HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GACACA
This section traces the historical evolution of gacaca from a traditional mechanism of conflict resolution, through several phases of debate and reform within Rwanda, to its current manifestation as a hybrid response to genocide crimes.
The following section then outlines the mechanÂics of gacaca, based on relevant legal documents, and the relationship between gacaca and the other two existing judicial systems charged with handling genocide cases: the Rwandan national courts and the ICTR. Together these sections counter a romanticised mythology about gacaca that over time has become increasingly common, particularly among non-Rwandans. In many journalistic and academic accounts of gacaca, the institution is referred to as a â€?traditional' or â€?village' practice, implyÂing that gacaca, as a ritual and a set of ideas, is deeply entrenched in Rwandan society, particularly in rural communities, and automatically comprehensible to, and considered legitimate by, the population.[102] Some elements of the Rwandan government, especially in early discussions around gacaca, also describe it in this way.[103] Overall this chapter argues that, rather than seeing gacaca as a static, traditional system, we should view it as designed specifically to meet the needs of the post-genocide environment and as a dynamic practice that in the modern context comes in various forms, both state-run and outside of any official politÂical or judicial structures.Even before 1994, gacaca was a constantly evolving phenomenon; the genocide represented the most radical leap in this evolution. Gacaca was not an automatic choice as an institution to deal with genocide crimes, largely because its historical methods were not designed to deal with such complex cases. The eventual decision to adopt gacaca in this context was highly controversial.
Rather than viewing post-genocide gacaca as indigenous, which connotes a native enterprise, occurring â€?naturally’ and inevitably accepted by the local population, we should view it as endogenous: initiated and synthesised within Rwandan sociÂety but - because of the complicated nature of that synthesis, and how markedly current gacaca differs from the original practice that partly inspired it - viewed by much of the population as a new, and perhaps confusing or even disagreeable, entity. As we will see later in this chapÂter, the complex historical evolution of gacaca, culminating in the curÂrent institution, is vital to explaining its more specific, hybrid methods and objectives.In the months following the genocide in Rwanda, around 120,000 genocide suspects, mostly Hutu, were rounded up and transported to jails around the country built to hold only 45,000 inmates.[104] Most detainees were never formally charged with any crime and were forced to live in hellish conditions: underfed, drinking dirty water and crammed into tiny rooms where they were often made to sleep in latticework formations for lack of space.[105] During the genocide, the Rwandan judicial system - which manifested signs of debilitation before 1994 - was nearly destroyed completely, as the infrastructure of the national courts was decimated and many judges and lawyers were killed or fled the country.6 With the existing judicial system incapable of dealing with massive numbers of suspects, the government sought new mechanisms to hear genocide cases. As then Vice President and now President Paul Kagame said in 1998, â€?Presently, the maintenance of 120,000 prisoners costs US$20 million per year, for which we receive assistance from the international community. This cannot continue in the long-term: we have to find other solutions.'7 In response to the social, political, economic and legal problems created by the overÂcrowded prisons, the Rwandan government in 2001 instituted gacaca to try lower-level genocide suspects, most of whom had been imprisÂoned for more than a decade.
In March 2005, gacaca entered its most crucial phase, as it expanded nationwide and in some communities began judging and sentencing the first wave of genocide suspects, some of whom, as a result of their conviction at gacaca, have now been sentenced to new prison terms. Gacaca continues to judge and senÂtence genocide suspects imprisoned since 1994 and has in recent years identified many new suspects who were not rounded up during the iniÂtial incarceration process but now face justice at gacaca.86 AI, â€?Rwanda: Gacaca — A Question of Justice', AI Doc. AFR 47/007/2002, December 2002, pp.12-13.
7 P. Kagame, quoted in S. Vandeginste, �A Truth and Reconciliation Approach to the Genocide and Crimes against Humanity in Rwanda', Antwerp: Centre for the Study of the Great Lakes Region of Africa, May 1998, p.45.
8 There is considerable debate about exactly how many new genocide suspects gacaca has idenÂtified. The Rwandan government estimates that up to 1 million genocide suspects have been prosecuted, after gacaca has unearthed hundreds of thousands of new cases since 2002 (author's government interviews, Domitilla Mukantaganzwa, Executive Secretary, National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, Kigali, 24 April 2009). There is little evidence so far to suggest that so many new cases - approximately an increase of 800 per cent to the initial number of genocide suspects — have been identified. Interviews at gacaca provincial offices and at the community level suggest that the numbers are likely to be considerably lower than the government claims. National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions (NSGJ) officials in the northern and southern provÂinces reported approximately 300 per cent and 400 per cent increases respectively in the numÂber of genocide suspects identified by gacaca. At the community level, Alphonse and Cypriet, two detainees who had confessed to committing crimes during the genocide and whom I interÂviewed on several occasions in 2003, and again in 2006, 2008 and 2009, claimed that, in their local jurisdictions, gacaca had led to roughly a 100 per cent increase in the number of genocide suspects identified: in Alphonse's community, around fifty individuals had confessed to genoÂcide crimes while in prison after the 1994 round-up of suspects, and gacaca had subsequently identified sixty-five new suspects; in Cypriet's community, fifty-five new suspects had been idenÂtified, alongside the forty who had initially confessed (author's detainee follow-up interviews, Alphonse, Nyamata, Kigali Ngali, 11 June 2006; Cypriet, Nyamata, Kigali Ngali, 11 June 2006). Based on these findings, it is more likely that gacaca has dealt with around 1 million cases rather than suspects, as many suspects are accused of committing multiple crimes and many crimes were committed by groups.