ISSN 1020-914X

UNAFEI

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

No. 128
February 2009

Established1961
IN THIS ISSUE
Page

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

THE 141ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR ................................................................................................. 3
THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS THROUGH THE ENHANCEMENT OFCOMMUNITY-BASED ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION
Seminar Rationale .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Seminar Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Lecture Topics ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Individual Presentation Topics ....................................................................................................................... 9Group Workshop Sessions ............................................................................................................................. 11
Observation Visits .......................................................................................................................................... 13Group Study Tour .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Special Events ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Reference Materials ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Experts and Participants List ......................................................................................................................... 21
THE NINTH COUNTRY FOCUSED TRAINING COURSE ON THE JUVENILE DELINQUENT TREATMENTSYSTEM FOR KENYA ................................................................................................................................................ 24
THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO
CORRUPTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 26
INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES .................................................................................. 29
The Fifth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia ............................................................................................... 29
The 14th Special Seminar for Criminal Justice Officials of the People's Republic of China ........................................ 29
The Fourth Country Specific Training Programme on the Revitalization of the Volunteer Probation
Aide System for the Philippines .................................................................................................................................... 29
The 142nd International Training Course ...................................................................................................................... 29
ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Faculty Changes ............................................................................................................................................................. 33
Overseas Trips by Staff .................................................................................................................................................. 33
FACULTY & STAFF OF UNAFEI ............................................................................................................................... 34

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 141st International
Senior Seminar, entitled "The Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through the
Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration", which took place from 13
January to 13 February 2009.
In this Seminar, we welcomed nine Japanese and 16 overseas participants: eight from Asia,
one from Africa, six from Latin America and the Caribbean, and one from Oceania. They included
police officers, public prosecutors, and other high-ranking public officials in the field of corrections and rehabilitation.
As this newsletter demonstrates, the Seminar was extremely productive. It consisted of individual presentations, group workshop and plenary sessions, visits to relevant criminal justiceagencies, and presentations by visiting experts, faculty members and ad hoc lecturers.
The detention of offenders is one of the most basic measures used by criminal justice systems to secure proper legal procedures in the investigation and trial of criminal offences, and inmaintaining justice and security in the community during the execution of a sentence. However,blanket detention of all offenders is inappropriate, for a number of reasons: in consideration of thehumanitarian principle of avoiding restricting prisoners’ rights more than is necessary; to avoid the
problem of prison overcrowding; and to enhance correctional and community treatment to meet offenders’ individual requirements.
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, provide guidelines and basic principles for diversified non-custodial measures.
The Tokyo Rules aim at enhancing community-based approaches and encourage the reintegrationof offenders into the community. "The Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the
Challenges of the Twenty-First Century", adopted by the Tenth United Nations Congress on thePrevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Vienna in 2000, stressed the importance of promoting effective alternatives to incarceration in order to contain the growth and overcrowding of correctional facilities’ populations. Plans of action for the implementation of theVienna Declaration were adopted by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in
2002. The Bangkok Declaration: "Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice", adopted by the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice, held in Bangkok in 2005, also stressed the importance of further
developing restorative justice policies, procedures and programmes that include promoting effective
alternatives to prosecution, thereby avoiding the possible adverse effects of imprisonment, helping
to rehabilitate offenders.
However, despite the introduction of these measures and policies, the continuous increaseof the prison population and subsequent overcrowding is still one of the most pressing problems
in criminal justice in many countries. It is very important to enhance community-based alternatives
to incarceration not only to reduce the number of offenders in custody, but also to enhance rehabilitation and reintegration into society, to prevent recidivism. In view of the ongoing need for the

2formulation and implementation of effective community based alternatives to incarceration, and theimportance of such measures as stressed by the various UN instruments, UNAFEI, as a regional
institute of the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network, decided to holdthis Seminar.
During the Seminar the participants diligently and comprehensively examined the current
situation of community based alternatives to incarceration in their respective countries, primarily
through a comparative analysis. The participants shared their own experiences and knowledge ofthe 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, the participants wereable to put forth effective and practical solutions that could be applied in their respective countries.
I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to all the participants upon their successful
completion of the Seminar, made possible by their strenuous efforts. My heartfelt gratitude goesto the visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers who contributed a great deal to the Seminar’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 Seminar. 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 Seminar.
Upon 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 nations’ criminal justice systems, and to the benefit of the international society as a whole.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my best regards to the participants of the 141stInternational Senior Seminar. I hope that the experience they gained during the Seminar 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.

February 2009

Keiichi Aizawa
Director, UNAFEI

3

THE 141ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR"THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERSTHROUGH THE ENHANCEMENT OF COMMUNITY-BASEDALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION"

