Informal Justice Systems Summary

informal justice systems
charting a course for human rights-based engagement
a summary
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the
United Nations, including UNDP, UNICEF, UN Women, or the UN Member States. The research and analysis in the
publication was conducted solely by the author(s); neither United Nations Member States, nor agencies of the
UN system, including UNDP, UNICEF, and UN Women, are in a position to verify the information contained within
the study.
Copyright of UNDP, UNICEF and UN Women.

informal justice systems
charting a course for human rights-based engagement
A Summary
This Publication is a Summary of The Study, Informal Justice Systems:

Charting a Course for Human Rights-Based Engagement.
The full version of the study is available at: www.unicef.org/protection/INFORMAL_JUSTICE_SYSTEMS.pdf

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/access_to_
justiceandruleoflaw/informal-justice-systems.html
List of abbreviations
Summary
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution KSOL Kathmandu School of Law (Nepal)

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development LADA Law and Development Association (Zambia)
BLAST Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust LC Local Council
CBO Community-Based Organisation MHRC Malawi Human Rights Commission
CCJP Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace MGEP Mainstreaming Gender Equity Programme
(Malawi) (Nepal)
CEDAW onvention on the Elimination of All Forms of
C MLAA Madaripur Legal Aid Association (Bangladesh)
Discrimination Against Women NEB National Equality Body
CIDTP Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or NGO Non-Governmental Organization
Punishment (see UNCAT)
NHRI National Human Rights Institution
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
NRM National Resistance Movement
CS Civil Society
NSJS Non-State Justice Systems
CVICT Centre for Victims of Torture (Nepal)
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency and Development
DFID United Kingdom Department for PASI Paralegal Advisor Service Institute (PASI)
International Development
PNG Papua New Guinea
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
PRI Penal Reform International
EPWDA Eastern Province Woman Development Association
(Zambia) PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
FGM Female Genital Mutilation SALRC South African Law Reform Commission
FJS Formal Justice System SWAP Sector Wide Approach
FRELIMO The Liberation Front of Mozambique (Frente de ToR Terms of Reference

Libertação de Moçambique) UAE United Arab Emirates
GBV Gender-Based Violence UDHR The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
GJLOS Kenya Governance Justice Law and Order Sector UK The United Kingdom
(reform programme)
UN The United Nations
GTZ German Society for Technical Coopera-
UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
tion (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit) UNCAT United Nations Convention Against Torture
HRBA Human Rights-Based Approach UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance
Framework
HRC Human Rights Council
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
HURIPEC Human Rights and Peace Centre (Uganda)
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and
ICC International Criminal Court
Cultural Organization
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
UN HABITAT The United Nations Human Settlements
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Programme
Cultural Rights
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
ICHRP International Council on Human Rights Policy
UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women
ICTJ International Center for Transitional Justice
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
UP Union Parishad (Bangladesh)
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the
UPR Universal Periodic Review
former Yugoslavia
USIP United States Institute of Peace
IJS Informal Justice Systems
VAW Violence Against Women
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation
VMP Village Mediation Project (Malawi)
ILO International Labour Organisation
WLUML Women Living Under Muslim Laws
JSC Judicial Service Commission
VSU Victim Support Unit
JLOS Justice Law and Order Sector
YWCA Young Women’s Christian Association
JSDP Justice Sector Development Programme
(Sierra Leone)
4 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

SUMMARY
summary
A. Placing Informal Justice Systems in Context
Until recently, informal justice systems (IJS) were relatively invisible in development partner-assisted justice inter-
ventions. Yet, IJS form a key part of individuals’ and communities’ experience of justice and the rule of law, with over
80 percent of disputes resolved through informal justice mechanisms in some countries.1 IJS may be more acces-
sible than formal mechanisms and may have the potential to provide quick, relatively inexpensive and culturally
relevant remedies. Given this central role and increasing government and partnering donor interest in IJS, it is key
to build an understanding of IJS and how best to engage with them for the strengthening of human rights, the
rule of law and access to justice.
In many countries, there is a prevalence of IJS, which demands that governments and development partners
take these systems more seriously, especially with regard to IJS and women’s and children’s rights. This does not
mean that development organizations should promote IJS at the expense of a functioning unitary legal order
or that they should oppose the existence of IJS. Rather, it is recognition that IJS are an empirical reality, albeit a
complicated one.
At the same time, growing numbers of countries are requesting UN assistance to engage with IJS and strengthen
their ability to provide justice and legal protection. The UN’s approach to engagement on rule of law and access
to justice is as an effort to ensure international norms and standards for all who come into contact with the formal
and informal justice system, including victims, witnesses or alleged offenders. IJS are complex and deeply varied;
many drawing their normative structures and legitimacy from the local communities and society in which they
operate. The UN does not presume that engagement with IJS can adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Like all legal
mechanisms, IJS function within changing societies and communities and can be responsive to the particular
individual circumstances of a case in the application of cultural norms.
The obligation to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, including through the provision of justice and legal
remedies, extends to formal and informal systems alike. Both types of justice systems can violate human rights,
reinforce discrimination, and neglect principles of procedural fairness. IJS in many contexts deal with issues that
have a direct bearing on the best interests of women and children, such as issues of customary marriage, custody,
dissolution of marriage, inheritance and property rights. The operative questions surrounding IJS and the rights
of women and children are significant. While it is especially important to note that the structures, procedures and
substantive decisions of some IJS neither safeguard nor promote women’s rights and children’s rights, the exist-
ence of IJS does not of itself contravene international human rights principles. Indeed, IJS can provide avenues for
the delivery of justice and the protection of human rights, particularly where formal justice systems lack capacity,
and IJS can enjoy widespread community legitimacy and support.
The study seeks to identify how engagement with IJS can build greater respect and protection for human rights.
It highlights the considerations that development partners should have when assessing whether to implement
programmes involving IJS, the primary consideration being that engagement with the IJS neither directly nor
inadvertently reinforces existing societal or structural discrimination – a consideration that applies to working
with formal justice systems as well. The study also examines the value of IJS in offering, in certain contexts, flexible
structures and processes, cost-effectiveness and outreach to grassroots communities.
1 Wojkowska, Ewa 2006: How Informal Justice Systems can contribute, Oslo: United Nations Development Programme, Oslo
Governance Centre.
A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 5

In structure, this summary of the study, first describes IJS across the range of degrees of formality and informality
Summary
and interaction with the state. It identifies the combination of factors that influence individuals’ or communities’
preferences and pressures to bring matters before IJS rather than before formal justice systems. These factors influ-
encing preferences for IJS vary from geographical isolation, economic concerns, familiarity, trust and the percep-
tion that IJS better reflect local values. It then places IJS in the context of human rights, with particular attention
to the rights of women and children. Finally, it frames the principles of programming engagement with IJS and
suggests possible entry points for engagement with IJS, so that strategic engagement can strengthen IJS to better
deliver justice and human rights.
Methodology
Commissioned by UNDP, UNICEF and UN Women, the study involved a comprehensive literature review and
country-specific case studies. Qualitative and quantitative data collection was carried out in Bangladesh, Ecua-
dor, Malawi, Niger, Papua New Guinea and Uganda. The country studies were selected in consultation with the
three UN agencies and the methodology was developed through a pilot case study in Malawi. The country stud-
ies employed a uniform methodology, and all of the country studies use identical or very similar categories of
analysis. Interviews were conducted with individuals and groups representing various stakeholders at the local
and national levels on the basis of an interview guide developed for each of the target categories. The quantitative
part of the country studies included surveys for users of informal justice and informal justice providers, following a
generic questionnaire format that allowed comparison across countries.
Desk studies of 12 countries were also conducted on the basis of literature from academia, UN agencies, NGOs,
governments, websites and conferences. Wherever possible, they were developed in consultation with national
experts on the informal and the formal justice systems, including scholars and human rights experts. The desk
studies assessed the nature and characteristics of IJS (composition, decision-making, procedures), linkages among
the different justice providers (particularly with formal justice systems), legal frameworks, human rights aspects
and efforts made to date in programming by governments, national and international NGOs, the UN and other
development partners.
Definitions of Informal Justice Systems

