A/HRC/42/37 72. Indigenous justice systems may subordinate consideration of the best interests of the individual child to other perceived communal interests or may not distinguish between children and adults in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 73. Most if not all of these inconsistencies with international human rights norms may also be present in ordinary State justice systems and in certain countries may be more pronounced in the State system than in the indigenous system. So although consistency with international human rights is an important concern for both indigenous and nonindigenous justice systems, the mere existence of human rights concerns in indigenous justice systems should not in itself constitute a valid argument to reject their legitimacy. 74. At the same time, international law, standards and research have produced detailed guidance on how ordinary justice systems should address such concerns, as well as corruption, abuse of power or other forms of judicial misconduct, and many countries have specific procedures and institutions for addressing these issues in a consistent and systematic manner. Indigenous justice systems tend to lack formal processes and mechanisms for making decision makers accountable. However, giving State authorities the primary responsibility for ensuring the integrity of indigenous justice actors risks undermining the autonomy of the indigenous system. Limitation of jurisdiction 75. Even when States give legal recognition to indigenous justice systems, relevant laws frequently impose restrictions on the scope of indigenous jurisdiction, often limiting the competency to minor offences and restricting jurisdiction to material, personal and territorial elements which have occurred within the territorial boundaries of an indigenous community.44 Indigenous jurisdiction thus tends to be interpreted by many domestic State and legislative authorities as limited to internal matters of relatively minor scale such as inter- or intra-familial disputes and small-scale thefts of property where both accused and victim are indigenous persons. Indigenous organizations have criticized this as an attempt to subordinate indigenous justice to State justice (A/HRC/27/65, para. 25). 76. The Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial has similarly referred to limited jurisdiction, holding that States must ensure that “courts based on customary law … cannot hand down binding judgments recognized by the State, unless … proceedings before such courts are limited to minor civil and criminal matters, … and their judgments are validated by State courts in light of the guarantees set out in the Covenant and can be challenged by the parties concerned in a procedure meeting the requirements of article 14 of the Covenant”. 77. The previous Special Rapporteur emphasized the need for flexibility in delineating the spheres of competency of indigenous authorities. He recommended that indigenous jurisdiction not necessarily be limited to cases occurring within a particular indigenous community’s territory, or involving members of the same indigenous community or people (A/HRC/15/37/Add.7, para. 12). States should recognize the dynamic character of indigenous customary law and the ability of indigenous justice systems, like other justice systems, to change and adapt to contemporary situations and contexts, and adjudicate new types of issues or disputes, in a manner that is consistent with their social, political and cultural precepts (ibid., para. 10). 78. State authorities should consider recognizing the jurisdiction of indigenous justice authorities to adjudicate matters involving non-indigenous persons and entities present in their lands. The impunity of perpetrators should always be a concern, particularly in areas where State institutions are practically absent. This need not be an “all or nothing” choice: cooperative mechanisms could see initial investigation of a non-indigenous person committing a criminal infraction in indigenous territory carried out by indigenous justice authorities, followed by transfer to the ordinary system. 44 14 See, for example, the Law on Jurisdictional Demarcation, (Ley No 073 de Deslinde Jurisdiccional), Plurinational State of Bolivia (2010).