MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2014 – 31 December 2014)

I. ROLE AND MANDATE
The Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI)
was established in Tokyo, Japan in 1962 pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in the Asia and the Pacificregion by promoting regional cooperation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, throughtraining and research.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent, contemporary problems in
the administration of criminal justice in the region, especially problems generated by rapid socio-economicchange (e.g., transnational organized crime, corruption, economic and computer crime and the reintegration of prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars andresearch projects.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute’s work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of the criminal justice field discuss andstudy pressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding, with the help of lectures and advice from the UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc
lecturers. This so-called “problem-solving through an integrated approach” is one of the chief characteristics of UNAFEI programmes.
Each year, UNAFEI conducts two international training courses (six weeks’ duration) and one international senior seminar (five weeks’ duration). Approximately one hundred government officials from various
overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA is an independent administrative institution for ODA programmes) each year to participate in all UNAFEI training
programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants. Overseas
participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from the Middle and Near East, Latin
America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators holding relatively senior positions in the criminal justice field.
By the end of 2014, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 158 international training courses and seminars.
Over 5,000 criminal justice personnel representing 136 different countries and administrative regions haveparticipated in these seminars. UNAFEI also conducts a number of other specialized courses, bothcountry and subject focused, in which hundreds of other participants from many countries have been
involved. In their respective countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and holdimportant posts in the fields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 156th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 156th International Senior Seminar was held from 15 January to 13 February 2014. The main
theme was “Protection for Victims of Crime and Use of Restorative Justice Programmes”. Fifteen overseas
participants (including one course counsellor) and seven Japanese participants attended the Seminar.
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants respectively introduced the roles and functions of criminal justiceagencies in their countries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from UNAFEI Profes3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2014sors and visiting experts, the participants were then divided into two group workshops as follows:
Group 1: Support for Victims
Group 2: Issues Concerning Introduction of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal and Juvenile
Justice Systems
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order to facilitate the discussions. During group discussion, the group members studied the designated topics andexchanged views based on information obtained through personal experiences, the Individual Presentations, lectures and so forth. The Groups presented their reports during the Report-Back Session, where
they were endorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports were published in
UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 93.
3. Outcome Summary(i) 		 Support for Victims
Group 1 addressed the issue of support for victims based on the following agenda: (1) access to thecriminal justice system, (2) victim compensation and restitution and (3) prevention of secondary victimization and revictimization. The group reported that current criminal justice systems tend to focus on therights of the perpetrators without considering the rights of the victims. The group members agreed that
more attention must be paid to crime victims and their family members because they are required to participate in the criminal justice system in order to prosecute criminal cases.
Lack of access to the criminal justice system is a serious problem faced in many countries, andcommon causes are corruption and lack of manpower and financial support. To ensure that victims haveaccess to the justice system, victims must be informed of their rights and the developments in their cases.
They must also be involved in the decision to prosecute, and victims should be able to participate in thetrial.
With respect to victim compensation and restitution, the group found that court-ordered restitution is aconcept similar in most countries. However, the group reported that offenders often have insufficient funds
to fully comply with restitution orders. Therefore, the group emphasized the necessity of State compensation progammes to reimburse crime victims for shortfalls in restitution payments, including expenses suchas doctor’s bills, transportation costs, and other expenses. Additionally, the group concluded that one of thebest ways an offender can restore the damage caused to the community is by learning practical job skills
and finding a job upon release.
Group 1 explained that secondary victimization occurs when a victim continues to suffer from theharm caused by the offender; this includes the psychological stress of having to relive the experience eachtime the victim answers questions related to the crime. Revictimization occurs when an offenderrecommits a crime against a victim. To minimize these forms of victimization, criminal justice systems
should adopt the following strategies: (1) protect the confidentiality of the victim’s personal information andaddress during investigation and trial, (2) ensure the safety of victims by escorting them to and fromcourt, (3) courts should issue restraining orders to prohibit the offender from contacting the victim, (4) alleviating victims’ burdens by collaboration with the private sector, and (5) implementing training on victimization for the police, prosecutors and the judiciary.
