15th UN Crime Congress: Committee II, Workshop 2 – 28 September 2026

Buenos dias. Good morning, everybody. So today we will continue with the work we started yesterday. And this morning we have workshop two, the continuation of workshop two, which is entitled Ensuring Equal Access to Justice for All Towards Safe and Secure Societies While Respecting the Rule of Law. And our work will be structured around two subpanels today, which the first one is the role of the police, prosecution, judiciary, and the courts in facilitating access to justice. And the second is access to justice for victims, including through restorative justice. So now I will hand over the floor to Ms. Anna Giudice of UNODC to introduce and moderate the first subpanel of today. Similarly to our conduct of work yesterday, Ms. Giudice will also summarize at the end of the discussion the key and salient points of the debate during the session. I would like to invite the panelists to be so kind as to stick to the time limit assigned and to allow enough time for questions from the audience. Ms. Giudice, you have the floor.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning and welcome back to workshop two. Yesterday, the workshop examined cross-sectoral collaboration and multi-stakeholder approaches to advancing access to justice, as well as ways to expand access to legal aid. Today, we turn first to the role of the core criminal justice institutions, police, prosecution, judiciary, and the courts in facilitating access to justice. And we have an esteemed panel of experts with us on that topic online and in person. The second sub-panel will then consider access to justice, specifically for victims, including through restorative justice. And again, we do have, in this case, an esteemed panel of expert panelists, all with us here in Abu Dhabi, and one connected online. These discussions bring together perspectives from judicial institutions, prosecution services, criminal justice, monitoring and ministries of justice, victims' rights and restorative justice experts from academia, practitioners and policy makers, as well as UN high-level experts. As again, as yesterday, our speakers have each been allocated a time indicated in the program. Once they have spoken on each sub panel, we will open up for questions and comments from the audience. We really hope to have an interactive discussion and exchange with the panelists. So our first sub panel, as I mentioned, considers the role of police, prosecution, judiciary, and the courts in facilitating access to justice. People encounter the justice system through different institutions and at different stages. How those institutions exercise their responsibilities, coordinate with one another, and respond to justice users can directly affect whether access to justice is meaningful in practice, and of course, will impact the efficiency of the criminal justice process in its core role of responding to crime. This panel brings together perspectives from the judiciary, prosecution, and criminal justice monitoring. Our panelists are from different countries in different regions, including a senior judge from Ecuador and from Kenya, as well as online also judicial experts, the French most senior judge, We have the prosecutor general from the Maldives, a senior official from Nigeria working on monitoring within the attorney general's office. So a very strong panel, and we are looking forward, of course, to listening to your experience and your lessons learned from your work. We will start with Ms. Ruiz Cajas. She's a member of the Judicial Council of Ecuador. She's with us here in person, but because the session is in English only, we will watch a video of her intervention with subtitles. And then if there are questions, they could be asked in English and we will assure a consecutive interpretation by our own means. So Ms. Ruiz Cajas is a jurist with more than two decades of public service and experience in criminal law, anti-corruption policies, and alternative dispute resolution. She previously held senior positions at Ecuador's Office of the Prosecutor General, including coordinator of legal advisory services and director of strategic litigation. Since September 2026, she has served as a member of the Judicial Council. So as I mentioned, we will listen to the video, and then Ms. Ruiz Cajas, in the second part in the interactive session, would be able to respond to questions from the audience. Can we please have the video?

Soy Magaly Ruiz, vocal del Consejo de la Judicatura del Ecuador. En nuestro país, las diferencias territoriales, culturales y sociales plantean exigencias concretas a la administración de justicia. Atenderlas requiere procedimientos especializados, coordinación entre instituciones y servicios adecuados para quienes enfrentan mayores barreras. La orientación de este trabajo se encuentra definida en el plan estratégico de la función judicial 2026 2031, construido con la participación del Consejo de la Judicatura, la Corte Nacional de Justicia, la Fiscalía General del Estado y la Defensoría Pública. Uno de sus 5 ejes corresponde al acceso de la justicia y la mejora del servicio judicial. El objetivo es garantizar una atención oportuna, accesible, eficiente y de calidad. con especial consideración a las personas y colectivos en situación de vulnerabilidad. En materia de violencia contra mujeres, niñas, niños, adolescentes y miembros del núcleo familiar, el Consejo de la Judicatura ha impulsado herramientas para ordenar los procedimientos de atención, fortalecer la especialización y mejorar la actuación conjunta entre las instituciones responsables de la protección. Las mesas provinciales de justicia y género están diseñadas para identificar dificultades operativas, establecer compromisos y fortalecer la articulación territorial. Este trabajo se complementa con procesos formativos dirigidos a jueces, equipos jurisdiccionales, profesionales de psicología, medicina y trabajo social, y personal encargado de la primera atención. Una segunda experiencia responde a la diversidad cultural del Ecuador y a la coexistencia entre la justicia ordinaria y la justicia indígena. En 2023, el Consejo de la Judicatura aprobó el protocolo para la aplicación del diálogo intercultural y la guía de coordinación y cooperación para procesos interjurisdiccionales. Estos instrumentos establecen mecanismos de relación entre autoridades indígenas, operadores de justicia y entidades de protección de derechos. El sistema pericial también reconoce las especialidades de antropología, interculturalidad e interpretación de lenguas ancestrales. La tercera experiencia se desarrolla en la justicia juvenil. El enfoque restaurativo orienta la respuesta hacia la responsabilidad del adolescente, la reparación del daño y su reintegración familiar y social. La guía y el protocolo especializados contemplan mecanismos como la mediación, conciliación y la remisión, con el acompañamiento de profesionales en psicología, medicina y trabajo social. A nivel nacional, el servicio se brinda en unidades especializadas de familia y multicompetentes. En total, 180 unidades judiciales y 543 juezas y jueces tienen competencia para atender causas de adolescentes en conflicto con la ley. Estos avances también permiten identificar los desafíos que debemos atender durante la ejecución del plan estratégico. Uno de ellos es asegurar que los instrumentos aprobados se apliquen de manera uniforme en todo el territorio y produzcan mejoras comprobables. Esto exige contar con indicadores sobre tiempos de respuesta, reducción de barreras y experiencia de las personas usuarias. También debemos sostener la especialización de los operadores, ampliar la disponibilidad de peritos e intérpretes y fortalecer la articulación con las redes de protección. El Ecuador llega a este Congreso con experiencias concretas y con la decisión de evaluar el impacto de estas experiencias y fortalecer su aplicación. La cooperación internacional puede ayudarnos a contrastar metodologías, compartir herramientas y construir evidencia comparable sobre aquello que realmente mejora el acceso a la justicia. Nuestro propósito es que cada política, protocolo y mecanismo de coordinación se refleje en una atención judicial más oportuna, accesible y adecuada a las necesidades de las personas. Muchas gracias.

Thank you so much, Ms. Ruiz Cajas, for your contribution. I would like to now give the floor to our next speaker, Justice Retired Abbas Sharif, the current Prosecutor General of the Republic of the Maldives. Justice Sharif previously served as a judge of the High Court of the Maldives and now leads the Prosecutor General's Office. He previously served as Secretary to the President at Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, and as Vice President of the Judicial Services Commission, and worked with the Attorney General on the drafting and reviewing of the Constitution of 2008. Justice Sharif, thank you for joining us. From the perspective of a leader of a prosecution service, what practical measures can make access to justice more effective and efficient for the people who need to use those services?

Distinguished Chair, Madam Moderator, Excellencies, colleagues on this panel, ladies and gentlemen, assalamu alaikum, and thank you very much. First, before I start, I'd like to thank the organizers of this panel for placing prosecution along the police and the judiciary on this panel. In my experience, usually, access to justice is usually described from the courtroom's perspective. So I want to describe it from the doorway of prosecution. The Maldives comprises of half a million people scattered across more than 180 inhabited islands. Each island has a court that hears criminal cases. So we prosecute before more than 180 courts, while the appeal court sits in the capital, Malé. Against the cabot, then a plane and then a taxi and you came to the 12th floor and waited at the counter to find out to meet someone who can access your file. So for those who know me, for those who have heard me in these events before, know that I like to come with real life experiences. And recently my team has started giving me, given me faces to these illustrations I use in my interventions. So hope this approach we use makes it easier for you to remember what we talk about today. So let's call her Fatima. She lives on an island in the south of Mali, a full day's travel from Mali. Her son, let's say a 20-year-old boy, has been charged with drug offences. You see, she is neither an accused nor a victim. She is a mother who needs to know three basic things: where the case stands, what comes next, and how she can help. For a long time, like I said before, getting these answers meant travelling all the way to Malaya in person. and knowing whom to ask at our counter. That is access to justice problem for a prosecution service. Not only whether the charge is right, but whether the people it touches can see it. We have tried to answer that in three steps, and the sequence matters more than any single system. For step one, We had many doors. In 2023, we launched an online portal for the public and for the defense lawyers. Anyone could send letters, apply for criminal record clearance, request victim support, or check an allegation online. Separately, a government portal served state agencies and courts. Both were good systems, but both were built around us, around the prosecution. Within a year, the cost of that internal focus became very clear. The government institutions and the public struggled to figure out the portal held the service they needed, which portal held the service they needed. So the worst thing is neither of these portals mirrored Fatma. She had to know which door was hers Neither door had been designed with her in mind, because she was not a party to the case. Step two. Step two, we have gone for one door. Under our ongoing modernisation project, we have brought all these portals and the services scattered around them under one roof, while also introducing new services that had never been available online before. We have named this e-Dorosh, literally electronic gateway. So one door with six windows, and the windows are defined by who you are, not who the prosecution is, so rather than how we at the prosecution office is organised. So we have a window for the public, a window for the government institutions and the courts, A window for defense lawyers who can now access their clients' electronic files directly instead of asking us for physical copies. A window for victims with case updates and case support through entire process of prosecution. A window for journalists because we believe that prosecution service that is hard to report is hard to trust. And a window for foreign embassies with secure access to information about their nationals. This change we have brought may look small on a slide, but in practice it changed the question we ask when we design anything. Not which section handles this, but who is standing at the door and what do they need to see? So the next person at the door, the next window that is coming up, will be the person in custody. We are currently working with the Maldives Correctional Services to allow inmates to access their own electronic files directly from prison, because we believe the person with the greatest stake in a case is often the one with least access to it. Step three. Step three, the door that comes to you, this is where we are going now. It has not been delivered, so I will describe it as a direction and not a result. Under PGO 2.0, our program to integrate artificial intelligence into our prosecution work, the direction of travel is from a door to the citizen must walk to, towards an assistant that comes to the citizen. So basically, when our PGO 2.0 project concludes, we will have an AI agent, an agent that works for Fatmat, an agent Fatmat can ask in our own language, in Dewehi, in plain words, where her son's case is, what an upcoming hearing means, and receive the answers that is accurate, recorded, and drawn from our own systems. So what happens really is when we introduce the AI citizen agent, once a case is lodged in our system, automatically the parties and people like Fatma will be sent a message through our system, introducing them to their AI agent. And throughout the case, they will be able to communicate with their AI agent, the agent which will look into the files automatically and keep them updated of the progress in the case. For this, three strict conditions would apply. and they are written into the governance framework we publish before deploying anything. First, the agent will only inform, it will never decide. No decision to charge is taken by this agent or discontinue a case is taken by this agent or to affect anyone's liability will be automated. So no automation that may affect anyone's liability will be done. Second, it will speak in Devanagari properly. Of course, it will have the English function as well, but most importantly, it will speak in Devanagari properly. A national language cannot be an afterthought. An assistant that works only in English is a door with a sign in the wrong language. Third, it runs on infrastructure that the state controls. A prosecution service's case data cannot sit on someone else's server. Why is this a contribution to a panel on effective and efficient prosecution and not a panel on technology? Because every hour a prosecutor spends telling someone where their file is, is an hour not spent on the file itself. In a service of about 200 people, this arithmetic is not abstract. Access and efficiency are not competing goods that a small office has to trade off. Done in the right order, we believe that the same investment buys both. We understand that there are risks, and the risks are real, and this panel will rightly ask about them. A digital door can exclude as easily as it includes. The elderly, the unconnected, the person who simply does not trust a screen. Because of this, our 12th floor will always remain open. Our 11 branches will also remain open. The telephones will stay answered. And the paper channel will not be switched off. The digital access is an addition to the right of access, not a replacement for it. I will close with the offer the Maldives has made in the pledge at this Congress. The governance framework, the policy instruments, and the training curriculum behind this work will be available at no cost to any jurisdiction that wants them. Most guidance on artificial intelligence in justice is written by and for large jurisdictions. Ours is written by a small one. On a side note, the details of our pledge and also PGO 2.0 are available on our website as we speak. So Fatma still lives a day's travel from Mali. What has changed for her is that the door is now on her island. What comes next is a door that speaks her language and answers her by name. Thank you. Shukriya.

