MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2017 ‒ 31 December 2017)

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.
One of the most significant developments during the 2017 calendar year was UNAFEIʼs move from Fuchu
to the Ministry of Justiceʼs International Justice Complex in western Tokyo on 2 October 2017. Working side
by side with the staff and professors of the International Cooperation Department (ICD), UNAFEI is poised toprovide the same high-quality capacity-development programmes in state of the art facilities. UNAFEIʼs new
address is 2-1-18 Mokuseinomori, Akishima-shi, Tokyo 196-8570.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Instituteʼ 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 weeksʼ duration) and one
international seminar (five weeksʼ duration). Approximately one hundred government officials from various
overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA is anindependent administrative institution for ODA programmes) each year to participate in all UNAFEI
training programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants. Overseas
participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from the Middle and Near East, Latin
America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators holding relatively
senior positions in the criminal justice field.
By the end of 2017, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 167 international training courses and seminars.
Over 5,000 criminal justice personnel representing 136 different countries and administrative regions haveparticipated in these seminars. UNAFEI also conducts a number of other specialized courses, 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.
3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2017

A. The 165th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 165th International Senior Seminar was held from 12 January to 13 February 2017. The main theme
was “Juvenile Justice and the United Nations Standards and Norms”. Twenty-six overseas participants(including one observer) and five Japanese participants attended the Seminar.
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: A Few Measures to Prevent and Reduce Recidivism
Group 2: Reducing Crime and Recidivism of Juveniles: Discussions and Suggestions
Group 3: A Holistic Approach to Juvenile Justice Systems
Each Group elected 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. 102.
3.

Outcome Summary(i) A Few Measures to Prevent and Reduce Recidivism
Group 1 conducted a comprehensive review of the status of juvenile justice in the participating countries
and identified challenges facing juvenile justice systems. The group workshop report addressed the following
topics: (1) the need for prompt intervention by the juvenile justice system; (2) comprehensive assessment ofjuveniles; (3) responsibilities of parents and guardians; (4) diversion programmes; (5) restorative justice; (6)multi-agency cooperation.
The group reported that timing of juvenile justice dispositions varies widely from country to country, andstressed the importance of prompt interventions, thus minimizing the time spent by the juvenile in thesystem. At the same time, comprehensive assessment of the needs of each juvenile must be conducted byqualified professionals using reliable assessment tools and comprehensive social inquiry reports. Due to theimportant role that parents play in the sound upbringing of their children, the United Nations standards andnorms on juvenile justice encourage parental participation in the juvenile justice system. Nevertheless, thegroup concluded that most countries do not have such procedures and practices in place.
To avoid formal process, diversion programmes should be developed or expanded, particularly for minor
juvenile offences. Many countries lack diversion programmes and enabling legislation. Among countries thathave diversion, many of the options are limited or are not carried out promptly. To implement an effective
diversion programme, constant training and specialized knowledge for personnel are important. Likewise,
though restorative justice practices are encouraged by the UN standards and norms, implementation varies
greatly. Data analysis is important to strengthen restorative justice practices based on each countryʼs needs
through a formal mechanism of monitoring and data analysis.
The group found that the protection of children in conflict with the law requires, among other measures,
multi-sectoral coordination between government agencies, the community and the private sector. The groupconcluded that governments should recognize and strengthen the work of community leaders, such as
volunteer probation officers, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which provide rehabilitation
services through, for example, the operation of halfway houses.
Ultimately, a holistic approach is required to tackling juvenile recidivism. Countries need diverse options
based on their domestic situations, and policies must be implemented in line with each countryʼs legal system.
Yet despite legal and cultural differences, all countries are united in the aspiration to eliminate recidivism
4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

