Can Colombian Community Justice Houses Help the New Criminal Justice System Achieve Restorative Results?

Transcription

1 International Perspectives in Victimology, Vol.3, No.1, March 2007, pp.x-xx. Can Colombian Community Justice Houses Help the New Criminal Justice System Achieve Restorative Results? ANNETTE PEARSON Consultant, Colombia Community Justice Houses National Program, Bogotá, Colombia Abstract Since Restorative Justice was introduced into the new criminal justice procedure code in Colombia in 2004, the process has led to confusion and procedural shortcuts which do not represent the internationally accepted restorative justice ideas and applications. While the new Criminal Procedure Code recognizes general principles of restorative justice, it does not envisage central issues such as reestablishing relations, the healing process, building understanding, and peaceful coexistence. The preliminary obligatory conciliation process required before a criminal investigation will be opened and the use of mediation meetings throughout the process may function as a needed filter to reduce the volume of cases entering the criminal justice system, but this does not reflect a restorative approach. This paper explores the Colombian Community Justice House as an alternative venue for undertaking restorative justice in appropriate cases. Here formal and community justice services work side by side with a pioneering mission to help communities resolve their conflicts opportunely and live peacefully together. The term Restorative Justice is unfamiliar in legal circles in Colombia. Nonetheless, it was catapulted into the political arena and the legal system when it was included in the recently promulgated Criminal Procedure Code 1 which came into force in Colombia on January 1, 2005, and in transitional justice laws in This paper will examine this recent criminal justice legislation and the risks involved in using the new, unexplored term restorative justice in the introduction of an accusatorial criminal justice system in Colombia. Given that a local community justice model known as Community Justice Houses operates in several Colombian cities, and the presence there of mediators, conciliators, and publicly elected community judges, along with formal justice operators, a proposal to promote authentic restorative justice practices in settings alongside the criminal justice system is presented. The Colombian Criminal Procedure Code To be more effective in the face of an ever-increasing number of criminal cases and to bring the criminal justice Ministerio del Interior y Justicia y el Programa de Acceso y Fortalecimiento de la Justicia USAID. (Ministry of the Interior and Justice and the Program for Access and Strengthening Justice USAID) ( 2003 and 2004) Casas de Justicia Informe Anual 2003 and 2004(Justice Houses Annual Report 2003 and 2004), Bogotá. ECOSOC Basic principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in criminal matters, Annex, Resolution 2002/12 of the United Nations Economi system into line with international developments in relation to human rights and individual guarantees for the actors involved, Colombia undertook a constitutional reform to allow accusatory criminal justice proceedings to be instated. As presented to the President and the Minister of Internal Affairs and Justice by the Director of Public Prosecutions on April 25, 2002, the proposed bill, among other legislation, referred to the need to implement in Colombia the discretion given to the prosecutor to conclude the criminal proceedings when, on the basis of the recognition of criminal responsibility, agreement has been reached between the prosecutor and the defendant. Viewed as a means of avoiding the need to carry out complete criminal investigations, especially in matters pertaining to minor and less serious criminality and, hence, as a way to reduce the accumulating backlog of cases in the system, this measure also became linked to furthering victims rights to restitution. The participation of the victim in the criminal proceedings, as well as a right to attention and immediate protection, constitute significant new features of the Colombian criminal justice system. Furthermore, the constitutional reform calls for the strengthening of restorative justice mechanisms and comprehensive restitution of the victim. Once the constitutional reform was in place, the criminal procedure code could be altered to incorporate the new accusatory system. This took place between January, 2003, and July, The new system came into force on January 1, 2005, beginning in Bogotá and progressively covering the rest of the country.

