"Much work has been done on the 1994 Rwandan genocide both under ICTR and the Rwandan justice system. Among the crimes committed during genocide in Rwanda was the crime of rape. However, considering the rate of mass rape committed, there are few cases of rape prosecuted so far compared to other crimes of the same gravity, and nothing has been said about the causes of the low rate reporting of this crime by the victims. A Gacaca court, which is a traditional justice system, is also involved in prosecuting the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity. This is a traditional justice system/community system, which is also a tool of reconciliation through revealing information about the crimes committed during genocide. This applies to rape victims who will be required to recount their experiences before the community court. On the other hand, the perpetrator may recount the crime he committed for the sake of sentence commutation. Whichever way, the rape victims will either face Gacaca courts through this procedure or go without accessing justice. Given the small number of individuals who have formally sought legal redress, one can safely assume that most survivors in Rwanda have not come forward, and live with trauma alone, and in silence. This paper has highlighted the gaps in the Rwandan justice system in relation to rape victims. Further still, the researcher has laboured to establish the causes of the low rate of rape cases brought before courts in Rwanda. The impact of the Gacaca justice system in relation to rape reporting has also been discussed. International human rights instruments relating to rights of both the accused and the victim have been considered and where loopholes appear, an alternative legal approach, which may provide security and confidentiatlity for the victims to achieve justice, has been proposed." -- Chapter 1. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2003. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Magister Legum - LLM / This mini-thesis makes a claim that when Rwanda established the rule of Gacaca court system as a communal mechanism of transitional justice in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide, it accordingly enabled space for the ‘social truth’ to take centre stage as opposed to the legal truth. As such, testimonies by perpetrators and accounts by witnesses could only be permissible in Gacaca courts if they were socially acceptable by the community, and any evidence only needed to be orally validated by community members but not verified through formal legal procedures. The principal objective of this mini-thesis, therefore, is to examine how the ‘social truth’ was employed by Gacaca courts and how this kind of truth resonated with the communal nature of the courts.

"Rwanda was largely destroyed in 1994. Among an endless host of problems, highly complex questions and dilemmas of justice, unity, and reconciliation haunt Rwanda to this day. A basic question confronting Rwanda is how to deal with the legacy of the conflict that culminated in the genocide of the Tutsi and in the massacres of Hutu opponents of the genocide. The UN set up an International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania, and Rwanda has its own courts. In both cases, the process of trying accused genocidaires is long, laborious, and frustrating. Only eight convictions have been handed down in Arusha after five years of work, while in Rwanda only some 3,000 cases have been disposed of. At least 120,000 detainees are in prisons around the country, the vast majority of whom are accused of participation in the genocide. At the present rate it is estimated that it will take anywhere between two and four centuries to try all those in detention. The Rwandese government has developed a new procedure called “gacaca,” lower-level tribunals that attempt to blend traditional and contemporary mechanisms to expedite the justice process in a way that promotes reconciliation. The impact of gacaca remains to be seen, and as a process, it certainly needs an evaluation or, at least, an attempt to evaluate its possible contribution to the perplexing questions of justice, unity and social reconstruction in the aftermath of genocide. This paper mainly aims to analyse the draft legislation on the gacaca jurisdictions. Further, this essay attempts to examine the impact of criminal trials in the aftermath of mass violence and genocide. Although conventional wisdom holds that criminal trials promote several goals, including uncovering the truth; avoiding collective accountability by individualising guilt; breaking cycle of impunity; deterring future war crimes; providing closure for the victims and fostering democratic institutions, little is known about the role that judicial intervention have in rebuilding societies. The present essay deals only with criminal trials. By definition, these are focused on the perpetrators of abuses and their allies. Although not examined in the essay, a comprehensive and holistic approach to dealing with a legacy of past atrocities should also include range of victim-focused efforts, such as programs for compensation and rehabilitation, the establishment of memorials, and the organisation of appropriate commemorations. The main sources of this study are textbooks, articles from journals and official documents of national and international bodies. Since this essay aims at evaluating the gacaca proposals, a great deal of attention is paid to the terms of the draft legislation. It is certainly premature to make an in-depth assessment of a draft law and the merits and flaws of the legal institution it is designed to set up. Only gradually and over a period of time can the gacaca become effective and credible. Further research aimed at gathering data through interviews, field observations, participant observation, study and analysis of the implementation can also illuminate experience in ways that analysis of published sources do not. A thorough and sound appraisal of this new institution must therefore wait some time. I shall nevertheless attempt in this essay to set out some initial and tentative comments on some of the salient traits of the future gacaca tribunals. This paper makes a preliminary “human rights impact assessment” of the implementation of the draft law establishing “gacaca jurisdictions”. The potential role of the new institution in rebuilding the Rwandese society is also discussed. Considering the many complex issues which still surround the process of justice in Rwanda six years after the genocide, as well as the continuing challenge to the judicial system in terms of the inadequacy of resources for dealing with such an enormous caseload, recommendations to help the process follow the analysis of the gacaca proposals (Chapter Three). To end impunity, it is necessary to respond in accordance with human rights law to the genocide and mass killings. Therefore, the starting point for our evaluation of the gacaca proposals will be an analysis of the proposals in human rights law. Does human rights law impose any affirmative duties to punish genocide and other mass killings that occurred in Rwanda? In addition, for the “gacaca jurisdictions” to be effective, they should not be viewed in isolation, as their performance will depend to a large extent on whether other judicial mechanisms and institutions are functioning properly. The relationships between the gacaca jurisdiction and other mechanisms are thus reviewed. In particular, the process of setting up the gacaca jurisdictions should include an evaluation of the genocide trials which have taken place to date both at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and in the domestic courts and apply the lessons learnt (Chapter Two). An evaluation of the potential contribution of the use of gacaca courts needs to be put into the broader context of the conflict in Rwanda. Thus, an analysis of the conflict in Rwanda is necessary to grasp the challenges facing the questions of justice and social reconstruction in the aftermath of genocide in Rwanda (Chapter One)." -- Introduction. / Prepared under the supervision of Professor Jeremy Sarkin, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2000. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

