Table of Content

• Comments
  • Purpose
    1. The article 63 intends to focus on the restorative justice to provide for the necessary procedural elements as well as the elements of the material character to create the possibilities for the child to correct the consequences of the criminal offence committed by him.

     

    2. Article 63 intends to create an appropriate relation between the CCJC and especially between article 17 paragraph 3, article 55 paragraph 3 letter d), article 61 paragraph1 letter b), article 62 paragraph1 letter a), article 64, article 102 and law no. 10835/2011 “On mediation to solve the disputes", considering these instruments in harmony and coordination with each other.

     

    3. The purpose of this provision is to highlight that between the restorative justice and mediation programs there is such a considerable coordination that the reference in the mediation law is equal for both. Therefore, in conclusion, article 63 intends to position mediation in a broad and long-term profile, which is related with the relations between the victim and the accused person.

     

    4. Article 63 intends to establish a close relation with the measures which intends to avoid the criminal prosecution or sentence, such as working for the public interest, provided for in article 101 of this Code or any other program provided for in article 62, article 64 and article 102 of the CCJC which provides for the rehabilitation of the consequences of the criminal offence committed by a child.

     

    5. The principle of voluntarism as an important condition for the realization of the mediation has the purpose to increase the level of criminality prevention for children and to keep the accused person away from similar conflictual situations in the future. The purpose of family and group mediation is the prevention of the deterioration of the conflict in the future, to avoid the cases of revenge by the victim’s family members against the accused person or against his family members. The reconciliation of the parties in conflict in a criminal process is one of the goals of this type of mediation.
  • Scope
    6. Article 63 has a structure which follows the reference line in two levels. Firstly, in paragraph1 of article 63, the legislator refers to the law on mediation and implies law no. 10835/2011 “On mediation to solve disputes”, as the law in force.

     

    7. This referring nature of paragraph 1, in the structural meaning, intends to dictate to everyone who exercises the CCJC, the way how this article shall be read parallel to the special law. The following has been taken from the special law: the rules related to the way how the mediation process starts, how the parties meet to discuss, the role of the mediator, the time limits and the consequences and the way how the agreement reached between the parties is formalized and enforced. Secondly, in paragraph 5 of article 63, the legislator refers to the other provisions of the CCJC, which regulate the programs of avoidance, such as the ones which treat the work for the public interest, the realization of certain obligations, etc.

     

    8. Article 63 is composed of a structure which goes beyond the general rules, which may be enforced in all the cases of mediation, to less specific rules related to the mediations of a more special nature. For example, the case of the family mediation or of group mediation provided for in paragraph 6 of the article. In this way, there is a strengthening of the concept that the extrajudicial procedure is carried out with at least three main actors: the child accused of committing the criminal offence, the victim and the mediator, and case by case the family members, the representatives of the society or of the competent bodies for the protection of the rights of the child may join as well.
  • Comments
    9. Paragraph 1 of article 63 highlights that the proceeding body may decide on the application of the alternative measure elaborated by this article. In paragraph 1 of the article 63, is the term “the proceeding body” and as it is understood by the content of CCJC will be considered the judge and the prosecutor but seen in accordance with the law on mediation here it is also included the officer of police. These two subjects do not play an active role after the commencement of the application of the alternative measure until it is completed. This is clear even based on the meaning of article 14 of Law no. 10835/2011 “On mediation to solve disputes”[1]

     

    10. The proceeding bodies take the decision at the moment they deem that a mediation process or a program of restorative justice assists for the best correction of the consequences of the criminal offence. The decision-making of the court or of the prosecution office may be carried out in every phase of the criminal proceeding when the proceeding body finds that alternative measures of diversion as it is mediation is the best alternative for the child, for his social reintegration, as an accused child or victim. Mediation is never an obligatory process, but it is a voluntary process.

     

    11. Regarding the phrase “… in compliance with the legislation on mediation”, article 63, paragraph 1 of the CCJC refers to Law no. 10835, dated 24.2.2011, "On mediation to solve disputes". This law has a full and broad content regarding mediation and contains regulations regarding mediation in criminal cases and the ones with children. Article 2, paragraph 3 of the special law provides for the possibility to solve the conflicts of a criminal nature through mediation. According to paragraph 1 of article 63, what is important to be identified in relation to the implementation of the special law is connected to the meaning of mediation (article 1) and the mediation principles (article 3), the scope and the circle of the disputes that may be mediated (article 2).

