Abstract This article develops an evaluative framework for community-rooted justice systems through comparative analysis of South Africa’s Community Advice Offices (CAOs) and Bolivia’s constitutionally recognised Indigenous jurisdictions. Departing from courtroom-centric approaches that have dominated access-to-justice scholarship, the study employs socio-legal methodology synthesising ethnographic research, constitutional texts and institutional analyses. The examination reveals that both systems derive legitimacy from relational embeddedness rather than formal legal authority, resolve disputes holistically within social networks and navigate ongoing tensions between community autonomy and state regulation. From these practices, five evaluative dimensions emerge inductively: accessibility, responsiveness, legitimacy, empowerment and sustainability. The framework offers conceptual tools for assessing alternative justice mechanisms on their own terms, contributing to a shift from descriptive legal pluralism toward evaluative pluralism attentive to how communities themselves produce and experience justice.
Kasim Balarabe (Fri,) studied this question.