ISSN 1020-914X

UNAFEI

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

No. 114June 2004

Established1961
IN THIS ISSUE
Page

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR

1

THE 127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE

3IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS AFTERFIFTY YEARS OF UNITED NATIONS STANDARD SETTING IN CRIME PREVENTION AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Course Rationale
Course Summary
Lecture Topics
Individual Presentation Topics
Group Workshop Sessions
Observation Visits
Group Study TourSpecial Events
Reference Materials Distributed
Experts and Participants List

3
8
9
11
14
17
18
19
21
26

NINTH SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS OF THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA

30

THIRD SEMINAR ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR TAJIKISTAN

32

INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMESThe 1st Training Course on Strengthening the Anti-Corruption Capacity in Thailand
The 128th International Training Course

34
34
34

ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS
Faculty Changes
Overseas Trips by Staff

40
40
41

FACULTY & STAFF OF UNAFEI

42

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 127th International
Training Course on “Implementing Effective Measures for the Treatment of Offenders after Fifty
Years of United Nations Standard Setting in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice” which took
place from 17 May to 24 June 2004. In this Course we welcomed 12 Japanese and 15 overseas
participants and 2 observers: 10 from Asia, 2 from Africa and 5 from the Pacific. They included
police, public prosecutors, judges, a probation officer, correctional officers, and other highranking public officials. We were also delighted to welcome our first participant from Palau. As
this newsletter demonstrates, the Course was extremely productive. It consisted of individual
presentations, group workshop sessions, visits to relevant criminal justice agencies, andpresentations by visiting experts, faculty members and ad hoc lecturers.
Since the adoption of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners in 1955
the United Nations has continuously promoted measures to improve the treatment of offenders,
including the promotion of alternatives to imprisonment. Many countries have adopted thesemeasures and incorporated them into their legislation, however despite this fact, prison is still
often the punishment of choice and this has been reflected in a greatly increasing prison
population in many parts of the world. As a consequence of this prisons have become more
overcrowded and less able to provide the conditions or treatment that is necessary in order torehabilitate prisoners. In light of the above UNAFEI, as a United Nations Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice Programme Network Institute, decided to undertake this Course in order to comeup with solutions that would enable Member States to implement U.N. Standards and Norms
more effectively.
During the Course the participants diligently and comprehensively examined the current
situation of the treatment of offenders with reference to U.N. Standards and Norms in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice with special reference to the Standard Minimum Rules for theTreatment of Prisoners (SMR) and the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial
Measures (Tokyo Rules). This was accomplished primarily through a comparative analysis of thecurrent situation and the problems encountered in implementing the above U.N. Standards.
Discussions during the Course highlighted the promotion of alternative measures toimprisonment; administration of penal institutions; and the promotion of effective treatment
programmes for offenders. After studying the above subjects and engaging in in-depth
discussions the participants were able to put forth effective and practical solutions that could beapplied in their respective countries.
I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to all the participants upon theirsuccessful completion of the Course, made possible by their strenuous efforts. My heartfelt
gratitude goes to the visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers who contributed a great deal to the
Course’s success. Furthermore, I appreciate the indispensable assistance and cooperation
extended to UNAFEI by various agencies and institutions, which helped diversify the programme.
A warm tribute must be paid to the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for its
immeasurable support throughout the Course. At the same time, I must express great appreciation

2
to the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF) and its branch organizations for theirsubstantial contributions. Lastly, I owe my gratitude to all the individuals whose unselfish efforts
behind the scenes contributed significantly to the successful realization of this Course.
Upon returning to their home countries, I genuinely believe that, like their predecessors,
the strong determination and dedication of the participants will enable them to work towards the
improvement of their respective nation’s criminal justice systems, and to the benefit of theinternational society as a whole.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my best regards to the participants of the 127th
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 2004

Kunihiko Sakai
Director, UNAFEI

3

THE 127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE“IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERSAFTER FIFTY YEARS OF UNITED NATIONS STANDARD SETTING IN CRIMEPREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE”

Course Rational

The United Nations adopted the “Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners”
at the First Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (hereinafterreferred to as “Congress”) in 1955, and has adopted so far more than fifty resolutions,declarations, guidelines and codes of conduct concerning crime prevention and criminal justice.1
In addition to the topic of the treatment of offenders, they now cover very wide and diverse
subjects, such as: juvenile justice; the code of conduct of law enforcement officials; independenceof the judiciary; prevention of crimes, such as corruption and urban crime; protection of victims;
restorative justice; and so on.
Such resolutions, declarations, guidelines and codes of conduct (hereinafter referred toas “United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice”) aim atmaterializing the contents of “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”2 in the field of crime
prevention and criminal justice. They do not bind Member States as treaties or conventions do to
the signatory states;3 however, the United Nations and Member States have been endeavouring topromote their use and application for many years.
At the first General Assembly of the United Nations of the new century, Member States
declared as follows:
We recognize that the United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal
justice contribute to efforts to deal with crime effectively. […] We shall endeavour, as
appropriate, to use and apply the United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention
and criminal justice in national law and practice. We undertake to review relevant legislation
and administrative procedures, as appropriate, with a view to providing the necessary
education and training to the officials concerned and ensuring the necessary strengthening ofinstitutions entrusted with the administration of criminal justice.4

1

2

3

4

Most of these resolutions, declarations, guidelines, and so on, are included in the following
compendium. ”Compendium of United Nations Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice.” United Nations, NY. 1992. It can be obtained at the following Internet site.
http://www.uncjin.org/Standards/Compendium/compendium.html.
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” General Assembly Resolution 217A (III). 10 December
1948.
Aust, Anthony. “Modern Treaty Law and Practice.” Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
2000: p.44.
“Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century.”
General Assembly Resolution A/55/593. 17 January 2001: Para. 22.

4Also, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justicesupported the application of the United Nations standards and norms “as an important means bywhich Governments could upgrade criminal justice administration, across sectors, improving
professional performance, while safeguarding basic elements of human rights in an integrated
manner”.5
Therefore, the Member States are required to evaluate their practices and to build a fairand effective criminal justice system based on United Nations standards and norms in crime
prevention and criminal justice. Many countries endeavour to incorporate United Nations
standards and norms in their domestic laws and make use of them in their practice.6 It is not an
exaggeration to state that the United Nations standards and norms greatly contribute to theimprovement of criminal justice systems and their practices, and they now have an undeniably
large impact on each state’s administration of criminal justice.
In regard to the treatment of offenders, “The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules
for Treatment of Prisoners (hereinafter referred to as “the SMR”)”,7 which was adopted 50 years
ago, has great importance among the United Nations standards and norms that have relevance inthe field.
The SMR stipulates minimum standards in regard to every aspect of the treatment of all
kinds of prisoners and the administration of institutions, such as: provision of adequate
accommodation; provision of adequate clothing and medical care; prohibition of cruelpunishment; prisoner’s right to lodge complaints to the head of the institution; communication
with the family; confirmation of the fundamental principle that the treatment of prisoners should
aim at their reintegration into society; individualization of treatment and classification, and so on.
Many countries promulgate their laws based upon the SMR, and the use and application of the
SMR has contributed to the improvement of institutional treatment of offenders.
The importance of the SMR can also be found in the fact that various United Nations
standards and norms that are subsequently adopted repeatedly mention that the spirit of the SMR
should be reflected.8 Moreover, although the Untied Nations had maintained the position that theimplementation of the SMR should be left to each country’s efforts, it adopted the “Procedure forthe effective implementation of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners”9 in1984 and set out practical procedures (dissemination of the SMR; reflection of it in the domestic
laws; technical assistance; strengthening of the reporting procedure of the implementation of the
SMR in each state; remedies and review and elaboration of the Rules) in order for the basic
principles of the SMR to be incorporated into administration of penal confinement institutions.
Additionally, in 1990 the General Assembly adopted the “Basic Principles for the Treatment of

United Nations. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. “Use and application ofUnited Nations standards and norms.” E/CN.15/2002/3. 26 February 2002: p.4.
6 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_standards.html
7 “World Social Situation.” ECOSOC Resolution 663 (XXIV). (Annex: Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of Prisoners.) 31 July 1957.
8 Examples include “United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (TheTokyo Rules)”, 4.1; “United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile
Justice (The Beijing Rules)”, 27; and “United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles
Deprived of their Liberty”, preamble.
9 “Procedure for the effective implementation of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Offenders.” ECOSOC Resolution 1984/47. 25 May 1984.
5