Thank you so much for this very interesting and convincing presentation, and also for highlighting that the use of technology does not replace the human capacity to respond to those who may not be able to use technology. And thank you for your pledge and your offer to support other countries and small jurisdictions like your own. We will now listen to the next video message. This is a message from Ms. Margaret Satterwaithe, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. She is a professor of law at New York University School of Law and has worked extensively on access to justice, legal empowerment, and judicial independence, both as a researcher and as a litigator. She previously worked for a variety of human rights organizations.

Should have the legal tools and access to protect their rights and to advance their life goals. This is a vision of access to justice that's made simpler, where obstacles are removed and possibility is enhanced. In the last three and a half years, my role as UN Special Rapporteur has focused my attention on threats to judicial independence and the autonomy of the legal profession, and how critical both of these are to democracy. Today, I'd like to braid these concepts together to offer a few thoughts about how and why legal empowerment and open justice are indispensable in responding to and reversing the wave of autocratization that we see in all regions of the world today. It should be obvious to all of us by now that democracy is facing grave and even existential threats. Today, about three out of every four people on the planet live under some form of non-democratic or autocratic rule. Strikingly, the proportion of people living in unfreedom has grown over time, and it continues to grow. One driver of this growth is that today's autocrats are more sophisticated and subtle than in years past. It used to be the case that autocrats came to power through revolutions or coup d'etat, and held onto their power with soldiers and tanks. But today's autocrats take a different path, often coming to power through elections that are free and fair, at least in the first instance. But once they're in power, these legal autocrats set about dismantling any and all institutions that could check their power. This nearly always includes the media, civil society, opposition parties. and it always includes attacks against independent and impartial courts. This is why it's so important to remember that judicial independence is not only about protecting judges. It is about protecting the rights and freedoms of every single person inside a country. It is about protecting democracy itself. When courts are free from intimidation or political pressure, they can apply the law equally to everyone, including the powerful, including the state. When courts are independent and open, transparent in their reasoning, plain in their language, and accessible to all, they strengthen the most fragile democratic resource of all, public trust. Most of the scholars who study the role of courts in democracy focus on the courts at the top, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court. But my focus and the focus of both legal empowerment and access to justice goes beyond these courts. There's no doubt that these courts play a critical role in protecting democracy and advancing access to justice. But for most people, justice isn't a grand chamber. It's a window at a clerk's office, a form in a language maybe they don't understand, a hearing they can't get time off work to attend. Access to justice and legal empowerment demand that we see these everyday experiences as central to how we judge the effectiveness of a system of justice. A system that only works for those with legal training or resources is not just. Let me tell you two stories. In story one, a woman seeks protection from an abusive partner. She takes off work, waits in line, and is told she needs documents she doesn't have. She tries to get a lawyer, but the free legal aid number is either busy or just rings and rings. She returns to court another day with the documents, only to learn that the judge is unavailable and her matter has been adjourned. She gives up. Now imagine a different story. The same woman faces the same problem, but this time a community paralegal helps her understand the process, guides her in gathering the documents, and accompanies her to the system she needs to access. The court uses plain language forms, offers remote filing, triages urgent cases, and coordinates with social services. A clerk points her to a legal aid office in the courtroom where she could find an experienced and capable lawyer at no cost to her. The judge assigned to her case is courteous and explains the decision in a way she understands. The judge's order is enforceable, and violations prompt a swift response. This time, the woman is not only protected, but respected, treated as a valued member of society. Neither story is about a constitutional crisis, but multiplied thousands of time, it becomes the difference between a system people trust and one they abandon. This is why this kind of panel is so important. It provides all of us an opportunity to step back and learn from each other. as we think through how to make each of our justice system stories more like story two, to ensure that dignity and access are its hallmarks. But there are two ways in which story number two is insufficient to meet this moment. The first one, and this is the critical insight, trumpeted under the banner of people-centered justice, is that the vast majority of legal problems that people face never even come into a courtroom. A Kenyan judge who I had the pleasure of sharing a stage with a while back put it really well. He said, to paraphrase, most judges think of their constituents as the people who appear before them in the courtroom. But I think of things more broadly. I think of my constituents as the people who should appear in my courtroom, the people who law could help if only they were able to access it. If we want people to feel connected to the laws that protect them, We can't wait for them to come to the courtroom. We have to find ways of bringing the law to them. This is the core commitment of legal empowerment and access to justice. It meets people where they are. It asks them rather than tell them what their needs are. And it treats all people with the respect they deserve. The other way I think we need to innovate rests on a distinction I find helpful between two kinds of legal empowerment. One kind is focused solely on individual problems, on ensuring people, every person has what they need to be able to solve their own legal problem. But it's clear that this alone is not enough to protect democracy. We know this because some of the most prominent autocracies in the world have invested heavily in traditional legal aid and frontline courts. But there's another type of legal empowerment, one that I like to call collective legal empowerment. This is not just about helping people solve their own problems, but about helping people come together to confront shared problems, collective injustices. This is particularly important in countries that are trending toward autocracy. The legal autocrats I spoke of earlier follow a similar political playbook, one that blames a country's problems on some minority group. It might be immigrants, ethnic minorities, LGBT people. Collective legal empowerment is about making sure these groups have the tools they need to reject this targeting and advance their equal rights. The result is not only their protection, which is important in its own right, it's about depriving would-be autocrats of a convenient scapegoat. In my current research, I'm working to develop more concrete strategies for how to foster collective legal empowerment in those places where it's most needed. And discussions like this are critical because they provide opportunities for sharing ideas and learning from one another, for creating networks of justice leaders who can call on one another to share innovations, ideas for overcoming obstacles, and facing threats. As Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, I hear every single day from a judge, a lawyer, a prosecutor, or a community paralegal who's at risk for their work to advance justice. The pace of these threats is deeply disturbing, but it's also a testament to the fact that this work matters. Advancing impartial, independent, and accessible justice changes lives for the better. The judges in small towns, the prosecutors facing everyday criminals, the law clerks and paralegals who are making justice open and accessible to all need support and resources from the top. This is why I'm inspired to know that so many justice advocates are gathering why the participation of international institutions and development partners is so important. Your work transforms justice and makes it real. Let us find new ideas and new strength in one another so that we can redouble our efforts to advance equal justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you to Ms. Satterthwaite for her contribution. I'm pleased now to welcome our next speaker, Hon. Richard Kipkemoi Kwoish, who is a judge of the High Court of Kenya. Justice Kweish began his legal career in private practice before joining the Directorate of Public Prosecutions, where he rose to senior state counsel. He subsequently joined the judiciary, serving as a resident magistrate and head of station at several courts before becoming a judge of the High Court. His work has included strengthening court administration, court users, committees, and institutional accountability. I would like to now give you the floor, Justice Koach. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished Chair, Your Excellencies. Good morning. My presentation is on the role of the police, prosecution, and the judiciary in the context of the Republic of Kenya. I have it in PowerPoint form. And I would start in a sequence, I would start with the police. The National Police Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Judiciary are established under the Constitution of Kenya with clear mandates. And it was the desire of the people of Kenya that They would work even though independently, but working together to ensure access to justice.

This is a different presentation. This is not the one. Because I think we had two. Maybe it's the other one.

Yes, this one is here. Sorry.

Apologies. It seems to be that it's the other presentation. That we have.

This one will be coming in the afternoon, sorry.

Okay.

It's okay. They have a different version. If you could put the other one up, sorry about that.

Okay.

It's because they have to download it.

Okay.

If you want to speak without the presentation, you can go ahead and whatever.

If we have a problem with this, we can go to the next speaker and then come back to the judge.

That is correct. Yes.

So while we settle the presentation questions, sorry about that, I would kindly ask the conference officers to go to the next speaker, Mr. Christophe Soula, who is a video from-- Mr. Soula is the first president of the Court of Cassation in France. He has been the first president since 2022, following a judicial career spanning several decades. As the highest ranking magistrate of France, he also presides over the siege panel of the High Council of the Judiciary, the Conseil de la Magistrature, and the board of directors of the National School for the Judiciary. Please, can we have the video for Mr. Soula.

