Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 137 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 1 Scientific Institute of Public Law, Ukraine (corresponding author) E-mail: aborovychok@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1834-404X Web of Science ResearcherID: GQZ-1183-2022 2 Scientific Institute of Public Law, Ukraine E-mail: agolovach@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8462-3561X 3 Scientific Institute of Public Law, Ukraine E-mail: institutelaw@sipl.com.ua ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0678-1475 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2024-10-5-137-145 VICTIM OF AN OFFENCE: LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IN AN INTERJURISDICTIONAL CONTEXT Andrii Borovyk1, Oleksandr Golovach2, Oleksandr Shyra3 Abstract. The paper addresses some criminal law and criminological issues related to the status and rights of crime victims. The study provides a comparative examination of the legal frameworks for crime victims in Ukraine, the United States and the European Union. It highlights significant differences in the definition of victim in Ukrainian criminal law and procedure, while discussing broader victim protection mechanisms in the American and European contexts. The subject of the study is an economic and legal analysis of the status of a crime victim in different jurisdictions. The chosen research methodology is based on the methods of systematic analysis, comparison and interdisciplinary (legal/economic) research. The purpose of this article is to propose, on the basis of a comprehensive analysis, some new approaches to understanding the concept of a crime victim in several world jurisdictions. The study draws conclusions of both theoretical and practical importance regarding the economic and legal status of crime victims at national and international levels. It is noted that, while the median economic losses from crimes are generally modest, crimes with significant financial impacts are rare but disproportionately covered in the media. The study places particular emphasis on the economic impact of crimes on victims and society as a whole. In addition to direct costs such as medical expenses, it also analyses indirect consequences including psychological trauma. The study furthermore includes an evaluation of restorative justice frameworks and victim compensation policies within the economic analyses of law framework. Moreover, the study underscores the pivotal role of international legal instruments, such as the EU's Directive 2012/29/EU and the International Criminal Court's provisions, in promoting universal enhancement of victims' rights. The authors advocate for further comparative research to harmonise national and international approaches to victim protection. It has been established that American federal law also recognises a special status of crime victims and contains a comprehensive legal protection framework to bring them justice. In comparison, the European model of protecting crime victims, as discussed in the paper, has been developed even further. It includes both legal mechanisms to protect victims within the EU and to monitor the progress of such protection at the international level. It has been demonstrated that the International Criminal Court (ICC) places significant emphasis on issues pertaining to victims by establishing a comprehensive procedural framework aimed at recognising and safeguarding the rights of victims subjected to various international crimes within the purview of the Court's jurisdiction. Keywords: criminal offence, victim, economic analysis of law, civil servant, law enforcement agencies, criminal damage. JEL Classification: K14, K42 1. Introduction In recent years, crime victims' rights legislation has become increasingly common in both federal and state criminal justice systems. These laws aim to provide victims with various protections throughout the legal process, including the right to speak at a bail hearing, to consult with a prosecutor regarding plea negotiations, and to make a victim impact statement at sentencing. A crucial aspect of such rights is the determination of who qualifies as a victim. This article presents Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 138 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 the first comprehensive legal analysis of this issue. It argues that crime victims' rights laws initially focused primarily on individuals who were directly affected by a particular crime, such as someone who was robbed or murdered. Over time, however, these laws have evolved to recognise a broader definition of victim status. Now, anyone who is harmed by a crime, even if they weren't the perpetrator's intended target, is considered a crime victim. Broadening the definition of 'victim' is consistent with the underlying purpose of protecting the rights of crime victims. Legislators have introduced these measures to give victims a voice in the criminal justice system for a variety of reasons related to the harm they've suffered. For example, victims' testimony can provide valuable insights for judges, their involvement in court proceedings can provide psychological healing, and their participation can enhance public confidence in the fairness of criminal justice outcomes. An inclusive definition of who qualifies as a victim in various legal proceedings can better achieve these goals and, as a result, better serve justice. Our research is based on multiple research methodologies to ensure comprehensive analysis and proper academic analysis. The research method of observation has also made it possible to identify current legislative trends in different jurisdictions, namely the United States, Europe and Ukraine, with regard to research and analysis of the legal status of crime victims. The observational method also revealed a number of gaps and omissions in relation to the subject matter. The philosophical (dialectical) method allowed to understand the main reasons of the problem, its