Meeting victims' needs before, during and after criminal proceedings may considerably mitigate negative consequences of victimization. It can also prevent these consequences from worsening due to bad treatment during the process. If victims receive appropriate support and protection, they will recover more quickly both physically and emotionally from the crime. To support Serbian authorities in establishment of victim support system in Serbia, the MDTF JSS team prepared report on Operating networks for victim support services.
The Report looks into how two European victim support networks function. The two examples that had been selected, Finland and France, based on the previous MDTF JSS “Analysis of victims’ rights and services in Serbia and their alignment with EU Directive 2012/29/EU”, as the most relevant for Serbian context. That Analysis showed in particular that Serbia had some level of existing infrastructure for the delivery of victim services. Though many of these were focused on specific groups of victims, a number had indicated an interest to widen the scope of their activities. The Report identified four basic frameworks for delivering victim support: 1) Single, national State-funded civil society organization (CSO), providing support services for all victims of crime; 2) Single State-run victim support service (entity in its own right or organization delivering other services); 3) A network of CSOs coordinated by a single body receiving State funding 4) A network of CSOs coordinated by a Steering committee funded through the State. The Report also suggested that, given the specific situation in Serbia, the French model of support might be most viable. It suggested that a ‘federation of organizations should be brought together under the umbrella of a single body – whether NGO, independent authority or state entity. This would enable the network to establish its own national identity (particularly important for increasing victim uptake), have a strong partnership with government, ensure there is consistency and co-ordination at a national level, and ensure standards are applied nationally.’ At the same time, the Serbian State had indicated that where possible they wanted to use existing resources, rather than create an wholly new system, which would be an inefficient and non-inclusive approach.
Both France and Finland are examples of long and well established national services, meeting criteria in the EU Victims Directive which used existing infrastructures and organizations to deliver a national system. French and Finish networks are observed from the aspect of their history, finances and governance, requirements for evaluation and monitoring, service provision and external relations. The Report suggests a set of conclusions and recommendations specifically tailored for Serbian context. The full text of the Report is available here.