In ordinary circumstances, the delay in resolving disputes through the courts could be reduced by providing for additional courts, judges, staff and facilities. But in the current situation, with large numbers of displaced persons and the prospect of a large number of new disputes, we do not believe that expanding the judicial infrastructure will provide an adequate solution. For IDPs and refugees wishing to return, the expense of going to court and the lengthy delay in final determination may be a deterrent to returning. Frustration with an inability to resolve the dispute quickly and equitably through the courts may also heighten communal tensions. The situation demands that disputes be resolved swiftly and in a just, equitable and effective manner. The judicial system is limited to resolving disputes according to the law and with reference to narrow legal remedies. In the case of unlawful secondary occupation, for example, both the original owner and the secondary occupant require effective remedies. If the law were strictly applied, either the owner would lose title due to the operation of the Prescription Ordinance, or, if occupation was less than ten years, the unlawful secondary occupant would be rendered homeless - neither of these outcomes are just or equitable for both parties. We have recommended an amendment to the Prescription Ordinance but, if amended, the unlawful secondary occupant would be evicted without any legal redress. It is clear that amendments to the law, while necessary, are not sufficient to produce humanitarian results. For this reason, we are of the view that even a restored and better-resourced judiciary would be unable to grant adequate and equitable redress to the parties involved. We therefore recommend the establishment of an alternate dispute resolution mechanism empowered to resolve property disputes expeditiously and to recommend equitable relief and redress (see next section). Recommendations for the judiciary: - Courts should be housed in appropriate accommodation and provided with adequate equipment. Court records should be restored. Legally-trained staff should be recruited. - Provision should be made for the Court of Appeal to have sittings in the conflict-affected areas as a circuit Court in order to speed up the appeal process. - The courts that are currently functioning as combined courts should be separated in to District and Magistrate Courts to allow the District Court to focus on the resolution of property rights cases. Recommendations for the establishment of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism It is beyond the capacity of the judiciary to deal fairly and expeditiously with the large number of property-related disputes that are anticipated to result from IDPs and refugees wishing to return to their homes. The expense and delay involved in resolving a dispute through the courts could be reduced if property claims were dealt with by an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Moreover, parties who do not have an effective legal remedy will be able to obtain some relief/redress. Article 4(c) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka sets out that the judicial power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals 30