Rough Justice.(World Affairs)

Byline: Daniel Pepper

Rwanda's experiment with grass-roots courts isn't helping this traumatized land.

Last month, on the outskirts of Kigali, an impatient judge was berating a suspected member of an execution squad during the 1994 genocide. "Don't give us a long speech," said Immanuel Ngiruwera. "Just tell us the names of those you killed."

What was striking about the scene was its venue. This wasn't one of Rwanda's regular courts. Nor were the judges professionals; Ngiruwera is a shopkeeper with a primary education. Yet they were empowered to hand down a life sentence if they found the suspect guilty. It's all part of the country's alternate Gacaca (pronounced "ga-cha-cha") system. Meaning "justice on the grass," Gacaca is a parallel court network set up by the government in 2001 to help Rwanda deal with the massive number of cases -- roughly 800,000 -- stemming from the 1994 slaughter. The system draws on the country's tradition of village justice and is meant to offer a more organic, less retributive means of dealing with Rwanda's horrendous past.

Domitilla Mukantaganzwa, the head of the government's Gacaca authority, says that Kigali has set up about 12,000 special courts. She acknowledges their imperfections. "You can't say that Gacaca is going to have a 100 percent success rate, but even if it is 85 percent, that is big."

Human-rights groups beg to differ, however, charging that the system is seriously flawed. The special courts are far more informal than regular ones, which is part of their appeal. They emphasize community participation: shops are forced to shut on trial days and all local villagers are expected to attend; any of them can speak at the hearings.

But this informality has its downsides. Activists and dissidents complain that the courts rely on unqualified judges, who abuse their power to settle scores and intimidate rivals. And defendants are not afforded counsel but expected to represent themselves.