Conclusions of Consensus Project by Proyecto Consensus

CONSENSUS PROJECT CONCLUSIONS The PROJECT CONSENSUS begins with a study of good practices which permits the obtaining of up-to-date and comparative information about preventative and rehabilitation youth justice Restorative Justice, in order to be able to know the problems which arise in the practical application of these, from different perspectives, and what advantages are provided by their dissemination in terms of being an alternative mechanism to the traditional retribution justice model, for the offenders, the victims and for society in general. It enables, moreover, the transference of information and experiences from different places, permitting professionals to learn and utilize new methods of intervention which have been tested. It has been created by the Presidential Council, Public administration and justice of the Government of Galicia in the area of the framework agreement signed in 2007 by the European Commission with the Government of Galicia and with other entities and public bodies of the member states to establish collaboration in the long-term in the development of projects for the prevention of delinquency. Financially, the project counts on the Programme “Prevention of and Fight against Crime”, of the Directorate General of Justice, Freedom and Security of the European Commission. The following institutions from other members of the European Union work as partners in the Project CONSENSUS: o

Institute of Conflict Resolution (ICR). Sofia. Bulgaria.

European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations, (HEUNI). Helsinki. Finland.

Research Institute on Judicial Systems (Bologna). National Research Council (IRSIGCNR), Italy.

Directorate General for Social Rehabilitation. Ministry of Justice. Lisbon. Portugal.

University of Glasgow, Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR). United Kingdom.

For the development of this project the support of D. Juan Carlos Garrido Iglesias has been very important. He is the representative in Spain of the European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN). GENERAL OBJECTIVE: To stimulate, promote and develop horizontal methods and tools necessary for strategically preventing and fighting crime and guaranteeing security and public order. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: • •

Be provided with updated qualitative and comparable data on good practices regarding Juvenile Restorative Justice in Spain. Track down and learn about four of the main Spanish experiences.

• •

In partners’ countries, detect and identify four good practices in young offenders’ juvenile restorative justice, through common methodology. Hold a Transnational Forum to exchange good practices and where professionals and experts from different intervention fields (judicial, technical and educational) will suggest innovative intervention proposals in juvenile restorative justice. These innovative proposals will be transferable to other Member States. Dissemination of the Forum conclusions on the websites of EUCPN, of the General Direction of Justice of the Galician Government and of partners, as well as through the media, etc. Publication of a book (150 copies) that will gather the good practices and conclusions of the Forum.

PARTICIPANTS Experts and legal practitioners working in the field of juvenile justice: judges, prosecutors, psicologists, educators and social workers of Specialized Teams, lawyers, police officers, NGOs, etc. OUTCOMES The CONSENSUS PROJECT sets out in the first place to examine the theoretical and scientific documentation which exists in Europe about restorative justice and concerning which are also analysed the reports, conclusions and practical results of other European projects and conferences. In the meetings held with our international partners we have also gained access to studies carried out in those countries and bibliographical documentation and these have been of great usefulness in the building of the project: o o o o o o o o o

o o o o

Theo Gavrielides, (2007). HEUNI. Restorative Justice Theory and practice: Addressing the discrepancy. Printed by Hakapaino Oy, Helsinki Kauko Aromaa and Markku Heiskanen (2008). HEUNI. Crime and Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America 1995-2004. Printed by Hakapaino Oy, Helsinki United Nations. Office on Drugs and Crime, (2006): Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes. Criminal Justice Handbook series. Vienna Anna Mestitz y Simona Ghetti, (2005): Victim- Offender Mediation with Youth Offenders in Europe. Springer. The Netherlands. Anna Mestitz, (2004). Mediazione penale: chi, dove, come e quando. Carocci editore: Roma. Anna Mestitz, (2007). Messa alla prova: tra innovazione e routine. Carocci editore: Roma Anna Mestitz, (2008). Organizational features of victim- offender mediation with youth offenders in Europe. Bjcj Brithish Journal of Community Justice: Vol 6 No2. Restorative Practices in Three Scottish Councils Final Report of the Evaluation of the first two years of the Pilot Projects 2004-2006. Implementing Restorative Justice within an Integrated Welfare System: The Evaluation of Glasgow’s Restorative Justice Service. Summary Report. Kathryn Dutton and Bill Whyte. CJSW Briefing Paper 8: March 2006. Youth Justice Services. Evaluation report. April 2004 – March 2005. SACRO. Scotland. Partnership in Youth Justice. Sacro’s Expertise as a Restorative Justice Provider Crime and Restorative Justice Bill Whyte CJSW Briefing Paper 4- April 2002. Scotland. Enquadramento jurídico e estratégia de intervenção na jurisdição tutelar educativa. Assessoria Técnica aos Tribunais na Fase Pré-sentencial. Direcçao de Reinserçao social. Ministério da Justiça. Portugal.

