Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Access to Justice and Administration of Justice

  • Chapter
Book cover Assisting Victims of Terrorism

  • 1211 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to provide an overview of existing international legal instruments concerning aspects of access to justice and administration of justice and their relevance for victims of terrorism. As the CoE Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts is the main international legal instrument explicitly concerned with victims of terrorism (however not binding to its Member States), it will form the basis for the analysis in this context. Moreover, the CoE guidelines will be interpreted in the light of case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Further, the EU Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings and the EU Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism will be analysed. Moreover, relevant provisions of the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power and those of the International Criminal Court (ICC) are presented. The focus will be put particularly on participatory rights of victims at international and national levels. Finally, it will be explored in how far these provisions have gained practical relevance through their implementation into national legislation of the Member States. A possible detriment of these findings is that these provisions only apply in cases where the terrorist is apprehended and a trial is initiated against the accused terrorist or terrorist group. Nevertheless, such provisions are needed for a fair trial against terrorists in order to secure that victims’ needs and rights are ensured. In this respect, it is not only important to see which provisions exist on paper, but also in how far they have gained practical relevance in the respective legislation of EU Member States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Christine Parker, Just Lawyers. Regulations and Access to Justice, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 30.

  2. 2.

    Parker, 1999, p. 31.

  3. 3.

    Parker, 1999, p. 31; Louis Schetzer, Joanna Mullins, Roberto Buonamano, Access to Justice and Legal Needs – A Project to Identify Legal Needs, Pathways and Barriers for Disadvantaged People in NSW, Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, 2002, p. 5. In this respect, see Chapter7 on restorative justice.

  4. 4.

    Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 March 2005 at the 917th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. Hereinafter ‘the guidelines’.

  5. 5.

    H.J. Albrecht and M. Kilchling, Victims of terrorism policies: should victims of terrorism be treated differently? (2007) 13 European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 13–31, at p. 16.

  6. 6.

    OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, pp. 1–4. Hereinafter ‘the EU Framework Decision’.

  7. 7.

    OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, pp. 3–7.

  8. 8.

    Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985. Hereinafter ‘the UN Declaration’.

  9. 9.

    Case of Golder v. United Kingdom (1975) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 4451/70, 21 February 1975, § 36. According to Article 6 (2) of the Treaty on European Union, the EU respects the fundamental rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Moreover, all EU Member States are parties to this Convention. The fundamental rights of the convention are a general principle of law for EU law. See Christoph Grabenwarter, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, München, C.H. Beck, 2nd edn, 2005, pp. 25, 28.

  10. 10.

    Case of Golder v. United Kingdom (1975) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 4451/70, 21 February 1975, § 36.

  11. 11.

    Case of Perez v. France (2004) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 47287/99, 12 February 2004, § 67.

  12. 12.

    Case of Perez v. France (2004) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 47287/99, 12 February 2004, § 65; Case of Helmers v. Sweden (1991) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 11826/85, 29 October 1991, § 29.

  13. 13.

    However, Section B Article 7 of the Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (85) 11 on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure offers victims the possibility to ask for a review by a competent authority of a decision not to prosecute, or the right to institute private proceedings. It has to be considered, however, that the right to institute private prosecution is often restricted by various conditions and limitations in Member States’ legislation. See Marion Brienen and Ernestine Hoegen, Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems. The Implementation of Recommendation (85) 11 of the Council of Europe on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, Nijmegen, WLP, 2000, p. 16. The possibility to ask for a re-examination of such a decision is also expressed under Principle IV para. 3 of the guidelines.

  14. 14.

    Case of Perez v. France (2004) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 47287/99, 12 February 2004, § 70. More information on the right to reparation can be found in Chapter 2.

  15. 15.

    Karen Reid, A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2nd edn., 2004, p. 76.

  16. 16.

    This provision reflects the situation of victims in continental European jurisdictions to bring a civil claim in the course of criminal proceedings as the partie civile or by way of the adhesion principle.

  17. 17.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 27.

  18. 18.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 28.

  19. 19.

    Collective Reparations: Concepts & Principles, p. 1 at http://www.redress.org/PeacePalace/CollectiveReparationsMG_OnlinePDF.pdf

  20. 20.

    See in Chapter 6 on compensation.

  21. 21.

    Chris Cunneen, Exploring the Relationship between Reparations, the Gross Violation of Human Rights, and Restorative Justice, in Dennis Sullivan and Larry Tifft (eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice, New York, London, Routledge, 2006, pp. 355–368, at p. 363. See also Article 18 of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law; adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005.

  22. 22.

    This includes also the request of a court for advance payment: Jens Meyer-Ladewig, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention. Handkommentar, Baden–Baden, Nomos, 2006, p. 114.

  23. 23.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European Judicial Systems – Edition 2006 (2004 data), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 2006, p. 49.

  24. 24.

    Meyer-Ladewig, 2006, p. 114.

  25. 25.

    Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 May 1981 at its 68th Session.

  26. 26.

    Reid, 2004, p. 79.

  27. 27.

    Clare Ovey and Robin White, The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 2006, p. 171; Case of Steel and Morris v. United Kingdom (2005) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 68416/01, 15 February 2005, § 61.

