Procedural Justice and the Judges, Defendants, and Witnesses of Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts

• In Event: Atrocity Crimes and Transitional Justice

Abstract

In the aftermath of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the state established gacaca courts, loosely derived from a traditional restorative justice practice. The courts have drawn both praise and criticism from legal scholars, but there have been few empirical studies of court participants’ opinions. Drawing from Tyler’s procedural justice perspective, we ask whether those who participated in gacaca perceived the courts as just. On the one hand, the courts were less formal than the national courts and lacked basic due process protections, which could reduce their perceived fairness. On the other hand, the law and procedures were clear-cut and well-publicized by government leaders, which could increase the perceived fairness of their rules and procedures. Based on interviews with over 160 judges, defendants, and witnesses in 2015 and 2016, we find greater support for the latter view. All three groups generally viewed court rules and procedures as fair, including over 70 percent of the defendants. In contrast, a greater share of judges, witnesses, and defendants felt that case outcomes and punishments were unfair. Overall, our qualitative interview data help to show how people conceive of fairness in transitional justice settings.

Authors

• Christopher Uggen, University of Minnesota-Sociology

• Hollie Nyseth Brehm, The Ohio State University

• Allison Nobles, University of Minnesota

• Brooke Chambers, University of Minnesota