Tools in Network, an E-Net approach to sharing mediation competences” (Institute of conflict resolution (Bulgaria) and other partners).

In the following phase of the Project has been identified and compiled existing good practices concerning Restorative juvenile justice in the Spanish state, attempting to identify the particular variables which facilitate the success of the restorative measures, focusing the study especially on action applied to young offenders. To complete this analysis we have organized Panels of Experts on Youth Justice through meetings and interviews with judges, chief prosecutors and specially skilled teams in the trials of minors, and of public entity for judicial measures, gathering in this way the distinct perspectives offered by professionals from the field of the court and that of social psychology. After presenting them the research about good practices of Juvenile Restorative Law in different Spanish Communities, they were asked information about the present situation of this practice in Galicia, as well as their opinion about the possibility of transferring to our territory these good practices developed in other places of Spain. As well there were gathered their proposals to improve the practical application of the restorative justice in Galicia in the future. In November of 2009 was celebrated an international forum for the exchange and interchange of experiences in which participated professionals and experts in youth justice from all partner states, who presented papers and innovative ideas and proposals directed toward the better application of Restorative Justice and to facilitate the solution of problems which emerge in practice with the end to contribute to the establishment of common criteria for implementation in the member states of the European Union. Schedule of the Transnational Forum: Good Practices of Restorative Juvenile Justice Monday, the 2nd of November 9.30 – 10.00 Reception of documents 10.00 – 10.15 Inauguration Excmo. Sr. D. Carlos Varela García Higher Prosecutor of Galicia 10.15 – 10.45 Lecture: Juvenile Restorative Justice in Spain Ilmo. Sr.D. Fernando Suanzes Pérez (Prosecutor of the Autonomous Community of Galicia and Associate Professor of Criminal Law at the Law Faculty of A Coruña. Specialized in Juvenile Justice). 11.15 – 11.30 Presentation of the EUROPEAN CRIME PREVENTION NETWORK ( EUCPN) D. Juan Carlos Garrido Iglesias (Inspector of the National Police- International Coordination Unit and representative of the EUCPN in Spain). 11.00 – 11.15 Presentation of the CONSENSUS PROJECT Mr. José Ignacio Prieto Lois Director of Technical Teams of the Juvenile Justice Courts. Xunta de Galicia. Director of the Consensus Project. Mrs. María González Vázquez Coordinator of the Consensus Project. Lawyer.

11.15 – 11.45 Coffee break 11.45 – 12.00 Juvenile Restorative Justice in Finland. Good Practices Dr. Kauko Aromaa (Director European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control HEUNI). Helsinki. Finland 12.00 – 12.30 Good Practices of Restorative Justice in Italy: probation and victim-offender mediation Dr. Anna Mestitz (Research Director of Research Institute on Judicial Systems National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR)). Bologna. Italy. Dr. Marilena Colamussi. Faculty of Law. University of Bari. Italy. 12.30 – 12.45 Restorative Juvenile Justice in Portugal. Good Practices Mrs. Susana Castela. Probation Officer. Directorate General of Social Re-integration. Ministry of Justice. Lisbon. Portugal. 12.45 – 13.00 Restorative Juvenile Justice in the United Kingdom. Good Practices Prof. Michele Burman. University of Glasgow, Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR)). Glasgow. United Kingdom. 13.00 – 13.30 Debates 14.00 – 15.30 Lunch (only invited guests) 15.30 – 16.30 Presentation of the Workshops by Ilmo. Sr. D. Carlos Mariscal de Gante Prosecution Delegate of the Section for Minors of the Provincial Prosecution of A Coruña. WORKSHOP I:”Special features of the Restorative Justice in the penal juvenile context” WORKSHOP II: “Challenges for the future of Restorative Juvenile Justice” 16.30 – 17.30 Presentation of the Workshops by D. Juan Basanta Dopico (Psychologist of the Technical Team of Ourense. Juvenile Court of Ourense) WORKSHOP III: “The character of the mediator” WORKSHOP lV: “Proposals for improvements for the practice of mediation in Europe” Tuesday, 3 November 10.00 – 11.00 ROUND TABLE: Practical application of Restorative Juvenile Justice Ilmo. Sr. D. Manuel Conde Núñez Judge Magistrate. President of the section 5ª of the Provincial Hearing of A Coruña Ilmo. Sr. Florentino Delgado Ayuso. Chief Prosecutor Ourense Ilmo. Sr. D. José Julio Fernández Rodríguez. Vice-Ombudsman of Minor and New Technologies for Galicia 11.00 – 11.30 Coffee break 11.30 – 11.45 Restorative Juvenile Justice in the United Kingdom. Good Practices Ms Jenny Johnstone Lecturer in Law. Newcastle University. Honorary Research Associate Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) Glasgow. United Kingdom. 11.45 – 12.00 Programme of Mediation and Reparation of the Management for Social Reintegration (DGRS) Mrs. Inês Coelho. Probation Officer. DGRS. Ministry of Justice. Lisbon. Portugal.