Any attempt to define IJS must acknowledge that no definition can be both very precise and sufficiently broad to
encompass the range of systems and mechanisms that play a role in delivering rule of law and access to justice.
IJS vary considerably, encompassing many mechanisms of differing degrees and forms of formality. Degrees of
formality vary with respect to legal or normative framework, state recognition, appointment and interaction,
control and accountability mechanisms, and systems of monitoring and supervision, including the maintenance
of case records and the implementation of referral procedures. IJS also encompass systems that might have formal
state recognition, such as alternative dispute resolution that operate at the community level, either facilitated by
traditional mechanisms or facilitated by NGOs.
The study employs a relatively broad definition of ‘informal justice system’ encompassing the resolution of disputes
and the regulation of conduct by adjudication or the assistance of a neutral third party that is not a part of the judi-
ciary as established by law and/or whose substantive, procedural or structural foundation is not primarily based
on statutory law.
In some settings, the word ‘informal’ may carry value-laden assessments, according to which a system may be
held in lower esteem because of the ‘informal’ label. The study uses the word with no such value judgments. It
is used rather than the term ‘non-state’ justice systems, as there are many forms of IJS that are tolerated, partially

state-linked or recognized along the formal-informal continuum. For example, customary courts or local courts
summary
are categorized as IJS, but are regulated under specific legislation, have a state-determined procedure for appoint-
ments, and may be attached to the judiciary.2 Such courts seek to gain community legitimacy through their roots
in a history of justice provision prior to the existence of the modern state or through their claim to draw on the
local norms and customs of a specific locality of the country. The study looks at a wide range of systems outside
classic state structures that include hybrid models of customary, religious and state-run ‘parajudicial’ systems.
However, the study does not consider systems for the maintenance of law and order and local security nor the
administration of rules by commercial or professional organizations.
The study distinguishes among informal justice mechanisms anchored in (i) customary and tribal/clan social struc-
tures, (ii) religious authorities, (iii) local administrative authorities, (iv) specially constituted state customary courts,
and (v) community forums specially trained in conflict resolution, particularly in mediation. Types (iii) and (iv) often
present a hybrid (parajudicial) model where officials of a state system apply customary norms. Nevertheless, these
rough distinctions do not fully capture reality, which contains varying mixtures of these elements in which, for
example, customary and administrative authority are combined.
This typology is used as a framework to examine IJS, looking at the composition of dispute resolution bodies, their
relationship to the state, the jurisdictional limits and substantive norms applied, typical processes used to resolve
disputes and the binding or voluntary nature of outcomes.
Linkages between Formal and Informal Justice Systems

The nature of IJS and the extent to which they are incorporated into formal systems largely depends on the histori-
cal circumstances of each country. The legal system inherited from a colonial power and the new legal and state
system established during decolonization influenced the role and status of customary law and IJS as well as the
interaction between the IJS and the formal justice system.
In most countries, there are functional linkages between state justice providers and IJS’ providers. State law may
define such linkages and provide for official forms of collaboration (including appeal procedures, referrals, division
of labour, advice, assistance and so forth), but, even where this is not the case, there are often various forms of
unofficial collaboration. There may also be the possibility of appeal to a court in the formal system and, in some
circumstances, this could be precisely what renders it possible for people to trust informal mechanisms of justice.
Thus, the formal system can exert influence even where its mechanisms are not directly invoked. Linkages may
also be negative, with competition over jurisdiction including overt opposition or even hostility. Aside from func-
tional linkages, there are instances of overlaps or ‘borrowing’ of norms, rules and procedures between IJS and state
providers. Such norm and rule-based linkages may derive from long histories of interaction and coexistence. They
point to the changeability and adaptability of different primary justice providers and/or to their interdependency.
The origins of the existence and tolerance of IJS are many and varied. Tolerating IJS or incorporating traditional,
customary or religious law into formal systems may be a way for the state to accommodate different religious or
ethnic traditions in a single state. It may also allow the state to regulate non-state or customary justice providers
by, for example, limiting their scope of jurisdiction by defining tradition or custom as applying only to certain
domains. The concept may also be invoked by IJS’ providers claiming knowledge of custom as a source of authority
and spaces of power as compared to state officials.
2 Examples of such structures are local courts in Sierra Leone and Zambia, the Village Courts in Papua New Guinea and the
Community Courts in Mozambique

IJS deal with many cases that could have been brought to formal court. The study surveyed users’ preferences and
Summary
choices of system (preference between IJS or formal system), as well as the profiles of the individuals in the IJS who
adjudicate, mediate and make decisions in the IJS. In the analysis of the data gathered, gender was included as a
variable in all cross tabulations.
Explanations for individual preferences of system combine a number of factors, ranging from the in/effectiveness
and popular il/legitimacy of the formal justice system, to power relations and social pressure. The study posits eight
significant, partly interrelated aspects that can influence people’s choices and uses of IJS. (See box 1)
Box 1: Factors Influencing People’s Choices and Uses of

Informal Justice Systems
1. In/effectiveness and popular il/legitimacy of the formal justice system: This could include the geograph-
ical distance and costs of access to the system as well as outcomes inappropriate for local preferences.
There could also be a perception of corruption or of discrimination in the formal system against a
particular community, causing people to question the legitimacy of the formal system itself.
2. IJS case settlement procedures: This involves a preference for less formalized settlement procedures,
such as voluntary participation and the reaching of decisions on the basis of mutual consent.
3. IJS case settlement outcomes: The emphasis by many IJS on reconciliation, restoration, compensation
and reintegration is preferred over the custodial sanctions that dominate many formal criminal justice
systems.
4. Economic concerns: The emphasis of IJS on compensation as a symbol of reconciliation ensures that
the victims’ and offenders’ families do not become economically destitute. IJS are not always preferred
as the least expensive option; this depends on the context as some IJS charge fees.
5. Cultural, religious and/or customary beliefs and practices: The perception that IJS’ procedures and
substantive norms, compared to those of formal justice systems, are more in accordance with the local
cultures and the social relations of people. This is particularly so where the formal justice system is an
inheritance from the colonial past.
6. Habits or routines: A preference is based on individuals’ or communities’ long interaction with IJS for
dispute resolution.
7. Power relations and social pressure: Preferences might be based on community, structural or societal
pressures and on the view that certain systems support specific power relations associated with social
status and identities (age, gender, ethnicity, class).
8. Legitimacy and authority of IJS’ justice providers: Preference might be based on the individual or
community perception that a justice provider, such as a traditional leader or religious leader, has the
legitimate authority to adjudicate, decide or mediate a case.

B. Framing Informal Justice Systems in Human Rights Terms
summary
Providing accessible justice is a state obligation under international human rights standards, but this obligation
does not require that all justice be provided through formal justice systems. If done in ways to respect and uphold
human rights, the provision of justice through IJS is not against human rights standards and IJS can be a mecha-
nism to enhance the fulfilment of human rights obligations by delivering accessible justice to individuals and
communities where the formal justice system does not have the capacity or geographical reach.
Human rights obligations apply to IJS and states have an obligation to ensure the respect, protection and fulfil-
ment of human rights, including where IJS are the main provider of justice. Analysing IJS for human rights compli-
ance is complex. Both IJS and formal systems need to be analysed together in terms of their ability to deliver
human rights-compliant structures, procedures and outcomes. In some circumstances, the human rights defi-
ciencies will be common to the formal system and the IJS alike; in others, the IJS might show benefits over the
formal justice system. For example, IJS could be a positive tool to divert juveniles from the more retributive aspects
of formal criminal justice systems. Where there is limited or no access to formal juvenile justice mechanisms, IJS
can emphasize restorative justice that, seeking harmony in the local community, attempts to reintegrate young
offenders into the community.
Human rights standards offer the possibility of fairness in three dimensions of justice: structural, proce-
dural and normative. The structural dimension consists of participation and accountability. Particular attention
must be paid to the rights of groups not strongly represented in IJS, which include women, minorities and chil-
dren. Procedural justice consists of guidance for adjudication processes that ensure that the parties to a dispute
are treated equally, that their case is decided by a person with no interest in the case, who is obliged to render
a decision solely on the basis of facts and objective rules rather than on personal preferences, and that anyone
making an assertion or accusation must provide verifiable evidence to support it. Finally, normative justice consists
of substantive rules that protect the vulnerable. Examples include the prohibition against marrying off children for
the economic benefit of parents or guardians or the guarantee of the right of widows to inherit.
The human rights issues with respect to operation of IJS commonly involve decisions that are inconsistent with
basic human rights, such as cruel and inhuman forms of punishment, or decisions that perpetuate the subordina-
tion of women or the exploitation of children. Weaknesses in procedural justice also mean that IJS do not always
give the accused the chance to be heard or to be adequately represented. IJS can hold individuals accountable to
social collectivities and broader social interests.
The key question for engagement with IJS must be the provision of effective rights protection in the particular
context. In some countries formal justice mechanisms are inoperative or inaccessible to ordinary people, and are
unlikely to be able to fill the gap in the short and medium terms. In such contexts, IJS may be better placed to
achieve the principles of impartiality, accountability, participation and protection of substantive human rights.
It can be concluded that, in many contexts, the best access to justice and protection of human rights will be
afforded when the different systems and mechanisms, formal and informal, are allowed (a) to exchange with and
learn from one another, (b) to cooperate with one another, (c) to determine the best division of labour, guided by
user preferences as well as state policy imperatives, and (d) to develop in order to meet new challenges.

