I. Editorial Overview
(1) Historical Context
The Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters (hereinafter referred to as “the Principles”) can be regarded as the global reference standard for fundamental procedural safeguards in restorative justice.
Since the 1990s, restorative justice programmes have grown rapidly worldwide. However, the quality of these programmes has varied significantly, with some practices even neglecting the safety and rights of victims. Against this backdrop, the United Nations realized that for restorative justice to become a legitimate part of the criminal justice system, it could not rely solely on ideals or good intentions; it required clear procedural norms.
Starting in 1999, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) tasked the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice with determining the need for common standards. After years of discussion and consultation, the Principles were finally adopted in 2002, providing a shared framework for countries developing and implementing restorative justice.
The most important contribution of the Principles is the establishment of fundamental procedural safeguards to protect the rights of all parties. For example:
- Absolute Voluntariness: Both the victim and the offender must consent freely. Coercion or unfair means must never be used to force participation.
- Right to Withdraw: Even after agreeing to participate, parties may change their minds and withdraw from the process at any time.
- Safety First: The physical and psychological safety of the victim must be the priority. Potential power imbalances between the parties must also be carefully addressed.
- Fairness and Transparency: No one should be pushed into a restorative process without fully understanding their rights and the potential consequences.
To address gaps in implementation, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) published the Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes in 2006, followed by a revised second edition in 2020. The latest developments emphasize that while restorative justice may be applied to a broader range of cases, it requires higher professional standards. The safety and autonomy of victims must be rigorously protected. Ultimately, restorative justice is not merely an “alternative” to criminal punishment; it is a vital pathway to realizing access to justice, ensuring that the voices of those involved are genuinely heard.
(2) Why It Matters for Taiwan
In 2010, Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice launched the Restorative Justice Pilot Programme, explicitly citing the Principles as one of its foundational references. Following the 2017 National Conference on Judicial Reform, which identified “implementing restorative justice” as a key reform direction, the Ministry issued an implementation plan in 2018 to expand restorative justice into the investigation stage. In 2019, amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure further provided a legal basis for prosecutors and judges to refer cases to restorative processes, formally integrating restorative justice into the criminal justice system.
A significant milestone was reached in 2023 with the addition of a dedicated chapter on restorative justice to the Crime Victim Rights Protection Act. The legislative reasoning explicitly cites the Principles, requiring judicial authorities to respect the subjectivity and autonomy of both victims and defendants. It also mandates that facilitators demonstrate impartiality, professionalism, and respect. This development shows that Taiwan is advancing restorative justice in line with the fundamental procedural safeguards required by international human rights standards.
(3) Core Principles
- Voluntariness and Informed Consent: Restorative justice processes may take place only with the free and voluntary consent of both the victim and the offender. Either party may withdraw at any time. Before agreeing, parties must fully understand their rights, the nature of the process, and the possible consequences. They must also have the opportunity to consult legal counsel. Minors should receive the assistance of parents or guardians.
- Safety and Power Balance: Before initiating a restorative process, facilitators must assess safety risks, potential power imbalances between the parties, and any relevant cultural or situational differences. Restorative justice must never become a mechanism that subjects vulnerable individuals to pressure or secondary victimization.
- Preservation of Criminal Due Process: Restorative processes should be used only where there is sufficient evidence to charge the offender. Participation in a restorative process must not be treated as an admission of guilt. Failure to reach an agreement, or failure to implement an agreement, must not result in adverse consequences for the parties. Where appropriate, outcomes should be subject to judicial supervision to ensure legality and proportionality.
(4) Terminology Notes
The Principles do not offer an abstract definition of “restorative justice.” Instead, they define three practical terms to establish a clear operational framework:
- Restorative Justice Programme: Any programme that uses restorative processes and seeks to achieve restorative outcomes.
- Restorative Process: Any process in which the victim and the offender, and, where appropriate, other individuals or community members affected by a crime, participate together actively in resolving matters arising from the crime, generally with the assistance of a facilitator. Restorative processes may include mediation, conciliation, conferencing, and sentencing circles.
- Restorative Outcome: An agreement reached as a result of a restorative process. Restorative outcomes may include responses and programmes such as reparation, restitution, and community service, aimed at addressing the individual and collective needs and responsibilities of the parties and achieving the reintegration of the victim and the offender.
