Most studies about victim-offender meetings have been performed within prison populations, with little reference to offenders diagnosed with mental disorders. In establishing the effects of such meetings, these studies often use quantitative measures. Little is known about meetings between victims and offenders with mental disorders and about the more qualitative subjective experiences of the participants regarding these meetings. In this interview study, we inquired into the subjective experiences of sixteen participants in victim-offender meetings, six of whom are victims and ten offenders of severe crimes, currently residing in forensic mental health facilities. Topics of the interviews included benefits of the meeting and perceptions of each other prior to and after the meeting. Important benefits that participants experienced from meeting each other were reconnecting with family, processing the offence and contributing to each other’s well-being. Such benefits are comparable to those mentioned in studies on meetings with offenders without a mental disorder, challenging the practice that mentally disordered offenders are often excluded from such meetings. Most victims experienced a positive change in perception of the offender owing to the meeting. They perceived the offender as a human being and associated him less exclusively with his offence. Implications for clinical practice are addressed.

Judges and public prosecutors across Europe continue to be the main source of referral of cases to restorative justice programmes organised in the context of the criminal justice system. As a result, the training of these two groups of legal professionals regarding what restorative justice is and what it can offer to victims, offenders and the community has for many years been identified as a priority for the development of restorative justice in the European Union (EU). However, little information is available about what actually exists in terms of judicial training on restorative justice within the national judicial training institutions responsible for the initial and/or continuous training of judges and/or public prosecutors. Therefore, we developed an online survey on judicial training on restorative justice and invited 38 judicial training institutions operating in the (then) 28 EU Member States to participate in our study. We were able to make relevant observations regarding the reasons for the non-existence of restorative justice training in most of the judicial training institutions studied and identify important elements of the architecture of the restorative justice training offered by the judicial training institution of Czech Republic.

There is a need for dialogue between two perspectives – the negotiated settlement of legal disputes and the use of restorative justice programmes in post-conflict situations – with respect to the recovery of cultural objects displaced in times of war and/or colonial occupation. Although the application of such perspectives led to the recovery of disputed cultural objects, this has mostly been achieved unwittingly. However, the resolution of restitution claims would benefit from a conscious exchange between experts and practitioners of the two approaches. We will summarise cultural property displacement in its practical complexities, briefly discussing problems related to both ‘historical’ depredations and the current trafficking in cultural objects, with a focus on the current trend towards increased use of criminal law. However, this is a tool that is mostly ineffective in providing a solution for the most heartfelt questions arising from breaking an object’s links to its cultural roots. After carrying out an overview of international conventions currently addressing these issues, discussing why these legal instruments oft cannot actually heal the wounds caused by depredations of cultural property, we will illustrate the need for an approach more focused on the ‘human’ meaning of questions of restitution of objects that are so much more than ‘things’.

This article focuses on the question of the return of the cultural objects displaced during the colonial era (hereinafter ‘colonial objects’) and of the dispute resolution means that may be used to achieve it. It starts by portraying the special significance of colonial objects for nations and communities. Next, it looks at restitution, as a facet of both restorative justice and transitional justice and as the most satisfactory form of reparation. It then examines the obstacles that claimants face when trying to recover colonial objects. Finally, the article argues that restitution claims should be resolved through procedures alternative to litigation, the so-called alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, because these mechanisms make it possible to achieve the objectives typically pursued through restorative justice and transitional justice processes, namely dialogue, truth, reparation and reconciliation.