Mesdames, Messieurs, Permettez-moi tout d'abord de remercier le secrétariat de l'Office des Nations Unies contre la drogue et le crime de m'avoir confié à cette discussion. Bien qu'à distance, je suis ravi de pouvoir intervenir aujourd'hui à cette table ronde consacrée au rôle de la police, du ministère public, de la magistrature et des tribunaux dans la facilitation de l'accès à la justice. L'accès à la justice est un principe fondamental de l'État de droit. Mais, comme le rappelle le titre de cette table ronde, il ne repose pas uniquement sur les magistrats et les tribunaux. Ceux-ci ne sont en réalité qu'un maillon d'une chaîne qui commence bien en amont de l'audience. En matière pénale, tout commence notamment par l'accueil de la victime et le recueil de sa plainte, puis par le sérieux et la qualité de l'enquête et des décisions prises par le parquet. Le juge n'intervient qu'au terme de ce parcours. Je souhaiterais ainsi vous présenter l'engagement de la Cour de cassation en faveur de l'accès à la justice au niveau national, puis évoquer nos engagements plurilatéraux et multilatéraux, avant de partager avec vous quelques travaux de réflexion menés par la Cour sur l'apport de l'intelligence artificielle à l'accès à la justice. dans l'arrêt H. R. contre Irlande, la Convention a pour but de protéger, je cite, des droits non pas théoriques ou illusoires, mais des droits concrets et effectifs. Notre approche française de l'accessibilité au juge repose sur un système national d'aide juridictionnelle. Ce système solide, financé par l'État, garantit que personne ne soit privé d'une défense pour des raisons financières que ce soit en droit civil, pénal ou administratif. Selon les données les plus récentes, en 2024, 1 177 166 admissions à l'aide juridictionnelle ont été prononcées, dont 62 % relèvent du contentieux civil et administratif et 38 % du contentieux pénal. Cette aide évolue et s'adapte aux besoins de la société. Par exemple, la loi du 23 juillet 2026 sur la justice criminelle et le respect des victimes étend le bénéfice de l'aide juridictionnelle aux victimes de violences sexuelles ou intrafamiliales dès le dépôt de la plainte. Cette mesure entrera en vigueur le 1er janvier 2027. Cependant, l'accessibilité ne se réduit pas aux aspects financiers. Un système judiciaire lointain et source d'aliénation. C'est pourquoi nous rapprochons la justice grâce à notre réseau de 2 981 points justice. Il s'agit de lieux d'accueil publics, gratuits et ouverts à tous, qui permettent à chacun d'obtenir des informations et des conseils sur ses droits et ses devoirs, mais également d'obtenir une médiation et/ou une intervention précoce visant à résoudre les conflits avant qu'ils ne s'aggravent. En 2025, 98,7 % de la population pouvait accéder à un point justice en moins de 30 minutes depuis son domicile. L'accès à la justice implique non seulement d'accéder à un tribunal, mais aussi de comprendre la décision qui est rendue. En d'autres termes, c'est aussi la capacité des institutions à s'expliquer, à justifier leurs choix, à rendre compte de leurs actions. Ces dernières années, la Cour de cassation a redoublé d'efforts pour mieux communiquer, mieux se faire comprendre. Nous avons ainsi entrepris une réforme en profondeur qui a abouti à enrichir la motivation de nos décisions les plus importantes. Nous expliquons pourquoi nous retenons une interprétation plus qu'une autre ou pourquoi nous modifions notre jurisprudence. Cette démarche est appuyée par notre politique de données ouvertes, la publication en ligne massive et gratuite de toutes les décisions de justice, soit plus de 2 millions de décisions en ligne désormais accessibles à tous. Cette ouverture est rendue possible notamment grâce aux investissements de la Cour de cassation dans la science des données de l'intelligence artificielle. Parallèlement, la Cour a développé des outils de communication tels que les communiqués de presse, les audiences filmées, les podcasts et l'usage des réseaux sociaux. Elle participe aussi à la construction d'une culture juridique partagée où le droit n'est pas perçu comme une contrainte lointaine, mais comme un cadre protecteur et équitable. L'accès à la justice n'est pas une problématique limitée à la sphère nationale. L'émergence du droit européen et du droit international dans l'office du juge national en fait désormais un enjeu partagé. Le juge national est parfois appelé à s'assurer du respect des conditions du procès équitable dans d'autres États. Tel est le cas en matière d'extradition, où celle-ci peut être refusée lorsque la personne réclamée serait jugée dans l'État requérant par un tribunal n'assurant pas les garanties fondamentales de procédure et de protection des droits de la défense. La Cour de cassation s'investit ainsi dans plusieurs initiatives internationales rattachées à la Banque mondiale. Elle a notamment rejoint le groupe de travail sur l'accès au droit et à la justice, lancé fin 2025 sous l'égide du Forum mondial sur le droit, la justice et le développement. Aux côtés d'autres partenaires académiques et internationaux, cette initiative a pour ambition de renforcer l'échange de pratiques entre juridictions et, in fine, d'améliorer l'accès à la justice à travers le monde. La Cour contribue ainsi à l'accomplissement de l'Objectif de développement durable visant à promouvoir l'État de droit au niveau national et international et à garantir l'accès à la justice. Plus précisément, dans le cadre de cette démarche, la Cour s'investit dans le projet Qualité, Intelligibilité, Prévisibilité, qui est articulé autour de deux grands axes. Le premier prévoit l'élaboration d'un rapport mondial analysant les différentes méthodes de rédaction et la structure logique des arrêts des cours suprêmes. Cette étude comparative permettra de créer une boîte à outils proposant des modèles de jugement structurés à destination des juridictions. Ces instruments serviront ensuite de support au développement de projets pilotes et d'offres d'assistance technique. En parallèle, la Cour participe activement au réseau francophone de l'AJUCAF où elle a contribué à l'élaboration de recommandations sur la Cour suprême idéale des pays ayant en partage l'usage du français, qui formule notamment plusieurs préconisations relatives à l'accessibilité des juridictions suprêmes. Je ne peux clore ce message sans mentionner les évolutions technologiques auxquelles nous nous adaptons et qui participent à faciliter l'accès à la justice. Comme mentionné précédemment, notre Cour est chargée de publier l'ensemble des décisions judiciaires et détient à ce titre ces données. À l'appui de cette mission, la Cour a développé en interne un logiciel de pseudonymisation des décisions de justice. Et nous avons également établi un groupe de travail interne chargé à la fois d'identifier les cas d'usage possibles de l'intelligence artificielle et une réflexion sur les interrogations que ces usages peuvent susciter au regard de l'office du juge, mais aussi au regard du respect des droits de l'homme, en associant étroitement juristes et spécialistes de la donnée. En avril 2025, le groupe de travail a rendu un rapport identifiant cinq catégories de cas d'usage, la structuration des documents, l'exploitation des écritures des parties, la recherche et l'exploitation des bases documentaires, la diffusion de la jurisprudence et l'aide à la rédaction. Toutefois, un point mérite d'être souligné: aucun besoin d'aide à la décision n'a été identifié. La décision reste entièrement l'affaire du juge. Ainsi, pour reprendre les termes de la conclusion du rapport, La Cour de cassation n'est ni technophile ni technophobe. Tout l'enjeu réside dans la manière d'utiliser au mieux l'intelligence artificielle, tout en la laissant à sa juste place pour préserver l'office du juge dans un État de droit et de garantir la confiance et la maîtrise humaine. Je vous remercie pour votre attention et je vous souhaite de fructueuses discussions.

Thank you to Justice Sullard, especially for highlighting the evidence-based approach and including the review of the actual needs of the judiciary in terms of use of AI. I think that was very interesting to hear that no need for support in decision-making was identified by the judiciary. And now I think we are ready with the presentation of Justice Quish. Sorry about that. We can go back to this panelist. Thank you.

Distinguished Chair, Your Excellencies, distinguished delegates, good morning. Sorry for the initial mix-up. My presentation is on the role of the national police, the director of public prosecutions, and the judiciary or the courts in enabling access to justice and in the context of what obtains within the Republic of Kenya. So the National Police Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the judiciary are all established under the Constitution of Kenya with clear mandates as regards their roles and these mandates are constitutionally protected and they are to work in an independent manner to enable access to justice. You can go to the first slide, okay, sorry. So the Then we could. Okay. Want to go back? Yes, go back. Okay, the next slide. Okay, yes. So the National Police Service is given the mandate to undertake investigations into suspected criminal offences. They're meant to compile investigations files with recommendations on what charges to be preferred and against which suspects. Once they compile the file, it is forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has the mandate to review the files for completeness, to review the evidence that has been covered by the National Police Service, and to inform his decision on whether or not He agrees with the recommendations that have been preferred by the National Police Service. He also has the power to direct the Inspector General of the National Police Service to undertake further investigations if it is of the view that there are areas that need to be covered. Once he's satisfied that there is evidence to support the charges that have been preferred, he will then initiate charges before the judiciary. Mostly, the first port of call is the support net courts of Kenya, which hear most of the criminal cases. So the courts One says to Amata, from the Director of Public Prosecutions, is meant to independently hear the case, hear the case of the prosecution, the case of the defence, and determine as an independent arbiter whether the charges that have been preferred have been proved. the National Police Service in undertaking its duty and I would want to point out that its establishment is under article 242 of the Constitution of Kenya. It has a countrywide mandate as a national service with the Inspector General of the Police as the head of the National Police Service and the Constitution grants him independent command of the national police service and in undertaking investigations and enforcement is required to respect the rule of law, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms as enshrined in our constitution. The idea is to ensure that the criminal justice system is undertaken under the principle of the rule of law and constitutionalism. And under article 245, the office of the Inspector General is insulated by being granted independence. And even though The DPP is empowered to direct him to conduct investigations, but those directions must be given in writing. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is established under Article 157 of the Constitution of Kenya. he can Institute and undertake criminal proceedings before any court he can take over proceedings which have been instituted by other persons or authorities and subject to constitutional safeguards and he may discontinue proceedings which have been so instituted by other persons or authorities under constitutional safeguards also. And in exercise of the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, is required under our Constitution to work independently and to have regard to public interests, the interests of the administration of justice, the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process. And ah there are principles which underpin the office of the director of public prosecutions and is required to be guided by the constitution and the law. And is meant in the discharge of this his functions to to ensure to to take into account or to consider the diverse of Kenya so judicial officers are exercising this Authority as a delegated Authority from the people of Kenya and uh the judiciary is required to to act independently as an independent Forum for adjudication of criminal matters. And the principles of judicial authority is that justice must be accorded to all, irrespective of their social status, that justice shall not be delayed, and that we promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. like cultural systems that have always been used by the people of Kenya. We also required not to take into account and due regard to procedural technicalities. If there is an innovation of our constitution, it is that we simplify our systems as much as possible. And that in exercising judicial authority, we ensure protection and promotion of the purposes and principles of the Constitution of Kenya. And the judiciary, the Constitution has insulated the judiciary to ensure that it's acting independently. And in exercise of judicial functions, is meant to be only subject to the Constitution and the law. And the courts shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority. And we have specific statutes which define the role of each level of our court system, from the subordinate courts to the appellate courts. with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kenya being the apex court. And the three arms within our justice system, being the police, the director of public prosecutions, and the judiciary, are meant to exercise their constitutional mandates independently while cooperating to facilitate access to justice. And the objective is that, the objective is to have an effective criminal justice system that serves the people of Kenya. I'm almost done. And in summary, the police does investigation, the Director of Public Prosecution does prosecution, and then the judiciary determines the case in a coordinated manner. Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you so much, Justice Koich, for this very clear explanation of the structure and the importance of the connection between the different institutions to ensure access to justice. I would like to now give the floor to Ms. Egbu Igbenidion, who is the Executive Secretary of the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee in Nigeria. Ms. Igbenidion is a lawyer and a criminal justice reform practitioner whose work focuses on implementation, institutional coordination, and accountability within the criminal justice system. She played a key role in establishing the pioneer secretariat of the monitoring committee and has since led significant reforms aimed at improving accountability and efficiency within Nigeria's criminal justice system. Thank you, Ms. Igbinidun, for joining us. How can monitoring the criminal justice system help ensure that legal guarantees are implemented effectively in practice?

Thank you very much. Good morning, your excellencies, Mr. Chair. Distinguished delegates and partners in reform, I'm very honored to share Nigeria's experience on how monitoring the criminal justice system can ensure that legal guarantees are implemented in practice. But I would like to thank the organizers of this workshop for framing this session around equal access to justice, because that phrase for all is where the real work lies. Every criminal justice system recognizes basic legal guarantees such as liberty, dignity, fair hearing, access to counsel, speedy trial, judicial oversight, victim protection, restitution, and accountability. But legal guarantees do not implement themselves. A right that is not monitored may be ignored. A detention limit that is not tracked may be exceeded. A remand order that is not reviewed may become prolonged or unlawful detention. A defendant may hold a right to fair hearing, yet it erodes with every month of delay. A victim's right to information, protection, or restitution may be lost in institutional silence. Monitoring is therefore the bridge between legal guarantees and lived justice realities. This makes rights visible, measurable, and enforceable.

