“Empowering Victims: How Strong Rights Can Restore Communion and Foster Democracy” – Prof. Dr. Suzan Van Der Aa

In this interview, Prof. Dr. Suzan Van Der Aa, a consultant for the Council of Europe’s Committee on Crime Problems and a professor at Maastricht University, shares her insights on the “New Recommendation on Rights, Services, and Support for Victims of Crime.”
She explains how this new recommendation improves on past frameworks and its role in the reform of the Victims’ Rights Directive. Dr. Van Der Aa also discusses the challenges of implementing these changes across EU countries, the impact on national policies, and how academic research can help shape these efforts. This interview is part of VSE’s “2025: Year of Victims’ Rights” campaign, highlighting key steps in supporting victims and ensuring their rights are protected.

Key Developments and Innovations in the New Recommendation on Victims’ Rights

Marina Kazakova, VSE: Suzan, thanks for joining our campaign to explain important victims’ rights-related matters. How does the ‘New Council of Europe’s Recommendation on Rights, Services, and Support for Victims of Crime’ build upon previous frameworks, and what are its key improvements or innovations in the context of the upcoming reform of the Victims’ Rights Directive?”

Prof.Dr.Suzan Van Der Aa: The Recommendation on Rights, Services and Support for Victims of Crime relies heavily on previous victim instruments, most notably the EU Victims’ Rights Directive and CoE Recommendation Rec(2006)8. When I was invited as a consultant by the CDPC to propose a revised version of Recommendation Rec(2006)8 I was given a lot of discretion as to the ambition level of the revised instrument. Together with prof. Antony Pemberton and an international group of experts, we selected the provisions from the EU Victim Directive as a minimum point of departure, and supplemented these with provisions and guidelines based on other relevant EU, UN and CoE instruments, and state-of-the-art victimological literature in order to attain a higher (perhaps aspirational) ambition level.

Drawing from the wisdom contained in and experiences with previous international instruments in the area of victim rights only makes sense, and it has the added value of maintaining coherence between the various instruments. We nevertheless decided to also go beyond existing international and regional instruments. The Recommendation exceeded the state-of-the-art in international and regional legal instruments, for instance, in that it includes provisions on access to justice and support, and post-trial rights, and it also pays more attention to victims in other relevant legal proceedings and victim support trajectories. Just like the European Commission in its proposal for a reform of the Victims’ Rights Directive, we also wanted to draw attention to promising practices in terms of offender compensation. In the Explanatory Report we, for instance, highlighted the advantages of placing the execution of compensation orders in the hands of public services rather than leaving this up to the individual victim; or by having the state pay the compensation to the victim in advance. And, in article 16, the right to remedy was emphasized. The fact that victims are seldom able to enforce their rights through judicial review or other legal remedy severely weakens their effectiveness.

Challenges and Impact of Implementing the New Victims’ Rights Recommendations Across the EU

Marina Kazakova, VSE: What are the major hurdles in implementing the new recommendations effectively across different EU member states, and how can these challenges be overcome to ensure that all victims receive the support they need?

Prof.Dr.Suzan Van Der Aa: One major hurdle is that the level of victim rights – in law and in practice – varies significantly between the EU Member States. This can be attributed to various reasons, e.g., lack of sufficient and structural (public) funding to implement victim rights, lack of prioritization, different ‘worlds of compliance’, lack of remedies, etc. In the Recommendation we tried to accommodate for these national differences by designing an instrument that could be supported by countries with a relatively high, but also a lower level of sophistication in terms of victim rights. In order to do this, we opted for a ‘bandwidth’ system in which the minimum standards ought to be ‘guaranteed’ in all CoE states, and more ambitious standards might be attainable for certain states only. Additional measures that might help guarantee the effective support to victims across the EU is additional (EU) funding for victim services, training of CJS officials coming into contact with victims. Furthermore, a carefully balanced system of individual rights to remedy, in combination with collective (non-judicial) remedies, and alternatives, such as monitoring and mainstreaming should be explored.

Marina Kazakova, VSE: How do you anticipate the new recommendations will influence national policies and practices regarding victims’ rights, and what role should academic research play in shaping these policies?

Prof.Dr.Suzan Van Der Aa: Since the Recommendation is a non-binding instrument, I have modest expectations in terms of its ability to directly and substantially influence national polices. We know, for instance, from a previous survey that practitioners do attribute some influence to its predecessor in that it helped support lobby work, but overall they accredited only limited influence to Recommendation Rec(2006)8.

However, it can perhaps be useful in that it might prove inspirational, e.g., when it comes to the development and implementation of the revised Victims’ Rights Directive. Some of the new ‘themes’ developed in the instrument and the Explanatory Report warrant further academic attention, such as the needs and position of victims in other (non-criminal) legal proceedings, or the best ‘mix’ of (legal) remedies and alternative measures to strengthen victim rights, while taking into account the idiosyncrasies of the different legal systems of the EU Member States involved.

Aligning the New Victims’ Rights Recommendations with the European Commission’s 2024−2029 Agenda

Marina Kazakova, VSE: As the European Commission’s 2024−2029 agenda focuses on strengthening societies and safeguarding democracy, how can the “New Recommendation on Rights, Services, and Support for Victims of Crime” be applied to better meet the needs of victims, particularly the youth, ensuring that they receive the comprehensive support necessary to rebuild their lives and actively participate in democratic society?

Prof.Dr.Suzan Van Der Aa: I think paying heed to victims’ needs and rights as, inter alia, contained in the Recommendation, can certainly help strengthening society and safeguarding democracy. There is an upcoming body of victimological literature, which demonstrates that victims not only value rights in an instrumental and agentic fashion, but also because they need to feel supported by society and because they experience this support as an expression of shared values. Some victimologists theorize that feelings of victim agency, but also of communion are negatively impacted by crime. If these feelings of communion are not restored, victims might no longer want to engage in that same society that ‘abandoned’ them, at least not to the same extent. Having a strong body of victim rights, on paper and in practice, might help restore these feelings of communion in victims, which could – in turn – help stimulate their active participation in a democratic society.