5
Prisoners”10 and clarified the basic principles of the treatment of prisoners, such as all prisoners
should “be treated with respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings”,“believing that full implementation of the SMR would be facilitated by the articulation of basic
principles underlying them”.11 It also strengthened the contents of the SMR.
When we turn our attention to the actual situation of the treatment of offenders, there arecircumstances that impede effective use and application of the United Nations standards andnorms in crime prevention and criminal justice, including the SMR, in many countries in theworld. The notable increase in the population of various penal confinement institutions is one
example. A recent study indicated that 8.75 million people are incarcerated in prisons and theprison population is increasing in many countries.12
The capacity of accommodation in prisons cannot catch up with the increased number ofprisoners; therefore, overcrowding has become a major issue in many countries. In fact, a reportof the Secretary-General stated that “[u]ntil the problem of overcrowding was resolved, efforts toimprove other aspects of prison reform were unlikely to have any meaningful impact”.13 The
issues caused by overcrowding have thus become serious.
Even in the situation of overcrowding, however, the responsibilities of a penal institution,
as a public organization, are not diminished. These include the responsibility to provide prisoners
with a humane environment and treatment programmes that assist their reintegration into society,adequate mechanisms to safeguard their legal rights because prisons are closed institutions andinaccessible. For the general public, the responsibilities of a penal institution include securingconfinement of the prisoners and maintaining transparency and accountability as regards theadministration of the institution. As the SMR and other United Nations standards and norms that
support it include many clauses for such issues, they are still very significant and relevant to thecurrent prison situations.
In view of improving the treatment of offenders, it is not efficient to confine alloffenders to penal institutions in order to punish them, regardless of the type of offenders or thetypes of crime. It is very difficult to provide offenders with effective treatment if the prisons are
overcrowded. To incarcerate offenders for minor infractions stigmatizes them unnecessarily, andthus prevents them from reintegrating into society. In such a situation, the introduction ofalternatives to incarceration is more appropriate and effective.
By reducing the number of prisoners, the burden of prisons will be mitigated and theproper correctional treatment can be given to those who remain incarcerated. Non-custodial
measures are more conducive to social integration of offenders and facilitate their rehabilitationby allowing them continuous contact with the community. They have advantage of: reducing
offender stigmatization; avoiding escalation in deviant behaviour when new offenders are mixed
with hardened criminals; and if the offender remains in employment, allowing him/her tocontinue contributing towards his/her family in particular, and society in general.
“Basic principles for the treatment of prisoners.” General Assembly Resolution 45/111. 14
December 1990.
11 Ibid.
12 Walmsley, Roy. “Findings 188: World Prison Population List (Fourth Edition).” Home Office, UK.
2003.
13 United Nations. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. “Use and application ofUnited Nations standards and norms.” E/CN.15/2002/3. 26 February 2002: p.12.
106
In consideration of the above, in 1990 the General Assembly, based upon therecommendations of the Eighth Congress, adopted “United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
Non-Custodial Measures (hereinafter referred to as “the Tokyo Rules”). 14 The Tokyo Rules
indicate guidelines and standards concerning various non-custodial measures. They aim atalleviating problems arising from overcrowding in prisons and at streamlining the administrationof criminal justice by promoting less use of confinement, through enhancing the use of alternative
measures that can be exercised in society. In this sense, the Tokyo Rules complement the SMR.
However, the current world situation in which many countries face a prison population
increase and overcrowding, implies that enhancement of non-custodial measures indicated in theTokyo Rules have not been fully implemented in such countries.
Giving due consideration to the above rationale, UNAFEI, as one of the regional
institutes of the United Nations for Prevention of Crime and for the Treatment of Offenders,intends to study the current situation of the treatment of adult offenders both in institutions and in
the society and will explore their improvement for this training course. This will be accomplishedmainly referring to the SMR and the Tokyo Rules among numerous United Nations standards andnorms in crime prevention and criminal justice.
Thus, the participants are required to: review the history of the respective countries
where the United Nations standards and norms concerning treatment of offenders, inter alia the
SMR and the Tokyo Rules, have been incorporated in practice or in legislation; confirm theextent that the current system and situation of the practice conform to the United Nations
standards and norms; and study the reasons, both the social as well as legal backgrounds if thepractice deviates from the United Nations standards and norms. Moreover, the training course
will explore measures for effective use and application of United Nations standards and norms bysharing and discussing lessons and successful examples that are provided by the participants.
The focus of discussion in this training course will be as follows:(1) The current situation and problems of the treatment of offenders in the respective countries(2) Problems and countermeasures concerning the use and application of United Nations
standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice (mainly the SMR and the Tokyo
Rules)(a) Incorporation of United Nations standards and norms in domestic laws and regulations(b) Organizations for the treatment of offenders (inspection, transparency, accountability,etc.)(c) Personnel in charge of treatment of offenders (recruitment, training, guidance andsupervision, etc.)

14 “United

Nations Standards and Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules).”
General Assembly Resolution 45/110. 14 December 1990.

7(d) System for the treatment of offenders•

Systems that guarantee offenders’ rights, including grievance mechanisms•

Maintenance of discipline and order•

Provision of effective treatment programmes(e) Understanding and participation of the public(3) Promotion of international cooperation for development of United Nations standards andnorms(a) An effective system of reporting to the United Nations(b) Technical cooperation.

8

Course Summary
Lectures
In total, seven lectures were presented by visiting experts, two by ad hoc lecturers andseven by the professors of UNAFEI. Four distinguished criminal justice practitioners andscholars from abroad served as UNAFEI visiting experts. They lectured on issues relating to themain theme, and contributed significantly to the Course by encouraging discussions after theirown lectures, participating in the discussions of other programmes, and conversing with theparticipants on informal occasions. Additionally, distinguished senior officials of the Governmentof Japan delivered ad hoc lectures. The lecturers and lecture topics are listed on pages 9 and 10.
Individual Presentations
During the first two weeks, each Japanese and overseas participant delivered a fifty
minute individual presentation, which introduced the actual situation, problems and future
prospects of his/her country. These papers were compiled onto a CD Rom and distributed to all
the participants. The titles of these individual presentation papers are listed on pages 11 through13.
Group Workshop Sessions
Group Workshop Sessions further examined the subtopics 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 seriously studied the topics and exchanged their views based on information obtained
through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and so forth. After the Group
Workshop Sessions, reports were drafted based on the discussions in the conference room. These
reports were subsequently presented in the plenary meetings and report-back session, where they
were endorsed as the reports of the Course. Very brief summaries of the Group Workshop
reports are provided on pages 14 through 16.
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
17 through 20.

9Lecture Topics

Visiting Experts' Lectures
1)

Prof. Nils CHRISTIE• Some Basic Dilemmas of the Use of Imprisonment on the Global Scale• Mediation: One of the Alternative Measures to Resolve Conflict2)

Ms Cristina ROJAS RODRIGUEZ•Applicability of United Nations Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice in the Latin American and Caribbean Region

3)

Mr Michael SPURR• Her Majesty’s Prison Service of England and Wales- Part 1• Her Majesty’s Prison Service of England and Wales- Part 2

4)

Ms Chomil KAMAL• Probation Services in Singapore- Part 1• Probation Services in Singapore- Part 2

Professors Lectures
1)

Mr Hiroyuki SHINKAI, Professor, UNAFEI• The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

2)

Ms Tamaki YOKOCHI, Professor, UNAFEI• The Tokyo Rules: The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial
Measures3)

Ms Megumi URYU, Professor, UNAFEI• Investigation and Prosecution in Japan

4)

Mr Iichiro SAKATA, Professor, UNAFEI• The Criminal Justice System in Japan: The Courts

10
5)

Mr Hiroyuki SHINKAI, Professor, UNAFEI• Institutional Corrections in Japan

6)

Mr Kei SOMEDA, Professor, UNAFEI• Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in Japan

Ad Hoc Lectures
1)

Mr Satoshi TOMIYAMA
Special Assistant to the Director of the General Affairs Division Correction Bureau,
Ministry of Justice• Japanese Penal Reform

2)

Prof. Nisuke ANDO
Professor, Doshisha University• Human Rights Committee and the Protection of Detainees

11

Individual Presentation Topics

Overseas Participants
1)

Mr Hany Mohamad Nasseh GABR (Egypt)• Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders

2)

Mr Orisi Vuki KATONIBAU (Fiji)• Crime Prevention (Treatment of Offenders)

3)

Mr Maju AMBARITA (Indonesia)• Development of Legal Treatment of Offenders in Indonesia, Related with theStandard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Offenders, as in the First U.N.
Congress 1955

4)

Mr ABDUL AZIZ Bin Mohamad (Malaysia)• Treatment of Offenders-The Malaysian Style

5)

Mr Rungit SINGH a/l Jaswant Singh (Malaysia)• Non-Custodial Sentencing Options in Malaysia

6)

Mr Julio Ometei RINGANG (Palau)• Division of Correction Operation Manual, Republic of Palau

7)

Mr Mark Mengepe MEWERIMBE (Papua New Guinea)• Crime Prevention (Treatment of Offenders)

8)