  28. 28.

    Case of Airey v. Ireland (1979) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 6289/73, 9 October 1979, § 26.

  29. 29.

    Case of Airey v. Ireland (1979) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 6289/73, 9 October 1979, § 26.

  30. 30.

    Ovey and White, 2006, p. 171.

  31. 31.

    Cited in Kai-Yuan Wu, Die Rechtsstellung des Verbrechensopfers im staatlichen Strafverfahren am Beispiel der Nebenklage, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang Verlag, 2007, pp. 52, 55–57.

  32. 32.

    See in Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06, § 18.

  33. 33.

    See in Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06, § 39.

  34. 34.

    See in Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06, §§ 41, 43. The defence suggested that such participatory rights would essentially afford the same rights as the prosecution and the defence and could in consequence create an imbalance in the trial, see § 52 of the decision.

  35. 35.

    See Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, pp. 27–29. The victim can play the role of the so-called ‘auxiliary prosecutor’ in Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, the Nordic jurisdictions and Portugal (status of 2000).

  36. 36.

    Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 June 1983 at the 361st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies; Article 29 states that access to justice should be established through legal aid.

  37. 37.

    Section D Article 9 states that the victim should be informed of possibilities of obtaining legal assistance and advice.

  38. 38.

    Article 7.1 shall ensure victims’ access to all civil remedies through legal aid in appropriate cases.

  39. 39.

    Case of Perez v. France (2004) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 47287/99, 12 February 2004, § 72. Regarding criminal proceedings, Article 6 (2) and (3) of the ECHR confers rights only to the defendant.

  40. 40.

    Paragraph 6(c) of the UN Declaration provides proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process; the status of the victim is, however, not clearly defined.

  41. 41.

    See also Article 1 (c) stating that ‘criminal proceedings’ shall be understood in accordance with the national law applicable.

  42. 42.

    When looking at the situation of crime victims under the EU Council Framework Decision, Article 2 (2) provides ‘specific treatment’ only to ‘particularly vulnerable’ victims. Consequently, the scope of application for specific measures is extended to victims of terrorist offences according to recital 8 of the EU Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism due to their categorisation as vulnerable (but not as particularly vulnerable). This is in contrast to the situation at CoE level (see Section 5.3).

  43. 43.

    Otherwise, the criteria for granting legal aid developed by the European Court of Human Rights could be taken into account at a minimum.

  44. 44.

    For instance under German law (§ 397a (1) StPO), a legal representative is automatically appointed by the state for those crime victims who have the status of a party to criminal proceedings (i.e. ‘auxiliary prosecutor’/ Nebenkläger). This is the case if a serious intentional violent act makes the victim ‘worthy of protection’. In this case, the costs for legal representation are automatically covered by the State and are not subject to other preconditions. For less serious criminal acts, but where the criteria for an accessory prosecution are still applicable, the Nebenkläger can apply under certain conditions for financial aid for his/her legal representation (§ 397a (2) StPO). See also France with regard to partie civile proceedings: France excluded the resource concept from the conditions for access to judicial aid for certain offences considered particularly serious: Report from the Commission on the basis of Article 18 of the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings {SEC(2004)102} /* COM/2004/0054 final/2*/. EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 7.

  45. 45.

    See also Article 11 of the EU Framework Decision, which provides for appropriate measures for victims resident in another Member State.

  46. 46.

    Commission of the European Communities,Green Paper From The Commission. Legal aid in civil matters: The problems confronting the cross-border litigant, COM(2000) 51 final, p.3.

  47. 47.

    For an overview of legal aid schemes in the Member States of the Council of Europe, which includes all the Member States of the EU, see: European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2006, p. 49.

  48. 48.

    Commission of the European Communities, COM(2000) 51 final, p.7.

  49. 49.

    OJ L 26, 31.1.2003, p. 43.

  50. 50.

    See Articles 7 and 8 of the Directive.

  51. 51.

    Adopted by the Assembly of States Parties, First Session, New York, 3–10 September 2002, Official Record, ICC-ASP/1/3. Legal instruments of the ICC do only apply to victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war; see Rule 85 of the RPE and Article 5 of the Rome Statute of the ICC.

  52. 52.

    International Criminal Court: Third Seminar on Counsel Issues, The Hague, 23-24 May 2005 at http://www.icc-cpi.int/defence/defconsultations/semdef_052005.html (12/02/2008).

  53. 53.

    The Legal Representation Team of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), Submission of the 4th session of Assembly of States Parties, Comments on the organization and resources of legal representation for victims and defendants at the ICC, November 2005, p.8.

  54. 54.

    See in Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06, § 48.

  55. 55.

    Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06, § 126.

  56. 56.

    ICC-BD/03-01-06. Date of entry into force: 6 March 2006.

  57. 57.

    Clémentine Olivier and Carla Ferstman, Ensuring the Effective Participation of Victims before the International Criminal Court, REDRESS, London, 2005, p. 9.

  58. 58.

    Olivier and Ferstman, 2005, p. 9.

  59. 59.

    Victims Rights Working Group, Strategy Meeting on the Development of structures and procedures for victims at the International Criminal Court, 6–7 December 2002, Summary of Proceedings and Final Recommendations, Issued January 2003, p. 17.

