GROUP 2
MEASURES FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AT EACH STAGE OF THE CRIMINALJUSTICE PROCESS WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO VICTIMS OF
SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME, INCLUDING HOMICIDE
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Visiting Experts
Advisers

Mr. Manual Golloso Co
Mr. Hiroshi Sato
Mr. Muhammad Athar Waheed
Mr. Yoshiaki Furukawa
Mr. Md. Awlad Ali Fakir
Mr. Nam Ha Vu
Ms. Emiko Nishimura
Mr. Musaed Dhaifallah Qaid Al-Dhaheri
Ms. Kim Herd
Ms. Martina Peter
Mr. Cho Kyoon Seok
Mr. Jun Oshino
Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi
Mr. Toru Kawaharada(Philippines)(Japan)(Pakistan)(Japan)(Bangladesh)(Vietnam)(Japan)(Yemen)(USA)(Germany)(Korea)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
The group started its discussion on 22 January 2010 and elected by consensus Mr. Co as its chairman,
Mr. Sato as its co-chairman, Mr. Waheed as its rapporteur and Mr. Furukawa as its co-rapporteur. The main
topic of discussion as assigned was “Measures for victims of crime at each stage of the criminal justiceprocess with special reference to victims of serious violent crime including homicide”. The topic underdiscussion was too broad to cover, consequent upon which, the group further decided to focus only on theanalysis of measures for the survivors of homicide. The agenda of discussion was planned by the group withthe sub-topics: 1.Needs and concerns for victims of violent crimes; 2.Legal and Regulatory framework;
3. Measures for victims of violent crime at the Investigation Stage; 4. Measures for such victims at theprosecution stage; and 5. Measures for victims at the trial/sentencing and post sentencing stage.

II. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
A. Needs and Concerns of Victims of Violent Crime
All the participants identified five major needs of the victims of violent crime including homicide. The
financial need of such victims was given much importance in the discussion and then the psychological needof such victims was discussed. The physical safety of the victim was also declared an important need andconcern. Access to information was also discussed as an important need of victims of violent crime and thenthe available facilities for medical treatment was considered a second important need for such victims.
The Japanese participants discussed the available financial measures available after the enactment of the
Basic Act and Compensation Payment Act. Ms. Nishimura said that the victim had to pay all expenses at theinitial stage, which is a big financial burden. Mr. Furukawa from Japan stressed the role of non-governmentalorganizations in providing financial support for victims of violent crime. Mr. Waheed from Pakistan discussed
the expenses related to burial ceremonies and issues related to blood money. He sated that the victim’s
family gets blood money as a result of compromise as homicide in many countries is still a compoundable
offence, which is not case in Japan and other countries.
The psychological needs of such victims were identified by the group. All the participants stressedon the behaviour of criminal justice practitioners can be overcome through training of officers on crisis
intervention.
The issue of physical safety was thoroughly discussed by almost each participant. In Japan the system ofpatrolling the home of victim was discussed whereas Mr. Waheed pointed out that the use of modern gadgets

177

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.81

can be helpful for tracking the offenders and ensuring the safety of victims. Mr. Fakir from Bangladesh
explained that the system of quick response teams should be available for the safety of such victims. Mr.
Al-Dhaheri from Yemen pointed out that it is the responsibility of the tribe, clan and then family to provide
physical safety for the victims of violent crime. Mr. Co explained that it is the duty of the police and village
government in Philippines to ensure such safety.
The victims’ need regarding access to information was discussed by the group and it was found that sucha formal mechanism is available only in Japan. The institutional methods and infrastructure for providing
information are not available in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen and Vietnam. It was agreed by the group that asystem of notification should be a mandatory part of the criminal justice process.
The issue of medical facilities for the victims of crime was discussed by each participant and many
discrepancies were discovered in the criminal justice systems of countries where there is no culture of life
insurance.

