In this study Naomi RS Ormskerk, Maarten JJ Kunst and Nicole L Immler explore claimants’ experiences with redress procedures addressing historical institutional abuse by Catholic clergy in the Netherlands, examining three areas: complaint and compensation procedures, civil court cases, and mediation. Based on interviews with 18 claimants, findings indicate significant procedural flaws, especially within the Reporting Centre which was frequently described as rigid and impersonal, offering little room for narrative expression or emotional responsiveness. In contrast, the Commission for Help, Recognition, and Reparation (Committee HEG) combined clearer procedural structure with more empathetic engagement, while Triptych mediation strengthened participants’ sense of agency through co-created dialogue and relational repair. The Temporary Regulation provided standardised financial compensation but lacked space for personalised acknowledgement or historical nuance, particularly in cases involving gendered forms of harm. Procedures such as the Reporting Centre and civil litigation intensified distress for many survivors due to their adversarial tone and narrow evidentiary focus. Mechanisms like Committee HEG, Triptych mediation, and institutional mediation were generally seen as less harmful, as they allowed for more participatory formats, emotionally attuned interactions, and visible gestures of recognition. The study contributes to debates on institutional abuse and redress by identifying how concrete design features – such as control over process, the handling of evidence, and modes of acknowledgement – shaped victim-survivors’ perceptions of fairness and recognition, thereby revealing the practical workings of procedural and restorative justice. A more systemic approach is essential, one that centres victim-survivors’ voices, addresses broader institutional harms, and ensures that justice processes respond meaningfully to victim-survivors’ lived realities.

Read the full article here – not open access-