COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF RWANDA
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the thirteenth through seventeenth periodic reports of Rwanda on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Presenting the report, Tharcisse Karugarama, Minister of Justice for Rwanda, said the terms Batwa, Bahutu and Batutsi were not in the Rwandan context distinct ethnic groups, but rather social classes based on occupations namely hunters, farmers and shepherds. Mr. Karugarama wondered how people could belong to the same clan, speak the same language, share the same culture and at the same time belong to different ethnic groups. This was a distortion of Rwandan history peddled around by political opportunists and other profiteers who had exploited this falsehood to advance individual or selfish agendas. Mr. Karugarama said it was also possible to move from one social class to the other or to change from one occupation to another and warned that that those profiteers who wanted to present themselves as loving some sections of Rwandan citizens more than Rwandans themselves were dangerous to the State.
Mr. Karugarama underlined that former combatants had been reintegrated in the national army and refugees and returnees had been reintegrated into the communities. In the process of reconciliation, the Gacaca Courts had tried 1.5 million cases in which about 30 per cent were acquitted and others sentenced to different custodial sentences. Many more had been released under compassionate interventions targeting the sick, the elderly, children and women while others were serving community work projects, commonly referred to as Travaux d’Interet General (TIG). The collective effect of these measures was that today former perpetrators were living side by side with genocide survivors in the countryside and there were no revenge killings.
In preliminary concluding observations, Kokou Mawuena Ika Kana Ewomsan, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Rwanda, explained that the Committee was not a tribunal, but was there to conduct a dialogue with the State Party to search for solutions according to the recommendations of the Convention. Mr. Ewomsan encouraged the delegation to take the historical realities of the country into consideration, including the fact that every individual had a plural identity as this would help enhance the definition of policies to foster unity. The Expert further explained to the delegation that the Committee needed more information in order to come up with tangible recommendations to help the country in its reconstruction efforts.
Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, detailed information about the Batwa minority group; achievements of the National Commission for Unity and Reconciliation; further information on the Gacaca traditional courts used to resolve non-traditional crimes; and a definition of the difference between Hutu and Tutsi. The delegation was also asked to explain what the government was doing in order to eradicate the ethnic prejudices and stereotypes responsible for feeding racial hatred and discrimination.
The delegation of Rwanda included representatives from several governmental agencies including, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Rwanda National Commission of Human Rights, the Rwanda National Unity and Reconciliation Commission and the Permanent Mission of Rwanda to the United Nations at Geneva.
The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the thirteenth through seventeenth periodic reports of Rwanda at the end of its session, which concludes on 11 March.
The next public meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. on Friday, 11 March when it will issue its concluding observations and formally close its seventy-eighth session.
Report of Rwanda
The thirteenth through seventeenth periodic reports of Rwanda, submitted in one document (CERD/C/RWA/13-17), say although Rwanda ratified the Convention in 1975, it was not actively employed in domestic law until the adoption of the 2003 Constitution and the subsequent move to democracy. The prevailing democratic system of governance works to ensure that these instruments are enforced by allowing the voice of every Rwandan to be heard without any form of discrimination. During the pre-colonial era, Rwandans swore allegiance to the same monarch, “Umwami”, had the same culture, the same language “Ikinyarwanda”, and lived together on the same territory from time immemorial. Even though the sense of belonging among Rwandans prevailed before colonisation, they did not have the same content and were neither primary identity references nor genetically locked as was advocated by the colonial discourse. The “Tutsiness” and “Hutuness” did not mean static belongingness as the two invariably changed.
The total population of Rwanda currently stands at over 9.5 million. Key demographic figures indicate the following: a young population with 68 per cent of people younger than 25 years in 2002, 81 per cent under 35 years and only 3 per cent older than 65 years; high birth/fertility rates; high population densities with 378 persons per sq. km of habitable surface area and a growth rate of about 3 per cent; predominantly rural as the urban population only constitutes about 17 per cent, with the rest being rural; more female than male with women outnumbering men by 4 per cent; skewed spatial population distribution and with the exception of urban areas, the north and north-western provinces are more densely populated than southern and eastern dry plains which were mainly inhabited by pastoral communities. Women account for 52.2 per cent of the total population. Approximately 34 per cent of heads of household are female today, an increase of 21 per cent compared to the 1992 figures.
