Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Justice Gacaca'

"Much work has been done on the 1994 Rwandan genocide both under ICTR and the Rwandan justice system. Among the crimes committed during genocide in Rwanda was the crime of rape. However, considering the rate of mass rape committed, there are few cases of rape prosecuted so far compared to other crimes of the same gravity, and nothing has been said about the causes of the low rate reporting of this crime by the victims. A Gacaca court, which is a traditional justice system, is also involved in prosecuting the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity. This is a traditional justice system/community system, which is also a tool of reconciliation through revealing information about the crimes committed during genocide. This applies to rape victims who will be required to recount their experiences before the community court. On the other hand, the perpetrator may recount the crime he committed for the sake of sentence commutation. Whichever way, the rape victims will either face Gacaca courts through this procedure or go without accessing justice. Given the small number of individuals who have formally sought legal redress, one can safely assume that most survivors in Rwanda have not come forward, and live with trauma alone, and in silence. This paper has highlighted the gaps in the Rwandan justice system in relation to rape victims. Further still, the researcher has laboured to establish the causes of the low rate of rape cases brought before courts in Rwanda. The impact of the Gacaca justice system in relation to rape reporting has also been discussed. International human rights instruments relating to rights of both the accused and the victim have been considered and where loopholes appear, an alternative legal approach, which may provide security and confidentiatlity for the victims to achieve justice, has been proposed." -- Chapter 1.<br>Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2003.<br>http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html<br>Centre for Human Rights<br>LLM

Includes bibliographical references.<br>This dissertation examined restorative and retributive justice systems in order to clarify and uncover the real nature of Gacaca courts which is a mixture of both with more elements of the retributive system. The dissertation also traces the origin of Gacaca courts through a historical background of Rwanda, a description of the Gacaca courts and their procedures, outlines the principles of restorative and retributive justice and compares each to Gacaca courts, in the process revealing the real nature of Gacaca.

Rushing waters pour down the bills like waterfalls and cleave massive ruts into the red clay surface of the road to Gishamvu during the rainy season. In the dry season, the scarred surface hardens, and a layer of dust rises from tires and wind in a murky red mist. The narrow road, eut aggressively up the mountain, is precarious. A bridge over a small stream is littered with broken logs used to patch gaping holes that trap the tires of passing trucks. The bridge barely holds its banks. At a crossroads, up a steep slope, sits a monument to the Virgin Mary. Colorfully dressed women walk slowly up the scorched hill, heavy loads on their heads, sorne with a baby or a small child wrapped tightly against their backs. Men with farm implements kick the dust on their way to Gishamvu.<br>fr

This thesis considers the transitional justice process that followed the aftermath of the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Because both the Rwandan Government and the international community through the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda opted for prosecution or alleged perpetrators responsible for the genocide, this thesis primarily considers this prosecution process, its achievements and hardships. The thesis considers prosecution of genocide, an intemational crime in domestic law and in particular, the role played by the Gacaca process.

Thesis (M.A. in Stabilization and Reconstruction)--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2005.<br>Thesis Advisor(s): Douglas Porch, Nancy Roberts. Includes bibliographical references (p. 65-69) Also available online.

