ISSN 1020-914X

UNAFEI

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

No. 164
March 2022

Established1961
IN THIS ISSUE

Page

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR ........................................................................................................................... 1
THE 177TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR ............................................................................................ 3
PREVENTING REOFFENDING THROUGH A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER APPROACH
Seminar Rationale ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Seminar Summary...................................................................................................................................... 13
Lecture Topics............................................................................................................................................ 14
Individual Presentations............................................................................................................................... 15Group Workshop Presentations ................................................................................................................... 17
Reference Materials ................................................................................................................................... 19
Expert and Participant List .......................................................................................................................... 20
INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES ............................................................................ 23
The 178th International Training Course ................................................................................................................. 23
The Second Youth International Training Course ..................................................................................................... 23
FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI..................................................................................................................... 24

UNAFEI IS AN AFFILIATED REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

2-1-18, MOKUSEINOMORI, AKISHIMA-SHI, TOKYO, 196-8570, JAPANTEL: 81-42-500-5100 ◆FAX: 81-42-500-5195 ◆E-MAIL: unafei@i.moj.go.jp
HOME PAGE: http://www.unafei.or.jp/

1
1
LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR
It is my privilege to inform readers of the successful completion of the 177th International
Senior Seminar on Preventing Reoffending Through a Multi-Stakeholder Approach, which
took place online from 12 January to 3 February 2022. In this Seminar, we welcomed 19
overseas participants: 2 from Africa, 13 from Asia, 3 from Latin America and 1 from Europe.
The participants included judges, prosecutors, police officers and other public officials
involved in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. As this newsletter demonstrates,
the Seminar was extremely productive. It consisted of lectures by a specialist lecturer, ad hoc
lecturers, UNAFEI faculty members, individual presentations and interactive online discussion
sessions.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development seeks to create a world in which no one isleft behind. In pursuit of that goal, the Kyoto Declaration – adopted at the 14th United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice – recognizes the importance ofmultidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder partnerships in preventing crime and reducing reoffending.
These diverse stakeholders can be found in the public and private sectors, bringing a wide arrayof expertise and resources to offender rehabilitation and social reintegration. However, to realize
the benefits of the multi-stakeholder approach, justice systems must first incorporate
rehabilitative perspectives into penalties and case dispositions and actively promoteinterventions, treatment and support tailored to offenders’ individual needs.
UNAFEI, as one of the institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme Network, held this Seminar to offer participants an opportunity to clarify
and analyse the current situation of multi-stakeholder involvement in offender rehabilitationand social reintegration in each participating country and to explore more effective practices
for doing so. Additionally, the participants were able to share experiences, gain knowledge,
and build a human network of counterparts.
During the Seminar, the participants diligently and comprehensively examined the main
theme, primarily through a comparative analysis. The participants shared their own experiences
and knowledge of the issues and identified problems and areas in which improvements could
be made. With the academic and practical input from the specialist lecturer, ad hoc lecturers
and UNAFEI faculty – and the in-depth discussions they had with each other – the participants
are now better equipped to enhance the policies and practices related to the multi-stakeholder
approach to offender rehabilitation and social reintegration 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
goes out to the specialist lecturer and ad hoc lecturers who contributed a great deal to the
Seminar’s success. Furthermore, I appreciate the indispensable assistance and cooperation
extended to UNAFEI by various agencies and institutions that helped diversify the Seminar.
I would also 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 branchorganizations 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 thesuccessful realization of this Seminar.

22With the knowledge and perspectives gained through this training course, 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 nations’ criminal justicesystems, and towards the benefit of international society as a whole.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my best regards to the participants of the 177thInternational 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, the specialist
lecturer and UNAFEI staff will continue to grow for many years to come.
March 2022

MORINAGA Taro
Director, UNAFEI

3
3
THE 177th INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPREVENTING REOFFENDING THROUGH A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER APPROACH
Seminar Rationale
1. Introduction
In order to build a safe and inclusive society, it is crucial not only to prevent reoffending
but also to facilitate offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration as responsible members ofsociety. In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the “2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development” (or Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)) 1 . Goal 16 is to“promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access tojustice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. To build
inclusive societies, it is important for criminal justice authorities to take measures to ensurethat each offender is successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated into society as a law-abiding
citizen.
The United Nations standards and norms in the field of crime prevention and criminal
justice recognize and encourage rehabilitative approaches. For instance, the revised United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)(General Assembly resolution 70/175, annex), in particular, highlight the fact that the purposesof imprisonment—namely, “to protect society against crime and to reduce recidivism”—canonly be achieved if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure the reintegration of offenders
into society upon release, so that they can lead law-abiding and self-supporting lives. The
Nelson Mandela Rules recognize the necessity to tailor treatment to the individual needs ofoffenders by assessing the risks that prisoners may pose and the needs that they may have andpreparing a programme of treatment suitable to their needs, capacities and dispositions. With
regard to offenders with special needs, in particular women, the United Nations Rules for theTreatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (theBangkok Rules) (General Assembly resolution 65/229, annex) emphasize the importance ofcareful individual assessments taking account of those needs and specific rehabilitation andreintegration programmes. Similarly, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Noncustodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) (General Assembly resolution 45/110, annex) promote
the use of non-custodial measures, such as probation, parole and fines, and emphasize theimportance of the involvement of volunteers and other community resources. To achieve thesocial reintegration of offenders, it is important that criminal justice authorities respect theseprovisions.
Also, the Kyoto Declaration adopted at the 14th United Nations Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice 2 sets out a number of provisions to address the issue of
reducing reoffending and emphasizes the importance of ensuring rehabilitative environments
in prison and in the community towards social reintegration (paragraphs 37–42).
Practitioners at every stage of the criminal justice process should consider appropriate
interventions, treatment and support which will help each offender to live a sustainable, sound1
2

General Assembly resolution 70/1.
A/CONF.234/16 (2021).

