Research question:
To what extent were the Gacaca courts successful in administering justice and achieving
reconciliation, especially given the brutal nature of the Rwandan genocide?
Subject:
Group 3 - History of Africa and the middle east
Word count: 3565
1
Table of contents:
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Background and causes of the genocide ………………………………………………….. 3 - 5
Nature of the genocide ……………………………………………………………………… 5 - 7
Gacaca courts ……………………………………………………………………………… 7 - 15
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 - 16
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
2
Methodology:
In this investigation, the sources used in this investigation have been chosen as they come
from known historians and or historical books. The information they provide is factual as it is
backed up by other sources in this investigation. The use of primary sources helps deepen the
analysis of this investigation, they were taken from books which collected Rwandan people’s
stories from before, during and after the 1994 genocide. The primary sources used both support
and challenge the traditional understanding of the Rwandan genocide and the Gacaca courts. The
sources used point out a range of perspectives from civilians experiencing it, journalists
documenting it and historians writing about it many years later.
Background and Causes of the genocide:
Rwanda is a small landlocked African nation found in the heart of Africa, during 1994 an
ethnically driven genocide took place changing the nation forever. After their independence from
the Belgians in 1959, the Hutu majority gained power over the Tutsi minority who were favoured
by the Belgian colonizers (Cannon, 2015). This gave rise to the Hutu power movement slowly
building up ethnic tensions between the two major ethnicities in Rwanda.
As the Hutu rose to power Rwanda’s first ethnically driven conflict took place in 1959 as
Tutsi bodies filled the rivers with estimates of 10,000 – 100,000 dead, leading many Tutsis to
flee the country and head to refugee camps in the neighbouring countries of Zaire, Uganda,
3
Tanzania, and Burundi (Cannon, 2015). The exiled Tutsi created rebel groups, one of which was
the RPF and would later prove monumental in ending the genocide of 1994. On the first of July
1962 Rwanda gains independence from Belgium marking the end of a colonial era.
PARMEHUTU, the largest party for Hutu emancipation comes to power under Gregoire
Kayibanda (Cannon, 2015). Over the following years Rwanda becomes a more hostile place for
Tutsis as seen in the 1973 following a military coup led by major general Juvenal Habyarimana
who seized power after which Tutsis are only given less than 10% of available employment
(Cannon, 2015; Clapham, 2012).
Throughout the early 1990s a civil war was fought between Habyarimana’s government,
and the Rwandan Patriotic Front led by Paul Kagame (Cannon, 2015). The Rwandan Patriotic
Front or RPF for short was a Tutsi rebel group formed in 1990 by exiled Tutsis living in Uganda
(Cannon, 2015). In October of 1990 the RPF invaded Rwanda from their base in Uganda,
attacking a regime they saw as illegitimate (Cannon, 2015). This served as a unifying factor for
Habyarimana who used it to further the idea of Hutu superiority which would later contribute to
the genocide (Cannon, 2015). The RPFs invasion into Rwanda failed as Habyarimana’s
government had help from French troops and allies in Zaire, which helped block the RPFs
advance on Kigali (Cannon, 2015). The civil war came to an end in 1993 after a peace deal was
agreed between the RPF and Habyarimana’s government (BBC, 2019). The 3-year civil war
between Kagame’s RPF and Habyarimana’s regime served only to further Hutu superiority in the
nation leading to the horrific events of 1994.
4
On the 6th of April 1994 Juvenal Habyarimana, the then president of the small African
nation of Rwanda died after his plane was shot down by an unknown organization using surface
to air missiles, this served as a catalyst for the genocide (Cannon, 2015). On the night of his
death Hutu extremists took to the streets of Kigali and started the slaughter of the Tutsis. In order
to provide an excuse for the genocide, Hutu extremists blamed the death of president
Habyarimana on the Rwandan Patriotic Front (BBC, 2019). Following his death, thousands of
Tutsis were slaughtered by the Hutu militia who used his death as an excuse to portray the Tutsi
people as the absolute enemy, encouraging every Hutu to kill the Tutsis. The genocide would go
on for 100 days claiming the lives of 800,000 people from both ethnicities.
