How Rwanda’s traditional courts are speeding up trials of genocide suspects

Fifteen years have elapsed since Rwanda witnessed one of the world’s ugliest bloodbaths. More than one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were butchered within 100 days. With the killings still fresh in the memories of survivors, the only consolation is that justice is being speeded up, thanks to the traditional courts known as Gacaca. Faced with a deluge of cases and the limited number of chambers to try the 1994 genocide suspects, the Rwandan Government opted for Gacaca, which literally means grass in Kinyarwanda. Gacaca courts have their origin in the Rwandan tradition, in which community members used to sit on the grass as they solved their various disputes.

“In relation to the genocide, the Gacaca process is a cornerstone for reconciliation among the Rwandan population because it removes suspicions and helps eradicate the culture of impunity”, says Bikesha Denis, Director of training and mobilization at the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions. According to Denis, the Gacaca trials foster a spirit of reconciliation among the victims and the perpetrators who disclose the whole truth about the crimes they committed and ask for forgiveness. After the genocide, Gacaca courts were codified into the constitution and now handle legal issues. The process involves confessing for crimes committed during the genocide and asking for forgiveness. The suspects also reveal their accomplices as well as the number of families they killed and where they hid the bodies. Since the suspects are known by members of the community who witnessed the genocide, any attempt to lie attracts stiffer penalties.

“Gacaca has helped a lot in shedding some light on the genocide. With suspects being tried within communities, they have been very open and have given vital information, including where they hid the remains of their victims. This has enabled the families to collect the bodies of their loved ones and rebury them with dignity”, adds Fred Mutanguha, Director of the Kigali genocide memorial centre.

Denis reiterates that Gacaca courts were mainly borne out of an urgent necessity to speed up trials of the genocide suspects. When the ordinary courts started hearing genocide case in 1996, there were only 13 chambers and 120, 000 suspects awaiting trial.

“Naturally, the courts were overwhelmed and could not cope with this big number. Six years after the trials begun, only 6,000 suspects had been tried. It became obvious that it would take several years to try all the suspects, hence the need for a speedy justice system”, says Denis.
Gacaca courts were established at four administrative levels namely, the cell, sector, district/town and Province/city of Kigali by Article 51 of Organic Law nº16/2004 of June 19, 2004 determining their organisation, functioning and competence. On 10 March 2005, genocide-related trials began in Gacaca Courts. The maximum sentence that the courts are allowed top hand down to a suspect is a 30-year jail term, with most suspects being sentenced to community service.
But who qualifies to be a judge in the Gacaca courts? The judges who serve in the courts are known in Kinyarwanda as Inyangamugayo and are elected by the community on the basis of integrity. Women comprise 30 per cent of the judges’ population, currently standing at 169,442. Each court has 19 judges on the bench. Since genocide-related trials began in Gacaca courts on 10th June 2005, more than 1.5 million cases have been successfully tried.

“With the competence that we have within our jurisdiction, we do not expect the cases to go beyond this year”, Denis promises.
The first phase of the Gacaca process involved investigations and data collection on the genocide. Each household was contacted for information, which led to the opening up of files for suspects.
The suspects were then grouped into three categories. The first category comprised the planners, organizers and supervisors of the genocide. These included leaders at national, provincial or district level or within political parties or religious groups or militia. Also in this category are well known murderers who distinguished themselves because of the zeal with which they conducted the killings. Those who committed rape and acts of sexual torture also fall under this category.
The second category is composed of authors of the propaganda material that fuelled genocide as well as those who were given instructions to kill. The third category comprises those who destroyed or looted property.
Though the Gacaca process has helped in speeding up trials of the genocide suspects, it also has its challenges. At the inception of the process, the genocidal ideology which was present almost everywhere in the country threatened to derail the functioning of Gacaca courts. The security of the survivors as well as of persons who confessed their crimes and pleaded guilty and other witnesses and persons of integrity of Gacaca Courts was threatened. During the data collection exercise, a number of notebooks were destroyed by suspects, while others fled into exile.

“It pains me that the people who killed my family are still very much around and God knows what they could do to me if I testify against them”, bemoans Agathe Kayinamura, a young lady who survived the genocide.

Denis confirms Kayinamura’s fears, noting that like in all other sensitive cases, witnesses who are survivors of the genocide have faced death threats.

“Challenges abound indeed. Often times, cases get adjourned when witnesses get traumatized during trials. For instance, survivors have been breaking down during trials involving rape cases. The mere confession by perpetrators that they raped their victims then inserted long sharp objects into their genitals, which then exited through the mouth, has caused a lot of trauma to many of the witnesses. Besides this, the main problem facing the Rwandan Government is how to compensate victims”, Denis observes.

According to Denis, it was also later discovered that a big number of persons elected as Inyangamugayo were themselves perpetrators of the genocide. This slowed down the process as replacements were sought. Some judges also refused to preside over the cases because their relatives were culprits. Then there were perpetrators who used their positions in government to threaten judges and witnesses in a bid to silence the courts.

However, efforts are being made to reconcile the genocidaires with the community. The Rwandan Government has established a National Commission for Unity and Reconciliation that is charged with the reconciliation process. But most of the time, when perpetrators confess to the victims about their crimes and ask for forgiveness, the process of healing and reconciliation begins.

Asked to comment on the efficacy of the Arusha-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Denis says justice would have been faster had the trials been conducted in Rwanda. However, he admits that Gacaca courts do not have the competence to try the key suspects and the ordinary courts would have been given that mandate if the trials were to be conducted locally.

And what advice does he have for the Kenyan leadership that is currently divided on whether to try the ring leaders of the 2007 post-election violence locally or hand them over to the International Criminal Court at The Hague?

“Personally, I do not believe in the Hague system. Cases should be tried in countries where crimes were committed. In any case, it would be very expensive and time consuming to transport witnesses to The Hague. In Rwanda, we have also had experience with witnesses being transported to the ICTR in Arusha, only for them to fail to communicate effectively once they arrive at that unfamiliar territory. Having said that, what I would suggest for Kenya is that the key leaders who funded the violence should be taken to The Hague while another tribunal should be set up locally to try suspects who committed lesser crimes. To end the culture of impunity, nobody should be allowed to go scot-free”, Denis offers.