Women’s Rights
Summary
Discussion of respect for women’s rights often remains tethered to the notion of ‘balancing’ these rights with
culture and custom rather than taking a more dynamic and process-oriented view of culture. On the one hand,
deeply embedded attitudes are often linked to patterns of economic survival and ethnic, religious or social iden-
tity. Consequently, IJS, especially custom and religion-based IJS, are likely to uphold rather than to challenge the
values of the society around them, including attitudes and patterns of discrimination. On the other hand, the
flexible and adaptable approach of customary law can allow it to change in ways that reflect changing values in
society. The Human Rights Committee (HRC) notes that states should ensure that “traditional, historical, religious or
cultural attitudes are not used to justify violations of women’s rights to equality before the law and to equal enjoy-
ment of all Covenant rights.”3 Even if there is no clear state recognition of IJS or other delegation of state functions
to traditional chiefs, or enforcement or consideration of settlements reached through informal justice, the state
remains obliged under Article 2 of the CEDAW to extend protection.4 The HRC notes that inequality in the enjoy-
ment of rights by women is often deeply embedded in tradition, culture and religion, so that many frequently
occurring violations of women’s human rights originate from social custom, belief or practice rather than (or as well
as) from state law, and are perpetrated by individuals and social groups rather than by the state.
IJS affect the rights of women in diverse and context-specific ways. The study identified various ones
that include:
Access and procedure: This includes legal capacity and

Box 2. A DDRESSING BARRIERS TO
women’s right to a remedy as well as barriers to women as
WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE
witnesses or litigants. Many of the hindrances to women’s
There are many social, economic or procedural access to formal justice systems also apply to IJS, such as
factors that prevent women from bringing a the lack of access to economic and other resources, persis-
matter before IJS. The Malawi country study tent fear of intimidation, and victimization by officials such
describes how women were more likely to bring as members of the IJS or community members. While the
certain cases to village mediators (IJS facili- paucity or absence of procedural rules in IJS may facilitate
tated by NGOs) rather than to traditional chiefs women’s access and participation, this may also disadvan-
because mediation process offered confidential- tage women by permitting prejudice and creating condi-
ity, whereas the traditional IJS offered by local tions for the abuse of power. An additional procedural
chiefs involved public discussion of personal and barrier in IJS can be the potential lack of privacy and confi-
intimate matters. The prominence (or absence) dentiality, making women less willing to litigate personal
of women among the village mediators was also and intimate rights violations such as those related to
an important factor. domestic violence.
Women’s rights in the area of family life, including dissolution of marriage separation and/or divorce:
Some communities consider separation and divorce to be similar to the destruction of the social fabric and conse-
quently these matters are not administered by some IJS. Marital problems are resolved, if at all, through family and
community intervention. Several social pressures coerce women to remain silent about abuse in the family rather
than to seek the protection of any legal system. The study notes that, since the practice of polygamy or polygyny is
widespread in most regions where IJS also play a critical role in regulating family and marriage relations, there is not
always community recognition of the practice’s harmful economic and emotional consequences for women and
their children and its violation of women’s right to equality. Indirect ways to reduce the prevalence of this practice,
3 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 28, Equality of rights between men and women (article 3), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/
Rev.1/Add.10 (2000).
4 In the Americas, the Article 4 j) of the Belem do Para Convention stipulates that every woman has the right to equal access to the
public service of her country and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including decision-making. In Africa, Article 9 of the
Maputo Protocol deals with the equal right to participation, including through affirmative action. Thus, Article 9.2 provides that
States Parties shall “ensure increased and effective representation and participation of women at all levels of decision-making.”

such as measures to tackle child marriage, forced marriage, teenage pregnancy and discontinued schooling which
summary
are likely to affect rates of polygamy may produce the most positive results.
Women’s rights to property, including owning real property: Women’s access to land – often the most
important economic resource – is in many contexts through marriage or a woman’s father. Traditional mecha-
nisms of land allocation may involve a purely male hierarchy and a traditional legal system that reinforces this
arrangement. In some contexts inequalities arise out of the failure of the formal justice system to protect women’s
property rights where jurisdiction over land is not under customary laws. In many contexts, both formal justice
systems and IJS fail to protect women from discrimination in regard to property rights. While custom may not be
in favour of practices such as property-grabbing (often committed against widows), IJS in many contexts have not
been able to protect vulnerable women against such practices.
Box 3. INFORMAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS AND DOWRY OR BRIDE PRICES

Many social, economic or procedural factors prevent women from bringing a matter before IJS. The
payment of dowry and bride price is widely practiced and may be considered necessary for the validity of
customary marriages. Although the practice of dowry payments by the wife’s family has been legally abol-
ished in some countries, including India and Bangladesh, dowry disputes reportedly still frequently arise
in IJS in these and other countries. The Ugandan non-governmental organization MIFUMI has made bride
price a campaign issue, having worked on the question for a decade or more using advocacy and strategic
litigation (see http://www.mifumi.org/ ). A legal petition to have the custom declared unconstitutional (on
grounds that it leads to violence against women and treatment of women as chattels) was defeated in the
Constitutional Court of Uganda in March 2010. The Court criticized the lack of a factual foundation for the
petitioners’ assertions, possibly indicating that the petition may have stood a better chance if the factual
basis for the petition had been made clearer. The case has been appealed to Uganda’s Supreme Court and
judgment was pending at the time of writing.
Women’s rights to personal integrity and physical security: The study finds that women have little faith in
the capabilities of either formal or informal systems to protect them and to prosecute offenders. The widespread
practice of ‘payment of dowry’ and ‘bride price’, which in some countries may be considered necessary for the
validity of a customary marriage, may be closely connected to extreme forms of violence against women. Many
issues can complicate how both formal systems and IJS handle gender-based violence. National law may not
recognize a criminal offence of rape within marriage, for example. While recognizing the various factors that limit
women’s access to justice in the formal system, as well as the importance of women’s participation in IJS, the study
finds that rape and sexual violence should not be dealt with in IJS, but referred to ordinary courts. This principle
must be known and accepted within IJS in order to be enforced. It is important that the key challenges of women’s
own aversion to taking what society might consider ‘family matters’ before formal justice institutions and the barri-
ers and societal pressures against turning to formal justice systems must be addressed.
Patterns of discrimination against women can be reflected in low levels of participation by women as adjudica-
tors in IJS and, in some contexts, in the barriers to access and participation as parties and witnesses that women
face. Provisions of the CEDAW and regional declarations and protocols obligate states to ensure representation
of women in bodies exercising public authority.5 The participation of women as adjudicators or justice officials is
vital to ensuring that women can bring sensitive matters to the attention of justice providers. In the same way that
women’s participation as police officers and in victims service units is a key part of dealing effectively with domes-
tic violence and rape, it is equally important to foster their participation in IJS.
5 CEDAW Article 9.2.

Although IJS do not fully respect and protect women’s
Box 4. PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN AS
Summary
rights in many contexts, the study finds that women

ADJUDICATORS IN INFORMAL
creatively seek a just resolution and the protection of
JUSICE SYSTEMS
their rights. While women may fare better in formal or
In many countries, customary authorities play a parajudicial systems, they are often acutely aware of the
role in the nomination of candidates for office in necessity of maintaining collective structures that bene-
parajudicial systems, with a judicial service system fit communities as a whole. They also face social pres-
commission or government ministry making or sure and logistical and economic difficulties preventing
approving the final appointment. It is possible to them from accessing the formal justice system. Thus,
introduce affirmative action measures, particu- they often seek to change IJS structures from the inside
larly in parajudicial systems, as have been done rather than to discard them outright. Engagement with
with the Local Council Courts in Uganda and IJS should therefore also be tied to raising awareness
the Village Courts in Bangladesh and Papua New within IJS of women’s rights and of the range of choices
Guinea, where quotas for female representation and access available to women to seek justice, remedy
have been set. and protection.
Children’s Rights
There is little literature and research on children and IJS, although important issues arise regarding the rights
of children in relation to IJS. Children have the same basic rights as any other person in proceedings before IJS,
including the right to be heard, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, and the right to protection from arbitrary,
cruel or inhumane punishment. In practice, however, these rights are often poorly respected and are more likely to
be violated.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognises four principles that should guide the inter-
pretation of the other articles, and must be taken into account in all matters concerning the rights of
children. They are: 1) the primacy of the best interests of the child, 2) the prohibition of discrimination, 3) the
survival and development of the child, and 4) the right to be heard and to have one’s views taken into account.
A number of instruments have been adopted that provide guidance on how these fundamental international
standards about children and justice should be implemented. These instruments were designed mainly for appli-
cation in formal legal systems, but much of the guidance they contain is also relevant to IJS. The most relevant are
the Standard Minimum Rules on the Administration of Juvenile Justice and Guidelines on Justice in matters involv-
ing Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime.
Recognition of and respect for the principles of the CRC is linked, to some extent, to the type of IJS, and to the
nature of the linkages to the formal justice system. IJS that are linked to the formal system such as parajudicial IJS
often have an obligation to apply legislation as well as traditional law. Such IJS including those to which cases of
juvenile offenders are diverted to avoid formal prosecution tend to have a better understanding of the rights of
children and are more likely to respect them. However, links with the formal legal system and an obligation to
respect the legislation does not of itself guarantee full respect for the rights of children.
In many societies, traditional values attribute little or no importance to the opinions and wishes of children, and
many IJS ignore the right of children to be heard in matters that affect them. In addition, in many systems the
extended family or the village community, rather than the nuclear family, has the responsibility for protecting
the child. While this often serves to protect children, problems may arise when issues are brought before IJS. If
the group responsible for protecting the child is also a party to the dispute, or participates as decision maker, the
child’s views and interests may not receive a fair and impartial hearing and the outcome might not be in the best
interests of the child.

