding may hinder the
primary objectives of correctional facilities to rehabilitate and re-socialize prisoners. Thus,
overcrowding brings about obstacles in the living environments of inmates, discipline and order ofcorrectional facilities, and appropriate provision of correctional treatment. Therefore, it is of great
importance that smooth and appropriate administration and management of correctional facilities
must be secured, maintaining the optimal/controllable number of inmates.
Article 8 of the Bangkok Declaration, adopted in 2005, reads "We are committed to thedevelopment and maintenance of fair and efficient criminal justice institutions, including thehumane treatment of all those in pre-trial and correctional facilities, in accordance with applicableinternational standards". In this context, the rights of inmates detained in correctional facilities aswell as efficient administration of institutions must be maintained. This philosophy should beapplied and respected even in overcrowded correctional facilities.
Taking into account the treatment of prisoners, the Standard Minimum Rules for theTreatment of Prisoners was adopted in the First United Nations Congress on the Preventionof Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955. In the resolution, minimum
standards regarding the treatment of prisoners including accommodation, personal hygiene, clothing
and bedding, medical services, contact with family members, etc., are described or indicated. Also,
the Statement of Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners was adopted by the General
Assembly in December 1990, which clarifies the basic principles for the treatment of prisoners,
including that all prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value
as human beings, believing that the full implementation of the Rules would be facilitated by thearticulation of the basic principles underlying them. Although not formally binding, the Member
States have strived to fully implement the said Rules and Basic Principles, but the population
growth of correctional facilities has made it increasingly difficult for some Member States toadhere to them.
It is believed that the issue of overcrowding of correctional facilities differs from country
to country, and it has always changed in accordance with modern developments. Therefore, it is5necessary to explore effective countermeasures to tackle the issue, and cope with changing times.
To make this possible, effective countermeasures to alleviate the overcrowding of correctional
facilities within the criminal justice system as a whole must be studied. In this context, measures
to cope with the growing number of inmates at each stage of criminal justice proceedings should
be examined first, and then, measures within the framework of correctional administration should
be explored.
In order to avoid detention of an accused or a defendant at a detention or remand centre,
measures such as investigation at a residence of the accused, house arrest, bail on bond, electronicmonitoring, suspension of prosecution, etc., need to be effectively utilized. Also, trial should beconcluded with as much speed as possible to avoid the undue detention of inmates awaiting a trial(or remand prisoners) in detention facilities. Further, alternative measures to incarceration such ascommunity service orders, intensive probationary supervision, treatment programme orders, etc.,
after rendering such criminal sentences as fine, suspension of pronouncement of sentence, suspension of execution of sentence, etc., should be efficiently utilized so as to reduce the number ofinmates in detention facilities.
It is not possible to develop and implement effective correctional/rehabilitative treatment
programmes in overcrowded correctional facilities. Also, putting relatively minor offenders into a
prison may hamper their smooth reintegration into society after release because of the stigmatization of incarceration. It is considered to be effective to utilize alternative measures to incarceration(or non-custodial sanctions) for such offenders. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
Non-Custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules), which were adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on the basis of a recommendation by the Eighth United Nations Congress on thePrevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1990, provides guidelines and basic
principles for diversified non-custodial measures. Further, the Tenth United Nations Congress on
the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Vienna in 2000, stressed theimportance of effective alternatives to incarceration in order to contain the growth and overcrowding of correctional facilities’ populations (Para. 26). In addition, the Eleventh United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, held in 2002, encourages that Member Statesprioritize non-custodial measures rather than imprisonment where possible, and it further recommends that Member States utilize measures which can be implemented in the community such asreconciliation among the persons concerned.
As far as correctional administration is concerned, in order to cope with the growing
number of prisoners, new prisons have been constructed in some countries, and on the other hand,
effective and efficient administration of correctional facilities, through the expansion of accommodation capacity of existing correctional facilities, is strongly demanded in countries where cost
reduction is required. A countermeasure to alleviate prison overcrowding that can be taken by
the administration of correctional facilities is, for instance, early release from prison by granting
remission, time off for good behaviour, parole, pardon, etc. Therefore, the conditions, restrictions,and other related issues required to set up an early release programme should be examined.
It is of great importance that the concerned criminal justice agencies, including the police,prosecution service, judiciary, corrections or prison service, probation service, etc., alleviate
the overcrowding of correctional facilities at all stages of criminal justice proceedings. Effective
countermeasures against overcrowding of correctional facilities should include diversion, alternatives to incarceration, effective administration of correctional facilities, correctional programmes
effective for the prevention of reoffending, and other measures, in order to successfully address theissue. Consequently, these countermeasures are implemented to accomplish the substantive
objectives of correctional facilities to prevent offenders from committing further crimes, to protect
society, and to rehabilitate offenders.

6

Objectives
The purpose of this Training Course was to offer participants an opportunity to share experiences and knowledge regarding effective countermeasures against overcrowding of correctional
facilities. In order to achieve this purpose, and to successfully cope with the issue, the training
programme provided an opportunity to clarify the current situations and problems existing in therespective countries in the field of correctional administration. There was also opportunity to build
participants’ knowledge of possible measures to alleviate the growth of populations in correctional
facilities at all stages of criminal justice proceedings. Among the major topics studied were thefollowing:(1) Current situations and problems of overcrowding of detention facilities, and measures takenby the concerned criminal justice agencies at all stages of criminal justice proceedings:(a) Diversion and other measures in the investigation, prosecution, and pre-adjudication
stages• Bail on bond
• Electronic monitoring• House detention curfew• House arrest• Suspension of prosecution, suspension of pronouncement of sentence• Intensive probationary supervision, etc.
(b) Alternatives to incarceration or non-custodial sanctions as adjudication options• Fine• Intensive probationary supervision• Community (service) order• Electronic monitoring• Treatment programme order, etc.
(2) Current situations and problems of prison overcrowding and possible measures taken bycorrectional administrators:(a) Effective administration of correctional facilities• Construction of new prisons including privatized facilities• Expansion of accommodation capacity of the existing institutions, etc.
• Early release programmes (e.g. pardon, remission, furlough, parole, time off for good
behaviour, etc.)(b) Correctional programmes effective for the prevention of reoffending• Cognitive behavioural therapy• Academic/educational training• Social skills training• Drug abuse treatment• Mental health treatment• Vocational training• Employment support guidance, etc.
(3) Promotion or enhancement of community-based treatment or after-care programmes in the
post-sentencing stage as possible measures to alleviate overcrowding of correctional facilities:• Probationary supervision• Intermediate institutions (e.g. halfway houses, community correctional centres, community
residential facilities, etc.)• Drug treatment programmes• Community (service) orders• Employment support guidance
Enhancement of involvement of the private sector and community, etc.

