MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2018 – 31 December 2018)

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 Pacific region
by promoting regional cooperation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, through training andresearch.
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 reintegrationof prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars and research
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 and studypressing 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) and one international seminar(five weeks). 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 Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America,
the Middle and Near East, and Oceania. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators
holding relatively senior positions in the criminal justice field.
By the end of 2018, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 170 international training courses and seminars.
Over 5,900 criminal justice personnel representing 139 different countries and administrative regions haveparticipated in these seminars. UNAFEI also conducts a number of other specialized courses, both country
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 hold important posts in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 168th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 168th International Senior Seminar was held from 11 January to 9 February 2018. The main theme
was “Enhancing the Rule of Law in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice: Policies and Practices
Based on the United Nations Conventions and Standards and Norms”. Twenty-one overseas participants(including one course counsellor) and seven Japanese participants attended the Seminar.
3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants introduced the roles and functions of criminal justice agencies in theircountries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from UNAFEI professors and visiting
experts, the participants were then divided into three group workshops as follows:
Group 1: Law-Related Education Contributing to Peaceful and Inclusive Societies
Group 2: Access to Justice for All in the Criminal Justice System
Group 3: Community-Based Dispute Resolution
Each Group selected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order tofacilitate 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 wereendorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports were published in UNAFEI Resource
Material Series No. 105.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Law-Related Education Contributing to Peaceful and Inclusive Societies
Group 1 discussed approaches and measures for using law-related education to contribute to peaceful andinclusive societies. Specifically, the group focused on strategies and implementation of law-related education(LRE) for teachers, students, community leaders, and the general public.
The rule of law protects human rights by ensuring that the laws are applied fairly and equally to allmembers and segments of society. Yet without a firm understanding of the purpose of the law and its
obligations, members of the general public will not be able to follow the law or vindicate their rights.
Therefore, promoting LRE is a key element for deepening public understanding about human rights, the ruleof law and the values behind them; this will also help to instil a culture of lawfulness in society, which exists
when the general public respects the law and believes in its justness and fairness.
In order to teach students about the rule of law, teachers must familiarize themselves with the basic
principles of the rule of law by receiving training from relevant ministries, criminal justice officials, etc., and,
when possible, Training for Trainers sessions should be held. The group recommended that curricula should
be developed using a multisectoral approach by a committee consisting of government officials, academics
and experts. To implement new educational programmes, developing countries may seek funding frominternational development agencies. To be accessible to students, LRE must be age appropriate and interesting,for which the group recommended cooperating with the private sector. It was also recommended thatgovernments make LRE compulsory for all students.
Community leaders, such as religious leaders, police officers, artists, politicians, volunteer probation
officers, village leaders etc., can play vital roles in disseminating information to the general public. For
example, in Sri Lanka, village leaders and selected citizens are trained in LRE by the police and thencoordinate matters with the police and other institutions on behalf of the village. By doing so, community
leaders, as well as the general public, feel that they are part and parcel of the legal system. Sustainable
development of a society can only occur in an environment in which the general public supports the rule oflaw through direct participation in the criminal justice system. In Japan, citizens participate directly throughthe saiban-in (lay judge) system and by serving as volunteer probation officers. The group also stressed theimportance of using the mass media, social media, and mascots or cartoon characters to draw the public’s
attention to LRE-related messaging. The ultimate goal of LRE is to achieve a culture of lawfulness, in which
all members of society respect, support and understand the rule of law and actively participate in maintainingit.
(ii) Access to Justice for All in the Criminal Justice System
Group 2 addressed the issue of access to justice by focusing on victims of crime. Modern societies seek
to avoid violence by resolving disputes through independent, impartial judiciaries, making access to justicefor all—but particularly for victims—important to maintaining peaceful societies in which all members place4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
trust in the criminal justice system. Public understanding of basic information about the criminal justicesystem will enable victims to make informed decisions, to understand the process of identifying wrongs
committed against them and to find suitable remedies.
