MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2002 – 31 December 2002)
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 1961 pursuant to an agreement between the United
Nations and the Government of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in Asia andthe Pacific region by promoting regional cooperation in the field of crime prevention and criminal
justice, through training and research.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent, contemporary
problems in the administration of criminal justice in the region, especially problems generated by rapidsocio-economic change (e.g., transnational organised crime, corruption, economic and computer crime
and the re-integration of prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses,
seminars and research projects.
II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute’s work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of criminal justice discuss and studypressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding, with the help of lectures and advice by 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 now conducts two international training courses (two months duration) and
one international seminar (one month duration). Approximately 70 government officials from various
overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA; agovernmental agency 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 criminal justice fields.
During its 41 years of existence, UNAFEI has conducted a total of 122 international training
courses and seminars, in which approximately 2976 criminal justice personnel have participated,
representing 102 different countries. In their respective countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing
leading roles and holding important posts in the fields of crime prevention and the treatment ofoffenders, and in related organisations.
A. The 120th International Seminar
1. Introduction
From 15 January to 15 February 2002, 21 participants from 15 countries attended the 120th
International Seminar to examine the main theme of “Effective Administration of the Police and theProsecution in Criminal Justice.”
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants respectively introduced the current situation regarding the roleand function of the police and prosecution in their respective countries. Secondly, General Discussion
Sessions in the conference hall examined the subtopics of the main theme. In considering the issues ofpolice and prosecution, discussion firstly focused on police structure and how this affects efficiency. Oneof the main problems that hinders effective investigations is arbitrary political influence and3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2002
safeguards were examined to exclude such influence. Methods of improving cooperation between thepolice and the prosecution were also considered, as this is imperative to effective and successful
investigations and prosecutions. The participants finally looked at ways of enhancing prosecutorial
functions, especially case screening. To conduct each session efficiently, the UNAFEI faculty provided
the following three topics for participant discussion:
Topic 1: Effective Police Systems;
Topic 2: Cooperation between the Police and Prosecutors;
Topic 3: Effective Case Screening by Prosecutors or other Competent Agencies.
A chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur were elected for each topic andorganised the discussions in relation to the above themes. In the conference hall, the participants and
UNAFEI faculty seriously studied the designated subtopics and exchanged views. Final reports werecompiled, based on the said discussions, and were ultimately adopted as the reports of the Seminar.
These reports were printed in their entirety in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 60.
3. Outcome Summary
There is a growing determination in most countries around the world to introduce reforms in theirrespective criminal justice systems. For reforms in the criminal justice system to have a meaningful
impact, police institutions must undergo reforms in order to render them more effective and efficient.
Police systems throughout the world broadly fall into three classifications; centralized/national police
system, semi-centralized (dual control) police system and decentralized police system. Problems
identified in relation to the police system included; budgetary constraints, lack of training, lack ofcooperation, corruption, arbitrary external influence and lack of personnel. Suggested solutions to suchproblems were as follows;(i)Countries should give special attention to sufficient and sustainable budgets for their police
agencies,(ii) There must be mechanisms for enhancing the police’s transparency and accountability,(iii) There must be structural safeguards in order to ensure the exercise of police functions is notarbitrarily interfered with,(iv) Governments should ensure that police agencies are independent from politics,(v) All police officers should receive training on ethical values,(vi) Adequate and continuous training should be given to police officers,(vii) The establishment of police associations should be considered as they can play an importantrole in raising professional standards.
Prosecutors are vested with the responsibility of checking police investigations against the due
process of the law. It is apparent that the police and prosecutors are getting more and more mutuallydependent due to the increasing complexity, magnitude and other challenges of crime emerging inmodern societies. Certain problems were identified in the relationship between the police andprosecutors such as; different psychological traits between police officers and prosecutors, conflicting
views over case dispositions, lack of shared common goals, lack of objectivity and a lack of discretion inpolice investigations. Measures that might assist cooperation between the police and prosecutors
include;(i)Common goals should be determined and shared between the police and the prosecution
service supported by a strong political will,(ii) Greater avenues of communication should be developed between the police and prosecutors(e.g. intensive early stage consultation, regular meetings, close liaison),(iii) Legislation should clearly define the distinct roles of the police and prosecutors,(iv) Cooperation models should be considered to simplify proceedings/diversion.
There are two types of case screening; one is the test of whether there is sufficient evidence toobtain a conviction and the other is whether, although there might be sufficient evidence, it does notappear to be prudent or in the public interest to prosecute. Case screening is performed by prosecutors
in the following ways; the police alone investigate and then hand cases to the prosecutor for scrutiny,4MAIN ACTIVITIES
prosecutors can suspend prosecution, prosecutors apply an evidentiary and public interest test to
initiate a prosecution, plea bargaining, and at a victim’s request. Case screening by the police can takethe form of; non-recognition of an alleged offence, fine/discharge, insufficient evidence to proceed tocharge. Recommendations to improve case screening included;(i) Ensuring sufficient budget for the police and prosecution,(ii) Ensuring the independence of the prosecution,(iii) Checks and controls on prosecutor’s decisions,(iv) Time frames to complete investigations,(v) Adequate number of prosecutors,(vi) Consider a variety of proceedings other than trials,(vii) Proper cooperation between prosecutors, the police and other enforcement agencies.
B. The 121st International Training Course
1. Introduction
UNAFEI conducted the 121st International Training Course from 20 May to 12 July 2002 with themain theme, “Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration at all Stages of the
Criminal Justice Process.” This Course consisted of 25 participants from 14 countries. The United
Nations has long recognized the necessity of formulating and implementing alternatives toimprisonment in order to ameliorate prison overcrowding and encourage the reintegration of offenders
into the community. The manifestation of this concern was the adoption of the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules) by the United Nations General Assembly in
1990. However, despite international efforts to develop the use of community-based alternatives toincarceration many countries throughout the world have seen their prison populations increase,particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The need to enhance community-based alternatives toincarceration reflects increasingly accepted global wisdom that unless offenders need to be separated
from society then they should be placed on community programmes that provide more effective
rehabilitation and utilize available resources more efficiently.
2. Methodology
The participants examined measures to implement and improve community-based alternatives toincarceration at all stages of the criminal justice process. This was accomplished primarily throughcomparative analysis of the current situation, possibilities and problems encountered in communitybased alternatives and an examination of the availability and utilization of such alternatives. In-depth
discussions enabled the participants to fully appreciate the range of community-based alternatives toimprisonment and put forth effective and practical solutions to the problems faced by thesealternatives.
The objectives of the Course were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations andGroup Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems andfuture prospects of their 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 the following three groups under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives at the Pre-Sentencing Stage
Group 2: Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives at the Sentencing Stage of the Criminal
Justice Process
Group 3: Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration at the Post-Sentencing
Stage
Each group elected chairpersons and rapporteurs to organise the discussions. The group members
seriously studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views based on information obtained
through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and so forth. Sessions wereallocated for Group Discussion. During the course, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim
outline of the Group Workshop reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary
Meetings in the seventh week, drafts of the Group Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by

