Workshop for professionals

 

 

International workshops for practitioners

„Improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid”

 

From 10th  to 13th  February 2014 in Poznan at the Faculty of Law and Administration an international workshop session was held for practitioners: judges, prosecutors, lawyers and police officers. The workshops were organized by the Chair of Criminal Procedure at the Faculty of Law and Administration at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan. The workshops constituted one of the stages of the project “Improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid”, co-financed by the European Commission, which primary objective is to increase public awareness of legal rights and procedural safeguards to the victims of crime. University’s partners in the project are: Sabiedriskas Politicas Centrs PROVIDUS from Latvia, the Center for the Study of Democracy of Bulgaria and the Italian Consorzio per la Formazione Interuniversitario.

The workshops were attended by experts and representatives from EU countries (Italy, Bulgaria and Latvia) as well as the representatives of the Chair of Criminal Procedure of the  Adam Mickiewicz University. The training consisted of three modules conducted in English.

The first module was held on 10th and 11th of February. The two days’ course was delivered by two United Nation’s representatives – Mr. B.A. Nasir (Standing Police Capacity, Police Division, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations) and a lawyer  Marie Pegie Cauchois. The primary aim of this part of the workshops was to broaden the participants’ knowledge concerning international norms and legislation on protection of victims’ rights. This module also served as a platform of exchanging thoughts and experiences on the best practices concerning protection of the victims. The main topics which were analyzed concerned:

–        Overview of the UN legal framework relating to the victims’ rights.

–        Overview of the EU legal framework relating to the victims’ rights.

–       EU Directive 2012/29/EU on establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime.

–       Victims participation in trial proceeding.

–        Challenges in the implementation of  victims’ rights.

–        Mechanisms for cooperation amongst different segments of Criminal Justice System to ensure victim’s rights.

During this module the participants analyzed the binding status of the  implementation of the EU and UN legislation on the rights of victims and formulated the main challenges associated with the implementation of these instruments in the individual legal systems of EU countries. The second day of the workshops was devoted to the practical application of the knowledge concerning the legal status of the victims of crime. In that part the participants had the opportunity to hold a discussion on the mechanisms of judicial cooperation in order to ensure adequate protection of the rights of the victims. They could also play roles in a simulation of a criminal trial, perform short scenes and take part in a quiz prepared by the coaches.

 

The second module, delivered on 12th of February by a psychologist Ms. Agnieszka Nowak-Młynikowska was dedicated to non–legal issues related to the help provided
to the victims of crime.
The psychologist explained that the emotional and social issues as well as the methods of communication are extremely important factors in approaching victims of crime. This module addressed different ways of treating victims and assisting them during the procedural phase. Ms. Agnieszka Nowak-Młynikowska emphasized that only a victim that is treated with proper respect can cooperate with legal institutions and can get the due compensation in a criminal proceeding. Nevertheless, many times in everyday practice the state authorities forget about the  importance of non-legal aspects of the help given to the victims and focus their priorities on the proper performance of the legal procedures. The participants had the opportunity to share their own experiences, practices and ideas to provide psychological support to the victims of crime. The workshops included various interactive activities, lectures, team-working tasks, case studies including role-playing of a specific trial case and individual work.

The main topics which were analyzed concerned:

–        Victimization as trauma in the victim’s life and violation of the victim’s inner balance.

–        Psychological impact of crime, secondary victimization and how to prevent it.

–        Individual differences in coping with victimization and victims’ characteristics.

–        Psychological support for victims of crime – systemic  solutions, closing round, evaluation.

 

The final module was delivered by a mediator from the Polish Center for Mediation – Mr. Marceli Kwaśniewski.  He explained that mediation is a great tool of reconciliation between parties of criminal proceeding, however, it is still underestimated in many countries. During that last part of the workshops the speaker pointed out to some of the vital problems concerning mediation. This module demonstrated why mediation not only can shorten proceedings but also bring fast relief and compensation to the victim. The professional mediator enumerated also the most common mistakes made during mediation and the ways to avoid them. During this module the participants were also taught how to encourage parties of the criminal procedure to use this institution more often. Mr. Kwasniewski emphasized that mediation should be used much more frequently than it is now.

The main topics which were analyzed concerned:

–        European and Polish regulations on mediation.

–        Workshop I – cases: direct violence in the family and punishable threats.

–        Workshop II – cases: traffic accident, VIP involved,  defamation and harassment,  economic background.

–        Workshop III – cases: burglary with theft and fight/battery.

The training methods involved working in groups, including role-playing of a trial (mainly from the perspective of a mediator), interactive activities, as well as parts of the lecture.

On the last day special thanks were addressed to the authorities of the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan and the Dean of the Faculty of Law and Administration for their kindness and help in organizing the event. All of the trainers and participants received certificates confirming participation in the workshop as well as training materials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid

 

 

 

Training sessions for practitioners
and society – final report

 

 

 

 

 

Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań

Poznań 2014

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………..3

PART I

I. About the project “Improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid”. 5

1.        Project’s description. 5

2.        Project’s partners. 7

PART II

I. Concept of the training session for practitioners. 12

II. Agenda. 13

III. Trainers’ profiles. 15

IV. List of participants. 20

V. Summary of the training session for practitioners. 22

1.        Opening session. 22

2.        Summary of the first module. 23

3.        Summary of the second module. 28

4.        Summary of the third module. 31

5.        Closing session. 32

VII. Questionnaire results. 33

1.        The first questionnaire concerned first module  of the training course. 34

2.        Second questionnaire concerned second module  of the training course. 38

3.        Third questionnaire concerned  third module of the training course. 40

4.        Final questionnaire and assess the whole training course. 43

VIII. ANNEXES. 48

1.        Module questionnaire. 48

2.        Final questionnaire. 50

3.        Agenda. 52

PART III

I.     Concept of the workshop for society. 55

II.    Agenda. 56

III.   Trainers’ profiles. 57

IV.  Summary of the training for society. 56

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The Report presents descriptions of the training session for practitioners and workshops for society constituted one of the stages of the project “Improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid”. The most vital goal of this project was developing information about victims’ rights among both society and practitioners who meet victims of crime on a daily basis and provide them psychological and legal assistance. The project covers informing citizens, in particular the citizens having less access to this kind of information from rural areas, about legal and psychological aid to victims of crime and the status of victims of crime in criminal proceedings. For this reason the workshops for society took place both in the city – in Poznan, and in the rural area – Murowana Goslina.

 

The training session for practitioners took place on 10th-13th February 2014 at the Adam Mickiewicz University (Faculty of Law, Collegium Iuridicum Novum, Al. Niepodległosci 53) in Poznan. It was held within the project Improving protection of victims’ rights: access                 to legal aid, co – financed by European Commission. The goals of the workshop were:

  • to acknowledge the importance of proper norms and international legislation which create the status of the victim;
  • to deep participant’s knowledge concerning international norms and legislation
    on protection of victim’s rights;
  • to create some common standards and norms which should be implemented
    on international level;
  • to enhance knowledge of practitioners in answering problem of how to collaborate with authorities of another Member State in a spirit of a common European judicial and legal culture;
  • to understand emotional, social issues and methods of communication with
    the victims;

 

 

  • to acknowledge the importance of non-legal aspects of the help given to victims;
  • to exchange thoughts and experiences on best practices concerning protection
    on victims.

 

These interdisciplinary goals required the assembly of distinguished trainers from a diverse array of interrelated fields. The format of the training session was designed to creative, effective discussions and case simulations.

 

 

The workshop for society took place on 18th February in the Social Welfare Center in Murowana Goslina and on 25th February 2014 at the Faculty of Law and Administration in Poznan and. The workshops covered the issues of legal and psychological aid to the victims of crime.

