KOMENTARI ELEKTRONIK
CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN   |   37/2017

Article 62: Possible alternative measures of diversion from criminal prosecution

Previous Next

1Alternative measures of diversion from criminal prosecution may include:

arestorative justice and mediation programmes;

badvising the child and family;

cverbal warning;

çwritten warning;

dmandatory measures;

dhplacement in foster care;

2Several measures foreseen in paragraph 1 of this Article may be applied to the child simultaneously. These measures shall be determined on the basis of the individual assessment report, according to the rules foreseen in Article 47 of this Code.

3Diversion measures shall be reasonable and proportionate to the needs of the child in conflict with the law and the victim. No obligation may be imposed on the child in the course of diversion which may cause loss of dignity, humiliation, or exclusion from the regular educational processes and/or primary employment, as well as harm to the child’s physical and/or mental health.

4Imposition of a diversion measure more severe than the minimum punishment provided for by law for the committed criminal offence shall not be allowed.

5"Alternative measures of diversion foreseen in paragraph 1 of this article shall be taken, where appropriate, by the prosecutor's office or the court. "

Table of Content

      1. The title of Article 62 shortly sets out the core of its content and the principles of child-friendly justice by listing alternative measures for avoiding criminal prosecution. By providing alternative measures, the lawmaker’s intention is to let imprisonment as the last alternative to punishing a child who committed a criminal offense.

       

      1. To avoid child punishment remains the main purpose of Article 62, which is evident in its structure through pertinent material and procedural adjustments. This article refers to extrajudicial programs and processes aimed at mitigating the consequences of the criminal offense, re-education of the accused child, reconciliation or mediation of the parties in conflict, and reintegrating and rehabilitating the accused child and the victim to overcome the physical and psychological consequences of the criminal offense and in order to improve the relationship between the victim and the accused person. The purpose of this provision is to highlight the positive effects of avoiding criminal prosecution. Article 62 provides a wide spectrum of alternatives to it.

       

      1. As a set of measures and programs with elements of legal, social and psychological nature, the purpose of Article 62 is not only to protect the child accused to avoid his criminal prosecution, but at the same time it also takes care of the victim so that the latter is not damaged physically and mentally and is not re-victimized. It intends to link the procedure of establishing and implementing measures to avoid criminal prosecution with the investigation by the prosecutor or trial by a judge, providing as bridge, mediation, educational programs, supervision and family or professional care as appropriate.

       

      1. From the procedural point of view, it is aimed determination of the group of persons involved in a procedure for determining alternative measures, effective in each specific case and for each child through the individual assessment established by competent bodies. Moreover, the aim is to identify the competent bodies and their role in providing measures to avoid criminal prosecution of the child accused of criminal behaviour, which facilitates the social rehabilitation of the accused child and his/her reintegration in society.

       

      1. Article 62 aims to protect the dignity and personality of the child from humiliation, degradation and impairment of physical and mental health in the process of imposing such measures.
      1. Article 62 comprises five paragraphs harmoniously linked to one another in function to the title of the Article. Paragraph 1 has a descriptive character, where all types of alternative measures of diversion from criminal prosecution recognized by this Code are listed under six paragraphs. In this way, this Article reveals the list is exhaustive and at the same time it contains a variety of measures that may be applied either alone or combined with one another.

       

      1. This Article simply lists the possible measures available to be implemented according to the specific case, giving the competent body the possibility to determine the most suitable and most effective measure of diversion for that case. There are measures whose implementation require support through specialized programs and licensed and trained professionals, and other ones easier to implement, such as advising the child or verbal and written warning. However, a special chapter of this this code provides the obligation that only specialized persons deal with cases of criminal justice for children [chapter IV, Articles 25-32].

       

      1. Paragraph 2 of Article 62 refers the competent body to the important content of Article 47 of the CCJC. This reference aims to convey to every implementer of the CCJC that this Article should be read in conjuction with Article 47 which governs the rules for the preparation of the individual assessment of the child. Individual assessment is an important condition for selecting a measure of diversion by the court or the prosecution office. In addition to Article 47 of the CCJC, the implementers of this code should also refer to Article 22 of the CCJC which explains the nature of the individual assessment of the child depending on age, personality, gender, etc. On the other side, all the measures provided in Article 62, item 1, are treated one by one respectively in Articles 63 to 69 of the CCJC [Articles 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 of the CCJC]. This way Article 62 refers the implementing body to the specific arrangements of the diversion measures listed in paragraph 1 of Article 62.

