|
|
|
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 Johnston Busingye, Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice in Rwanda
|
Johnston Busingye is the Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice in Rwanda.
QUESTION: How important do you think justice is to a society in transition?
ANSWER: Justice is as important as ever in any society. Rwanda is passing from an ugly period with conflict, genocide, repression, impunity. Justice is one indicator that people are moving from this situation to a better place. Justice is very important in a transitional society.
Q: How important do you think traditional justice is as opposed to other forms?
A: That depends on the context. Western models of justice are okay in certain contexts. In any case, I do not think there is one agreed model of western justice. Traditional justice is also helpful in specific circumstances like our own where we really needed to address a number of issues, not simply ‘an eye for an eye’ type of justice. Where you need to address a number of issues like unity of the people and historical misrule, perhaps you need traditional forms of justice because these traditional forms of justice are not single-issue courts; they have a wider scope and role in terms of keeping society as peaceful as it can be.
Q: Do you think the gacaca courts are a halfway house between western forms of justice and truth commissions?
A: I think so. The gacaca model is our old traditional system adapted to handle a heavier task, genocide. 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.
Q: Do you think that the fact that some suspected genocidaires have been in prison for 12 years without trial can fuel rifts in an already divided society?
A: Perhaps. But we need to understand that traditional justice is not about making people spend long periods in prison. This was part of our unique situation in that immediately after the genocide the whole country was devastated, including manpower, legal capacity and traditional justice capacity. I do not want to have traditional justice equated to having people spend long periods of time in prison. On the other hand, it is important in having justice done as soon as possible, to make the detention without justice as short as possible. In fact, in our estimation the gacaca process will be concluded in a tenth of the time it would take via the modern western form of justice. It is not about the length of time that traditional justice takes. It is about bringing justice fairly and for everybody. Our own specific situation, with people still in prison, is not because of the traditional justice model but because of the particular nature of the situation after the genocide.
Q: To what extent do you think vengeance is at the root of people’s desire for justice to be done?
A: We are always monitoring the public response and how much the public has participated in the gacaca process, both from the side of the victim and the accused. Some victims might feel that gacaca, if anything, is letting people off the hook. It is a complex situation; there are issues of remorse, of a need for understanding of the situation. Added to that is the fact that gacaca is a model that was adopted much later in time and is expected to resolve issues in a very short time period. I really do not think vengeance is an issue here at all.
Q: Is it fair to say that some people who are in prison see themselves as prisoners of war as opposed to being prisoners for crimes against humanity?
A: Prisoners of war is a separate issue. There are specific crimes against humanity that those people have been charged with. They know the charges, there is nobody who does not know what he has been charged with, not only in Rwanda but also in Arusha and in other countries where they have arrested some of these people and are trying them. It is possible but it is not honest that someone might consider himself a prisoner of war. I do not think that is genuine.
Q: What has been the reaction to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’s (ICTR) suggestion that it might investigate the RPA for its possible war crimes or crimes against humanity?
A: Our position has always been clear.
The RPA as an institution was not and simply cannot be complicit in any war crimes. The RPA was not an actor in the 1994 genocide. The RPA was responsible for stopping the genocide.
With respect to any crimes that may have been committed by individual members of the RPA, if there is sufficient evidence, then they should be made to stand trial. But at the Arusha tribunals there has never been sufficient evidence to bring a charge.
Q: Is anything being done to address the perception that perhaps justice in Rwanda is one-sided justice?
A: I would say that is an ill-founded accusation. And it is misleading. What is going on now is a response to the genocide that occurred. What are we supposed to do to address this? Are we supposed to go looking for suspects from those so-called other sides just to try to show the judicial process is not one-sided? Those who commit crimes and against whom evidence has been found are being tried. The issue of one-sidedness should not come into play.
[ENDS]
|
|
|
|
|