Commentators’ perspectives on truth through gacaca

Commentators on gacaca consider to varying degrees all three processes of truth, but with a particular emphasis on truth-shaping. Regarding truth-telling, most commentators recognise the potential virtues (and risks) of the dialogical space that gacaca creates.

Non-Rwandan commentators disagree substantially on the virtues of truth-telling through gacaca. Ingelaere and Waldorf, who have con­ducted extensive research into gacaca, are deeply sceptical of this part of the process on two primary grounds: first, that truth-telling through gacaca is primarily a �?top-down' process by which the state imposes legal and historical truths on the population and encourages punitiveness against Hutu; and second, that public testimony opposes a Rwandan cultural preference for silence and secrecy and thus violates embedded social norms.^[478] Ingelaere believes these two elements are closely linked. He argues, quoting the anthropologist Danielle de Lame, �?A “cult of secrecy” and the “consensus of the subjects” are two intertwined aspects of Rwandan culture. They function as remnants of the traditional organ­ization of society.'^[479] Waldorf, also quoting de Lame, argues, �?It is unreal­istic to expect people to tell the truth about the genocide in gacaca given all the cultural and micro-political constraints (not to mention the threat of prison). There is a “pervasive” culture of secrecy in rural Rwanda.'^[480] Ingelaere and Waldorf argue that not only are there long­standing cultural barriers to truth-telling at gacaca, but the government has encouraged a discourse of accusations and denunciations through gacaca to generate a punitive approach towards Hutu that undermines any form of open, discursive space.^[481]

Alexandre Dauge-Roth implicitly opposes such depictions, especially the notion of a Rwandan tendency towards silence and secrecy, argu­ing that for the post-genocide population - and survivors in particu­lar - silence represents the perpetuation of their trauma.

In the context of genocide survival and its aftermath, to bear witness represents the possibility �?of' and a call �?for' a dialogic space where sur­vivors seek to redefine the present meaning derived from their experience and its haunting resonance. In their attempt to re-envision and re-assert themselves through testimony, survivors move from a position of being subjected to political violence to a position that entails the promise of agency and the possibility of crafting the meaning of who they are.^[483]

Mark Drumbl broadly supports Dauge-Roth's interpretation of the importance of the discursive space created by gacaca but he believes that today gacaca's �?discursive potential remains underexploited'.^[484] Drumbl argues that gacaca has become increasingly �?adversarial' and �?judicial- ised', reflecting the Rwandan government's overly compliant response to international legal concerns over the openness and discursivity of the early phases of gacaca which has driven an increasing emphasis on gacaca's more legalistic and punitive aspects.^[485]

Most commentators echo the government's interpretation of truth at gacaca as truth-hearing, with its emphasis on the importance of legal truth-hearing (in the form of the four lists constructed primarily from confession and witness testimony). A minority of commentators argues that truth-hearing involves the extra-legal acknowledgement of sur­vivors' experiences in order to facilitate healing. Karekezi, for example, argues that gacaca is a vital forum for �?the reconstruction of facts...

The focus of most commentators, however, is on the process of truth­shaping in which leaders and observers distil supposedly broader truths from deliberations at gacaca hearings. These broader truths, according to many commentators, tend to take two forms - historical and moral - that are usually linked. The interpretation of truth-shaping as an his­torical enterprise comes mostly from academic commentators, many of whom are already engaged in, or hope some day to engage in, construct­ing detailed historical accounts of the genocide on the basis of evidence recorded at gacaca. Rwandan commentators for the most part have expressed greater concern than non-Rwandans for the need to engage in this kind of historical truth-shaping. Such an ethic motivated the pub­lication of several lengthy accounts of the events of the genocide, based on months of interviews with survivors and the general population, for example the 1,200-page account published by African Rights, entitled Rwanda: Death, Despair and Defiance.^[487] In 2003, African Rights embarked on a research project designed to gather testimonies from gacaca hear­ings across Rwanda in order to verify the historical details described in the original book.^[488] Recording discursive material in this way is intended to produce lasting historical accounts that future generations may use for better comprehending the experiences of the genocide.

Some commentators also argue that truth-shaping should involve distilling moral lessons from the community's discourse at gacaca in order to inculcate civic virtues in the population. Gasibirege describes gacaca as a �?school of truth' in which judges embody virtues of truth, non­discrimination and justice, which the community in turn should learn and practise in daily life.^[489] These values, he argues, will help eradicate the culture of impunity and help the population resolve future disputes.

Finally, my research indicates that some judicial sources external to gacaca have been shaping truth gathered at gacaca towards legal ends in their own jurisdictions. In May 2003, Maria Warren, ICTR Chief of Information and Evidence, and Don Webster, ICTR Prosecuting Attorney, stated that the Tribunal was interested in using evidence from gacaca hearings in its own trials.^[492] ICTR trial notes since then indicate that the Tribunal has actively pursued records of gacaca hearings to assist in its own cases.^[493] In more recent years, ICTR defence counsel has begun paying close attention to evidence gathered by gacaca, particularly as the same witnesses sometimes provide divergent testimony in front of the ICTR and gacaca, allowing defence teams to question the reliability of their evidence in ICTR trials.^[494] While the ICTR judges questioned the validity of the gacaca process when deciding in 2008 to block the transfer of suspects from the ICTR to the Rwandan national courts, both pros­ecution and defence teams at the ICTR have discovered significant legal use for the testimony delivered at gacaca.^[495] This has led to regular inves­tigative missions by ICTR staff to the NSGJ headquarters in Kigali and to various gacaca jurisdictions around Rwanda.

Many investigators from Arusha have come here looking for evidence. They bring translators and ask to see the records from our hearings, asking if this person or that one has given evidence to us. These visits have become so regular that, if we think certain evidence will be useful for the investigators, we record it in simpler language in our notebooks... The language that people speak here is not always easy for outsiders to understand. The people use many proverbs and tell many stories and outsiders often misinterpret this, so sometimes we change the language for them.^[496]

This example underscores that, over time, gacaca has acquired new audiences, such as ICTR investigators, and their interest has altered the function of the process, in this case the ways in which the inyangamu- gayo record gacaca testimony. Such developments further highlight the dynamism of gacaca, as it morphs and evolves according to new actors and influences. This also shows the increasing tendency of the different levels of post-genocide justice institutions to intersect and interact, such that the ICTR sees practical benefit in gacaca's evidence-gathering and the operation of gacaca shifts in the wake of international involvement.