The goals of the workshop were to inform citizens about:

  • legal aid to victims of crime,
  • the status of victims of crime in criminal proceedings,
  • rights of victims of crime in criminal proceedings,
  • psychological aid to victims of crime,
  • benefits of mediation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
PART I

I. About the project “Improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid”

 

1.     project’s description

The project addresses the priority  “Supporting victims of crime (VICS)”.  It addresses
the access to justice of victims of crime, especially through the identification of  common criteria for the legal aid to victims to be applied in harmonization of EU legislation, and namely with reference to the adoption of the DIRECTIVE 2012/29/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. This recommendation will be also targeting those new Member States in which the system of legal aid for victims
is in a phase a development, and for this reason we have chosen two of these countries (Poland, Latvia and Bulgaria) as pilot countries where to experiment and put forward conceptual tools of the project. After carrying out advance research on the legal systems
of different EU countries and comparing them with the EU normative and recommended practices aimed to detect findings and flaws in the current practices, the project will develop information tools about victims’ rights to be distributed among specific categories of citizens having less access to this kind of information, in particular the citizens of rural areas,
and provide a trainer for practitioners dealing with victims of crimes.

 

The partners are based in  different Member States, which ensures a transnational impact. They cover both Western Europe and Eastern Europe, providing different approaches
to the topic with the view of finding common criteria for the legal aid protection of victims

 

 

rights, above all with reference to future legislation that can eliminate flaws and difference
at present detectable between the two geographical areas. The complementarity among

 

 

the partners is a clear strength: we have one Law faculty (AMU), one private consortium
of Italian universities specialized in training of staff (CoInfo), one non-profit association specializedin justice, criminal law and judicial reforms (CSD) and one think tank (Providus).

 

In order to enhance the implementation of the DIRECTIVE 2012/29/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime our project will aim at:

– Increasing the information available for the victims on the legal aid as a means to facilitate the protection of their rights.

– To identify common standards to handle victim of crime cases in order to have a just compensation.

– Reinforcing the capacities of practitioners in dealing with victims, through
the implementation of a training course.

– Addressing the main needs of the victims of crimes for a reinforced protection of their rights during the trial, as stated among others by the point 2.3.4 of the Stockholm Programme.

– Facilitating the information of those categories of citizens less aware of their rights, notably the population of rural areas, through the production and delivery of a set of communication tools.

– Enhanced European judicial and security culture among law enforcement agencies, practitioners, members of NGO and associations of victims of crimes.

– Reinforcement / cross fertilization among EU universities, NGOs and police departments
in the subject of enhancing protection of rights of victims of crime.

 

 

 

2.     project’s partners

 

Scientific coordinator – Prof. UAM dr hab. Paweł Wiliński

Since October 2008, head of Chair of Criminal Proceedings. Since September 2009, professor of law at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. Member of the Codification Commission of Criminal Law. Senior Counsel and Vice-director of the Constitutional Complaint Department at the Constitutional Court of Poland. Member of Disciplinary Committee of the Council for Higher Education (2009-2012). From 2001 onwards Member of the Board of Polish Legal Clinics Foundation. Ad-hoc Judge  of the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France (2010-2012).

 

 

Project coordinator – Graciela Olga Fuentes, Ph.D. 

35+ year experience as law practitioner and legal advisor. Former UN Senior Judicial Officer and Senior Consultant for UNDP in Judicial System Monitoring and Evaluation programs. Extensive experience in developing and managing projects in judicial reform, access to justice and training of judges and police forces in transitional democracies for UN (in Balkans
and South Asia countries), and within EU AGIS-Justice Programs. Wide-ranging academic work in human rights, multiculturalism, and implementation of EU treaties. Visiting
law professor. Doctorate degree in Constitutional Law and Human Rights from Ottawa University, Canada. Master in Comparative law from McGill University, Montreal.

 

 

 

 

 

Researches:

 

Piotr Karlik – Ph. D. candidate at Criminal Proceedings Chamber at Faculty of Law
and Administration of University of Adam Mickiewicz. Graduated Law in 2010, thesis tile: “Circumstantial evidence in Polish criminal proceedings”. Author of many publications
regarding actual problems of criminal proceedings in Poland. He has participated in numerous local and international conferences devoted to criminal issues. Between 2010-2012 member of EU project “Tracking Progress in Strengthening the Criminal Justice Indicators
for Integrated Case Management”. Tutor of students’ scientific circle: “Iure et facto”.

 

Aleksandra Woźniak – born in Gniezno on 8th of July 1987. PhD candidate in Chair
of Criminal Proceedings at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. She graduated Law
at Adam Mickiewicz University in 2011, when had she obtained her master degree based
on thesis: “Equality of arms in temporary detention’s proceedings (originally in Polish: “Standard równości broni w postępowaniu w przedmiocie tymczasowego aresztowania”), prepared under the guidance of professor Paweł Wiliński. From 2009 to 2010 she studied
at Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem in Budapest. In 2012 r. she have started the pupilage
in Poznań.

 

AMU-LEADER

Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, founded in 1919 to is one of the leading academic centers in Poland. The University currently employs nearly 2,800 teaching staff, including 318 tenured professors, 454 AMU professors and 1,514 doctors and senior lecturers.
Our professors coordinate or are partners in 18 research projects funded by the European Union Framework Programmes 6 and 7. AMU researchers are currently implementing

 

451 projects funded by the Polish Ministry of Science. Adam Mickiewicz University
in Poznań has bilateral exchange agreements with universities all over the world. Depending
on the specifics of the agreement, bilateral exchange students may accomplish part of their degree, choosing appropriate subjects from our educational offer.

 

AMU is a member of: EUA – European University Association, EUCEN – European University Continuing Education Network, The Compostela Group of Universities,
TheSantander Group – European University Network, RAMIRI Consortium, European Chemistry Thematic Network and other European Research Networks.The Chair of Criminal Proceedings, Faculty of Law and Administration of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań is also a partner in project co-financed by  European Commission.

 

COINFO

COINFO (Interuniversity  Consortium on  Education) is a non-profit association involved
in education and research for adults employed in Universities and Public Administration.
It is a unique institution in the European and international academic  scene.  In  2004 the  Ministry of  Education University  and  Research  conferred juridical  personality
on  the consortium (G.U. n. 48 – 27.2.2008) and acknowledged the social utility of its aims. COINFO  delivers,  promotes  and  develops  long  life  learning  according  to  national
and  European  directives  with particular reference to employees in Public  Administration and  Universities.  It  carries out a connecting task across university research, complex organization management and valorization of human resources.

 

It plans and organizes studies, researches, conferences, masters, training courses and  workshops with  consortiated universities. Training subjects  deal  with:
law,  accountancy,  human  capital  management  and  training,  public  communication,

safety  at work,  librarianship,  environment,  budget,  process  simplification  and  product  re-engineering,  digital  documents management, services evaluation, educators training. Consortium takes part in many research and education programs financed by European Union and local government, and  cooperates  with  Trade  Unions  in  education  activity  for  their  members.  Research  subjects  deal  with long  life education, adult education, training needs analysis, financed and unfinanced planning, results  evaluation and their effects on education. COINFO publishes different series which contain studies, researches, proceedings and workshops.

 

CSD – Center for the Study of Democracy

Founded in late 1989, the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) is an interdisciplinary public policy institute dedicated to the values of democracy and market economy.
CSD is a non-partisan, independent organization fostering the reform process in Bulgaria through impact on policy and civil society. Building bridges is the old-fashioned
way of bringing together social actors and cementing new alliances. Born as a think-tank,
the Center for the Study of Democracy has evolved into policy development through dialogue and partnership. Bringing cutting-edge solutions to transition problems is our way of keeping the middle ground between academia and social practice. The CSD has pioneered in several areas traditionally perceived as the inviolable public property, such as anti-corruption institutional reform, and national security. Our belief is that bringing a new culture
of cooperation and trust in a milieu of inherited fragmentation and opacity is equally rewarding as the achievement of concrete social goals. CSD objectives are:

  • to provide an enhanced institutional and policy capacity for a successful European integration process, especially in the area of justice and home affairs;

 

 

 

 

 

  • to promote institutional reform and the practical implementation of democratic values in legal and economic practice;
  • to monitor public attitudes and serve as a watchdog of the institutional reform process.