IJS could also enforce norms that are incompatible with rights recognised by the CRC. The application of norms
summary
regarding custody based on the child’s sex and/or age, that fail to take into account the views and best interests of
the individual, is another example. Norms regarding guardianship that perpetuate the practice of child marriages
are yet another. Some IJS discriminate against children born outside of marriage, who have been orphaned or who
have lost their father. Some fail to protect orphans against abuse of property rights by guardians, or fail to protect
the property rights of widows, which, of course, has an adverse impact on dependent children. The failure of IJS to
protect such property rights effectively can have profound consequences for the child’s right to development, to
protection against exploitation and even survival.
Reconciling the procedures followed by IJS with notions of procedural due process recognised by international
human rights law often poses difficult challenges. In the criminal domain, the right of persons accused of a crime
to legal representation and the confidentiality of proceedings involving children are not always recognised in
IJS. Some IJS apply collective punishments, leading to the punishment of children for the acts of parents or
other relatives.
Deeply held attitudes regarding the role of children can present a

Box 5. T HE RIGHT TO BE major challenge for engaging with IJS. In some communities, chil-
HEARD AND INFOR- dren are viewed as property under customary norms, and child
MAL JUSICE SYSTEMS
marriages can be seen as matters for the family or local community
IJS can contain recognition and rather than a crime. Some IJS tolerate honour killings and killings
elements of children’s right to be related to sorcery. The limited reach of the formal justice system
heard, which can provide the basis and strength of traditions authorising such violent enforcement of
for dialogue on the issue. In Ecua- customary norms may lead IJS to tolerate such practices, even when
dor, in IJS cases within the family, the IJS do not directly enforce them. Equally, however, IJS can be
the child would be represented by more responsive to changing cultural attitudes, such as in Uganda
someone – generally another where there is a preference for taking “defilement” cases before IJS
family member – to speak for the because the formal system does not distinguish between sexual
child’s interests. exploitation of a minor by an adult and consensual sexual relations
between adolescents.
States have an obligation to make efforts to ensure that IJS respect the rights of children, and the study found
some examples of such efforts. In South Africa, the Law Reform Commission carried out research on the compat-
ibility of customary law with the rights of children before deciding the extent to which legislation would recognise
customary law. In Bangladesh, legislation bans the application of corporal punishment by IJS.
It is clear that no single approach will be appropriate for every country, or society. The kinds of measures that may
help to bring IJS into greater harmony with the rights of children will depend on the nature of the IJS and other
circumstances, including the interaction between the formal system and the IJS. The most difficult and enduring
barriers to children’s access to justice are likely to be social and cultural, not formal, such as perceptions of the
role of the child. Familiarity with the attitudes of young people to IJS is also important to understanding children’s
experience of justice in formal and informal mechanisms. In certain contexts, young people may be aware of the
real power of IJS, but could feel alienated from the customs or society that the IJS represents. Social perceptions of
children and young people are not static and IJS’ flexibility to adapt to these changes is an important element to
take into account when engaging with IJS to advance the rights of children.

Box 6. INFORMAL JUSICE SYSTEMS AND CHILD PROTECTION
Summary
In Papua New Guinea, UNICEF has been working together with the Village Courts Secretariat within the
Ministry of Justice to establish national training documentation, referral, monitoring and evaluation systems
for village court judges and officers. This encompasses children’s, women’s and other constitutionally guar-
anteed rights and juvenile justice instruments. The study found this to be a positive example where IJS
providers were incorporated into a child protection system, became familiar with international and constitu-
tional child rights standards, and were placed in a network where they could seek external assistance or refer
particular cases.
C. P
rogramming in Informal Justice Systems –
Principles of Engagement
Until recently, engagement with IJS was not a part of development interventions in justice systems. Consequently,
there is relatively little documentation on the outcomes and impact of programmatic interventions, although
there is now more consideration of IJS in sector-wide approaches to justice programming. The study found that,
despite some overall similarities, a chief characteristic of IJS is their degree of adaptation to their socio-economic,
political and cultural contexts. Consequently, programming for IJS needs to take its outset in the context in which
they operate, including how they interact with formal systems. In addition, recognition of value of IJS to a society
or a community and of their flexibility to individual circumstances can help avoid programming that would distort
the positive elements of the IJS. Rigorous analysis of official and unofficial linkages, and explicit policy and opera-
tional choices based on these realities, are thus a prerequisite to programming. What is likely to work or succeed is
highly context-specific and programmes should be open to a wide range of tools.
Attempting to engage with the cultural practices that are expressed in IJS’ demands a multi-pronged and long-term
approach that is sensitive to local communities’ own priorities for development and survival. As IJS’ programming
does not occur in isolation to wider justice and human rights engagement, IJS’ engagement should incorporate
other justice, human rights and development interventions. Engagement with IJS may have limited impact unless
it is part of broader efforts to build dialogue on values and beliefs, for example acceptance of the right of children
to be heard. Thus, the holistic thinking behind sector approaches to formal justice systems, involving complemen-
tary interventions with a number of institutions, needs to be adapted and applied to IJS as players in the provision
of primary justice.
Principles of Programming
1. Whether to Engage with Informal Justice Systems
At the level of official policy, development organizations have little difficulty in agreeing that all engagement
with IJS should promote compliance with human rights. Strictly applying a criterion not to engage with IJS that
violate human rights excludes many IJS from potential support, and applying the same criterion to formal systems
would produce similar difficulties. In particular, the choice of whether to engage with IJS that discriminate against
women and children is an unavoidable dilemma for development partners wishing to engage with IJS. The ques-
tion should rather be one of openness to adapt to international obligations and changing societal norms. Target-
ing or affecting IJS must evidently be premised on realistic prospects of sustainable improvement in the fulfilment
of human rights, particularly women and children’s rights, underpinned by the principles of ‘do no harm’.
While pragmatism is unavoidable in engagement on the ground, there can be no concessions in principle regard-
ing the minimum international norms against which justice provision is measured. What some may consider the
best or only choice in one context might be unacceptable in another. In extreme circumstances, programmers may

face a choice between supporting informal justice mechanisms that occasionally allow plainly abusive outcomes
summary
or countenancing trends that are even worse. A key consideration would be whether the engagement with IJS
would directly or indirectly promote structural discrimination or other human rights violations. Engagement with
IJS would best be based on mutual acceptance of core human rights principles, including gender equality and
children’s rights, and on a willingness to work to achieve goals that are themselves compatible with human rights.
Engagement with IJS should always consider alternatives and should not be a substitute for strengthening national
justice systems. Alternatives to IJS’ engagement could produce stronger justice and human rights outcomes. Such
alternatives could include improving community policing, improving access to first instance and small claims
courts, increasing community involvement in the formal court system through the employment of lay assessors,
increasing the use of restorative and non-custodial punishment in criminal cases, and reducing the formality and
adversarial nature of proceedings in the formal system. The consideration of whether to engage in IJS or in the
formal system should be based on an understanding of why people do not choose the formal system in the first
place; there may be engagements with the formal system that could address these barriers far better than working
with IJS.
Box 7. EXAMPLES OF BASELINE STUDIES

In Niger, UNICEF and national agencies carried out a study on the protection of women’s and children’s
rights that included analysis of IJS. In 2009, Timor-Leste conducted an independent needs assessment that
showed that the formal system suffered from low capacity and outreach (despite important recent improve-
ments) and that the informal system enjoyed familiarity, trust and accessibility.
2. Inclusion of Informal Justice Systems in Sector-Level Programming

