IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS BOOK

I conclude by outlining two main categories of the implications of my findings. First, the use of community-based transitional proc­esses - especially those that derive from traditional conflict resolution mechanisms - is becoming increasingly widespread in societies recov­ering from mass atrocity.

Other countries in Africa and beyond have enacted or considered similar localised responses to mass atrocity.

The experience of gacaca is useful for foreign contexts such as these in several respects. Community-based processes in Uganda, the DRC, Sudan and Timor-Leste display many of the same features as gacaca, including the transformation of traditional practices, the involvement of state and provincial leaders, opposition from international human-rights observers and similar tensions between pragmatic considerations - not least dealing with thousands of criminal cases and thousands of victims in the context of judicial breakdown - and more profound con­cerns, including the pursuit of peace, healing and reconciliation. The gacaca experience highlights that major innovation, including melding customary and modern law, can yield substantial benefits for the popula­tion, provided those who create and oversee such processes can navigate inevitable tensions between issues of elite control and popular ownership, and between punitive and reconciliatory objects.

For the creators and observers of such localised practices, the meth­odology adopted in this book may prove useful in coming to terms with the internal hybridity of such mechanisms and establishing appro­priate conceptual frameworks in which to assess their effectiveness. Rwanda will not be the last transitional society to reform traditional, community-based processes in order to address mass atrocity. Rwanda's experience of gacaca may therefore prove educative for other societies that adopt such an approach.

Finally, the gacaca experience bears considerable implications for the Rwandan population. As highlighted in this book, gacaca has had mixed success in pursuing most of its objectives. Some communities are already reaping the benefits of gacaca, following constructive engagement between parties during hearings that have allowed all social groups to discuss their experiences of the genocide and fruitful interactions beyond gacaca. In such places, profound results including healing, forgiveness and reconciliation are certainly possible. Elsewhere, however, gacaca has had either minimal impact, because of piecemeal community participa­tion during hearings, or has aggravated people's circumstances through a lack of justice, inadequate degrees of truth and increased trauma. These experiences pose serious challenges for the individuals and communities concerned and, more broadly, for justice and the rule of law in Rwanda, as it is likely that gacaca will remain in some form to address everyday community infractions in the future. The reverberations from gacaca will therefore be felt for many years to come.

Gacaca constitutes the heart of Rwanda's attempts at personal and communal reconstruction after the genocide and one of the most revo­lutionary transitional justice approaches pursued anywhere in the world. It also represents an immense risk, handing the reins of reconstruction to a heavily traumatised, divided society. Nonetheless, it is a risk Rwanda had to take, given the enormity of the genocide and its societal impact, as well as the severe constraints on the nation's resources. Gacaca's suc­cess in facilitating pragmatic and profound outcomes in many commu­nities must be lauded, but we must also recognise its major limitations and the problems it has produced. The same innovation and endurance displayed by Rwandans who created, guided and participated in gacaca, often in the face of substantial international criticism, will be needed to navigate a highly uncertain future.