For the state, the conviction of the perpetrator marks the closure of the crime story; however, the same does not apply to those directly affected by the criminal act. Victims often struggle to move on, and, in order to heal, many of them need to let the perpetrator know how much they have been hurt, ask them various questions to which they cannot get answers during the court proceedings, and see them sincerely take responsibility for their actions. A face-to-face meeting with the perpetrator in the presence of a trained mediator provides opportunity to do so. However, the idea of implementing alternative dispute resolution methods in criminal law in the Republic of Croatia is still not widely accepted. Skeptics of this approach cite fear of compromising the rights of participants and minimizing the perpetrator's actions as the main reasons for persisting with the traditional criminal court proceeding. On the other hand, arguments put forward by supporters of restorative processes mostly relate to the need for greater involvement of primary stakeholders in the process, emphasizing the victim's needs and relationship restoration. For this reason, the question this paper focused on was: "Can mediation be an acceptable alternative to traditional criminal justice, and what are its advantages?" With that purpose, a literature review was conducted, leading to the conclusion that a meeting between the victim and the perpetrator during mediation can be very beneficial and have a profound impact on both sides. However, since there are also some downsides to this approach, the paper outlines them and provides recommendations on how to overcome them.