5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2002
all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Based on these discussions, the Groups further refined
their reports and presented them in the Report-Back Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reportsof the Course. The full texts of the reports are published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 61.
3. Outcome Summary
It was found that non-custodial measures are often being practiced at the pre-sentencing stage andthat the most common measures were admonitions/warnings, which make it possible to release a petty
offender from the criminal procedure at the earliest stage. Fines are also widely used measures
particularly for traffic offenders. In each country, either prosecutors or the police are authorized todecide whether or not to prosecute cases, though there are differences as to at what point in the process
this power is exercised.
Advantages of using non-custodial measures at the pre-sentencing stage were identified as follows;
prison populations could be reduced, accruing cost benefits, stigma avoidance, avoidance of escalating
criminal behaviour, timely bail and diversion can assist the maintenance of family linkages,
employment and social status, victims’ interests can be taken into consideration, offenders cancontribute to the community. Alternatively the disadvantages of using non-custodial measures at the
pre-sentencing stage were considered to be; recidivism risks if no rehabilitation programmes were
provided, anxiety in the local community if offenders are not imprisoned, a perception of non-custodial
measures being a ‘soft option’, a decrease in the general and individual deterrent effects of punishment,
greater risk of revenge attacks by victims and/or their families.
Diversion programmes are often seen to be alternatives to the criminal justice process. It was notedthat throughout the world, diversion programmes are primarily used for juvenile offenders although
adults occasionally benefit from such programmes. Through the experiences of the participants’countries, common target groups are those who have committed minor offences, juvenile offenders, firsttime offenders and drug users. Generally, the implementation and enhancement of community-basedalternatives at the pre-sentencing stage such as diversion programmes must be discussed based upon
the following conditions;(i)