methodological framework, to structure this research project properly and also to analyse the object of study step by step (Movchan et al., 2022). Also, the comparative method, which has been used as the leading one in the course of the research, has made it possible to get to know the legal grounds and specific forms of criminal liability for assaulting public officials in different jurisdictions, and also to compare different liability frameworks in several jurisdictions. Overall, the comparative method was the leading one in Ukrainian jurisprudence (Kamensky et al., 2023). Over the past few decades, a significant number of legal scholars around the world have devoted their time and efforts to in-depth research on the status of the victim of crime. Among them are the following. In the field of criminology, English commentator C. Greer (2017) has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the impact of media outlets on both offenders and crime victims. In a seminal study, W. Skogan (1987) revealed the psychological toll of crimes on victims, identifying fear as the primary negative consequence of offenses, which becomes a significant burden on the future life of the victim. An American scholar has provided a detailed overview of the legal status of crime victims, with reference to police documentation, victim identification and introduction to the legal process, and also covering both moral and psychological aspects of victims after the crime has been committed (Wallace, 1993). In addition, Ukrainian commentator L. Lazebnyi has provided coverage of a significant Supreme Court case in Ukraine, which addressed the issue of attacks on the life of a law enforcement officer in Ukraine. This case demonstrated law enforcement agents as crime victims (Lazebnyi, 2022). Also, several co-authors of this paper have recently researched some controversial issues related to public official as a victim of criminal insult and defamation (Borovyk et al., 2023). Despite the fact that many scholars continue to analyse legal, economic and other elements of public assault crimes in various jurisdictions, and also in the international dimension, a few unaddressed issues remain uncovered. The present paper aims to address these issues, at least in part, with the objective of stimulating further meaningful research and discussion. 2. Crime Victim in the Economic Context The notion of a victim of a crime as an economic category can be comprehended through the prism of the economic impact and costs associated with a specific crime. This meaningful relationship can be explained in several ways. A) Crime-related costs. Crimes impose direct and indirect economic burdens on victims and society. The costs encompass direct expenses, such as medical expenditures, property damage, or financial losses sustained by victims; indirect expenses, including loss of productivity, psychological trauma, or diminished quality of life for victims; and social expenses, encompassing expenditures for law enforcement, legal processes, and victim support services. Consequently, victims of crime represent a measurable economic loss, rendering the concept relevant to economic analysis. B) Economic loss as a quantifiable metric. Economists and policymakers utilise various metrics to assess the economic impact of criminal activity. These metrics encompass compensation needs, insurance claims, and economic inequality. In turn, policymakers are able to allocate resources and devise targeted crime prevention strategies by quantifying the economic losses suffered by victims. C) Restorative justice and compensation. In numerous legal systems, victims are entitled to restitution or compensation, frequently calculated in economic terms. These frameworks emphasise the economic dimension of victimhood by quantifying the cost of the harm caused and by establishing Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 139 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 mechanisms for reimbursement or support. This aspect positions the victim as a social category and an entity in economic exchanges. D) Victimisation and economic development. At the macroeconomic level, elevated crime rates and victimisation exert a detrimental influence on investment and the business climate, as well as public expenditure. The redirection of resources to address the needs of victims could result in their allocation elsewhere in the economy. Furthermore, victimization can result in reduced workforce participation, attributable to physical or psychological impacts. Consequently, victims can be regarded as an indicator of broader economic instability in crime-affected regions. In examining crime through the lens of various economic models, it becomes evident that the experiences and losses of victims play a pivotal role in comprehending the economic repercussions of crime and the efficacy of legal and policy interventions. In situations where circumstances give rise to war- related crimes, such as in Ukraine currently, even the state and society can become victims of crimes. A pertinent example of this phenomenon is Russia's ongoing strikes against the Ukrainian power grid, which have had a devastating effect on the population (Sullivan & Kamensky, 2024). Empirical research on the economic factors influencing crime can take various approaches and serve different purposes, depending on the type of data utilised. Crime data can be categorised based on its source, the level of aggregation, and the availability of longitudinal information (Fajnzylber et al., 2000). The criminal justice system is the most commonly used source for crime data, in accordance with tradition. The compilation of official statistics at various levels, including counties, cities, states, and nations, facilitates analyses employing time-series, cross- sectional, or panel data methodologies. Nevertheless, a fundamental constraint of this data source is that it embodies merely a fraction of all crimes, frequently resulting in an underestimation of the true prevalence. This discrepancy arises due to under-reporting of crimes, particularly minor offences, instances where victims lack trust in local authorities, or when victims regard the incident as a personal matter. 