Mediation as One of the Forms of Resolving Conflicts in Offence Cases

SUMMARY The paper discusses the issue of mediation as one of the forms of solving criminal conflicts. The author presents, among others, the problem of mediation in connection with the principles of restorative justice, the issue of the mediation models accepted in criminal proceedings and also makes an attempt of indicating other forms of conflict solving based on negotiations. The author also makes a brief description of the shaping of lawmaker’s motives in the case of mediation and then refers to contemporary issues of mediation proceedings.

The Act did not allow the parties to appeal (Article 459 in conjunction with Article 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), probably because this was an optional institution which could also be available at a later stage of the proceedings 16 . Mediation was also provided for as an alternative to an obligatory conciliation session in cases of offences prosecuted by way of a private charge 17 .
Scholars soon pointed to weaknesses of the regulation of Article 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 18 . First of all, they stressed that mediation in such a form meant that it could only be applied to a limited extent 19 . Secondly, they pointed out that the lawmakers had unreasonably reduced the option of referring a case to mediation proceedings virtually to the preparatory and possibly transitional stages 20 . The very location of Article 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the provisions on pre-trial proceedings was also criticised, as it could have decided about the possibility of the use of mediation by the court at the preliminary stage with regard to the procedure before the hearing pursuant to Article 339 § 4 and Article 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. under the procedure of private charge 21 . A significant legal gap was also noted regarding amicable settlements made before mediator 22 . It was pointed out that the Regulation of the Minister of Justice of 14 August 1998 does not refer much to amicable settlement, while the provisions of the codes do not mention at all settlements concluded before mediator, but only before the judicial body 23 . The nature of settlement concluded before mediator also raised doubts 24 . There were arguments that the positive result of mediation should mean a way to resolve the conflict as defined by the parties, not the further consequences such as fulfilment of any obligations assumed by the offender 25 . In view of this code regulation, the conflict could essentially be resolved via mediation when there were legal grounds for the use of consensual instruments (Articles 335 and 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and a sort of agreement was concluded between the judicial body and the accused or the judicial body -the accused -the injured party. Doubts were raised as to whether the 'understanding' between the accused and the injured party could have affected the measures "related to subjecting the offender to probation" (Chapter XIII of the Penal Code) whether mediation before mediator at the trial stage was admissible at all, of course except for a clearly determined situation when the initiative to mediate was taken by the president of the court himself/herself (Article 339 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) 26 .
A significant change in the application of this institution during trial was made by the Act of 10 January 2003 on the amendment of certain laws 27 . The institution of mediation was moved from Section VII entitled Pre-trial proceedings to Section I entitled Preliminary provisions as Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The new wording of the provision of Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure resulted in that the case was referred to mediation not only by the prosecutor like before but also by the court, while in the pre-trial proceedings by the prosecutor and the investigation authority, pursuant to Article 325i § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 28 . At the inquiry stage, other investigation bodies than prosecutor, including the police, were authorized to resort to mediation (Article 325i § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) 29 .
The group of entities authorized to refer cases to mediation was expanded in Article 23a § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a result of another amendment, dated 27 September 2013 30 . The wording of the provision of § 1 was supplemented with pointing out that the referral of the case to an institution or a person authorized to carry out mediation proceedings is also vested in a court referendary, and when in the course of pre-trial proceedings -to 'another body' conducting those proceedings 31 . This amendment resulted in the repeal of Article 325i § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 32 . The provision of § 4 was also introduced, stressing the principle of voluntary mediation and the obligation to instruct the accused and the injured party about the possibility of referring the case to mediation. As noted in the grounds for the draft Code of Criminal Procedure of 27 September 2013, the provision of § 4 of Article 23a: […] develops the matter of providing the parties with necessary knowledge about the essence and rules of the mediation procedure, pursuant to which they can give their informed consent to participate in mediation. The practice of instructing about the option of withdrawal of consent 26 R. Kmiecik,op. cit.,p. 368. 27 The Act of 10 January 2003 amending the Act -Code of Criminal Procedure, the Act -Provisions introducing the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Act on the Crown Witness and the Act on the Protection of Classified Information (Journal of Laws, 2003, No. 17, Item 155).