among juveniles.
(ii) Reducing Crime and Recidivism of Juveniles: Discussions and Suggestions
The group members addressed the issue of juvenile crime and recidivism, recognizing that youth are, due
to their maturation and growth process, fundamentally different than adults in terms of responsibility for
their conduct and their prognosis for rehabilitation.
The group identified common factors that contribute to juvenile recidivism in the participating counties,
which include insufficient use of diversion, the quality of treatment programmes due to lack of evaluation, andthe problem of discontinuation of care and lack of synergies resulting from underutilization of multi-agency
cooperation. Other factors identified by the group include: inadequate training facilities, lack of rehabilitation
programmes, stigmatization, poverty, lack of funds, inadequate training of social workers, poor education, andlack of jobs.
In response to these issues, the group recommended: (1) strengthening governmental and nongovernmental juvenile justice and welfare institutions; (2) enhancing the capacity of human resources thoughtraining; (3) empowering families to provide necessary care for juveniles; (4) reviewing existing programmes
by increasing emphasis on diversion; (5) reviewing existing law and enacting new legislation to address
emerging issues; (6) enhancing public awareness to reduce stigmatization of juvenile offenders; (7) conducting
monitoring and evaluation of existing programmes; (8) increasing research on juvenile justice; (9) use of data
management tools; (10) promoting guidance and counselling for juveniles.
Multi-agency cooperation with the community and the private sector is also important to reducing
recidivism. Key measures to enhance multi-agency cooperation include promoting information sharing toenhance cooperation; establishing linkages among complementing organizations; promoting exchange
programmes with other agencies with a view to adopt and adapt to best practices; establishing inter-agency
initiatives such as meetings, working committees and central database management for easy reference
during monitoring and evaluation; promoting joint panel discussions and talk shows hosted by staff ofcomplementing agencies; promoting and sharing of resources among agencies in the juvenile justice system;and promoting community-based programmes to empower communities to take part in the treatment andrehabilitation of juveniles.
The group concluded by noting that the issue of juvenile delinquency and recidivism cuts across nations
and is a threat to national security. The existence of recidivism indicates that the goals of a countryʼs juvenile
justice system have not been achieved, but these can be resolved by appropriate intervention. Although thefactors causing juvenile recidivism and the groupʼs recommendations are not exhaustive, it is hoped that they
provide a general understanding of the problems facing juvenile justice systems and possible solutions inorder to establish a just, safe and secure society for all.
(iii) A Holistic Approach to Juvenile Justice Systems
Group 3 addressed common challenges facing juvenile justice systems and provided recommendations toresolve them. The following topics were addressed: (a) the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR);(b) diversion; (c) special procedures for juveniles; (d) inter-organizational cooperation among related agencies;and (e) multi-agency cooperation with the community and the private sector.
Regarding the age of criminal responsibility, the group noted that the Convention on the Rights of theChild defines children as persons below the age of 18, recognizing that the convention is construed as setting
the minimum age of criminal responsibility as no lower than 12 years of age. Among the participating
countries, it was reported that the MACR varies from the ages of 10 to 15. Consequently, the group
recommended that all countries increase the MACR to a minimum of 12 years of age and the international
community should strive to achieve a uniform age for the MACR.
Diversion is an important juvenile justice measure that diverts juveniles from the traditional juvenile
justice process thereby avoiding the negative effects from the stigma of conviction and sentence. All
countries participating in the group have implemented diversion in some form, although at different stages of
the juvenile justice process and by different decision makers. Countries with informal diversion measures
should enact legislation to formalize such measures, and countries with formal systems should focus on
5ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2017

increasing the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes.
The group also reviewed special procedures for juveniles in the participating countries, stressing theimportance of these procedures to ensure rehabilitation and that all action taken by the juvenile justicesystem is done in consideration of the best interests of the child. In order to address juvenile justice in aholistic manner, inter-organizational cooperation and multi-agency cooperation with the community andprivate sector are important for making sure that all relevant stakeholders and organizations are involved inproviding services necessary for the development of juveniles, such as health care, education and social
welfare. All countries reported frameworks for working with non-governmental organizations.
The group recognized that, in line with the United Nations standards and norms on juvenile justice, eachcountry has an obligation to improve its system and practices, and identified several challenges to achieving
these goals. Recommended solutions include enhancing research, monitoring and evaluation of juvenile justiceprogrammes and policies, strengthening community participation in juvenile justice, specialization of juvenile
justice practitioners through training, among others.
B. The 166th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 166th International Training Course was held from 10 May to 15 June 2017. The main theme was“Criminal Justice Procedures and Practices to Disrupt Criminal Organizations”. Twenty-two overseas
participants and eight 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 weredivided into three groups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Disrupting Criminal Organizations Engaged in Drug Trafficking
Group 2: Trafficking in Persons: Focus on Sex Trafficking
Group 3: Effective Measures to Collect Information, Conduct Investigation and Financially Weaken Criminal
Organizations on Money Laundering
The three groups each elected a chairperson, co-chairperson (s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur (s) toorganize the discussions. The group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views
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 thereports of the Course. The full texts of the reports were published in full in Resource Material Series No. 103.
3.

