AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT

JOURNAL
• Indigenizing Postconflict State Reconstruction in Africa: A Conceptual Framework
Samuel Gbaydee Doe

• Gacaca Courts in Rwanda: An Endogenous Approach to Postconflict Justice and Reconciliation

Martha Mutisi

• Rediscovering Mato Oput: The Acholi Justice System and the Conflict in Northern Uganda
JosephWasonga

• The Role of Taboos in the Management of Natural Resources and Peace-building:

A Case Study of the Kakamega Forest in Western Kenya
S. M. Kilonzo, S. G. Kurgat, and S. G. Omare

• The ECOWAS Council of the Wise: An Indigenous Framework for Conflict Resolution
Onyinye Onwuka

• Gender Inequality and the Igbo Indigenous Systems of Peacemaking and Governance
Jonathan Chukwuemeka Madu

EDUCATION
FOR PEACE
AFRICA
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 1 JUNE 2009 PROGRAMME
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 17

Gacaca Courts in Rwanda:

An Endogenous Approach to
Postconflict Justice and
Reconciliation
Martha Mutisi

The relevance of endogenous approaches to postconflict reconciliation is now widely recognised.

The inadequacy of eurocentric and other western models to effectively address healing require-
ments within societies in Africa is increasingly evident. Endogenous gacaca courts were revived
in post-genocide Rwanda to promote peace, justice, and reconciliation as well as to end a cul-
ture of impunity while promoting accountability. Critics of endogenous approaches assert that
these methods are neither completely adequate nor practicable in advancing healing and post-
conflict reconstruction, while proponents argue that such endogenous methods as gacaca courts
represent a model of alternative or restorative justice that fosters healing and reconciliation.

MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER THE GENOCIDE OF 1994, Rwanda remains engaged in post-
conflict reconstruction. In 2001 the Rwandan government enacted the Gacaca Law to
give indigenous courts a mandate to deal with cases of individuals who had commit-
ted atrocities in their communities during the genocide. Gacaca is a traditional mech-
anism of conflict resolution originally practised among the Banyarwanda, who use it
to resolve disputes at the grassroots level through dialogue and a community justice
system. It is an intricate process based on custom, tradition, and social norms. Gacaca
is one of the largest community-based restorative justice processes in post-genocide
Rwanda. Despite the increasing prominence of endogenous approaches in the litera-
ture, it is important to examine whether these methods of healing are adequate and
capable of addressing the cases of trauma confronting communities.
According to Michèle Jacobs, ‘endogenous conflict handling mechanisms’ refers
to those methods that exist within a particular cultural context for dealing with

Martha Mutisi is a lecturer and staff development fellow at the Institute of Peace, Leadership and
Governance, Africa University, Zimbabwe. A previous version of this article was titled ‘Psychological as-
pects of post-conflict reconstruction: Transforming mindsets. The gacaca in Rwanda’ and was written
and co-presented with Tony Karbo at the ad-hoc expert group meeting for ‘Lessons Learned in Post-
Conflict State Capacity: Reconstructing Governance and Public Administration Capacities for Conflict
Prevention and Development’, United Nations Development Programme / Bureau for Crisis Prevention
and Recovery, Accra, Ghana, 2–4 October 2008.
Africa Peace and Conflict Journal, 2:1 (June 2009), 17–26.
© 2009 University for Peace Africa Programme. All rights reserved. ISSN 1659–3944.
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 18

18 AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT JOURNAL

disputes.1 That is, endogenous approaches to conflict resolution are embodied in

the cultures and traditions of communities. With reference to Africa, William
Zartman asserts that conflict resolution mechanisms can only be labeled endoge-
nous if ‘they have been practiced for an extended period and have evolved within
African societies rather than being the product of external importation’. 2
Endogenous conflict resolution methods are unique, informal, communal, restora-
tive, context specific, and diverse. John Paul Lederach asserts that endogenous
methods of healing and reconciliation are based on the premise that ‘understand-
ing conflict and developing appropriate models of handling it will necessarily be
rooted in, and must respect and draw from, the cultural knowledge of a people’.3
Endogenous mechanisms of conflict resolution are ubiquitous, existing in every
community in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.

