CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
REDUCING REOFFENDING: THE KYOTO CONGRESS WORKSHOP AND
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
ISHIHARA Kayo*I. INTRODUCTION
From 7 to 12 March 2021, the 14th United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice(hereafter referred to as “the Kyoto Congress”) was held in Kyoto, Japan. The United Nations Congress on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (“the Crime Congress”) is held every five years and is the United
Nations’ largest meeting in the field of criminal justice. The most up-to-date and important criminal justiceissues are discussed at the Crime Congress, and in its recent practice, a political declaration is adopted,
which sets the goal to be pursued for the following five years, up until the next Crime Congress. The UN
Member States and the international community are expected to follow-up on what had been agreed upon
and to take steps to implement the provisions of the political declaration.
The Kyoto Congress’s overall theme was “Advancing crime prevention, criminal justice and the rule oflaw: towards the achievement of 2030 Agenda”. The Kyoto Congress focused its discussion on four agenda
items, as well as four workshop topics, each corresponding to one of the four related agenda items. At the
Kyoto Congress, a political declaration entitled the “Kyoto Declaration on Advancing Crime Prevention,
Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law: Towards the Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development” (hereafter, referred to as “the Kyoto Declaration”) was adopted.
The United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders (UNAFEI) is an international training institute established upon an agreement between the United
Nations and the Japanese government. UNAFEI is one of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice Programme Network Institutes (PNIs), and as such, has the role to contribute to the development
and implementation of the UN policies in the field of criminal justice. At the Kyoto Congress, as a PNI,
UNAFEI was responsible for organizing one of its formal components – Workshop 2 on “Reducing Reoffending:Identifying Risks and Developing Solutions”, which also served the discussion under Agenda Item 4 on
“Integrated approaches to challenges facing the criminal justice system”.
Taking the position of the Deputy Director of UNAFEI from October 2017 to March 2021, I had theprivilege to be responsible for the preparation and organization of Workshop 2. Based on my experience, I
would like to briefly overview the discussions and the outcomes of the Workshop, and also look at its impacts
on the future developments of UN criminal justice policies.
Please note that the comments and thoughts below on the Workshop outcomes and the future developments
are my personal and professional views and do not necessarily reflect those of UNAFEI, the UN or any otherorganization.

II. WORKSHOP 2 AND ITS OUTCOMES
A. Workshop Concept1 and Panel Compositions
Reducing reoffending will lead to fewer victims, greater community safety and less pressure on, and＊Director, General Affairs Department, Osaka High Public Prosecutors Office; Former Deputy Director, UNAFEI.
  For the detailed Workshop concept, please refer to the Background Paper for the Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9) <https://
undocs.org/A/CONF.234/9>, supplemented by the Working Paper on “Developments regarding crime prevention andcriminal justice as a result of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic” (Section IV.B refers to Workshop 2) (A/CONF.234/15) <https://undocs.org/A/CONF.234/15>. These two documents are the UN’s official papers for the Kyoto
Congress prepared by the UNODC Secretariat.
1

31

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
lower costs for, the criminal justice system. The goal of reducing reoffending will not be sufficiently achieved
if we only seek to prevent offenders from committing a new crime. Offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration
into society should be pursued, so that the offenders will desist from crime and be law-abiding and productive
citizens. This will contribute to building peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, asprescribed in Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ensuring that “no one will be left behind”.
It is evident and widely known that an offender cannot be rehabilitated by a penalty or imprisonment
alone. Offender rehabilitation and reintegration is naturally a long process that can only be accomplishedwith continuous, timely and adequate interventions and support, and with the involvement of various players– not only from criminal justice authorities – that can offer necessary assistance to help offenders overcome
personal, social and other barriers and to increase offenders’ personal strengths and assets.
Based on such perspectives, Workshop 2 on reducing reoffending was composed of three panels guided
by a keynote speech by Professor Fergus McNeill of the University of Glasgow, which addressed theoverarching concept of rehabilitation and desistance as well as its key aspects and considerations. The threepanels were as follows:- Panel I: Creating Rehabilitative Prison Environments;- Panel II: Community-Based Approaches that Support Desistance; and- Panel III: Taking a Multifaceted Approach to Ensure Continuous Support and Services for .
Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Offenders.
Whereas the first and second panels focused on challenges and good practices at the two major procedural
stages for rehabilitation, i.e., prison and the community-based interventions, the third panel looked at various
aspects to facilitate offender rehabilitation and good practices responding to offenders’ multifaceted needs
with the involvement of various public and private stakeholders.
Each panel consisted of presentations from 4-5 panellists/speakers followed by the floor discussion with
the Member States representatives and other participants. To ensure practical discussions that are useful tothe whole international community, careful consideration was made in the selection of panellists/speakers so
as to reflect various types of practices from different parts of the world (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America,
Latin America, and the Middle East), representing both developed and developing systems.
B. Summary of Workshop Discussions2Workshop 2 was chaired by Dr. Matti Joutsen,3 and the panel discussion was moderated by Mr. Seto
Takeshi, Director of UNAFEI. Dr. Kittipong Kittiyarak, the former Executive Director of the Thailand
Institute of Justice (PNI co-sponsor of Workshop 2) delivered opening remarks.
1. Keynote SpeechProfessor Fergus McNeill of the University of Glasgow delivered a keynote speech that applied to all
three panels. The keynote speech stressed the importance of reducing reoffending, rehabilitation andreintegration, and addressed key principles and factors required for rehabilitation and desistance. It waspointed out that punitive responses have enhanced social disintegration, leading to more reoffending, and that
there is a growing evidence base to suggest that stigmatization and criminal punishment actually slow the
rehabilitative process. Professor McNeill introduced three principles crucial for rehabilitative interventions:parsimony (no more intervention than necessary), proportionality and productiveness (the form and focus of
the approaches should be on positive efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate). Some other essential points weredelivered, among others, supporting desistance requires respect for diversity, work with social relations,enabling self-determination, providing practical support (housing, employment etc.), and recognizing andcelebrating change. Also, he pointed out that public participation and social reintegration programmes are
critical to helping offenders along their path to lasting change, and that prisons can be places of change and2  It is expected that UNAFEI will publish all the presentations and reports of the Workshop 2 of the Kyoto Congress.
   As a Finnish delegate, Dr. Joutsen was elected by the Congress as the Chair of Committee II, which handled plenary
meeting sessions for Agenda Items 4 and 6, and Workshops 2 and 4. As the special advisor of the Thailand Institute ofJustice, the PNI co-sponsor of Workshop 2, Dr. Joutsen had been involved in all the preparatory stages and took the role ofthe keynote speaker of Panel II.
332