Can we say next?

OK, I think.

Just say next.

OK. Next, please. The third slide, please. Yeah, thank you. So Nigeria's criminal justice system and reform framework is anchored on the administration of criminal justice act 2015 popularly referred to as the act. I just seeks to promote efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of society and protection of the rights and interest of suspect defendants and victim. This balance is very important because equal access to justice is not justice for one side. It requires protection for the suspect against abuse, fair trial for the defendant, dignity and participation for the victim and safety for the society. The act introduced important reforms on arrest safeguards, remand procedure, case management, plea bargaining, victim protection, restitution, compensation and non-custodial measures. Next. But before this crucial reform, prior to 2015 when the act was enacted, each institution held only a part of the justice picture. The police knew whom they arrested, prosecutors knew the files that awaited legal advice or prosecution, courts knew whom they had remanded and which cases were pending, correctional center knew whom they held in custody, Victim support providers knew the needs of victims and witnesses, but no institution consistently held the whole picture. And when no one holds the whole picture, system-wide accountability becomes weak. This is why monitoring is essential, because it helps answer practical rule of law questions, like who is detained, why, under what legal authority, for how long, whether detention has been reviewed, whether legal aid is available and whether the case is progressing. So the administration of criminal justice monitoring committee was established under the administration of criminal justice act. As Nigeria's federal statutory monitoring coordination and accountability mechanism, our role is not to act as a court or operational agency and we do not wish to And that restraints is precisely where credibility comes from. For that to a statutory mandate, the act empowers a Cgm see a right of access to all the records of any organs in the administration of justice sector to which the act applies. The criminal justice institutions open the records to us precisely because we're not competing with them. The monitoring body becomes a rival. The report to quietly stop coming. Rather, ACGMC monitors implementation of the act, promotes efficiency, supports coordination, and helps ensure that the safeguards created by law are applied in practice. This is good because laws require implementation. And in this sense, the statutory functions of ACGMC are strategic responses to the risk that legal guarantees may fail at the point of implementation. Monitoring therefore allows us to ask whether the law is being applied by institutions in practice, not only whether the law exists on paper. And permit me to address this on why monitoring the criminal justice system is very critical in ensuring the legal guarantees are implemented effectively through the lens of ACJMC, which is Nigeria's Federal Criminal Justice Monitoring Agency. When ACJMC monitors implementation of the act. For instance, it is protecting the full range of legal guarantees under the act, lawful arrest, humane treatment, fair trial, remand review, victim protection, and restorative justice. In promoting speedy trials, it is responding to the constitutional legal guarantee of fair hearing within a reasonable time. Delayed trial affects suspects, defendants, victims, witnesses, and society. Monitoring helps identify where cases are stuck and where institutional coordination is needed. When we ensure the reduction of court congestion, it strengthens access to justice. Congested court dockets delay hearings, prolong remand, and weaken public confidence. So ensuring the reduction of congestion in custodial centers protects the rights of liberty and dignity. We must understand that custodial congestion is not only a prison management issue, it is a justice issue. We have addressed this through remand audits, jail delivery exercises, and judicial oversight visits to help identify persons whose detention require review. When we track awaiting trial criminal justice institutions, This helped to strengthen inter-agency collaboration and ensure that no right is lost by institutional silence across the justice chain. The criminal justice system is a chain. If one link fails, rights may be lost. Collaboration is therefore key so that justice does not fail between institutions. This sub-panel asked about the role of the police, prosecution, the judiciary, and the courts. Our experience is that each institution holds a different door to justice and that every door left closed anywhere along the justice chain defeats every other door opened elsewhere. So why is monitoring imperative? Reporting is one of our accountability mechanisms under the AGJ framework. It helps to strengthen compliance and to do so, we have developed the Criminal Justice Reporting Portal. It is not just a technology platform, it is a monitoring tool. It helps bring together the pieces of information held by different institutions. It can help identify prolonged detention, expired remand orders, delayed legal advice, inactive case files, congestion trends, and institutional bottlenecks. In the digital age, access to justice requires reliable data, standardized information, and institutional accountability. Correlation and analysis of criminal justice data, which is also one of our statutory responsibility, helps to strengthen accountability and evidence-based reform. Data quality is justice quality. Missing files, poor records, expired warrants, and unclear detention dates can translate directly into unlawful or prolonged detention. Consequently, monitoring becomes a basis for corrective action. Reports are only useful when they lead to review, referral, release where appropriate, prosecution where necessary, legal aid intervention, victim support, policy reform, or institutional correction. At the point of arrest, monitoring helps verify whether suspects are informed of the reason for arrest, whether arrest in use avoided, whether suspects are treated humanely, whether criminal justice process is not misused for civil disputes, and whether access to counsel or legal aid is available. At the point of remand, monitoring helps ensure that detention is lawful, time-bound and subject to judicial review. This is also connected to SDG goal 16, particularly indicator 16.3 sub 2 on unsentenced detainees as a proportion of the prison population. Where many persons are in custody awaiting trial, the criminal justice system must be able to account for each person. At this point, I would like to thank and acknowledge UNODC for its valued support in strengthening access to justice and criminal justice reform. At the moment, ACGMC, with support from UNODC and relevant justice sector institutions, is reviewing remand warrant forms with the aim of promoting a nationally harmonized remand warrant. This reform is important because monitoring depends on reliable information. A harmonized warrant can capture essential information that can improve monitoring, data quality, case tracking, and oversight of pretrial detention. For the wider system, harmonization improves consistency, reduces defective warrants, supports judicial review, and strengthens communication between courts and correctional institutions. From Nigeria's experience, several lessons are clear. First, legal reform is only the starting point. Implementation must be tracked continuously. Second, no institution can solve justice delays alone. Police, prosecution, courts, correctional institutions, legal aid providers, and victim support actors must function as one criminal justice chain. Third, monitoring must lead to action. It must produce review, referral, release where appropriate, prosecution where necessary, legal aid intervention, policy change, or institutional correction. Fourth, access to justice must include everyone affected by the criminal justice process, suspects, defendants, victims, witnesses, and the society. A people-centered justice system must protect against abuse, prevent impunity, support victims, and strengthen public confidence. But we must ask ourselves these seven rule of law questions. If monitoring should close the distance between law on the page and law in the cell, who is detained? Why are they detained? Under what legal authority? For how long has the detention been reviewed? Is legal aid available? Is the case progressing? These are not administrative questions. They are rule of law questions in practical form, asked one detainee at a time. In conclusion, monitoring is not designed to weaken criminal justice institutions. It is designed to strengthen them. It supports the police to exercise their powers lawfully, Prosecutors to proceed diligently, courts to manage cases effectively, correctional institutions to hold only those lawfully committed, and victim support providers to respond to victims with dignity and care. The lesson from Nigeria's experience is that legal guarantees require more than enactment. They require visibility, coordination, data, accountability, and continuous oversight. I would like to close with this reflection. Justice is not measured by the rights a system proclaims, but by the rights it is able to protect and practice. The rule of law is therefore not a declaration. It is a daily practice sustained by institutions able to account for what they do. Monitoring is simply how that accounting gets done. Ultimately, monitoring is about people. The suspect should not be unlawfully detained. The defendant entitled to fair trial. The victim entitled to protection, restitution, and the society entitled to justice and security. That is why monitoring is not only administrative, it is a rule of law function. It ensures that the promise of the law becomes the reality of justice. Nigeria remains committed to strengthening equal access to justice for all. I thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you so much, and thank you for these lessons learned that also reflect on what we heard already yesterday from the Kenyan speaker that had a similar sort of approach on the question of coordination, but now we went to the stronger language of monitoring, which is very interesting. we are now done with our panelists and I would like to thank all of them and give the floor back to our chair for questions and answers from the public thank you

thank you Anna again we went beyond the time so we are basically on on the time limit but anyway we have a we'll extend it for a few minutes are there any request from the floor, the United States, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. And the United States thanks the panelists who discussed examples of the innovations their governments are employing in the administration of justice. We appreciate this emphasis on ways to build professional, accountable law enforcement agencies and prosecutorial services capable of investigating, prosecuting, and securing convictions against criminals. We believe this is much more salient for this workshop than emphasizing broad development goals. We have heard repeated references to equal access to justice for all, as if this were an established independent human right, despite no such right existing in core UN human rights conventions. The United States recognizes the specific rights enumerated in Articles 14 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as the appropriate framework for considering issues regarding equality before the law and legal representation for detained persons. In that regard, the United States would like to see the recommendations of this workshop replace the phrase "access to justice" with phrases that are grounded in justice system improvements and are recognized under Articles 14 and 26 of the ICCPR. Examples include effective criminal justice systems, strengthening criminal justice institutions, equal treatment before the law, due process and fair trial protections in criminal proceedings, professional and accountable justice systems, or efficient legal procedures. In addition, the United States has three specific recommendations for the workshop to include in its report, which I would be happy to share as well with the Secretariat in writing. The first is member states should ground discussions on recognized treaty obligations and so-called access to justice related language should reference specific ICCPR provisions, articles 14 and 26 in particular, rather than abstract or undefined concepts. Number two, member states should redirect access to justice conversations towards strengthening judicial processes and institutions to better deliver justice. And the third recommendation we would offer is that member states should intensify efforts at lowering impunity rates through more efficient and accountable law enforcement and justice institutions. Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank the US for its statement, and we do welcome the written contribution. I see South Africa, please, followed by Finland, and I think that we will close it there.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

We join you and others in, of course, expressing our gratitude to all the panelists for their valuable presentation.

We found them all to be quite insightful, and we did have a couple of questions, but in the

interest of time, Mr. Chair, lessons would you offer about designing a more integrated user-centered system similar to the e-Dorash?

What we've done basically is we have made elect. We have digitized all the files we have and we have given access, limited access in some circumstances, but access to everyone to their files. So once a file is registered in our office, it will be accessible to anyone who has interest in the case. The courts will of course have access, the police will have access, the the victims will have access to some extent, especially with status of the case where the perpetrator is held. And if any decision is made on the perpetrators whereabouts, they will be notified and also will be able to check on their own the status of their cases. For the media, we've also included a separate window so that they can access cases, status of cases, and ask specific questions about cases and go directly, talk directly to the prosecutors who are handling those cases.

I'll give the floor to Finland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of Finland, I have the pleasure to thank all the panelists for their inspiring, illuminating presentation. My question goes to the distinguished panelists from Nigeria. In Finland, we also believe that legislative frameworks are not enough, monitoring is needed. And you might have said this, but could you please repeat, when you have through your monitoring mechanism, When you have gathered data and found spots where access to justice does not work in practice or where the legal guarantees are not put into practice, how do you proceed with this data? Will it be disseminated to the institution where the failure has occurred, or what is the proceeding so that those shortcomings can be remedied?

Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. In Nigeria, our monitoring efforts spans across all the criminal justice institutions, and the complaints will determine the approach that we'll be taking. Well, what we do in practice, essentially, is to first notify the institution whom the complaint is made against. And when that is done, we have what we call our quarterly statutory meeting where that interaction feels institutionally. We take that up statutory during our quarterly meetings and then we follow up from there. But so far that has worked, particularly when it is now brought before the larger committee. I would like to state that ACGMC comprises of critical criminal justice institutions. So you have the head of the judiciary in the FCT, the Federal Capital Territory chairing the committee. We have the police who serves as a member. We have legal aid institutions, human rights institution, the corrections. So all of these institutions is what comprise of ACGMC. So we're able to handle these complaints and treat them as a body during our quarterly statutory meeting. And so far so good. They've been very effective. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have gone a little bit over time, but I think that we can make room for the last request of the floor by the Netherlands. Please go ahead.

Well, thank you very much. We would like the same police organization that was present at the beginning of the journey through the justice system that still is still present. when they return. This makes the role of the police particularly important. It challenges us to be more than a police force. We also need to be a serving police organization, one in which people can recognize themselves and can trust that they will be treated fairly, respectfully, and justly. That requires police organizations to listen to the communities they serve, to reflect on mistakes, and to keep learning and professionalizing. Police officers also need to understand the different communities they serve and build relationships with trusted and influential people who share the same public interest and safe and liveable society. When people from different communities come together, they can also share knowledge, experience and perspective with each other. In this way, the network itself becomes a source of mutual understanding and resilience. Within the police organization, officers with knowledge of different cultures, lifestyles, and religions can support each other, support each other colleagues in better understanding the people they serve. This helps police officers to do meaningful police work with respect for different cultural practices and value systems while maintaining fairness and equal treatment for everyone. By creating regular dialogue between police and communities, mutual understanding grows, relationships develop, and trust can be strengthened. In this way, the police can serve as an important first gateway to the justice system, helping to build, maintain, and where necessary, restore society trust in the justice system as a whole. Thank you very much.

I thank the delegate from the Netherlands for that statement. I don't identify a question, so I will just proceed to just highlight a few of the things that caught my attention during the panel, the presentations. First of all, I would underscore the, and it relates to my concluding remarks yesterday, Ecuador, through the I think it was a member of the judiciary, Ms. Ruiz Cajas, mentioned community justice, which is in Latin America one very important avenue of delivering justice to society, which also relates to this last comment by the Netherlands, which means that people often relate to the closest, more immediate contact with authority, which is at the local level or at the police level, as the Netherlands mentioned. And second, I really want to tell Mr. Sharif that his presentation was very impressive, the way that the Maldives have brought, designed, it's redesigned its judicial system, its legal system to bring it closer to the community, to the people being victims or perpetrators. And is really a good example. And this also gives me a way to tell you that I assume that the panels in this committee, the workshops in this committee are an excellent way, the whole Congress is designed to bring together government and civil society in reflecting on essential matters dealing with criminal prevention of crime and criminal justice. I think that this is the way we should approach this exercise. So the forum is an excellent scene in which to exchange good practices and learn from each other, not necessarily a way in which we negotiate legal texts or this will bring us into a new treaty of anything. It is a forum in which people express themselves and bring their experiences And we learn from each other. And then everybody goes back and takes whatever it feels or believes it is useful to them to improve the way they approach the matters that are subject to the Congress. In this case, we're working on access to justice. And I think that we have been getting very valuable contributions. In particular, I underscore, I don't want to really pick and cherry pick any of the contributions by Margaret Sutherland. I think that the whole video is really valuable. Anyway, I cannot resist, and I will just highlight three or four things that she said that access to justice not only affects the high courts, but for the people, and again, this goes to the basics, the first instance is most immediate and closer perception of justice. The first instance in which they deal with the lower judge or lower court is for them much more important and much more relevant and more immediate than the highest courts of the nation. And she quoted a judge that said that most judges think that their constituency is the people before them, but the real constituency is the people that should be in court but has no opportunity to do so, and thus underscoring the need for equal access and to improving the opportunities of ordinary citizens to access a court system, a legal system, that it is fair and has a level playing field for everybody. She mentioned an interesting concept, I think it's her own academic contribution, which is collective legal empowerment. And it is significant that she continuously, as a UN rapporteur for independence of judges and legal practitioners that she kept on mentioning that autocrats tend to abuse the law to to threaten judges and curtail the independence of the court in order to abuse power and to, and that becomes an erosion of democracy. I thought it was a particularly valuable, the way that she described this. And she ended by concluding almost that better judicial and better access change life for the better of the public. And I think that this again comes to one of my personal most important matters, which is we should not forget that whatever we discuss, in the end, what we are talking is about people. And ordinary citizens that need to have guarantees that their lives are going to be better served by government. Then the president of the Cour de Cassation in France, he mentioned, I think I didn't get the right name, it spoke very quickly, but he mentioned something like a global forum on access to justice, which was, which he signed. a legal framework in 2025. So I think that it should, I ask Ms. Judith to rescue that for the report. And from Judge Kuch, I would just highlight that the whole constitutional organization in Kenya is based upon the -- to prevent abuse of the legal process, and those are one of the things that I would like to highlight from the principles that rule the work of the Office of the Prosecutor. And finally, on the matters on criminal monitoring by Ms. Ignidion, she mentions that monitoring ensures the law is applied within reasonable time. and that no institution can resolve justice delay on its own. And she also underscored that feedback is necessary to improve the practice, so monitoring becomes an indispensable tool. With that, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Douglas Duran, who will start the proceedings of the second subpanel of this this morning. And Mr. Douglas Duran is the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, ILANUD. And he will be the moderator for this panel. So you have the floor, Douglas.

Thank you, Ambassador. Please, can the panelists of the first sub-panel leave the stage? since we lack a couple of places for our next panelists. Thanks a lot for the panelists.

Again, like yesterday, we need to change seats, rearrange the seating of the panel. Okay, so please go ahead because we're running short of time.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Anna. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, our second sub-panel focuses on access to justice for victims, including through restorative justice. Victims may encounter barriers to information, assistance, participation, and remedies at different stages of the justice process. Restorative justice also raises questions about how people are informed of available options, how they participate, and how restorative approaches interact with formal criminal justice systems. Our speakers will address these issues from the perspectives of victims' rights, restorative justice, women in conflict with the law, and young people. Let us begin with our first speaker, Mrs. Nayla Nasif Palma. She's a UN victims rights advocate at the Office of the Victims Rights Advocate. Her thematic focus will be on access to justice for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse. Mrs. Nasif Palma was appointed United Nations Victims Rights Advocate in 2024. and brings extensive experience working on human rights, violence against women and accountability. Previously, she worked in Brazil as a civilian federal prosecutor of military crimes and violence against women, as ombudsperson coordinator and a coordinator for women's rights, coordinator of the institutional diversity and inclusion policies and commissioner for human rights and international humanitarian law of the Brazilian military prosecutor general's office. First, we will present a short video. Mrs. Nasif Palma brought to us. Please The video, please.

I have the right to be treated decently and respectfully.

I have the right to report what happened to me and to feel safe.

I have the right to receive assistance and support.

I have the right to decide to go to the hospital for any investigation and to receive information in my case.

I have the right to continue But I also need a doctor.

I support to restore my addicted.

I want the person to stop. But I need assistance to report this behavior.

I'm afraid of the person who did this.

I need to know I can say something. I want to know who he is.

I need financial support so I can attend school.

I need to talk to someone I trust about what happened to me.

I just want it to stop and to know what my options are.

I...

Have the right.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. Moderator, distinguished panelists, distinguished delegates, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be here. And I am here to share with you the challenges to access to justice that is the core of our panel, the theme of our panel, to linked to a specific category of victims, victims of sexual exploitation and abuse perpetrated by United Nations personnel. I have some slides. I don't know if someone can help me, please. But this video, This video is to bring the voice of the victims, because when we discuss victims' rights, when we discuss access to justice, we need to understand from the perspective of the victims, what does justice mean for them? What does justice mean for victims? And frequently we can hear from them as well, these kind of questions. Can I report safely? Will I be believed? Will I be assisted and supported? Will there be accountability and very important, will the harm be addressed? And I would like to start this challenges on access to justice to say that each and every victim has a different story, different needs. But when we focus on victims of sexual violence, they have a different kind of trauma. And that's why they will require further care to address, to access justice. We have a United Nations GA, General Assembly resolution that was issued in 2022, four years ago, specifically about international cooperation for access to justice, remedies and assistance for survivors of sexual violence. And I would like to highlight here why for these victims can be a little bit different because they experience a different kind of trauma, a very intimate one. So sexual stigma, victim blaming, and fear of disclosure. Victim blaming. What did you do to provoke him? What What were you wearing in the day of this event? Why you did not resist? Why you did not report earlier? These kind of questions are very traumatizing and characterize this specific approach to victims of sexual violence. This effect of trauma as well concerns about privacy, confidentiality, and safety. And what is the most important, the risk of secondary victimization through the justice process. And when it comes to victims of sexual exploitation and abuse perpetrated by United Nations personnel, we still have a further challenge. These barriers are compounded and we have a further layer on this because we have the power imbalance. very pronounced with the vulnerability. And I am mentioning, and please imagine, peacekeepers, humanitarian workers in very hostile and vulnerable environments, engaging with local communities in places with conflict and with humanitarian crisis. So we have as well all the complexity of the institutional accountability framework there is a disciplinary accountability framework within the United Nations that is in parallel with the criminal responsibility if it's a crime that will occur under the national legislation. And that's why it's more challenging because we have different national laws as well. Can you imagine, for example, international civil servant or a peacekeeper that is in a mission in one country, and then when it happens, this person is repatriated or will come back to his or her homeland. So we will have the victim and many of them became pregnant, sometimes with child born of sexual exploitation and abuse in one country and the perpetrator in another one. Can you imagine the complexity of the legal issues that this approach would require? So limited access to specialized legal assistance on criminal issues, but as well when we have children born, for example, paternity claims and child support. It includes as well in the remedies even family law. So we have complex pathways to remedies to address justice, to address access to justice for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse perpetrated by United Nations personnel. And I would like to bring you this picture. First, a specific approach of sexual violence, because sexual exploitation and abuse is a category of sexual violence as well. As the victims' rights advocate, my role in the United Nations is to ensure that these victims will have a voice, assistance, and justice. And this is what we are doing, my office and I, to advance these rights within the UN system, working with UN entities, but as well with member states, because justice is a dimension of sovereignty, isn't it? And the United Nations can provide a disciplinary approach to justice, but not a comprehensive, holistic approach to justice for these victims. So in voice, we want to have elevate, amplify the voice of the victims, then they can shape the response. And we have some initiatives elevating their voices, engaging with them, institutionalizing feedback, We have a victims' rights statement that we issue to make these rights more actionable for them. In assistance, systems that respond to the approach in this disciplinary accountability process within the United Nations, as well advocate for accountability for perpetrators with victim-centered approach, also working with member states, expand access to legal aid and support pathways to remedies. In very complex situation, 20% of the victims, they become pregnant and we have paternity and child support. We have many pending cases of this. And finally, a holistic Justice for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse, as we mentioned, includes accountability of the perpetrator through a victim-centered approach, because these victims, they have a role in this accountability process, and they have the right even to decide how involved they will be. They have the right to have someone with them. They have the right to be protected, heard, respected, to get information about the cases, to have privacy and confidentiality respected. And the remedies is more than the criminal and disciplinary approach, accountability, is as well reparations addressing the paternity and child support claims and measures addressing the continual harm. When it comes to restorative approaches, that is part of our discussions. We are not there yet. There are some interesting debate about applying restorative justice to sexual violence, and we have here specialists that we will hear from them, but we are exploring how we can approach restorative measures that acknowledge the that strengthen victims' voices and agencies that address the consequences that are not fully remediated through the formal proceedings and that can contribute to restoring the dignity. But this requires a specific care because of the serious trauma, the power imbalance, and as we know, this needs to be voluntary, informed, victim-centered and safeguard. Within the United Nations zero tolerance against sexual exploitation and abuse, these approaches could complement but not replace accountability process. I would like to end with this message. Justice must respond not only to the offense, but also to the harm and its continuing consequence. Let's all work together to put victims' rights first. Thank you.