The group’s discussions identified a number of challenges to access to justice for victims, including accessto police stations and facilities, legal expenses for the victims, inefficiency and lack of trust in the criminal
justice system, failure to provide victims with sufficient information about the prosecution of the defendantand his or her sentence, lack of cooperation between criminal justice agencies and other professions, lack ofknowledge about the criminal justice system, community attitudes, and failure to prioritize access-to-justiceissues.
In response to these challenges, a number of good practices were identified to improve access to justice.
These include: women only police stations to encourage reporting of crimes (Brazil); legal aid clinics and legal
support centres to provide information to crime victims (Cote d’Ivoire, Japan, Laos); forensic interviewing to
reduce mental burdens on child-victims (Japan and Thailand); information brochures on access to justice(Cote d’Ivoire and Japan); law-related education (Japan and Thailand); alternative dispute resolution to help
victims obtain justice (Thailand).
Considering the challenges and drawing from the good practices identified, the group offered the following
recommendations: (1) improving the location and facilities of police stations; (2) improving the process forreporting crime; (3) establishing women only police stations; (4) providing legal expenses for crime victims
and extending legal aid to include victim support or establishing Legal Support Centres for victims; (5)increasing and improving training for criminal justice agencies to improve interactions with victims; (6)establishing Independent Integrity Commissions to handle victim complaints on the conduct of criminal
justice officials; (7) establishing victim notification mechanisms and victim feedback forms; (8) developing a
network for communication between criminal justice agencies and relevant professionals; (9) promoting
criminal justice through campaigns, use of media and publication of materials to inform the public; (10)promoting legal education in schools and the public; and (11) developing marketing strategies to promote
access to justice.
The group concluded by noting that its recommendations are intended to increase victims’ access to, andtrust in, the criminal justice system. To implement these recommendations, it is necessary to secure fundingthat is based on effective data analysis and proper record management.
(iii) Community-Based Dispute Resolution
Group 3, addressing the issue of public participation in criminal justice, focused on the measure ofcommunity-based dispute resolution (CBDR) as a way of increasing public participation and access to justice.
The aim of CBDR is to reach resolution between the parties to the dispute. While the formal criminal justicesystem is the main approach for preventing crime in accordance with the rule of law, the formal system isexpensive. Taking account of cultural diversity and geographical remoteness, CBDR is an alternative
approach that can prevent crime by providing fair, prompt and inexpensive means to maintain peace andharmony in the community.
The group introduced practices from many of the participating countries that represent the CBDR
approach, such as the Nangdrik community dispute resolution programme in Bhutan, civil reconciliation in
Japan, village court mediation in Papua New Guinea, the Barangay Justice System in the Philippines, and civil
and criminal mediation in Thailand, in which the court’s mediators are selected from among the generalpublic. It was noted that most countries use mediation in civil or minor cases as a customary communitybased practice, but few countries apply CBDR to criminal cases.
While the group agreed that CBDR is an important measure for resolving disputes, there are numerous
challenges to its use and implementation, including, among others, cultural and geographical diversity andlack of awareness of legal rights and options. To achieve fairness in CBDR, the group agreed that there must
be balance between the protection of defendants’ rights and victims’ rights. It is also important to havecriteria for selecting mediators, codes of conduct, and training for mediators, as well as greater publicawareness of the mediation process. Finally, effective measures must be identified to ensure performance ofobligations agreed to through the CBDR process. Several of the measures identified include the practice of5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018referring the matter to the police (Bhutan and Thailand), involving relatives in the mediation to encourage
performance of obligations (Japan), and seeking the assistance of village court officials or clan/tribal leaders(Papua New Guinea).
The group offered a number of recommendations to enhance the quality of CBDR in countries that adopt
the approach. These measures include: legislation on CBDR; public awareness and education campaigns;
collaboration with bar associations; making use of the Japanese volunteer probation officer system; creationof policy guidelines for CBDR; providing incentives to mediators; providing appropriate training and selectionof mediators; and referring cases to the formal legal system if obligations agreed to during CBDR are not
performed. The group concluded that the CBDR approach not only enhances public participation in criminal
justice but enhances access to justice and LRE.
