Thursday our group went to gacaca, which is an innovative justice system put in place a year ago to try genocide perpetrators in order to ease overcrowding in the jails. Gacaca's main objective is to unify a community rather than deliver credible justice or punishment. Rwanda is divided up by sectors, districts, and then cells (the smallest groupings). Each cell has its own gacaca court once a week, and all the local businesses must close until the hearing is over. There has been strong criticism from the Western world when it comes to this structure for several reasons. One, the accused don't have lawyers -they must represent themselves. This is because the Rwandan government wants the emphasis to remain on unification, and not have gacaca(which means grass - for the grassy areas where these hearings take place) turn into another type of court. Two, there are 7 wise men and women who are elected to hear the case. Rwandans agree, that these individuals can settle personal scores through their verdicts and some who are elected were perpetrators themselves. Now that I've given you just a bit of background, let me share with you my experience.

We attended a village gacaca in Gitarama (about an hour or so outside Kigali). The proceedings were held on the grassy knoll under the shade of a few trees. Benches were set up - a couple for the 7 judges and a few for the white visitors. I was initially concerned how the locals would feel about a group of Americans listening to the troubles of their village's past. I anticipated suspiscion and animosity, but to my surprise, I felt nothing of the sort. We were stared at quite a bit, but not with angry eyes.

Four men were being tried. One for looting and killing cows, another for torturing a child, the thrid for killing a child and the last for working a road block. The hearing was supposed to start at 9:00 am, so right on African schedule, the judges took their seats at 11:00. Every gacaca begins with a moment of silence for the victims of that district. Then, all of the visitors are asked to stand and identify themselves to the court. Next, the accused are called up, their crimes are read and then the witnesses are introduced and asked to leave during the defense of those accused (I'm not positive why).

One by one, the accused are called back in front of the judges either to accept of deny the charges. The frst 3 men denied their charges. Only did the last one accept what he had done. Everything has to be recorded in the court log, so there are painfully long silences between every few sentences. To think - the number of cases that can be heard with no more than a typewriter! The alibis of the defendants varied. On e said he ws still working as a watch guard so he couldn't have taken part in the crimes, another said he fled the country at the beginning of the conflict. I don't remember the reasoning of the third. Anyway, after each defendent speaks, the witness of the crime is called back. There is one witness for each defendent. A couple of witnessses were useless. Many or all of the true witnesses in some circumstances were killed. Many are afraid for their lives to speak. So witnesses who do tesitfy get their information by word of mouth.

The most interesting witness was the mother of the murdered child. She was sharing what she knew, and someone in the audience said she was lying. She snapped back, "I don't have a problem with this man. I had a baby with him, so I don't have a problem with him. Therefore what I say must be the truth." Apparently at some point, I don't know if before or after '94, these two were a couple and had a child together. It was like watching a soap opera.

The hearnig dragged on until 2:00 when the judges finally left to deliberate. The whole morning I struggled to swallow the likely notion that the four men sitting just a few feet in front of me were murderers. And yet to them, today was just another day. They didn't seem nervous, shy or remorseful. They have lived with their crimes for too long.

We were told the deliberation took 15 to 20 minutes...Twenty turned to 30 and then into an hour. Finally most of th group left. Only Jesse, Joe, Laura, Benon (our translator) and I stayed behind. Just as we were ready to surrendur to our stomachs, the judges returned. The observers stood, and the defendants made their way back to the front. I watched their faces closely. How nervous I would be! Suddenly, my mood shifted. The lives of at least four people are going to be darastically altered with the utterance of a single word, right in my presence. I listened closely to Benon as he translated the verdicts. Cow looter: innocent - not even a sigh of relief. Torturer: innocent - didn't even blink. Murderer: innocent - still no sign of gratitude. Finally, the road blocker. Because he confessed and apologized, in addition to him being a minor when the crime was committed, his sentence was reduced to 6 months in prison and 3 months of community service.

I was shocked, blown away, speechless. All I could think was, " I bet he wished he had denied his crime too." The judges didn't even commend him for his bravery and nobility in confessing. How do they expect more people to come forward and confess when those are the only ones sent to jail?

I want to believe in this system so badly, because I fear it is he only legitimate and feasible solution. But after this experience??? I wonder over the credibility of the judges. Is it even possible to convict someone 13 years after his supposed crime? How can a witness remember the details? The faces? What if all the witnesses were murdered? I surprise myself wondering if this formality is even worth it.

But I suppose it is. The victims need to feel like some sort of justice is being done. So, even if the system is corrupt, and even if the perpetrators are no longer the same individuals they were 13 years ago, those who suffered must be given some sort of just compensation - even if that is only the recognition of their loss.