RWANDA IN CONTEXT: THE CHALLENGE OF

TRANSNATIONAL JUSTICE
In Rwanda, a country of approximately 12 million people, an estimated 800,000 Tutsis
and Hutus were killed and 2 million refugees fled the country in one of the most bru-
tal genocides of the twentieth century. Thus, the fundamental aspect of post-genocide
Rwandan society and politics has been the need for reconciliation to heal ethnic ten-
sions.4 The post-genocide Rwandan government revitalized and adopted the gacaca
system for this purpose.
From a practical perspective, Rwanda’s formal courts faced a backlog of more
than 120,000 accused perpetrators, known as génocidaires, living in debilitating con-
ditions. The national court system and the UN-sanctioned International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda proved unable to process these cases fast enough.5 The gacaca
system was resurrected so justice could be administered at the community level.
From an ideological perspective, the Rwandan government recognized the need to
promote culturally relevant or endogenous approaches to reconciliation. It subse-
quently enacted the Gacaca Law in 2001 to give gacaca courts a legal mandate for
trying cases involving acts committed during the 1994 genocide. The training of
judges began in April 2002 and lasted for six weeks. The official launch of this gacaca
system took place in June 2002.

1. M. Jacobs, ‘Endogenous conflict handling mechanisms: Eliciting a valuable resource for sustainable
peace building’, Cahiers Internationale Betrekkingen en Vredesonderzoek, 70:1 (2005), http://soc.kuleuven.be/
iieb/CPRS/cahiers/Vol70.pdf.
2. I. W. Zartman, ‘Introduction: African traditional conflict medicine’ in I. W. Zartman (ed.),
Traditional Cures for Modern Conflicts, African Conflict ‘Medicine’ (Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Reinner
Publishers, 2000), 1–11.
3. J. P. Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures (Syracuse, New York,
Syracuse University Press, 1995), 10.
4. A. E. Tiemessen, ‘Rwandan gacaca: Competing and collaborating for justice after genocide’, paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 17
March 2004, www.allacademic.com/meta/p74581_index.html.
5. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was established by a UN Security Council resolu-
tion in November 1994 to prosecute high-level génocidaires for violations of international humanitarian
law committed between 1 January and 31 December 1994.
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 19

Gacaca Courts in Rwanda 19

THE GACACA SYSTEM

Gacaca, a Kinyarwanda concept, literally means ‘justice on the grass’. Gacaca courts as
an endogenous Rwandese dispute resolution system involves people sitting outside,
on the grass, to settle their disputes in the presence of community members. Leah
Werchick notes that in its precolonial form, gacaca was used to moderate disputes
concerning land use rights, cattle ownership, marriage, inheritance rights, and petty
theft, among other interpersonal disagreements.6 The gacaca system did not deal with
terribly complicated issues, such as mass murder.
The gacaca system rests upon the voluntary confession, demonstration of remorse,
apology, and request for forgiveness by perpetrators. Traditionally, gacaca emphasised
morality as the basis for adjudication. As a result, gacaca courts were run by members of
the community known as the inyangamugayo, or ‘persons of exemplary conduct’, who
were renowned for courage, honor, justice and truth.7 The inyangamugayo, deemed to be
above reproach, were given this role based on their high moral and ethical standards. In
traditional Rwanda, when a dispute had been resolved, a ritual or ceremony would be
held to reflect the symbolic and practical importance of the process. Gacaca sessions
often ended with the parties sharing a traditional libation and a meal as a gesture of rec-
onciliation. Serious offences would result in the offender being ostracized from the com-
munity. The gacaca system as a typical endogenous method of conflict resolution
resembles similar processes that developed in other parts of Africa, including mato oput
in northern Uganda,8 the gadaa system among the Oromo of Ethiopia,9 and the guuirt
of Somaliland.10 Gacaca is a distinctly traditional Rwandan practice, although it has been
instrumentalized and infused with some European-based ideas about justice.11

The Gacaca Process

In contemporary Rwanda, gacaca processes involve local residents giving testimony
for and against suspects, who are essentially tried in the communities where they are
accused of having committed crimes. The majority of individuals tried in gacaca
courts are typically prisoners prepared to confess to the atrocities they may have com-
mitted and freely willing to engage in community adjudication. According to Anne

