Republic of the Philippines

CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Indang, Cavite

LEARNING MODULE IN THERAPEUTIC MODALITIES

Prepared by

JOEL B. PUROG, Jr.

Registered Criminologist
CSC Professional Eligible
Juris Doctor
Police Officer, PNP-CIDG

Page 1 of 17
 INTRODUCTION

Per CMO No. 05 s. 2018, Therapeutic Modalities course covers the different
therapeutic modalities, treatment models, treatment programs, and policy or program
intervention for both in Institutional and non-institutional corrections. The forging of
partnerships, involvement and engagement of Government Agencies, Religious Sector,
Private Foundations, Institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations focused on the
Detainee’s/Inmate’s/Person Deprived Liberty’s total welfare and well-being.
As mandated thereof, its contents include: review on the relevant topics in
Institutional Corrections and Non-Institutional Corrections; Standards on Treatment and
Rehabilitation of Prisoners/Inmate/PDL’s; PDLs Admission Process and Procedures in
the BJMP, Provincial Jails & BUCOR. Treatment Programs and Rehabilitation of the
Different Confinement Facilities (PNP, NBI, BJMP, Provincial Jails & BUCOR) of
Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) as provided and allowed by Law, Operation
Manual, Policy, International Standards, and approved Rehabilitation and Treatment
Program and Activities; Treatment Programs of Convicted Persons placed under Non-
Institutional correction programs/Community Based Program (Parole and Probation
Administration, including Pardonees); Therapeutic Modalities: Making Jail/Prison Facility
as Therapeutic Community (TC); Transitional TC providing work, responsibilities, sense
of ownership, empowerment, involvement and participation etc.; Halfway Houses TC
with Technical support and supervision; Preparing for Integration, skills development,
personality development, Mock Job Interview, Mock Apprenticeship, Mock Work; Re-
entry program from prison walls to work/job doors; Developmental Aspects of
Therapeutic Modalities: Behavioral Management or Behavioral Therapy; Emotional and
Psychological; Intellectual and Spiritual or Cognitive Therapy; Vocational and Survival
Skills.
With a very limited available materials on the subject, the structure of this module
is basically based from that book of Cuasay and Apela entitled Therapeutic Modalities
(A textbook for Criminology Students and Practitioners) 2021 edition, the only book
available in the market so far, but of course amplifications were supplied in certain
topics whenever needed with cross reference to some authorities.
All efforts and diligence were exerted in crafting this module to make it more
accurate as possible but errors are inevitable and solely mine.

Happy reading and Carpe diem!

Page 2 of 17
 JBPUROGJR

HUMAN RIGHTS

I. History. Although acceptance of the notion of universal human rights

manifested itself as early as the First World War through the ardent support
given to it by US president Woodrow Wilson, it was not until after the end of
the Second World War that the modern understanding of human rights truly
began to flourish. This understanding was propelled in part by the French
Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain whose philosophical works examining
human dignity gained the praise of Pope Paul VI and was influential in the
development and eventual creation of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

Definition: No clear consensus has been settled on the definition of human

rights. Some experts provide general idea of what human rights is. One of
which is Rebecca Wallace who proposes that Human Rights are those
fundamental and inalienable rights which are essential for life as human
being.

Characteristics: inherent, fundamental, inalienable, imprescriptible,

indivisible, universal and interdependent.

A. According to source - natural rights, constitutional rights, statutory

rights
B. According to recipient - individual rights, collective rights
C. According to aspect of life - civil, political, economic, social, cultural
rights
D. According to struggle for recognition - first, second and third
generation rights
E. According to derogability - absolute or non-derogable, derogable or
can-be-limited rights

Classification of Human Rights:

1. First Generation Human Rights consisting of civil and political rights.
This is now embodied in International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
 Civil Rights - guarantees of equal social
opportunities and equal protection under the law,
regardless of race, religion, or other personal
Page 3 of 17
 characteristics. It includes the right to vote, the right to
a fair trial, the right to government services, the right
to a public education, and the right to use public
facilities.
 Political Rights are especially catering to the right to
participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or
administration of government. Political rights are
rights to enable people to participate in running the
affairs of the government

2. Second Generation Human Rights ---economic, social and cultural

rights. Now embodied in International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights.
 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – State’s
commitment for opportunities to achieve equality and
distributive justice to its citizens such as the right to food,
clothing, housing and education. It included the right to work
with fair and just wages, decent working conditions, and
protection of the family to maintain the decent standard of
living

3. Third Generation ---refer to right of development, right to peace and

the right to environment.

