Evelyn Amony and Olive Ederu

IN 2008, THE GOVERNMENT of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army signed the annex to the principal Agreement of the Juba Peace Agreement on accountability and reconciliation which elaborates how perpetrators should be held accountable for crimes committed during the conflict. In line with this, the Government of Uganda established the International Crimes Division of the High Court to try individuals accused of committing war crimes, crimes of genocide, terrorism and crimes against humanity. The Court fired into action in 2011 by opening the trial of Thomas Kwoyelo who was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

During a dialogue held by the Gender Justice Department at JRP with the Women’s Advocacy Network (WAN) on prosecution as a transitional justice mechanism in September 2012, the women members presented a number of cross cutting issues which premise on the effectiveness of prosecution in delivering the desired justice and reconciliation. As much as accountability for crimes committed during conflict has been welcomed by women survivors, the lingering question has been whether all the “perpetrators” will be investigated and subsequently prosecuted.

 The conflict in northern Uganda produced three categories of survivors: the formerly abducted and the formerly displaced or a combination of the two. While many women who were abducted were widely believed to have been violated (raped, forced into marriage or sexual slavery among other violations) by the LRA, those who were who were forced into internally displaced persons camps during the war also endured sexual violations at the hands of their supposed protectors, the Government soldiers and a few by the rebel forces. An example is Adong (not her real name) who after her abduction was forced to become a wife to an LRA commander. She lived in captivity for three years and begot two children. Upon her return, she was forcefully taken by a Government soldier and forced to marry him. The soldier even threatened to shoot Adong’s mother if she objected and went as far as criticising the locals for “freely” giving out the daughters to the LRA and not the Uganda People’s Defence Force. Many girls who escaped from captivity were tortured and raped by the Government soldiers after their “rescue”.

Yet another tale is told of one of the Aboke girls who after being shot on the leg sought refuge from the UPDF who instead raped her to death. In other quarters, men have opened up and given chilling testimonies of being sodomised by UPDF soldiers. The people of Atiak will never forget the day a commander of the UPDF stormed the market on auction day and demanded the people to give up the relatives of LRA commander Otti Vincent. When the people refused to comply he coughed as a sign for his troops to fire. What happened in the next minutes can only be described as a scene in a horror movie with the soldiers firing indiscriminately at the people with bullets and killing about 200 that day. A young girl at the time described the scene:

The soldiers begun shooting randomly at the women and they started falling down. I was hidden under a bale of clothes. It was my first time to see a dead body. The women seemed to be sleeping but blood oozed from them.

Such are but a few examples of experiences of the many who suffered violations from both warring parties.

 A perpetrator turned dispenser of justice

Another issue is that many perceive current transitional justice mechanisms as reflecting a scenario where the perpetrator has turned prosecutor and dispenser of justice. Government soldiers allegedly committed atrocities and therefore to have the same institution championing prosecution seems to many to be a mockery of justice. The fear is that the targeting LRA Commanders reflects a level of impartiality which is undesirable. The scenario can best be expressed by the saying “nobody can prick his or her own eyes”.

Related to this is the aspect of witness protection. Fear of losing one’s life and that of immediate family following testimonies for or against an accused continue to linger in the minds of potential witnesses, this coupled with the risk of having the prosecutorial guns turned on a witness (though the later has been somewhat dispelled by grant of certificates of amnesty) raise pertinent issues and show the challenges that lie ahead in accomplishing the objectives of accountability for past violations through prosecution. It is a rule of thumb that for a mechanism to succeed it requires local support and participation thereof and since prospective witnesses are usually the local population if they refuse to testify in cases and cut tail the whole agenda.

 From the above excerpts, to beat the drum of accountability by way of prosecuting the alleged “perpetrators” while targeting one party and ignoring the other by no means results into meaningful justice. If proper accountability is to be achieved, then both the LRA and the UPDF commanders should face trial at the ICC or the ICD in order for the weighing scales of justice to balance. The other side of the coin should be flipped, otherwise we may never know what lies beneath and past events may never be resolved. 

Nancy Apiyo

In our work at the Justice and Reconciliation Project, we have found that survivors of the conflict tend to have different views on prosecution – while some think there is need for prosecution others think that it is better to forgive and move on. Some of the views of the victims change over time depending on various factors such as lack of trust in the prosecutorial institutions both locally and internationally or lack of knowledge on transitional justice processes. The different views of the women on the same subject illustrates that transitional justice processes should be enforced together to complement each other depending on the society, nature and context of the conflict.

Jolly and Maggie* were abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army and stayed for over five years in captivity. They have differing views on prosecution as a form of accountability for the atrocities committees during the war. In this interview with Gender Justice Project Officer, Nancy Apiyo, They share their views with us.

* Not their real names.

Jolly

Voices Magazine: What is your view on prosecution?

Those who were responsible for heinous crimes should be prosecuted so that they are accountable for what they did, if not it will continue. When they want to repeat the same thing in the future they will know that they can be held accountable. If people are prosecuted it will stop others from doing the same. It is good for people to be accountable for what they did. There are laws that forbid actions committed during the war [and] everyone is subject to those laws.