Pour juger, il faut délimiter un espace sensible, consacrer un temps pour débattre sereinement, arrêter une règle du jeu, convenir d'un objectif, instituer les acteurs, témoigner, argumenter, prouver, écouter, dialoguer, négocier, réconcilier, concilier et décider. Telles sont les fonctions essentielles de la justice pénale restaurative. En effet, au lendemain du génocide, tous les ingrédients nécessaires à l'implosion totale du pays étaient réunis. Il a fallu beaucoup de volonté politique pour recréer les conditions humaines minimales d'une vie en commun. L'absence de toute référence juridique fait que le pays doit gérer le contentieux du génocide par « essai-erreur ». Comme toute entreprise qui pose ses premiers jalons, la mise en place des juridictions Gacaca et leur fonctionnement restent problématiques. Il est évident que rendre justice après un génocide est une nécessité vitale pour la société parce que celle-ci a besoin de rétablir un nouvel ordre moral. L'application de la justice pénale restaurative doit être l'élément unificateur des Rwandais. Ainsi donc la justice doit être rendue aux survivants du génocide qui ont un droit inaliénable à la réparation pour les souffrances endurées, pour les pertes subies. Elle est aussi nécessaire pour les auteurs du génocide parce qu'ils ont besoin de prendre conscience de l'ampleur des actes qu'ils ont commis. Cependant, il convient de souligner que les difficultés liées à cette fonction de juger les crimes contre l'humanité et de génocide au sein des juridictions Gacaca ne doivent pas remettre en cause l'obligation de réconcilier les rwandais et de reconstruire une vie commune<br>The main missions of restorative justice are to establish common rules, dedicate time for a peacefull debate, adopt a common target, name all the particpants, give them the opportunity to testify, to present their evidence or their argument listen and talk to each other, to negociate reconcile and to deliver a verdict under well defined boundaries. It took strong political will to avoid what was inevitable after the genocide, the complete implosion of the country, and to bring back basic rules for life in common. The penal sytem was unprepared for these unprecedented events and had to put its decision into test or sometimes made mistakes. Gacaca jurisdictions are in their early stage and the the way they work is not beyond criticism or difficulties. It's obvious that justice must be delivered after a genocide because a new moral order has to be established back into Society. Law enforcement and to be law abiding citizens are two goals that must be shared by all Rwandans. Therefore, the survivors of this genocide are entitled to some kind of reparation for the loss, all the sufferings endured. The genocidaires also have to face up to all the consequences of their crimes, to be shown the full extend of these crimes. This overwhelming task of judging the genocide and theses crimes against humanity should not deter Gacaca jurisdictions from their duty to reconcile and to give all Rwandans, genocidaires and survivorsalike, the will and desire to live again together

"As already mentioned, gauranteeing the right to a fair trial aims at protecting individuals from unlawful and arbitrary curtailment or deprivation of other basic rights and freedoms. The fundamental importance of the right to a fair trial is illustrated not only by international instruments and the extensive body of interpretation it has generated, but most recently, by a proposal to include it in the non-derogable rights stipulated in article 4(2) of the ICCPR. Standards for a fair trial may stem from binding obligations that are included in human rights treaties to which a state in examination is a party, but they may also be found in documents and practices which, though not binding, can be taken to express the direction in which the law is evolving. One of the problems is that law and human rights have been viewed largely as Western concepts, and are therefore defined and valued by Western criteria. This leads to a number of difficulties. First, there are many non-Western societies in which law and human rights thus defined, is impractical and mechanisms of protecting human rights in non-Western justice systems are not recognised as comparable counterparts to those in Western societies. Secondly, African states have failed to abide by their international fair trial obligations because, probably, these standards are impractical given the realities like poverty, illiteracy and strong cultural beliefs that characterise most African communities. As a result, the law applied by the Western style courts is felt to be so out of touch with the needs of most African communities, and coercion to resort to them amounts to denial of justice. This explains why communities, especially in the rural Africa, resort to indigenous African justice systems irrespective of state recognition or otherwise. Upon realisation that the Western style of justice did not respond to the prevailing post-genocide situation for example, the government of Rwanda re-established traditional courts to help deal with the crime of genocide and foster reconciliation. A Gacaca court is constituted of a panel of lay judges who coordinate a process in which genocide survivors and suspected perpetrators and the latter between themselves confront each other. They, and the community, participate by telling the truth of what happened; who did what during the genocide, and then the judges, based on the evidence given to them, decide on the case. These judges are elected by their respective communities for their integrity, not their learning. However, human rights organisations argue that Gacaca proceedings violate the accused persons's fair trial rights. They question among other things capacity of lay judges who make decisions in these courts, to conduct a fair trial. They also contend that Gacaca does not guarantee the right to be presumed innocent because it requires confessoins and that defendants are denied legal representation. In South Africa, traditional courts (konwn as chiefs' courts) exist. They have played a crucial role in dispensing justice in the indigenous communities and are prototypes of the kind of dispute resolution mechanisms desirable in a modern society. They apply 'people's law', which developed as a result of lack of legitimacy of the Western system of justice among the indigenous South Africans. However, critics see them as conservative and unable to render justice in the modern social, economic and political climate in South Africa today. As a result, Western style court proceedings that are conducted in foreign languages to indigenous communities, and thus have to rely on inaccurate and unreliable interpreters in addition to costs for legal counsels and subjection to very technical and formal procedures, are the only alternative in criminal matters. Briefly, the major problem is to ascertain whether indigenous African criminal justice systems do, or otherwise conform to fair trial standards. If they do not, according to who are they not fair? In other words, is there a universal measure of fairness or does appreciation depend on people's enviornment and their socio-economic backgrounds, in which case, the beneficiaries of indigenous African criminal justice systems should be the ones to appreciate its fairness?" -- Introduction.<br>Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2004.<br>Prepared under the supervision of Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey at the Faculty of Law, University of Ghana<br>http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html<br>Centre for Human Rights<br>LLM

