We talk to Mikel Berraondo about advances in the linking of ordinary justice and the special jurisdiction system of indigenous populations in Peru, which have established a relationship of equality through the recognition of intercultural justice.

What is the meaning of intercultural justice?

Putting into practice international human rights standards that refer to creating a justice system in which ordinary justice coexists with the different levels of indigenous justice in each country, which is known in all regions as “legal pluralism”. Basically it involves finding the formula so that justice systems can coexist and develop in a parallel and complementary manner.

What does intercultural justice mean in Peru?

In Peru it means an important step forward in terms of strengthening the role of the judiciary as an institution that guarantees rights, in terms of strengthening compliance with international standards to which Peru is bound through ratification—such as ILO Convention 169—and in practice it means a path for resolving disputes and establishing empathy between systems of justice that up until now had a very complicated relationship.

The access to justice line of action, in its intercultural justice component in Peru, to whom is it aimed?

The interesting part of the project is that work was done with the Judiciary, with the National Office of Peace and Justice and Intercultural Justice (ONAJUP), and that the final beneficiaries of this entire process were not limited to this institution but rather extended to all the civil servants in the justice system, and to the indigenous peoples and rural patrols ("rondas campesinas") that have their own systems of justice. What we've done was to set up a series of action and coordination protocols to establish channels that will allow the authorities of the different justice systems to have a relationship of equality, of recognition of rights, of authority, that allows them to coexist and create this intercultural justice system in the country, breaking the dynamics that have existed up to now, in which special justice authorities were even criminalised—the case of the "rondera" authorities—for exercising their judicial authority.

Have you noted any feedback yet in any population group—"ronderos", indigenous leaders, etc.—regarding their interest or sense of belonging in the project?

As the final point of this process, we held a series of training courses in three cities in the country: Cuzco, Iquitos and Pucallpa, which were held in parallel with staff from the Peruvian justice system and with the authorities of the special justice systems. What indigenous leaders and "ronderos" who exercise special forms of justice have communicated to us is that this dialogue is a very interesting tool for going forward in the process of constructing an intercultural justice system.  There has been a lot of interest in both the content of the protocols, and in the training programmes that were held and the implementation manuals.

What change will this produce in the populations? Will progress be made in reducing conflict?

The protocols are not going to solve all the problems of the indigenous communities of Peru. The latest report of the Committee Against Racial Discrimination was very tough in terms of discrimination due to the levels of racism that exist in the country. But these protocols, and all the work being done regarding them, and the work being done by the ONAJUP, contribute, first, to recognising indigenous justice systems, which is an extremely important step forward in a country with these levels of racism; and in the short term we are seeing a significant reduction in criminalisation of these special justice authorities. The ordinary justice system, therefore, is starting to recognise that there is another justice system which has equal legitimacy in the areas where the two coexist and which must be respected, and that a relationship of coexistence and coordination must be established with these authorities. 

Was it possible to learn from other experiences in the region?

What all of us learned the most from was the comparative analysis of regulatory and jurisdictional development regarding countries in the region, especially Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Basically what we did was to create a compilation of legislation, drawing on international law and laws enacted or drafted in all these countries. From there, we conducted a comparative analysis to try to extract experiences that might be useful in the Peruvian case and then use this as the basis for creating the content for the protocols, which we consider very advanced compared to what exists.

This experience in Peru, to what contexts or places could it be transferred through the instrument of South-South cooperation?

The action and coordination protocols are translatable to the entire region. All Latin American countries have an indigenous population, all have signed these international treaties that oblige them to develop legal pluralism. Most of them have the same problems and the same deficiencies and, in this sense, the process undertaken in Peru—not only because of the content of the protocols but also because of the entire process of joint work between the local team from the judiciary supported by the EUROsociAL experts—can be very easily replicated in any country in the region. I'm convinced that this entire process, and especially the content of the protocols, is going to be used in all of Peru's neighbouring countries in the Andean region, which all have very similar realities in the area of justice and recognition of intercultural justice.

How was the exchange of knowledge between the team of experts and the Peruvian institutions and communities?

When we created the protocols, we formed a team with two European experts from EUROsociAL, one Peruvian expert, and the Peruvian legal team. This diversity on the team allowed us to establish a level of discussion and analysis from different perspectives.  Although the European reality is not comparable, different systems of justice do coexist which are operating within countries. And they have a more or less practical level of coexistence with ordinary justice systems that can be learned from.