Démocratie Démocratie

cases are judged in absentia, the public attends no
more than 21% of the trials and the conviction rate
stands at 55% (most of which, of course, involve
absent defendants).
For these reasons our team members engaged in a
constructive dialogue with high ranking officials at
the NPPA to find a structural and effective solution to
the backlog problem. In our assessment, what is
needed is a structural solution to a structural problem.
This solution should have a number of characteristics.
(1) It must be aimed at preventing the
build-up of backlogs rather than at working them
away once they have accumulated. In other words, it
should rationalize and accelerate the process of dealing
with newly incoming and backlogged cases, so
that existing backlogs can be liquidated and the total
case load can be progressively reduced. (2) This
means that cases with a low probability of resulting
in a conviction should be filtered out and dismissed
at an early point in the process. (3) Crucially, the
system should not rely on an increase of capacity to
produce results, since it is not realistic to expect
that, in the medium term, the NPPA will be able to
significantly and permanently expand its workforce.
decisions. It appears advisable for the proper functioning
of this system that the NPPA organizes its
prosecutors in teams. The prosecutors working on
case marking should not work on the completion of
files and trials at the same time.
We have recently issued a report – written by a
senior Scottish prosecutor who knows the Rwandese
justice system very well – that presents detailed proposals
for the case marking system and the reorganization
in teams and identifies the steps to be followed
and the obstacles that may be encountered.
RCN has agreed with the NPPA that we will jointly
seek funding to further develop, implement and test
(in the IPOs of Gicumbi and Muhanga) this timebound
process for handling cases in a four month
pilot project.
Marco LANKHORST,
Coordonateur des programmes.
The way to achieve the results identified under (1)
is to introduce a rigorous and time-bound case selection
procedure. Case selection must be based on a
set of clearly defined case selection criteria.
The following are examples of selection criteria:
- The seriousness of the allegation (the type of
crime, the impact on the public, the impact on the
victim and the economic value of the goods at
stake);
- The credibility of the allegation in light of the
already available evidence (in other words, how
probable is it that further investigation and trial will
eventually result in a conviction );
- The time that has passed since the date of the
alleged crime;
- Prosecution priorities (these can be general,
e.g. Rwanda wants to have a zero-tolerance policy
on corruption, or specific, in the sense that they relate
to how frequently a certain type of crime has
occurred over a certain area within a certain period);
- The question whether the accused is a repeat
offender.
Depending on the answers to these questions, incoming
cases are marked by means of a uniform
marking (or scoring) system. The markings will divide
cases into three categories: (1) cases to be dismissed
immediately, (2) cases that require further
investigation and (3) cases that can be transferred to
court immediately. The aim should be to set a strict
quantitative limit on the amount of cases that can be
brought within the intermediate category. Strict and
short deadlines should be established for ranking
incoming cases, as well as for taking the associated
© Franck Dikisongele
13