     

    12. Paragraph 1 of article 63 contains the phrase “the program of restorative justice”, which shall be read in its meaning which comes from the interpretation in harmony with articles 44, 62 and 64 of the CCJC. The programs of the restorative justice are programs that are developed and are followed by the public bodies and the private subjects in the framework of the enforcement of the measures of restorative justice. The CCJC explains the term “Measure of restorative justice”, which facilitates the meaning of the term “program of restorative justice”. The programs of the restorative justice are created through the implementation of the projects or of the strategic governmental or non-governmental actions to support the integration and the rehabilitation of children accused of committing a criminal offence. These programs become a part of the procedures of criminal justice for children, but in any case, they might be developed outside the judicial or investigatory process based on the desire and the choice of the parties or upon the proposal/invitation of the prosecutor or judge or of another professional which is informed about a conflict between the child accused of committing a criminal offence and the victim. The place, the time and the way of developing this process is carried out in neutral premises for which the parties and/or the justice authorities agree. The programs of the restorative justice, from their commencement until their completion, are not related with the judicial/investigatory process at all[2]. Article 63 seems to have a strong relation with article 44 of the CCJC. Even though article 63 and article 44 are not provisions which refer expressively to each other, they shall be read together.

     

    13. The term “correction of the consequences of the criminal offence” means any kind of activity which causes as a consequence a better social, physical and psychological atmosphere for the child involved in the process of criminal justice for children, such as: the improvement of the mental and physical health of the child, a quicker resocialization of the child in the public environment, the frequentation of school and of the previous social life, the improvement of the family and social relations, the stability in private and personal life, etc.,

     

    14. Paragraph 2, letter a) of article 63 includes the phrase “give freely the consent”. This is an undisputable principle, because the alternative measure as it is mediation in this article cannot be applicable without the consent of the parties. The free consent is a very delicate aspect. The freedom of consent is related to the clear internal and external will, which becomes obvious at the moment when there is an agreement for the commencement of the process and the rest of it, and it shall be constructed based on clear information and understanding of the process and its effects. It is crucial that the parties be aware how the alternative measure of mediation will be conducted, which will be the service and the person that will carry it out, they should be aware of the potential consequences, for example: the success, the failure or the partial solution seen in accordance with other alternative measures foreseen in CCJC. The voluntary participation is a prerequisite. The free consent shall be given from the beginning. The authorities of criminal justice before the initiation and the authority that will conduct mediation as an alternative measure in the very beginning and if will be necessary during the entire mediating process shall clarify parties in this regard. The obliged consent is invalid and makes mediation procedure invalid, including even the agreement reached by this procedure. The biased consent of the accused child or the biased consent of the victim to solve the conflict through alternative measures according Article 63 of CCJC is not legally sufficient. For a correct procedure, both parties shall agree and present at the mediator to start the procedure together.

     

    15. Letter b) paragraph 2 of article 63 provides for that every agreement reached between the parties shall be “reasonable or appropriate”. The phrase “shall be reasonable” means that the decision for mediation or another program of restorative justice protects the parties better, pays attention to the preservation of the child’s dignity, prevents his physical, mental and emotional damage, and then the court or the prosecution office is entitled to render it. In such a case, the term “reasonable” means that if this measure is taken by the court, it shall be useful for the child and his best interest. This includes the right/obligation to evaluate if mediation is the best alternative. The decision to transfer the criminal case for mediation as well as the evaluation of the result of a mediation procedure shall be reserved for the criminal justice authorities. These are the authorities, only the judge and the prosecutor, who decide within a judicial or investigatory procedure, if a mediation procedure outside the judicial/investigatory process is useful for the party to correct the consequences of the criminal offence. Article 63 is completed by article 64 of the CCJC, which provides for that when mediation is conducted within the judicial/investigatory procedure, the proceeding body firstly addresses an invitation for mediation. If it is deemed necessary to improve the consequences of a criminal offence, the prosecutor/judge may propose to the parties the mediation and after that, if the parties agree, they may decide to dismiss the process in the justice bodies to continue with the mediation procedure. In continuation to article 63, article 64 is the article that enlists the conditions to be evaluated by the prosecutor or the judge to assess if mediation is the most appropriate alternative. These conditions are analyzed in relation to the best interest of the child, including the case of a child victim. For this reason, the analysis focuses on: the nature of the criminal offence, the circumstances under which the criminal offence was conducted, the history of the child, the probability to return the normal relations between the child and the injured party, the possibility to reduce the damage against the injured party, the possibility to rehabilitate the respective child. To analyze the term “appropriate”, we may refer to its opposite “inappropriate” with the reasoning that everything that is not inappropriate is appropriate. A special attention shall be paid to respect the best interest of the child. Therefore, the following acts shall be avoided: the realization of an inappropriate task, in an inappropriate place, in an inappropriate time, with the inappropriate people, with inappropriate means and tools. If the work, the time, the place, the persons, the tools are inappropriate, then this process or this measurer shall not be rendered. All those actions or obligations that are conducted by the child and may cause his physical or psychological damage and may cause deteriorations to his health, emotional and social condition, shall be considered as inappropriate.

