UN Declaration 1985 and Victim Rights Laws (UGC-NET Unit X)

Before 1985, criminal procedure ran on two parties, the state and the accused, with the victim reduced to a witness who had no formal right to be told what happened to the case or to recover losses. The Seventh UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan in 1985, produced the draft the General Assembly adopted that November as resolution 40/34.

The drafters deliberately chose the word principles over rights in the title. That choice signals the document's status for exam purposes: it guides domestic reform, it does not create an obligation a state can be sued over. Remember the trio for recall: Milan congress, 1985, resolution 40/34, non-binding.

The Declaration organises victim-of-crime protections around four linked pillars. Access to justice and fair treatment means victims are informed of case progress and allowed to present views at stages affecting their interests, without prejudice to the accused's rights. Restitution means the offender pays or returns property to the victim.

Compensation is the third pillar, and it differs from restitution by source: it is state-funded, used when the offender cannot fully pay, at least in cases of serious crime causing significant bodily injury. Assistance, the fourth pillar, covers material, medical, psychological and social support delivered through governmental, voluntary and community channels.

For MCQ purposes, treat the four pillars as cumulative rather than a menu. A state that pays compensation but never informs the victim of hearing dates satisfies pillar three while failing pillar one. The Declaration also does not give victims a right to veto a plea bargain or dictate a sentence, only a right to be heard.

Part B of the Declaration is often skipped in domestic courses but is separately examinable. It defines victims of abuse of power as persons harmed by acts or omissions that do not yet violate national criminal law but do violate internationally recognised human rights norms, typically because state officials acting under colour of law caused or acquiesced in the harm.

The drafters had situations such as unlawful detention and large-scale corruption in mind, cases that are hard to prosecute where the responsible officials also control the prosecuting authority.

Part B calls on states to consider domestic remedies, but its practical effect has been much weaker than Part A: a state rarely legislates a remedy against its own abuse of power on the strength of a non-binding resolution alone, and where remedies exist they typically come through constitutional tort claims or human rights commissions rather than statutes citing the Declaration by name.

Two instruments show how the 1985 pillars became enforceable elsewhere. The EU Victims' Directive, Directive 2012/29/EU adopted on 25 October 2012, replaced an unevenly implemented 2001 framework decision and binds all member states to minimum standards on information, participation, protection and support, with the European Commission able to pursue infringement proceedings against a state that fails to transpose it.

The United States took a statutory route instead. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, enacted in 2004 and codified at 18 U.S.C. Section 3771, lists enforceable rights for victims in federal cases, including notice, the right to be reasonably heard at sentencing, and full restitution, and it uniquely gives victims standing to petition an appellate court for a writ of mandamus if a district court denies those rights.

India never ratified a separate treaty tied to the 1985 Declaration; its response arrived through amendment. The original CrPC allowed compensation payable by a convicted offender under Section 357, closer to the restitution pillar since the money comes from the offender.

The state-funded compensation pillar arrived later: the CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2008 inserted Section 357A, in force from 31 December 2009, directing every state government to prepare a victim compensation scheme, including for cases where the offender is not traced or convicted.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, replaced the CrPC on 1 July 2024 and carried the scheme forward as Section 396, preserving the same substance under a new number. What India has not enacted is a codified list of procedural rights comparable to the EU Directive or the US CVRA, such as an enforceable right to notice of hearing dates.