Who should be prosecuted for war crimes?

People should be prosecuted depending on their crimes or what they did. Low ranked soldiers should be punished even if they are given a lighter punishment. Not only top commanders have to be punished. For example junior commanders also raped women without Kony’s orders. Therefore they should be given punishment and not let to go free because they can also go to the bush on their own. They broke orders and brought problems to top commanders by committing crimes which the commanders had forbidden.

Can prosecution lead to restoration?

If those who committed atrocities are prosecuted people can heal from what they did. If they are left to go free people feel bad. It should be up to people to decide the time of sentence depending on if people have forgiven the person or not. Some commanders also feel safer and have less guilt conscience when they are in prison. The punishment should not be death sentence but just a few years to make them pay for what they did.

Should women who committed crimes be punished?

No woman in the Lord’s Resistance Army committed crimes that deserve punishment. They had children and could not get time to commit crimes. They had to protect their children. Women went to loot food most of the time to survive.

[But] if women committed heinous crimes they should also be accountable and prosecuted so that other women do not do the same. People have to abide by the law and not vice versa.

Maggie

What is your view on prosecution?

It is not good to prosecute because people who are still in the bush may decide not to come back home. There is no need for prosecution. Everyone is capable of committing a crime. If someone is forgiven he can become human again. It also helps those still in the bush to return. It is not right to prosecute when other people are still in the bush.

What if everyone had returned?

It is not good to prosecute. If someone asks for forgiveness they should be forgiven. If there is genuine forgiveness people should be let free. No one went to the bush willingly. No one went to a training wing so as to join the rebels. Everyone was abducted. Everyone should be forgiven. It is not good to imprison. It is important to know what crime someone committed. There is no need of imprisoning someone innocent. 

How can people be held accountable?

If someone accepts committing the crime, he or she is already accountable. When he or she asks for forgiveness that is accountability.  If he or she asks for forgiveness from the government, he or she should be forgiven. Forgiveness is very good. If someone surrenders from fighting he or she has asked for forgiveness. By the time someone asks for forgiveness, it is as though he or she has said ‘I am sorry I did bad and I want to return to stay with people’.

How can impunity be stopped?

If the person asks for forgiveness and does not repeat the crime, it means he is remorseful and will not do it again.  

Isaac Okwir Odiya

In the West Nile sub-region of Uganda, as may be the case in other parts of Uganda and the rest of the world, former combatants of a rebel movement and members of the very community to whom crimes were perpetrated are living a parallel lives. West Nile experienced rebel activities of the Uganda National Rescue Front (UNRF) I and II which was characterised by the looting of civilians’ properties and killings, displacement and abduction among others. The rebel group is claimed to have started as a protest against bad government policies and unfair treatment to people of West Nile. Through peace negotiation, the Government of Uganda and the rebel group signed a peace agreement which returned the rebels back home. The rebels of UNRF I and II were pardoned by the Government after denouncing war and were resettled to their respective communities.

Community outreaches are one of Community Mobilisation’s core activities and helps to engage conflict affected communities to disseminate and discuss transitional justice issues in their communities. In 2012, we engaged community members of Lefori Sub-county, Moyo District in a community dialogue to discuss with them post conflict challenges and opportunity for reconciliation within their region. The dialogue was attended by former rebels of UNRF I and II and members of the community who suffered the brunt of the two rebels groups. The discussion presented a parameter of co-existence between former rebels and other members of the community characterised by victims’ grievances on towards the former rebels for the atrocities imposed onto them.

Victims claim that the rebels looted their properties, killed their spouses, disrupted the education of their children and displaced their communities. Because of this they are not able to provide basic requirements to their families. They also claim that the Government has pardoned and resettled people who perpetuated crimes against them, forgetting the losses they incurred. To them, the former rebels have been well resettled and the Government has pledged to give them more resettlement packages despite the atrocities they committed on the civilians. Victims are living a parallel life with former rebels whom they claim are the source of their suffering and state of helplessness. They hold former rebels responsible and want them to account for their losses.

On the other hand, the former rebels of UNRF I and II claim that they went to the bush in demand for their rights which were being violated by the Government of Uganda and while in the bush, they did everything possible to attract the attention of the Government to listen to them. The Government responded to their plea in a round table discussion during which Government delegates pledged to better their condition of living if they denounce war which they did and reported back home. They claim that the Government promised to pay them resettlement packages to start a new life but this promise has never been fulfilled. Just like victims are holding former rebels accountable for the losses they met during the war, former rebels are aggrieved towards the Government of Uganda for returning them home empty handed and not fulfilling their pledge.

To the former rebels victims fail to understand their point of view, blame them for wrongs committed during the conflict and as such have not fully accepted them in the community. Victims are disassociating them from development opportunities in the area and are not cooperating with them in community social events. All sorts of continuing evils and criminal acts in the community are blamed on them. Having been failed by the Government to properly resettle them into the community and following all sorts of accusation and abuses by members of the community, ex-combatant thinks they have been pardoned for easy prosecution at a later time.