B. Legal and Regulatory Framework
The legal aspects for victim’s treatment were thoroughly discussed by all participants.
Mr. Al-Dhaheri from Yemen explained that there are some special laws for children, juveniles and women
to protect the rights of these groups of victims. But there are no special laws for victims of crime. Mr.
Waheed from Pakistan said that the right to life is the most important and foremost fundamental human rightand further explained the surrounding legal issues in Pakistan. He concluded that though the constitution
and some substantive and procedural laws explain the rights, it does so in much generalized terms. Thereis no separate enactment specifically meant for the rights of victims of crime. Mr. Fakir stated that thesituation in respect to the legal and regulatory framework is the same as that of Pakistan, except the recent
enactment of some special laws for some special groups and cases. Ms. Nishimura and Mr. Sato from Japandiscussed the available legal and regulatory measures. Mr. Ha from Vietnam also pointed out that there isno separate laws in Vietnam stating victims’ rights. Mr. Co also agreed that separate enactment for victims
is a necessity of the time. There are some special laws for women and children in the Philippines but othercategories of victims are still ignored. It was the consensus of all participants that without a legal framework
it is not possible for any state to provide institutional means for better victim treatment.

C. Measures for Victims at the Investigation Stage
The problems faced by the victims of violent crime were discussed by the group in detail. Mr. Waheedfrom Pakistan discussed nonprofessional treatment by first responders because of lack of training incrisis intervention. Moreover, there are no special investigation units regarding each category of crime.
The investigators more focus on offenders in the process of interrogation and analysis of evidence andforget the victim, which is always damaging for establishing a bond of trust and confidence. The issue oftrust deficit is a major problem in most of developing countries where there is more chance of politicalinterventions and unjust treatment of the victims of crime. Mr. Sato from Japan also pointed out thatsometimes the victim statement just after the occurrence of a crime is problematic. In the same way,
Ms. Nishimura from Japan explained that in some cases, the media representation of the victim has very
negative impact on the process of investigation as well as secondary victimization by the media. Mr. Co
stated that in the Philippines, the village government, called the Barangay, has a very important role inproviding basic information and services regarding victim treatment. He also emphasized the importanceof dying declarations in the criminal justice process. It was the consensus of all participants that a victim
impact statement is very important in the process of investigation. Such a system is not practiced in many
countries.
D. Measures for Victims at the Prosecution Stage
There are some basic differences in the role of public prosecutors in different criminal justice systems.
Mr. Waheed from Pakistan said that the prosecution service remained a part of the police service until madeindependent in 2005 by the Public Prosecution Act, but again, its role is very restricted and correctional.
The victims of crime have less contact with the prosecutors in Pakistan and situation is the same in
Bangladesh. In Japan, the Philippines and Yemen, the public prosecutor has a defining role in victim
treatment. Mr. Sato pointed out that there is no system of private prosecution in Japan, whereas Mr. Co from178

144th INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

Philippines added that a private prosecutor works under the supervision of public prosecutor and the victim
is consulted in a case for a plea bargain. In most of the represented countries, the screening mechanism at
the prosecution stage is not available as in case of Japan, where about 54% of cases are not prosecuted at
the discretion of public prosecutor, considering the circumstances and seriousness of the case. On the other
hand, in countries where a screening mechanism exists, there should be another mechanism to review thediscretionary power of prosecution authority for victims of crime.
The participants also discussed the alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Mr. Al-Dhaheri from
Yemen stated that a very effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism through mediation andarbitration is available in the form of a tribal mediation mechanism. Mr. Waheed from Pakistan explainedthat there is bifurcation of offences into compoundable and non-compoundable. The historical method ofalternative dispute resolution remains in practice but its role has been diminished due societal changes. The
quality of justice in such institutions is always questionable. Mr. Co pointed out that the village government
and indigenous practices play a significant role in out-of-court settlement. Ms. Nishimura said that out-ofcourt settlement may not divert serious violent cases from formal criminal proceedings in Japan because thesystem has to take care of the social injury caused by the offender.