"Rwanda was largely destroyed in 1994. Among an endless host of problems, highly complex questions and dilemmas of justice, unity, and reconciliation haunt Rwanda to this day. A basic question confronting Rwanda is how to deal with the legacy of the conflict that culminated in the genocide of the Tutsi and in the massacres of Hutu opponents of the genocide. The UN set up an International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania, and Rwanda has its own courts. In both cases, the process of trying accused genocidaires is long, laborious, and frustrating. Only eight convictions have been handed down in Arusha after five years of work, while in Rwanda only some 3,000 cases have been disposed of. At least 120,000 detainees are in prisons around the country, the vast majority of whom are accused of participation in the genocide. At the present rate it is estimated that it will take anywhere between two and four centuries to try all those in detention. The Rwandese government has developed a new procedure called “gacaca,” lower-level tribunals that attempt to blend traditional and contemporary mechanisms to expedite the justice process in a way that promotes reconciliation. The impact of gacaca remains to be seen, and as a process, it certainly needs an evaluation or, at least, an attempt to evaluate its possible contribution to the perplexing questions of justice, unity and social reconstruction in the aftermath of genocide. This paper mainly aims to analyse the draft legislation on the gacaca jurisdictions. Further, this essay attempts to examine the impact of criminal trials in the aftermath of mass violence and genocide. Although conventional wisdom holds that criminal trials promote several goals, including uncovering the truth; avoiding collective accountability by individualising guilt; breaking cycle of impunity; deterring future war crimes; providing closure for the victims and fostering democratic institutions, little is known about the role that judicial intervention have in rebuilding societies. The present essay deals only with criminal trials. By definition, these are focused on the perpetrators of abuses and their allies. Although not examined in the essay, a comprehensive and holistic approach to dealing with a legacy of past atrocities should also include range of victim-focused efforts, such as programs for compensation and rehabilitation, the establishment of memorials, and the organisation of appropriate commemorations. The main sources of this study are textbooks, articles from journals and official documents of national and international bodies. Since this essay aims at evaluating the gacaca proposals, a great deal of attention is paid to the terms of the draft legislation. It is certainly premature to make an in-depth assessment of a draft law and the merits and flaws of the legal institution it is designed to set up. Only gradually and over a period of time can the gacaca become effective and credible. Further research aimed at gathering data through interviews, field observations, participant observation, study and analysis of the implementation can also illuminate experience in ways that analysis of published sources do not. A thorough and sound appraisal of this new institution must therefore wait some time. I shall nevertheless attempt in this essay to set out some initial and tentative comments on some of the salient traits of the future gacaca tribunals. This paper makes a preliminary “human rights impact assessment” of the implementation of the draft law establishing “gacaca jurisdictions”. The potential role of the new institution in rebuilding the Rwandese society is also discussed. Considering the many complex issues which still surround the process of justice in Rwanda six years after the genocide, as well as the continuing challenge to the judicial system in terms of the inadequacy of resources for dealing with such an enormous caseload, recommendations to help the process follow the analysis of the gacaca proposals (Chapter Three). To end impunity, it is necessary to respond in accordance with human rights law to the genocide and mass killings. Therefore, the starting point for our evaluation of the gacaca proposals will be an analysis of the proposals in human rights law. Does human rights law impose any affirmative duties to punish genocide and other mass killings that occurred in Rwanda? In addition, for the “gacaca jurisdictions” to be effective, they should not be viewed in isolation, as their performance will depend to a large extent on whether other judicial mechanisms and institutions are functioning properly. The relationships between the gacaca jurisdiction and other mechanisms are thus reviewed. In particular, the process of setting up the gacaca jurisdictions should include an evaluation of the genocide trials which have taken place to date both at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and in the domestic courts and apply the lessons learnt (Chapter Two). An evaluation of the potential contribution of the use of gacaca courts needs to be put into the broader context of the conflict in Rwanda. Thus, an analysis of the conflict in Rwanda is necessary to grasp the challenges facing the questions of justice and social reconstruction in the aftermath of genocide in Rwanda (Chapter One)." -- Introduction.<br>Prepared under the supervision of Professor Jeremy Sarkin, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape<br>Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2000.<br>http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html<br>Centre for Human Rights<br>LLM