7

Course Summary

Lectures
In total, five lectures were presented by visiting experts, nine by ad hoc lecturers and fiveby the faculty of UNAFEI. Four distinguished criminal justice practitioners from abroad served
as UNAFEI visiting experts. They lectured on issues relating to the main theme, and contributed
significantly to the Course by encouraging discussions after their own lectures, participating in thediscussions of other programmes, and conversing with the participants on informal occasions.
Additionally, distinguished senior officials of the Government of Japan delivered ad hoc lectures.
The lecturers and lecture topics are listed on pages 8 to 9.
Individual Presentations
During the first two weeks, each Japanese and overseas participant delivered an individual
presentation, which introduced the actual situation, problems and future prospects of his or her
country. These papers were compiled onto a compact disc and distributed to all the participants.
The titles of these individual presentation papers are listed on pages 10 and 11.
Group Workshop Sessions
Group Workshop sessions further examined the sub-topics of the main theme. In order
to conduct each session effectively, the UNAFEI faculty selected individuals to serve as groupmembers for the sub-topics, based on their response to a questionnaire previously distributed.
Selected participants served as chairpersons, co-chairpersons, rapporteurs or co-rapporteurs andfaculty members served as advisers. Each group’s primary responsibility was to explore anddevelop their designated topics in the group workshop sessions. The participants and UNAFEI
faculty studied the topics and exchanged their views based on information obtained throughpersonal experience, the individual presentations, lectures and so forth. After the group workshop
sessions, reports were drafted based on the discussions in their groups. These reports were subsequently presented in the plenary meeting and report-back session, where they were endorsed as thereports of the Course. Brief summaries of the group workshop reports are provided on pages 12
to 14.
Visits and Special Events
Visits to various agencies and institutions in Japan helped the participants obtain a morepractical understanding of the Japanese criminal justice system. In addition to the Course’s
academic agenda, many activities were arranged to provide a greater understanding of Japanesesociety and culture, with the assistance of various organizations and individuals, including the Asia
Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF). For more detailed descriptions, please refer to pages 15 to18.

8Lecture Topics

Visiting Experts’ Lectures
1)

Mr. Rob Allen• Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities

2)

Mr. Peter Ng Joo Hee• Offender Rehabilitation, Community Engagement and Preventing Reoffending in Singapore

3)Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans-Jörg Albrecht• Sanction Policies and Alternative Measures to Incarceration – European Experiences with
Intermediate and Alternative Sanctions• Trends in Crime and Prison Populations – Evidence from Europe

4)Prof. Neil Morgan• Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding (Part I):
Overcrowding: Causes, Consequences and Reduction Strategies• Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding (Part II):
Maintaining Standards, Decency and Human Rights in Overcrowded Times

UNAFEI Professors’ Lectures
1)

Ms. Fumiko Akahane, Professor, UNAFEI• The Criminal Justice System in Japan: Investigation and Prosecution

2)

Mr. Jun Oshino, Professor, UNAFEI• The Criminal Justice System in Japan: The Courts

3)

Mr. Tetsuya Sugano, Professor, UNAFEI• Institutional Corrections in Japan(Correctional Administration and Penal Institutions & Correctional Facilities for Juveniles)

4)

Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi, Professor, UNAFEI• Challenges of the Koban (Police Box) System in the 21st Century

5)

Mr. Toru Kawaharada and Ms. Ayako Sakonji, Professors, UNAFEI• Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in Japan9

Ad Hoc Lectures
1)

Mr. Satoshi Tomiyama
Director, Prison Service Division, Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan• Current Situation of Correctional Treatment in Japan2)

Dr. Kei Someda
Chief of Parole Assessment, Kanto Regional Parole Board, Japan• Diversification of Community-Based Treatment of Offenders – Effective Measures for thePrevention of Recidivism and Reduction of the Prison Population

3)

Mr. Makito Kobiki
Chief of Assessment Section, Fuchu Prison, Tokyo, Japan• Procedure for Intake Assessment and Examination of Convicted Prisoners – Application of
the Assessment Results to Treatment Planning4)

Mr. Kazunobu Eguchi
Attorney, Legislative Affairs Division, Criminal Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan• Adjustment of the Number of Inmates and Prevention of Repeat Offences

5)

Ms. Masako Tashiro
Probation Officer, Yokohama Probation Office, Japan• Adjustment of the Number of Inmates and Prevention of Repeat Offences

6)

Dr. Tetsuya Fujimoto
Professor, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan• Characteristics and Issues of Alternative Systems to Custodial Measures at Each Stage of
Criminal Justice (Including comparison with international standards and major countries)

7)

Dr. Teruyuki Hirota
Professor, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan• Educational Methods of Juvenile Training Schools in Japan8)

Mr. Takashi Kubo
Director of the Amnesty Office, Ministry of Justice, Tokyo, Japan• Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in Japan (Outline of the Rehabilitation System)

9)Mr. Masahiro Takeshima
Senior Engineer, Solution Business Division, Hitachi Ltd., Urban Planning and Development
Systems• IT Based System for Penal Institutions

10

Individual Presentation Topics

Overseas Participants1)

Ms. Marialda Lima Justino Cruz (Brazil)• Current Legal Regime of Imprisonment in Brazil and the Effective Countermeasures
Against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities

2)

Ms. Aurea Francisca Rodrigues de Moraes (Brazil)• Discussions Concerning the Minimum Procedures Necessary for Good Penitentiary
Administration in Brazil, Focusing on the Effective Countermeasures Against Overcrowding ofCorrectional Facilities

3)

Mr. Oleskyenio Enrique Florez Rincon (Colombia)• Management and Rehabilitation of Infringing on Crime Prevention in Colombia

4)

Mr. Jean Claude Ngoie Mutombo (Democratic Republic of the Congo)• Crime Prevention

5)

Ms. Marta Raquel Flores Ramirez (Guatemala)• Crime Prevention - The Treatment of Offenders

6)

Ms. Vanna Ladavia Lawrence (Jamaica)• Effective Countermeasures Against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities

7)

Mr. Ben Siambango Buchane (Namibia)• The Effective Countermeasures Against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities

8)

Mr. Ritendra Thapa (Nepal)• Remission of Imprisonment: A Major Countermeasure Against Overcrowding of Correctional
Institutions in Nepal

9)

Mr. Mahendra Nath Upadhyaya (Nepal)• Overcrowding of Prisons: Nepalese Perspective10) Mr. Salim M. A. Qawariq (Palestine)• Criminal Prevention in Ministry of Social Affairs11) Mr. Allen Maliki (Solomon Islands)• Correctional Service of Solomon Islands12) Mr. Ricky Iomea (Solomon Islands)• The Treatment of Offenders Under The Solomon Islands’ Criminal Justice System, in
Correctional Facilities and After Release13) Ms. Sumithra Rahubaddhe (Sri Lanka)• Overcrowding of Prisons in Sri Lanka

1114) Mr. Henele Telefoni (Tonga)• Effective Countermeasures Against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities

Observers15) Mr. Andy Che Leung Lam (Hong Kong)• Effective Countermeasures Against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities
16) Mr. Kyuyeon Park (Republic of Korea)• Research on Solutions to Prison Overcrowding as the Conditions of Corrections Improvement