Following the established security stability in the country, Rwanda is now making its efforts to boost its economy and to improve every Rwandan’s access to basic needs such as shelter, food, education, health care, water, and energy. In addition, gacaca as a traditional model of dispute resolution became inevitable in the post-genocide era. With the judicial infrastructure destroyed and most prosecutors and judges killed in 1994, there was no chance that the national court system could prosecute over 100,000 genocide suspects. The gacaca is appreciated as a strategy to expedite trials and relieve congestion in prisons that would otherwise be the source of many human rights violations. Additionally, the reintegration of suspects back into the community and the truth-telling nature of confessions offer hope for reconciliation. The constitution of 2003 as amended to date commits the State to take special measures for the welfare of survivors who were rendered destitute by the 1994 Tutsi genocide. The Government of National Unity is making every effort to protect survivors and ensure that the perpetrators of genocide who have refused to disarm do not repeat their heinous crime, by resisting separatist ideas and combating those who continue to hold and disseminate such views.
According to the law repressing the crimes of discrimination and sectarianism, discrimination is defined as any speech, writing, or actions based on ethnicity, region or country of origin, the colour of the skin, physical features, sex, language, religion or ideas aimed at depriving a person or group of persons. Human rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, the international instruments to which Rwanda is a party and national legislations. Rwanda recognises the importance of human rights and their protection remains the preoccupation of the government specific institutions. Under this particular arrangement, human rights are especially protected by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which is envisaged by the constitution. The government has launched information campaigns on human rights themes. Human rights courses have been incorporated into the school curriculum. The population is also kept informed of its rights via radio and television broadcasts either on the judicial system in general or human rights in particular. The report observes that the post-genocide government has undertaken serious efforts to eradicate the culture of impunity that had characterised Rwanda for a long period of time.
Presentation of Report
THARCISSE KARUGARAMA, Minister of Justice for Rwanda, in presenting the thirteenth through seventeenth periodic reports of Rwanda, said it was probably a sign of good tiding to be done on International Women’s Day. In Rwanda women enjoyed a special place in the hearts of the nation. Women used to belong to the group of marginalised people, but today they represented 56 per cent of national parliamentarians, 38 per cent of cabinet members, 50 per cent of Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice herself, and more than 30 per cent across the board in all leadership positions both in central and local governments. Mr. Karugarama underlined that the position enjoyed by women had helped the State to transform itself from a country of genocide and shame to a country of pride hope and a bright future.
Rwanda wanted to take its rightful place in the discharge of its international obligations and so sought to create and sustain a strategic partnership with relevant United Nations agencies to improve the lot of its people. Mr. Karugarama said Rwanda had ratified almost all core international instruments and their protocols under the human rights portfolio, removed all reservations it had placed on some instruments, including article 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and put in place a permanent task force on treaty reporting.
Mr. Karugarama said the terms Batwa, Bahutu and Batutsi were not in the Rwandan context distinct ethnic groups, but rather social classes based on occupations namely hunters, farmers and shepherds. Mr. Karugarama wondered how people could belong to the same clan, speak the same language, share the same culture and at the same time belong to different ethnic groups. This was a distortion of Rwandan history peddled around by political opportunists and other profiteers who had exploited this falsehood to advance individual or selfish agendas. Mr. Karugarama said it was also possible to move from one social class to the other or to change from one occupation to another and warned that that those profiteers who wanted to present themselves as loving some sections of Rwandan citizens more than Rwandans themselves were dangerous to the State.
