E/CN.4/2004/80 page 16 D. Indigenous law and culture and alternative dispute resolution 54. A strong and persistent demand of indigenous peoples concerns the recognition of their cultures and customary legal systems in the administration of justice. Arguments have been advanced that the non-recognition or rejection of native customary laws and mores are another indication of human rights violations that lead to abuses being committed in the justice system. The non-recognition of indigenous law is part of a pattern of the denial of indigenous cultures, societies and identities in colonial and post-colonial States, and the difficulty that modern States have had in recognizing their own multicultural make-up. In many countries, a monist conception of national law prevents the adequate recognition of plural legal traditions and leads to the subordination of customary legal systems to one official legal norm. In these circumstances, non-official legal traditions have hardly survived at all, or have become clandestine. While legal security is provided in the courts in the framework of one official judicial system, indigenous peoples, whose own concept of legality is ignored, suffer from legal insecurity in the official system and their legal practices are often criminalized.27 Given the discrimination existing in the national judicial systems, it is not surprising that many indigenous peoples distrust it and that many ask for greater control over family, civil and criminal matters. This reflects questions relating to self-government and self-determination. To remedy the many injustices and indignities that indigenous peoples suffer in the justice system, alternative ways of dispensing justice and solving social conflicts have been attempted in numerous countries. Some States have made progress in recent years in recognizing and taking account of such customary practices, but others are still reluctant to modify their own legal structures in this sense. Numerous cases have been brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur. 55. A positive example is provided by Greenland Home Rule. Although based on the Danish system and administered by the Danish authorities, the Greenland justice system is responsive to the standards and values of Greenlandic society and traditional Inuit legal practice and customary law, with a strong emphasis on resocialization and the principle of extensive lay participation in the administration of justice. The judicial system differs significantly from the Danish system to which it is attached. Greenland has 16 local district courts that handle a wide variety of cases, including criminal and family law. Citizens are called to act as district judges, lay judges and defence counsel while local police handle the prosecuting function. The presiding judge is a lay judge who is assisted by two lay assessors. When a case is brought before the Greenland High Court in Nuuk, it is analysed and attended to by legally trained prosecutors, judges and counsel. In 1994, the Justice Review Commission recommended, inter alia, that local judges must have knowledge of the local community and its cultural values, and language skills in Greenlandic (see CERD/C/319/Add.1, paras. 139-141). 56. Courts in several States have accepted indigenous customs when dealing with land issues. The Supreme Court of Canada found in its decision in the Delgammukw case that occupancy sufficient to support aboriginal title should be based on both the physical occupation of the land in question and the pattern of land holdings in Aboriginal law. It accepted the use of indigenous oral histories as proof of historical facts, and ruled that “this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents”.28 There is a growing trend