       

      1. In Article 62, there are also elements of an imperative legal language. Paragraph 4 of the Article prohibits the imposition of a diversion measure more severe than the legal sanction foreseen for the criminal offense committed. There are also elements of facultative character in paragraph 3 of Article 62 in the sense that the diversion measure is not compulsory and may not be imposed against the will of the child.
      1. This Article initiates the implementation of one of the important principles of criminal justice for children, child-friendly justice, through a comprehensive and complete list of measures that may be used as alternatives to criminal prosecution and conviction of a child.

       

      1. Article 62 outlines some mandatory procedural rules. Such are: the voluntary nature of the measures; protection of the life and personal dignity of the child; the prohibition of imposing obligations on him/her, and others dictated by the nature of the criminal offense and the personal characteristics of behaviour of the parties involved I the process, the history of the child, the possibility of returning relations to normal, the possibility of rehabilitation of the child and the victim and their reintegration into society.

       

      1. The programs anticipated in the framework of measures of diversion from criminal prosecution are of educational nature for each participant in these proceedings and as such they help the accused child to reintegrate into social life by avoiding re-offending in the future.

       

      1. Alternative measures of diversion from criminal prosecution provided in paragraph 1 of Article 62 are: a) restoration justice and mediation programmes as provided in detail in Articles 63 and 64 of the CCJC; b) advising the child and family, further detailed in Article 65 of the CCJC; c) verbal warning provided in Article 66 of the CCJC; ç) written warning according to Article 67 of the CCJC; d) mandatory measures provided in Article 68 of the CCJC; dh) placement in foster care according to Article 69 of the CCJC.

       

      1. The phrase “alternative measures” contained in the title of Article 62 and its pargraph 1 implies that the measures listed are a choice when another alternative, in principle the last one, is the criminal prosecution of the child and his conviction. The alternatives listed in paragraph 1 of Article 62 are always measures that facilitate the reintegration of the child into society for his future social and professional life.

       

      1. In Article 62 paragraph 1 it is used the expression “diversion from criminal prosecution”, meaning that a child charged for the commission of a criminal offense shall not be criminally prosecuted and shall not be punished by imprisonment if he/she carries out the obligations provided in one or more of the measures listed. According to the Article 3, paragraph 23 “diversion” is an alternative measure for not initiating, suspending or terminating the criminal prosecution of the child in conflict with the law. Hence, diversion deviates from the ordinary way of investigating and adjudicating an accused child for committing a criminal offense. Diversion eliminates the consequences of punishment by deprivation of liberty and the main consequence of being convicted, and these give the accused child more opportunities for rehabilitation and re-socialization. Integration into social, family and professional life is easier for a child if one or more of diversion measures from criminal prosecution are pursued than it would be if he/she were prosecuted and punished by deprivation of liberty, and thus being stigmatized. The possibility of implementing a diversion measure means that the successful realization of an alternative measure for the accused child leads to the non-initiation of a criminal case that has not yet begun or the suspension of criminal prosecution or its total dismissal. Consequently, the legal result is that for the child accused of committing the criminal offense there will be no criminal liability, which is an additional opportunity for him/her to be reintegrated and rehabilitated from the social viewpoint.

       

      1. The phrase “may include” used in paragraph 1 of Article 62 means that an alternative diversion measure may be chosen or not, depending on the individual assessment made for the accused child and from the degree of dangerousness he/she presents to the public in the future. The list of alternative measures of diversion is extended due to possible combinations that the provision itself allows, because of the selection of more than two alternative measures at the same time for the same subject. The Court or the prosecution office before deciding whether to take any diversion measure and which diversion measure will be taken should refer to the individual assessment report of the accused child according to Article 22 of the CCJC. The phrase “based on the individual assessment report of the child” according to the rules in Article 47 of this Code" as provided in paragraph 2 of Article 62 means that the reference to the conditions of Article 47 is mandatory. Prior to taking the measure of diversion, consideration should be given to: the level of development of the child, living conditions, education and development conditions, education, health status, family situation, characteristics of the child’s personality, behavior and needs of the child, including special needs, the risk of committing a criminal offense, and other elements depending on the case and the opportunities to facilitate development and integration of the child into society according to Article 47 of the CCJC.

