Gacaca

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gacaca ( IPA : [gaˈt͡ʃat͡ʃaʰ] ) was a traditional Rwandan legal system until 2012 , which the village elders implemented. The term is derived from a type of grass that grows in Rwanda's mountainous landscape. Negotiations were conducted while sitting on this gacaca grass, which is why it is also known as a meadow dish .

Traditional gacaca dishes

There is little certainty about Rwanda's pre-colonial history - it is no different with knowledge of traditional gacaca dishes. In general, however, a picture is drawn of the former courts as informal, flexible and communal forums, where violations of social norms and minor, inter-family disputes were settled under the leadership of wise, old men of the community . Typically, the arbitration rulings of the village elders resulted in charitable work in the village community or reparation payments (e.g. banana wine "Urwagwa" or Sorghobier "Amarwa") for the fallible. As a sign of reconciliation , the traditional gacaca sessions were often closed with a common meal. The parties to the dispute could be individuals, but as a rule, due to the strong family ties in Rwanda, entire families were involved in the dispute.

The traditional gacacas were never primarily about punishment, but rather about maintaining social peace.

The traditional gacacas also survived the arrival of Europeans in Rwanda. However, in 1924 the Belgian colonial administration limited the jurisdiction of the courts to civil and commercial areas, which resulted in the system slowly becoming extinct in the larger cities. Even after independence in 1962, the Gacacas remained responsible for minor disputes and were integrated into the official legal system at the same time, which meant the loss of some traditional elements.

Especially in rural areas, however, the courts were and are still important in dispute settlements and sometimes operate in parallel with the modern gacacas, which are supposed to deal with the genocide.

Modern gacaca dishes

Emergence

In addition to their historical roots, the new gacacas were primarily a product that emerged from the recent history of the genocide of the Tutsi . The genocide not only caused immense social and political problems, it also destroyed all institutions that could have dealt with the past.

For this reason, on the sidelines of an international seminar in Kigali in 1995, the government made a call to all academic institutions to look for solutions and strategies for coming to terms with the past that fit into the Rwandan context. However, it quickly became clear that national and international attempts to convict accomplices of the genocide could not meet expectations. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) with its low capacity probably set a symbolically important signal. However, he was unable to meet the needs of the common Rwandan population. The national legal system in Rwanda, decimated from 785 to 20 surviving judges after the genocide , was also barely able to remedy the crowded prisons and concentrated on bringing the genocide planners and instigators who were not covered by the ICTR to trial. In 1999 the government finally decided, out of pragmatic necessity, in the absence of alternatives and without throwing the earlier concerns overboard, to revitalize the gacaca courts in order to be able to cope with the cases of the great mass of genocide perpetrators.

A national gacaca commission was formed, which drafted a template that later served as the basis for the so-called gacaca law passed by parliament in January 2001 . In the summer of 2002 the first pilot courts were installed in twelve districts , and in November of the same year the courts were expanded to cover 106 sectors. Since March 2005, around 13,000 gacaca dishes have been operating across the country. In June 2012, the gacaca courts officially ceased operations.

Structure and competencies

The modern gacaca dishes differed significantly from their traditional predecessors: they were legally enshrined, followed formal procedures, and gave more space to the rights of the accused . However, important basic elements such as the participation of the whole community and the goals of reconciliation and harmony were retained in accordance with the traditional dishes.

Everyone accused of a crime was divided into one of four original categories according to the gravity of their offense committed during the genocide. The Gacacas were given jurisdiction over categories 2 to 4, while suspects in category 1 must be brought before an ordinary Rwandan court or the ICTR.

Gacaca law stipulated that every administrative unit in Rwanda should elect its judge - the inyangamugayo . Rwanda consists of four political levels - cell, sector, district and province - which is why each level initially had its own gacaca dishes. For reasons of efficiency and cost, the Gacacas were dissolved at the district and provincial level in 2004, while a new appellate court was created at the sector level.

Every gacaca court, whether at the cell or sector level, consisted of the general assembly , the seat and the coordinating committee. The general assembly at cell level was made up of all residents (older than 17 years) of a cell; All judges of the individual cells, as well as the judges of the sectoral court and the sectoral appeal court , met at sector level .

There were nine inyangamugayo and five envoys at the seat of each court . When inyangamugayo could be elected by the general assembly who is over 21 years old, honest, trustworthy and endowed with high morals, who has not served a prison term of more than six months and has not participated in genocide. The seat of the Gacacas was ultimately also responsible for selecting five members from among their number to sit on the coordinating committee. This committee primarily performed administrative tasks.

The specifications of the general assembly and the seat at cell level included the joint creation of lists of who lived in the cell at the time of the genocide and who was guilty of which crime at the time. The seats of the cell and sector courts subsequently reviewed the allegations made and judged according to their jurisdiction. The General Assembly of Sector Courts monitored the process at cell level. The sectoral appeal court reviewed appeals against judgments of the sectoral court.

As for the competencies of the various gacacas, the responsibilities were carried out according to the hierarchy of the administrative units: the courts at the cell level were empowered to convict offenders of the third category. The sectoral courts dealt with Category 2 crimes and also acted as the appellate court for the lower-level cell courts. The appellate court handled appeals against the judgments made by the sectoral court. The sentence for convicts could vary between 30 years in prison and reparation payments or community service.

The Service National des Juridictions Gacaca (SNJG) was active as a supervisory and coordinating body for nationwide Gacaca activities .

Problems

In several court cases, Hutu extremists threatened to kill witnesses who tried to testify against those involved in the genocide. The state has not yet found an effective remedy for this. However, so that all those involved in the genocide can be tried, some judges threatened the witnesses who refused to testify to impose the punishment on them instead of the accused. While such threats are not allowed, they do appear in some courts. However, the well-organized hierarchy of the courts often made it possible to expose this type of witness extortion quickly. Nevertheless, as a result of such threats there have been many political refugees recently, most of whom had to leave Rwanda for Europe.

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Rwanda. Annual report 2013. Amnesty International
  2. ↑ Rwanda 'gacaca' genocide courts finish work. BBC news, June 18, 2012, accessed February 3, 2014