12.00 – 12.45: Restorative Juvenile Justice in Finland. Good Practices Ms. Erika Uotila. Planning Officer. Department of Criminal Policy. Ministry of Justice. Helsinki. Finland. 12:15 – 12:45 Restorative Juvenile Justice in Bulgaria. Good Practices Prof. Dr. Dobrinka Chankova. President Institute of Conflict Resolution (ICR). Sofia, Bulgaria. Mr. George Bakalov. Vice Chair Institute of Conflict Resolution (ICR). Sofia, Bulgaria. 12:45 – 13:30 Conclusions of the workshops and debate 13:30 Closure In the publication of the project, “Good Practices of Restorative Juvenile Justice” have been included: • • • • •

Good Practices concerning Restorative Juvenile Justice in the Spanish State Conclusions of Panels of Experts Good Practices in partners’ countries Lectures of practitioners and experts in Juvenile Justice Conclusions of the Workshops of the Forum and Proposals for improvement

Besides this publication, which includes the results of the project, these will also be disseminated through the websites of Xunta de Galicia, the different partners of the Project, EUCPN and other specialized websites. The publication in Spanish and English will be distributed among juvenile justice practitioners from partner countries. SUMMARY OF GOOD PRACTICES OF RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE SPANISH STATE ANDALUCÍA RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE • •

•

Beginning: Sevilla 1999, Córdoba 2003, Cádiz 2007 (External Services of Mediation and Conciliation). In some provinces, the Public Entity, and the Council for the Public Administration of the Andalucía Government, develops mediation programmes through the meetings with different entities and in other cases it is the specialized teams which carry out the mediation. In the provinces of Seville, Cordoba, Cadiz, Granada and Malaga there are mediation teams formed by different professionals (from 2 to 4 specially trained members of each team). But the provinces of Huelva, Jaen and Almeria do not have specific mediation teams.

GOOD PRACTICES:

Cádiz: External Service of Mediation and Conciliation began to come into force, after the signing of an agreement in a meeting between the Andalucian Government and the Alternative Open Association. By this, they are not just looking for the promotion of the Conciliation, as the most adequate way for the resolution of milder conflicts, but are also lightening the workload of some of the professional teams. Nowadays, there are two teams for mediation, conciliation and reparation.

Córdoba: Mediation programmes, through the collaboration between the Justice and Administration Department of the Government of Andalucía and the ONG APDHA (Association for Human Rights from Andalucía. the Chief Prosecutor for Cordoba, confronting the volume of work, has had to accord the desisting for misdemeanours when not accompanied by precedents, evaluating that there does not exist unassailable economic damage for the injured party. The said facts concerning misdemeanours have allowed, with the intervention of the Specialized Team, the detection of situations which are worth intervention as much from the point of view of reformation as protection. Granada: Agreement of collaboration between the Council for Justice and Public Administration and the Association IMERIS (Intervention with Minors at Social Risk). Phases of the general procedure of the interventions: Derivation, evaluating viability, execution and following the steps (with the participation of the victim or without it) and a final evaluation. Huelva: They are two Specialized Teams, which carry out the extra-judicial measures. The work already in place makes possible that they can work and develop these measures by themselves and they do not have to refer to autonomous independent bodies. Sevilla: Agreement between the Council for Justice and Public Administration and the Alternative Open NGO. Prosecuting Office of Sevilla: the extra-judicial measures, conciliations and reparations, carried out by the operations team, which puts itself at the disposal of the minors department has had some extraordinary results, being proved that after a year, those minors had not re-offended except for a small percentage.

ARAGÓN RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE •

Beginning: 1992. Extra-judicial reparations with Teams for open environment.

GOOD PRACTICES:

The educators for open environment carry out extra-judicial reparations. Zaragoza: In the Area of the Attention for the minor in social conflict (that serves more than 90% of cases), there work two educational teams, for crimes and minor misdemeanours, and the EMA, (team for open environments), that is in charge of the execution of the measures which do not require imprisonment, and to carry out extra-judicial conciliations and reparations. The communication between the Chief prosecution ministry and EMA is permanent. Depending on the summary of the aspects of the interviews done and of the interests of both sides, the mediator will evaluate the possibility or not of carrying on with the extra-judicial process and which way this should be done (conciliation, direct or indirect reparation).

ASTURIAS RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE •

Beginning: 2005. Programme for Extra-Judicial Mediation with Young Offenders.