In the Rwandan context, marginalised groups had included the Batwa, women, people with disabilities, people who suffered from leprosy, and the mentally ill. The question of women had been dealt with while that of the Batwa was aggressively being pursued through the provision of free education, free medical insurance, free housing and economic empowerment through the “One Cow per Family Programme”. Mr. Karugarama underlined that former combatants had been reintegrated in the national army and refugees and returnees had been reintegrated into the communities. In the process of reconciliation, the Gacaca Courts had tried 1.5 million cases in which about 30 per cent were acquitted and others sentenced to different custodial sentences. Many more had been released under compassionate interventions targeting the sick, the elderly, children and women while others were serving community work projects, commonly referred to as Travaux d’Interet General (TIG). The collective effect of these measures was that today former perpetrators were living side by side with genocide survivors in the countryside and there were no revenge killings.
Mr. Karugarama highlighted other key interventions including among others, the Nine Year Basic Education programme to provide free education to all Rwandan children; medical insurance for all Rwandan citizens; provision of a reasonable budget for legal aid programmes; the establishment of mediation committees to settle most legal and quasi legal disputes at the community level; and access to justice bureaus in all 30 districts of the country to provide free legal aid and basic information and education on the promotion and protection of human rights to communities.
Mr. Karugarama conceded that the State party had not yet done everything as per the recommendations of the Committee and called on the delegation to recognise the few good things that had been achieved and invited the Committee to partner with Rwanda to help address the necessary aspects of reconstructing national unity. Mr. Karugarama declared that the Government of Rwanda was open for constructive engagement and dialogue with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
KOKOU MAWUEMA IKA KANA EWOMSAN, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Rwanda, said that the first call to genocide was hate speech so it was important for the State to undertake comprehensive measures to avert a re-occurrence. Mr. Ewomsan commended the delegation for the positive efforts made towards reconciling the population and laying a foundation for mutual respect.
Mr. Ewomsan asked the delegation to provide the Committee with details about the principal civil society organisations which took part in the public hearing/examination of the current report. Even though language was the basic parameter to define an ethnic group, the Batwa population still constituted a minority group according to Mr. Ewomsan, who further asked the delegation to provide detailed information about this minority group. Given that the economy of Rwanda depended on agriculture which accounted for 37 per cent of the gross domestic product, the delegation was asked to explain what measures had been put in place to ensure that land was evenly distributed to the farming community, especially the Batwa who practiced farming as their main activity. Mr. Ewomsan said according to reports the Batwa were among the poorest groups in Rwanda and had hardly any access to social services.
Mr. Ewomsan noted that the Rwandan National Commission for Human Rights had implemented various mechanisms to foster respect for human rights in the country and asked the delegation to inform the Committee on the achievements of the commission. The Rapporteur further noted that the 2003 constitution prohibited racial discrimination, but underlined that all the aspects of Article 1 of the Convention had not been taken into consideration. The delegation was reminded that in order to better align its penal code with international instruments the State party was encouraged to consider all the elements of the definition of racial discrimination.
Mr. Ewomsan invited the delegation to inform the Committee on the law repressing genocide ideology which had been used to ban certain human rights organisations notably the League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights. Referring to the traditional justice system, the Gacaca, which the State adopted in order to try those accused of perpetrating hate crimes and genocide, Mr. Ewomsan noted that Human Rights Watch had accused the Gacaca of applying heavy sentences based on fragile evidence. The delegation was asked to provide more information about the functioning of the mechanism.
Referring to information about the forced return of Rwandan refugees on 14 and 15 July 2010 from Burundi, Tanzania and Uganda, Mr. Ewomsan asked the delegation to inform the Committee about this operation which was said to have taken place in the presence of the Rwandan police force. The delegation was also asked to clarify the situation where Rwandan returnees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo were subjected to ill-treatment due to their alleged links to the inter-hamwe militia.
Another Expert commended the delegation for the mechanisms implemented and the progress made so far. The delegation was asked to provide more information on whether it was easy to distinguish between the Hutus and the Tutsis given that unity among the people was vital for mutual respect of human rights. Referring to the Gacaca courts, the Expert wondered why a traditional mechanism was used to resolve non-traditional crimes and asked the delegation if the State intended to use the Gacaca Courts to resolve other conflicts. The Expert asked the delegation what mechanisms were in place to cover other foreigners living in Rwanda and if there were measures to uproot local prejudices against vulnerable groups such as the Batwa.