After deciding that engagement with IJS should be included in justice-sector strategies and programmes, the
central question concerns the combination and sequencing of various kinds of interventions. To date, however,
there are few reviews of IJS’ programming to draw upon to assess progress and pitfalls.
Many of the lessons that have been learned about justice-sector programming can and should also be applied to
IJS, including the need to holistically combine various forms of interventions and to coordinate the work of differ-
ent actors and approaches. In a similar way to planning for sector interventions generally, a thorough baseline
analysis is a necessary starting point if wishing to work with IJS. While planning for support of justice sector institu-
tions requires information on caseloads, resources and linkages as well as needs, programming for informal justice
demands greater understanding of people’s legal preferences, needs and choices, as well as the cultural, social and
economic realities that condition these needs. The assessment therefore should consider the whole justice system,
not IJS in isolation, to encourage an understanding of the boundaries between the justice systems present.
Baseline studies should not only assess the capacities, resources, strengths and weaknesses of the formal and IJS,
but also explicitly begin by identifying social realities, including the barriers to access to the formal justice system
and IJS, each systems’ responsiveness to the justice needs of ordinary people, and by disaggregating according
to social and economic status. The studies would reveal why people choose IJS instead of the formal systems and
would discuss the attitudes of young people to IJS and whether young people acknowledge the role of the system
to administer justice that affects them.
It is also important to understand why a state or ‘polity’ chooses to permit or encourage IJS as part of justice provi-
sion. State leaders may have the same or different motivations than users for favouring or allowing IJS. They may
favour one model over another to achieve political goals, such as to allow a particular group or community a degree
of autonomy. Clarity on national goals and an explicit consideration of these goals by development partners are

important for programming. Development organisations and governments should guard against simply finding a
Summary
cheap solution to the problem of satisfying the obligation to provide justice (‘poor justice for the poor’), in engag-
ing with both formal systems and IJS. While pragmatic solutions, such as strengthening IJS in communities that
are geographically isolated from the formal justice system, may be necessary in the medium term, these measures
should be consistent with a value-based long-term vision of a human rights-based justice system. Thus, baseline
studies should provide the contextual analysis so that any intervention is based on an understanding of the power
dynamics at play, particularly where certain communities are excluded from access to formal justice systems.
As human rights are a state obligation, the human rights dimension would be a clear part of the analysis at every
stage of the programming cycle, including at the baseline study and planning phases. Principles of a human
rights-based approach such as participation, accountability and empowerment can apply equally to the baseline
study as to the programme of engagement with IJS. The baseline study should involve the participation of repre-
sentatives of grassroots organizations, community groups, national human rights institutions, and gender equality
bodies where they have the capacity to contribute to the analysis. It can help to determine which issues, wrongs or
offences the IJS is capable of addressing, as well as the consequences of intervention or non-intervention. Prelimi-
nary assessments of human rights compliance must critically examine IJS’ willingness and ability to change; in
some contexts, the advancement of human rights would be better achieved through change in the formal justice
system. Just as IJS are dynamic, formal justice systems can be too, as can the public attitudes to both of them. A
popular mistrust of the formal justice system, for example, may be grounded in recent experiences of conflict or
authoritarian or corrupt governance and can be addressed directly.
While the study looks primarily at how IJS can be harnessed to improve access to justice, policy will
occasionally go in the opposite direction: towards the scaling-down of the role and reach of IJS and the
creation of a more integrated formal court system. For example, social barriers may either prevent women and
children from taking any steps at all to formally resolve legal problems or from using particular avenues or reme-
dies. This information may be vital in determining the best programming approach. If social custom or pressure
is discouraging women and children from availing themselves of – otherwise available – formal systems, support
to IJS may have to balance very carefully between the palliative of attempting to improve IJS’ procedures and
remedies and the danger of reinforcing the social norms that make it ‘unacceptable’ for women and children to
seek justice in the formal system.
3. Programming in Different Types of Informal Justice Systems

The possible modes and means of intervention with IJS will differ significantly, depending on the kind of system
under consideration. Each kind of system is likely to have weaknesses and strengths for programming. Govern-
ments are often likely to favour systems linked to state structures, such as state customary courts (community,
local, traditional) or those linked to administrative systems (e.g., Local Council Courts in Uganda), which may have
the advantages of having administrative procedures and some infrastructure in place, of being easily reachable
for large integrated programming, and of being somewhat amenable to change and regulation, particularly the
building of stronger links to formal systems. There may be political considerations or implications inherent in the
adjudicative and other functions of such bodies. In some cases, these parajudicial systems are based on volun-
tarism and are not always able to deliver on the large expectations placed on them. Large-scale programming
might place further burdens on such IJS.

summary
Box 8. PROGRAMMING IN CUSTOM-BASED JUSTICE SYSTEMS
The Malawi Primary Justice Programme of the faith-based organization, Catholic Commission for Justice
and Peace, is the largest programme with a custom-based IJS in the countries reviewed in this study . The
programme trained headmen and chiefs in all districts of Malawi, and was implemented at the local level
through local government and NGOs. The programme developed a manual for the training (in English
and Chichew) and a case record book for use by traditional adjudicators. The programme also seeks to
increase knowledge of legal rights among individual men, women and children in the targeted communi-
ties by means of semi-monthly meetings, facilitated by community-based educators. The Primary Justice
Programme likewise facilitates opportunities for cooperation and coordination between chiefs and other
primary justice actors, including through interaction with court users’ committees.
Custom-based mechanisms would appear to present the advantages of sustainability and legitimacy, having
stood the test of time and being solidly anchored in communities. They may, however, have difficulties in extend-
ing their reach beyond tightly knit communities that may be small and local. Changes in structures, procedures
and the substantive standards applied by these bodies stand the chance of being adopted by the community and
thus becoming sustainable. As with all programming, an influx of funds to such mechanisms could create depen-
dency. At first sight, customary or traditional mechanisms are more difficult to reach by development partners, as
there may be few obvious structures through which programming can be carried out.
Like custom-based mechanisms, religious IJS are likely to be relatively sustainable and legitimate within their
communities. They may offer outcomes that will be respected because of strongly held values, although these
values may not, or only partly, accord with principles in international human rights law, and religious doctrine
may be resistant to change. In some countries, there may be either a high degree of state involvement in religious
affairs or the presence of large and complex organizational structures – often with close links to the state – that
would make some form of centralized programming initiative possible.
Working with religious IJS could raise sensitivities, but not necessarily more sensitivities than working with other
IJS. For example, while the issue of women’s right to own land may be a stumbling block with traditional leaders,
it is rather uncontroversial to many religious authorities. Religiously sensitive themes, including women’s repro-
ductive rights, women’s rights upon dissolution of marriage and women’s inheritance rights, may be difficult to
address at the beginning of a partnership, but issues of procedural equality, children’s rights or improved participa-
tion may be easier to approach. It is important to remember that religion is only one influencing factor of IJS and
that the application of religious doctrine differs according to social, economic and political factors.
NGO-based village or community mediation schemes, where NGOs are able to work in communities to assist them
in devising new ways of solving disputes based on taught mediation schemes, can be freer of social pressure and
the interests of powerful groups in the community. The schemes range from confidential forums to open public
mechanisms adopting elements of traditional mechanisms or of learned mediation practice. These diverse NGO
mechanisms all have in common that they are in principle based on volunteerism and are free of charge. Experi-
ence shows that much work, outreach and time is necessary to build acceptance of such schemes among local
leaders, including traditional and religious leaders, as well as police and district officials. Where this has been done
sensitively and carefully, these leaders have usually been well-disposed to the schemes.

Specific Programming Interventions
Summary
Under the framework of justice sector programming, the study identified specific interventions, which
include support in6:
1. State law reform processes to enhance compliance with international human rights guarantees
2. Selection and mandate of adjudicators
3. Education of adjudicators
4. Education of users
5. Procedural regulation and self-regulation
6. Accountability mechanisms: transparency, monitoring and oversight
7. Linkages among primary justice providers
8. Linkages to paralegals and legal aid providers
9. Linkages to wider development programming
It is important to emphasize that the programming initiatives described here are in no way exhaustive. One impor-
tant caveat relates to the limited scope of the study, which focuses mainly on IJS rather than on formal justice
systems, which frequently need greater understanding of IJS and customary law and governance. The country
studies reveal that formal justice actors often know little about the informal systems that most people use and law
school curricula, for example, pay little attention to customary law. Agents of formal justice systems often attempt
to fill this gap by gathering knowledge of customary law in ad hoc ways, such as by consulting court personnel
or others in their immediate circle. Supplementing formal justice providers’ knowledge about IJS is a necessary
element of an overall strategy of engagement on IJS.
1. State Law Reform Processes to Enhance Compliance with International Human

Rights Guarantees
There are synergies between IJS’ programming interventions and
Box 9. L AW REFORM AND broader human rights engagement, such as encouraging the rati-
INTERNATIONAL fication, domestication and implementation of international human
TREATY BODIES
rights instruments, as well as the implementation of recommenda-
When Zambia underwent the Univer- tions of international treaty bodies. Programmatic interventions to
sal Periodic Review process of the UN enhance compliance with international human rights guarantees
Human Rights Council, one of the may seek to bring IJS more clearly within the ambit of legislative and
recommendations made concerned constitutional standards. Law reform is one – perhaps limited – way
the country’s constitution. The consti- to influence structural, normative and procedural standards and
tution exempts customary law from practices surrounding IJS. As the study reveals widespread failure of
the guarantees for equal treatment IJS to comply with formal law, the impact of legislation should not
for women. Zambia supported the be overestimated. Success may be more likely where an IJS is directly
recommendation of the Universal dependent on the state, as in the case of parajudicial IJS’ mecha-
Periodic Review to strengthen the nisms. Even so, change is dependent on IJS’ adjudicators’ knowledge
prohibition of discrimination in the and understanding of the law, as the literature on IJS as well as the
constitution as part of the constitu- findings of the study confirm. Second, the study found that the
tional review process in Zambia. question of any possibility of oversight would influence the degree
and prevalence of respect for the law by IJS.
6 The study’s approach was not to provide an exhaustive list rather a range of options.