GOOD PRACTICES:

The programme for the Extra-Judicial Mediation with Minors Offenders has been carried out by the Principality of Asturias, in collaboration with the Spanish Red Cross. The functions of mediation are carried out by the psychologist and social worker of the Specialized Team of the Red Cross. The execution of the reparation activities are conducted by the educators, and the voluntary workers acted as a support in the completion of these reparation activities. Phases: initial phase, phase of the evaluation of the viability of the mediation with the victim, phase of clarification of the process of mediation, the phase of meeting and the phase of follow-up. There is a protocol during the whole intervention with some documental support prepared for that. There being a paced process allows a continuous evaluation. The mediation is carried out at the residential place of both parties, using the Red Cross Programmes for the reparation activities. Follow-up research of the young which fulfils the measures of penal responsibility, in collaboration with Oviedo University.

CATALUÑA RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE •

Beginning: 1990. It was one of the first Communities that developed the mediation Programmes.

GOOD PRACTICES:

To carry out the functions of the mediation, the general management counts on the Service for Mediation and Advice Technical (SMAT) which advises Prosecutors and juvenile Judges and also represents a doorway into the first framework of citizen relations concerning juvenile justice. It is also the first step in relations and coordination for the judicial bodies, prosecutors and judges with jurisdiction over minors. Within this service are devised the technical directives for the application, coordination and control of the programmes of advice and mediation for the whole of Cataluña. Each team has a territory - a determinate area, which corresponds with the areas of intervention of the specialized teams who work with supervisional measures,and therefore the coordination is better. Phases: 1) For the special team to arrange a meeting with the presumed offender and his/her parents, 2) Letter to the victim informing and inviting him or her to put themselves in contact with the mediator, 3) Reflection by the mediator concerning the conflict, the position of the parties, the possibilities of the mediation, or to carry out community service, 4) Meeting between the parties, the victim and the young offender; reflection concerning the acts and the conflict, communication, dialogue and agreements for reparation, 5) Following the fulfilment of the agreements, 6) Information to the Chief Prosecution.

MADRID RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE •

Beginning: 2004, when the Agency of the Community of Madrid for the Re-education and reinsertion of the minor offender was created.

GOOD PRACTICES:

The Madrid Community Agency for the Re-education and Re-insertion of the Minor Offender” develops the Programme for Extra-judicial reparations, whose principal function is to carry out the extrajudicial reparations applied for by the Prosecution for minors. The programme counts on the Director of the Programme, six specialized mediators and six Day Centres (shared with the programme for the execution of semi-custodial measures). The distinct Centres from which are carried out judicial measures and Extra-judicial Reparations, there attend minors following geographical location, which permits them to perform different activities in places close to their places of residences.

PAÍS VASCO RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE •

Beginning: The mediation processes have been being carried out since 1992 (law 4/92) although until 1997 there has been a few cases in particular and of no structured form.

GOOD PRACTICES:

Processes of mediation for conciliation and reparation of the damage, in the Autonomous Community of El País Vasco these are carried out by the Psycho/social teams, depending organizationally on the Direction of Relations with the Justice Administration. Objectives set out by the Plan for Juvenile Justice 2008-2012: To empower mediation programmes, reinforce the perspective of the victim and the responsibility for the damage in all phase (Instruction, passing sentence and execution) and deepen the restoration perspective in the individual Projects for Execution in the measures and in the educational intervention. The decision to proceed normally with the reformation or to take on board offender victim mediation is taken by the Chief Prosecutor. The specialized team can also propose intervention of a socio-education nature or the non-continuation of the proceedings. An important part of the processes take place without a direct meeting: 45.75% and more than 84% of processes reach their finalization in a positive way.

GALICIA PRESENT SITUATION In Galicia, since the roles concerning the minor were transferred to the Galician Government (Xunta) in 1984, its procedures were divided between various Autonomic Administration Departments. The execution of the judicial measures is carried out by the General Management of Social Welfare, while the application of extra-judicial solutions corresponds to the specialized teams ascribed to the Courts for Minors, functionally dependent on the State Prosecution and organically on the presidential council, public administration and Justice. In recent years in Galicia, solutions other than legal processes are developed in an unequal way, with an increasing evolution in some courts and yet little in others. According to the Report 2008 of the Chief Prosecuting officer of Galicia, in the year 2007 there appears only a total of 188 non-process solutions in the whole of Galicia, while in the year 2008 the figure is 292, which represents an important increase of 106, equivalent to an accentuated +56.08%.Therefore, it can be affirmed that the total of issues resolved in the reform (849), 34, 39% were solved by extra-judicial means. CONCLUSIONS OF THE PANELS OF EXPERTS Judges and Prosecutors Some of the experts consulted consider that the mediation should be carried out by a specialized team which should be concerned only with mediation. They are yet to decide whether to create a new team with these functions or if they are to entrust them to the personnel of the administration. They are lacking two people in this specialized team. Only one would not be sufficient. It is interesting to see what they have done in other autonomous communities and to study which would be a more appropriate solution. More than three years ago in the reports of the prosecution the need for solutions and the theme of mediation was being talked of. All would be resolved with the creation of a specific team for mediation. It is a question of political will, to take the decision to bring more resources to this area. However, some of the specialized teams are not in favour of creating a team that specialises in mediation, because they considered that they are the ones who have to decide if there is mediation or not. They ask for the creation of a new team or to strengthen the ones that already exists, but with the same functions that they already have. In respect to the argument of the technical teams, to who belongs the decision about whether a minor is susceptible to mediation or not, it is pointed out that the final decision is of the prosecution, in agreement with what is established in the law. The specialized teams depend for their function on the prosecution. In any case, it is necessary that there is good collaboration between the specialized teams and the prosecution. Specialized Professionals for Minors There has been discussed the possibility of amplifying the Specialized Teams of the Courts, creating Teams specialized in mediation or reinforcing those in existence with a new

