AS the Gacaca semi-traditional court jurisdiction close shop today, on the exact date of their ten years anniversary, Rwandans will be looking back at the performance of the community courts with a sense of pride and contentment. Besides hearing nearly two million cases, Gacaca has played a central role in reuniting the citizens after the devastating 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, in which at least a million people were brutally killed.

The New Times’ FELLY KIMENYI sat down with Justice Minister THARCISSE KARUGARAMA for his appraisal of the semi-traditional tribunals, their legacy, and a look into the post-Gacaca Rwanda.Below are the excerpts.Q: Gacaca courts are closing on Monday.  How was the idea of Gacaca mooted?A: First of all, what will close in two related ceremonies on 17th and 18th June, that is Sunday and Monday, will be the Gacaca courts, which were indeed established to try the offence of Genocide committed in Rwanda between 1990 and 1994. The most important thing to remember is that these debates for alternative justice system started immediately after the Genocide – how could you try so many people and give justice to the suspects?  How could you do it so quickly and give justice to the victims? How could you give justice that address the question of the victims and address the question of detainees who were then over 200,000? So different methods were tried, ordinary courts were tried, and several efforts were made including putting place, Comites de Triage, mobile groups, specialized chambers for both prosecution and courts; but three years later, we couldn’t make an impact. How are you going to spend hundreds of years trying people because they will be dead? The perpetrators will be dead, suspects will be dead, survivors will be dead; so the Gacaca idea came up, there was no consensus on it, with academics, prosecutors, lawyers and judges rejecting it out rightly. Fellows in the wider world rejected it, the intelligencia rejected it. Survivors of Genocide rejected it as well. But the Gacaca idea survived because of the sheer determination of the leadership of this country to create an alternative approach to justice. We had to view justice in the sense of transparency, in terms of the truth; in terms of evidence available rather than the form it is being delivered. So justice is not about the form, it is about substance, it is about the truth, it is about the transparency, it is about being just and fair.  It is not about putting on robes, hood and wigs and having lawyers right left and centre and having judges seating in the middle.  And so the decisions were taken but the preparations took some time. The law establishing Gacaca was enacted in 2001, then there was a period of information gathering, then the pilot phase, and in 2002, June 18, the President launched the Gacaca courts to start all over the country.   Q: How would you describe the legacy of Gacaca?  A: Almost two million cases were judged by the Rwandan people. The legacy is that the Rwandans, through voluntarism, through innovation, through commitment, and through hard work have been able to say no to genocide.  They have been able to say that they are not Hutu nor Tutsi but Rwandans with a problem that they must settle as Rwandans rather than as Hutu or Tutsi.  And so we have these cases judged and it has helped reconciliation, has helped healing, has helped society torn apart in rebuilding itself. So we can look back with pride and say we had two million cases judged, but why do we have only 37,000 prisoners?  So where are the others? They have been reintegrated in the community, they are living side by side, and they are doing the communal work Umuganda together. They share the goodness of their village; they share the problems of society.  That Rwandans are living side by side in harmony, that is the first mark of success of Gacaca. Second, if we say that they have been reintegrated some through TIG (alternative community service), some through the Presidential pardon on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, some were released, others have completed their sentences and ordinary life goes on for those people.  The legacy of Gacaca, therefore, is that Rwandans have been able to reconstruct their society, to reintegrate the wicked amongst themselves, forgive those that wronged them and they are living together as a community. Can we say that it is perfect? I will say no, can we say that the relationship is perfect? I will say no, can we say everybody has forgotten? I will say no. But Rwandans have learnt to live with their sad past, they have drawn a lesson from their sad past to make a step into the future and that’s the most important and critical point.  Gacaca has left us a wonderful legacy. Of innovation, commitment, patriotism legacy of nationalism, a legacy of truth telling, a legacy of forgiveness and we should be happy about it.  Q: What would you say was the magic behind the success of Gacaca courts?  A: As I have said before, it is the resilience of the people of Rwanda. The determination to do what is right irrespective of what other people think, the innovation and, most importantly, the spirit of volunteerism because the Gacaca judges received no remunerations, the fellows who organised the hearings at the sector level were not paid anything. There was lots of volunteerism, resilience and determination by the leaders to do what was right for Rwandans and not what is fashionable or not following the way others do it, but that we can do something different or be different as long as we do what is right. Secondly, Rwandans decided to see themselves as Rwandans, and not tribal groupings as the whole world wanted to cast them. You see the world was saying "the Tutsi will judge the Hutu or the Hutu will forgive the fellow Hutus”, but Rwandans went beyond that and judged each other as Banyarwanda, not as Bahutu or Batutsi.  The magic was voluntarism, innovation, patriotism; those are the major ones but I may say that the resilience of the visionary leaders of this country to do what is right and not what is fashionable is also a big magic. Q: You talked about the system not having been 100 per cent successful – and indeed no system can be perfect --- what were the main challenges faced?