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
growth for some offenders under rehabilitative environments, established through normalization, bureaucratic
legitimacy, humanity, staff professionalism, offering help and assistance, and adequate and transparent
organization and consistency.
2. Panel I
Panel I focused on rehabilitative prison-based efforts and had four panellists from the United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Namibia, Argentina and Norway.
Ms. Vera Tkachenko, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer of the UNODC, presented global
challenges in the prison situation, including overcrowding and Covid-19 impacts. She introduced good
examples from UNODC technical assistance programmes: one from Kazakhstan on justice reform, which
successfully reduced the prison population, and one successful example from Kyrgyzstan, in the capacitybuilding of prison officers and rehabilitation programmes for violent extremist prisoners, which fostered good
relationships between prison staff and prisoners, and resulted in increased prison security.
Ms. Mariana Martin, Deputy Commissioner-General of the Namibian Correctional Service demonstrated
a good example of evidence-based (risk-need-responsivity principle-based) prison programmes in Namibia,
learning from established Canadian practices and modifying them to adjust to the local context in Namibia.
Mr. Emiliano Blanco, President of the Latin America Chapter of the International Corrections and Prisons
Association and the former National Director of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Argentina, explained
how and why corruption in prison undermines offender rehabilitation and elaborated on a number of anticorruption efforts in the Federal Penitentiary Service of Argentina with a view to establishing rehabilitative
prison environments.
Ms. Heidi Bottolfs, Deputy Director General of the Directorate of Corrections, Norway, introduced theNorwegian implementation of the “principle of normality”, the idea that life in prison should be as close as
possible to life in the community, such as the provision of educational services in prison by the local service
provider in the same manner as in the community.
After the presentations, a number of participants introduced their countries’ initiatives to foster
rehabilitative prison environments during the floor discussion.
3. Panel II
Panel II started with the keynote speech by Dr. Matti Joutsen, elaborating the importance of active andadequate use of non-custodial measures and community-based options while avoiding the risk of net widening,referring to the reality of excessive use of imprisonment and its negative impacts, and to the fact that most
low- and medium-risk offenders need no support, whereas high-risk offenders and vulnerable groups, including
the poor and the marginalized, greatly require support. He further elaborated that treatment in the community“works” in connection with high-quality, well-targeted, well-resourced and well-supported interventions.
The Panel discussion was followed by four panellists from Canada, Croatia, Kenya and the Philippines.
Ms. Jennifer Oades, Chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada, introduced the Canadian practice ofparole with a very high success rate and the background behind Canada’s success, including evidence-basedrisk assessment, decisions of highly qualified board members and specialized training. She also introduced
the “Judges to Jails” programme which gives opportunities to judges to learn about prisons and parole.
Ms. Jana Špero, Director General of the Directorate for Prison System and Probation, Ministry of Justiceand Public Administration of Croatia, explained how Croatia successfully established a new probation service
in a few years by taking a step-by-step approach. The Croatian experience demonstrated a successful
example of introducing a new community corrections system from scratch while reducing prison populationand obtaining support from the public and cooperating agencies.
Lady Justice Teresia Matheka of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru introduced the Kenyan experienceand challenges in juvenile justice to ensure the best interests of children, where all relevant authorities, suchas the police department, prison department, children services department, prosecution, judiciary and33