This terminology reflects the understanding that restorative justice is not an abstract ideal, but a structured system that must be regulated, supervised, and capable of evaluation.
(5) How to Use This Document
The key to understanding the Principles lies in their emphasis on fundamental procedural safeguards. The following reading sequence is recommended:
- Preamble: To understand that restorative justice seeks to address harm and promote understanding, without replacing the State’s right to prosecute.
- Use of Terms (paras. 1–5): To grasp the three-layer structure of programme, process, and outcome, as well as the role of the facilitator.
- Use of Restorative Justice Programmes (paras. 6–11): With particular attention to voluntariness, the right to withdraw, safety considerations, power imbalances, and cultural differences.
- Operation of Programmes (paras. 12–19): The core of procedural safeguards, including legal counsel, informed consent, non-coercion, confidentiality, judicial supervision, and the rule that failure to reach agreement cannot be used against a party.
- Continuing Development and Saving Clause (paras. 20–23): To situate the Principles within national strategies, inter-agency cooperation, evaluation mechanisms, and to confirm that they do not diminish rights established under existing law.
II. Document Information
Official Title: Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters(PDF Download)
Chinese Title: 刑事案件採用修復式司法基本原則(PDF Download)
Adopting Body: United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
Date of Adoption: 2002-07-24
Resolution / Document Number: ECOSOC Resolution 2002/12
Document Type: United Nations policy instrument
Legal Status / Legal Effect: Soft Law Instrument
VST Edition: 2026-01-10 Version
III. Full Text
Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters
Economic and Social Council resolution 2002/12, annex, adopted on 24 July 2002.
Preamble
Recalling that there has been, worldwide, a significant growth of restorative justice initiatives,
Recognizing that those initiatives often draw upon traditional and indigenous forms of justice which view crime as fundamentally harmful to people,
Emphasizing that restorative justice is an evolving response to crime that respects the dignity and equality of each person, builds understanding, and promotes social harmony through the healing of victims, offenders and communities,
Stressing that this approach enables those affected by crime to share openly their feelings and experiences, and aims at addressing their needs,
Aware that this approach provides an opportunity for victims to obtain reparation, feel safer and seek closure; allows offenders to gain insight into the causes and effects of their behaviour and to take responsibility in a meaningful way; and enables communities to understand the underlying causes of crime, to promote community well-being and to prevent crime,
Noting that restorative justice gives rise to a range of measures that are flexible in their adaptation to established criminal justice systems and that complement those systems, taking into account legal, social and cultural circumstances,
Recognizing that the use of restorative justice does not prejudice the right of States to prosecute alleged offenders,
I. Use of terms
1. “Restorative justice programme” means any programme that uses restorative processes and seeks to achieve restorative outcomes.
2. “Restorative process” means any process in which the victim and the offender, and, where appropriate, any other individuals or community members affected by a crime, participate together actively in the resolution of matters arising from the crime, generally with the help of a facilitator. Restorative processes may include mediation, conciliation, conferencing and sentencing circles.
3. “Restorative outcome” means an agreement reached as a result of a restorative process. Restorative outcomes include responses and programmes such as reparation, restitution and community service, aimed at meeting the individual and collective needs and responsibilities of the parties and achieving the reintegration of the victim and the offender.
4. “Parties” means the victim, the offender and any other individuals or community members affected by a crime who may be involved in a restorative process.
5. “Facilitator” means a person whose role is to facilitate, in a fair and impartial manner, the participation of the parties in a restorative process.
II. Use of restorative justice programmes
6. Restorative justice programmes may be used at any stage of the criminal justice system, subject to national law.
7. Restorative processes should be used only where there is sufficient evidence to charge the offender and with the free and voluntary consent of the victim and the offender. The victim and the offender should be able to withdraw such consent at any time during the process. Agreements should be arrived at voluntarily and should contain only reasonable and proportionate obligations.
8. The victim and the offender should normally agree on the basic facts of a case as the basis for their participation in a restorative process. Participation of the offender shall not be used as evidence of admission of guilt in subsequent legal proceedings.
9. Disparities leading to power imbalances, as well as cultural differences among the parties, should be taken into consideration in referring a case to, and in conducting, a restorative process.
