*This article is part of the series When Corruption Affects Us: Reflections on Victims’ Participation in the Fight Against Corruption in Latin America.
In recent years, different sectors have advocated for the integration of a human rights perspective into the fight against corruption. Through this lens, corruption is not merely an administrative misstep or an economic offense: it is a phenomenon that undermines fundamental rights, deepens inequalities, weakens democratic institutions, and limits equitable access to essential public services.
For this reason, the state’s response cannot be limited to the criminal punishment of those responsible. It must also include full reparation for victims, active participation by civil society, and effective accountability mechanisms. This approach has been strongly promoted by various organizations at the regional level, but it also finds concrete legal support within the Dominican legal framework.
This article offers a reflection on the legal and jurisprudential tools that allow—and in many cases require—the direct participation of victims and social organizations in criminal proceedings related to corruption in the Dominican Republic, and puts forward several judicial policy suggestions to strengthen that participation.
A Legal Framework that Allows and Requires Active Participation
The Dominican Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates the possibility for victims to formally participate in the criminal process through the figure of actor civil (civil party), regulated in Articles 118 and following. This mechanism grants victims the ability to exercise their own actions, such as offering evidence, requesting investigative measures, participating in hearings, filing appeals, and demanding material and moral reparations for the harm suffered.
But a particularly relevant aspect arises when dealing with acts of corruption committed by public officials. Article 85, paragraph 3, states: “In punishable acts committed by public officials, in the exercise of their functions or in connection with them, and in human rights violations, any person may file a criminal complaint.”
This provision opens an extraordinary door for citizen participation in the fight against corruption. It does not require being a direct victim, which implicitly recognizes the collective or diffuse nature of the harm caused by corrupt acts.
This criminal framework is complemented by important constitutional provisions. Article 146 of the Constitution, under the title Prohibition of Corruption, expressly declares:
“All forms of corruption in state institutions are condemned. Consequently: 1. Transparency in the exercise of public functions is mandatory; 2. Those who manage public funds must be accountable; 3. Any act of corruption harming public property shall be sanctioned; 4. The State shall adopt measures to prevent and sanction corruption and recover what has been taken.”
This norm enshrines a clear constitutional mandate for prevention, sanction, and reparation in the face of acts of administrative corruption. Even more, it grounds the right of citizens to demand not only criminal sanctions but also the recovery of diverted public assets and the repair of harm done to the public interest.
Article 148 of the Constitution complements the above by establishing a regime of civil liability derived from unlawful administrative actions:
“Public legal entities and their officials or agents shall be jointly and severally liable, in accordance with the law, for damages caused to individuals or legal entities by an unlawful administrative act or omission.”
This constitutional principle guarantees the right to reparation, reinforcing the legitimacy of claiming it from the State and its representatives, particularly in cases of corruption that harm public assets and the fundamental rights of the collective. It also provides the basis for arguing that civil actions for collective or diffuse harm caused by corruption must have an effective procedural channel, both in criminal jurisdiction and in administrative litigation.
Relevant Jurisprudence
In the Díaz Rúa case, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic had the opportunity to pronounce on the scope of citizen participation in criminal proceedings for corruption. In Judgment TC/0009/18, issued in the case against former Minister of Public Works Víctor Díaz Rúa, the court reaffirmed the right of complainants to actively participate in the criminal process, even during critical phases such as the preliminary hearing.
This precedent is key because it recognizes the standing of organized citizen groups to intervene in complex criminal proceedings—whether independently or in adhesion to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. It reinforces the idea of a criminal justice system open to public oversight and rejects restrictive criteria that have sometimes sought to limit the procedural participation of organizations or individuals who were not “directly affected.”
The decision represents a protective constitutional interpretation aligned with Inter-American human rights standards, particularly the principles of access to justice and victims’ rights to be heard and repaired.
Toward Truly Integral Reparation
Comparative experience shows that one of the main deficits in the criminal prosecution of corruption is the scarce or nonexistent implementation of measures to repair victims. Often, proceedings end with convictions that are symbolic or suspended, without ensuring recovery of the embezzled public funds or compensation for the social harm generated.
In this context, it is urgent to move toward a model of integral reparation in which individual or collective victims can receive a response proportional to the harm suffered.
This may include:
– Restitution of embezzled public funds or assets acquired with illicit money;
– Measures of symbolic satisfaction, such as public apologies or exemplary sanctions;
– Guarantees of non-repetition through structural reforms, disqualification of corrupt officials, or institutional strengthening;
– Direct compensation, particularly when corrupt acts affected essential services such as health, education, or public infrastructure.
The figure of actor civil, combined with the expanded standing under Article 85 and the constitutional principle of state patrimonial responsibility under Article 148, provides a clear legal route to articulate these demands.
Policy Recommendations for the Judiciary
From my role as First Deputy Ombudsman and Head of Strategic Litigation, I propose the following lines of action to strengthen the human rights approach in the fight against corruption:
– Promote reforms or procedural practices that support effective participation of victims and civil society in corruption-related criminal proceedings, from preliminary investigation through sentencing.
– Encourage judicial criteria that recognize the collective nature of harm caused by corruption and ensure the admission of citizen or human rights organization complainants.
– Incentivize systematic use of the actor civil mechanism in corruption cases, ensuring that judges impose clear and proportional reparation obligations.
– Develop institutional coordination mechanisms among the Public Prosecutor’s Office, victims, and complainant organizations to enable more efficient, coherent, and transformative litigation.
– Acknowledge recent institutional advances, such as the sitting President’s decision to create a special commission of attorneys tasked with recovering public assets diverted through corruption. This commission represents an important step toward material reparation but must be complemented with a restorative justice approach including symbolic, structural, and non-repetition measures.
– Socialize and disseminate key precedents such as Judgment TC/0009/18 to strengthen legal culture around citizen participation in criminal oversight of public power.
Conclusion
Corruption is, in many ways, a structural form of violence against human rights. Fighting it effectively requires opening the criminal justice system to active citizen participation and ensuring that victims are heard, repaired, and empowered.
The Dominican legal and constitutional framework offers valuable tools to achieve this; the challenge is to use them decisively and strategically. As an actor committed to the defense of fundamental rights, I believe that strengthening this perspective is not only a legal imperative but also a democratic necessity.