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
probation department, came to engage in continuous collaboration and information-sharing, and how they
made use of technical assistance in its development.
Dr. Manuel Co, the former Administrator of Parole and Probation Administration of the Philippines
explained how the Philippines made effective use of the barangay – the smallest unit of local government – inthe restorative justice process, and that the use of such process and the involvement of the community
members has positively impacted offender rehabilitation.
During the floor discussion, participants supported the importance of community-based approaches,
support in the community and public awareness.
4. Panel III
Panel III dealt with a multifaceted and multi-stakeholder approach, and therefore had panellists
representing various public and private bodies. Only one panellist represented a Member State, namely,
Japan. The other four panellists were from international or non-governmental organizations, that is, Safer
Foundation, an NGO in the United States; Penal Reform International (PRI), an international NGO; Kriminellas
Revansch I Samhället (Criminals Return into Society, or KRIS), an NGO located in Sweden; and Hedaya, aninternational institute located in the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Imafuku Shoji, Assistant Vice-Minister and Director-General of the Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry ofJustice of Japan, addressed Japan’s comprehensive government-wide strategies for reducing reoffending
whereby various rehabilitative initiatives are undertaken on the basis of enhanced public-public and publicprivate partnerships with a view to responding to various areas of offenders’ needs. As part of such initiatives,
the Japanese probation service’s coordination efforts for post-release accommodation support were elaborated,
where close cooperation with prisons, volunteer probation officers and other public and private bodies, etc.
helps to respond to the specific needs of offenders.
Ms. Sodiqa Williams, General Counsel and Vice President of External Affairs of the Safer Foundation,
presented Safer’s activities in Chicago and the State of Illinois, providing a full spectrum of services for reentry of offenders to help them gain employment etc. She explained the vulnerability of offenders in the area
where high unemployment rate, low education level, poverty etc. have been observed, and elaborated on
Safer’s Prison Emergency Early Release Response (PEERR) programme, which addresses the needs ofoffenders from a holistic perspective in partnership with various service providers, starting from triage to
identify the immediate needs of people returning from incarceration.
Ms. Olivia Rope, the Executive Director of PRI, emphasized the importance of evidence-based genderresponsive interventions, and elaborated on PRI’s technical assistance project in Georgia for women in prison.
In the project, upon identified needs for women prisoners and their children who have experienced violenceand discrimination, she elaborated on the focus areas of PRI’s project, such as economic empowerment(vocational training, employment and small business management support etc.), offering shelter, and legal andpsychological counselling.
Mr. Ali Reunanen, Secretary-General of KRIS, which is operated by former offenders and addicts, started
by explaining his personal history of criminal behaviour and drug addiction and how he experienced lifechange. He explained how KRIS helps offenders to change their criminal lifestyles and gives them a message
of hope and support for change to a new lifestyle, and demonstrated the important role of peer support inoffender rehabilitation.
Ms. Maria Cristina Mattei, Program Manager of Hedayah, the international centre of excellence forcountering violent extremism, presented Hedayah’s free online monitoring, measurement and evaluation tool
“MASAR” and its applicability to all forms of offender rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. She
introduced a case study on a Dutch recidivism reduction programme that used MASAR to track reoffendingby terrorism offenders, and demonstrated how MASAR helps practitioners design and identify smarter goals
for treatment programmes, select appropriate indicators and analyse the results.
In the floor discussion following the presentations, a number of delegations and participants emphasized
the importance of various re-entry support with multi-stakeholder partnerships.
34

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS

5. Other Notable Discussions(a) Discussion on Covid-19 impacts
During the panel discussion, the impact of Covid-19 was reported by panellists, speakers and participants.
The Kyoto Congress was postponed for nearly one year from the original schedule4 due to the Covid-19
crisis, and its impacts in relation to the Workshop topic were discussed. To summarize, first, it was pointed
out that the failure in rehabilitating offenders by punitive responses has been exacerbated by the Covid-19
pandemic, and that prison conditions deteriorated under the spread of Covid-19, especially in overcrowded
prisons. Second, with a view to ensuring normalization and rehabilitative prison environments, an example
was reported where digital communication and digital training was enhanced to maintain and strengthen
contact with the outside world during the Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, examples of strengthened use of
online communications between the released offenders and supporters in the community were reported.
Third, in response to the deteriorating situation under the Covid-19 crisis, the increased importance of theuse of non-custodial measures and early release was recognized. Further, noting negative impacts of Covid-19,
enhanced needs for employment support and aftercare for released offenders were identified.
(b) The idea to develop new UN standards and norms
In the deliberations, outcomes of several related ancillary meetings which took place before Workshop 2
were introduced. The ancillary meetings at the Crime Congress have the role to contribute to the related
Workshop discussions, and therefore, their outcomes and key summaries were introduced to enrich theWorkshop discussion. In particular, an idea to develop new UN standards and norms on reducing reoffending
was proposed as the outcomes of two ancillary meetings: the “World Congress for Community Volunteers
Supporting Offender Reintegration” (organized by the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice ofJapan and UNAFEI) and “Five Years of the Nelson Mandela Rules” (organized by the Raoul Wallenberg
Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI)).5
C. Outcomes
1. Wrap-up and Report to the Plenary Meeting
At the end of the Workshop, the scientific moderator, Mr. Seto, wrapped up the discussion. Following theWorkshop, he was invited to report to the plenary meeting session, which handled the related Agenda Item
“Integrated approaches to challenges facing the criminal justice system”, on the outcome of the Workshop 2
discussion. There, he reported the Workshop outcomes as follows:
The Workshop demonstrated that offender rehabilitation and reintegration into society is critical tobuilding inclusive, sustainable societies as envisaged in the 2030 Agenda. Ensuring rehabilitative
processes and environments throughout all stages and pathways leading to successful reintegration is
crucial. In pursuing this, four key points were highlighted by the discussions: (i) first, criminal justicesystems should respect proportionality and seek to impose the least restrictive sanctions possible, andshould make active use of non-custodial measures in line with the UN standards and norms, while
avoiding the risk of mass supervision and net-widening; (ii) second, offenders must receive effective,
evidence-based interventions and support responding to each individual’s specific needs, both in prison
and in the community; (iii) third, continuity of care and support must be ensured; and (iv) fourth,offender rehabilitation and reintegration practices should be developed and implemented by amultifaceted approach involving all relevant stakeholders. . . . I am very pleased to report that it wassuggested that the good practices addressed during the workshop might serve as a basis for thedevelopment of model strategies to reduce reoffending. As the moderator for the workshop, I wish to
express my support for the development of such model strategies and believe they will play a significant
role in reducing reoffending in this decade of action as we move toward 2030 and the achievement of
the Sustainable Development Goals (emphasis added).
2. Chair’s Summary
The Workshop outcomes are publicized as part of the Chair’s summary in the UN’s official Crime Congress4  Originally, the Kyoto Congress was scheduled in April 2020.
   I was a panellist at the RWI ancillary meeting and suggested developing new UN standards and norms on reducing
reoffending, which was supported by other panellists and participants.
5