 

PROVIDUS

PROVIDUS is Latvia’s leading think tank, devoted to facilitating comprehensive policy change in areas important for Latvia’s development. PROVIDUS also provides expertise
to other countries undergoing democratic transformation.

 

PROVIDUS areas of work are:

  • good governance, including anti-corruption, judicial reform, access to information, campaign finance;
    • criminal justice policy;
    • tolerance and inclusive public policy;
    • European policy, including migration policy and energy policy.

 

PROVIDUS activities include: publishing research and policy analyses, providing expertise
to the government in the policy-making process, advocacy and monitoring, consultancy services and training as well as promoting public participation by harnessing new internet-based tools. PROVIDUS provides an institutional home for the largest on-line policy resource in Latvia – politika.lv. PROVIDUS is a non-governmental, non-partisan and not-for-profit association established in 2002.

 

 

 

 

 

PART II

I.                  Concept of the training session for practitioners

The main subject of the training was victim’s access to judicial system as well as delivering help to the victims of crime and protection of their rights. While we acknowledge the importance of proper norms and international legislation which create the status of the victim, we think that there are also other, non- legal aspects of this help which should not be neglected. For the above – mentioned reasons, training session for practitioners was organized and divided in three different modules.

 

First module held on 10th and 11th of February. Two days course were delivered
by two United Nation’s Representative –Mr. B. A. Nasir (Standing Police Capacity, Police Division, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations) and lawyer –  Marie Pegie Cauchois. Aim of this part of the training course was to deepen participants’ knowledge concerning international norms and legislation on protection of victim’s rights. This module also served as a platform of exchanging thoughts and experiences on best practices concerning protection on victims. Another achieved outcome of the first module was to enhance knowledge of practitioners was answering problem of how to collaborate with authorities of another Member State in a spirit of a common European judicial and legal culture.

 

Second module delivered on 12th of February by psychologist Mrs. Agnieszka Nowak
– Młynikowska
was dedicated to non – legal issues connected with help given
to the victims of crime. Partners of the project strongly believe that emotional, social issues and methods of communication with the victims are extremely important factors
in approaching victims of crime. For this reason, second module dealt with the different ways

 

 

 

of treating victims and assisting them during the procedural phase. One cannot overestimate

importance of building the mutual trust between law enforcement agencies
and the victim. Only victim who is treated with proper respect can cooperate with jurisdiction and get the due compensation in criminal proceeding. Nevertheless, many time in everyday practice, state authorities forget about the importance of non-legal aspects of the help given
to victims and keep their priorities on the proper performance of legal procedures.

 

Final module held on 13th of February was delivered by mediator from the Polish Center for Mediation – Mr. Marceli Kwaśniewski. The mediation as a great tool of reconciliation between parties of criminal proceeding is still underestimated in many countries. During
the last part of the training course, trainer exposed some of the vital problems connected with the mediation.  This module shown, why mediation can not only shorten procedure but also bring fast relief and compensation to the victim. Professional mediator also explained what typical mistakes are made during a mediation and how to avoid them. During this module, participant also taught how to encourage parts of the criminal procedure to use this institution more often.The main goal achieved within one day training was to root in the minds
of participants basic question concerning the mediation as a tool available for all the parties involved in a trial: “why not?”

 

II. Agenda

 

The organizers agreed the training session agenda, which was modificated and approved
by the trainers, as follows:

 

FIRST DAY of the training course – 10th of February 2014

 

 

 

  1. 1.      Welcome address and presentation of participants by Paweł Wiliński, the Scientific Coordinator of the Project.
  2. 2.      Beginning of the training course delivered by United Nation’s Representatives – Marie

Pegie Cauchois and B.A. Nasir Introduction of the participants and overview of the
UN legal framework relating to the victims’ rights.

  1. 3.      Overview of the EU legal framework relating to the victims’ rights.
  2. 4.      EU Directive 2012/29/EU on establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime.
  3. 5.      Video on victims participation in trial proceeding.

 

SECOND  DAY of the training course – 11th of February 2014

  1. 1.      Beginning of the training course delivered by United Nation’s Representatives –  Marie Pegie Cauchois and B.A. Nasir – Challenges in the implementation of  victims’ rights Implementation status of UN and EU legal framework relating to the victims’ rights.
  2. 2.      A group exercise on victims’ rights, assessment criteria for victims’ rights.
  3. 3.      Mechanisms for cooperation amongst different segments of Criminal Justice.
  4. 4.      System to ensure victim’s rights, quiz to assess impact of training workshop.

 

THIRD  DAY of the training course  – 12th of February 2014

  1. 1.      Beginning of the training course delivered by Psychologist – Agnieszka Nowak – Młynikowska Victimization as trauma in the victim’s life and violation of the victim’s inner balance
  2. 2.      Psychological impact of crime secondary, victimization and how to prevent it.
  3. 3.      Individual differences in coping with victimization and victims’ characteristics
  4. 4.      Closing session – Psychological support for victims of crime – systemic solutions, closing round, evaluation

 

FOURTH DAY of the training course – 13th of February 2014

  1. 1.      Training course delivered by Marceli Kwaśniewski – Mediator from Polish Center for Mediations – Introduction: discussion, European and Polish regulations on mediation
  2. 2.      Workshop I – cases: direct violence in the family and punishable threats
  3. 3.      Workshop II – cases: traffic accident, VIP involved,  defamation and harassment, economic background
  4. 4.      Workshop III – cases: burglary with theft and fight/battery

 

 

III. Trainers’ profiles

 

  1. United Nation’s Representatives: B.A. Nasir

 

B.A. Nasir is a commissioned Police Officer in the rank of a Deputy Inspector General (Brigadier General) from the Police Service
of Pakistan, currently working as a Police Reform Advisor, with the Standing Police Capacity of the Police Division, United Nations Department of Peace Keeping Operations, based  in Brindisi, Italy. He holds master degrees in Science and International Affairs and a bachelor degree in Law. He is a graduate of Civil Services Academy, National Police Academy and the National School of Public Policy. He started his professional career in 1989 as a Magistrate First Class and later on joined as an Assistant Superintendent of Police.

 

He has held key field, staff and training assignments, both within his home country
and abroad. These included: Magistrate First Class, Chief of Police of number of small
and medium sized cities, Director (Training) of the National Police Academy, Staff Officer
to Provincial Police Chief for Police Development, Oversight Mechanisms, Human Resource Management, Special Assistant to the Deputy Police Commissioner, International Police Task

 

Force, United Nations Mission in Bosnia Herzegovina (IPTF-UNMIBH), Deputy Chief
of Staff and the Chief of Staff IPTF-UNMIBH, Lead Investigator at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (UN-ICTY) and the Police Reform Advisor, United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH).

 

He has 23 years of experience in: police reforms, restructuring, planning, implementation, monitoring of projects, administration and management of police, conducting investigation
of organized crime, war crimes and human rights violations.

 

He has been part of the Police Reforms initiatives in Pakistan since 2001 to create
an operationally independent, democratically controlled and politically neutral police service from a centralized, colonial police force. This included: drafting of legislation/rules, improving training methods, effective evaluation systems, culture change, insulation of police from political interference, creation of civilian oversight bodies, contribution to gender mainstreaming, development of community policing etc.

