The Location, Identification and Respectful Burial of the Anonymous Victims of Mass Atrocities

Erin Jessee

In the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide in which an estimated 800,000 civilians – most of whom were members of the nation’s minority Tutsi population – were killed, a number of initiatives have been pursued in an effort to locate and rebury with respect the anonymous victims of the violence. In the months following the genocide, survivors frequently attempted to learn the locations where their missing family members had been killed, and then conducted nonscientific exhumations aimed at locating and reburying with respect any human remains that might be found.

Then, in 1995 and 1996, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) commissioned a series of scientific forensic investigations aimed at determining the criminal nature of massacres in Kigali and Kibuye. Finally, since 1996 the government of Rwanda is engaged in a program of exhuming the anonymous victims of the 1994 genocide and preserving their remains in local state-funded genocide memorials. Each of these initiatives has been driven by the realisation that the respectful reburial of the victims of the 1994 genocide is necessary to promote social reconstruction, and relieve the linger spiritual violence experienced by many Rwandans as a result of having been unable to bury and mourn their missing loved ones according to tradition.

Despite these good intentions, each of these initiatives has met with controversy. The forensic investigations commissioned by the ICTR involved minimal collaboration with the communities that hosted them, and as a result incorporated methods and mandates that proved distressing to survivors. In particular, survivors were distraught by the investigation’s legal mandate that treated the bodies of the victims as forensic evidence and failed to recognise and address the survivors’ needs for definitive identifications and respectful reburial of the victims. To make matters worse, the team’s findings were later contested on the grounds that the methods used by the investigators were not scientifically rigorous enough to support the conclusions. The resulting evidence was dismissed, resulting in a potential miscarriage of justice.

Meanwhile, survivors’ independent efforts to locate and rebury their missing has been restricted by the government of Rwanda – the concern being those gravesites on family land might not be maintained in a manner that reflects their status as victims of the 1994 genocide. The Rwandan government is adamant that the 1994 genocide be properly commemorated, and has implemented a law that requires that all victims be reburied at a local state-funded genocide memorial where they can be honored indefinitely. However, these memorials are graphic – frequently containing displays of human remains that prove distressing to survivors – and typically fail to acknowledge the specific individuals who were murdered.

As a result, the memorials are not widely supported by the communities that host them. Conversely, there is substantial evidence that these memorials are contributing to the maintenance of ethnic and political tensions among Rwandans, many of whom argue that memorials have been created – not to honor the victims of the 1994 genocide – but to help legitimise the RPF’s claim to power in Rwanda. Likewise, the memorials contribute to the ongoing emotional distress of the survivors, many of whom believe that they are haunted by the angry spirits of those loved ones who died and were buried anonymously, or whose remains have been placed on display at the memorials. For these reasons, the idea of humanitarian exhumations aimed at identifying and reburying the victims of the 1994 genocide is widely supported among survivors.

While the historical, political, and cultural circumstances surrounding the 1994 Rwandan genocide are vastly different from the mass atrocities endured by the people of Northern Uganda, there are nonetheless a number of lessons that might be learned from examining post-genocide Rwanda. First, in the aftermath of mass atrocities, the identification of the anonymous dead is often as important as their respectful reburial according to the wishes of individuals. Without positive identification, many survivors continue to fear that their missing loved ones have yet to be located, and may experience lingering physical and mental illnesses. Under the circumstances, it becomes impossible for survivors to recover from the harm they have experienced surrounding the disappearance of their loved ones.

Second, any efforts aimed positively identifying the victims of mass atrocities must be organised and implemented in collaboration with survivors to ensure that the mandates and methods used are culturally and politically appropriate. Ideally, such efforts should be treated as a capacity-building exercise in which willing members of the community are trained to assist and perhaps even eventually take control of the identification efforts, whether based on DNA evidence or associated personal effects to ensure the survivors’ needs are not overwhelmed by legal or political agendas.