The application of community-based alternatives to incarceration should be implemented
based on a clear standard prescribed by the law or other regulations.
(ii) Community based alternatives must only be applied when it is considered that there is noimperative to proceed with the case for the protection of society.
(iii) Crime prevention and the promotion of respect for the law and the rights of victims should
correctly be considered in the context of community-based alternatives.
(iv) Discretion by a judicial or other competent independent authority must be exercised only inaccordance with the rule of law and must never be abused.
The current use and administration of community-based alternatives at the sentencing stage wasalso analysed. They were identified as; verbal sanctions such as admonitions, reprimands andwarnings, economic sanctions and monetary penalties such as fines, restitution or compensation orders,suspended sentences, probation and correctional supervision, community service orders, house arrest,
referral to a treatment center, and banishment.
The correct use of community-based alternatives to incarceration for appropriate offenders offers
the following general advantages; reduces upward pressure on prison populations and costs, protects
public safety as effectively as prison, reduces stigmatization, promotes social reintegration of offenders,and prevents recidivism. To develop and maintain a successful system of community-basedalternatives, a criminal justice system should have; a wide array of community-based alternative
programmes available in the community, a wide array of flexible sentencing options available to thecourt, a system to assess offenders and available community-based sentences to assist the court
matching appropriate offenders with appropriate sentencing options and community-basedalternatives, a system to effectively coordinate, administer and supervise the sentences of offenders in
the community.