4
4life without reoffending, including after criminal justice sanctions have ended. In doing so, theindividual’s characteristics, such as criminogenic needs and protective factors for rehabilitation
should be properly assessed, identified and addressed in the interventions, treatment andsupport.
Offenders have a wide range of risk, needs and strengths which should be addressed, suchas employment, housing, education, social welfare, healthcare, family relations and peer
support. This calls for a tailored approach to the individual’s interventions, treatment andsupport. In particular, sustainable employment is a key factor for successful reintegration, as it
is not simply a source of income but helps offenders to reconnect with the community andcontributes to the enhancement of their self-esteem, self-confidence and self-efficacy.
Adequate housing can be identified as another key factor. The lack of suitable housing poses a
reoffending risk and is a major challenge that former prisoners face at the time of re-entry.
Without adequate accommodation, it is extremely difficult to sustain employment and live
independently. Further, the Covid-19 pandemic brought about tremendous impacts on every
aspect of our daily lives, and its negative impacts have been particularly severe on vulnerable
populations, including released offenders, facing social, economic and other specific needs.
Therefore, their needs arising from, or amplified by the pandemic, should not be
underestimated in seeking tailored interventions and support.
In order to facilitate social reintegration of offenders, it is necessary to address these various
areas for support. Given the variety of needs of offenders, it is evident that criminal justiceauthorities alone are not able to provide all necessary interventions, treatment and support. Also,
we should be mindful that criminal justice authorities can only intervene in the lives ofoffenders within the scope of the criminal justice process and said authorities’ mandate to carryout criminal justice sanctions and guide rehabilitation. In other words, they are usuallyprohibited from providing supervision or support to people after the expiration of sentences,which quite often takes place long before their successful social reintegration. Therefore, avariety of authorities, expertise and assistance is necessary in deciding adequate penalties andtheir alternatives and providing necessary interventions, treatment and support responding toindividual needs for rehabilitation. This also applies to ensuring rehabilitative environments
and processes in correctional institutions and in the community, and promoting public
understanding and acceptance.
Authority over certain areas of support is mainly vested in public agencies outside of thejustice sector at the state or local level. Some areas of expertise or assistance are unavailable
without the involvement of NGOs and other private-sector organizations and individuals. It isof vital importance to take a multi-stakeholder approach with active participation of a wide
range of relevant sectors and persons in a concerted manner, including understanding andacceptance of the public at large. Public-private partnership and active involvement of thecommunity are particularly important to ensure the continuity of interventions, treatment andsupport for the imprisoned persons, in light of their smooth reintegration into the community
after release. Relevant stakeholders include, but are not limited to, job assistance agencies,
employers, temporary-housing agencies and suppliers, schools, welfare agencies, healthcare
services and facilities, family members, and faith-based organizations, NGOs and community
volunteers which provide various types of support including peer support.
Target 17.17 of the SDGs seeks to “encourage and promote effective public, public-private
and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies ofpartnerships”, which is relevant to reducing reoffending and facilitating offenders’55rehabilitation and reintegration. Also, the Kyoto Declaration, encourages the Member States to“Promote multi-stakeholder partnerships to reduce reoffending by fostering inter-agency
coordination among relevant government authorities, such as employment and social welfare
agencies and local governments, as well as public-private partnerships between thoseauthorities and the community, including cooperating employers and community volunteers
who support the long-term and social reintegration of offenders”(paragraph 39) and “Raiseawareness of the importance of the public acceptance of offenders as members of thecommunity and the significance of community engagement in assisting their long-term andsocial reintegration”(paragraph 40).
2. Selecting and Providing Effective Interventions, Treatment and Support
a. Penalties and case dispositions with due regard to rehabilitative perspectives
At each phase of the criminal justice process, appropriate decisions should be made, andadequate interventions, treatment and support should be provided. In deciding a penalty or casedisposition, rehabilitative perspectives should be taken into consideration. In particular, it
should be noted that imprisonment alone is insufficient to prevent reoffending and that it has alarge adverse effect on social reintegration prospects caused by stigmatization, restrictedcontacts with the outside world, including the offender’s family, and the risk ofinstitutionalization, that is, the risk for people to spend long periods of time in prison and todevelop deficits in their social and life skills. This is particularly true where the prisons are
overcrowded, whereby their rehabilitative environments are undermined. Whereas
imprisonment can have a positive impact on reducing reoffending if the prison environment isappropriate and if prison administrations follow a rehabilitative approach, community-based
treatment is more cost-effective and better supports the social reintegration of offenders, as itenables offenders to benefit from necessary interventions and support while maintaining theirlives in the community and avoiding social barriers stemming from institutionalization. Thus,
imprisonment should be imposed as a measure of “last resort”, without prejudice to theprinciple of proportionality, the protection of society and the rights of the victims, and adequate
use of non-custodial measures should be encouraged. Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic has
increased recognition of the importance of their active use. By the nature of its closed setting,prisons are vulnerable to the spread of viruses, resulting in the health risks of inmates and anumber of restrictions leading to less opportunities for rehabilitation programmes and severe
limitations to contacts with the outside world. The infection risks and other negative impacts
are aggravated by prison overcrowding, and therefore, it has been reiterated that non-custodial
measures should be used more flexibly at each phase of the criminal justice process to alleviate
this emerging challenge.
The Tokyo Rules stress the importance of non-custodial measures and state that “Member
States shall develop non-custodial measures within their legal systems to provide other options,thus reducing the use of imprisonment, and to rationalize criminal justice policies, taking into
account the observance of human rights, the requirements of social justice and the rehabilitationneeds of the offender” (article 1.5).
Many types of penalties and case dispositions are available in criminal proceedings as
possible options. However, the availability of such options varies from jurisdiction tojurisdiction, due to the diversity in criminal justice systems and social, cultural or otherbackgrounds. As one of the options, non-custodial penalties or dispositions may be available
at the pre-trial, sentencing and post-sentencing phases. Non-custodial options at the pre-trial
phase include a decision not to prosecute, to suspend prosecution and to divert the case from
criminal proceedings, such as through the mediation process and use of therapeutic measures6
6
for substance abusers with or without the consent or order of the court. Options at thesentencing phase include a fine, community sanctions and suspension of imprisonment.
Options at the post-sentencing stage, which are for incarcerated offenders, include parole andconditional release. Some of these non-custodial sanctions themselves involve supervision orother interventions, treatment or support in the community. Other non-custodial measures canbe applied in combination with or without community supervision or other treatment etc. This
flexibility enables the sentencing or other decision-making institution to tailor the noncustodial options to each offender’s unique risk and needs. Further, restorative justiceprogrammes at various phases are available in a number of jurisdictions, and they can pave theway for non-custodial measures and early release.
The availability of such options and the extent to which they can be applied differs fromjurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in a number of jurisdictions, non-custodial penalties
are only applicable to certain less serious crimes. Furthermore, even where a wide range of
non-custodial penalties or dispositions is stipulated by law, jurisdictions apply them differently
in practice. Also, a decision to impose a non-custodial sentence is much more likely to occur
in jurisdictions where the general public has a positive attitude towards offender rehabilitationin the community and where community corrections systems are in place. Some jurisdictions
have codified options for non-custodial sanctions but have no or little application in practicedue to low levels of public understanding or the lack of authorities or institutions responsible
for community-based treatment.
Furthermore, in sentencing or case dispositions, “proportionality” is the guiding principlethat balances factors such as the nature of the criminal act, the rights of victims, protection ofsociety and the fundamental rights of the offenders. It should be noted that limits in practicebased on this understanding may impede incorporating rehabilitative perspectives in sentencing
and case dispositions.
As for the release of prisoners before the expiration of their sentenced term (e.g. parole,conditional release), there are differences among countries in terms of legal status, eligibility
criteria and decision-making processes. Also, it should be noted that a number of countries
have such options in their legislation but rarely apply them in practice.
Further, it should be noted that non-custodial measures that involve community supervision
are not always the best option to prevent reoffending and facilitate offenders’ rehabilitation. In
some cases, excessive use of supervision etc. for low-risk offenders may result in “netwidening”, which actually increases reoffending risk due to unnecessary interventions. Also,
even for the offenders to whom applying community supervision seems to be effective,
necessary intervention and support for the offender greatly varies by each case. Therefore, in
deciding adequate penalties and their alternatives, and providing necessary interventions andtreatment for rehabilitation, it is necessary to conduct an assessment to identify the offenders’
individual needs and social environments representing their risk factors and protective factors
for their social reintegration.
For this purpose, it is also necessary to have mechanisms to collect adequate information
at relevant phases of the criminal justice process. For instance, to make a decision at the pretrial and sentencing phases, in addition to collecting evidence on the offence and impacts on
victims, information on the offender’s risk, needs and strengths should be collected in order totake account of rehabilitative perspectives. Such information includes the offender’saccommodation and employment situation, available support from the community and so on.

