Post by Anja Nieser on Oct 1, 2006 5:40:40 GMT -5
Lifting Capital Punishment, and Misread Gacaca Courts
Rwandans often speak of a million deaths, and they are right. The dead in
Rwanda during the genocide can be put at nearly three times the rate of
Jewish dead during the Holocaust. As Philip Gourevitch says in his book,
"we wish to inform you..., it was the most efficient mass killing since
the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.' According to the Genocide
in Rwanda is unique.
It is this unspeakable crime against humanity that calls for justice and
the possibility of uniting a moral, economic and politically shattered
society of Rwanda. We therefore have to face reality as we discus issues
of Gacaca and capital punishment.
The pros and cons of capital punishment
The origin or history of capital punishment can be traced to many years
ago, to the famous system commonly known as lynching.
According to Wikipedia encyclopaedia, lynching is a term loosely applied
to various forms of violence, usually murder, conceived by its
perpetrators as extra-legal punishment of offenders by a summary
procedure, ignoring, or even contrary to, the strict forms of law, notably
execution, or used as a terrorist method of enforcing social domination.
Victims of lynching have generally been members of marginalised groups or
vilified by society. The practice is age-old. For instance, stoning is
believed to have started before lapidating was adopted as a judicial form
of execution.
Lynching is frequently prevalent in sparsely settled or frontier
districts, where government is weak and law enforcers are very few and
powerless to enforce law and preserve order. The practice has been common
in periods of anarchy. In early twentieth century, it was also
significantly found in Russia and south-eastern Europe, but essentially in
America.
The word "lynching" is recorded in English since 1835, as a verb derived
from the earlier expression "Lynch law" (known since 1811), which seems to
have named after the Lynch family, whose surname is derived either from
Old English "hlinc" (hill), or from Irish "Loingseach" (sailor), it still
remains in dispute.
The most likely eponym for the concept of Lynch law as summary justice is
William Lynch, the author of "Lynch's Law", an agreement with the Virginia
Legislature on September 22, 1782, which allowed Lynch to pursue and
punish criminals in Pittsylvania County, without due process of law,
because legal proceedings were, in practical terms, impossible in the area
due to the lack of adequate provision of courts.
The term "Lynch mob" as for a group of private persons who collectively
practice lynching is attested from 1838. Since the Reconstruction Period,
after the Secession in the United States, it came to mean, generally, the
summary infliction of capital punishment. The further narrowing of the
meaning to extra-legal execution specifically by hanging is from the 20th
Century.
After the horrific crimes against humanity, the idea of punishment came
into limelight in the Rwandan society. The challenge, however, has been to
understand what punishment is or entails so that it is handled with
efficiency and effectiveness. What is punishment in the first instance?
There are different ways of defining punishment that tend to vary,
depending on the individual or individuals defining it.
Punishment involves the deliberate infliction of suffering on a supposed
or actual offender for an offence such as a moral or legal transgression.
Since punishment involves inflicting pain or deprivation similar to that
which the perpetuator of a crime inflicts on his victim, it has generally
been agreed that punishment requires moral as well as legal and political
justification.
While almost all philosophers agree that punishment is at least sometimes
justifiable, they offer various accounts of how it is to be justified and
what the infliction of punishment is designed to protect - rights,
personal autonomy and private property, a political constitution, or the
democratic process, for instance. Utilitarians attempt to justify
punishment in terms of the balance of good over evil produced, and thus
focus our attention on extrinsic or consequentialist considerations.
Retributivists attempt a justification that links punishment to moral
wrongdoing, generally justifying the practice on the grounds that it gives
to wrongdoers what they deserve; their focus is thus on the intrinsic
wrongness of crime that thereby merits punishment. "Compromise" theorists
attempt to combine these 2 types of theories in a way that retains their
perceived strengths while overcoming their perceived weaknesses.
After discussing the various attempts at justification, utilitarian and
retributive approaches to determining the amount of punishment will be
examined.
On concerns of capital punishment, the strongest argument in favour of
capital punishment was made by Professor Immanuel Kant when he proclaimed
that punishment inflicted on the guilty should be equal to the wrong done:
for instance, capital punishment be mandatory for murder. His retributive
theory of punishment leaves execution of the murderer the only option for
the crime of killing another person. That is, an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth, for the pointer of the scales of Justice to stand in
balance.
Kant's views are in defence of capital punishment and are based on
punishing the guilty in equal proportion to the crime. To most people who
hold similar views, capital punishment serves an additional purpose of
being a future deterrent to similar crimes. However, it is debatable if
this view is completely valid.