     

    16. Paragraph 3 of article 63 provides for the case of the failure to receive the consent by the parent for the child, when there is a “conflict of interest” between the parents and the child. The cases of the conflict of interest are the ones when the parent is not reliable to protect the interests of the child and has facts that indicate that one of the reasons for involving the child with criminality is the behavior of the parent. These are the cases when the parent is involved in the criminal offence as the accused person or as the victim. We will particularly include here the cases of domestic violence, where the victim is the child and one parent is the violator, but there are also the cases when the parent and the child have committed a criminal offence together at the same time or in different moments.

     

    17. Letter a) of paragraph 4, article 63 provides for the rule that the child shall “accept and show understanding of the liability for the criminal offence” which bears two logical actions that shall be carried out by the child. Firstly, the child shall understand that the action or the omission committed by him causes criminal liability due to its dangerousness or consequence and secondly the child shall accept that he committed the criminal offence. Both these actions are closely connected with each other and they are also linked inextricably with the process of restorative justice and mediation, because the consequences of the criminal offence cannot be corrected or compensated, if one object having committed it and if one object understanding the fact that what you have done is dangerous for the others and for the society, and as such, it cannot be repeated in the future. There is the risk that the child may be impacted unfairly to accept the responsibility for an offence against his/her right to remain silent. The potential risks are related with the rights of the accused child for an honest trial and a fair process. Children cannot be sent to a program or to another alternative instead of the possibility to be processed. In other words, if there is not sufficient evidence to process a case, diversion cannot be addressed to reach a result that cannot be achieved in another way. Children shall not be impacted unfairly to accept the responsibility for a violation. In order for the restorative justice to be in compliance with the rights of the child, it shall follow some basic rules. The alternatives shall be used only in the cases when children accept the violation and accept a nonjudicial hearing. Children shall not be obliged to accept a violation or a program of restorative justice in any phase. Therefore, special attention shall be paid in order for the child to understand his/her right to remain silent and/or not to be impacted unfairly to accept the responsibility. The child or his/her parents shall agree with the restorative justice. The case shall be referred to the judicial system, if there is not an acceptable solution for everyone or if the available alternatives are not appropriate. The child is always entitled to a judicial review. Human rights and the legal guarantees of the CCJC shall always be respected completely.

     

    18. Letter b) of paragraph 4, article 63 provides for the obligation of the child accused of committing a criminal offence, for the compensation of the damage. It uses the expression “to compensate the damage that has been caused” against the victim, the community and/or society. This phrase refers to the consequences of the criminal offence which may appear in some forms: (i) as material damage caused against the property or the incomes of the child and his family or community; (ii) as material damage against the physical and mental health of the child, which creates the need for medical treatment, recovering, taking medication, following therapies, etc.; (iii) as non-material damage caused against the dignity, personality and the figure of the child; (iv) as damage caused against the private life of the child, etc. The compensation is the calculation in money of all the losses of the property and non-property character caused by the criminal action of the accused person. The victim may ask for the compensation of the damage when its condition results to be deteriorated after the commission of the criminal offence against the physical, mental health and the psychological stability. The compensation of damage is done through the civil lawsuit on damage compensation, meanwhile in the mediation case, compensation is achieved as a part of the parties’ agreement. 