Third, nationalised mourning and commemoration must be approached with the understanding that people have differing interpretations of mass atrocities, and therefore may not unanimously support the mandatory incorporation of the bodies of the missing into state-funded memorials, particularly if those memorials are not sensitive to local spiritual, political, and historical concerns. In the event of positive identifications, surviving family members should have the right to determine how their deceased loved ones are buried and where. While nationalised commemoration is often perceived to be an essential and beneficial part of the transitional justice toolkit, the positive outcomes can only take shape if the surrounding communities are fully supportive of the form and function of the memorials. If some degree of consensus is not achieved, nationalised commemorative efforts risk having a negative impact on the communities in which they are initiated, contributing to the maintenance of powerful reservoirs of ethnic, political or social tensions.

 Finally in order for humanitarian exhumations aimed at locating, positively identifying, and reburying the anonymous victims of mass atrocities to take place, there must be genuine political support at the international and domestic levels. In post-genocide Rwanda, the government is the primary obstacle to humanitarian exhumations aimed at identifying and reburying with anonymous victims of the 1994 genocide. The government officials responsible for overseeing the creation and maintenance of the state-funded genocide memorials are committed to sensitising the Rwandan people, including survivors, to the need for nationalised commemoration of the 1994 genocide, and believe that in the long-term, they will be successful in this endeavor. Several international organisations and university-based forensic institutes are interested in assisting humanitarian exhumations, and many Rwandan survivors are supportive of such initiatives. However, without the support of the Rwandan government, the victims of the 1994 genocide will remain anonymous, and will continue to be incorporated into state-funded genocide memorials that do not have the support of the wider public. ▪

 Erin Jessee is a Banting Postdoctoral Fellow affiliated with the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She is an oral historian and cultural anthropologist who works primarily on post-genocide Rwanda. Her research interests include mass atrocities, nationalised commemoration, spiritual violence, transitional justice, mass grave exhumations, and the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding fieldwork amid highly politicised research settings. 

Kate Lonergan

In 1994, “Robert”, then 8 years old, was living in his uncle’s home.  Late one night, the LRA attacked the home and abducted Robert. As the rebels were taking him, Robert was forced to watch one of the commanders, who was scarcely older than himself, brutally beat and kill his uncle. For the first week of his captivity, Robert and the commander moved as part of the same battalion. Soon, though, they were separated.

Robert eventually escaped from the LRA in 1999 and found his way to a World Vision reception center in Gulu. A few weeks later, the same commander arrived at the reception center and was placed into Robert’s living group. One night, a quarrel between the two boys turned into death threats.

“Do you know who I am?” the commander yelled, “There are many spirits that disturb me. If they come to me now, I could just kill you!”

Robert, fearing the commander’s threats, went to a World Vision counselor for help. World Vision staff brought the two boys together and asked them each to tell their side of the story. The commander narrated the events of the night he abducted Robert and killed his uncle. The commander then explained that he threatened Robert in order to protect himself from retribution for that incident, and asked Robert to forgive him. Initially, Robert was very upset, but he later returned and said to the commander, “There is no talk, I have forgiven you. Let us live freely.”

Reflecting on this experience years later, Robert says, “The only way so that you forgive your friend, you the perpetrator should start showing forgiveness at first. This means that you the perpetrator should come guiltily and humbly before the person who felt the pain of that act.”

Robert, like many other youth and women across Northern Uganda, felt strongly that knowing the truth about the commander’s actions against his uncle was a necessary prerequisite for forgiveness and reconciliation.

Amidst the relative peace that Northern Uganda now enjoys, many former LRA combatants like Robert and the commander must grapple with the delicate process of reintegrating into their community. This already challenging process is further complicated by the fact that many ex-combatants committed atrocities against friends, family members, and neighbors throughout the LRA’s reign of terror. As was the case for Robert, many victims must interact daily with individuals who caused them or their family members serious harm. These constant reminders of conflict experiences often create significant underlying tension in community relationships. 

As part of an ongoing project on the experiences of women and youth with traditional justice practices, JRP’s Documentation department discussed current strategies for forgiveness, recovery and reconciliation with female and youth ex-combatants and victims of LRA attacks throughout the Acholi sub-region of Uganda. Through these discussions, we came to see the important role that truth-telling processes play in creating space for forgiveness and reconciliation at a local level in Northern Uganda.