35

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
report (A/CONF.234/16, para. 158).6 As for Workshop 2, the conclusion and 12 practical recommendations
form the heart of the Chair’s summary.
The conclusion starts with the sentence saying that reducing reoffending is “critical to building inclusive,
sustainable societies as envisaged in the 2030 Agenda.” This clarifies the direct link between reducing
reoffending and the achievement of the SDGs, emphasizing the importance of reducing reoffending in thisregard.
The next sentence highlights the important elements in reducing reoffending stating that “criminal
justice interventions should be in line with the principle of the least restrictive sanction and the principle ofproportionality, with the aim of rehabilitating offenders in the community whenever possible, and that
programmes to reduce reoffending needed to be multifaceted, involve all relevant stakeholders and ensure thenecessary continuity of care within rehabilitative environments.” This should be understood as the “guiding
principle” in reducing reoffending and can be broken down into four essential elements.
To elaborate, first, in deciding sanctions and case dispositions, the principle of the least restrictive sanction
and the principle of proportionality should be respected. These two principles are both essential and equallyimportant to accomplish criminal justice and rehabilitative purposes. However, given the reality in many
jurisdictions where punitive approaches and excessive use of imprisonment prevail, this conclusion part puts
more emphasis on seeking the possibility of community-based options based on the principle of the least
restrictive sanction. This principle is basically derived from human rights considerations. Moreover, it serves
rehabilitative perspectives, as the application of this principle will lead to active use of non-custodial measuresand community-based interventions, which offers increased chances of success for offender rehabilitation.
This way of thinking is based on the understanding that incarceration generally entails negative impacts onsocial reintegration, such as stigmatization and disconnection with community ties (e.g. family, employment),
whereas community-based approaches are generally more conducive to rehabilitation and reintegration inthat such options enable providing necessary assistance while maintaining the offender’s life in the community.
Of course, decisions, including for community-based sanctions, should be “proportionate”, considering thegravity of the offence and other factors.
Second, the “programmes” for offender rehabilitation should be multifaceted and thus should involve
various stakeholders. Offender rehabilitation and reintegration requires interventions and support tailored toindividual’s needs. Therefore, “programmes”, in other words, interventions and support, must cover various
aspects to strengthen the offender’s social environment, such as employment, housing, healthcare, welfare,education, childcare, family relations, etc., and enhance personal aspects, such as self-esteem, self-efficacy,social skills, and so forth. However, it is impossible for the criminal justice authorities alone to provide all thenecessary types of support. Thus, a multi-stakeholder approach which requires the involvement of various
stakeholders is essential and key to successful reintegration. The Kyoto Declaration has a set of provisions
dedicated to “reducing reoffending through rehabilitation and reintegration” (paragraphs 37-42),7 andparagraph 39 promotes multi-stakeholder partnerships to reduce reoffending, referring to governmental
inter-agency coordination, public-private partnerships and involvement of employers and community
volunteers.
Third, in offender rehabilitation, continuity of care should be ensured. Rehabilitation and social reintegration
is a long process where the offender faces many difficulties at each stage. Therefore, treatment should be
followed-up on and support should be provided continuously. Especially, the gaps in the continuity of care/
support are often seen at the transition stage when the offenders are released from prison and restart theirlives in the community. Adequate interventions and support addressing needs at this stage are of vital
importance for successful rehabilitation. This has posed challenges in many developed and developing
systems. Bearing in mind that a large portion of offenders go to prison and struggle to rehabilitate in thecommunity after release, continuity of interventions and support, in particular from prison to the community,
should be underlined.
Fourth, rehabilitative environments should be ensured throughout all criminal justice processes. This is6  <https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/Congress/documents/ACONF234_16_V2102028.pdf>.
  <https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/Congress/21-02815_Kyoto_Declaration_ebook_rev_cover.pdf>.