     

    19. Letter c) paragraph 4 of article 63 uses the phrase “ask forgiveness to the victim”. Asking forgiveness is one of the mediation agreement points. “Forgiveness” is a confrontation process of the parties with each other and from the formal viewpoint it can be done verbally or in writing. “Forgiveness” does not require a certain solemnity, but it is a completely individual process, because every person has his own way how to ask forgiveness and his own preferred way how the others should ask forgiveness to him, no matter if this person is a child or an adult.

     

    20. Letter ç), paragraph 4 article 63 provides for that the actions that are expected to be carried out by the accused person for mediation shall be “acceptable” by the victim and/or the community. In order for a restoration or mediation process to be considered successful, it is necessary that what the accused person offers to do to correct his mistakes and the consequences of the criminal offence, be accepted by the victim. In this paragraph, article 63 raises the individual principle to a higher level – to the acceptability of the society towards the correction of the consequences of the criminal offence. In this way, this principle shall be at the level of the acceptable moral, ethical, and civil rules which are accepted and enforced by everyone. Acceptability is related to a behaviour, which is evaluated as a positive stereotype in public. The legislator pays attention to make this regulation, because it may happen that the victim may accept even actions that may be against his will and dignity, to avoid the hostile atmosphere. For this reason, this acceptability shall be considered complete and valid and shall not damage the validity of the mediation agreement and it shall be accepted even by the community.

     

    21. Paragraph 5 of article 63 stipulates the phrase “public works” … Also, in paragraph 5 of article 63, there is a provision for “every other program that rehabilitates the consequences of the criminal offence”. With regard to this point, the reader shall read at the same time article 101 of the CCJC, article 102 of the CCJC, which explain the meaning of these measures or programs.

     

    22. Paragraph 6 of article 63 provides for “family or group mediation”. The justice system for children shall be considered as a component of a broader strategy, based on the community to prevent criminality among children, which includes the family, the school, the neighbourhood as well as the context of the groups of an age, within which the violation of law occurs. The linker “and” creates the idea of the inclusion of a cumulative character in the meaning that family mediation may be at the same time the group mediation, too, where each of the parties is represented by two or more family members of the victim’s family and of the accused child’s family. Paragraph 6 refers mostly to the case when one of the parties is represented not only by the accused person but even by his/her family as well. So, in case more than two people represent one party, the mediation shall be considered in group. The group mediation is realized when the persons have more than one relation which brings them together, such as the age, school, etc. they may be classmates, they may live in the same block of flats, they may play in the same football team, etc. “The family conferences and with the community groups”, held successfully in several countries, represent an example of the participation of the community in the system of criminal justice. They gather together not only the victim and the wrongdoer, but even the relatives of the wrongdoer and other supportive people from the community, certain agencies (such as representatives from the police and justice for children) and sometimes supporting persons for the victim. The wrongdoer and his family are expected to produce a comprehensive agreement, which contains the compensation, the sanctions and the obligations, which is convenient for the victim and also this agreement shall be thought that it will help the offender not to get involved in other troubles.

     

    23. The possibility for the participation of other people is provided for in paragraph 6 of article 63. The presence of the others depends on the preference of the parties. So, this consent is secondary compared to the primary consent of the parties to access the mediation procedure. These are secondary negotiations and they are not related to the essential part but to the participants in the process. The following people are listed here: the family members, the defence counsels, the child’s legal representative, the psychologist, the official of the Unit for the Protection of the Child, etc. The provision does not explain the role of these people and the purpose of their participation in the mediation process. However, we may say that if we analyse them together in a group as well as individually, each of the persons listed as “other” are people who offer and guarantee the best and the most careful protection towards the child’s interests and the prevention of the criminal offence which may be committed in the future as the result of revenge.

     

    [1] According to this article “Procedures for mediation in a criminal process” are: 1. Court in accordance with articles 333 and 338 of Criminal Procedure Code, invites parties to solve the case by mediation, …by establishing a hearing date in accordance with the type of dispute. 2. Each of the parties has the right to request at any time to reopen the case.

