A/HRC/15/35 82. The introduction of a public government in areas where indigenous peoples form a majority is another example of direct self-governance. Examples include Greenland60 and Nunavut,61 in which the Inuit enjoy a majority in public government bodies. D. Participation in hybrid systems of governance 83. Alternative models include what have been termed hybrid systems of governance, in which indigenous peoples participate in governmental processes by applying, to varying degrees, their own decision-making structures and practices. 84. In the judicial context, some States incorporate indigenous laws into statutory laws, allowing communities to decide matters according to their own laws.62 In some cases, constitutional recognition is also accorded to customary laws, as in the case of Malaysia, which allows the State of Sabah to enact laws autonomously and establish indigenous legal institutions to implement such laws. Other models include recognizing the jurisdiction of indigenous law over specific areas of cultural importance.63 85. Other jurisdictions have focused on the participation of indigenous elders to varying degrees, such as in Australia for instance, in hearing cases involving Aboriginal people within the mainstream criminal justice system. The aim is to make court processes more culturally appropriate, so as to engender greater trust between indigenous communities and judicial officers, and to permit more informal exchanges of information about defendants and their cases. 86. When looking at different hybrid judicial models, what is important is that indigenous peoples are fully consulted and participate in deciding on the structure of such bodies. Moreover, from the diverse nature of the submissions received as contributions to the study on indigenous peoples and the right to participate in decision-making, it is evident that, while some indigenous peoples may applaud the incorporation of indigenous laws into national laws, this may not always be the case, as some communities feel that the incorporation of these laws into mainstream systems can distort the spirit of these laws or contribute to the loss of indigenous control over their own legal and other systems. E. State-established councils or committees 87. Indigenous peoples have been particularly critical of certain State-established councils and committees, especially where such bodies have effectively taken over traditional decision-making processes. Indeed, these structures have been used historically by governments to convey a semblance of engagement with communities, while serving the purpose of silencing indigenous dissent towards government policies and practices. Indigenous representatives are often appointed to State-controlled committees on the basis of their appeal to government, while the procedure for appointment itself has often been 59 60 61 62 63 20 The Miskito Coast in Nicaragua. See generally the Mayangna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, judgement of 31 August 2001, Inter-American Human Rights Court (Ser. C), No. 79 (2001). Submission by Greenland. Jack Hicks and Graham White (2000), “Nunavut: Inuit self-determination through a land claim and public government?” in Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control of Their Lands and Their Lives, Jens Dahl, Jack Hicks and Peter Jull, eds. (Copenhagen, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 2000). Submission by Elina K. Horo (India). Submission by Chief Wilton Littlechild and Andrea Carmen. See also United States of America, Indian Child Welfare Act, 1978.