Although almost all of our respondents expressed a strong desire for forgiveness and reconciliation, many cited the importance of an explicit exchange where the individual perpetrator requests forgiveness from the victim. Although both parties may live alongside each other without noticeable animosity, most people agreed that a clear apology was necessary in order to foster genuine forgiveness. As one woman reflected, “Such a person [who harmed me] should first of all beg for forgiveness from me…[w]hen a person admits and begs for forgiveness, there is nothing to stop me from forgiving such a person.”

Truth-telling comes as an important precursor to the process of admitting wrongdoing and asking for forgiveness. An individual must first explain and acknowledge his or her actions in order to ask for forgiveness.

Truth-telling also provides a way for ex-combatants to explain to victims the circumstances under which a crime occurred. This is particularly important in Northern Uganda, where abducted combatants were forced to commit terrible atrocities against their will. The process of declaring publically that they did not kill of their own free will is an important opportunity for the returned combatant to establish a positive identity separate from his or her actions during the conflict. One formerly abducted youth reflected, “Our voice can be heard when we unite with people in the community. When they start telling me about the bad things I did from the bush, then I tell them it was not my interest. The reason I did that, I was just like a messenger who is sent to go and do this.”

Much of the stigmatisation of returned LRA fighters stems from fear of their violent experiences during the conflict. An opportunity to establish the truth–that they were forced into violence and killing–helps to mitigate the fear of fellow community members that violence will recur in peace time.

While understanding that a crime was committed unwillingly will not lessen the painful memories or continuing struggle from the loss or injury, it can help improve victims’ relationship with the person who committed the crime. Hearing in detail how an LRA soldier was forced to kill can shift the blame from the individual to the organisation or commander who orchestrated the larger attack. This may allow the victim to forgive the individual who he or she must live and interact with in the community on a regular basis.

Of course, despite the integral role of truth-telling and apology in facilitating forgiveness, any truth-telling process must also address the potential negative consequences of sharing previously unknown details about horrific acts of violence committed during the conflict. As a formerly abducted youth in one community expressed, “If you see that there is abuse, you will not say all those things. […] There are some things I have never mentioned to anyone, not even my mother. If life gets more easy then I will say it, when fear disappears from my heart.” Without comprehensive support to combat stigmatization and facilitate positive relationships beyond the moment of truth-telling, a truth process carries the danger of further entrenching stigmatisation.

 Despite the potential challenges of exposing painful truths about atrocities committed during the conflict, a systematic and public truth-telling process is an important part of the transitional justice process in Northern Uganda. A public process would provide an essential catalyst for apology and forgiveness that must occur in order to foster genuine healing and reconciliation. Although truth-telling already happens within communities and between neighbors, those who come forward to tell the truth face significant challenges. There is often minimal support in the process of confronting the victim, especially for former combatants lacking the strong family support system that would traditionally be used to initiate a process of truth-telling and apology. Creating a platform to facilitate this process in a safe and structured way will encourage more people to feel comfortable sharing the truth about their conflict experiences, which in turn will allow more opportunities for apology, forgiveness, and healing. ▪

Kate Lonergan is an intern with JRP’s Documentation Department.

Truth telling and Family Reconciliation

By Isaac Okwir Odiya and Can-kara*

In 2012, Can-kara (not his real name) approached the Justice and Reconciliation Project in the hope that the organisation would be able to help provide a solution to a two-decade long family rift. Having searched and not found solutions in many places, he was unsure whether his family conflict would finally be resolved. This is his story, as told to JRP Project Officer Isaac Okwir Odiya.

 * Not his real name.

At the beginning of Northern conflict in 1986, guns were easily accessible by the local population as combatant of the fallen government were returning home with guns and rebels groups were forming up against the new Government of NRA. The access to guns and formation of rebel groups led to serious conflict in the region which affected many families including one in Palaro Owalo.

In Palarao Owalo, Palaro sub-county Gulu district, the war facilitated breaking the spirit of brotherhood in one family as two brother took advantage the easy access to guns created by the war to fight one another which led to loss of lives and eventual separation among family members and also destroyed strength of traditional leaders to resolve local conflict within community. The affected family is still living in conflict with each other following the atrocities of the two brothers. However effort is being put to restore the family glory in this post conflict recovery but community members are not sure whether the way forward will foster effective reconciliation as they see no truth in the reconciliation process. Truth-telling is seen to be lacking in resolving the conflict in Palaro Owalo as facts about the conflict is not investigated and mediators fear that encouraging discussion on the cause of the conflict will provoke further conflict and because of this, members of the community feel the mediation process may be futile if not revised.

