Abstract
<jats:p>The article examines the importance of the victim and the suspect (accused) in the procedure for concluding a reconciliation agreement in criminal proceedings in Ukraine as one of the key instruments of restorative justice and alternative resolution of the criminal-legal conflict. It is substantiated that the strengthening of the practical role of such agreements is associated with the general trend of humanization of criminal policy, the orientation towards the restoration of the violated rights of the victim and the need to optimize the burden on the judicial system. At the same time, it is emphasized that the current legal regulation and practice of applying reconciliation agreements contain a number of debatable and prob-lematic aspects, in particular regarding the procedural status of the parties, the limits of their discretion, the reality of the influence of each participant on the content of the agreements, as well as guarantees of volun-tariness and awareness of the expression of will. The central role of the victim is emphasized, since it is his consent and initiative that form the possibility of reconciliation and determine the content of the agreement, including the expected ways of restoring violated rights. It is revealed that the restorative potential of reconciliation should include not only compensation for material damage, but also the satisfaction of the non-material needs of the victim (recognition of wrongdoing, apology, psychological satisfaction), although in real practice such complex agreements are not common. It is shown that the motivation of the suspect (accused) in reconciliation is mainly associated with the minimization of criminal legal consequences (release from liability or mitigation of punishment), which necessitates the consideration of the category of “interest” as the basic one for establishing a balance between private and public principles. At the same time, the asymmetry of the procedural capabilities of the parties in initiating reconciliation, the lack of certainty of the legal consequences of non-fulfillment of the terms of the agreement, as well as restrictions on the simultaneous exercise of certain procedural rights by the victim are emphasized. It is summarized that increasing the effectiveness of the institution of reconciliation agreements requires improving regulatory guarantees: ensuring procedural balance of the parties, detailing procedures for verifying and documenting agreements, determining transparent consequences of their non-fulfillment, and developing mechanisms for real compensation for both property and moral damage. Keywords: reconciliation agreement, victim, suspect, criminal proceedings, restorative justice, dispositiveness, voluntariness, compensation for damage, moral damage, consequences of non-fulfillment of the agreement.</jats:p>