A. Approaches.
1. Natural Law Approach. Championed by thinkers such as Aquinas
and Jacques Maritain, this approach examines rights and obligations
as emanating from the human essence.
2. Positivist Approach. Espoused by thinkers such as Bentham and
Austin, this approach sees human rights as rights granted by those in
power rather than emanating from within every man.
3. Marxist Approach. This approach made distinctions between human
rights and political rights put a premium on the rights of the workers,
and viewed the rights of persons as individual from that of society as a
whole.

B. Consequence. The primary consequence of human rights is that a limit

has been placed to the sovereignty of the State. Even within its territory,
the State is now limited as to how it can treat individuals. As such, even
the statement under Article 2, par. 7 of the UN Charter which prohibits
Stated from interfering in each other’s domestic matters will not shield a
State from liability when it violates the human rights of its citizens.

Page 4 of 17
 C. Limitations. It is worth noting that rights are not absolute. By way of
example, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights provides that even though the right to be able to move freely
around the territory of a State legally entered is recognized, such right can
still be curtailed as in cases where it is necessary to protect national
security or public order.

II. Codified Instruments. Human rights exist naturally and are inherent in all
men. In codified from, the primary instruments that contain human rights are
the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1993 Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action. Aside from these primary instruments,
other notable instruments include the International Covenant on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the convention on the Elimination of All
forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

A. Categories. Under the broad umbrella of human rights are sub-

categories that include civil and political rights, economic and cultural
rights, and rights of peoples (as in the case of self-determination).
Despite these categories, there is no hierarchy when it comes to
human rights since all men are born equal. The different sub-
categories of human rights are best characterized as being equal and
interdependent.
B. General Rights and Obligations. The human rights enshrined in the
various instruments are expressed in broad terms. By way of example,
although Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, the
standards of what is to be understood as arbitrary, and what is to
qualify as an arrest, are still left to the interpretation of States.
1. Cultural Differences. Given that there are still aspects which are
open to interpretation, one glaring problem with regard to human
rights are cultural differences. By way of example, some cultures
see abortion as a step forward in human rights, while other cultures
see abortion as a step backwards and tantamount to murder
because it sanctions the termination of defenseless individuals.
a. Globalization. Given the level of globalization that has taken
place, a forced clash of cultural values is certain. As such, it
would be interesting to see which cultural interpretation of the
various human rights will eventually be followed by all States.

C. Customary Status. Although the existence of human rights has

already been accepted and recognized by most States, there is still
much debate on which human rights are considered customary, and
which are on instrument based therefore only binding on those who are
Page 5 of 17
 parties to the same. As such, while the right to life, liberty, and security
found in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might
be recognized as customary, the right to holiday pay as found in Article
7 of the International Covenant n Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
may not yet have reached the level of customary international law
{ See: Separate Opinion of Judge Ammoun in the Advisory Opinion on
Namibia ({ 1971} ICJ Rep 16), where the right to self determination and
its possible customary status was discussed; Barcelona Traction Case
({1964} ICJ Rep 6), where basic human rights such as the right against
slavery, and the right against racial discrimination, were deemed not
just to be customary obligations but already erga omnes obligations;
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua ({1968)}
ICJ Rep 14), where the ICJ was in fact called upon by the parties to
examine, inter alia, whether a violation of human rights was present.}

III. Regional Human Rights Protection Systems. These systems are tasked
with monitoring, promoting, and protecting human rights in their geographic
location. Currently the only regional systems in existence are European,
African, and Inter-American.