2 The Restorative Justice Component Incorporated in the new Criminal Procedure Code is a section entitled restorative justice. The principal features of this section are, (1) general principles, (2) conciliation prior to opening the criminal investigation and, (3) mediation. General Principles The definition of restorative justice adopted is limited to the criminal justice context, but otherwise is a general, rather ambiguous definition that provides ample opportunity for creating a variety of specific programs. The definition suggests no clear role for community representatives or the wider public and, in fact, it goes as far as contemplating that the meeting of the victim and the offender may take place without a facilitator. It is foreseen that a prosecutor or judge may refer cases to restorative justice programs as long as the participation of both the victim and offender is voluntary and both have knowledge of the process. Conciliation prior to opening the criminal investigation This procedure refers exclusively to conciliation proceedings in crimes requiring citizen initiative to bring them into the criminal justice system. Within this category are a wide range of crimes including domestic violence, non-payment of child support, personal injury warranting up to 60 days of sick leave, negligence leading to death or injury in a traffic accident, theft, squatting, and so on. In such cases, conciliation proceedings are an obligatory step that must be taken before a criminal investigation will proceed. The conciliation meeting can be conducted by a prosecutor or a qualified, specifically trained conciliator who conducts the conciliation according to the legal provisions applicable. It is noted the victim or the victim s lawyer must attend the conciliation meeting; otherwise, the matter will be set aside, and no investigation will be undertaken. The vast majority of victims in Colombia cannot afford a lawyer, and it is unlikely that legal aid lawyers will be available for this type of assistance. This means that victims, shortly after the incident, must be prepared to face the person who caused them harm, purportedly with a view to exploring conciliation options, if they wish the justice system to begin a criminal investigation. If an agreement is reached between the victim and the offender, no criminal action will be taken. There is no reference to institutional monitoring of the compliance with the conditions of the agreement, and it is doubtful whether this would be grounds for continuing later with the corresponding criminal investigation. While this type of conciliation may serve as a needed filter to reduce the volume of cases entering the criminal justice system, it in no way reflects a restorative approach because attending the meeting to attempt conciliation between the victim and the person who caused the harm is obligatory, at least for the victim, and is approached in the same manner as is used for legal conciliations in many different legal settings. Mediation The mediation alternative included in the restorative justice section of the Criminal Procedure Code is open once a person has been charged with the crime. The request for mediation can be made by the victim or the defendant to the prosecutor or judge handling the case. The Code presents the mediation option exclusively as a process that can modify the course of the criminal proceedings underway. The type of effect it will have in the case is controlled by the prosecutor or the judge and depends in part on the gravity of the crime itself and secondly, on the evaluation the respective justice operator makes of the mediator s report. The preliminary draft of the restorative justice operations manual, written to guide criminal justice personnel regarding how to perform the mediation process, deals mainly with administrative details related with applying this new measure. There are several observations relevant to this paper: 1. Restorative justice alternatives are presented with varied and differing justifications. On the one hand, the motivation for introducing restorative justice measures is explained as the need to divert less serious crimes from the criminal justice system, to reduce costs, to lessen the backlog of cases, to avoid unreasonable delays in processing and, thereby, to reduce impunity and better protect the victim s right to restitution and achieve the reintegration of the offender. Benefits accruing to the victim and to the offender, while not an after-thought are, however, certainly not the first priority. They are rather the results of a well-functioning criminal justice system. 2. On the restorative justice continuum proposed by Zehr (2005), at best the Criminal Procedure Code offers a potentially restorative practice. While the formalisms pertinent to the operation within the criminal justice system predominate and restoring relations between the people affected by the damaging conduct to their original state is largely absent, the manual does leave some scope for developments which with creativity and the participants and local community s influence, might better reflect the more personal and social restorative justice values, practices, and results. 3. The figure of the mediator or facilitator is defined principally by the negative characteristics that exclude people from being designated for this role. Once the people eligible are selected by the Public Prosecutor s Office and enrolled, as the need arises, a mediator is chosen by the prosecutor on the case from the pre-defined official list in the order given