Seminar Rationale

It is true that the detention of offenders is one of the most basic measures used by criminal justice systems to secure proper legal procedures in the investigation and trial of criminal
offences, and is also important in maintaining justice and security in the community during theexecution of a sentence. On the other hand, however, it is insufficient to impose blanket detention
on all offenders, for a number of reasons: firstly, in consideration of the humanitarian principle ofavoiding restricting prisoners’ rights more than is necessary; secondly, to avoid the problem ofprison overcrowding; and thirdly, to enhance correctional and community treatment to meet offenders’ individual requirements ("Evil communications corrupt good manners").
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, provide guidelines and basic principles for diversified non-custodial measures.
The Tokyo Rules aim at reducing the use of incarceration and rationalizing criminal justice policies by enhancing community-based approaches in order to alleviate problems relating to prison
overcrowding and encourage the reintegration of offenders into the community. In response to thissituation, "The Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the TwentyFirst Century", adopted by the Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders, held in Vienna in 2000, stressed the importance of promoting effective alternatives to incarceration in order to contain the growth and overcrowding of correctional facilities’ populations. As a follow-up, plans of action for the implementation of the Vienna Declaration
were adopted by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in 2002, which includes a paragraph on action on prison overcrowding and alternatives to incarceration. It encourages Member States to prioritize Non-Custodial Measures to imprisonment where possible. It also
recommends educating the public on the meaning and effect of alternatives to imprisonment andhow they work. Additionally, The Bangkok Declaration: "Synergies and Responses: Strategic
Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice", adopted by the Eleventh United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, held in Bangkok in 2005, also stressed theimportance of further developing restorative justice policies, procedures and programmes that include promoting effective alternatives to prosecution, thereby avoiding the possible adverse effects
of imprisonment, helping to rehabilitate offenders.
Based on these plans, various alternative measures such as, suspension of prosecution, fine,suspended sentence, probation, community service, parole, clemency and pardon, etc. have beentaken by many countries at both the pre-sentencing and post-sentencing stages.
However, despite the introduction of these measures and policies, the continuous increaseof the prison population and subsequent overcrowding is still one of the most pressing problems
in criminal justice in many countries. Also, the degree to which community-based alternatives toincarceration of offenders have been adopted varies a great deal from country to country.
Sometimes, although officially adopted, community-based alternatives to incarceration do not4become functional because of insufficient understanding and support from criminal justice practitioners. Furthermore, the lack of acceleration of community-based alternatives to incarceration can betraced in part to public misunderstanding of the meaning and the effect of such programmes.
Therefore, there is a need to educate the public on the importance of community-based alternatives
to incarceration.
It is very important to enhance community-based alternatives to incarceration for the purpose not only of reducing the number of offenders who are subject to custodial measures but also
to enhance rehabilitation and reintegration into society, to prevent recidivism. Community-based
treatment should include guidance, supervision and support for offenders as well as encouragement
and help in avoiding conflict and other temptations. Such treatment is practical, considering thatthe vast majority of offenders will return to the community after completing their sentences.
Consequently, community-based alternatives to incarceration are implemented in order to realize effective criminal justice administration, balanced with the necessity of detention.
Objectives
The purpose of this International Training Course is to offer participants an opportunity toshare experiences and views on the challenges faced in the course of adopting community-basedalternatives to incarceration and to find out what kinds of measures should be taken to enhancecommunity-based programmes. It is also an opportunity to discuss measures to encourage minimal
incarceration and the rehabilitation of offenders at all stages of the criminal justice process.
Among the major topics to be discussed are the following:(1) Actual conditions, problems, and challenges of community-based alternatives to incarceration in the pre-trial and trial stages:(a) Progress in the adoption of community-based alternatives to incarceration, including:diversion1 (medical treatment programmes, job training, community service), nonprosecution, deferred indictment, compensation, fine, deferred sentence, suspended execution, electronic monitoring, probation, etc.; and the legal process of community-basedalternatives to incarceration;(b) The manner of operation, points of problems, and challenges in the adoption of community-based alternatives to incarceration in the pre-trial and trial stages.
(2) Actual conditions, problems, and challenges of community-based alternatives to incarceration in the post-sentencing stage:(a) Progress in the adoption of community-based alternatives to incarceration, including:deferred sentence, suspended execution, electronic monitoring, probation, clemency, parole, pardon, etc.; and the legal process of community-based alternatives to incarceration;(b) The manner of operation, points of problems, and challenges in the adoption of community-based alternatives to incarceration in the post-sentencing stage.
(3) Measures to improve the treatment of offenders by adoption of community-based alternatives to incarceration:(a) Development and adoption of repeat crime prevention programmes for drug, sex andviolent criminal offenders;(b) Enhancing training programmes for staff responsible for the treatment of offenders anddeveloping staff ability;(c) Recruitment of private collaborators (volunteers, NGOs, neighbourhood community associations etc.) and enhancing their expertise;1

The term "diversion" means general programmes which refer certain criminal defendants before trial to community programmes on job training, education, counselling, and the like, which if successfully completed may leadto the dismissal of charges.

5(d) Informing public opinion on crime prevention activity and the treatment of offenders;(e) Co-operation among all the parties concerned in the areas of information sharing andaction.

6

Seminar Summary

Lectures
In total, six lectures were presented by visiting experts, two by ad hoc lecturers, and fiveby the professors of UNAFEI. Four distinguished criminal justice practitioners and scholars fromabroad served as UNAFEI visiting experts. They lectured on issues relating to the main theme,
and contributed significantly to the Seminar by encouraging discussions after their own lectures,
participating in the discussions of other programmes, and conversing with the participants on informal occasions. Additionally, distinguished senior officials of the Government of Japan and university professors delivered ad hoc lectures. The lecturers and lecture topics are listed on pages 7 and8.
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/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 9 to 10.
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 group members for the sub-topics, based on their response to a questionnaire previously distributed. Selectedparticipants served as chairpersons, co-chairpersons, rapporteurs or co-rapporteurs, and visiting experts and faculty members served as advisers. Each group’s primary responsibility was to exploreand develop their designated topics in the group workshop sessions. The participants, experts and
UNAFEI faculty 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 their groups. These reports
were subsequently presented in the plenary meetings and report-back session, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Seminar. Brief summaries of the group workshop reports are provided
on pages 11 and 12.
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 Seminar’s academic agenda, many activities were arranged to provide a greater understanding of Japanese society 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 14 to17.

