VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLGB #0110/01 0360656
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 050656Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY KIGALI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3720
INFO RUEHJB/AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA 0005
RUEHDR/AMEMBASSY DAR ES SALAAM 0816
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 1528
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA 0173
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 0749
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0199

UNCLAS KIGALI 000110 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM RW
SUBJECT: GACACA PROBLEMS, GACACA REFORMS 
 
REF: KIGALI 1090 
 
Summary 
------- 
¶1.  (SBU) The GOR seeks to streamline its gacaca system, 
lowering penalties for those convicted of genocide crimes, 
narrowing the jurisdiction of regular courts over genocide 
suspects, and reducing the numbers of judges per gacaca 
court.   A new prisoner release is also soon to occur.  By 
these reforms, the GOR intends to quicken adjudication and 
lessen the burdens on the nation's prisons, whose populations 
are growing rapidly.  At the same time, security forces seek 
to buttress protections for survivors and witnesses.  Gacaca 
trials continue with generally broad support by Rwandans, 
although procedural errors continue.  The prospect of true 
reconciliation amongst Tutsi and Hutu populations through the 
gacaca process appears unlikely.  Efforts to effect such 
reconciliation will be the work of many years.  End summary. 
 
 
Legislation to Reduce Sentences, Quicken Adjudication 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
¶2.  (U) In draft legislation just approved by the House of 
Deputies and now before the Senate, the GOR will narrow 
regular court jurisdiction over "category one" suspects to 
national leaders, organizers and inciters of the killings, 
and those who committed rape and sexual torture.  The rest 
(those who desecrated bodies, or were "distinguished" 
killers, or committed non-sexual torture) will be relegated 
to "category two" status, and be tried by the gacaca courts 
along with other category two offenders (those who killed or 
injured or aided the killers).  The third category, those who 
committed offenses against property, remains the same. 
 
¶3.  (U) Penalties will also be somewhat lessened, with 
mandated prison terms reduced by several years for each 
sub-category, and with the previous condition that half of 
the formal sentence be spent in custody, and the rest in 
community service, reduced to one-third custodial time, one 
sixth suspended sentence, and one half community service. 
The net result, if the current draft is ultimately passed 
into law, will be shorter sentences across the board, and a 
quicker return by convicts to their communities.  The number 
of judges per gacaca court will be reduced from 14 to 9 
(including alternates). Surplus judges will hear cases as 
additional "benches" in each court. This should result in a 
quickened pace of adjudication. 
 
Nearly One-Third of Caseload Completed, But Many Tough Cases 
Remain 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
¶4.  (U) In a January 31 meeting, gacaca courts Executive 
Secretary Domitilla Mukantaganzwa told emboffs that by the 
 
SIPDIS 
end of 2006, some 51,000 persons had had their cases heard by 
the gacaca courts (including appeals).  The number of gacaca 
suspects had risen to 818,564 (often as a result of 
denunciation during gacaca proceedings), including 77,269 
category one files, 432,557 category two files, and 308,738 
category three files.  She anticipated that about 60,000 
category one files would be transferred from the regular 
courts to gacaca courts after the new legislation took 
effect. 
 
¶5.  (U) Fully sixty-eight percent of category three property 
cases had been processed by the cell-level courts, she said, 
entirely by accepting settlements among the parties (category 
three property cases do not result in jail terms, and gacaca 
procedures explicitly encourage private settlements).  In 
sum, of the 818,564 cases mentioned above, approximately 
260,000 had been completed by the end of 2006, or nearly 
one-third of the caseload.  Mukantaganzwa commented that, 
while the remaining category two cases, just under 500,000, 
would be a significant challenge, she believed that the 
gacaca courts would complete their caseloads in 2008. 
 
Prison Population Rising, Prison Releases in Store 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
¶6.  (SBU) This effort to reduce prison terms across the board 
comes at a time when the prison population, according to 
local contacts at the International Commission for Red Cross 
(ICRC), is growing by one thousand prisoners a month, nearly 
all the result of gacaca convictions.  The total number of 
prisoners nationwide is now greater than 87,000 
(approximately 71,000 genocide prisoners, and 16,000 
non-genocide).  The pressure on the government prison budget, 
now no longer receiving food assistance from ICRC, is severe. 
In recent days, the GOR has also announced in various venues 
the coming release of another 8,000 genocide suspects, 
another effort to reduce the size of the prison population. 
 