       

      1. The phrase “shall be reasonable” in item 3 of Article 62 means that if alternative measures protect the child better, care for the preservation of his/her dignity, prevents his physical, mental and emotional/psychological harm, the court, upon the consent of the child, has the right to order it. In such a case “reasonable” means that if this measure is ordered by the court for the benefit of the child and in his/her best interest, it should be taken.

       

      1. The phrase “no obligation may be imposed on the child” means that if the child is not ready to fulfill the obligations related to the application of the alternative measure, or objects them, the diversion may not be ordered by the judge or the prosecutor. It is crucial that the child accused, and/or the child victim shall be aware of how alternative measures will be applied, from which service and by whom, the possible consequences, the various conclusions. Therefore, this clause of Article 62 must be read in conjunction with Article 57, paragraph 2 and Article 59 of the CCJC, which deal with issues of consent for the diversion measure. Voluntary participation in the fulfillment of the alternative measure is a condition. Free consent must be given from the very beginning. Criminal justice bodies take any decision by taking into consideration the best interest of the child according to the CCJC, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 3 and other articles related thereto. The consent given or taken in conditions of threat, intimidation, fraud or any other form of physical or psychological violence is not valid.

       

      1. The words “humiliation, degradation” found in paragraph 3 of Article 62 relate to situations when the child may feel embarrassed, scared, insulted, impaired dignity and reduced self-esteem when implementing an alternative measure. Situations may arise in particular when the child faces the public, a certain social or family circle, with a certain place, and in such cases the court and the prosecution office should carefully select the type of obligation or action to be performed by the child due to the risks in the execution of the measure. For this reason, the choice of measure should not be made arbitrarily, but should be consulted with the child and those who legally protect his/her interests.[1] The phrase “harm to the child’s physical and/or mental health” found in paragraph 3 of Article 62 means that in the selection of the measure, care should be taken to comply with the principle of the best interest of the child in order to avoid harm that may arise due to inadequate work, conducting an activity that causes psychological problems in the ability to think and learn, and in the ability to understand and live with his/her own emotions and the reactions of others. Likewise, the harm may also occur due to the fact that the child is near persons who may damage his or her health and psychological condition.

       

      1. The phrase “imposition of a diversion measure more severe shall not be allowed” means that if there is a minimum punishment for the criminal offense that is lighter than the alternative measure bacause the criminal offense or the perpetrator does not pose great risks, an alternative measure does not make sense. It is imperative imposition of a lighter measure.

       

      1. Paragraph 5 of Article 62 provides that alternative measures of diversion are given, "where appropriate, by the prosecutor’s office or the court." This means that if the criminal prosecution has not started yet, but the case has just come to the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor may decide not to start the criminal prosecution; or if the criminal prosecution has begun and the investigation has been started by the prosecution office, the prosecutor has the right to decide diversion from criminal prosecution and to take an alternative measure, such as mediation, placement in foster care, etc. If the case has been brought for trial in court the judge has the right to decide to divert further adjudication and to take an alternative diversion measure. If during the investigation or during the trial, the prosecutor or judge observes the possibility of taking an alternative measure, they have the right to decide so.

       

      [1] See interpretations of Article 3 of the ECHR, Article 3 Prohibition of Torture “No one may be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. See The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the Republic of Albania by Law No. 8135,dated 31.7.1996.pdf. and The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and its additional protocols, ratified by the Republic of Albania by law No. 8137,dated 31.7.1996.pdf ,  The Convention against Torture and Punishment, or other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the Republic of Albania by law No. 7727, dated 30.06.1993.pdf.

      1. In Albanian legislation, alternatives to punishment have been provided in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Albaniaapproved by Law No. 7895, dated 27.1.1995 and amended[1]. Specifically, the Criminal Code sets out the mandatory measures of medical and educational measures. In Article 59/a it is regulated home confinement and item d) of this Article provides as a category benefitting from such an alternative punishment the case of young adults, under the age of twenty-one, with established medical, study, work or family responsibilities needs; Article 63 of the Criminal Code deals with the obligation to perform community work. Community work means the performance of work by the convicted person with his consent and without reward in public interest or in the interest of an association set out in the verdict for a period ranging from forty to two hundred and forty hours. Community work is performed within a six-month term.