6. L. Werchick, ‘Prospects for justice in Rwanda’s citizen tribunals’, Human Rights Brief, 8:3 (2001),
www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/08/3rwanda.cfm.
7. The term inyangamugayo is a Kinyarwanda word that translates literally as ‘people who hate evil’.
These are persons of integrity who are known to be uncorrupted.
8. Mato oput is a reconciliation ceremony conducted among the Acholi of northern Uganda. The res-
olution of the conflict is symbolized by the conflicting parties drinking a bitter herb mixture from the oput
tree from the same vessel.
9. The gadaa is a system of age-grade classes that succeed each other in assuming political and social
responsibilities. A complete gadaa cycle consists of five age grades. The authority held by elders is derived
from their position in the gadaa system. For details, see Gumii Bilisummaa Oromiyaa, ‘Understanding the
gadaa system’, 2000, www.gumii.org/gada/understd.html.
10. The guuirt is the highest-level council of elders in Somaliland and the highest traditional author-
ity. Each council consists of a body of elders who represent the lineages in the clan and is headed by clan
leaders, or sultans.
11. See M. Sabera et al., ‘The gacaca justice system: A process for reconciliation and sustainable peace’,
Women’s World (Kampala), 2007.
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 20

20 AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT JOURNAL

Kubai, approximately, 11,000 gacaca courts are in operation today in Rwanda, each
with a panel of nineteen judges.12 As in precolonial Rwanda, the genocide-related
gacaca trials are chaired by inyangamugayo. The judges receive no salaries, but their
families are entitled to free access to education and medical care. To convene a gacaca
session, a minimum of fifteen judges must be present as well as 100 witnesses and
members of the community.
The gacaca courts are authorized to try and sentence anyone suspected of carrying
out or being an accomplice to crimes committed during the genocide. The courts can-
not impose the death penalty or try army personnel. More serious cases, that is, in-
volving perpetrators with responsibility for organizing and executing genocide-related
atrocities, are processed through the formal judicial system.
In practical terms, the key principle of the gacaca process is truth telling. The as-
sumption at the outset is therefore that survivors, witnesses, and alleged perpetrators
have convened to witness justice in action. The process requires that all parties partic-
ipate in a debate on what happened in order to establish the truth. The validity of the
evidence provided is cross-referenced by the number of witnesses in the community
who can attest to the alleged atrocity committed.
In terms of process, the gacaca court first identifies the victims’ families who were af-
fected by atrocities during the civil war and genocide. Suspects in these crimes are then
identified and classified based on four distinct categories of génocidaires: Category one
consists of the planners, organizers, and leaders of the genocide and those who used their
position of authority to orchestrate murders. The gacaca courts cannot handle the cases
of individuals in this category because they fall under the jurisdiction of the national
courts.13 Category two comprises people accused of homicide or other acts against per-
sons resulting in death. Category three concerns individuals who committed violent acts
without intent to kill. Category four covers people who committed property crimes.
When categorization is complete, the perpetrators are summoned to participate in
the courts in their local community, where local witnesses speak for or against them.
After the witnesses have given evidence to the satisfaction of the court, the inyanga-
mugayo pass judgment. That the gacaca system emphasises soliciting genuine confes-
sions, repentance, and apologies helps in confronting the culture of impunity that had
engulfed Rwanda during the genocide. Through the principle of truth telling, the de-
fendant and witnesses are required to provide a detailed description of the offence,
how and where it was carried out, confirm the victims, and if applicable, provide in-
formation about where the victims’ bodies were left. Perpetrators who give full con-
fessions of their genocidal acts normally receive lesser sentences. Peter Uvin considers
gacaca’s emphasis on confessions to be one of the most innovative and important as-
pects of this mechanism.14 Uvin also argues that confessions can lead to substantially
more ‘truth’ than conventional justice systems elicit.

12. A. Kubai, ‘Africa Watch: Between justice and reconciliation: The survivors of Rwanda’, African
Security Review, 16:1 (2007), www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id= 25&slink_id=4943&link_type=12&slink_
type=12&tmpl_id=3.
13. If convicted of an offence, these individuals are often sentenced to life in prison.
14. P. Uvin, ‘Case Study: The gacaca tribunals in Rwanda’, Reconciliation after Violent Conflict
(Strömsborg, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2003), 116–21,
www.idea.int/publications/reconciliation/upload/reconciliation_chap07cs-rwanda.pdf.
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 21

