Gacaca
Gacaca ist die Bezeichnung fuer eine 2001 in Ruanda eingefuehrte Form der justiziellen Aufarbeitung der ueber 100 000 Faelle, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Genozid von 1994 zu bearbeiten waren.
Das Wort bedeutet in der Keniaruandasprache kurzgeschnittener Rasen ("umucaca") und symbolisiert einen oeffentlichen Platz, wo die Aeltesten ueber streitige Angelegenheiten richten.
Im Jahre 2000 hatten sich rund 120,000 Verdaechtige in Haft befunden (Reyntjens & Vandeginste 2005, 110). Von Dezember 1996 bis Dezember 2006 wurden rund 10,000 Verfahren bearbeitet (Human Rights Watch 2004, 18). Damit waere nach weiteren 110 Jahren mit der Beendigung aller Verfahren zu rechnen gewesen. 2004 und 2005 wurden insgesamt mehr als 8000 Inhaftierte freigelassen, um einen Kollaps des Systems abzuwenden. Das wichtigste Instrument, um die Lage unter Kontrolle zu bekommen, war die Einrichtung von Gacaca-Gerichten als Weiterentwicklung einer traditionellen Rechtsprechung in Ruanda.
Ziele
Ziele sind Wahrheit, Gerechtigkeit und Versoehnung. Die Gemeinschaft soll geheilt werden und die Bestrafung soll schneller und kostenguenstiger erfolgen.
Die Regierungswebseite sagt zu den Zielen:
- Rekonstruktion des Geschehens waehrend des Genozids
- Verfahrensbeschleunigung durch Vermehrung der Gerichte
- Versoehnung aller Ruander und Schaffung nationaler Einheit
- Einrichtung eines 6. Senats ohne eigene richterliche Befugnisse im ruandischen Supreme Court ("Gacaca Courts Department") zur Koordination und Supervision der Gacaca-Gerichte. 2002 ersetzt durch "the National Service of Gacaca Courts".
Tradition
Originally, the Gacaca settled village or familial disputes. The courts were informal means of solving disputes around issues like theft, marital issues, land rights, and property damage. [1] They were constituted as village assemblies, presided by the ancients, where each member of the community could request to speak. The trials were meant to promote reconciliation and justice of the perpetrator in front of family and neighbors. [2]
Well-respected elders, known as Inyangamugayo , were elected based on their honesty by the people of the community. 5][3] Inyangamugayo would assemble all parties to a crime and mediate a resolution involving reparations or some act of contrition. The Gacaca court is thus a system of grassroots legal bodies inspired by tradition power structures.
In relation to genocide, the Gacaca process provides a basis for settlement; the system emphasizes the importance of accord, condemns the guilty, and promotes collaboration between those deciding as well as among the spectators.[6][4] In keeping with tradition, villagers elect nine representatives for each Gacaca court to be the judges known as "people of integrity."
Praxis
8140 Gacaca Gerichte im ganzen Land. In 2002, 746 courts were experimentally established as an attempt to speed up procedures, which is currently in a state of stagnation due to lack of support and constant threats to members of the court.[4]
The Gacaca courts are meant to provide smaller courts to relieve the burden of the larger courts. Criminals are charged with acts against humanity, such as murder and serious assault. These courts are not allowed to try accused rapists, however.[7] The idea is to let the village courts resolve these issues and hopefully provide some reconciliation. The trials are meant to promote reconciliation and justice. The defendant is accused and brought to trial. The trial is held in public, where survivors and the victims' families can confront the accused. The accused confess to their crimes or maintain their innocence. The villagers can either speak for or against the defendant. Since only 5% of the 120,000 imprisoned suspects had been tried as of 2005, the government is hoping the Gacaca courts can both find the guilty and provide reconciliation for those accused [8]. The acquittal rate has been around 20%, questioning whether the accusations are valid [7]
The current Rwandan Gacaca court system, as established in March 2001, involves both plaintiffs and witnesses in an interactive court proceeding against alleged criminals who took part in the genocide.[5] The judges now qualified as Inyangamugayo, who also have basic judicial training, are among 250,000 individuals elected by Rwandans to serve in the Gacaca courts, which are in charge of judging two (of the three) categories of people accused of implication in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.[9]
There are three levels of jurisdiction for the Gacaca Courts: the Cell's Gacaca Courts, the Sector's Gacaca Court, and the Sector's Gacaca Courts for Appeal.[10] These are then organized into 3 parts: a general assembly, which collects facts and establishes the lists of victims and perpetrators, among other things; the Bureau of the Gacaca jurisdiction, which is made of 19 members elected by the General Assembly; and the co-ordination committee, which is designed to coordinate the Gacaca Court's activities [10].