Box 10. EXAMPLE OF SELF-STATEMENT METHOD
summary
In Namibia, the process of ascertaining and recording customary law took place within the community itself
and resulted in a product created within the community and binding upon it. It consisted of
ten steps:
1. Identify the target community/ies
2. Conduct legal background research with respect to the communities
3. Draft policy on ascertainment of customary law
4. Develop a comprehensive enquiry guide
5. Agree with the community on the ascertainment process and structures
6. Recruit and train ascertainment assistants
7. Conduct and supervise the ascertainment project
8. Conduct complementary research on identified communities
9. Promote the compilation of the ascertainment texts
10. Prepare publications in at least two languages (the vernacular and the official languages)
While the process might not be immune to the power of local elite to control the outcome and
procedures, it contains important participatory mechanisms that can empower community members.
Linked to law reform is the tool of strategic litigation, which activist organizations can use to bring about change
in legal standards. Where the legal environment is favourable, strategic litigation can help to change the law, raise
awareness and build coalitions. National and regional courts as well as global UN treaty bodies can be relevant
here.7 Depending on context, strategic litigation may be an effective strategy to advance the protection of rights.
In states where the rule of law remains relatively weak, expectations should be realistic as to results.
The process of law reform in IJS does not differ from law reform in other areas, except that it needs to
take particular account of stakeholder groups that are often far from the policy-making process: the
rural poor, indigenous communities and women. Any attempt at law reform should recognize that norms draw-
ing from religion and/or custom are woven into the fabric of cultural, social and economic life, and are often not
written down. Some sections of the population, including some justice officials, would resist the implementation
of the required new laws. Legal change is not likely to succeed without parallel public outreach and awareness-
raising and, in some circumstances, change must be incremental. Transitional measures would be required to
regulate the situation and status of people who have organized their lives according to existing laws and rules.
Law reform or other programming can also attempt to intervene directly in the rules, customs or law applied by
IJS. This can happen in various ways, although not always successfully. One intervention is laws that limit the appli-
cation of customary laws to certain domains. Another is the attempts of the colonial (and the immediate post-
colonial) era at ‘codification’ of custom. In numerous efforts at codification during the immediate post-colonial
period, governments were quite explicit in their aims of not merely codifying or restating custom, but in actively
modifying it to suit their values and purposes. This often contributed to rejection of the new codes. There are few
recent examples of successful codification of customary law, especially across ethnic or tribal groups. Thus, legisla-
tion aiming at codification across the board has lost its appeal as a policy option in most contexts.
7 The inter-American and African human rights systems as well as the increasing human rights role of regional judicial organs (under
the Regional Economic Commissions) are relevant.

Ascertainment of customary law has also been attempted through the recording of decisions and precedents.
Summary
Ascertainment methods that engage communities as a whole accord more with democratic principles and with
the human rights-based principle of participation. Where the resulting norms and standards are to be applied by
community-based structures, the ‘self-statement’ method seems to be a good starting point.8 The ascertainment
process should be open to facilitating any debates about the IJS’ norms and processes for adjudicating disputes
and whether more open, participatory and accountable processes should be adopted. Where the exercise seeks
to assist parajudicial systems in ascertaining and applying custom, the human rights-based approach would still
require consultation of more than tribal elders and local chiefs and would aim at including all members of the
community, or at least a representative sample of them.
2. Selection of Adjudicators
Box 11. S ELECTION OF ADJUDICATORS

In some countries, the state has exercised some leverage over the selection of traditional leaders. In South
Africa, legislation demands that 40 percent of the membership of traditional councils must be democrati-
cally elected and 33.3 percent be female (Traditional Governance and Leadership Framework Act, 2003).
Village or community mediation schemes that are initiated by NGOs, such as the Village Mediation Project
in Malawi, may be able to have some influence in relation to the qualifications and profiles of community
mediators, including in gender balance. In the Malawian project, gender balanced selection was done in
consultation with village headmen and chiefs.
A productive area for programming is to increase transparency and equality in the selection of adjudicators. The
study confirms that measures to encourage gender equality in the selection of adjudicators are critical and will
strongly influence women’s preferences and access to justice. The approach will necessarily differ according to the
type of IJS concerned. A state body such as a judicial service commission that plays a role in the selection of IJS’
adjudicators for parajudicial mechanisms may be free to rewrite qualification rules and modernize selection proce-
dures, making them more transparent and gender-equal. Similarly, it may be able to improve the enforcement of
rules on disqualification and discipline (including removal) of adjudicators.
Village or community mediation schemes that are initiated by NGOs may be able to significantly influence the
formulation of requirements concerning the qualifications and profiles of community mediators, including require-
ments for gender balance. Required qualifications could include educational attainment (both general educa-
tion and specific courses and requirements concerning the function of adjudicators). Specialized courses could
typically include elements and examinations on issues of national law, judicial organization and ethics as well as
human rights standards.
Where local elders choose traditional leaders and adjudicators, it is difficult to influence selection rules and proce-
dures. Nevertheless, these bodies generally do need to be legitimate in the eyes of the communities they serve.
In some countries, government authorities finally appoint or approve traditional leaders, an arrangement that
provides state leverage. Village headmen may also be upwardly accountable to a chief or a hierarchy of chiefs. In
some contexts, women play a key role in choosing traditional leaders. In such contexts, programmatic interventions
8 For the description of the self-statement method in Namibia, the authors are indebted to the paper by Professor Hinz and his
references to the restatement project of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London under
Anthony Allott. Hinz, Manfred O., 2009, The Ascertainment of Customary Law: What is it and what is it for?, paper presented at
Conference at USIP, Washington D.C., 18 November 2009.

could attempt to engage with the criteria that women use in choosing a leader and to build on structures to
summary
enhance accountability through voluntary codes. Such engagement will be possible only on the basis of trusting
relationships with the communities or hierarchies concerned.
Box 12. PROGRAMMING TO ADDRESS HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES

The Malawi Human Rights Commission’s report of 2006 on cultural practices highlighted some key
recommendations on programming, such as:
1. Changing harmful traditional practices is a complex process that must involve all stakeholders,
including traditional leaders, community members and religious groups that may be reluctant to
speak out about the practice, and the government.
2. It is important to understand the details of a practice and its cultural underpinnings. Offering substitute
activities or a modified version of a practice is constructive, since the abolition or the practice would
leave a vacuum.
3. The balance of power must be understood. Women and children may be especially vulnerable because
of their lower social and economic status. Outreach programmes on gender equality targeting all sec-
tors of society need to create public awareness through information.
4. Ministries of health should take a leading role in promoting healthy cultural practices by giving advice
to all participants in cultural practices, such as circumcision, and discouraging the unhygienic practices.
5. Education for women is vital to the realization of their rights. Unless girls’ education is promoted so that
they realize their full potential, the status of women in Malawi will remain low and women’s rights will
likely continue to be violated.
3. Education of Adjudicators
Education interventions can target training of current, practicing adjudicators. The content of training can, of
course, encompass a range of subjects, from guidance on the law in relevant domains, to techniques of documen-
tation, dispute resolution, legal procedure, as well as professional ethics, human rights and judicial organization.
Training could be specific to build the awareness and capacity of adjudicators in relation to children’s and women’s
rights. Training could also be provided to other participants in the proceedings, such as those who represent and
assist children, fulfilling the right to be heard.
It may be perceived as easier to programme for the education and training of parajudicial adjudicators who are
recruited, regulated and paid in state structures, than for the IJS’ providers who are not part of the state structure and
whose jurisdiction, functions and powers are not uniform and regulated. Sets of rules, practice guides and manuals
already exist for adjudicators in many parajudicial systems, and education and training can be matched to these
functional tools. However, the possibility of working with traditional justice systems should not be discounted.
The study confirmed that traditional adjudicators are often eager to attend education and training courses. It is
also notable that where women have succeeded in becoming traditional leaders, they have often been chosen
because they are among the most successful and well-educated members of their communities.
Human rights training is often at the centre of educational efforts in the engagement with IJS. Training that is
contextualized to fit the circumstances and mandate within which adjudication of disputes takes place is more
effective. For example, training should not focus on abstract principles of constitutional or international law, but
rather on the rights aspects of the kind of cases that adjudicators encounter. It should be recognized that human
rights training for IJS’ adjudicators is but one engagement and where IJS is upholding customs or beliefs that
violate human rights, a broader approach would be more appropriate to address societal attitudes underpinning
these customs and beliefs. An attempt to modify practices that are deeply culturally embedded may require that

matters of education, health, protection and justice all be addressed in an integrated manner through interven-
Summary
tions that extend far beyond the justice sector.
4. Education of Users – Legal Awareness-Raising
Box 13. AWARENESS-RAISING ABOUT VILLAGE COURTS IN BANGLADESH