Gacaca Courts in Rwanda 21

Gacaca’s inclusion of apology is also an important ingredient in promoting recon-

ciliation. Overtures demonstrating contrition through some form of reparation or
community service before the perpetrator’s reintegration into the community con-
tribute to the mending of broken relationships and improving victims’ lives. Uvin, in
arguing in favour of the gacaca system, recognises that western-style justice may be an
impossible goal in Rwanda given the cultural context in which the post-genocide tri-
als are operating. Uvin urges pragmatism when analyzing the gacaca, arguing that
total and untainted justice in the aftermath of mass violence may be unattainable. In
other words, the gacaca system respects the spirit of justice ‘in a locally appropriate
form’ that a formal justice system might not be able to create.15

Advantages and Limitations of the Gacaca System

The gacaca system in Rwanda highlights the role of culture in postconflict resolution,
and in particular, Rwandan society’s ability to settle its problems through an endoge-
nous system of justice and conflict resolution.16 A key advantage of the gacaca process
is that it gives people a chance to talk about genocide, and in so doing, offers a visible
form of justice in which community members have a voice and opportunity to par-
ticipate in solving their country’s problems. Barbara Oomen notes how the gacaca sys-
tem, as a grassroots initiative, contributes towards reconciling individuals and rebuilding
communities that have been brutalised by the genocide.17 The psycho-sociological
role of the gacaca in facilitating reconciliation and healing is also acknowledged by
Patrick Kanyangara and his colleagues, who suggest that the gacaca in Rwanda has the
potential to significantly address the emotional concerns of the Rwandan community
in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide.18
Vamik Volkan asserts that if painful memories about past atrocities are not ade-
quately dealt with by one generation, they will contaminate future generations with
cycles of violence and counterviolence.19 The gacaca process can play a role in pre-
venting the transgenerational transmission of trauma in Rwanda. By publicly address-
ing issues of genocidal trauma, and facilitating the ‘closure’ of this painful episode,
gacaca courts contribute towards efforts to prevent a relapse into vengeful violence by
future generations of Rwandans.20 The gacaca system, through community participa-
tion, provides for consensus building, because the approach requires the inyangamu-
gayo to agree on the verdict after having listened to the members of the community.21

15. Ibid.
16. K. Avruch, Culture and Conflict Resolution (Washington, United States Institute of Peace Press, 1998);
A. L. Des Forges, Leave None To Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (New York, Human Rights Watch, 1999).
17. B. Oomen, ‘Rwanda’s gacaca: Objectives, merits and their relation to supranational criminal law’, 2006,
www.ceri-sciencespo.com/themes/re-imaginingpeace/va/resources/rwanda_gacaca_oomen.pdf.
18. P. Kanyangara, B. Rim, P. Phillipott, V. Yzerbyt, ‘Collective rituals, emotional climate and intergroup
perception: Participation in “gacaca” tribunals and assimilation of the Rwandan genocide’, Journal of Social
Issues, 63:2 (June 2007), 387–403.
19. V. Volkan, ‘Traumatized societies and psychological care: Expanding the concept of preventive med-
icine’, Mind and Human Interaction, 11:3 (2000), 177–94.
20. L. S. Graybill, ‘Pardon, punishment and amnesia: Three African post-conflict case studies’, Third
World Quarterly, 25:6 (2004), 1117–30.
21. Tiemessen, ‘Rwandan gacaca’.
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 22