3. Crime Victim in the Legal Context In the Ukrainian national Criminal Code, the term "victim" is not defined, in contrast to the criminal laws of certain other countries. However, the term is utilised precisely one hundred times in various provisions across this normative act, according to the findings of the research. For instance, Article 46 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code stipulates exemption from criminal liability in cases where the guilty party has been reconciled with the victim. This provision stipulates that an individual who has committed a criminal misdemeanor or a non-serious crime for the first time, with the exception of corruption crimes, crimes related to corruption, violations of traffic safety regulations, or the operation of a transport vehicle by an individual who has consumed alcohol, drugs, or other substances that impair attention and reaction speed, or who has been under the influence of drugs that reduce attention and reaction speed, shall be released from criminal liability, provided that the individual has reconciled with the victim and compensated for any damages caused, or eliminated the damage caused (The Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2021). It is evident that the national legislator has placed a particular emphasis on the victim's status. The legal status of the victim can only be improved if the individual in question openly consents to reconciliation with the offender. This results in a distinctive combination of rights and obligations. In another field of public law, as outlined in Art. 55 of the Ukrainian Criminal Procedure Code, the victim in criminal proceedings may be either a natural person, i.e., a human being, to whom moral, physical, or property damage was caused by a criminal offence, or a legal entity, i.e., a person or group of persons recognised by law, to whom property damage was caused by a criminal offence. The victim is defined as an individual who has been harmed by a criminal offence and who, subsequent to the initiation of criminal proceedings, has submitted an application to be included in the proceedings as a victim. Legally, the rights and responsibilities of a victim are attributed to a person from the moment an application is made to commit a criminal offence against them or to involve them in the proceedings as a victim. It is therefore the position of the Ukrainian legislator that the possibility of an individual acquiring the status of victim in criminal proceedings is contingent on the submission of a statement by that person, which should be interpreted precisely according to the procedural criterion. That is to say, the individual in question should be interpreted as a participant in the criminal proceedings, in connection with their involvement during the pre-trial investigation as a victim, with the delivery of the corresponding memorandum on procedural rights and obligations. As Ukrainian commentator I. Tkachenko accurately observes, the issues pertaining to the status of a victim of an offence possess interdisciplinary implications. The acknowledgement of an individual as a victim constitutes a prerequisite for the classification of criminal offences for which this attribute is obligatory, as well as for the pre-trial investigation of diverse crimes, among other aspects. Simultaneously, she emphasises the necessity for law enforcement and judicial practice to establish the criminal law and Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 140 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 criminal procedural meanings of these concepts. Consequently, it is imperative to investigate the relationship between the meanings of the concept "victim" in national criminal law and in criminal procedural law. This will enable determination of the optimal approach to harmonising relevant provisions of both branches of law – criminal and criminal procedural (Tkachenko, 2022). The present study is based on analyses which indicate that the academic search for the right balance between criminal and criminal procedural meaning of the term "victim" is going on not only in Ukraine, but in other jurisdictions as well. Given that the majority of contemporary legal systems comprise both branches of public law, this search (and associated research) remains in high demand, since it is directly related to criminal investigation, prosecution and court adjudication. In addition, there is now a substantial body of academic literature suggesting that in some cases crime victims may become "victims twice over" due to the traumatising effects of various legal procedures, including court hearings, on such persons (Orth, 2002). Indeed, it takes a great deal of effort on the part of investigating authorities, courts and other criminal justice actors to restore, at least partially, the victim's status prior to the crime. In the spirit of comparative discourse, the following discussion will focus on some aspects of the victim in US law and practice. The evidence presented herein demonstrates that victimisation of society is a significant issue in America (see Figure 1) and, it can be hypothesised, in other regions as well. Indeed, victimisation is a global phenomenon associated with specific crimes and criminal activities in different countries. In the contemporary global business environment, victims of various economic (or white collar) crimes can serve as a prime example of the diverse forms and types of cross-border victimisation (Lutsenko et al., 2023). It is noteworthy that even the state itself, or society at large, can become a victim of certain offences, particularly those related to corruption (Vozniuk et al., 2021). The American federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 3771 "Rights of Victims of Crime", provides for the