77
In some jurisdictions, such information is provided in the pre-sentencing report, whereas insome jurisdictions, it can be collected during criminal investigations.
At the post-sentencing phase for imprisoned offenders, in many jurisdictions, risk andneeds assessments are conducted in prisons for the purpose of providing adequate interventions
and treatment, and assessment on social environment factors is conducted to identify thecircumstances after release. In addition, if, prior to the decision, criminal justice authorities andrelevant stakeholders can improve the offender’s social environment to a more rehabilitative
one, that will encourage the decision-making institutions, including the judiciary, to take morelenient and rehabilitative options. For instance, if, prior to prosecution or sentencing, efforts
have been made to ensure that, for instance, the offender’s family or employer is well prepared
to appropriately support the offender after release, this may encourage imposition of a noncustodial sanction. As another example at the post-sentencing phase for imprisoned offenders,similar coordination starting from the early stage of imprisonment leads to active use of early
release options and minimizes the term of imprisonment.
b. A multi-stakeholder approach to interventions, treatment and support
Assessment plays a key role in providing adequate interventions, treatment and support
tailored to individual needs. The offender’s needs can be addressed only where theinterventions, treatment and support are based on an adequate assessment. Through an adequate
assessment, the offender’s risk factors and protective factors for rehabilitation will be identified.
The assessment should cover the facts of the crime as well as the offender’s human and social
capital, such as the offender’s personal abilities, self-efficacy, and physical, mental,
psychological, or social difficulties, family relations, accommodation and employment
situation, and available support from the community to help offenders live independently.
Factors identified on the basis of assessments lead to effective interventions and treatment that
support the offender’s reintegration into the community. Sharing this information with relevant
stakeholders, to the extent necessary and as long as it does not hamper rehabilitative purposes,
creates an important basis for effective multi-stakeholder cooperation.
It is necessary to involve various public and private stakeholders in the interventions,
treatment and support both in correctional institutions and in the community. For instance,
treatment programmes targeting specific groups of offenders (e.g. sex offenders, drug addicts)
should be conducted in cooperation with medical institutions, rehabilitation centres and so forth.
To provide effective vocational training and other job assistance, actual demands in the labour
market should be reflected, and such assistance is possible only with the involvement of public
and private employment agencies and companies. Housing support and coordinating family
relations can be facilitated in cooperation with community members and the private sector,
such as NGOs and volunteers. For offenders with physical or mental disabilities, it is necessary
to cooperate with medical, social welfare, and healthcare services and facilities.
There are a number of challenges and issues in the rehabilitation process that should be
addressed with a multi-stakeholder approach. First, it is not easy for incarcerated offenders toreturn to the community and restart their lives upon release, due to the social barriers they face.
Therefore, ensuring their smooth transition from prison to society has been a major challenge.
In this regard, continuity in the interventions, treatment and support is extremely important to
reduce their reoffending risks and facilitate rehabilitation. Interventions, treatment and supportin prisons should aim at preparing for return to the community and building bridges with
community-based approaches. Close coordination and cooperation between prison andcommunity-based treatment authorities/providers is of vital importance. Moreover, seamless88
and effective interventions and support can be provided only with a multi-stakeholder approach,engaging all relevant stakeholders, such as state and local governments, public and private
sector entities from various fields, and community members. For instance, coordination of theirsocial environments, such as with family members, employers, relevant private-sector
organizations, NGOs and community volunteers, from an early stage of incarceration
contributes to offenders’ smooth reintegration into society and reduces the risk of reoffending.
Second, many countries have not established or sufficiently applied community corrections,because legislation, regulations or guidelines are underdeveloped, designated authorities orbodies are not equipped with a sufficient level of expertise and resources to conduct community
supervision and support, and public understanding, acceptance and community involvement
remain low. Some jurisdictions that have developed community corrections programmes still
face difficulties in providing interventions, treatment and support corresponding to the specificneeds of offenders, which is largely due to the lack or insufficiency of the involvement ofrelevant non-criminal-justice stakeholders. It is imperative to develop and actively use
community-based approaches, including by establishing effective partnerships with relevantpublic and private stakeholders and raising public awareness.
Third, it is not an easy task for criminal justice authorities to find and involve necessary
stakeholders in the community, because in order to respond to individual needs of offenders, awide variety of issues should be addressed, and many possible stakeholders in the community
are not familiar with or interested in criminal justice and rehabilitation of offenders. Also,
among jurisdictions which have developed a certain level of multi-stakeholder cooperation,
many do not have adequate platforms or coordinating mechanisms for criminal justiceinstitutions and other stakeholders to regularly cooperate and communicate with each other.
To overcome these challenges and form robust partnerships with stakeholders, there areseveral important approaches—strong government-wide policy or legislation to promote a
multi-stakeholder approach in preventing reoffending and facilitating offender rehabilitation,
establishing platforms or networks among criminal justice authorities and other stakeholders
covering important areas of support (e.g. employment, housing) at the community level,
mobilizing and activating existing community resources and inviting them as new partners, andawareness-raising activities at all necessary levels.
In seeking new partners from existing community resources, it is effective to cooperatewith active partners and make use of their knowledge, expertise and networks. In particular,
NGOs, faith-based organizations and community leaders are usually very good partners in
discovering and engaging new stakeholders. For instance, community leaders and community
volunteers have very good knowledge about the community and have strong ties with its
members; thus, with their help, criminal justice authorities are often able to approach a suitablestakeholder, such as for the provision of re-entry housing.
To involve necessary stakeholders and establish successful partnerships, it is crucial tobroaden understanding on the necessity and importance of offender rehabilitation. Also, eachstakeholder’s role should be clearly defined.
Moreover, an equal partnership of criminal justice authorities and stakeholders is important.
Having said that, it is effective for criminal justice authorities, within their roles, to takenecessary lead in the interventions, treatment and support, while showing due respect to, andmaking full use of, expertise and strengths of each stakeholder. For instance, in the case of