 

 

  1. 2.      Marie Pegie Cauchois

 

Marie Pegie Cauchois is currently working as Judicial Affairs Officer with the Justice and Corrections Standing Capacity, United Nations Department of Peace Keeping Operations, based in Brindisi, Italy. She holds a Master Degree in Private International Law from Paris 1 Sorbonne University, France; and a Master degree in Public and International Law from Melbourne University, Australia.

 

 

 

 

She has nearly 10 years of experience in capacity building, training and project management, legal drafting, legislative strengthening and technical institutional support. She has held
key field, management and advisory roles in post conflict and development countries. These

included: Program and research Associate with the OSCE in Croatia, Legal Project
coordinator in State Law/Prime Minister Office in Vanuatu, Legal Advisor for the Vanuatu
Police Force Capacity Building Project, Adviser for Legislative strengthening
and International Convention  for the Ministry of Justice and Community Services in Vanuatu and more recently Judicial Affairs Officer for United Nations Mission in South Sudan.

 

She has been part of the Vanuatu Police Capacity Project for 2 years which through
a government approach, between the Government of Australia agencies, AusAID
and the Australian Federal Police and the Vanuatu Police Force on behalf of the Government of Vanuatu supported the effective and efficient management of the human and financial resources of the Force and the compliance of the officers with the Code of Ethics. It included planned activities and performance indicators for the general police, the mobile force under the five goals of the Vanuatu Police Force: a safe and secure community; prevent crime
and prosecute offenders; protect the national interests and borders of Vanuatu; value people and resources; and keep the highest professional standards possible. She actively participated in the drafting of key legislation and regulations favoring an inclusive approach, development of community policing, implementation of measures towards ensuring compliance with applicable human rights standard during Police operations, etc.

 

In the Rule of Law and Security Institutions Support Office, she supported State building through technical institutional support to key sector institutions including the Judiciary, Ministry of Justice and legal Administration, the Police and Prison Services to improve service delivery, supported access to justice through empowerment of right holders through support community led rule of law forums; and supported the criminal justice stakeholders

 

in curbing prolonged  arbitrary detention through prisoner review boards, prisoner case review process and mobile courts with special attention to women, girls and juveniles.

 

  1. Polish Center for Mediation Representative:

 

Marceli Kwaśniewski

 

Graduate of Adam Mickiewicz University Poznań (anthropology
of culture) and Jagiellonian University (European integration). Economic/social journalist for last 20  years, co-worker of many Polish media; written and electronic (Gazeta Wyborcza, public/private TV, radio stations). Team building and media trainer. Parallely working on social issues; participant in EU project “Included in Society”, worker at Krakow’s Daily Care Houses and founder of Fred Gijbels Foundation. Mediator  for last three years. Active participant of ongoing NGO-governmental public debate “Equal  Social Treatment” initiated by minister Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz.

 

 

  1. Psychologist:

 

Agnieszka Nowak-Młynikowska

 

A psychologist, a graduate of the Psychology Institute at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (M.A. in social psychology), the post
-graduate TROP School of Business Training in Warsaw,
and the postgraduate School of Translation, Interpreting, and Languages
at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. She has experience both in business training (particularly soft managerial skills) and in psychological training for various groups

 

 

of participants (including social workers, court officers, foster families, etc.). A long-standing
collaborator (since 2002) of the Nobody’s Children Foundation in Warsaw, an NGO providing comprehensive support to abused children, child victims and witnesses of crime, and their families, where she took part in numerous projects focusing on the problems of child abuse and protection, including the protection of children involved in legal procedures
(e.g., the “Child: Witness with Special Needs” program). For the past 15 years she has regularly broadened her psychological knowledge by translating scientific (academic) books and research articles on social psychology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and neuroscience (more than 20 books, including authors such as Elliot Aronson, Jonathan Haidt, and Michael Gazzaniga).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. List of participants

 

The training session was attended by 13 participants, which represented  4 countries: Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia and Poland. The selection of participants was connected with the goals of the training session and its interdisciplinary scope.  The diversity of participants served
as a factor provoking animated discussion and exchange of experiences during the training session. They were judges, prosecutors, lawyers, police officers and NGO’s representatives, as follows:

 

Prosecutor Office:

–          prok. Anna Skrzypczak (Poland)

–          prok. Jacek Pawlak (Poland)

 

Judges:

–          Michał Lewoc (Poland)

–          Joanna Sauter – Kunach (Poland)

 

Police Officers:

–          nadkom. Anna Płachta (Poland)

–          mł. asp. Michał Żwawiak (Poland)

 

Advocate:

–          Mariusz Zelek (Poland)

 

 

 

 

 

Interuniversity Consortium on Education (COINFO):

–          Lawyer Simone De Blasi (Italy)

–          Lawyer Chiara Morciano (Italy)

 

Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD):

–           Gergana Mutafova – Regional Prosecutor of Plovdiv (Bulgaria)

–           Petya Dobreva Legal Aid Director, National Legal Aid Bureau (Bulgaria)

 

Providus:

–          Marija Judajeva (Latvia)

–          Dimitrijs Trofimovs (Latvia)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. Summary of the training session for practitioners

1.     Opening session

The training session started with a registration of the trainers and participants, which were required to sign the attendance list. Prior to the opening session, the organizers distributed
all training materials needed during the workshop, as follows:

  • resource materials (UN and EU Legal Instruments on Victims’ Rights);
  • handbook of the training session;
  • agenda of the training session;
  • notebooks, folders, pens and ID badges;
  • city guides and maps – for visiting participants.

 

Prof. UAM dr hab. Paweł Wiliński, the Scientific Coordinator of the Project, opened
the training session welcoming the trainers and participants, who introduced themselves
and presented their organization and activities. After that, Prof. UAM dr hab. Paweł Wiliński explained the concept of the project Improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid, within the training session was held, and introduced trainers and participants to the objective and contents of the training workshop. The first module delivered by two United Nation’s Representative started immediately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.      Summary of the first module

First module was held on 10th and 11th of February 2014. Two days course were delivered
by two United Nation’s Representative –Mr. B. A. Nasir (Standing Police Capacity, Police Division, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations) and lawyer –  Marie Pegie Cauchois.

 

During the first part of the session, the trainers presented the overview of the UN and EU legal framework relating to the victims’ rights. They were summarized legal resources,
as follows:

 

  • 18/05/2011 – COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS – STRENGTHENING VICTIMS’ RIGHTS IN THE EU (COM(2011)274 FINAL)

 

  • COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2001/220/JHA OF 15 MARCH 2001 ON THE STANDING OF VICTIMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

 

  • RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL 2011/C 187/01 OF 10 JUNE 2011 ON A ROADMAP FOR STRENGTHENING THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF VICTIMS, IN PARTICULAR CRIMINAL PRCEEDINGS

 

  • DIRECTIVE 2012/29/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 OCTOBER 2012 ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE RIGHTS, SUPPORT AND PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME, AND REPLACING COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2001/220/JHA

 

  • ECOSOC RESOLUTION 2005/20 OF 22 JULY 2005, GUIDELINES ON JUSTICE IN MATTERS INVOLVING CHILD VICTIMS AND WITNESSES OF CRIME

 

  • UNITED NATIONS, RESOLUTION 1998/21, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL, 44TH PLENARY MEETING 28 JULY 1998

 

 

 

 

  • ECOSOC RESOLUTION 2006/20, UNITED NATIONS STANDARDS AND NORMS IN CRIME PREVENTION

 

  • COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL ON A ROADMAP FOR STRENGTHENING THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF VICTIMS, IN PARTICULAR IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, 309TH JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS COUNCIL MEETING LUXEMBOURG, 9 AND 10 JUNE 2011

 

  • REGULATION (EU) NO 606/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OG THE COUNCIL OF 12 JUNE 2013 ON MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF PROTECTION MEASURES IN CIVIL MATTERS

 

  • COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2004/80/EC OF 29 APRIL 2004 RELATING TO COMPENSATION
    TO CRIME VICTIMS

 

  • DIRECTIVE 2011/99/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 13 DECEMBER 2011 ON THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER

 

  • 20/4/2009 – REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18 OF THE COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION OF 15 MARCH 2001 ON THE STANDING OF VICTIMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (2001/220/JHA), (COM(2009) 166 FINAL)

 

  • UN DECLARATION OF BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JUSICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AND ABUSE OF POWER 1985

 

  • 21 MARCH 2006, UNITED NATIONS, BASIC PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ON THE RIGHT TO A REMEDY AND REPARATION FOR VICTIMS OF GROSS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, A/RES/60/147

 

 

 

 

 

The second part of the workshop was focused on EU Directive 2012/29/EU on establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. It aimed
to describe key points of the EU Directive 2012/29/EU relating to minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. They were studied:

  • definition of victim and protection of victims with specific protection needs;
  • rights of the victim of crime;
  • participation of victim in criminal proceedings;
  • implementation of the Directive.