Referring to the draft strategies for social protection of vulnerable groups, an Expert asked whether these strategies would be adopted soon. The Expert raised concerns about the change in the national language from French to English and asked the delegation to comment on the effectiveness of this process.
An Expert referred to the State’s initiative to re-construct unity and the social fabric of the country and asked the delegation to share the challenges of this initiative with the Committee. The delegation also asked for information on how the State intended to achieve the plan to increase per capita income within a short period.
Another Committee Expert commended the State party on the measures undertaken to prevent the outbreak of another conflict and asked the delegation to provide a definition of the difference between Hutus and Tutsis given that the State was committed to eliminating the definition imposed by the colonialists. The Expert asked the delegation whether the Batwa were not an ethnic group found in other African countries as there were reports which indicated that they were an indigenous population found in 24 other countries. The delegation was further asked to say if the State recognised the United Nations Convention on indigenous people.
An Expert referred to the issue of transitional justice which said reconciliation could only take place after proper justice had been administered and asked the delegation to provide more information about the reconciliation process.
Another Expert said examining the case of Rwanda was a delicate issue considering genocide was a crime which needed a lot of honesty to solve. The delegation was asked to say if the Gacaca Courts would be institutionalised given the commendable achievements realised so far. The Expert also applauded the State party for efforts undertaken to guarantee equal participation of women in public life, but asked for information on how the decision making mechanism had been affected by this policy. The Expert inquired about the marginalised population in the domains of education and provision of health services and asked if a particular group had been identified to benefit from the State’s services as recommended by the Convention.
An Expert agreed that it was necessary to visit the State Party in order to be able to talk about the contemporary situation. The Expert asked the delegation to explain what had influenced its policy on the question of ethnicity, especially against the backdrop of the rebel insurgents who sparked the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
An Expert asked the delegation to explain to the Committee how widespread the reconciliation process was whereby a victim genuinely forgave killers who were now his neighbours.
Considering the situation of Rwanda as a very peculiar one, a Committee Expert stated that the approach to ethnicity by the delegation was completely different from how the Committee categorised the issue. The Expert commended the State Party for its position and approach in solving the various issues responsible for its past crisis.
An Expert said that racial hatred in Africa was fed by prejudice and stereotype and asked the delegation to explain what it was doing to eradicate these ethnic prejudices and stereotypes. The Expert asked the delegation if the government had undertaken to provide resources to the human rights commission to enhance its efforts.
Statement by representative of the Rwanda National Commission of Human Rights
The speaker said as part of its mandate, the National Commission for Human Rights always looked on the way to intensify its public awareness campaigns on human rights education. The National Human Rights Commission tweaked the language of the Committee to make it more easily understood in the Kinyarwanda language. The National Commission for Human Rights offered educational programmes in human rights to various people, specifically religious leaders and local authorities, and matched this with the law penalising the crime of genocide ideology. The National Commission for Human Rights collaborated with other government institutions in monitoring the implementation of the policies put in place to ensure the realisation of equality and non discrimination principles as provided for by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Regarding the monitoring of the rights of commonly marginalised groups such as persons who were HIV positive, with disabilities, and the Batwas, the National Commission for Human Rights ensured special attention in monitoring all policies and programmes to promote human rights. One of the biggest challenges to the Unity and Reconciliation government was the provision of shelter to poor families. The Batwa were said to be the most marginalised in this respect and so needed greater attention. In January 2011 the government carried out a national survey involving focus groups and interviews with local authorities. A number of people, including the Batwa, had been provided with improved shelter before the survey was conducted.
The National Commission for Human Rights pledged its support to the reconciliation and reconstruction efforts of the government and assured its commitment to focus on highlighted issues in recommendations made to foster the State’s realisation of human rights norms and adherence to international human rights standards.