This story features the plight of a family in Palaro Owalo, Palaro Sub County Gulu district that got torn apart at the start of the war and still struggling to come into terms with each other. Can-kara was attracted by JRP publications and posters that speak on the need for reconciliation among conflict affected community and he had to tell us the story about the conflict in their family as he sought for reconciliatory support.

Just like Labongo and Gipir separated over bead and spear that led to Labongo to cross the Nile and settled in present Alur land and Gipir to remain in present Acholi land, step brothers in Palaro Owalo separated over a woman whom they all intend to marry and each could not give up. In a normal circumstance, the women always decide the fate of two or more rivalling men and that is what happened as one man was rejected for his brother and that was injustice to the losing brother.

This incident happened at a time of transition of power in 1986 that brought the NRA Government to power which was protested by many Acholi as they took arm against the said Government. Guns were easily accessible since rebel factions were forming up and there was loose control over guns. Possession of guns by the two brothers turned their home into a battle field in which five people lost their lives as the two brothers rivalled over the woman. Can-kara is a maternal brother to the man who opened fire in revenge of being rejected by a woman which escalated into a family gun battle. The crimes committed by the two step brothers rested on their family members as Can-kara, whose brother started shooting first, was forced to evacuate his paternal home land and took refuge in Bweyale, Kiriandongo district since 1988. Many other people at home went missing in fear of further revenge.

The conflict weakened conflict resolution structures within the community such that members of conflict resolution committees were displace apart, others were killed some of them joined the war as combatants. Palaro Owalo has left without clear leadership structure to help rest some of the local conflict within their community.

Despite this, an initiative for reconciliation has been called to settle the standing conflict and resettle the exiled family members. To have a true reconciliation and resettlement of the parties in conflict, it requires local cultural leaders to mediate the reconciliation process and truth-telling to account for what happened as well as the performance of the right ritual practices. Can-kara and some community members are not convinced with the current effort to reconcile the two parties. To them, the initiative lacks competent personnel within the community to play reconciliatory role. Apparently, the effort is being mediated by the security personnel to the chief and not the chief himself while other local leaders such as Local Councillors and the office of the paramount chief are not aware of the initiative. In the mediation meeting, it was resolved that reconciliation ceremony should be done and the community members contribute to buy the required items for reconciliation ceremony which approach is unusual to them for reconciliation undertaking.

Can-kara and others complain that the mediation meeting did not involve all family members to the conflict and facts about the conflict were not established to enhance effective resolution of the conflict and sustainable resettlement of the exiled family and peaceful coexistence among them. It is important to establish facts about the conflict to find the root cause of the conflict and address the root cause. Facts finding will help inform future generation about what transpired and teach them to avoid repeat of such event. Above all, facts help to determine way forward for genuine reconciliation of the parties in conflict.

Can-kara, being the brother of the person who killed first, has been asked to host the reconciliation ceremony despite not having a shelter at home as he has been in hide-out since 1988. By asking all members of the community to contribute money for a reconciliation ceremony, he looks at it as a way of making him fail so that the blame is further levelled on him for failing to acquire the items needed as the host.

Can-kara also fears that the gun used during the bloodshed could still be at reach and used on them since the resolution initiative did not investigate those facts.

“How can I be sure of our security and peaceful coexistence among us when gaps are already seen in the reconciliation processes?” asked Can-kara. To him, the brain and the heart behind the reconciliation initiative is not the right one and he calls for any support to the initiative.

It is therefore important to observe a moment of truth-telling in any conflict resolution for effective peace building and to give a pointer for the purpose of reconciliation. Resolving a conflict without pointing out the truth of what happened is the same as covering fresh wound with scars which if opened, the pain still remain real to the holder. The social structure to enforce reconciliation in our society has been tempered with by the war and cultural values and practices have equally weakened during the war and most community lacks a sense of clear direction. The current generation of elders lacks a point of reference and the resources to facilitate reconciliation in the community which therefore calls for a commission in charge of reinstituting cultural value and practices to help the process of recovering the gaps created during the war.