Nature of the genocide:
The Rwandan genocide that took place in 1994 was the most effective examples of mass
murder and large scale suffering the world has ever seen (Cannon, 2015). “And I saw that it was
work, this butchery, hard work. It took many hacks—two, three, four, five hard hacks—to chop
through the cow’s leg. How many hacks to dismember a person?” (Gourevitch, 1998). In only
100 days an estimated 800,000 - 1 million people were mercilessly slaughtered at the hands of
the Hutu led genocidal regime, most of the victims were Tutsi (Cannon, 2015; BBC, 2019). As
the first days of the genocide unfolded the genocidal regime planned the murder of opposition
leaders in the Rwandan government and carried out the murder of 10 Belgian peacekeepers
(Cannon, 2015). The murder of the peacekeepers pressured the international community into
5
withdrawing most of the peacekeepers from the African nation (BBC, 2019) leaving its helpless
population at the merciless hands of the genocidal regime.
Using RTLM and Kangura magazine, the genocidal regime was able to promote Hutu
superiority and encourage the slaughter of the “inferior” Tutsi minority (Cannon, 2015). “a new
radio station funded by members and friends of the Akazu, and devoted to genocidal propaganda,
began broadcasting from Kigali. RTLM was a Kangura of the airwaves” (Gourevitch, 1998)
during the genocide, the radio was used to announce locations of Tutsis to lead genocidaires to
them (Cannon, 2015; BBC, 2019). The radio was also used to spread propaganda among
Rwandans by preaching Hutu superiority and Tutsi inferiority (Gourevitch, 1998). Through
Kangura magazine, the Hutu power movement constantly published propaganda depicting Tutsis
as an inferior or a disease and with the release of the Hutu ten commandments it provided a way
of life for the Hutu where breaking the Ten commandments would get you killed, this led to the
increasingly rising number of genocidaires committing war crimes (Cannon, 2015).
Rape was among the many weapons the genocidal regime used to carry out the genocide
(BBC, 2019) by humiliating and destroying the Tutsi women. Tutsi women were portrayed as
sexual weapons in Hutu Power propaganda which described them as beautiful and treacherous
creatures who can be used in order to weaken or destroy the Tutsi man (Cannon, 2015).
Perpetrators who were infected with HIV were encouraged to rape Tutsi women in order to
infect them serving as a form of suffering which can still be seen till this day (Cannon, 2015).
Tutsi men were also sexually assaulted and abused as they had their genitals cut and, in some
cases, put on display for everyone to see (Cannon, 2015). Tutsi women would sometimes be
6
mutilated by the perpetrator before they were murdered (Gourevitch, 1998), parts seen as
particularly Tutsi-like such as the nose, fingers, and breasts were cut leaving their dead bodies
disfigured and left to rot (Cannon, 2015). In one instance the niece of a preacher had her skin
peeled from her shoulders to her wrists, she was then gang-raped and her head was cut off by
Hutu killers (Larson, 2009).
The methods used by the Hutu power militias in order to carry out the killings were
typically very brutal as they were meant to cause immense suffering to the majority Tutsi
victims. Weapons such as spiked wooden clubs, machetes, spears, and random instruments were
used to mutilate and murder the victims (Cannon, 2015). In some cases, killers would
incapacitate the victims by cutting out the tendons so they can’t move in order to cause more
suffering before they return to finish the job later (Cannon, 2015). “I remember I began to strike
without seeing who it was” (Cannon, 2015). One of the genocidaires mentioned how they would
hack into a crowd of people with a machete killing people at random (Canon, 2015).
Gacaca courts:
Gacaca courts were used in Rwanda after the genocide to deal with the genocidaires and
bring them to justice as fast as possible (BBC, 2019). The Gacaca courts followed a communitybased structure where village elders were appointed as Judges (Clapham, 2012). Genocidaires
would confess to their horrible crimes in front of the community, telling the truth, apologizing
for their crimes, and asking for forgiveness from their victims’ families. This usually resulted in
7
a significantly reduced sentence. Although this system allowed for thousands of genocidaires to
be tried all over Rwanda, some 10,000 genocidaires died in overcrowded prisons while waiting
to be tried (Clapham, 2012; BBC, 2019). Regardless of this, the Gacaca courts proved the most
ideal way to deal with the number of genocidaires as Rwanda’s court system collapsed as a direct
result of the 1994 Genocide (Cannon, 2015).