28 Cf. T. Grzegorczyk,op. cit.,  Also, the guarantee for entities participating in mediation was secured by introducing instruments to ensure confidentiality of the proceedings (inadmissibility in evidence) as well as by adding mediation, as a possible method of reconciliation 34 , to the preconditions for the use of some criminal-law institutions, which was to be governed by newly introduced Article 59 of the Criminal Code (repealed by the Act of 11 March 2016).
The provisions on mediation set out in the above-mentioned Act were incorporated in the amendment of 11 March 2016 35 , which continues the assumptions of mediation proceedings in the provisions of Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This evolution of mediation proceedings is an occasion to discuss the essence of the change in the mediation regulations made in 2003 in terms of its position within the system of statutory laws. The literature has noted that since mediation was placed amongst general provisions alongside procedural rules and conditions but in the concluding part of these norms, it became of a more general nature, being almost a procedural directive 36 . It was also noted that such regulation of mediation may indicate the importance the Polish legislature is willing to attach to this institution 37 .
These views have been commented on in more depth by S. Steinborn. According to this author, […] the provisions contained in Section I can be divided into three main groups: provisions governing basic procedural rules (directives) and certain exceptions from them, a provision concerning procedural conditions, and provisions regulating institutions applicable essentially to the entire criminal procedure. The provision of Article 23a should be included in the latter group as these are regulations intended by the legislature to refer not only to one of the stages of the proceedings, but due to the subject of their regulation they were essentially not suitable for being classified as further provisions of the so-called general part of the code (Articles 24-296), because they were not congruent with the matter regulated therein. Therefore, location of the provision of Article 23a at the end of the introductory provisions should be read only as giving this regulation the general character of a norm applicable throughout the whole course of criminal proceedings 38 . Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 12/02/2020 15:17:08 U M C S S. Steinborn's position deserves full approval. The assumptions of the mediation procedure provided for in Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not go in line with the area of the fundamental procedural principles defined in Chapter I of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The institution of mediation in criminal cases remains in opposition to many of the fundamental procedural principles 39 , including the principle of substantive truth. Adoption of the view that mediation can be a general directive of criminal procedural law raises doubt in the context of addressee of this norm. The addressees of procedural directives (procedural principles) in criminal proceedings are procedural bodies.
Certainly, the above changes related to mediation proceedings were designed, on the one hand, to facilitate the use of mediation in practice, and on the other hand to introduce the necessary guarantees ensuring their best functioning from the perspective of the participants to the proceedings 40 . Equal treatment of the participants to the proceedings was guaranteed by the principle of voluntary participation in mediation, the option of withdrawing from it at any time, voluntary acceptance of the terms of the settlement concluding the mediation proceedings and the requirement that the course of proceedings be supervised by an impartial and neutral mediator 41 . Mediation was covered by the requirement of confidentiality.
The legislature also ruled on the possibility of using mediation both at the stage of pre-trial and transitional proceedings, as well as at the judicial stage, until the final conclusion of criminal proceedings 42 . An attempt to mediate is possible not only where there is a possibility of conditional discontinuance of criminal proceedings, conviction without hearing or voluntary submission to a punishment or an amicable settlement in proceedings initiated under private charge, but in any case when the competent authority considers it advisable due to circumstances of the specific case 43 . However, it is still a subject of debate among scholars of criminal procedure which moment of mediation is the 'most favorable'. I support the A. Murzynowski's view that there is much in favour of the preparatory proceedings being that main stage of criminal proceedings 44 . The sooner an attempt is made to resolve the conflict, the more benefits not only for the parties but also for the justice system.