Japanese Participants17) Mr. Masami Goda
• Enhancement of Guidance and Support for Employment of Offenders18) Mr. Hiroyuki Hayashi• The Sex Offender Treatment Programme in Tokyo Probation Office19) Mr. Kentaro Hirate• The Role of Judges in Pre-sentence Detention and Bail of Offenders in Japan
20) Ms. Misae Kato
• The Educative Actions of the Family Court21) Mr. Hiroshi Suda
• Alternatives to Detention at the Investigation Stage22) Mr. Takahiro Sumikawa• Suspension of Prosecution23) Mr. Yuichiro Wakimoto• Countermeasures for Prison Overcrowding – Correctional Interventions that can Reduce
Recidivism24) Mr. Masaya Yamamoto• Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities12Group Workshop Sessions

Group 1
EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST OVERCROWDING OF
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIESChairperson
Co-chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Advisers

Mr. Oleskyenio Enrique Florez Rincon
Mr. Hiroshi Suda
Mr. Ricky Iomea
Ms. Marialda Lima Justino Cruz
Mr. Jean Claude Ngoie Mutombo
Mr. Mahendra Nath Upadhyaya
Mr. Takahiro Sumikawa
Prof. Naoyuki HaradaProf. Fumiko Akahane(Colombia)(Japan)(Solomon Islands)(Brazil)(DR Congo)(Nepal)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report Summary
The group discussed the above subject by dividing the matter into three subtopics: (i) alternatives to pre-trial detention; (ii) diversion from criminal justice procedure; and (iii) speedy trial
measures.
With regard to subtopic (i), the group discussed police power to release suspects on bail;house arrest or police detention; placing a suspect under the supervision of a person or institution;
electronic monitoring; prohibiting a suspect from leaving a particular area; investigation withoutarrest; prohibiting a suspect/accused from going to particular places or meeting named individuals;confiscation of the suspect’s passport; and release with an order to pledge financial or other property, such as bail.
Regarding subtopic (ii), the group discussed absolute or conditional discharge; decriminalization; and restorative justice. Regarding absolute or conditional discharge, it was argued thatvictims should be able to request independent review of such decisions. Regarding decriminalization, the group agreed that while it can be effective, public opinion must be obtained and considered before any decision is made. Regarding restorative justice, the group identified its merits(alleviates overcrowding; saves time and money; lessens the workload of criminal justice personnel;
satisfies victims; and avoids stigmatizing offenders) and demerits (lack of specific and generaldeterrence; does not halt recidivism; risk of injustice to some offenders; and public insecurity).
The group agreed that while the definition of what constitutes a minor offence differs from country
to country, restorative justice should only be used for minor cases, according to the jurisdictionin which the offence was committed. The group recommended that the establishment of an independent and neutral mediating body in the process is fundamental.
Regarding subtopic (iii), the group made the following recommendations. 1. There is a needto set fixed timeframes for investigation and prosecution; however, there should be a provision toallow for extensions of the timeframe depending on the nature of each case. 2. There should beflexibility in the recruitment procedure or policies and appointment of sufficient numbers ofjudges. 3. The use of summary proceedings is recommended to avoid wasting time and resources.
4. There is a need to utilize pre-trial preparation/arrangement.

13Group 2SENTENCING AND ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Visiting Expert
Advisers

Ms. Sumithra Rahubaddhe
Mr. Masaya Yamamoto
Ms. Vanna Ladavia Lawrence
Mr. Kentaro Hirate
Ms. Marta Raquel Flores Ramirez
Ms. Misae Kato
Mr. Ritendra Thapa
Mr. Salim M. A. Qawariq
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans-Jörg Albrecht
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto
Prof. Jun Oshino
Prof. Junichi Watanabe(Sri Lanka)(Japan)(Jamaica)(Japan)(Guatemala)(Japan)(Nepal)(Palestine)(Germany)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report Summary
The above topic was subdivided for discussion as follows: (i) alternative punishments tocustodial sanction, including their functions and dysfunctions, sentencing policy, and difficulties in
implementing non-custodial measures; (ii) alternative punishments and other interests; (iii) otherissues relative to justice policy.
The group discussed the above topic with consideration for the diverse cultural, politicaland socio-economic background of each participant’s country, and its recommendations also take
into consideration each country’s readiness for change. At the outset, the group recommended
that the Tokyo Rules 8.1 and 8.2 give a sample of the alternative sentences which could be
implemented by countries according to need.
The group agreed that overcrowding exists in the correctional facilities of each of the represented countries, and that measures to reduce overcrowding should begin even at the sentencing
stage. Utilizing alternatives to imprisonment is a sustainable way of effecting behavioural change
within the community, and serves the interest of both the offender and society.
Regarding the above topic, the group made the following recommendations. 1. Each noncustodial sentence has its own merits and demerits; the most appropriate sentence should be
imposed on a case-by-case basis with due regard for all circumstances of the case. 2. All agencies
in the criminal justice system, including NGOs, should collaborate to ensure that the system works
smoothly and seamlessly when implementing and utilizing non-custodial measures. 3. Opendialogue in a public forum is required to increase the public’s understanding of thefunctions/dysfunctions and pros and cons of custodial and non-custodial sentences. 4. The publicshould be informed of the respective costs of imprisonment and non-custodial sanctions. 5.
Countries which cannot immediately establish a large probation service should utilize the skills of
reputable members of the community who are willing to serve as voluntary probation officers,
under a core team of professional advisers. 6. An offender’s ability to pay a fine should beassessed at the sentencing stage. The offender should be permitted to make the payment ininstalments if unable to pay the total amount at once. 7. Social enquiry reports can be an important tool for deciding an appropriate sentence. 8. Certain offences should be decriminalized; thus,
persons who commit such offences would be directed to undergo rehabilitation rather than imprisoned. 9. Speedy trial should be implemented as a feature of the law as it is the most important
step to prevent unnecessary detention. 10. To facilitate the introduction of alternative sanctions,many legal systems must make administrative changes and amend their laws.

14Group 3
POST SENTENCING DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT MEASURES
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Visiting Expert
Advisers