7

Lecture Topics

Visiting Experts’ Lectures
1)

Mr. Kittipong Kittayarak (Thailand)• Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration in Thailand: Current Trends and Future
Prospects• The Probation Service in Thailand: 30 Years in Fostering Reintegration

2)

Ms. Christine Glenn (UK)• Community Based Alternatives to Incarceration• Tilting the Balance3)

Mr. Ismael J. Herradura (Philippines)• Improving the Treatment of Offenders through the Enhancement of Community-based
Alternatives to Incarceration: The Philippine Experience4)

Mr. Bala Reddy (Singapore)• Community-based Alternatives in Sentencing

UNAFEI Professors’ Lectures
1)

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

2)

Mr. Junichiro Otani, Professor, UNAFEI• Prosecution in Japan3)

Mr. Jun Oshino, Professor, UNAFEI• The Courts

4)

Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya, Professor, UNAFEI• Institutional Corrections in Japan5)

Mr. Koji Yamada, Professor, UNAFEI• The Community-Based Treatment of Offenders System in Japan8

Ad Hoc Lectures
1)

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

Mr. Masatoshi Ebihara
Director, Supervision Division, Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan• Problems in the Offender Rehabilitation System

9

Individual Presentation Topics

Overseas Participants
1)

Mr. Joydeb Kumar Bhadra (Bangladesh)• The Criminal Justice System in Bangladesh

2)

Ms. Boitumelo Makunga (Botswana)• The Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through the Enhancement of CommunityBased Alternatives to Incarceration

3)

Mr. Antonio Carlos Welter (Brazil)• Alternatives to Incarceration: A Brief Description of the Brazilian System

4)

Ms. Fay Ingrid Clarke (Guyana)• The Criminal Justice Response to Crime Prevention

5)

Ms. Renny Ariyanny (Indonesia)• The Implementation of Community Based Alternative Treatment of Offenders in Indonesia

6)

Mr. Sutrisno (Indonesia)• The Socio-Cultural Problem of Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders in Indonesia(From Sociological Perspectives)

7)

Ms. Janet Juanita Davey (Jamaica)• The Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through the Enhancement of Community
Based Alternatives to Incarceration

8)

Mr. Jihad Abdelrahim H. Majali (Jordan)• Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders in Jordan

9)

Mr. Asghar Ali (Pakistan)• Country Report on Community Based Alternatives to Incarceration

10) Ms. Sylvia Vaka Reu (Papua New Guinea)• The Criminal Justice Response to Crime Prevention and Alternative Sentencing11) Mr. Victor Manuel Esteche Mendez (Paraguay)• A Look Inside the Paraguayan Crime Prevention System
12) Mr. Carlos Vargas Merida (Peru)• Terrorism Crime in Peru and Alternatives to Incarceration
13) Mr. Leo Sarte Carrillo (Philippines)• Enhancing Crime Prevention through Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration
14) Mr. Jagath Abeysirigunawardana (Sri Lanka)• Overcrowding Prisons and Present Practices and Experience in Relation to Community
Based Alternatives to Incarceration

1015) Mr. Jose Enrique Colman (Uruguay)• General Information of Uruguay About the Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders
Through the Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration16) Mr. Viet Quoc Nguyen (Vietnam)• Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration in Vietnam

Japanese Participants17) Mr. Yasuhiro Date
• Rehabilitation Services as Alternative Measures to Incarceration18) Mr. Katsuo Higuchi• Community Based Treatment: A Prosecutor’s Perspective19) Mr. Futoshi Ichikawa• The Current Status and Problems of Community Based Alternatives to Incarceration at the
Criminal Trial Stage in Japan
20) Mr. Manabu Nakajima• Correctional Treatment in Prison, Aiming at Reintegration of Offenders into Society: A
New Approach in PFI Prisons21) Mr. Hiroshi Nakashima• The Current Crime Situation in Japan and Preventive Measures against Crime
22) Mr. Akihiro Nosaka• The Japanese Parole System23) Mr. Atsushi Ogata• Discretionary Prosecution in Japan: An Outline of the Kiso-Yuyo System24) Mr. Toru Suzuki• Suspension of Prosecution in Japan: Practices and Trends25) Mr. Shigeru Takenaka• The Present Situation and Problem of Parole in Japan

11

Group Workshop Sessions

Group 1
THE USE OF COMMUNITY-BASED ALTERNATIVES AT PRE-TRIAL AND
TRIAL STAGES TO REDUCE OVERCROWDING IN PRISONS
Chairperson
Co-chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Advisers

Mr. Jagath Abeysirigunawardana
Ms. Fay Ingrid Clarke
Mr. Asghar Ali
Mr. Viet Quoc Nguyen
Mr. Joydeb Kumar Bhadra
Ms. Renny Ariyanny
Ms. Sylvia Vaka Reu
Mr. Mr. Katsuo Higuchi
Mr. Futoshi Ichikawa
Mr. Hiroshi Nakashima
Mr. Atsushi Ogata
Mr. Toru Suzuki
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto
Prof. Tae Sugiyama
Prof. Ryuji Tatsuya
Prof. Junichiro Otani(Sri Lanka)(Guyana)(Pakistan)(Vietnam)(Bangladesh)(Indonesia)(Papua New Guinea)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup One discussed the availability of bail in each represented country, along with thediscretionary powers of the police and prosecution services and interventions at the adjudication
stage. Following these comprehensive discussions, the group then made the following recommendations: 1. That stringent efforts be made to ensure that Alternative Dispute Resolution, Diversion,
Settlement, and Restorative Justice Practices are used at the pre-trial, mid-trial and trial stages; 2.
That alternative ’court systems’ such as Traffic Courts, Family Courts, Small Claims Court, etc. be
implemented where applicable, which could free the judiciary to address indictable matters in amore speedy manner; 3. That all phases of the process - investigation, prosecution and trial - beconducted and concluded in a more efficient manner; 4. That the discretionary powers exercisedby the police and prosecution services, with respect to closing and suspending criminal cases,
should be overseen by appropriate bodies to ensure accountability and transparency to prevent corruption; 5. That creative public awareness campaigns be undertaken to sensitize the public about
the benefits of community based alternatives to custodial sentencing; 6. That wider use of community based alternatives, such as probation, suspension of execution of sentences, community service, compensation to the victim, etc. be made by judges at the adjudication stage without prejudice
to each country’s judicial system; 7 That strategies (training, increased sensitization, awareness) be
developed to encourage every sphere of the judiciary to make greater use of the legally provided
mechanisms permitting the use of community based alternatives to custodial sentencing in theirsentencing practices; 8. That international co-operation for the provision of technical assistance andcapacity building ought to be pursued.

