There is concern that the informality and lack of rules in restorative justice might lead to practices that fail to respect fundamental basic human rights. Informality is favored to promote understanding and an easy participation of all parties with a stake in an offense. There is a lack of written rules in restorative justice that may lead to arbitrariness and injustice. A judicial translation of the aims and procedures of restorative justice have become necessary. There are five issues that need further regulation: (1) the principle of proportionality; (2) the principle of voluntary participation; (3) the right to legal assistance; (4) the outcome of the restorative justice process and its influence on the criminal justice system; and (5) the presumption of innocence. A human rights approach along with real restorative justice codes of good practice might offer an instrument towards good and real restorative justice practice, respectful of fundamental human rights. This will offer a more objective and clear instrument to fulfill independent scientific research. A judicial restorative justice instrument is in the interest of the minor, as well as the victim. More clarity on rights and obligations within restorative justice processes would exist towards offender and victim. However, proclaiming rights and standards is not the same as observing them. Differences between law in books and law in action will occur. Sufficient financial means, workable structures, a well formed staff, in addition to a judicial restorative justice instrument, all seem factors towards real and just restorative practices. 2 notes, 34 references