736

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
identified as the key guiding concept in pursuing the goal of reducing reoffending. The need for rehabilitativeenvironments and processes applies to all the pathways and stages, including the criminal proceedings,
decision-making process for penalty and treatment, the prison-based treatment stage, and life in thecommunity. Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Kyoto Declaration refer to promoting rehabilitative environments
in prison and in the community, and they underscore the importance of this principle.
Following the conclusion, the Chair’s summary raises 12 points to be considered, which form the practical
recommendations of the Workshop 2.
Hereafter, I would like to elaborate and comment on the recommendations enumerated in subparagraphs(a) to (l) of paragraph 158 of the report, touching upon the links to the Workshop discussions (therecommendations are cited below in italics).
(a) With a view to reducing reoffending, Member States should undertake to collect relevant statistics,
identify the root causes of offending and reoffending, including the impact of poverty, unemployment,
homelessness, discrimination and health – in particular mental health – issues, evaluate social
reintegration approaches and share data, research and evaluation outcomes nationally and internationally;...
This encourages the collection and use of data for evidence-based strategies and interventions. Statistics
and research results have been proved effective in forming adequate strategies and establishing evidencebased interventions which “work”. Also, learning from other jurisdictions’ evidence-based practices, andmodifying them to adjust to the country’s local context, is an efficient and effective way to implement newpractices, as demonstrated in the good practice of Namibia introduced in the Panel I discussion.
(b) Member States are encouraged to develop effective interventions for the rehabilitation and social
reintegration of offenders, recognizing that this is crucial to public safety and social inclusiveness,
applying a realistic, step-by-step approach that considers the availability of resources and the feasibilityof steps to be taken within a certain time frame, refers to experiences in other jurisdictions and explores
the cost-effective use of information technology; . . .
This emphasizes a realistic approach in the implementation of rehabilitative approaches, in light of what
is practically effective in developing new measures and practices. The example of Croatia establishing its
new probation service with a step-by-step approach (Panel II) serves as a good practice in this regard. Also,
this recommendation refers to the use of information technology which enables wide dissemination of costeffective measures, as shown in the example of MASAR presented by Hedayah in Panel III.
(c) Member States are also encouraged to apply a multi-stakeholder approach to the social reintegrationof offenders, involving the public sector at both the State and local levels, the private sector, faith-basedorganizations, academia, volunteers and community members. Member States should seek to promote
public-public and public-private partnerships, to ensure continuity of support and to help offenders tosecure employment and housing and access to legal, social and medical services, as well as educational
opportunities and vocational training; . . .
Further to the reference in the conclusion and the Kyoto Declaration provisions, this recommendationelaborates on the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach to address various needs, which were fully
discussed in Panel III and touched upon by a number of other panellists and participants. In addition, thisrecommendation expressly raises key areas in need of continuous support, such as employment, housing,education, etc. which requires non-criminal-justice players’ involvement.
(d) Acknowledging that public understanding and cooperation are key elements of the reintegration of
offenders into society, Member States are invited to undertake awareness-raising activities directed at thegeneral public, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, volunteers, employers and the family
members of offenders to increase understanding of the impact of both imprisonment and non-custodial
measures on victims, on the social reintegration of offenders and on public safety, and elicit public
support for the community reintegration of offenders; . . .

37

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
This refers to awareness-raising, an essential issue to offender rehabilitation, especially where community
corrections is concerned. Awareness-raising includes promoting public acceptance, which targets the generalpublic, and a more in-depth awareness-raising, that is, understanding and cooperation by stakeholders whoare expected to coordinate with the authorities and provide support to offenders. This usually requires
substantial efforts to foster and is particularly crucial in promoting community-based approaches, which
require the acceptance of the offenders by the community at large, as well as the provision of support bymany players in various aspects. Effective approaches and methodologies will differ depending on the target
groups and the required level of awareness – for instance, whether the goal is to accept the idea of thecommunity-based approach or to directly help the offenders and provide them with assistance. In the latter
case, face-to-face direct consultation to alleviate the target’s concerns or give incentives can be an effective
approach. The Croatian experience in introducing its new probation service (Panel II) can be identified as agood example of effective awareness-raising.
(e) Member States are invited to recognize the effectiveness of rehabilitative community-based interventions
and ensure that a mandated, sufficiently resourced and adequately staffed public entity, such as a
dedicated probation service, is in place to manage, supervise and support offenders in the community.
Member States are also invited to take inspiration from successful experiences with the involvement ofcommunity volunteers who support the reintegration of offenders; . . .
This emphasizes the necessity and effectiveness of community-based interventions and encourages
Members States to establish probation services (or the like) to undertake community supervision and support.
Examples of Canada, Croatia, the Philippines (Panel II) and Japan (Panel III) demonstrated effective roles ofthe probation services in community supervision and support, or in the restorative justice process. In addition,use of community volunteers, such as the participation of volunteer probation officers in Japan etc, ishighlighted as a good practice to refer to.
(f) Member States are encouraged to implement penal responses guided by the principle of proportionality
and assessed by their ability to enable the reintegration of offenders; use imprisonment as a last resort,recognizing that the prison environment is generally less conducive to rehabilitation and social
reintegration than community-based measures; make use of an adequate and innovative array of noncustodial measures as alternatives to imprisonment and to pretrial detention, building on the Tokyo
Rules8 and the Bangkok Rules9; and consider the use of gender-responsive, child-friendly and humanrights-compliant restorative justice interventions, in view of their potential benefits for victims, theirvalue for the community affected by crime and their positive impact on the social reintegration of
offenders; . . .
This recommendation elaborates the first part of the “guiding principle” set out in the conclusion, i.e., theprinciple of least restrictive sanction and the principle of proportionality, and encourages the use ofcommunity-based measures. In the use of non-custodial measures, it refers to the relevant UN standards andnorms, as well as the value of adequate restorative justice interventions. However, as indicated in Panel II’s
keynote speech and the moderator’s wrap-up, it should be noted that community-based options should be
adequately used under this guiding principle, and their overuse leading to “mass supervision” and “netwidening”10 should be avoided.
(g) Member States are invited to establish rehabilitative prison environments, in line with the Nelson
Mandela Rules11 and the Bangkok Rules, by ensuring that prisoners are treated fairly, with the respect
due to their inherent dignity as human beings, and supported in their personal, judicial, moral andsocial rehabilitation; ensuring that prisoners’ lives in prison reflect life in the community; ensuring
8  The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures adopted in 1990.
   The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offender
adopted in 2010.
10
   See paragraph 4(e) of the Background Paper (A/CONF.234/9) which states “The overuse of non-custodial measures,
as well as their use without appropriate community support, can lead to ‘mass supervision’ and ‘net widening’, whereby
the number of persons controlled by the criminal justice system increases. The excessive use of supervision for low-risk
offenders may increase the reoffending risk, owing to unnecessary interventions.”
11
  The revised United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted in 2015.
938