       

      1. It is the first time for Albania to provide at the level of a Code a regulation specified for children, such as Article 62 of the CCJC where alternative measures of diversion from criminal prosecution are dealt with for the accused child. As seen, the Criminal Code has provisions for alternative sentencs, but it did not have a provision specified for children and specified for diversion. It is the first time that alternative measures are provided, such as restorative justice programmes, mediation, advising the child and the family, verbal and written warning and placement in foster care.

       

      1. In other aspects related to paragraph 1, letter a) of Article 62, before the approval of the CCJC, some measures were anticipated in Law No. 10385, datë 24.2.2011 “On mediation in dispute resolution”. Article 2, paragraph 5 of this Law provides: “5. In case of disputes in criminal matters, the court, where the criminal proceeding has initiated, invites the parties to settle through mediation disputes foreseen in paragraph 3 of this article.”. In addition, Article 14, paragraph 1 provided the procedure for mediation in the criminal proceeding and that 1. The court, in line with articles 333 and 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall invite the parties to settle the dispute which is subject to proceedings through mediation, foreseen in article 2, paragraph 3 of this law and by setting a deadline to the parties in line with the nature of the dispute.".

       

      1. Before Law 10385, dated 24.2.2011, the law no. 9090, dated 26.6.2003 “On mediation in dispute resolution” was in force, which provided the evaluation of mediation by the court or the prosecution office.

       

      [1] See laws no. 8175, dated 23.12.1996; no. 8204, dated 10.4.1997; no. 8279, dated 15.1.1998; no. 8733, dated 24.1.2001; no. 9017, dated 6.3.2003; no. 9030, dated 13.3.2003; no. 9086, dated 19.6.2003; no. 9188, dated 12.2.2004; no. 9275, dated 16.9.2004; no. 9686, dated 26.2.2007; no. 9859, dated 21.1.2008; no. 10 023, dated 27.11.2008; no. 23/2012, dated 1.3.2012; no. 144, dated 2.5.2013; no. 98, dated 31.7.2014; no. 176/2014, dated 18.12.2014; no. 135/ 2015, dated 5.12.2015; no. 82/2016, dated 25.7.2016. Decisions of the Constitutional Court: no. 13, dated 29.5.1997; no. 46, dated 28.8.1997; no. 58, dated 5.12.1997; no. 65, dated 10.12.1999; no. 11, dated 2.4.2008; no. 19, dated 1.6.2011; no. 47, dated 26.7.2012 and no. 9, dated 26.2.2016, link http://komentarielektronik.magjistratura.edu.al/en/eli/fz/1995/7895

      1. Recommendation (2008) 11 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures[1]. Recommendation CM/Rec (2008)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures provides: “12. Mediation or other restorative measures shall be encouraged at all stages of dealing with juveniles... 122.2. Mediation and restorative conflict resolution shall be given priority as means of resolving complaints or meeting requests.)

       

      1. Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings: “(9) Children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings should be given particular attention in order to preserve their potential for development and reintegration into society." (17) This Directive should apply only to criminal proceedings. It should not apply to other types of proceedings, in particular proceedings which are specially designed for children and which could lead to protective, corrective or educative measures”.

       

      1. Recommendation No. R (87) 18[2] regarding the simplification of criminal justice recommends Member States to review their legislation to promote the use of extra judicial procedures.

       

      1. Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters 2002/12[3].

       

      1. Resolution of 10 June 2011, of the Council of the European Union[4].

       

      1. Recommendation No. (2006) 8 is related to the assistance of crime victims[5].

       

      1. Recommendation No. (99) 19 of the EC Committee of Ministers to member states is related to mediation[6] in criminal cases and relevant commentary. Recommendation N° R (99) 19 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 15 September 1999 and explanatory memorandum[7]. 1. Mediation in penal matters should only take place if the parties freely consent. The parties should be able to withdraë such consent at any time during the mediation. Mediation in Penal Matters, Recommendation N° R (99) 19 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 15 September 1999 and explanatory memorandum.
      2. The European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, Law No. 10 425, dated 2.6.2011 "On the Ratification of the Convention of the Council of Europe "On the Exercise of Children’s Rights" in its Article 13 requires that the contracting parties take measures to encourage the institutionalization and use of mediation procedures.