    [2]See article 14 of Law no. 10835/2011 “On mediation to solve dispute". Accessed at: http://www.drejtesia.gov.al/files/userfiles/Komisioni_i_licensimit/Ligji_nr_10385_dt_24.02.2011.pdf 

  • Historic context
    24. It is the first time that we find in the Albanian legislation at the level of a Code, such a regulation, like the one in article 63 of the CCJC, which provides for the procedural steps in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5. More concretely, CrPC adopted with law no. 7905, dated 21.3.1995, amended with law no.8460, dated 11.2.1999, with law no.8813, dated 13.6.2002, law no.9085, dated 19.6.2003, with law no.9276, dated 16.9.2004, with law no.9911, dated 5.5.2008, with the decision of the Constitutional Court no.31, dated 17.5.2012, with law no.145/2013, dated 2.5.2013, with law no. No. 35/2017 did not have a similar provision before the adoption of the CCJC. 

     

    25. Before the adoption of CCJC, some aspects of article 63 were provided for in law no. 10385, dated 24.2.2011 "On mediation to solve disputes". This law, in article 14, provided for the procedure for mediation in the criminal process. It also provided for that the court, in compliance with articles 333 and 338 of the CrPC, was entitled to invite the parties to solve the dispute through mediation, determining a time limit to the parties in compliance with the nature of the dispute. According to this provision, each of the parties was entitles to claim the recommencement of adjudication.

     

    26. Before law 10385, dated 24.2.2011, law no. 9090, dated 26.6.2003 "On mediation to solve disputes" was into force. Its analogue provision was article 64 of the CCJC. This was article 17 which used to provide for the time limit of 45 days on the mediation procedure when the case had been sent by the court or the prosecution office. In the case, when the conflict was solved through mediation, the judicial bodies of the prosecution would dismiss the criminal case or would refuse the commencement of the criminal proceeding and would write the respective notes in the relevant registers. Before law no. 9090, dated 26.6.2003, “On mediation to solve disputes”, law no. 8465, dated 11.03.1999, was in force, providing for in article 13 the cases when the court or the prosecution deemed that the conflict could be solved through mediation and the parties did not have any objections, the review of the case would be dismissed, and the case would be transferred to the mediator. In case the dispute could not be solved through mediation, then the court/prosecution office would restart the legal proceeding, upon the request of the parties.
  • International acts
    27. Recommendation (2008) 11 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe related to the sentence or other measures for the accused child.[1]

     

    28. Recommendation No. (2006)8 of the Committee of the Council of Europe related to the assistance of the victims of crime.[2] 

     

    29. Recommendation No. R (99) 19 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 15 September 1999.[3]

     

    30. Recommendation No. R (87) 20[4] of the Committee of the Ministers of the CE for the member states on the social reactions towards the child accused of committing the criminal offences, attracting the attention of the member states to reconsider their legislation to encourage and develop the diversion and mediation procedures.

     

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

    [2]Recommendation Rec(2006)8 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to crime victims. Link: https://victimsupport.eu/activeapp/ëp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rec_Council-of-Europe11.pdf

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

    [4]Link: http://archivio.transnazionalita.isfol.it/file/CoE_Rec_R87-20%20Eng.pdf.

• International standards/International references/Best examples
  No Comment
• Legislative material
  31. Analysis of the Justice System in Albania, June 2015, drafted by the Group of High Level Experts attached to the Ad Hoc Commission for the Reform in the Justice System.[1]

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

• Related articles
  32. Law No. 10385, dated 24.2.2011 "On mediation to solve disputes", which provides for the procedure for mediation in the criminal process in articles 14, 23, paragraph 1 and 2.
• Sublegal acts
  33. “The regulation for the cooperation of the Probation Service with the NGOs and the Mediation Service”, No.302, dated 25.03.2009.
• Decisions
  No Comment
• Literature
  34. 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.

   

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

   

  36. 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

   

  37. 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.

   

  38. 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 .

   

  39. Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalisation: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity. https://www.theguardian.com/ëorld/2017/jul-the-world.

   

  40. Bazemore, G. and L. Walgrave (eds) (1999) Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime.Neë York: Criminal Justice Press. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14624740222228464 .

   

  41. Beck, U. (2000) What Is Globalisation? Cambridge: Polity. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/beck_tomlinson.html.

   

  42. Bell, V. (1993) ‘Governing Childhood: Neo-Liberalism and the Law’, Economy and Society 22(3): 390-403. https://books.google.al/books?id=YiKi3GH.

   

  43. Blagg, H. (1997) ‘A Just Measure of Shame? Aboriginal Youth and Conferencing in Australia’, British Journal of Criminology 37(4): 481-501. http://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en-shame-aboriginal-youth-and-conferencing-in-australia.

