gacaca court

gacaca court, traditional system of justice in Rwanda. It was revived and modified in the aftermath of the country’s 1994 genocide, during which more than 800,000 civilians—primarily those of the Tutsi ethnic group—were killed. Gacaca courts were one of the means used to bring the many perpetrators of the genocide to justice and to promote reconciliation in the country, though the efficacy of this approach is disputed.

Rwanda’s traditional gacaca courts

Gacaca is a Kinyarwanda word popularly translated as “grass” that has come to be more broadly translated as “justice on the grass,” “lawn justice,” or similar, when referring to Rwanda’s traditional justice system, which held proceedings outdoors. In precolonial days gacaca courts were used to resolve conflicts between families or individuals, typically civil matters such as land disputes, property damage, and succession issues. The gacaca courts were informal and did not have a rigid structure. Elders, typically heads of households, served as judges (inyangamugayo). The primary focus of these courts was to restore harmony to the community’s social order, which included the reintegration back into the community of the person at fault. During gacaca proceedings, efforts were made to uncover the truth of the matter, encouraging confession. Compensation for the injured party was sometimes recommended. Participating in the gacaca process and complying with the court’s decision was voluntary, though social pressure could be compelling enough to ensure those factors.

In the late 19th century Rwanda fell under colonial administration—first by Germany, then by Belgium—and a Western-style judicial system was imposed. Although this diminished the role that the gacaca courts held among the Rwandan population, the gacaca courts did continue to exist and operated alongside the new legal system, with a focus on addressing local needs. After Rwanda’s independence in 1962, the gacaca courts persisted. They gradually gained more formality and structure but still functioned at the local level.

More From Britannica

Rwanda genocide of 1994: Gacaca courts

The 1994 genocide

Rwanda is home to two primary ethnic groups—the Hutu, which is the largest group, and the Tutsi. (A third group, the Twa, constitutes less than 1 percent of the population.) From the mid-20th century on, ethnic tensions between the two main groups erupted periodically, leading to mass killings of the Tutsi minority and the displacement of many more. A large number of Tutsi fled to neighboring Uganda.

On October 1, 1990, the Rwandan civil war began when the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by Tutsi who had been in exile in Uganda, launched their liberation struggle and invaded Rwanda, which at the time was governed by longtime president Juvénal Habyarimana, a Hutu. In 1993 a peace and power-sharing agreement was reached between the two sides, but it was opposed by Hutu extremists. They increased the dissemination of their anti-Tutsi propaganda, which had already been widely propagated for a few years via newspapers and radio stations, and plotted to kill the minority Tutsi population as well as anyone who opposed those genocidal intentions.

The genocide was put into motion after a plane carrying President Habyarimana was shot down on April 6, 1994; everyone on board was killed. Over the course of some 100 days in April–July 1994, more than 800,000 civilians—primarily Tutsi, but also moderate Hutu—were killed. Some estimates, including that of the Rwandan government, are higher. It is estimated that some 200,000 Hutu—many of whom were ordinary citizens, spurred on by the steady diet of propaganda from various media outlets and led by Hutu extremist militias—participated in the genocide. It ended when the RPF secured most of the country, including Kigali, the capital, and the extremist Hutu leaders fled. (For more detailed coverage of the genocide, see Rwanda genocide of 1994.)

Use of gacaca courts after the 1994 genocide

Once the genocide was over, Rwanda faced years of recovery, and the RPF-led government pursued transitional justice. Trying those who were thought to be responsible for genocidal acts was a primary focus, as was promoting reconciliation and national unity—considerable tasks in a country where many genocide survivors were aware that their families had been killed by neighbors or acquaintances. Those accused of participating in the genocide were primarily tried in one of three court systems: the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Rwandan national courts, or, later, the gacaca courts.

Are you a student?

Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Subscribe

The gacaca court option arose in the years after the genocide as the enormous scale of Rwanda’s justice needs became more apparent. The number of suspects to be tried in connection with the genocide was immense, Rwandan jails were dangerously overcrowded with suspects and rife with human rights violations, and cases moved slowly through the ICTR and national courts. The idea of somehow using the traditional gacaca justice system gathered steam in 1998 when the Rwandan government began holding meetings to discuss how to address the backlog of more than 100,000 cases. The next year the government announced plans to establish gacaca courts—albeit modified with more legal structure—to hear most genocide-related cases. The decision was not universally supported; many involved in the government’s discussions had reservations about taking this approach. In addition to clearing the backlog of cases, the government hoped that the gacaca courts would bring to light some of the unknown details of the genocide, provide a sense of closure, and foster reconciliation between Rwandans.

The structure, function, and mandate of the reimagined gacaca courts were provided for by Organic Law 40/2000, which was passed on January 26, 2001, and came into effect later that year. It established a hierarchy of gacaca courts, beginning with small communities at the most local level, called cells, then sectors, districts, and, at the highest level, provinces. (The latter two levels were abolished in 2004 when another law, Organic Law 16/2004, reorganized the hierarchy.) The gacaca courts were authorized to try those suspected of having committed crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and other crimes, during the broader armed conflict from October 1, 1990, through December 31, 1994. Crimes were sorted into four categories, ranging from Category 1, which was the most serious and included the criminal acts perpetrated by the organizers of the genocide and other crimes against humanity (see Sidebar: “Offenses included under Category 1”), to Category 4, which was for crimes against assets. (The number of categories was later reduced to three under Organic Law 16/2004.) The categories were used to determine the venue in which a suspect would be tried. The most serious crimes were not eligible for a trial in the gacaca courts, but the far more numerous number of minor crimes were, as well as some capital crimes.

The gacaca courts were overseen by the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions (previously the Department of Gacaca Jurisdictions) and were launched on June 18, 2002, with a pilot phase that was later expanded. In all, more than 12,000 gacaca courts were established. Gacaca judges were chosen from among the local community, and although legal knowledge was not a requirement, judges had to meet other qualifications, including not having a record of participation in the genocide (though many would later be removed from their posts for this reason), the ability to be impartial, and not currently holding public office—which included the police, the military, and the judiciary—or being an official of a political organization. Among the initial duties of the gacaca courts was to create lists of all the suspected perpetrators within the court’s jurisdiction and their offenses. Hundreds of thousands of new cases were found during this exercise. (More cases were also added later after trials had started, as courts heard testimony, and more alleged accomplices were named.)

The gacaca process operated with an emphasis on encouraging the suspected perpetrators to confess, plead guilty, and apologize for their crimes and had a formal procedure established to facilitate that outcome. The courts had a detailed schedule outlining the limits of the penalties that could be imposed on a perpetrator that took into account factors such as the category of their crime, if they had testified and if their testimony was found to be truthful, and if they participated in the court’s confession and guilty plea procedure. Those that participated in the procedure could have their penalties reduced. There was an appeals process available for certain categories of crimes. At the cell level, gacaca courts typically met once a week. Community participation in the gacaca process was mandatory; even those not party to a case were obligated to observe the proceedings.

The gacaca courts were intended to operate for a limited amount of time, but closure of the courts was repeatedly postponed. By the time the gacaca courts officially closed on June 18, 2012, they had prosecuted more than 1.9 million cases—far more than the national courts and ICTR—and had a conviction rate of 86 percent.

Assessment

Rwandan Pres. Paul Kagame referred to the use of gacaca courts as an “African solution to African problems.” The efficacy of this solution has been debated. Evaluation of the courts’ overall performance must take into account several factors. That the courts prosecuted an enormous number of cases cannot be disputed, and even critics admit that better options to handle the volume of cases were simply not available. That said, there are many valid criticisms of the process as a whole. The gacaca judges did not have much, if any, legal experience and received only limited training, and opinions of their performance varied from trial to trial. Although judges in some courts were found to be fair and objective, others were accused of having followed a political agenda and of having delivered harsh sentences that were not commensurate with the evidence provided. Most critically the gacaca system’s expediency came at a cost; given the parameters under which it operated, it could not uphold a suspect’s right to a fair trial. For example, defendants typically did not have adequate time to mount a defense, and they were not allowed to have legal representation. The gacaca court’s jurisdiction was also criticized, as the government did not allow for it to prosecute crimes committed by the RPF and their military wing, the Rwandan Patriotic Army, during the prescribed period of time.