In conclusion, the group agreed that victim participation in the criminal justice system is fundamental
to achieving the objective of a society without crime. If the needs of victims are not considered during thecriminal justice process, victims will be less likely to cooperate with the authorities, and the criminal
justice system will suffer. Therefore, creating a safer society is closely connected with supporting victims
throughout the criminal justice process.
(ii)		Issues Concerning Introduction of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal and Juvenile
Justice Systems
Examining the topic of restorative justice, the group embraced the United Nations’ definition of a restorative justice programme as a process in which a victim, an offender, and other affected individuals or
4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
community members work together to resolve matters arising out of a crime. The process is intended toachieve restorative outcomes such as restitution and community service to meet the individual and collective needs of those involved.
The group reported that restorative justice is an old concept rooted in many cultures and customs, but
it is new in terms of applying it to formal criminal justice institutions. Beginning with an examination ofcurrent practices, the group found that restorative justice practices are used either formally or informallyin each of the participating countries. After reviewing existing practices, the group proposed possible newprogrammes that could be considered by each of the participating countries. These programmes include
expansion of existing programmes, application of programmes to juvenile offenders and increased training
for criminal justice professionals. The details of existing practices and possible new programmes arepresented in Group 2’s final Group Workshop Report.
The discussions among the group members resulted in general agreement on a number issues. First,
the group concluded that restorative justice must be voluntary, but it can be applied to all types of crimeand at any stage of the criminal justice system. Second, such programmes are equally applicable to adultand juvenile offenders. Third, restorative justice programmes can be used to achieve the dual purposes of (i)diversion and (ii) restoring relations, economic loss and emotional damage. However, it was stressed thatthe type of programme and the scope of participants will be impacted by factors such as the intention of
the victim, the intention of the offender, the severity of the damages, and the relationship between thevictim and the offender.
Emphasising that restorative justice is not only applicable to petty crimes, the group also discussed restorative justice approaches in the context of serious crimes, including domestic violence, rape, fatal andserious traffic accidents, and murder. Victim–Offender Mediation (VOM) and Family Group Conferences(FGC) were considered as potentially effective practices to help offenders recognize the seriousness of thedamage they caused and to allow victims or their family members to interact directly with the offenderand to obtain answers to questions they have about the crime. Qualified and trained mediators who areable to remain impartial are key to the success of this process. Mediators must possess knowledge about
restorative justice, psychology and social work, and they must be sensitive to the social and economic
contexts of the parties.
The group concluded that the philosophy of restorative justice must first be understood before systems
are adopted that best match the situations of the countries in which they are implemented.
B. The 157th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 157th International Training Course was held from 14 May to 19 June 2014. The main theme was“Assessment and Treatment of Special Needs Offenders”. Eleven overseas participants, including two international observers, and seven Japanese participants attended this Course.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the Course were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations, lectures byvisiting experts and Group Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual
situation, problems and future prospects of his or her country with respect to the main theme of the
Course. The Group Workshops further examined the subtopics of the main theme. To facilitate discussion, the participants were divided into two groups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of
faculty advisers:
Group 1: F ocus on the Bangkok Rules―Creating a Better Environment for Correctional Rehabilitationof Women Offenders
Group 2: Assessment and Treatment of Special Needs Offenders―Focusing on Disabled and Elderly
Offenders
The two groups each elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) toorganize the discussions. The group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views
5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2014
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth. The Groups presented their reports during the Report-Back Session, where they were endorsed as
the reports of the Course. The full texts of the reports were published in full in Resource Material Series
No. 94.