6

MAIN ACTIVITIESAs regards community-based alternatives to incarceration at the post-sentencing stage, suchalternatives were seen to be broadly based into two types; early release measures (such as parole,pardons and remission) and temporary release measures (such as furloughs and temporary leave
programmes). It was found that, for temporary release measures, an effective classification systemshould be established and there should be a standard scale for risk and needs assessment for offenders.
Further, parole systems among participating countries were not being fully utilized due to various
reasons: e.g., conflicting provisions in laws, shortage of budget and/or manpower and there is a need forthe introduction of objective screening processes and allocation of appropriate resources in terms ofoffenders’ needs and risks, establishment of an independent authority which incorporates
accountability and transparency in decision-making. Temporary release measures can be the primarymeans of bridging institutional treatment and community-based treatment by enhancing privileges forinmates and opportunities to prepare for the through care process. These measures should always beclosely monitored and evaluated in order to achieve and continue effective results that are based onevidence-based practices. The enlargement of community-based options also depends upon the support
and trust of the general public who need to be well informed by reliable evidence.
C. The 122nd International Training Course
1. Introduction
From 2 September to 25 October 2002, UNAFEI conducted the 122nd International Training
Course with the main theme, “The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice to Tackle Trafficking in
Human Beings and Smuggling of Migrants”. This Course consisted of 24 participants from 11 countries.
It is generally accepted that human trafficking and the smuggling of migrants has become a modern
scourge of a rapidly globalising world. Trafficking and smuggling abuses the basic human rights oftrafficked/smuggled persons, upsets the balance of immigration policies around the globe and provides
vast profits for transnational organised criminal groups that view such activities as central to theirnefarious operations. It is apparent that the causes of the increasing scale of human trafficking andsmuggling are numerous mainly due to the great disparities in the economic situations between
developing and developed countries and the unstable political situations in various states.
2. Methodology
The participants examined the overall situation of trafficking and smuggling, including the modus
operandi and routes of trafficking and smuggling and forms of exploitation of trafficked and smuggled
persons. They also analysed the cause of trafficking and smuggling. Further, the components and legal
frameworks for tackling trafficking and smuggling and their best practices were considered especiallyin relation to; border control and travel documents, law enforcement, prosecution, court, legislative
issues (e.g., criminalisation of trafficking and smuggling) and international cooperation.
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and the Group
Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems and future
prospects of their country with respect to the main theme of the Course. The Group Workshops further
examined the subtopics of the main theme. To facilitate discussions, the participants were divided into
the following three groups:
Group 1: Trafficking in Human Beings, Especially Women and Children
Group 2: The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice to Tackle the Smuggling of Migrants
Group 3: International Cooperation against Human Trafficking and Smuggling of Migrants
Each group elected a chairperson(s) and rapporteur(s) to organise the discussions. The groupmembers seriously studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views based on information
obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and so forth.
In weeks six and seven Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group
Workshop reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the Plenary Meetings, drafts of theGroup Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty.
Based on these discussions, the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2002
Back Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports will be published infull in the UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 62.
3. Outcome Summary
One of the most difficult realities facing persons trafficked into forced labour, slavery, or servitude is
the propensity of governments worldwide to treat trafficked persons as criminals or unwanted
undocumented workers rather than as rights-bearing human beings. “Trafficking in Persons” shallmean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt, of persons, by means of thethreat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of
power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve theconsent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation
shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal oforgans. (Art. 3 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women andChildren).
The causes of trafficking can be seen to fall into two categories: “push factors” such as; poverty, lackof education prospects, chronic unemployment, the low status of women and girls in social and economic
aspects, lack of economic opportunities, political instability, traditional social and cultural practices,
corruption and others (i.e., militarism, civil unrest, internal armed conflict and natural disasters) andalso “pull” factors such as; high demands of the sex industry, high profits for traffickers, lenientpunishment, inefficient law enforcement, deficient legislative laws and corruption. There are two maintypes of trafficking; one type is trafficking for sexual exploitation and the other is for labour
exploitation.
Trafficking is a multi-dimensional issue. Therefore, the legislative issue can be tackled as both acriminal and a human rights issue. Trafficking as a criminal issue should encompass; adequate
provisions of the law to address the special needs of children, protection of the victim as well as his/her
relatives, guarantee victims the right to compensation. States are the protectors of human rights of thepeople living in their territory and must be held responsible for the fight against trafficking.
As regards the problems of detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of the crime ofhuman smuggling the following recommendations are suggested; promotion of high technology forpassports or visas to prevent forgery of documents, develop or promote the use of advanced technology
for the detection of forged documents, strengthening of international cooperation and exchange of
information between and among the countries Recommendations to effectively tackle the smuggling of
migrants should include the following; improving coast watch with customs and navy capabilities andtightening border controls, special task forces against human smuggling should be created, a system forpeoples’ participation in the combat against human smuggling should be developed, special training forinvestigators, prosecutors, judges and other concerned government officials should be conducted, thesystem of information and exchange between and among the agencies concerned with humansmuggling should be strengthened, witnesses (illegal migrants) need to be secured to prosecutesmugglers effectively, legislative measures against human smuggling should be enacted andinformation and education campaigns should be intensified.
Problems emerging from rapid globalisation are posing challenges to the criminal justice system of
the individual countries and the world as a whole. Challenges such as human trafficking and smugglingof migrants operate beyond the boundaries of individual countries. The existence of the present strict
MLA and extradition framework, judicial boundaries, geographical limitations in investigation andprosecution are no match for the kind of international crime that is being committed today.
International efforts towards the elimination of human trafficking and smuggling of migrants should befurther enhanced. At the same time, efforts at the national level to develop appropriate measures tosafeguard the human rights of the trafficked victims should be continued. The UN TOC Convention andits two Protocols must be ratified by every country and put into effect in order to eradicate humantrafficking and smuggling of migrants.

