Lithuania is preparing to overhaul its approach to criminal justice by formalising mediation as a central pillar of its legal system. The proposed legislative changes aim to shift the focus from purely retributive punishment toward restorative justice, potentially making the dismissal of criminal charges mandatory if a victim and offender reach a genuine agreement through a certified mediator.
Currently, the Lithuanian Criminal Code allows for the dismissal of charges if the parties reconcile, but this process is often criticised for being a mere formality. Under the existing framework, legal representatives frequently handle the reconciliation process without the parties ever meeting. Furthermore, even when a settlement is reached, the final decision to dismiss the case remains entirely at the court’s discretion. The new proposal seeks to bridge this gap by introducing a structured mediation process that carries binding legal weight.
Strengthening the Restorative Justice Framework
The core of the proposal involves an amendment to Article 38 of the Criminal Code. While the current law permits a judge to release an individual from criminal liability upon reconciliation, the new “second part” of the article would mandate it. If the victim and the perpetrator participate in mediation and sign a formal peace agreement protocol, the court would—in specific cases—have a duty, rather than just a right, to dismiss the charges.
Ugnė Gabrielė Motiekaitytė, a legal associate at the law firm Sorainen, suggests that this shift is a significant move toward the logic of restorative justice. This philosophy prioritises repairing the harm caused by criminal behaviour through inclusive processes. However, Motiekaitytė warns that the introduction of a new procedure is not a panacea. The essential question remains whether this mechanism will foster real conflict resolution or simply provide another administrative shortcut to clear court backlogs.
Procedural Safeguards and State Funding
To ensure the integrity of the process, the reform outlines specific operational parameters. Mediation would only be initiated with the explicit, free-willed consent of both the victim and the accused. Unlike current informal settlements, these sessions would be led by an impartial professional from the official register of mediators, rather than a prosecutor or an investigating officer.
To make the service accessible, the proposal includes state funding for up to eight hours of mediation, regardless of the financial status of the parties involved. The process is expected to be completed within 30 days, though extensions would be possible under certain circumstances.
Crucially, the reform includes strict exclusions. Mediation-based dismissal of charges would not be applicable to all crimes. Most notably, cases involving domestic violence would be excluded from this specific mandatory dismissal path to prevent the risk of further victimisation or coerced agreements in power-imbalanced relationships.
Addressing the Risk of Formalism
One of the primary concerns raised by legal experts is the potential for “formal reconciliation.” In the current system, a perpetrator might pay damages and sign a document without ever acknowledging the psychological impact on the victim. The new mediation framework is designed to force a dialogue about the harm caused, the responsibility taken, and the steps needed for genuine restitution.
“The essence of mediation is not just to sign a protocol,” Motiekaitytė explains. “It should create the conditions for the parties themselves to participate in solving the conflict. This is what distinguishes it from formal reconciliation, which can happen without the parties ever actually meeting.”
For minors, the process would involve their legal guardians, ensuring that younger offenders are integrated into a system that emphasises rehabilitation over early criminalisation. This aligns with international standards that encourage alternative dispute resolutions to prevent the long-term social exclusion of young people.
Implementation and Global Context
Mediation is not entirely new to the Lithuanian justice system; it is already utilised during the probation phase. Data from the Lithuanian Probation Service indicates that 570 mediations were conducted in 2025. The proposed changes would expand this role significantly by embedding it into the pre-trial and trial stages of the criminal process.
This move reflects a broader European trend toward reducing the burden on the judiciary while improving victim satisfaction. By giving the participants more control over the outcome, the system acknowledges that a court-imposed sentence does not always equate to justice for the person harmed. As the legislation moves through the deliberation phase, the focus will remain on ensuring that the move toward efficiency does not come at the cost of genuine accountability.
Original reporting by: elta
Source: ELTA
/linkComments