The sheer number of genocidaires in Rwanda after the genocide ended was too much for
Rwanda’s exhausted court system to handle. Numbers of genocidaires went well into the
thousands as the genocide tore through the nation of Rwanda (Cannon, 2015). This combined
with the very minute number of lawyers and judges left alive meant that Rwanda was unable to
administer justice using its former court system. As a direct result of this the Rwandan
government opted to use the Gacaca courts in order to effectively and quickly deal with the huge
number of perpetrators, with the aim of achieving justice and eventually reconciliation among
the devastated Rwandan people (BBC, 2019). The Gacaca courts eventually tried more than 1.2
million cases in 12,000 community based courts helping the Rwandan people successfully
administer justice and eventually reconcile with those responsible for the horrific 1994 genocide
(BBC, 2019).
The complex nature of the crimes committed by genocidaires during the 1994 Genocide
in Rwanda that were being tried by the Gacaca courts compromised true reconciliation. The
Gacaca courts had previously only been used to settle local disputes and were now being used to
8
try crimes against humanity such as Rape and mass murder as well as bystanders who either did
nothing or were forced to kill (BBC, 2012). This presented an imbalance in the fairness of the
trials, because of the distinct lack of legal expertise within the Gacaca courts structure (BBC
2012). Justice and reconciliation of any kind are immediately compromised if dispensed at the
hands of individuals who are not appropriately qualified to administer adequate judgement to
those responsible based on their crimes, especially when those crimes constitute assault and
butchery as well as those forced to murder in order to survive (Clapham, 2012). Without a proper
judiciary system to oversee and try these complex crimes, the integrity of the reconciliation
achieved is compromised.
The amount of genocidaires present at the Gacaca court trials meant that life in Rwanda
had to move on with genocidaires peacefully although at times uneasily integrated back into
Rwandan society, this led to them being mostly forgiven by the community and somewhat
furthering reconciliation in the torn apart nation of Rwanda (Cannon, 2015). During the Gacaca
trials the genocidaires confessed to their crimes and asked for forgiveness from the families of
their victims (Cannon, 2015). As a result of some of these trials genocidaires were forgiven, their
sentence was reduced, and they were at times accepted and slowly integrated back into society
after they have served an appropriate amount of time based on their individual crime (BBC,
2019). Initially however, the release of the genocidaires sparked uneasiness among Rwandans
such as Fatuma and Gahigi who found the release of genocidaires crazy and gave rise to
questions such as “this time, will they kill us all” (Larson, 2009). The integration of these
9
copious amounts of genocidaires back into society after being forgiven to a certain extent and
punished served to somewhat further reconciliation in the exhausted communities of Rwanda.
Due to the drained economy of Rwanda after damage sustained in the years leading up to
and during the 1994 genocide, the Gacaca courts failed to compensate the victims of the
perpetrators tried, in turn hindering true reconciliation in the African nation (BBC, 2012;
Clapham, 2012). The victims of the Rwandan genocide did not receive compensation for
property loss (BBC, 2012), wounds inflicted, or their dead family and friends. This presented a
flaw in the Gacaca courts that hinders their ability to further their goal of achieving true
reconciliation within their communities due to the devastated Rwandan economy. The
destruction that the Rwandan genocide had left on the Rwandan economy was devastating and
likely made the Gacaca courts unable to fully compensate victims for their suffering during the
1994 catastrophe (Clapham, 2012).
The Gacaca courts failure to try and to punish the Rwandan Patriotic Fronts members
responsible for various crimes that they have committed during and after the 1994 genocide
(Clapham, 2012) prevents the Gacaca courts from being able to further justice and reconciliation
in Rwanda between Hutus and Tutsis. While Gacaca courts did prioritise the responsibility of
perpetrators to reveal the truth about the horrific events that took place during the 1994 genocide,
they did not include or try crimes and atrocities committed by the RPF during and after the 1994
genocide (Clapham, 2012). The Gacaca courts failure to try the RPF criminals alongside the
10
genocidaires compromises Rwanda’s chance at true reconciliation between the two ethnic
groups. Excluding the RPF from being tried for their crimes does not contribute and even
increases tensions between the two ethnic groups of Rwanda.
