In this article, we report on our initial findings (from the field) regarding conflict resolution among the Maroons in Suriname. After first providing some background information about the Maroons (section 2), we describe their manner of conflict resolution after a crime has taken place and we explain what justice within this context entails for them (section 3). Subsequently, we try to distil ‘the useful elements’ from the Maroons’ approach to crime, that is to say elements with which modern restorative justice, i.e. restorative justice that meets, inter alia, human rights and constitutional requirements, can be nourished and strengthened. We also discuss some of the challenges we have encountered, where the traditional legal system and the modern criminal justice system come together (section 4). Then we try to build some possible bridges between the two legal systems (section 5). The contribution concludes with providing a window on the future of the development of restorative justice in Suriname and the Netherlands.

In this article the German concept of accessory prosecution (Nebenklage) is discussed. The Nebenklage was implemented in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1877. It had merely an accessory function in conjunction with the private prosecution and the Klageerzwingungsverfahren, two legal institutions which had little practical relevance. Nowadays, in the course of the modern victim movement, the Nebenklage has radically changed into an instrument that is clearly provided as the main participatory option for victims interested in actively contributing to the trial of ‘their’ criminal. Previous research findings are outlined and the results of an explorative survey are presented. The findings suggest that the mere presence of the victim lawyer can significantly change the atmosphere in the courtroom, thus enhancing the willingness of the defence to treat the victim more respectfully.

In restorative thinking it is often assumed that the involvement of volunteers, almost naturally, flows from its values and aims. But are there really convincing arguments that account for, justify or even necessitate an active policy on volunteering in restorative justice practices?This contribution focuses on the moderate view on restorative justice as developed in the Belgian context. It is argued that this approach offers a variety of reasons for developing a volunteers-programme. Two central issues in a moderate view on restorative justice are essential to understand the value of volunteering in restorative justice practices. Such a view sees 1) crime as a multi-layered phenomenon, and 2) takes participative and communicative justice as its central aim.

The author notes that the growth of restorative justice practices seems to be hampered by the consequences of the effective socialization into the ‘penal equation’ that presents punishment as the necessary consequence of criminal offending. Upbringing in a different conflict-culture may be a fundamental condition for creating more room for restorative justice in the formal sphere of criminal justice. The need for a different socialization is also noted and discussed in the movement for human rights and has resulted in an Action Plan for human rights education of UNESCO in 2005. A satisfactory implementation of this action plan seems to be absent in the Netherlands today and methods of human rights education do not refer at all to the potentials of restorative practices such as peer mediation in schools. On the other hand, authors in restorative justice do not often refer to human rights and how they are promoted. The author claims that it is plausible that making ample room for peer mediation and conferencing in schools can be an effective way, not only to address offending conduct that often implies a breach of basic human rights – the most basic values therein being human dignity and equality – but also to make new generations aware of the meaning of human rights in their daily interactions and the qualities of their own social life.