Bibliothèque des droits des victimes

This article discusses the factors contributing to the satisfaction of victims of violent crime who have participated in restorative justice interventions. In this analysis, the authors examine whether this satisfaction is simply due to procedural justice or whether other elements come into play. The results of the field study showed that procedural justice, which includes elements such as trust, neutrality, respect and the opportunity to express oneself, plays an important role in victim satisfaction. However, other factors not covered by the procedural justice model, such as the flexibility of the restorative approach, emotional support, dialogue and the possibility of responding to prosocial motivations, also contribute significantly to this satisfaction. This article also highlights the sense of appreciate victims value restorative justice not only for its compliance with the principles of procedural justice, but also for its ability to adapt to their specific needs, offer support and enable meaningful interactions with offenders.

This paper examines the appropriate role of victim impact statements (VIS) in the sentencing process, and critically examines their instrumental use to the detriment of the rights and needs of crime victims. Introduced in 1989, VIS have sparked debate about their usefulness and impact. The author argues that VIS should be seen as a means of expression and communication for victims, rather than as evidence to influence sentencing. In her analysis, the author assesses recent legislative changes, including the Victims' Bill of Rights Act 2015, which tend towards an instrumental model that emphasizes ancillary harms and retributive sentencing principles, contrary to the needs of victims and the goals of fair and appropriate criminal justice. In conclusion, the author argues that VIS should be seen as an implementation of victims' participation rights, not as a source of information for determining a criminal sanction.

In this paper the author argues that victims’ rights are human rights. Criminal law typically views victims as witnesses to a crime against the state, thus shutting themout of the criminal justice process and only allowing them in when they are needed to testify. This is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims who seek validation in the criminal justice system. Victims are persons with rights and privileges. Crimes constitute violations of their rights as well as acts against society or the state. While human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do not mention crime victims specifically, a number of rights are identified, which can be viewed from the victim’s perspective. As individuals with dignity, victims have the right to recognition as persons before the law. However, such rights are only meaningful if they can be enforced.

This article examines secondary victimization and how the criminal justice system affects victims’psychological recovery from the crime. Victim recovery was measured using the Modified Post traumaticStress Symptom Scale (MPSSS). This study is prospective, following victims as their cases passed through the criminal justice system. How authorities treated victims was measured in terms of victims’ procedural justice judgements. Using a general linear model with repeated measures,unfair procedures were found to impact victims’ recovery. The article closes with a discussionof the findings and their implications.

This article examines the role and relevance of victims' rights in plea bargaining in Canada. It begins with a comparative study of the legislative measures that have been recognized in Canada and in several American states with regard to the role of victims in the plea bargaining process. Next, the article describes the importance of the harm suffered by victims for judges to consider in plea bargaining and sentencing. The same applies to victim impact statements, an essential step in informing the court about the impact of the crime. Finally, the analysis presents the limits of victim involvement in the Canadian criminal justice system, and proposes mechanisms for guaranteeing victims' rights, such as the certification mechanism inspired by American judicial practice, which requires the obligation to certify, providing courts with details on how victims' interests are taken into account.

This article presents an analysis of the mechanisms for implementing the victims' rights enshrined in the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights, with a view to ensuring more effective protection of rights. The article first explores the development of victims' rights, before analyzing the procedural mechanisms available at federal and provincial levels, with reference to the right to participate and the role of crime victims in the criminal justice system. The article then proposes a nuanced understanding of the notion of implementation, combining insights from administrative law and victimology to examine the effectiveness of these mechanisms. Finally, it identifies the difficulties arising from current mechanisms and proposes improvements to enhance the impartiality, accessibility, independence, investigative powers and forms of redress available to victims of crime.

The article deals with a comparative analysis of the role of victims in judicial proceedings at the International Criminal Court and in Canada, while identifying the key similarities and differences in the treatment of victims in the two systems. In his analysis, the author first discusses the guiding principles for the treatment of victims, before moving on to the role of victims in criminal proceedings through the various judicial stages of investigation, prosecution and pre-trial proceedings, trials, decisions, reparation, compensation and restitution. It also emphasizes that the ICC includes victims at all stages of the proceedings, but faces challenges in ensuring meaningful participation and reparations on a sustainable basis. The comparative analysis reveals that the ICC could improve reparations by drawing on national models, such as Canada's, which offer compensation earlier in the proceedings.

This examines the new constitutional protections for crime victims in Florida, passed in November 2018 as “Marsy's Law for Florida”. The authors begin their analysis with a brief history of the crime victims' rights movement in the United States, highlighting the evolution of state constitutional amendments to protect these rights. They then detail the specific rights added by Florida's new amendment, such as the right to be informed of court proceedings, to attend hearings, to be heard in relevant proceedings, to have proceedings without unreasonable delay, to receive reasonable protection, to protect privacy and dignity, and to receive full and prompt restitution. In conclusion, the authors draw lessons from Florida's experience, suggesting that other states could benefit from adopting similar protections for crime victims.

The author explores Bennett Capers' proposal to give victims a greater role in criminal prosecution decisions as a check on prosecutorial abuse. Capers suggests that victims could initiate, direct or even block prosecutions, which could make the criminal justice system fairer. Turner examines this proposal by comparing the criminal justice systems of several European countries where victims already have more extensive participatory roles. She finds that, while victim participation can enhance the accountability of prosecutors, it also presents limitations and challenges. The article concludes that, of the various forms of victim participation, the right to challenge prosecutors' non-prosecution decisions appears to be the most promising reform for the United States. This could improve prosecutorial accountability without compromising the rights of the accused. Turner also suggests that other reforms, such as strengthening the independence of greater juries and improving the transparency of prosecutors' decisions, could also contribute to a fairer justice system.

The article explores victim participation in the executive clemency process in common law jurisdictions. The authors examine existing models of victim participation in countries such as Canada, New Zealand and the United States and assess their theoreticla basis. The models in participation concern service rights, non-dispositive procedural rights and dispositive procedural rights. In their analysis, the authors highlight the lack of normative and empirical literature on the role of victims in the clemency process. They conclude that the involvement of victims can be justified theoretically, but in a more limited way than is practiced in some jurisdictions. Ultimately, they propose best-practice recommendations for future policies. They suggest that victims should have the right to receive information, participate expressively, provide relevant information and act as agents of accountability, while rejecting dispositive models of participation.