Mr Hernan Gallo GRANDE (Philippines)• The General Situation of Crime and the Criminal Justice System in the Philippines

9)

Mr Saidamir Badriddinovich SAIDOV (Tajikistan)• Current Situation of Crime and Corrections in Tajikistan

10)

Mr Pongtorn JANOUDOM (Thailand)• Recent Legal Innovation for Non-Custodial Treatment in the Thai Criminal Justice
System11)

Mr Somphop RUJJANAVET (Thailand)• Crime Prevention (Treatment of Offenders)

12)

Mr Patelisio Leniti PALE (Tonga)• Community- Based Treatment System of Offenders in Tonga

13)

Mr Hamish GARAE (Vanuatu)• Crime Prevention- Treatment of Offenders in Vanuatu

12
14)

Mr Jonah MUZAMBI (Zimbabwe)• Implementing Effective Measures for the Treatment of Offenders

15)

Ms Mildred Bernadette Baquilod ALVOR (Philippines)• The Philippine Corrections System: Current Situation and Issues

16)

Mr Eric Wai-fung LAW (Hong-Kong)• Contemporary Issues in Corrections

17)

Ms Soo-Hee KIM (Korea)• United Nations Standards and the Situation of Korean Corrections-Reality andEffective Countermeasures for Them

Japanese Participants
18)

Mr Osamu AOKI• Treatment Programmes of Juvenile Prison in Japan and SMR

19)

Mr Toshihiro FUKUGAKI• The Tokyo Rules and the Current Parole Practice in Japan20)

Mr Keiichi ICHINOSE• Police Detention Administration in Japan21)

Ms Hatsue MATSUBAYASHI• Tokyo Rules and Effective Utilization of Volunteer Probation Officers in JapanRecruitment, Appointment and Training

22)

Ms Mikako MATSUSHITA• Dealing with Juvenile Cases with Educative Activities

23)

Mr Koichi NAKAMURA• Implementing Effective Measures for the Treatment of Offenders from theViewpoint of Non-Custodial Measures at the Pre-Sentencing Stage24)

Mr Yuichiro OKUNO• A Japanese Public Prosecutor’s Experiments to Implement the Tokyo Rules25)

Ms Noriko SHIBATA• Japanese Public Prosecutor’s Role in the Criminal Justice System Focusing on NonCustodial Measures

26)

Mr Yasuaki SUGAWARA• Detainee Treatment- Immigration Bureau of Japan

13
27)

Mr Akira TAKANO• Non-Custodial Measures for the Treatment of Offenders at the Sentencing Stage in
Japan

28)

Ms Sachiko TOKUDA• Challenges Facing Juvenile Training Schools for Girls in Japan29)

Mr Masahiro TOMOI• The Japanese Police System

14Group Workshop Sessions
Group 1PROMOTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Visiting Expert
Advisers

Mr Rungit Singh
Mr Koichi Nakamura
Mr Masahiro Tomoi
Mr Pongtorn Janoudom
Ms Noriko Shibata
Mr Maju Ambarita
Mr Julio Ometei Ringang
Mr Mark Mengepe Mewerimbe
Mr Toshihiro Fukugaki
Ms Chomil Kamal
Deputy Director Tomoko Akane
Prof. Kei Someda
Prof. Iichiro Sakata(Malaysia)(Japan)(Japan)(Thailand)(Japan)(Indonesia)(Palau)(PNG)(Japan)(Singapore)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup 1 approached the task of looking at alternatives to imprisonment in the light of theTokyo Rules which advocates a holistic approach to non-custodial alternatives.
The Group began by examining the measures currently available in the participant
countries at the pre-trial, sentencing and post-sentencing stage. They referred to the participant’s
individual presentation papers for the most current practice.
Group 1 then considered the problems and solutions to the introduction of each type of
non-custodial alternative. It was recommended that a great deal of progress could be made if thecurrent alternatives were utilized more extensively. Group 1 asserted that, for a start, it would beeasier to fine tune existing practices than to try to introduce completely new legislation.
The Group then discussed future prospects and the introduction of new measures that
could be implemented in the long run.
In their conclusion Group 3 made the following recommendations: all criminal justicesystems should incorporate a clear mission statement that advocates the extensive use of noncustodial measures; the public should be educated to understand the benefits of non-custodial
measures and policy makers and politicians should be the agents for this change; an effective
treatment framework should be established; countries need to be committed to change; andresearch needs to be carried out on a continual basis in order to ensure that the most effective
measures are in place.
The Group concluded by stating that all countries should use the Tokyo Rules as abenchmark for the promotion of alternatives and that an easy strategy for change would be toinfuse small incremental changes in the social and justice systems to eventually blend in noncustodial alternatives.

15
Group 2ADMINISTRATION OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Visiting Experts
Advisers

Mr Bin Mohamad Abdul Aziz
Mr Keiichi Ichinose
Ms Soo-Hee Kim
Ms Mildred Bernadette Baquilod Alvor
Mr Somphop Rujjanavet
Mr Yasuaki Sugawara
Mr Hany Mohamad Nasseh Gabr
Mr Hamish Garae
Mr Osamu Aoki
Ms Hatsue Matsubayashi
Ms Cristina Rojas Rodriguez
Mr Michael Spurr
Prof. Keisuke Senta
Prof. Megumi Uryu
Prof. Hiroyuki Shinkai(Malaysia)(Japan)(Korea)(Philippines)(Thailand)(Japan)(Egypt)(Vanuatu)(Japan)(Japan)(Costa Rica)(U.K.)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup 2 noted that the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners(SMR) sets out good principles and practices for the treatment of prisoners and management ofinstitutions, but most countries still have some difficulties implementing the basic rules of the
SMR.
The Group began by discussing the current situation of the prison administration of eachparticipating country in order to analyze the issues and problems they face and find ways toovercome their difficulties in applying the SMR. They looked at the following aspects:
accommodation, separation of inmates, provision of medical services, information to prisoners,
contact with the outside world, discipline and punishment, grievance mechanisms, prison
incidents, inspection and community participation.
After in-depth discussions, Group 2 made the following recommendations: 1) transferring
inmates between prisons can alleviate the most overcrowded facilities, as can the use ofalternatives to imprisonment; 2) provision of more recreational facilities can reduce inmate stresslevels; 3) separation of inmates is desirable; 4) medical care should be improved; 5) use of audiovisual equipment is useful to educate prisoners on their rights and rules, etc.; 6) e-mail and avideo visit system should be in place; 7) disciplinary proceedings should incorporate basic
features of natural justice; 8) mediation should be used to settle prison conflicts; 9) more
effective prison and inmate management is necessary to reduce prison incidents; 10) independentbodies to inspect prisons should be established; 11) active participation of the community incertain prison affairs must be encouraged to ensure transparency and accountability; 12)
outsourcing of certain functions of prison administration to the private sector may be considered
under certain conditions in order to effectively utilize available resources.
Group 2 concluded by stating that prison management must use forward planning toanticipate and avoid problems. In order to fully realize the objectives of the penal system it isnecessary that the attitudes of those within the system and outside it change in order that prison
reform can go forward.

16Group 3PROMOTION OF EFFECTIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMMES FOR OFFENDERS

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Mr Orisi Vuki Katonibau
Mr Yuichiro Okuno
Mr Jonah Muzambi
Mr Hernan Gallo Grande
Mr Akira Takano
Mr Saidamir Badriddinouich Saidov
Mr Patelisio Leniti Pale
Mr Wai-fung Law
Ms Mikako Matsushita
Ms Sachiko Tokuda(Fiji)(Japan)(Zimbabwe)(Philippines)(Japan)(Tajikistan)(Tonga)(Hong Kong)(Japan)(Japan)Advisers

Prof. Takafumi Sato
Prof. Tamaki Yokochi
Prof. Masato Uchida(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup 3 began by acknowledging that traditionally the purpose of prisons was to merely
contain prisoners until they had served their sentences. However this approach has been
considered a failure because prisoners very often re-offend since their criminal behaviour
problems have not been addressed. Most participating countries recognized this problem andplaced more of an emphasis on rehabilitation. The Group identified and offered possible
solutions to the problems in the participating countries that hinder the effective implementation oftreatment and rehabilitation.
The Group noted that participating countries had laws and policies similar to Art.65 of the
SMR which advocates that the treatment of persons sentenced to imprisonment should have as its
purpose, to establish in them the will to lead law abiding lives. However, a lack of resources
hindered the treatment programmes that were in place.
Group 3 recognized that offenders had unique characteristics and it was necessary to
identify the particular treatment needs of each offender by using a classification system. In
addition to such a system the Group considered that for a treatment programme to be holistic it
must at least include the following: privileges; work; education; social relations; and aftercare.
Group 3 then made the following recommendations: 1) archaic facilities need to be
improved; 2) additional therapeutic programmes must be provided; 3) the existing classification
system should be reviewed; 4) a more practical progressive stage system needs to be introduced;5) earnings should be equal to the value of the prisoners work; 6) more availability of work that isof value in the outside world; 7) prison legislation should have provision for education; 8)
integrated rehabilitation programmes and education are needed; 9) prisoners should be allowed
more and longer visits; 10) coordination between prisons and probation services re: aftercare
programmes; and 11) mechanisms should be put in place to evaluate the success of rehabilitation
programmes.