The fact that the rational lawmakers allow for mediation also in each of the prosecution procedures provided for in the Penal Code and in the proceedings 39 See more in: R. Kmiecik,op. cit.,p. 370. 40 at each of its stages without additional requirements as to the category of crime, gravity, and type of penalty range, may be demonstrated by the failure to specify the subjective and objective criteria of mediation in the provision 45 . The legislature also refrained from defining substantive conditions determining the admissibility of using this institution 46 . This does not mean that in any case it will be possible to implement the mediation procedure. The literature points out that there are circumstances which restrict or even render inadmissible the referral of the case to the mediation proceedings 47 . A detailed analysis of them was carried out by D. Szumiło-Kulczycka. The author divides the circumstances restricting the referral of the case to mediation into three groups related to: 1) the expectation of achieving mediation goals, 2) the nature of the prohibited act, 3) subjective limitation on the part of people who would take part in mediation 48 . The solutions adopted in the provisions of Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicate the importance attached by the legislature to forms of negotiation in the aspect of the final outcome of the criminal trial 49 . Mediation regarding criminal conflicts is defined as negotiations between the victim and the criminal, with the participation of a professionally prepared mediator who supports the course of the negotiations, but who does not impose decisions on the parties and keeps a neutral attitude towards them 50 . These negotiations are aimed at giving the parties an opportunity to express their feelings and emotions, to understand each other, to resolve the conflict or to agree on the issue of remedying the damage 51 .
W. Zalewski distinguishes two models of implementation of the idea of mediation. The first model considers mediation, in accordance with its idea, as a process of resolving the conflict between the offender and the injured party (or between the 45 See D. Szumiło-Kulczycka, op. cit., p. 395 and the literature cited therein. Unfortunately, the currently applicable Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure ignores the postulate on the necessity to define the objective scope of mediation, raised by D. Kużelewski after the 2003 amendment. This author proposed to precede the wording of Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following words: "if reconciliation and conclusion of a settlement between the injured party and the accused affects the ruling concluding the proceedings, the court or court referendary (currently), and the prosecutor or other body conducting the proceedings in the pre-trial proceedings, may, on the initiative or with the consent of the accused and the injured party, refer the case to an authorised institution or person in order to carry out mediation proceedings" -D. Kużelewski offender and the society). The second model considers mediation as an addition to the formal justice system 52 , and thus focuses on formal and legal consequences of conflict resolution, especially on the possibility of establishing findings in terms of guilt and the possibility of obtaining compensation by the injured party 53 . It seems that the criminal law system adopted the second model. Mediation is one of the forms whereby the parties negotiate and agree on positions voluntarily before a neutral mediator to put an end to the conflict. It should be noted that penal law uses also other forms of negotiation to resolve disputes between the parties. One of them is reconciliation. Until 1998, this institution was applied only in private prosecution cases, while currently is also based on the provisions of criminal law (Article 60 § 2 of the Penal Code) concerning offences prosecuted in public-charge proceedings 54 . The lack of a legal definition or determination of the form of achieving reconciliation allows us to assume that it is an act of rapprochement involving the abolition of mutual animosities, guilt, and explanation of the case 55 . It is also emphasized that reconciliation can be connected with remedying the damage, setting the conditions for its rectification, and even it can be made dependant on such redress 56 . The Act does not directly regulate how the reconciliation is to be carried out or the damage be remedied, which allows us to assume that this can take place not only as a result of mediation or agreement between the parties, but also without the intervention of the procedural bodies 57 . Certainly, this includes also negotiation or other restorative justice mechanism 58 . D. Wójcik rightly points out that mediation may lead to reconciliation, but not necessarily 59 . One should support the author's position that […] reconciliation is more than an understanding, it is based on the assumption that the injured party forgave the offender, the former reconciled with the latter, that a deep psychological process took place, and that there was a radical change in attitudes of the offender and the injured party. However, mediation can play its role and be assessed positively even where 'genuine' reconciliation was not achieved and the parties only came to an agreement on compensation for damage and harm caused by the offence and the offender performed his/her commitment 60 .
There is also nothing that would prevent the conciliation proceedings being carried out before the procedural body at the initial stage of the proceedings in the in personam phase of the pre-trial proceedings or as part of the preliminary meeting (Article 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), if the parties appear at the meeting and consent to such conciliation procedure; the reconciliation may also take place at every stage preceding the rendering of the judgment at the main hearing. The only problem lies in the fact that the conciliation meeting is held before the judicial body, with keeping the rules of officiality and adhering to formalism. Mediation eliminates such circumstances. The parties do not conduct talks via the prosecutor or other body or the judge, but they do so privately to some extent, in more informal circumstances and directly with each other 61 .