IV. Enforcement. Although human rights may be recognized, there is still a

question on how they can be enforced. Ordinarily, the State would take up the
cudgels for its citizens, but then the question would arise as to what the
procedure would be if the State is the one violating the rights of its own
citizens. Given the prohibition on the threat or use of force, and the principle
of non-intervention, there is a high likelihood that the State could escape
serious liability for human rights violations provided their conduct does not
amount to violations of jus cogens. However, if such violations already affect
international peace and security, an intervention by the UN Security Council is
possible.

References:
Bacungan, Froilan. Human Rights Law; A Reality In Our Constitution. 2011
Edition. UP Law Center, Diliman, Quezon City
Nachura Eduardo and Gatdula, Jeremy. Outline Introduction to Public
International Law. 2020 Edition. Rex Book Store, Quezon City
Magallona, Merlin. Public International Law. 2005 Edition. CE Book Store,
Quezon City

Page 6 of 17
 Suggested reading:
Republic vs. Sandiganbaya, G.R. No. 104768 July 21, 2003

NATURE AND TRENDS OF PUNISHMENT

Punishment is a means of social control. It is a device to cause people to

become cohesive and to induce conformity. People believe that punishment is
effective as a means of social control but this belief is doubtful. There is no
question, however, that some forms of punishment are more effective in one
society than in another. For example, punishment in a small well bordered
community, where people practically know everybody, is more effective in inducing
conformity than in a highly mobile metropolitan city.

The general concept of punishment is that it is infliction of some sort of pain

on the offender for violating the law. This definition is not complete in the sense
that it does not mention the condition under which punishment is administered or
applied. In the legal sense, it is more individual redress, or personal revenge.
Punishment, therefore, is defined as the redress that the state takes against an
offending member.

Punishment is restricted to such suffering as is inflicted upon the offender in

a definite way by, or in the name of, the society of which he is a permanent
member. Punishment must be intended and not accidental, to produce some sort
of justified suffering on the offender. It is essential that the offender should be
forcibly made to suffer and that society is justified in making him suffer.
Punishment is a form of disapproval for certain behaviors that is followed by
imposing a penalty. Punishment makes the offender stigmatized and penalized.
The offender may or may not actually suffer, under the intentional application of
punishment, depending on the circumstances it is applied and the toughness of the
individual offender.

FORMS OF PUNISHMENT
The forms of punishment Death penalty was Corporal
punishment was Public humiliation and in primitive society were: carried out by
inflicted the offender by shaming were
effected by
Page 7 of 17
1. Death penalty 1. hanging 1. Flogging 1. the use of stocks
2. Corporal 2. burning 2. Mutilation and pillory
punishment 3. immersing in 3. Disfiguration 2. docking stool
3. Public boiling oil 4. Maiming. 3. branding
4. feeding to 4. shaving off the
humiliation and wild hair, etc.
shaming animals
4. Banishment. 5. other barbaric ways.

Page 8 of 17
Justifications of Punishment

The theories or justifications of punishment vary from one stage of

civilization to another. The most common justifications of punishment are
retribution, expiation or atonement, deterrence, protection and reformation.

Retribution

In primitive days punishment of the transgressor was carried out in the form
of personal vengeance. Since there were no written laws and no courts, the victim
of a crime was allowed to obtain his redress in the way he saw fit. Oftentimes, the
retaliatory act resulted to infliction of greater injury or loss than the original crime,
so that the latter victim was perforce afforded his revere. Punishment therefore
became unending vendetta between the offender and the victim. Later, an attempt
was made to limit the retaliation to the degree of injury inflicted, thus the
philosophy of “an eye for an eye” evolved. During this period nearly all offenses
that are now included in criminal codes as public crimes, were considered private
offenses for which the victims were allowed their redress through personal
vengeance.

There were a few offenses, however, which were regarded as crimes

committed against the native gods. People being then superstitious, believed that
any catastrophe that befell the group was a retaliation of an offended god. In order
to appease the offended god, the social group or clan demanded that the
supposed offended be banished or put to death. Witchcraft was considered a
public crime and person suspected of being a witch was tortured, banished or put
to death.

