Prisoners and Debt Collectors

Women's Access to Justice in Morocco through the Lens of Family Law

The informal justice system may not necessarily be uniform across Ethiopia. Nonetheless, there are common features shared between them. Despite its vital, there are various challenges Informal Justice System in Ethiopia. However, these challenges are little known and rare to find the knowledge of the challenges. Thus, this study aimed to assess challenges to the informal justice system in Ethiopia. A qualitative research approach was employed. The data was collected through in-depth interviews and secondary sources and critically analyzed via thematic categorization procedures. The study identified that urbanization, education, and modernization were challenges to the informal justice system. Besides, the absence of a clear policy direction and legal framework, other challenges to the informal justice system in Ethiopia. lack of consistency with basic laws and uniformity across the country and recognition by the formal justice system was contributed to the less relevance of the informal justice system. To strengthen the informal justice system in Ethiopia building institutional linkages between the formal and informal justice systems and equal recognition of both informal and formal justice systems substantially and procedurally in the legal document should be vital. Keywords : Informal, Informal justice system, formal justice system DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/105-01 Publication date: January 31 st 2021

This study focused on the impact of informal justice systems on access to justice for marginalised communities in Patte Island, Lamu County, Kenya. It was necessitated by the need to examine the existing informal justice systems used on Patte Island, evaluate their effectiveness in resolving disputes, and analyse their perceptions compared to formal justice systems. Although previous studies have examined informal justice systems, this study is unique in its focus on culturally resonant, context-specific, and often primary justice access points where formal justice systems have failed. It presents both the positive aspects and the significant risks associated with informal justice systems. It bridges the gap between expectations and lived realities, navigating the complex interplay between informal and formal justice systems. The study adopted a mixed-methods research design combining a qualitative case study and quantitative surveys anchored on legal pluralism theory and the access to justice framework theory. The target population was the residents of Patte Island aged 18 years and above. The respondents were police officers, prosecutors and chiefs who were purposely selected. Other respondents were randomly selected, and they included religious leaders, community elders, community paralegals, and residents of Patte Island. The total sample size was ninety (90) respondents. Data was collected through interviews, focused group discussions, structured surveys and observations. The instruments used for the study were interview schedules and a standardised questionnaire. Quantitative data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). In contrast, qualitative data was analysed by interpreting responses and aligning them to form identifiable themes and actual narratives. Findings indicated that the existing informal justice systems were chiefs, community elders, religious leaders, community paralegals, and the Bajuni council of elders. These systems relied heavily on Sharia law and local customs to solve disputes and were found to be effective due to accessibility, affordability, and familiarity. Despite the challenges of human rights violations and male dominance, the informal systems were filling a gap left by the absence of a formal justice system. The findings implied that informal justice systems were the primary and most embraced means of accessing justice for the residents of Patte Island. The study suggests that informal justice actors should be trained and given more power in professional mediation, human rights, and national laws, while still respecting the values and needs of local informal justice systems. It also recommends strengthening the collaborative approach where informal and formal systems complement each other.

This chapter examines various traditional practices of restorative justice in vogue in India. More than two-thirds of the Indian population lives in villages, 80% of which have populations of less than 1000. Life in these tiny communities is regulated largely by age-old traditions and customs, folkways and mores, of which conflict resolution is a significant part. These practices coexist and often conflict with the formal criminal justice system introduced by the British that continued after India gained independence. Family itself resolves intra-family conflicts of all types. Since almost all marriages are arranged within the endogamous caste community by the parents of the couple, and a quarter of all families consists of joint and extended families, the presence of parents, grandparents and married siblings helps solve disputes amicably. Unresolved conflicts within and between families of the same caste are settled by the Caste Panchayats—informal committees of elders of the same caste. Certain caste institutions, such as monasteries, also settle even serious disputes. Two such case studies in Karnataka are examined here. Inter-caste and neighbourhood conflicts are resolved by the unelected Panchayats of the villages, generally composed of elderly members of all castes. Minor crimes, misdemeanors and civil disputes are settled within the villages amicably within a day without much cost. The process of hearing the parties, their witnesses and evidence, though comparable to that of the formal justice system, is more inquisitorial than adversarial. The Panchayat admonishes the erring party, imposes damages, minor penalties and, in more severe cases, excommunication or banishment from the village. The parties rejecting the decisions of the informal panchayats approach formal courts. But very few cases go to the police or court. Consequently, few crimes are reported to formal authorities, and India is thus a low-crime country! Recently, the state itself is imitating restorative justice practices in the formal justice system. They include state-funded compensation to the victims of bodily crimes, mediation, arbitration, plea bargaining and restitution. Informal hearing methods are followed in the Family Courts, Consumer Courts, Nyaya Panchayats and Gram Nyayalayas where lawyers are not allowed. Each of these innovations is discussed here.