 

During the session participants were asked to divide themselves into four groups, with each group identifying some problem (victim’s rights, victim’s protection, victim’s definition etc.) and discussing it. The groups presented the result of their discussions, and the rest
of participants contributed their comments on each of presentations. The session established that there is a lot of differences between represented nations relating to victim’s rights, even they share common characteristics.

 

Various elements of victims’ participation in trial proceeding were presented using video
on victim’s participation before the International Criminal Court. Following the presentations, group works and video, the training session was closed for the day.

 

The second day began with a recap of previous day’s activities by the participants. Next part of the session was dedicated to challenges in the implementation of  victims’ rights. They were analyzed:

  • general challenges (f.eg. lack of political will, adequate budgetary support);
  • challenges for the victims (f.eg. lack of support, lack of ability to participate
    in the criminal justice process or lack of compensation);

 

 

 

  • challenges for the criminal justice system (f.eg. lack of knowledge regarding the emotional impact on victims, lack of experience amongst criminal justice professionals how to limit the risk of re-victimisation);
  • challenges for victim support organizations (f.eg. data protection restrictions, lack
    of funding, independence from external influence).

 

Next part of the workshop focussed on issues of implementation status of UN and EU legal framework relating to the victims’ rights. The aim of this part was to describe the implementation status of UN and EU legal framework relating to the victims’ rights, using interactive presentation and peer learning.

This module also included a group exercise on victims’ rights (role play followed
by discussion), with aim to practice and understand various elements of victims’ rights.
The participants were also asked to play a case simulation. They were divided into a case roles, as follows:

  • Victims of crime – tourists who needed a legal assistance;
  • Offenders – who treated a victim’s badly while robbing and intimidate them during the trial;
  • Police Officers – who treated victim’s without any respect, without intention to help them;
  • Prosecutor – who informed the victim’s that he cannot provide them information about progress in processing of his case;
  • Judge – who have not arranged an interpreter for the victims so he could explain what had happened in detail;
  • Victim support – who inform the victim’s, that is impossible to provide them emotional, legal or practical help;
  • Team of observers – whose task was to take notes of the proceedings of exercise
    and provide feedback what key victim rights were violated.

 

 

The participants identified and played their roles. The case role was dedicated to practice
and understand various elements of victims’ rights.

 

The session continued with analysis of assessment criteria for victims’ rights and mechanisms for cooperation amongst different segments of Criminal Justice System to ensure victim’s rights. They were discussed:

  • reasons to have cooperation mechanisms;
  • benefits of better coordination;
  • functions of coordination mechanisms;
  • different CJS coordination mechanisms.

 

This module finished with the quiz assess impact of training workshop, which checked
the participants ability to identify the key learning points. The participants were divided into
2 groups and they were requested to ask short, summary questions related to the first module of the training. The winners were rewarded with chocolates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.     Summary of the second module

Second module delivered on 12th of February 2014 by psychologist Mrs. Agnieszka Nowak – Młynikowska was dedicated to non – legal issues connected with help given
to the victims of crime. The training session was based on presentation with lecture and, most of all, group and subgroup discussion, case study, role playing, pair work and individual work. The main aim was to raise the participants’ awareness about psychological needs
and difficulties experienced by victims of crime, the immediate and long-term psychological effects of victimization, and their impact on the victim’s ability to participate in legal procedures (criminal proceedings perspective) and to function in the community (broader social perspective). This module also served as a platform to international exchange
of experience, practices, and ideas in providing psychological support for victims of crime.

 

The training session started with issues of victimization as stress/trauma in the victim’s life. This part of the session redirected the participants’ attention, helping them to take the victim’s perspective. They also learnt about types of trauma (with reference to various types
of offenses) and about how to recognize post-traumatic stress in the victim. The workshop was based on a group work. The participants were divided into two groups, and they were required to find some examples of the acute and chronic trauma. Next they chose one to two representatives each to present their proposals.

 

Next session focused on victimization as disturbance of balance. It showed, why crime
is so stressful for the victim is that is violates the victim’s boundaries and disturbs their inner balance (in several ways). The participants were asked to find and mark them small territory

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the room. Next, two participants were required to cross and get into the territory
of others. The participants discussed about their feelings, when they were afraid of them territory. In this exercise the participants had an opportunity to experience boundary violation
to become more able and more willing to see things from the victim’s point of view.

 

Succeeding issue of the training session was dedicated to psychological effects of crime: emotional effects, changes in the brain, cognitive impairment. The participants learnt more about how victimization affects the person’s emotions and motivations, the brain,
and cognitive or intellectual functions. This part of the training was based on lecture, presentation and groups work. Firstly, the participants in pairs were required to tell each other about some stressful moments of their life, including all feelings connected with it. Next,
in two groups, they tried to find what is the victim afraid of and discussed all proposals.

 

Next, the psychological effects of crime and the victim’s activity in criminal proceedings were discussed. In this part of the training the participants tried to refer the knowledge from
the previous sections to their daily practice. They discussed – in practical terms – about how the emotional, motivational, and cognitive effects of victimization influence
the victim’s behavior in criminal proceedings, sometimes making the person unable
to participate in the process. The participants (especially Police Officers and Prosecutors)
had a lot of questions and experiences relating to special treatment of the victim’s of crime,
in the light of necessity of quickly taken proceedings actions.

 

During the next  part of the session, the participants learnt about victimization as a loss.
The main issues was how people respond to and cope with a loss to help them realize that victims participating in criminal proceedings may be at different stages of the process, which has an effect on their activity in legal procedures. This part of workshop was based on lecture

 

 

with presentation and discussion between participants. Especially, the participants discussed: what is lost? The trainer also presented stages of dealing with loss.

 

After an exercise illustrating the victim’s difficult situation in the criminal proceedings
and factors increasing the risk of the person being harmed by the legal process itself,
the participants were required to think in 2 groups about what is the secondary victimization, what the victim needs and how they, as law enforcement or justice system professionals,
may try to meet these needs to prevent secondary victimization. Next all proposals were discussed.

 

Next part of the workshop, relating to individual differences in coping with victimization, focused on individual differences to make the participants more sensitive to specific features and characteristics that influence how victims cope with victimization and with the legal process itself. The case study method was used, so the participants could refer directly to their practical experience.

 

The penultimate issue of the training session focused on different types of victims and their participation in legal procedures. This part of the workshop also was dedicated to practical experience of the participants. They were presented three categories of victim: provocative victim, participating victim and false victim, with aim to discuss the problem and exchange
all experiences.

 

The second module finished with systemic solutions of psychological support for victims
of crime. The last part of the training focused on psychological support offered to victims within various justice systems. Working in international subgroups, the participants shared their countries’ practices in this area and try to work out ways to improve the existing solutions within their systems.