Let me continue with our next speaker, Dr. Ivo Ertzen. Professor Ertzen is Emeritus Professor of Criminology at the University of Leuven in Belgium. And he was, he has worked extensively on restorative justice and victimology, including through research and engagement with international institutions. He led the research line on restorative justice and victimology, served as chair of the European Forum for Restorative Justice and has coordinated a series of European research projects. Dear Ivo, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, dear moderator. That's yours. Thank you, dear moderator, dear Mr. Chair, dear excellencies, dear participants, dear representatives of civil society. In the coming 10 minutes, I would like to share some ideas based on practical experience, research and theoretical insights, ideas on the role restorative justice can play to enhance access to justice. When we talk about access to justice, and I refer to the preparatory documents for this 52nd Congress, the focus is often very much on supporting and strengthening the role of criminal justice agencies and other public services in order to facilitate effective and equal access to formal procedures. Important as this might be, it does not always help us to fully understand what a people-centered system of justice entails, and more in particular, how access to such a justice system, thus based on people's needs, should be conceived. Let us examine what restorative justice, using not just a systems approach, but also, and even in the first place, a human agency approach can offer in this respect. During the last decades, restorative justice has spread around the world, and many UN-initiated initiatives, such as international resolutions, exchange and training programs, studies and publications, have greatly contributed to this development. The role UNODC, but also various regional and interregional UN institutions such as ILANUD and other organizations from the PNI family have played together with international NGOs and regional restorative justice organizations, well, this role should not be underestimated. Restorative justice has found a broad basis worldwide, increasingly supported by research evidence and endorsed by national governments and legislation in many countries. The publication of the six regional volumes of the International Encyclopedia of Restorative Justice, together with a range of other comparative studies, provides a comprehensive and solid overview of the state of affairs of restorative justice worldwide. What becomes clear from these international studies is that restorative justice can no longer be considered in a narrow sense as a non-custodial measure or a program. It stands for a set of principles, values, and practices that can guide criminal justice actors in their daily work, even when they are not applying victim-offender mediation or conferencing processes, and also community agencies, educational services, civil society organizations can find support in restorative justice in order to address various types of injustices and harm, conflict, and polarization. In this sense, it is understandable that restorative justice is extending its field of application beyond common crime in order to also deal with, for example, institutional abuse, political violence, or environmental harm. Going back to our idea of people-centered justice, an important contribution of restorative justice relates to its connection to the life world of ordinary people. By providing a safe space where those affected by what happened feel free to speak, and those responsible for what happened are not forced into a defensive hardness, restorative justice addresses the needs of the direct stakeholders. And important in this respect are their justice needs. What means justice for people? What makes that victims, offenders, community members feel, perceive justice is being done? And how can this justice needs be met? The particularity of restorative justice is that these needs are approached in an inclusive way. A dialogue, directly or indirectly, takes place between the lived experience of the victim and the lived experience of the offender, placed in the context of their respective communities. justice needs are being dealt with not just in a legal or forensic way, but in a narrative and dialogical way. This integral way already provides access to a certain type of justice, be it informal justice. But there's not only informal or community justice, of course, it should. where needed, be linked to formal justice mechanisms as you know them in democratic societies operating under the rule of law. And here I would like to stress that restorative justice does not relate to official or state justice in a merely complementary way, as it is often presented. I see this relationship much more in a mutually reinforcing and inspiring way. We know from research that participation in the restorative justice process does not only result in high satisfaction rates and a high positive impact on feelings of security and reoffending rates, but that it also influences in a positive way the image people have of a criminal justice system. In other words, giving people access to restorative justice and facilitating referral processes to community restorative justice programs may help to restore trust of citizens in the criminal justice system. And here appears an even more important opportunity for the justice system. Carefully listening to the process and outcomes of the dialogue between victim, offender and community members about what happened, what went wrong, and all this wrongfulness can be restored Well, this careful listening can support a better understanding of their justice needs and thus can feed and enrich judicial decision-making processes in a truly responsive way. This is how restorative justice can enhance access and contribute to formal justice. It helps to bridge between the life world of people with their common understandings of justice and the justice of a formal justice system. It gives meaning to the justice experience of those directly involved, thanks to a dialogue now also with the criminal justice system. When I was previously referring to the worldwide spread of restorative justice during the last decades, I made an important mistake. In large parts of the world, what we now call restorative justice exists for ages. More and more, we become aware of the particularities and core values and principles of indigenous justice systems with a strong community orientation and connectedness, not only to the life world of people, but to the whole ecosystem. Our learnings from traditional dispute resolution systems and forms of informal justice help us to unlearn our predominantly individualising way of thinking about justice processes and access to justice. One of the main advantages of customary or indigenous models of doing justice concerns their easy, informal access to local justice structures. From our comparative studies, we have recently gained a lot of insights on the hybrid character of justice systems, for example, in many African countries, where informal and formal justice systems seem to go hand in hand. This interplay also allows for the sometimes necessary supervision of informal procedures in order to protect the rights of minorities, human rights and international standards in general. I would like to conclude my contribution with a second nuance to be made. When I previously depicted an image of restorative justice in a positive and rather promising way, offering the potential to support access to both informal and formal justice systems in a people-centered way, I forgot to mention the remarkable underuse of restorative justice in a quantitative way in most countries. Looking at the prevalence of crime and the types of cases suitable for restorative justice and taking into account the scientific evidence of its benefits, the number of cases dealt with by restorative justice programs should be a multiple of the current caseload, even in the so-called successful countries. We cannot discuss here this issue in depth, but policy making should develop strategies to cope with this paradoxical situation. The Council of Europe is doing so with its Ministers of Justice Venice Declaration from 2021. Furthermore, initiatives in Latin America and Europe are promoting restorative justice, are promoting restorative justice as a human right, which deserves our full attention. Access to restorative justice and to justice in general should not depend on the local situation, the lack of resources, or the goodwill of a judicial actor. We should respect the principle of autonomy for individual citizens and their communities to exercise an equal right of access to justice and to contribute to justice in a participatory, responsible, and innovative way. is the final mission of justice, not to restore peace between people under the rule of law. Restorative justice can act as an important lever to reach this goal. Thank you for listening, and I'm looking forward to receiving your feedback.

Thank you very much, Ivo. Thanks a lot. Our next speaker is Mrs. Silvia Frean, who will share Latin American experiences concerning access to justice for women in conflict with the law. Mrs. Frean is chief advisor of ILANUD. She has more than 25 years of experience in international cooperation, human rights, and justice and has worked on restorative justice at the regional level. At ILANUD, she has served as regional coordinator for crime prevention and as an expert in restorative justice with regular contributions to the International Encyclopedia of Restorative Justice for Latin America and the Caribbean. Silvia, thank you for joining us. I give you the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator, Mr. Chair, distinguished panelists, colleagues, and representatives of member states. It is an honor to contribute to this workshop. My intervention draws on technical assistance in restorative justice. So please let me introduce briefly our work at the Institute. ILANUD was established, whoops, okay. Okay, ILANUD was established in 1975 by agreement between the United Nation and Costa Rica. And it's part of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Program Network. Our mandate is to help translate United Nations standards and norms into practice across Latin America and the Caribbean. We do this by providing technical assistance to states, strengthening national capacities through training, generating knowledge and evidence through research, and promoting cooperation and the exchange of information and good practices across the region, among others. This intervention sits at the intersection of several areas, criminal justice and access to justice, gender and criminal justice, prisons and alternatives to imprisonment, and restorative justice, of course. The Costa Rican experience is therefore a concrete example on how a legal provision can become an operational pathway for access to justice. Across Latin America, legal reforms, public policies, and operational tools are showing how formal legal provision can become real access to justice for women in conflict with the law through restorative justice and non-custodial measures. In 2013, Costa Rica added an article, the 77 bis, real options for women in situation of socioeconomic vulnerability who commit a specific minor offense. The restorative justice law later made these cases eligible for restorative justice. Yet, the key step was not the legal reform alone. It was an operational protocol that turns the legal mandate into a clear institutional pathway which I will call in short the gender responsive restorative justice protocol. The process was lead by Costa Rican judiciary through its restorative justice office and supported by the COPOLAD program funded by the European Union, together with national partners. Ilanwood provided the methodology, conducted the work process, and designed the substantive contents. The protocol was not drafted in the abstract. It was preceded by a national social legal diagnosis that combined documentary review with interviews, consultation, workshops and focus groups involving the prosecution service, the public defender's office, psychosocial teams, judges, the restorative justice office, gender specialists, and other institutional actors. The protocol was built through a participatory process during 2024. It added value lies in five features. It drew on evidence from practice, from the people who apply the law, and specifically from those who apply restorative justice in Costa Rica. It opened a valuable space for dialogue between actors. It secured national ownership with the judiciary leading and validating every step of the process. It aligned national practice with international standards, and it was designed as a living instrument with built-in evaluation and review. The process produces three outputs, a national diagnostic study, the protocol itself, and a methodological annex on applying a gender perspective in criminal cases. The diagnosis and the protocol are publicly available through the restorative justice website at the Costa Rican judiciary. The diagnosis shows that the women concerned are not a homogeneous group. Vulnerability appears at several connected levels. I mentioned stressing in the protocol and for the public prosecutor's office to assess. Second, referral to the national support network for women in criminal proceedings now happens at the first meeting with defense counsel. So that support does not depend on the outcome of the case. Third, it guides each procedural stage, admissibility, viability, the restorative meeting, judicialization, and follow-up. And fourth, it introduces a risk and protection matrix. And finally, a fifth factor, tailored and reparation plans with clear rule. Gaps in services can never, on their own, exclude a woman from restorative justice. In practice, the restorative meeting follow non-structured steps with community representatives helping to shape the reparation plan, which should be beyond community work to include education and therapeutic support. A plan that ignores poverty, sole caregiving, and the lack of transport, for instance, becomes a route to noncompliance and back into the system. That is why court approval must set out clear conditions, and why follow-up is the backbone of the process. The process did not end with the document. On December the 16th, the 16th of December, 2024, the protocol was publicly presented in a session that also included basic training for the operators who apply restorative justice. And Ilanud has continued to generate this capacity building with actions and with judicial actors. A further milestone occurred in the 14th of April 2026, when the Superior Council of the Judiciary approved the protocol in session number 27, 2026. The official communication instructed publication of a circular to communicate the protocol and ensure its implementation. This transformed a technical instrument into institutional policy. The Costa Rican experience also resonates with a wider regional movement. In Colombia, for instance, we have a law creating public utility services as substitute sentence for women heads of household under defined legal condition. In Brazil, mothers' law also provides for replacing pretrial detention with home detention for pregnant women, mothers, or women responsible for children or persons with disabilities subject to legal exclusions. In Mexico, the amnesty law includes defined situations of vulnerability while preserving victims' rights and civil liability. These instruments are not identical and not all restorative, but share several orientations that are very important, addressing harm, for instance, proportionality, reintegration, preventing further offending. But they point toward proportionality, reintegration, and prevention of further harm are very important for the restorative justice. From this experience, I will underline finally five policy lessons. The first lesson is the need to anchor access to justice in an intersectional understanding of structural vulnerability. A gender-responsive justice system must therefore assess vulnerability not as an exceptional personal circumstance, but as a structural condition that should inform decision-making from the early stages of the criminal process. The second lesson is that legal reform must be translated into operational access. The Costa Rican experience is particularly relevant because the protocol shows how legal reform can be made workable through standardized vulnerability criteria, restorative justice procedures, reparation plans, judicial supervision, and coordination among public defender's office, the prosecution, psychosocial teams, and restorative justice authorities. The third lesson concerns proportionality in practice in cases involving low-level and nonviolent offences committed by women in situations of greater vulnerability. Imprisonment may produce disproportionate harm, including harm to children, dependants and wider care networks. Restorative and non-custodial measures can provide a more constructive form of accountability when they combine acknowledgement of harm, reparation, community benefit, reintegration, support and prevention of reoffending. The fourth lesson is that legal information and specialized defense are indispensable conditions for substantive access to justice. Alternatives to imprisonment remain largely theoretical if women do not know that they exist, do not understand their scope, or lack assistance capable of requesting them. The fifth lesson is that restorative justice must be embedded in viable support networks and evidence systems. Reparation plans will only be credible if they are realistic in light of women's care responsibilities, socioeconomic conditions, and social and institutional support. At the same time, states need disaggregated data and monitoring tools to measure not only whether alternatives exist in law, but whether eligible women can access them, complete them and achieve meaningful outcomes for victims, families, communities and the judicial system. Let me close with a core message, the regional contribution. shows that access to justice for women in conflict with the law requires a response that recognizes harm without denying context, places victims and communities at the center without instrumentalizing them, demands responsibility without ignoring real condition of compliance, and measures outcomes by harm repaired, reoffending reduced, social ties strengthened, and new victimization prevented. Thank you.