8

MAIN ACTIVITIES
D. Special Seminars and Courses
1. Seventh Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China
The Seventh Special Seminar for Senior Officials of Criminal Justice in the People’s Republic ofChina, entitled “Criminal Justice Reform”, was held from 25 February to 15 March 2002. Fourteen
senior criminal justice officials and the UNAFEI faculty comparatively discussed contemporary
problems faced by China and Japan in the realization of criminal justice.
2. Third Special Seminar for Kenya on Juvenile Delinquent Treatment Systems
UNAFEI conducted the Third Special Seminar for Kenyan criminal justice officials who are
working for the prevention of delinquency and the treatment of juvenile delinquents in their country.
The Seminar, entitled “Juvenile Delinquent Treatment Systems”, was held from 28 October to 22
November 2002. The Seminar exposed nine Kenyan officials to the workings of the Japanese juvenile
justice and treatment system through lectures and observation visits to relevant agencies. As a result of
this comparative study, the officials successfully developed action plans for the implementation anddevelopment of institutional and community-based treatment systems for juvenile delinquents in
Kenya.
3. Fifth Special Training Course on Corruption Control in Criminal Justice
UNAFEI conducted the Fifth Special Training Course entitled “Corruption Control in Criminal
Justice” from 28 October to 22 November 2002. In this course, thirteen foreign and three Japanese
officials engaged in corruption control comparatively analysed the current situation of corruption,
methods of corruption prevention, and measures to enhance international cooperation in this regard.
During this course there was a joint programme between the International Association of Penal Law
and UNAFEI.
4. First Seminar on the Judicial System for Tajikistan
The First Special Seminar for officials involved in criminal justice from Tajikistan was held from 4
March to 21 March at UNAFEI. The Tajikistan criminal justice system was viewed from a comparative
perspective and the ten participants were given an overview of the Japanese criminal justice system.
5. UN Center for International Crime Prevention (CICP)-UNAFEI Pre-Ratification Expert Group
Seminar for the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and its Protocols
Senior criminal justice officials from 21 countries in the Asia-Pacific region and visiting experts
from all over the world were invited to this seminar that was held at the Osaka branch of UNAFEI on
22 and 23 August 2002. The purpose of the seminar was to support the ratification of the TOC
Convention and it was jointly organised by the CICP and UNAFEI.
6. UNAFEI’s Fortieth Anniversary Ceremony and Commemorative Symposium
UNAFEI celebrated its fortieth anniversary since its establishment in 1962. As the ACPF alsocelebrated its twentieth anniversary, a joint ceremony and symposium was held from 2 to 4 October
2002 at the Ministry of Justice and the Institute for International Cooperation, Tokyo. Senior criminal
justice officials, experts and many UNAFEI alumni attended this event.
III. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
A. Joint Seminars
Since 1981, UNAFEI has conducted 23 joint seminars under the auspices of JICA and incollaboration with host governments in Asia and the Pacific. With the participation of policy-makers
and high-ranking administrators, including members of academia, the joint seminars attempt toprovide a discussion forum in which participants can share their views and jointly seek solutions tovarious problems currently facing criminal justice administration in both the host country and Japan.
1. Indonesia-UNAFEI Joint Seminar
The Indonesia-UNAFEI Joint Seminar was held in Jakarta with the theme of “Criminal JusticeReform” from 18 to 20 December 2002. The Government of Indonesia, JICA and UNAFEI organised the
Joint Seminar. Over 200 local participants including lawyers, government officials, non-governmental