E. Measures at the Trial/Sentencing StageIn most of the represented countries, with the exception of Japan, a codified mechanism for presenting
the views and concerns of victim is lacking. Mr. Furukawa explained that in Japan, the victim is consulted in
the case of probation and parole. The victim has also the right to express his or her grievances at trial stage
and also in the victim impact statement. Mr. Co also added that the victim is also consulted at the time ofparole in the Philippines through the publication in newspapers of the names of persons to be released andvictims and other concerned people can give their comments.
The issue of compensation and restitution was thoroughly discussed by each participant. Mr. Waheedsaid that the provision of restitution is available in the Penal Code of Pakistan but there are very few cases
in which restitution orders have been passed by the courts. It is at the discretion of the court to pass a
restitution order. On the other hand, the institutional mechanism for compensation to the victim of crime is
not given in the criminal justice system of Pakistan. Mr. Fakir from Bangladesh added that the same system
is in practice and political heads announce compensation in some cases; the amount varies according to thesituation. Mr. Co claimed that in his country compensation for unjust imprisonment or detention and victimsof violent crimes is granted by law. Of the represented countries, only Japan has a victim support fund.

F. Measures at the Post-Sentence Stage
Most of the participants agreed that there is a misconception in many countries that the role of victim is
finalized at the sentencing stage when in fact there are many issues in the post-sentencing stage which are
directly related to victims of crime. For example, Mr. Al-Dhaheri explained that in Yemen the victim has theright to prevent capital punishment even after a presidential order for such a sentence is given. Mr. Waheedpointed out that in Pakistan corruption and maladministration in correctional centres sometimes leads tohardened criminals using cell phones inside the prisons and threatening victims with dire consequences
if they pursue the case. Moreover, the correctional centres transform “ordinary” criminals into hardened
criminals because inmates learn from each other, which is again a threat for their victims. In the case ofparole and probation, in Japan, a victim is informed through the notification scheme. But in other countries,
the victim is disassociated from criminal justice agencies, including the correctional centres, in the postsentencing stage. Most of the time, the victim is not aware of offender’s treatment and even sometimes
remains unaware of the release of the offender.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
All group members finalized the following recommendations:1.

Each state may establish a separate national institution responsible for planning and execution ofnational victim policy;

2.

There is utmost need for separate laws for victims’ rights regarding information, compensation andrestitution and other allied facilities;

179

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.81

3.

Each state should create a victim support fund for victims of crime for all categories of victims, but
especially for women and children. Those states having financial constraints are recommended to
implement a system of fine surcharge and some percentage of fines collected from offenders must be
added to the victim support fund;4.

Each state may incorporate victim impact statements in their criminal justice process;5.

Basic training on victims’ issues for common practitioners and advanced training for specialized
units should be a mandatory part of training for criminal justice officials. Listening to the victims’
experiences should also be a part of such training;

6.

There must be infrastructure and a system to assist victims of crime. There is need for separate
offices to provide such assistance;

7.

A one-window operation to provide information to the victims of crime within a criminal justicesystem is recommended for each state to simplify the acquisition of information;

8.

There is a need to establish a balance between the offenders and victims’ rights at each stage of thecriminal justice process. Greater focus on victims’ rights should not prejudice the rights of suspects
and offenders;

9.

There is need to inculcate victims’ rights in the education system of each state so that present andfuture generations are sensitized to victim issues;

10. The media should adhere to guidelines which accord with the International Code of Ethics for media
practitioners when writing about victims to avoid victimizing them secondarily;
11. Communities should be involved in victims’ issues through awareness, motivation and participation
campaigns. A victims’ day or week may be celebrated to sensitize communities to victims’ issues;
12. Each state may encourage public-private partnerships (PPP) for victim support;
13. Research on victims’ concerns should be both governmental and academic, and modifications in thecriminal justice system can be undertaken in view of given policy recommendations. Independentsources within each state should undertake a national survey of crime victims;
14. There is need to focus on the “3Ms formula”: “men, material and method”. There is no shortcut
without capacity-building in terms of human resources; then the basic requirement is separate
infrastructure; and after modification of procedures and practices, a state will be able to establish ajust and fair system for better treatment of the victims of crime.

180