17

Observation Visits

Date

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

May 21

Fuchu Prison• Mr Masayoshi Tashiro (Special
Assistant to Warden)

May 26

Tokyo District Public Prosecutors
Office• Mr Teruhisa Yamashita (Deputy
Chief Prosecutor)

May 26

Ministry of Justice• Mr Yukio Jitsukawa (Vice Ministerof Justice)

June 17

Tokyo District Court• Mr Osamu Ikeda (Deputy Chief
Judge of the Tokyo District Court,
Criminal Division)

June 22

Fuchu Dai-ichi Junior High School • Mr Akio Asanuma (Principal)

June 22

Supreme Court• Mr Tatsuo Kainaka (Justice)

June 23

Tachikawa Disaster Preparedness
Centre• Mr Michitaka Ishikawa (Director)

18Group Study Tour

Date

LocationJune
3-4

Hiroshima
and Kyoto

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned• Hiroshima Prison• Mr Masaaki Kinoshita
Deputy Warden(Treatment)• Halfway House(Meishin)• Mr Takayuki Matsumura• Talk on Kyoto Probation
Office• Mr Tadao Hashimoto
Director (Aftercare
Section)• Okazaki Park Police Box• Mr Yoshio Yamashita
Assistant Police Inspector

19Special Events

May 17
May to June

Welcome Party
Japanese Conversation Classes

The overseas participants attended three Japanese conversation classes and learned
practical Japanese expressions. The Sensei (teacher) was Kumiko Yanagesawa.
May 21

Ping-Pong Tournament

The participants enjoyed a ping-pong tournament at UNAFEI in which the staff andfaculty members of UNAFEI also participated. This was followed by a friendship party
and prize giving.
May 22

Tour to Tokyo Metropolitan Area

The participants had the opportunity to go on a small tour of Tokyo which included the“Electric Town” in Akihabara and the Edo Tokyo Museum.
May 26

Courtesy Visit to the Ministry of Justice andReception by the Vice-Minister of Justice

After visiting the Ministry of Justice, a reception was held by the Vice-Minister ofJustice, Mr Keiichi Tadaki at the Lawyers Club, Tokyo.
May 28

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 racket relay, tug of
war and the true or false quiz. Afterwards, there was a friendship party at UNAFEI.
May 29Bus Tour to Nasu Highlands Hosted by ACPF, Kisei-kai Branch

The participants visited the Nasu Musical Box Museum where they enjoyed aperformance and explanation of musical boxes. They then visited the Mount Jeans Ski
Resort and went up Mt. Jeans by cable car. Later on they enjoyed a visit to the Nasu Zoo
Park where they watched a Falcon show. Following this Kisei-kai Branch ACPF hosted avery enjoyable party for the participants at the Nasu Zoo Park.
May 30

UNAFEI Barbecue Party

The participants and UNAFEI staff enjoyed a Sunday afternoon barbecue party on thelawn at UNAFEI.
June 3-4

Hiroshima-Kyoto Study Tour

Hiroshima : On their first day of the study tour the participants visited the Peace
Memorial Museum and Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima.
Kyoto : On their second day they took a short tour of the Kyoto Station building. On
their third day they went on a tour of Kyoto which included Nijo Castle, Kinkaku Temple
and the Kyoto Imperial Palace.

20
June 5

The Way of Tea“Chan-no-yu” or “Sado”, a formal Japanese tea ceremony hosted by Soroptimist
International Tokyo, Fuchu was held for the participants in Kyodo-no-Mori Park.
June 8Bowling Tournament

The participants enjoyed bowling at the Fuchu bowling centre. Afterwards there wasa small friendship party and prize giving held at UNAFEI.
June 10

Meeting with Volunteer Probation Officers and Friendship Party

A discussion session was arranged to exchange views between the Volunteer
Probation Officers (VPOs) and the participants. It was organized by UNAFEI and the
Rehabilitation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice. It was followed by dinner and afriendship party at UNAFEI.
June 12 and 13

Home Visits

ACPF Fuchu Branch organized dinners for the participants and visiting experts in thehomes of members from the Fuchu International Exchange Salon, Tokyo Fuchu Rotary
Club and Soroptimist International of Tokyo, Fuchu. The hosts were Mr Yoshiyuki
Sakano, Ms Chitose Sashida, Mr Yasuhiro Momota, Mr Yasuhiko Mori, Ms Kazuko Seki
and Ms Reiko Morioka.
June 15

ACPF Fuchu Party

The ACPF Fuchu branch hosted an enjoyable party for the participants and their hostfamilies at UNAFEI.
June 17

ACPF Minoru-Kai Party

The ACPF Minoru-Kai hosted a party at the Sunshine Sixty building in central
Tokyo.
June 21

Koto Concert

The Participants enjoyed a Koto concert performed by ‘The Ensemble 21st Century’
held at UNAFEI.
June 23

Suntory Brewery Visit

The participants visited the Suntory Brewery where they were given a guided tour.
Afterwards the Fuchu Rotary Club hosted a very enjoyable party.
June 24

Farewell Party

21

Reference Materials Distributed

I. UN Standards and Norms
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)

United Nations(1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
United Nations(1955) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. (1stUN Congress).
United Nations(1984) Procedures for the effective implementation of the Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. (1984/47).
United Nations(1988) Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. (A/RES/43/173).
United Nations(1990) Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners.
(A/RES/45/111).
United Nations(1990) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial
Measures (The Tokyo Rules). (A/RES/45/110).
United Nations(1975) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being
Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
(A/RES/3452XXX).
United Nations(1979) Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials.
(A/RES/34/169).
United Nations(1990) Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law
Enforcement Officials.
United Nations(1985) Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
(A/RES/40/32 and 40/146).
United Nations(1985) Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of
Crime and Abuse of Power. (A/RES/40/34).
United Nations(1990) Basic Principles of the Role of Lawyers. (8th UN Congress).
United Nations(1990) Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors. (8th UN Congress).
United Nations(2000) Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice. (10th UN
Congress).

II. UN Conventions
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

United Nations(1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
(A/RES/2200A XXI).
United Nations(1966) Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights. (A/RES/2200A XXI).
United Nations(1989) Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. (A/RES/44/128).
United Nations(1984) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (A/RES/39/46).
United Nations(2003) Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture andOther Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (A/RES/57/199).

22
III. Prison Population
(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)

Blumstein, A.
(2002) "Prisons: A Policy Challenge." In J.Q. Wilson and J.
Patersilia (Eds.). Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control (pp. 451-508) Oakland: ICS
Press.
Lappi-Seppala, T (2002) "Reducing the Prison population in Finland."Lappi-Seppala, T (2002) "Penal Policy and Incarceration Rates in Finland."Corrections Today, vol. 64, No.1, February 2002.
Pease, K.
(1994) "Cross-National Imprisonment Rates: Limitations of Method
and Possible Conclusions." The British Journal of Criminology Vol.34 1994.
Tkachuk, B. and Walmsley, R.
(2001) "World Prison Population: Facts, Trends andSolutions." Helsinki: HEUNI.
Walmsley, R.
(1999) "World Prison Population List." Research Findings No. 88.
UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Walmsley, R.
(2000) "World Prison Population List (Second edition)." Research
Findings No. 116. UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Walmsley, R.
(2002) "World Prison Population List (Third edition)." Research
Findings No. 166. UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Walmsley, R.
(2003) "World Prison Population List (Fourth edition)." Research
Findings No. 188 UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Walmsley, R.
(2004) "World Prison Population List (Fifth edition)." Research
Findings No. 234 UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

IV. Prison Management
(1)
(2)

(3)

(4)
(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Ashworth, A. et al. (2001) "England/ Wales." In M Tonry (ed). Penal Reform inOvercrowded Times (pp. 238-260) New York: Oxford University Press.
Carlson, P.M.
(1999a) "The Organization of the Institution." In P.M. Carlson and
J.S. Garrett (Eds.) Prison and Jail Administration (pp. 25-31) Gaithersburg: An Aspen
Publication.
Carlson, P.M.
(1999b) "Management Accountability." In P.M. Carlson and J.S.
Garrett (Eds.) Prison and Jail Administration (pp. 41-46) Gaithersburg: An Aspen
Publication.
Cooksey, M.B.
(1999) "Custody and Security." In P.M. Carlson and J.S. Garrett(Eds.) Prison and Jail Administration (pp. 75-81) Gaithersburg: An Aspen Publication.
Cripe, C.A.
(1999) "Inmate Disciplinary Procedures." In P.M. Carlson and J.S.
Garrett (Eds.) Prison and Jail Administration (pp. 208-218) Gaithersburg: An Aspen
Publication.
Cripe, C.A.
(2003) "Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: Due Process- Inmate
Discipline." In C. A. Cripe. Legal Aspects of Corrections Management. (pp. 163-193)
Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Garrett, J. S.
(1999) "Compliance with the Constitution." In P.M. Carlson and J.S.
Garrett (Eds.) Prison and Jail Administration (pp. 321-326) Gaithersburg: An Aspen
Publication.
Pryor, S.
(2001) "The Responsible Prisoner: An exploration of the extent towhich imprisonment removes responsibility unnecessarily and an invitation to change."

