Lithuania is moving to integrate mediation more deeply into its criminal justice system through a new legislative proposal that could fundamentally change how legal disputes are resolved. The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code aim to shift reconciliation from a purely procedural formality handled by legal representatives to a genuine restorative process involving direct dialogue between the victim and the offender.
Under the current legal framework, a criminal case does not necessarily have to end in a sentence; the law allows for reconciliation in specific circumstances. However, legal experts note that in practice, this process often remains a paper-based exercise where the parties involved never actually meet. The new proposal seeks to bridge this gap by formalising mediation as a distinct and powerful tool within the criminal process.
The Shift Toward Mandatory Reconciliation
The core of the proposed reform lies in an amendment to Article 38 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code. Currently, the law provides courts with the discretion to release an individual from criminal liability if they reconcile with the victim, provided they confess, compensate for damages, and show no signs of future criminal intent. Even when these conditions are met, the final decision rests entirely with the judge.
The new proposal introduces a second part to this article, specifically for mediation-based reconciliation. If the victim and the offender participate in a formal mediation process and sign a peaceful settlement protocol, the court would no longer merely have the right to dismiss the case—it would have a legal obligation to do so. This mandatory dismissal represents a significant shift in the balance of power within the courtroom, placing more weight on the agreement reached between the parties themselves.
However, this path will not be open to all. The legislation includes specific exclusions, most notably for crimes involving domestic violence, where the power imbalance between parties makes mediation inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
Addressing the Flaws of Formal Settlements
Ugnė Gabrielė Motiekaitytė, a legal assistant at the law firm Sorainen, suggests that the current model of reconciliation is often too detached from the reality of the conflict. In many cases, lawyers handle the negotiations, and the parties never engage in a meaningful discussion about the harm caused or the steps needed for genuine restitution.
“Under the current model, reconciliation can happen quite formally,” Motiekaitytė explains. “The parties may not communicate directly, and the process is managed by their representatives. It is not always clear how much such a reconciliation allows for a real discussion of the damage suffered by the victim or the perpetrator’s understanding of their responsibility.”
The proposed mediation framework is designed to ensure that the conflict is actually resolved rather than just legally closed. By requiring the involvement of a neutral third-party mediator, the process encourages a dialogue that addresses the emotional and social impact of the crime, which is often ignored in traditional litigation.
Implementation and State Funding
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 new proposal would expand this role significantly by embedding it into the pre-trial and trial stages of the criminal process.
To ensure accessibility, the draft legislation suggests that the state could fund up to eight hours of mediation services, regardless of the financial status of the parties involved. The procedure would be conducted by an impartial mediator from an official register, rather than a prosecutor or an investigating officer. The mediation process is expected to be completed within 30 days, though extensions would be possible under certain conditions.
Potential Risks of Procedural Shortcuts
While the move toward restorative justice is viewed positively by legal scholars, there are concerns that the new system could be exploited as a shortcut to avoid punishment. The primary risk is that the mandatory nature of the court’s dismissal upon a signed agreement might incentivise offenders to go through the motions of mediation without a sincere commitment to change.
Motiekaitytė warns that the mere existence of a new procedure does not guarantee a more authentic reconciliation. The success of the reform will depend on whether the mechanism fosters a real resolution of the conflict or simply creates another formal path to expedite the closure of legal proceedings. For the system to work, the mediation must remain voluntary and based on the free will of both the victim and the offender, ensuring that the victim’s needs are prioritised over judicial efficiency.
Source: ELTA
Article contextPeople & topics1#5
What do you think about this article?
Reader Ideas Newsroom
Have a sharper angle for this topic? Add it to the community idea board and let readers vote it up for editorial review.
/linkComments
8+ useful words can earn +10-60 DP; shorter replies can still publish without DP.