professional form which performs the functions of mediator. In A Coruña and Pontevedra they are asking for an extra Team, but by introducing the form of the Mediator as a specialist could sow problems. The Specialized personnel of Pontevedra would accept the creation of a new Specialized Team in this province but not limited to the function of mediation but rather with the same profile and the same functions that exist, with their own organization, where both working in coordination (coordination previously planned at the putting into motion of the new team). In Ourense they aren’t in favour either, of incorporating into the Team a person specialized in Mediation. They think that staff joined the team to reinforce it, must respond to the same profile as other technicians (psychologist, social worker and educator) and is the team itself that has to organize their work. On setting out the possible collaboration between personnel from the public body in programmes of mediation, the specialized team members of the court point out that the mediation is a service that is to do with the rights of the citizens and due to this it is a public service, brought about by staff of the Administration. They understand that they shouldn't be private entities which manage the mediations and that the carrying out of these has to be limited by the collaboration with the public Team of Specialists. The process of determining the necessity for mediation and encounters between the victim and the offender correspond exclusively to the Specialized Team. The intervention of the public execution body should limit itself to extra-judicial reparations. In fact, in the execution of these extra-judicial measures, in Ourense, there already participate collaborating entities.

SUMMARY OF GOOD PRACTICES OF RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (BROUGHT TO THE FORUM BY OUR PARTNERS IN THE PROJECT) FINLAND RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE • First Finnish mediation project 1983-1984. The victim’s role was marginal. • Rapid expansion until 1996. The number of municipalities which counted on with mediation resources was notably increased. • Dilemmas: o The relevant authorities were not equally willing and able to refer cases in a standard fashion for mediation. o The competence and training of lay mediators needed to be standardised. o Mediation was not available to all: regional imbalance. • New Law on Mediation (2005) and committing state financing to secure its implementation: o Characteristics: Recognition of the needs of victims regarding better compensation for damages; the wish to reduce recidivism rates and to make offenders and societies responsible for the consequences of crime. The need to intensify special and general deterrence. In domestic violence mediation allowed only if case referred by police or prosecutor and is excluded if violence is repeated; in sexual offences against a child, mediation is excluded; if a child under 18 is party to mediation, parent/guardian must consent; If the case has come to mediation from the parties, the case must always be referred to police or prosecutor; all participants in mediation obliged to professional confidentiality. Mediation can be either parallel to and separate from court proceedings, or complementary to these.

Principles: The high ethical standards applied in mediation, fairness, the unbiased and equitable treatment of the parties and the specificity and legal protection of mediation activities There are no definitions stating what categories of crimes can be mediated. The decision to refer any crime (subject to conditions regarding children and domestic violence) is left to the police and the prosecutor and to the mediation office when deciding which cases are eligible for mediation. In Finland, mediation remains outside the criminal justice system and it retains a bit of the flavour of its original grassroots level approach. .

GOOD PRACTICES: •

•

Mediation of Intimate Relationship Violence. Act (1015/2005) Entered into force on 1st January 2006 o Only the police or prosecuting authority has the right to propose mediation if the crime involves violence that has been directed at the suspect’s spouse, child, parent or other comparable near relation. o Mediators must have received further training in order to mediate cases of intimate relationship violence. o Most of the mediators were of the opinion that if other requirements are met and if the child is close to the age of consent, is seen as capable to take part and strongly wishes to do so, mediation could be a possibility. Case-specific discretion was however stressed. o Prosecutors’ attitudes towards mediation of IRV between parent and a child were almost unanimously negative. School Mediation o The Project for School Mediation started in 2000 by Finnish Red Cross, continued by Finnish Forum for Mediation since 2006. o Supported by the Ministry of Education and the Finlands Slot Machine Association. o Co-operating with Teachers´ Training Schools, Finnish Parent Association, local police and VOM-offices, local parishes and companies, and also with UN Association of Finland. o Multi-professional steering group and development group Autumn 2009 • 360 mediation schools; primary, secondary and high schools, and vocational schools • 7200 trained peer mediators • 1800 trained supporting adults • over 7500 cases mediated in 2008 • 15 000 parties have solved their conflict in mediation

