A/HRC/27/65 indigenous peoples’ lands such as that conducted by the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. B. The relationship between restorative justice, customary law and indigenous juridical systems 71. The relationship between restorative justice processes and those originating from indigenous and customary systems of law helps to define the scope of restorative justice. This is particularly relevant because restorative justice processes are often used by or in relation to indigenous peoples. There are several facets to this relationship, including the level of commonality between indigenous or customary law and restorative justice processes, the manner in which restorative processes are introduced (such as whether they are imposed on or derived from the community) and the appropriateness of transferring restorative justice processes that have been influenced by customary or indigenous law to other societies. 72. Systems of customary law are used in many parts of the world and frequently exist alongside more formal systems of law. They may share characteristics and objectives with restorative justice processes, such as an aspiration to achieve reconciliation between the parties, negotiate an outcome and involve the community in the delivery of justice. In some cases, restorative justice systems may adopt features of indigenous systems and in this way form a connection with the community. Despite these similarities, restorative justice processes and customary/indigenous law are distinct processes in that they differ in their origins. Furthermore, many indigenous peoples, tribes and Nations view their customary and indigenous laws as originating from inherent rights. C. Restorative justice and self-determination 73. An important and contentious issue for indigenous peoples and postcolonial nations today is that of indigenous peoples’ self-determination and what this may mean in terms of juridical systems. The right to self-determination is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which gives a strong normative directive to provide for indigenous control and participation in the justice processes by which they are affected. As highlighted above, several articles, in particular article 34, affirm that the use of indigenous juridical systems is an expression of, or contributes to, self-determination (see also articles 3, 4, 11.1 and 33). 74. The flexible and participatory nature of restorative justice processes, along with their inherent similarities to customary law, mean that they may provide a vehicle to support the use of indigenous justice systems and hence facilitate indigenous selfdetermination. Practices such as mediation are useful tools that can bridge the gap between formal legal systems and grass-roots justice work. However, features of some restorative justice processes may undermine their ability to support access to justice and selfdetermination, including “top-down” imposition and the possible politicization of these processes. 75. Confusion between those practices that are truly indigenous and those that merely adopt some features of customary law poses a threat to the facilitation of indigenous self- 17