B. The 169th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 169th International Training Course was held from 9 May to 14 June 2018. The main theme was“Criminal Justice Practices against Illicit Drug Trafficking”. Twenty-four overseas participants and seven
Japanese participants attended the 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 three groups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Effective Investigative and Prosecutorial Measures to Detect, Prosecute and Punish Leaders of
Crime Organizations and High Value Targets
Group 2: Confiscation of Drugs and Proceeds Derived from Drug Offences: A Way Forward for Effective
Enforcement
Group 3: Multi-Agency and International Cooperation
The three groups each selected 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
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 SeriesNo. 106.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Investigative and Prosecutorial Measures to Detect, Prosecute and Punish Leaders of Crime
Organizations and High Value Targets
Drug trafficking is a global crime in which organized crime groups operate in secrecy. Thus, special
measures are necessary to combat drug trafficking. The group reported on the current situation of special
measures in the participating countries, explained common problems, and recommended solutions. For all
measures, the group stressed the importance of establishing legal frameworks (specific legislation) for theuse of such measures.
Because drug trafficking is committed in secret, informants are critical for detection and investigation.
However, challenges faced include the reliability of information provided, protection of informants, andcorruption among law enforcement officials. Thus, the group stressed the need to scrutinize and corroborate
information obtained before making decisions. Additionally, witness protection frameworks should beestablished, and compensation should be offered subject to strict record keeping.
While electronic surveillance and communication interception are important techniques to detect drugtrafficking, safeguards (i.e., warrants and time limitations) are necessary to protect the privacy rights of6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
citizens. In addition to laws on electronic surveillance, the group recommended the adoption of standard
operating procedures for the use of these technologies, increasing budgets to acquire state-of-the-art
technologies, and specialized training.
Undercover operations are high-risk investigative operations to infiltrate criminal organizations anddetect their criminal activities. Common problems include lack of legal frameworks, technology and training.
Solutions proposed include enhanced commitments to staffing, technology, training, and the protection of
agents and their families,
Controlled delivery operations permit illicit or suspect consignments to pass into or through an enforcing
jurisdiction in order to identify and apprehend those involved in the criminal activity. The group recommended
enhancing professionalism by conducting such operations by special law enforcement units, combining
controlled delivery with other investigative techniques, and establishing procedures to ensure timely
cooperation with foreign and domestic law enforcement agencies.
Finally, without testimony at trial, drug-trafficking prosecutions will fail. The group recommended witness
protection measures and the granting of immunity from prosecution to ensure that witnesses can safely
testify at trial.
(ii) Confiscation of Drugs and Proceeds Derived from Drug Offences: A Way Forward for Effective
Enforcement
To promote public safety and prevent the further commission of crime, confiscation of drugs and criminal
assets is a fundamental law-enforcement priority. Global conventions such as the Palermo Convention(UNTOC) and the Vienna Convention require States Parties to adopt measures to detect money launderingand confiscate illicit drugs, criminal proceeds and other instrumentalities of crime.
While the traditional approach to drug confiscation (informants and random checking) is important, thegroup noted that special investigative techniques (controlled delivery, undercover operations, electronic
surveillance) are more effective. These special techniques require a greater emphasis on training. Likewise,
investigators need training to stay up to date on drug-trafficking trends and modus operandi. For example,
proving intent in trafficking cases is a constant challenge that is compounded by the dark web andcryptocurrencies. The drug confiscation process is: search warrant, seizure, investigation, forensic testingand storage in a secure facility. To prevent the loss/theft of seized drugs, early disposal of drugs before theconclusion of the case was addressed by some members. The challenges of lack of international standards
on the disposal of drugs and lack of public trust in some countries were identified.
