Rwanda’s experiment in people’s courts (gacaca) and the tragedy of unexamined humanitarianism: a normative/ethical perspective

The Article explores Rwanda's ongoing social experiment in people's courts (gacaca) from the perspectives of international fair trial standards and normative ethics and seeks to challenge some of the major intuitive and counter-intuitive assumptions regarding the necessity and utility of the experiment that tend to shield it from objective analysis. These assumptions consist in: First, contemporary gacaca is based on traditional Rwandan/African justice system, thus implying, inter alia, that it does not have to fully conform to international standards. Second, although, the gacaca process does not strictly conform to fair trial standards, it has some countervailing advantages over the standard criminal justice system, such as speedy trial, enhanced popular participation and reconciliation. Three, gacaca is a necessary evil because there simply is no better solution given the particularities of the Rwandan context. In conclusion, the article highlights the persistent need in Rwanda for the establishment of durable peace and reconciliation based on inclusion, respect for the rule of law and human rights. The key to the attainment of those objectives, however, lies mainly in politics, and not in criminal justice, whether the latter is pursued through the regular courts or gacaca jurisdictions. More specifically, Rwandan political elites need to resolve the problem of legitimation of political power. In the latter respects, it will be argued, the gacaca process is very much part of the problem rather than the solution.