basic rights of persons affected by various types of criminal behaviour. The following key rights are prescribe, in particular: 1) To be reasonably protected from the accused; 2) to be informed in a reasonable, accurate and timely manner of any public trial or any parole proceedings relating to the offence, or of any release or escape of the accused; 3) not be excluded from any such public trial unless the court determines, on clear and convincing evidence, that the victim's testimony would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at the proceedings; 4) to be reasonably heard in any public proceedings before a district court relating to the release, conviction, sentencing or any parole proceedings; 5) to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; 6) to receive full and timely compensation as provided by law; 7) to proceedings without unreasonable delay; 8) to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy; 9) to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement (18 U.S. Code § 3771). It is evident, therefore, that the scope of victim's rights is extensive under American federal law. Furthermore, it enables the victim to participate in various legal proceedings to a considerable extent. Federal obstruction of justice statutes address criminal liability for a number of crimes against witnesses. In particular, 18 U.S. Code § 1512, entitled "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant'", provides, in a relevant part, that whoever kills or attempts to kill another person (including a victim), with intent to prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding; prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or prevent the communication Figure 1. Hate crime victims are most often targeted on racial or ethnic grounds Source: (Buchholz, 2024)   Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 141 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be punished as provided in this section (18 U.S.C. § 1512). Another section, 18 U.S. Code § 1513, entitled "Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant", protects victims of criminal proceedings from retaliation by criminal offenders. This includes, in particular, the following: "(a) (1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person with intent to retaliate against any person for- (A) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (B) any information provided to a law enforcement officer relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2)". "(b)Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for, (1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings given by a person to a law enforcement officer or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both" (18 U.S.C. § 1513). Consequently, even when considering the relevant federal statutes, it is evident that the American government attaches significant importance to addressing threats, injuries and other forms of harassment and retaliation against victims of federal crimes. This approach is considered to be the optimal one, as it serves to restore a degree of balance prior to the commission of a crime, provides citizens with significant protection, and contributes to the concept of "justice served" within the context of a democratic society. It is important to note that state legislation offers additional protective measures for victims of various state crimes, including common law murder, rape, larceny, fraud, and bribery. The European Union and its Member States are not far behind American theory and law in this regard, proposing their own legal framework for the legal status and guarantees of victims. Crime victims in the European Union are entitled to compensation for any injury or damage they have suffered, regardless of where in the EU the crime occurred. A seminal study of this topic was conducted in 1987 by M. Jousten at the Helsinki Institute of Crime Prevention and Control, an organisation affiliated with the United Nations. This extensive research work, spanning over 300 pages, draws attention to the fact that the conventional understanding of crime often presents it in stark terms: the perpetrator intentionally committing an act against an unwilling and blameless victim. However, early scholars of victimology highlighted certain characteristics of potential victims that could contribute to the commission of the offense. The factors under discussion include apathy, submission, co-operation, and provocation on the part of the victim ( Jousten, 1987). Notable international legal instruments, such as the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes and the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, underscore this growing interest and represent significant milestones in criminal policy at both regional and global levels. Indeed, the element of victimisation as the primary category of victimology science has been extensively researched by European and, in particular, Ukrainian scholars. For instance, Ukrainian criminologist B. Golovkin asserts, based on empirical research, that the majority of victims of intentional murders and grievous bodily harm come from the family and household sphere, specifically from family relations with criminals, which have led to open conflicts. Concurrently, it is typically the female partner who instigates the conflict through the utilisation of disparaging remarks, verbal abuse, humiliation, and allegations concerning the male partner's failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment of roles such as breadwinner, family head, father, protector, and sexual partner. In the subsequent phase of the conflict, the woman's behaviour becomes increasingly aggressive, and she appears to disregard the psychological limit of permissible risk, which directly impacts her life and health (Golovkin, 2015). It is the contention of the present study that such analyses of reckless behaviour can be applied to other areas of criminal law. Obviously, it is crucial for victims of crime to have a strong