 

 

4.     Summary of the third module

Final module, held on 13th of February was delivered by mediator from the Polish Center
for Mediation – Mr. Marceli Kwaśniewski. During this  part of the training course, trainer  exposed  some of the vital problems connected with the mediation. This part of the training was based on case studies in groups and role playing  (perspective of mediator, victim
and violator).  This module increased participants’ awareness about the importance
of mediation for crime victims and the importance of mediation as a judicial remedy against secondary victimization, and as a standard in the trial proceedings. It also drawn attention
to the problem of applying mediation at the appropriate stage of the trial. The role playing gave an opportunity to exchange of experiences and best practices in the use of mediation
and its availability in different countries.

 

The training session included following issues:

  1. 1.      The aim of the mediation (a way to restore a sense of justice by showing the victim’s rights and opportunities resulting from mediation).
  2. 2.      The role of the mediator in support of the victim and stopping the perpetrator.
  3. 3.      The objectives of mediation:
  • • search for the problem;
  • • joined problem connecting the violator and the victim;
  • • separating the problem from the penalties and judicial remedies.
  1. 4.      Mediation as an equal instrument in the trial proceedings.
  2. 5.      Changing the perception of the trial perspective from a conclusive to the problem.
  3. 6.      The appropriateness of  referring the cases to mediation and finding the right stage
    of trial for them.

 

 

 

 

 

  1. 7.      Trauma of crime disrupting perception of the victim – the role of mediation
    in the preparation of the victim to participate fully in the trial process.

 

Within the session, the participants were divided into small groups (mediator, offender
and victim) and played case role in different variations. Cases concerned:

  • direct family violence;
  • punishable threats;
  • traffic accident;
  • criminal libel and stalking;
  • theft and burglary;
  • fight and criminal battery.

Each case was performed and discussed afterwards and then the roles were exchanged. This part of the training session was especially discussed by the participants, which don’t have possibility to mediate in their countries. They had a lot of questions and exchanged experiences with others participants. When all the cases were presented, took place a brief resume and discussion with the elements of in depth analysis. The training session also offered a chance to take a role of an injured party, mediator and last but not least – violator.

 

5.     Closing session

The training session was closed by Mr. Piotr Karlik from Adam Mickiewicz University (researcher of the Project) when the final module finished. Mr. Piotr Karlik thanked
the participants for taking part in the training session.  All certificates of participation were awarded to each of participants.

 

 

VII. Questionnaire results

 

The aim of the training course was to create the teaching module for practitioners living
and working in countries, which are the target group of the project. The main subject
of the training was victim’s access to judicial system as well as delivering help to the victims of crime and protection of their rights. During the training it was also important to stress
out the significance of different ways of approaching victims and delivering them help.
One cannot overestimate the importance of right attitude of people working in institutions dealing with victims in everyday practice.

The training course was also an opportunity to share thoughts and experiences
of professionals working in different European countries. This way the opportunity to create common standards and methodology of work could occurred.

To find out if the planned outcomes were fulfilled, participants were asked to fill
the questionnaires – one after each module and the last one at the end of the whole training. Answering each question, practitioners could evaluate each, particular issue by grading
it from 1 (the worse grade) to 5 (the best one).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     The first questionnaire concerned first module
of the training course

Firstly, respondents were asked to evaluate the module in general. In order to compare the quality of each module it was necessary to find out respondents’ opinions on each module first.

Respondents gave very diverse answers to that question. The chart below illustrates it.

The majority of participants evaluated the first module as a good one – ten out of twelve respondents graded this part with 4 or 5.

 

Secondly, practitioners had to determine, if the module met their expectations. These answers could also show what were the expectations on each module. Given answers had also great importance on comparing each module.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, respondents were not unanimous. The chart below illustrates it.

In general, it can be stated that most of practitioners were satisfied with the course of training – nine out of twelve respondents graded this issue with 4 or 5.

 

Third question concerned evaluation of the organization of the module. As organizers of this event we believed that not only the substantive issues have great importance in conducting
the training. It has to be noticed, that the smooth course of training also has an impact
on absorbing knowledge by participants and on their general assessment of the whole training.

Vast majority of respondents evaluated the organization as a very good one. Only two of them gave the grade 4 and one of the participants – 2. Therefore it can be stated that first module was well – organized.

 

 

 

Answering question number four, practitioners were supposed to assess if the knowledge gained during the module will be useful in their everyday practice. Obviously no training course can be defined as a successful one if participants do not consider gained knowledge
as useful. Answers given to that question also helped us in defining which area of delivering help to victims is most neglected one and which need to be practice and stressed out most.

Giving answers to the question stated above, respondent again were not unanimous: 

Nevertheless, in general practitioners believed that they will use gained knowledge
in everyday practice – eight out of twelve respondents graded this issue with 4 or 5.

 

Question number five concerned the knowledge and preparation of trainers. Obviously during training the competence and professionalism of trainers cannot be overestimated. Only well –prepared trainer can create the opportunity to exchange experiences of participants
and conduct training that will be useful and interesting for experienced practitioners.

 

 

 

Vast majority of respondents evaluated the knowledge and preparation of trainers as very good one, giving it the highest mark. Two of the participants assess this issue with 4.
One of the participants graded trainer’s knowledge with 2.

Answering sixth question respondents were supposed to evaluate the communication with trainer. This question concerned language skills as well as, even more importantly, the ability to communicate without any obstacles with the trainer in exchanging thoughts and opinions.

Almost all of the participants evaluated trainers as very communicative people. There were no problems in this area. Only one respondent graded the communication with 3 and another one with 4. Therefore it can be stated that the communication with trainers during first module was very satisfactory.

In the end, practitioners could put any remarks concerning the training. Practitioners
had to be granted with an opportunity to express any concerns or comments they wished
to. That way partners could find out their full assessment of the training.

One of the participant suggested that trainers should put more emphasis on practical aspects. There was not enough discuss on ways to reach the goals of EU norms. Other participantsstated that the training would be more effective if the experts were from relevant institution (from EU). One participant underlined perfect organization of the training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.     Second questionnaire concerned second module
of the training course

As mentioned above, questions which were asked at the end of the second module were
the same as ones after the first part of the training. In the beginning, respondents were asked to evaluate the module in general.

Almost all of the participant evaluated second module as a very good one. There was only
one dissatisfied participant, whom graded it as very poor one – with 1. Also, another participant did not give the maximum points assessing this part of training and evaluated
it with 4.The rest of participants graded this part with 5. In all, participant were pleased with the second module of the training.

Secondly, practitioners had to determine, if the module met their expectations.

The profile of given answers was the same as those given to the first question. Therefore
it has to be stated that the second module met expectations of participants.

 

Third question concerned evaluation of the organization of the module.

In general, respondent evaluated organization of the training as very good one.
One respondent declared it was very poor.

 

Answering question number four, practitioners were supposed to assess if the knowledge gained during the module will be useful in their everyday practice

 

Almost every practitioner stated that she/he will use knowledge gained during the module
in every day practice a lot. One respondent believes he/she will not use it at all.

 

 

 

 

Question number five concerned the knowledge and preparation of the trainer.

 

Vast majority of respondents believed that the knowledge and preparation of the trainer
was on a very high level. One respondent assessed it as very poor one.

 

Answering sixth question respondents were supposed to evaluate the communication with trainer.

 

Almost all of the respondents assessed that the trainer was very communicative. Only
one practitioner graded this issue with 2.

 

In the end, practitioners could put any remarks concerning the training.

 

The feedback of second module was great. Remarks given by practitioners concerned mainly not enough time dedicated to this part. Respondents also mentioned that that was the best
day of the training and that they need more of that kind of practical trainings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.     Third questionnaire concerned  third module of the training course

In the beginning, respondents were asked to evaluate the module in general.

Chart below shows the answers of participants:

Surely, in general respondents evaluated third module as a very good one – six out of eleven of them graded this part with the highest score.