De 1994 au début des années 2000, le périmètre du génocide perpétré contre les Tutsi n’a pas fait l’objet d’une définition claire. Le Rwanda fait alors face à d’énormes difficultés, à commencer par une crise carcérale d’ampleur, qui impose de ne pas surcharger davantage les prisons. Les femmes, dont la participation au génocide est considérée jusque-là comme moins grave que celle des hommes, sont donc maintenues en majorité en dehors des espaces pénitentiaire et judiciaire. Les démarches entamées par les autorités pour préparer le jugement à grande échelle des génocidaires vont modifier en profondeur la représentation des massacres en incluant de nouveaux crimes et criminels : les procès Gacaca démarrés en juillet 2006 sur l’ensemble du territoire contribueront à la banalisation de la violence génocidaire féminine. Ils seront clôturés en juin 2012, soit quelques mois après le début d’une série d’enquêtes entreprises pour cette thèse d’anthropologie sociale. Ethnographique, celle-ci propose une étude de la participation des femmes au génocide et des conditions d’élaboration d’une mémoire de cet événement dans l’espace carcéral. Faisant état des modalités de la violence génocidaire féminine, cette recherche présente quelques-uns des programmes ayant pris le relais des juridictions Gacaca pour encourager les aveux et les demandes de pardon des exécutant·e·s des violences, chargés de préparer la coexistence dans le pays de toutes les composantes de la nouvelle société postgénocide. Elle pose aussi la question des circonstances du passage à l’acte à travers l’expérience de deux femmes hutu autrices de crimes infanticides en 1994. Deux monographies leur sont consacrées et fournissent un cadre permettant de réfléchir au retournement des liens affectifs pendant le génocide, ainsi qu’à ce qui distingue les violences féminines des violences masculines. Cette thèse est par ailleurs réflexive. Elle interroge les outils épistémologiques et méthodologiques dont disposent les sciences sociales pour étudier la violence extrême à partir des récits façonnés par ses auteurs, ici ses autrices. Ayant reposé sur la réalisation d’un film documentaire sorti en 2014, intitulé À mots couverts, elle analyse les résultats et les limites de ce dispositif imaginé pour faciliter l’accès à des femmes alors peu enclines à livrer leur témoignage sur le génocide. Les enquêtes menées en prison, dans les familles et dans les archives Gacaca font apparaître les effets des politiques judiciaire et mémorielle du Rwanda sur la fabrication d’une parole coupable de la part des femmes condamnées pour leur participation aux massacres. L’objet de cette étude est donc autant la violence commise par les femmes en 1994 que la production d’un discours scientifique, coupable ou politique sur cette violence<br>From 1994 to the early 2000s, the scope of the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi had not yet been clearly defined. During that time, Rwanda faced enormous difficulties, starting with a major penitentiary crisis, which made it necessary to avoid further prison overpopulation. Women, whose participation in the genocide had hitherto been considered less serious than that of men, were therefore mostly kept out of the prison and judicial system. The steps taken by the authorities to prepare for the large-scale trial of genocide perpetrators – known as génocidaires – would deeply affect the very representation of the massacres by including new crimes and criminals. Indeed, the Gacaca trials, which began in July 2006 throughout the country, would contribute to the normalization of female genocidal violence. The Gacaca trials ended in June 2012, just a few months after the beginning of a series of investigations undertaken for this Social Anthropology thesis. Ethnographic in its approach, this thesis proposes a study of women’s participation in the genocide and the workings of collective memory in the prison space. Through the analysis of female genocidal violence, this research presents some of the programs that have taken over, after the Gacaca courts ended, in order to encourage génocidaires to confess, request forgiveness and prepare for coexistence in the new post-genocide society. By examining the experiences of two Hutu women who committed infanticides in the 1994 genocide, this thesis conducts an inquiry into the circumstances leading up to their crimes. Two monographs are devoted to them, which provide a framework not only for the analysis of the disruption of affective ties at work during the genocide period, but also for determining what is specific to female violence as opposed to male violence. This thesis is also reflexive, as it questions the epistemological and methodological Social Science tools that researchers use when studying extreme violence through the narratives shaped by its authors, in this case women authors. Based on the making of our documentary film released in 2014, entitled À mots couverts, this thesis examines the results and limits of this device conceived in order to facilitate access to women who were then reluctant to give their testimony about the genocide. The investigations conducted in prisons, within households, as well as in the Gacaca archives all reveal the effects of Rwanda’s judicial and memory policies on the construction of a discourse of responsibility by women convicted for their participation in the massacres. The object of this study is therefore both the violence committed by women in 1994 and the production of a scientific, guilty or political discourse on this violence