With National Expansion, Number of Attacks Are Up, Protective 
Measures Enhanced 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
¶7.  (SBU) The GOR is also wrestling with recent criticism of 
its handling of attacks on genocide survivors, witnesses and 
judges.  Human Rights Watch in particular in its recent 
report on two gruesome incidents in November drew attention 
to what it considered a worrisome potential trend of revenge 
killings by survivors on suspected attackers (in one of the 
cases, survivors murdered innocent Hutu villagers uninvolved 
in the prior killing of the nephew of a gacaca judge).  The 
GOR in its National Dialogue in December extensively 
discussed these attacks, and President Kagame pledged renewed 
efforts to safeguard the gacaca system and its participants. 
At a discussion organized by the Great Lakes Human Rights 
League (GLHRL) in late January, Internal Security Secretary 
General Joseph Mutaboba reviewed GOR efforts at enhanced 
protective measures. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) According to Mutaboba, measures include intensive 
review by local authorities of survivors most at risk and 
accused considered most dangerous, and surveillance of both 
categories.  Preventive detention would be employed for 
high-risk suspects.  Survivors and local authorities would 
put in place regular patrols in areas where tensions ran 
high.  Gacaca courts would also seek to try first those cases 
involving suspects considered likely to intimidate or attack 
gacaca participants.  Mutobaba also mentioned that the 
Protective Service for Survivors and Witnesses, established 
in June 2006 at the office of the Prosecutor General, and its 
hotline services would be extended to local levels. 
Separately, gacaca Executive Secretary Mukantaganzwa told us 
that her office is expanding its own hotline services (which 
are offered free of charge by mobile phone giant MTN). 
 
¶9.  (U) At this GLHRL meeting, police and survivor 
organization Ibuka representatives presented figures for 
attacks on survivors for the past two years.  According to 
their figures, 223 attacks (8 murders) occurred in 2005, and 
328 attacks (11 murders) in 2006.  (In a separate meeting 
with emboff, the Justice Ministry's Protective Service for 
Survivors and Witnesses offered a somewhat lower figure of 
311 attacks in 2006).  These "attacks" included acts of 
physical injury, intimidation, and destruction of crops and 
herd animals.  Participants noted that the rise in attacks 
from 2005 to 2006 coincided with the expansion of gacaca from 
118 pilot courts to 1545 courts nationwide. 
 
Good Faith Effort At Adjudication, But No Real Reconciliation 
Occurring 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
¶10.  (U) Lawyers Without Borders (LWB) has conducted 
extensive sampling of gacaca trials across the nation, and 
produced near-verbatim accounts of hundreds of trials.  In a 
recent public overview of its monitoring efforts LWB reported 
that while many gacaca courts, following expansion of the 
pilot program to nation-wide coverage last July, continued to 
commit procedural errors, the courts by and large exhibited 
good-faith efforts to examine events with care and reach the 
truth.  Of the original 118 pilot gacaca courts, most now 
operated at an appreciably higher level of performance. 
LWB's implicit finding: the 1427 new gacaca courts in 
operation since July would improve their performance over 
time as well. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) However, several continuing failures reduce the 
prospect for true reconciliation between the Tutsi and Hutu 
populations.  First and foremost, according to LWB, the 
trials so far consisted of mass attendance by local 
inhabitants rather than mass participation.  Assembled 
village populations at gacaca trials rarely contributed, but 
rather stood mute before the judges, as the courts attempted 
with varying success to examine cases and assess 
responsibility (see reftel for similar observations by 
mission personnel).  Further, LWB found that many gacaca 
courts did a poor job of articulating their decisions, often 
simply announcing the prison terms assessed for various 
offenses.  In effect, not much give and take occurred at 
trials, and not much justification of sentences was offered. 
The attending villagers did not reach any perceptible 
accommodation as a result of the proceedings, but simply 
dispersed in silence. 
 
Comment 
------- 
¶12.  (SBU) The gacaca courts are a breathtakingly ambitious 
attempt at mass justice and truth-telling that has its share 
of procedural and administrative teething problems, and 
good-faith attempts to address them.  Tens of thousands of 
cases have been heard and judged without incident.  We see 
worrisome and sometimes quite disturbing acts of violence, 
intimidation and revenge, but in numbers that represent less 
than one half of one tenth of one percent of the caseload. 
Recent national polling finds generally broad support for the 
gacaca process, while Hutus and Tutsi populations worry over 
the respective consequences for their friends and family 
members (prison time, for Hutus, and lack of full accounting 
for their losses, for Tutsi survivors).   Justice seems 
within reach, as courts adjudicate cases and assess penalties 
for the many violent and sordid acts committed during the 
genocide.  Reconciliation, however, seems beyond the capacity 
of this traditional justice system, modernized and expanded, 
but unable to change deep-seated animosities.  Efforts to 
change the attitudes of Rwandans on ethnic issues, such as 
those by the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, 
will be the work of many years.  End Comment. 
ARIETTI