   

  44. 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-ab-Justice-Will-Not-Reduce?redirectedFrom=fulltext.

   

  45. 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 .

   

  46. 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/vieëcontent.cgi?article=1584&context=law_faculty_scholarship.

   

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

   

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

   

  49. 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.

   

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

   

  51. 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.

   

  52. Crawford, A. (2001) ‘The Groëth 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.

   

  53. 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.

   

  54. 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.

   

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

   

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

   

  57. 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

   

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

   

  59. 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

   

  60. 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

   

  61. 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

   

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

   

  63. 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 Ëay Ahead. London: Justice. http://journals.sagepub.com

   

  64. Kempf-Leonard, K. and E. Peterson (2000) ‘Expanding Realms of the New Penology: The Advent of Actuarial Justice for Juveniles’, Punishment and Society 2(1): 66-97. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/17488958020020020501

   

  65. 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.

   

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

   

  67. Mears, D. (2002) ‘Sentencing Guidelines and the Transformation of Juvenile Justice in the 21^st Century’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 18(1): 6-19. http://journals.sagepub.com/author/Alberola%2C+Cristina+Rechea

   

  68. 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

   

  69. 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

   

  70. 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

   

  71. MANUAL FOR THE EMPLOYEE OF THE PROBATION SERVICE, OSCE http://www.osce.org/albania/80121?doënload=true

   

  72. Manual MEDIATION SERVICE AND RESTAURATIONAL JUSTICE FOR THE CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW On the mediation procedures through the court https://albania.savethechildren.net/sites/albania.savethechildren.net/files/library/Gjykata_rev_11.pdf

   

  73. Strategjia Ndërsektoriale e Parandalimit, Luftës Kundër Korrupsionit e Qeverisjes Transparente, 2008 - 2013 parashikon nevojen për trainimin dhe kualifikimin e grupit te mediatoreve qe do te merren me ndermjetesimin ne çeshtjet penale, civile, familjare dhe administrative http://shtetiweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/strategji_lufta-kunder-korrupcionit_2008_diaca.pdf
• Archive

  Laws 

  74. Law no. 9090, dated 26.6.2003 "On mediation to solve disputes"[1] had an analogous provision with article 64 of the CCJC. This was article 17 which used to provide for the time limit of 45 days on the mediation procedure when the case had been sent by the court or the prosecution office. In the case, when the conflict was solved through mediation, the judicial bodies of the prosecution would dismiss the criminal case or would refuse the commencement of the criminal proceeding and would write the respective notes in the relevant registers.

   

  75. Law no. 8465, dated 11.03.1999, "On mediation to solve disputes"[2] article 13 provided for the cases when the court or the prosecution deemed that the conflict could be solved through mediation and the parties did not have any objections, the review of the case would be dismissed, and the case would be transferred to the mediator. In case the dispute could not be solved through mediation, then the court/prosecution office would restart the legal proceeding, upon the request of the parties.

   

  76. CrPC adopted with law No. 7905, date 21.3.1995, amended to law no.8813, dated 13.6.2002[3] to law no. 10 054, dated 29.12. 2008[4], to law 145/2013[5], to law 35/2017[6], in article 59, on the accusing victim, provides for that: the person injured by the criminal offences provided for in articles 90, 91, 92, 112 first paragraph, 119,119/b, 120, 121, 122, 125, 127, 148, 149 and 254 of the Criminal Code is entitled to present a request in the Court and to participate in the trial as a party to try the charge and to claim the compensation for the damage. The prosecutor participates in the adjudication of these cases and, accordingly, claims the sentence against the defendant or his innocence. If the accusing injured person or his defence counsel appointed by him are not present in the hearing for reasonable reasons, the court decides to dismiss the adjudication. Furthermore, CPC, in article 284, paragraph 5 provides for that for the cases provided for in article 59, the appeal is made in the court by the accusing injured person.

   

  [1] http://www.pp.gov.al/ëeb/ligj_per_ndermjetesimin_37.pdf

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

  [3]http://www.qbz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2002/PDF-2002/77-2002.pdf

  [4]http://www.qbz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2008/PDF-2008/205-2008.pdf,

  [5]http://www.qbz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2013/PDF-2013/83-2013.pdf,

  [6]https://www.parlament.al/ëp-content/uploads/2017/04/ligj-nr.-35-dt.-30.3.2017.pdf