3 there. In this sense, the mediator is assigned at random without consideration for the type of case, or for the origin or characteristics of the victim, the defendant, or their community. However, if the victim and defendant agree on the person they wish to act as the facilitator, the prosecutor will assign him or her as the mediator. 4. The emphasis is on the legal procedure while the building of a personal, shared process is neglected. There is no provision made for pre-encounter preparation, attention to the individual, the diverse needs of the participants, or for follow-up of any agreement reached. Initially, the victim or the offender may request that the judge or prosecutor provide for mediation, and this will be set in motion by the Public Prosecutor s office. Once an agreement between the parties is reached to proceed with mediation, both prior to and during the first session with the mediator, the parties are required to provide all the information necessary for the mediator to adequately perform his role. Such steps are clearly defined, but other important phases are not mentioned. 5. Several aspects of the law and the operations manual suggest that the mediation procedure is more a controlled, private dialogue between the victim and the defendant in which the criminal justice system has a vested interest, than a new approach to resolving individual conflicts which give a high profile to matters of personal identity and commitment to group membership, or to honest encounters of those involved and their significant others with a view to responding for the damage caused and healing their relations. Despite the somewhat ambivalent terms of the Criminal Procedure Code and the draft operation manual that seem less than conducive to a genuine restorative justice approach, a more creative, purposeful reading does identify windows of opportunity for developing a more authentic restorative justice option. These include: 1. The operating manual indicates that the victim and the defendant should be informed of their freedom to undertake mediation outside of the criminal justice proceedings at any stage of the case. This would allow mediation prior to a criminal charge being made, even though a positive restorative agreement might not avoid a criminal charge being brought. 2. The same manual specifically allows the victim and the offender to identify and agree on the person they wish to have as a mediator in their case and the prosecutor will accept their choice. 3. While some issues and steps are defined in detail, many other aspects of the application of the restorative justice options are not set out. Nonetheless, there is an overriding intention that the models be developed in accordance with restorative justice principles and procedures. This leaves scope for designing proposals and pilot projects that further a restorative approach. 4. Additionally, the said manual refers to the Community Justice Houses as one of the institutions where restorative justice alternatives may be implemented. This innovative conflict resolution setting may prove important for implementing fully restorative practices. The Recent Appearance of Restorative Justice in Colombia When Paul McCold (2004), citing Dignan (2000), wrote the paradigm of restorative justice risks becoming an Alice in Wonderland concept, in which it is made to mean whatever particular groups or individuals intend it to mean, irrespective of its defining characteristics, he may have been referring to the birth of restorative justice in the criminal justice system in Colombia. As the term restorative justice, catches on and gains international respectability, there is a threat of it being used to dress-up and legitimate all manner of alternative, diversionary, legal or private citizen conflict resolution decision making. Given worldwide advances, while Colombia is certainly a new frontier for the contemporary restorative justice developments, it is, to say the least, concerning to observe the way in which it has been stretched and rearranged to accommodate local criminal justice system goals. The reservations expressed previously in this paper point to liberties taken in the introduction of restorative justice into criminal proceedings in Colombia that belie internationally recognized restorative justice principles, actors, and processes. In this regard, it is necessary to clarify that the analysis and proposals contained herein are based on a premise that especially in the beginning of a restorative justice innovation such as is occurring in Colombia, it is essential that the developments be designed in accordance with the general parameters that have permitted successful results elsewhere. Allowing, for cultural, social, and institutional adjustments respectful of the specific characteristics of the national, ethnic, and community contexts, there is a need to be true to restorative justice tenets. It is for this purpose that the Colombian Criminal Procedure Code in Articles 518, 519, and 520 enumerates a set of general principles that will govern the application of restorative justice procedures. While these particular provisions reproduce parts of the Basic Principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in criminal matters, recognized by the Economic and Social Council of United Nations in the 37 th plenary meeting in July, 2002, certain aspects of that text were omitted. Either because they were not considered priority issues or because the application in the Colombian criminal justice system chooses to exclude them, individuals other than the victim and the offender and community members affected by the crime are not

