As for the person of the mediator, he or she must obviously be a qualified professional specialised in conducting the mediation process.2 The use of a lay mediator may entail the risk that the mediator himself will acquire the attitudes of the victim. Such a person should therefore always prepare conceptually in advance for the meeting with the offender, including thinking through the course of the proceedings, or the scenario.

The mediator’s role should not be limited to seeking mitigation or full compensation. These persons must therefore have not only legal and economic knowledge, but also a minimum level of psychological training. The mediator’s presence, gestures and effective communication are essential in order to facilitate dialogue between the parties, to ensure that there is no confusion, to remove inhibitions and to promote a meaningful dialogue, preferably free of heated emotions. It is therefore wrong to regard the mediator as a “substitute judge”, since, by virtue of the purpose of the proceedings, he cannot, by definition, use the operational means which the court is entitled to use under the Be. in the exercise of its powers of maintaining order.3

The mediator must remain impartial throughout the whole process. In this respect, I do not agree with the author’s position that the mediator has the interests of the offender at heart.4 Although the mediation process is typically conducted by a probation officer who, by virtue of his or her function, may have certain’offender-centred biases, I believe that these will disappear over time with frequent use of the construct and with the correct mastery of its function.

As far as the community aspects of mediation are concerned, it may be necessary to involve both family members and outside (lay) elements in the process.5 The presence of family members has a reinforcing effect, while the involvement of strangers expresses the secondary aim of the process, which is ultimately to restore social order. The inclusion of strangers in the victim-offender agreement also reflects an otherwise existing community need which, in my view, is increasingly seeking to carve out a place for itself in the justice process. Society’s often unfounded prejudice against the perpetrators of crime can be reduced by creating such channels of communication.