Response by Delegation
The delegation said Rwandans all spoke the same language and had the same ancestor although with different backgrounds. The delegation underlined that it was historically incorrect to talk of indigenous people in Rwanda. In the past, the colonialists had proceeded to cluster or classify Rwandans into Hutu or Tutsi depending on their economic standing or background. There were cases where people of the same father and mother were split and classified either as Tutsi or Hutu. In addition, using physical characteristics to define people was totally incorrect because there was no solid ground to differentiate a Tutsi from a Hutu. The delegation stated that given the massive movement of people in Africa in search of pasture or arable land people got mixed and several languages were used by people of different origins living in the same territory. In the case of Rwanda, there had always been a single language and so this should erase whatever doubts as to the assertion that Rwandans were one. Colonialists had diagnosed the people of Rwanda wrongly and this had led to genocide and the delegation said it would be helpful if these misconceptions stopped.
The delegation said that during and after the genocide it had been very difficult to live together, look each other in the eye and above all trust one another. However, the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission was charged with the uphill task of reconstructing the social fabric and this had to be based on mutual trust. After more than 14 years in action, the Commission had come a long way in implementing its objectives by engaging all Rwandans in the process. It was now evident to see that Rwandans now lived in harmony and trust had returned. Over 600 associations for the youth, victims of genocide, and families of prisoners had been created and through them the doctrine of unity and reconciliation was propagated. In Rwanda people lived closely to one another before and after the genocide and unity and good neighbourliness were key to a peaceful co-existence and that was why the process of reconciliation and its positive effects were so visible among the population.
The delegation said that the Gacaca court was effective because it helped establish dialogue between the victims of genocide and the families of the perpetrators. It was through these meetings in familiar local courtyards that perpetrators started admitting their errors and asked for forgiveness. The process of forgiveness did not come automatically but took a slow course and this was the reason why reconciliation was possible. The Commission also made use of the Itororo which was the traditional school of Rwandan culture which built social cohesion and created a spirit of patriotism.
The delegation said the Commission conducted a study in 2005 to find out from Rwandans if they understood the process of social cohesion and the results proved that the message had attained the expected results. The delegation said the State also questioned the population on how they viewed the issue of ethnicity, and how they benefited from the use of the Gacaca to resolve the genocide problems. The delegation said it would carry out such opinion polls every 2 years to see how people perceived the Commission’s effort to encourage unity and reconciliation among the people. The delegation said that Rwandans had understood that if they were going to attain the 2020 Vision and step up their economic and social objectives then unity and cohesion through dialogue and debate to change mindsets were needed. The State was working through forums of reconciliation and the Rwandans had taken ownership of the reconciliation system and an early warning system had been introduced to prevent and resolve conflicts before things degenerated.
It was clear that one could not wipe out history or avoid talking about Hutus and Tutsis so there was a pressing need to talk about it. The delegation said there were both Tutsis and Hutus who fought against the government’s genocide programme and died in the process so it was incumbent on the State to consider positive approaches in the search for unity in order to solve the Rwandan problem. The delegation said in the future the State would conduct a historical study to prove that there were no Hutus or Tutsis given that these were all members of the same family. The change of mentalities and the identity-based approach had to move forward and create a new cohesion.
The delegation said there were still some 800 cases which the Gacaca administration was currently examining before a complete evaluation as to the success or failure of the Gacaca would be concluded. There were no more hearings taking place. There were about 58,000 prisoners with 40,000 cases related to genocide and almost 1.5 million people were tried by the Gacaca. The people in prison accepted their prison sentences and received visits from the family members and were ready to serve their terms in order to enjoy full freedom there after.