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2002
representatives and members of the judiciary and the police attended the Seminar. The UNAFEI
delegation consisted of the Director, the Deputy Director, three professors, the Linguistic Advisor, twomembers of the Secretariat and an official from the National Police Agency of Japan. The Seminarconcluded with the adoption of recommendations on criminal justice reform in Indonesia.
B. Regional Training Programmes
1. Costa Rica
In July 2002, UNAFEI dispatched two professors to Costa Rica to attend the Fourth International
Training Course on the “Improvement of Prison Conditions and Correctional Programmes”, organised
and hosted by the Government of Costa Rica through the United Nations Latin American Institute for
the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD).
C. Others
In July and August 2002, two UNAFEI professors were dispatched to Kenya to assist the Children’s
Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs and National Heritage in a project to develop nationwide
standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders.
IV. COMPARATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT
Reflecting its emphasis on the systematic relevance of training activities and priority themes
identified by the UN Commission, the research activities of the Institute are designed to meet practicalneeds, including those for training materials for criminal justice personnel.
V. 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 theAmericas, and makes use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information andLibrary Service of the Institute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United
Nations agencies, governmental organisations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic andforeign.
VI. 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 2002, the 59th editionof the Resource Material Series was published. In March 2002 the results of the Philippines-UNAFEI
Joint Seminar on “Community Involvement in the Criminal Justice Administration” (held in Manila,
the Philippines in December 2001) were published. The results of the Kenya-UNAFEI Joint Seminaron, “Effective Coordination and Cooperation of Criminal Justice Agencies in the Administration ofJuvenile Justice” (held in Nairobi, Kenya in August 2001) were also published in March 2002.
Additionally, issues 107 to 109 of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published, including a brief report oneach course and seminar (from the 120th to the 122nd respectively) and providing other timely
information.
VII. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 1 February 2002, 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 120th
International Seminar participants. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues, throughcomparative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. This year, Mr. Peter

10

MAIN ACTIVITIES
Beouf (Chief Crown Prosecutor of London, Crown Prosecution Service, England) and Mr. Eberhard
Siegismund (Deputy Director General in the Judicial System Division, Germany) were invited as
speakers to the Programme. They delivered lectures respectively entitled “The Crown Prosecution
Service” and “The Function of Honorary Judges in Criminal Proceedings in Germany.”
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about tocommence, research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is, therefore, one of theimportant tasks of UNAFEI to support these contributions to improve the crime situationinternationally.
C. Overseas Missions
Mr. Yuichiro Tachi visited Indonesia from 6 January to 19 January 2002 where he conducted
research on behalf of UNAFEI into judicial reform in Indonesia.
Mr. Kei Someda (Professor) and Mr. Kimihiro Suga (Staff) visited Thailand from 18 to 23 February
2002 to consider the necessity of establishing a training course for Thai probation officers in Japan.
During the time in Thailand Mr. Someda delivered a lecture at the headquarters of the Department of
Probation, Thai Ministry of Justice.
Mr. Yasuhiro Tanabe (Professor) attended the Experts Meeting for the United Nations Global
Programme Against Trafficking in Human Beings. This Meeting was held in Manila, the Philippinesfrom 18 to 19 March 2002.
Mr. Toru Miura (Professor) and Ms. Sue Takasu (Professor) visited various government agencies in
Hanoi, Vietnam in order to study the situation and needs regarding the criminal justice system in
Vietnam from 21 March to 26 March 2002.
Mr. Kunihiko Sakai (Director) and Mr. Yasuhiro Tanabe (Professor) attended the Eleventh Sessionof the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice held in Vienna, Austria
from 15 to 27 April 2002.
Ms. Tomoko Akane (Deputy Director) attended a Sino-Finnish Seminar on the United Nations
Convention against Transnational Organised Crime in Beijing, China from 12 May to 16 May 2002. Ms.
Akane presented a lecture at this Seminar.
Mr. Yuichiro Tachi (Professor) attended the Conference on the New Global Security Agenda in Asia
and Europe: Transnational Crimes and prospects for Asia-European Cooperation. The Conference washeld from 26 May to 30 May 2002 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mr. Toru Miura (Professor) and Mr. Ryuji Kuwayama (Professor) visited Costa Rica from 13 to 27
July 2002 where they presented lectures on behalf of UNAFEI at the Fourth International Training
Course on the Improvement of Prison Conditions and Correctional Programmes.
Mr. Kunihiko Sakai (Director), Ms. Sue Takasu (Professor), Mr. Yasuhiro Tanabe (Professor) andMr. Masuo Tanaka (Staff) visited the People’s Republic of China from 21 to 28 July 2002 for the purposeof fostering international exchange between the respective criminal justice administrations.
Mr. Kei Someda (Professor) and Mr. Kenji Teramura visited Kenya as short-term experts, as part ofa JICA international assistance scheme providing special support to the Children’s Department of
Kenya from 24 July to 25 August 2002.
Ms. Tomoko Akane (Deputy Director) participated in the Twentieth Cambridge International
Symposium on Economic Crime and the Seventh Annual Conference and General Meeting of theInternational Association of Prosecutors in Cambridge and London respectively from 7 to 16 September
2002.