12Group 2
EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERSTHROUGH THE ENHANCEMENT OF COMMUNITY-BASEDALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION AT THE POST SENTENCING
STAGE
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Advisers

Ms. Boitumelo Makunga
Mr. Akihiro Nosaka
Ms. Janet Juanita Davey
Mr. Yasuhiro Date
Mr. Antonio Carlos Welter
Mr. Sutrisno
Mr. Jihad Abdelrahim H. Majali
Mr. Victor Manuel Esteche Mendez
Mr. Carlos Vargas Merida
Mr. Leo Sarte Carrillo
Mr. Jose Enrique Colman
Mr. Manabu Nakajima
Mr. Shigeru Takenaka
Prof. Koji YamadaProf. Jun Oshino
Prof. Tetsuya SuganoProf. Naoyuki Harada(Botswana)(Japan)(Jamaica)(Japan)(Brazil)(Indonesia)(Jordan)(Paraguay)(Peru)(Philippines)(Uruguay)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup Two discussed the above subject according to the following agenda: 1) Current
mechanisms of community-based alternatives to incarceration employed by each represented country; 2) Current situations and problems facing existing legal systems and/or practice of the above
mentioned mechanisms; 3) Countermeasures under current legal systems and/or practice of theabove mentioned mechanisms; 4) Identification of other effective intervention models; 5) Measures
to monitor and evaluate all mechanisms discussed.
Following comprehensive discussions, the group then made the following recommendations:
1. That non-custodial options be considered as effective rehabilitation strategies; 2. That sentencing
officers who utilize alternative sentencing options should be cognizant of the human rights of thesentenced offenders; 3. That recidivism rates be continuously monitored; 4. That risk assessments
be used as efficient supervision or monitoring systems for community-based non-custodial options;5. That inmates be evaluated during incarceration and post-release, to follow up on their progressor otherwise; 6. That reliable procedures be established to evaluate the effectiveness of all measures to prepare for the acceptance and reintegration of released offenders by society, including theavailability of adequate shelter and sustenance, and community attitudes; 7. That effective public
education programmes be implemented in order to sensitize and inform the public about community-based alternatives to incarceration; 8. That human and financial resources be increased to enhance the administration of community-based alternatives to incarceration; 9. That there iscontinuous research in these areas through public education forums, conferences, seminars and networking at the national, regional and international levels.

13

Observation Visits

Date

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

Jan. 21

Tokyo District Public Prosecutors
Office• Mr. Shuji Imamura(Chief Prosecutor)

Ministry of Justice• Mr. Hiroshi Ozu(Vice Minister of Justice)Jan. 28

The Supreme Court• Mr. Tatsuo Kainaka(Justice)

Feb. 3

Fuchu Prison• Mr. Shinji Eguchi(Deputy Warden, International
Affairs Division)

Feb. 9

Tokyo District Court• Mr. Hitoshi Murase(Deputy Chief Judge)

14Group Study Tour

Date

Location

Agency/Institution

Main Persons Concerned

Feb. 5Hiroshima• Chugoku Regional
Parole Board• Mr. Hiromu Kubo
(Chairman)

Hiroshima• Hiroshima Probation
Office• Ms. Masako Suzuki(Director)

Hiroshima• Hiroshima Halfway House"With Hiroshima"• Ms. Ayako Takamura(Director)

Kyoto• Kyoto Prefectural Police• Mr. Shigekazu Yamamura

Feb. 6

15

Special EventsJan. 13

Welcome Party

Jan. 15, 16, 19

Japanese Conversation Classes

The overseas participants attended three Japanese conversation classes and learned
practical Japanese expressions. The sensei (teacher) was Ms. Tomoko Toriya of JICE.
Jan. 21

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. Hiroshi Ozu, at the Ministry of Justice, Tokyo.
Jan. 22

Friendship Party with Japanese VPOs

A Friendship Party was held at UNAFEI to allow the participants a chance to chatinformally with Japanese Volunteer Probation Officers.
Jan. 30

Public Lecture and UNAFEI Alumni Reception

The Public Lecture Programme is conducted annually to increase social awarenessof criminal justice issues through comparative international study. The public lecture, sponsored by the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society(JCPS) and UNAFEI, was held in the Grand Hall of the Ministry of Justice and was attended by distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni and the participants of the 141st Senior
Seminar.
This year, Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak, Permanent Secretary for Justice, Ministry ofJustice, Thailand, and Ms. Christine Glenn, Chief Executive of the Parole Board of Englandand Wales, were invited as speakers. They presented papers entitled "The Probation Service
in Thailand: 30 Years in Fostering Reintegration" and "Tilting the Scales" respectively.
Afterwards, the UNAFEI Alumni Association hosted an enjoyable reception for theparticipants at the Lawyers’ Club.
Feb. 2

ACPF Nangoku-kai Party
ACPF Nangoku Branch kindly hosted a party for the participants where they wereentertained by Black Shimada, a Japanese magician.

Feb. 12

Farewell Party
A party was held to bid farewell to all the participants.

16

Reference Materials

I.

United Nations Documents

1.

Compendium of United Nations Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice.
Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice.
Custodial and Non-Custodial Measures Alternatives to Incarceration, Criminal JusticeAssessment Toolkit.
Handbook on Restorative Justice programmes.
Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment.

2.
3.
4.
5.

II. Overview of the Seminar Themes and Problems
1.

National Institute of Correction, 1999. Promoting Public Safety Using Effective Interventions
with Offenders. United States Department of Justice.
2. Tapio Lappi-Seppala, 2002. Reducing the prison population in Finland. National ResearchInstitute of Legal Policy, Finland.
3. Michael Tonry, 2001. "Punishment Policies and Patterns in Western Countries" Sentencing
and Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford University Press.
4. Richard S. Frase, 2001. "Comparative Perspectives on Sentencing Policy and Research"
Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford University Press.
5. Hans-Jorg Albrecht, 2001. "Post-Adjudication Dispositions in Comparative Perspective"
Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries. Oxford University Press.
6. Michael Tonry, 2001. "Penal Policies at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century" Penal
Reform in Overcrowded Times. Oxford University Press.
7. Solicitor General Canada, 2002. Influences on Canadian Correctional Reform: Working Papersof the Correctional Law Review 1986 to 1988. Solicitor General Canada.
8. Gossop, Michael, 2005. Drug misuse treatment and reductions in crime: findings from the
National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS). National Treatment Agency for
Substance Misuse, UK.
9. Coulsfield Inquiry Team, 2004. Crime, Courts & Confidence "Report of an Independent
Inquiry into Alternatives to Prison". Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.
10. National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, Board of Directors, 2008. PerformanceStandards and Goals for PRETRIAL DIVERSION/INTRVENTION.
11. Walmsley, Roy, 2005. World Prison Population List (sixth edition). International Centre for
Prison Studies.
12. Walmsley, Roy, 2007. World Prison Population List (seventh edition). International Centre for
Prison Studies.
III. Recidivism
1.