Criminal assets can be identified by search procedures (with or without warrants), Financial Intelligence
Units (FIUs), investigations and interrogations, and asset tracing. Challenges include the often-limited scopeof investigation of FIUs, registration of assets in the names of third parties, cross-border transactions andthe slow pace of international cooperation. To overcome these challenges, the group recommended
strengthening the investigative authority of FIUs, establishing clear guidelines for international cooperation,
adoption and implementation of international frameworks for asset tracing, and capacity-building for law
enforcement officers. Once assets are identified, authorities must freeze, confiscate, and ultimately dispose ofthem. However, certain assets often decline in value and are stored by the state at high cost. Measures toaddress these challenges include releasing assets on bond and authorizing special agencies to manage thestorage of seized property. Finally, the group also recommended that countries consider the adoption of civil
or non-conviction-based forfeiture per the FATF Recommendations. The group concluded by offering
recommendations to improve information sharing, border control practices, domestic coordination between
agencies, statistical information and analysis, and capacity-building(iii) Multi-Agency and International Cooperation
All countries, whether origin, transit or destination countries, are impacted by the cross-border nature of
drug trafficking. Therefore, drug trafficking is a matter of global concern, and international cooperation isnecessary to combat it. Group 3, under the theme of multi-agency and international cooperation, focused on
the topics of (a) border control, (b) information exchange, (c) mutual legal assistance, and (d) financial
institutions.

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
Regarding border control, many participants reported severe difficulties in interdicting the trafficking ofdrugs across their inland borders, coastlines and points of entry. To respond to this challenge, the group
recommended strengthening border security and enhancement of visa application screening. Along similarlines, the group stressed the importance of agency-to-agency information exchanges between countries byentering into treaties or other agreements with neighbouring countries, as well as utilizing channels between
liaison magistrates, police attaches, FIU liaison officers and focal points of international cooperation networks,
such as INTERPOL.
Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is also an important measure to combat drug trafficking, but there are
numerous challenges to successful assistance, such as lack of domestic laws on MLA, lack of expertise,differences in legal systems and terminology, discrepancies in domestic laws, difficulty in implementing
special investigation techniques through MLA, and lack of timely response. Among numerous recommendations,the group suggested: (a) establishing international cooperation units within relevant agencies; (b) promotionof an active international cooperation culture among practitioners; (c) fostering communication throughinformal cooperation; (d) facilitation of international cooperation based on a harmonized list of common illicit
substances and precursors; and so on.
Regarding financial institutions, the group reviewed the practices implemented in the participating
countries to combat money laundering connected with drug trafficking. These practices include strengthening
anti-money-laundering laws, reliance on international cooperation, and sharing financial intelligence throughnetworks such as the Egmont Group. Still, challenges remain such as overcoming refusals to provide
assistance and meeting the dual criminality requirement with respect to countries deemed as tax havens.
The group recommended enhancing capacity-building efforts and using open source and FIU tools to trace
foreign accounts and assets.
C. The 170th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 170th International Training Course was held from 22 August to 21 September 2018. The main
theme was “Treatment of Illicit Drug Users”. Eighteen overseas participants (including four observers) andseven Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants of the 170th 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 two groups.
Group 1: Effective Treatment Modalities and Interventions for Incarcerated Drug Users
Group 2: Diversion Options and Treatment Methods in the Community Setting
Each Group selected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize thediscussions. 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. Both groups examined the course theme. The Groups presented their reports in the Report-Back
Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports were published in full in
UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 107.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Treatment Modalities and Interventions for Incarcerated Drug Users
Group 1 addressed the issue of the treatment of drug users in prisons, including coordination between
prisons and community organizations to prepare for reintegration. Four crucial challenges were identified asnecessary to improve drug treatment in the custodial setting: (a) lack of trained personnel, (b) specialized8

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
assessment, (c) lack of community support and partnership, and (d) diversity of drug use programmes.
Regarding training of correctional staff, each country should conduct a training needs analysis on a yearlyor biennial basis to identify training needs and skills gaps. Specific training measures may include academic
and professional training programmes, such as obtaining certificates in social work. In-service training should
be provided by internal and external experts to enhance practical skills in the fields of law, medicine, etc.,
and learning from the experiences of community-based organizations should be encouraged.
Specialized assessment protocols and tools are necessary to determine which inmates are drug users,
have higher risk of relapse or reoffending, or are suffering from infectious diseases or mental health problems.
The Screening Brief Intervention Referral and Treatment (SBIRT) protocol provides a structured methodthat enables trained and untrained staff alike to conduct initial screening using tools such as ASSIST, DAST
20 and C-SRRS. These tools can be quickly and easily implemented to conduct initial assessments.