Partant d'une analyse des audiences des procès gacaca au Rwanda, la thèse propose une reconstitution, à l'échelle micro-locale, des mécanismes d'exécution du génocide des Tutsi rwandais de 1994. Les récits d'expérience des différents acteurs convoqués sur une scène judiciaire inédite, dans laquelle les juges sont eux-mêmes survivants ou témoins des événements, forment le matériau essentiel du travail qui explore d'abord les modalités d'élaboration des témoignages avant d'en analyser le contenu. Ancrées dans les mondes sociaux et affectifs, les tribunaux gacaca mettent au jour l'intimité des massacres exécutés au cœur des voisinages des collines et des quartiers. Les aveux des tueurs comme les autres récits déployés au fil des audiences lèvent le voile sur la diversité et la complexité des formes d'engagement dans la violence, permettant de rendre compte de la fulgurante efficacité des massacres du printemps 1994. Parallèlement, les procès restituent les expériences de la survie au moment de l'événement même, puis dans l'après-coup. Ce « temps-là» du génocide (icyo gihe) représente pour les rescapés le temps du retournement féroce du voisinage, et parfois, de leur famille. Pour les tueurs, en revanche, le temps des massacres s'inscrit dans la continuité du temps de la guerre, du travail champêtre ou des sociabilités de cabaret. La mise en récit de l'histoire micro-locale des tueries s'appuie sur une analyse critique et une mise en perspective sur le temps long des récits des acteurs sociaux tels qu'ils furent déployés dans les procès dans leur langue originale, le kinyarwanda<br>Based on an analysis of gacaca trials recordings, the thesis aims to reconstruct the mechanisms of the execution of the 1994 genocide of the Rwandan Tutsi at a micro-local level. The narratives of the experiences of the different actors, called together within a totally new judicial scene, where judges themselves are survivors or eye-witnesses to the events, form the core material of this work, which first explores the conditions of the elaboration of the testimonies, and then analyses their content. Rooted in the social and emotional worlds, the gacaca tribunals reveal the intimacy of the massacres, carried out in the heart of the vicinities of hills and neighbourhoods. The confessions of the killers, as well as the other narratives unfolding through the audiences, unveil the diversity and the complexity of the forms of engagement in the violence, making it possible to give an account of the fulgurating efficiency of the 1994 spring massacres. At the same time, the trials render the experiences of survival, at the moment of the event, and in the aftermath. For survivors, « that time» of the genocide (icyo gihe) represents the time of the cruel reversal of the neighbourhood, and sometimes, of their family. For the killers, on the other hand, the time of the massacres belongs to the continuity of the time of the war, off arming work or of cabaret sociability. The narrative of the micro-local history of the killings relies on a critical examination and on a long-term perspective of social actors' accounts, such as they were unfolded during the trials in their original language, kinyarwanda