9
9volunteer probation officers (community volunteers used in a number of jurisdictions who aremandated to assist probation services in community supervision, re-entry coordination), it isessential that criminal justice authorities (usually probation authorities) clarify their role in eachcase, giving due consideration to their expertise and knowledge, and build their capacity
through proper training. Moreover, criminal justice authorities need to advise and guide themwhen they face difficulties in conducting interventions and providing support.
Furthermore, building trust with, and giving dedicated support and incentives to,
stakeholders facilitates their participation. For instance, in the case of job assistance forreleased offenders, providing continuous support to employers as partner–stakeholders is key
for successful partnerships to ensure sustainable employment. More specifically, in the processof employment of an offender after release, first, the relevant authority (which may be a
criminal justice or other cooperating agency) will need to properly explain to the employer
about the offender’s character and any substantial support (e.g. subsidies as incentives,
consultation with the authorities) which the employer can expect during the period of
employment. Such explanations relieve the anxiety employers face prior to employing
offenders. Also, providing timely support to both the employer and offender, or being prepared
to do so, such as by meeting and holding necessary consultations with each of them, and taking
immediate and proper actions whenever a risk in continuing the employment arises, willcontribute to maintaining a good working environment, the stability of the offender’semployment, and to foster the employer’s willingness to cooperate with the authorities on
offender rehabilitation.
In addition, since offenders return to and live their lives in the community, a multistakeholder, community-based approach engaging the private sector and the community cannot
be pursued without the understanding and acceptance of the community members. Therefore,
it is crucial to sensitize the general public and community members in order for them tounderstand that the rehabilitation of offenders and their social inclusion is the best way toprevent reoffending and to establish a safe and inclusive society. A high level of awareness in,and cooperation from, the community can accelerate setting up successful partnerships withvarious stakeholders.
Successful practices to build firm partnerships between criminal justice authorities andvarious stakeholders promote public understanding of criminal justice policies and theimportance of offender rehabilitation among stakeholders, thereby contributing to effective
interventions, treatment and support. Moreover, a robust network of stakeholders not only
contributes to each offender’s rehabilitation but also to strengthening community ties and topreventing crime in general in the local community.
3. Main Theme and Objectives of the Seminar
The main theme of the seminar was “Preventing Reoffending through a Multi-stakeholder
Approach”. This seminar mainly focused on policies and practices that (1) incorporate
rehabilitative perspectives into penalties and case dispositions, (2) promote interventions,
treatment and support tailored to offenders’ individual needs and (3) form multi-stakeholder
cooperation and partnerships for social reintegration of offenders.
This seminar was designed to guide each participating country on the development andimprovement of their respective criminal justice systems and administration. The expected
outcome was the identification of key elements of best policies and practices to promote a
multi-stakeholder approach to facilitate crime prevention and rehabilitation and social