4 mentioned as parties or as participants in the restorative justice process. Indeed, there is an explicit acknowledgement that the participation of a facilitator is not necessary. In this regard, the Code limits the restorative justice process to conciliation and mediation procedures, thereby denying conferencing and sentencing circle as methods for seeking restorative results. This position, which omits community stakeholder involvement and which fails to identify the public interest element in the restorative justice process and outcome, is a first transgression from international precepts. Other omissions which create doubts as to the application of the restorative justice methods incorporated in the Code are the absence of indications regarding the safety of the parties involved and how issues such as power imbalances and cultural differences will be taken into account prior to the referral of cases to restorative programmes. Finally, the lack of provisions dealing with how the restorative justice agreements will be monitored and what legal effects will arise from the failure to comply, are not conducive to responsible commitments by the participants. Of even more concern is the manner in which the Colombian Criminal Procedure Code goes onto detail the manner in which conciliation prior to opening the criminal investigation will be applied and in these provisions disregards restorative justice principles outlined previously. An example is the obligatory nature of this conciliation meeting for the victim. Namely, the victim must be prepared to meet the offender, at the very least to indicate the victim s refusal to accept the conciliation proposals. Such requirements contradict the basic premise stipulated in the general rules in Article 519 which states that the victim must decide of his/her free will whether to participate in the restorative justice process. Beyond these ECOSOC principles specifically referring to restorative justice programmes in relation to criminal matters, there are other recognized expressions of restorative justice values and principles which stress aspects such as reestablishing relations, the healing process, building understanding, and peaceful coexistence. None of these are mentioned explicitly or given serious consideration in the Code and the draft operating manual. These issues adopted by the New Zealand Restorative Justice Network in their Restorative Justice Values and Processes statement, June, 2003, and outlined there as interconnectedness, humility, hope, guidance by trusted facilitators, recognition of cultural conventions, validation of the victims experience, and transformative outcome aims, are central to the theory and practice of restorative justice internationally. These areas cannot be ignored in the pursuit of what today comprises authentic restorative justice practices, and they are precisely the topics which are poorly represented in the restorative justice initiatives incorporated into the 2004 Colombian Criminal Procedure Code. With a view to developing a more genuinely restorative option for crimes affecting a large part of the Colombian population, it is the purpose of this paper to propose that projects to this effect be promoted in the community justice houses in Colombia. The National Community Justice House Program Features of the Community Justice House model Eight basic characteristics, identified during the design of the Community Justice House model, make it a fundamental alternative that is part of reform programs in the field of justice administration. These considerations were: 1. Decentralization of justice services to low-income communities located on the outskirts of cities to facilitate access to non-violent conflict resolution alternatives. 2. All services are free of charge and do not require clients to hire their own lawyer. 3. The combination of various justice services under a single roof avoids sending the Justice House client from one place to another for different aspects of his or her proceedings. 4. The strategic link established with other institutions in the same part of the city seeks to make the Community Justice House a contributor to overall development plans. 5. Legal guidance for the client, and community education on justice topics are fundamental functions of the Justice House. The fact that the Justice House is immersed in the neighborhood helps to make it sensitive to local problems and to focus training and advice activities appropriately. 6. Information on the particular features of the local community served by the Justice House, and a communications approach that emphasizes a twoway dialogue with the client helps to clarify the diverse dimensions of the disputes and conflicts brought to the House for attention. The Justice House is much more than a simple relocation from downtown; much more than the decentralization on an institution-by-institution basis, and far more than a means of relieving the heavy caseloads of the courts and the public prosecutor s offices. It proposes a new relationship between basic justice services and the local community and its citizens, for solving everyday problems and enhancing community life. Restorative Justice was not identified in this early stage as a Justice House goal but, as the model has evolved, the basic features described above have given rise to many novel practices. Resolving conflicts with a view to restoring the personal and social relations of those involved is conceptually compatible with Community Justice House aims and has become an element in some of the cases and the community activities pursued.