2.
3.

Castillo, Ruben, William K. Sessions, et.al., 2004. Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal
History Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. United States Sentencing
Commission.
Makkai, Toni & Jason Payne, 2003. Drugs and Crime: a Study of Incarcerated Male
Offenders. Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mulligan, Robert A., 2002. Comprehensive Recidivism Study. Massachusetts Sentencing

17

4.

5.

Commission.
Smith, Paula, Claire Goggin, et.al., 2002. The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate
Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences. Public Works andGovernment Services Canada.
Wartna, Bouke et. al., 2004. The Dutch Recidivism Monitor (WODC 2004).
http://champpenal.revues.org/document445.htm.

IV. Policy Reactions
A. Diversion
1.

2.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2001. Human Rights Brief No.5: Bestpractice principles for the diversion of juvenile offenders. Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission.
Kennedy School. Harvard University, 2005. What is Community Prosecution?
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/criminaljustice/research/community_prosecution.htm.

B.

Prolific and Priority Offender Programme

1.

Criminal Justice Intervention Programme. Criminal Justice Interventions Programme andProlific and Other Priority Offenders Programme Partnership Guidance For CJITS and PPO
Schemes. Criminal Justice Interventions Programme Drugs Strategy Directorate.
Dawson, Paul, 2005. Home Office Development and Practice Report 46: Early Findings fromthe Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Evaluation. The Research, Development andStatistics Directorate, Home Office, UK.
Drug Intervention Programme, 2006. Drug Intervention Programme and Prolific and Other
Priority Offenders Programme: Emerging Practice and Lessons Learned. Home Office, UK.
Government Office for London, 2005. Prolific and Other Priority Offender Scheme ’The
London Model’: Guidance for Setting up and Running Prolific and Other Priority Offender
Schemes for Adult Offenders in London. Government Office for London.
Prolific and Priority Offenders Project Team, 2004. Prolific and Other Priority Offender
Strategy Supplementary Guidance: Rehabilitate and Resettle Framework.
UK Home Office, 2004. CONDITIONAL CAUTIONING: CODE OF PRACTICE. Home
Office, UK.

2.

3.
4.

5.
6.

C.

Drug Courts

1.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, 2004. The Drug Treatment and Testing Order: early
lessons. The Stationery Office.
Hough, Mike et. al., 2003. The impact of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders on offending:
two-year reconviction results. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
The National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 1997. Defining Drug Courts: The Key
Components. Office of Justice Program, Department of Justice.
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, 2005. Drug Treatment Courts Work! United
Nations Office of Drugs and Crime.
UNDCP, 2000. UNDCP Model Drug Court (Treatment and Rehabilitation of Offenders) Bill.
United States Government Accountability Office, 2005. Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates
Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. United States Government
Accountability Office.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

18

V.
A.

Correctional Programmes
General: Effective Correctional Interventions

1.

Bogue, Brad et al., 2004. Implementing Evidence-Based Principles in Community Corrections:Leading Organizational Change and Development. National Institute of Corrections.
2. Bogue, Brad et al., 2004. "Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections:
The Principles of Effective Intervention". National Institute of Corrections.
3. Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, et. al, 2006. Practicing Psychology in Correntional Settings In
The Handbook of Forensic Psychology (3rd ed.). John Wiley.
4. Gendreau, Paul & Paula Smith, et. al., 2006. The Theory of Effectice Correctional
Interventions: Empirical Status and Future Directions In Taking Stock: The Status of
Criminology Theory. Transaction Press.
5. Goggin, Claire & Paul Gendreau, 2006. Chapter 7 The Implementation and Maintenance of
Quality Services in Offender Rehabilitation Programmes In Offending Behaviour Programmes:
Development, application, and controversies. John Wiley & Sons.
6. Gendreau, Paul et. al., 2000. The Effects of Community Sanctions and Incarceration on
Recidivism. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_3_e.shtml.
7. Gornik, Mark, Moving from Correctional Program to Correctional Strategy: Using Proven
Practices to Change Criminal Behavior.
8. Harper, Gemma & Chloe Chitty (eds.), 2005. Home Office Research Study 291 The impact
of corrections on re-offending: a review of ’what works’. Home Office Research, Development
and Statistics Directorate.
9. House of Commons, 2005. Rehabilitation of Prisoners: First Report of Session 2004-05 (1).
The Stationery Office Limited.
10. Joplin, Lore et. al., 2004. "Using an Integrated Model to Implement Evidence-based Practices
in Corrections".
B. Risk and Needs Assessment
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
7.

Andrews, Donald, 2000. Principles of Effective Correctional Programs.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_2_e.shtml.
Andrews, Donald and James Bonta, 1998. "An Overview of the Psychology of Criminal
Conduct" The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Anderson Publishing Company.
Andrews, Donald and James Bonta, 1998. "Defining Criminal Behavior and Exploring
Variability in Criminal Conduct" The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Anderson Publishing
Company.
Bonta, James, 2000. Offender Assessment: General Issues and Considerations.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_4_e.shtml.
Motiuk, Larry, 1998. "Using dynamic factors to better predict post-release outcome" FORUM
in Corrections Research Vol 10 No 3. Correctional Service Canada.
Motiuk, Larry and Ralph Serin, 1998. Situating risk assessment in the reintegration potential
framework, FORM in Corrections Research Vol. 10, No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.
Taylor, Gilbert, 1998. "Offender needs Providing the focus for our correctional interventions"
FORUM in Corrections Research Vol 10 No 3. Correctional Service Canada.