Mediation is carried out as part of the criminal proceedings, and at the same time, in a sense, beyond these proceedings, as the court or other body conducting proceedings (e.g. prosecutor) is not and never can be a mediator 62 . R. Kmiecik is right, stating that it is difficult not to consider mediation as a "criminal-procedural institution since its effects affect the course of the criminal proceedings and the method of substantive resolution with regard to punishment" 63 . Mediation remains -as aptly put by C. Kulesza -in symbiosis with trial proceedings 64 .
It should also be recalled that until quite recently, due to the already repealed Article 59a of the Penal Code, one could even suppose that the intention of the legislature was to make mediation an instrument to replace the criminal proceedings 65 . This provision allowed the so-called restitution discontinuance of criminal proceedings as a result of positive conclusion of mediation. However, this provision provided a real chance to replace court proceedings with mediation.
Private prosecution proceedings have the similar significance of mediation procedure in terms of effects. Mediation is an alternative form for reconciliation at a court hearing. Choosing mediation as a form of conflict resolution and achieving a positive result will always eliminate the court proceedings. It should be noted, however, that a case of criminal offence prosecutable by a private charge is not always initiated by a private charge of the injured person. A different form of initiation of proceedings in a case of criminal offence prosecutable under private charge is the institution of prosecutor's intervention when the public interest so requires (Article 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The prosecutor's intervention has far-reaching procedural consequences, manifested basically in either the ex-officio Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 12/02/2020 15:17:08 U M C S initiation of pre-trial proceedings or taking over of privately initiated court proceedings by the prosecutor, so then the private-charge procedure is replaced by the public-charge one. The intervention of the prosecutor by 'initiation' will always lead to the elimination of obligatory conciliation proceedings (Article 60 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), while in criminal proceedings -regardless of their stage -there is still always an option of the use of mediation, especially when such a proposal is made by the parties or when such an initiative is proposed ex officio by the procedural body and accepted by the parties. In such a situation, the positive result of mediation -regardless of the stage -will always have an impact on the punishment (Article 53 of the Penal Code).
Mediation in cases of offences prosecutable ex officio, like other forms such as reconciliation, understanding, redress or remedy for damage caused by the offence, is this type of solution in criminal law, which results in combining the penal function with the compensatory function. This is closely related to their meaning given by the provisions of substantive criminal law. Article 53 § 3 of the Penal Code also included mediation and understanding of the parties in the general directives for imposing penalties and penal measures. S. Waltoś rightly states that due to the content of Article 53 of the Penal Code, which instructs the court to take into account the results of mediation regardless of the type of punishment and penal measure, the significance of mediation for the resolution of the case can never be ruled out in advance 66 . Each time the court, when mediation or understanding between the parties was used, it has to take into account their positive outcome when choosing and developing the criminal-law response 67 . Even though this provision does not explicitly point to the mitigation effect of mediation on the penalty, this is the actual sense of this provision 68 . However, pursuant to Article 60 § 2 Points 1-3 of the Penal Code, The court may also apply an extraordinary mitigation of the penalty in particularly justified cases when even the lowest penalty stipulated for the offence in question would be incommensurate, and particularly: 1) if the injured person and the offender have been reconciled, the damage incurred has been repaired, or the injured person and the offender have agreed as to the manner of reparation for the damage; 2) taking into consideration the attitude of the offender, particularly if he attempted to repair the damage or prevent the damage from occurring; 3) if an offender of an unintentional offence or someone close to him has suffered a major detriment in connection with the offence committed.
The Penal Code also provides for compensatory measures, i.e. an obligation to redress the damage and compensate for the injury incurred (Article 46 of the Penal Code). This measure is based on the assumption that one of the objectives of crimi- Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 12/02/2020 15:17:08 U M C S nal proceedings is to put an end to the conflict between the offender and the injured person, and the method to resolve or mitigate this conflict is, among other things, remedying the damage caused by the offence (compensatory function of criminal law) 69 . On the other hand, as part of the obligations attached to the conditional suspension of execution of the penalty, the court may order, .a., the obligation to remedy the damage caused by the offence (Article 72 § 2 of the Penal Code in fine).
