International Journal on Criminology Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 60

International Journal on Criminology
with the victim then being told about this
ban. Today, great controversy surrounds
the question of the victim’s place during the
execution of sentences. Victims are still not
allowed to take part in this process, and it
is the responsibility of sentencing-enforcement
bodies to ensure their protection. The
victim must also be protected from the media,
because the public hunger for “social
reality” can lead media professionals to go
beyond the deontological framework of the
objective right to inform, without the full
consent of those concerned. More professional
protection is required during legitimate
extension measures for condemned
parties, which force those involved to relive
the suffering of their victimization in an
unacceptable manner, long after the events
and the trial. At the same time, the very
presence of the media in places where the
freed person is accommodated makes true
reintegration almost impossible.
Along these lines, as soon as victims
and their loved ones decide to take legal
action, they are guaranteed specific rights,
and remarkably, when they are placed in a
position to exercise them, as emphasized
above, the criminal trial becomes a source
of procedural and symbolic reparation.
These rights, guaranteed in an equitable
and balanced way to the parties, offer them
the possibility of fully assuming their active
role as a legal subject, rather than remaining
confined to that of an object in the proceedings
(as is all too often the case today).
Overlaps between fundamental, ethical,
victim, and procedural rights are inevitable.
The right to a fair criminal trial
is one of the key achievements of the last
century, during which international recognition
of human rights has nevertheless
failed to prevent the massacres of civilian
populations that still occur around the
world (Cario 2013). Nevertheless, as the
fundamental principles of criminal law, human
rights are a crucial part of our criminal
justice systems. Thus, a fair trial requires a
balance to be achieved between the rights of
the perpetrator and those of the victims. It
is based upon the importance and necessity
of respecting all of the rights mentioned
above. The equality of resources between all
of the protagonists must also be respected
at all stages of the proceedings (art. 6, European
Convention on Human Rights) (Moderne
2012; Renucci 2012). Victims who file
civil suits can also ask for various measures
to be taken under France’s Criminal Procedure
Code. These include free access to the
case files, requests for hearings, meetings,
site visits, expert assessments and second
opinions, and recourse against decisions
made at all stages of the procedure (except
for criminal appeals where civil interests are
not involved).
The rights of defense must therefore
be rigorously guaranteed to the victim,
and strictly upheld. A quality defense
allows the victim to truly participate in the
procedure. The broadening, revaluation,
and (even better) the systematization of legal
aid for victims cannot be avoided, because
national solidarity is expected to help
them and to assume the ever-growing costs
of criminal proceedings. When necessary,
victims who are minors must also be represented
by an ad hoc administrator. Local
agreements between the bar and the victim
support service greatly facilitate the defense
(in terms of legal advice) and support (in
terms of legal information, the trial process,
and assistance at hearings) of victims. In
current legislation, such agreements, which
ensure complementarity between roles, are
designed to better share the advantages of
restorative justice measures, such as mediation
benefiting adults as well as minors.
All of those encountered during the
criminal procedure must be truly competent
professionals, who offer high-quality
58