3. Outcome Summary(i)		Focus on the Bangkok Rules―Creating a Better Environment for Correctional Rehabilitation of
Women Offenders
Group 1 addressed the treatment of women offenders from the perspective of the Bangkok Rules. It
was noted that the Bangkok Rules complement the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners and that equal treatment is a requirement of justice. The group focused its discussion on eleventopics: (1) health, (2) infrastructure and facilities, (3) protection of privacy and relationships with the outside
world, (4) staff training, (5) female detainees in custody, (6) rehabilitation, reintegration and resettlement, (7)pregnant and female offenders with dependent children, (8) female offenders with mental and physical disabilities and those suffering from terminal illness, (9) foreign and migrant female offenders, (10) elderly
female offenders, and (11) juvenile female offenders. It was emphasized that all female offenders should beconsidered together; these subtopics related to women offenders were only created in order to facilitate theunderstanding of each subtopic.
After discussion, the group concluded that female offenders in most jurisdictions are disadvantaged dueto their gender, age, disabilities and deficiencies in correctional infrastructure. The group further concluded
that countries should act aggressively to correct these problems by implementing relevant UN standards
and norms.
To do so, the group identified 17 recommendations, including, among others: (1) making concerted
efforts to use non-custodial measures to divert female offenders, especially those who are pregnant, caring
for babies or children, elderly, suffering from disabilities, or juvenile; (2) developing gender-specific assessment tools such as risk and needs instruments for female offenders; (3) developing gender-specific healthcare programmes for female offenders in correctional institutions; (4) ensuring external monitoring byhuman rights institutions; (5) establishing nurseries and day-care centres to meet the needs of children
residing with their mothers in prison; (6) enhancing communication between female offenders and theirfamilies; (7) providing staff training on UN standards and norms; (8) connecting offenders with social
services; (9) considering the needs of female offenders from the perspective of past victimization; (10)taking a proactive approach to community education for the promotion of reintegration; (11) providing
special facilities and programmes for female offenders with special needs, particularly the elderly and thephysically or mentally disabled; (12) the use of compassionate release, pardon or amnesty for elderly
inmates and those suffering from serious and terminal diseases, and (13) using evidence-based assessment
and treatment strategies for female offenders.
(ii)		A ssessment and Treatment of Special Needs Offenders―Focusing on Disabled and Elderly
OffendersGroup 2 discussed the assessment and treatment of elderly and disabled offenders by considering threecorrectional stages in chronological order: (1) the pre-conviction stage―non-custodial measures andsanctions; (2) the imprisonment stage―management policies and strategies/preparation for release; and (3)the post-release stage―prevention of recidivism/reintegration into society.
The group began by identifying the problems faced by elderly and disabled offenders in correctional
systems. Elderly offenders suffer from physical or mental weakness, diminished ability or lower passion towork, and isolation from family and friends. They also experience bullying and other forms of harassment
from younger inmates. Similarly, mentally disabled offenders require continuous medical care and are stigmatized by their disabilities.
In general, the problems experienced by elderly and disabled offenders have similar remedies. The
group members reported that, with few exceptions, the represented jurisdictions had no special prisons tohouse elderly or disabled offenders. During the pre-conviction stage, the group recommended the use ofdiversion programmes to treat both groups in the community and to rely on family members to support
the offender. During the imprisonment stage, both groups require treatment from specially trained prison
6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
staff, and the group found it important to find ways to maintain “family links” to support each offender’srehabilitation. However, at the post-release stage, elderly and disabled offenders all struggle with thecommon problem of having no home to return to. In this sense, the group stated that it was critical forcorrectional services to connect special needs offenders with social welfare agencies.
However, the group also identified different approaches to the treatment of these categories of special
needs offenders. Elderly offenders will benefit from accessible, barrier-free facilities that facilitate their restricted movement and lifestyles. Furthermore, accommodations for the elderly should be separated fromyounger prisoners so that correctional staff can focus on the special needs of the elderly. Finally, greateruse of parole, pardons and remission should be used to incentivize work in prison or in the community.
For disabled offenders, the group emphasized the great importance of providing continuous medicalcare for the mentally disabled. This intensive treatment requires extensive coordination and information
sharing between the offender, social workers, prison and probation officers and social welfare agencies.
Further, the group recommended the Nagasaki model as a good practice in Japan designed to identify
mental health issues during the pre-conviction stage, involving cooperation between prosecutors andmental health professionals. The group concluded by generating a list of ten recommendations addressing
elderly and disabled offenders, which are included in the final group workshop report.
