A whole thread of what Raúl Zibechi discussed about the justice logic of the Zapatistas cause it was fascinating:

"Justice is a profession, the task of specialists. This commodification of justice leads to the installation of inequality. Whoever has money can be a good lawyer. https://twitter.com/lausanhk/status/1275171754491535362

What I want to emphasise is that when Justice is accessed by people & communities in a natural way without receiving remuneration, this changes radically. First of all, there is no room for corruption. In Latin America justice is corrupt in most countries.

Judges and trials can be purchased depending on financial capacity. Second of all is that Justice reproduces the inequality of society and amplifies them. In other words: Justice reproduces social injustice.

Third of all, this body of specialists have their own interests that differ from those of the population. Interests closer to those of other bodies such as those of the police than of all citizens. Justice and police work together and have the same logic in our countries.

None of this happens in community justice because it is the assembled population that delivers justice.

Justice is not about punishment, but about reparation. For me, this is the most important thing to discuss.

The indigenous concept of justice does not consist of punishment but of recovering the balance that has been lost. This aspect runs through the entire indigenous worldview, from health to relationship with nature and we can summarise it in one concept: reciprocity.

Reciprocity is key in the harmony between people and between them and nature. Therefore when someone hurts another person the key to justice is that the damage must be repaired. People say, community say, there is nothing to be gained by putting the person in jail.

Indigenous people have seen jail, the indigenous community know what is a jail. If someone killed someone else and we put him in jail, the result in the community will be our women missing their husbands and many children without their fathers.

So what the community decides—here I refer to the case of the Zapatistas support bases—is that the punishment of the person who did the killing must consist of supporting the entire family until the children come of age. That's only one example.

The ways in which justice is accessed is direct, without intermediaries, without professionals, but with the presence of their communities. They consist of the two families of the aggressor and the attacker meeting to decide how they go about recovering harmony.

In the case of Zapatismo the good government council is in charge of moving this process forward. I suggest reading the wonderful book "Justicia autónoma zapatista" written by Paulina Fernández Christlieb

The injured family goes to the good government council explaining and sharing about what happened. The council goes to the family of the aggressor then both families meet with the presence of people from the council until they reach an agreement.

It's a long way, a difficult way, but it's the indigenous worldview. I want to emphasise that the ways of imparting justice are for the people even more important than the result. In the occident, we are thinking only in results. They are thinking in *ways*.

To put another way, there is no difference between the ways of doing and the result since they are both part of the same. It is the family-community logic that makes the decision. This is what is considered a collective work. Making justice is collective work.