23
V. Treatment Programmes in Prison
(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)

(6)

(7)
(8)

(9)
(10)

Austin, J.
(1999) "Rehabilitation: Reality or Myth?" In P.M. Carlson and J.S.
Garrett (Eds.) Prison and Jail Administration (pp. 287-292) Gaithersburg: An Aspen
Publication.
Cullen, F.T.
(2002) "Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs." In J.Q. Wilson and
J. Patersilia (Eds.). Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control (pp. 252-289) Oakland:
ICS Press.
Cullen, F. and Gendreau, P. (2001) "From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing
Professional Ideology in the 21st Century." The Prison Journal Vol.81 No.3.
French, S. and Gendreau, P. (2003) "Safe and Humane Corrections through Effective
Treatment."
Gendreau P.
(1996) "The Principles of Effective Intervention with Offenders." In
A. Hartland (ed). Choosing Correctional Options That Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Gendreau P., et al. (2002) "The Common-Sense Revolution and Correctional Policy."
In Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Effective Programs and Policies to Reduce ReOffending. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Liebling, A. and Arnold, H. (2002) "Measuring the Quality of Prison Life." Research
Findings No. 174 UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Mackenzie, D.L. (2002) "Reducing the criminal activities of known offenders anddelinquents." In L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh and D.L. Mackenzie (Eds.)
Evidence-Based Crime Prevention (pp. 330-404). New York: Routledge.
Mackenzie, D. L. (2001) "Corrections and Sentencing in the 21st Century: Evidence
Based Corrections and Sentencing." The Prison Journal. Vol.81 No.3.
Martinson, R.
(1974) "What Works? -Questions and Answers about Prison
Reform." The Public Interest, 10 (pp. 22-54) In R. Matthews (ed.) Imprisonment
Dartmouth: Ashgate.

VI. Inspection, Monitoring, Accountability
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)

Council of Europe (2002) The CPT in brief.
Council of Europe (2003) The CPT Standards: "Substantive Sections of the CPT's
General Reports."
Department of Justice "Strategic Objective & Annual Goal." 6.1: Detention FY 2002
Performance and Accountability Report.
Emmrys, C. The Role of Citizens' Advisory Committees in Canada.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (1998) Annual Report 1997-1998: of HM Chief Inspectorof Prisons.
HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation (2001) Through the Prison Gate.
H.M.P. Ashwell (2002) BOV annual report: 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002.
Home Office (2004) "Independent Monitoring Boards for Prisons and Immigration
Removal Centres." [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/prisons/imb/index.html].
Home Office (2004) "What does being a board member involve?"[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/prisons/imb/involve.html].
Independent Monitoring Board for HMP Canterbury (2003) "Annual Report for July
2002/3."

24
(11)
(12)

Morgan, R. and Evans, M. (1994) "Inspecting Prisons: The View from Strasbourg."
The British Journal of Criminology Vol.34 1994.
Targeted Performance Initiative Working Group "Modernising the Management of the
Prison Service: An Independent Report." by the Targeted Performance Initiative Working
Group, Chaired by Lord Laming of Tewin CBE.

VII. Grievance
(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)

(5)

(6)

Cripe, C. A. (2003) "A General View of Prisoners' Rights Under the Constitution." In C.
A. Cripe. Legal Aspects of Corrections Management. (pp. 163-193) Sudbury, MA: Jones
and Bartlett Publishers.
"John Howard Society of Alberta." (1998) Inmate Rights and Grievance Options.
Ministry of Justice, the Netherlands (2001) Convicted of an Offence.
[http://www.justitie.nl/english/Images/23_37076.pdf].
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales (2004) "Welcome to the
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales Website."[http://www.ppo.gov.uk/index.htm].
Secretary of State for the Home Department (2003) "Toward Resettlement: Prisons andProbation." Ombudsman for England and Wales Annual Report 2002-2003. "Independent
investigation of complaints for a just and humane penal system."
Wall II, A.T. (1999) "Inmate Grievance Procedures." In P.M. Carlson and J.S. Garrett(Eds.) Prison and Jail Administration (pp. 268-274) Gaithersburg: An Aspen Publication.

VIII. Community Corrections
(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

(6)
(7)

(8)

Albrecht, H. (2001) "Post-Adjudication Dispositions in Comparative Perspective." In M.
Tonry and R. Frase (eds.) Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries (pp. 293-330)
NY: Oxford University Press.
Correctional Service Canada (2001) "Backgrounders."[http://198.103.98.138/text/pubed/feuilles/condrls_e.shtml].
Correctional Service Canada (2003) "Protecting Society Through Community
Corrections." [http://198.103.98.138/text/pblct/protect/broch_e.shtml].
Correctional Service Canada (1999) "Human Rights in Community Corrections."[http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/publct/wgroup/toce_e.shtml].
Cripe, C.A. (2003) "Probation and Parole, Community Corrections, Fines." In C. A.
Cripe. Legal Aspects of Corrections Management. (pp. 283-309) Sudbury, MA: Jones andBartlett Publishers.
Daubney, D. (2002) "Striking a Balance: A Strategy to Encourage Community
Corrections in Canada." Corrections Today, vol. 64, No.1, February 2002.
Ellis, T. and Winstone, J. (2002) "The Policy Impact of a Survey of Programme
Evaluations in England and Wales." In G. Bernfeld et al. (eds). Offender Rehabilitation
and Treatment Effective Programs and Policies to Reduce Re-Offending. West Sussex:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Harris, P. and Smith, S. (1996) "Developing Community Corrections. An
Implementation Perspective." In Choosing Correctional Potions That Work (pp. 183-221).

25
(9)

(10)
(11)
(12)

Joutsen, M (1998) "Why have alternatives not been adopted more fully and what needs tobe done?" - The European Experience. Helsinki: HEUNI [htttp://www.cscscc.gc.ca/text/forum/bprisons/english/solgene.html].
Petersilla, J (2002) "Community Corrections." In J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (Eds.).
Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control (pp. 451-508) Oakland: ICS Press.
Petersilia, J. (2001) "Prisoner Reentry: Public Safety and Reintegration Challenges." The
Prison Journal Vol.81 No.3.
Raynor, P. and Vanstone, M. (2001) "Straight Thinking on Probation: Evidence-Based
Practice and the Culture of Curiosity." In G. Bernfeld et al. (eds). Offender Rehabilitation
and Treatment Effective Programs and Policies to Reduce Re-Offending. West Sussex:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

IX. Penal Reform
(1)

(2)
(3)

(4)
(5)

(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

(10)

(11)
(12)

Christie. N. (1998) "Penal Law and the Civil Society on the Dangers in
Overcriminalization." Bogota August 1998. [http://folk.uio.no/christie/dokumenter/
penal_law_columbia.htm].
Christie. N. (2004) "The Global Village." [http://folk.uio.no/christie/dokumenter/
the_global_village.htm].
Dunkel, F. and Snacken S. (2000) "Prisons in Europe-Recent Develoments andProblems in East and West." A paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of theAmerican Society of Criminology, 16 November.
Farrington, D., Petrosino A., and Welsh B. (2001) "Systematic Reviews and CostBenefit Analyses of Correctional Interventions". The Prison Journal Vol.81 No.3.
Frase, R. S. (2001) "Comparative Perspectives on Sentencing Policy and Research." In
M. Tonry and R. Frase (eds.) Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries (pp. 259292) NY: Oxford University Press.
Lake, R. (2003) "Finland: Norwegian Professor Nils Christie Questions Prohibitionist
Approach." [http://www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v03/n1467/ a03.html?103].
Lord Woolf (Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales)(2001) "The Woolf Report: a
Decade of Change?" [http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/speeches/ 31-1-01.htm].
King, R.D., and Maguire M. (1994) "Contexts of Imprisonment: An International
Perspective." The British Journal of Criminology Vol.34 1994.
Kurki, L. (2001) "International Standards for Sentencing and Punishment." In M. Tonry
and R. Frase (eds.) Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries (pp. 331-378) NY:
Oxford University Press.
Morgan, R. (2001) "International Controls on Sentencing and Punishment." In M. Tonry
and R. Frase (eds.) Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries (pp. 379-404) NY:
Oxford University Press.
Roberts, J. V. and Gabor T. (2004) "Living in the Shadow of Prisons: Lessons from the
Canadian Experience in Decarceration." The British Journal of Criminology Vol.44 2004.
Sparks, R. (1994) "Can Prisons Be Legitimate? Penal Politics, Privatization, and theTimeliness of an Old India." The British Journal of Criminology Vol.34 1994.