Expiation or Atonement

This theory or justification of punishment was also advocated during the

pre-historic days. A sort of common understanding and sympathetic feeling
developed in the group. An offense committed by a member against another
member of the same clan or group aroused the condemnation of the whole
group against the offending member.

The group would therefore demand that the offender be punished. When
punishment is exacted visibly or publicly for the purpose of appeasing the social
group, the element of expiation is present. Expiation is therefore, group vengeance
as distinguish from retribution which is personal vengeance. Punishing the

Page 9 of 17
offender gives the community a sense of its moral superiority, an assurance that
virtue is rewarded after all. Hostile action against the offender brings about
cohesiveness in society. Corporal punishment in most modern countries has been
abolished and the application of punishment has tended to be withdrawn from the
public eye. Some segments of society, however, still cling to the belief wrong doing
or in order that punishment be punishment.

Deterrence

It is commonly believed that punishment gives a lesson to the offender;

that it shows other what would happen if they violate the law; and that punishment
holds crime in check. This is the essence of deterrence as a justification for
punishment.

Cesare Beccaria, an exponent of the Classical School of Criminology and

whose writings at the end of the 18th century renovated the punitive justice system
of Europe, contended that the intent of punishment should not be to torture the
criminal or to undo the crime (expiation) but to “prevent others from committing a
like offense”. He advocated the theory that “a punishment should have only that
degree of severity which is sufficient to deter others. It is doubtful if punishment is
as the proponents think. In one New England state during the 18th Century, theft
was punishable by whipping the offender in the public plaza. The purpose of
whipping the thief within the public view was to deter others from committing the
same offense. Public whipping, however, did not diminish the incidence of the theft
in that state.
In England during the 18th century, pick pocketing was one of fifty offenses
punishable by hanging. The offender was hanged on a Sunday afternoon in order
to draw the largest number of spectators. The hanging would be preceded by a
brass band playing in the morning until in the afternoon. On this occasion,
thousands of spectators would mill their way in the crowd to obtain better view of
the victim at the condemned man was executed. On this same occasion
professional pick pocketers were busy plying their trade in the crowd. The
multitude that came to view the hanging were there to see how the offenders
withstood their fate, how callous they were, and how they would react to the jeers
and chastisement of the crowd. In some instances punishment undoubtedly has a
deterring effect. For the great mass of infractions of the law, however, the fear of
punishment does not enter into the causation.

The conception of deterrence presumes that the person thinks before he

acts and that all he has to do is to think of the consequences and then he will be
deterred. Actually this is not so because offenders commit crimes without the fear

Page 10 of 17
 of punishment uppermost in their minds. There are certain types of offenders who
could not be deterred by the fear of punishment, namely, the behavior of the
moment type involved in crimes of anger and passion; and the type of offender
whose antisocial behavior is connected with his personality pattern and is part of
his approach to life as exemplified by the psychopathic offender and the neurotic
offender.

There is no doubt, however, that some types of offenders, particularly first

offenders, can be stigmatized by the lightest form of punishment. To others more
inured in crime; going in and out of penal institutions does not deter.

Protection

Protection as a justification of punishment came after prisons, were fully

established. People believe that by putting the offender in prison, society is
protected from his further criminal depredation. If this were so, vicious and society
is protected from his further criminal depredation. If this were so, vicious and
dangerous criminals should be made to serve long terms of imprisonment.
Recidivism and habitual delinquency laws are expected to attain this end.

How effective is protection as justification of punishment? Or how effective

is imprisonment as a means of protecting the community against crime?

According to statistics, the prison population of the Federal Bureau of

Prisons and the Correctional Departments of Minnesotta and Washington DC
represent a very insignificant portion (only 3.5%) of the whole criminal population.
Ninety-six and five tenth percent (96.5%) of crimes reported to the police remain at
large. These figures do not include crimes not reported to the police, the volume of
which is unknown. Therefore, from these data we can conclude that imprisonment
cannot protect society from crime. Even if all convicted offenders were kept in
prison for life, still the 96.5% who are at large will continue to plague society. Also,
imprisonment as an end of punishment is not tenable because prisoners are
released within a short period of confinement. Statistics show that their average
stay inside prison is from three to five years, after which they are again ready to
commit further crimes.

