Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological Studies, 1(1) : 31-38; 2022
Online ISSN: Applied For
Global Advances in Victimology and
Psychological Studies
Dobrinka Chankova
Full Professor of Criminal Procedure Law at South-West University, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria; chankova@law.swu.bg
Latest European Achievements and New Challenges in
Victimology and Victim Protection: Towards victim-centred
criminal justice system
Recently, crime victim protection has become a global
concern. It is a high priority for supranational institutions
like the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU),
Council of Europe, national governments, even the
non-governmental sector. e increased crime rate,
the numerous criminal “innovations”, and enhanced
victimisation not only on European but on global scales
required an adequate response. However, in the rule of
law state in which we pretend to live, combating and
prosecuting crime should be exercised provided the
human rights of both oenders and victims are strictly
observed. While the European Convention of Human
Rights, respectively the case-law of the European Court
of Human Rights long time has protected, in my opinion,
predominantly the oender’s rights, victims, despite
Keywords: Crime Victim Protection, European Instruments, Recent Victimology Advancements, Restorative Justice
Abstract
This paper explores the recent achievements of victimology thought that have been considered while the European Union
and other European and global institutions approve new instruments protecting crime victims. After 2011 when the
“Victim package” was adopted by the European Commission the victim of crime become a subject of privileged attention
for the European penal policy. Important acts as Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and the Council on the
European Protection Order, Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament establishing the minimum standards on the
rights, support and protection of victims of crime, the EU Strategy on victims' rights 2020-2025 have been approved and
are in a process of implementation. These instruments, as well as some fundamental Council of Europe and United Nations
documents are under scrutiny. The issue of wider introduction of restorative justice is raised as an indisputable instrument
the environment more friendly for victims are indicated and some decisions are offered.
Research Article
Latest European Achievements and New Challenges in Victimology and Victim Protection...
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological StudiesVol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
32
e Roadmap for Strengthening the Rights and
Protection of Victims provided for several groups of
measures:
• Adoption of a Directive on minimum standards
on the rights, support and protection of victims of
crime and replacing Council Framework Decision
2001/220/JHA of 2001 on the standing of victims
in criminal proceedings.
• Adoption of a Recommendation or
recommendations on practical measures and best
practices for the implementation of this Directive.
• Adoption of the Regulation on the mutual
recognition of protection measures in civil
matters to supplement the already submitted dra
Directive on the European Protection Order on
actions in criminal cases.
• Review of Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004
on the compensation of victims of crime.
Over the years, the European Union has consistently
implemented these goals and has taken appropriate
actions.
Firstly, Directive 2011/99/EU of the European
Parliament and the Council on the European Protection
Order2, establishing a mechanism for mutual recognition
of protection measures in criminal matters between the
Member States was adopted. e Directive was initiated
by a proposal of 12 Member States, including Bulgaria,
and was adopted by all members of the EU, except
Denmark and Ireland, with a forecast of issuing 100 000
European protection orders per year. e objectives of the
Directive are:
• To facilitate and improve the protection provided
to victims or potential victims of crimes that travel
between the EU Member States.
• To avoid the necessity to create parallel proceedings
for the use of a protection measure.
• To prevent new crimes and mitigate the eects of
previous oences.
some essential international instruments adopted, have
remained marginalised in domestic and international law.
Happily, during the last decade, these changed. As an
engine for this signicant shi, I identify the European
Union, which tried to reach a balance between the
oenders’ and victims’ rights. In 2009 the Council of the
EU adopted a Roadmap for strengthening procedural
rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal
proceedings1. Several directives followed - about the
right to information, access to lawyer, translation
and interpretation, strengthening the presumption
of innocence, etc. Soon aer that, with a resolution
from 2011, a Roadmap for Strengthening the Rights
and Protection of Victims of Crime, in particular in the
framework of criminal proceedings1, was adopted too. is
was the actual shi of the paradigm, the expression of the
tendency in the European policy in criminal justice for
enhanced protection of victims of crime, which has taken
note from the latest achievements of victimology theory.
Although some signicant for victim’s rights and dierent
kinds of crime victims acts have been already approved
within the Union, such as Council Framework Decision
2001/220/ JHA of 15 March 2001 on the legal status
of victims of crime in criminal proceedings, Council
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating
terrorism, Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 on the
compensation of victims of crime, etc., the true “boom”
came in 2011 when the European Commission announced
with the Roadmap the development and adoption of the
so-called “Victims Package”, which included a number of
essential tools.
In its resolution of 2011, the Council of the EU
explicitly and emphatically states that victims’ rights are
high on the agenda and actions should be taken at the level
of the Union to provide adequate protection. is was
because the way the victims are treated by the authorities
determines the eectiveness of EU justice systems in the
eyes of the general public. So, the crime victim becomes
the new “icon” of the European penal policy.
1Ocial Journal of the European Union C 295, 4.12.2009, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.html
2Ocial Journal of the European Union C 178, 28.06.2011, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.html
Dobrinka Chankova
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological Studies 33
Vol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
e Directive lays down rules allowing a judicial or
equivalent body in a Member State in which a measure is
adopted to protect a person from a criminal act
committed by another person that could jeopardise their
life, physical or psychological integrity, dignity, personal
freedom or sexual integrity, to issue a European protection
order (EPO) enabling a competent authority in another
Member State to continue the protection of the person on
the territory of that other Member State. Adequate victim
protection includes activating appropriate mechanisms
to prevent a repeat oence or even a new, more severe
crime (gender-based violence, harassment, abduction,
human tracking or sexual exploitation, etc.) by the same
aggressor against the same sacrice (Chankova, 2012).
e EPO Directive provides for the Member States to
bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 11
January 2015 and in such a way ensures higher standards
for protecting the rights of the victims of crimes. e
Directive is a balanced tool, taking into account all
interests. It is currently transposed in all the Member
States bound by it by the adoption of national laws.
Bulgaria also adopted the European Protection Order Act
in 2015.
However, the implementation of the EPO Directive
was not so great as expected. e existing wide variety
of legal systems and protection orders within European
states are causing considerable diculties and reducing
the number and scope of European orders issued.
e European Commission found out that aer the
transposition of the EPO Directive, only a minimal
number of European protection orders were issued and
applied in the Union. Most Member States do not have a
registration system for the protection measures they have
undertaken. is puts citizens in a dilemma to restrict
their mobility or to retain, albeit in limited thresholds, the
protection measure. ese and many other problems led
to the adoption of the European Parliament Resolution of
19 April 2018 on the implementation of Directive 2011/99/
EU on the European Protection Order3. It requires the
established “gap” in communication and coordination
between issuing and executing countries to be overcome.
To that purpose, transnational cooperation and
standardisation and digitisation of European protection
orders are strongly recommended. Following scientic
and technological progress, it even promotes the use of
GPS technologies, relevant applications in smartphones
and other innovations, not only for persons with
protection measures but also for further potential and
actual victims, especially victims of violence based on
gender. No recent reliable statistics are available due to
the restricted movement of people during the COVID-19
pandemic, but there are indications that the situation is
improving.
In 2012, Directive 2012/29/EU of the European
Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 was adopted
establishing the minimum standards on the rights, support
and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA4. e adoption of
Directive 2012/29/EU (Victims’ Rights Directive) was
conditioned by the following circumstances:
According to the ocial statistics on a European scale,
more than 30 million crimes are registered each year in
the EU, not calculating non-reported oences. Oen,
crimes aect more than one victim, and along with them
suer their relatives. It is estimated that about 75 million
people become victims of crime each year. At the same
time, the 2001 Framework Decision has not been fully
enforced and implemented, and governments within the
Union have failed to ensure the due protection of victims
of crime.
In the Victims’ Rights Directive envisaged are a number
of specic instruments addressing particular needs of
victims of a certain type of crimes. ere is, however, a
common understanding that minimum standards for the
rights of all victims were necessary, regardless of the kind
of oence or circumstances and place of its execution. e
Victims’ Rights Directive responded to this need; that is
why in the victimology theory, it is oen called the New
Magna Charta of Victims’ Rights.
3Ocial Journal of the European Union L 338/2, 21.12.2011, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.html
4Ocial Journal of the European Union C 390, 18.11.2019, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.html
Latest European Achievements and New Challenges in Victimology and Victim Protection...
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological StudiesVol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
34
e Directive is a pretty good instrument, paying
due attention to victims right to appropriate information
so that they can eectively participate in the crimina
process and defend their rights. It advocates that victims
of crime should be recognised as such and treated with
respect, discretion and professionalism without any
discrimination. In all contacts with a competent body
acting within the criminal proceedings, there should
be taken into account the personal circumstances
and immediate needs, age, sex, possible disability and
maturity of the crime victims, while at the same time their
physical, mental and moral integrity is fully respected. It
is stated that victims of crime should be protected from
secondary and repeated victimisation, intimidation and
retaliation, receive adequate support for faster recovery
and have sucient access to justice – the critical points of
contemporary victimology, which the document observes.
e Directive standards, although called minimal, are
high, indeed. At the same time, the possibility remains for
the Member States to extend the rights contained therein
to provide more comprehensive protection for victims.
e Victims’ Rights Directive pays particular attention to
certain categories of victims who need specic protection
- children, disabled victims, victims of violence, especially
gender-based violence. is is the next achievement of
modern victimology – enhanced support of particularly
vulnerable victims, involving civil society organisations
(Center for the Study of Democracy, 2015). e subject of
attention of the Directive is also the individual assessment
of victims in order to identify their specic protection
needs - so essential for their proper treatment. Moreover,
in the frames of the European project “Towards a more
responsive victim-centred approach of the criminal
justice system” (RE-JUST), an Action plan for developing
victim-centred and trauma-informed criminal justice
systems was oered. Trauma-sensitive communication
is recommended. Multidisciplinary cooperation,
inter-agency coordination and transnational referral
mechanism across the European Union are considered
vital (Berbec, Fernández, et al., 2020).
Due to the exceptional importance of the Directive,
the European Commission in 2013 issued Guidance to the
Member States on its transposition and implementation5.
Although legally non-binding, they are a credible
interpretation of EU law in this area and are relevant to
the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European
Union.
Recent European surveys show that the Directive
has been transposed in most EU countries, but not
always entirely. is applies to Bulgaria, too, regrettably.
Some deciencies in regulation have been discovered -
e.g. Art.12 - the right of guarantees within the context
of restorative justice services. e Directive does not
suciently promote restorative justice (RJ), which is
considered by the theory and practice benecial to victims
(Gavrielides, 2014); hence, RJ is not widely used in all
European countries. Currently, open public consultation
on the evaluation of the Directive is going; hopefully, it
will be revised, and better results will be achieved. But the
perception remains that it is dicult to comply with many
divergent measures, oen from dierent legal systems - at
the level of the European Union, the Council of Europe,
national legislation. It can be concluded that a common
European Code for Victims is needed to overcome the
problems of fragmentary international regulation and
domestic legislation and to ensure uniform protection for
all victims of crime in a European context. Probably it will
be a step towards the adoption of the UN Convention on
Victims, remaining long years as a dra.
e last component of the EU Victims package -
Review of Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 on the
compensation of victims of crime is not nalised yet.
But in 2019, the milestone report of the Special Adviser
Mrs Joelle Milquet to the President of the European
Commission entitled “Strengthening victims’ rights:
from compensation to reparation” was published. It oers
5Ocial Journal of the European Union L 315/57, 14.11.2012, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.html
Dobrinka Chankova
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological Studies 35
Vol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
a totally new right-based approach to victims, instead of
the current needs-based approach, a shi from monetary
compensation to full reparation, restitution, support and
care. Many well-grounded proposals are oered in this
report, e.g. advance payment of the compensation from
the state, shortly aer the crime, when the victims feel
most vulnerable and helpless, and not aer the conviction,
respectively plea bargaining; covering medical and other
urgent expenses, overcoming the signicant dierences
in the compensation sums in separate counties, etc. e
actual advancement of the victimology theory is the
concept that the victim is no longer pleading for help
based on their vulnerability but demanding that the state
take it seriously what it owes to the individuals living on
its territory and their human rights. e state is no longer
in the comfortable and patronising position of the Good
Samaritan but a duty–bearer indebted to the individuals
living under its jurisdiction as rights–holders (Milquet,
2019).
Moreover, states should cease to act primarily from
their solid and high position and regard compensation
as an act of benevolence, but rather as an obligation to
their citizens to whom they have not ensured freedom
and security and who have been victimised. It is not
heretical to think about the provision of compensation
by the state together with the redress by the perpetrator,
due to the exceptional nature of the circumstances in
which the victim found himself, without provoking the
concepts of unjust enrichment or positive discrimination,
and to work for the proclamation of victims’ rights as
fundamental human rights.
So, it must be acknowledged that there has been a
signicant evolution in the approach and treatment of the
victim of crime. And although the rights of the victim have
not yet been elevated to the level of fundamental human
rights, or at least not explicitly enshrined as such, in the
basic universal and regional international instruments,
in the constitutions and national laws of all modern
developed countries claiming to be rule-of-law states,
the protection of victims of wrongful acts violating their
rights and interests is an inevitable commitment of public
authorities. is understanding is supported by Art. 13 of
the European Convention on Human Rights and Art. 47
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights governing the
right to an eective remedy. e doctrine and the legislator
accept that the victims of crimes have the right to access
justice, and the function of the criminal justice system is
to “straighten things out”, to restore balance. erefore,
when a crime has been committed, and the victim’s
rights are aected, he or she can reasonably expect - and
even demand - to be protected. A similar interpretation
is contained in the case-law of the European Court of
Human Rights.
is vision is shared in the EU Fundamental Rights
Agency numerous documents (2014, 2019), also in the
new EU Strategy on victims’ rights 2020-20256.
Taking into account the global trend of the
vulnerability of each of us, especially the increased risk in
a pandemic and quarantine, when the cases of domestic
and sexual violence, cybercrime, hate crime and others
raise, the strengthening of the framework for victim
support and protection is becoming critical. At the same
time, the Strategy recognises that due to the fragmentary
nature of the relevant regulation, as well as due to
other factors, victims are not able to fully enjoy their
rights within the Union. e criticism is not only of the
incomplete transposition of the directives by the states
but also of the creation of practical preconditions for
their implementation. It is believed that much more can
be done to fully empower victims. In this regard, aplomb
is placed on eective communication and building a
safe environment for them to report crimes. Global and
national campaigns to raise the awareness of victims and
to improve the training of law enforcement agencies to
work with them are entirely justied.
A special emphasis of the Strategy is the most vulnerable
victims - children, victims of terrorism, of gender-based,
sexual and domestic violence. To that purpose, the
European Commission recommends the construction
of family houses as a safe place for them, where they can
receive support and advice. e victims of racism and
xenophobia and the members of the LGBTI society are
also a concern. Despite the proverbial sensitivity and even
6DG JUSTICE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT related to the transposition and implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the
Europe an Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support
and protection of vic tims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA-Ref. Ares (2013)3763804
- 19/12/2013, https://ec.europa. eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/criminal-justice/protecting-victims-
rights/victims-rights-eu_en#documents
Latest European Achievements and New Challenges in Victimology and Victim Protection...
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological StudiesVol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
36
resistance in some countries, evolution is needed in this
regard - legal, moral, psychological, administrative, etc.
e victimology thought and the European Victims Rights
Strategy repeatedly underline the need for enhanced care
for victims of disabilities, the elderly, victims of organised
crime and, above all, the ongoing tracking in human
beings. Newer arguments are presented for the necessity
of privileged protection of migrant victims, including
those resulting from climate change, as well as victims of
detention. e intention to build a Platform for Victims’
Rights and to appoint a Victims’ Rights Coordinator is to
be welcomed. However, they should not rest intentions,
even in the current hard times.
e theory has always insisted on better education on
victimology of the young people, practitioners, the whole
society. Now, this recommendation is more valid than
ever.
Speaking about the EU achievements beneting
victims, although with some approximation, the
European Investigation Order Directive 2014 deserves
to be mentioned as this relatively new mechanism
for cooperation between countries helps the crime to
be investigated, the oender punished and victims -
protected. Moreover, in the current Internet and digital
era, when the role of e-evidence is essential for detecting
many computers and other related crimes, the European
Commission proposed on 17 April 2018 new rules in
the form of a Regulation of the European Parliament and
the Council on European Production and Preservation
Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters and
aDirective of the European Parliament and of the Council
laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of
legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence
in criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, the COVID-19
pandemic delayed the process of their adoption, so this
challenge remains too.
e role of the Council of Europe for victims’
protection should also be recognised- historically, many
conventions and recommendations have been adopted,
improving the “climate” for victims.
e recent years have put a new regulatory challenge
on the countries - the Council of Europe Convention on
Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and
Domestic Violence of 2011 (Council of Europe, 2011),
also known as the Istanbul Convention. A number of
member states of the Council of Europe have already
ratied the document, others have only signed it, and
in states like Bulgaria, there has even been considerable
resistance at the level of the institutions and the general
public. Although accompanied by many contradictions
and debates, the Convention is seen as a fundamental
and comprehensive human rights instrument covering
several forms of violence against women, which sets an
ambitious standard for the prevention, protection and
support of victims, as well as some requirements towards
the material and procedural legislation of the states.
More recently, at the end of 2018, the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe also adopted
Recommendation CM/Rec (2018) 8 to the Member States
concerning Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters7. As
explicitly mentioned in its preamble, a prerequisite
for its adoption is the increasing interest in RJ by the
Member States, which considers its benets to criminal
justice systems and victims in particular. At the same
time, it is noted that RJ development in the countries is
dierent, exible and asymmetrical. For this upward but
still uneven distribution, where the RJ’s potential is not
fully utilised, there is much scientic evidence that the
recommendation takes into account. e value of the
Act comes mainly from the new strong impetus given to
the Member States, which should provide their citizens
with the privileged opportunity to benet from the RJ.
is is necessary because all European citizens should
have equal rights and options. It is unacceptable, from an
orthodox legal point of view, due to inaction or negligence
of their commitments, states to deprive individuals under
their jurisdiction of the merits of the RJ. erefore, the
recommendation urges the governments of the Member
States to comply with the principles set out in the Annex
to it, and when developing the RJ to make its text available
7Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/BG/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0258&from=EN
Dobrinka Chankova
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological Studies 37
Vol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
to all national authorities, agencies and individuals
concerned, and rst of all judges, prosecutors, police,
prisons, probation services, children’s agencies, victims
and restorative practices. e potential of RJ for crime
victims is the key theme of 2021 International RJ week
(21-28 November), according to the main promotor - the
European Forum of Restorative Justice8.
Moreover, recently many cities in Europe, e.g. in
the UK - Bristol, Hull; in Belgium- Leuven; in Italy -
Palermo, Como; in Poland - Gdansk, Wroclaw and in
other countries have acquired or are working to obtain
the status of Restorative City. is does not require a
change in legislation - national or local, just a perception
of a restorative ethos and ideology and practice. In
schools and universities, municipalities, neighbourhoods,
institutions and entire ecosystems of these cities, the
idea of restoration is on a pedestal. Everything is done
in the gentlest, ecological, humane, restorative way
possible. is is especially true for conict resolution and
decision-making based on restorative values - inclusion,
participation, respect, responsibility, solidarity. e aim is
to strengthen relations, encourage active civic behaviour,
build a victim-friendly environment and view conict
as an opportunity for change, not so much as a problem.
is idea deserves attention.
e latest input in this direction came from the UN,
launching in 2020 the second edition of the UN Handbook
of RJ (United Nations, 2020, the rst edition from 2006),
which is helpful guidance for member-states in their
eorts to introduce new models of RJ as a more humane
and modern paradigm of criminal justice and a better
response to crime.
For a long time, RJ was considered appropriate when
it came to minor acts committed by juveniles or persons
for whom the crime was a random fact in life. e practice
has shown, and doctrine has evolved signicantly, that RJ
is particularly relevant in cases of serious encroachment.
us, it is now unquestionably accepted that RJ performs
exceptionally well in a wide range of situations, including
serious crimes involving multiple victims or perpetrators,
hate crimes, intra-group conicts, and a wide range of
systemic or institutionalised human rights violations.
It makes it possible to fully use its therapeutic function
in relation to the trauma experienced and brings other
benets for the victims, related to the guarantees for
their increased safety, the tools for overcoming possible
imbalances, etc. us, it has recently become clear that
RJ is particularly applicable to intimate partner violence,
namely domestic violence, sexual violence, violence
against children, hate crimes, etc. (Sherman and Strang,
2012).
e brief overview shows that the acts, adopted
consistently and systematically over time, are an
expression of increased care for victims of crime in
Europe and globally. Undoubtedly, there is a common
will among international institutions and the modern
rule of law states to ensure the security of citizens and
the humane treatment and protection of victims of crime.
Sometimes, however, there is a signicant discrepancy
between good intentions and results, which has already
been established at dierent levels. And while the legal
framework, although with some approximation, can be
considered satisfactory, the great challenge remains its
practical implementation, which is the criterion for the
adequate protection of victims (Chankova, 2019).
ere are signs that victimology theory and practice
are moving in the right direction to better protect the rights
of victims of crime. e commitment of the institutions
is becoming more and more visible, the role of the
specialised non-governmental organisations is growing,
the academic circles are giving their contribution. But
much remains to be done in the future.
References
Chankova, D. (2012). “e European Protection Order: A
New Instrument in Support of Victims of Crime”, e
European Future of Bulgaria, Collection of Materials from
the Annual Conference of the Faculty of Law, pp. 200-
205, Soa: University of National and World Economy
Centre for the Study of Democracy (2015) Supporting
Vulnerable Groups Before the State, Soa
8Available from: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016808e35f3
Latest European Achievements and New Challenges in Victimology and Victim Protection...
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological StudiesVol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
38
Berbec, S., Fernández, C. et al. (2020). Action plan for develop-
ing victim-centred and trauma-informed criminal justice,
funded by Justice Program of the European Union
https://csd.bg/fileadmin/user_upload/publications_
library/les/2021_05/Action_Plan_RE-JUST_EN.pdf,
last accessed on 11 October 2021
Gavrielides, T. (ed.) (2014). A victim-led criminal justice sys-
tem: Addressing the paradox, London; Projects, funded
by Justice Programme of the EU: “Restorative Justice
in Europe: Safeguarding Victims and Empowering
Professionals”, 2012-2014; “Developing Directive-
Compatible Practices for the Identication, Assessment
and Referrals of Victims, 2017, etc.
Milquet, J. (2019) “Strengthening victims’ rights: from com-
pensation to reparation”[online]. Available from: https://
ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/strengthening_vic-
tims_rights_-from_compensation_to_reparation.pdf
last accessed on 27 November 2020
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
(2014). Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature
of support for victims. Luxembourg: Publications Oce
of the European Union
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
(2019) Victims’ rights as standards of criminal justice.
Justice for victims of violent crime. Part I, Luxembourg:
Publications Oce of the European Union
Council of Europe (2011) Council of Europe Convention
on the Prevention of and Fight against Violence against
Women and Domestic Violence. Council of Europe
Treaties N210; www.coe.int Handbook on restorative jus-
tice programmes, second edition, UNODC, 2020
Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (2012) “Restorative Justice
as Evidence-based Sentencing”, in Petersilia, J. and
Reitz, K. (eds.) e Oxford Handbook of Sentencing
and Corrections, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
215–243
Chankova, D., G. Georgieva. (2019). Towards Coherent
European Crime Victims Policies аnd Practices.
International Conference “Knowledge-Based
Organisation”, vol. 25, 2019, pp. 122-127, Conference
proceedings, 25th KBO Conference 2019, “Nicolae
Balcescu” Land Forces Academy, Sibiu, Romania