10
10
reintegration of offenders. Further, the seminar sought to identify practices that will enhance
public understanding of the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. The participants
were encouraged to focus on policies and practices that can be commonly shared among theparticipating countries regardless of the differences in their legal systems, cultures and societies.
Through a variety of lectures, presentations, discussions and intensive group workshops,
participants learned the theories, underlying principles and practical experiences of othercountries. The seminar enabled participants to acquire new and different viewpoints on, andinspired them to revisit and consider, possible ways to improve their own systems and practices.
The experience of gaining a multifaceted view and an understanding by each participant of hisor her own system and practices will eventually contribute to renewed or improved policies
concerning the effective measures to promote a multi-stakeholder approach to facilitate crime
prevention and rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders in their respective countries.
Further, it will contribute to the building of stable, peaceful and inclusive societies based oncore values such as human rights and the rule of law.
In addition, the seminar promoted the formation of a personal and professional network
among the participants, which will benefit each one of them and their respective countries in
the future by the sharing of updated information, thus enhancing international cooperation in
the field of crime prevention and criminal justice.
4. Key Topics of the Seminar
The following are key topics that were addressed during the Seminar:(1) Current situation and challenges in the imposition of penalties and case dispositions with
due regard to rehabilitative perspectives
a. Whether and to what extent rehabilitative perspectives can be taken into consideration
when deciding penalties or case dispositions in the participating countries
b. Non-custodial options available- Types of non-custodial penalties and dispositions available at pre-trial (e.g. nonprosecution, diversion from criminal proceedings), sentencing (e.g. fine,community sanction, suspended sentence) and post-sentencing (e.g. parole,conditional release, remission, furlough) phases, and whether they are conditional
upon community supervision or other interventions, treatment or support (e.g.
treatment programmes or mediation)- Mechanisms to determine non-custodial measuresi) Decision-making authorities (e.g. the judiciary, prosecution, parole board)ii) Process by which information is collected (e.g. social inquiry for pre-sentencing
reports, criminal investigation, in-prison assessment)- Conditions/eligibility criteria for applying non-custodial measures (e.g. types ofcrime, gravity of the penalty, length of imprisonment served, agreement toparticipate in a restorative justice programme) and other factors taken into
considerationc. Current situation of, and practical challenges in, sentencing and case dispositions froma rehabilitative perspective- Current status (including statistics on non-custodial measures)- Practical challenges in effective information gathering, in taking account of