"As already mentioned, gauranteeing the right to a fair trial aims at protecting individuals from unlawful and arbitrary curtailment or deprivation of other basic rights and freedoms. The fundamental importance of the right to a fair trial is illustrated not only by international instruments and the extensive body of interpretation it has generated, but most recently, by a proposal to include it in the non-derogable rights stipulated in article 4(2) of the ICCPR. Standards for a fair trial may stem from binding obligations that are included in human rights treaties to which a state in examination is a party, but they may also be found in documents and practices which, though not binding, can be taken to express the direction in which the law is evolving. One of the problems is that law and human rights have been viewed largely as Western concepts, and are therefore defined and valued by Western criteria. This leads to a number of difficulties. First, there are many non-Western societies in which law and human rights thus defined, is impractical and mechanisms of protecting human rights in non-Western justice systems are not recognised as comparable counterparts to those in Western societies. Secondly, African states have failed to abide by their international fair trial obligations because, probably, these standards are impractical given the realities like poverty, illiteracy and strong cultural beliefs that characterise most African communities. As a result, the law applied by the Western style courts is felt to be so out of touch with the needs of most African communities, and coercion to resort to them amounts to denial of justice. This explains why communities, especially in the rural Africa, resort to indigenous African justice systems irrespective of state recognition or otherwise. Upon realisation that the Western style of justice did not respond to the prevailing post-genocide situation for example, the government of Rwanda re-established traditional courts to help deal with the crime of genocide and foster reconciliation. A Gacaca court is constituted of a panel of lay judges who coordinate a process in which genocide survivors and suspected perpetrators and the latter between themselves confront each other. They, and the community, participate by telling the truth of what happened; who did what during the genocide, and then the judges, based on the evidence given to them, decide on the case. These judges are elected by their respective communities for their integrity, not their learning. However, human rights organisations argue that Gacaca proceedings violate the accused persons's fair trial rights. They question among other things capacity of lay judges who make decisions in these courts, to conduct a fair trial. They also contend that Gacaca does not guarantee the right to be presumed innocent because it requires confessoins and that defendants are denied legal representation. In South Africa, traditional courts (konwn as chiefs' courts) exist. They have played a crucial role in dispensing justice in the indigenous communities and are prototypes of the kind of dispute resolution mechanisms desirable in a modern society. They apply 'people's law', which developed as a result of lack of legitimacy of the Western system of justice among the indigenous South Africans. However, critics see them as conservative and unable to render justice in the modern social, economic and political climate in South Africa today. As a result, Western style court proceedings that are conducted in foreign languages to indigenous communities, and thus have to rely on inaccurate and unreliable interpreters in addition to costs for legal counsels and subjection to very technical and formal procedures, are the only alternative in criminal matters. Briefly, the major problem is to ascertain whether indigenous African criminal justice systems do, or otherwise conform to fair trial standards. If they do not, according to who are they not fair? In other words, is there a universal measure of fairness or does appreciation depend on people's enviornment and their socio-economic backgrounds, in which case, the beneficiaries of indigenous African criminal justice systems should be the ones to appreciate its fairness?" -- Introduction. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2004. / Prepared under the supervision of Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey at the Faculty of Law, University of Ghana / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Technology: Public Management (Peacebuilding), Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2015. / One of the major issues following the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 was what to do with the huge number of people (around 100 000) accused of crimes during the genocide. Western legal approaches dealt with a handful of such cases at huge expense but the vast majority of the accused languished in prison. The government decided to employ a modified version of Gacaca - the traditional way of dealing with disputes and lower level crimes at community level. Using a qualitative research methodology and employing focus groups and individual interviews as data collection tools, this research investigate perceptions about the operation of Gacaca in three Rwandan communities, with particular reference to truth, justice, forgiveness and reconciliation. The research suggests that in the three communities, Gacaca was seen as bringing the truth out into the open and to provide a measure of justice, although limitations were noted in both of these respects. Given the enormity of the genocide crimes, however, there seemed to be little progress in the areas of forgiveness and reconciliation. / M

