To Countries Considering the Use of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Similar to Gacaca to Prosecute Serious Crimes
III. Methodology
IV. The Rwandan Genocide and the Decision to Use Gacaca
V. The Initial Phase of Gacaca
Differences between the Customary and Contemporary Gacaca Systems
The Legal Framework Governing Genocide Cases and Gacaca Courts
Rwanda's first genocide law
The gacaca laws
Gacaca's Pilot Phase
National Implementation of Gacaca
Repeated Extensions of Gacaca's Closing Date
The Final Phase of Gacaca
VI. Balancing Community-Based Conflict Resolution Practices with Fair Trial Standards
Limited International Fair Trial Rights in Gacaca
The right to counsel
The presumption of innocence
The right to be informed of the case and to have time to prepare a defense
The right to present a defense
The right to testify in one's defense and the right against self-incrimination
Protection from double jeopardy
The right to be present at one's own trial
The right not to be arbitrarily detained
Differences in Judicial Standards between Conventional Courts and Gacaca
Judges: qualifications, training, remuneration and removal
Burden and standards of proof
Sentencing and Reparations
Provisional releases
"Life imprisonment with special provisions"
Community service
Compensation
VII. The Community Dynamic of Gacaca
Community Participation
Risks for Witnesses
Risk of arbitrary arrest and detention or being charged with committing perjury or complicity in genocide
Fear of being ostracized by the community
Intimidation
Gacaca as a Means of Resolving Personal Grievances
Silencing Opponents and Critical Voices
The case of Dr. Théoneste Niyitegeka
The case of Father Guy Theunis
Other cases
VIII. Independence and Impartiality of the Gacaca Process
Potential Conflicts of Interest for Judges
Corruption and Personal Gain through Gacaca
Judges requesting bribes
Accused persons seeking exoneration
Genocide survivors seeking compensation
External Interference in Decision-Making
IX. Rape Cases: the Antithesis of Gacaca
The Decision to Transfer Rape Cases to Gacaca
Rape Cases that Were Not Brought before Gacaca
Rape Victims' Perspectives on Gacaca
X. Selective Justice and the Failure to Address Rwandan Patriotic Front Crimes
XI. Perspectives on Gacaca
Genocide Survivors' Perspectives
The Perspectives of Those Accused of Genocide and their Families
Reconciliation Achieved?
XII. International Support for Gacaca
XIII. Conclusion
Annex I. Letter to the Rwandan Minister of Justice from Human Rights Watch, March 30, 2011
Annex II. Response to Human Rights Watch from the Rwandan Minister of Justice, May 5 2011
Acknowledgements.
Summary:
"Since 2005, just over 12,000 community-based gacaca courts in Rwanda have heard more than 1.2 million cases against people accused of involvement in the country's 1994 genocide. The local population across the country participated in these trials, and judges were lay members of the community. The objectives of gacaca were to deliver justice for the genocide, reduce the massive prison population, and foster reconciliation. This ambitious experiment in transitional justice leaves behind a mixed legacy. Recognizing the enormous challenge the Rwandan government faced in building a system to rapidly process tens of thousands of cases, this report notes some of gacaca's achievements, including the swift work of the courts, the extensive participation of local communities, and the opportunity for genocide survivors to learn what happened to their relatives. Gacaca may also have helped some victims find a way to live peacefully with neighbors who may have perpetrated crimes against them or their families. However, the longer-term processes of justice and reconciliation remain fraught and incomplete. Rwandans have had to pay a price for the compromises made in applying community-based justice to crimes as serious as genocide. Mixing elements of a modern punitive legal system with more informal conflict-resolution traditions, gacaca lacked a number of important safeguards against violations of due process. Based on Human Rights Watch's extensive trial observations and interviews, and drawing on more than 350 gacaca cases, the report explains how justice has been compromised in many cases. It highlights a wide range of fair trial violations, including limitations on accused persons' ability to effectively defend themselves, intimidation of defense witnesses, flawed decision-making due to inadequate training for lay judges and insufficient guidelines on the application of complex criminal law concepts. Many decisions were likely influenced by judges' ties to the parties in a case or their pre-conceived views of what happened during the genocide. Other cases suggest that accusations of participation in the genocide were no more than trumped-up charges linked to disputes between neighbors and relatives or to the government's attempts to silence critics. Corruption by judges and interested parties was a constant threat to the integrity of the system and some judges had to be removed on that basis. As gacaca draws to a close, the Rwandan government should ensure that a specialized unit of the conventional court system reviews alleged miscarriages of justice. Impartial handling of these cases will be of paramount importance to the legacy of gacaca and to strengthening the Rwandan justice system in the longer term."--P. [4] of cover.
Note:
Also available via the Internet on the Human Rights Watch web site.