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
proper prison administration and case management and addressing overcrowding, poor prison
conditions, violence in prisons and corruption; providing interventions, treatment programmes,
education, vocational training and work that are responsive to each individual’s specific risks and needs;
enabling offenders to maintain their community and family ties; and ensuring the recruitment of prison
staff who display an attitude supportive of the rehabilitation of offenders and investing in multidisciplinary
training for staff; . . .
If not treated properly, incarceration entails serious negative impacts on social reintegration stemmingfrom institutionalization and stigmatization, whereas under rehabilitative environments it could offer a “hookfor change”, a substantive step towards rehabilitation. Having this in mind, establishing rehabilitative prison
environments, which this recommendation focuses on, is the big issue for many jurisdictions whereimprisonment is the prevailing option, and in particular, where certain deteriorating situations, such as
overcrowding, corruption and violence exist. The recommendation addresses the issue multifacetedly: i)treating the prisoners fairly respecting their dignity, ii) supporting the prisoner from various aspects, iii)
“normalization” in prison life, iv) addressing challenges such as overcrowding, poor prison conditions, violence
and corruption and maintaining proper prison administration and case management, v) interventions tailored
to individual’s needs, vi) maintaining community ties while in prison, and vii) recruiting prison staff displaying
a supportive attitude for offender rehabilitation and providing them with multidisciplinary training. As
indicated in these points, rehabilitative “environments” refer to, but are not restricted to, interventions andtreatment provided to offenders. They also include every factor surrounding their individual prison life, suchas housing settings, legitimacy and adequacy in prison administration, prison staff professionalism, theprisoner’s willingness and participation in the rehabilitative treatments etc., and contacts with the outside
world. To elaborate further, for example, items i) and vii) will improve the relationship between prison staff
and the prisoners as in the example of Kyrgyzstan presented by the UNODC expert in Panel I. The
Norwegian experience discussed in Panel I is a good example of implementing item iii), supported by theefforts in line with item vii). The Argentine example demonstrates the importance of item iv), and items i),ii), v) and vi) are indicated as important factors in the keynote speech. The Namibian practices in Panel I andGeorgia’s women prison project introduced by PRI in Panel III are examples of good practices addressing
items ii) and v). Further, as referred to in the recommendation, these items are more or less addressed in
the relevant UN standards and norms, in particular, the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules12.
(h) Member States are encouraged to tailor interventions and treatment to the needs of each offender, inparticular those with specific needs, such as young people, the elderly, persons with disabilities, the poorand marginalized groups, and eliminate barriers to social reintegration;(i) Member States are also encouraged to develop and implement specific gender-responsive rehabilitation
and reintegration policies and programmes in line with the Bangkok Rules, based on research on specificbarriers faced by women in their rehabilitation, such as stigmatization, and on existing good practices;(j) In dealing with alleged offenders who are children, Member States are further encouraged to widen
the use of diversion from judicial proceedings and non-custodial measures and to ensure that deprivationof liberty is used as a measure of last resort and that any action taken promotes the rehabilitation andsocial reintegration of the child. Multisectoral cooperation was identified as a key requirement forachieving those objectives; . . .
These three recommendations address interventions etc. tailored to each individual’s needs, particularly
focusing on vulnerable groups with specific needs. Whereas (h) refers to a number of vulnerable groups, (i)and (j) focus on women and children, respectively. As for the need to respond to these people’s specific needs,
the Japanese practice introduced in Panel III of coordinating a prisoner’s accommodation after release taking
account of his/her specific needs constitutes a good example. Also, PRI’s presentation elaborating specificneeds for women (Panel III) and Kenyan multi-agency practices to ensure the “best interest of children” aregood examples that support (i) and (j), respectively.

12  See especially rules 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 58-63, 74-82, 89, 91-94, 98, 106, 107 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, and rules 4, 12, 19-21, 26-52
of the Bangkok Rules.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112(k) Member States are encouraged to share information on promising practices and consider thedevelopment, under the auspices of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice andwith the support of UNODC, of model strategies to reduce reoffending that reflect, among others, thegood practices discussed during the workshop; . . .
Unlike other recommendations which refer to measures to improve rehabilitative systems and practices,
this recommendation suggests developing new UN standards and norms on reducing reoffending, in the formof “model strategies”. This constitutes a cornerstone for the future development of the UN criminal justicepolicy, as I elaborate later. This idea was provoked during the floor discussion which introduced the outcomesof the two related ancillary meetings.
(l) Member States are also encouraged to support capacity-building efforts for criminal justice practitioners
aimed at reducing reoffending and are invited to consider seeking technical assistance from UNODC,
the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justice programme network, other international andregional organizations and relevant non-governmental stakeholders.
This recommendation refers to capacity-building and technical assistance by the UNODC, PNIs such as
UNAFEI and other relevant stakeholders. Good examples of technical assistance were introduced by the
UNODC (Panel I), Kenya (Panel II), PRI and Hedaya (Panel III) at the Workshop 2 discussion. Based on thisrecommendation and the relevant provisions of the Kyoto Declaration etc., UNAFEI will develop training
programmes on reducing reoffending to follow-up on the Kyoto Congress and the Kyoto Declaration, bearing
in mind the guiding principle and elements highlighted in other recommendations.

III. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
A. Impact of Workshop 2 and the Kyoto Congress
As discussed above, Workshop 2 was concluded with a set of recommendations including one suggesting
the development of new UN model strategies on reducing reoffending, under the auspices of the Commission
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), the UN’s policymaking organ in the field of criminal
justice.
Also, at the plenary meeting following the Workshop, the same idea to develop new standards and norms
was proposed by Japan, the host country of the Kyoto Congress, which obtained support from the floor.
Further, the Kyoto Declaration has a series of provisions on the issue of reducing reoffending, meaning that
this issue is one of the focus areas for intensive follow-up.
Given all this background, at the thirtieth session of the CCPCJ in May 2021 (two months after the Kyoto
Congress), a “draft resolution” entitled “Reducing reoffending through rehabilitation and reintegration” wasadopted, which is expected to be adopted by the General Assembly as a “resolution” later this year.13 (“Draft
resolutions” of the CCPCJ are sent to the Economic and Social Council, which in turn requests adoption by
the General Assembly.) This draft resolution, proposed by the Japanese government as the host country of
the Kyoto Congress, has a set of provisions which, among others, encourages the Member States to develop
comprehensive strategies or action plans to reduce reoffending through effective interventions, to promote a
rehabilitative environments in prison and in the community, and to promote multi-stakeholder partnerships
to reduce reoffending. Moreover, most importantly, paragraph 5 requests:
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, … to convene an expert group meeting to share
information on promising practices to reduce reoffending, with a view to developing model strategies
on reducing reoffending, which can serve as useful tools for Member States, taking into accountrelevant provisions in the existing standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice,current developments, research, tools and the outcome of the deliberations of the Fourteenth United
Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (emphasis added).

13

   The CCPCJ approved the Kyoto Declaration and adopted another draft resolution to be sent to the General Assembly
upon the ECOSOC’s approval which endorses the Kyoto Declaration. Therefore, the Kyoto Declaration will be a part of theGeneral Assembly resolution upon its adoption.

40

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
Upon its adoption by the General Assembly, this provision will be the basis for the UNODC and theinternational community to take steps to develop new UN model strategies on reducing reoffending, startingwith an expert group meeting.
From this (draft) resolution and given all other background, it is evident that, in addition to the relevant
provisions of the Kyoto Declaration (paragraphs 37-42), the outcome of Workshop 2 as summarized in the
Chair’s summary and good practices introduced at the Workshop will form the basis of the new model
strategies. In addition, the content of the Background Paper for Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9), supplemented
by Section IV.B of the Working Paper on “Developments regarding crime prevention and criminal justice asa result of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic” (A/CONF.234/15),14 the UN’s two official documents
for Workshop 2, should also constitute the basis. This is because they elaborate in detail on what was
discussed in Workshop 2, including points and other relevant practices that were not expressly referred in
the Workshop deliberations due to time constraints.
B. Thoughts for the New Model Strategies
The draft resolution adopted at the thirtieth CCPCJ says that the new model strategies should take into
account the provisions of the existing standards and norms in addition to the Kyoto Congress deliberations,etc. There are a number of UN standards and norms dealing with the treatment of offenders. The new model
strategies should, of course, harmonize with these existing instruments. Therefore, I would like to analyse
what is covered and missing in the existing UN standards and norms vis-à-vis the Workshop outcomes, inorder to explore how and under what approach the new model strategies should be developed.
The most basic and important existing instruments are the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Tokyo Rules.
The Nelson Mandela Rules deal with prison issues. Concluded recently in 2015 as the revision of the 1955
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the content is quite comprehensive, addressing
all major current challenges and key notions. In fact, as stated above, the Rules basically refer to the issues
raised in the Workshop recommendation provision on rehabilitative prison environments (para. 158(g)).
Moreover, in the 2015 revision, reducing reoffending and facilitating offender reintegration is clarified as partof the “purpose of imprisonment”15  and thereby added value from a rehabilitative perspective. However,since the Rules are basically derived from human rights requirements and ensuring humane treatment, theirfocus is not primarily on achieving the goal of social reintegration and desistance, although humane andhuman-rights-compliant treatment promote rehabilitative environments.
The Tokyo Rules deal with a broad spectrum of non-custodial measures and refer to “implementation” of
non-custodial measures such as supervision and treatment processes, and to the use of volunteers and othercommunity resources. However, the Tokyo Rules focus more on having and applying non-custodial options,and the reference to community-based treatment is restricted and very brief. As such, the Tokyo Rules are
not sufficient as norms for community corrections.
In addition to these two basic “Rules”, there are several instruments which deal with treatment of specifictypes of offenders or specific procedures and interventions. To name the major ones, the Bangkok Rules
provide gender-responsive norms for women to supplement the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Tokyo Rules.
Also, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing
Rules) and the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines)
cover considerations for juvenile offenders and delinquents. “Basic principles on the use of restorative justiceprogrammes in criminal matters” deal with principles for the adequate use of restorative justice programmes.
These instruments cover certain parts of the Workshop outcomes, but likewise, do not necessarily focus on
14