C. The 158th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 158th International Training Course was held from 20 August to 25 September 2014. The main
theme was “Measures for Speedy and Efficient Criminal Trials”. Twenty-four overseas participants and six
Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants of the 158th Course endeavoured to explore the topic primarily through a comparative
analysis of the current situation and the problems encountered. The participants’ in-depth discussions
enabled them to put forth effective and practical solutions.
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations, lectures by visiting
experts and the Group Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation,
problems and future prospects of his or her country with respect to the main theme of the Course. To facilitate discussions, the participants were divided into three groups.
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize the discussions. The group members studied the situation in each of their countries and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth. All groups examined the course theme. The Groups presented their reports in the Report-Back
Session, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports were published in full in
UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 95.
3. Outcome Summary(i) 		 Measures for Efficient Trial ProceduresGroup 1 focused its discussions on three issues: (1) identifying and narrowing issues and evidence to be
dealt with at trial in order to shorten trials; (2) securing attendance of the accused, victims and witnesses
at trial; and (3) utilization of simplified procedures.
Regarding identifying and narrowing issues and evidence for trial, the group began by reviewing andcomparing the legal systems of each country, considering whether each country utilized an adversarial or
inquisitorial system. For countries with adversarial systems, the group found pretrial conference procedure
to be useful for improving the speed and efficiency of trials, and that prosecutors should be encouraged todisclose evidence as quickly as possible. For countries with inquisitorial systems, the group found that
pretrial conference procedure was not necessary because judges can already see all of the evidence before
the commencement of trial. However, judges should still be encouraged to cooperate with prosecutors anddefendants in order to help judges narrow the issues for trial.

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2014
Securing the attendance of parties and witnesses at trial is important to avoid unnecessary delays in
the criminal justice process. The group agreed that, in principle, the accused must be present for trial.
Further, it was agreed that witness testimony at trial should be considered a civic duty, and therefore
sanctions, such as fines or imprisonment, should be ordered in cases in which witnesses fail to comply with
subpoenas or other compulsory process. However, it was also stressed that witnesses are entitled togreater protection and support. Regarding protection, severe penalties should be imposed for interferingwith or intimidating witnesses; witness privacy should be protected to the extent possible; witnesses
should be protected before, during and after trial. Regarding support, measures should be imposed toallow witnesses to testify remotely via video and audio link, witnesses should be reimbursed for theirexpenses, and vulnerable witnesses should be permitted to testify behind privacy screens.
Simplified procedures should be utilized as much as possible in order to reduce the length of trials.
Such procedures are best used in minor or uncontested cases. Other appropriate uses of simplified procedures include cases in which alternative sentencing is best suited to encourage rehabilitation, such as
certain drug cases. The group agreed that the right of the defendant to appeal should be retained. The
group presented a number of simplified procedures used by the participating countries, and these countryspecific simplified procedures can be found in the final group-workshop report.
(ii)		Measures for Effective Trial Advocacy and Cooperation Between Public Prosecutors and Investigators
The group commenced its discussions by considering: (1) measures for effective trial advocacy, (2) conducting effective investigations by cooperation between prosecutors and investigators, and (3) the utilization of diversion programmes by prosecutors and investigators to bypass the traditional criminal justicesystem.
On the issue of effective trial advocacy, although the group agreed that opening statements and closing
arguments were important measures for trial advocacy, most participants reported that such measures
were not used in practice in their countries. To increase the usage and effectiveness of these measures,
legal practitioners should be provided with continuous training on advocacy, and they should be encouraged to use visual aids to inform judges, and especially jurors or lay judges, of the key issues of the case.
Additionally, protective measures, such as video conferencing and the use of intermediaries for minors andthe mentally disabled, should be implemented to ensure the effectiveness of their testimony.
