Page 11 of 42 103 Minn. L. Rev. 844, *862 Under the criminal justice systems of all other major common law countries and nearly all European states, victims' rights also include authority to challenge prosecutors’ decisions not to prosecute, either by a limited right to initiate prosecutions as private parties or by enabling victims to trigger judicial or [*863] administrative review of noncharging decisions. °* By contrast, nearly every U.S. jurisdiction rejects these mechanisms. State and federal laws consistently avoid permitting victims any power to challenge or encroach on public prosecutorial authority. Federal law, for example, explicitly dictates that "nothing in this [victims' rights] chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." ©? State statutes manifest the same policy in various ways, such as by prohibiting legal remedies for violations of participation rights they create. °+ U.S. laws limit victims’ participation to "non-dispositive" forms, such as providing information and personal statements to prosecutors, judges, and parole boards, which facilitates victims' influence on public officials' decisionmaking. ® But state and federal policy rejects enlisting victims as "agents of accountability" for public prosecution. °° In U.S. jurisdictions and elsewhere, the conceptual innovation of victims' rights laws was to recognize victims’ distinct private [*864] interests in public criminal litigation. Most rights are specific entitlements to advance victims' broader, dignitary right to be "treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity." ©’ These provisions conceive of victims as "agents of individual rights" and "independent from systemic interests," and their interests can either conflict or align with those of law enforcement. ° At the same time, victim participation rights can also be understood to serve a broader public interest in procedural outcomes, on th