Thank you, Silvia, for sharing with us this very useful information about these initiatives in Latin America. I can underline the importance in terms of policy of these initiatives in Latin America. Our next speaker is Artemis Ravelo from Brazil. And let's welcome her. Mrs. Ravelo is a member of Generation Justice Youth. Is a youth advocate and policy professional whose intervention examines young people's perspectives on restorative victim-centered and trauma-informed justice. She holds a first class BA in politics and international relations from the University of Westminster, and her professional experience includes work with the International Organization for Migration, regional office for Europe and Central Asia. Mrs. Ravelo, the floor is yours.

Well, Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. Firstly, I would like to thank my seniors here for the incredible presentations and the introductions to the different aspects of restorative justice. And to this presentation, I hope that I can bring some new youth perspectives to this discussion. So we often speak about justice in relation to young people, but less often with them. and I want to look at the distance between having a right and knowing how to use it, and between being invited to speak and seeing that contribution actually shape a decision. So for this, I will draw on European research and my research on youth perspectives, as well as a national youth consultation that was held in Brazil earlier last year. So The question that I begin with is, can young people actually access an option they have never been taught to recognize? A service may exist in law or online and still be out of reach. A young victim needs to know it exists, understand what it involves, and know who to ask. That is difficult when they are frightened, when they are dealing with trauma, or unsure whether they will be believed. Who explains what the options are, and is someone even available to answer the questions? And actually, research reviewed by the European Forum for Restorative Justice actually does report that victim satisfaction to this project often go up to around 85%, as well as reductions in fear, anger, anxiety, and trauma symptoms. It also points to a greater understanding of harm done from perpetrators and actually reduce reoffending as well. However, this does not mean that every victim should be forced to participate. Restorative justice must be voluntary and carefully prepared and led by trained professionals. The Council of Europe actually does recommend it as a generally available service based on informed participation. But people cannot make an informed decision about something that no one has properly explained to them. Additionally, the European Forum has shown where that explanation can fail. A first contact professional may lack specialist knowledge, a referral may be unclear, or a specialist may never even reach the victim. For a young person, this might mean hearing the term once during a stressful conversation and then never hearing it again. And the research actually shows that victims generally prefer to receive the information and decide for themselves, even if they either do decline, but it's viewed with safeguards. I also ask what justice should achieve, how young people feel. An option does not mean someone would actually choose it after experiencing harm. But this data shows just how much support may remain hidden when information never reaches people. We cannot treat a lack of requests as proof that young people are uninterested if they never understood what they could request. Additionally, about 78% of the respondents said that justice should balance accountability and healing, while only a minority, about 13%, believe that its main purpose should be punishment. And even this minority is important to notice because a lack of proper restorative justice may actually lead people to wish for harsher measures in an attempt of getting their control back. And so they were not asking for wrongdoing to go unanswered. They saw responsibility for harm, the victim's recovery, and preventing further harm as parts of the same response. That is how they described what justice should do. And yet, respondents described young people's feelings about justice institutions with words such as scared, biased, uneasy, untrustworthy, suspicious. And through this, we can understand that information does not arrive in a neutral setting. Imagine hearing about restorative justice for the first time from someone who cannot answer your questions immediately after an offense when you are already in a delicate and potentially traumatic situation. inside an institution, you're already kind of distrusted. If no one follows up, has a choice really been offered? The timing, the person explaining it, and the chance to return to the conversation all matter in the end. 75 of the respondents felt that young people lack influence over justice policy. And when asked where they could be heard most effectively, they most often chose places such as community organizations, followed by social media, schools and universities, and youth councils. Meanwhile, courts and legal institutions were selected only three times in a section where people could pick more than one option. We often invite young people into the institutions they find hardest to approach, and that's great. But we should also meet them in spaces where they feel they are able to speak and actually carry those views into decisions. Early last year, I was part of the Generation Justice Project, and I held a national youth call in Brazil. And even though its original intent was to provide qualitative data on our research for the Congress, it still echoed the same issues that were later repeated by the results of the survey. Young people wanted to contribute, but didn't know where to find opportunities, interventions, approachable spaces, resources, and show us what happened after we spoke up. So, my first recommendation is on universal information and referral pathway. The European Forum's FACTS framework calls for full information for all eligible victims, offered again at appropriate stages, with space to talk and access to specialists. Justice agencies and victim support services should give a clear explanation of the process, safeguards, limits and alternatives. They should repeat the offer when someone is ready and know exactly how to connect an interested person with a trained specialist. The victim should be able to say no, ask for time or ask questions. They should not have to find the service alone. My second recommendation is permanent youth participation in justice reform. Work with schools, youth councils, community organisations and victim supportive services. Young people could test whether the information for victims makes sense, identify confusing points in the referral pathways and help evaluate services. They need time and resources to do this. Authorities should then explain publicly which youth recommendations they accepted, what will happen next, and why others were not adopted. That is how a consultation actually does become influence and gets results. So young people were not...

Speaker Tommaso Chiamparino, who is joining us online. Mr. Chiamparino is the victims' rights coordinator at the European Commission before assuming this position in 2026. He served as team leader on combating hate speech and hate crime in the Fundamental Rights Policy Unit in the Directorate General for Justice and Consumers. He has worked in the fundamental rights field since 2016, including as the European Commission coordinator on combating anti-Muslim hatred. Mr. Chiamparino, thank you for joining us.