       

      1. Recommendation no. R (87) 20 on social responses to children charged with the commission of criminal offenses calls upon the governments of member states to review their legislation and practice in order to encourage and develop diversion procedures.

       

      [1] Link: https://www.unicef.org/tdad/councilofeuropejjrec08(1).pdf

      [2] Link: https://rm.coe.int/16804e19f8

      [3]http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/documents/UN%20Resolutions/ECOSOC%20 resolution%202002-12.pdf

      [4] http://victimsupport.eu/activeapp/wp-content/files_mf/1348590476roadmap.pdf

      [5]Link:https://victimsupport.eu/activeapp/Council-of-Europe11.pdf

      [6] Link: http://www.mediacio.hu/files/EU_dok/CoE_R(99)19_mediation.pdf

      [7] Link: http://www.mediacio.hu/files/EU_dok/CoE_R(99)19_mediation.pdf

  • Reports, opinions, recommendations and declarations 

    1. KOMISIONI EVROPIAN DOKUMENT MBI ZBATIMIN E LEGJISLACIONIT TË BE-SË PËR DREJTËSINË PENALE NË FUSHËN E PARABURGIMIT. Paraqitur nga: The International Juvenile Justice Observatory In collaboration with The Academic Section of its European Council for Juvenile Justice As part of the IJJO research: Measures of Deprivation of Liberty for young offenders: How to enrich International Standards in Juvenile Justice and promote alternatives to detention in Europe? By Ursula Kilkelly, University College Cork for the IJJO. Diversion processes and alternatives approaches should be promoted and given priority. Diversion ways should indeed be implemented at all intervention levels with minor offenders to allow the resolution of conflicts caused, and as far as possible to keep children away from the criminal justice system. Appropriate non-custodial measures, such as being integrated within the public or private social welfare programmes, probation services or home monitoring programmes, should be implemented for all juvenile offenders in particular for the more vulnerable ones. A mainstreaming of such non-custodial measures as alternatives to pre-trial detention may foster a greater use of such measures when it comes to children, and thus enhance children rights.

     

    1. GOOD PRACTICES AND PROMISING INITIATIVES IN JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE CEE/CIS REGION" - "A UNICEF catalogue of practices documented through the Juvenile Justice Critical Mass initiative"[1] United Nations Children‘s Fund, Geneva, April 2010.

     

    1. 2011 Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice[2] (Guideline 4).

     

    1. CHILDREN AND JUVENILE JUSTICE: PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENTS.[3]

     

    1. Restorative Justice and Crime Prevention Presenting a theoretical exploration, an empirical analysis and the policy perspective. Final report of the European project ‘Restorative Justice and Crime Prevention’.[4]

     

     Decisions of the European Court on Human Rights                            

    1. Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria - 36925/10 et al. Decision 27.1.2015 [5] The case dealt with the conditions in serving prison sentences in some penitentiary institutions in Bulgaria.... In terms of steps that could be taken to reduce the number of persons being sent to prison, ... prosecutors could be empowered to resort to alternatives to prosecution, such as formal warnings, mediation and reparation programmes or community work, early in the criminal process, but with appropriate monitoring to reduce the risk of corruption…. 70.2. If mediation seems appropriate this should be tried first."" 15. In providing for community sanctions and measures which could be used instead of deprivation of liberty, consideration should be given to the following:– ...– victim-offender mediation/victim compensation,"20. Rationales for sentencing should be set by the legislator or other competent authorities, with a view to, inter alia, reducing the use of imprisonment, expanding the use of community sanctions and measures, and to using measures of diversion such as mediation or the compensation of the victim."

