A/HRC/34/59 68. The repeal of the Sorcery Act followed a nationwide consultation and review by the Constitutional Law Reform Commission. The Commission found that the law, although rarely used, contained various contradictions and inconsistencies, and was difficult to enforce. The Commission also found that the Act used ambiguous terminology. For example, it referred to the difference between “innocent” and “forbidden” sorcery, but did not clearly specify what those acts constituted. The Commission also reflected on the technical difficulty of identifying the consequences of sorcery in a court procedure and on linking sorcery to a given consequence, as it was practically impossible to provide evidence that would prove its use. Further, the Commission found that the Act focused principally on the sorcerer as the perpetrator and did not adequately address violence perpetrated against persons accused of sorcery or of being a sorcerer. The Commission also found that the existence of the Act itself could perpetuate belief in sorcery as a means of harming or killing another person. Finally, the Commission found that sorcery as such was not a matter falling under the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals, but was to be dealt with by religious and spiritual leaders. However, any violence related to witchcraft, including murders and attacks, was a criminal offence that should be treated as such by the courts and tribunals (see A/HRC/23/49/Add.2, paras. 64-66). 69. It is likely that similar laws, including those inherited from the colonial era, when examined in the light of the principles of human rights, including the rule of law and the right to a fair trial, would lead to outcomes similar to the ones prescribed by the Commission. They include repealing outdated legislation on witchcraft, while emphasizing the necessity of sanctioning persons who accuse others of witchcraft; making it generally known that harmful practices related to witchcraft would be prosecuted; and ensuring that mere belief in witchcraft is not criminalized. However, as witchcraft in general has yet to feature prominently on the radar of human rights mechanisms, the initiation of a systemwide approach, beginning with a scaled-up version of the exercise conducted in Papua New Guinea, including an exercise in definition, is timely. Regulating traditional medicine 70. In certain countries, organizations of traditional healers have established oversight systems to control the practice of their members. This is the case in Mozambique, where oversight takes the form of voluntary registration in the association of traditional healers. 71. However, these efforts provide only limited control owing to several factors. First is the absence of a normative framework and legislative clarity on the difference between traditional medicine and witchcraft. This ambiguity is being abused by criminals posing as traditional healers, but also by genuine traditional healers who go beyond using herbs and animal body parts to using body parts of persons with albinism to attract a higher price for their services. 72. Second are the inherent limits of self-regulation, weak law enforcement and the absence of a far-reaching oversight mechanism for both urban and rural areas. Further, selfregulation by organizations of traditional healers have done little to prevent purported practitioners of traditional medicine from establishing themselves on their own, with no oversight at all. Weak enforcement of government licensing systems has also led to similar situations. 73. WHO, in its study on the legal status of traditional medicine, details the status of traditional medicine in 123 countries around the world, showing the diverse approaches taken by States with respect to the practice. In sub-Saharan Africa, some States recognize traditional medicine as part of the national health system while others are silent on the issue. There are also variations between States in the level of regulation of traditional medicine practitioners. Some countries have established registers of practitioners, or exercise control by issuing government licences at the central level; in others, local officials 16