Using Child-Friendly Specific Methods and Tools as a Form of Communication in the Restorative Justice Process

Currently, various innovative intervention procedures are applied with victims of criminal activities (and of course with perpetrators) in different legal systems. While innovations in intervention work with perpetrators are often focused on probation and prison services, other key actors, such as non-governmental organisations, are often involved in working with victims. These procedures are often evidence-based, meaning they are designed and implemented based on verified data and practical experience to achieve the most effective results.

Intervention procedures with victims of criminal activities may involve various forms of support and assistance, including legal aid, psychological counselling, therapy, support in recovery and rehabilitation, as well as various forms of compensation and restitution. These procedures aim to mitigate the harm and trauma suffered by victims and help them recover and rebuild their lives.

An important aspect of innovative intervention procedures is also the collaboration between various actors and organisations, including public institutions, non-profit organisations, healthcare and social services, as well as victims and their families themselves. This collaboration can help ensure that victims receive comprehensive and individually tailored assistance and support that takes into account their specific needs and situation.

Overall, it can be stated that innovative intervention procedures with minor victims of crime are an important tool for improving their situation and ensuring a fairer and more humane legal system.

The special status of minors in the legal system reflects the fact that children undoubtedly belong to the most vulnerable groups of the population, especially in relation to crime. As already implied by the title of this chapter, its aim is to increase knowledge in an area that is one of the most serious consequences of victimisation, namely the increased predisposition of victims to become repeat victims, that is, increased risk of re-victimisation.

On the other hand, the special status and rights of the child from the perspective of procedural criminal law reflect the challenging position of minor victims in judicial or pre-judicial proceedings, and the need to protect (not only) their procedural rights, whether due to their insufficient ‘equipment’ necessary to protect themselves, or due to their dependence on other persons, often on the perpetrator himself, or on the environment in which the perpetrator is protected, which further complicates their access to asserting their rights.

It is all the more important that, in cases where such a vulnerable victim of a criminal offence comes under the purview of criminal protection, which often means having to face various fears, feelings of shame, uncertainty and fear of speaking about the act itself, they subsequently do not become victims of secondary victimisation. This applies not only from the perspective of the legal definition of secondary victimisation according to the Victims Act but also in terms of the lack of real, comprehensive fulfilment of the individual needs of the person in their specific life situation marked by the criminal offence.

However, it remains a significant challenge for the future to supplement the current legal system with additional components or to develop currently well-directed steps that, in addition to support and legal assistance, financial compensation, preservation of procedural rights, punishment of the perpetrator, and measures to prevent further criminal activity, would offer the minor victim the opportunity directly to decide and express, or in many cases help articulate, their needs. This would enable each victim to achieve a sense of ‘closure’ with the past marked by the criminal offence, attain a sense of justice and understanding and create conditions to continue with their normal life.

A means that takes into account (not only) the needs of crime victims and, at the same time, serves as a ‘healing process’ is undoubtedly restorative justice. The expert level of facilitators in Belgium, specialising particularly in working with children, is supported, among other things, by Belgian legislation, specifically the law passed in 2006 — the so-called Youth Protection Act. This law, in addition to separating the criminal justice system for adult and juvenile offenders, builds upon the Convention on the rights of the child (1989)and obliges state authorities to prioritise the preservation of the rights of the child in any decision-making process. Furthermore, among other rights, it advocates for the right of the child to be heard. In practice, the implementation of this law by judicial authorities is also reflected in the fact that state authorities are required to facilitate a restorative process in every appropriate criminal case where the perpetrator of the offence is a child, that is, a person under 18 years of age.

One of the innovative methods of a specific and sensitive form of communication with children (successfully used in some cases also with adult participants), aimed at giving voice to child victims, as well as child perpetrators, is the presentation of stories, emotions, needs, etc., through various objects such as dolls, animal models, pictures, cards, and so on. This approach, presented by Belgian facilitators, offers participants in mediation the opportunity to work with these objects only if the participant agrees, and the selection of objects is also left to each individual child. This form of communication is particularly suitable for sensitive matters that are difficult for victims to discuss, or they may not be able to talk about them. By, for example, selecting a toy that represents themselves, it becomes easier for them to talk about the object, which is in a way separated from their personality. Similarly, the child assigns other objects to important people in their life, as well as those involved in the conflict situation. Moreover, this transfer of the child’s subjective experience into the space of objective reality through the afore-mentioned aids always begins with the present and present circumstances, which is a safer state for the victim to discuss, and then sensitively moves on to circumstances in the past, while strictly respecting the will to speak or not speak about specific things. Another advantage of these aids is that many child victims, as well as perpetrators, do not have the emotional maturity verbally to describe their own emotions and needs, but they can express them through various thematic pictures, cards, and so on. An engaging psychological tool is the so-called ‘magic wand,’ which the mediator offers to the child victim or perpetrator after depicting the conflict situation, asking what the child would change about this situation if they had such a magic wand in real life. The idea of ​having unlimited fairy-tale power can, in some cases, help the child overcome barriers, fears, and the fear of expressing wishes that they may consider unattainable for any reason (Chapman et al., 2015).

