Démocratie Démocratie

Our Kigali mission has prepared a series of short articles concerning its backlog reduction project,
which recently came to an end. These contributions provide an insight into both challenges and
successes that were encountered and give an impression of the way forward.
Rwanda Case Backlog Reduction Project
The Rwandese justice system faces a problem of
backlogs of criminal cases both at the level of the
National Public Prosecution Authority (NPPA) and the
Judiciary (the courts and tribunals). The former
backlog includes cases that have to be investigated
under the supervision of the prosecutors so that the
case file can be completed and sent to court or dismissed.
The second backlog consists of cases pending
before the courts and awaiting judgment.
Backlogs are problematic for two reasons. They
tend to undermine the confidence of the public in the
justice system and the deterrent effect of criminal
law enforcement. Victims,
complainants and the public
in general are discouraged
by the seeming inactivity.
And when a response
does come it is
often disappointing, because
so much time has
gone by that the necessary
evidence to reach a
conviction has evaporated.
Criminals, by contrast,
may be encouraged to
commit new crimes if
chances are big that no
effective response will follow.
These are effects that
are particularly undesirable
in the Rwandese context.
For a society that is
trying to rebuild and progress after having experienced
mass violence, the assurance that in the present
timeframe crimes cannot be committed with
impunity is of crucial importance.
In order to contribute to the reduction of the backlogs
USAID/Rwanda has awarded a grant to RCN Justice
& Démocratie under the title ‘Rwanda Case Backlog
Reduction Project’. This 12-month project was
implemented between February 2009 and February
2010.
© Franck Dikisongele
Backlog monitoring
An important activity in this project was the monitoring
of 102 trial hearings in backlogged criminal
cases, which serves to keep an eye on the quality of
the work on backlogs that is done both by prosecutors
and courts. The observations we made can be
divided into two categories (1) organizational problems,
(2) questions regarding the relevance and
quality of the work of the NPPA and the courts.
In terms of the organization of the trials it was
noted repeatedly that the courts scheduled trials
without consulting with
the prosecutors as to
their capacity and availability
on given days. Another
serious problem is
the fact that in many
courts the parties and the
public are not helped to
understand where in the
courthouse – in which
room – their case will be
dealt with or – even
roughly – around what
time this will happen.
Both mean that trials
have to be postponed,
that they are conducted
without key witnesses or
that judgments are
passed in absentia.
As regards relevance and quality, it can first of all
be noted that in most cases the parties are not present
and the public is absent. A full 69% of the cases
monitored were judged in absentia and members of
the public were present in only 21 cases. Crucially,
the rate of conviction of 55% is rather poor. It appears
that particularly where heavy charges are involved,
the prosecutors are very reluctant to dismiss
a case, even if the most basic elements of proof are
not available (such as a medical statement in alleged
rape cases). Finally, because so many cases were
judged in absentia, our observations regarding the
11