Outcome Summary(i) Disrupting Criminal Organizations Engaged in Drug Trafficking
Group 1 addressed the theme of disrupting criminal drug trafficking organizations that operate on a global
scale, noting that the laws in many jurisdictions are insufficient to combat the cross-border nature of suchcrimes. Thus, in addition to focusing on effective investigation techniques, the group stressed the importanceof engaging in international cooperation to overcome the jurisdictional impediments that limit effectiveness ofdomestic investigations.
The paramount objective of investigation is to collect information and intelligence quickly and effectively
according to proper procedure so that it can be admitted as evidence at trial. Information gathered must be
analysed by investigators with experience and with access to the necessary technology. This informationmust be shared with relevant domestic and foreign investigating agencies, although it must be handled withutmost secrecy. Sound practices for prosecution and adjudication of organized crime are also vital to ensuring
successful trials. These measures include, among others, the use of plea agreements, proper disclosure ofevidence and measures for witness protection.
6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

To combat organized crime, investigators must employ a variety of techniques to gather information on
the criminal organizationʼs activities. The group emphasized the importance of: electronic surveillance(particularly video surveillance and bugging), wiretapping and Call Details Records (CDR), observation andinterviews of suspects and their criminal associates, the use of informants, undercover agents and decoys,
cybertracing, search and seizure, and financial investigation. For example, wiretapping is important todevelop the investigatorsʼ understanding of the organizationʼs criminal network, daily routines, strengths andweaknesses, planned crimes, and so on. Similarly, observation and prompt interviews of suspects help
investigators understand the organizationʼs modus operandi and reveal previously unknown criminal
associates, including the organizational structure of the group. Informants, undercover agents and decoys areimportant to infiltrate the organization, and cybertracing, search and seizure, and financial investigation
provide valuable leads and evidence.
To effectively combat global drug crime, the group recommended, among others: (1) enhancing publicawareness and participation in the process of combating crime; (2) implementation of witness protection
programmes; (3) harmonization of criminal laws; (4) enhancing responses to “e-cash” based transactions,which present a significant challenge to law enforcement; and (5) joint investigation by practitioners fromaround the world.
(ii) Trafficking in Persons: Focus on Sex Trafficking
Human trafficking̶the gruesome practice of pressing vulnerable people into forced labour̶is a heinous
crime with global impact, and the crime is routinely perpetrated by organized crime groups who transport
people and funds across international borders. Group 2 considered effective measures for combating
trafficking in persons, particularly sex trafficking, addressing the topics of investigation, prosecution,
adjudication and countermeasures.
Investigation of sex trafficking is particularly difficult because the victims are typically reluctant to reporttheir crimes to the police. Thus, investigators must proactively investigate the crime by relying on a wide
variety of sources, including electronic and print media, social media, government agencies, and public
informants, among many others. Enhancing public awareness of the crime and willingness to report isextremely important. Once information is gathered, information sharing among relevant agencies isimportant to advancing the investigation, but information must be screened for use, as only the informationthat is gathered according to the legal procedures applicable to the jurisdiction can be used as evidence attrial. While traditional investigative measures are important in any case, sex-trafficking investigations must
make use of special investigative measures, such as computer forensics, DNA profiling, digital facerecognition technology, GPS tracking, etc.
In addition to the importance of investigation, the prosecution and adjudication stages are important to
disrupt criminal organizations. Cooperation between the police and prosecutors is critically important, andplea agreements are useful tools to obtain evidence from defendants for use against senior members of thecriminal organization. During the process of adjudication, witnesses and victims must be protected so thatthey are willing to testify at trial. Also, the group recommended the use of special courts, laws or proceduresfor sex trafficking cases.
The group identified a number of countermeasures to combat organized crime, including sex trafficking.
Attacking criminal organizationsʼ financial capabilities is particularly effective, and, thus, freezing, seizing andconfiscating the proceeds of crime is a necessary step. Furthermore, the use of non-conviction-based
confiscation should be considered as a measure to secure the forfeiture of criminal proceeds, subject toapplicable domestic law. The group recommended that all confiscated property be deposited into a humantrafficking fund. Similarly, governmental and non-governmental organizations should consider establishing
victimsʼ compensation funds to alleviate the damages suffered by victims of sex trafficking, whether or not
the offender can be identified, sentenced or punished.
(iii) Effective Measures to Collect Information, Conduct Investigation and Financially Weaken Criminal
Organizations on Money LaunderingGroup 3 selected the topic of combating and financially weakening criminal organizations througheffective responses to money laundering. To do so, it is incumbent upon criminal investigators andprosecutors to identify and confiscate proceeds of crime. The United Nations Convention against
7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2017

Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) calls for the criminalization of money laundering, and the groupreported that all participating countries have relevant laws providing a legal basis to address it. However, thegroup reported that the laws and practices vary significantly from country to country, which impacts the
speed and effectiveness with which illicit proceeds are confiscated.
To investigate money laundering, investigators must rely on a variety of sources of information, including
community reports, bank transactions, taxation reports, immigration reports, trade records, information
provided by other countries, past criminal records, social media and witness testimony. The legal limits on
authority to compel cooperation were also discussed. Bank secrecy has been an historical barrier to financial
investigations. However, with the near universal ratification of UNTOC, article 12(6) thereof overcomes thisproblem by requiring States Parties to empower their judiciaries to obtain access to bank records.
To confiscate the proceeds of crime, the group discussed a number of techniques, including physicallytracking money, freezing of accounts/assets, non-conviction-based confiscation, differentiating between
legitimate assets and proceeds of crime, and how to speedily seize illegal assets. Regarding the nature of theassets, the group reported that some jurisdictions allow the seizure of all assets, requiring the defendant toprove that the assets were obtained legitimately. In other jurisdictions, seizure requires a warrant and only
illegitimate assets can be seized.
A common problem of investigation is that it is difficult to differentiate legal assets from illicit assets. This
process is simplified in jurisdictions that permit the confiscation of the equivalent value of illicit proceeds inthe event that those illicit proceeds cannot be found. However, several countries reported that bank accounts
are not used or are uncommon, which complicates the investigation. Moreover, some countries only permit
confiscation of assets upon conviction.
The group recognized the broad differences in economic, social, cultural, legal and political status among
countries. These differences impact the effectiveness and timeliness of investigation and confiscation ofproceeds of crime. Understanding and working with these differences is a critical component of successfulinternational cooperation.
C. The 167th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 167th International Training Course was held from 23 August to 21 September 2017. The main theme
was “Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration of Organized Crime Members and Terrorists”. Fourteen
overseas participants (including two observers) and seven Japanese participants attended.
2.

Methodology
The participants of the 167th Course endeavoured to explore the topic primarily through a comparative
analysis of the current situation and the problems encountered. The participantsʼ 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 to discuss the following topics under the guidanceof faculty advisers:
Group 1: Specific Measures: Disengagement Interventions in PrisonsGroup 2: Responding to Organized Crime Members and Terrorists in Contact with the Criminal Justice andPenal System
Each Group elected 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
8MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 104.
3.