ITALY RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE • It emerged in the first half of the 1990s. Victim-offender mediation (VOM) grew spontaneously in Italy, mainly promoted by some juvenile magistrates and social workers, who organized the foundation of new “experimental” mediation services. Initially they had been established within some juvenile courts and/or prosecution

offices, but later these services moved outside the courts with funding by local governments. • There is not a specific legal provision for VOM concerning young offenders. • There is scarcity of funding or, in any case, highly variable and not guaranteed funding • Mediation Services are not coordinated by the Ministry of Justice. • The victim’s role is marginal. • The offenders’ educational needs always prevail. • The practical application is being guided by beliefs/ideologies shared by social workers and juvenile magistrates. • There is a lack of systematic follow-up and evaluation procedures. • Nevertheless, a change has been produced in the Italian juvenile justice system which is now more oriented toward RJ. GOOD PRACTICES: • Probation (Messa alla prova) o Unlike other legislations, Italian probation results in the suspension of the trial until a later time when a sentence will be given. o During the time of suspension, the youth offender must participate in projects prepared by the court social services - aimed at rehabilitating her/him. o It can be applied even if during the trial the young offender becomes older than 18. o It is frequently applied to first-time offenders. o It reduces both recidivism and the transition to adult offending. o It is applicable to any criminal offence. o The maximum term of the probation project is determined by the seriousness of the crime and the educational needs of the youth offender: it can last no longer than one year for misdemeanors and less serious crimes, no longer than three years for crimes punishable by not less than twelve years of imprisonment. o If the outcome is positive, the judge may dismiss the case. o It is a problem the long time interval occurring between the crime and the decision on probation (9 to15 months on average). • Victim-offender mediation )– (VOM) o Court social services may autonomously carry out mediation if there are social workers trained as mediators in the service. Otherwise they can refer the case to an external mediation service. o If mediation is concluded with a positive agreement, the prosecutor who asks the judge to drop the case. o Participants: the victim, the offender and two mediators (sometimes three mediators). o Mediators are part-time volunteers. They receive training for 315 hs. o Usual number of meetings: 2-3; sometimes only one meeting. o Phases of mediation: Preliminary phase: Referral procedure, information collection, contacts with the parties, evaluation of the suitability of the case to be mediated, organizing the meeting. Meetings: the parties, assisted by two or more mediators, search for an agreement. Sometimes it concludes by writing a formal agreement. Concluding phase: case evaluation by mediators, preparation of a final report to be sent to the authority who referred the case (public prosecutor or judge), and sometimes a follow-up on the implementation of the mediation agreement.

BULGARIA RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE o The criminal Justice System in Bulgaria is in need of a change. There remains an opposition toward alternative dispute resolution methods, based on a fear that legal practitioners will have to surrender some of their power and also because of lack of information and financial and human resources. o Catalysts of the change: Council of Europe Recommendations; European Commission; support received from international NGOs. o 2003 Strategy for Judicial System Reform, condition for the Bulgarian membership to the European Union establishment of a whole system for alternative dispute resolution. Mediation Act: Approved in 2004 and amended in 2006. In the Penal Procedure Code 2005, Victim - Offender Mediation didn’t find place. Arguments: high crime rate, society is not ready yet, VOM is new and unknown option. o However, in so called ’complainant’s crimes’ the instituted proceedings shall be discontinued if the victim and the offender have reached a reconciliation. GOOD PRACTICES: o Juvenile Delinquency Act 1958 provides for the release of juvenile offenders from criminal responsibility with the substitution of appropriate educational measures, when the crimes are not serious. However, victim-offender mediation is not provided for. The implementation agency: Central Commission for Combating Juvenile Delinquency, Local Commissions for Combating Juvenile Delinquency at municipality level. o In Bulgaria, different research and academic institutions and NGOs offer programs on mediation and training of mediators. o Unified Register of Mediators and National Association of mediators as an umbrella organization have been established. o Different projects and studies have been developed: Vista 2003-2006. Objective Development of a European Project for the prevention of violence in school context through the dissemination of good restorative practices in schools. 2005-2007, scholars from the South-West University “Neofit Rilski” – Blagoevgrad, the New Bulgarian University – Sofia and the Institute of Conflict Resolution – Sofia, and legal practitioners launched surveys for analysing the opinions of criminal justice authorities, victims, offenders and random population about victim- offender mediation. Result Support introducing of VOM, emphasizing on its applicability towards juveniles. TIN Project 2007-2009. Objective Support the improvement of skills and competencies of professional operators in the field of juvenile justice system through an on-line documentation platform on Restorative Justice. o o