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2002
Mr. Yasuhiro Tanabe (Professor) attended the Fifth International Conference on Computer Crimeorganised by the ICPO-INTERPOL in Seoul, Korea from 13 to 16 October 2002 where he gave apresentation on UNAFEI’s activities in the fight against computer-related crime.
Mr. Ryuji Kuwayama (Professor) acted as an observer at the 22nd Asian and Pacific Conference ofCorrectional Administrators which was held in Bali, Indonesia from 12 to 20 October 2002.
Ms. Mikiko Kakihara (Professor) and Mr. Kenji Teramura (Professor) attended an international
conference on “Offender Rehabilitation in the 21st Century” in Hong Kong as speakers from 1 to 6
December 2002.
Mr. Kunihiko Sakai (Director) attended the Coordination Meeting of the United Nations Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network in Turin, Italy from 3 to 10 December 2002.
Ms. Sue Takasu (Professor) gave a lecture at a symposium on “Preventing Organised Crime” in Abu
Dhabi, the United Arabs Emigrates, which was held by the Ministry of the Interior, UAE from 12 to 19
December 2002.
Mr. Kunihiko Sakai (Director), Ms. Tomoko Akane (Deputy Director), Mr. Toru Miura (Professor),
Mr. Yuichiro Tachi (Professor) Mr. Kei Someda (Professor), Mr. Sean Eratt (Linguistic Adviser), Mr.
Makoto Nakayama and Mr. Takahiro Ihara (Staff) represented UNAFEI at the Indonesia-UNAFEI
Joint Seminar on “Criminal Justice Reform” held from 18 to 20 December 2002 in Jakarta, Indonesia.
D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates and corroborates with the ACPF to further improve crime prevention andcriminal justice administration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similar goals,
and a large part of ACPF’s membership consist of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two isvery strong. An example of this cooperation can be seen in the 9th ACPF International World
Conference, which was held in Tokyo in October 2002.
VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative responsibility forrunning the Institute. The Director, Deputy Director and seven professors are selected from among
public prosecutors, the judiciary, corrections and probation. UNAFEI also has approximately 20
administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, anda linguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to eachtraining course and seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts,
volunteers and related agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty Changes
Mr. Mikinao Kitada, formerly Director of UNAFEI, was transferred to become Director General for
Inspection at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 1 April 2002.
Mr. Keiichi Aizawa, formerly Deputy Director of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Chiba District
Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2002.
Mr. Hiroshi Tsutomi, formerly Professor of UNAFEI, left UNAFEI to become an associate professor
at Shizuoka University on 1 April 2002.
Mr. Kunihiko Sakai, formerly a Prosecutor with the Tokyo District Prosecutors Office, joined
UNAFEI as Director on 1 April 2002.
Ms. Tomoko Akane, formerly a Prosecutor with the Sapporo District Prosecutors Office, joined
UNAFEI as Deputy Director on 1 April 2002.

12

MAIN ACTIVITIESMr. Ryuji Kuwayama, formerly Director of the Finance Division at Mito Juvenile Prison, joined
UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2002.
IX. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute’s budget. The total amount of the UNAFEI
budget is approximately ¥319 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provides assistance for
the Institute’s international training courses and seminars.

13