Outcome Summary(i) Specific Measures: Disengagement Intervention in Prisons
The group focused on interventions in prison that lead to the disengagement of offenders from violent
extremism, stating that most states do not want to hold the growing number of extremists in prison and lack
the resources to do so. Thus, there is global demand for effective measures to rehabilitate and release former
violent extremists without posing a threat to society. Acknowledging that prisons must prioritize security,
offender rehabilitation in prison must be pursued to achieve disengagement from violent extremism. This
process requires interventions from professional staff, such as psychologists, religious leaders, teachers, social
workers, etc. However, maintaining prison security while providing an environment conducive torehabilitation requires good quality and well-trained correctional officers.
To classify, allocate and accommodate violent extremists in prison, the group proposed a hybrid strategy
that accommodates highly influential extremists in separate housing units or in isolation while placing
criminal opportunists and rehabilitated offenders in the general population. To assess the risks and needs ofviolent extremists, Group 1 proposed a process of ongoing assessment utilizing interviewing, qualitative data
and the verification of information. Noting that several assessment tools are available, the group presented
the VERA II (Violent Extremist Risk Assessment) model. This tool identifies risk factors (not changeable) andneeds factors (changeable), which can be used for case-management planning and tailoring of interventions,such as through cognitive-behavioural therapy.
The group offered a number of methods and approaches to encourage extremist offenders to disengage
from their violent activities. These methods focus on a psychological and cognitive approaches to encourage
disengagement at the crucial early stages, and they require continued monitoring and support after thecompletion of rehabilitation. Further measures include dissuasion from extremism by credible interlocutors;social, vocational and recreational activities; and government and civil society must match or exceed the
support offered by terrorist organizations by providing employment support and involving the offenderʼsfamily, as well as media and social media campaigns to counter terrorism.
In conclusion, the groupʼs key recommendations are to ensure security in the prison environment bysegregating highly influential extremists from the general population, employing professional staff andtraining correctional officers, conducting evidence-based assessment of violent extremists, and pursuing thereintegration of rehabilitated extremists into society by working with all segments of the community.
(ii) Responding to Organized Crime Members and Terrorists in Contact with the Criminal Justice andPenal System
Group 2 considered alternative measures to imprisonment for rehabilitating and reintegrating former
members of organized crime groups and terrorists into society, concluding that diversion from prison has
many advantages, such as identifying low-risk offenders and preventing sympathizers from joining terrorist
organizations. However, factors such as the severity of the crime, the organization that the offender wasaffiliated with, the offenderʼs level of radicalization, the likelihood of reoffending, the offenderʼs receptivenessto intervention and treatment, and acceptance of alternative measures by the victim and the community
must be considered.
The group agreed that courts should tailor alternatives to imprisonment and rehabilitation programmes
to each offender with due consideration for public safety. Alternative measures should be based on acomprehensive assessment of the offender, including an intelligence review; juvenile offenders should be
subject to investigations using medical, psychological, pedagogical and other expert knowledge. Measures fortreatment in the community may include electronic monitoring and unpaid community service underenhanced supervision. However, the group recommended that serious crimes, such as first-degree murder,
firearms trafficking, and so on should not be subject to alternative measures to imprisonment.
To reintegrate former organized crime members and terrorists into society, the acceptance of thecommunity is of utmost importance. Offenders require continuous assistance and support in the community
with the goal of preventing recidivism. Non-governmental organizations should be involved to provide
offenders with support, counselling, social activities and accommodation at halfway houses. Additionally,
9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2017private-sector employers should be enlisted to provide offenders with jobs upon release, and the employers
may be incentivized to hire ex-offenders by providing incentive payments, as is the case in Japan. Other
important measures include the involvement of religious leaders and community volunteers such as
volunteer probation officers. Furthermore, the mass media is a powerful public channel for enhancing public
acceptance of offender rehabilitation by communicating positive stories of successful rehabilitation andreintegration and interviews demonstrating self-reflection by former organized crime members andterrorists and rejection of their past extremist activities. Finally, the group recommended the use of a
restorative justice approach, through which the offender works to repair the harm caused to the victims,
including victim-offender mediation.

III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. UNODC Regional Workshop
From 13 to 16 February 2017, the UNODC and UNAFEI co-hosted a regional workshop on “Preventing
and countering radicalization and violent extremism leading to terrorism though the rule of law based
criminal justice approach, and engaging private sector and civil society actors in the national framework”.
The workshop was held in Tokyo, Japan at UNAFEI and was attended by 50 participants from Middle
Eastern and North African countries.
B. The Fourth UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries
The Fourth Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-speaking African Countries (13-24
February) in Abidjan, Cote dʼIvoire: 32 practitioners from 8 French-speaking African countries discussed
capacity-building for investigation, prosecution and adjudication, and measures for combating cybercrime.
C. The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal (6-17 March): 10 Nepaleseparticipants attended to study and compare Japanese and Nepalese procedures for charge sheet writing andanalysis and evaluation of evidence.
D. Training Seminar for Prison Officials in Myanmar
The UNODC and UNAFEI Training Seminar for Prison Officers in Myanmar (9 February-2 March): 45
participants studied prison management in line with international standards and norms.
E. The Follow-up Seminar for the Third Country Training Programme (TCTP)
The Follow-up Seminar for the Third Country Training Programme (TCTP) for Development of Effective
Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Viet Nam (CLMV) Countries(24-28 July): 17 participants from 6 countries attended this seminar in order to confirm the outcomes of thefirst phase of the TCTP, discuss the challenges and strengthen the network among the CLMV countries.
F. The Second Asia Volunteer Probation Officers Meeting
The Second Asia Volunteer Probation Officers Meeting (12 September): Around 200 participants including
volunteer probation officers (VPOs) and probation officers from the Asian and African region attended themeeting to share experiences and practices related to VPO programmes.
G. The Third World Congress on Probation
The Third World Congress on Probation (12-14 September): 371 participants from 34 countries/regions
attended the Congress to share each countryʼs practices and current topics and to discuss the role ofCommunity Corrections through keynote speeches and workshop sessions.
H. Training Seminar for Prison Officials in Myanmar
The UNODC and UNAFEI Training Seminar for Prison Officers in Myanmar (13 September-13 October):
55 participants studied prison management in line with international standards and norms;
I. The Eleventh Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 17 to 19 October 2017, UNAFEI held the Eleventh Regional Seminar on Good Governance in Hanoi,
Viet Nam. The main theme of the Seminar was “Best Practices in Anti-Corruption: A Decade of Institutionaland Practical Development in Southeast Asia”. Among other participants, 18 practitioners from ASEAN
10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