Each gacaca court has nine judges and has the power to sentence criminals up to life imprisonment, but not the death penalty.[7]
According to the Rwandan government's website about Gacaca courts [10], their activities are organized into 3 steps:
Collection of information relating to the genocide Categorization of persons prosecuted for having committed genocide or having played a role in different genocidal crimes. Trial of cases falling under their competence (or jurisdiction). The first judgment of the operational phase took place on March 11, 2005.[11]
Other forms of justice in Rwanda Another form of justice is the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), an international court established in November 1994 by the United Nations Security Council. The official objectives of this system is to judge the people responsible for the Rwandan genocide and other violations of the international law which took place in Rwanda between 1 January and 31 December 1994. The tribunal is currently located in Arusha, Tanzania.[12]
The tribunal targets genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are defined as violations of the Geneva Conventions. Abuse of mass media and involvement with sexual crimes are also brought to justice.[12]
7 trials were completed during the first period (1995–1999) including the former mayor of Taba commune Jean Paul Akayesu and former prime minister Jean Kambanda, both verdicted guilty. During the second period (1999–2003) 14 were put on trial.
The ICTR has set a goal to end all trials by 2008, which is highly unrealistic taking into account their constant lack of resources and funds. Further international support is crucial to complete this task.[12]
Classification of crimes into four categories The categories were originally created in 1996 by the Act on the Organisation and Pursuits of Crimes against Humanity. [6] The Organic Law 08/96 of August 30, 1996 established the categorization of genocide defendants [9]:
1st category Planners, organisers, instigators, supervisors of the genocide Leaders at the national, provincial or district level, within political parties, army, religious denominations or militia; The well-known murderer who distinguished himself because of the zeal which characterised him in the killings or the excessive wickedness with which killings were carried out. People who committed rape or acts of sexual torture.
2nd category Authors, co-authors, accomplices of deliberate homicides, or of serious attacks that caused someone’s death. The person who - with intention of killing - caused injuries or committed other serious violence, but without actually causing death.
3rd category The person who committed criminal acts or became accomplice of serious attacks, without the intention of causing death. 4th category The person having committed offences against property. Sentences provided according to the crime category and confession/guilty recognition[13] 1st category Has not confessed or his/her confession has been rejected - Death sentence or life imprisonment; Confession before the publication of his/her name on the list of first category - 25 years imprisonment; 2nd category Has not confessed or his/her confession has been rejected - 25 years imprisonment or life imprisonment; Confession after accusation and name put on the list made by the Cell's Gacaca Courts - 12 to 15 years imprisonment, half of it is spent in prison, the other is commutted to works of public interest; Confession before accusation and name put on the list made by the Cell's Gacaca Court - 7 to 12 years imprisonment, half of it is spent in prison, the other is commutted to works of public interest; 3rd category Has not confessed or his/her confession has been rejected - 5 to 7 years imprisonment, half of it is spent in prison, the other is commutted to works of public interest; Confession before name being put on the list made by the Cell's Gacaca Court - 1 to 3 years imprisonment, half of the sentence is served in prison and the rest is commutted to works of public interest
4th category Return the stolen things or pay the equivalent. Gacaca has been implemented in a pilot phase (lasted 18 months) with the Organic Law 40/2000 of 26.01.2001. Organic Law 16/2004 of 19.06.2004 reorganizes Gacaca process. The categories have been reduced to 3: the former categories 2 and 3 were combined to make caregory 2 and the 4th category became the 3d one.