It is also important for any conflict resolution committees to investigate facts about any conflict and used facts to build for the future being of their community and this can best be done using the local conflict resolution at the grass roots. ▪

By Tamara Shaya

JRP’s Gender Justice Team engaged in a variety of activities over the past few months, which have yielded great results.

Under the Ododo Wa (Our Stories) program, the Gender Justice Team developed personal history books for several formerly abducted women. The personal history books, which include the life story about a woman’s life before, during, and after abduction, are important assets to the women. Many formerly abducted women feel the need to document the experiences they faced so that their children and families understand their experiences and for women to remember events that took place while in captivity.

Likewise, under the auspices of Ododo Wa, the Gender Justice Team visited six storytelling groups with the purpose of having women discuss truth-telling and missing persons. Women performed dramas illustrating their perception of truth-telling and missing persons and engaged in different exercises, like ribbon of life, where women tied colored ribbons on a piece of cloth to symbolise various elements of the war. They also played several games to foster group unity. The storytelling sessions helped women understand the importance of transitional justice mechanisms and expanded their understanding of justice and reconciliation. The findings from this storytelling session, as well as information from other interviews and focus group discussions will be published by JRP.

In the last quarter, representatives from the Women’s Advocacy Network (WAN) engaged in community outreach sessions. The topic of the community outreach session was domestic violence, with different representatives from the Women’s Advocacy Network performing dramas, sharing their personal experience, and engaging in an open dialogue with members of the community. The purpose was to create awareness about the negative impacts of domestic violence and reduce the rate of violence in homes. Community members responded well, sharing during discussions that they are thankful to have an opportunity to dialogue with the WAN members.

WAN members have also created awareness about their issues in a variety of ways including through radio talk shows and international presentations. Members of the Gender Justice Team and WAN host a weekly radio talk show on Mega FM about issues pertaining to war-affected women, such as amnesty and compensation. Likewise, a WAN member traveled to the Surviving Violence Workshop in Halifax, Canada, to give a presentation on how storytelling has helped women to cope in post conflict situations.

Other activities

• WAN quarterly meetings where they discussed issues affecting them and their members. Among the issues raised included identity of children born in captivity, access to land, passiveness of women involvement in issues affecting them due to cultural biases among others.
• A one day sensitisation workshop on transitional justice needs for women for WAN.
• A situational analysis on gender needs in transitional justice processes in Northern Uganda by the Gender Justice Team.
• Gender Justice Programme Officer Nancy Apiyo won the Woman for Peace Award organized by Global Women Empowerment and Volunteer Action Network. This was in recognition of the work she has done with formerly abducted women. ▪

 Tamara Shaya is a graduate student intern with JRP’s Gender Justice Department.

The Role of Truth-Telling in Acholi Traditional Ceremonies

By Vicki Esquivel-Korsiak and Kate Lonergan

In exploring the relevance of traditional mechanisms to the unique justice needs of Northern Uganda, JRP’s Documentation department   found that truth-telling forms a central part of some reconciliatory ceremonies. In this article, mato oput and moyo kum specifically are examined vis-à-vis their role in truth-telling and the JLOS proposed transitional justice policy in Northern Uganda.

 In July 2012, Uganda’s Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) proposed the formulation of a national truth-telling process to be informed by community-driven truth-telling processes at the regional, community, and/or local level. (Justice Law and Order Sector, “Implementation of the Recommendations of the Traditional Justice  and Truth-telling Study Recommendations”). The national transitional justice policy is expected by the end of 2012.  As we wait for this policy to be elaborated, it is important to note how traditional mechanisms are filling the current gap and providing an important avenue for truth-telling in affected communities in the north.

Traditional Acholi justice and reconciliation mechanisms such as mato oput and the myriad of cleansing ceremonies all involve aspects of truth-telling. Mato oput is generally performed in cases of accidental or intentional killing to reconcile the clans of the parties involved. Truth-telling is a key first step toward reconciliation, usually taking the form of negotiations. (The Mato Oput Project, “Community Perspectives on the Mato Oput Process: A Research Study by the Mato Oput Project,” 2009, 35 ). Elders are enlisted as mediators and engage in shuttle diplomacy between the two clans to establish the facts of what occurred.

