ABSTRACT
This chapter analyses some tools that can overcome the practical difficulties a court may face when the need for cultural expertise arises in a trial. The tools proposed are: a cultural test that systematizes the questions to be answered by cultural experts and by judges, thus avoiding the current random approach to each cultural dispute; a handbook on cultural practices written by anthropologists, which can be consulted and used by judges and lawyers when practical conditions prevent the appointment of a cultural expert; a database of cultural expertise to share anthropological knowledge; and continuing training courses to educate judges in the basics of anthropology. The chapter acknowledges that recourse to cultural expertise is not always possible for reasons such as cost (cultural expertise may be expensive, and the justice system may lack resources), organization of the anthropological domain (not all jurisdictions have a state board of anthropologists), and lack of available experts on a specific cultural group in the relevant country. Although the presence of a cultural expert in each case is crucial for introducing anthropological knowledge into the trial, the chapter suggests other realistic ways in which anthropology can significantly contribute to legal reasoning when an expert is not available. Seeking systematization and ‘democratization’ of anthropological knowledge, the chapter endorses recognition of the figure of an ‘anthropologist judge’, with greater capacity to call upon and manage, autonomously when needed, the tools provided by anthropology.