Mediation in criminal proceedings plays an accessory role, and thus is dependent on the procedural objectives 70 . One should support the view that mediation cannot be a procedural instrument that undermines these objectives 71 . In the light of Article 2 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of the Code are aimed at shaping criminal proceedings so as to accomplish objectives of the criminal proceedings not only in terms of combating crimes but also in preventing them and in strengthening the law and principles of social coexistence ( § 1 Point 2), securing the injured party's legally protected interests ( § 1 Point 3) and resolution of the case within reasonable time ( § 1 Point 4). This issue is aptly addressed by M. Płatek by recalling the important statement of J. Waluk that restorative justice is not rooted in abstraction, but results from the practical need to address the shortcomings of the court 72 . According to M. Płatek, the provision of Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the basis and meaning to all those activities that can be undertaken as part of the criminal procedure 73 . It gives an answer to the question why, at all, do we undertake any activities that lead to criminal proceedings? 74 This provision covers the issue of liability and expressly refers to protected interests of the injured party 75 .
Pursuant to Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, […] the judge or court referendary, and in the pre-trial proceedings the prosecutor or other body conducting the proceedings as part of the criminal case, may refer the case, on the initiative or with the consent of the defendant or the injured person, to the authorised institution or person in order to conduct mediation proceedings between the injured person and the defendant, of which they are instructed when being informed of the content of For both the pre-trial and trial proceedings, the legislature provided for two separate ways of obtaining legitimacy by the procedural bodies 77 . The first one is the initiative of the entitled (both the accused and the injured party) 78 , while the second is the initiative by the procedural body, and then the approval of authorized entities is required 79 .
In pre-trial proceedings regardless of their form, it is the body conducting the pre-trial proceedings who is authorized to make the decision on mediation. Such powers are also vested in the police to whom the prosecutor entrusted the investigation in whole or in part, unless the referral of the case to mediation goes beyond the scope of that delegation (Article 311 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) or has been reserved for personal execution by the prosecutor (Article 311 § 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) 80 . It was a good thing that all the bodies conducting pre-trial proceedings obtained the right to refer the case to mediation. They have direct contact with the conflicted parties and have at their disposal a more convenient form of communication with the injured person, suspect and mediator during the activities being conducted.
Without going into much detail about the issue of 'consent to participate in mediation' and 'consent to being a party to mediation', it should only be mentioned that it is quite a controversial solution in the context of the obligation and scope of instructing the parties about the objectives and principles of mediation proceedings resulting from the content of Article 23a § § 1 and 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 300 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 81 . The sequence of agreeing to participate in mediation is also questionable 82 . In my opinion, the consent regarding the referral of a case to the mediation proceedings given before the procedural body should also imply that the consent to participate in the mediation was given before that body. The consent to refer the case to mediation, obtained by the procedural body does not result in the actual will to participate in the mediation. "The consent to participate in the mediation proceedings shall be received by the body referring the case to mediation or the mediator, after instructing the accused and the injured party on the purposes and principles of mediation proceedings and person when conducting mediation proceedings, with the exception of information on the offences referred to in Article 240 § 1 of the Penal Code" (Journal of Laws, 2016, Item 1749 as amended). 77 M. Kurowski,op. cit.,p. 159. 78 Ibidem. In the light of this regulation, the question of granting mediators the right to receive from the parties their consent to participate in mediation proceedings raises certain doubts. Before the appointment of the first date of the mediation session, the mediator is obliged to request, first the accused and then the injured party, to give their consent to participate in mediation. This practice faced legitimate criticism in the literature. Authors point i.a. to the risk of secondary victimization when a criminal case was referred to mediation proceedings without the injured party's knowledge 83 Referral of a case to mediation by a procedural body always need to be carried out in the form of a decision. This decision may not be appealed against. Where the decision on mediation is taken by an investigation body, the decision does not need to be approved by the prosecutor. However, Article 326 § 1 point 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reserves the prosecutor's right to repeal such a decision. Certainly, in this case it is related to the rationalization of the decision on referral to mediation based on the rules governing the mediation proceedings and securing the guarantee of interests of the injured party set out in Article 2 § 1 Point 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in Article 12 of the Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing minimum standards on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime. For example, the above decision may be repealed when in the prosecutor's opinion the mediation rules have been violated at the outset by the body referring the case to mediation (such as e.g. a lack of consent) or when the consent of one of the parties raises objective doubt as to the 'noble' intention to resolve the conflict. The annulment of the decision may also be caused by the attitude of the offender in relation to the injured person before presenting him/her the charges or the suspect's attitude to the harm caused to the injured person, expressed in the suspect's testimony. A reason for repeal may also be the lack of consent of one of the parties or acceptance of the consent by the investigation body based on so-called implied consent. The repeal of the decision on mediation may be justified by the sequence of negative circumstances resulting from the files of the case, which clearly and obviously leave no doubt that the consent of the offender to mediation results only from his/her tactics of obstructing the proceedings without a genuine will to quash the conflict.
