[ Interview with Gerd Hankel, jurist ]

Rwanda: “It’s impossible to
reappraise the genocide completely”

Because Rwanda’s judicial system was hopelessly overstretched (the UN tribunal at Arusha is only for those who organised the genocide), the traditional institution of the village court, the Gacaca, was resurrected. A total of some 260,000 lay judges were appointed to try the cases of perpetrators and collaborators nationwide and at the same time help bring about reconciliation between Hutu and Tutsi. Legal expert Gerd Hankel of the Hamburg Institute for Social Research has spent two years observing the Gacaca trials.

Dr. Hankel, great things were expected of the Gacaca trials. Have they been delivered?
For the most part, no. One reason is that there still hasn’t been a single Gacaca verdict. A Gacaca trial consists of three phases: first, at cell level – which is the lowest administrative level – an attempt is made to reconstruct the crimes that were committed in 1994. In the second phase, the accused are assigned to one of four categories of crime: crime against property, non-fatal violence, manslaughter or murder, and planning genocide, mass murder and rape. The actual trial doesn’t start until the third phase. So far, Gacaca proceedings have been instituted in just 118 of more than 1,500 sectors, which form the administrative level above cells. But none of those proceedings have yet reached the third phase - ten years after the genocide took place.

You found that public interest in Gacaca trials has waned significantly. Is that because of the lack of progress?
Yes. Many survivors are simply tired of waiting and repeatedly having to tell judges what happened. The victims in particular are disheartened by the fact that they have received no significant compensation. Originally, the idea of the Gacaca included ensuring reparation.

Might expectations have been too high?
They were far too high – partly because of the way Gacaca was officially propagated. I remember the posters put up when the trials started. They read “Truth heals. If we admit what we have done, if we say what we have seen, we close our wounds.” People were given the impression that a kind of “one-to-one justice” was possible, that there was an offender for every death. Now it becomes clear that many cases cannot be resolved at all.

The Gacaca courts were set up in an attempt to secure justice for all. Is that possible at all in the case of a crime like the genocide in Rwanda?
No, it isn’t. There were massive movements of refugees in 1994; murderous gangs were roaming the country. How can we hope to establish today in every single case who was murdered by whom and under what circumstances? In the 118 sectors where proceedings have been instituted so far, around 35,000 people have been identified as perpetrators in the first two categories of crime – murderers, mass murderers and rapists. Extrapolate that figure for the 1,500 sectors in Rwanda and you get well over 350,000 offenders of the very worst kind. From these figures alone, one can see it’s impossible to juridically appraise the genocide completely. And that has made disappointment in the trials even more acute.

Was it well-advised to link legal prosecution with reconciliation? Doesn’t it create an opportunity for perpetrators to feign reconciliation in order to escape punishment?
That happens on a large scale. At the beginning of 2003, 25,000 prisoners were granted temporary release from prison. The condition was a frank and honest confession and the consent to face a Gacaca court later. But there’s no more talk of that now. The prisoners’ temporary release turned into a permanent one and many of the confessions made were simply empty words: ritualised admissions devoid of any remorse. I witnessed it on many occasions myself: when prisoners finished confessing, they’d kneel down, put their hands together, ask for forgiveness and then rejoin the ranks of accused with a smile on their face.

Might the proceedings actually widen the gulf between perpetrators and victims rather than reconcile them?
There is a risk of that. When the first proceedings started at the end of 2002, there was a sense of unity. But the more attention focused on the past, the more important the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi became again – and the gulf that lies between them. Officially, such distinctions are taboo, but in rural areas in particular ethnicity is still very important.

Where does the legal process go from here?
In May, the Gacaca trials will be extended nationwide. The feeling in the government at present is that only the worst cases, the principal offenders, should be put on trial. All the other suspects – some of whom have already spent ten years in jail – will be given amnesty on anniversaries or other commemorative dates. I’m sure that will happen.

And what about reconciliation?
Genuine reconciliation – which requires perpetrators to acknowledge victims as victims – basically does not take place. One leads a peaceful but parallel existence. An additional obstacle is the monopolisation of the genocide by the Tutsi. Everyone knows that large numbers of Hutu were killed as well, but there is no mention of that. That’s a major obstacle for the peace process. On the other hand, many surviving Tutsi feel they are not taken seriously by the government. Those holding power in Rwanda today are exiled Tutsi with no personal experience of the genocide and a very pragmatic attitude towards it. Sometimes they show little consideration for the feelings of the survivors.

Questions by Tillmann Elliesen.