     

    [1] https://www.unicef.org/albania/UNICEF__JJGood_Practices_WEB.pdf

    [2] https://rm.coe.int/16804b2cf3

    [3]  https://rm.coe.int/16806daa31

    [4] http://euforumrj.org/assets/upload/Restorative_Justice_and_Crime_Prevention_Final_report.pdf

    [5] Link: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#ë"fulltext":ë"ECHR decision of 27.1.2015"],

  • Justice System Analysis in Albania, June 2015, drafted by the High-Level Expert Group at the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committe on Justice Reform,[1]

    [1] http://www.reformanedrejtesi.al/sites/default/files/dokumenti_shqip_0.pdf,

  • Law No. 10385, dated 24.2.2011 "On mediation in dispute resolution", which in Articles 14, 23, items 1 and 2 provides the procedure for mediation in criminal proceedings.

  • “Regulation on the cooperation of the Probation Service with NPOs and the Mediation Service”, No.302, Dated 25.03.2009.[1]

    [1]http://www.ikub.al/LIGJE_CATEGORY/SHeRBIMIT-Te-PROVeS-ME-OJF-te-DH.aspx 

  • No Comment

  • Cesaroni and PetersonBadali, ‘Understanding the Adjustment of Incarcerated Young Offenders: A Canadian Example’ 10(2) Youth Justice (2010) 107-125. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/criminal/opinion/files/110510/ijjo_submission_green_paper_detention_response_en.pdf

    Goldson, ‘Child Imprisonment: the Case for Abolition’ 5(2) Youth Justice (2005) 77-90 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/criminal/opinion/files/110510/ijjo_submission_green_paper_detention_response_en.pdf

    Bateman, ‘Reducing Child Imprisonment: A Systemic Challenge’ 5(2) Youth Justice (2005) 91-105. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/criminal/opinion/files/110510/ijjo_submission_green_paper_detention_response_en.pdf

    Liefaard, Deprivation of Liberty of Children in Light of International Human Rights Law and Standards, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland: Intersentia Publishing 2008, pp 392-393.

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/criminal/opinion/files/110510/ijjo_submission_green_paper_detention_response_en.pdf

    Abramson, B. (2000) Juvenile Justice: The ‘Unwanted Child’ of State Responsibilities. An Analysis of the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in Regard to Juvenile Justice from 1993 to 2000. International Network on Juvenile Justice/Defence for Children International . Available at ww.defence-for-children.org

    Amnesty International (1998) Betraying the Young: Children in the US Justice System. AI Index AMR 51/60/98. Available at: www.web.amnesty.org 

    Asquith, S. (1996) Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Delinquency in Central and Eastern Europe. University of Glasgow, Centre for the Child and Society . Available at: www.eurochild.gla.ac.uk 

    Bailleau, F. (1998) ‘A Crisis of Youth or of Juridical Response?’, in V. Ruggiero , N. South and I. Taylor (eds) The New European Criminology, pp.95-103. London: Routledge.  http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362480605048942

    Bala, N. , J. Hornick , H. Snyder and J. Paetsch (eds) (2002) Juvenile Justice Systems: An International Comparison of Problems and Solutions. Toronto: Thompson.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362480605048942 

    Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalisation: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity. 

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/globalisation-the-rise-and-fall-of-an-idea-that-swept-the-world

    Bazemore, G. and L. Walgrave (eds) (1999) Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime.New York: Criminal Justice Press.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14624740222228464 

    Beck, U. (2000) What Is Globalisation? Cambridge: Polity.

    http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/beck_tomlinson.html

    Bell, V. (1993) ‘Governing Childhood: Neo-Liberalism and the Law’ , Economy and Society 22(3): 390-403.https://books.google.al/books?id=YiKi3GHD C&pg=PT419&lpg=PT419&dq=Bell,+V.+(1993)

    Braithwaite, J. (2003) ‘Restorative Justice and a Better Future’, in E. McLaughlin et al. (eds) Restorative Justice: Critical Issues. London: Sage Publications. 

    https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/55/5/883/478399/Why-Restorative-Justice-Will-Not-Reduce?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    Buckland, G. and A. Stevens (2001) Review of Effective Practice with Young Offenders in Mainland Europe, 157-163. London: Youth Justice Board/European Institute of Social Services.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362480605048942 

    Carozza, P. (2003) ‘From Conquest to Constitutions: Retrieving a Latin American Tradition of the Idea of Human Rights’ , Human Rights Quarterly 25(2): 281-313. 

