After Arusha: Gacaca Justice in Post-Genocide Rwanda

The majority of scholarly research on Rwanda currently focuses on determining the causes of and participation in the genocide. In this paper, we explore a variety of questions that have come to the forefront in post-genocide Rwanda. In particular, we are concerned with the prospects for peace and justice in the aftermath of the gross abuses of human rights that occurred and, to that end, we consider the potential uses and limits of restorative justice initiatives in the process of healing and reconciliation in Rwanda. We argue that restorative justice initiatives have moved the country closer toward reconciliation than retributive measures, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. That said, we also suggest that the Rwandan government, despite claims that it seeks to achieve reconciliation, has not shown a serious commitment to healing the wounds that persist between either individual Rwandans or the groups that they comprise. In the end, then, we make a case for the importance of pairing a comprehensive search for justice in Rwanda with a commitment to truth-telling and accountability by the victims and perpetrators of the genocide, as well as by current government officials.

Three transitional justice processes, namely the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the National Genocide Trials (NGTs) and Gacaca courts, have been instituted to deal with the issues of justice and reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda. All three processes are examples of the liberal-prosecution model, i.e. they seek to punish the perpetrators of the genocide. In their operation, the three processes have exhibited due process deficiencies which have impacted on the perception of “justice.” As a result, both the perpetrators and victim-survivors of the genocide feel that they are victims and not recipients of justice. This paper argues that the resulting deficiencies are due to the three processes being rooted in different prosecutorial traditions and philosophies. Whereas the ICTR is rooted in adversarial tradition, the National Genocide Trials are rooted in the inquisitorial tradition, and the Gacaca process is an example of popular justice. In view of the procedural deficiencies in the three processes therefore, the paper advocates for a restorative type of justice in post-genocide Rwanda.

This article reviews the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) under a specific compliance perspective and asks whether the Tribunal’s jurisprudence furthered the adherence to norms of international criminal and humanitarian law. The Tribunal’s impact on the circulation, emergence and enforcement, of the prohibitions of genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law will thus be scrutinised. Furthermore, the legitimacy of the ICTR’s jurisprudence plays a major role as human beings not only follow a logic of consequence but also a logic of appropriateness. This combined approach will show that the ICTR – despite its shortcomings – has furthered compliance by diffusing the norms of international criminal and humanitarian law not only to Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region, but also to the international community.

The Rwandan genocide of 1994 remains a chilling reminder of the depths of cruelty and violence that humans can inflict upon one another. While Rwanda has since emerged as a symbol of successful post-conflict recovery, the scars of the genocide continue to fester beneath the surface. This paper delves into the concept of Victors' Justice in the context of the Rwandan genocide and the Transitional Justice efforts that followed, with a specific focus on the actions of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). Victors' Justice, a term fraught with ethical implications, emerges as a central theme in this analysis, highlighting how it manifested in the proceedings and outcomes of the ICTR. Employing a theoretical approach and drawing upon the work of experts in the field, this research rigorously examines the dynamics of Victors' Justice and its enduring impact on Rwandan society. At first, the paper establishes the foundational concepts of Victors' Justice and Transitional Justice, tracing their historical roots and relevance to the ICTR. Then, by providing the historical context for the Rwandan genocide, it elucidates the complex power dynamics leading up to the massacre and establishing the International Criminal Tribunal. Furthermore, it delves into the accusations of Victors' Justice, analyzing the actions of the RPF during 1994, its interference with the ICTR's operations, and the injustices witnessed in national courts. Finally, it explores the challenges of Transitional Justice and Social Reconciliation in Rwanda, including restrictions on freedom of expression, persecution of political opposition, and mechanisms of social control. This paper synthesizes the findings and data accumulated throughout the study. It offers recommendations to address the social and ethnic divisions that persist in Rwanda, emphasizing accountability, political freedom, and the significance of historical narratives in fostering true reconciliation. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics in post-genocidal societies and the implications of Victors' Justice for pursuing lasting peace and Justice.