Helping Afghanistan's Informal Dispute Resolution Systems Follow Afghan Law in Criminal Matters: What Afghanistan Can Learn from Native American Peacemaking Program

This study aims to evaluate the mechanism of conflict resolution through the Jirga system in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. Conflict is a common issue in every society, but the resolving bodies exist in every society which are working according to their socio-cultural set-up. The Jirga system is a conflict resolution body in semi-governed tribal areas of Pakistan in the absence of formal legal and justice system. This study highlights the evolution or historical background and concept of the Jirga system as well as the kinds of Jirga system. The study further evaluates the procedures of the Jirga system that how a Jirga proceeds and resolves a conflict between the two parties. The Jirga proceeds according to the nature of a conflict. A formal justice system on the pattern of settled districts are not in practice in FATA. Therefore, there is a strong urge that the institution of Jirga must be an effective substitute.

This article purports to facilitate a discussion on the relevance of informal justice mechanism as an apt component of modern criminal justice system. Based on the observation that the formal criminal justice system in south Asian countries suffers from myriad of problems including failure to uphold fairness and objectivity in investigation, prosecution and adjudication, as well as blatant disregard towards human rights and interests of the victims and the accused alike, in a criminal case, the article proposes that the norms, theories, principles and mechanisms of criminal justice system still plagued by the vestiges of colonial rule could be reinvigorated by integrating some components of informal justice mechanisms within the formal justice system while recognizing others as autonomous and complementary. It elucidates on mechanisms such as community mediation and plea bargaining and reflects on some of the successful institutions such as paralegal committee in Nepal, Lok Adalat in India and Salish Kendra in Bangladesh. The precise conclusion of the article is that modern criminal justice system should look beyond the narrow sphere of vengeance and should be able to hold the state responsible for providing restitution to the victim, to hold the accused socially responsible towards the victim and to assure long-term conflict resolution, to which end informal justice mechanisms such as mediation and plea bargaining must be thoroughly institutionalized in south Asia.

Informal justice systems and decolonized justice alternatives play significant roles for rural crime control and dispute settlement. They are two distinct types of mechanisms with different backgrounds, evolution and functions. ‘Informal justice system’ is an umbrella term that encompasses different types of customary, traditional, local, tribal and Indigenous justice systems. These systems are usually conceptualized as non-state justice systems as opposed to the formal state justice systems, which have written laws and procedures for decision making and enforcement mechanisms. However, each informal justice system is unique in its formalities and philosophical underpinnings. When people began living together in societies, the informal justice system evolved to maintain social order and cohesion. Hence, they are found in rural societies across the world from time immemorial. Some of the informal systems studied in recent years include Jirga in Afghanistan, Shalish in Bangladesh, Bashingantahe in Burundi, Adat in East Timor and Indonesia, Katarungang Pambarangay in Philippines, Mayan in Guetemala, Gacaca in Rwanda, Xeer in Somalia and Salif in Sudan (see Wojkowska, 2006). Many of these Indigenous and informal justice systems survived, even in territories and states occupied by colonial powers for centuries, and many informal rural justice systems continue to play a significant role in dealing with rural crime (see McGuire and Palys, 2020). When Indigenous justice approaches were replaced with state-led formal criminal justice systems in colonial states, the people did not accept the foreign systems for various reasons including the complexity of the systems and inconsistency with their distinguished cultural, religious or customary beliefs, norms, values and understanding of crimes and justice (see Agozino, 2019).

Preferences for traditional and formal sector justice institutions to address land disputes in rural Mali

Child violence cases in Jayapura City demonstrate a distinctive pattern of legal settlement characterised by the strong coexistence of customary law and the formal juvenile criminal justice system. While national legislation mandates diversion and restorative justice as primary mechanisms in handling children in conflict with the law, empirical findings reveal that most cases are resolved through indigenous customary forums known as para-para adat. This study aims to analyse the forms of settlement applied to child violence cases and to identify the constraints encountered in implementing both customary mechanisms and the formal juvenile justice system. The research employs a normative-empirical approach by combining statutory analysis with field data obtained from law enforcement institutions, legal aid organisations, and community respondents. The findings indicate that approximately ninety percent of cases between 2019 and 2024 were settled through customary mechanisms involving collective responsibility and the payment of customary fines as symbolic and material restoration. Diversion mechanisms under the formal system were rarely implemented. Although customary settlement is perceived as flexible, culturally legitimate, and socially restorative, several obstacles persist, including disagreement over compensation, inability to fulfil customary obligations, and limited awareness of restorative justice procedures. The study highlights the need to harmonise legal pluralism within child protection policies to ensure that customary practices align with the best interests of the child and national legal standards.