    http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1584&context=law_faculty_scholarship

    Children’s Rights Alliance (2002) State of Children’s Rights in England. London: CRA for England.  https://www.childrenincrisis.org

    Christie, N. (2000) Crime Control as Industry. London: Routledge.  https://scholar.google.com

    Clarke, J. (2000) ‘A World of Difference? Globalisation and the Study of Social Policy’, in G. Lewis , S. Gewirtz and J. Clarke (eds) Rethinking Social Policy, pp. 201-216. London: Sage Publications.  https://scholar.google.com

    Council of Europe (1998) Penological Information Bulletin, no. 21. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

    Council of Europe (2000) European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

    http://wp.unil.ch/europeansourcebook/files/2012/06/European-Sourcebook_1st-ed_1999-1.pdf

    Crawford, A. (2001) ‘The Growth of Crime Prevention in France as Contrasted with the English Experience’, in G. Hughes , E. McLaughlin and J. Muncie (eds) Crime Prevention and Community Safety: New Directions, pp. 214-39. London: Sage Publications.  https://scholar.google.com

    Crawford, A. (2002) ‘The Governance of Crime and Insecurity in an Anxious Age: The Trans-European and the Local’, in A. Crawford (ed.) Crime and Insecurity: The Governance of Safety in Europe, pp. 27-51.Cullompton: Willan.  https://scholar.google.com

    Cross, N. , P. Evans and J. Minkes (2003) ‘Still Children First? Developments in Youth Justice in Wales’ , Youth Justice 2(3): 151-162 .  https://scholar.google.com

    Cunneen, C. and R. White (2002) Juvenile Justice: Youth and Crime in Australia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/19680/

    De Haan, W. (1990) The Politics of Redress. London: Unwin Hyman.  https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=125907

    Doek, J. (2002) ‘Modern Juvenile Justice in Europe’, in M. Rosenheim , F. Zimring , D. Tanenhaus and B. Dohrn (eds) A Century of Juvenile Justice, pp. 505-528. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362480605048942

    Fionda, J. (1998) ‘The Age of Innocence? The Concept of Childhood in the Punishment of Young Offenders’ , Child and Family Law Quarterly 10(1): 77-87 http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/12371/

    Freeman, M. (2002) ‘Children’s Rights Ten Years after Ratification’, in B. Franklin (ed.) The New Handbook of Children’s Rights, pp. 97-118. London: Routledge

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362480605048942

    Goldson, B. (2000) ‘Children in Need or Young Offenders?’ . Child and Family Social Work 5(3): 255-265 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2000.00161.x/abstract

    Harris-Short, S. (2003) ‘International Human Rights Law: Imperialist, Inept and Ineffective? Cultural Relativism and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’ , Human Rights Quarterly 25(1): 130-181 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/38764/summary

    Jones, J. and T. Newburn (2002) ‘Policy Convergence and Crime Control in the USA and the UK’ , Criminal Justice 2(2): 173-203. https://books.google.al

    Junger-Tas, J. (2002) ‘The Juvenile Justice System: Past and Present Trends in Western Society’, in I. Weijers and A. Duff (eds) Punishing Juveniles, pp. 23-44. Oxford: Hart 

    Justice (2004) Restorative Justice: The Way Ahead. London: Justice . http://journals.sagepub.com

    Kempf-Leonard, K. and E. Peterson (2000) ‘Expanding Realms of the Neë Penology: The Advent of Actuarial Justice for Juveniles’ , Punishment and Society 2(1): 66-97. 

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/17488958020020020501

    Komen, M. (2002) ‘Dangerous Children: Juvenile Delinquency and Judicial Intervention in the Netherlands, 1960-1995’ , Crime, Laë and Social Change 37: 379-401. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016011826864

    Kuure, T. (2002) ‘Loë Custody in Finland’ , paper given at the Children Law UK/NACRO Conference, ‘Reducing Custodial Sentencing for Young Offenders: The European Experience’, London, 23 October.

    https://books.google.al/books?id=hr8bmUVxasëC&pg=PA329&lpg=PA329&dq=Kuure

    Mears, D. (2002) ‘Sentencing Guidelines and the Transformation of Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century’ , Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 18(1): 6-19. 

