08/04/2006

Click here to read the entire article.

Below is an excerpt of an article from AllAfrica.com:

Rwanda is a country that has become synonymous with genocide. The figure given by the current Rwandan government is that one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered in the 100 days between April and July 1994. Twelve years on, the country is dealing with the legacy.

The capital, Kigali, bears all the hallmarks of a poor country being patronised by richer nations. Roads have been built in the capital and to every major urban settlement with donor funds. Shiny four-wheel-drive vehicles, driven by foreign aid workers, cruise along the freshly tarmac-ed streets. The collective guilt of an international community that stood by and failed to act in the face of such an atrocity is almost palpable. But there is a question as to whether these efforts are helping a country deal with its past. The efforts to help the country come to terms with the effects of the genocide occur daily. Different NGOs have set up programmes to provide assistance to those traumatised and to promote dialogue in the communities. Assistance and anti-retro viral drugs are given to those with HIV/AIDS (which spreads rapidly after a genocide), as well as to victims of rape. The quest for justice is also a major consideration when dealing with the past.

Justice for the community, by the community

…

Despite the number of people involved, the Rwandan government has said no to any form of impunity. Often other countries that have experienced widespread atrocities have chosen to prosecute the main instigators but not prosecute the ordinary people. However, Rwanda has declared that justice must be done at all levels.

After preliminary investigations were concluded, it was estimated that 100,000 people would need to be prosecuted. As Caroline Stainier, of Avocats Sans Frontieres, points out: "No ordinary courts could digest that quantity and give them a fair trial in a decent amount of time", much less courts emerging from a society ravaged by genocide and exodus. The gacaca procedure was chosen as the best alternative to the problem.

Gacaca literally means grass, but also refers to a traditional justice procedure in Rwandan society. Local-level courts that were traditionally used by village communities would gather on a patch of grass to resolve conflicts - usually between families - using the head of each household as a judge. Faced with the dilemma of wanting to reject impunity, yet aware that the ordinary courts could not handle the number of trials required, the Rwandan government introduced the "gacaca process". The law provided for gacaca courts to be set up throughout Rwanda to try certain cases relating to genocide.

…

Reconciliation: the view from the ground

…

Criticising the gacaca process, or even the regime in Rwanda, can have serious consequences. Several NGOs were forced to move out of Rwanda as the government accused them of having "a genocidal ideology". At all levels of government, there is a concern, almost a suspicion, that outsiders may have a desire to downplay the magnitude of the genocide. As Augustin Nkusi, the Director of the Legal Support Unit for the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions warns: "Unfortunately in places like Belgium there are a lot of people who try to say that there was not a genocide. They sometimes spread misinformation, also about processes such as the gacaca process. It would be better if they were to return and we could work together to build a future in peace."

It is hard to disentangle the complex webs of suspicion and distrust to find the 'truth' of what is going on in Rwanda. Reaction to the current events there differs hugely depending on who is being asked. Some have expressed their concerns by escaping. In 2005, after the gacaca process was rolled out at the cellule level across the country, according to the NGO Refugees International, approximately 10,000 Hutus fled Rwanda to refugee camps in Burundi, claiming that they feared reprisals in the gacaca courts.

Yet the gacaca process has had some proponents, although their number does seem to be dwindlng with the prospect of the introduction of a new law. At the least, Rwandans do feel that the gacaca process is relevant to them and part of their lives; whereas the ICTR is a remote entity about which they know and care little about. The fact that the ICTR has to date, 12 years after it was set up, only convicted 24 people, of whom eight are still appealing their convictions, does not enhance its image.

The gacaca courts were set up to provide a zero tolerance approach to impunity for anyone who was involved, no matter how small the involvement, in the genocide. They were also meant to commence the process of healing a divided society, but many feel that the courts are actually deepening divides. As Stainier replied to a question about the link between justice and reconciliation: "Sometimes I think too much is expected from justice. Justice does not equate to reconciliation. A fair justice is only one step on the road towards and reconciliation, which is something organic, something which cannot be decreed."