The article examines the norms of international law regarding the prevention of crimes of genocide committed by the Russian Federation in the war against Ukraine. The essence and specifics of ensuring the implementation of current provisions and norms of international criminal law regarding criminal prosecution for the commission of crimes of genocide against Russia as an aggressor state, a sponsor of terrorism, its top political and military leadership and the military, who directly commit these crimes in the beginning of February 24, 2022, were considered. full-scale war against Ukraine. It is established that the crimes of genocide are crimes against the security of humanity committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such by: a) killing members of such a group; b) causing serious bodily injury or mental disorder to members of such a group; c) deliberate creation of living conditions for such a group, designed to bring it to its complete or partial physical destruction; d) implementation of measures aimed at preventing childbirth within such a group; e) forcible transfer of children of this group to another group. The scientific developments and provisions of the current legal norms of the International Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide and its Punishment, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as the criminal law of Ukraine were studied with the aim of the need for the immediate ratification by the Parliament of Ukraine of the legal norms of the International Criminal Court and their implementation into the criminal legislation of Ukraine and Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” in English”. The author formulated reasonable proposals for improving the criminal legislation of Ukraine in accordance with the norms of international criminal law, as well as the criminal prosecution and punishment of the highest political and military leadership and the military of the Russian Federation, who directly commit crimes of genocide in the war against Ukraine.

This article focuses on a major reform encouraged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) – the abolition of the death penalty in Rwanda. For a decade prior to this reform, Rwandan courts have been imposing the death penalty in genocide cases. Using a qualitative empirical research method, still uncommon in international legal studies, the article shows how the ICTR’s requirements influenced the abolition, and then considers the impact of the abolition on national reconciliation in Rwanda. The findings suggest that the abolition has contributed to reconciliation, including through re-humanizing perpetrators and their relatives, improving survivors’ perception of society, and inspiring both survivors and perpetrators to envision a shared future. This is quite remarkable considering that, during the debates on the ICTR’s establishment, Rwanda insisted that sentencing to death genocide perpetrators was necessary for post-conflict justice and reconciliation. The article thus sheds a new light on the relationship between international tribunals and national reconciliation. In particular, it suggests that international tribunals can advance national reconciliation (and thus attain one of their explicit goals) through encouraging domestic legal developments such as death penalty reforms. Moreover, by raising awareness to the abolition’s positive effects on interethnic relations in Rwanda, the article could inform debates about the future of capital punishment in other death penalty countries.

In After Genocide, leading scholars and practitioners analyze the political, legal, and regional impact of events in post-genocide Rwanda within the broader themes of transitional justice, reconstruction, and reconciliation. Given the forthcoming fifteenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, and continued mass violence in Africa, especially in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and northern Uganda, this volume is unquestionably of continuing relevance. The book features chapters from leading scholars in this field, including William Schabas, Rene Lemarchand, Linda Melvern, Kalypso Nicolaidis, and Jennifer Welsh, along with senior government and non-government officials involved in matters related to Rwanda and transitional justice, including Hassan Bubacar Jallow (prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda), Martin Ngoga (prosecutor general of the Republic of Rwanda), and Luis Moreno Ocampo (prosecutor of the International Criminal Court). After Genocide also offers an unprecedented debate between Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Rene Lemarchand on post-genocide memory and governance in Rwanda. Because Rwandan voices have rarely been heard internationally in the aftermath of the genocide, this anthology incorporates chapters from Rwandan academics and practitioners, such as Tom Ndahiro, Solomon Nsabiyera Gasana, and Jean Baptiste Kayigamba--all of whom are also survivors of the 1994 genocide--and draws on their personal experiences. After Genocide constitutes the most comprehensive survey to date of issues related to post-genocide Rwanda and transitional justice.