This thesis examines the relationship between truth, justice, and reconciliation by comparing the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Rwandan Gacaca Court System. / Graduate

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited / Initially, many Rwandans placed their hopes in the well-funded International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) but it has been plagued by inefficiencies and delays. Although the Rwandan national courts have tried a significantly larger number of cases than the ICTR, they are also criticized as being too slow. Therefore, the government of Rwanda has proposed using the "Gacaca" traditional courts to accelerate post-genocide justice. The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether, and under what conditions, the Gacaca courts can be an effective mechanism of justice and national reconciliation. / Captain, Rwanda Army

Explorations of womens roles in armed conflict have traditionally focused on women as victims, which has led to a limited understanding of the active roles women have played during and after conflicts. For example, analyses of the roles of women in the 1994 Rwanda genocide have largely focused on the victimization of women through rapes and mutilations, which leaves many dimensions unexplored. Exposing the roles of women in perpetrating violence or reconciliation efforts can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the roles of women in wartime and challenge the traditional gender stereotypes that have denied womens agency dealing with the aftermath of conflict. This study aims to contribute to the literature on women and conflict, specifically ethnic conflict, by providing a broader and thus more accurate picture of the roles of women during and after the Rwanda genocide. This study explores the following question: What roles did Rwandan women play in the genocide and are women revealing their agency and abilities in the aftermath? This thesis explores the gendered nature of the Rwanda genocide as revealed in the violence committed against women and by women during the Rwanda genocide (women as victims and perpetrators), as well as the position of women in post-genocide Rwanda (their agency in reconciliation and reconstruction). This research represents a qualitative study based on information provided by news sources, ethnic conflict and genocide literature, feminist literature, reports by non-governmental organizations, and international organizations including the United Nations (specifically the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) and the World Bank. The roles of women during and after conflict have been traditionally understood from a biased perspective; however, the genocide in Rwanda has revealed the great extent to which women are affected by conflict, participate in conflict, and contribute to reconstruction and reconciliation efforts.

"La justice transitionnelle est constituée de différents mécanismes adoptés par les pays sortant d'une période de conflits, pour faire face au contentieux des crimes commis dans le passé. Ces mécanismes tendent le plus souvent à concilier les impératifs de justice avec des besoins non moins importants de retour à la paix et de réconciliation nationale. Le présent travail de recherche porte sur un de ces mécanismes, à savoir les juridictions populaires Gacaca, adoptées au Rwanda pour juger des milliers de personnes accusées d'avoir participé au crime de génocide et crimes contre l'humanité commis entre 1990 et 1994. Ce mode de justice, inspiré de la tradition, fait intervenir des juges non professionnels élus par la population. Il s'agira d'analyser si les garanties du procès équitable prévues par le droit international des droits de la personne sont applicables à ce mécanisme de justice transitionnelle de nature hybride et dans l'affirmative, de déterminer quelles sont les normes qui s'appliquent, en tenant compte du contexte dans lequel ces juridictions ont été créées et des exigences du droit international. Nous examinerons enfin dans quelle mesure ces normes ont été incluses dans la loi régissant les juridictions Gacaca."

Doctor Legum - LLD / The 20th century witnessed several wars and genocides worldwide. Notable examples include the Armenian and Jews genocides which took place during World War I and World War II respectively. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 is a more recent example where a large number of the population was affected, either as victims or perpetrators. Over 800,000 Tutsis were dead, and more than 120,000 suspects were in prison for the genocide. The present study focuses on the Rwandan genocide against Tutsi where the scale of the crimes simultaneously dictated the overwhelming need for justice at both international and national level. At the international level, the ICTR was set up by the United Nations to deal with the organisers of the genocide while the Rwandan national courts were left to deal with the remaining suspects. Yet it became increasingly clear that the national courts lacked themselves the capacity to deal with the vast majority of alleged perpetrators. If their impact was to be enhanced, they needed to rely on the support of alternative justice mechanisms. So Rwanda introduced a modern version of the traditional Gacaca courts as an attempt to deal with the huge backlog of cases in order to combat the culture of impunity. However, having different courts for one and the same situation has had its own limitations. One of these issues is the legal and practical disparities that exist between the ad hoc International Tribunal and national justice mechanisms in the process of prosecuting perpetrators, such as the unequal treatment of the accused. This study therefore attempts to show these discrepancies and their impact on the process of accountability and reconciliation. Thus, the study analyses the relationship between the ICTR, national courts and Gacaca in prosecution of genocide suspects as well as lessons from the adopted ‘multifaceted approaches’ to deal with the crime of genocide.