Le génocide des Tutsi du Rwanda est singulier au regard des génocides du XXème siècle. Il l’est par le nombre de ses victimes, par sa rapidité, ses modes d’exécution et surtout par le nombre de ses auteurs. Ce sont plus d’un million de Rwandais (Hutu) qui ont pris part directement aux massacres. La sanction de ces crimes de masse dans une société en quête de reconstruction soulevait d’innombrables difficultés notamment dans l’appréhension d’une criminalité collective en termes de responsabilité individuelle. L’ampleur et le paroxysme atteint dans ce drame a nécessité un traitement spécifique. Trois instances de justice ont été activées de manière concomitante : les juridictions classiques rwandaises (relayées par des juridictions coutumières dites Gacaca), le Tribunal international créé par le Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies et enfin les juridictions nationales étrangères en application du principe de la compétence universelle. L’intérêt scientifique de notre démarche réside justement dans l’étude de ce traitement juridictionnel multiniveaux. Deux questions se posent : quelle est la pertinence de ce modèle de justice 20 ans après le drame rwandais ?Quel bilan provisoire peut-on tirer de tous les jugements rendus par ces différentes juridictions ?<br>The Tutsi genocide in Rwanda is singular in consider genocides of the XXth century. It is true by the number of victims, the speed and methods of implementation and, above all the number of the authors. These are more than one million Rwandan (Hutu) who participated directly in the massacres. Punishment of the massive crimes in a society in search of reconstruction, run into problems of group crime and individual responsibility. The scale and the speak of human tragedy needed specific treatment. Rwandan ordinary courts (replace by customary Courts called Gacaca), International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (created by United Nations Security Council) and lastly, national foreign jurisdictions are also begin simultaneously in application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The interest of our scientific approach lies in the study of multilevel constitutionalism. This raises two obvious questions: What is the relevance of this justice model twenty years after the Rwandan tragedy? What has been the interim review of all the judgments handed down by the different jurisdictions?

The epicentre of post-genocide Rwandan society and politics has been the need for reconciliation to assuage ethnic tensions and end a culture of impunity. The relevance of justice after genocide speaks to the appropriateness of retributive versus restorative modes of justice in a dualist post-genocide society such as Rwanda. Additionally, the mode of justice must be reconciled to the nature of a political regime enforces unity under an ethnocratic minority. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has not met its goal of reconciliation in Rwanda. The failure of the tribunal goes beyond its institutional shortcomings and can also be attributed the norms of international criminal law that render it an inappropriate response to criminalising mass violence. The Gacaca courts were resurrected in Rwanda as an indigenous form of restorative justice. The principles and process of these courts hope to mitigate the failures of "Arusha Justice" at the tribunal and seeks to punish or reintegrate over one hundred thousand genocide suspects. Its restorative foundations require that suspects will be tried and judged by neighbours in their community. However, the revelation that Gacaca is a reconciliatory justice does not preclude its potential for inciting ethnic tension if it purports to serve as an instrument of Tutsi power. The state-imposed approach of command justice has politicised the identity of the participants in Gacaca; perpetrators remain Hutus and victims and survivors remain Tutsis. Additionally the refusal of the Kagame government to allow for the prosecution of RPF crimes to be tried in Gacaca empowers the notion that Tutsi survival is preconditioned by Tutsi power and impunity. If Gacaca fails to end the perceptions of impunity in post-genocide Rwanda, it will come at a much higher cost for reconciliation than the failure of the ICTR.