ABSTRACTThe 1994 United Nations Security Council resolution which created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) foresaw it marking a ‘new beginning’, both locally (peace and reconciliation in Rwanda) and globally (strengthening the project of international criminal justice). Over time, those who spoke on behalf of the ICTR highlighted the strictly quantifiable (number of arrests, convictions) and the contributions to the global ‘new beginning’ for international criminal justice. Ethnographic fieldwork at the ICTR, however, revealed that lawyers and judges, enmeshed in the Tribunal's institutional order, held diverse views regarding local and global efficacy, refracted through the sense of power(lessness) that accompanied their respective institutional locations. Focusing on the attitude of judges and lawyers to the lack of indictments for members of the Rwandan Patriotic Army for alleged massacres in 1994 and accusations of ‘victor's justice’, this article distinguishes between the ICTR as a disembodied institution that did or did not mark local or global ‘new beginnings’, and the ICTR as a collection of situated persons negotiating their simultaneous empowerment and disempowerment.

In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide the crippled formal judicial system failed to administer justice in a timely manner. A modified version of the traditional Gacaca courts were introduced to hear cases from the backlog of over 100,000 genocide suspects. We find that the Gacaca courts performed well relative to the formal justice system given the constraints faced. The Gacaca courts generated valuable information about the genocide suspects and increased access to the justice system. The introduction of the Gacaca courts improved the performance of the formal justice system and facilitated post-conflict recovery.

The article is devoted to the study of the international legal foundations of modern criminal law, the possibility of classifying international legal acts as sources of criminal law, determining their legal force, overcoming conflicts and competition between the norms of international criminal law and national legislation. The paper examines the established approaches to the application of self-executing and non-self-executing international legal norms in criminal cases. The author comes to the conclusion that the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has lost the status of the only source of criminal law, since in addition to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as generally recognized principles and norms of international law, as well as international treaties of the Russian Federation, can be attributed to them.

The article considers the sources of international criminal law and notes that the system of sources of this branch is based on the principles of building a system of sources of international law as a whole. Based on the provisions of Article 38 of the Charter of the International Court of Justice, in which the main sources of international law (international conventions, international custom, general principles of law) are enshrined, current trends in the theory of sources of law from a broad approach are taken into account. Emphasis is placed on such features of the sources of law as structure, hierarchy, consistency, interconnection. The imperative nature of the norms of international criminal law, which is inherent in universal sources (principles of law, treaties), is taken into account. Auxiliary sources of law (decisions of international organizations, court decisions, national legislation), which are of a recommendatory nature, are also considered.The author notes that the systematic hierarchical nature inherent in the sources of international criminal law is in the process of formation and results from the state of development of international law. The system of sources consists of general principles of law, principles of international law, principles of international criminal law, treaties (conventions), which are imperative, and ancillary sources that contribute to the formation and development of international criminal law (court precedent, decisions of international organizations, court decisions, national legislation) and are of a recommendatory nature. The main source of international criminal law is a treaty (convention), which has such distinctive features as the consistency of the positions of member states, the existence of a normative form, the imperative nature of the provisions contained therein. International treaties of criminal law content are imperative in terms of implementation mechanism, while the decisions of international organizations are mainly of a recommendatory nature. At the same time, the decisions of international organizations create a conceptual basis for international agreements, determine their common direction, goal-setting. These are primarily the decisions of such international organizations as the General Assembly and the UN Security Council. The task of codification of norms of international criminal law content is urgent.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of the 2023 Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, and other International Crimes. The analysis of the provisions of the Convention is important for assessing the capacity of existing mechanisms to respond to international crimes committed in Ukraine. Therefore, the purpose of the article was to assess the provisions of the Convention, its correlation with the legislation of Ukraine, in the aspect of prosecution those guilty of international crimes against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. The article examines in detail: the scope and purpose of the Convention; obligations of criminalization; obligation to establish jurisdiction; principle «aut dedere aut judicare»; areas of mutual legal assistance; provisions regarding victims. It is indicated that the Convention is an important step in the development of prosecution mechanisms for war crimes. Its unique feature is the presence of norms of international criminal law, despite the name, which concerns only international cooperation, which is not at all characteristic of other conventions on mutual legal assistance. Unfortunately, however, some war crimes and crime of aggression will require additional notification of the application of the Convention, which again reduces its potential positive impact on prosecutions for international crimes. The analysis of the provisions of the Convention allows us to reasonably assume that in the event of its ratification: there will be a need to improve the norms of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the effect of the criminal law on persons and universal jurisdiction; will require updating the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the provision of international legal assistance; additions to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding extradition in aspects of the «aut dedere aut judicare» principle will be required; will require verification on the issue of compliance of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the Convention regarding the participation of victims in criminal proceedings. In addition, the issue of regulation of restitution, compensation and rehabilitation and other forms of compensation for victims of international crimes will need to be resolved.