 

Secondly, practitioners had to determine, if the module met their expectations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The profile of answers given to that questions was similar as the one in first question. Therefore it can be stated, that participants were satisfied with this part of training and that this module met their expectations.

 

 

Third question concerned evaluation of the organization of the third module.

 

Majority of practitioners (seven out of eleven of them) assessed third part of the module
as very well organized. One of the respondents graded organization with 3, three of them believed the appropriate mark was 4.

 

 

 

 

Answering question number four, practitioners were supposed to assess if the knowledge gained during the module will be useful in their everyday practice.

Majority of respondents believed that the knowledge gained during the third module will
be useful in her/his everyday practice a lot- eight out of eleven of them. Two of respondents graded this issue with 4. Only one of practitioners do not think this knowledge will be useful at all.

 

Question number five concerned the knowledge and preparation of the trainer.

Practitioners stated that the trainer was well prepared and had relevant knowledge – nine
of them evaluated trainer with the highest score. Two of respondents believed the appropriate grade was 4.

Answering sixth question respondents were supposed to evaluate the communication with trainer.

All of the practitioners believed that trainer was very communicative.

 

In the end, practitioners could put any remarks concerning the training.

Respondents believe that it is good to know how the new tool works in criminal proceeding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.     Final questionnaire and assess the whole training course

In the end, respondents were asked to evaluate the whole training. Despite of different assessment of each part of the course, respondents had to express their general assessment
of the conducted training in order to find out what was the strongest and weakest parts
of training and to compare each part of the workshop. This way, partners of the project could find out what is the most important issue for practitioners in delivering help to victims
of crime and what has to be still practiced.

Giving general assessment of the training course, the vast majority of respondents evaluated training as a very good one. One of the practitioners graded it with 4, another one with 3,
all the others believed the appropriate mark was 5.

 

Secondly, practitioners had to determine, if the training met their expectations.

The chart below illustrates answers given by participants:

Seven out of eleven respondents graded training with the highest score, three of them with
4 and one participant marked it with 3.Therefore it can be stated, that the training
met participants’ expectations.

 

 

 

Third question concerned evaluation of the organization of the training course. Again, partners believed that not only the substantive issues had an influence on general assessment of the course expressed by participants. Also smooth organization had a great impact on their general assessment of the whole training.

It can be stated that participants were satisfied with the organization of the course. Almost
all of them assessed it as very good one. Only one respondent graded the organization with
4, all the rest evaluated it with 5.

Answering question number four, practitioners were supposed to evaluate if the knowledge gained during the course will be useful in their everyday practice. Partners believe that
the only point in conducting such training is to really enhance knowledge and skills
of participants, but not only in normative, abstract dimension. It is necessary for the participants to use gained knowledge and abilities in everyday practice.

Fortunately, in general, practitioners believed that the knowledge gained during the training will be useful in their everyday practice. Six of respondents graded this issue with 5, three
of them believed that the appropriate mark was 4 and one of participants marked it with 3.

 

Next, participants were asked to indicate which part of the training was most useful in her/his everyday practice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart illustrates the profile of given answers:

It can be stated that participants found the first module least useful, while second module seemed to be the most useful one. Third module was almost as useful in opinion
of respondents as the first one.

Answering question number six participants were asked which part of the training
was conducted in most professional way.

 

Chart illustrates the profile of given answers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, in respondents’ opinion,  second and third module were conducted in most professional way.

 

Next, respondents were asked if the international character of the training had an influence
on the course of the training.

 

Practitioners usually claimed that it was opportunity to exchange opinions and experiences. Some also stated that it is necessary to compare different legislation in order to understand the challenges. Participants also thought it was an opportunity to improve language skills.

 

In the end, practitioners could put any remarks concerning the training.

Some participants stated that thanks to different methods it was possible to get new experiences and make things better. Practitioners also thanked for the training.

 

 

 

To sum up, it can be stated, that practitioners were satisfied with the training course. The best part and most useful module seemed to be the second one. Almost all of the practitioners believed it was very practical and that knowledge gained during that part will be used by them in everyday practice. Answers given to the questions showed that practitioners are very interested with non- legal issues connected with help delivered
to victims of crime. Practitioners were also satisfied with the organization of training course. It can be also said, that the international character of the training served
as an important factor, which enabled participants to exchange thoughts
and experiences. There were no major problems with the communication with trainers. Again, it can be safely stated, that results of the questionnaires showed that practitioners are not that interested in normative aspects of help delivering to the victims of crime, they believe that nowadays the most important thing is to learn how to use this gained knowledge in practice and what is the right approach when it comes to dealing with victims.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII. ANNEXES

 

1.     module questionnaire

 

  1. What is your general evaluation of the module?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

 

Very poor                                                                                                                                               Very good

  1. Did the module met your expectations?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

 

Not at all                                                                                                                                               Very much

  1. How do you evaluate organization of the module?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

 

Very poor                                                                                                                                               Very good

 

 

  1. Will you use knowledge gained during the module in your everyday practice?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

Not at all                                                                                                                                               A lot

 

  1. How do you evaluate knowledge and preparation of the trainer?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

Very poor                                                                                                                                               Very good

 

  1. Was the trainer communicative enough ?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

Not at all                                                                                                                                               Very much

 

  1. Do you have any remarks?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

 

2.     final questionnaire

 

  1. What is your general evaluation of the training?

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

Very poor                                                                                                                                               Very good

 

  1. Did the training met your expectations?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

 

Not at all                                                                                                                                               Very much

 

  1. How do you evaluate organization of the training?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

 

Very poor                                                                                                                                               Very good

 

 

  1. Will you use knowledge gained during the training in your everyday practice?

 

1

2

3

4

5

         

 

 

 

Not at all                                                                                                                                               A lot

 

 

 

 

  1. Which part of the training was most useful in your practice?

 

First

Second

Third

     

 

  1. Which part of the training was conducted in the most professional way ?

 

First

Second

Third

     

 

  1. Did the international character of training had an influence on the course of the training? What kind?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

  1. Do you have any other remarks?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.     agenda

 

Sunday – 9th of February

 

–          Arrival of participants

–          Registration in the Hotel

–          Free time

 

 

FIRST DAY of the training course – 10th of February

 

9.00 – 9.10          Welcome address and presentation of participants by Paweł Wiliński, the

Scientific Coordinator of the Project

9.10 – 10.40         Beginning of the training course delivered by United Nation’s Representatives –

                          Marie Pegie Cauchois and B.A. Nasir Introduction of the participants and

overview of the UN legal framework relating to the victims’ rights

10.40 – 11.00      Coffee break

11.00 – 12.30      Overview of the EU legal framework relating to the victims’ rights

12.30 – 13.30      Lunch break*

13.30 – 15.00      EU Directive 2012/29/EU on establishing minimum standards on the rights,

support and protection of victims of crime

15.00 – 15.20      Coffee break

15.20 – 16.30       Video on victims participation in trial proceeding

16.30 – 17.00      Sightseeing of the Faculty facilities

17.00 – 18.00      Free time

18.00                  Dinner hosted by the Dean of the Faculty

 

 

 

SECOND  DAY of the training course – 11th of February

 

9.00 – 10.30        Beginning of the training course delivered by United Nation’s Representatives –
                           Marie Pegie Cauchois and B.A. Nasir – Challenges in the implementation of

victims’ rights

10.30 – 10.50      Coffee break

10.50 – 12.20      Implementation status of UN and EU legal framework relating to the victims’

rights

12.20 – 13.20      Lunch break*

13.20 – 15.00      A group exercise on victims’ rights, assessment criteria for victims’ rights

15.00 – 15.20      Coffee break

15.20 – 16.30      Mechanisms for cooperation amongst different segments of Criminal Justice

System to ensure victim’s rights, quiz to assess impact of training workshop

16.30 – 19.00      Sightseeing of Poznań

 

THIRD  DAY of the training course  – 12th of February

 

10.00 – 11.30      Beginning of the training course delivered by Psychologist –

Agnieszka Nowak – Młynikowska Victimization as trauma in the victim’s

life and violation of the victim’s inner balance

11.30 – 11.45      Coffee break

11.45 – 13.30      Psychological impact of crime secondary, victimization and how to prevent it.