"Death penalty advocates punishment under the principle of lex talionis,
or 'an eye for an eye' - the belief that punishment should fit the crime.
In particular, people who favour capital punishment argue that murderers
should be executed in retribution for their crimes and that such
retribution serves justice for murder victims and their survivors".
Edward Koch once said: "How can murder be taken seriously if the penalty
isn't equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the
punishment that follows it. It is by exacting the highest penalty for the
taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life"
International standards of human rights call for either the abolition of
the death penalty or, at a minimum, its use in extremely limited cases. In
April 1999, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a
resolution calling on all States "to establish a moratorium on executions,
with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty".
The Commission on Human Rights has also urged States "not to impose the
death penalty for any but the most serious crimes" and "progressively to
restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be
imposed".
It was understandable thus that after the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, the
immediate answer chosen by the obvious angry people was capital
punishment. They were there partly guided by emotions, and since they are
cooling down they can now be guided by a lot of wisdom. This wisdom should
tell the futility of capital punishment. The summary execution of a
terrible criminal, a monster, is actually a favour. He or she needs more
than that. Capital punishment in Rwanda, therefore, is a euphemism for
legally murdering a person. Criminals can be, and are, executed because
capital punishment is a legal institution in Rwanda. But the debatable
issue is whether it is serving the purpose it is supposed to be serving.
Controversial issue
Capital punishment remains to be a controversial issue worldwide. It is
true that all forms of punishment are subject to human fallibility, but
capital punishment really exacerbates the controversy. Many survivors of
the Genocide and retributivists have continued to advocate for capital
punishment - especially in answering strong crimes like mass massacres and
genocide. This is under the belief that an equal response to the crime
committed must be meted out. In other words, according to them there must
be justice consonant with the atrocious acts.
During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, very many victims were tortured to
death.
Their killers were so cruel that in most cases they had to slowly batter
the victim's heads and other parts of the body before finishing them off.
"This kind of cruelty has thus to be answered with an equal punishment,"
remarked a survivor. But the question remains: can we be able to
administer similar torture in capital punishment?
The answer is definitely no, and hence the capital punishment we advocate
for does not serve the purpose. We are deterred by our moral restraints to
commit similar atrocities in giving capital punishment. If, for example,
we are punishing a "monster" who killed by chopping parts off human
bodies, are we supposed to chop him or her up in capital punishment?
Take an example of where the first people charged with genocide were
killed by firing squad. They may have fired a hundred bullets in their
heads, but it takes only one bullet in the head to kill. In this case we
do not see any equality in terms of offence and punishment as advocated by
retributivists who are the best advocates of capital punishment. The
Hamurabi's "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" does not come in,
hence rendering capital punishment futile.
This is why we recommend in essence and logic that the Government of
Rwanda should comfortably agree to lift the death penalty in Rwanda and
retain life sentence which is far better. Supporters of capital punishment
will argue though that imprisonment is simply not a sufficient safeguard
against the future actions of criminals because it offers the possibility
of escape and release on parole. They truly observe that some criminals
must be made to pay for their crimes with their lives. Fear of death
deters people from committing crimes, proponents say. They also believe
that if attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive
moral influence by placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter,
resulting in attitudes of disgust and horror to such acts.
Furthermore, retentionists insist that the deterrent influence of the
death penalty reaches across state lines into jurisdictions that have
abolished it, and so all benefit by its continued use. Let's imagine for a
moment there was no death penalty for a moment. The only reasonable
sentence would a life sentence. This would be costly to the taxpayers -
not only in the cost of housing and feeding the prisoner but because of
the numerous appeals which waste man-hours and money. By treating
criminals in this manner, we are encouraging behaviour that will result in
a prison sentence. If there is no threat of death to one who commits a
murder, than that person is guaranteed to be provided with a decent living
environment until their next parole hearing. They are definitely not
getting the punishment they deserve.
Life imprisonment, however, serves the most important psychological
torture of leaving the perpetrator to see the people he or she wanted to
kill move around alive. It leaves him or her humiliated in a state of
hopelessness and shame forever. And in economic terms, the prisoners will
live to provide free labour, to directly or indirectly serve the people he
or she wanted dead. This kind of torture may not equal the offence
committed but will truly give the nearest alternative.
