|
|
|
In-Depth:
Justice for a Lawless World? Rights and reconciliation in a new era of international law
|
 Download this in-depth report
Part I 6.36 MB
Part II 2.40 MB
- Professor Noam Chomsky
- ICC Chief Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo
- Samantha Power, Professor of Practice in Human Rights Policy
- Juan Mendez ,President of the International Center for Transitional Justice
- Justice Geoffrey Robertson Q.C.
- Dr Fanie du Toit, Programme Director for Educating for Reconciliation at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa
- Abdullah An-Na`im, Ph.D, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Augustin Nkusi, the Director of the Legal Support Unit, National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, Rwanda
- Benjamin Gumpert, counsel representing Justin Mugenzi, who is currently on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Hanny Megally, Director, Middle East and North Africa Program, International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
- Paul van Zyl, Country Programme Director at the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
- Johnston Busingye, Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice in Rwanda
- Dennis McNamara (Special Adviser on Internal Displacement to the UN’s Emergency Relief Co-ordinator and Director of the OCHA Inter-agency Internal Displacement Division) on the rule of law
IRIN welcomes feedback. Send your messages to feedback. |
|
GLOBAL: Interview with Augustin Nkusi, the Director of the Legal Support Unit
|
Augustin Nkusi. |
|
Augustin Nkusi is the Director of the Legal Support Unit, National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions. Rwanda.The unit is a government department set up to address the trial of genocide crimes in gacaca courts.
QUESTION: Has the gacaca process started in every community in Rwanda?
ANSWER: Yes, but it depends what you understand by started. The investigations have started everywhere, but not necessarily the trials.
The law, codifying the gacaca, was passed in 2001 and then the judges, the Inyangamugayo, were elected. In 2002, the training started; first, there was a programme to train the trainers, and then they started to give training to the judges. On the 19th June 2002 the gacaca process started in a pilot programme in 10 percent of the areas. We closely observed the process, took some lessons on board and made modifications.
In 2005, it was rolled out everywhere. Ten percent have finished the information-gathering stage. The rest are still collecting information. In March 2005, the first gacaca cases were heard.
Q: How many judges are there?
A: There were originally 258,000 but that has now been reduced to 169,000. Every jurisdiction has nine judges. These judges are elected by the community. Five of the judges have administrative duties as well, and there is one president.
The president is elected by the other judges. The judges are not paid. They receive small benefits: they get free education for their children, free health insurance. It is a voluntary position.
The court meets one day a week. The entire community is obliged to attend. But there are reasons sometimes why people cannot attend and the obligation is not severely enforced.
Q: What does the training consist of?
A: They are taught about the gacaca law. Avocats Sans Frontieres has assisted us in preparing materials for training. They are taught about the rules of impartiality; about trauma; about how to deal with the witnesses and the defendant - all aspects of the procedure. The training lasts a week.
The idea is of a simplified legal process. They can seek clarification from experts if they wish on certain legal points.
Q: Is it true that if a prisoner confesses to murder during the genocide that they are then released without having to stand trial?
A: Since about 2003, 20,000 people have been released who have confessed. Those who have confessed can benefit from a reduced sentence. They have been in prison since 1994 so they have served a significant period of time.
Those who have been released come from the second category, i.e. they have killed but not instigated the atrocities, or killed in a deliberately cruel or torturous manner. We released the rank and file.
Q: Would it be better if the judges did not come from the same community where they are judging?
A: That might be a better idea but it would present problems. It is expensive to house people in other areas. Furthermore, if these trials are going on once a week, that imposes a huge administrative and financial burden.
Also, I am not convinced that judges from a different area is a better idea. Your suggestion would provide perhaps more neutral judges. But the judges who are present are aware of what happened in the community. They were there; they saw what went on. And that brings its own advantages.
Q: Are you not worried that the judges will have, in effect, prejudged the case? That they are both judge and witness?
A: I agree that the procedure is different from the classical legal theory. But that is not what we are trying to achieve here. We are trying to achieve justice for the community, by the community, in the community.
A person can choose to be a witness instead of being a judge. But it is an important part of the process that the judges are aware of what happened. Also, you have to remember that these trials are taking place in front of the whole community. The people know what went on. Another inherent advantage is that the gacaca trials are also quicker because the people know what happened.
Gacaca trials sometimes receive a bad press. But there have also been acquittals. Six hundred and ninety five were acquitted of charges between March and December 2005.
Q: What do you think of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha?
A: It is an important process. There is a need for what happened in Rwanda to be recognised at an international level to avoid any revisionist history. It is a great testimony to what happened.
Q: How is the process of reconciliation going in Rwanda?
A: We hold conferences where we extol the virtues of reconciliation, of confessing and of pardoning. There are a lot of ceremonies to remember and to underline that this should never happen again. There are differences between how reconciliation is progressing in the countryside and in the city. The countryside is, you might say, more receptive to the idea of reconciliation. In the city, people are less likely to talk about reconciliation. I do not know why.
Q: Do you believe there is a lot of revisionist history being circulated?
A: Unfortunately in places like Belgium there are a lot of people who try to say that there was not a genocide, or who refer to what happened subsequently in the north as a counter-genocide.
In 1997, there was a war by the border near the Congo. The Interahamwe started regrouping, being rearmed and infiltrating the north of Rwanda; and again spreading propaganda that the Tutsis need to be eradicated. They started killing again, reinstating the genocide. We had to stop that. The problem there was that they infiltrated communities and so it was hard to fight them. But they were were not conspicuous: it was not possible to tell who was Interahamwe and who not. So we told the population to distinguish themselves from the Interahamwe, and those who were Interahamwe, we fought. It was weapon against weapon, not a genocide, as has been alleged.
There were no atrocities.
Q: Does it upset you that Rwanda is synonymous with genocide?
A: Yes, but it is the reality. Rwanda was not known before the genocide. We are the third genocide in the history of humanity. But we must think of the future now.
Rwandans feel that we must unite and work for reconciliation and for a better future. We are addressing the past but we are also looking towards the future by trying to combat poverty and raise the standard of living.
We have a recent history of different classes, along ethnic lines. But that was actually brought by the colonisers who tried to distinguish people by calling them different “tribes”; distinguishing them physically and awarding them different rights. We are moving on from that epoch now. We are all Rwandans.
Q: So are you optimistic about the future of Rwanda?
A: Yes. I am. There is a lot of work to do. And it would be better if those abroad were to return to help rebuild the country. They could help and I think that some of them do not understand, or do not want to understand, the situation here and what we are trying to achieve. They sometimes spread misinformation about processes such as the gacaca process. It would be better if they were to return and we could work together to build a future in peace.
I am an optimist.
For more information please go to: www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw
[ENDS]
|
|
|
|
|