APCJ_1528_Win2010_00i_122_4 12/30/10 3:22 PM Page 64 64 AFRICA PEACE AND CONFLICT JOURNAL derstaffing and underfunding, contributed to dissatisfaction and disillusionment by Rwanda with the tribunal’s activities.10 Although imprisonment of all perpetrators would be impossible due to the number of people involved in the events of 1994, Rwandans needed closure in order to live together in peace. The tribunal lacked the community-based approach and restorative aspects of justice mechanisms traditional to Rwanda that assist perpetrators, victims, and bystanders, living side by side, to heal. In the impersonal and detached court, cases often took years to be resolved and primarily involved prosecuting leaders of the genocide. In 2001, in an effort to bring justice closer to home and engage the community, lessen the burden of the ICTR, alleviate pressure on local courts and prisons (already weakened by the conflict), and include an element of restorative justice in the process, the Rwandan government decided to employ the indigenous justice instrument known as gacaca.11 The gacaca community courts could also deal with those perpetrators who may have been omitted by the national courts due to a lack of space or time. Gacaca, meaning ‘grass’, had been in use since pre-colonial times and was originally conceived to settle family disputes and other minor offenses, focusing primarily on the restoration of harmony within the community.12 When needed, an informal gacaca session would be held, with participants sitting on the grass in a setting presided over by local inyangamugayo (people of integrity), who would pass judgement according to what was best for the community. In dealing with the genocide, the gacaca courts would be addressing crimes far more serious than those traditionally brought before the forum while continuing to adhere to restorative principles. Building on the traditional system, legislation on the gacaca courts new role included apology and compensation, such as community service or contributing to a compensation fund.13 Regardless, the newly established courts represented a marked departure from the original ones; the transition was not seamless. The gacaca courts are state-run and more formal than the simpler traditional, community courts. Furthermore, they have the ability to prosecute, and reconciliation is no longer the main goal.14 Initial support for the gacaca courts was overwhelming, with public turnout during the election of judges at a remarkable 90 percent.15 Unfortunately, original plans for the compensation fund were put on hold after the state realized that it would be unable to cover the demands for awarding damages to individual survivors.16 10. Simeon O. Ilesanmi, ‘So that peace may reign: A study of just peacemaking experiments in Africa’, Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics, 23 (2003), 213–26. 11. Ibid.; Graybill and Lanegran, ‘Truth, justice, and reconciliation’. 12. Graybill and Lanegran, ‘Truth, justice, and reconciliation’. 13. Graybill, ‘Pardon, punishment, and amnesia’. 14. Bert Ingelaere, ‘The gacaca courts in Rwanda’, in Luc Huyse and Mark Salter (eds.), Traditional Justice and Reconciliation after Violent Conflict: Learning from African Experiences (Stockholm, International IDEA, 2008). 15. Amnesty International, ‘Gacaca: A question of justice’, December 2002, www.amnesty.org/en/library /info/AFR47/007/2002. 16. Ariel Meyerstein, ‘Between law and culture: Rwanda’s gacaca and postcolonial legality’, Law and Social Inquiry, 32:2 (2007), 486.