  60. 60.

    However, see the critical comments of the CICC in this context: The Legal Representation Team of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), November 2005, pp. 5 ff.

  61. 61.

    Council of Europe, Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism – The Council of Europe Guidelines, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, 2005, p. 57.

  62. 62.

    Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 January 1993 at the 484th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

  63. 63.

    Jo Goodey, Compensating Victims of Violent Crime in the European Union with a Special Focus on Victims of Terrorism. Discussion Paper, Vienna, The National Center for Victims of Crime, 2003, p. 7.

  64. 64.

    §§ 403 – 406c StPO.

  65. 65.

    Claudia Keiser, Die Stellung des Opfers im deutschen Strafrechtssystem, in ERA (ed.), ERA-Forum, Trier, ERA, 2002, pp. 39–44, at p. 44. The additional problem of state compensation in cases where the offender is insolvent or not available otherwise, will be dealt with in the following chapter. In the Netherlands, in contrast, the adhesion proceeding seems to have more practical relevance, see seminar report of the project (unpublished document).

  66. 66.

    Cited in ‘Bericht der Kommission für Opfer- und Zeugenschutz im Strafverfahren’ (1999), p. 52. http://www.jum.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/PB/show/1193133/OSK%20Schlussbericht_OnlinePDF.pdf (12/02/2008).

  67. 67.

    ‘Bericht der Kommission für Opfer- und Zeugenschutz im Strafverfahren’ (1999), p. 58.

  68. 68.

    See seminar report of the project (unpublished document).

  69. 69.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 7. However, it has to be considered that in comparison with the translation of the German and English text of the report, no difference was made between Nebenklage and partie civile proceedings. ‘Partie civile proceeding’ was translated with ‘Nebenklage’ in the German translation of the report by the European Commission, the latter providing the victim with more extended rights in criminal proceedings. See for Article 7 at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52004DC0054:DE:HTML (12/02/2008). Moreover, the practical relevance of legal assistance to the victim under Art. 6 of the Council Framework Decision could not been assessed by the European Commission, as the report did not extend to the assessment of this Article 6 according to Article 17 of the EU Council Framework Decision. The report is criticised by scholars, see e.g. M.S. Groenhuijsen and A. Pemberton, Het slachtoffer in de strafrechtelijke procedure. De Implementatie van het Europees Kaderbesluit, Justitiële Verkenningen, Vol. 33(3), 2007, pp. 69–91.

  70. 70.

    In this context, the Council of Europe has adopted Recommendation No. R (93) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on effective access to the law and to justice for the very poor, and Recommendation No. R (81) 7 of the Committee of Ministers on measures facilitating access to justice.

  71. 71.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2006, p. 45.

  72. 72.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2006, p. 45. It has to be taken into consideration that these cases concern mainly legal aid for defendants.

  73. 73.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2006, p. 47.

  74. 74.

    The Legal Representation Team of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), November 2005, p. 8.

  75. 75.

    The notion of ‘justice’ is narrowed to the formal criminal justice system.

  76. 76.

    Recommendation of Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists to Strengthen the draft Council of Europe Guidelines on Aid to and Protection of Victims of Terrorism at http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/IOR610222004ENGLISH/$File/IOR6102204_OnlinePDF.pdf (04/07/2007).

  77. 77.

    For human rights abuses in Guantanamo see: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR510442007 (26/07/07), and http://www.welt.de/politik/article1086995/Briten_verlangen_Freilassung_von_Gefangenen.html (07/08/07). See also the remarks in Chapter 2 regarding the accused of the Bali Bombings in October 2002 who is held in Guantanamo Bay. See further the remarks of the rapporteur McNamara of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights that the American administration has strayed into unlawful actions in its zeal to pursue a worldwide campaign against terrorism, Council of Europe, Guantánamo: violation of human rights and international law?, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing 2007, p. 71, § 76.

  78. 78.

    See: http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1188208.html (24/07/07); and http://www.pravdabeslana.ru/appeal.htm (07/08/07). In the Beslan case, suspected militiamen were amnestied without the court having investigated all the materials of the case. It has to be noted that the Beslan case mainly concerns aspects of counter-terrorism measures.

  79. 79.

    Case of Tepe v. Turkey, judgment of 9 August 2003 (final), Application no. 27244/95, § 195.

  80. 80.

    See: http://eng.kavkaz.memo.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1190911.html (23/07/07).

  81. 81.

    See: http://www.rp-online.de/public/article/aktuelles/politik/deutschland/431526 (30/07/07).

  82. 82.

    Article 6 reads: ‘Each Member State may take the necessary measures to ensure that the penalties referred to in Article 5 may be reduced if the offender: (a) renounces terrorist activity, and (b) provides the administrative or judicial authorities with information which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain, helping them to: (i) prevent or mitigate the effects of the offence; (ii) identify or bring to justice the other offenders; (iii) find evidence; or (iv) prevent further offences referred to in Articles 1 to 4’.

  83. 83.

    Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung:... Gesetz zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuchs– Strafzumessung bei Präventions- und Aufklärungshilfe (...StrÄndG) at http://www.bundesjustiz-ministerium.de/files/-/2101/RegE%20Kronzeugenregelung_OnlinePDF.pdf (05/07/2007). However, the minimum sentence for offences sentenced with life imprisonment is 10 years. As regards terrorist organisations, § 129a StGB will remain of relevance.

  84. 84.

    Stellungnahme des Deutschen Anwaltvereins durch den Strafrechtsausschuss zum Referentenentwurf eines... Gesetzes zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuchs (...StrÄndG = Kronzeugenregelung“)– Strafzumessung bei Präventions- und Aufklärungshilfe (§ 46b StGB-E) des Bundesministeriums für Justiz vom 18.04.2006 at http://www.anwaltverein.de/03/05/2006/39-06_OnlinePDF.pdf (05/07/2007).

  85. 85.

    A. Maurer, § 129b und Kronzeugenregelung: Alte Instrumente in neuem Gewand at http://www.cilip.de/ausgabe/70/129b.htm (05/07/2007).

  86. 86.

    D. Cziesche, G. Mascolo, Troubles with Germany’s Star Terror Witness at http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,335170,00.html (05/07/2007).

  87. 87.

    Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung at http://www.bundesjustizministerium.de/files/-/2101/RegE%20Kronzeugenregelung_OnlinePDF.pdf (05/07/2007).

  88. 88.

    Stellungnahme des Deutschen Anwaltvereins at http://www.anwaltverein.de/03/05/2006/39-06_OnlinePDF.pdf (05/07/2007).

  89. 89.

    See for instance the cases of Michael Buback, Patrick von Braunmühl (see in Chapter 7) and Beslan (see above). See also the desperate seek for truth by the victims of Pan Am 103: Bruce Hoffman and Anna-Britt Kasupski, The Victims of Terrorism: An Assessment of Their Influence and Growing Role in Policy, Legislation, and the Private Sector, Santa Monica, RAND Corporation, 2007, pp. 15 ff.

  90. 90.

    J-P. Jean and H. Pauliat, An Evaluation of the Quality of Justice in Europe and its Developments in France, (2006) 2 Utrecht Law Review 44–60, at p. 47.

  91. 91.

    Para. 69 of the judgment, cited in Council of Europe, Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism – The Council of Europe Guidelines, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, 2005, pp. 58–59.

  92. 92.

    Para. 74 of the judgment, cited in Council of Europe (2005), pp. 58–59.

  93. 93.

    Jean and Pauliat, 2006, p. 47.

  94. 94.

    U. Orth, Secondary Victimization of Crime Victims by Criminal Proceedings, (2002) 15Social Justice Research, 313–325, p. 316.

  95. 95.

    Case of Perez v. France, judgment of 12 February 2004, Application No. 47287/99, § 72.

  96. 96.

    Meyer-Ladewig, 2006, p. 123; Reid, 2004, p. 100.

  97. 97.

    See Paragraph 6 (b) with reference to presenting victims’ views and concerns, and Paragraph 4 with the provision for access to the mechanisms of justice.

  98. 98.

    OJ L 82, 22/03/2001, pp. 1, 2.

  99. 99.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 3.

  100. 100.

    See recital 9 of the EU Council Framework Decision.

  101. 101.

    Ivo Aertsen, The Duties of the Public Prosecutor in the Criminal Field towards Victims and Witnesses, and particular those that are Juveniles, Report for the Co-operation Programme to Strengthen the Rule of Law, Conference of Prosecutors General of Europe (CPGE), 7th session, 26 June 2006, p. 4.

  102. 102.

    Jessica Almquist, The Place and Role of Victims of Terrorist Acts in Relation to National and International Jurisdictions, in Delphine Pennewaert (ed.), Proceedings of The Study Days held in October 2005 – Promotion of Resources for Victims of Terrorist Acts and their Families, Red Cross Belgium, 2005, p. 15.

  103. 103.

    See Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, pp. 27–29. The status of the so-called ‘auxiliary prosecutor’ enables the crime victim to participate actively in the proceedings by joining the state’s prosecution. In contrast, in partie civile proceedings the victim traditionally is only a party to the proceedings if s/he has lodged a complaint and requested compensation for the damage suffered (civil claimant).

  104. 104.

    Heather Strang, Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 13. See also Chapter 3 for a comprehensive overview of victims’ needs.

  105. 105.

    Strang, 2002, p. 14.

  106. 106.

    Michael Kilchling, Opferinteressen und Strafverfolgung, in Günther Kaiser (ed.), Kriminologische Forschungsberichte aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Band 58, Freiburg, edition iuscrim, 1995, pp. 291, 297. See also the findings of the victim support organisation “Opfer gegen Gewalt”, cited in Wu, 2007, p. 21.

  107. 107.

    Kilchling, 1995, pp. 297, 299.

  108. 108.

    Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06, §§ 98, 106, 108, 118. For instance, the Trial Chamber considers granting victims the right to initiate procedures on application or request, by bearing in mind the rights of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial.

  109. 109.

    UNODCCP, Handbook on Justice for Victims, New York, UNODCCP, 1999, p. 37.

  110. 110.

    UNODCCP, 1999, p. 36.

  111. 111.