C. Employment and Education
1.
2.

Gendreau, Pau et. al., 1998. "Case need domain: "Employment"" FORUM in Corrections
Research Vol 10 No 3. Correctional Service Canada.
Gillis, Christa A., 2000. Offender Employment Programming.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_10_e.shtml.

19

3.

4.

Latendresse, Mark & Franca Cortoni, 2005. Increasing Employability Related Skills Among
Federal Male Offenders: A Preliminary Analysis of the National Employability Skills
Program. Reserch Branch Correctional Service Canada.
Stevens, Dennis J., 2000. Education Programming for Offenders.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_9_e.shtml.

D.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

1.

Cann, Jenny et. al., 2003. Understanding What Works: accredited cognitive skills programmes
for adult men and young offenders. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics
Directorate.
Friendship, Caroline et. al., 2002. An evaluation of cognitive behavioural treatment for prisoners. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Ramsay, Malcolm (Ed), 2003. Prisoners’ drug use and treatment: seven studies. Home Office
Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

2.
3.

E.

Motivational Interviewing

1.

Clark, Michael D., 2005. "Motivational Interviewing for Probation Staff: Increasing theReadiness to Change" Federal Probation Vol. 69 No. 2.
Clark, Michael D. et. al., 2006. "Motivational Interviewing for Probation Officers: Tipping theBalance Toward Change" Federal Probation Vol. 70 No.1.
Rollnick, Stephen and William R. Miller, 1995. What is MI?
http://motivationalinterview.org/clinical/whatismi.html.
Weekes, John et. al., 2001. "Increasing offender participation in programs" FORUM in
Corrections Research Vol. 13. No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.

2.
3.
4.

F.

Issues Related to Programme Delivery

1.

Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Paula Smith, 2000. Obstacles to Effective Correctional
Program Delivery.
Kennedy, Sharon M., 2000. Treatment Responsivity: Reducing Recidivism by Enhancing
Treatment Effectiveness.
Leschied, Alan W., Implementation of Effective Correctional Programs.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_7_e.shtml.
Preson, Denise L., 2000. Addressing Treatment Resistence in Corrections.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_8_e.shtml.
Serin, Ralph, 1998. "Treatment responsivity, intervention, and reintegration: A conceptualmodel" FORUM in Corrections Research Vol. 10 No.1. Correctional Service Canada.
Tellier, Claude and Ralph C. Serin, 2000. The Role of Staff in Effective Program Delivery.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_21_e.shtml.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

G. Programme Evaluation
1.
2.
3.

Brown, Shelley, 2000. Cost-Effective Correctional Treatment.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_27_e.shtml.
Gaes, Gerry, 2000. Program Evaluation: Guidelines for Asking the Right Questions.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_22_e.shtml.
Moutiuk, Laurence L., 2000. Contributing to Safe Reintegration: Outcome Measurement.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/compendium/2000/chap_23_e.shtml.

20

H. Community Corrections
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Brown, Shelley, 2001. "Encouraging community release and appropriate supervision" FORUM
in Corrections Research Vol. 13. No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.
Brown, Shelley and Edward Zamble, 1998. "Community supervision: Current practices and future directions" FORUM in Corrections Research Vol. 10. No.1. Correctional Service Canada.
Motiuk, Larry, 2001. "The safe return of offenders through selection, intervention and supervision" FORUM in Corrections Research Vol. 13 No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.
Petersilla, Joan, 2004. "What Works in Prisoner Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning the
Evidence" Federal Probation Vol. 68 No.2.
Pisapio, David, 2001. "Managing offender risk through revocations" FORUM in Corrections
Research Vol. 13 No. 1. Correctional Service Canada.

21

Experts and Participants List

Visiting Experts
Mr. Kittipong Kittayarak

Permanent Secretary for Justice
Ministry of Justice
ThailandMs. Christine Glenn

Chief Executive
Parole Board of England and WalesUK

Mr. Ismael Juanga Herradura

Administrator
Parole and Probation Division
Department of Justice
Philippines

Mr. Bala Reddy

Principal Senior State Counsel
Head, State Prosecution Division
Attorney-General’s Chambers
Singapore

Overseas Participants
Mr. Joydeb Kumar Bhadra

Additional Superintendent of Police(Training)
Police Headquarters
Bangladesh

Ms. Boitumelo Makunga

Alternative Sentencing Initiative/
Wellness Centre
Attorney General’s Chambers
Botswana

Mr. Antonio Carlos Welter

Chief Prosecutor
Rio Grande do Sul Region Prosecutor’s Office
Federal Public Prosecution
BrazilMs. Fay Ingrid Clarke

Superintendent
Guyana Prison Service
Ministry of Home Affairs
GuyanaMs. Renny Ariyanny

Head of Legal Drafting Division
Legal Bureau
Attorney General’s Office
Indonesia

22

Mr. Sutrisno

Lecturer
Police Science College
Indonesia

Ms. Janet Juanita Davey

Regional Director
Department of Correctional Services
Jamaica

Mr. Jihad Abdelrahim H. Majali

General Attorney and Human Rights
Officer
Metropolitan Regional Command
Public Security Directorate
JordanMr. Asghar Ali

Superintendent
Faisalabad Police Office
Punjab Police
Pakistan

Ms. Sylvia Vaka Reu

Senior Research Officer
Research and Development Directorate
Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary
Papua New Guinea

Mr. Victor Manuel Esteche Mendez

Director of Legal Affairs
Legal Advisory General Department
Ministry of Justice and Labor
Paraguay

Mr. Carlos Vargas Merida

Investigative Officer
Counter Terrorism Division
Peruvian National Police
Peru

Mr. Leo Sarte Carrillo

Regional Director, Region IX
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of Justice
Philippines

