THE ROLE OF THE VICTIM AND THE SUSPECT IN CONCLUDING A RECONCILIATION AGREEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF MEDIATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32703/2663-6352/2025-1-17-217-221Keywords:
criminal proceedings, mediation, criminal process, rights of the parties, participants in criminal proceedings, courtAbstract
The scientific article is devoted to the study of the role of the victim and the suspect (accused) in concluding a reconciliation agreement in the criminal process of Ukraine, with a special emphasis on mediation as a tool for achieving consensus. The scientific views of Yurkova G.V., Sirotkina M., Turman N., Chumak K., Globa M.M., Palyukh L., Velykodny D.V., Shynkarev Y.V. and Basista I.V. are analyzed regarding the legal status of the parties, the conditions for concluding an agreement, their interests and the legal consequences of its non-fulfillment.
Based on the analysis of scientific positions, the following conclusions can be drawn: the need to grant the victim the exclusive right to initiate the agreement; the interests of the parties to the agreement have different orientations: for the victim, this is compensation for damage and restoration of rights, for the suspect, avoidance of responsibility or mitigation of punishment.
Problematic aspects are considered, in particular, insufficient regulation of the rights of the suspect, contradictions in the implementation of the rights of the victim and the ambiguity of the interpretation of the moral and property aspects of reconciliation. The need to improve legislation to ensure a balance between private and public interests, as well as increasing the effectiveness of reconciliation agreements through the introduction of mediation, is substantiated.
A reconciliation agreement in the criminal process of Ukraine is an important mechanism that contributes to the resolution of conflicts between the victim and the suspect (accused) on the basis of their voluntary expression of will and compromise. To increase the effectiveness of reconciliation agreements, it is necessary to eliminate legislative gaps, in particular: to establish symmetrical rights of the victim and the suspect to initiate an agreement, to clarify the consequences of its non-fulfillment, and to develop mechanisms for taking into account moral damage along with property damage.