Den svenske lagstiftaren har under de senaste decennierna ökat polisens och åklagarens möjligheter till förundersökningsbegränsning som innebär att alla brott inte behöver utredas i enlighet med 23 kap. 4 a § RB. Samtidigt har Europadomstolen tolkat Europakonventionen om mänskliga rättigheter i en allt mer brottsoffervänlig riktning. Det betyder att reglerna om förundersökningsbegränsning rört sig ännu mera i riktningen mot mera av samhällelig effektivitetshänsyn medan konventionen gått mer åt att stärka brottsoffrens roll. I en rad rättsfall har Europadomstolen slagit fast att staterna har positiva förpliktelser gentemot brottsoffer, att se till att deras grundläggande rättigheter respekteras. Det betyder att de anslutna staterna måste skydda brottsoffren. Det gäller i synnerhet mot grova brott men domstolen har också öppnat för att offer för mindre allvarlig brottslighet måste få en chans till upprättelse. Samtidigt förundersökningsbegränsas, nedlägges, brottsutredningar av den typen med stöd av 23 kap. 4 a § RB dagligen i Sverige. / The Swedish legislator has during the three last decades extended the possibility for the police and the prosecutors to use preliminary enquiry limitation. That means that according to chapter 23, paragraph 4 a of the code of judicial procedure, the police and prosecutors does not always have to investigate crimes.   In the meantime, the European court of human rights has eventually interpreted the European convention on human rights, the ECHR, in a more crime victim friendly way. This study shows that the convention states need to consider positive obligations of the ECHR towards crime victims. The main aim of the convention is to protect individuals from violations of their rights committed by representatives of the states. But although it is not clearly written in the convention, the court of human rights has several times interpreted that article 8 of the convention includes positive obligations that demands the convention states to take measures in order to protect individuals and guarantee them their rights to personal and family life.

In recent decades the Swedish legislature has increasingly focused on the treatment of victims of crime and the information they receive. Victimology research has also shown the importance of treating victims with respect and of keeping them informed of their rights and the progress of their case throughout the process. The requirements thus set have to be met by all judicial actors, which presuppose a level of cooperation among them. Cooperation therefore constitutes one way of meeting victims' needs. In the current study these three factors; information, good treatment and cooperation, are referred to as victims’ rights.           Studies have shown that victims experience shortcomings in the legal process regarding information and treatment. The causes of these shortcomings can be multiple, but from a legal point of view, however, the issue raises the question of whether there may be potential legal difficulties involved in incorporating adequate information and good treatment of crime victims into the judicial process. The purpose of this thesis is to study and analyse victims’ rights in the judicial process. As they are not without a legal context, these victims’ rights are analysed in relation to other legislation, principles and requirements that govern the functions of the judicial system, such as the duty of the police, prosecutors and courts to act objectively, conduct their work independently, and run an efficient legal process. The main question is whether the incorporation of victims’ rights conflicts with other rules and legal principles.         The study concludes, inter alia, that victims’ rights concerning the treatment of victims and coordination of the work with victims is vaguely regulated and the intended meaning of the requirements are not clear, which may lead to problems when these requirements are incorporated into the justice system. Regarding information, treatment of victims and coordination and cooperation, little guidance is given about how to incorporate this at the local level. Informational requirements are expressed more clearly in the legislation, but how and to what extent information to victims should be given can still be a matter of interpretation on the part of the actors. The existence of local differences is therefore likely, which can affect the actual support that individual victims gain access to. The legislature could choose to further clarify and elaborate upon how victims’ rights issues relate to other aspects of the judicial process, how priorities or balancing of interests should be handled as well as to reveal the underlying motives for such considerations. Such clarification could possibly increase the consistency of the incorporation of victims’ rights, and transform abstract goals into concrete actions.

United Nations peacekeeping forces and operations, have long had a history of crimes against civilians by its personnel, not least concerning crimes of sexual exploitation and abuse. While human rights violations are grave despite their origin, there is a specific element of impunity and distrust when the same people who comes to ‘protect’, are the same people who become perpetrators. In this sense, it is notably interesting and important to examine victims’ rights to access justice when crimes have been committed by UN Personnel. The primary aim is to explore to what extent the fore-mentioned victims have the possibility to access justice within the legal system of UN Transitional Administrations. These UN operations are chosen since it is particularly important to examine the extent to which victim’s may access justice when the UN exercises governmental powers and acts as a quasi-state. An underlying aim is to explore how the eventual inconsistencies within this system may be colored by postcolonial tendencies. In this sense, the study is conducted through a doctrinal method with a postcolonial perspective, examining the normative aspects of law in the light of a critical lens. The legal basis and the legal obligations of UN Transitional Administrations are compared to the International Standard on Victims’ rights and evidence on how victims’ rights to access justice is practiced within these administrations. Finally, the aim is to evaluate the result of this analysis from the standpoint of postcolonial theory.