UNITED KINGDOM RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE England and Wales and Ireland o Act1998. Principal aim To prevent offending by young persons. o Age of criminal responsibility – 10 years o Reparation is generally viewed as restorative only when the victim has been consulted and the offender has not been coerced to provide reparation. Reparative processes include: Reparation to the victim Community reparation

Referral Orders (Introduced in April 2002). They changed the focus of the youth justice system, placing restorative justice at its heart. Mandatory for all young offenders aged 10 to 17 pleading guilty and convicted for a first offence. Referral Orders last between three and 12 months, depending on the seriousness of the offence committed. o Referral Order Panels. Contract drawn up between the young person, their parent or guardian, and the Youth Offender Panel (YOP). o The YOP is made up of two volunteer representatives of the community and a youth offending team (YOT) member. The victim is also invited to join the meeting at which the contract is drawn up. o Act 2002. Northern Ireland Justice. Restorative Justice legislated for Youth Conferences and Youth Conference Plans, Youth Diversionary Conferences, Reparation Orders and Community Responsibility Orders Most of participants involved in restorative justice processes stated they were satisfied. There are reports which point towards the reducing of reoffending. Scotland o Scots Law different from laws of rest of UK from 1999. Separate criminal justice and youth justice systems from rest of UK. o The Children (Scotland) Act 1995: the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and no compulsory intervention should be made unless it would be better for the child than no compulsory intervention at all; and that children should be given an opportunity to express a view and, if they do so, consideration should be given to the child’s views. o Age of criminal responsibility - 8 years. o Children’s Hearings (CHS) Welfare Tribunals (specialists and trained volunteers from the community).Young person present with family/carer. These Tribunals deals with both young people in need of care and those who offend. By virtue of being referred to CHS, child charged with an offence is diverted from prosecution in a criminal process. o Scottish Government launched initiative in 2003 to promote restorative measures (RJ Conferencing, Family Group Conferencing, etc.) in youth justice system. o Currently operating in almost every local authority in Scotland. o SACRO ((Safeguarding Communities Reducing Crime) is the main provider. o Criteria for Use: • Must be sufficient evidence that the child or young person aged up to 18 years is responsible for specific action (s) that have caused harm . • No limitation on how many previous incidents he/she has been involved in, or how many times taken part in a restorative approach. • Young person must accept some or all responsibility for the action(s) that have caused harm • Both the person harmed and the person responsible should normally agree on the basic facts of a case as the basis for their participation in an RJ process • Must be voluntary for all participants at every stage • If the person responsible or person harmed is under 16, parental agreement for their participation should be sought. o RJ most effective when used as a process alongside and in conjunction with other service provision addressing the needs of young people. o

GOOD PRACTICES: o Youth Restorative Disposal (England and Wales and Ireland). It is a new approach of Restorative Juvenile Justice, to tackling low level first time. Police, using principles of restorative justice, bring offender and the victim of the crime together and agreeing on

steps the young person must take, including apologising for their actions. This project is currently being piloted and evaluated. Restorative Police Cautions (Scotland). Facilitated by trained police officers designed to deal quickly with minor 1st or 2nd offence. Young person, with support person(s) meet with police officer about the facts (what happened), the consequences (who has been affected) and the future (how future offending can be prevented). Person harmed does not attend, but is informed of outcome and, if all participants agree, to receive a letter of apology and, in some cases, appropriate reparation.

PORTUGAL RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE o Law of Educational Guardianship (LAW nº 166/99 of the 14 of September) o Law expressly orientated towards the“interests of the minor” and not the reparation of the damages. o Interests and rights of the victim are secondary. o Area: Minors with ages between12 and 16. o Objectives: Minor´s education and re-integration for the minor in the community. o The judicial authority can approve the collaboration of public and private entities for mediation. GOOD PRACTICES: o Programme of Mediation and Reparation – DGRS. o Criteria for use: penal offence punished with a sentence of no more than five years; victim identified or identifiable; first contact of the minor with the justice system; necessity of educational guardianship intervention; act occuring less than a year before. o Besides it is required that the minor and the victim have capacity to participate in the mediation and willingness to access the process of mediation. The minor has to accept the responsibility for his acts. o Phases of the process: reception and analysis of the case, individual interviews with the minor offender and his family and also with the victim, decision on the type of intervention –mediation/support (ej. indirect reparation); information to the Prosecutor. o Flexible Law - possibility of developing restorative practices adapted to the characteristics of the cases and the local communities. o Coordinated structure, responsible for application of the mediation victim-offender at a national level (DGRS): uniform strategy and clear guidelines in the application of the mediation following the Law; network at a national level – share, compare and reflect on practices and experiences; to establish a common ground of understanding necessary for the development of “good practices”. o Existence of a structure of the Public administration–board for the alternate resolution of litigations – specifically dedicated to the alternative resolutions of conflicts (mediation, arbitration and conciliation). o Participation in European projects and international events. o Concerning training for mediation: growing involvement of the Universities – Postgraduate courses, Masters; Training in the Centre of Judicial studies (training of Judges and Prosecutors). o Growing implantation of organizations / organizations dedicated to the mediation in different areas (except: penal and educational guardianship). o Insufficient knowledge and divulgation of information about Restorative Justice, I o Some difficulties in practice: insuficient coordination between the different services that intervene in the process of mediation, lack of restorative culture, of resolution of conflicts through the peacefull meetings, insufficient number of mediators, training and supervision in this area, lack of awareness-raisingof professionals, increase in fear and the feeling of insecurity.