voice in criminal proceedings involving the offender. While the primary objective of such proceedings is to determine the liability of the offender(s), victims are generally empowered to participate actively in their own capacity. The 2012 Directive on Victims' Rights strengthens such rights, particularly procedural rights, for victims. Specifically, Directive 2012/29/EU establishes minimum standards on the rights, support, and Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 142 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 protection of victims of crime, ensuring that in dividuals who have been victimized by crimes are acknowledged, treated with dignity, and provided with proper protection, support, and access to justice. This Directive replaces the previous 2001 Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings and significantly enhances the rights of victims and their family members regarding information, support, protection, and procedural rights in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, it obliges Member States to ensure that officials who are likely to interact with victims receive appropriate training, and it encourages co-operation and coordination between Member States and national services to uphold the rights of victims (Directive 2012/29/EU, 2012). Furthermore, the EU legislation specifically addresses victim groups, providing protection and support for victims of human trafficking, child victims of sexual exploitation, and child pornography. In its extensive efforts to enhance the protection of victims of crimes, the EU has adopted two instruments that ensure the recognition of protection measures issued in other EU countries: the 2011 Directive on the European Protection Order and the 2013 Regulation on mutual recognition of protection orders in civil matters. These instruments empower victims or potential victims to rely on restraint or protection orders issued in one EU country if they travel or relocate to another. It is noteworthy that both legal instruments have been in effect within the European Union since January 11, 2015. The EU Victims' Rights Directive establishes minimum standards pertaining to the rights, support, and protection of crime victims, thereby ensuring that individuals who have suffered from crime are recognised and treated with respect. The Directive stipulates that victims are entitled to adequate protection, support, and access to justice. This Directive represents a substantial enhancement of victims' and their family members' rights to information, support, and protection, in addition to the strengthening of their procedural rights in criminal proceedings. On May 11, 2020, the European Commission adopted a report that evaluated the implementation of the Victims' Rights Directive by Member States. Specific regulations have been adopted for victims of certain crimes, such as human trafficking, child victims of sexual exploitation and pornography, and victims of terrorism, which complement the Directive by addressing their particular needs (Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, 2012). Moreover, on June 24th 2020, the Commission formally adopted the EU's inaugural Strategy on victims' rights (2020-2025), with the objective of ensuring that all victims of crime within the EU are able to fully exercise their rights. This progressive document delineates the actions to be undertaken by the European Commission, Member States, and civil society over the course of a five-year period. This document is unique in its progressive nature, and the progressive provisions it contains are aimed at protecting crime victims and restoring their legal status. The Strategy recognises the pivotal role of restorative justice in accomplishing its overarching objective, which is to empower victims of crime, thereby facilitating their involvement in legal proceedings and aiding in their recovery. It is asserted that restorative justice services provide a secure platform for victims to articulate their experiences and facilitate their healing process. Furthermore, it emphasises the dearth of awareness concerning such services among professionals and victims, advocating for Member States to guarantee optimal standards and facilitate training for practitioners (EU Adopts Victims’ Strategy for the First Time, 2020). Notwithstanding this progress, recent studies reveal that crime victims still cannot fully rely on their rights within the EU jurisdiction. The challenges encountered by victims in accessing justice can be primarily attributed to a deficiency in information, inadequate support and protection. As a case in point illustrating victimisation and its impact on society, the crime of human trafficking will be referred to here. Human trafficking represents a grave and pervasive problem on a global scale, characterised by the exploitation and coercion of individuals for a variety of purposes, including forced labour, sexual exploitation, and involuntary servitude. It is characterised by the use of force, fraud, or coercion to exploit vulnerable individuals, including children and adults. Victims of trafficking may be subjected to various forms of abuse, including physical and sexual violence and psychological manipulation. They may be transported across borders or confined within a specific area, making it difficult for them to escape their situation. In order to combat human trafficking, a range of measures must be considered. These include legislation, law enforcement efforts, victim support services and international co-operation. In addition, raising awareness about the issue and educating communities about the signs of trafficking can also play a crucial role in prevention and intervention. The Strategy delineates five key priorities: effective communication with victims and the establishment of a secure environment for the reporting of crime, Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 143 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 the enhancement of support