As drug users’ multifactorial risks and needs make it impossible to identify an ideal treatment programme,
a diversified portfolio of programmes, including psychological (e.g. CBT), social (e.g. family involvement) andpharmacological (e.g. detox) approaches, should be developed. To the greatest extent possible, treatment
programmes should be administered on a voluntary basis.
Finally, community organizations should be involved in offender treatment programmes as early as
possible to coordinate ongoing treatment after release. In so doing, practitioners in correctional facilities
should utilize the through-care approach, aftercare and the promotion of offender reintegration into society
through public awareness programmes. The group concluded by recommending that policymakers aligncriminal justice laws with current public health policies, including harm-reduction strategies.
(ii) Diversion Options and Treatment Methods in the Community Setting
Noting that evidence-based studies support the effectiveness of diversion and other alternatives toimprisonment at helping offenders successfully reintegrate into society, Group 2 discussed ways to create
and implement such measures. While the traditional approach to drug crime involves criminalization, harshpunishment and stigmatization of the offender, this approach has been ineffective at deterring drug use.
Furthermore, incarceration has numerous disadvantages including a higher incarceration rate, higher costsof correctional facilities, weakening of the economic status of the inmate’s family, decreasing the inmate’s
employability upon release, and so on. Accordingly, criminal justice systems stand to benefit greatly fromreliable diversion methods that focus on treatment and reintegration.
Effective diversion can be applied at all stages of the criminal justice process, including the pre-trial, trial,and post-trial stages. Even incarcerated offenders may receive community-based treatment through work
release programmes or by engaging in community-based programmes on day release, enabling offenders tocontinue treatment in the community upon release. Diversion is a bridge to the community through which
offenders can access community support, such as volunteer probation officers, rehabilitation centres, self-helpgroups, hospitals, clinics, etc. Eligibility for diversion programmes—and matching of offenders with appropriate
programmes—should be based on assessments of each offender’s unique risks and needs. In particular,
judges have an important role in sentencing or diverting offenders.
Despite general acceptance of the importance of diversion and alternatives to imprisonment by criminal
justice practitioners, a number of issues and challenges prevent the implementation of effective measuresand practices, including (a) the absence of legislation on diversion, (b) stigmatization of offenders, (c) lack ofpublic awareness/information, (d) lack of professionals in the field, (e) inadequate collaboration among criminal
justice agencies, and (f) lack of adequate funding of drug treatment programmes. To address these challenges,
the group recommended legal reforms adopting diversionary measures, training and skills development for
officers, community outreach and public awareness programmes, countering stigmatization, and prioritizing
community-based rehabilitation for drug offenders.

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018

III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. Third Country Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders in the CLMV Countries
From 9 to 19 January 2018, UNAFEI co-hosted the Third Country Training Programme for Developmentof Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar,
and Viet Nam).
B. The Fifth UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries
From 12-23 February 2018, UNAFEI co-hosted the Fifth Criminal Justice Training Programme forFrench-Speaking African Countries in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. 33 practitioners from 8 French-speaking Africancountries discussed capacity-building for investigation, prosecution and adjudication, and measures forcombating terrorism and organized crime.
C. The Training Course for Myanmar Prison Officials
From 14-28 February 2018, ten prison officials from Myanmar studied the institutional correction system
of Japan.
D. The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
From 5-16 March 2018, nine Nepalese participants studied and compared Japanese and Nepalese trial
procedure, police investigation and criminal identification practices.
E. The RTI-SPP Exchange Programme for Viet Nam
From 11-17 March 2018, two Vietnamese participants discussed the amended criminal procedure code.
F. Training Course on Legal Technical Assistance for Viet Nam
From 12-23 March 2018, ten Vietnamese participants discussed the implementation of the amended
criminal procedure code.
G. Follow-up Seminar for the Second Phase of the Third Country Training Programme for Developmentof Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMV Countries
From 26-28 June 2018, UNAFEI hosted the Follow-up Seminar for the Third Country Training Programme
for Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia,
Laos, Myanmar, and Viet Nam).