Regarding the issue of cooperation between investigators and prosecutors, early stage cooperation was
found to be the best practice to ensure speedy and efficient trials. The principal benefits of such cooperation are that the police obtain legal advice and guidance early in the investigation while prosecutors obtainevidence earlier. Also, cooperation allows for the correction of mistakes as early as possible. However, thegroup identified several disadvantages of cooperation: police dependency on prosecutors and bias or dereliction of duty due to a lack of oversight. Therefore, a system of checks and balances should be implemented
to review key decisions such as non-prosecution orders.
The group found that some countries vest all investigatory power in the police while others permit
prosecutors to control, oversee or supervise police investigations. Despite the consensus that prosecutors
should be involved as early as possible, the degree of cooperation will vary depending on the nature of thecase and the practices of the country concerned. The group agreed that prosecutors should only visit thecrime scene based on the gravity of the case, as it would be inappropriate and inefficient for prosecutors tovisit the crime scene in relatively minor cases.
Finally, regarding the use of diversion programmes, the group found that prosecutors and investigators
should be empowered to use the following measures to reduce the burdens on the criminal justice systemand, thus, improve the speed and efficiency of trials: suspension of prosecution, plea bargaining, non-referralof minor cases, medical treatment or rehabilitation in lieu of punishment, and administrative disposition of
traffic cases. As stated above, a system of checks and balances should be established in each country toprovide transparency and to prevent the misuse of authority.
(iii) Measures for Speedy and Efficient Investigation
Group 3 focused its discussions on (1) measures for speedy and accurate crime scene investigation, (2)8MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
measures for prompt analysis and appropriate preservation of evidence, and (3) the utilization of diversion
programmes by investigators to bypass the traditional criminal justice system.
Crime scene management has become a professional field, and speedy and accurate crime scene investigation requires the skills of specialized investigation officers. Investigators must overcome many challenges such as the lack of training, insufficient staffing, lack of coordination, and, in many countries, the inexperience of many investigators, which is the result of aging populations. Measures that should be implemented to overcome these challenges include establishing strategic partnerships, providing structured training,
creating Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), providing adequate funding, and encouraging humanresource development.
Regarding the analysis and preservation of evidence, the group identified the lack of facilities as one of
the main factors that results in delays in investigation. Many developing countries are required to send
evidence to other countries for analysis. Additionally, other challenges include the nature of geography, alack of balance in terms of centralization and decentralization, lengthy procedures and red tape, and thelack of coordination between prosecutors and investigators. Overcoming these difficulties requires making
optimum use of technologies and decentralized forensic capability to ensure that regions or provinces havetimely access to forensic evidence and analysis, ensuring a proper balance between centralized andregional facilities, and the establishment of Quality Management Systems (QMS) and minimum standards
for forensic staff, facilities and equipment.
Regarding the use of diversion programmes, the group reported that many participating countries do
not have legal provisions that expressly address diversion programmes at the investigation level. It wasagreed that authorization to conduct investigation-level diversion must be authorized by law, and checks
and balances must be instituted to provide oversight and prevent abuse.
Furthermore, community members and key stakeholders should be involved in the process. The groupcited the Sharia law example of qisaas, whereby the family of a murder victim can simply pardon or
forgive the offender at any time. This is done through mediation between the offender and family members
and offers the offender the opportunity for life, rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. The First Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries
From 19 February to 11 March 2014, UNAFEI held the First Criminal Justice Training Programme forFrench-Speaking African Countries. Twenty-five participants attended from eight African countries. The
participants discussed the current situation and measures to tackle the challenges of the criminal justicesystems in the participating countries.
B. The Follow-up Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Follow-up Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 4 to 19 March 2014. The
main theme of the Seminar was “Addressing Corruption which Hinders Countermeasures for Drug
Offences and Other Crimes: Focusing on Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors and Other
Law Enforcement Officials”. Ten participants attended from five Central Asian countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
C. Second Collaborative Study on Anti-Corruption Measures of Japan and Thailand
From 21 to 23 April, UNAFEI held a bilateral collaborative study with the Office of the National AntiCorruption Commission (ONACC) of Thailand. UNAFEI welcomed 66 guests from the ONACC, and theparticipants deepened their understanding of the current situation and challenges of corruption in Thailand
and Japan.