member states attended as official delegates.
J. The 20th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEIʼs annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme, took
place from 1 November to 7 December 2017. A total of 28 participants attended: 23 overseas participants and5 Japanese participants. The main theme of the Programme was “Effective Measures to Investigate theProceeds of Corruption Crimes”.

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,
governmental organizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, theInstitute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members,
visiting experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2017, the 101st, 102nd and 103rd
editions of the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 152 to 154 (from the 165th Senior
Seminar to the 167th International Training Course, respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published,which include brief reports on each course and seminar and other timely information. These publications arealso available on UNAFEIʼs website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 27 January 2017, 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 165th 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 publicʼs awareness of criminal justice issues, throughcomparative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2017, Professor Richard
Dembo of the University of South Florida in the United States, and Dr. Matti Joutsen, then Director of theEuropean Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI), wereinvited as speakers. They presented on “Civil Citation Programs (Diversion)” and the “Riyadh Guidelines andHavana Rules in Juvenile 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
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Cairo, Egypt from 14 to 18 January 2017 to attend the GCTFʼs
Criminal Justice and Rule of Law Working Group.
Professor YAMAMOTO Mana visited Valletta, Malta from 17 to 22 January 2017 to attend the workshopof Criminal Justice Actorsʼ Role in Countering Violent Extremism.
Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Bangkok, Thailand and Yangon, Myanmar to research the criminal
justice systems in Myanmar and to discuss the “Myanmar Country Programme” with related organizations.
Director SENTA Keisuke, Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi, and Professor YAMADA Masahiro visited11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2017

Abidjan, Cote dʼlvoire from 9 to 26 February to conduct the fourth UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training
Programme for French Speaking African Countries.
Professor MINOURA Satoshi, Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited
Bangkok, Thailand from 12 to 25 February to conduct the Third-Country Group Training Programme forDevelopment of Effective Community-based Treatment of Offenders in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar andViet Nam.
Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Jakarta, Indonesia from 5 to 12 March to attend the 6th Asian
Conference of Correctional Facilities Architects and Planners (ACCFA).
Professor MINOURA Satoshi visited Sidney, Australia from 6 to 11 March to discuss the Third World
Congress on Probation, which was held in Japan in September 2017, with representatives of Australia.
Director SENTA Keisuke visited Vienna, Austria from 7 to 11 March to attend the Expert Group Meetingof Education for Justice Initiative.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Zurich, Switzerland from 8 to 12 March to attend the Eleventh
Global Counterterrorism Forum Coordinating Committee Meeting.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Preah Sihanouk province, Cambodia from 18 to 24 March as avisiting expert to attend workshops hosted the by UNODC.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited Hanoi, Vietnam from 21 to 25
March for the research of the current condition of Community-based Treatment of Offenders in Vietnam.
Professor YAMADA Masahiro visited Hanoi, Vietnam from 21 to 24 March to discuss the “Eleventh
Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries” with related organizations.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Seoul, Republic of Korea from 3 to 5 April to attend the 8th
High-Level Regional Cooperation Seminar of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a moderator.
Professor YAMAMOTO Mana visited Semarang, Indonesia from 10 to 13 April to attend a workshop
hosted by the Global Counterterrorism Forum.
Professor MATSUMOTO Takeshi visited Hanoi, Viet Nam from 24 to 28 April to attend the UNODC
needs assessment mission.
Director SENTA Keisuke visited Nairobi, Republic of Kenya from 30 April to 5 May to attend the 56th
Annual Session and side events hosted by the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Jakarta, Indonesia from 7 to 10 May to attend a workshop
hosted by the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law (IIJ).
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Dakar, Senegal from 6 to 14 May to attend a workshop hosted by
the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law (IIJ).
Director SENTA Keisuke, Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro, Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi andProfessor YAMAMOTO Mana visited Vienna, Austria from 21 to 28 May to attend the 26th Session of theCommission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro and Professor YAMAMOTO Mana visited Ponta Delgada, Portugal
from 4 to 10 June to attend the IPPF (International Penal and Penitentiary Foundation) Colloquium.
Professor MINOURA Satoshi visited Bangkok, Thailand from 25 June to 1 July 2017 to attend aninternational workshop on diversion through restorative justice. Professor MINOURA also attended the 15th
national symposium on ending violence against children in the juvenile justice system and made a12MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