    http://journals.sagepub.com/author/Alberola%2C+Cristina+Rechea

    Rechea Alberola, C. and E. Fernandez Molina (2003) ‘Juvenile Justice in Spain: Past and Present’ , Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(4): 384-412 

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1043986203258804

    Schaffner, L. (2002) ‘An Age of Reason: Paradoxes in the US Legal Construction of Adulthood’ , International Journal of Children’s Rights 10: 201-232.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/An_age_of_reason

    Scraton, P. and D. Haydon (2002) ‘Challenging the Criminalisation of Children and Young People: Securing a Rights Based Agenda’, in J. Muncie , G. Hughes and E. McLaughlin (eds) Youth Justice: Critical Readings, pp.311-328. London: Sage Publications. 

     http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362480605048942

    MANUAL PËR PUNONJËSIN E SHËRBIMIT TË PROVËS, OSCE Linku: http://www.osce.org/albania/80121?download=true

    Manual SHËRBIMI I NDËRMJETËSIMIT DHE DREJTËSIA RESTAURUESE PËR TË MITURIT NË KONFLIKT ME LIGJIN Për procedurat e ndërmjetësimit përmes gjykatës Linku: https://albania.savethechildren.net/sites/albania.savethechildren.net/files/library/Gjykata_rev_11.pdf

    STRATEGJIA NDËRSEKTORIALE E PARANDALIMIT, LUFTËS KUNDËR KORRUPSIONIT E QEVERISJES TRANSPARENTE, 2008 - 2013 parashikon nevojën për trajnimin dhe kualifikimin e grupit te ndërmjetësuesve qe do të merren me ndermjetësimin në çeshtjet penale, civile, familjare dhe administrative. Linku: http://shtetiweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/strategji_lufta-kunder-korrupcionit_2008_diaca.pdf.

  • Laws 

    Law no. 9090, dated 26.6.2003 “On Mediation in Dispute Resolution” had an analogous provision to Article 64 of the CCJC. This was Article 17 which provided a 45-day term of the mediation procedure when the case was sent by the court or prosecution office. In cases when the conflict was resolved through mediation, the judicial and prosecutorial authorities decided to dismiss the criminal or civil case or refuse to initiate the criminal proceedings and made entries in the respective registers.

    Link: http://www.pp.gov.al/web/ligj_per_ndermjetesimin_37.pdf 

     Law no. 8465, dated 11.03.1999, “On Mediation in Dispute Resolution” which in its Article 13 provided that in cases when the court or the prosecution office deemed that the conflict could be resolved by mediation and the parties did not object, they suspended the examination of the case and sent the case for examination to the mediator. If the dispute was not resolved by mediation, the court/prosecution office resumed the legal proceedings upon the request of the parties.

    Link: http://www.ikub.al/LIGJE/903110038/Article-Per-ndermjetesimin-per-zgjidhjen-me-pajtim-te-mosmarreveshjeve-.aspx 

     CPC approved by law No. 7905, DATED 21.3.1995, amended by law no. 8813, dated 13.6.2002 http://www.qbz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2002/PDF-2002/77-2002.pdf, by law no. 10 054, dated 29.12. 2008, http://www.qbz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2008/PDF-2008/205-2008.pdf, by law 145/2013, http://www.qbz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2013/PDF-2013/83-2013.pdf, by law 35/2017, https://www.parlament.al/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ligj-nr.-35-dt.-30.3.2017.pdf in Article 59, for the accusing victim provides that se: One who is aggrieved by the criminal offences provided by articles 90, 91, 92, 112, first paragraph, 119, 119/b, 120, 121, 122, 125, 127 and 254 of the Criminal Code, has the right to submit a request in the court and to take part in the trial as a party to prove the charge and claim the reimbursement of damages. The prosecutor participates in the trial of these cases and, as the case may be, request for the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. If the accusing victim or his/her defense lawyer does not appear in the hearing without reasonable grounds, the court decides the dismissal of the case. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code in Article 284, item 5 also provides that for cases referred to in Article 59, the appeal shall be made by the accusing victim in the court.

Marjana Semini
Arta Mandro, Koraljka Bumči, Renate Winter