26

Experts and Participants List
Visiting Experts
Prof. Nils CHRISTIE

Professor
Institute of Criminology,
Faculty of Law,
University of Oslo,
NorwayMs Cristina ROJAS RODRIGUEZ

Experta Asociada del ILANUDSan José, Costa Rica

Mr Michael SPURR

Director of Operations
H.M. Prison Service,
United Kingdom

Ms Chomil KAMAL

Deputy Director/Chief Probation Officer
Probation Services Branch for Permanent
Secretary (Community Development and Sports),
Ministry of Community Development and Sports,
Singapore

Overseas Participants
Mr Hany Mohamad Nasseh GABR

Deputy Chief
Investigations Section,
Alexandria Police Department,
Egypt

Mr Orisi Vuki KATONIBAU

Staff Officer Administration
Fiji Prison Service,Fiji

Mr Maju AMBARITA

Head Section
Finance Internal Controlling,
Jakarta Prosecutor Office,Jakarta, Indonesia

Mr ABDUL AZIZ Bin Mohamad

Head of Unit
Internal Audit Unit,
Prison Department Malaysia,
Ministry of Internal Security,
Malaysia

27
Mr Rungit SINGH a/l Jaswant Singh

Senior Federal Counsel
Attorney General's Chambers,
Prime Minister's Department,
Malaysia

Mr Julio Ometei RINGANG

Chief
Division of Correction,
Bureau of Public Safety,
Ministry of Justice,Palau

Mr Mark Mengepe MEWERIMBE

Chief Inspector
Officer In-Charge-Prosecution,
Department of Police,
Boroko Police Station,
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

Mr Hernan Gallo GRANDE

Chief Inspectorate
Bureau of Jail Management andPenology,
Philippines

Mr Saidamir Badriddinovich SAIDOVHead, Operations Unit
Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Tajikistan

Mr Pongtorn JANOUDOM

Principal Research Judge
Court of Appeal Region IV,
ThailandMr Somphop RUJJANAVET

Penologist 7
Chief of Information andInternational Conference Section,
Department of Corrections,
Ministry of Justice,
ThailandMr Patelisio Leniti PALE

Assistant Probation Officer
Probation Services,
Ministry of Justice,
Tonga

Mr Hamish GARAE

Station Sergeant
Vanuatu Police Force,
Vanuatu28
Mr Jonah MUZAMBI

Officer Commanding District
Zimbabwe Republic Police,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Zimbabwe

Ms Mildred Bernadette Baquilod ALVOR

State Counsel V
Office of the Chief State Counsel,
Department of Justice,
Philippines

Mr Eric Wai-fung LAW

Superintendent
Tai Lam Centre for Women,
Hong Kong Correctional Services Department,
Hong Kong

Ms Soo-Hee KIM

Correctional Supervisor
Su-Won Detention Center,
Korea

Japanese Participants
Mr Osamu AOKI

Senior Chief Programme Supervisor
Matsumoto Juvenile Prison

Mr Toshihiro FUKUGAKI

Probation Officer
Kobe Probation Office

Mr Keiichi ICHINOSE

Superintendent
Second Investigation Division,
National Police Agency

Ms Hatsue MATSUBAYASHI

Probation Officer
Yamaguchi Probation Office

Ms Mikako MATSUSHITAFamily Court Probation Officer
Asahikawa Family Court

Mr Koichi NAKAMURA

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr Yuichiro OKUNO

Public Prosecutor
Hiroshima District Public Prosecutors Office

Ms Noriko SHIBATA

Public Prosecutor
Kochi District Public Prosecutors Office29
Mr Yasuaki SUGAWARA

Section Chief
Enforcement Division,
Immigration Bureau,
Ministry of Justice

Mr Akira TAKANOAssistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Ms Sachiko TOKUDA

Chief Specialist
Katano Juvenile Training School for GirlsMr Masahiro TOMOISuperintendent
Community Safety Planning Division,
National Police Agency

30

NINTH SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIOR CRIMINAL JUSTICEOFFICIALS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The Ninth Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s
Republic of China was held from 21 February - 11 March 2004. The Theme of the Seminar
was “Effective Criminal Justice Administration in Accordance with United Nations Standards
and Norms: The Proper Way for the Protection of Rights and Punishment of Crimes”.
Thirteen senior criminal justice officials and the UNAFEI faculty comparatively
discussed contemporary problems faced by China and Japan in relation to the above theme.
Mr ZHANG, Yi

Director
International Division,
Department of Judicial Assistance and Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of JusticeMs XU, Xia

Counsellor
Penal Law Division,
Criminal Law Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of
the NPC

Ms DU, BingCounsellor
Law and Regulation Division,
Department of Legislative Affairs,
Ministry of Justice

Mr MENG, Xian Jun

Director
Division of Research,
Bureau of Prison Administration,
Ministry of Justice

Mr DONG, Shi Hong

Senior Judge
Criminal Adjudication Chamber No.2

Ms LI, Hui

Senior Judge
Chamber for Adjudication,
Supervision

Mr WANG, Jun

Deputy Director General
Public Prosecution Department,
Supreme People's Procuratorate

31
Mr WANG, Shu Qing

Mr CHEN, Ru Hai

Deputy Director
Procurator-General's Office of General Office,Supreme People's Procuratorate
Vice Director
People's Reception Office,General Office,Ministry of Public Security

Mr ZHAO, Bin

Deputy Director
Division for Legal Enforcement,
Supervision,
Legal Department,
Ministry of Public Security

Ms ZHAO, Shu Huan

Officer
Department of Judicial Assistanceand Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of Justice

Mr HUANG, Huan Guang

Deputy Director
General Bureau of Re-education through Labor,
Guangxi Autonomous Region

Ms HE, Chun Yun

Officer
Legal Aid Center of China

32

THIRD SEMINAR ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEMFOR TAJIKISTANThe Third Seminar on the Judicial System for Tajikistan was held from 1 March to 19
March 2004 at UNAFEI. The seminar focused on measures for preventing juvenile crime,
treatment of juvenile offenders in correctional facilities and support for reintegration of
offenders into society after release.
Mr RAKHMONOV Yusufkhon
Akhmadovich

Chief Military Prosecutor
General Prosecutor's Office

Mr NUROV Sirojidin Kutbidinovich

Deputy Director
Prison No. 6,
Department of Punishment,
Ministry of Justice

Mr MIRZOSHARIFOV Akbar
Partovovich

Head of the Group
Prison No.7,
Department of Punishment,
Ministry of Justice

Mr YULDASHEV Rajab
Davlatmandovich

Prosecutor
Prosecutor’s Office of Firdavsi District,Dushanbe City

Mr ASHUROV Habibullo Tabarovich

Deputy Chairman
Court of the Sino District,Dushanbe CityMr TURAEV Navruz Dostonovich

District Inspector of Police (Juvenile Inspector)
Department of Internal Affairs ofJeleznodorojniy District,Dushanbe CityMr KHOLMIRZOEV Azam
Mirzohotamovich

Executive Secretary
Commission of Juvenile Affairs,
Administration of Sogd Region

Mr NORMATOV Ulugbek Solievich

Deputy Chief
Department of Justice,
Administration of Sogd Region

Mr SATTOROV Abdujabor Salomovich

Judge
Supreme Court of Tazhikistan

33
Mr SHOEV Isroil Nazaralievich

Chief
Department of Law Support for Citizens,
Ministry of Justice

Mr RAUFOV Suhrob Holmurodovich

Executive Secretary
Commission of Juvenile Affairs,
Administration of Khatlon Region

Mr KAYUMOV Abduvasit Gafarovich

Tutor of Juvenile Prisoners
Correctional Facility No.9/7,
Department of Punishment,
Ministry of Justice

Mr SAMADOV Navruz
Abdulkhamidovich

Head of Sector
Law Department,
President Administration

Mr MIRZOEV Mirzoakhmad Saidovich

Deputy Director
National Center of the Out-of-School
Educational Works,
Ministry of Education

Mr MAHMADOV Dilshod
Emomnazarovich

Chief Field Officer
Department of Criminal Investigation,
Ministry of Internal Affairs

34

INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES

1. The 1st Training Course on Strengthening the Anti-Corruption Capacity in Thailand
The 1st Training Course on “Strengthening the Anti-Corruption Capacity in Thailand” is a
new course which will be held from June 28 - July 23, 2004.

