Strengthened by research findings as well as practice experiences, the European Forum for Restorative Justice (EFRJ) believes that each victim should have the possibility to freely and voluntarily decide to start a safe and high-quality restorative justice process. We fully understand that there is scepticism and objections coming from a variety of organisations working with victims of violence against women concerning the use of restorative justice in these cases. The concerns often involve safety, accountability and the relegation of violence against women to the private sphere. However, the overlap of concerns and shared principles between feminist and restorative justice approaches to crime indicates that there exists the potential to develop restorative processes to meet the needs of victims of gender-based crimes.
EFRJ Briefing Paper On The Use Of Restorative Justice In Cases Of Violence Against Women
Background of the paper
The EFRJ drafted a briefing paper aiming to address key aspects of restorative justice and its application in cases of violence against women, such as sexual and domestic violence. It seeks to clarify concerns, highlight evidence-based practices, and emphasise the need for safeguards and high-quality standards to ensure restorative justice processes are safe, voluntary, and empowering for victims. Additionally, it examines the implications of Article 48 of the Istanbul Convention, advocating for its correct interpretation to ensure it does not unintentionally hinder access to restorative justice for victims.
The position paper situates restorative justice within an established international legal framework, referencing key instruments such as the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)8, the EU Victims’ Rights Directive, and the UN Basic Principles on Restorative Justice. These frameworks emphasize the need for high standards, robust safeguards, and victim-centred practices. Together, they affirm restorative justice’s role as a valuable complement to criminal justice systems.
The paper makes clear what restorative justice is not: it is not a method for reconciliation, forgiveness, or conflict mediation, nor an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It does not seek to replace criminal justice processes but rather provides victims with an additional avenue for addressing harm and regaining agency in their recovery.
The practice of restorative justice includes a variety of approaches such as victim-offender mediation, conferences, circles, and indirect methods like letter exchanges. These practices are adaptable to the specific needs of victims, ensuring their control over the process and physical safety. While direct meetings between victims and offenders are possible, indirect forms of communication are often preferred in sensitive cases, particularly those involving domestic or sexual violence. Restorative justice can also help victims address harm within their families or communities, without involving the perpetrator.
One of the most compelling aspects of the paper is the inclusion of survivor voices. Testimonies highlight the life-changing effects of restorative justice, such as empowerment, closure, and a renewed sense of control over their lives. Survivors have described restorative justice as a transformative experience, allowing them to regain confidence and heal from the harm caused by violence. The document emphasises the importance of respecting survivors’ choices to pursue restorative justice as a voluntary, individualised process.
A significant concern addressed in the paper is the misinterpretation of Article 48 of the Istanbul Convention, which prohibits mandatory alternative dispute resolution processes. The EFRJ clarifies that restorative justice differs fundamentally from mandatory mediation as it is entirely voluntary and participant-driven. Unfortunately, misinterpretations of Article 48 have led to restrictive legislation in some jurisdictions where victims are denied access to restorative justice services despite requesting them. The paper argues that such restrictions risk further victimisation by denying agency to victims and limiting their paths to healing.
Call to action
In conclusion, the EFRJ advocates for the availability of restorative justice to all victims who wish to access it, supported by high standards and rigorous safeguards. It calls for further exploration of restorative justice’s role in cases of violence against women, urging clarity in interpreting Article 48 of the Istanbul Convention to ensure it does not create barriers to restorative justice. The EFRJ remains committed to supporting initiatives that expand access to restorative justice while maintaining the safety and dignity of all participants.
