Comparing the developments in the Netherlands with those in Belgium the authors find important differences relating to the questions pertinent to implementation. Experiments have also been done in the Netherlands and their evaluations showed positive results, but there were different models which were not clearly – or not at all – related to the traditional criminal justice process. They all were lacking the formal collaboration with the courts, that was seen in Belgium. There has been no form of central direction and no important influence from the academic world and the various projects have officially been replaced in 2006 by a national policy of implementing ‘victim-offendertalks’. These talks have their merits and are appreciated by victims and offenders, but they do not amount to mediation in a restorative style, since restorative agreements are not allowed to result. Nevertheless, there are a number of indications that restorative justice practices could still become recognized and accepted. Staff of the police, the public prosecutors office and judges are interested and new experiments are beginning. The new development of local ‘veiligheidshuizen’ (‘front offices for safety’) offers a promising setting for interagency co-operation and conferencing with citizens in trouble and conflict. The conferencing-model has gained broad acceptance in the context of juvenile care and may continue to inspire justice personnel. In process now is the foundation of a new restorative justice network, called ‘Restorative Justice Netherlands’.

Bertjan Wolthuis’ book review of Luuk van Middelaar, De passage naar Europa. Geschiedenis van een begin

This contribution starts with an introduction of human rights, children’s rights and restorative justice. What are the links and differences between these concepts and how do they interrelate? An overview of human rights for children in international standards relevant to the discussion on juvenile justice, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and additional instruments, is given. It is examined how restorative justice fits in this framework.
Human rights are one of the main pillars of our modern society. General juvenile justice principles such as diversion, the use of detention only as a measure of last resort and focusing on re-integration give a clear basis for restorative justice practice. Recent international and European conventions, guidelines and recommendations dealing with juvenile justice explicitly recommend the use of restorative justice. It is actually seen as the main priority focus of the reaction to youth criminality. The Committee on the Rights of the Child declared in General Comment 10 that the best interests of the child imply that the traditional aims of criminal justice – repression and retribution – should make room for rehabilitation and reintegration. Today’s focus on youth delinquency should be a restorative one. But how to implement rather broad notions such as restorative justice in individual cases and to make them fulfil internationally accepted human rights standards. With the model of Mitchell and Moore it is explored how children’s rights (mainly article 40 and the main principles of the CRC) and restorative justice are connected and how they can use each other. The need is stressed and some tools are given to work towards a ‘rights based restorative justice’.

Ook als jongeren eenmaal in een justitiële jeugdinstelling verblijven, is leren over slachtoffers en werken aan genoegdoening cruciaal. Herstelgericht werken biedt hiertoe mogelijkheden. De vraag is hoe herstelgericht werken kan worden geïmplementeerd in een justitiële jeugdinrichting. De pedagogische infrastructuur van Forensisch Centrum Teylingereind is een goed voorbeeld. Herstelgericht werken heeft een positief effect op de jeugdige daders en de inrichtingscultuur. Het geeft jongeren inzichten in de eigen verantwoordelijkheid, het effect van hun gedrag op het slachtoffer en mogelijkheden te werken aan herstel van de schade die zij aangericht hebben. Dat blijkt uit onderzoek van het Verwey-Jonker Instituut: ‘Schade herstellen tijdens jeugddetentie’.