International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 10

International Journal on Criminology
When it comes to executing sentences, article 707-IV C.pr.pén. now clearly states
the rights of the victim, particularly including the right for harm against them to be
repaired, as well as the right to “compensation” using “any other appropriate means,”
such as the proposal of a restorative justice measure. Given such a right, the victim can
personally go to the competent magistrate, or, more informally, the “referents” of a regional
restorative justice service, or of any other service devoted to restorative justice that will
assist them in the process. All the same, it is regrettable that such a right to restorative
justice is not extended to the perpetrator, as is the case in France’s neighboring countries.
Admittedly, the availability of restorative justice measures is currently low. Nevertheless,
the recognition of the right to restorative justice for all persons subject to trial would
have been the best guarantee of its gradual but inevitable rise, given the promises already
delivered during experiments.
Some might be surprised that the respect of victim rights no longer appears
in article 707-II C.pr.pén. on the objectives of executing sentences (Herzog-Evans’s
contribution on this matter). However, its new wording has become highly pertinent.
“The execution regime for custodial sentences or those that restrict freedom aims to
prepare for the integration or reintegration of the condemned, so that they can act as a
responsible person, respecting the rules and interests of society, and avoid committing
more crimes.” Symbolically leaving chapter 1 (general provisions) of the general title on
the execution of penal sentences, the principle of taking victims’ interests into account
remains present in article 712-16-1, para. 1, C.pr.pén. as a preliminary to any decision to
temporarily or definitively free a person with a custodial sentence before the end of this
sentence.
Others will regret the censoring of the highly original provision concerning the
“contribution for victim support” (as in foreign juridical systems) by the Constitutional
Council. It deprives the victim support sector of resources that are crucial to its successful
operation, when the sector today suffers badly from the lack or weakness of lasting means
while being faced with growing demands to help crime victims. 10 The modifications to
article 728-1,II C.pr.pén. are a step in the right direction. If the monetary values allocated
to indemnify civil parties are not claimed, they are paid to the guarantee fund for victims
of terrorism and other offenses (Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme
et d’autres infractions: FGTI). Currently, however, nothing allows this fund to feed the
victim support network in return.
A final and significant provision facilitates the implementation of restorative
justice during the execution of sentences. In line with the new article 2-1 of the Loi
pénitentiaire (penitentiary law) of October 24, 2009, the penitentiary authorities can now
make agreements with associations (or with other public or private persons) aiming to
help convicted persons access rights and common law measures, in order to facilitate
their integration or reintegration.
10
Nathalie Nieson, Rapport au Premier ministre et à la Ministre de la justice sur le financement des associations
d’aide aux victimes et la gouvernance de la politique nationale d’aide aux victimes (“Report to the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on Finance for Victim Support Associations and the Governance
of National Victim Support Policy”), July 2013; Constitutional Council, Decision no. 2014-696 DC, August
7, 2014, cons. 25 and following.
9