presentation on “Community Participation in Juvenile Reintegration‒The Volunteer Probation Officer
System and Halfway Houses in Japan”.
Professor YAMADA Masahiro visited Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 16 to 23 July 2017 to participate in aseminar on Intelligence Based Investigation hosted by the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Academy (MACA).
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Tehran, Iran from 25 to 28 July to attend the Tehran Meeting on
Preventing and Combating Cybercrime hosted by the UNODC. Professor YUKAWA made presentations on“Collection and use of digital evidence at trial” and “Acquiring evidence through MLA and other forms ofinternational cooperation”.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Vienna, Austria from 11 to 13 October 2017 to attend the Expert
Consultation on “Treatment and Care of People with Drug Use Disorders in Contact with the Criminal
Justice System: Alternatives to Conviction or Punishment - Review of the Draft UNODC/WHO Handbook -”hosted by the UNODC and the WHO.
Director SENTA, Professor WATANABE Ayuko and Professor YAMADA visited Hanoi, Viet Nam from15 to 20 October 2017 to conduct the Eleventh Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast AsianCountries. The Seminar was co-hosted by the Supreme Peopleʼs Procuracy of Viet Nam.
Professor MINOURA and Professor YAMAMOTO visited London, United Kingdom from 22 to 29
October 2017 to attend the 19th Annual Conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association
on “Innovation in Rehabilitation: Building Better Futures”. Professor Minoura made a presentation on“UNAFEIʼs Technical Assistance to Establish and Promote Effective Community Corrections Systems in the
ASEAN Region” and Professor Yamamoto made a presentation on “Psychological Factors and Recidivism
among Incarcerated Female Drug Abusers”.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor AKASHI visited Seattle, United States of America from28 October to 3 November 2017 to attend 25th Annual International Research Conference on “Doing What
Matters: Integrating Public Health and Criminal Justice Reform”. Professor Watanabe and Professor Akashi
made a presentation on “Community Corrections and the Role of Volunteers in ASEAN countries”.
Professor HIRANO visited Kathmandu, Nepal from 8 to 17 November 2017 to discuss plans for theComparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Berlin, Germany from 12 to 17 November 2017 to attend the G20
International Conference on “Preventing Radicalisation ‒ Towards Resilient Societies”.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki visited Ottawa, Canada from 21 to 26 November 2017 to attend theExpert Group Meeting on Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters hosted by the UNODC.
Professor MINOURA visited Nairobi, Kenya from 3 to 9 December to follow up on JICAʼs Project in
Kenya.
Deputy Director ISHIHARA, Professor WATANABE Ayuko and Professor YAMAMOTO visited Seoul,
Korea from 6 to 8 December 2017 to attend the PNI Meeting and International Forum held by the Korean
Institute of Criminology.
Professor YAMADA visited Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam from 13 to 18 December to attend the
Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan 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
ACPFʼs membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two is very strong.

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2017

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 a prosecutor of the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office, wasappointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2017.
Ms. UMEMOTO Yumi, formerly a Judge of the Obihiro Branch of the Kushiro District Court, wasappointed a professor of UNAFEI as well as the International Cooperation Department (ICD), Research andTraining Institute of the Ministry of Justice on 1 April 2017.
Mr. MORINAGA Taro, formerly the Deputy Director of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International
Cooperation Department, Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, as its Director on 2
October 2017.
Ms. ISHIHARA Kayo, formerly a prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, was appointed
as Deputy Director of UNAFEI on 2 October 2017. She was a professor of UNAFEI from 2005 to 2008.

VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Instituteʼs budget. UNAFEIʼs total budget for its
programmes is approximately \70 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provide assistance for
the Instituteʼs international training courses and seminars.

14