Ce mémoire examine deux institutions rwandaises de «justice transitionnelle» mises sur pied après le génocide de 1994, soit les juridictions gacaca et les camps de solidarité (ingando). Nous tentons de démontrer, dans un premier temps, que ces institutions gacaca et ingando s'inspirent essentiellement de pratiques étatiques antérieures qui permirent le génocide, et, dans un deuxième temps, que ces institutions constituent des pratiques de « biopouvoir » au sens foucaldien. La partie I du mémoire, consacrée à la présentation du cadre d'analyse, résume certains principes de méthode foucaldiens - notamment l'approche généalogique-, et la notion de biopouvoir et ses pôles (« anatomo-politique » du corps humain et « biopolitique » du corps-espèce). Ensuite, à travers un exposé historique couvrant les périodes précoloniale, coloniale (1887-1961) et postcoloniale (1961 et s.), nous divisons notre analyse du phénomène gacaca / ingando en deux parties. Sous la partie II, nous comparons la structure et l'administration de l'appareil gacaca / ingando à la structure et à l'administration de l'appareil étatique utilisées lors du génocide, soit une structure hiérarchique pyramidale, autoritaire, et omniprésente sur le territoire. Sous la partie III, la comparaison se poursuit entre certaines autres pratiques - p. ex. pratiques éducatives, bureaucratiques, législatives, religieuses, et médiatiques - qui rendirent possible le génocide, et certaines pratiques gacaca/ingando, notamment : la compétence d'attribution gacaca ; la procédure d'aveu gacaca ; les enseignements historiques ingando ; et les initiatives promotionnelles (médias et discours officiels gouvernementaux) liées aux gacaca et aux ingando. Suivant le discours officiel du gouvernement rwandais - dirigé par le Front patriotique rwandais (FPR) depuis juillet 1994-., les gacaca et les ingando sont destinés, dans différentes mesures, à révéler la vérité, à punir les responsables, à réconcilier les Rwandais, et à assurer, ultimement, la transition vers un Rwanda démocratique et prospère. Cependant, après avoir constaté certaines contradictions entre ces objectifs officiels et certaines pratiques gacaca / ingando, au terme de notre analyse de l'ensemble de ces pratiques - et à titre d'alternative au discours gouvernemental rwandais officiel -, nous soutenons que l'appareil gacaca / ingando agit à titre de dispositif anatomo-politique et biopolitique et vise à imprégner le corps social rwandais de cinq normes (ou « vérités ») principales, soit : l'invalidité des divisions identitaires entre Hutus et Tutsis; le bien-fondé de l'identité nationale rwandaise; la vilenie des administrations passées hurues et coloniales, seules responsables du « mal rwandais »; le caractère indésirable d'une présence dominante hutue au gouvernement et, plus généralement, au pouvoir; et la nature légitime et bienveillante du gouvernement rwandais en place depuis la fin du génocide. Selon nous, ces normes s'harmonisent avec l'objectif suivant : assurer la pérennité du FPR (et des forces incarnées par cette formation) à la tête du Rwanda par l'emploi de mesures relativement douces et anonymes, mais extrêmement étendues, économiques et efficaces, qualités associées aux mécanismes de biopouvoir décrits par l'historien et philosophe Michel Foucault. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Rwanda, Génocide, Justice transitionnelle, Gacaca, Ingando, Biopouvoir.