5 Development of the National Community Justice House Program At the initiative of the national government through the Ministry of Justice and Law, the National Justice House Program was adopted in 2000, as part of the justice system by Decree With USAID international cooperation, the National Community Justice House Program covers a large part of the country with 44 Community Justice Houses in the most populated cities and a pilot model presently being established in a rural setting. The Community Justice Houses accomplish their goals by offering access to formal justice services at the local level for processing minor crimes and handling small contractual matters as well as citizen s legal identification issues. Together with such services, the House will provide conciliation and mediation procedures for settling family and neighborhood disputes and support for presenting complaints lodged by the public against State agencies. The effort is aimed at preventing everyday tensions, disagreements, and injury from escalating into violence and serious crime. Additionally, the Justice House goes beyond the normal reactive measures of the formal justice procedures and the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that respond to individual requests for assistance, to undertake crime prevention campaigns, community education, and networking initiatives that seek to encourage peaceful coexistence as a means of improving the quality of life and strengthening local community development. With this in mind, the structure of the innovative model includes services offered by national agency representatives such as a public prosecutor, a public defender, a forensic doctor, a family defender from the Colombian Family Welfare Institute, and staff from the National Citizen s Registry as well as municipal offices. The municipality s participation includes the House coordinator who seeks to articulate the varied programs offered by those national agencies and the municipal program staff. The latter are involved with running the reception and information desk, the Municipal Family Affairs Office, the Municipal Representative for Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, the Municipal Neighborhood Disputes Officer, and in some of the Justice Houses incorporates a Community Development Office. As recognized figures for the public s involvement in justice administration, some Community Justice Houses offer the services of local community conciliators and elected community judges. The Justice Houses also receive important support from local universities through senioryear students interning in psychology or social work, and by way of law clinics and conciliation centers set up in the Houses. Given that the model is not a rigid prototype for all parts of the country, as seems fit, a Justice House may incorporate a variety of non-governmental and community organizations as well to strengthen its activities. This is the case of the Indigenous Affairs Office in the Riohacha and Puerto Asís Justice Houses, the youth mediators in the Justice House in Aguablanca, and a non-governmental organization offering services for women in Suba. All the major cities in Colombia are developing Community Justice Houses, and the larger cities have established two or more Houses enabling the national program to offer a national facility for creating restorative justice pilot projects. The institutions most directly concerned with an attempt to promote more authentic restorative justice practices in minor criminal cases, as contemplated in the new criminal procedure code, are present in the majority of the Justice Houses. Community Justice Houses: Their Potential Role in Promoting Restorative Justice Practices Overall, in community justice houses both formal institutional justice operators and community justice figures approach their activities with a commitment to offer a public service that enhances peaceful coexistence in their surrounding communities. Given their knowledge and identification with those specific populations and their sense of belonging, they can be neither distant, nor indifferent. In this sense they are not simply another public prosecutor, conciliator, or conciliation center to whom the Criminal Procedure Code commends the application of restorative justice procedures. Many Justice Houses now have victim-specific services for victims of sexual and domestic violence and preliminary support for child abuse victims. Two courses on restorative justice have begun introducing staff from eight Community Justice Houses to the ideas and procedures of restorative justice programs in other countries. A Trustworthy Institutional Model with Public Credibility Given the functions assigned to Justice Houses, their location in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and the variety of institutions involved, they are an innovative model with experience in attending to victims, in promoting dialogue in an effort to resolve conflicts and in building institutional credibility in their areas of the city. Citizens surveyed indicate that the Community Justice Houses are a service provider they can trust. The preliminary results of a victimization study in three main cities in Colombia released in 2004, by the Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas DANE y Departamento Nacional de Planeación DNP, Alcaldías de Cali y Medellín showed that while only a small proportion, approximately 8.5%, of the 75,000 people surveyed had heard of the Justice Houses, those that did know of them rated their performance very well, compared to more traditional justice entities such as the police and the courts.