In one study of mato oput, 59% of respondents remarked that such negotiations were a key aspect of mato oput as practiced in their village and one respondent noted, “Negotiations are at the root of mato oput in order to arrive at a common understanding and to encourage commitment to reconciliation.” (The Mato Oput Project, 14) During this initial step, witnesses from both sides are invited to share what they know until all can agree on what took place. There is no timeline for this process and it can often take years.  Once the truth has been established, compensation is decided upon and the elaborate mato oput ceremony takes place.

Each side is required to provide materials for the ceremony, from goats and sheep to new calabashes, kwete (local brew), and roots from the oput tree. Though the specifics of mato oput differ across clans, they all share the same general principles of voluntariness, mediation of truth, acknowledgment of wrongdoing and reconciliation.  The ceremony itself generally involves ritual killing of sheep or goats, the sharing of a large meal, and drinking of kwete mixed with the oput. The ceremony as a whole symbolizes the end of bitterness between the two groups and the restoration of relations.  It hinges on the perpetrator’s admittance of guilt during the negotiation (truth-telling) phase and the victim’s willingness to forgive.

Traditional ceremonies such as moyo kum (cleansing of the body), laketeket (cleansing a person of a bad spirit that disturbs them – similar to moyo kum, it can be done for a group or individual) and moyo piny (cleansing of an area) that are intended to cleanse bad spirits also involve elements of truth-telling. In order to determine the appropriate type of cleansing ceremony, traditional elders and ceremony performers must first determine the truth about the atrocity committed. When ex-combatants return to their families from the LRA, a trusted family member often sits down with them during the first days and weeks of return and tries to determine what took place in the bush.

One returned LRA fighter explained, “I shared the experience with my parents, because when I came back, a month after my parents had to put me down and ask me, ‘You are from the bush, you need to tell us what you experienced from there. Because could be that you might have killed, and we believe the spirits are following you, so let us know what happened to you in the bush so we see what to do.’” (Male respondent, age 24, individual interview, Lapul sub-county, 15 June 2012)..

Because the consequences of violating Acholi taboos on killing and mistreating dead bodies can extend to the whole clan, family members often take collective responsibility for initiating a process of truth-telling in order to prevent spiritual retaliation.

A detailed account of the atrocity is necessary in order to ensure that the ceremony adequately appeases that spirit of the victim. Even if this account does not come from the returnee himself, it will often be revealed when the ceremony performer consults the angry spirit in order to determine its specific demands. One ceremony participant described, “The elders and other traditional leaders took me to the ajwaka (traditional healer) where I was questioned to explain what actually took place while I was in the bush. So I explained it. Then at the ajwaka’s place, I was made to go through the process of moyo kom, where a goat was killed for cleansing me from those bad experiences.”( Female respondent, age 35, focus group discussion, Paicho sub-county, 19 April 2012.) Although the act of truth-telling exists as part of a larger spiritual cleansing process, it is an integral first step to that process.

By and large people feel that the process of establishing the truth is one of the most important aspects of reconciliation through traditional measures. That said, people are not able to engage with traditional ceremonies as widely as they would like. The long period of war caused a decline in Acholi culture and the youth in particular lack the knowledge to engage with traditional mechanisms. However, since 1999 a strong push for cultural revival has been underway, starting with the restoration of the traditional chiefs (Rwodi). Communities have since been slowly making use of the traditional ceremonies. The primary impediment to engaging in traditional ceremonies, particularly mato oput, has to do with the high cost of materials and compensation. In addition, in the context of war atrocities, it is often difficult to know who the perpetrator was and what clan he/she came from. Despite these issues, people are eager to make use of traditional ceremonies and have “made numerous pragmatic, creative suggestions about adapting [traditional ceremonies] in order to address the unique needs and changes of war.” (The Mato Oput Project, 5.)

As JLOS puts in place a transitional justice policy for Uganda, it is important to consider the role which traditional ceremonies could play in furthering the goals of truth-telling at the local level. Traditional measures can be complementary to state efforts and serve the purpose of fostering healing and reconciliation in addition to truth-telling. ▪

Vicki Esquivel-Korsiak is a Documentation Officer with JRP’s Community Documentation Department. For more information on women and youth experiences with traditional justice see: “Gender and Generation in Acholi Traditional Justice Mechanisms,” JRP, Field Note XVII.