Mr. Jagath Abeysirigunawardana

Deputy Inspector General
Southern Range
Sri Lanka Police
Sri Lanka

Mr. Jose Enrique Colman

Executive Coordinator
Executive Coordination Department
National Bureau of Jails, Penitentiaries andRehabilitation Centres,
Uruguay23

Mr. Viet Quoc Nguyen

Legal Expert
Institute for Prosecutorial Science
Supreme People’s Prosecution OfficeVietnamJapanese Participants
Mr. Yasuhiro Date

Director
General Affairs Division
Chugoku Regional Parole Board

Mr. Katsuo Higuchi

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Futoshi Ichikawa

Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Manabu Nakajima

Senior Planning Officer for Rehabilitation
SupportMine Rehabilitation Program Centre

Mr. Hiroshi Nakashima

Assistant Director
International Affairs Division
Commissioner General’s Secretariat
National Police Agency

Mr. Akihiro Nosaka

Director
General Affairs Division
Chubu Regional Parole Board

Mr. Atsushi Ogata

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office
Hachioji Branch

Mr. Toru Suzuki

Deputy Director
Research Department
Research and Training Institute of the
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Shigeru Takenaka

Deputy Warden
Classification Division
Kurobane Prison

24

THE NINTH COUNTRY FOCUSED TRAINING COURSE
ON THE JUVENILE DELINQUENT TREATMENT SYSTEM
FOR KENYAThe Ninth Country Focused Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System
for Kenya was held from 5 to 27 November 2008. Four policy-makers and eight senior practitioners attended. The policy-makers stayed from 5 to 14 November, while the senior practitioners
stayed from 5 to 27 November.
Policy-Makers
Ms. Jacqueline Adhiambo Oduol

Secretary
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Mr. Titus Mwenda Karani

Deputy Commissioner
Prison Department
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Miriam Ngina Muli

Deputy Commissioner
Police Department

Mr. Odhiambo Jerim Oloo

Director
Probation Department
Ministry of Home Affairs

Senior Practitioners
Mr. Justus David Muthoka

Assistant Director
Department of Children’s Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Ms. Marygorretti Cheruto Tororey
Chepseba

Senior Principal Magistrate
Kitale Court

Ms. June Eddah Minayo Machayo

Volunteer Children’s Officer
Coast Province, Mombasa District

Ms. Mary Wanjiku Mbau

Deputy Director
Probation Department
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Rose Nekesa Moturi

Nairobi Provincial Prisons Commander
Prison Department
Ministry of Home Affairs

25

Mr. Samwel Kiplangat Ngeno

Provincial Commander
Nakul Provincial Police
Police Department

Mr. David Barasa Rapando

Acting Principal Economist
Central Planning UnitHigh Court of Kenya

Ms. Anne Wambere Waichinga

Chief Children’s Officer
Department of Children’s Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

26

THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO
CORRUPTION

The Eleventh International Training course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption
was held from 16 October to 14 November 2008. Fifteen overseas participants, five Thai observers
and four Japanese participants attended.
Overseas Participants
Ms. Jahanara Pervin

Director (Deputy Secretary)
Anti-Corruption Commission
Bangladesh

Mr. Tshering Namgyel

Judge
Royal Court of JusticeDistrict Court
ThimphuBhutanMr. Tong Vannak

Deputy Director
Administration and Personnel
Ministry of National Assembly-Senate Relations
and Inspection,
Cambodia

Mr. Ahmed Mahmoud Moustafa

Chief Investigation Officer-Lt. Col.
Cairo Public Investigation Department
Ministry of Interior
Cairo Public Security
Egypt

Mr. Mohammed Ali Azeez

Public Prosecutor
Investigating Department
Ministry of JusticeIraq

Ms. Gabriela Martinez Lagarde

Public Defender
Direction of Defence Attention to Victims
Government of Hidalgo State
MexicoMr. Rajan Prasad Bhattarai

Deputy Attorney
Investigation Department
Commission for the Investigation of
Abuse of Authority,
Nepal

27

Mr. Shreelal Poudel

Section Officer
Drafting Division
Ministry of Law, Justice and Constituent
Assembly Affairs,
Nepal

Mr. Cornelio Lopez Somido

Acting Deputy Special Prosecutor
Office of the Special Prosecutor
Prosecution Bureau IV
Office of the Ombudsman
Philippines

Mr. Geronimo L. Sy

Assistant Secretary
Department of Justice
Philippines

Mr. Nalin Rohantha Abeysuriya

Senior State Counsel
Criminal Division
Attorney General’s Department
Ministry of Justice and Law Reform
Sri Lanka

Ms. Sunethra Indurmathie Jayasinghe

Deputy Director General
Legal Division
Commission to Investigate Allegations of
Bribery or Corruption,
Sri Lanka

Ms. Uthaiwan Jamsutee

Public Prosecutor
Thailand Criminal Law Institute
Office of the Attorney General
Thailand

Ms. Tosaporn Leepuengtham

Judge
Buriram Provincial Court
Juvenile and Family Section
Courts of Justice
ThailandMr. Abduljalil Saif Ali Al-Suhaiqi

Head
Investigation Department
Law Department
Central Organization for Control and Auditing
Yemen

Thai Observers
Mr. Kittikhun Dancharoen

Corruption Suppression Officer
Office of the National Anti-Corruption
Commission

28

Mr. Virote Kongwong

Legal Officer
Office of the National Anti-Corruption
Commission

Mr. Mongkol Sirijunrattana

Corruption Suppression Officer
Office of the National Anti-Corruption
Commission

Mr. Seksan Sommat

Corruption Suppression Officer
Office of the National Anti-Corruption
Commission

Mr. Sorayuth Weteewisai

Asset Inspection Officer Level 8
Office of the National Anti-Corruption
Commission

Japanese Participants
Mr. Minao Ishiwatari

Public Prosecutor
Nagano District Public Prosecutors
Office, Matsumoto Branch

Mr. Jun Obayashi

Public Prosecutor
Sendai District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Toru Yamada

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Takehiro Yasunaga

Judge
Osaka District Court

29

INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES

1.