Rwanda government in general and the Ministry of Justice in particular
should not find it hard lifting capital punishment as a pre-condition
given by ICTR to have the prisoners in question tried in Rwanda. Life
imprisonment is just alright for the purpose.
The issue of Gacaca
If you still doubted the Gacaca courts in Rwanda, then you better think
otherwise. Gacaca cuts across the whole range of issues that we are
looking at: punishment, teaching the public a lesson, reconciliation, etc.
There are a lot of things which are addressed by traditional justice. It
addresses issues of unity, issues of reconciliation, transition itself,
getting out of the ugly past and walking to a better future in a society
that was divided but is becoming reconciled.
Critics, however, have continued to have their arguments. Helena Cobbana,
for example, argues: "The Gacaca courts have very strong 're-educative'
role ... to attempt to almost coercively 're-educate' the Hutus. The
approach is a sort of melding of Maoist views on this score with the heavy
Christian emphasis on the virtues of confession and the need for
confession before there is 'absolution'." This kind of negative attitude
from international scholars only gives us their degree of naivety in the
system of justice's efficiency.
And according to Craig Timberg: "Gacaca officials, who began tracking the
suicides in March after an initial round of cases in January and February
last year, have documented the horrors: An elderly man drowned himself in
Lake Kivu, on Rwanda's western border, on the day he was accused of
killing several of his grandchildren. A 28-year-old man, the last
surviving member of his family, killed himself after being accused of
raping his Tutsi mother, according to Gacaca officials. 'Sometimes we
discover a situation we cannot understand ourselves,' said the court's
Executive Secretary, Domitilla Mukantaganzwa. 'We are praying for our
nation.'"
What does this indicate? They are trying to show us a resigned society.
But we are not, and the fact that people hang themselves because of the
atrocities they committed only strengthens the system. You would know how
strong the system is if you woke up one day to find one who used to be
your great friend charged with numerous offences by Gacaca courts. So when
the head of Gacaca courts calls for God's help, it should not be mistaken
as a resignation. This is only a sentimental utterance.
The UN office for the co-ordination of human rights, in 2006 said: "The
Gacaca process is revolutionary in that it is a formally drafted, yet at
the same time, traditional procedure. Reaction to it has been mixed.
Certain observers believe that the Gacaca courts do not provide the
defendants with any of the protections normally afforded them, and that as
a result, rough justice is being handed out."
Benjamin Gumpert, who acts as counsel for the defence of Joseph Mugenzi, a
man being tried before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(ICTR), has said: "I think the idea of people's justice is in theory
delightful.
However, I think that the Rwandan people are no more likely than any other
ordinary people (by that I mean non-lawyers) of being able to conduct
complicated trials of genocide. There is little chance of justice in these
circumstances.
I think either you can hold a fair trial or you cannot. But I do not think
that you can dilute the principles of justice. There seems to be an
element of double standards at play here. You are effectively saying that
the manner of trial that we consider appropriate in courts in North
America, Europe or other international proceedings does not need to be
observed in Africa."
The reason too, as to why such comments appear is not far from the ones
just mentioned. The system is called a variety of names - ranging from
gambling to diluting justice. This is, however, nonsense - because the
courts have actually a superior long arm to touch all corners as it
punishes and at the same time reconciles the society. Gacaca courts are
based on the principles of restorative justice which is embedded in its
structures, too complex to be understood by non-Rwandans.
The only thing that actually hinders that smooth progress of Gacaca trials
is lack of witnesses. Most of the would-be witnesses are no more; some
survivors are cowards or not committed, corrupt and in some cases do not
have enough support from government's trusted organs.
We cannot leave out the incompetent Inyangamugayo in terms of having the
will because of different reasons well known to us. It is however
understood that one may find it difficult to prosecute a close relative
faced with such crimes. This creates a big loophole, and so many suspects
escape as a result. It actually demands a person with morals that cannot
be easily traced in a society that has just slaughtered each other. This
is where the Gacaca paradox lies!
We cannot have a poisoned mind de-poisoned overnight. The Rwandan psyche
was seriously beleaguered by all kinds of ills inflicted from within and
without.
The Rwandan psyche actually captivated and integrated exotic values rather
randomly and haphazardly, to forge a culture that will take long to uproot
so that we foster a culture of human rights and, above all, effect
justice. This is our undoing and that is why Gacaca courts are still
facing an uphill task.
Nonetheless, the courts, as already mentioned, are doing a great job and
they will do much better if we change our negative attitude towards them.