22 AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT JOURNAL

Gacaca has encouraged people in Rwandan communities to work together as wit-

nesses, tribunal personnel, and jurors. This pursuit of the same goal creates a commu-
nal experience, thereby replacing the divisiveness of the genocide with a cohesiveness
of administering justice and promoting reconciliation. During the gacaca proceed-
ings, everyone has a right to contribute to the local court proceedings. This decentral-
ization of power and enhanced participation of the grassroots in social change
processes is essential for long-term stability in Rwanda. The gacaca system also reflects
the unison of hybrid approaches to peace and reconciliation by integrating culture
and modern approaches in peace-building and healing. Toran Hansen commends the
blending of restorative justice principles with the retributive western legal model, ar-
guing that such cross-fertilization has created a uniquely Rwandan model of postcon-
flict reconstruction.22
Given that gacaca processes were traditionally meant to resolve minor, relatively
uncomplicated, and local-level civil disputes, the nature and number of genocide-related
cases can be quite overwhelming to the system. The gacaca process is expected to deal
with not only serious but also numerically significant genocide-related cases. As such,
the gacaca system ironically may not be able to empty the Rwandan prisons as some
of its proponents thought it would, especially if it remains overburdened by cases, as
is currently the situation.
Although gacaca was conceived as a traditional institution for communal justice
and has retained its traditional outdoor setting, the system has been modernized, for-
malized, and extended, through the state to operate in the realms of retributive or
criminal justice with a prosecution-based approach to justice. According to Article 39
of the Organic Law of 2001, gacaca courts have broad competences, ‘similar to those
of ordinary courts, exercising attributes of investigation, prosecution and judgment.’
Nonetheless, the gacaca is a regulated forum with discussion restricted to the genocide-
related case at hand, and its approach of examination and trial is similar to other
‘courtrooms’. Michael Mann documents how gacaca courts have been used to intimi-
date the current Rwandan regime’s critics and opponents.23 This challenges the no-
tion that African jurisprudence systems are naturally restorative rather than
retributive. Lyn Graybill and Allison Corey and Sandra Joireman consider the gacaca
as a punitive, adversarial approach to postconflict resolution.24
Although gacaca valorizes the concept of truth telling, the system must confront
the ‘problem of truth’. Truth telling does not always result in peace-building or recon-
ciliation.25 In a similar vein, Mahmood Mamdani argues that truth does not necessar-

22. T. Hansen, ‘The gacaca tribunals in post-genocide Rwanda’, Center for Restorative Justice and
Peacemaking, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, 27 November 2005, www.cehd.umn.edu/
ssw/rjp/Resources/RJ_Dialogue_Resources/RJ_Dialogue%20Approaches/Gacaca_Tribunals.pdf.
23. M. Mann, Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (New York, Cambridge University
Press, 2005).
24. Graybill, ‘Pardon, punishment and amnesia’; A. Corey and S. F. Joireman, ‘Retributive justice: The
gacaca courts in Rwanda’, African Affairs, 103:410 (2004), 73–89.
25. M. Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence
(Boston, Beacon Press, 1998).
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 23

Gacaca Courts in Rwanda 23

ily invoke mercy and forgiveness.26 Brandon Hamber notes that truth alone does not
always lead to reconciliation.27 He observes that in some cases, truth may lead to
reprisals against those who present it. In addition, the problematic of truth is com-
pounded by what C. O. Lerche identifies as the elusive, relative, and complex nature of
truth. Lerche asserts that there are always competing narratives of victimhood, with
each side having its own version of the truth concerning ‘what really happened’.28
Hayner is equally skeptical of truth, asserting that truths are often multiple, compet-
ing, contested, and sometimes contradictory.29
This challenge is exacerbated by the absence of psychosocial support to assist vic-
tims and perpetrators after the gacaca process. The truth might trigger memories that
could lead to vengeance and a breach of the peace. People will therefore consider their
safety and relations with other community members before they give authentic testi-
monies. This situation is compounded by the lack of mechanisms, procedures, and re-
sources for the gacaca courts to protect witnesses. Security has become a real concern
for those involved; a report by Penal Reform International suggests that fear has
sharply decreased participation in the trials.30 In confronting the challenge of false
testimony, the Gacaca Law provides for a penalty of one to three years imprisonment
for anyone who provides false testimony or refuses to testify.
The gacaca system also faces structural limitations in the sense that the nature of the
crimes presented before the gacaca courts might be widely at variance with the stature of
the court. Alison Des Forges argues that crimes of genocide necessitate more than com-
munity-healing mechanisms.31 Other critics contend that the training period for gacaca
judges is insufficient. In addition, the reliance on eyewitnesses can be challenging because
some witnesses may be guided by self-interest, fear, or error. Thus there is no guarantee
(as in other courts) that all eyewitness accounts and confessions are accurate.32
Another limitation of the gacaca system is that some observers perceive the tribunals
as one-sided and ethnically biased because they seemingly focus on crimes committed
by the Hutus against the Tutsis. Gacaca does not deal with the atrocities committed by
the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the then-Tutsi-based rebel movement that mobi-
lized in Uganda. According to Human Rights Watch, prior to the 1994 genocide RPF de-
stroyed property, recruited child soldiers against their will, carried out systematic
slaughters of civilians, displaced thousands, and committed various other human rights
abuses as they launched attacks against the Rwandan government.33