11
11

-

rehabilitative factors in case dispositions, sentencing and post-sentencing release,and in selecting effective interventions, treatment or support in the community
Stakeholders essential for effective information gathering, case dispositions,sentencing and post-sentencing release decisions, and implementation ofinterventions, treatment and support in the community
Practical challenges in cooperating with non-criminal-justice stakeholders(2) Interventions, treatment and support tailored to individual needs and multi-stakeholder
partnerships
a. Current situation of effective assessment and related challenges
b. Smooth transition from prison to the community- Cooperation and coordination between institutional and community corrections
authorities- Types of non-criminal-justice stakeholders including community stakeholders (e.g.
faith-based organizations, community leaders, community volunteers, medical
institutions and NGOs) essential for smooth transition from prison to society
through, for instance, re-entry coordination- Challenges in ensuring an offender’s smooth transition from prison to thecommunityc. Establishment and promotion of community-based treatment- Current situation of, and practical challenges in, establishment and active use ofcommunity-based treatment (e.g. lack of legislation, no organization in charge ofcommunity-based treatment, low level of public awareness, lack or insufficiency inthe involvement of stakeholders in the community)
d. Current situation of, and practical challenges in, interventions, treatment and support
for reintegration of offenders- Prevalent risk, needs (e.g. lack of employment or proper job skills, lack of suitableaccommodation, illiteracy, drug addiction, cognitive distortion, physical/mental
disabilities, low self-esteem) and strengths (e.g. positive attitudes towards work andsupport by family) of the offenders in the participating countries , and essential areas
corresponding to these factors (e.g. employment, education, healthcare, social
welfare, family relations)- Effective interventions, treatment and support to address offenders’ risks, needs andstrengths (e.g. treatment programmes for specific types of offenders, job assistance,
housing support, support by family, peer group support, medical care) and relevantpublic and private stakeholders which, in cooperation with criminal justiceauthorities, provide such interventions, treatment and support- Practical challenges in interventions, treatment and support for reintegration of
offenderse. Multi-stakeholder cooperation and partnerships for reintegration of offenders into
society- Current situation of, and practical challenges in, developing a multi-stakeholder
approach- Effective measures for involving new stakeholders from existing community
resources (e.g. making use of knowledge, expertise and networks of active partner

12
12
-

-

–stakeholders such as NGOs, faith-based organizations and community leaders)
Effective measures for establishing robust and sound partnerships with noncriminal-justice stakeholders (e.g. deepening stakeholders' understanding on
rehabilitation, training, defining each stakeholder’s role, giving incentives,
providing continuous support, taking necessary lead in the interventions)
Effective awareness-raising activities to promote partnerships and public
understanding

13
13
Seminar Summary
Lectures
During the Seminar, the participants attended a variety of lectures, presentations anddiscussion sessions, including 2 presented by the specialist lecturer, 2 by ad hoc lecturers andlectures by faculty members of UNAFEI, as well as a session with Japanese Volunteer
Probation Officers. The distinguished lecturers addressed issues relating to the main theme of
the Seminar and contributed significantly beyond their lectures by answering the participants’questions during online question and answer sessions. A criminologist from the United
Kingdom was the specialist lecturer, and the ad hoc lectures included a Japanese publicprosecutor and officials from the Correction Bureau of Japan. See ‘Lecture Topics’ for more
information.
Individual Presentations
During the Seminar, all participants delivered individual presentations which introduced
the situation, problems and future prospects of the participants’ countries. These papers were
distributed to all the participants. Each presentation was followed by a Q&A session, in which
additional information on practices in each jurisdiction was shared. See ‘Individual
Presentations’ for more information.
Group Workshops
Group workshops provided the participants with the opportunity to further examine thesubtopics of the main theme. In order to have intense discussions, the sessions were conductedin four small groups. Through consultations in groups, some members were assigned tochairpersons, co-chairpersons, rapporteurs or co-rapporteurs, and UNAFEI faculty members
served as advisers. The participants exchanged their views based on information obtained
through personal experience, the individual presentations, lectures and so forth. Each group was
required to discuss common challenges and recommended actions. As the primary output of theseminar, each group delivered a presentation on the outcome of the discussions in the plenary
report-back session, where their presentations were further discussed by the participants and
UNAFEI faculty members. See ‘Group Workshop Presentations’ for more information.

14
14
Lecture Topics
Specialist’s Lectures
1) Dr. Will Hughes
Senior Lecturer in Criminology, London Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
・Community sentences for rehabilitation of offenders and preventing reoffending・Multi-stakeholder approaches for effective supervision and support of offenders
UNAFEI Professors’ Lectures
1) Ms. SASAKI Ayako
Mr. OTSUKA Takeaki
・Individualized Assessment in the Prison Setting and Effective Reentry Coordination inJapan2) Mr. HOSOKAWA Hidehito
・Non-Custodial Sentences in Japan
3) Mr. OTSUKA Takeaki
・Promoting Measures for Reducing Reoffending
Ad Hoc Lectures
1) Mr. HONDA Yuichiro
Public Prosecutor, Chief, Social Reintegration Support Office, General Affairs Department,
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors’ Office・Efforts of the Social Reintegration Support Office2) Mr. SUZUIKI Takayuki
Specialist, Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice
Mr. TOMIZAWA Satoshi
Specialist, Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice・Public-Private Partnership in Employment Support

15
15
Individual Presentations
1)

Mr. Namik HASANOV (Azerbaijan)• Preventing Reoffending by Linking Social Reintegration and Public Safety

2)

Ms. Gina Maria LAMARCHE LEONARDO (Dominican Republic)• Social Reintegration of Deported Dominicans

3)

Mr. Hugo Antonio GONZALEZ GODINEZ (Guatemala)• Crime Prevention in Guatemala

4)Ms. Hada Lucia HURTADO LUARTE (Guatemala)• Preventing Reoffending through a Multi-stakeholder Approach5)

Ms. Vilaysinh DAINHANSA (Lao PDR)
• Current Situation and Challenges in the Imposition of Penalties and Case Dispositions
with Regard to Rehabilitation Perspectives in Lao P.D.R.