and protection for vulnerable victims, the facilitation of victims' access to compensation, the strengthening of co-operation and coordination among relevant stakeholders, and the reinforcement of the international dimension of victims' rights (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2020). It is arguably premature to evaluate the efficacy of the EU Strategy on victim rights, as it is still in effect and is hoped to be implemented in full by Member States. Nevertheless, it is evident that Europe is prioritising the issue of victim rights and the challenges they face, which is likely to result in substantial enhancements within the criminal justice system. The Croatian author A. Novokmet conducted an in-depth analysis of the victim's right to review the decision not to prosecute on the basis of Article 11 of Directive 2012/29/EU, including a comparative analysis of the relevant practice in Germany, Italy, France and Croatia. The author posits that, for an extended duration, the legal status and procedural entitlements of crime victims as active participants in criminal proceedings have been disregarded and perceived as relatively insignificant components in the contemporary codification of criminal procedural law. This oversight is probably a consequence of a historical shift when the state assumed responsibility for investigating and prosecuting offenders, while also safeguarding the fundamental human rights of the accused and their rights to a defence. This transition, as posited by A. Novokmet, has resulted in the criminal prosecution function becoming closely associated with the role of the public prosecutor, thereby transforming the status of the victim from that of a primary party in criminal proceedings to that of a participant in the process. As participants in criminal proceedings, victims possess certain procedural rights, the specifics and extent of which vary across different legal systems (Novokmet, 2016). Indeed, in the twenty-first century, significant amendments have been witnessed in both national and international laws with regard to the protection of victims' rights, while also working on the restoration of their pre-crime legal status as much as possible. Finally, it is important to note that the status of victim and their rights are fully recognised by the International Criminal Court in its Rules of Procedure and Evidence. This document defines victims as individuals, organisations and institutions that suffer harm as a result of crimes within the Court's jurisdiction. The term "victim" is defined in Rule 85 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and provides as follows: (a) the term "victims" means natural persons who have suffered damage as a result of the commission of any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (b) victims may include organizations or institutions that have suffered direct damage to any of their property dedicated to religious, educational, artistic, scientific or charitable purposes, as well as to their historical monuments, hospitals and other places and objects dedicated to humanitarian purposes. In order to be considered victims at the reparations stage, individuals must demonstrate that they have suffered harm as a result of the crimes for which the defendant was convicted (Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 2024). In general, the Rome Statute (RS) provides victims with an unprecedented position in international criminal proceedings through several articles, including 15(3), 19(3), 68(3) and 75(3). This role, considered by many to be the most noteworthy aspect of the RS, has emerged from negotiations that reflect a broader international trend toward greater inclusion of victims in both human rights and humanitarian law (Olásolo & Kiss, 2010). 4. Conclusions The findings of the present study enable the formulation of a series of conclusions that are both theoretically and practically valuable in relation to the economic and legal status and protection of victims within the contexts of both national and international law. It may appear counterintuitive that the median economic losses suffered by victims of numerous crimes are, in fact, relatively modest. However, crimes involving staggering losses often gain media attention precisely because they are rare. Conversely, more prevalent crimes, which affect larger numbers of people, tend to have less severe direct economic impacts. Nevertheless, it should be noted that lower monetary losses do not necessarily equate to a minor impact on the victim. To illustrate this point, consider the case of a home burglary that results in only minor property losses. Such an event can profoundly affect the victim's sense of safety and security. The accurate recording of economic losses is of crucial importance, given that these costs are ultimately borne by individuals. However, while the focus is rightly on measurable consequences, it is equally important to recognise that crimes which are minor in economic terms may have deeply devastating effects on the victim's life. Furthermore, the determination of legal grounds, scope, and limits for protecting various types of crime victims through the instruments of criminal law regulation should be conducted at the national (or in some cases state) level. This research has shown that countries around the world face similar challenges Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 144 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 in protecting victims of crime. These challenges are primarily procedural and organisational – it often takes too long to secure victims' rights, and they are often only partially protected rather than fully protected. Thus, justice is not restored and there is no proper balance between the harm caused by the crime and the post-criminal restoration of the rights and freedoms of the victims. Consequently, there is a necessity to continue meaningful academic research on the legal status of crime victims in three related dimensions: national, international and foreign (comparative). References: 18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. FindLaw.com. Available at: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1512/ 18 U.S. Code § 1513 – Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. Justia. Available at: https://law.justia.com/codes/us/1994/title18/parti/chap73/sec1513 18 U.S. Code § 3771 – Crime victims’ rights. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3771 Borovyk, A., Tkachenko, I., Derevyanko, N., & Diakin, Y. (2023). Public Official as a Victim of Criminal Insult and Defamation: Comparative Research. Cuestiones Políticas, Vol. 41(78), p. 739–758. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/ cuestpol.4178.50 Buchholz, K. (2024). Hate Crime Victims Most Often Targeted for Race or Ethnicity. Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/chart/29486/us-hate-crime-by-bias-type/ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0258 The Criminal Code of Ukraine (2001). The Official Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada, 2001, No. 25–26, Art. 131. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14?lang=en#Text Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (2012). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=OJ:L:2012:315:0057:0073:EN:PDF EU Adopts Victims’ Strategy for the First Time (2020). Leuven Institute of Criminology. Available at: https://www.law.kuleuven.be/linc/english/research/RL4/news/eu-adopts-victims-strategy-for-the-first-time Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., & Loyaza, N. (2000). Crime and Victimization: An Economic Perspective. ECONOMIA, Vol. 1(1), p. 219–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/eco.2000.0004 Golovkin, B.  M. (2015). Victimhood as the main category of victimology. Journal of Eastern European Law, Vol. 20, p. 6–13. Available at: http://easternlaw.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/golovkin_20.pdf Greer, C. (2017). ‘News Media, Victims and Crime’, in P. Davies, P. Francis, C. Greer (eds.) Victims, Crime and Society, second edition, London: Sage. Jousten, M. (1987). Role of the Victim of Crime in European Criminal Justice Systems – A Crossnational Study of the Role of the Victim. Helsinki Institute of Crime Prevention and Control Affiliated with the United Nations. Available at: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/105139NCJRS.pdf Kamensky, D., Dudorov, O., Savchenko, A., Movchan, R., & Danylevska, Y. (2023). Criminal liability for humanitarian aid embezzlement during war: The case of Ukraine: Cuestiones Políticas, Vol. 41(77), p. 760–776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4177.50 Lazebnyi, L. (2022). An attack on the life of a law enforcement officer is considered completed from the moment of the attempt, regardless of the occurrence of any consequences. LexInform. Available at: https://lexinform.com. ua/sudova-praktyka/posyagannya-na-zhyttya-pratsivnyka-pravoohoronnogo-organu-vvazhayetsya-zakinchenym- iz-momentu-vchynennya-zamahu-nezalezhno-vid-nastannya-bud-yakyh-naslidkiv/ Lutsenko, Y., Motyl, V., Tarasiuk,  A., Areshonkov, V., Diakin, Y., & Kamensky, D. (2023). Globalization of White-Collar Crime: Far and Beyond National Jurisdictions. Political Questions, Vol. 41(76), p. 64–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4176.03 Movchan, R., Vozniuk, A., Kamensky, D., Koval, I., & Golovko, O. (2022). Criminal and legal protection of land resources in Ukraine and Latin America: comparative legal analysis. Amazonia Investiga. Vol. 11(51), p. 328–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.51.03.33 Novokmet, A. (2016). The Right of a Victim to a Review of a Decision not to Prosecute as Set out in Article 11 of Directive 2012/29/EU and an Assessment of its Transposition in Germany, Italy, France and Croatia. Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 12 (1), p. 86–108. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.330 Olásolo, H., &  Kiss, A. (2010). The role of victims in criminal proceedings before the International Criminal Court. Revue internationale de droit pénal, Vol. 81, p. 125–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.811.0125 Orth, U. (2002). Secondary Victimization of Crime Victims by Criminal Proceedings. Social Justice Research, Vol. 15, p. 313–325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021210323461 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 145 Vol. 10 No. 5, 2024 on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/ JHA (2012). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:188:FIN Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2024). International Criminal Court. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/ default/files/RulesProcedureEvidenceEng.pdf Skogan, W. G. (1987). The impact of victimization on fear. Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 33, p. 135–154. Sullivan, J., & Kamensky, D. (2024). Putin’s power play: Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s electric power infrastructure violate international law. The Electricity Journal, Vol. 37 (2), 107371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tej.2024.107371 Tkachenko I.  M. (2022). The victim in criminal and criminal procedural legislation: current issues of theory and practice. Kyiv Journal of Law, Vol. 4, p. 185–193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/klj/2022.4.28 Vozniuk, A., Kamensky, D., Dudorov, O., Movchan, R., & Andrushko, A. (2021). Unconstitutionality of criminal liability for filing inaccurate information in Ukraine: critical legal analyses. Questiones Politicas, Vol. 69(39), p. 133–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3969.07 Wallace, H. (1993). Victims of Crimes: Reporting, Identification and Values.  The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 84(3), p. 669–677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1143967 Received on: 04th of October, 2024 Accepted on: 26th of November, 2024 Published on: 30th of December, 2024