International Journal on Criminology Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 4

International Journal on Criminology
and under the supervision of a “third-party justice,” potentially with the assistance of a
“psychological and/or social third party.” By giving the stakeholders responsibility, the
process attempts to restore all of them to a wider social harmony (Cario 2007). 3
The law of August 15, 2014 was a major step forward in the domain of the restorative
justice in France, helping to consolidate a new model of criminal justice (Cario 2007).
Nevertheless, although the text of article 10-1 C.pr.pén. appears relatively satisfactory
in setting the conditions for recourse to a restorative justice measure (1), the concrete
methods of application have yet to be defined, particularly based on the conclusions of
experiments over recent years (Cario 2012) (2), and on the new rights now accorded to
victims (3).
1 - The Conditions for Recourse to a Restorative Justice Measure
Conveniently, the wording of article 10-1 C.pr.pén. specifies the objectives of
proposing a restorative justice measure (A) and lays down the prerequisites (B).
A. The Objectives of Recourse to a Restorative Justice Measure
The second paragraph of article 10-1 C.pr.pén. offers “the victim of a crime as well
as its perpetrator [the possibility] of participating actively in the resolution of the difficulties
resulting from the crime, and particularly in repairing all kinds of harm resulting from the
offense.” By bringing both the victim and the perpetrator into the front line, restorative
justice measures differ from the trend that regrettably affects the conditions of recourse to
mediation in criminal matters, which demand only the victim’s agreement (Mbanzoulou
2012). The principle of each party participating actively in resolving the repercussions of
the crime reinforces their role as the primary actors in the restorative meeting: in defining
the practical methods of the meeting (preparatory phase); in the choice of themes tackled
and the content and characteristics of the exchanges (meeting phase); in the nature
and practical modalities of meeting their reciprocal commitments (conclusion of the
restorative agreement); and in defining follow-up for each party’s commitments (closure
phase).
Mainly focused on “the resolution of the difficulties resulting from the offense,” the
restorative justice aims to regulate conflicts, appease the people involved, and take into
account the repercussions of the crime on all parties (perpetrators, victims, significant
others, and the communities to which they belong). The restorative “process” used thus
appears as essential as the actual “result” of the meeting, which may never come about.
It is important here to point out that reciprocal forgiveness is in no way an objective of
restorative justice, that the spiritual values it promotes logically contribute to the respect
of fundamental human rights and the general principles of criminal law, and that the
process used has no therapeutic aim.
Based on the belief that the people involved are capable of participating in the
resolution of their own affairs, restorative measures above all aim to encourage respectful
dialogue (Rossi 2012; Umbreit and Peterson-Armour 2011), with the objective of
3
IFJR. justicerestaurative.org/justice_restaurative.html.
3