Caca Trials Pros And Cons
Local gacaca trials offers these benefits of a more personal setting within the community in which the atrocity took place, and this has further benefits – increased unity and reconciliation. Seeing as how the gacaca form of justice aims to reintegrate the defendant back into society to become a productive and contributive member, it makes sense that the trials are held within the community – so that the victim and perpetrator can be in the same space and have justice be served while also allowing the perpetrator to confess to his or her crimes and express remorse so that both sides can reconcile and have the perpetrator reintegrate into society. This type of justice system, its supporters believe, has the effect of “encouraging apology and forgiveness, and promoting reconciliation in the country (Graybill 1123).” In addition, defendants are encouraged to confess and own up to their crimes, and in return their sentences are cut in half, while “the gacaca courts will be releasing most of the suspects they try back into the community, crediting them with time served (Graybill
…show more content…
1123).” Also, an important distinction between the gacaca system and other forms of justice, apology was written into the law.
This follows the long tradition of gacaca procedure and it clearly was an important part given that it was made the law. Finally, it is also important that the trials are held locally because it means that the trials are handled entirely by the local population. One of the downsides of an alternative form of seeking justice for human rights abuses in which there is an international tribunal or court, is that the power to charge, try and sentence the criminals is taken out of the hands of the local population – including the victims of the crimes committed by those criminals. Therefore, by keeping the decision-making process at the local level, the power remains in the hands of the locals. This is important because it allows the local population to determine the proper sentencing and reintegration plan for their fellow citizen, rather than prosecutors and judges appointed by foreign
countries. Regarding the handling of the prosecution of individuals for atrocities committed in the post-election period in Kenya in 2007/8, Nanjala Nyabola writes that “it is arguable that the ICC (International Criminal Court) is to some extent playing into local politics in its decisions to charge certain individuals and not others (Nyabola).” Nyabola also states that “the West overtly uses the ICC to advance its goals in Sudan through the Bashir indictment, which Africa vehemently rejects (Nyabola).” Outsiders using the international judicial system to advance their own goals will always be a concern, and it is a legitimate one. This concern is alleviated by using the gacaca system where everything happens at the local level.
Sharing The Blame
Another important benefit of the gacaca system is that it does not generalize the blame for human rights abuses upon an entire racial, ethnic, or religious group. Instead, the blame is individualized and prevents the painting of a specific group as human rights abusers or violent killers. This helps to prevent future atrocities by doing away with stereotypes and drawing distinctions along racial or ethnic lines, as well as by understanding the full scope of consequences that occur from committing such atrocities.
We must also consider the fact that in some cases, human rights abuses may be less aimed at a particular geographic region, and instead aimed a minority group that has people throughout the country. One such example would be the violation of human rights for gay and lesbians in Uganda. As Sylvia Tamale notes, “by maintaining a tight grip on certain activities, and silencing the voices of those individuals and groups that engage in them, the patriarchal state makes it extremely difficult for those individuals and groups to organize and fight for their human rights (Tamale).” Most importantly, the severity of Ugandan law explains “the avoidance of public visibility by gay and lesbian organizations” and that “homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment (Tamale 4).” Tamale also states that the “exceedingly hostile context in which lesbians and gays live and work makes it extremely difficult for homosexuals to demand their rights in Uganda with a unified voice (Tamale 4).” Thus, this specific violation of human rights in Uganda has more state-wide effects, and we cannot satisfy the criteria for a local trial that will engage allow all of the victims to be present and to see justice first-hand. Therefore, the trials would be held in the state courts so that all victims will see justice be served equally, even if not all would be present at the trial. Also, the perpetrator would have a chance to apologize to the entire population affected by his or her actions, rather than a smaller community while ignoring the rest of the country.