    See findings by Orth and Richter, cited in Wu, 2007, p. 18.

  112. 112.

    Salditt, cited in O. Tolmein,Erniedrigte und Vereidigte – Wieviel Schutz brauchen Opfer vor Gericht? – Der Strafverteidigertag streitet in Mainz at http://www.ra-tolmein.de/cms2/documents-upload/pdf/1153414692_OnlinePDF.pdf (12/02/2008).

  113. 113.

    Niedling (2005) cited in Wu, 2007, p. 57.

  114. 114.

    See Christie, cited in Strang, 2002, p. 9.

  115. 115.

    Text of the Rome Statute circulated as document A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998 and corrected by process-verbaux of 10 November 1998, 12 July 1999, 30 November 1999, 8 May 2000, 17 January 2001 and 16 January 2002. The Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. Article 68 (3) reads as follows: ‘Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the Court considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.’

  116. 116.

    Victim Impact Statements are used in Europe mainly in common law jurisdictions.

  117. 117.

    Cited in Strang, 2002, p. 13; Robert C. Davis and Barbara E. Smith, Victim Impact Statements and Victim Satisfaction: An Unfilled Promise? in Peggy M. Tobolowsky (ed.), Understanding Victimology, Cincinnati, Anderson, 2000, pp. 269–284 at p. 283.

  118. 118.

    J.V. Roberts and E. Erez, Communication in Sentencing: Exploring the Expressive Function of Victim Impact Statements, (2004) 10 International Review of Victimology, 223-244, pp. 235, 238. The communicative value is also of particular importance for victims taking part in victim-offender mediation in the context of severe violence, see Chapter 7.

  119. 119.

    Roberts and Erez, 2004, p. 239.

  120. 120.

    Davis and Smith, 2000, p. 283.

  121. 121.

    See Article 68 (3) of the Rome Statute of the ICC, and Rule 91 of the Rules and Procedures and Evidence of the ICC. In a recent decision, the ICC tends to broaden questioning rights for victims, see Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo InThe Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06, § 108.

  122. 122.

    Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06, § 98.

  123. 123.

    See also Claude Jorda and Jérôme de Hemptinne, The Status and Role of the Victim, in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, John R.W.D. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume II, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 1405.

  124. 124.

    However, there is a tendency of the ICC to broaden participatory rights of victims, see Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06.

  125. 125.

    In Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, the Nordic jurisdictions, and Portugal, the victim can play the role of the so-called ‘auxiliary prosecutor’: Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 28. The notion of ‘auxiliary prosecutor’ is, however, rather mistakable in the English translation.

  126. 126.

    Strang, 2002, p. 14.

  127. 127.

    See Rieß, cited in Wu, 2007, p. 52.

  128. 128.

    Kilchling, 1995, pp. 297, 304.

  129. 129.

    Kilchling, 1995, pp. 295.

  130. 130.

    Kilchling, 1995, pp. 298.

  131. 131.

    See § 397 StPO.

  132. 132.

    See, for instance, Section D Article 9 of the CoE Recommendation R (85) 11 on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure that does not establish a duty to notify victims of the outcome of the case; it only says that victims should be informed how to find the court’s decision. Under Article 6 (5) of CoE Recommendation Rec(2006)8 on assistance to crime victims, victims should be kept informed of and it should be ensured that victims understand the verdict of the competent court and, where relevant, the sentence. According to Article 4 (2) (c) of the EU Framework Decision, victims should be informed of the court’s sentence.

  133. 133.

    Wu, 2007, p. 57.

  134. 134.

    Recommendation of Amnesty International and the International Commission. Thereby it is even urged to grant victims of terrorism the possibility of a status of parties to criminal proceedings.

  135. 135.

    Additional requirement for the exclusion of the public is the principle of proportionality: Rainer Grote and Thilo Marauhn (eds.), EMRK/GG, Konkordanzkommentar zum europäischen und deutschen Grundrechtsschutz, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2006, p. 698. See for instance the German terrorist case against Mzoudi, where the public should be excluded as precondition that the US Ministry of Justice would agree in providing confidential interrogation material for the proceedings in Germany at http://www.123recht.net/printarticle.asp?a=8010 (12/02/2008).

  136. 136.

    See § 397a (1) StPO. The status of ‘auxiliary prosecutor’ is interlinked with the importance of the seriousness of the offence: Lutz Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, München, C.H. Beck, 2005, p. 1292; Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Strafprozessrecht, München, C.H. Beck, 2007, p. 229. This is why victims of offences against property are excluded from applying for the status of ‘auxiliary prosecutor’.

  137. 137.

    Hans-Jörg Albrecht, Compensation and Support for Victims of Terrorism, p. 2 at http://law.mscc.huji.ac.il/law1/criminology/events/Albrecht_OnlinePDF.pdf (12/02/2008).

  138. 138.

    See para. 59 of the explanatory memorandum to the CoE Recommendation Rec(2006)8 on Assistance to Crime Victims with reference to Article 3.4 of that Recommendation.

  139. 139.

    The opinions of the seminar participants of the project also differed in this respect. Thus, further research on the question of the vulnerability of victims of terrorism is needed. The findings of Chapter 3 suggest, however, supporting such an approach.

  140. 140.