An example of the application of the method described in practice was a pre-mediation meeting between a mediator and a minor victim in a case of conflict between children at a re-education centre and an employee of this centre. The victim found it challenging or had no interest in discussing the incident on her own, but she agreed to use animal models to express herself and the important people in her life, including friends at the centre and family outside the re-education centre. She assigned the model of a tiger to the employee with whom the conflict had arisen, and interestingly, other children who had been affected by this person also assigned the same character. Through this process, the child also depicted the conflict situation, and the result of the process was that after the victim was handed a magic wand to express freely what would help improve the situation for her in the future, she spontaneously took the tiger figure and energetically threw it off the table along with the other characters. The mediator thanked the victim sincerely for her honest expression without evaluating her reaction.

This briefly summarised case was an example of how the facilitative process helped give a voice to a child who was unable to return to the incident with her own words or express her needs.

In a broader context, the significance of the healing restorative process was demonstrated, including through a sensitive case involving the rape of a minor victim by her underage brother. The siblings lived in what seemed to be a functional family, and the girl kept the incident secret until she disclosed it to a classmate on a school trip, who happened to be the daughter of a prosecutor. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against her brother, who was removed from the family and placed in a detention facility.

In this case, despite the fact that there was no discussion about the incident itself during the entire facilitative process, it became evident how important it was for the victim not only to fulfil her legal rights as a victim and a person harmed by a criminal act but also to resolve the conflict situation comprehensively, not only between the accused and the victim but also within the entire family unit in which the victim moved and upon which she depended. It was necessary to set up this environment so that the victim could return to normal life.

In summary, findings from the facilitative process included:

• The victim’s mother was angry at her daughter for not disclosing anything at home and blamed her for the removal of her son from the family. Her sole desire was for her son to return home; she did not believe he could have committed such an act and was also angry at the system for taking her son away overnight.
• The accused was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder through psychiatric examination. He had been working extensively in therapy to understand his sister’s victimisation better, realising what he had caused her. He regretted it and desired to apologise to her in a personal facilitative meeting, but he was unsure of her reaction. He did not want to return home; after being released from the detention facility, he lived with friends’ parents and tried to become independent. However, he was glad to see his parents when his sister was not at home and was happy when he saw that his parents were happy. He believed that the abuse would not recur, continued therapy and hoped the judge would not treat him as an adult, as he was close to reaching adulthood.
• The victim still could not talk about what had happened to her. Over time, however, she became convinced that the abuse would not recur, wanted her brother to come back home, and did not want him to be tried as an adult. Contacts with her brother, gradually re-established, were good; he helped her when she had problems, such as with the computer. She wanted her parents to be happy; her relationship with her mother improved, and she found the greatest support in her father, in whom she could confide about anything.

The aim of the content of this article was to highlight and emphasise the importance and necessity of continuing positive changes in relation to education, increasing the professionalism, and expertise of professionals in the field of restorative justice (mediators/facilitators) working with juvenile and child victims of criminal offences. This is particularly important for the victims themselves, as well as for all individuals affected by the crime in a broader context. All individuals who come into contact with victims, such as police officers, prosecutors, judges, social and healthcare workers, as well as organisations providing assistance and support to victims and last, but not least, organisations providing restorative justice services, should undergo adequate training. This training should include practical guidelines on how both state and non-state authorities should communicate with minor victims verbally and non-verbally in a child-victim-friendly manner. This communication can potentially be hurtful to victims and may pose a risk of secondary victimisation but, with the right approach, it can also be empowering. To be effective, the training should emphasise the need for a sensitive approach to victims, especially concerning particularly vulnerable victims, and provide specialised expertise focusing on such a specific victim category.

Tomáš Horeháj is a specialist in criminal law and works in the Criminal Law Department, Division of Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Programmes, in the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic.

Tomáš Horeháj studied law at the Trnava University in Trnava, Slovakia, and holds a PhD degree in the field of Criminology/Victimology. He also advocates for and raises awareness about restorative justice in the academic field and lectures to the Probation and Mediation officers as practitioners of the victim-offender mediation and other programmes of restorative justice. His main working tasks at the Ministry of Justice are drafting the strategies and methodological manuals in the field of restorative justice and restorative programmes, researching and analysing the legislative documents drafted by the European Commission and the Council of Europe and their implementation into the national Slovak law and presentation of the application practice and attendance at the events organised by the European Forum for Restorative Justice (EFRJ).

Contact: tomas.horehaj1@justice.sk

* Cases exemplified were introduced during the EFRJ Winter Academy 2024 course ‘The Voice of Children in a Restorative Justice Process.’

Chapman, T., Gellin, M. and Anderson, M. (2015). Toolkit for professionals: implementing a European model for restorative justice with children and young people. Brussels: International Juvenile Justice Observatory.

United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York: United Nations.