10. The safety of the parties shall be considered in referring any case to, and in conducting, a restorative process.
11. Where restorative processes are not suitable or possible, the case should be referred to the criminal justice authorities and a decision should be taken as to how to proceed without delay. In such cases, criminal justice officials should endeavour to encourage the offender to take responsibility vis-à-vis the victim and affected communities, and support the reintegration of the victim and the offender into the community.
III. Operation of restorative justice programmes
12. Member States should consider establishing guidelines and standards, with legislative authority when necessary, that govern the use of restorative justice programmes. Such guidelines and standards should respect the basic principles set forth in the present instrument and should address, inter alia:
(a) The conditions for the referral of cases to restorative justice programmes;
(b) The handling of cases following a restorative process;
(c) The qualifications, training and assessment of facilitators;
(d) The administration of restorative justice programmes;
(e) Standards of competence and rules of conduct governing the operation of restorative justice programmes.
13. Fundamental procedural safeguards guaranteeing fairness to the offender and the victim should be applied to restorative justice programmes and in particular to restorative processes:
(a) Subject to national law, the victim and the offender should have the right to consult with legal counsel concerning the restorative process and, where necessary, to translation and/or interpretation. Minors should, in addition, have the right to the assistance of a parent or guardian;
(b) Before agreeing to participate in restorative processes, the parties should be fully informed of their rights, the nature of the process and the possible consequences of their decision;
(c) Neither the victim nor the offender should be coerced, or induced by unfair means, to participate in restorative processes or to accept restorative outcomes.
14. Discussions in restorative processes that are not conducted in public should be confidential, and should not be disclosed subsequently, except with the agreement of the parties or as required by national law.
15. The results of agreements arising out of restorative justice programmes should, where appropriate, be judicially supervised or incorporated into judicial decisions or judgements. Where that occurs, the outcome should have the same status as any other judicial decision or judgement and should preclude prosecution in respect of the same facts.
16. Where no agreement is reached among the parties, the case should be referred back to the established criminal justice process and a decision as to how to proceed should be taken without delay. Failure to reach an agreement alone shall not be used in subsequent criminal justice proceedings.
17. Failure to implement an agreement made in the course of a restorative process should be referred back to the restorative programme or, where required by national law, to the established criminal justice process and a decision as to how to proceed should be taken without delay. Failure to implement an agreement, other than a judicial decision or judgement, should not be used as justification for a more severe sentence in subsequent criminal justice proceedings.
18. Facilitators should perform their duties in an impartial manner, with due respect to the dignity of the parties. In that capacity, facilitators should ensure that the parties act with respect towards each other and enable the parties to find a relevant solution among themselves.
19. Facilitators shall possess a good understanding of local cultures and communities and, where appropriate, receive initial training before taking up facilitation duties.
IV. Continuing development of restorative justice programmes
20. Member States should consider the formulation of national strategies and policies aimed at the development of restorative justice and at the promotion of a culture favourable to the use of restorative justice among law enforcement, judicial and social authorities, as well as local communities.
21. There should be regular consultation between criminal justice authorities and administrators of restorative justice programmes to develop a common understanding and enhance the effectiveness of restorative processes and outcomes, to increase the extent to which restorative programmes are used, and to explore ways in which restorative approaches might be incorporated into criminal justice practices.
22. Member States, in cooperation with civil society where appropriate, should promote research on and evaluation of restorative justice programmes to assess the extent to which they result in restorative outcomes, serve as a complement or alternative to the criminal justice process and provide positive outcomes for all parties. Restorative justice processes may need to undergo change in concrete form over time. Member States should therefore encourage regular evaluation and modification of such programmes. The results of research and evaluation should guide further policy and programme development.
V. Saving clause
23. Nothing in these basic principles shall affect any rights of an offender or a victim which are established in national law or applicable international law.
IV. VST Editorial Disclaimer
- Disclaimer:The translation and editorial commentary reflect the author’s personal academic and professional views for public education and institutional comparison purposes only. Unless otherwise stated, content is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
- How to Cite: Hsiao, I-Min. (2026). “Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters | Overview & VST Edition.” Victim Support Taiwan. Retrieved from https://victim-support.tw/en/basic-principles-on-the-use-of-restorative-justice-programmes-in-criminal-matters-2/
- Revision & Update Log: 2026-01-10— Initial publication
