Moderator: Mr Lennart Wohlgemuth, Nordic Africa Institute
Panel: Mr Jean de Dieu Mucyo, Minister of Justice, Ms Aloisea Inyumba, former president of the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, Ms Esther Muyawayo-Keiner, Dr Gerry Caplan, author of the report from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), “Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide”.
Invited speakers: Mr Lasse Berg, journalist, Dr Fergus Kerrigan, Danish Centre for Human Rights, Mr Lennart Aspegren, former judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Professor E Staub, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Mrs Lisbeth Palme, member of the panel behind the Rwanda report commissioned by the OAU.

In his introduction, Mr Lennart Wohlgemuth stressed that the focus of the seminar would be on the following two themes: 1) the gacaca process as a traditional mechanism for justice and a potential path to reconciliation and 2) the healing and reconciliation process. He also stressed the importance of understanding the background to the genocide and what led up to it, and mentioned in particular the report from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) as being one of the most important documents on the Rwanda genocide. .

In his brief outline of the background, Dr Gerry Caplan referred first to the domestic forces responsible for the genocide and then summarised the world reaction to the Rwanda genocide in 20 points, all of which reflect the lack of recognition of the genocide by the international community and the lack of action to stop it and prevent further atrocities. He mentioned in particular: 1) the historic responsibilities of the government of France; 2) the Roman Catholic Church and its unconditional support of the ruling elite; 3) the US, which had lost face in Somalia and undermined the role of the UN; 4) the UK and Belgium, which had both retreated politically and militarily, and 5) the failure of the UN to take timely and effective action. “Never could a genocide have been as easily prevented as this one – we all know who was responsible, yet nobody has been reprimanded or fired for failing to intervene in the conflict and the mass murder that took place,” argued Dr Caplan.

The Rwandan Minister of Justice Mr Jean de Dieu Mucyo expressed gratification that the international community now finally seems to be involved. It is important for Rwanda that we all work together in order to avoid a repetition of the kind of dramas the country has experienced. Our history is different, he explained; the root causes are exclusion, poverty and ignorance. The genocide was a result of the 1960s, when the destruction of society began as a consequence of a policy of division based on ethnic origin. Today there is a burning desire for reconciliation but the Rwandan evil must be fought by the Rwandans themselves. As the Rwandan proverb says, “The neighbour’s help comes after the rain”.

The reconstruction plan, eight years after the genocide, is to fight poverty and to achieve sustainable economic development. Together with the Human Rights Commission and the Constitutional Reform Commission, the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission is of primary importance, as are the efforts to achieve democratisation and decentralisation. As well as the need for justice, the social aspect is also vital for reunification and healing. Of the 110,000 people imprisoned today, 6,000 have been sentenced so far. To come to grips with this problem the gacaca process has been developed to handle the remaining cases in a traditional way, based on the different categories of genocide. The planners and those who were politically responsible will be dealt with according to classic judicial procedures. For the majority of prisoners who committed criminal acts of genocide, i.e. murder or rape, the punishment will be fixed at 7–12 years’ imprisonment if confession is made before the trial and 12–15 years’ if confession is made during trial. If no confession is made but proof exists, the sentence will be life imprisonment. For those prisoners who committed criminal acts without killing or raping, for example threatening with machetes, destroying property etc., the corresponding sentences will be 1–3 years’, 3–5 years’ or 5–7 years’ imprisonment. The Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) is supposed to handle “the big fish” but progress is very slow. The training of a large number of judges to deal with the gacaca process will continue until May and the intention is to start the process in July this year.

Mr Lasse Berg, who is presently living in Rwanda, thought that the presence of genocide was still very much felt in Rwanda. The Rwanda genocide was unique in the sense that it was the first one where people were openly murdered with broad popular participation, and not hidden behind barbed wire and brick walls. In his view, the way forward is to create a common truth, a new credo and a new morality for all Rwandans, which is actually the essence of the gacaca process as a genuinely creative effort to promote reconciliation. He had attended a pre-gacaca meeting and witnessed how 50 prisoners had been taken to their home village and presented to the entire population. In this meeting, the audience was encouraged to participate during hour after hour of talking and questioning. Confessions were made and testimonies given under an enormous amount of self-control without any shouting or crying, which provided evidence of strong discipline and maybe support of the process. It might have been the first time the villagers had taken part in a thorough discussion of the genocide.

