In a justice system increasingly focused on efficiency, there is a real risk of leaving behind those who have suffered most: the victims of crime. Lawyer Alfredo Guarino, a criminal defense attorney and expert in criminal procedure, shared his analysis of the role of victims in the Italian criminal trial process, highlighting the shortcomings of current national legislation when compared to European standards.
by Roberta Imbimbo
Mr. Guarino, when it comes to opposing a request to dismiss a case, do you believe Italian law effectively protects crime victims?
If you’re asking whether Italian legislation truly and effectively protects victims when a request for dismissal is made, my answer is: not enough. Article 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does allow the victim to oppose the prosecutor’s request for dismissal, but in an extremely restrictive manner. The victim can only oppose by proposing further investigations or new evidence. What they cannot do—and this is the critical point—is challenge the substance of the prosecutor’s evaluation based on existing investigations. This means that, in this delicate phase, the victim’s voice has very limited room to be heard. It’s a serious limitation. It creates an unjustifiable gap between justice as a principle and justice as the actual opportunity for active participation in the process.
Yet, European law seems to offer more…
Exactly. EU Directive 2012/29 establishes in Article 11 that every victim has the right to request a review of the decision not to prosecute. This is a clear and broad provision that imposes no limits on the nature of such review. In Italy, however, this right is not fully guaranteed: the final decision is up to the judge for preliminary investigations (GIP), who may accept the dismissal request—and there is no real appeal mechanism for the victim, except for formal errors. In practice, the victim is excluded from any meaningful oversight over the GIP’s decision to halt the investigation. It’s a paradox: we speak of giving victims a central role, but deny them any real say at a critical stage. A criminal justice system that doesn’t fully respect victims’ rights is not a complete or fair system.
Another critical issue you’ve raised repeatedly concerns the difficulty victims face in receiving full compensation for damages within the criminal trial. What is your take?
It’s one of the major shortcomings of our criminal justice system. Even in cases resulting in a conviction, the damage suffered by the victim is rarely fully assessed within the criminal proceedings. Often, the court merely awards a provisional payment—a partial and anticipatory sum—while full compensation is deferred to the civil courts. This means that even after a criminal conviction, the victim must wait several more years and initiate additional lawsuits to obtain what is rightfully theirs. It’s an exhausting process, and often victims don’t have the strength, time, or resources to pursue it.
What causes this inefficiency?
There are two main reasons. First, a cultural one: many lawyers and judges are not used to addressing compensation during the criminal trial. Damage claims are often vague, and criminal judges avoid quantifying damages because they see it as a matter for civil courts. Second, an organizational one: lack of specific training and heavy workloads lead judges to postpone these issues. But this is an unacceptable burden for victims. There’s also insufficient use of Article 163 of the Penal Code, which allows conditional suspension of a sentence to be tied to restitution or damage compensation. This tool could be highly effective in cases of fraud, theft, embezzlement, and more—but it is underused. In countries like Spain, judges condition suspended sentences on concrete compensation within a set timeframe. It’s a model we should seriously consider.
Mr. Guarino, regarding state compensation for victims of violent crimes, do you think the Italian system is fair and functional?
Unfortunately, no. The data speaks for itself—and it’s shocking. In 2022, there were 314 homicides recorded, but only 28 were linked to organized crime—less than 10%. In 2021, it was 26 out of a similar total. In 2022, out of those 314 homicides, 120 were femicides—women killed, often in family or intimate contexts. Yet, when we look at how public funds are distributed, a huge disparity appears. The Solidarity Fund, with a budget of €34 million, allocated about €29.5 million—almost 90%—to crimes connected to organized crime. Likewise, the Special Fund for Victims of Violent Crimes, in 2023, allocated more than half of its €4.6 million budget again to victims of mafia-related crimes. The imbalance is blatant.
Another serious legislative gap affecting victim safety and dignity concerns the automatic expiration of precautionary measures once a conviction becomes final.
Exactly! Precautionary measures—such as restraining orders, removal from the family home, or bans on entering certain areas—play a vital role during investigations and trials: they protect the victim. However, these measures automatically expire at precisely the moment when the victim might need them most—after the perpetrator has been definitively convicted. This is a glaring flaw in cases of domestic abuse, stalking, or attempted murder—crimes where the relationship between the perpetrator and victim is central, and the risk of reoffending is, sadly, high.
What would be the solution, in your view?
We need to introduce into the Penal Code accessory penalties or personal security measures that remain in place even after conviction, for a reasonable period. I’m talking about extended restraining orders, residence restrictions, tailored prohibitions. In other countries, such measures stay in effect for five to ten years to ensure the victim is not re-exposed to dangerous situations. In conclusion, if we want to guarantee truly fair justice, protecting victims must become a structural priority—not an occasional concession by the system.