Pursuant to Article 23a § 1 sentence 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the case is referred to mediation in trial proceedings by the court or a court referendary. The authorization of a court referendary to refer cases to mediation is based on Article 489 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the power indicated therein to conduct a conciliation session in private prosecution cases. […] court referendary is not in direct contact with the parties to the conflict. He/she does not participate in court proceedings and can only have an insight into the case files. However, based on these files it is difficult to find out who the parties to the conflict really are, what expectations they have, and especially if they are willing to participate in mediation 84 .
Among other things, this set of negative legal circumstances excludes the possibility of the court referendary taking a decision on referring the matter to mediation in public-prosecution proceedings.
However, it should be noted that granting the court referendary the power to refer cases to mediation in private prosecution proceedings does not raise such doubts. It is evident in the light of this regulation that there is a negative precondition in the form of the absence of direct contact between the court referendary and the parties to the proceedings at the conciliation session. The court referendary who conducts a meeting prior the trial hearing must keep direct contact (both visual and verbal) with the injured person and the accused, provided that the parties attend the meeting personally. On the other hand, there is still the issue whether it was reasonable to introduce the 'duality' of powers of particular entities, consisting in that the court referendary may be authorized to conduct the meeting while the court is to hear the case at the hearing. According to the legislative tradition, when talking about private-prosecution procedure, it is assumed that the conciliation session is incorporated into the private-prosecution proceedings. This 'doubling' of powers of judicial bodies depending on the place (meeting or hearing) and stage of proceedings (a conciliation session may be conducted by a court referendary, while the trial hearing by the court) is can be justified only by relieving the judges from overburdening in cases that may be carried out and resolved by a court referendary. Appropriate authorisation for court referendary (Article 489 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with Articles 23a § 1 and 107 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) does not constitute a violation of the provisions of Article 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland in conjunction with Article 175 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The amicable settlement concluded between the parties leads to the discontinuation of the judicial proceedings. But this procedure is rarely associated with the conclusion of a conciliation session in the form of reconciliation or settlement. It is rightly stated by H. Paluszkiewicz that calling for reconciliation at the beginning of the session, when the conflict between the parties is so severe that one of these parties has decided to bring the case before court, is doomed to fail if deprived of the opportunity to present one's U M C S own position and try to understand each other's reasons. In such a case, it should be assumed that the role of the person conducting the conciliation session boils down to organizational matters regarding the issue of the discontinuance decision as a result of reconciliation, or to drawing up a decision on referring the case to mediation, which is not rare due to the nature of this type of affairs and related emotions.
There is still a problematic issue of contact between the court and the parties where the meeting was held by a court referendary and then the proceedings were taken over by court. Such a situation should be associated with the psychological aspect, or more specifically, with the nature of the defendant's behavior towards the injured party at both fora and the issue of noticeable change of the defendant's approach to the dispute. In trial proceedings, the referral of the case to mediation depends on whether the court is convinced that there is a chance that the defendant will repair the damage caused by the offence, reconcile with the injured party or at least attempt reconciliation 85 . Achieving this (initially subjectively and then objectively) is possible only by continued observation in direct contact between the court with the parties to the proceedings.
