Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

This paper examines Rwanda's Gacaca courts and the Western response to the re-introduction of “unconventional” justice practices in post-genocide Rwanda. In the aftermath of the genocide, the government rejected many of the judicial preferences established by the metropoles during colonization

Paper long abstract:

In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, the nation faced a Sisyphean task (Bornkamm 2). After years of colonial hegemony, financial instability, and civil war, how could the country be rebuilt, striking a balance between justice and peace (Chossudovsky 104)? Previous regimes had failed to unite citizens divided by colonialism and the racialized policies it had introduced (Mamdani 210). Following the massacres, the RPF government struggled with the overwhelming caseload associated with the genocide (Haskell). By 1998, the Human Rights Watch claims, 130,000 prisoners were awaiting trial (Haskell). Estimates suggest that it would have taken upwards of a century to try every genocide case pending in Rwanda (Haskell). As a result, the RPF government sought an alternative solution (Bornkamm 1). This alternative was a hybrid between a traditional, Rwandan restorative justice process called Gacaca and “conventional” fair trial standards (Haskell). Many Western organizations objected to this, suggesting instead that the process might be accelerated by utilizing foreign judges and lawyers, a suggestion the new regime rejected (Haskell). In "Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: Between Retribution and Reparation", Paul Christoph Bornkamm writes that, “…promoting the rule of law in transitional and post-conflict societies usually involves standard measures based on Western ideas that do not take local specifics into consideration” (4). In deciding to pursue a blend of traditional and Western justice, the RPF partially rejected the implementation of Westernized, judicial imperialism. This paper examines the use of Gacaca and the Western response to the re-introduction of so-called “unconventional” legal practices in post-genocide Rwanda.