13.30 – 14.15      Lunch break*

14.15 – 15.30      Individual differences in coping with victimization and victims’ characteristics

15.30 – 15.45      Coffee break

15.45 – 16.30      Closing session – Psychological support for victims of crime – systemic

solutions, closing round, evaluation

18.00                  Bowling*

 

 

FOURTH DAY of the training course – 13th of February

 

10.0010.45      Training course delivered by Marceli Kwaśniewski – Mediator from Polish

Center for Mediations – Introduction: discussion, European and Polish

regulations on mediation

10.45 – 11.00      Coffee break

11.00 – 12.30      Workshop I – cases: direct violence in the family and punishable threats

12.30 – 14.00      Workshop II – cases: traffic accident, VIP involved,  defamation and harassment,

economic background

14.00 – 14.30      Lunch break*

14.30 – 16.00      Workshop III – cases: burglary with theft and fight/battery

17.00 – 19.00      Shopping and guided sightseeing of Old Brewery – awarded as a Best

Shopping Centre in the Europe and Best Shopping Centre in the world  in the

medium –  sized commercial buildings category

 

 

 

14th of February

 

Departure of participants

 

 

 

*The organizer will not cover costs.

 

 

 

 

PART III

I.                  concept of the workshop for society

 

On 18th  and 25th February 2014, as a part of the Crime Victims’ Help Week, a society  workshop session was held in the Social Welfare Center in Murowana Goslina and at the Faculty of Law and Administration in Poznan. The workshops constituted one of the stages of the project “Improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid”. The workshops covered the issues of legal and psychological aid to the victims of crime and were organized by the Chair of Criminal Procedure at the Faculty of Law and Administration at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan.

 

One of the goal of this project was developing information about victims’ rights among specific categories of citizens having less access to this kind of information, in particular the citizens of rural areas. For this reason the workshops took place both in the city – in Poznan, and in the rural area – Murowana Goslina. The most vital aim of this workshops was to inform this categories of citizens about legal and psychological aid to victims of crime and the status of victims of crime in criminal proceedings. The workshops was organized and divided in four different modules:

  1. The rights of the victims of crime in the course of the criminal proceedings.
  2. The role, tasks and responsibilities of a victims’ proxy.
  3. Psychological aid to victims of crime.
  4. Mediation in criminal procedure.

 

 

 

 

 

V.               Agenda

 

Thuesday – 18th of February, Murowana Goslina,

Social Welfare Center, Dworcowa 10

 

Thuesday – 25th of February, Poznan,

Faculty of Law and Administration,

Adam Mickiewicz University, Al. Niepodległości 53

 

12.00 – 12.30 – The rights and duties of the victims of crime in the criminal procedure
the Regional Prosecutor’s Office Ms. Magdalena Mazur – Prus (Spokesperson of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Poznan).

12.30 – 13.00 – The role, tasks and responsibilities of a victims’ proxy – an advocate Mariusz Zelek

13.00 –  13.15 break

13.15 – 13.45 A psychologist in the criminal procedure –  a psychologist Agnieszka Lisek

13.45 – 14.15 Benefits from the mediation – a mediator Halina Kutereba

 

VI.           Trainers’ profiles

 

  1. 1.      Magdalena Mazur- Prus

A prosecutor from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office and Spokesperson of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Poznan. For many years she has worked with the victims of crimes.

 

 

 

  1. 2.      Mariusz Zelek

A lawyer, a graduate and Ph. D student of at the Faculty of Law and Administration at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan. He works as an advocate and specializes in criminal and civil law. He also has an experience in working with victims of crime in social welfare centers.

 

  1. 3.      Agnieszka Lisek

A founder and director of the Polish centre of mediation in Poznan, psychologist, mediator and  lawyer. She specializes in civil mediation (including family and business). For many years she worked for the business and participated in the negotiation of major contracts. She has experience both in business training and in psychological training for various groups.

 

  1. 4.      Halina Kutereba

A psychologist, a graduate of the Sociology Institute at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. She is also a founder and member of the Polish centre of mediation in Poznan, a licensed estate manager, a specialist in cases involving minors and disabled, a mediator. She has experience in working with children, youth and family in crisis.

 

VII.        Summary of the training for society

 

The workshops were conducted by a prosecutor from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office Ms. Magdalena Mazur – Prus (Spokesperson of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Poznan), an advocate Mr. Mariusz Zelek, a psychologist Ms. Agnieszka Lisek and a mediator Ms. Halina Kutereba. The workshops were attended by the employees of social welfare centers,

 

 

psychologists, and school teachers who meet victims of crime on a daily basis and provide them with both psychological and legal assistance being often the only support those people have.

 

The first module, which was conducted by the prosecutor, was devoted to the issues concerning the rights of the victims of crime in the course of the criminal proceedings, i.e. at the stage of the proceedings conducted by the prosecutor (police) and in the court.

 

During this part the duties imposed on the victims and the consequences of non-compliance were also highlighted. The prosecutor explained who the victim in criminal proceedings is and what such  person can expect as guaranteed in the course of a trial.

 

The second speaker Mariusz Zelek, a lawyer, focused on the issues related to the role, tasks and responsibilities of a victims’ proxy, and pointed out where crime victims can seek help. The lawyer explained who can be a proxy in a criminal proceeding. He also emphasized the importance of the psychological aspect of assistance to the victims, and the need to support them. In addition, he explained the procedure of granting legal aid to a crime victim and the circumstances when a victim may apply for such.

 

The third module was conducted by a psychologist Agnieszka Lisek and was dedicated to non–legal issues related to the help given to the victims of crime. The psychologist explained that the emotional and social issues as well as the methods of communication are extremely important factors in approaching victims of crime. This module addressed different ways of treating victims and assisting them during the procedural phase. The psychologist emphasized that only a victim that is treated with proper respect can cooperate with legal institutions and can get the due compensation in a criminal proceeding. Nevertheless, many times in everyday practice the state authorities forget about the

 

 

importance of non-legal aspects of the help given to the victims and focus their priorities on the proper performance of the legal procedures.

 

The last module was devoted to the issue of mediation in criminal proceedings. The participants had the opportunity to learn what mediation is and what benefits it can bring to the victim. The speaker Halina Kutereba explained why the institution of mediation is so significant both for the victims and for the criminal trial. She also enumerated the most common mistakes made during mediation and the ways to avoid them. During this module the participants were also taught how to encourage parties of the criminal procedure to use this institution more often. Halina Kutereba emphasized that mediation should be used much more frequently than it is now.

 

In these workshops the participants took part in a discussion and asked questions which were answered at length by the speakers.

 

During each meeting with society were distributed DVD about the status of the victim in the criminal proceedings. This DVD is one of the basic tools used to increase legal awareness of the society. Its main purpose is to present victims’ rights and obligations in a clear and understandable way. The prepared materials are a source of general, most important information.

 

The element of highest value, is a Power Point presentation. It contains all necessary information for the victims, to enable wider access to participation in a criminal trial. Following issues were mentioned in it:

– legal aid to victims of crime,
– crime victims’ rights in the criminal proceedings,

 
– ways of seeking financial compensation to victims of crime,
– the status of victims of crime in the criminal proceedings.

Whole was supplemented with patterns of most common pleadings.

 

 

At the end of the workshops, special thanks were addressed to the Dean of the Faculty of Law and Administration in Poznan and the Directorate of the Social Welfare Centre in Murowana Goslina for their kindness and help in the organization of the events.