It should be noted that Article 12 Item 1a of the Directive 2012/29/EU 86 requires that restorative justice services, including mediation, should only be employed if it is in the interest of the injured party and on condition that the method is secure. The provision of Article 12 Item 1 reads as follows: The Member States shall take measures to safeguard the victim from secondary and repeat victimization, from intimidation and from retaliation, to be applied when providing any restorative justice services. Such measures shall ensure that victims who choose to participate in restorative justice processes have access to safe and competent restorative justice services, subject to at least the following conditions: (a) the restorative justice services are used only if they are in the interest of the victim, subject to any safety considerations, and are based on the victim's free and informed consent, which may be withdrawn at any time; (b) before agreeing to participate in the restorative justice process, the victim is provided with full and unbiased information about that process and the potential outcomes as well as information about the procedures for supervising the implementation of any agreement; (c) the offender has acknowledged the basic facts of the case; (d) any agreement is arrived at voluntarily and may be taken into account in any further criminal proceedings. This provision does not apply to and does not differentiate between the court proceedings as to the procedure and the form (ordinary or special). Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 12/02/2020 15:17:08 U M C S Once the decision is served, the mediator, pursuant to § 14 Point 1 of the Regulation of the Minister of Justice 87 , undertakes the following preliminary activities: promptly contacts the accused and the injured party and agrees on the date and place of the meeting with each of them (Point 1); conducts individual and joint preliminary meetings at which he/she explains to the accused and the injured party the purpose and principles of mediation proceedings, and instructs them about their right of withdrawal from the mediation proceedings until the completion thereof and receives the consent of the accused and the injured party to participate in the mediation proceedings, if the organ that referred the case to mediation did not receive it (Point 2).

CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, it should be noted the question of resolving the dispute between the parties. Once the mediation session and the negotiations are concluded successfully, the mediator assists the parties in formulating the content of the settlement between the accused and the injured person, primarily by informing them about the content of Article 107 § § 3 and 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as stipulated in § 14 Point 4 of the Regulation cited above. A settlement concluded before mediator always requires to be signed by the parties involved in the mediation and the mediator. The settlement may cover the issue of remedying the damage caused by the crime, compensation for the harm suffered, including the manner of remedying or compensating the damage or redress and the date to perform these obligations 88 . The mediator is obliged to verify the performance of obligations resulting from the settlement concluded (Point 5). According to Article 107 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "a court which has decided on claims for property damage, upon the request of an authorized person, shall append an enforcement clause to a decision to be executed by enforcement". The enforcement clause covers property claims and obligations that can be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure resulting from a settlement concluded before a court or court referendary, as well as from a settlement concluded in mediation proceedings (see Article107 § § 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Due to the possibility of appending an enforcement clause also to a settlement concluded outside criminal proceedings during the mediation, the legislature introduced controls in the form of the right to examine it by the court 89 , which stems from the fact that the mediator Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 12/02/2020 15:17:08 U M C S may not always be an entity having adequate knowledge of law 90 . The court or court referendary must refuse to append an enforcement clause to the settlement concluded before the mediator in whole or in part, if the settlement is contrary to the law or principles of social coexistence or seeks to circumvent the law ( § 4). For the refusal, the form of decision is required. The decision issued by the court may be appealed against by an interlocutory appeal (Article 795 of the Code of Civil Procedure), while the parties may object to the decision issued by the court referendary (Article 93a § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). It seems that the solution adopted in Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will become an effective instrument for securing the injured party's enforcement claim. The currently applicable solutions allow us to formulate the conclusion that the rational legislature has appreciated the concept of restorative justice in the aspect of alternative dispute resolution in criminal matters. They are a manifestation of adherence to human rights, especially the respect for human dignity 91 , and their function boils down mostly to remedying the harm caused by crime and attempting to arrange between the conflicted parties, through negotiation, agreement or reconciliation, their correct future relationships acceptable for both parties. Although some authors rightly criticize the too casuistic regulation of Article 23a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and instead propose to regulate the issue of detailed regulation of mediation in the secondary legislation provisions referred to in Article 23 § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 92 , it is difficult to underestimate the fact that the statutory solution is conducive to the use of the institution of mediation in practice.