H. The 21st UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEI’s annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme, took
place from October to November 2018. The main theme of the Programme is “Combating Corruption
through Effective Criminal Justice Practices, International Cooperation and Engagement of Civil Society”.
Twenty-five overseas participants and several Japanese participants attended.
I. The Twelfth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 27 to 29 November 2018, UNAFEI held the Twelfth Regional Seminar on Good Governance in Da
Nang, Viet Nam. Among other participants, 19 anti-corruption practitioners from the 10 ASEAN countries
attended as official delegates.

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, and makes
use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information and Library Service of theInstitute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies, governmentalorganizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, the Institute10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members, visiting
experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2018, the 104th, 105th and 106th editions of
the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 155 to 157 (from the 168th Senior Seminarto the 170th International Training Course, respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published, which
included a brief report on each course and seminar and other timely information. These publications are alsoavailable on UNAFEI’s website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 26 January 2018, 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 168th 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 comparativeinternational study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2018, Dr. Roy Godson, Professor
Emeritus, Georgetown University, and Ms. Lulua Asaad, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer at
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), were invited as speakers. They presented on“Culture of Lawfulness and Measures to Promote It” and “UN Congresses and Education for Justice”,
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 in 2018
Professors WATANABE and MINOURA visited Bangkok, Thailand from 8 to 20 January as Visiting
Experts for the Third-Country Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-based
Treatment of Offenders in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam hosted by Rehabilitation Bureau,
Ministry of Justice, Thailand.
Professor YUKAWA visited Valletta, Malta from 29 January to 1 February to attend the Plenary Meetingof the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) Criminal Justice and Rule of Law (CJ-ROL) Working Group.
Deputy Director ISHIHARA, Professor YUKAWA and Professor YAMADA visited Abidjan, Côte
d’Ivoire from 9 to 25 February to conduct the Fifth UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training Programme forFrench-Speaking African Countries.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates from 17 to 21 February to attend the
GCTF Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group Workshop on Monitoring, Measurement and
Evaluation.
Director SENTA and Professor AKASHI visited Manila, Philippines and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 1
to 10 March to obtain feedback on JICA/UNAFEI training programmes and to research offender rehabilitationin the institution and the community in Malaysia and the Philippines.
Professor YAMADA visited Da Nang and Hanoi, Viet Nam from 5 to 9 March to discuss the Twelfth
Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries with related organizations.
Professor AKASHI visited Jakarta, Indonesia from 11 to 15 March to research community-based
corrections in Indonesia.
Professors YOSHIMURA and WATANABE visited Yangon, Mandalay, and Naypyidaw, Myanmar from4 to 18 March to discuss the Comparative Study of Myanmar and Japan to improve prison management.

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
Professor YOSHIMURA visited Colombo, Sri Lanka from 12-18 March to attend the 7th Asian Conferenceof Correctional Facilities Architects and Planners (ACCFA).
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic from 12 to 18 March to attend a UNODC
regional workshop on the prevention of violent extremism.
Professors WATANABE and MINOURA visited Bangkok, Thailand and Phnom Penh, Cambodia from 15
to 24 March to implement the monitoring and evaluation session of the Third Country Training Programme(TCTP) in Cambodia and to report the results and discuss the Follow-up Seminar on the Third Country
Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMVCountries with the Department of Probation in Thailand.
Director SENTA, Deputy Director ISHIHARA and Professors WATANABE and YAMAMOTO visited
Vienna, Austria from 12 to 20 May to attend the 29th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited San Diego, California (USA) from 8 to 16 June to attend the College on
Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) 80th Annual Scientific Meeting.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Manila, Muntinlupa, and Quezon, Philippines from 4 to 13 July to discuss
the UNODC Project “Improving Criminal Justice Response Inside and Outside Prison to Prevent and Counter
Terrorism in the Philippines”.
Deputy Director ISHIHARA visited Delhi, India from 23 to 28 July to attend the Global Central Authorities
Initiative: South Asia Regional Workshop hosted by the International Institute for Justice and the Rule ofLaw (IIJ).
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Dili, Timor-Leste from 23 to 27 July to discuss the seminars for fiscal
year 2018 with relevant organizations.
