GACACA -

---

GACACA (pronounced Ga -cha -cha hard sounding “g“)

This ancient form of tribal justice system was revised after the 1994 Genocide period to cope with the overcrowding of the prison system as a result of the number of genocide suspects being held. The normal judicial system was still being rebuilt after the protracted conflict and genocide period and was unable to process the prisoners in a reasonable period of time. Some writers suggest that it would have taken the normal judicial system up to 100 years to process all the prisoners. Some of the prisoners had already been waiting up to 8 years for their case to be heard. So to help speed things up in 2002 Gacaca was reintroduced.

Gacaca actually means “grass” and it comes from when the villagers would sit around on a patch of grass to resolve conflict. Respected elders, tribal chiefs and the heads of households would act as judge/ judges. It literally was a grass roots system.

Gacaca was primarily reintroduced to cope with the backlog of Genocide cases. Genocide atrocities where divided into two categories, category 1 and category 2. The judicial courts dealt with the Category 1 crimes which involved trying those that organised, instigated, led or played a particularly zealous role in the Genocide. The Category 2 crimes were where people were suspected of carrying out (or an accomplice to) the killings, serious injuries or property destruction and these were tried through the Gacaca system. These community courts have the authority to impose sentences ranging from community service to lengthy periods in jail depending on the severity of the crime (and if found guilty). What they didn’t have the power to do was hand down the death penalty or try anyone in the Armed Forces these had to be done by the normal judicial system. As the work load on the judicial system decreases so does the need to continue with the Gacaca and it is being slowly phased out.

When initially introduced there were 11,000 such courts throughout the country side. Over 250,000 men and women were elected (by there local communities) to be the Judges on the panel. These people received basic training in law and the judicial system during 2001 and 2002. They received no salaries however they and their families were given free schooling and medical assistance.

The courts operate when requested (generally by the government so they can lighten the load of prisoners) rather than at any set time. The court itself has a maximum of 19 judges. For a court session to be valid there must be at least 15 judges and 100 witnesses. When the court is convened the accused is bought before the people of the village and the crime read out. At this point the accused has the right to plead guilty or innocent. If the accused pleads guilty the sentence is generally softened. During the hearing witnesses are given the opportunity to speak up and given an account of what they saw even if the accused has pleaded guilty. The reason for this is that the accused may have committed more crimes than specified on the charge sheet or visa versa. Everybody who wants to has the right to speak up either to accuse or support the accused. The ‘airing’ of these atrocities can obviously cause great distress as people relive the horrors of the genocide but some argue that it has a ‘cathartic’ effect in many cases. The major concern I’ve heard about this form of trial is that sometimes the accused has employed family and friends to intimidate the witnesses to recant or majorly alter their testimonies. As I said this is all I’ve heard but it doesn’t seem to be beyond the realms of possibility.

Once the verdict has been bought down, the sentence carried out and atonement for their crime carried out the accused has the fight to move back to their village and start their life again. Although this sounds wonderful and very altruistic it is not as cathartic and as smooth sailing as one may be led to believe. I have spoken to a number of people who have sensed that the animosity of victims towards the perpetrators still exists. It must be hard to live next to someone knowing that they have killed members of your family, destroyed your house and livelihood. In some cases I have heard of genocidaries receiving financial assistance to start over again whereas the victim has received no help at all. This adds further to the felling of animosity.

---