2. The 128th International Training Course
The 128th International Training Course entitled “Measures to Combat Economic Crime,
including Money Laundering” will be held from August 30- October 7, 2004.
Rationale
Economic crime is one of the most serious problems which the international community is
now faced with. Economic crime includes a broad range of illegal activities: from conventional
types such as fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust and corruption to newly recognized types suchas offences in which criminals abuse the financial system; offences against free and fair trade;
violation of intellectual property rights; fraudulent price manipulation and insider trading in thestock/financial markets; and money laundering. These new types of crimes, especially large-scalecases, have drawn the public’s attention recently. Economic crime also covers many activities
instrumental to the above mentioned offences, such as forgery of documents and payment cards
and computer related crimes, especially the misuse of the Internet. Economic crime furthermore
encompasses corporate crimes including window-dressing, tax evasion and violation ofregulations, and on the other hand, consumer fraud such as pyramid scheme which can often
involve many victims. In addition, the definition and the scope of fraud itself differs from one
country to another, and in some countries fraud embraces a very wide range of dishonest
activities. Furthermore, experience has shown us that these various forms of economic crimes areoften interwoven and interrelated; for example, a criminal group may be involved in fraud or
embezzlement using various fraudulent methods in collusion with corrupt public officials orcompany executives, and then launder their ill-gotten money.
The reason why economic crime has become more serious is that it now often takes placebeyond national borders. The globalization of the economy as well as rapid development and theworldwide spread of communications technology, including the Internet has offered to criminals
new and easier opportunities to commit economic crime transnationally. Economic crime
sometimes creates a great number of victims and substantial loss, leads to the bankruptcy ofcompanies, and can also cause great loss to public property. Besides such direct damage, thiscrime may pose a deleterious impact on legitimate business, undercut the confidence in andreputation of the financial system, destabilize the market economy and ultimately undermine thesound socio-economic development in each country. One of the characteristics of recent
economic crime is the complex and sophisticated nature of its modus operandi. The use of hightechnology has been growing drastically; criminals fully exploit the Internet and electroniccommerce, for example, they conduct multiple frauds against many victims simultaneously, andalso carry out identity theft and identity fraud as well as consumer fraud and auction fraud using

35
fraudulent or fake web-sites. The transnational nature of this crime hampers its detection, andmakes the tracing and return of the proceeds of crime much more difficult. In addition to that,
evidence which is preserved in computers can be instantaneously altered or destroyed.
Another remarkable characteristic is that most economic crimes are committed on a large
scale by groups in a well-organized fashion, and such groups range from organized criminalgroups to legitimate companies. In such cases, it is difficult for the authorities to gather
information from insiders and to see the whole picture of their illegal activities, which hinders theauthorities from bringing the leaders to justice.
Among the economic crimes, money laundering should be our main focus. Criminals,
whose ultimate purpose is to make money, always conceal and launder their ill-gotten proceeds
and then reinvest them into further illegal activities or into legitimate business to make even more
profits. According to research by the United Nations and others, estimates of the amount ofmoney laundered globally in one year range from between $500 billion and $1 trillion. Moneylaundering is one of the economic crimes, which can undermine the integrity and stability oflegitimate economic and financial systems. It also poses an immeasurable threat to the sounddevelopment of countries’ economic and financial systems and it may even threaten the stability
and the security of the government as well. In addition, due to its transnational nature, money
laundering has a negative impact on the international economic and financial system.
Furthermore, money laundering techniques have become increasingly sophisticated andcomplicated. For example, criminals cunningly use shell corporations and off-shore financial
centers as a safe haven for illicit funds. They target countries and areas where the regulations andlaw enforcement are not effective. In recent years, the involvement of professionals such as
lawyers and accountants is of great concern. With stricter examination of customers by financial
institutions, criminals often use alternative remittance systems such as underground banking inorder to evade the laws and regulations.
The United Nations has granted priority to combating economic crime so as to address
this global issue effectively. The United Nations adopted the UN Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in 1988, which requires State Parties tocriminalize money laundering and take necessary measures to trace, freeze and forfeit theproceeds in relation to drug offences. TheUnited Nations also adopted the UN Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime in 2000, which comprehensively provides for various practicalmeasures to effectively tackle transnational organized crime, and requires State Parties to extend
the scope of predicate offences of money laundering beyond drug trafficking to all serious crimes.
Where economic crime is committed in organized way, this Convention is applicable and thecountries can combat it in a concerted manner based on it. The United Nations furthermore
adopted the UN Convention against Corruption in October 2003, which requires State Parties tocriminalize bribery of foreign public officials and to facilitate the return of government assets tothe country of origin. This Convention provides for a comprehensive strategy against corruption,
including preventive measures, and this is applicable to economic crime in connection withcorrupt practices in the public sector.
At the 11th UN Congress to be held in Thailand (Bangkok) in 2005, the provisional agenda“Economic and Financial Crimes: Challenges to Sustainable Development” has been approved,
and a workshop on the topic of “Measures to Combat Economic Crime, Including Moneylaundering” is scheduled to take place. In view of the magnitude of this topic, UNAFEI, in36collaboration with the Government of Sweden, is going to coordinate this Workshop and is now
in the process of preparing for it. This Workshop will include a panel discussion to be made byseveral experts based on a hypothetical case scenario of economic crime. This will provide an
opportunity to exchange best practices and information in the fight against economic crimeamong countries, including improvement of legal frameworks, innovative practical approaches
and international cooperation.
The other international fora have also actively addressed this issue, especially the
Financial Action Task Force on money laundering (FATF) established by the G-7 Summit in
1989, which developed the international standards known as “ The Forty Recommendations”,
which set out a comprehensive blueprint for countries to implement effective anti-money
laundering programmes. The FATF examines the 29 member countries and territories’ progressin implementing “The Forty Recommendations” through self-assessment and a mutual evaluation
procedure, and also publishes a list of Non- Cooperative Countries and Territories to encourage
those countries to improve their programmes. “The Forty Recommendations” was revised in2003 in order to strengthen the mechanisms to control money laundering, reflecting new bestpractices. In addition, since 1997 regional initiatives have been taken, for example theAsia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) has addressed this issue to facilitate theimplementation of internationally accepted money laundering standards.
Each country has to recognize the gravity of this new challenge and tackle economic
crime, including money laundering with more effective countermeasures.
To begin with, we need to examine ways to improve investigation, prosecution and trial.
First we should take into consideration the establishment of a special investigation unit or agency
consisting of experts who have sufficient expertise and capacity to appropriately tackle
complicated economic crimes. Secondly, considering that influential politicians and high-ranking
public officials may sometimes be deeply involved in economic crimes, the investigative
agencies should act independently so as not to be influenced by them. Thirdly, concerning theinvestigative methods, in addition to the improvement of conventional methods, new types ofinvestigative techniques such as interception of communications and undercover operations
should be introduced and utilized. Moreover, it is necessary to consider introducing a system ofprotection of whistle-blowers and/or immunity for the purpose of collecting information andcritical statements. It is also imperative to establish enforceable measures to collect records fromfinancial institutions and not to be hampered by bank secrecy laws. Fourthly, at the trial stage, insome cases where witnesses are reluctant to testify due to fear of retaliation by the offenders or
criminal groups, we need to explore measures for securing their testimony, such as a witness
protection programme.
Next, we need to review and strengthen our legal framework to combat various types of
emerging economic crimes, and to discuss the punishment of legal persons. There are various
views in respect of the imposition of sanctions against economic crimes: for example, some saythat criminal sanctions against economic crime are too lenient, and others say that civil oradministrative sanctions should be utilized more in combination with criminal punishment. Since
we need to pay due attention to various factors, it is important to determine what kinds ofsanctions against economic crime are more effective and should be taken.
Because economic crime is committed in order to gain profit, it is most effective andcritical to deprive criminals of the proceeds of crime. By doing so, we can deprive criminals of