Mr. Andy Che Leung Lam
Ms. Aurea Francisca Rodrigues de Moraes
Mr. Ben Siambango Buchane
Mr. Henele Telefoni
Mr. Yuichiro Wakimoto
Mr. Hiroyuki Hayashi
Mr. Masami Goda
Mr. Kyueon Park
Mr. Allen Maliki
Prof. Neil Morgan
Prof. Tetsuya SuganoProf. Toru KawaharadaProf. Ayako Sakonji(Hong Kong)(Brazil)(Namibia)(Tonga)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(Korea)(Solomon Islands)(Australia)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup 3 divided its discussion into two parts: (i) post-sentencing dispositions (which lower
prison populations); and (ii) effective treatment programmes (which lower recidivism). The groupalso addressed evaluation of treatment programmes.
Under subtopic (i) the group addressed parole; halfway houses; work/study release; remission; pardon; other measures related to early release; and other forms of early release. Participants
agreed on the effectiveness of all schemes in reducing prison populations. Concerns were raised
about victims’ negative attitude to early release and the risk of releasing dangerous offenders, thelatter requiring accurate scientific identification of offenders. The group considered the administrative measures necessary for remission and made the following recommendations: computerizationof records and the creation of a sufficient database; monitoring; public education; and the settingof conditions of eligibility.
Under subtopic (ii) the group addressed assessment and classification of inmates; evidencebased treatment programmes; other effective programmes (e.g. family visits, sports, educational/
vocational training, mental health services, etc.); administrative structures; and functions anddysfunctions of correctional programmes. The seriousness of the crime committed, types ofoffences, length of sentence and security risk to staff and other prisoners must be considered inassessing and classifying inmates.
On the subject of evaluation of treatment programmes, the group noted that evaluation
informs authorities of the effectiveness of their programmes; maintains the quality of programmes;
and verifies for the taxpayer the effectiveness of programmes. Weaknesses are that success can be
defined ambiguously and that standards of evaluations are not easily set. Using third parties andwidely accepted standards could help to address these weaknesses.
The group agreed that all post-sentencing dispositions and treatment programmes discussed
were effective in tackling overcrowding and recommended development and endeavour in thefollowing areas: 1. Acquisition of support from government authorities. 2. Exploration of resources.
3. Soliciting of public acceptance of and support for rehabilitation of offenders. 4. Comprehensive,
complementary, and aligned strategies to ensure that post-sentencing dispositions, treatment
programmes and publicity campaigns are mutually reinforcing and reflect the aims of reducing
overcrowding and rehabilitating offenders.

15

Observation Visits

Date

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

20 MayTokyo District Public Prosecutors
Office• Shuji Iwamura(Chief Prosecutor)

29 MayKawagoe Juvenile Prison• Mr. Masafumi Sagawa(Deputy Warden in charge of
Education)

4 JuneYokohama Probation Office• Ms. Masako Tashiro(Probation Officer)

15 JuneFuchu Prison• Mr. Hideo Fujimoto(Special Assistant to the Warden)

16 JuneHitachi Solution LAB• Mr. Masahiro Takeshima(Senior Engineer)

The Supreme Court• Mr. Yuuki Furuta(Justice)

Tokyo District Court

16

Group Study Tour

Date

Location

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

11 JuneHiroshima

With Hiroshima
Halfway House• Kanichi Yamada(Deputy Director)

Hiroshima

Mine Rehabilitation
Program Center• Mr. Tezuka Fumiya(Warden)

Kyoto

Kyoto Prefectural
Police12 June17

Special Events

11 MayWelcome Party

13, 14, 15 May

Japanese Conversation Classes

The overseas participants attended three Japanese conversation classes and learned
practical Japanese expressions. The sensei (teacher) was Ms. Junko Toyoguchi from JICE.
16 MayGrand Sumo Tournament and Party hosted by the ACPF, Kisei-Kai Branch

The participants attended the Grand Sumo Tournament at the Ryogoku Kokugikan,
Tokyo, and later enjoyed a party hosted by the ACPF, Kisei-kai Branch, at the Daiichi
Ryogoku Hotel.
20 MayCourtesy Call to the Ministry of Justice andReception by the Vice-Minister of Justice

After visiting the Ministry of Justice a reception was held for the participants by theVice-Minister of Justice, Mr. Hiroshi Ozu, at the Lawyer’s Club, Tokyo.
22 May

UNAFEI Olympics

The UNAFEI Olympic Games were held on the grounds of the Training Institute for
Correctional Personnel. The participants competed in such events as a racket relay, tug ofwar, and true or false quiz. Afterwards, the participants enjoyed a party with UNAFEI staff
and faculty.
23, 24 May

Home Visits

The ACPF Fuchu Branch kindly organized dinners for the participants at the homesof their members. The hosts were Mr. Toshihiro Nagamine, Ms. Hisako Morita, Ms. Fujiko
Kato, and Mr Tadayuki Oka.
25 MaySocial with Volunteer Probation Officers

The participants had an opportunity to exchange views with Japanese Volunteer
Probation Officers at a social at UNAFEI.
28 MaySocial with Legal Trainees

The participants enjoyed a reception with trainees from the Legal Research andTraining Institute of the Supreme Court, hosted at UNAFEI.
4 JuneYokohama Cruise
The participants enjoyed a sunset cruise and dinner aboard the Marine Rouge,
hosted by the ACPF Yokohama branch.

18

6 JuneThe Way of Tea
The participants enjoyed lunch at Tanaka House in Kyodo-no-Mori Park. This wasfollowed by "cha-no-yu" or "sado", a formal Japanese tea ceremony. These events werekindly hosted by Soroptimist International Tokyo, Fuchu.

8 June

ACPF Fuchu Branch Party
The ACPF Fuchu branch kindly organized an enjoyable party for the participants
and their host families at UNAFEI.

13 JuneVisit to Tokyo Horse Race Course

The participants were invited to attend Fuchu Horse Race Course as guests of theRotary Club of Fuchu.
18 JuneFarewell Party
A party was held to bid farewell to the participants.

19

Reference Materials

I.

UN Documents

1.
2.

UN. 1980. The 6th Congress, Resolution 8 "Alternatives to Imprisonment".
UN. 1980. The 6th Congress, Agenda 6 "Deinstitutionalization of Corrections and Its Implications
for the Residual Prisoner (Working Paper).
UN. 1985. The 7th Congress, Resolution 16 "Reduction of the Prison Population, Alternatives
to Imprisonment, and Social Integration of Offenders".
UN. 1997. ECOSOC Resolution 1997_36 "International Cooperation for the Improvement of
Prison Conditions (Kampala Declaration).
UN. 1998. ECOSOC Resolution 1998_23 "International Cooperation Aimed at the Reductionof Prison Overcrowding and Promotion of Alternative Sentencing".
UN. 14 December 1990. United Nations Standards and Minimum Rules for Non-custodial
Measures (the Tokyo Rules). General Assembly Resolution 45/110.
UN. 2000. Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the 21stCentury.
UN. 2005. Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice.
UN. 2006. ECOSOC Resolution 2006_22 "Providing Technical Assistance for Prison Reformin Africa and the Development of Viable Alternatives to Imprisonment".
UNODC. 2006. Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes.
UNODC. 2006. Compendium of United Nations Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice (Including UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners/UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice).
UNODC. 2006. Custodial and Non-Custodial Measures – Alternatives to Incarceration –Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit.
UNODC. 2006. Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to
Imprisonment.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

12.
13.

II. Pre-trial Service, Sentencing Policy, Alternatives to Incarceration
1.
2.
3.
4.

Japan. Penal Code.
Japan. Code of Criminal Procedure.
Japan. 2005. Act on Penal and Detention Facilities and Treatment of Inmates (Act No. 50 of2005).
HEUNI. 2008. Crime and Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America 1995-2004.
European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control (HEUNI).

III. Codes and Systems Related to Criminal Justice
1.
2.
3.
4.

National Institute of Correction. 1999. Promoting Public Safety Using Effective Interventions
with Offenders. United States Department of Justice.
Tonry, Michael. 2001. "Punishment Policies and Practices in Western Countries", Sentencing
and Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford University Press.
Frase, Richard S. 2001. "Comparative Perspectives on Sentencing Policy and Research",
Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford University Press.
Albrecht, Hans-Jörg. 2001. "Post Adjudication Dispositions in Comparative Perspective",
Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford University Press.