A need for the future is a clear legal basis of the regulation of the mediation related to the criteria of derivation of cases from the Ministery of Prosecution and the articulation between the services of mediation and the courts.

WORKSHOPS OF EXPERTS - TRANSNATIONAL FORUM PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENT ABOUT THE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE

1. Possible common criteria for the European Union Countries: Some expertises are in favour of establishing a single legislation for Europe, fixing in the first place a common age for penal responsibility of the minor, because there are big differences between some and other countries. There would be a common basic legislation that each Country would later adapt to their context, depending on their resources. On the other hand, other experts think that the interchange of good practices is positive but that each country must have full autonomy in terms of the application. They do not believe that a common legislation must exist. It would be important to make evaluations to have a quality guarantee of the practices carried out in each country. For that, it would be necessary to establish common criteria of quality beforehand. Some think that the mediation should mean the closing of proceedings in all cases. The minor offender and the victim must always be informed correctly about what mediation can mean for them. 2. Diffusion of the advantages of the application of the reparation justice to achieve the greater involvement of society: Involving in a greater measure the legal practitioners themselves. Giving notice of the cases that have been successful. Through citizenship awareness to bring knowledge of the benefits of restorative justice. Disseminating the results of satisfaction questionnaires, just as much from the offender as the victim and the Community, after the participation in the mediation processes. Trying to avoid the Media spreading only the serious cases and their complicated issues, but also the actions that have been solved in a positive and efficient way throughout agreements between the two parties, giving knowledge of the advantages for all the participants in the mediation. It is necessary to avoid that the media feed the revengefulness. Involving the councils through the creation of a social net of resources and working in collaboration with the different services and the social agents of the Community (public administration, social services, neighbourhood and other associations, etc). Organizing meetings between the professionals of different countries for the diffusion of good practices.

System of evaluation to measure the efficiency and the success of extrajudicial solutions:

In the first place, it would be necessary to standardize the evaluation criteria in order not to measure different things. There should be carried out a post-measure evaluation, in a way that the one in charge of the mediation is in charge of the follow-up and a study of re-offences that starts off from the two years following the execution the applied measure. There would have to be evaluations done of satisfaction with the minor as much as much with the victim/community that has participated in the mediation, through questionnaires. It is important to evaluate the details in a qualitative a quantitative way. 4.

Ideal profile of the mediator and training to be demanded:

Some experts think that taking account of the fact that the measures are educational, the mediator must have a higher degree in Education, which it is to say that he must be a professional in the branch of social science and education. From another perspective, some experts propose that the mediator count on a complementary training in legal forensic science. It is interesting if a multidisciplinary team exists. There is talk about the necessity of establishing some filters for its selection: interview, testâ&#x20AC;Śto find out if the person has the required capacities: to be neutral, emotionally stable, a conciliator, if he has the social and communicative skills, objectivity, empathy, etc. It is also proposed that experience in working with minors be asked for. There must be professionals with up-dated knowledge, what this means is to give them constant training and practice about issues of interest for their work through specialized and practical courses. It is considered necessary for the mediator to be a specialized professional, that he be dedicated exclusively to the functions of the mediator, in this way to arrive at the neutrality of both parties. 5. To improve the attention to the victims who participate in the process of the mediation: Proportion good assessment and complete and detailed information about the process of the mediation and the advantages which it can offer them. Make him see that it is an important part of the mediation but not the only one. Explain to him the effectiveness of the mediation and that it is more effective for both to have an educational measure than a court case (which could also finish with a simple admonishment, which doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t mean it would be less hard for the offender). They should take into account the opinions of the offenders and victims in the professional debates.

6. Proposals to optimize the human resources, economical and social aimed at the practice of mediation. More personnel or more Technical Teams specialized in mediation. Quality training for the professionals. Proportion more resources on the part of the administration. Involve the social services from based in the Town Councils and make sure that there is fluid communication between them and the Technical Teams in charge of applying the mediation. The administration should carry out a greater control and follow-up the processes of the mediation more. Support Victim Associations.