by the Local Courts Act, 1963) are no longer presided over by a traditional leaders, as was formerly the case. The transition of control of these courts from traditional leaders to the judiciary is an ongoing process. The Local Courts Commission, overseen by the judiciary, selects and appoints Local Court Chairpeople and other key staff. The Local Courts Commission is required to appoint adjudication officers that are proficient in the local language, have been resident in the chiefdom for five years and are knowledgeable and experienced in the customs and traditions of the chiefdoms. The courts have jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters arising within the local jurisdiction which are not so serious as to attract fines / sentences above a set amount. The courts may be order restoration. However their jurisdiction does not extend to serious matters of sexual abuse, rape and/or murder. All decisions made by the Local Courts may be appealed to a District Appeals Court (made up of a magistrate and 2 assessors with experience in customary law) and thereafter to the Local Appeals Division of the High Court where matters are heard by a judge and 2 customary law lay experts. The country also has an informal traditional legal system which is administered by paramount chiefs, section chiefs and village headmen and other traditional dispute resolution structures. They often hold informal courts where they adjudicate cases, levy fines and impose other forms of punishment using local conflict resolution mechanisms. Whilst these structures have no formally recognized authority or jurisdiction, a 2005 study found that they enjoyed strong grassroots support and trust, largely because of the inaccessibility of the formal justice system and because of the perceived disjuncture between statutory laws and the lived experience of the majority of the population that live in the chiefdoms under customary law (Sawyer, 2008). This is especially true with regards to cases of child abuse. It is common practice for child offenders to be referred to the traditional dispute resolution mechanisms such as family elders, local or paramount chiefs or the Local Courts (Child Frontiers, 2011). This is cause for concern because of uncertainty as to the quality of justice provided by chiefs and local courts especially for children and other marginalized groups such as women. There is little information available about the processes and procedures followed by chiefs and local courts, especially with regards disputes involving children, and what role, if any, the child victim or offender plays in the proceedings, whether they participate and whether the sanctions or penalties handed down respect human rights (Child Frontiers, 2011). This information gap has been recognized and addressed with the commission of a study in 2014 by UNICEF on how traditional justice mechanisms affect children. 39. 16 In laying the foundations for the child protection system, the Child Rights Act has sought to strike a balance between international standards, traditional customs and practices, and inherited colonial legislation. It recognizes the rights of children to participate in cultural activities and further mandates that every child shall be brought up and educated to take pride in his culture and national identity, and that every child shall be provided with an opportunity to learn at least one indigenous Sierra Leone language from primary school. It further incorporates a number of customary decision-making procedures and practices and acknowledges the importance of traditional and religious leaders in the protection of children and adjudication of matters involving children, while simultaneously reinforcing respect for the best interests of children and the need to discontinue harmful customary practices.  Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone Initial Report on the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 2002-2014