20

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.

15.

16.
17.

18.
19.

20.
21.

Kuri, Leena. 2001. "International Standards for Sentencing and Punishment", Sentencing and
Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford University Press.
Morgan, Rod. 2001. "International Controls on Sentencing and Punishment", Sentencing and
Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford University Press.
Tonry, Michael. 2001. "Penal Policies at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century", Penal
Reform in Overcrowded Times. Oxford University Press.
Solicitor General of Canada. 2002. Influences on Canadian Correctional Reform: Working
Papers of the Correctional Law Review 1986 to 1988. Solicitor General of Canada.
Coulsfield Inquiry Team. 2004. Crime, Courts and Confidence "Report of an Independent
Inquiry into Alternatives to Prison". Esmeé Fairbairn Foundation, London.
Van Nostrand, Marie. Legal and Evidence-Based Practices (Recidivism reduction effects in
pretrial services). The Crime and Justice Institute/The National Institute of Corrections, USA.
National Association of Pre-Trial Services Agencies (NAPSA). 2001. Diversion Programme
Checklist. NAPSA, USA.
Clark, John and Henry, D. Alan. 2003. Pretrial Services Programming at the Start of the
21st Century. A Survey of Pretrial Services Programmes. US Office of Justice, Office ofJustice Programmes.
Office of Justice Programmes, US Department of Justice. 2000. A Second Look at Alleviating
Jail Crowding – A Systems Perspective. US Department of Justice.
Castillo, Ruben; Sessions, William K; Steer, John R.; Hinojosa, Ricardo H.; Horowitz,
Michael E.; O’Neill, Michael E.; Reilly, Jr., Edward R.; Rhodes, Deborah J. 2004. Measuring
Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. UnitedStates Sentencing Commission.
Smith, Paula; Goggin, Claire; Gendreau, Paul. 2002. The Effects of Prison Sentences andIndeterminate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences. Public
Works and Government Services, Canada.
Kennedy School, Harvard University. 2005. What is Community Prosecution? Kennedy Schoolof Government, Harvard University.
Wade, Marianne. 2005. "The Power to Decide: Prosecutorial Control, Diversion andPunishment in European Criminal Justice Systems Today", Coping with Overloaded Criminal
Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power Across Europe. Springer.
Comptroller and Auditor General. 2004. The Drug Treatment and Testing Order: earlylesssons (A Community Sentence for Drug Offenders). National Audit Office, UK.
Hough, Mike; Clancy, Anna; McSweeney, Tim; and Turnbull, Paul J. 2003. The impact ofDrug Treatment and Testing Orders on offending; two year conviction results. Research,
Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, UK.
Drug Court Standards Committee. 1997. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Drug
Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programmes, US Department of Justice.
UNODC. 2005. Drug Treatment Courts Work! UNODC.

IV. Treatment of Offenders
A. Comprehensive Treatment Approaches
1.

2.

Criminal Justice Intervention Programme, Home Office, UK. 2004. Criminal Justice Interventions
Programme and Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Programme Partnership Guidance for
Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJIT) and Prolific and Other Priority Offenders
Programme (PPO) Schemes. Criminal Justice Intervention Programme, Home Office, UK.
Criminal Justice Intervention Programme, Home Office, UK. Prolific and Other Priority
Offender Strategy Supplementary Guidance: Rehabilitate and Resettle Framework. Criminal
Justice Intervention Programme, Home Office, UK.

21

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Mair, George. 2004. Diversionary and Non-supervisory Approaches to Dealing with Offenders,"Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society". Willan Publishing.
McIvor, Gill. 2004. Reparative and Restorative Approaches, "Alternatives to Prison: Options
for an Insecure Society". Willan Publishing.
Raynor, Peter. 2004. Rehabilitative and Restorative Approaches, "Alternatives to Prison:
Options for an Insecure Society". Willan Publishing.
Nellis, Mike. 2004. Electronic Monitoring and the Community Supervision of Offenders,"Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society". Willan Publishing.
Tonry, Michael. 2004. Intermediate Sanctions, "The Handbook of Crime and Punishment".
Oxford University Press.
Bonta, James and Andrews, David. 2006. Getting Mean, Getting Even, Getting Justice:
Punishment and a Search for Alternatives In The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 4th Ed.
Anderson Publishing Company.

B.

Basic Concept of Offender Treatments

1.

Gendreau, Paul; Goggin, Claire; French, Sheila; and Smith, Paula. Practicing Psychology inCorrectional Settings. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), (2006) The Handbook of Forensic
Psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 722-750) NY, NY: John Wiley.
Gendreau, Paul; Smith, Paula; and French, Sheila. 2006. The Theory of Effective Correctional
Interventions: Empirical Status and Taking Stock. In F. Cullen, J. Wright, M. Coleman (Eds.)(2006) Taking stock: The status of criminology theory (pp. 419-446) Piscataway, NJ, Transaction
Press.
McGuire, James. 2005. Evidence-Based Programming Today. In What Works and Why;
Effective Approaches to Re-Entry. American Correctional Association, Lanham, Maryland.
Gornik, Mark. Moving from Correctional Program to Correctional Strategy: Using Proven
Practices to Change Criminal Behavior.
Harper, Gemma & Chitty, Chloë (Eds.) Home Office Research Study 21. The impact of corrections on reoffending: a review of "what works". 3rd Ed. Home Office Research, Development
and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, UK.
Joplin, Lore; Bogue, Brad; Campbell, Nancy; Carey, Mark; Clawson, Elyse; Faust, Dot; Flori,
Kate; Wasson, Billy; and Woodward, William. August 2004. Using an Integrated Model to
Implement Evidence-based Practices in Corrections.
Bonta, James and Andrews, Donald. 2006. Prevention and Rehabilitation. In "The Psychologyof Criminal Conduct", 4th Ed. Anderson Publishing Company.

2.

3.
4.
5.

6.

7.

C.

Risk and Needs Assessment

1.

Hoge, Robert. 2008. Issues in the Assessment of Juvenile Offenders. UNAFEI Resource
Material Series 78 (forthcoming), Tokyo.
Hoge, Robert. 2008. Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Assessment and Treatment.
UNAFEI Resource Material Series 78 (forthcoming), Tokyo.
Bonta, James and Andrews, Donald. 2006. An Overview of the Psychology of Criminal
Conduct. In The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 4th Ed. Anderson Publishing Company.
Bonta, James and Andrews, Donald. 2006. Prediction of Criminal Behaviour and Classificationof Offenders. In The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 4th Ed. Anderson Publishing Company.
Bonta, James and Andrews, Donald. 2001. The Theoretical Rationale for the LSI-R/Administrationand Scoring of the LSI-R/Interpretation. In The Level of Service-Inventory-Revised: User’s
Manual. Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Bonta, James. 1996. Risk-Needs Assessment and Treatment. In "Choosing Correctional Options
that Work – Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply ". Sage Publications.

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

22

D.

Correctional/Rehabilitation Programmes

1.
2.

