IN THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY, POLICYMAKERS OPTED NOT TO ALLOW VICTIMS TO BE HEARD IN CRIMINAL CASES OR TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS THEMSELVES ('CIVIL ACTION') WHEN A JUDGE HAD DECIDED NOT TO INSTITUTE ACTION. THE POSSIBILITY OF BRINGING CIVIL SUIT FOR DAMAGES WAS REJECTED, IN PART BECAUSE LAWMAKERS FEARED THAT VICTIMS WOULD BE TEMPTED TO LIE ON THE WITNESS STAND BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL MONETARY GAIN. AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION, VICTIMS COULD ONLY TURN TO THE JUDGE WHEN THE PROSECUTOR UNJUSTLY DECIDED NOT TO PROSECUTE A CASE. EVEN THE REPORT OF A 1976 COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM SHOWS LITTLE INCLINATION TO INVOLVE THE VICTIMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND EMPHASIZES THAT CRIMINAL PROCEDURES ARE NOT INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR COMPENSATING DAMAGES TO VICTIMS. THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS DECIDES WHAT DAMAGES HAVE RESULTED FROM THE OFFENSE. AS COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES IS SECONDARY TO CRIMINAL ACTION, RULES FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARE DOMINANT AND SUPERCEDE CIVIL RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE APPLICABLE RULES OF EVIDENCE DERIVE PRINCIPALLY FROM THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: THE VICTIM AS PLAINTIFF CAN BE HEARD AS A WITNESS UNDER OATH. THE CIVIL DEMANDS ARE SETTLED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE CRIMINAL MATTER, AND THE VICTIM HAS NO INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO APPEAL. THE PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING DAMAGES IN FRANCE, BELGIUM, AND WEST GERMANY ALL ALLOW VICTIMS TO BRING SUIT THEMSELVES, ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES DIFFER FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY AND HAVE MET WITH VARYING DEGREES OF SUCCESS. BEFORE VICTIMS CAN BE GIVEN MORE OF A ROLE IN DUTCH COURT PROCEEDINGS, BASIC CHANGES MUST BE MADE IN LEGAL PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE UNTIL NOW STUBBORNLY RESISTED MODIFICATION. NOTES ARE SUPPLIED.