Citizens in plural legal and cultural former colonies like Zimbabwe do not have effective access to justice. This is because the formal justice system is marred with obstacles that either prevent people from entering and navigating the system or impede them from obtaining outcomes that are aligned with their normative conceptions of justice. Post-independence justice reform efforts have failed because they attempt to resolve obstacles in isolation of each other, and the obstacles are almost never analysed as inherent within the formal justice system itself, i.e., as systemic problems. That every justice system has risks for the intended users is uncontroverted, and this article specifically focuses on systemic obstacles to access to justice. I demonstrate inherent and unacceptable risk of unfairness in the formal justice system by discussing four examples from the demand and supply sides. A multi-pronged research approach, involving a comprehensive literature review, media reports and my experience and observations within the Zimbabwean justice system are used. Furthermore, case law examples are also utilised, but going beyond erroneous individual cases, and unpacking the under-theorised yet broader social consequences of the cases on citizens and the formal justice system.

This article highlights the use of formal justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADRs) mechanisms in resolving land based conflicts in Kenya. The research employed a desk review method through the review of books, articles, documents, reports and internet information. Findings reveal that symbiotic relationship and equitable value of both the formal justice system and ADR are recognised by the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The court system in Kenya is established under the Constitution and various other Acts of Parliament land dispute suits matters are filed at the civil court registry of a lower or magistrates court or at the Environment and Land Court through its registry. On the other hand, the use of ADR mechanisms offers different advantages compared to the formal court system, including effective and efficient of resources such as time and money. It reduces the time it takes to resolve disputes, particularly in tribunals and traditional and alternative justice systems, and diminish the backlog of cases experienced by the courts. The article provides a better understanding of the two systems in terms of their merits and demerits and recommends that the Government of Kenya does more to build capacity by providing formal training at the local level in the different ADR methods to help disputants resolve conflict before it is channelled through the formal justice system. It also recommends that it create a public fund and a corresponding application process that would allow those who cannot afford to privately hire advocates to prosecute or defend their matters in Court through the said fund.

The quintessence of the paper is conception of a criminal justice system in which formal justice system and informal justice system jointly work to achieve the greater goal of ensuring security and respecting human dignity. In order to accomplish such complementarily, the conventional stereotypes on retributive, colonial and punitive approaches to the criminal justice system devoid of victimcentrality would have to be done away with. The cancerous vestiges of the colonial thinking are observable in South Asia and have eroded the faith of people upon the government and the justice system acting as a stimulus for designing an effective informal justice system, which has already been in practice since time memorial. With regards to South Asia, it is exemplified by the paralegal committee, Shalis Kendra, Union Parishad and Lok Adalat. The scope of informal justice system in criminal cases manifests in form of community mediation, plea bargaining, restorative negotiation and revocation of cases. Nevertheless, clear guidelines must be formulated to avoid potent problems in the mechanism.

The Scope of Informal Justice Mechanisms in Criminal Justice Systemm: Critical Observations on Principles, Theories and Prospects

Juvenile delinquency is a challenge for most African states, and Ghana is no exception. Recidivism, stigmatisation and victim dissatisfaction indicate that Ghana’s formal criminal justice system, with all its merits, has posed severe challenges to the administration of juvenile justice. This article examines the practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which utilises restorative conflict resolution processes in place of prosecution and sentencing in juvenile justice systems of various jurisdictions. Through processes such as victim-offender mediation, ADR invites full participation and consensus between victims, offenders and persons indirectly affected by the crime committed and seeks full and direct accountability. Some inadequacies of ADR principles and practices render it less relevant to the African context. The resultant lacuna can be filled with indigenous dispute resolution practices to combat crime and its repercussions, constituting the African Dispute Resolution (AfDR). The reliance on Ubuntu in South Africa's Child Justice Act and traditional justice system mechanisms in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda to deal with the aftermath of genocides and wars are contemporary examples of AfDR. Ghana would need to rely on AfDR to complement its formal criminal justice system to alleviate juvenile delinquency.