Assessing the Rwanda Experiment: Popular Perceptions of Gacaca in Its Final Phase

Post‐genocide justice: The Gacaca courts

“…Pozen et al. () confirm this pattern of improving perceptions of the Gacaca courts in a survey of 504 Rwandans carried out in 2011, finding that over 90% of respondents stated that “I have confidence in the gacaca process” and “Overall, gacaca functioned well.” During the period of their operation these surveys indicate that perceptions of the Gacaca courts improved.…”

“…Now that the Gacaca courts have closed, academic research and reports by non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) have been issued about the success and failures of Gacaca. Critiques have suggested that the proceedings have increased levels of depression and Post‐Traumatic Stress Disorder among participants (Brounéus, ), and that participants were dissatisfied with the process (Pozen, Neugebauer, & Ntaganira, ). However, the presence of psychological stress is consistent with the findings of Cilliers, Dube and Siddiqi () who suggest that post‐conflict reconciliation may rebuild social capital while decreasing individual well‐being.…”

The Rwandan diaspora in Canada and the United States: reconciliation and justice

“…To be more specific, the ICTR tried a total of 75 cases, whereas the gacaca courts have tried 2 million people with appellate hearings ending in 2012 (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, n.d.). Participation in gacaca is said to have fostered justice and reconciliation for survivors-both those who were victims and those who were offenders (Haider, 2014;Pozen, Neugebauer, & Ntaganira, 2014). This is often credited to the extent to which members of the local communities played important roles in the judicial process.…”

“…Justice and reconciliation are abstract terms. Pozen, Neugebauer, and Ntaganira (2014) define justice as based on procedural and judicial outcomes, specifically the perceived fairness of the judicial process as well as attitudes regarding the outcomes of the judicial process. This definition is relatively agreed upon by genocide scholars.…”

Beyond legal empowerment: improving access to justice from the human rights perspective

“…74 For example, in the Rwandan community courts for genocide-related crimes (gacaca), women found it difficult to reveal themselves as victims of sexual violence, and witnesses were frequently thought to be victims of retaliation after giving testimony. 75 Therefore, it is important to ensure that such adjudication complies with human rights standards, is transparent, fair, fast and affordable. As Pozen et al state in their analysis of Gacaca, '[p]olicy makers must evaluate the pragmatic and political constraints inherent in localizing justice in a postconflict environment and engage in the difficult trade-off between a more impartial [and human rights-compliant] form of justice and justice that is accessible to the population it serves'.…”