6)

Mr. Faraj Salim NAJI (Libya)• Alternative Penalties and the Position of the Libyan Penal Code on Them

7)

Mr. Afzainizam Bin ABDUL AZIZ (Malaysia)• Current Situation and Challenges in the Imposition of Penalties and Case Dispositions
with Due Regard to Rehabilitative Perspectives: Power to Compound by the Public
Prosecutor

8)

Ms. Noor Haslinda Binti CHE SEMAN (Malaysia)• Current Situation and Challenges in the Imposition of Penalties and Case
Dispositions with Due Regard to Rehabilitative Perspectives: Focusing on Compulsory
Attendance Orders (CAO)

9)

Ms. Mariyam FEZLEEN (Maldives)• Current Situation and Challenges in the Imposition of Penalties and Case Dispositions
with Due Regard to Rehabilitative Perspectives10)

Ms. Fathimath Naheeda THOHIR (Maldives)• Interventions, Treatment and Support Tailored to Individual Needs and Multistakeholder Partnerships – Maldives Scenario

16
16
11)

Mr. Fidelis Obi AJUKURA (Nigeria)• Preventing Reoffending through a Multi-stakeholder Approach: Nigeria’s Experience

12)

Ms. Riza Soriano ARDEPOLLA (Philippines)• The Barangay Drug Clearing Programme: A Holistic and Whole-of-Nation Approachin Curbing the Drug Menace in the Philippines

13)

Mr. Hemal Prashantha DEMATAHERA GAMAGE (Sri Lanka)• Preventing Reoffending through Interventions, Treatment and Support Tailored to
Individual Needs and Multi-stakeholder Partnerships in Sri Lanka

14)

Mr. Thusara Ruwan Kumara MUDALI THENANNAHELAGE (Sri Lanka)• Supervision of Released Criminals and Its Impact on Preventing Reoffending in Sri
Lanka

15)

Mr. Ramakamalan VINAYAGAMOORTHY (Sri Lanka)• Non-custodial Sentence and Prevention of Crime in the Criminal Justice System of Sri
Lanka

16)

Ms. Nayomi Thamara WICKRAMASEKERA (Sri Lanka)• Sentencing and Alternative Punishment in Sri Lanka and Its Challenges from a
Rehabilitative Perspective

17)

Ms. Disaya MEEPIEN (Thailand)• Beyond the Halfway House: Together We Create Chance18)

Ms. Artitaya RAWEEPRAYURABUT (Thailand)• Promoting Community Safety with the Probation System

19)

Ms. My Hanh Thi PHAN (Viet Nam)
• Crime Situation in Viet Nam and the Policy of Community Reintegration for Prisoners
and Those Who Have Completed Their Prison Sentences

17
17Group Workshop Presentations
Group A
Title of presentation:• Diversion and Rehabilitation of Vulnerable Populations
Chairperson

Ms. Noor Haslinda Binti CHE SEMAN (Malaysia)

Co-Chairperson

Ms. Artitaya RAWEEPRAYURABUT (Thailand)

Rapporteur

Ms. Gina Maria LAMARCHE LEONARDO (Dominican Republic)

Members

Mr. Hugo Antonio GONZALEZ GODINEZ (Guatemala)Ms. Vilaysinh DAINHANSA (Lao PDR)

Advisers

Prof. OTSUKA Takeaki (UNAFEI)
Prof. WATANABE Machiko (UNAFEI)Group B
Title of presentation:• Preventing Reoffending through a Multi-stakeholder Approach
Chairperson

Ms. Disaya MEEPIEN (Thailand)

Rapporteur

Ms. Hada Lucia HURTADO LUARTE (Guatemala)

Co-Rapporteur

Mr. Afzainizam Bin ABDUL AZIZ (Malaysia)

Co-Rapporteur

Ms. Riza Soriano ARDEPOLLA (Philippines)

Member

Ms. My Hanh Thi PHAN (Viet Nam)

Advisers

Prof. MIYAGAWA Tsubura (UNAFEI)
Prof. OKUDA Yoshinori (UNAFEI)

18
18
Group C
Title of presentation:• Multi-stakeholder Approaches for Effective Supervision and Support of Offenders
Chairperson

Ms. Nayomi Thamara WICKRAMASEKERA (Sri Lanka)

Rapporteur

Ms. Fathimath Naheeda THOHIR (Maldives)

Co-Rapporteur

Mr. Fidelis Obi AJUKURA (Nigeria)

MemberMr. Hemal Prashantha DEMATAHERA GAMAGE (Sri Lanka)

Advisers

Prof. OTSUKA Takeaki (UNAFEI)
Prof. HOSOKAWA Hidehito (UNAFEI)Group D
Title of presentation:• Challenges in Preventing Recidivism
Chairperson

Mr. Thusara Ruwan Kumara MUDALI THENANNAHELAGE (SriLanka)

Rapporteur

Ms. Mariyam FEZLEEN (Maldives)

Members

Mr. Namik HASANOV (Azerbaijan)
Mr. Ramakamalan VINAYAGAMOORTHY (Sri Lanka)

Advisers

Prof. MIYAGAWA Tsubura (UNAFEI)
Prof. YAMANA Rompei (UNAFEI)