And capital punishment should not be viewed as the only panacea to social
justice in Rwanda.
(source: The New Times)
Rwandans often speak of a million deaths, and they are right. The dead in
Rwanda during the genocide can be put at nearly three times the rate of
Jewish dead during the Holocaust. As Philip Gourevitch says in his book,
"we wish to inform you..., it was the most efficient mass killing since
the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.' According to the Genocide
in Rwanda is unique.
It is this unspeakable crime against humanity that calls for justice and
the possibility of uniting a moral, economic and politically shattered
society of Rwanda. We therefore have to face reality as we discus issues
of Gacaca and capital punishment.
The pros and cons of capital punishment
The origin or history of capital punishment can be traced to many years
ago, to the famous system commonly known as lynching.
According to Wikipedia encyclopaedia, lynching is a term loosely applied
to various forms of violence, usually murder, conceived by its
perpetrators as extra-legal punishment of offenders by a summary
procedure, ignoring, or even contrary to, the strict forms of law, notably
execution, or used as a terrorist method of enforcing social domination.
Victims of lynching have generally been members of marginalised groups or
vilified by society. The practice is age-old. For instance, stoning is
believed to have started before lapidating was adopted as a judicial form
of execution.
Lynching is frequently prevalent in sparsely settled or frontier
districts, where government is weak and law enforcers are very few and
powerless to enforce law and preserve order. The practice has been common
in periods of anarchy. In early twentieth century, it was also
significantly found in Russia and south-eastern Europe, but essentially in
America.
The word "lynching" is recorded in English since 1835, as a verb derived
from the earlier expression "Lynch law" (known since 1811), which seems to
have named after the Lynch family, whose surname is derived either from
Old English "hlinc" (hill), or from Irish "Loingseach" (sailor), it still
remains in dispute.
The most likely eponym for the concept of Lynch law as summary justice is
William Lynch, the author of "Lynch's Law", an agreement with the Virginia
Legislature on September 22, 1782, which allowed Lynch to pursue and
punish criminals in Pittsylvania County, without due process of law,
because legal proceedings were, in practical terms, impossible in the area
due to the lack of adequate provision of courts.
The term "Lynch mob" as for a group of private persons who collectively
practice lynching is attested from 1838. Since the Reconstruction Period,
after the Secession in the United States, it came to mean, generally, the
summary infliction of capital punishment. The further narrowing of the
meaning to extra-legal execution specifically by hanging is from the 20th
Century.
After the horrific crimes against humanity, the idea of punishment came
into limelight in the Rwandan society. The challenge, however, has been to
understand what punishment is or entails so that it is handled with
efficiency and effectiveness. What is punishment in the first instance?
There are different ways of defining punishment that tend to vary,
depending on the individual or individuals defining it.
Punishment involves the deliberate infliction of suffering on a supposed
or actual offender for an offence such as a moral or legal transgression.
Since punishment involves inflicting pain or deprivation similar to that
which the perpetuator of a crime inflicts on his victim, it has generally
been agreed that punishment requires moral as well as legal and political
justification.
While almost all philosophers agree that punishment is at least sometimes
justifiable, they offer various accounts of how it is to be justified and
what the infliction of punishment is designed to protect - rights,
personal autonomy and private property, a political constitution, or the
democratic process, for instance. Utilitarians attempt to justify
punishment in terms of the balance of good over evil produced, and thus
focus our attention on extrinsic or consequentialist considerations.
Retributivists attempt a justification that links punishment to moral
wrongdoing, generally justifying the practice on the grounds that it gives
to wrongdoers what they deserve; their focus is thus on the intrinsic
wrongness of crime that thereby merits punishment. "Compromise" theorists
attempt to combine these 2 types of theories in a way that retains their
perceived strengths while overcoming their perceived weaknesses.
After discussing the various attempts at justification, utilitarian and
retributive approaches to determining the amount of punishment will be
examined.
On concerns of capital punishment, the strongest argument in favour of
capital punishment was made by Professor Immanuel Kant when he proclaimed
that punishment inflicted on the guilty should be equal to the wrong done:
for instance, capital punishment be mandatory for murder. His retributive
theory of punishment leaves execution of the murderer the only option for
the crime of killing another person. That is, an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth, for the pointer of the scales of Justice to stand in
balance.
Kant's views are in defence of capital punishment and are based on
punishing the guilty in equal proportion to the crime. To most people who
hold similar views, capital punishment serves an additional purpose of
being a future deterrent to similar crimes. However, it is debatable if
this view is completely valid.
