IN-CJ Newsdesk 2025 – Gemma Verona ‘Linking Rehabilitation’
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | TuneIn | RSS
In this contribution to the IN-CJ Newsdesk 2025, Gema Varona reflects on one of the more challenging debates in contemporary criminal justice: whether restorative justice can be used in cases of intimate partner violence. Speaking from the Basque Country, and drawing on her work as Director of the Basque Institute of Criminology and President of the World Society of Victimology, she explains why the discussion is both complex and necessary.
Her starting point is the national prohibition in Spain that prevents mediation and, in practice, most restorative justice approaches from being used in cases defined as violence by a man against a woman in intimate relationships. This position has support from parts of the feminist movement and is echoed in other jurisdictions. Gema notes, however, that it rests on assumptions that need closer examination, particularly when viewed alongside the established practices and safeguards within restorative justice.
One assumption she identifies is the belief that restorative justice involves bringing victims and offenders together immediately after harm has occurred. She explains that such an image does not reflect how restorative processes work. They are not single encounters, nor are they automatic or hurried. They require voluntary agreement, extensive preparation, and the involvement of trained facilitators who work alongside other professionals to plan for safety, clarity, and support.
Another common assumption is that restorative justice trivialises harm or encourages forgiveness in situations where there may be emotional or economic dependency. Gema counters this by emphasising the depth of work that practitioners undertake. Facilitators draw on methods such as non-violent communication and transformative dialogue and are attentive to the potential for power imbalance. Restorative justice is not offered as a substitute for legal protection, but as an option for victims who want to understand what happened, ask questions, or promote accountability in a different way.
A key point in her discussion is that neither legal precedent nor empirical evidence supports a blanket prohibition that applies to every case at every stage. She notes that international frameworks such as the Istanbul Convention prohibit mandatory mediation, something practitioners themselves oppose, but they do not prevent voluntary restorative processes that are chosen by the people involved and supported through professional practice.
Gema also highlights that restorative justice is never a purely private exchange between two individuals. It includes the wider social context and the communities that are affected by harm. It is demanding work that engages with responsibility, rehabilitation, and long-term social repair. For some people, particularly at later stages of a criminal sentence, restorative dialogue can contribute to personal reflection, a clearer understanding of the harm caused, and the possibility of rebuilding a sense of social connection.
Her reflections challenge the tendency to create idealised images of victims or offenders. Instead, she argues for approaches that recognise individual needs and provide meaningful choices. Restorative justice, in her view, is best understood as a demanding and carefully supported possibility. It is never an automatic remedy, and never a requirement, but for some victims it can offer a constructive way of engaging with what has happened and what might change.
This podcast episode adds to the continuing international conversation about victims’ rights, state responsibilities, and the role restorative practices can play in addressing relational harm. It reminds us that the central questions are about trust, agency, and the capacity of justice systems to offer responses that are safe, informed, and responsive to the needs of the people involved.