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Technology: Public Management (Peacebuilding), Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2015.<br>One of the major issues following the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 was what to do with the huge number of people (around 100 000) accused of crimes during the genocide. Western legal approaches dealt with a handful of such cases at huge expense but the vast majority of the accused languished in prison. The government decided to employ a modified version of Gacaca - the traditional way of dealing with disputes and lower level crimes at community level. Using a qualitative research methodology and employing focus groups and individual interviews as data collection tools, this research investigate perceptions about the operation of Gacaca in three Rwandan communities, with particular reference to truth, justice, forgiveness and reconciliation. The research suggests that in the three communities, Gacaca was seen as bringing the truth out into the open and to provide a measure of justice, although limitations were noted in both of these respects. Given the enormity of the genocide crimes, however, there seemed to be little progress in the areas of forgiveness and reconciliation.<br>M

Judith Rafferty analysed the justice needs of Rwandan women who were raped during the 1994 genocide. She found that the women had multiple justice needs and many, but not all, were addressed by Rwandan community courts. Her findings can help design justice processes that consider the needs of rape survivors.

Doctor Legum - LLD<br>The 20th century witnessed several wars and genocides worldwide. Notable examples include the Armenian and Jews genocides which took place during World War I and World War II respectively. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 is a more recent example where a large number of the population was affected, either as victims or perpetrators. Over 800,000 Tutsis were dead, and more than 120,000 suspects were in prison for the genocide. The present study focuses on the Rwandan genocide against Tutsi where the scale of the crimes simultaneously dictated the overwhelming need for justice at both international and national level. At the international level, the ICTR was set up by the United Nations to deal with the organisers of the genocide while the Rwandan national courts were left to deal with the remaining suspects. Yet it became increasingly clear that the national courts lacked themselves the capacity to deal with the vast majority of alleged perpetrators. If their impact was to be enhanced, they needed to rely on the support of alternative justice mechanisms. So Rwanda introduced a modern version of the traditional Gacaca courts as an attempt to deal with the huge backlog of cases in order to combat the culture of impunity. However, having different courts for one and the same situation has had its own limitations. One of these issues is the legal and practical disparities that exist between the ad hoc International Tribunal and national justice mechanisms in the process of prosecuting perpetrators, such as the unequal treatment of the accused. This study therefore attempts to show these discrepancies and their impact on the process of accountability and reconciliation. Thus, the study analyses the relationship between the ICTR, national courts and Gacaca in prosecution of genocide suspects as well as lessons from the adopted ‘multifaceted approaches’ to deal with the crime of genocide.

This research seeks to establish a methodology by which transitional justice strategies ought to be incorporated within the International Criminal Court (ICC) framework. The study is based on the situation in Uganda as an example of the state that has a situation and cases before the ICC. The aim of the thesis was achieved through the adoption of a combination of theoretical legal research and the non -doctrinal approaches. This research establishes that the primary responsibility to prosecute persons suspected of violating international law lies with the states. The importance of the concept of individual criminal responsibility, the idea that every person suspected of committing the most serious offences must be held accountable regardless of status. The principle of individual criminal responsibility is further developed with the creation of the ICC. This research clarifies that there are limitations in terms of what prosecutions can achieve during transitional periods; further, that trials in the ICC and national courts can be undertaken together with proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions or indigenous mechasims. Such an approach will allow for confines of prosecutions to be addressed. Despite the existence of principles and institutional framework that are intended to ensure individuals are held accountable for the most serious offences of international concern, the majority of individuals are not held accountable. In order for the ICC to operate effectively it would need to seek to go beyond deterrence and retribution. This would require post – conflict states to devise transitional arrangements that compel with the ICC structure. Thus the research recommends that it would be better for judicial and non- judicial measures to be adopted in states that have cases before the ICC. Particularly Uganda must adopt the mato oput method formally as a tool to address the past human rights abuses in Uganda. All persons regardless of whether they have been granted amnesty or not must be held accountable under the mato oput measures. This implies all persons with exception to those that the ICC has issued the warrants of arrest against.<br>Public, Constitutional and International Law<br>LL. D.