Answering the question about the use of English, the delegation said Rwanda was trilingual; Kinyarwanda which was the national language, and English and French were official languages. Every law and decision in parliament was voted in Kinyarwanda and then subsequently translated into English and French. The State had chosen to adopt English as an official language in order to give access to the youth to trade and compete better in the international arena beginning with the East African Community where English was the main language in use. The delegation said the State had retained the good aspects of common law, especially those dealing with human rights, and had included the country’s traditional values in the domain of criminal justice. Several measures had been taken to build more prisons in order to decongest existing ones, but the long-term objective was to reduce the number of prisons given that the victims of genocide were progressively released after they finished their sentences. The State was inspired by the bilingual and dual system in Mauritius.
The delegation said children grow up today without the divisive definition on ethnic grounds and simply felt themselves to be Rwandan. The delegation underlined the State registered three digit growth in gross domestic product each year and was hopeful that the target it had set for itself would be attained.
The delegation said those who were reluctant to return to Rwanda probably had a reason to do so because of their guilt and refusal to admit their involvement in the genocide. This was a ploy to escape justice, but the State still helped to propagate an objective application of law with the aim of encouraging unity and reconciliation among all. The State was committed to creating good and inclusive laws and structures so that all Rwandans would be treated on even terrain.
The delegation underlined that it would be helpful for all to search for factual information about the State in order to get a clear image of what had been done and what was being done to move the country forward. The delegation also insisted that no group of people had been put under any kind of force or pressure to live in a particular region.
The delegation said the State would make every effort to prevent discrimination of any kind and had implemented a policy of zero tolerance for corruption because discrimination was a product of a corrupt mind.
The delegation explained that it was very difficult to define the genocide ideology because it was quite a difficult issue to tackle. The State could define actions which could be interpreted to constitute the genocide ideology and would implement mechanisms which would eradicate such actions. The delegation said it was important to remove the dark umbrellas which provided cover for detractors who would like to undermine the State’s effort by resorting to tactics that would push the State to the wall.
Further Questions by Experts
An Expert followed up on the issue of ethnic definition and stated that there existed three clans in the history of the State, namely Tutsi, Hutu and the Batwa and underlined that there could not be a discussion about ethnic groups in Rwanda. The nobility attributed to the Tutsi led to antagonism between the two groups. The theories which described these three clans or groups were now highly disputed, especially due to the fact that the Belgians had ignored the social construct which had existed before. The Expert asked the delegation if it wished that the use of the term ethnic group as per Article 1 of the Convention should not be used.
Response by Delegation
The delegation said that the antagonism which gripped the Rwandans had been the remnants of the Belgian system of divide and rule and explained that this system was the root cause of all the conflicts which led to the genocide. The delegation explained that the Rwandans had been ruled by the same king and this was respected by the German colonisers who had recognised that social construct and did not interfere with its functioning.
The delegation said the people had lived together and intermarried for over 600 years and had never had any problems of identity or ethnic belonging until the Belgians came and started imposing their own conception of society on the Rwandans. There were no traces of the languages and names of the ethnic groups existing in the eastern or southern African regions. The delegation underlined that no research on the ground supported the existence of an indigenous population in Rwanda.
The speaker of the National Commission for Human Rights of Rwanda referred to the question about the resources at its disposal and said that the Commission received about 2 million USD from the government to cover its activities. The National Commission for Human Rights also had seven standing Commissioners who were experienced and knowledgeable in human rights issues and other support service staff and human rights officers and the total number was higher than the number of personnel in other State institutions. The National Commission for Human Rights had contributed to the revision of the laws with discriminatory clauses, especially in reference to the inheritance and civil rights and privileges for women.
The speaker highlighted that the Gacaca effectively achieved its targets and signalled that a few cases might have escaped the judge’s vigilance. The National Commission for Human Rights had ensured that such were reviewed and the errors had been repaired. To avoid favouritism and bias in judgement the Commission had favoured the use of local judges in the Gacaca who were knowledgeable about the local realities.
Further Questions by Experts
An Expert proposed that the State emphasise the process of reconciliation and education and this ought to be substantiated and translated into the legal system for a deeper impact. The delegation should look at the economic causes which led to the division among the people and thus the genocide. Quoting the examples of Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo and other countries where indigenous groups were recognised, the Expert encouraged the delegation to look at these cases and consider some of them in their search for solutions.