The Fifth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Fifth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia will be held from 23 February to
6 March 2009. The Seminar is entitled "Effective Measures against Drug Offences andInternational Co-operation in the Criminal Justice Process". Twelve government officials from fourCentral Asian countries, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, will attend.
2. The 14th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republicof China
The 14th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic ofChina will be held from 2 to 19 March 2009. The theme of the seminar is "Enhancement ofCommunity-Based Alternatives to Incarceration at All Stages of the Criminal Justice Process". Ten
participants and three course counsellors will attend.
3. 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 the Revitalization of the Volunteer
Probation Aide System for the Philippines will be held from 29 June to 9 July 2009.
The 142nd International Training Course
The 142nd International Training Course will be held from 11 May to 19 June 2009. The
tentative theme of the Course will be "Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding ofCorrectional Facilities". Fifteen overseas participants and ten Japanese participants will attend.
4.

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 and management 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 the development and maintenance of fair and efficient criminal justice institutions, including the humane
treatment of all those in pre-trial and correctional facilities, in accordance with applicable international standards". In this context, the rights of inmates detained in correctional facilities as wellas efficient administration of institutions must be maintained. This philosophy should be applied

30

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 Prevention of
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 to adhere 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 isnecessary to explore effective countermeasures to tackle the issue, and cope with changing times.
To make it 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 tocope 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 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 effective to utilize alternative measures to incarceration (ornon-custodial sanctions) for such offenders. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for NonCustodial 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 thePrevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Vienna in 2000, stressed the importance of effective alternatives to incarceration in order to contain the growth and overcrowding ofcorrectional facilities’ populations (Para. 26). In addition, the Eleventh United Nations Congress on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, held in 2002, 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.
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 ofaccommodation capacity of existing correctional facilities, is strongly demanded in countries where31

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, correction 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 re-offending, and other measures, in order to successfully address the issue.
Consequently, these countermeasures are implemented to accomplish the substantive objectives ofcorrectional facilities to prevent offenders from committing further crimes, to protect society, andto rehabilitate offenders.
Objectives
The purpose of this Training Course is 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 will provide an opportunity to clarify the current situations and problems existing in
the respective countries in the field of correctional administration. There will also be 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 to be studied are the following:(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 by correctional 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 re-offending

32• 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.

33

ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS

Faculty Changes
Mr. Shintaro Naito (Professor) left UNAFEI on 5 January 2009 for a new posting in theLegislative Drafting Section of the House of Representatives of Japan.
Mr. Naoyuki Harada, formerly a public prosecutor of Tokyo District Public Prosecutors
Office, joined UNAFEI as a professor on 16 January 2009.
Overseas Trips by Staff
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano (Professor) visited Prague, the Czech Republic, from 26 October to 2
November 2008 to participate in the 10th ICPA (International Corrections and Prisons Association)
Annual General Meeting.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto went to Medellin, Columbia, from 3 to 10 November, to attend the Second Expert Group Meeting for the Continued Elaboration of the Digest of Terrorist
Cases for Practitioners, organized by the UNODC and the Government of Colombia.
Mr. Koji Yamada (Professor) visited the Philippines from 17 to 26 November 2008 to participate as a short-term expert in the In-country Training Programme for the Enhancement of the
Volunteer Probation Aide System. Professor Yamada gave lectures to the participants of the InCountry Training Programme.
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya (Professor), Mr. Kenichiro Koiwa (Staff) and Ms. Miki Usuki (Staff)
visited Langkawi, Malaysia, from 23 to 30 November to attend the 28th Asian and PacificConference of Correctional Administrators.
Director Keiichi Aizawa visited Courmayeur, Italy, and Geneva, Switzerland, from 12 to 17
December 2008. Director Aizawa attended the ISPAC (International Scientific and Professional
Advisory Council) International Conference on Organised Crime in Art and Antiquities, and the2008 Co-ordination Meeting of the Programme Network Institutes, respectively.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited Vienna, Austria, from 17 and 21 December 2008 to
attend the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Groups on Technical Assistance of the
UNCAC.
Ms. Tae Sugiyama (Professor), Mr. Tetsuya Sugano (Professor), and Mr. Yuichi Kitada(Staff) visited Manila, the Philippines, from 12 to 17 January 2009 to attend the "In-country
Training Programme on Revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide System".

34

FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI

Faculty:
Mr. Keiichi Aizawa
Mr. Takeshi Seto
Mr. Motoo Noguchi
Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi
Ms. Tae Sugiyama
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano
Mr. Jun Oshino
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya
Mr. Koji Yamada
Mr. Junichiro Otani
Mr. Naoyuki Harada
Ms. Grace Lord

Secretariat:
Mr. Sakumi Fujii
Mr. Hitoshi Nakasuga
Mr. Masato Fujiwara

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
Professor, Chief of Information and LibraryService Division
Professor, Chief of Research Division
Professor, Chief of Training Division
Professor
Professor, 141st Seminar Programming Officer
Professor, 141st Seminar Deputy Programming Officer
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. Fumihiro Nakayasu
OfficerMr. Atsushi Takagi
Officer
Ms. Kayoko Ono
OfficerTraining and Hostel Management Affairs Section:
Mr. Etsuya Iwakami
Chief
Mr. Yuichi Kitada
OfficerMr. Ikuo Kosaka
OfficerMr. Yuichi Shirakawa
Officer
Ms. Akane Uenishi
Officer, 141st Seminar Assistant Programming Officer

International Research Affairs Section:
Mr. Kenichiro Koiwa
Chief
Ms. Masumi Tomita
Librarian

Secretarial Staff:
Ms. Miki Usuki
Ms. Aiko Ota

35

Kitchen:Mr. Yuji Matsumoto

Chef

JICA Co-ordinator:
Ms. Miki Yamamoto

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