0 about the author

inyagamugayo. 
However, their sincerity creates serious conflicts between them and those they 
accuse. Outright intimidation or more subtle means are employed to silence or to forge an alliance 

---

75 
with them. The same tactics are used to influence the behaviour of the genocide survivors. 
Sometimes killings take place to get rid of witnesses. In general, the perception is that these 
released prisoners only made partial confessions in order to get out of prison, admitting minor 
crimes, accusing others of complicity-the deceased or disappeared- and keeping silent on the 
involvement of yet others. Two Hutu subgroups remain-those accused in the Gacaca and others 
who are not accused. The first subgroup lives in fear of an upcoming trial with an unpredictable 
outcome. Those in the second group are relieved that they are not accused, but are very careful 
not to get into conflict with anyone since they are aware that current conflicts can be dragged into 
the Gacaca arena to be settled under the guise of an alleged genocide crime. 
Initially, the inyagamugayo were, as tradition prescribes, 'old and wise men'. After several 
months, however, a significant number of them had to be replaced because they were accused in 
the Gacaca themselves. By November 2005, 26,752 or 15.7 per cent of the judges had to be 
replaced because they were suspected. They were replaced by women, younger people and 
genocide survivors. The Gacaca bench often contains a mixture of survivors (Batutsi) and 'non-
survivors' (Bahutu). Sometimes the judges are only Hutu or only Tutsi. The ethnic composition 
of the bench is seen as a means to get a viewpoint passed. The judges received short training on 
the law and procedures. Every district (that is, approximately every ten sectors) has a coordinator 
to supervise the Gacaca activities. This is the person who can be consulted by the judges.
The local authorities generally do not play an overtly active role in the Gacaca proceedings 
but they are always present, together with some security forces, and they have received 
instructions from higher authorities that they need to monitor the Gacaca's activities closely and 
write reports. Some strictly judicial tasks such as information collection have been assigned to 
the local authorities, with the population and the judges only playing a secondary role. They 
mobilize the population in sensitization campaigns and take notes on the attendance of the people 
living in their administrative area. Failure to participate in the Gacaca means either being fined 
or refusal of service delivery when contacting the local administration. In that sense the Gacaca 
is, paradoxically, a form of unpopular participatory justice, with large crowds of uninterested 
people physically present but psychologically absent or unsupportive of the activities. Those who 
speak are predominantly the judges, the survivors and a small group of liberated prisoners.