Organic Law 1/2025 incorporates alternative dispute resolution mechanisms into criminal proceedings, specifically restorative justice and the so-called “forgiveness mechanism”, through Additional Provision Nine, which adds provisions to Article 20 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Act (LECrim). This regulation aims to facilitate consensual solutions between victim and offender, promoting reparation of harm and social reconciliation, while alleviating the judicial workload.
Unlike civil proceedings, where mediation and arbitration are well-established with extensive regulatory frameworks and institutional support—and where the court may require their use before accepting claims—these criminal mechanisms are voluntary and supplementary, with no prior submission obligation or fully developed institutional framework.
Although the law formally introduces these alternative mechanisms for the first time, it remains uncertain whether they will substantially alter criminal procedure dynamics or remain minor complementary tools.
Substantive Differences Between Criminal Mediation and Plea Agreement
In criminal proceedings, the traditional plea agreement (arts. 785 et seq. LECrim) is a procedural act in which the defendant acknowledges the act and accepts the proposed sentence to avoid a trial. It is a procedural simplification mechanism with binding effects, subject to judicial oversight.
By contrast, criminal mediation, as provided under LO 1/2025, is aimed at comprehensive reparation and restoration of interpersonal relationships affected by the offense, with a primarily voluntary, confidential, and extrajudicial character. Mediation does not require an explicit criminal admission or impose a sanction, but seeks a restorative agreement that may lead to extinction of criminal liability in certain cases, particularly minor offenses or those prosecuted at the victim’s request.
Criminal mediation and plea agreements are complementary, with different procedures and objectives, yet converge in avoiding trials and easing judicial congestion.
Preliminary Hearing Reform and Procedural Risks
LO 1/2025 replaces traditional preliminary issues in abbreviated proceedings with an expanded preliminary hearing(arts. 785–786 LECrim), covering:
- Jurisdictional issues.
- Procedural nullities and fundamental rights violations.
- Suspension of proceedings.
- Admission and exclusion of evidence.
- Ratification of plea agreements.
While aiming to reduce repeated suspensions, concentrating many issues in a single hearing has raised doctrinal concerns about potential bottlenecks and procedural delays.
Practical Comparison: Mediation vs. Plea Agreement
Restorative justice and the forgiveness mechanism, requiring consent from both victim and offender, are more challenging to implement at scale than plea agreements, which are strictly procedural and judicially supervised. Unlike plea agreements, these mechanisms lack detailed regulation and dedicated public institutions, limiting practical effectiveness.
Conclusion
LO 1/2025 introduces significant innovations into criminal procedure, but regulatory and practical development remains incomplete. These mechanisms promote humane and efficient criminal justice, encouraging direct reparation and reducing court congestion. Mediation and plea agreements are distinct yet complementary, with mediation offering restorative potential that remains to be fully realized. The reform of the preliminary hearing seeks procedural rationalization, though careful management is required to avoid saturation and delays.
