Gacaca begins

At the outset, the government stated that gacaca was designed to expedite justice for genocide crimes, while pursuing more subtle social goals such as reconciliation by encouraging direct community partici­pation in genocide prosecutions.

Republic of Rwanda, October 2000, Article 13 (from hereon, referred to as the �Gacaca Law’). The Gacaca Law has been modified five times, as explored in greater detail below. The five documents that comprise these modifications are: Republic of Rwanda, �Loi Organique No. 33/2001 du 22/6/2001 modifiant et completant Loi Organique No. 40/2000 du 26 Janvier 2001 portant creation des “juridictions gacaca” et organisation des poursuite des infractions con- stitutives du crime de genocide ou de crimes contre l’humanite, commises entre le 1 octobre 1990 et 31 decembre 1994’, Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, 22 June 2001 (from her­eon, referred to as the �Gacaca Law [Modified 2001]’); Republic of Rwanda, �Organic Law No. 16/2004 of 19/6/2004 Establishing the Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Gacaca Courts Charged with Prosecuting and Trying the Perpetrators of the Crime of Genocide and other Crimes against Humanity, Committed between 1 October 1990 and 31 December 1994’, Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, 19 June 2004 (from hereon, referred to as the �Gacaca Law [Modified 2004]’); Republic of Rwanda, �Organic Law No.

2007 (from hereon, referred to as �Gacaca Law [Modified 2007]’); and Republic of Rwanda, �Organic Law No. 13/2008 of 19/05/2008 Modifying and Complementing Organic Law No. 16/2004 of 19/6/2004 Establishing the Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Gacaca Courts Charged with Prosecuting and Trying the Perpetrators of the Crime of Genocide and Other Crimes against Humanity, Committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, as Modified and Complemented to Date’, Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, 19 May

2008 (from hereon, referred to as �Gacaca Law [Modified 2008]’). Gacaca Law (Modified 2004) and Gacaca Law (Modified 2008) constitute a more significant rewriting of parts of the original Gacaca Law than do the other modified laws. The 2001, 2006 and 2007 revised document are concerned primarily with minor changes to the wording of several sections of the Gacaca Law, while the 2004 and 2008 versions comprise several important reforms of the gacaca process, outlined later in this chapter.

⁵² See, for example, Murigande, â€?Report on Urugwiro Talks’, pp.30—3.

⁵³ F. Kerrigan, â€?Some Issues of Truth, Justice and Reconciliation in Genocide Trials before Gacaca Tribunals in Rwanda’, Copenhagen: DCHR, April 2002. observe the hearings and to provide analyses for further government consideration.^[149]

These pre-gacaca hearings ran similarly to the traditional method of gacaca discussed above, with the exception that government-selected �procureurs’ and their assistants, rather than family heads or communally elected judges, conducted hearings. The procureurs heard evidence from witnesses and survivors in detainees’ communities and after considering the testimony, along with the evidence already contained in suspects’ files, they decided whether or not there was sufficient evidence to war­rant the reimprisonment of the detainees. During pre-gacaca, it was stressed that those suspects who were released on the grounds of insuffi­cient evidence could be required to appear again before gacaca when it became fully operational, if subsequent evidence came to light.

An important development during the pre-gacaca process, as noted by observers from PRI, was the introduction of �groupes de choc’ or �con­fession teams’.^[150] These groups consisted of religious detainees who had confessed to crimes because of their faith and who attempted to con­vince other detainees and those present at gacaca hearings to do like­wise. Confession teams were formed and subsequently encouraged in their activities during prison visits by evangelical church organisations such as Prison Fellowship Rwanda (PFR), who were particularly active in prisons in Kigali Ville and Ruhengeri provinces.^[151] According to PRI, the confession teams �give recalcitrant detainees who are presented, but not released, an “injection”, a pep talk to confess... [T]he government seems to accept this [unofficial] innovation, which is remarkable, given the often-difficult relationship between the relative secular state and the various religious denominations’.^[152] As we will see in later chapters, from 2003 onwards groups opposing the confession teams emerged in the form of syndicates of suspects and members of the broader community who colluded to hide evidence from gacaca.