26. M. Mamdani, ‘The truth according to the TRC’ in Ifi Amadiume and Abdullahi An-Na’im (eds.),
The Politics of Memory: Truth, Healing and Social Justice (London, Zed Books, 2000), 176–83.
27. B. Hamber, ‘Masculinity and transitional justice: An exploratory essay’, International Journal of
Transitional Justice, 1:1 (December 2007), 375–90.
28. C. O. Lerche III, ‘Truth commissions and national reconciliation: Some reflections on theory and
practice’, Peace and Conflict Studies, 7:1 (2000).
29. P. B. Hayner, Unspeakable Truths: Confronting State Terror and Atrocity (New York, Routlege, 2001).
30. Penal Reform International, ‘From camp to hill: The reintegration of released prisoners,’ Research
Report on the Gacaca, no. 4, Kigali and Paris, 2004, 110 (available online).
31. Des Forges, Leave None To Tell the Story.
32. Lerche, ‘Truth commissions and national reconciliation’.
33. Human Rights Watch, ‘Africa: Rwanda’, World Report 2003, www.hrw.org/wr2k3/africa9.html.
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 24

24 AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT JOURNAL

Although gacaca was conceived of as reconciliatory justice, its potential for inciting
ethnic tension should not be underestimated, especially if Hutus continue to perceive
it as an instrument of Tutsi power. Eghosa Osaghae observes that ‘the relevance and ap-
plicability of traditional strategies have been greatly disenabled by the politicization,
corruption and abuse of traditional structures, especially traditional leaders, which
have steadily delegitimized conflict management built around them in the eyes of many
and reduced confidence in their efficacy’.34 Mamdani asserts that during the gacaca ses-
sions, victims are almost solely seen as ‘Tutsi genocide survivors’, which leads to his
conclusion that gacaca courts impose a victor’s justice.35 Some observers point to a ten-
dency to assign collective guilt to Hutus under the gacaca system.36 Alana Tiemessen
notes that despite the government’s agenda of forging a single political identity for
Rwandans, the identity of participants in the justice process remains linked to ethnic-
ity.37 Corey and Joireman express the concern that ‘without the equal application of the
gacaca process to both Hutu and Tutsi, it will be perceived more as revenge than rec-
onciliation’.38 It is therefore necessary to analyse how the use of gacaca might affect the
security of all Rwandan citizens in the future, especially if it continues to be seen as
pursuing inequitable justice and accentuating the ethnic divide.
John Conley and William O’Barr have noted that Rwandan culture is gendered.39
The gacaca system of conflict resolution is also beset by limitations stemming from ac-
cusations of gender bias. Traditional African indigenous structures were largely exclu-
sionary on the basis of gender. The majority of indigenous women were not included
in the primary structures of decision-making. The gacaca courts reflect the resurrec-
tion of this aspect of traditional patriarchal culture in modern Rwandan society. The
patriarchal nature of the gacaca system is one reason why crimes of rape are under-
represented in Rwanda’s post-genocide healing process. As a result of the public na-
ture of the gacaca, most women who were raped during the genocide are reportedly
reluctant to come forward and testify in gacaca courts because the burden of proof for
rape lies with the woman, whose only weapon is her word against that of the accused.
In the report Struggling to Survive: Barriers to Justice for Rape Victims in Rwanda,
Human Rights Watch details the factors hindering the effective handling of cases of
rape, including the vulnerability of women to stigmatization, retraumatization, and a
lack of adequate witness-protection programmes.40
In addition, as noted above, the gacaca system does not appear to be achieving the
objective of reducing pressure on Rwanda’s prisons. In fact, it seems that gacaca hear-
ings merely facilitate a ‘rotation of prisoners’; although some prisoners are being re-
leased by national courts, others are simultaneously being convicted by the gacaca and

34. E. E. Osaghae, ‘Applying traditional methods to modern conflict: Possibilities and limits’ in
Zartman, Traditional Cures for Modern Conflicts.
35. Mamdani, ‘The truth according to the TRC’.
36. M. Drumbl, ‘Rule of law amid lawlessness: Counseling the accused in Rwanda’s domestic genocide
trials’, Columbia Human Rights Review, 29 (Summer 1998), 546–67.
37. Tiemessen, ‘Rwandan gacaca’.
38. Corey and Joireman, ‘Retributive justice’.
39. J. M. Conley and W. M. O’Barr, Just Words: Language and Power (Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, 2005).
40. Human Rights Watch, Struggling to Survive: Barriers to Justice for Rape Victims in Rwanda, 29
September 2004, www.hrw.org/en/node/11975/section/1.
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 25