After the genocide, many of the genocidaires fled the country and went to the numerous
refugee camps located in Rwanda’s neighbouring countries (BBC, 2019), in turn limiting the
Gacaca court’s ability to effectively try and convict the escaped genocidaires for the many
crimes they have committed. 2,254,100 Rwandan refugees fled the country into the surrounding
region, this also included many genocidaires fleeing the country after the RPFs victory (Cannon,
2015). Reconciliation in Rwanda is limited by this as a portion of the genocidaires that deserve
to be tried for their crimes end up free in refugee camps which they sometimes control (Cannon,
2015), while the government is overloaded with genocidaires that stayed in Rwanda after the
genocide. The Gacaca court’s ability to effectively and properly administer judgement to the
genocidaires was hindered as the courts did not have access to the whole population of
genocidaires responsible for the atrocities that took place during Rwanda’s 1994 genocide.
Due to the enormous backlog of cases and overcrowding in prisons, some 10,000
genocidaires died before getting tried in court (BBC, 2019) leaving their victims without closure
which may potentially lead to hate and compromise reconciliation. Due to overcrowding in
Rwanda’s prisons after the 1994 genocide disease spread and took the lives of many. The Gacaca
courts could not try the dead genocidaires for their crimes leaving the families of the dead
11
genocidaires victims without closure and leaving justice unfinished. The effectiveness of the
Gacaca courts was compromised by genocidaires who died in the overcrowded prisons while
awaiting trial, preventing true reconciliation among the ethnic groups that exist within the
country of Rwanda.
Ethnic polarization within gacaca was inevitable after the 1994 genocide as the
government “politicized Tutsi victimhood” and collectivised Hutu guilt” (Thompson, 2011). This
in turn negates hopes of building a stable future with trust within the post-genocide Rwandan
society (Clapham, 2012). Despite its claim at providing a stable base for future peace between
the two ethnic groups in a healed Rwanda it failed to do so (Clapham, 2012). By categorizing
Hutus as genocidaires and Tutsi as victims and survivors, gacaca failed to provide ethnic unity
between the two ethnic groups in the war-ravaged nation of Rwanda. Due to ongoing political
tensions in Rwanda at the time the gacaca courts took place, emphasis on Hutus being
genocidaires and Tutsis being survivors only served to divide the two ethnic groups even further
and hindered reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda.
The lack of legal expertise within gacaca compromised its effectiveness as justice of any
kind can’t be administered properly without qualified personnel to oversee the trials (Clapham,
2012). The lack of legal expertise among those selected to oversee the trials was a decisive factor
in the gacaca courts failure to administer justice compliant with international legal standards at
the time (Fierens, 2005). This among other reasons led to international human rights
12
organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to call for a reform in the
gacaca courts structure to no avail (Clapham, 2012). As Rwanda did not have enough legal staff
after the 1994 genocide to run the gacaca courts, unqualified persons were put in charge of
overseeing such a demanding process, leading to the gacaca courts failure to administer justice in
a manner compliant with international legal standards.
Given that many of the judges chosen to oversee the gacaca courts were involved in the
events of the 1994 genocide to some degree, justice was heavily compromised. The “norm of
impartiality” within justice was compromised as the standards of a fair trial were in many cases
not achieved as a lack of unbiased judges who were legally qualified was present (Clapham,
2012). This reduced the gacaca courts effectiveness at administering justice fairly to all those
being tried in turn hindering reconciliation between the two ethnic groups in Rwanda. The
inability to administer justice professionally and appropriately within the gacaca courts due to
the lack of impartiality among those selected to oversee the courts, hindered their ability to repair
the damage done during the 1994 genocide (Clapham, 2012).
Investigational bias as well as corruption among the Judges and Jury chosen to oversee
the Gacaca courts was highly likely, preventing the courts from delivering a fair trial and
therefore not achieving justice (Clark, 2010). Since the beginning of the Gacaca courts about
15,000 of the 200,000 Gacaca judges were accused of genocide related crimes themselves and
had to retire the position and face trial as a result (Fierens, 2005). There have also been times
where participation Judges and/or Jury in the gacaca courts was lacking and as a result of this
they failed to produce rulings on cases (Clark, 2010). The Gacaca court system had not
13
implemented a safeguard to protect witnesses from the accused or the government (Clark, 2010).
This meant that possible witnesses would not be able to come forward and speak their piece out
of fear from the possible consequences they might endure at the hands of the accused or the RPF.