The first category of alleged criminals (those accused of planning or leading the Genocide and those accused of torture, rape or other sexual crimes) will be (and in some cases already are) prosecuted before State (national) criminal courts. The gacaca do not have jurisdiction over crimes of the first category. The Gacaca courts will adjudicate the two other remaining categories ("simple" murder, bodily injury, property damage), which has started early 2006. Capital punishment was abolished in Rwanda in the summer of 2007.[14]
How defendants were categorized by Gacaca Courts (pilot phase)
Number of persons categorized 59171 Category 1 - 6817 11,5% Category 2 - 36426 61,6% Category 3 - 15928 26,9% Criticisms There are criticisms and controversy surrounding the decision to implement Gacaca courts. Human rights groups worry about the fairness since trials are held without lawyers which means that there is less protection for defendants than in conventional courts. In addition Conventional trials have seen false accusations and intimidation of witnesses on both sides; issues of revenge have been raised as a concern. The acquittal rate has been 20 percent which suggests a large number of trials were not well-founded. Also because the trials are based on witnesses testimonies, the length of time between the crime and trial heightens the risk that the witnesses' memories will be unreliable. [7]
Senior Human Rights Watch adviser Alison Des Forges said the lack of legal representation was a serious concern. "The authorities' view is that this is a quasi-customary kind of procedure, and there never used to be lawyers, so there's no need for lawyers now. The problem with that is that little is the same except for the name. In this system, there is considerable weight given to the official side. The office of the prosecutor provides considerable assistance to the bench [of judges] in terms of making its determination, so you no longer have a level playing field." There may, however, be no alternative to the gacaca trials, she added. "Obviously the problem of delivering justice after the genocide is an overwhelming problem. Gacaca may not be ideal but there is at this point no alternative." "The official explanation I think is that people did not speak openly until the Gacaca process and now many more accusations are surfacing. Also, the concession programme, which requires the naming of all those who participated along with the accused [in return for a lighter sentence], has led to a multiplication of names. "How many of these are well-founded, what is the credibility of the evidence, these are very serious concerns."[8] It has to be noted that with time, some suspects have made enemies during their spell in prisons who they have come out to later accuse not necessarily because they committed crimes but because the accusing parties see them as enemies worth serving longer or similar senteces. Obtaining evidence on this aspect is not easy as witness reports take precedence in most cases.
References ^ "What Is transitional justice?". http://www.ictj.org/en/tj/. ^ McVeigh, Karen (2006-03-12). "Spate of killings obstructsRwanda's quest for justice". London: The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,,1962910,00.html. Retrieved 2006-03-12. ^ http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/EnObjectives.htm ^ http://www.amnesty.or.jp/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=146 ^ Shema ^ inkiko ^ a b c Vasagar, Jeevan (2005-03-17). "Grassroots justice". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/17/worlddispatch.rwanda. Retrieved 2010-05-03. ^ "Rwanda killers face local justice". BBC News. 2005-03-10. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4335405.stm. Retrieved 2010-05-03. ^ a b http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/Generaties.htm ^ a b c http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/EnStructure.htm ^ http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/EnIntroduction.htm ^ a b c http://www.amnesty.or.jp/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=143 ^ www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/EnSentence.htm ^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/good-news/rwanda-abolishes-death-penalty-20070802 Harrell, Peter E., Rwanda's Gamble: Gacaca and a New Model of Transitional Justice. New York: Writer's Advantage Press, 2003. Human Rights Watch. 2004. Struggling to Survive: Barriers to Justice for Rape Victims in Rwanda. New York: Human Rights Watch. Available: http://hrw.org/reports/2004/rwanda0904/rwanda0904.pdf. Reyntjens, Filip and Stef Vandeginste. 2005. "Rwanda: An Atypical Transition." In Roads to Reconciliation, edited by Elin Skaar, et al. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Stover, Eric and Weinstein, Harvey (2004). My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-54264-2. External links National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions Official Rwandan government website. Gacaca Film Series Official site for the documentary film series that includes "My Neighbor My Killer" (Official Selection at Cannes Film Festival), "Gacaca Living Together in Rwanda?," "In Rwanda We Say...The family that does not speak dies" and "The Notebooks of Memory" By Emmy-winner Anne Aghion Transitional Justice Penal Reform International's information on the Gacaca process. Survivors Fund Website of the organisation representing and supporting survivors of the Rwandan genocide. "Rwanda Starts Prisoner Releases." Online posting. BBC News 29 July 2005. In the Tall Grass Film exploring gacaca and the legacy of genocide in Rwanda, written and dir. by J. Coll Metcalfe. Gacaca Courts in Post-Genocide Rwanda Full report on the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda by Radha Webley of UC Berkeley War Crimes Study Center 2005. What is transitional justice? International Center for Transitional Justice Rwanda's Gacaca Courts PRI's The World
Literatur
- Susanne Buckley-Zistel (2006): 'The Truth Heals?' Gacaca Jurisdictions and the Consolidation of Peace in Rwanda. Die Friedens-Warte Heft 1-2, pp. 113–130.
- Simon Gabisirege/Stella Babalola (2001): Perceptions about the Gacaca Law in Rwanda. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
- Stover, Eric and Harvey Weinstein (eds) (2004) My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weblinks
- dies ist eine baustelle, die der uebersetzung, straffung, erweiterung und differenzierung bedarf. sie beruht auf: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gacaca_court"