    It has to be taken into consideration that such an approach would only be possible in civil-law systems; see Alphons Orie, Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings Prior to the Establishment of the ICC and in the Proceedings before the ICC, in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, John R.W.D. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume II, Oxford University Press, 2002, p.1446.

  141. 141.

    This does not affect, however, the witness status; i.e. a victim-witness is still obliged to appear before court if this is requested.

  142. 142.

    Another possibility could be the use of modern technologies as mentioned in the seminar report.

  143. 143.

    Grote and Marauhn, 2006, p. 695.

  144. 144.

    Article 6 (1) 2 of the ECHR reads: ‘Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial if the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.’

  145. 145.

    See § 395 StPO.

  146. 146.

    See BVerfG, Beschluss vom 25.9.2003 - 2 BvR 1337/03.

  147. 147.

    This decision refers to the system of individual petition provided under Article 34 of the ECHR that excludes applications by way of actio popularis. The Court held that the concept of victim must, in theory, be interpreted autonomously. Therefore, in order for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, he must be able to show that he has been directly affected by the impugned measure. See Case of Bic and others v. Turkey (2006) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 55955/00, 2 February 2006, Final 03/07/2006, § 19.

  148. 148.

    Strang, 2002, p. 10.

  149. 149.

    Jo-Anne M. Wemmers, Victims in the Criminal Justice System, Den Haag, Ministerie van Justitie, WODC, 1996, p. 19.

  150. 150.

    UNODCCP, 1999, p. 38.

  151. 151.

    Recommendation of Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists at http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/IOR610222004ENGLISH/$File/IOR6102204_OnlinePDF.pdf (04/07/2007).

  152. 152.

    See in Chapter 7.

  153. 153.

    Anne Siemens, Für die RAF war er das System, für mich der Vater – Die andere Geschichte des deutschen Terrorismus, München, Piper Verlag, 2007, p. 67; Spiegel-Online, ’Wie kann man einen Menschen zum Schwein machen?’ http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,481776,00.html (31/07/07).

  154. 154.

    Cited in Wemmers, 1996, p. 20.

  155. 155.

    Staiger-Allroggen, cited in Wu, 2007, p. 55.

  156. 156.

    This is especially the case for witnesses and victims who do not have the status of a party.

  157. 157.

    Council of Europe, Victims – Support and Assistance, 2006, p. 57.

  158. 158.

    See the speech by the German minister of justice at http://www.bmj.bund.de/enid/0,d04570706d635f6964092d0933323131093a0979656172092d0932303036093a096d6f6e7468092d093131093a095f7472636964092d0933323131/Reden/Brigitte_Zypries_zc.html (30/07/07).

  159. 159.

    Recommendation of Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists at http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/IOR610222004ENGLISH/$File/IOR6102204_OnlinePDF.pdf (04/07/2007).

  160. 160.

    Recommendation of Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists at http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/IOR610222004ENGLISH/$File/IOR6102204_OnlinePDF.pdf (04/07/2007).

  161. 161.

    See for instance, the simultaneous media coverage of the plane crash in the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11.

  162. 162.

    For instance, the family of the RAF-victim Hanns Martin Schleyer is still confronted with the pictures showing him in a degrading and humiliating pose when kidnapped by RAF-terrorists in 1977. See also http://www.welt.de/politik/article780077/Ex-Terroristen_wollen_alte_Fotos_verbieten_lassen.html?nr=0&pbpnr=0 (01/08/07).

  163. 163.

    Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, On his visit to Spain, 10–19 March 2005, Strasbourg, 9 November 2005, CommDH(2005)8, para. 157. See to the problem of media reporting also Chapter 7.

  164. 164.

    However, due to different translations in the English and German report of the European Commission, it is not clear whether proceedings are encompassed that are ‘partie civile proceedings’ in the strict sense, or where the victim can have the status of ‘auxiliary prosecutor’.

  165. 165.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 4.

  166. 166.

    Cited in Strang, 2002, p. 13; Davis and Smith, 2000, p. 283. This article reports on the results of a field test that examined the effects of impact statements on victim perceptions of involvement and satisfaction with the criminal justice system in the US.

  167. 167.

    Michael Kaiser, Die Stellung des Verletzten im Strafverfahren, in Günther Kaiser (ed.), Kriminologische Forschungsberichte aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Band 53, Freiburg, edition iuscrim, 1992, pp. 88-91; Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 364.

  168. 168.

    Staiger-Allroggen (1992) and Niedling (2005), cited in Wu, 2007, pp. 55, 56.

  169. 169.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 245.

  170. 170.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 246.

  171. 171.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 247.

  172. 172.

    Brienen and Hoegen, 2000, p. 286.

  173. 173.

    Jorda and De Hemptinne, 2002, pp.1388, 1412. In the accusatorial procedure, the trial is conceived as a duel between two adversaries, i.e. the prosecution and the defence, which leaves little room for a third protagonist. Further, the judge does not have at his disposal the documents gathered by the prosecution and the defence as the Statute does not provide like the Romano-Germanic systems, for the appointment of an investigating judge with responsibility for collecting all items of evidence.

  174. 174.

    Jorda and De Hemptinne, 2002, p.1413.