The Gacaca courts were not able to properly achieve one of their main goals which was the use
of truth telling as a means to fulfilling justice as the Judges and Jury were not always reliable or
qualified enough to oversee the Gacaca courts.
Through the idea of deterrence, post conflict foundations including the Gacaca courts
served to send a message to everyone that impunity was no longer an option, helping bring peace
and stability back to Rwanda. Punishing the orchestrators and perpetrators of the 1994 genocide
served to send a message that any future attempts at mass violence will not go unpunished
(Clark, 2010). As one of the root causes for the Rwandan genocide was a culture of impunity
where those in power were rarely if at all held accountable for their crimes (Clark, 2010). This
led to the creation of an environment where the mass murder of thousands was a feasible idea
able to be carried out by those in power at the time (Cannon, 2015; Clark, 2010). By punishing
those crimes after bringing them to light for all to hear, the Gacaca courts helped eradicate a
culture of impunity in the war-torn nation of Rwanda. Eradicating the culture of impunity helped
restore stability in the post-genocide society of Rwanda replacing its previously violent culture
with that of a peaceful one (Clark, 2010).
One area where the gacaca courts succeeded was in helping the victims’ families find
closure by revealing the truth. In doing so the genocidaires who were being tried for their part in
the genocide disclosed the whereabouts of their victims to the victims’ families (Clapham, 2012)
14
giving the families of the many victims the opportunity to give them a proper burial. The way the
Gacaca courts were structured around revealing the horrifying facts of the 1994 genocide
allowed the genocidaires crimes to be heard by all those present making it an imperative part in
achieving justice for the victims (Clapham, 2012).
Conclusion:
The complex and particularly violent nature of the Rwandan genocide was shaped over
years of hatred between the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority. The sheer scale of the
genocide is almost incredible as within only 100 days the genocidal regime meticulously and
speedily carried out the killing of around 1 million Tutsi and Hutu civilians for simply being
Tutsi or helping the Tutsi. The lack of international intervention throughout the genocide left the
Rwandan people at the mercy of the genocidaires. As a direct result of the genocide, the
Rwandan court system was decimated and simply unable to handle the immense amount of
genocidaires, this led the new government led by Paul Kagame to opt for the use of the
traditional Gacaca court system where genocidaires would confess to their crimes and be judged
by their community under the appointed Judges and Jury. Their aim was to bring the
genocidaires to justice in a fast and efficient way in order to heal the torn Rwandan community
and encourage reconciliation between the two ethnic groups. The Gacaca courts were flawed due
15
to a multitude of reasons such as the lack of legal expertise among the appointed Judges and Jury
which in some cases did not allow for a fair trial. Another flaw within the Gacaca court system
was its inability to prosecute the RPF forces for the war crimes they committed as this added to
the ethnic divide by painting Tutsis as victims and Hutus as perpetrators, this prevents
reconciliation within the Rwandan society. Gacaca did however help eradicate the culture of
impunity within Rwanda by punishing the perpetrators as well as the orchestrators of the
genocide which sent a clear message that any mass violence carried out in the future will not go
unpunished. Gacaca also helped the victims’ families find closure as it allowed for the truth to
come out about the genocide as well as the location of dead family members in some instances.
The nature of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda was a major factor in many of the downsides of the
Gacaca courts however it was not the only limiting factor as the Gacaca court system had flaws
unrelated to the nature of the 1994 genocide.
16
Bibliography:
Gourevitch, Philip. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our
Families
(Bestselling Backlist) (p. 17). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.
Cannon, M.C. (2015). Conflict and Resolution. Oxford.
https://bookshelf.oxfordsecondary.co.uk/contents/63/index.html
Fierens, Jacques. (2005). Gacaca Courts: Between Fantasy and Reality. Journal of International
Criminal Justice. 3. 10.1093/jicj/mqi069.
Clapham, C.C. (2012, April,). Gacaca: a Successful Experiment in Restorative Justice?. Einternational relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/30/gacaca-a-successful-experiment-inrestorative-justice-2/
BBC. (2019, April 4). Rwanda Genocide: 100 days of slaughter. BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26875506
Clark, P. (2010). The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda:
Justice without Lawyers (Cambridge Studies in Law and Society). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511761584
Larson, C.C. As We Forgive: stories of reconciliation from Rwanda. Grand rapids,
ZONDERVAN,
2009.
17