Restorative Justice and Domestic Violence: A Question of Access and Understanding

In France, since 2020 the restriction of access to restorative justice measures for victims and perpetrators involved in domestic violence may appear marginal, yet it reflects a lack of understanding of the legal, ethical, and philosophical framework of restorative justice, as well as a lingering confusion between criminal mediation and restorative justice/victim–offender dialogue.

This relative opposition is symptomatic of several phenomena. On the one hand, the law of 30 July 2020, which incorporated certain articles of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (known as the Istanbul Convention), prohibits the use of criminal mediation in cases of domestic violence. On the other hand, confusion persists between “criminal mediation” and restorative justice mediation — not to mention the opposition of certain feminist associations to the use of restorative justice, and the necessary vigilance required when implementing restorative justice measures in such cases.

Until the summer of 2020, criminal mediation in domestic violence cases was an option widely used by the courts. This type of mediation met the Department of Justice's needs for the rapid handling of cases and the avoidance of legal proceedings while placing the least possible demand on human resources. 

However, the use of criminal mediation in cases of domestic violence was heavily criticised by many feminist and victim support organisations, and, in 2014, the Istanbul Convention was ratified, prohibiting the use of mediation for such offences. These groups rightly highlighted the risks of such practices: a lack of understanding of coercive control mechanisms, insufficient specialised training for professionals, and the failure to provide effective preventive or protective responses for adult, adolescent, and child victims of such violence. In the wake of this legislation, restorative justice quickly became viewed as associated with criminal mediation, and its application to such cases came under intense scrutiny.

Restorative justice and criminal mediation have often been conflated in their aims, their processes, and even their safeguards and conditions. However, in many respects, the two measures differ considerably.

Criminal mediation can be ordered as an alternative to prosecution and may be imposed on participants, often presented as the only available judicial response. For example, following a complaint for intimate partner violence, a victim was sometimes faced with two options: criminal mediation or dismissal of the case. Needless to say, the first option was most often chosen, effectively forcing women who had suffered domestic violence to engage in dialogue with their aggressor and reach an agreement. It was the only response the justice system was willing to provide and support.

By contrast, restorative justice in France is fundamentally distinct in both its application and its regulatory framework. Participation in a restorative justice process has no bearing on criminal proceedings: in essence, it cannot replace a penal sanction or any other form of judicial response. It should also be noted that a restorative justice process in France has no impact on victim compensation or the execution of sentences. Participation in a restorative justice process requires that the offender acknowledge the facts, and that all parties give informed and voluntary consent. Moreover, cases must also have formal judicial involvement, such as a formal complaint or, at minimum, an official report. Finally, these processes must be facilitated by one or more trained professionals under the supervision of judicial authorities.

Despite these legal safeguards, that are consistent with the stipulations of the Istanbul Convention, opposition from certain feminist movements persists. In 2024, for instance, an evaluation report by a collective of specialised associations — including FNCIDFF, Solidarité Femmes, Feminists Against Cyber Harassment, La Cimade, and Le Planning Familial — was submitted to GREVIO, opposing the use of restorative justice. The report argues that, despite acknowledging the existence of legal guarantees, restorative justice remains incompatible with a feminist approach to violence against women.

On the 15 September 2025, GREVIO — the independent expert body responsible for monitoring implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence — published its first thematic evaluation report, “Building Trust by Providing Support, Protection and Justice.” In contrast to the aforementioned report, GREVIO’s Recommendation No. 168 recognises the potential use of restorative justice in light of the safeguards provided under Article 10-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, GREVIO also observes that victims’ recourse to restorative justice often stems from necessity; in the absence of effective investigations or prosecutions of the violence they have suffered. GREVIO further emphasises that restorative justice must not replace an effective penal response or the need to send a strong message to perpetrators of violence against women. Lastly, GREVIO acknowledges that restorative justice may help victims overcome trauma and achieve recognition of victimhood, while acknowledging that restorative justice alone cannot not adequately address the systemic nature of gender-based violence linked to inequalities between women and men.

These recommendations, far from constraining us, call upon us — as professionals and practitioners of restorative justice — to act on several fronts. Firstly, through ongoing, rigorous, and engaged training aimed at recognising patterns of coercive control and domination experienced by many victims. Secondly, by ensuring that support for victims seeking restorative justice measures remains faithful to the legal framework and does not serve as a “sub-judicial” substitute in cases where judicial proceedings have been inadequate or absent.

For example, countless victims report hearing nothing about their complaints — sometimes years later — with no interviews, no confrontation, and no information on how their cases have progressed within the criminal justice system. In such situations, restorative justice may appear as a last resort — a response sought in the absence of penal action, acknowledgement, support, protection, or justice.

However, this situation is not experienced by all victims of domestic or familial violence. Increasing judicialisation of such cases now allows many victims to consider, beyond the judicial response, their own process of restoration; to act on their own terms, with agency, in a safe, voluntary, and confidential setting, accompanied by rigorously trained professionals.

It is from this standpoint that the GREVIO report offers encouragement: in recognising the restoration of victims not solely through judicial, compensatory, penal, health, or social mechanisms, but by integrating alongside them a restorative dimension.