A/HRC/27/65 V. Restorative justice A. Towards a definition of restorative justice 67. The continued development and application of restorative justice processes means that it is impossible to give a single comprehensive definition of the term. Processes that are identified as restorative may differ in important ways such as the necessity or desirability of retribution and punishment, the extent to which affected parties should participate and interact, and the degree of focus on victims. Despite these differences, several features are commonly associated with restorative justice processes. These include the provision of an opportunity to share experiences, a focus on restoring relationships, a requirement of an apology and/or reparation, active participation by the parties in negotiating a just resolution and an emphasis on creating a dialogue between the parties.48 68. A feature of restorative justice processes is that they may be applied in a broad range of contexts. Therefore, in determining the scope and nature of restorative justice, it is useful to consider the various uses of these processes and to compare these with others arising from different traditions, such as indigenous legal systems and customary law. Restorative justice processes can address a wide range of issues, from matters affecting entire peoples and communities (such as colonization and forced assimilation; for example, the Indian Residential School systems in North America) to disputes between individuals at the community level. 69. Some restorative justice processes are usually associated with particular types of use. For example, sentencing circles are commonly used in the criminal sphere and truth commissions are often used in post-conflict societies.49 The distinction between practices and the contexts in which they are used is not always clear-cut. For example, in a criminal context, there is a focus on using restorative justice in relation to the victim, offender and those affected by the crime. However, the use of these processes may also facilitate peace and reconciliation within broader society by reducing rates of recidivism,50 increasing community autonomy and fostering understanding between the parties.51 70. Another factor in considering restorative justice processes is their role in facilitating access to justice in relation to large-scale issues, such as gross violations of human rights and past injustices towards indigenous peoples by a State. When used in this way, restorative justice processes again demonstrate that this type of use is not completely distinct from that involving criminal acts of individuals. For example, although a truth commission may be designed to address injustice experienced by the wider community, its operation will affect how justice is accessed, administered and delivered to individuals. Other examples include national land inquiries related to systemic dispossession of 48 49 50 51 16 For an introduction to restorative justice, including definitions and key features of restorative justice programmes, see United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.06.V.15). See, for example, OHCHR, Transitional Justice and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (HR/PUB/13/5) and OHCHR, Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Truth Commissions (HR/PUB/06/01). James Bonta et. al. “Restorative justice and recidivism: promises made, promises kept?” in Handbook of Restorative Justice: a Global Perspective, Dennis Sullivan and Larry Tifft, eds. (Abingdon, Routledge, 2007). This effect is discussed in relation to truth-telling and sharing of experiences through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada, available from www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=7.