Parallel to the government’s initiation of gacaca, unofficial versions of the institution were also beginning to emerge around Rwanda. As sub­sequent chapters highlight, key features of these parallel forms of gacaca influence the Rwandan population’s interpretations of the post-genocide institution’s hybrid aims and methods. In particular, observers reported after the genocide that not only did gacaca continue to operate in its more traditional form in communities across the country, especially to deal with land issues, but two unofficial forms of gacaca examining geno­cide crimes had evolved.

First, a form of non-state gacaca emerged in a prison in Nyamata dis­trict of Kigali Ngali province in May 1998 and began in other prisons around the country between 1998 and 2001, at a time when the govern­ment was still debating the appropriateness of gacaca for dealing with genocide crimes.^[153] In this �prison gacaca’, detainees divided themselves into groups according to geographical areas (and sometimes gender) and elected panels of urumuri (Kinyarwanda for �the light’) to act effectively as gacaca judges.^[154] In these sessions, detainees confessed their crimes to the urumuri and those gathered at the assemblies. The urumuri recorded the confessions, asked for additional evidence from those assembled and stored the records of these sessions for use at official gacaca hearings out­side of the prisons.^[155] Carina Tertsakian argues that the government has �been behind [prison gacaca] from the very beginning’,^[156] although as dis­cussed later in this book, some former prisoners in Kigali Ngali claim that detainees initiated the process in 1998 and the government only began encouraging prison gacaca hearings after the beginning of official gacaca in 2002.

Second, an unofficial form of gacaca developed in many religious com­munities. �Gacaca nkiristu’ or �Christian gacaca’ has occurred mainly in rural Catholic communities in the provinces of Butare, Kibungo, Cyangugu, Kigali Ngali and Ruhengeri.^[157] Christian gacaca employs priests or other church officials in the role of gacaca judges. Parishioners are encouraged to confess their sins to the congregation - sometimes con­cerning genocide crimes and sometimes minor infractions affecting other church members - and to ask for forgiveness both from those whom they have injured and from the community as a whole. Alice Karekezi reports that embedded in Christian gacaca is the notion that, once an individual has confessed to certain sins, it is the �divine obligation' of those person­ally injured and of the general congregation to forgive the confessor.^[158] The assumption underlying this duty to forgive is that, because God has forgiven his children of the sins they have confessed to him, believers are obliged to forgive those who have transgressed them in daily life.

On 4 October 2001 - with a view to beginning a pilot phase of gacaca in selected locations around the country - the first round of elections for gacaca judges or Inyangamugayo (Kinyarwanda for �wise or respected elder') occurred in every cell in Rwanda.^[159] In preparation for the elections, the community leaders of �ten-house' groups, known as nyumbakumi, were charged with the responsibility of encouraging every adult in these households to vote for gacaca judges and to draw up lists of outstand­ing members of these households to be proposed as potential judges.^[160] While some questions arose regarding the level of control surrounding the elections, most observers considered the ballot a great success, cit­ing the massive turnout of voters around the country and how peace­fully the elections were conducted.^[161] Many commentators remarked on the importance of the discussions that surrounded the pre-selection of candidates.

In April 2002, these judges underwent six days of training, two days per week over three weeks, under the guidance of instructors drawn from a wide range of educated elites, including experienced judges and law­yers.^[164] Training of gacaca judges focused on general legal principles, the basic tenets of the Organic and Gacaca Laws, and the specific procedures of gacaca, including management of gacaca hearings, gathering and ana­lysis of evidence, categorisation of genocide suspects according to the severity of their crimes, sentencing those found guilty, methods of con­flict resolution and identifying and assisting people suffering trauma.^[165]

On 18 June 2002, the government officially inaugurated the gacaca jurisdictions, and seventy-three cells in twelve selected sectors, one per province, began a pilot phase of gacaca. The objective of these initial hearings was to introduce the methods of gacaca to the population and to identify problems and weaknesses in the system that could be over­come before gacaca became fully operational in all cells. During the pilot phase, these hearings did not involve passing judgments on geno­cide suspects but only the construction of lists of vital information that would assist in judgments in later phases of gacaca. The next section discusses the nature of these lists in greater detail.

In the first few months of the pilot phase, various local and inter­national NGOs, including African Rights, AI and PRI, monitored gacaca and provided assessments to the government. These organisations cited various weaknesses in the gacaca system, including the inadequacy of training for judges, logistical difficulties such as assembling the required quorum of community members at gacaca hearings and transporting detainees to these hearings, and problems created by a lack of legal coun­sel and adequate judicial guidance.^[166]