Reformation

This is the latest justification of punishment. Under this theory, society can
best be protected from crime if the purpose of imprisonment is to reform or
rehabilitate the prisoner. Advocates of this theory contend that since punishment

Page 11 of 17
 does not deter; in as much as imprisonment does not protect society from further
commission of crimes because the greater portion of the criminal population is at
large; and because prisoners stay in prison for a short time, from 3 to 5 years only,
society’s interest can best be served by helping the prisoner become a law-abiding
and productive citizen upon his return to the community by making him undergo an
intensive program of rehabilitation in prison.
Theoretically, imprisonment for reformation is sound, but practically,
rehabilitation is difficult to achieve. Some prisoners are reformed, but about 50%
get relapses. Failure to reform prisoners may be due to poor administration of the
reformatory program, or it may lie in the make-up of the criminal population.

Probation, which is a substitute for imprisonment, and parole which an early

release from prison, are intended to reform the offender. A new concept of
correctional administration has developed, thus reformation and rehabilitation are
now thought of as “treatment”. Treatment through institutional programs and
through probation and parole services is the modern version of reformation and
rehabilitation.

LIMITATIONS OF PUNISHMENT

Punishment has certain limitations on the offender, in spite of the above-enumerated

justifications, are:

1. Punishment makes the criminal cautious about concealing his criminal

activities
2. Stigmatizes him and isolates him from society; makes him a martyr or a
hero; and develops in him an antisocial grudge and a strong resentment of
authority.
3. Punishment on the other hand does not deter; does not repair damage to
society; or reconstruct the personality of the offender.

Trends of Punishment

The principal trends of punishment are in the development of exemptions,

pardon, and communications; the decline in the severity of punishment; the growth
of imprisonment and its modifications; good time allowances; indeterminate
sentences; suspended sentence and probation, conditional release, parole, short
sentences, and fines.

Exemptions of Punishment

The basis for exemptions is usually social. In Europe, Kings and Rulers in
ancient and early modern society could do no wrong. Upper classmen were often

Page 12 of 17
 times exempted from criminal liability for offences, which caused the commoner
long imprisonment or death penalty.

Most countries today do not punish offenders for absence of “mens rea”,
that is absence of a guilty mind or lack of criminal intent. The right of sanctuary
was practiced in the early Christian era. The benefit of clergy was originally given
to clerics who did not wear ecclesiastical robes from being tried by lay courts but
only by ecclesiastical courts. Latter the privilege was extended to anyone who
could read and write. Age of the offender was another basis for exemption from
criminal responsible. Under juvenile delinquents are not legally classified as
criminals.

The mental condition of the offender is another basis for exemption

from criminal responsibility. The M’Naghtan case of England (1843) held the
opinion that an offender is to be considered sane and responsible until is proven
that he was insane at the act was committed, and therefore, could not have known
right from wrong. This doctrine holds true in every progressive country today.
Reformist would want the criminal insane, such as the criminal psychopaths and
criminal neurotics, handled by special laws and procedures in courts and to
provide specialized mental institutions for their care. There is now a move that in
cases where the plea is “ no responsibility” because of insanity or mental
disturbance, juries should be concerned only with the problems of establishing guilt
and that a panel of experts appointed by the courts; should determine the
disposition to be made of the case.

References:
Anggay D. Abdullah Jr. Therapeutic Modalities Module. Available at Ca 3
Final Modules - PDFCOFFEE.COM .

Reyes, Luis B. Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book 1. 2017 Edition. Rex
Book Store, Quezon City.

Page 13 of 17
 GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS FOR THE VICTIMS

1. Republic Act No. 6981

"The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act", seeks to encourage

a person who has witnessed or has knowledge of the commission of a crime to
testify before a court or quasi-judicial body, or before an investigating authority, by
protecting him from reprisals and from economic dislocation.