D. Asia Volunteer Probation Officers Meeting
From 9 to 10 July, around 130 participants including volunteer probation officers (VPOs) and probation
officers from the Asian region attended the conference in Tokyo to share experiences and practices related
to VPO programmes.

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2014
E. Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Viet Nam and Japan
From 14 to 18 July, two officials from Viet Nam were invited to Japan to study the capacity building ofprosecutors and judicial officers, as well as research methodology in criminal justice policy-making.
F. The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal (28 August to 11 September):Seven Nepalese participants attended to study and compared Japanese and Nepalese procedures for
speedy and efficient criminal trials;
G. The 17th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
The 17th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme was held from 8 October to 11 November 2014. This
Programme dealt with the United Nations Convention against Corruption and examined countermeasuresagainst corruption. The theme of the Programme was Effective Measures to Prevent and Combat
Corruption―Focusing on Identifying, Tracing, Freezing, Seizing/Confiscating and Recovering Proceedsof Corruption. Twenty-two overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended.
H. The Eighth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
UNAFEI hosted the Eighth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries from18 to 20 November 2014 at Hotel Istana in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The Seminar was co-hosted by the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. The main theme of the Seminar was “Current Issues in the Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of Corruption Cases”. Seventeen participants and observers fromten Southeast Asian countries attended. The Seminar featured the following speakers: Ms. Chan Shook
Man Alice, Senior Assistant Director, Public Prosecutions, Prosecutions Division, Department Justice, Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region and Mr. Lee, Jin Soo, Senior Prosecutor, Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, Korea.
I. First Training Course on Legal Technical Assistance for Viet Nam
From 5 to 17 December, twelve officials from Viet Nam were invited to Japan to study the Japanesecriminal justice system, focusing on drug-related crime and the role of prosecutors.

IV. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
The Institute continues to collect data and other resource materials on crime trends, crime prevention
strategies and the treatment of offenders from Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe and the Americas, andmakes use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information and Library Serviceof the Institute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies,
governmental organizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, theInstitute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members,
visiting experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2014, the 92nd, 93rd and 94th
editions of the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 143 to 145 (from the 156th
Senior Seminar to the 158th International Training Course) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published,which included brief reports on each course and seminar and other timely information. These publications
are also available on UNAFEI’s website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 24 January 2014, the Public Lecture Programme was conducted in the Grand Conference Hall of
the Ministry of Justice. In attendance were many distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni and the participants of the 156th International Senior Seminar. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia
Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues, through compar10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
ative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2014, Dr. Brian Steels, Director
and Senior Research Fellow at the Asia Pacific Forum for Restorative Justice, Centre for Aboriginal
Studies, Curtin University, and Ms. Betty Pang Mo-yin, Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Support
Group, Crime Wing, Hong Kong Police, were invited as speakers. They presented papers entitled “Restorative and Therapeutic Practices following a Range of Conflicts: an Issue for Fiscally Prudent and Safer
Societies” and “Child Protection Policy Unit, Hong Kong Police Force”, respectively.
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is, therefore, one of the important tasks of
UNAFEI to support these contributions to improve the crime situation internationally.
C. Overseas Missions
Deputy Director Kenichi Kiyono visited Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar from 21 to 24 January 2014 to assist
the Drafting Committee of Extradition Laws of Myanmar.
Professor Toru Nagai visited Bangkok, Thailand from 21 to 25 January 2014 to attend the Asia andPacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for the 13th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice.
Professor Koji Yoshimura visited Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar from 2 to 6 February 2014 to attend JICA’s
seminar held in cooperation with the Myanmar Correctional Department.
Director Tomoko Akane and Professor Toru Nagai visited Bangkok, Thailand from 4 to 7 March 2014
to attend the IPF Colloquium.
Professor Yusuke Hirose and Mr. Yasushi Toyoda visited Kathmandu, the Federal Democratic Republicof Nepal from 17 to 26 March 2014 to research the current state of the legal system and its practices andto discuss future plans of technical assistance for judicial reform.