In Bangladesh, the Ministry of Local Government Division, UNDP and the European Commission are jointly
undertaking a programme entitled, Activating Village Courts in Bangladesh, which supports the justice
system in 500 selected Union Parishads. One key component is a comprehensive community awareness
programme at the local and national levels on legal rights. Using several communication methods, it aims
to raise awareness about the roles and functions of village courts among potential users, among commu-
nity-based organizations, schoolteachers and religious leaders.
The raising of legal awareness and public information outreach efforts targeting the general population can
usefully be developed in conjunction with the training of adjudicators. Strengthening legal awareness extends
knowledge of rights, provides an important foundation for the community to demand the protection of those
rights, and offers remedies where those rights have been violated. A lack of awareness and understanding of their
rights often disproportionately affects the most disadvantaged groups in society, including women, the poor and
geographically isolated communities. Community empowerment through the heightening of legal awareness is
vital to encouraging IJS to be responsive to the community and mitigates the risk that the IJS could be captured
by an elite.
Many programming initiatives include a legal awareness component, often focusing on educating the community
on human rights and providing information about the institutions, mechanisms and procedures available to the
community. Partnership with government or local authorities through the development of communication strate-
gies to promote legal awareness is a useful entry point. NGOs also have considerable experience in undertaking
initiatives to raise legal awareness. Such communication strategies should respond to the needs of disadvantaged
groups by, for example, adopting user-friendly formats in local languages and informing those who face substan-
tial physical, cultural or economic barriers to access.
In some contexts, the use of media, radio and television campaigns are effective. Among the other means of
educating people are street theatre, information kits or flyers on how to initiate legal action or bring a dispute to
IJS. Legal information kiosks or mobile legal clinics can also travel particularly to remote areas to conduct commu-
nity education initiatives on legal rights. Trusted and familiar social networks, such as teachers, religious leaders,
community groups or others with non-legal specialty skills, can substantially contribute to public awareness of the
law and legal rights. In summary, a legally aware community translates into increased demand and higher expecta-
tion that IJS will deliver justice and be more accountable.
5. Procedural Regulation and Self-Regulation

Emphasizing international human rights standards in IJS’ procedures offers avenues for interventions. This is
particularly important for meeting the obligation under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to respect the
views and interests of children. IJS address many issues, such as ones involving land, custody and guardianship,
directly relevant to children, so hearing and respecting the views of children is a critical procedural and substantive

consideration. Programming can influence IJS’ procedures to better incorporate international guidelines on child
summary
victims and witnesses, and to all situations where the interests of the child are affected.9 The challenge is to do
so in such a way that places child rights firmly on the IJS’ agenda without overwhelming and thereby alienating
IJS’ providers.
Practice manuals and guidelines promote adherence to procedures and are relatively common among paraju-
dicial IJS (though they are often out of date and not always available to all adjudicators), which are generally
obliged to follow a defined set of procedural, jurisdictional and substantive rules. NGO-sponsored mediation
schemes may also use manuals and schematic guidelines. Improving, updating and distributing such tools are
worthwhile programming activities and provide greater procedural transparency, consistency and fairness in IJS.
Such guides can be extremely useful, but literacy levels and language proficiency must be taken into account.
While it is less likely that manuals and guidelines will be used in custom and religion-based IJS, with sufficient time
and engagement in education at the community level, good practice and procedures can be transmitted without
written guides.
Many countries have national organizations or a state organ where traditional leaders are represented. These struc-
tures could play constructive roles in setting standards for the structures, substantive norms and procedures of IJS,
for example, through voluntary codes or charters or through advice for and debate with the legislature. Encour-
aging the elaboration and adoption of an easily understandable text for IJS with fundamental substantive and
procedural standards to which IJS’ providers could declare their adherence, could be an initiative capable of broad
societal reach through national organizations.
6. Accountability Mechanisms: Transparency, Monitoring and Oversight

Accountability in IJS can be strengthened through mechanisms that build greater transparency, oversight and
monitoring of IJS. Requiring or promoting the recording of case outcomes is one measure that can promote trans-
parency, enhance oversight, strengthen enforcement mechanisms and, in some circumstances, promote legal
certainty. Recording is generally useful if the parties obtain copies, and the adjudicator safeguards a record for
possible future reference. Recognizing that legal certainty is a value of formal systems and that IJS will typically be
more concerned with flexibility and the circumstances of each individual case, it should be noted that the inter-
vention could in some circumstances distort the nature of IJS.
Avenues of appeal are effective mechanisms to promote accountability of IJS’ decision makers. The recording of
decisions can facilitate an appeal or the registration or approval of these decisions by other structures, including
a formal court. The outcomes of most parajudicial mechanisms are generally subject to appeal to the ordinary
courts, though, in some instances, cases have to recommence ab initio. Tradition- or religion-based systems also
often have hierarchies of authority through which cases can be appealed.
Other than appeal, accountability can involve the monitoring of decisions by outside parties, be they members
of the public, organizations representing stakeholders, hierarchically superior adjudicators or official inspectors.
Engagement with monitoring systems could be a valuable entry point for programming. The study found that
parajudicial IJS and NGO-sponsored mediation schemes are most likely to have established mechanisms of inspec-
tion or monitoring. Systems that are subject to a defined set of rules and procedures and are directly subordinate
to state authorities can naturally be more readily inspected than ones that are anchored in community structures
and operate according to tradition.
9 UN Guidelines on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime,2005.

Parajudicial systems generally have regulations providing for an
Box 14. M ONITORING official inspection and supervision framework, but they are often
Summary
BY NGOs ineffective because supervisory organs lack resources. In some

Unless it is developed in careful countries, supervision of parajudicial systems is also difficult because
dialogue with IJS and the community, of unclear and overlapping supervisory mandates and the various
outside monitoring may be seen monitoring frameworks are sometimes not coordinated with one
as an unwelcome intrusion into a another. Supervision by executive agencies also raises issues of the
traditional structure. In Bangladesh independence of the judiciary. Monitoring should take its point of
and Malawi, NGOs were able to gain departure in the mutually supportive role of IJS and (other) organs
access to traditional IJS by providing of the state. It should thus afford providers with an opportunity to
support and obtaining the trust of the voice their concerns. A monitoring system that is purely top-down
leaders and communities. and seen by the IJS’ providers as an instrument that only serves to
criticize them is unlikely to be successful.
Requirements of public hearings and open

Box 15. PUBLIC HEARINGS IN BANGLADESH admission to the court or adjudication forum,
Public hearings can be an effective way to promote enforce- including for the general public and observ-
ment of IJS decisions, including through ensuring publicity ers from civil society organizations and the
for the hearings. The Shalish courts in Bangladesh use a media, provide clear transparency measures.
highly public forum for decision-making and publicizing Where recording of decisions is not possi-
case outcomes. The recording of the decision takes place ble (perhaps due to literacy levels) or not
in the minds of community members rather than on paper accepted in IJS, public hearings can provide an
and the collective conscience of the community is commit- accountability and transparency mechanism
ted to enforcement. between IJS and the community. Community
groups, such as grassroots women’s groups,
can develop their own records of the proceedings and monitor the pattern of the decisions as well as procedures
followed in IJS. Although not appropriate for sensitive cases (possibly where children are involved), public hear-
ings can also strengthen the likelihood of enforcement of IJS’ decisions, as such decisions will be more widely
known and therefore accepted in the community. A further step would be to involve community groups in the
decision-making; this could be done through consultation or jury-type assemblies. Such mechanisms could allow
for women’s participation, particularly where women are not represented among IJS’ adjudicators.
Monitoring and oversight often require record keeping (and thus literacy) among providers and a clear structure
that takes account of a set of standards (structural, procedural and normative) against which IJS are to be assessed.
IJS providers may be working for no or very little compensation, and the imposition of additional work burdens
may be unwelcome or unrealistic. Adjudicators and monitors may need to be trained in the reporting and moni-
toring methodology. These interventions can be costly and must be weighed against the benefits of using similar
resources for other institutions.
7. Linkages among Primary Justice Providers

IJS should be seen as operating in conjunction with other avenues of primary justice. In many contexts, there could
be several kinds of IJS operating in addition to formal systems. The numerous linkages in many countries between
different primary justice providers, be they functional or norm-/rule-based, official or unofficial, ultimately chal-
lenge any notion of entirely separate and distinct legal systems. The propriety of programming aimed at better
alignment between formal and informal systems will depend on the context of national justice policy, the jurisdic-
tional division between formal and IJS, and an analysis of the desired and factual links between the two. In certain
circumstances, the value of promoting linkages will consist of fostering better understanding between the systems
and allowing for a discussion about division of labour, respective jurisdictions and better mechanisms for referral.