Professor YAMADA visited Garmisch, Germany from 30 July to 26 August to attend the Countering
Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC) Course hosted by the George C. Marshall European Center.
Professor FURUHASHI visited Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 1 to 9 September to attend the 38th Asianand Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators.
Professors WATANABE and KITAGAWA visited San Antonio, Texas (USA) from 15 to 21 September
to attend the 26th Annual Conference of the International Community Corrections Association (ICCA).
Director SETO visited Siracusa, Italy and Vienna, Austria from 22 to 30 September to attend a meeting
hosted by the Siracusa International Institute for Criminal Justice and Human Rights in and to meet with
officers of the UNODC in Vienna.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Marrakesh, Morocco from 30 September to 6 October to attend theWorkshop on Countering Violent Extremism in Prisons, hosted by the GCTF Countering Violent Extremism(CVE) Working Group.
Professor FURUHASHI visited Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from 15 to 23 October to attend the37th Annual Research and Treatment Conference hosted by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers.
Professors YAMAMOTO and OHINATA visited Montreal, Canada from 20 to 28 October to attend the20th AGM and Conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA) on the theme of“Beyond Prisons: The Way Forward”.
Professors WATANABE and FURUHASHI visited Yangon and Naypyidaw, Myanmar from 4 to 9
November to hold meetings with related organizations on the preparation of training materials.
12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Dili, Timor-Leste from 7 to 17 November to hold a seminar for prison
officials and to discuss the UNODC Project “Improving Criminal Justice Response Inside and Outside Prison
to Prevent and Counter Terrorism in the Philippines”.
Professor KITAGAWA visited Vientiane, Lao PDR from 8 to 14 November to research the current
condition of community-based treatment of offenders and to hold meetings with relevant organizations.
Director SETO and Professor YAMADA visited Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam from 18 to 24
November to attend the Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam.
Director SETO, Deputy Director ISHIHARA, and Professors YAMADA and FUTAGOISHI visited Da
Nang, Viet Nam from 25 November to 1 December to conduct the Twelfth Regional Seminar on Good
Governance for Southeast Asian Countries.
Professors OTANI, HIRANO and WATANABE visited Kathmandu, Nepal from 16 to 23 December todiscuss plans for the Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal.
Professor KITAGAWA visited Bangkok, Thailand from 10 to 22 December to attend the Third Phase of
the Third Country Training Programme for the Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Viet Nam).
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 theInstitute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine professors are selected from among publicprosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probation and the police. UNAFEI also has approximately 15
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 andrelated agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty and Staff Changes
Mr. MATSUMOTO Takeshi, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was appointed to the United Nations Officeon Drugs and Crime Regional Office Southeast Asia and Pacific on 2 January 2018.
Mr. YUKAWA Tsuyoshi, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo High Public
Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2018.
Ms. WATANABE Ayuko, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo District Public
Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2018.
Mr. YOSHIMURA Koji, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tama Juvenile Training
School on 1 April 2018.
Mr. MINOURA Satoshi, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International Affairs
Division, Minister's Secretariat on 1 April 2018.
Ms. AKASHI Fumiko, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International Affairs
Division of the Minister's Secretariat on 1 April.
Mr. FUTAGOISHI Ryo, formerly attorney, coordinator of the Litigation Bureau, was appointed a professor
13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Mr. OTANI Junichiro, formerly public prosecutor of the Chiba District Public Prosecutors Office, wasappointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Mr. FURUHASHI Takuya, formerly director of Juvenile Correction of the Takamatsu Regional Correction
Headquarters, was appointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Mr. OHINATA Hidenori, formerly director of the planning and coordination department of the Niigata
Probation Office, was appointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Ms. KITAGAWA Mika, formerly probation officer of the Kanto Regional Parole Board, was appointed aprofessor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Mr. SENTA Keisuke, formerly director of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Takamatsu District Public
Prosecutors Office on 25 June 2018.
Mr. SETO Takeshi, formerly chief public prosecutor of the Tokushima District Public Prosecutors Office,
was appointed director of UNAFEI on 25 June 2018.

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.

14