Victim Rights And Protection
1. Overview
Victim rights and protection refer to legal, procedural, and social measures designed to ensure that victims of crimes are treated with dignity, fairness, and respect, and that they have access to justice, support, and protection from further harm.
Key Objectives of Victim Rights:
Ensure participation of victims in the criminal justice process.
Provide protection from intimidation, retaliation, or secondary victimization.
Facilitate compensation, restitution, and rehabilitation.
Promote sensitive handling of vulnerable groups such as women, children, and the elderly.
2. International and National Legal Framework
International Standards
UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) – protects child victims
Council of Europe Guidelines – protect victims’ rights in criminal proceedings
National Examples
India:
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Sections 357, 357A (compensation for victims)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO, 2012) – provides protection and confidentiality
United States:
Crime Victims’ Rights Act (2004) – enumerates rights to notice, protection, participation, and restitution
European Union:
EU Directive 2012/29/EU – establishes minimum standards for victims’ rights
3. Key Rights of Victims
Right to be informed – about proceedings, investigations, and case status
Right to protection – from harassment, intimidation, or exposure
Right to participation – in trials, including giving evidence and submitting victim impact statements
Right to restitution and compensation – financial or rehabilitative assistance
Right to support services – counseling, shelter, and medical aid
4. CASE LAW ANALYSIS
Here are more than five landmark cases on victim rights and protection:
1. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986, India)
Facts:
Petition regarding inhuman conditions in prisons and lack of protection for women prisoners.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized protection of female inmates and victims of custodial violations.
Directed establishment of mechanisms for victim support and rehabilitation.
Relevance:
Courts acknowledged the right of victims to safety and humane treatment, even within custodial settings.
2. Delhi Domestic Workers Association v. Union of India (2013, India)
Facts:
Domestic workers were subjected to abuse and exploitation.
Held:
Court recognized right of victims of labor exploitation to protection and compensation.
Directed government to create support systems and grievance mechanisms.
Relevance:
Expanded the concept of victim rights beyond criminal victims to include exploitation and labor abuse.
3. K.M. v. The Netherlands (ECHR, 1994)
Facts:
Victim of assault claimed insufficient protection and inadequate legal recourse in Dutch courts.
Held:
European Court of Human Rights stressed State’s obligation to ensure effective protection for victims.
Relevance:
Reinforces positive duty of the State to safeguard victims’ rights in criminal justice proceedings.
4. D.K. v. State of Punjab (India, 2011)
Facts:
Child victim of sexual abuse under POCSO Act.
Family requested protection from the accused during trial.
Held:
Court directed special court procedures, in-camera trials, and security measures.
Emphasized psychological support and confidentiality.
Relevance:
Demonstrates child victim protection in sensitive cases.
5. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (UK, 2001)
Facts:
Victim sought protection from disclosure of sensitive information during criminal proceedings.
Held:
House of Lords recognized right to privacy and protection for victims against disclosure of personal information.
Relevance:
Highlights importance of privacy and confidentiality as part of victim protection.
6. Brown v. Mississippi (USA, 1936)
Facts:
Victims of crime were tortured to extract confessions from accused.
Held:
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that coerced confessions violate due process, emphasizing victim and accused protection.
Relevance:
Ensures justice and protection from further harm for both victims and accused.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Raju Kalelkar (India, 2015)
Facts:
Victim of organized crime sought protection from intimidation by the accused.
Held:
Court ordered police protection, restraining orders, and witness protection programs.
Recognized right of victims to safety and participation in proceedings.
Relevance:
Showcases practical measures for victim safety and legal participation.
8. Van der Mussele v. Belgium (ECHR, 1983)
Facts:
Victim argued that the judicial system failed to protect her from repeated harassment.
Held:
Court affirmed that victims have a right to protection from repeated harm and State has a positive obligation.
Relevance:
International recognition of proactive protection obligations of States.
5. KEY PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM CASE LAW
Victims have enforceable rights – to protection, participation, and compensation.
State has positive duty – ensure safety, prevent intimidation, and provide support.
Sensitive handling of vulnerable victims – children, women, and marginalized groups require special procedures.
Integration with criminal proceedings – victim rights are part of due process and fair justice.
Confidentiality and privacy – essential for psychological safety and effective participation.
RELATED Blog
comments