Mr Kerrigan felt there was a surprising level of maturity among people, despite their traumatic experiences, and he believed that the gacaca process contained all the relevant elements for reconciliation, elements such as an open dialogue, truth, equality, impartiality and fairness. The process should be seen as a process of law, where legal standards of evidence should prevail. But as President Kagame has said on several occasions, "It's not a perfect solution". The problems and the risks involved include the enormous logistical challenge of making Gacaca function on a purely practical level, the sociological challenge of getting people to tell the truth and the legal challenge of getting Gacaca judges to make decisions on the basis of legal criteria. Then, there are some problems in the human rights domain. These include the question of the right to a remedy for victims, and on the accused side, the lack of legal representation and a possible inequality between the prosecution and defence. Some of these problems could be partially cured by provision of pre-trial counselling to non-confessing accused. Governmental authorities had declared themselves willing to consider such a proposal.

Mr Lennart Aspegren, who served for almost five years as a judge at the ICTR, could not understand what had happened in Rwanda, despite his inside knowledge of what he called “hell on earth”. Since its establishment in November 1994, the ICTR had arrested over 80 suspects, including 12 ministers, a number of senior civilians and military officials, business people, church leaders and journalists. So far, nine judgements had been produced, convicting eight accused. For the first time ever, a prime minister had thus been convicted for genocide, now serving his life sentence in Mali. Eight new trials are going on, implicating 21 accused, including four high-ranking army officers. The ICTR has definitely contributed to the reconciliation process, not least by its detailed documentation of the genocide. Yet trials cannot solve all the problems. In addition, other ways are needed to promote reconciliation. The international community must also help the trials form a long term process, which contributes to the development of international case law in this area. One example from the ICTR is that rape is now recognised as constituting genocide under international criminal law.

Ms Aloisea Inyumba, the former president of the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission and presently mayor of Kigali Rural Province, talked about how to promote reconciliation. The Commission is focusing on three programmes: civic and peace education, the monitoring of policies and programmes and community reconciliation initiatives. The priority has also been to emphasise the shared culture in terms of a common language and a common religion and to abolish all previous separation policies such as separate ID cards. School enrolment criteria based on merit and not on ethnic origin have been introduced. Another important element of the reconciliation process has been the repatriation of four million refugees and 30,000 ex-soldiers, as well as half a million orphans, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Some 5% of the annual national budget is allocated to the Survivors’ Fund, the purpose of which is to support the surviving victims. The government is aiming at an holistic approach to reconciliation which means that the integration of Tutsis, Hutus and Twas is being promoted, for example by orphaned Tutsi children being brought up by Hutu families. The security situation is a top priority for the government and involves support for the economy, social development, the infrastructure and the police. The capacity of the judiciary is insufficient and needs to be further strengthened. The cost of the prisons presently holding around 110,000 prisoners amounts to 4% of the national budget. The biggest challenge, however, is how to make everyone understand that genocide is wrong and how to prevent a recurrence.

Professor Staub emphasised the importance for reconciliation of healing the psychological wounds and of building trust. After a genocide people are deeply wounded, psychologically diminished. They tend to feel that something must be wrong with them; otherwise such horrible things should not have been done to them. They need acknowledgement of their suffering, empathy from others and a feeling of safety. Perpetrators and members of the perpetrator group must also heal, since they have been wounded by their own or their group’s violent actions. Without that, they may continue to blame their former victims. He mentioned several important elements of healing: 1) truth that establishes the suffering of victims, and thereby indicates that the world considers what happens unacceptable; this can provide some security, which is essential for healing, 2) engagement by people with their painful experiences, and receiving support and empathy from others, 3) improved self-awareness or awareness of how their traumatic experiences have affected them, 4) exploration of the origins of genocide, with a resulting understanding that helps people feel their humanity reaffirmed and understand the influences that led perpetrators to their extreme violence. These experiences have been found to reduce trauma symptoms and create a more positive orientation toward each other by members of the different ethnic groups in Rwanda who participated in this process. The gacaca can bring about retraumatisation and lead to renewed anger and hostility. The challenge is to facilitate healing and emphatic understanding in the course of the gacaca, so that it will contribute to reconciliation.