Programming should look at the totality of actors, preferences and patterns of justice provision at the local level.
Addressing jurisdictional limits, de facto divisions of workload, and patterns of interaction may assist in developing
summary
useful synergies across different forms of IJS, law enforcement, administrative and political structures, statutory
courts and legal service providers. For example, programming would not want to encourage IJS to handle serious
criminal cases, but cooperation between IJS and the formal system may be precisely what is needed to ensure
that these cases are transferred to the formal system and such referral could quite easily be a ‘goal’ to be achieved
through the course of an intervention rather than a prerequisite to engagement.10
Box 16. I NTERACTION AMONG DIFFERENT INFORMAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

In Malawi, interaction was promoted among the custom-based IJS and the NGO-sponsored Village Media-
tion Project. In the areas where both are present, the NGO worked to build relationships between the medi-
ation system and traditional cases. There are indications that an understanding of the division of the case
burden has arisen; traditional leaders retain land cases, leaving family disputes to the mediators. Linkages to
the police and the formal justice system are also a key part of the Village Mediation Project.
In some situations, the linkages required are not between IJS and formal justice systems, but between differ-
ent forms of IJS. Such linkages would address similar issues such as jurisdictional limits, division of case burden,
and building greater mutual understanding. Programming can work to build dialogue and mutual understand-
ing between different types of IJS that could lead to a smoother relationship allowing for referral of cases. These
programming initiatives can serve as a forum for learning and for improvement. The study illustrates that such initi-
atives also promote an interesting spillover effect between different systems, as when women who are educated
and empowered in relation to one mechanism feel emboldened to work for their rights in relation to others.
Ensuring that programmes affect outlying and isolated communities is also an important factor for strengthening
the provision of justice. Many programmes building linkages are in or close to provincial capitals because they are
close to institutional and political hubs. However, community justice programmes may be especially needed in
communities where there are no formal mechanisms, particularly if communal violence is an issue. While it might
be more difficult to achieve results for programming, the establishment or strengthening of IJS in such commu-
nities can have long-term benefits in the form of peace, stability and legal empowerment. In some instances,
though, the strengthening of IJS would be a temporary measure while formal justice systems develop the capacity
to reach out and provide appropriate justice services to these communities.
8. Linkages to Paralegals and Legal Aid Providers

Programming that fosters closer relations between IJS and local legal aid providers, such as paralegals, has had
some positive results. Not all IJS will allow legal aid providers to act as representatives in proceedings, but even
where this is not possible, such providers can advise individuals involved in those proceedings. Paralegals can
also assume observation roles where proceedings are public. Government and non-government actors can be
involved in making provision for legal aid and paralegal service.11 Strategies can include institutionalization of
community services to draw on law graduates and retired professionals in legal clinics. Paralegals and legal aid
providers can offer particular services such as advice and assistance about whether a matter needs to be taken
before a justice system or can be settled in another way. Paralegals can also coordinate referrals to non-legal exper-
tise; for example, some matters might require health care intervention or financial assistance.
10 W
ojkowska cites a reduction in forced marriage of widows as the successful outcome of a project in Somalia. Wojkowska, Ewa
2006: How Informal Justice Systems Can Contribute, Oslo: United Nations Development Programme, Oslo Governance Centre
11 Carried out with the judiciary section responsible for local courts and two NGOs that provide legal services to rural women. From
an unpublished paper entitled ‘Summary of Reports on Monitoring the Impact of Training Local Court Justices and Paralegals in
the Southern and Eastern Provinces of Zambia’, under a GTZ-supported project ‘Improvement of the Legal Status of Women and
Girls in Zambia’, by Tina Hofstaetter, GTZ, Lusaka, July 2006.

Box 17. PARALEGALS AND INFORMAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS
Summary
In Zambia, a GTZ training programme of local court justices with the assistance of NGOs and together with
community paralegals helped break down barriers between the two groups. Consequently, it became possi-
ble for paralegals to enter into and observe proceedings in local courts and monitor how the justices and
court personnel treated women. The success indicators measured the degree to which intimidating language
was used against women and whether women were allowed to speak before the court without being
accompanied by a male relative, as these were problems observable in the baseline data.
Programming in linking IJS to legal aid and paralegal mechanisms requires particular efforts to ensure sustainabil-
ity and cost-effectiveness. Legal aid schemes are usually expensive and governments often do not accord them
priority. This is where university clinics and the participation of bar associations, paralegals, legal aid providers and
other public advocates can play a key role and also be a lobby to ensure the continued provision of resources.
Box 18. COMMUNITY JUSTICE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

In Eastern Highlands and Simbu provinces of Papua New Guinea, there are a number of communities that
have successfully resolved communal conflict through the establishment of their own peace-restoring and
dispute resolution forums. In Kup District of Simbu Province, the organization Kup Women for Peace (KWP)
was founded by a group of women in the village who wanted to fight back against the communal violence
that was killing their husbands and sons and causing women and girls to live in fear of physical or sexual
assault. KWP have also provided training on victim’s rights, on the CRC and CEDAW to village leaders and to
village court officials. KWP together with village leaders decided to appoint ‘community police officers’ who
could be a link between the community and the nearest police station in Kundiawa.
9. Linkages to Wider Development Initiatives

Attention to the proper sequencing of development initiatives, as well as respect for the human rights-based
approach principles of participation and empowerment of local communities and individuals, require that IJS not
be treated in isolation from other aspects of life and development. The entry point for discussion of justice issues
can be through vital health, education or livelihood issues, rather than through treating justice as an isolated sector.
Phenomena that are visible in IJS, including discriminatory practices regarding marital and family relations, prop-
erty ownership and inheritance, or superstitious practices and punishments, are not simply expressions of justice
standards, but are expressions of how societies are structured. The best ways to change this may include broader
development initiatives in education, livelihoods and public health. Broader development initiatives are also key
to creating an environment where human rights can be respected and fulfilled. Consequently, it is important that
IJS be included in child protection programmes that work to build protective environments for children. Similarly,
national strategies and action plans to implement CRC or CEDAW should include a specific component on engag-
ing with IJS for the implementation of these conventions.
Engagement with IJS therefore must be integrated as a component of broader development initiatives. This is an
oft-ignored area of justice programming, but the efficacy of working with IJS requires that it be complemented
by engagement with the formal justice system and with development programming that addresses the broader
social, cultural, political and economic context of IJS.

summary

Summary
United Nations Development Programme

304 East 45th Street, 10th Floor
New York, New York, 10017, USA
www.undp.org/
UN Women
405 East 42nd Street
New York, New York, 10017, USA
www.unwomen.org
UNICEF
3 UN Plaza
New York, NY 10017, USA
www.unicef.org

Informal Justice Systems Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Informal Justice Systems Summary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Informal Justice Systems Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

informal justice systems

charting a course for human rights-based engagement

Copyright of UNDP, UNICEF and UN Women.

This Publication is a Summary of The Study, Informal Justice Systems:

The full version of the study is available at: www.unicef.org/protection/INFORMAL_JUSTICE_SYSTEMS.pdf

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution KSOL Kathmandu School of Law (Nepal)

FJS Formal Justice System SWAP Sector Wide Approach

FRELIMO The Liberation Front of Mozambique (Frente de ToR Terms of Reference

4 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 5

Definitions of Informal Justice Systems

6 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

Linkages between Formal and Informal Justice Systems

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 7

Box 1: Factors Influencing People’s Choices and Uses of

8 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 9

Access and procedure: This includes legal capacity and

10 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

Box 3. INFORMAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS AND DOWRY OR BRIDE PRICES

5 CEDAW Article 9.2.

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 11

rights in many contexts, the study finds that women

12 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

Deeply held attitudes regarding the role of children can present a

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 13

14 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

Box 7. EXAMPLES OF BASELINE STUDIES

2. Inclusion of Informal Justice Systems in Sector-Level Programming

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 15

3. Programming in Different Types of Informal Justice Systems

16 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 17

1. State Law Reform Processes to Enhance Compliance with International Human

18 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 19

Box 11. S ELECTION OF ADJUDICATORS

20 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

Box 12. PROGRAMMING TO ADDRESS HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 21

tions that extend far beyond the justice sector.

4. Education of Users – Legal Awareness-Raising

Box 13. AWARENESS-RAISING ABOUT VILLAGE COURTS IN BANGLADESH

5. Procedural Regulation and Self-Regulation

22 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

6. Accountability Mechanisms: Transparency, Monitoring and Oversight

9 UN Guidelines on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime,2005.

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 23

BY NGOs ineffective because supervisory organs lack resources. In some

Requirements of public hearings and open

7. Linkages among Primary Justice Providers

24 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

Box 16. I NTERACTION AMONG DIFFERENT INFORMAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

8. Linkages to Paralegals and Legal Aid Providers

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 25

Box 18. COMMUNITY JUSTICE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

9. Linkages to Wider Development Initiatives

26 A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights

A study of informal Justice systems: Access to justice and human rights 27

FRELIMO The Liberation Front of Mozambique (Frente de ToR Terms of Reference

Box 1: Factors Influencing People’s Choices and Uses of

Box 11. S ELECTION OF ADJUDICATORS

Box 13. AWARENESS-RAISING ABOUT VILLAGE COURTS IN BANGLADESH

Box 16. I NTERACTION AMONG DIFFERENT INFORMAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS