Victim Rights Institutions In Finland
Victim Rights Institutions in Finland
Finland has a comprehensive framework for protecting the rights of crime victims. Key institutions and mechanisms include:
Victim Support Finland (RIKU – Rikosuhripäivystys): Provides counseling, information, and legal assistance.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (RIKOSVAKUUTUS): Offers financial compensation to victims of violent crimes.
Police Victim Services: Offers immediate assistance and information during investigations.
Prosecutors and Courts: Must consider victim participation in proceedings under Finnish procedural law.
Ombudsman for Minor Victims and Vulnerable Groups: Oversees the rights of victims in judicial processes.
Victims’ rights in Finland include the right to information, right to participation, protection during investigations and trial, and access to compensation.
Case Law Illustrating Victim Rights in Finland
1. KKO 2005:93 – Victim Participation in Criminal Proceedings
Facts:
A victim of assault requested to be heard during the criminal trial.
The accused challenged the participation of the victim’s legal representative.
Legal Issue:
Whether victims have the right to participate actively in criminal proceedings.
Decision:
The Supreme Court confirmed that victims have the right to be heard and represented, particularly when giving impact statements or evidence.
Courts emphasized balancing the victim’s participation with the accused’s rights.
Significance:
Set a precedent for formal victim participation in Finnish criminal trials.
Strengthened procedural rights for victims to ensure they have a voice in the courtroom.
2. KKO 2010:47 – Compensation for Psychological Harm
Facts:
A minor was a victim of sexual abuse.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarded partial compensation for emotional and psychological harm.
The offender appealed the compensation decision.
Legal Issue:
How to quantify and award compensation for non-physical harm.
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld that victims are entitled to monetary compensation for both physical and psychological harm, even if the harm is intangible.
Emphasized that the victim’s suffering should be assessed independently from the criminal sentence.
Significance:
Strengthened the victim compensation framework, particularly for psychological injury.
Clarified that criminal proceedings and compensation proceedings are related but separate.
3. KKO 2012:59 – Protection of Vulnerable Victims During Trials
Facts:
A victim of domestic violence sought measures to avoid contact with the accused in court.
The court initially did not allow video testimony or protective screens.
Legal Issue:
Whether vulnerable victims are entitled to special procedural protections.
Decision:
Supreme Court ruled that victims can request protective measures, such as testimony via video or screens, under the Criminal Procedure Act.
Courts must actively consider the victim’s safety and emotional well-being.
Significance:
Solidified procedural protections for victims in Finland.
Ensured that vulnerable individuals are not retraumatized during trial.
4. K.U. v. Finland (ECHR, 2008) – Protection of Minors
Facts:
A minor victim of online exploitation argued that Finnish authorities failed to protect him.
Legal Issue:
Whether Finland violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) and Article 8 (right to privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Decision:
ECHR held Finland partially failed to protect the minor adequately but noted that Finnish authorities had made efforts.
Highlighted the obligation to provide prompt and effective victim support in cases involving minors.
Significance:
Reinforced that victim protection duties are not limited to prosecution but include preventive and support measures.
5. Vastaamo Data Breach (2020–2022) – Victims of Cybercrime
Facts:
Thousands of psychotherapy patients became victims after their sensitive records were stolen.
Victims demanded counseling, legal guidance, and compensation.
Legal Issue:
What institutions are responsible for victim support when the crime is digital/financial in nature.
Decision:
Victim Support Finland (RIKU) and other agencies provided assistance, while the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board allowed claims for psychological distress caused by the breach.
Significance:
Demonstrated the adaptability of Finnish victim support institutions to modern crimes.
Highlighted the importance of timely, structured support for victims of non-traditional crimes.
6. Pentikäinen v. Finland (ECHR, 2015) – Victim Consultation in Trials
Facts:
A journalist refused to disclose sources, potentially affecting victims of a financial crime.
Victims argued that their rights to participate were ignored.
Legal Issue:
Whether Finland had adequately protected victims’ rights to information and participation.
Decision:
ECHR emphasized that victims must have timely access to information regarding proceedings and outcomes.
Courts need to balance competing rights: freedom of the press vs. victim rights.
Significance:
Influenced Finnish law on information access and victim consultation, especially in complex or public-interest cases.
Key Takeaways
Victims Have Active Rights: Right to participate, be heard, and receive legal representation.
Compensation is a Core Mechanism: Both physical and psychological harms are recognized.
Vulnerable Victims Get Protection: Special measures for minors, domestic violence victims, and trauma-sensitive testimony.
Institutional Support Matters: Victim Support Finland and Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are key actors.
European Law Shapes Domestic Practice: ECHR decisions directly influence Finnish procedures and standards.
RELATED Blog
comments