APCJ_1528_Win2010_00i_122_4 12/30/10 3:22 PM Page 65 Rediscovering Indigenous Peacebuilding Techniques 65 For all the positive aspects of gacaca, the process was not entirely successful. There was a glaring inequality in prosecutions, with government soldiers of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (comprised of Tutsis) exempt from the process. The skewed focus on Hutu crimes had a negative effect on participation and perceived justice of the courts.17 There was also concern about the safety of attendees, both the accused and witnesses. The impartiality and legal knowledge of lay judges, speed of the trials, as well as public absenteeism and lack of meaningful participation were additional, significant obstacles.18 Furthermore, according to Amnesty International, the gacaca courts often did not meet minimum human rights standards in regard to fair trial and the presumption of innocence.19 In response to the organization’s criticisms, the Supreme Court of Rwanda offered a new perspective, juxtaposing the right to fair trial with the prohibition against the indefinite detention of suspects. According to the court, the gacaca system was the best solution given that the entire country had been engaged in the genocide, and resources following the crisis were scant.20 Could the western approach to justice that Amnesty International seemed to advocate help Rwandans heal?21 Considering that virtually everyone was involved in the genocide, whether as a bystander, victim, or perpetrator, and sometimes in more than one capacity, it would be impossible to imprison and try everyone. The gacaca courts offered an alternative that may have been misused by various individuals and was set in a political climate that likely did not always encourage speaking out,22 but it was a familiar instrument, embedded in the culture of the society. This enhanced its legitimacy and likelihood of success at reconciliation and healing. The gacaca courts were an experiment, a hybrid form of justice that combined traditional structures with modern principles in a new context. Over the years, both negative and positive aspects of the courts have been identified, which can be done with all court systems, including western ones. One need only look as far as the Nuremberg trials to find examples of victor justice. None are flawless, but some people take comfort in the fact that they are familiar and they know what to expect. The same might be said for Rwandans and gacaca courts. In general, they provided the population with an alternative to the more formal and distant processes of the national and international courts, enabling people to work through the conflict and continue functioning collectively as communities. The gacaca courts provided an opportunity for dialogue and remained relatively flexible. Whatever the negative aspects of the gacaca courts, these aspects were positive ones. NORTHERN UGANDA Decades of war in northern Uganda have created a humanitarian disaster. Thousands of Acholi, the ethnic people of Acholiland, as well as other inhabitants of the north, 17. Graybill, ‘Pardon, punishment, and amnesia’. 18. Penal Reform International, ‘Eight years on. . . A record of gacaca monitoring in Rwanda’, 2010, www.penalreform.org/publications/eight-years-ona-record-gacaca-monitoring-rwanda. 19. Amnesty International, ‘Gacaca’. 20. Meyerstein, ‘Between law and culture’. 21. Amnesty International, ‘Gacaca’. 22. Meyerstein, ‘Between law and culture’, 467–508.