Gillis, Christa, A. 2000. Offender Employment Programming. Correctional Service Canada.
Latendresse, Mark and Cortoni, Franca. 2005. Increasing Employability Related Skills Among
Federal Male Offenders: A Preliminary Analysis of the National Employability Skills
Program. Research Branch Correctional Service Canada.
Stevens, Dennis J. 2000. Education Programming for Offenders. Correctional service Canada.
Milan, Michael. 2001. Behavioral Approaches to Correctional Management and Rehabilitation.
In Hollin, Clive R. (Ed.) Handbook of Offender Assessment and Treatment. John Wiley andSons, Ltd.
Lipton, Douglas. 2001. Therapeutic Community Treatment Programming in Corrections. In
Hollin, Clive R. (Ed.) Handbook of Offender Treatment and Assessment. John Wiley andSons, Ltd.
Robinson, David. 2001. Programming in Cognitive Skills: The Reasoning and Rehabilitation
Programme. In Hollin, Clive R. (Ed.) Handbook of Offender Treatment and Assessment. John
Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Kennedy, Sharon M. 2000. Treatment Responsivity: Reducing Recidivism by Enhancing
Treatment Effectiveness. Correctional Service Canada.
Serin, Ralph. 1998. "Treatment Responsivity, intervention and reintegration: A conceptualmodel". FORUM in Corrections Research Vol. 10 No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

E.
1.

Community-Based Treatment Programmes

Zvekic, Uglijesa. 1994. "Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective". United
Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
2. Gendreau, Paul. 2001. Intensive Supervision in Probation and Parole Settings. In Hollin, Clive
R. (Ed.) Handbook of Offender Treatment and Assessment. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
3. Cupit, Cynthia. 2001. Family-based Treatments. In Hollin, Clive R. (Ed.) Handbook of
Offender Treatment and Assessment. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
4. Henggeler, Scott W.; Schoenwald, Sonja K.; Borduin, Charles M.; Rowland, Melisa D.; andCunningham, Philippe D. 1998. Multisystemic Treatment of Antisocial Behavior in Children
and Adolescents. Chapters 1 & 2. The Guildford Press.
5. Brown, Shelley L. 2001. "Encouraging community release and appropriate supervision".
FORUM in Community Research Vol. 13 No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.
6. Brown, Shelley L. and Zamble, Edward. 1998. "Community Supervision: Current practices
and future directions". FORUM in Community Research Vol. 10 No. 1. Correctional Service
Canada.
7. Motiuk, Larry. 2001. "The safe return of offenders through selection, intervention and supervision". FORUM in Community Research Vol. 13 No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.
8. Petersilla, Joan. 2004. "What works in Prisoner Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning the
Evidence". Federal Probation Vol. 68 No. 2.
9. Pisapio, David. 2001. "Managing offender risk through revocations". FORUM in Community
Research Vol. 13 No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.
10. Petersilla, Joan. 2005. Meeting the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. In "What Works andWhy: Effective Approaches to Reentry". American Correctional Association.
11. Albrecht, Hans-Jörg. Electronic Monitoring in Europe.
12. Bonta, James, et. al. 2008. "Exploring the Black Box of Community Supervision". Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 47 (3), 2008, pp. 248-270.

23

F.
1.

Other Issues and Materials

Performance Standards and Goals for Pre-trial Diversion/Intervention: A Draft for National
Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, Board of Directors, June 1995.
2. World Prison Population List (Eighth Edition).
3. World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List.
4. Gendreau, Paul; Goggin, Claire; and Smith, Paula. 2000. Obstacles to Effective Correctional
Program Delivery. Correctional Service Canada.
5. Leschied, Alan, W. 2000. Implementation of Effective Correctional Programs. Correctional
Service Canada.
6. Preson, Denise L. 2000. Addressing Treatment Resistance in Corrections. Correctional Service
Canada.
7. Tellier, Claude and Serin, Ralph C. 2000. The Role of Staff in Effective Program Delivery.
Correctional Service Canada.
8. Brown, Shelley L. 2000. Cost-Effective Correctional Treatment. Correctional Service Canada.
9. Gaes, Gerry. 2000. Program Evaluation: Guidelines for Asking the Right Questions. Correctional
Service Canada.
10. Moutiuk, Laurence L. 2000. Contributing to Safe Reintegration: Outcome Measurement.
Correctional Service Canada.

24

Experts and Participants List

Visiting Experts
Mr. Rob Allen

Director
International Centre for Prison Studies,
Kings College, University of London,
United Kingdom

Mr. Peter Ng Joo Hee

Director of PrisonsSingapore Prison Service,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
SingaporeProf. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans-Jörg Albrecht

Director
Department of Criminal Law,
Max-Planck Institute for Foreign andInternational Criminal Law,
Freiburg,Germany

Prof. Neil Morgan

Inspector of Custodial Services
Office of the Inspector of Custodial
Services,
Perth,
Australia

Overseas Participants
Ms. Marialda Lima Justino Cruz

Police Chief
Civil Police of the Federal District,Brasilía,
BrazilMs. Aurea Francisca Rodrigues de Moraes

Police Officer (Correctional Officer)
Material Resource Division,
General Administration Department,
Civil Police of the Federal District,BrazilMr. Oleskyenio Enrique Florez Rincon

TeacherNational Police Academy,
Colombia National Police,
Colombia

Mr. Jean Claude Ngoie Mutombo

Assistant Prosecutor Deputy
Parquet de Grande Instance,
Kinshasa/Gombe,
Democratic Republic of the Congo

25

Ms. Marta Raquel Flores Ramirez

Third Officer
Guatemalan Police Academy,
Ministerio de Gobernacion,
GuatemalaMs. Vanna Ladavia Lawrence

Director of Training
Human Resource Development,
Department of Correctional Services,
Jamaica

Mr. Ben Siambango Buchane

Senior Superintendent
Oluno Rehabilitation Centre,
Prisons and Correctional Services,
Ministry of Safety and Security,
Namibia

Mr. Ritendra Thapa

Under Secretary
Special Court Kathmandu,
Supreme Court of Nepal,
Nepal

Mr. Mahendra Nath Upadhyaya

Under Secretary (Registrar)
Parsa District Court, Birgunj,
Supreme Court of Nepal,
Nepal

Mr. Salim M. A. Qawariq

Director
Department of Social Defence,
Ministry of Social Affairs,
Palestine

Mr. Allen Maliki

Correctional Officer
Rove Central Prison,
Correctional Services,
Solomon Islands

Mr. Ricky Iomea

Principal Legal Officer, Public Prosecutor
Director of Public Prosecutions Office,Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs,
Solomon Islands

Ms. Sumithra Rahubaddhe

Additional Secretary
Ministry of Justice and Law Reform,
Sri Lanka

Mr. Henele Telefoni

Probation Officer
Youth Justice and Probation Division,
Ministry of Justice,
Tonga

26

Observers
Mr. Andy Che Leung Lam

Principal Officer
Rehabilitation Unit,
Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment
Centre,Hong Kong

Mr. Kyuyeon Park

Senior Inspector
Pohang Correctional Institution,
Republic of Korea

Japanese Participants
Mr. Masami Goda

Probation Officer
Kobe Probation Office

Mr. Hiroyuki Hayashi

Probation Officer
Tokyo Probation Office

Mr. Kentaro Hirate

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Ms. Misae Kato

Probation Officer
Tokyo Family Court

Mr. Hiroshi Suda

Public Prosecutor
Chiba Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Takahiro Sumikawa

Public Prosecutor
Kobe Public Prosecutors Office, Himeji Branch

Mr. Yuichiro Wakimoto

Chief Specialist
Hiroshima Juvenile Classification HomeMr. Masaya Yamamoto

Chief Treatment Supervisor
Osaka Prison

27

THE FIFTH SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICEFOR CENTRAL ASIA

The Fifth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 23 February to 6
March 2009 at UNAFEI. The Seminar was entitled "Effective Measures against Drug Offences andInternational Co-operation in the Criminal Justice Process". Eleven participants from four Central
Asian countries, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, attended.

