52

Criminal mediation was defined by the Israeli Supreme Court as “a dialogue between the prosecution [the State] and the accused, in which a judge-mediator is present, in order to narrow the gap toward the signing of a Plea-Bargaining agreement ”. Its purpose is the efficiency of justice. This procedure is opposed to the traditional form of criminal mediation which is often related to a victim-offender mediation. In Israel, the supreme Court has expressed its opposition to let the victims be part of this practice. In a judgment, the Court states that the presence of the victim could complicate the mediation and inhibit free discussion between the parties. A few years before then, the Court had expresses its fear to integrate into the traditional judicial discourse, elements of restorative justice as apology. Despite this opposition, criminal mediation practiced in Israel uses a number of elements that seems to be borrowed from inquisitorial justice; The procedure has several common points as it is informal, non-adversary and confidential. These different characteristics may represent a gateway for the victims of crime to justice. The use of conflict resolution methods that do not exclude the victim, especially in Italy or Arizona in the United States, shows that it is possible to integrate the victim into these new alternatives to the trial. These experiences may inspire the Israeli criminal justice system to integrate the victim in criminal mediation without being afraid to harm its stability and effectiveness.