19
19
Reference Materials
UNAFEI’S 177TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
LIST OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

List of Reference Materials (177th International Senior Seminar)

1

Kyoto Declaration on Advancing Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice and the Rule ofLaw: Towards the Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

2

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo
Rules)

3

Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegrationof Offenders

20
20
Expert and Participant List
Specialist Lecturer
Dr. Will Hughes

Overseas Participants
Mr. Namik HASANOV

Senior Lecturer in Criminology
London Metropolitan University
United Kingdom
Inspector
Operation-Regime Department
Penitentiary Service, Ministry of JusticeAzerbaijan

Ms. Gina Maria LAMARCHELEONARDO

In charge at the Vice Ministry of Citizen
Coexistence
Ministry of Interior and Police
Dominican Republic

Mr. Hugo Antonio GONZALEZGODINEZ

Correctional Advisor
Advanced Tactical Support Group (ATSG) Corporation
GuatemalaMs. Hada Lucia HURTADO
LUARTE

Assistant Prosecutor
Special Prosecution Against Impunity
Public Ministry
GuatemalaMs. Vilaysinh DAINHANSA

Deputy Director General
The planning and International Cooperation Department
The Office of the Supreme People's Prosecutor
Lao PDR

Mr. Faraj Salim NAJI

LecturerTraining Department
High Judicial Institute, Ministry of Justice
Libya

Mr. Afzainizam Bin ABDUL
AZIZDeputy Public Prosecutor
Prosecution Division
Attorney General's Chambers
Malaysia

Ms. Noor Haslinda Binti CHE
SEMAN

Deputy Public Prosecutor
Prosecution Division
Attorney General's Chambers
Malaysia

21
21
Ms. Mariyam FEZLEEN

Assistant Prosecutor General
Prosecution Department
Prosecutor General's Office
Maldives

Ms. Fathimath Naheeda THOHIR

South Sub-regional Commander / Chief Inspector of PoliceSouth Police
Maldives Police Service
Maldives

Mr. Fidelis Obi AJUKURA

Deputy Superintendent of Corrections
General Duty
Nigerian Correctional Service
Nigeria

Ms. Riza Soriano ARDEPOLLA

Supervisor
PDEA Barangay Drug Clearing Program - Office of the
Director General
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
Philippines

Mr. Hemal Prashantha
DEMATAHERA GAMAGE

Director
Criminal Investigation Department
Sri Lanka Police
Sri Lanka

Mr. Thusara Ruwan Kumara
Director / Senior Superintendent
MUDALI THENANNAHELAGE Criminal Records Division
Sri Lanka Police
Sri Lanka
Mr. Ramakamalan
VINAYAGAMOORTHYHigh Court Judge
High Court
Judicial Service Commission
Sri Lanka

Ms. Nayomi Thamara
WICKRAMASEKERAHigh Court Judge
High Court
Judicial Service Commission
Sri Lanka

Ms. Disaya MEEPIEN

Acting Director
Research and Development InstituteDepartment of Juvenile Observation and Protection,
Ministry of Justice
Thailand22
22
Ms. Artitaya
RAWEEPRAYURABUT

Probation Officer
Surat Thani Probation Office
Department of Probation, Ministry of Justice
Thailand

Ms. My Hanh Thi PHAN

Deputy Head
Criminal Investigation Division
The Office of Investigation Police Agency,
Ministry of Public Security
Viet Nam

23
23
INFORMATION ABOUT FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMES
1. The 178th International Training Course
From 14 June to 7 July 2022, UNAFEI will host the 178th International Training Course
online. The main theme of the Seminar is “Cybercrime and Digital Evidence”. Approximately
25 overseas participants will attend.
2.

The Second Youth International Training Course
From 1 to 5 August 2022, UNAFEI will host the 2nd Youth International Training Course.
Approximately 20 youth from overseas and Japan are expected to participate.

24
24
FACULTY AND STAFF OF UNAFEI
Faculty:

Mr. MORINAGA Taro
Ms. IRIE Junko
Ms. WATANABE MachikoMr. HOSOKAWA Hidehito
Mr. OKUDA Yoshinori
Mr. YAMANA Rompei
Ms. MIYAGAWA Tsubura
Ms. TAKAI Ayaka
Ms. SASAKI Ayako
Mr. OTSUKA Takeaki
Ms. TANAKA Mii
Mr. Thomas L. Schmid

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
177th Seminar Deputy Programming Officer
Chief of Research Division
Professor
Professor
Professor
177th Seminar Programming Officer
Chief of Information and Public Relations
Professor
Linguistic Adviser

Secretariat:
Mr. TADA Ryosei

Chief of Secretariat

Mr. YAMAMOTO Shinichi

Chief of Training and Hostel Management
Affairs Section

Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section:
Mr. TATSUKAWA Masashi Senior Officer
177th Seminar Assistant Programming Officer
Mr. YOSHIHARA Daiki
Senior Officer
Mr. FUJISAKI Takuma
Senior Officer
Ms. MUKAI Saori
Ms. OTANI Makiko

Officer
177th Seminar Assistant Programming Officer
OfficerInternational Research Affairs Section:
Ms. IWAKATA Naoko
Librarian
Secretarial Staff:
Ms. YAMADA Hisayo

Officer

25
25
JICA Coordinator for the 177th International Senior Seminar:
Ms. HISA KeikoJICA

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