6 When asked to identify the advantages of going to a Community Justice House, users during the quarter July to September , pointed to the capacity of houses to guide and advise, to solve the problem, and to offer users a correct, legal handling of the case. The same Justice House clients expressed confidence that they were being attended properly and also pointed to the fact that the Justice Houses promote dialogue with a view to reaching a consensus regarding the appropriate solutions. Increasing numbers of people seek assistance from the Community Justice Houses. During 2005, a total of 1,025,000 requests were received. This is equivalent to an annual increase of 25% in demand. In 2005, more than 95% of those seeking assistance received at least initial help. This allows the Community Justice Houses to be perceived as a potential location that merits community recognition as a restorative justice venue. Formal Justice Operators and Community Justice Personnel Work Together Using alternative dispute resolution procedures, citizens, acting as mediators, as conciliators, or as publicly elected community judges, facilitate the solution of a wide variety of everyday conflicts which the law considers less serious. The community justice figures, recognized by the Colombian Constitution as legitimate conflict resolution facilitators, are increasingly present in the Community 9.4% 10.8% Justice Houses. 12.5% 24.3% 15.6% 40.5% Community Mediator Community Judges Community Concilliator Sep-03 Sep-04 Source: Community Justice House Third Quarter Census 2003 and 2004, Ministerio del Interior y Justicia and Programa de Fortalecimiento y Acceso a la Justicia, USAID. By the end of 2004, community judges were present in 24.3% of the Justice Houses. Community conciliators who help the parties reach decisions according to local community customs and practice, were offering their services in 40.5% of the Community Justice Houses. Given the relatively small number of cities where community judges have been elected and the limited number of cities where the community conciliators have been legally recognized, the judges are offering their services in 85% of the Community Justice Houses in places where the respective elections had been held. Similarly, conciliators operate in 75% of the Justice Houses in the municipalities where the conciliators have been legally certified. Certainly, some of these community justice operators who are local residents that volunteer their services to help resolve conflicts in their communities, could be trained as restorative justice facilitators. Frequently such community justice developments do involve values, actors, procedures, and settings that are conducive to restorative justice-type conflict management. However, this is not explicit as an objective of their service, introduced as an aspect in their training or a specific feature commonly found in the agreements they facilitate. Rather, restorative justice outcomes seem more related to their personal relationship with the community where they offer their services, their previous experience as informal mediators, and the recognition they receive in their new community justice role from other institutions and authorities, as well as from other community members. These community justice or alternative dispute resolution figures may deal with a wide variety of conflicts including minor crimes, although this has not been their typical type of case. While they have been specifically incorporated into family violence legislation 3, they have not had any formal recognition to date in the criminal code or the criminal procedure code. A restorative justice approach could be designed to enhance the joint concern and responsibility of formal and community justice operators for non-violent conflict resolution, victim reparation, and the establishment of constructive relations amongst those involved. People s Needs Give Rise to Incipient Restorative Justice Experiences Over the nine-year period the Community Justice Houses have been operating, they have developed forms of restorative practices that respond to people s needs. Partly self-taught and more recently by way of preliminary contact with international restorative justice literature, public prosecutors and other justice operators, along with community justice figures, have gained initial experience in guiding restorative type processes, with multi-institutional input. In one Justice House in Aguablanca District in the city of Cali, cases documented show family conferencing as an alternative procedure, accepted by the prosecutor and other

7 agencies, for dealing with property crimes, domestic violence, and nonpayment of child support in particular. The cases demonstrate a general appreciation for restorative justice values, processes which involve all the actors and a support group, the search for sustainable restorative results, and continued follow up as people move forward 4. To date these experiences have been examined in a hasty, rather superficial manner by the Public Prosecutor s Office, but there is considerable potential for offering further illustration to those responsible for setting restorative procedures in motion in the new criminal justice system. As part of the Justice House staff training and their community activities, restorative justice topics are being incorporated into the national program work plan. Local Communities Peaceful Coexistence Objectives The immersion of the justice agencies in the social setting of life in poor, frequently violent, urban neighbourhoods and their constant need to respond in a real way to people s conflicts leads the Justice Houses to promote peace-building activities. Close relations with community authorities and local institutions is a base which can facilitate discussion and design of proposals regarding collective support and recognition for restorative efforts in cases dealt with in the Justice House. In this way the restorative justice projects in Justice Houses could be identified