  175. 175.

    Jorda and De Hemptinne, 2002, p.1414. The first part would be essentially adversarial and would allow no oral interaction of the victim, while the second part would be devoted to victims and much more inquisitorial, since it would be conducted under the strict control of a judge. At this stage, the victim could intervene orally with the possibility to call witnesses. Following the closure of the oral proceedings, the victim and his lawyer would be entitled as of right to put forward their own arguments and call their own witnesses to testify. Under these circumstances, the judge would be fully informed as to the various aspects of the case and could exercise proper control both over the list of witnesses and over the testimony given by them before the Court.

  176. 176.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 5.

  177. 177.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 5.

  178. 178.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 6. On 25 March 2003, only the United Kingdom (Scotland) had a telephone link making it possible to reach interpreters directly.

  179. 179.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 6.

  180. 180.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 6.

  181. 181.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 7.

  182. 182.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 10.

  183. 183.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 10.

  184. 184.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 10.

  185. 185.

    Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, CommDH(2005)8, para. 159.

  186. 186.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 7.

  187. 187.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 8.

  188. 188.

    EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN, p. 8.

  189. 189.

    Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, CommDH(2005)8, para. 158.

  190. 190.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (EPEJ), 2006, p. 53.

  191. 191.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (EPEJ), 2006, p. 54.

  192. 192.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (EPEJ), 2006, p. 54 (Table 14), pp.164-165 (Table 81).

  193. 193.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (EPEJ), 2006, p.54 (Table 14), pp.164-165 (Table 81).

  194. 194.

    Edna Erez, Integrating a Victim Perspective in Criminal Justice Through Victim Impact Statements, in Adam Crawford and Jo Goodey (eds.), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice, Aldershot, Ashgate/Dartmouth, 2000, pp. 170, 173.

  195. 195.

    Erez, 2000, pp. 175, 176.

  196. 196.

    Erez, 2000, p. 176.

  197. 197.

    See further Chapter 7.

  198. 198.

    Almquist, 2005, p. 17: For instance, the 9/11 victims are facing this situation. While there have been some 119 terrorist trials in the United States since 9/11, there are few visible results. US courts have indicated relatively few individuals on the charge of direct acts of terrorism and convicted only one. The recent Spanish proceeding against Al-Qaeda members involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, though leading to convictions, indicated the evidentiary difficulties involved. None of the 21 accused were tied to the actual commission of the act of terrorism, 16 were found guilty of belonging to a terrorist organisation or for conspiracy or collaboration in the formation of a terrorist act and five were acquitted.

Bibliography

Books

  • Brienen, M. and Hoegen, E., Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems. The Implementation of Recommendation (85) 11 of the Council of Europe on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, Nijmegen, WLP, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe, Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism – The Council of Europe Guidelines, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe, Victims – Support and Assistance, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe, Guantánamo: violation of human rights and international law? Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabenwarter, C., Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, München, C.H. Beck, 2nd edn, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, R. and Marauhn, T. (eds.), EMRK/GG, Konkordanzkommentar zum europäischen und deutschen Grundrechtsschutz, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, M., Die Stellung des Verletzten im Strafverfahren, in Günther Kaiser (ed.), Kriminologische Forschungsberichte aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Band 53 Freiburg, edition iuscrim, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilchling, M., Opferinteressen und Strafverfolgung, in Günther Kaiser (ed.), Kriminologische Forschungsberichte aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Band 58, Freiburg, edition iuscrim, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Goßner, L., Strafprozessordnung, München, C.H. Beck, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Ladewig, J., Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention. Handkommentar, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovey, C. and White, R., Jacobs and White, The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C., Just Lawyers. Regulations and Access to Justice, Oxford University Press, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, K., A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2nd edn, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, F-C., Strafprozessrecht, München, C.H. Beck, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, A., Für die RAF war er das System, für mich der Vater – Die andere Geschichte des deutschen Terrorismus, München, Piper Verlag, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H., Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice, Oxford University Press, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • UNODCCP, Handbook on Justice for Victims, New York, UNODCCP, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Wemmers, J-A. M. Victims in the Criminal Justice System: a study into the treatment of victims and its effects on their attitudes and behaviour, Den Haag, Ministerie van Justitie, WODC, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, K.-Y., Die Rechtsstellung des Verbrechensopfers im staatlichen Strafverfahren am Beispiel der Nebenklage, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang Verlag, 2007

    Google Scholar 

Book Chapters

  • Cunneen, C., Exploring the relationship between reparations, the gross violation of human rights, and restorative justice, in: Dennis Sullivan and Larry Tifft (eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice, London, New York, Routledge, 2006, pp. 355- 368

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. C. and Smith, B. E., Victim Impact Statements and Victim Satisfaction: An Unfilled Promise? in: Peggy M. Tobolowsky (ed.), Understanding Victimology, Cincinnati, Anderson, 2000, pp. 269–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., Integrating a Victim Perspective in Criminal Justice Through Victim Impact Statements, in: Adam Crawford and Jo Goodey (eds.), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice, Aldershot, Ashgate/Dartmouth, 2000, pp. 165–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorda C. and De Hemptinne J., The Status and Role of the Victim, in: Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, John R.W.D. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume II, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp.1387–1419