Gacaca Courts in Rwanda 25

incarcerated.41 The gacaca experience in Rwanda illustrates the complexity and ten-
sions between the concepts of justice and peace. In most cases of genocide, finding the
right balance between justice and reconciliation or between retribution and forgive-
ness is a delicate process. Wendy Lambourne notes that there are challenges and
dilemmas in meeting the need for justice in the aftermath of violence because some-
times justice tends to compete with the need to secure peace.42 This discord leads Eva
Bertram to conclude that the questions of ‘amnesty and reconciliation are one of the
most troubling quandaries for peacebuilders’.43

Enhancing the Efficacy of the Gacaca System

The Rwandan state has played a significant role in the gacaca process, but there is a
need to balance this with a role by civil society in transitional justice. The inclusion of
civil society inside and outside Rwanda can contribute towards addressing some of
the limitations discussed above. In specific, civil society and the international commu-
nity should continue to support the Rwandan government in implementing gacaca
proceedings, and civil society organizations must be allowed to monitor them. Such
transparency will help ensure that the system is effective in the promotion of justice,
healing, and reconciliation.
As noted, one challenge of the truth-telling process is dealing with the risks con-
fronting witnesses and those who confess to crimes. In this regard, it is important for the
Rwandan government to adopt measures to protect the personal safety of witnesses and
victims without adulterating the process of transitional justice. It is equally important
for the gacaca courts to ensure that the accused have a right to a fair trial. This can be
achieved through mechanisms for ensuring that gacaca defendants, especially those fac-
ing long terms of imprisonment, can appeal to the formal court system. Currently, the
gacaca has no appeal process. Gacaca judges should continually receive training and ca-
pacity building to assist their handling of cases. To ensure that the gacaca process is not
continually perceived as an exclusionary form of ‘justice for the powerful’, the govern-
ment of Rwanda should give the system a mandate for trials involving atrocities com-
mitted by all Rwandans, irrespective of their official or unofficial status.

CONCLUSION
The gacaca endogenous system of postconflict justice and reconciliation is informa-
tive and instructive because it is a community-owned process of transitional justice.
Most Rwandans ‘own’ the gacaca process as they participate in the election of the
judges. One key achievement of the system is that it provides space for the truth to be
told about the genocide. In this respect, gacaca processes are paving the way for the

41. J. Fierens, ‘Gacaca courts: Between fantasy and reality’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3:4
(2005), 896–919.
42. W. Lambourne, ‘Post-conflict peacebuilding: Meeting basic needs for justice and reconciliation’,
Peace, Conflict and Development, 4 (April 2004).
43. E. Bertram, ‘Reinventing governments: The promise and perils of United Nations peacebuilding’,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39:3 (September 1995).
PU_1425_APCJ_i_086_14 7/26/09 5:37 PM Page 26

26 AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT JOURNAL

adoption and revitalization of endogenous approaches to justice, healing, truth

telling, and reconciliation.
Despite the positive aspects of gacaca as a framework for promoting transitional
justice, the system has some significant limitations. As a method of conflict resolution
and healing, it has not significantly altered the victim-perpetrator narratives. It is vul-
nerable to being perceived as an unjust and one-sided process, particularly if and
when perpetrators are predominantly Hutus and the victims Tutsis. A more qualita-
tive and detailed study is necessary for determining the extent to which this percep-
tion is held within the Rwandese body politic. In the short to medium term, these
limitations need to be addressed because the gacaca has the potential to lay the foun-
dation for healing, reconciliation, and peace-building.
At the very least, the truth telling involved in the gacaca system might help Rwandans
avoid collective amnesia about the mass killings. More important, there is practically
no other viable alternative to confronting the collective guilt and actions of individu-
als during the genocide, as well as dealing with the backlog of perpetrators. What re-
mains is reformation and revitalization of the gacaca process to ensure that universal
standards of fairness in trials are upheld and that past human rights abuses are man-
aged through a transparent restorative justice system. This will not only provide an
opportunity for closure on this tumultuous era, but will also enable victims and per-
petrators to take part in a process of reconciliation.