37
their incentive to commit crime. It is therefore imperative to establish an appropriate legal
framework for the forfeiture and confiscation of illegal proceeds as well as for freezing theirfunds. To this end we have to strengthen and implement the mechanisms for tracing money both
domestically and internationally when it is transferred overseas.
It is also necessary to establish mechanisms to combat money laundering such as to:promote customer due diligence (CDD) measures in the financial institutions such as identifying
the beneficial owner to prevent anonymous accounts being opened; impose a legal duty on
financial institutions to make suspicious transaction reports (STR) to the designated authority;
establish a Financial Intelligent Unit (FIU); and ensure that designated law enforcement
authorities have responsibility for money laundering investigations.
Due to the global nature of economic crime, the harmonization of countermeasures by all
countries and international cooperation is indispensable, especially so as not to create safe havens
for criminals and their illicit proceeds. If some countries do not join our concerted battle, theillicit money will flow into those countries to be laundered. In this context, each country needs towork together by implementing the above-mentioned international standards. In addition, we
have to make every effort to explore better ways to ensure that international cooperation,
including information exchange mechanisms and mutual legal assistance and extradition iscarried out in a more effective and expeditious manner.
On the other hand, the importance of “prevention” of economic crime cannot be
overlooked. Every government and corporation should be required to establish a legal and/ororganizational system of “good governance” so that transparency and accountability is ensured. It
is worthy of consideration to introduce independent monitoring organizations and/or an
ombudsmen system for this purpose. Additionally public awareness and education in relation toeconomic crime is essential.
In consideration of the above, UNAFEI, as a regional institute (affiliated with the United
Nations)for the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, is holding the 128th
International Training Course on the theme of “Measures to Combat Economic Crime, including
Money Laundering”.
Objectives
Giving due consideration to the above rationale, this Course will explore effective
countermeasures against economic crime including money laundering. By sharing and discussing
lessons and practical examples which the participants will provide, we will be able to explore
more effective countermeasures against it.
In this Course, “Economic Crime” will not include illicit drug trafficking or trafficking inhuman beings. The predicate offences of “Money Laundering” will include any offences and wewill discuss money laundering relating to illicit drug trafficking or trafficking in human beings,
however, we will not discuss the situation and countermeasures against illicit drug trafficking andtrafficking in human beings itself because we would like to focus our discussion on economic
crime and money laundering. Please refer to the offences which are mentioned in Paragraph 1 of
the above “Rationale” as economic crimes, although we have not made a list of included andexcluded offences.

38
In the discussions of this course, focus will be placed on the following elements: In thegroup workshops, we will discuss a hypothetical case scenario which UNAFEI will prepare, andit will include various issues relating to (2)-(4) of the following.
(1) Current situation of economic crime including money laundering:
Actual situation of this crime in each country, what serious offences are committed in eachcountry, modus operandi, case examples, recent trends and problems which each country
encounters, etc.
(2) Effective methods for investigation, prosecution and trial regarding economic crime,
including money laundering:(a) The measures for ensuring the effectiveness of investigative agencies(b) Effective measures to collect information (including utilization of informants)(c) Effective utilization of traditional investigative methods(d) The measures for ensuring effective investigation of banks (including bank secrecy
issues)(e) Utilization of new investigative techniques, such as- Controlled delivery- Electronic surveillance and communications interceptions, etc- Undercover operations- Immunity(f) Protection of witnesses (both at the investigative stage and the trial stage)(g) Other effective methods(3) Legal frameworks for controlling economic crime including money laundering, problems
regarding its implementation and solutions (discussions will be held from the viewpoint of theimplementation of international standards such as the UN Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime (hereinafter “TOC Convention”), the UN Convention against Corruption(hereinafter “Corruption Convention”) and “the Forty Recommendations” developed by theFATF):(a) Legal framework for the punishment of money laundering and other forms of economic
crimes (Arts. 5, 6, 8 and 23 of TOC Convention, Arts. 15-29 of Corruption Convention
and Art. 1 of the Forty Recommendations)(b) Punishment and sanctions (including civil and administrative sanctions) against legal
persons (Art. 10 of TOC Convention, Art.26 of Corruption Convention, Arts. 2 and 17 of
the Forty Recommendations.)

39(c) Establishment of the suspicious transactions reporting system, and the introduction of andthe activities of Financial Intelligence Units (FIU) (Art.7 of TOC Convention, Art. 14 ofCorruption Convention and Arts. 13-16 and 26 of the Forty Recommendations)(d) Cooperation by banks and non-bank financial institutions (Art. 12 (6) of TOC
Convention, Arts. 31(7) and 40 of Corruption Convention and Art. 28 of the Forty
Recommendations)(e) Confiscation of the proceeds and assets derived from crimes, criminal/civil forfeiture,
freezing systems, collection of the value of the proceeds, asset sharing and other related
systems (Arts. 12-14 of TOC Convention, Art. 31 of Corruption Convention and Arts. 3
and 38 of the Forty Recommendations)(f) Asset recovery, especially the return of assets out flowed to foreign countries (Art. 14 (2)of TOC Convention, Chapter V, especially Art. 57, of Corruption Convention)(g) Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, and any other methods of alleviating theprosecutors’ burden of proof (Art. 12 (7) of TOC Convention, Art. 20 of Corruption
Convention and Art.3 of the Forty Recommendations)(h) (h) Other anti-money laundering systems/strategies (Art. 14 of Corruption Convention
and Arts. 5-12, 18-20 and 23-25 of the Forty Recommendations)(i) (i) Measures to strengthen international cooperation, including information exchange andjoint investigations (Arts. 16-20, 27, 28 and 29 of TOC Convention, Chapter IV of
Corruption Convention and Arts. 36-40 of the Forty Recommendations)(4) Preventive measures against economic crime including money laundering:(a) Administrative regulation of economic activities(b) Corporate governance (e.g. audit systems, outside directors and disclosure systems, etc.)(c) Establishment of a system of monitoring economic activities (e.g. Securities andExchange Surveillance Commission for securities crime, reporting obligations, inspection
and correction orders, etc.)(d) Public awareness and other educative measures.

40

ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS

Faculty Changes
Mr Toru Muira, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo District
Court on 1 April 2004.
Mr Kenji Teramura, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Yokohama
Juvenile Classification Home on 1 April 2004.
Mr Yasuhiro Tanabe, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo
District Public prosecutors Office on 1 April 2004.
Ms Sue Takasu, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo District
Public Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2004.
Mr Masato Uchida, formerly a Professor of the Training Institute for Correctional
Personnel, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2004.
Mr Takafumi Sato, formerly a Prosecutor at the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office,joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2004.
Ms Megumi Uryu, formerly a Prosecutor at the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office,joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2004.
Mr Iichiro Sakata, formerly a Judge with the Gifu District/Family Court, joined UNAFEI
as a Professor on 1 April 2004.
Mr Motoo Noguchi, formerly a Prosecutor at the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office,Hachioji Branch, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 25 June 2004.

41
Overseas Trips by Staff
Mr Takafumi Sato (Professor) visited Yangon, Myanmar to attend the FATF Seminar as
an expert in the field of mutual legal assistance from 9 May to 13 May 2004.
Mr Kunihiko Sakai (Director) and Mr Keisuke Senta (Professor) visited Bangkok,
Thailand to attend the Regional Preparatory Meeting for the 11th U.N. Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice from 28 March to 1 April 2004.
Mr Kunihiko Sakai (Director) and Mr Keisuke Senta (Professor) visited Vienna, Austria
to attend the 13th Session of the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justicefrom 10 May and 21 May 2004.
Mr Kunihiko Sakai (Director) and Mr Keisuke Senta (Professor) visited Stockholm,
Sweden to attend the preparatory meeting for the 11th U.N. Congress Workshop on Measures to
Combat Economic Crime, including Money Laundering from 22 May and 26 May 2004.
Ms Tamaki Yokochi (Professor) visited Cagayan de Ora, the Philippines to attend andgive a lecture at the 9th National Convention and 7th National Training Institute of the Probation
and Parole Officers League of the Philippines Inc.

42

FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI
Faculty:
Mr Kunihiko Sakai
Ms Tomoko Akane
Mr Keisuke Senta
Mr Masato Uchida
Mr Kei Someda
Mr Takafumi Sato
Ms Megumi Uryu
Mr Iichiro Sakata
Ms Tamaki Yokochi
Mr Hiroyuki Shinkai
Mr Simon Cornell

Director
Deputy Director
Professor, Chief of Training Division
Professor, Chief of Research Division
Professor, Chief of Information and Library Science
Division
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor, 127th Course Programming Officer
Linguistic Adviser

Secretariat:
Mr Kiyoshi Ezura
Mr Masaki Iida

Chief of Secretariat
Deputy Chief of Secretariat

General and Financial Affairs Section:
Mr Yoshihiro Miyake

Chief

Mr Takanobu Sano
Mr Osamu Miyakawa
Mr Yukiyoshi Tatsuda
Mr Mitsuo Dai

DriverMr Teruo Kanai

MaintenanceMs Emiko Aruga
Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section:
Mr Ryousei Tada
Chief
Mr Tatsufumi Koyama
Ms Chika Yamashita
Ms Minako Fujimura
Ms Tsuburu Miyagawa

127th Course Assistant Programming Officer

43International Research Affairs Section:
Mr Seiji Yamagami
Chief
Ms Keiko Noda
Librarian
Secretarial Staff:
Ms Yukari Ishikawa
Ms Kumiko Yanagisawa
Kitchen, Chef:
Mr Misao Saito
JICA Coordinator:
Ms Sayuri Nakajima

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