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiser, C., Die Stellung des Opfers im deutschen Strafrechtssystem’, ERA-Forum, Trier, ERA, 2002, pp. 39–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Orie, A., Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings Prior to the Establishment of the ICC and in the Proceedings before the ICC, in: Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, John R.W.D. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume II, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp.1439–1495

    Google Scholar 

Articles

  • Albrecht, H.J. and Kilchling, M., Victims of Terrorism Policies: Should Victims of Terrorism be Treated differently? European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, Vol. 13, 2007, pp. 13–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jean J-P. and Pauliat, H., An evaluation of the quality of justice in Europe and its developments in France, Utrecht Law Review Vol. 2, 2006, pp. 44–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth, U., Secondary Victimization of Crime Victims by Criminal Proceedings, Social Justice Research Vol. 15, 2002, pp. 313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J.V. and Erez, E., Communication in Sentencing: Exploring the Expressive Function of Victim Impact Statements, International Review of Victimology, Vol. 10, 2004, pp. 223–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

Case Law: European Court of Human Rights

  • Case of Airey v. Ireland (1979) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 6289/73, 9 October 1979

    Google Scholar 

  • Case of Bic and others v. Turkey (2006) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 55955/00, 2 February 2006, Final 03/07/2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Case of Golder v. United Kingdom (1975) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 4451/70, 21 February 1975

    Google Scholar 

  • Case of Helmers v. Sweden (1991) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 11826/85, 29 October 1991

    Google Scholar 

  • Case of Perez v. France (2004) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 47287/99, 12 February 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Case of Steel and Morris v. United Kingdom (2005) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 68416/01, 15 February 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Case of Tepe v. Turkey (2003) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 27244/95, 9 August 2003 (final)

    Google Scholar 

  • Case of Werner v. Austria (1997) Eur. Court HR, Application No. 138/1996/757/956, 24 November 1997

    Google Scholar 

  • Case Law: International Criminal Court

    Google Scholar 

  • Decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008, Situation in the Democratic Republic of The Congo In The Case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, No. ICC-01/04-01/06

    Google Scholar 

  • Reports

    Google Scholar 

  • Aertsen, I., The Duties of the Public Prosecutor in the Criminal Field towards Victims and Witnesses, and particular those that are Juveniles, Report for the Co-operation Programme to Strengthen the Rule of Law. Conference of Prosecutors General of Europe (CPGE), 7th session, 26 June 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Almquist, J., The Place and Role of Victims of Terrorist Acts in Relation to National and International Jurisdictions, in: Delphine Pennewaert (ed.), Proceedings of The Study Days held in October 2005- Promotion of Resources for Victims of Terrorist Acts and their Families, Red Cross Belgium, 2005, pp. 10–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities, Green Paper From The Commission. Legal aid in civil matters: The problems confronting the cross-border litigant, COM(2000) 51 final, pp. 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Report from the Commission on the basis of Article 18 of the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, {SEC(2004)102} /* COM/2004/0054 final/2*/. EUR-Lex – 52004DC0054R(01) – EN

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European Judicial Systems- Edition 2006 (2004 data), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Robles, A., Commissioner for Human Rights, On his visit to Spain, 10–19 March 2005, Strasbourg, 9 November 2005, CommDH(2005)8

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodey, J., Compensating Victims of Violent Crime in the European Union with a Special Focus on Victims of Terrorism, Discussion Paper, Vienna, The National Center for Victims of Crime, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B., and Kasupski A., The Victims of Terrorism: An Assessment of Their Influence and Growing Role in Policy, Legislation, and the Private Sector, Santa Monica, RAND Corporation, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • The Legal Representation Team of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), Submission of the 4th session of Assembly of States Parties, Comments on the organization and resources of legal representation for victims and defendants at the ICC, November 2005, pp. 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe, Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, On His Visit to Spain, 10-19 March 2005 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, Strasbourg, 9 November 2005, CommDH(2005)8

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivier, C. and Ferstman, C., Ensuring the Effective Participation of Victims before the International Criminal Court, REDRESS, London, 2005, pp. 1-10

    Google Scholar 

  • Schetzer, L., Mullins, J., Buonamano, R., Access to Justice and Legal Needs – A project to identify legal needs, pathways and barriers for disadvantaged people in NSW, Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Victims Rights Working Group, Strategy Meeting on the Development of structures and procedures for victims at the International Criminal Court, 6–7 December 2002, Summary of Proceedings and Final Recommendations, Issued January 2003, pp. 1–17

    Google Scholar 

Internet Publications

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie (LINC), and European Forum for Restorative Justice, Herbert Hooverplein 9, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Ines Staiger

Authors
  1. Ines Staiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Victimology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, Netherlands

    Rianne Letschert

  2. International Victimology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, Netherlands

    Antony Pemberton

  3. Leuvens Instituut vr Criminologie (LINC), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Herbert Hooverplein 9, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Ines Staiger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Staiger, I. (2009). Access to Justice and Administration of Justice. In: Letschert, R., Pemberton, A., Staiger, I. (eds) Assisting Victims of Terrorism. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3025-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation