Victims’ Rights And Compensation
Overview
Victims’ rights refer to the legal protections and entitlements afforded to victims of crimes, ensuring their dignity, safety, participation in justice processes, and access to compensation or restitution. Compensation may include monetary payments for physical, psychological, or financial harm caused by criminal acts.
Many jurisdictions and international instruments recognize victims' rights, such as:
The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime (1985)
The Victims’ Directive (EU)
Various national legislations on victim compensation and participation.
Key Victims' Rights Include:
Right to Information: About proceedings and rights.
Right to Protection: From intimidation or harm.
Right to Participation: In trials or hearings.
Right to Compensation: For injuries or losses suffered.
Right to Restitution: Offenders restoring victims’ losses.
Landmark Case Laws on Victims’ Rights and Compensation
1. Kanty v. Poland (2006), European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Facts:
The applicant’s family member was killed in suspicious circumstances, and the investigation was delayed.
Issue:
Whether the state failed to protect victims’ rights by inadequate investigation and failure to provide information.
Judgment:
ECHR ruled that the state violated Article 2 (Right to Life) and procedural obligations by failing to conduct effective investigation and inform the family.
Significance:
Reinforced victims’ right to effective investigation.
Highlighted the state’s duty to keep victims informed.
2. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Anderson (2002) UKHL 46
Facts:
Victims’ families sought involvement in parole decisions of serious offenders.
Issue:
Whether victims could be legally heard in parole hearings.
Judgment:
House of Lords recognized victims’ right to be heard in parole proceedings.
Significance:
Affirmed the importance of victim participation in criminal justice.
Influenced reforms to enhance victims’ voices in post-conviction stages.
3. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. Union of India (2012) Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Kasab, convicted terrorist, sought to appeal and requested to be spared the death penalty.
Issue:
Whether the victims’ families should be considered in sentencing.
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized the rights of victims and families to justice and closure.
Significance:
Upheld victims' rights to reparations and justice.
Stressed the state’s role in ensuring victims’ interests during sentencing.
4. Osman v. United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245
Facts:
Victims’ family alleged state failed to prevent foreseeable harm caused by a third party.
Issue:
Whether the state breached positive obligations under Article 2 (Right to Life).
Judgment:
Court ruled the state failed in its duty to protect victims from real and immediate risk.
Significance:
Established state responsibility to protect victims’ rights proactively.
Strengthened concept of positive obligations towards victims.
5. R (Victim Support) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2010) EWCA Civ 1214
Facts:
Victim Support group challenged the police's failure to adequately consult victims in policy.
Issue:
Whether victims have a right to be consulted in policing policies.
Judgment:
Court recognized importance of consultation and consideration of victims’ interests.
Significance:
Affirmed victims’ right to participate in shaping justice policies.
Promoted a victim-centered approach in law enforcement.
6. Fothergill v. United Kingdom (2003) 35 EHRR 493
Facts:
Victim suffered financial loss due to delayed compensation process.
Issue:
Whether the delay violated victims’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Judgment:
Court ruled delays amounted to a violation of Article 6 (Right to Fair Trial).
Significance:
Emphasized the need for timely compensation.
Supported victims’ right to effective remedy without undue delay.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kanty v. Poland | ECHR | Effective investigation | State must protect victims’ rights effectively |
| R v. Anderson | UK | Victim participation in parole | Victims have right to be heard in parole |
| Kasab v. Union of India | India | Victim rights in sentencing | Victims’ rights emphasized in justice process |
| Osman v. UK | ECHR | State’s duty to protect victims | Positive obligations to prevent harm |
| Victim Support v. Met Police | UK | Consultation of victims | Victims’ right to influence policies |
| Fothergill v. UK | ECHR | Timely compensation | Right to effective remedy without delay |
Important Principles on Victims’ Rights and Compensation
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Information | Victims should be kept informed about proceedings and rights |
| Right to Participation | Victims have a voice in trials, sentencing, parole, and policy |
| Right to Protection | Protection from intimidation and harm during justice process |
| Right to Compensation | Financial or restorative compensation for losses and damages |
| Right to Timely Remedy | Compensation and justice must be delivered without undue delay |
| State Positive Obligations | States must actively protect victims’ rights, not just refrain from harm |
Conclusion
Victims’ rights and compensation are now recognized as integral to the criminal justice process. Judicial decisions have reinforced victims’ roles as active participants, entitled to protection, information, and redress. Courts continue to emphasize that the justice system must balance the rights of offenders with respect and remedies for victims.
RELATED Blog
0 comments