"Death penalty advocates punishment under the principle of lex talionis,
or 'an eye for an eye' - the belief that punishment should fit the crime.
In particular, people who favour capital punishment argue that murderers
should be executed in retribution for their crimes and that such
retribution serves justice for murder victims and their survivors".
Edward Koch once said: "How can murder be taken seriously if the penalty
isn't equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the
punishment that follows it. It is by exacting the highest penalty for the
taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life"
International standards of human rights call for either the abolition of
the death penalty or, at a minimum, its use in extremely limited cases. In
April 1999, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a
resolution calling on all States "to establish a moratorium on executions,
with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty".
The Commission on Human Rights has also urged States "not to impose the
death penalty for any but the most serious crimes" and "progressively to
restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be
imposed".
It was understandable thus that after the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, the
immediate answer chosen by the obvious angry people was capital
punishment. They were there partly guided by emotions, and since they are
cooling down they can now be guided by a lot of wisdom. This wisdom should
tell the futility of capital punishment. The summary execution of a
terrible criminal, a monster, is actually a favour. He or she needs more
than that. Capital punishment in Rwanda, therefore, is a euphemism for
legally murdering a person. Criminals can be, and are, executed because
capital punishment is a legal institution in Rwanda. But the debatable
issue is whether it is serving the purpose it is supposed to be serving.
Controversial issue
Capital punishment remains to be a controversial issue worldwide. It is
true that all forms of punishment are subject to human fallibility, but
capital punishment really exacerbates the controversy. Many survivors of
the Genocide and retributivists have continued to advocate for capital
punishment - especially in answering strong crimes like mass massacres and
genocide. This is under the belief that an equal response to the crime
committed must be meted out. In other words, according to them there must
be justice consonant with the atrocious acts.
During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, very many victims were tortured to
death.
Their killers were so cruel that in most cases they had to slowly batter
the victim's heads and other parts of the body before finishing them off.
"This kind of cruelty has thus to be answered with an equal punishment,"
remarked a survivor. But the question remains: can we be able to
administer similar torture in capital punishment?
The answer is definitely no, and hence the capital punishment we advocate
for does not serve the purpose. We are deterred by our moral restraints to
commit similar atrocities in giving capital punishment. If, for example,
we are punishing a "monster" who killed by chopping parts off human
bodies, are we supposed to chop him or her up in capital punishment?
Take an example of where the first people charged with genocide were
killed by firing squad. They may have fired a hundred bullets in their
heads, but it takes only one bullet in the head to kill. In this case we
do not see any equality in terms of offence and punishment as advocated by
retributivists who are the best advocates of capital punishment. The
Hamurabi's "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" does not come in,
hence rendering capital punishment futile.
This is why we recommend in essence and logic that the Government of
Rwanda should comfortably agree to lift the death penalty in Rwanda and
retain life sentence which is far better. Supporters of capital punishment
will argue though that imprisonment is simply not a sufficient safeguard
against the future actions of criminals because it offers the possibility
of escape and release on parole. They truly observe that some criminals
must be made to pay for their crimes with their lives. Fear of death
deters people from committing crimes, proponents say. They also believe
that if attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive
moral influence by placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter,
resulting in attitudes of disgust and horror to such acts.
Furthermore, retentionists insist that the deterrent influence of the
death penalty reaches across state lines into jurisdictions that have
abolished it, and so all benefit by its continued use. Let's imagine for a
moment there was no death penalty for a moment. The only reasonable
sentence would a life sentence. This would be costly to the taxpayers -
not only in the cost of housing and feeding the prisoner but because of
the numerous appeals which waste man-hours and money. By treating
criminals in this manner, we are encouraging behaviour that will result in
a prison sentence. If there is no threat of death to one who commits a
murder, than that person is guaranteed to be provided with a decent living
environment until their next parole hearing. They are definitely not
getting the punishment they deserve.
Life imprisonment, however, serves the most important psychological
torture of leaving the perpetrator to see the people he or she wanted to
kill move around alive. It leaves him or her humiliated in a state of
hopelessness and shame forever. And in economic terms, the prisoners will
live to provide free labour, to directly or indirectly serve the people he
or she wanted dead. This kind of torture may not equal the offence
committed but will truly give the nearest alternative.
Rwanda government in general and the Ministry of Justice in particular
should not find it hard lifting capital punishment as a pre-condition
given by ICTR to have the prisoners in question tried in Rwanda. Life
imprisonment is just alright for the purpose.