Mr. Yerbol Ismailov

Judge
Collegium for Criminal Cases,
Kazakhstan

Mr. Yeshimov Maralbek

Senior Prosecutor
Department of Supervision of
Law-Making,General Prosecutor’s Office,Kazakhstan

Ms. Assemgul Sabyrkhanovna
Zhaxylykova

Head of Division
Department of Legislation,
Ministry of Justice,
Kazakhstan

Ms. Maria Charabaeva

Investigator
Investigation Department,
Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Ernis Ustabaevich Chotkaraev

Judge
Oktybr Court, Bishek City,
Kyrgyzstan

Ms. Damira Toktonalievna Orozova

Judge
Pervomaiskyi District Court, Bishek City,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Azizbek Sharipovich Shukurbekov

Senior Prosecutor
Department of Overviewing of Criminal
Procession,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Saifulloev Zafar Dorandaevich

Chief of Department
Drug Control Agency,
Tajikistan

28

Mr. Habibulo Saiduloevich Vokhidov

Head
Human Resources and Office
Administration Department,
General Prosecutors Office,Tajikistan

Mr. Mansur Mahmudjanovich
Akhmedjanov

Judge
Criminal Cases,
Supreme Court,
Uzbekistan

Mr. Fidel Ismailovich Naberaev

Vice-Head
Investigation Department,
Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Uzbekistan

29

THE 14TH SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIORCRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS OF THE
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The 14th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic ofChina was held from 2 to 19 March 2009 at UNAFEI. Ten participants and three course
counsellors attended. The theme of the Seminar was "Enhancement of Community-Based
Alternatives to Incarceration at All Stages of the Criminal Justice Process."

Mr. Jiang Jin-Fang

Deputy Director-General
Department of Legal Publicity,
Ministry of Justice

Ms. Xue Xin-Li

Division Director
Division of the Guidance of Grass-RootsWork,
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Teng Wei

Deputy Director-General
Criminal Legislating Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission,Standing Committee of NPC China

Mr. Tang Wei-Ping

Director
Criminal Legislating Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission,Standing Committee of NPC China

Mr. Ma Dong

Director
Criminal Division, Research Department,
Supreme People’s Court of PRC

Ms. Song Ying

Chief Judge
Fourth Criminal Chamber,Supreme People’s Court of PRC

Mr. Xu Cheng-Lei

Deputy Director
Law Enforcement Division,
Public Order Bureau,
Ministry of Public Security

Mr. Zhang Fei-Long

Deputy Section Chief
Legal Affairs Bureau,
Ministry of Public Security

30

Mr. Lei Xiu-Hua

Deputy Chief
Public Prosecution Division,
People’s Procuratorate of Sichuan,
Province

Mr. Liu Xiang-Dong

Division Chief
Division of Duty-Crime Prevention,
Higher People’s Procuratorate of Shaanxi,
Province

Course Counsellors
Mr. Wang Jinyi

President
Central Institute for Correctional Police

Ms. Zhao Linna

Division Director
Department of Judicial Assistance andForeign Affairs,
Ministry of JusticeMs. Ge Xiangwei

Assistant Researcher
Institute of Crime Prevention,
Ministry of Justice31

INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES

1. The Fourth Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the Volunteer
Probation Aide System for the Philippines
The Fourth Country Specific Training Course on Revitalizing the Volunteer Probation Aide
Programme for the Philippines will be held from 29 June to 9 July 2009. The number of participants, who are Parole and Probation Officers and Volunteer Probation Aides, will be fourteen.
They will discuss measures to improve the probation system and the promotion of Volunteer
Probation Aides.
2. The Twelfth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to
Corruption
The Twelfth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption
will be held from 13 July to 7 August 2009. In this Course, Japanese and overseas officials
engaged in corruption control will comparatively analyse the current situation of corruption, methods of combating corruption and measures to enhance international co-operation.
3.

143rd International Training Course
The 143rd International Training Course is scheduled for 28 September to 6 November
2009. The main theme of the Course is "Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors and
Law Enforcement Officials". Twelve overseas participants and five Japanese participants will attend.
Rationale
If the politicians and public officials who bear the responsibility of sustaining the foundation of their country lack integrity, and bribery is pervasive, the basis of democracy will be endangered. History has already proven that a society based on corrupt economic, political and social
systems will inevitably perish. One of the most important duties of a criminal justice system isto detect corruption and impose appropriate punishment on corrupt politicians and public officials.
However, if the criminal justice system itself is corrupt, there is a grave danger to democracy. In particular, corruption in the judiciary, prosecutorial authorities and law enforcement
authorities, which have the important role of maintaining the rule of law, not only decreases
the capacity of a country to curb corruption, but also deteriorates the morale of the people andtheir trust in the justice system. Although many forms of corruption are difficult to detect andprosecute, judicial corruption is especially so. Thus, investigations into allegations of criminal
wrongdoing by judges are often only conducted when the corruption is blatant, and therefore manycases may go undetected. In addition, when a corrupt judge is investigated by a law enforcement
agency over which the judge has jurisdiction, there is a possibility that he or she may be privy
to information regarding their own wrongdoing and thus the investigation may be hindered.
Taking into account all these matters, as regards corruption control of the judiciary andprosecutorial authorities, priority should be placed on prevention. In this context, appropriate
guidelines for judges and prosecutors, e.g. codes of conduct, are useful. It is also necessary forjudges and prosecutors to be selected from individuals of integrity and ability, with appropriate
training and qualifications in law. In this respect, an educational framework for maintaining the
integrity of the judiciary and prosecutorial authorities, such as education and training, etc., is indispensable. At the same time, in order to balance independence and integrity, appropriate
procedural regulations, such as disqualification, recusal and impeachment systems, should be established. In so doing, public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and32prosecutorial authorities is preserved, and judges and prosecutors are regulated independent ofpolitical influence.
As for law enforcement authorities, it should be noted that, in most countries, they havethe primary responsibility for the investigation of crime. Moreover, they have more human resources than the judiciary and prosecutorial authorities. Considering the fact that law enforcement
authorities are also a critical component of the criminal justice system and that they often havelarge labour forces, the above-mentioned measures to maintain integrity, such as codes of conduct
and internal training, are of great importance for law enforcement officials as well.
The United Nations and other international organizations have for a long time made efforts
to promote judicial integrity, and have adopted several relevant documents. The United Nations
Convention against Corruption1 is fundamental amongst them. Article 11, paragraph 1 of theConvention states that "[b]earing in mind the independence of the judiciary, and its crucial rolein combating corruption, each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of
its legal system and without prejudice to judicial independence, take measures to strengthen integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary. Such measures
may include rules with respect to the conduct of members of the judiciary." Paragraph 2 statesthat "[m]easures to the same effect as those taken pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article may beintroduced and applied within the prosecution service in those States Parties where it does notform part of the judiciary but enjoys independence similar to that of the judicial service." Article
11 is based on the universal recognition that the judiciary and prosecutorial authorities should havea crucial role in preventing corruption and their independence and integrity should be secured inorder to prevent corruption.
In addition to the Convention, there are other essential standards and norms in regard to
judicial integrity. There are, for example, the "Basic Principles on the Independence of the
Judiciary" 2 , "Procedures for the Effective Implementation of the Basic Principles on the
Independence of the Judiciary" 3, and the "Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct" 4, etc. As forprosecutorial authorities, whose duties are closely related to the activities of the judiciary, the"Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors" 5 is a useful reference, and the "Standards of Professional
Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors" 6 should be taken
into consideration. With regard to law enforcement officials, there is, for example, the "Code of
Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials" 7 and the "Guidelines for the effective implementation of
the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials" 8. These international standards and norms
provide an effective framework for controlling corruption in the judiciary, prosecutorial authorities
and law enforcement authorities.