The Human Rights Lawyer
Beatrice Mtetwa, a human rights lawyer in Zimbabwe, has plenty of experience fighting for basic human rights in the courtroom. She has fought for years for the underdog – journalists, peace activists, regular citizens, and more who have had their rights violated in one way or another. And she’s done all of this even after being beaten and jailed by Zimbabwean police in 2013. Mtetwa states that “if you are a democratic country that has a bill of rights, and people must enjoy certain basic freedoms.” The film about Mtetwa, “Beatrice Mtetwa and The Rule of Law,” notes that the members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise have been jailed for demonstrating for human rights. It also notes that the 85,000 members speak through a single voice through peaceful protest to overcome individual fear.
1123).” Also, an important distinction between the gacaca system and other forms of justice, apology was written into the law.
This follows the long tradition of gacaca procedure and it clearly was an important part given that it was made the law. Finally, it is also important that the trials are held locally because it means that the trials are handled entirely by the local population. One of the downsides of an alternative form of seeking justice for human rights abuses in which there is an international tribunal or court, is that the power to charge, try and sentence the criminals is taken out of the hands of the local population – including the victims of the crimes committed by those criminals. Therefore, by keeping the decision-making process at the local level, the power remains in the hands of the locals. This is important because it allows the local population to determine the proper sentencing and reintegration plan for their fellow citizen, rather than prosecutors and judges appointed by foreign
countries. Regarding the handling of the prosecution of individuals for atrocities committed in the post-election period in Kenya in 2007/8, Nanjala Nyabola writes that “it is arguable that the ICC (International Criminal Court) is to some extent playing into local politics in its decisions to charge certain individuals and not others (Nyabola).” Nyabola also states that “the West overtly uses the ICC to advance its goals in Sudan through the Bashir indictment, which Africa vehemently rejects (Nyabola).” Outsiders using the international judicial system to advance their own goals will always be a concern, and it is a legitimate one. This concern is alleviated by using the gacaca system where everything happens at the local level.
Sharing The Blame
Another important benefit of the gacaca system is that it does not generalize the blame for human rights abuses upon an entire racial, ethnic, or religious group. Instead, the blame is individualized and prevents the painting of a specific group as human rights abusers or violent killers. This helps to prevent future atrocities by doing away with stereotypes and drawing distinctions along racial or ethnic lines, as well as by understanding the full scope of consequences that occur from committing such atrocities.
We must also consider the fact that in some cases, human rights abuses may be less aimed at a particular geographic region, and instead aimed a minority group that has people throughout the country. One such example would be the violation of human rights for gay and lesbians in Uganda. As Sylvia Tamale notes, “by maintaining a tight grip on certain activities, and silencing the voices of those individuals and groups that engage in them, the patriarchal state makes it extremely difficult for those individuals and groups to organize and fight for their human rights (Tamale).” Most importantly, the severity of Ugandan law explains “the avoidance of public visibility by gay and lesbian organizations” and that “homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment (Tamale 4).” Tamale also states that the “exceedingly hostile context in which lesbians and gays live and work makes it extremely difficult for homosexuals to demand their rights in Uganda with a unified voice (Tamale 4).” Thus, this specific violation of human rights in Uganda has more state-wide effects, and we cannot satisfy the criteria for a local trial that will engage allow all of the victims to be present and to see justice first-hand. Therefore, the trials would be held in the state courts so that all victims will see justice be served equally, even if not all would be present at the trial. Also, the perpetrator would have a chance to apologize to the entire population affected by his or her actions, rather than a smaller community while ignoring the rest of the country.
The Human Rights Lawyer
Beatrice Mtetwa, a human rights lawyer in Zimbabwe, has plenty of experience fighting for basic human rights in the courtroom. She has fought for years for the underdog – journalists, peace activists, regular citizens, and more who have had their rights violated in one way or another. And she’s done all of this even after being beaten and jailed by Zimbabwean police in 2013. Mtetwa states that “if you are a democratic country that has a bill of rights, and people must enjoy certain basic freedoms.” The film about Mtetwa, “Beatrice Mtetwa and The Rule of Law,” notes that the members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise have been jailed for demonstrating for human rights. It also notes that the 85,000 members speak through a single voice through peaceful protest to overcome individual fear.