Response by Delegation
The delegation underlined that it would not copy from foreign realities because that would be a disservice to the country. The delegation insisted that there was no problem of indigenous groups in Rwanda and there was no intention and need to create one. Rwanda’s problems were linked to issues of poverty rather than to ethnic ones. The delegation stated that Rwanda was ready to adopt measures and policies which were suited to its realities only. The emphasis of the current government was to involve all Rwandans in political thought in order to craft policies to prevent another conflict and genocide.
Further Questions by Experts
An Expert stated that issue of education was a very important one as children learned to live together from a tender age. The delegation was asked to provide information about existing legislation on foreigners who could eventually be victims of discrimination. The Expert asked for more information about the use of the traditional rules that had been incorporated into law.
Response by Delegation
The delegation said the country was interested in copying the good example of the Mauritius legal system and had invited one of that country’s judges to assess the situation in the Rwandan Supreme Court.
The delegation said the Gacaca traditional courts would disappear because they were created to solve a particular problem at a particular period. The government was committed however, to incorporating certain aspects of the Gacaca, such as the A-bonzi, into its judicial procedure. This particular aspect of mediation was very important and most of the civil cases and petitions would be handled by the A-bonzi. The A-Bonzi was a mediation committee and the members were not expected to be academics or trained lawyers, but were able and skilled in settling small scale disputes.
Further Questions by Experts
An Expert said it would be impossible to use universal norms given that each State party had grossly divergent and particular realities. The Expert said even if ethnicity was constructed as the delegation had posited, it did not in any way lesson its effects. The delegation was asked to say whether recent history constrained the State to adopt such an approach to the definition of ethnicity and whether this approach had an enduring effect. The Committee usually asked for disaggregated data and according to the Expert it was essential for the State to find alternative methods of gathering information to answer various questions. The Expert asked the delegation whether it had any information pertaining to the group that had generally been described as marginalised.
Response by Delegation
The delegation underlined that the State was convinced on the approach to ethnicity it had taken and was sure that the future would prove the foresight contained in that approach given that it was based on facts and not on myth. The delegation said the groups of people who had been marginalised historically referred to the Batwa, women, persons with disabilities and illnesses such as leprosy, and the government had adopted mechanisms specifically tailored to address the problems that these groups faced.
The Constitution stated that the country was and would remain plural because every opinion and vision would be accommodated. The delegation said in practice the Constitution also made sure that no single political party would be allowed to wield full executive and or legislative power. There were various dynamics involved in State management and the State worked to ensure that power sharing was equal.
The delegation stated that no group of people had been expulsed from the forests and the State had undertaken conscious efforts to provide the full enjoyment of rights to its citizens. The delegation said the State had a long way to go in solving its problems and was open to all partners to assist in the reconstruction process.
The delegation said before it started the programme of reconciliation two debates were organised in the local communities and the aim was to gather information from the population about their understanding of the genocide. On the basis of these debates four reasons for the genocide were identified and included poor governance by political powers behind the genocide; the weapon of genocide which was the divisive policy of hatred; socioeconomic conditions, notably poverty; and the prevalent impunity of the rulers. The Commission then organised further debates nationwide from 2002 to 2004 in which all political representatives and all Rwandans living abroad were invited to discuss unity and reconciliation. It was through these national summits that the reasons for genocide and solutions such as the Gacaca courts were discussed in order to move from a centralised to a decentralised system.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
KOKOU MAWUEMA IKA KANA EWOMSAN, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Rwanda, explained that the Committee was not a tribunal but was there to dialogue with the State Party to search for solutions according to the recommendations of the Convention. Mr. Ewomsan encouraged the delegation to take the historical realities of the country into consideration, including the fact that every individual had a plural identity as this would help enhance the definition of policies to foster unity. The Expert further explained to the delegation that the Committee needed more information in order to come up with tangible recommendations to help the country in its reconstruction effort.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CRD11/019E