  See note 1.
  For instance, compare Rule 4.1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules with Rule 58 of the previous Standard Minimum Rules for theTreatment of Prisoners (the 1955 Rules). Rule 4.1 of the Mandela Rules states, “The purposes of a sentence of imprisonment…are primarily to protect society against crime and to reduce recidivism. Those purposes can be achieved only if the periodof imprisonment is used to ensure,… the reintegration of such persons into society upon release so that they can lead a lawabiding and self-supporting life”, whereas Rule 58 of the 1955 Rules states “The purpose and justification of a sentence ofimprisonment…is ultimately to protect society against crime. This end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonmentis used to ensure,…that upon his return to society the offender is not only willing but able to lead a law-abiding and selfsupporting life.”
15

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 112
offender rehabilitation and reintegration.
Therefore, community corrections guidelines and practices, provisions for specific types of offenders
other than women and children, and guiding principles governing rehabilitation and rehabilitative processes
can be identified as the major gaps in the existing standards and norms.
Having said that, here I would like to pose a question which is, should the new model strategies simply
focus on these gaps? My answer is definitely no. Now, I would like to again call attention to two of thefundamental elements of the guiding principles for reducing reoffending – ensuring continuity of care andensuring rehabilitative environments throughout the process (the third and fourth elements discussed in
II.C.2). Absent these elements, the model strategies will not function as useful guiding tools for reducing
reoffending. In order to ensure continuity of care, just having provisions relevant to the “gap areas”, or only
on the “transition phases” do not suffice. An overarching approach looking at the whole process, starting fromthe contact with criminal justice or other relevant authorities through the social reintegration and desistancephase, allows effective continuity of care. Also, as the most essential key principle, rehabilitative environments
and processes should be ensured throughout all stages. This requires that the standards and norms embracea holistic approach covering the whole process from rehabilitative perspectives. In addition, a multistakeholder approach (another crucial element of the guiding principles), which constitutes a means to enableeffective rehabilitation, applies to all stages and increases its importance to achieve rehabilitative goals. And
thus, rehabilitative purposes should expressly come up front. Therefore, in order to develop clauses focusedon a good rehabilitative multi-stakeholder approach, an approach that just fills the gaps will lack many
important parts. Therefore, the new model strategies should take an overarching, or holistic, approach,shedding light on rehabilitative purposes, which establishes a new and independent concept from the existing
instruments.
On the other hand, we have to be mindful of the fact that many provisions of the existing standards andnorms do cover the areas which should be addressed and are effective for rehabilitative goals, whether or
not they are derived from rehabilitative or other purposes. In that case, duplication should not occur if it has
the effect of simply repeating in the new instrument that which is already provided in the existing standards
and norms. Rather, for instance, reference to the existing provisions in the new model strategies indicating
their rehabilitative effects (thereby adding value to the existing provisions) would be an appropriate approach.
In pursuing this, a more in-depth analysis on the existing standards and norms, including on their rehabilitative
impacts, will be important and should take place.
Also, detailed key notions, principles and examples pertaining to the major identified “gaps”, especially on
community corrections rules, should be developed and elaborated. Although we already have discussed anddeveloped initial key principles and identified many good examples through the preparation for, anddeliberations at, the Workshop, it is obvious that the examples and practices discussed are not enough to be
useful for every Member State and the whole international community. In addition, on top of what has been
already discussed, there will be a lot of room to explore effective approaches and examples of a multifaceted
and multi-stakeholder approach, as they are diverse in nature, affected by various social, cultural, political,
economic and other backgrounds and differences in existing community resources.

IV. CONCLUSION
During the discussions at the Kyoto Congress, it was reaffirmed that the goal of reducing reoffending
through offender reintegration is crucial for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. As mentioned, establishing
rehabilitative environments and processes throughout all stages is essential for this goal. Other key principles
and factors, as well as many good practices and commendable efforts, have been identified and introduced.
On the other hand, the international community faces many challenges to implement and put into practicewhat “works”.
The new UN model strategies, once provided, will be a cornerstone for enhancing rehabilitativeenvironments in many parts of the world. They will constitute good guidance for States and organizations
to take adequate steps in policymaking and practice, and will give grounds to facilitate public participation
and acceptance. Therefore, I am proud that UNAFEI’s efforts in activating discussion on this issue throughthe preparation and organization of the Workshop 2 largely contributed to the international community’s
42

CONTRIBUTORS’ PAPERS
decision to develop this important instrument, and I expect that UNAFEI will participate and substantiallycontribute to its future development.
Further, having in mind that the international community’s purpose should not be the development of the
instrument itself but its effective implementation in practice, technical assistance will play a very importantrole. I expect UNAFEI, as a technical assistance provider, as well as the PNI which led the discussion at the
Kyoto Congress (and which will presumably lead the discussion as it moves forward), will continue efforts to
explore best ways to establish rehabilitative environments and processes, and will continue to take a leadingrole in providing technical assistance on reducing reoffending, maintaining and strengthening partnerships
with the UNODC, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),16 the PNIs, relevant NGOs17 andMember States, for the better future.

16

   JICA is Japan’s official development assistance (ODA) provider agency, and a large majority of UNAFEI’s technicalassistance programmes are funded and co-sponsored by JICA.
17
  For instance, the Asian Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF), an international NGO that, among other purposes, supports
UNAFEI’s activities, can be identified as a partner NGO.

43