The issue of Gacaca
If you still doubted the Gacaca courts in Rwanda, then you better think
otherwise. Gacaca cuts across the whole range of issues that we are
looking at: punishment, teaching the public a lesson, reconciliation, etc.
There are a lot of things which are addressed by traditional justice. It
addresses issues of unity, issues of reconciliation, transition itself,
getting out of the ugly past and walking to a better future in a society
that was divided but is becoming reconciled.
Critics, however, have continued to have their arguments. Helena Cobbana,
for example, argues: "The Gacaca courts have very strong 're-educative'
role ... to attempt to almost coercively 're-educate' the Hutus. The
approach is a sort of melding of Maoist views on this score with the heavy
Christian emphasis on the virtues of confession and the need for
confession before there is 'absolution'." This kind of negative attitude
from international scholars only gives us their degree of naivety in the
system of justice's efficiency.
And according to Craig Timberg: "Gacaca officials, who began tracking the
suicides in March after an initial round of cases in January and February
last year, have documented the horrors: An elderly man drowned himself in
Lake Kivu, on Rwanda's western border, on the day he was accused of
killing several of his grandchildren. A 28-year-old man, the last
surviving member of his family, killed himself after being accused of
raping his Tutsi mother, according to Gacaca officials. 'Sometimes we
discover a situation we cannot understand ourselves,' said the court's
Executive Secretary, Domitilla Mukantaganzwa. 'We are praying for our
nation.'"
What does this indicate? They are trying to show us a resigned society.
But we are not, and the fact that people hang themselves because of the
atrocities they committed only strengthens the system. You would know how
strong the system is if you woke up one day to find one who used to be
your great friend charged with numerous offences by Gacaca courts. So when
the head of Gacaca courts calls for God's help, it should not be mistaken
as a resignation. This is only a sentimental utterance.
The UN office for the co-ordination of human rights, in 2006 said: "The
Gacaca process is revolutionary in that it is a formally drafted, yet at
the same time, traditional procedure. Reaction to it has been mixed.
Certain observers believe that the Gacaca courts do not provide the
defendants with any of the protections normally afforded them, and that as
a result, rough justice is being handed out."
Benjamin Gumpert, who acts as counsel for the defence of Joseph Mugenzi, a
man being tried before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(ICTR), has said: "I think the idea of people's justice is in theory
delightful.
However, I think that the Rwandan people are no more likely than any other
ordinary people (by that I mean non-lawyers) of being able to conduct
complicated trials of genocide. There is little chance of justice in these
circumstances.
I think either you can hold a fair trial or you cannot. But I do not think
that you can dilute the principles of justice. There seems to be an
element of double standards at play here. You are effectively saying that
the manner of trial that we consider appropriate in courts in North
America, Europe or other international proceedings does not need to be
observed in Africa."
The reason too, as to why such comments appear is not far from the ones
just mentioned. The system is called a variety of names - ranging from
gambling to diluting justice. This is, however, nonsense - because the
courts have actually a superior long arm to touch all corners as it
punishes and at the same time reconciles the society. Gacaca courts are
based on the principles of restorative justice which is embedded in its
structures, too complex to be understood by non-Rwandans.
The only thing that actually hinders that smooth progress of Gacaca trials
is lack of witnesses. Most of the would-be witnesses are no more; some
survivors are cowards or not committed, corrupt and in some cases do not
have enough support from government's trusted organs.
We cannot leave out the incompetent Inyangamugayo in terms of having the
will because of different reasons well known to us. It is however
understood that one may find it difficult to prosecute a close relative
faced with such crimes. This creates a big loophole, and so many suspects
escape as a result. It actually demands a person with morals that cannot
be easily traced in a society that has just slaughtered each other. This
is where the Gacaca paradox lies!
We cannot have a poisoned mind de-poisoned overnight. The Rwandan psyche
was seriously beleaguered by all kinds of ills inflicted from within and
without.
The Rwandan psyche actually captivated and integrated exotic values rather
randomly and haphazardly, to forge a culture that will take long to uproot
so that we foster a culture of human rights and, above all, effect
justice. This is our undoing and that is why Gacaca courts are still
facing an uphill task.
Nonetheless, the courts, as already mentioned, are doing a great job and
they will do much better if we change our negative attitude towards them.
And capital punishment should not be viewed as the only panacea to social
justice in Rwanda.
(source: The New Times)