with the community s interest in having their residents resolve their disputes and criminal acts in such a manner as to enhance their commitment to reestablishing their relations and community links. A community presence in the restorative procedure, either symbolically or by virtue of the role played by a community justice figure as a facilitator, would be beneficial in various ways. The Mystique of Justice House Staff and their Pioneer Mission It is not uncommon that Justice House staff begin their work in the outlying, marginal city neighbourhoods with a real sense of uncertainty and some degree of fear and resentment for, as they see it, being sidetracked by their respective institutions. Given the opportunity to understand the objectives of the highly innovative justice services model and connect with their local communities, many later refuse, resist, and regret transfers to other offices. The mystique with which the majority of Justice House staff fulfills their groundbreaking social justice roles is a major factor in creating an institutional setting open to new practices and a capacity to move confidently from the security of legal controlling, professional routines to believing in participatory processes which rely on a wider wisdom and shared responsibility. Both staff commitment and their pioneer spirit are conducive to restorative justice innovations in the Community Justice Houses and the surrounding communities. Bearing in mind these particular characteristics, community justice houses could introduce new dimensions to the application of restorative justice measures that give credence to internationally recognized restorative justice values and processes. Conclusions The term restorative justice, has been introduced into the criminal procedure code with a view to providing people with alternatives to a full criminal investigation and trial. The manner in which these alternatives will operate indicates that those involved will not have an adequate opportunity to address the restoration of their relations, nor will the public interest in these matters be represented and well served. The pilot application of more authentic and comprehensive restorative practices, in suitable cases, in a Community Justice House setting could illustrate the values, procedures, multiple actors, and the public interest goal characteristic of restorative justice programs. Given the limited appreciation of the concepts and working principles of restorative justice in Colombia, local experiences of this nature might serve as a guideline for further developments which integrate the essentials of a restorative justice approach into a wide variety of farreaching endeavours. Notes 1. As specified in Statute 575 promulgated in 2000, the victim of family violence may seek the

8 assistance of a community judge or a community conciliator to mediate between the victim and the aggressor with a view to putting an end to the violence suffered or to prevent it from occurring if conditions show it to be imminent. In such circumstances the community judge or local community conciliator will attempt mediation and if this is not successful, they must provide the relevant information and remit the victim to the institution which can issue a protection order. 2. These developments are discussed in detail in Pearson, A., 2005 Pràcticas de justicia restaurativa en la Casa de Justicia de Aguablanca, p. 69.

9 5. References Basic principles on the use of restorative justice programes in criminal matters, Annex, Resolution 2002/12 of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, 24 July,2002. Castellanos, G. Y Magaña, A. (2000). Sistematización de la experiencia de las consejeras de familia de la Fundación Paz y Bien, (Systemization of the Experience of the Peace and Wellbeing Foundation Family Counselors) Centro de Estudios de Género, Mujer y Sociedad, Universidad del Valle. Cali, unpublished. y Sociedad, Universidad del Valle. Cali, unpublished. li, unpublished. Código de Procedimiento Penal, Ley 906, (Criminal Procedure Code 906) Colombia, 2004 Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas DANE y Departamento Nacional de Planeación DNP. (2005) Estudio de Victimización, unpublished. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas DANE y Departamento Nacional de Planeación DNP, Alcaldías de Cali y Medellín, Encuesta de Victimización en Bogotá, Cali y Medellín, (Victimization Survey 2003, in Bogota, Cali and Medellín) Unpublished Preliminary Results, Bogotá, Dignan, J., Restorative Justice Oprg. Parker, L. (2002) The Use of Restorative Practices in Latin America, paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Dreaming a New Reality. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Retrieved from Pearson, A. (2005) Prácticas de justicia restaurativa en la Casa de Justicia de Aguablanca, in Otra Justicia Posible: La justicia comunitaria como ruta para la democracia, II Conferencia Internacional de Justicia Comunitaria, Construir Democracia Hoy. Bogotá, Red de Justicia Comunitaria y Tratamiento del Conflicto. Restorative Justice Values and Processes, New Zealand Restorative Justice Network, June 2003, Robledo, O., Salazar, L. (1997) Consejeras de familia, modelo pedagógico para el abordaje de familias en conflicto, (Family Counselors, Pedagogical Model for Handing familias in Conflict) Cali: Uno A Graf y Alcaldía de Santiago de Cali. antiago de Cali. Van Ness, D,. Heetderks, K., 2002 Restoring Justice (2 nd Ed). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing. derson Publishing. ing. Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Intercourse, PA: Good Books. Good Books.

10 An initial version of this paper was presented at the New Frontiers in Restorative Justice International Conference, Center for Justice and Peace Development, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand, in December, Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to Annette Pearson, Colombian Community Justice Houses National Program, Bogotá, Colombia.