Gacaca was the post-genocide Rwandan government’s solution to address the mass participation of citizens in the genocide against Tutsi in 1994, with the mass participation of the population in l ocal-level courts with the claim it would achieve both justice and reconciliation. Following the aftermath of genocide, in which 500,000 to one million Tutsi and Hutu moderates were massacred between April and July 1994, the Government of National Unity was faced with enormous moral, legal and administrative challenges (Prunier, 1995; Power, 2002; Des Forges, 1999).1 At the request of the Government of Rwanda (GoR), the United Nations created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on 8 November 1994 to try high-level planners of the genocide, but due to the extensive amount of time and money allotted for each case and the proximity of the ICTR in Tanzania versus Rwanda, there has been controversy concerning its effectiveness. To speed up the trials in the classic courts in Rwanda and to alleviate the overburdened prisons, the government sought a local solution to speed up the trials and to engage the active participation of Rwandans towards ‘truth-seeking’ and ‘fighting against impunity’, that resulted in the establishment of gacaca courts.2 Gacaca court hearings were led by newly trained inyangamugayo, persons of integrity selected from the community, with the community itself acting as accusers, defendants, witnesses and judges.3

This contribution provides a comprehensive synopsis of the legal path which Rwanda took after the genocide in 1994. It critically assesses the work of all three judicial branches which were active in response to the Rwandan genocide—the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Rwandan domestic courts and the traditional Gacaca courts. With regard to each of these judicial instruments, the chapter gives an overview of its work and identifies, on the basis of an evaluation of case files and statistics, achievements as well as shortcomings. This chapter also covers the challenges which Rwanda faces after the closure of Gacaca courts, including the transfer of cases from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to the Rwandan domestic courts. By doing so, the chapter contributes to the question of how domestic and international jurisdictions can cooperate with regard to the prosecution of international crimes.KeywordsRwandaGenocideInternational Criminal Tribunal for RwandaOrganic Law of 30th August 1996Gacaca CourtsReconciliationTransfer of cases

Reconciliation is among the most contested terms in current peacebuilding and transitional justice debates. Critics often view reconciliation as romantic—expecting immediate harmony after enormous harm—or imposed on victims by religious groups or governments that prefer the language of ‘moving on’ to addressing systemic causes of conflict. This essay reconsiders the concept of ‘reconciliation’ by drawing on community-level experiences in post-genocide Rwanda. This context highlights nuanced interpretations of reconciliation that, in key respects, respond to critics' concerns and call for reappraisal of reconciliation as a central objective after mass violence. In particular, many Rwandans' participation in the gacaca community courts—which, between 2002 and 2012, prosecuted 400,000 genocide suspects in around 1 million cases in 11,000 jurisdictions overseen by locally elected lay judges—represents a form of negotiated reconciliation. This version emphasizes long-term formal and informal negotiations between antagonistic parties during gacaca hearings but crucially long after trials have ended. In contrast, the transactional reconciliation advocated by the Rwandan government through its discourse of ‘national unity’ views reconciliation as immediate and elite-imposed—a perspective that rightly raises the ire of critics but to which negotiated reconciliation offers an important riposte. This essay is based on more than 650 interviews between 2003 and 2014 with Rwandan genocide suspects, convicted perpetrators, survivors, gacaca judges and policymakers as well as observations of 105 gacaca hearings in 13 communities across Rwanda.