Reparatory agreements as an alternative mechanism for conflict resolution in the venezuelan criminal process

Abstract

Criminal justice has traditionally been characterized by a punitive approach, focused on the imposition of sanctions on the offender. However, in recent decades there has been a growing interest in alternatives that promote the reparation of the damage caused and reconciliation between the parties involved in a conflict. In this context, reparatory agreements emerge as an innovative tool within the Venezuelan criminal process. These agreements, by granting a leading role to both the victim and the accused, represent a shift from the traditional adversarial model to a more conciliatory and restorative paradigm, where the free expression of wills and the principle of minimum intervention of criminal law prevail. It is argued that the involvement of all procedural subjects (victim, accused, prosecutor, judge) is highly convenient to achieve the resolution of the conflict. By promoting negotiation between the parties, reparatory agreements contribute to decongesting the courts and speeding up criminal proceedings, thus strengthening the legitimacy of the justice system.