1

General Assembly resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003, annex.
Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
Milan, 26 August – 6 September 1985: report prepared by the Secretariat (United Nations publication, Sales No.
E.86.IV.1), chapter 1, section D.2, annex, and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November
1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985.
3
Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/60 of 24 May 1989, annex.
4
Economic and Social Council resolution 2006/23 of 27 July 2006, annex.
5Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,Havana, 27 August – 7 September 1990: report prepared by the Secretariat (United Nations publication, Sales
No.E.91.IV.2), chapter 1, section C.26, annex.
6Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Resolution 17/2 of 18 April 2008, annex.
7
General Assembly Resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979, annex.
8
Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/61 of 24 May 1989, annex.
233

Objectives of the ProgrammeThis training programme is not only to develop human resources but also to deepen themutual understanding of the situation which the respective countries face in regard to ethics problems in the judiciary, prosecutorial authorities and law enforcement authorities, and through discussion of the issues raised by each participant, to search for best practices in order to improve thesituation.
Among the major topics to be included are the following:
1. Codes of conduct and other measures for corruption control(a) Codes of conduct for judges and prosecutors;(b) Codes of conduct for law enforcement officials;(c) Monitoring of implementation;(d) Effective measures against corruption in the judiciary, prosecutorial authorities and law enforcement authorities.
2. Education and training:(a) Legal education for judges and prosecutors regarding legal ethics;(b) Education and training for law enforcement officials regarding professional responsibility.
3. Procedural regulations:(a) Requirement and procedure for disqualification and recusal of judges and prosecutors incriminal cases;(b) Impeachment and disciplinary procedures for judges and prosecutors;(c) Internal regulation for law enforcement officials to avoid a bias or conflict of interest.

34

ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS

Faculty Changes
Ms. Tae Sugiyama, formerly a Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed a
Senior Probation Officer of Tokyo Probation Office on 1 April.
Mr. Junichiro Otani, formerly a Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed an
attorney of the Criminal Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice on 1 April.
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Chief ofthe International Affairs Division of Fukushima Prison.
Mr. Koji Yamada, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed a Senior
Probation Officer of Matsuyama Probation Office.
Ms. Fumiko Akahane, formerly a public prosecutor of Tokyo District Public Prosecutors
Office, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April.
Mr. Toru Kawaharada, formerly a Senior Probation Officer of Utsunomiya Probation Office,joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April.
Ms. Ayako Sakonji, formerly a probation officer of Osaka Probation Office, joined
UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April.
Mr. Junichi Watanabe, formerly a specialist of the Legal Affairs Section of the Correction
Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April.
Overseas Trips by Staff
Former Professor Otani and Mr. Nakasuga (former Co-Deputy Chief of the Secretariat)
visited Singapore from 15 to 20 February to undertake research on community-based treatment
alternatives to incarceration in preparation for the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice which will be held in Brazil in 2010.
Director Keiichi Aizawa visited Korea from 11 to 13 March to attend the International
Seminar and Ceremony to Commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the Korean Institute of
Criminology. Mr. Aizawa made a speech to the Seminar on the topic of "Criminal Justice Policy
and International Co-operation".
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto, Professor Harada and Mr. Kosaka (Staff) visited Manila, thePhilippines from 24 to 28 March to prepare for the Third Regional Seminar on Good Governancefor Southeast Asian Countries, which will be held in Manila in December 2009, co-hosted by The
National Prosecution Service, Department of Justice of the Philippines, the United Nations Officeon Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Regional Centre for East Asia and the Pacific, and UNAFEI.
Director Keiichi Aizawa, Professor Harada, former Professor Sugiyama and former
Professor Otani visited Vienna, Austria from 16 to 24 April to attend the 18th Session of theCommission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The Director made a statement to theCommission and Ms. Sugiyama sat as a panellist in the Plenary Discussion Session on "Penal
Reform and the Reduction of Prison Overcrowding".

35

FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI

Faculty:
Mr. Keiichi Aizawa
Mr. Takeshi Seto
Mr. Motoo Noguchi
Mr. Naoyuki Harada
Ms. Fumiko Akahane
Mr. Jun Oshino
Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi
Mr. Toru Kawaharada
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano
Ms. Ayako Sakonji
Mr. Junichi Watanabe
Ms. Grace Lord

Secretariat:
Mr. Masahiro Iida
Mr. Masato Fujiwara
Mr. Koji Kobayashi

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor, Chief of Training Division
Professor
Professor, Chief of Information and LibraryService Division
Professor, Chief of Research Division,
142nd Course Programming Officer
Professor
Professor
Linguistic Adviser

Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat

General and Financial Affairs Section:
Mr. Masaaki Kojitani
Chief
Mr. Kei Saito
Mr. Yuichi Shirakawa
Ms. Kayoko Ono

Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section:
Mr. Kenichiro Koiwa
Co-Chief
Ms. Yoshiko Kawashima Co-Chief
Mr. Ikuo Kosaka
142nd Assistant Programming Officer
Ms. Miki Usuki
Mr. Ryuichi NishitaniInternational Research Affairs Section:
Mr. Hideo Takahashi
Chief
Ms. Naoko Iwakata
Librarian

Secretarial Staff:
Mr. Kazuyuki Nagata
Ms. Aiko Ota

36

Kitchen:Mr. Teruo Sotozaki

Chef

JICA Co-ordinator for the 142nd International Training Course:
Ms. Kazue Obayashi
JICA

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