Director Tomoko Akane and Professor Kazuhiko Moriya visited Jakarta, Republic of Indonesia from 20
to 26 April 2014 to research the current state of the legal system and its practices and to discuss futureplans of technical assistance for judicial reform.
Director Tomoko Akane and Professor Akiko Tashiro visited Vienna, Austria from 11 to 18 May 2014
to attend the 23rd Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Professor Shinichiro Iwashita visited Portsmouth and London, U.K. from 11 to 25 May 2014 to attend a
Hampshire Police training course.
Professor Yukako Mio visited Changi, Singapore from 27 to 30 May 2014 to attend the 1st ASEAN-Japan Cybercrime Dialogue.
Professor Yusuke Hirose and Professor Kazuhiko Moriya visited Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, Dakar, Senegal
and Paris, France from 10 to 25 June 2014 to research the criminal justice systems of the aforementioned
countries.
Professor Yukako Mio visited Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 26 June to 1 July 2014 to research anti-corruption efforts in Southeast Asia.
Professor Shinichiro Iwashita and Professor Kazuhiko Moriya visited Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Jakarta,
Indonesia, Singapore and Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam from 26 June to 8 July 2014 toresearch anti-corruption efforts in Southeast Asia.
Director Tomoko Akane, Professor Akiko Tashiro and Professor Fumiko Akashi visited Bangkok,
Thailand from 16 to 20 August 2014 to attend the ASEAN Plus Three Conference on Probation and NonCustodial Measures.
11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2014
Professor Toru Nagai visited Vancouver, Canada from 7 to 14 September 2014 to attend the 34th Asianand Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators (APCCA).
Deputy Director Taro Morinaga and Professor Yusuke Hirose visited Hanoi, Vietnam from 14 to 20
September 2014 to hold a workshop with the Supreme People’s Procuracy.
Professor Akiko Tashiro and Professor Toru Nagai visited Lund, Sweden from 20 to 26 October 2014 toattend the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law’s (RWI’s) 30th Anniversary
Conference.
Professor Toru Nagai and Professor Fumiko Akashi visited Namibia from 25 October to 2 November
2014 to attend the 16th Annual Conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association(ICPA).
Professor Yusuke Hirose visited Nepal from 16 to 29 November 2014 to research the criminal justicesystems in Nepal.
Director Terutoshi Yamashita, Professor Akiko Tashiro and Professor Toru Nagai visited Milan, Italy
from 9 to 15 December 2014 to attend the ISPAC International Conference of 2014 and the 2014 Autumn
Co-ordination Meeting of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network.
D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates and collaborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention and criminal justiceadministration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similar goals, and a large part of
the ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two is very strong.

VII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative responsibility for running
the Institute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine professors are selected from among
public prosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probation and the police. UNAFEI also has approximately 12
administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and alinguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training
course and seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts, volunteers
and related agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty and Staff Changes
Mr. Kenichi Kiyono, formerly the Deputy Director of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo District
Public Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2014.
Mr. Taro Morinaga, formerly the Deputy Chief of the Saga District Public Prosecutors Office, wasappointed as the Deputy Director of UNAFEI on 1 April 2014.
Mr. Ryo Tsunoda, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Shizuoka Probation Officeon 1 April 2014.
Ms. Fumiko Akashi, formerly a Probation Officer at the Tokyo Probation Office, was appointed as aprofessor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2014.
Mr. Naoya Oyaizu, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, will continue in his post as a member of the Policy
Research Center of the National Police Academy, effective as of 20 August 2014.
Mr. Tomonobu Kaya of the National Police Academy was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 20
August 2014.
Mr. Terutoshi Yamashita assumed the directorship of UNAFEI on 10 October 2014. He is the 21st
12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
Director of UNAFEI.

VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute’s budget. UNAFEI’s total budget for its programmes is approximately ¥70 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provide assistance for
the Institute’s international training courses and seminars.

13