Mrs Lisbeth Palme, who served on the OAU Report Panel, talked about children with reference to the special chapter on children in the OAU Report. She also referred to the UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child. In the perverted ideology of the genocide planners, everyone was educated to obey, and genocidal messages were broadcasted on the radio as part of the death machinery. Rape, which was used as a systematic tool to wipe out the Tutsi population, has a complex long-lasting effect and most girls and women have chosen to remain silent after the genocide. No doubt, this suffering has had a traumatic influence on the whole population. According to a UNICEF study, 79% of Rwandan children have experienced death in their immediate family and 50% have watched killings. 45–60% of the households are now headed by children. There are presently around 6,000 street children in Kigali and 3,000 child soldiers below the age of 18. Three quarters of the 1,800 schools were demolished during the genocide and many schools were used as concentration camps and slaughterhouses. The OAU Report outlines a number of recommendations that resemble those contained in the UN Secretary-General’s enquiry into the actions of the UN during the Rwanda genocide, an enquiry in which former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson participated. Among these 13 recommendations, Mrs Palme mentioned in particular: 1) support of the efforts to rebuild Rwandan society at all levels, 2) support for peace in the region, 3) the important role of the OAU, which needs to be strengthened, 4) the establishment of a UN General Commission to review the specific needs of Rwanda, 5) support and promotion of education using the same curriculum all over the country, 6) reform of the judiciary– children must also understand the nature of justice and the rights of the child will have to be included in the gacaca process, 7) the building of democratic structures and institutions which are needed to foster democracy, and 8) the addressing of the HIV/AIDS problem, poverty and unemployment. All in all, building confidence, trust and peace is a multifaceted task and a long-term process.

Ms Esther Muyawayo-Keiner, who survived the genocide, reflected upon the views of the survivors. With whom should we be reconciled and how? We have lost our dignity and trust as human beings. What is it to be human? Who are we as human beings? She recalled memories from previous periods, when she as a child had been hidden in the bush among the snakes to protect herself from attacks. The rulers used ethnicity and division to manipulate the population who traditionally live scattered in the hills. The greatest danger for the future is that all this has happened without being spoken of. The silence must be broken and we have to talk about it, was her strongest message. She particularly emphasised the important role of the churches and the need to be reconciled with God, the need for the government to uphold security in order to recreate trust, the need for the international community to engage itself and not keep quiet, the need to give people time to heal and express their anger, and the urgent need to take care of the basic needs of children. There is probably no alternative to the gacaca process for minor offences.

During the ensuing discussion, a number of questions were raised relating to the presentations and regarding the role of women as victims and as perpetrators, the role of the churches and how to break their silence, the situation with regard to the returnees, the democratisation process and the existing resistance to reconciliation efforts, as well as the difficulties and differences challenging the creation of a single Rwanda. Several questions related to the situation in the region, including the role of Rwanda in the DRC and the links to the atrocities in Burundi.

The Minister of Justice Mr Mucyo responded comprehensively to these questions, initially by underlining his own experience as a survivor and having worked for the police. This had convinced him of the need to look to the future and to support the Rwandan children as a basic principle. In his view, people need to talk, and the gacaca is one means of promoting that aspect as well as promoting the search for truth, justice and reconciliation in the country as a whole. In the prisons, an awareness campaign is going on, initially with women talking to women and men talking to men. The silence between perpetrators and victims must be broken. The returnee situation with large numbers of returnees from Tanzania and the DRC is difficult to handle and requires resources, but much has already been done. Resistance exists in society and unfortunately includes the new ideology of a policy of division, which is being preached in some circles among the political parties. The previous “policy of ethnicity” has to be prevented. The ambition of the government is to create one Rwanda, but there are differences which are difficult to handle. The democratisation process is proceeding but it is a long-term process and will be dealt with, inter alia, in the constitutional reform process and through civic education. The country’s distressing history must always be borne in mind. With regard to the region, Mr Mucyo stressed that Rwanda is part of the ongoing peace-building efforts, it supports the OAU efforts and is a member of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) as well as the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and will hopefully also become a member of the East African Community (EAC). From a regional point of view, trade is the solution to fostering cooperation and peace.

In his concluding remarks, Mr Wohlgemuth pointed out that the important aspects of the reconciliation process and the gacaca process had been addressed in the presentations and the subsequent reflections. The important point guiding the discussions had been to promote a concrete understanding of these complex processes both from a public as well as a private perspective. The cyclical repetitions of atrocities that have taken place in Rwanda must be avoided and there is a strong need to speak out about the truth. The international community must also keep up the momentum in supporting the process of justice and reconciliation in order to achieve peaceful development and a peaceful future for Rwanda.

Rapporteur: Mrs Inga Björk-Klevby,
Ambassador of Sweden to Kenya,
Rwanda and Burundi.