Gentlemen, good morning, Chair, moderator, dear panelists, distinguished delegates and practitioners, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sending my greetings from Brussels today. It's an honor to be in this panel alongside so brilliant speakers, and apologies to be only on screen. I speak today in my capacity as the European Commission coordinator for victims' rights. I will explain in a minute what this role entails and what perspective we take to advance on protection of the rights of victims of crime and how we try our best to help. But before starting and taking advantage here of my privileged position of being the last speaker, I would like to call for a big applause to the UNODC Accelerating Justice team and the colleagues from ILANUD for the incredible effort and achievement of putting together this workshop in the 15th UN Crime Congress. Bravo, Anna, and bravo to the whole team. Congratulations. You have created a space for a dialogue on access to justice focused also and primarily on the rights of victims of crime and placed this issue on the global stage. You have taken key focuses like we're hearing in this subpanel today on restorative justice. And so you've done what is urgent and needed to do against unprecedented challenges. So congratulations also for your resilience. We in the European Commission are proud partners of UNODC and their teams, and we truly value our cooperation. So I'll just associate myself also to the statement that was done on behalf of the European Union by my colleagues earlier in this workshop. Equal access to justice for victims and offenders alike is essential to fair, humane and effective criminal justice systems. It is also a prerequisite for the protection of fundamental rights, public trust and safe, inclusive and resilient societies. Yet for many, individuals and communities alike, also in the European Union, and also when they, especially when they fall victims to crime, just remains difficult. Justice remains difficult to access. So we have to ask ourselves, what does it mean in practice to aim for justice to be people-centered, accessible, effective, and accountable? And the speakers before me have given some substantial ideas and broad research input to try and answer that question. From my perspective, that means, and from the perspective of victims' rights, that means, of course, fair trial guarantees. It means, of course, procedural rights during criminal proceedings, but it goes beyond. It starts with information, as it was said before, support, protection and fair compensation for victims. It means ultimately building a society that is aware of victims' rights. And we'll see in a minute from our point of observation why restorative justice plays a role all along these objectives. As a Commission Coordinator on Victims' Rights, I'm tasked to engage with stakeholders in the European Union and beyond and to ensure a consistent mainstreaming of victims' rights all across EU law and policies. I'm tasked so to say, to connect the dots. And connecting the dots, let me add also, is what is important also and essential in the international sphere. So having this conversation today is fully part of what my role entails. From the European perspective, we are all aware of the phenomenon of crime and victimization and the proportion that it has. It is estimated that about 75 million people fall victims of crime every year. which is further amplified by the dimension of digital crime. According to a survey that the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union has published in 2025, one in four respondents indicated they had been victims of some type of digital fraud. One in four. So that means an increased number of crimes that have a cross-border nature and that involve a very large number of victims. You have asked me to focus on what reforms are most important and needed in current times from our perspective. Let me start with a positive note. In the EU, we believe we have reached through the years an advanced legal framework. It has been the result of an evolution. which started and set a milestone in 2012 with the Victims' Rights Directive, which established minimum standards for the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. As the title of the instrument says, it expanded for the first time beyond the procedural rights for victims. And so speaking about support, protection measures as from when victimization happened. Earlier this year, in 2026, we adopted in the European Union a revised directive on victims' rights, which aimed to strengthen what were addressed and considered as the main gaps of the previous instrument. Let me go through a few elements that I think is important for the audience to be aware of. It implies and asks Member States to establish mandatory helplines and online services that are accessible, secure, confidential and free of charge. It speaks about referrals, and when speaking about referrals, it's obviously important to reflect on referrals to restorative justice services too. It announces the protection of privacy and personal data for victims, in particular to limit the risks of retaliation by the offenders, and it improves the early individual assessment of victims' needs and raises standards for protection of vulnerable victims, including child victims, victims with disabilities, sexual violence, and victims of terrorism. Yet, law is as good as it is effectively implemented in practice. And here I come to the space, to an area where I see and we see space for reforms and action in the future, in addition to the changed legal framework. We are about to launch at the European level a Euro level strategy on victims' rights. A strategy at EU level means a set of policy actions that commits in particular EU institutions, but also calls for the participation and the support of member states. Typically, actions are in the area of training, capacity building, including for law enforcement, and here alongside some of the principles that were mentioned before by the colleagues from the Dutch police that spoke in the previous sub-panel. We cannot anticipate much about the strategy yet because the public consultation is open and it aims to be closed in early November. By the way, this is a call also to everyone that is interested to contribute to do so. We value any suggestion and feedback on the way forward. But it gives me, I will take a few minutes just to anticipate a couple of directions we are taking. First, we aim to focus on the digital dimension of crime and victimization. And here it is obvious to state how much technology can be a helpful tool. And so we're looking also at how it can help victims to report online and find an immediate first level support also through technologies. And we aim to work further on law enforcement cooperation and just and cooperation among justice professionals. There's a second direction, and here I'd like to come straight to the point of this panel discussion, which is to further push for restorative justice practices in the European Union. The EU legislation, starting from the directive of 2012, refers to restorative justice practices, highlighting also the needed safeguards and in line with the principles that were mentioned also before me today. We do firmly believe on the transformational impact that practices of restorative justice can have from both the offenders and the victims. And there's plenty of powerful testimonies that exist that show these results. And these can have implication first and foremost for the healing of victims traumas and sufferance. But as Professor Aerts highlighted also before I took the floor, restorative justice Practices can also positively impact the efficiency of the justice system, can reduce the costs related to prison and custody, and contribute to shorten trials. So they can help to foster cohesive communities and cohesive society as a whole, resilience also to new crises and large-scale victimization events that might be ahead of us. In the strategy, we plan to strengthen the awareness and the guidance for restorative justice practices. And we are proud founders of the European Forum on Restorative Justice that is and will contribute to this work at European level. Third and last direction we plan to take, which has links also with restorative justice practices, is to foster through the strategy on victims' rights, to foster international cooperation, to foster exchange, coordination, including with the UNODC, including with other international partners that were mentioned, such as the Council of Europe, and to do so, including in the area of restorative justice. to promote good practices, to promote standards and to help concretely national authorities to develop this practice further and to enhance awareness of the public, of potential victims about having access to these practices. We have created system 2020, the victims rights platform, which in the strategy will be boosted, hopefully, also, and in collaboration with international actors. Ladies and gentlemen, hardly anyone today from our multiple latitudes would question that victims are right holders. Many may, however, find it an ancillary topic in a wide ocean of criminal justice. We actually believe it stands at its core. If victims find redress, the state and institution gain trust. The rule of law is guaranteed and society is fairer and more cohesive. Let me mention a testimony of a victim of crime, which I find quite striking. This person said, I had the impression that the whole scene revolved around me without me being part of it. The only role I had was providing the necessary information. Well, we have to change this perspective because victims' lives, well-being, healing, and rights matters. And these challenges that are before of us are interconnected, are evolving, and no one, no state, no international organization can confront them alone. You can count on the EU and the European Commission as a trusted partner in this process. Thank you again to UNODC and ILANUD for making this big and unprecedented space. for the rights of victims in this 15th UN Congress. They deserve this. Thank you all for your attention.

First, Mr. Camparino, thanks for your presentation. Second, Tommaso, thanks a lot for recognizing the work. It's been almost three years of working together with UNODC and it's been really an honor to have this period of work with you. Thank you, Tommaso. Mr. Chair, that concludes the presentations in our second sub-panel. I will now hand back to you to open the floor for questions, if you consider it that we have the time for it.

We are at the end of the allocated time, but I think that it would be fair also that we probably stay 10, 15 minutes more if the case there are any interest from the floor to make any question or comment. Don't see any requests for the floor. So what we will do now is that I will give the floor to Ms. Anna Giudice, and she will present an advance of the conclusions or the summary of our second workshop. And I want to say two things. First of all, that this will be a provisional summary that I will be working on. Evidently, since we just finished, we need to work a little bit further on that. But Since we don't have that much time, I would like to make very few comments. The first one is that it is striking the way that this sub-panel contrasts with the previous one, in which we were dealing with police, prosecutors, and judges, basically. And this one is mostly configured around perceptions on the victims of crime. So it is not that one is better than the other, but I think I also want to congratulate the UNODC for putting them together and bringing us this very necessary contrast. On the first presentation by Ms. Palma, I was really-- I had never even thought about the UN having these kind of problems. but they are very serious. And I am glad that the UN itself is tackling them by creating your office. I think it is a-- I think that you should sometimes question yourself, what are you working on this? It should be heartbreaking most of the time, but also probably is also encouraging once you find solutions to some of the victims' problems and the situations. Again, in that regard, I think that prevention is a lot more worthy than remedy or the punishment. And it does require this pride on serving for the UN on its highest purposes. Second, the restorative justice has been approached on different angles, all very enriching. I learned a lot from the different presentations. And I also understand that it is a trend that is being increasingly explored in different societies with different angles, again, in the Latin American perspective, which is the one I am most familiar with. This takes us to community, the role of community in providing justice, sometimes with a very local and very ethnic accent, some others with more on a national and an overarching approach. Anyway, I was also surprised that the European Union is approaching towards that model of procuring justice. And my final word before we close the panel today after Ms. Giudice reads the provisional summary is that I would like to invite you all again to booth SN10, where I, who was chairing two years ago, the CCPCJ, requested people to provide titles of books that they found inspiring on CCPCJ issues. And I received 167 titles. You will see them in a PowerPoint presentation that is on the loop within that booth. So if you're walking through there and have some time, stop a little bit, you will find some very heartbreaking and also very inspiring book titles that have to deal with what we are working on all the time. And for a while, instead of focusing on public policy, we focus on individual stories and on people who overcome difficulties or who have been subject to terrible to terrible suffering so anyway that this a a reflection of what the Vienna Community on crime prevention and uh procurement of Justice has uh has contributed to that idea that I put forward as ccpcj chair so with that Anna please get us to a close.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I also really want to thank you and the colleagues from Ilanot, as well as the esteemed panelists for their kind words. Indeed, we have been working quite hard for the last two years, and we're happy that this happened and was not postponed again. So I will read these. They're quite long, and our esteemed chair will probably manage to cut some of my sentences because they're very long in UN style. but I will please bear with me and I will try to read them all out. So member states should promote whole of sector and whole of society approaches and cross-sectoral, multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder strategies to ensure equal access to justice for all. Interministerial coordination, formalized cooperation agreements with all relevant actors, such as civil society organizations and private sector, universities and community paralegal services, and collaboration with sectors such as health, housing, employment, and community services should be implemented. Integrating strong monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that include user experience and are data-driven is also desirable. B, member states should ensure compliance with obligations under international law, in particular Articles 14 and 26 of the ICCPR as relevant, in particular as relates to equal treatment before the law and due process and fair trial protections in criminal proceedings. C, member states should, sorry, this one is double, I have it later, apologies. Member states should invest in justice systems that are people-centered, accessible, effective, and accountable by ensuring fair trial guarantees, independent and impartial institutions, anti-corruption measures in criminal justice institutions, accessible legal aid and effective support services for victims. It is essential to ensure that police, prosecution and courts, including community justice services, are brought closer and trusted by the communities they serve and by which they are treated respectfully and fairly. There should be no impunity and no one should be above the law. Member states should ensure equal access to justice for all by meeting the needs of both victims and offenders, upholding their rights across the criminal justice chain from first contact with law enforcement to judicial proceedings and remedies. Addressing impunity and case backlogs through effective investigations, efficient and accountable law enforcement and justice institutions, independent, impartial and strengthened courts and judicial processes, and efficient court management are essential elements. Focused strategies and programs to address inequalities and discrimination in criminal justice systems, as well as measures to prevent abuse of legal proceedings and measures should be designed. Member states should ensure that efforts to digitalize criminal justice systems and to introduce technology solutions such as artificial intelligence offer tools to increase access to justice for all and do not create additional barriers. while ensuring human oversight and decision making and appropriate safeguards for privacy, data protection, procedural fairness, and human dignity. And that human, no, that's not necessary. And that non-digital options are maintained, sorry. Member states should invest in ensuring equal access to justice for all, including by providing sufficient and sustainable budgetary resources at the national level and by enhancing cooperation with multilateral development partners, complementing national efforts with technical assistance upon request. Members G, Member States should strengthen legal awareness, accessible justice services, and community-based support to address factors placing children, young people, and communities in situations of vulnerability at risk of involvement in crime. H, Member States should ensure meaningful and permanent participation and access of young people to justice reform efforts, access to justice initiatives, and restorative justice programs. Partnerships with educational institutions, community organizations, and victim support organizations should be established to ensure such meaningful participation and increase trust in the justice system by young people. Member states should promote inclusive and accessible legal aid by implementing diverse models to ensure quality, fair and effective legal aid, such as public defender models, university legal aid clinics, community level programs and access at all stages of the criminal justice process. Yeah, I think this is repetitive, sorry. Member J, member states should enhance access to legal information, advice, education, awareness, and individual and collective legal empowerment, community level programs, including through multilingual interpretation services, to raise awareness on the right to equal access to justice, placing a special focus on rural populations, indigenous people, remote communities, children and youth, victims of violence, persons deprived of liberty, and members of society in vulnerable situations who face language and physical barriers. Member States should increase coordination between police, prosecutors, courts, public defenders and penal institutions as appropriate, while still respecting each institution's separate role and independence under the appropriate legal framework to increase access to justice. L, member states should consider sharing of practical methods and lessons learned on access to justice and justice reform with each other to strengthen their efforts. M, member states should ensure equal access to justice for victims of crime, including by establishing sustainable victim-centered, trauma-informed, and gender-responsive victim support, protection, and assistance services tailored to individual and community justice needs. They should also seek to address procedural and capacity barriers in criminal justice and related sectors, including by increasing accessibility of reporting mechanisms, providing access to integrated and coordinated services, and ensuring that victims are treated in a respectful, sensitive, professional, and non-discriminatory manner, enabling prompt...

Thank you, Ms. Jurisinden. With this, we end Workshop 2. And we will reconvene tomorrow, Committee 2, for the workshop 4 entitled, "Turning the Digital Age into an Opportunity: Promoting the Responsible Use of Technologies in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice." 00 PM. The US? Brief comment.

A brief comment. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for indulging us to make a final comment just regarding the recommendations and the way they were patients. They're not representative. Many of them are not representative of the views of our delegation. And I imagine other delegations may feel similarly. So we'd like that to be reflected. Thank you.

That goes without saying. It's part of the definition of the report. So it's just a summary. And the summary just takes into account all the discussions here. So we'll do that. No problem. So see you tomorrow at 3:00. The meeting today is adjourned.