members to take part in a conflict-transformation process that encourages offender accountability and meets the needs of the victims to repair the harm resulting from the crime (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007). Traditional courts (Mini lecture, group discussion and role play) Although their powers and jurisdiction in respect of criminal matters vary from country to country, traditional courts have, for a very long time, been used to mediate civil disputes and to prosecute crimes within communities. Traditional courts often function in accordance with African law and custom. These courts differ from national courts, which are bound by state law in that they are a part of a system of community justice influenced by custom, norms and values which allows cases to be dealt with more expeditiously. One such traditional approach to community healing is the Rwandan Gacaca courts. Established in 2001 in the wake of the 1994 Rwandan genocide against Tutsis, these courts are part of a system of community justice inspired by local tradition. After the genocide, the new government struggled to develop just means for the humane detention and prosecution of the more than 100 000 people accused of genocide, war crimes, and related crimes against humanity. The Gacaca courts settled village or domestic disputes. The courts were an informal means of solving disputes concerning matters such as theft, marital issues, land rights and property damage. They were constituted as village assemblies which afforded each member of the community a place to speak. Likewise, in communities in the South Omo area of Ethiopia, village elders are part of the local peace committees, which are cultural structures and mechanisms for peace building and conflict resolution. Dassanech women and the youth of Ethiopia also hold meetings to discuss their roles in conflict resolution. Such a holistic approach to healing helps to ensure that the needs of all groups in society are addressed so that there is an all-encompassing national healing framework. In Zimbabwe, the traditional courts are presided over by the village head or headman, and, depending on the gravity of the particular case, may be presided over by the local chief (the Ishe/Induna). Their courts make use of customary law and tradition to resolve conflicts in communities. Disputes over land and marriages under customary law are also presided over by the traditional court. The chief presides over the court together with his cabinet or jury and presents monthly reports to the magistrate’s court, which either endorses or nullifies the verdicts of the traditional court. A case is first presided over by the village head. In some instances where the village head believes that the matter is too complex for him or her, the case is referred to the headman and, ultimately, to the chief. These courts preside over civil cases, while serious criminal offences are reported to the police and are dealt with through the formal judicial system. However, research has shown that, in Zimbabwe, traditional leaders have not been presiding over cases of violence (in particular, politically motivated violence), because these fall under the criminal law in respect of which they have no jurisdiction. Such matters have therefore been referred to the national courts, which have been slow in dealing with the cases brought before them. In order for community healing in Zimbabwe to be effective, traditional leaders need to be able to preside over cases of political violence, provided that they are non-partisan in their stance. Nevertheless, in instances of serious criminal cases such as rape and murder, whilst these criminal offences will be dealt with by way of the formal judicial system, the traditional court can summon a person to appear before them. The thinking behind this is that murder and rape have detrimental consequences for the whole community because they are Module 2: Approaches to community healing 23 2