 A: The challenges were many and these included, financial, logistical, all sorts of challenges to make this system move forward successfully. But there are those that are neither financial nor structural. One of the major challenges was that some people were corrupt. I think they were about 400 people that were ejected out of the system on the basis of their moral disgrace but they had been elected out of the population. Later, when it was discovered that they were corrupt they were dismissed. And that was a big challenge. So how much wrong had they done before they were weeded out, but they were not all weeded out on the same day that was over a long period so what wrong they could have done in the process; that we are yet to really ascertain.Two, there were some people who were discovered for having entered the (Gacaca) system and yet they had participated in the genocide, and that their intention (for acting as Gacaca judges) was to cover up their culpability by trying to destroy evidence.  Those were also weeded out, not in one day but over a long period of time. How much wrong they did while they were there is difficult to assess.  There were also human errors. All these are the challenges that were addressed progressively as Gacaca went on. But there is a mechanism that should be able to put all that right and for us that is the most important aspect that if all has been done and has been done very well, and there are some problems that arose in the implementation process, you can always find a way of addressing those and so I have no doubt that the challenges posed were addressed, and that if there are some leftovers they will be corrected through the intervening legislation for that purpose.Q: What lessons can be drawn from Gacaca, especially by post-conflict communities? A: I think what the world can learn from Gacaca is that any determined group, however big the problem, once there is a consensus at the political level of any country, a consensus at the national level to do something that way, then they will be successful. Another lesson is that homegrown solutions are always more suitable than foreign-imposed solutions. I think when Rwandans look at themselves now and what they have achieved, they feel so proud that they are Rwandans because they have achieved a lot by themselves.  And this encourages them to be more forward thinking, more innovative, more hopeful and optimistic of the future; and so the rest of the world, but also ourselves, can draw a lesson no matter how hopeless the situation is. Q: With Gacaca now folding, is there anything that would operate in the context of a residual mechanism to settle any disputes that may outlive Gacaca? A: Sure. Like I said earlier what is closing are Gacaca courts set up specifically to try Genocide crimes but the idea of reconciliation; participatory justice; transparency; the idea of justice, not just of form but of substance is not closing; that is why at two levels we have these interventions.  One, we have in our Constitution and we have enacted legislative laws to support that position. We have mediation committees Abunzi who are elected for five years and they are at the cell and sector levels. They are elected by the population and will take on both civil and criminal matters with the competence that the law has assigned to them.  Two, even if Gacaca closes, it cannot do close and seal. There is a law that has been put in place to deal with  some errors that might have been committed, some problems that could have come up here and there, there is a mechanism that will be used if there is evidence that there was miscarriage of justice.  But on alert, to the general public, Gacaca courts are not going to be reopened.  We are not going to re-open all the 1.9 million cases but if there is a specific case with a serious doubt then it will be examined; for example if someone was convicted for having killed another person and there is evidence that during that period the convicted person was, say, in London, then the case will be revisited.  There are cases of extreme nature where there could have been wrong conviction; this could happen anywhere in the world, so such issues will be addressed through the law that closed the workings of Gacaca courts. Q: In case such cases emerge, where will they be adjudicated?A: In different courts, some will be in Abunzi (community mediator communities), some will be in the conventional Primary Courts, some in the Intermediate Courts, and others will be referred to the High Court depending on the nature of the sentence that was administered.  For example, property issues will be handled by Abunzi, but if it is a matter that falls in the competence of Primary Courts that is where it will be sorted out. If it is a matter for executing the judgment that was made, the law determines where they shall go. The bottom line is you can’t create Gacaca after another Gacaca.  So the issues depending, on their magnitude and nature, are distributed to the different competences of the courts. Q: The issue of compensation or reparations for the victims or survivors of the Genocide remains a thorny one; some survivors say they have never been compensated… A: Court judgments are executed systematically, so that is not true. Where someone has a case, they have been compensated where a payment has been available. So we need to separate two things put on the stand. The government did accept the political responsibility for the Genocide, not criminal liability for the Genocide because this government did not commit genocide but took the political responsibility of the government that it replaced.   It started by putting 5 per cent of the whole national budget into a genocide survivors’ fund, later it was increased 7 per cent to help people whether they have won a case or not but were left vulnerable by the Genocide.  This fund has catered for health, education and housing needs of Genocide survivors and it is, therefore, not right to say that nothing has been given. In addition, anyone who has won a case has been compensated accordingly.  Rwandans should be fair because you cannot give more in Gacaca courts than you do in ordinary courts, you can’t give in Rwanda what is not given in other countries around the world. If they go to execute a case and find that there is nothing to pay, the loser is worse off than you, in all cases in the courts, not in Gacaca courts, if someone has nothing to pay, he has nothing to pay. You can’t kill this person; you cannot send them to exile, unless you want that person to pay with their blood. Just like anywhere in the world, if someone is insolvent, it’s like winning against someone who is dead who doesn’t own any estate.Two, the law says that if the only property the loser has is the house they are in, you can’t take it away or if a small piece of land is the only source of livelihood, you can’t take it away either. The law protects such kind of people. I think some people talk carelessly and they don’t know where this country has come from, where it is going and where it is now.Q: As we conclude, your final words about Gacaca courts…

A: I just want Rwandans to feel proud of their achievements; I want them to be happy and to celebrate their victory. I want them to celebrate the victory of truth against lies, the determination of Rwandans to sort the problems themselves; I want them to celebrate peace and security of our country. I want them to celebrate justice that was fair and transparent, and by and large, a successful story of the Rwandan journey.Thank you!