Who can be admitted into the Program?

 Any person who has knowledge of or information on the commission of a
crime and has testified or is testifying or is willing to testify.
 A witness in a congressional investigation, upon the recommendation of the
legislative committee where his testimony is needed and with the approval
of the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as
the case may be.
 A witness who participated in the commission of a crime and who desires to
be a State witness.
 An accused who is discharged from an information or criminal complaint by
the court in order that he may be a State witness.

Who are disqualified for admission into the Program?

An applicant will not be admitted into the program if:
 the offense in which his testimony will be used is not a grave felony;
 his testimony cannot be substantially corroborated in its material
points;
 he or any member of his family within the second degree of
consanguinity or affinity has not been threatened with death or
bodily injury or there is no likelihood that he will be killed, forced,
intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying or
to testify falsely or evasively because or on account of his
testimony; and
 if the applicant is a law enforcement officer even if he will testify
against other law enforcement officers. The immediate members of
the applicant may, however, be admitted into the program.

IMPORTANT!

1. Witness protection, security and benefit program is different from the State
Witness Rule (SWR) under the Rules of Court. The concept of witness protection
program is expanded that it covers congressional proceedings/investigation. Unlike

Page 14 of 17
SWR, covers only judicial proceedings.

2. Law Enforcement Officer is disqualified to avail the program. The rationale for
this is that it is the avowed duty of said officer to testify regarding commission of the
crime he has witnessed. There is no need to incentivized him considering that it his duty
after all.

What benefits may a witness under the Program receive?

The benefits include the following:

 Security protection and escort services.
 Immunity from criminal prosecution and not to be subjected to any
penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning
his compelled testimony or books, documents or writings
produced.
 Secure housing facility.
 Assistance in obtaining a means of livelihood.
 Reasonable traveling expenses and subsistence allowance while
acting as a witness.
 Free medical treatment, hospitalization and medicine for any
injury or illness incurred or suffered while acting as a witness.
 Burial benefits of not less than Ten Thousand pesos (P10,000.00)
if the witness is killed because of his participation in the Program.
 Free education from primary to college level for the minor or
dependent children of a witness who dies or is permanently
incapacitated.
 Non-removal or demotion in work because of absences due to his
being a witness and payment of full salary or wage while acting as
witness.

2. Republic Act No. 7309

law creating the Board of Claims under the Department of Justice granting
compensation for victims of unjust imprisonment or detention and victims of violent
crimes.

What is the rationale for the enactment of the law?

One of the more vexing problems in the area of justice and human rights is
the implementation of the constitutional provision against the deprivation of life,
liberty and property without due process of law. Persons have been accused and
imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, only to be subsequently acquitted.
Government and society have become notably indifferent to victims of crimes and
criminals. A judicial way of filing a claim for compensation may be too long.
Congress opted for an administrative procedure of filing the claims by creating the

Page 15 of 17
 Board of Claims.

Who may apply for compensation?

 A person who was unjustly accused convicted and imprisoned and

subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal;
 A person who was unjustly detained and released without being charged;
 A person who is a victim of arbitrary detention by the authorities as defined
in the Revised Penal Code under a final judgment of the court; or
 A person who is a victim of a violent crime which includes rape and offenses
committed with malice which resulted in death or serious physical and/or
psychological injuries, permanent incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion,
serious trauma, or committed with torture, cruelty or barbarity.

IMPORTANT!
Take note that this is just an administrative claim. This is different and distinct from that
compensation for damages that may be awarded by court in the process which is
judicial in nature.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10368

“An act providing for reparation and recognition of victims of human rights
violation during the Marcos Regime, documentation of said violations, appropriating
funds therefor and for other purposes”

RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.--A crime victim has the following rights:

(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.

(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or
escape of the accused.
(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding,
unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that
testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other
testimony at that proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district
court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the
case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity
and privacy.
(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred

Page 16 of 17
 prosecution agreement.
(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services
described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims'
Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice.

Page 17 of 17