In this context therefore, it is important to note that the principle of accountability for crimes committed during conflict and the needs for reconciliation are fundamental in a post conflict situation. The parallel life between ex-combatants and victims in West Nile is a result of lack of accountability and a mechanism to foster reconciliation in the region. The resettlement of former rebel into their communities was not systematic and instead should have been used to help to foster social acceptance and reconcile victims and former rebels in as far as their needs are concerns thus the approach used did not address the future justice needs of victims and ex-combatants. The resettlement of ex-combatants lacked the involvement of community members by way of participating in the peace process which is why the ex-combatants are not easily accepted home. This would have helped to connect members of the community with former rebels during resettlement and own the process of resettling former rebels back home.

To address the injustices causing pain among victims and ex-combatants, accountability should be made through a dialogue meeting in which apologies should be made to victims for the crime committed onto them. This would foster social acceptance of ex-combatants by way of forgiveness and enhance a mutual co-existence among members of the parties. The return of former rebels has promoted political stability with marked end of atrocities on the civilians in the region but what is required to be done is addressing obstacle to mutual co-existence after resettlement. Therefore stakeholders in peace making and conflict resolution should pay close attention to dialogue to reconcile victims of rebels’ atrocities and former rebels in West Nile. 

Evelyn Akullo Otwili

IN THE COURSE of the conflict in northern Uganda serious crimes of concern to Ugandans as a whole – particularly regular use of torture, murder, abductions and forceful displacement – were perpetuated against civilian populations in places like Palabek, Burcoro, Lukome, Awach, Alero, Acholi Bur, Purongo, and Namukora  in the 1990’s not only by LRA but also by State Actors. As early as the 1990’s, Amnesty International reported inhumane acts by the then National Resistance Army (NRA). A particularly serious set of human rights violations are reported by a several sources to have taken place between 16 and 18 April 1991 in Paicho Sub-County in Gulu District. On these dates people from villages around Burcoro were brought to a temporary NRA camp at Burcoro primary school for “screening”. NRA soldiers rounding people up are alleged to have done so in a violent manner, beating some of those held (see ‘Uganda: Human rights violations by the National Resistance Army’. Amnesty International. December, 1991). There were also reports of rape, torture and extrajudicial execution. JRP in its work has also come up with similar report on Palabek (see ‘When A Gunman Speaks, You Must Listen’, JRP Field Note XV, August 2012) and Mukura. These treatments of civilians were not only inhumane but seem to portray a pattern of consistent human rights violation across northern Uganda, leaving the people with very many unanswered questions.

In Palabek, charges are yet to be brought on Captain Abiriga. To date, not only has his identity remained a mystery but also the silence surrounding this man and his atrocities in Palabek is unbecoming. While documenting the experiences of the victims in Palabek, we discovered that most of the tortures, beatings, rapes and killings by the NRA soldiers in Palabek in the early 1990’s happened under the mastership of Captain  Abiriga. All the available options seem to exonerate him – he can’t be tried in the ICD nor the ICC. Other than the sound in his name, nothing much seems to be known about him. Should we now say he goes unpunished? The victims feel otherwise.

In Burcoro a similar situation, where countless rape episodes, torture, killings by suffocation, abductions and loot were carried out by the 22nd Battalion of the NRA, allegedly under the command of Ikondere. Much as this was 1991, the brutality and cruelty that these soldiers displayed on unarmed civilians can only be compared to the ravage of beasts. Much as the hurts and ruins inflicted upon this population still stand out up to today, nothing much has been done to hold the perpetrators of these crimes accountable. Time and again some individuals have attempted to explain that these were a “bunch of foolish boys who went on rampage”. Do we believe that? Do the victims believe that? Shall we ever travel that road to bring justice? It remains nothing but a road less traveled.

 What has been done to remedy these rights violations? Have these NRA commanders ever been held accountable or silently rewarded and promoted? Where are they? Shall we ever travel that road which will see us hold these people accountable and bring justice to the victims in Palabek, Burcoro, Lukome, Awach, Namukora, Mucwini and even Mukura? For the two decades that open violence raged some of those questions were too hard to be asked or the road was too ‘bushy’ to be traveled. A lot of the politicians who drummed this cry such as Zacary Olum, Andrew Adimola and Teberio Atwoma found themselves tortured and imprisoned for allegedly ‘using government fund to wrongly mobilise the masses’ according to Amnesty International. It became extremely difficult for anyone to stand up against this brutal violence lest the same happen to them. When the ‘serious’ Juba peace talk of 2008 finally came, many civilian populations expected part of these questions to be answered. Unfortunately these questions remained more mysterious and eluded all tangible possible answers.

Yes, peace has returned to the region but the question of accountability and possible prosecution of state actors especially has eluded the victims and northern Uganda as a whole.

Instead of providing a viable solution, the Juba Peace Agreement called for the handling of State Actors through other methods such as Court Martial. This has created frustration for the victims in some of the places aforementioned, who bore the wrath of these state actors. None of them can concretely say a court of this nature has happened in relation to their specific sufferings. Many feel that even if there were to be such a court, its outcome would always remain unpredictable because not only are their proceedings closed to the public but they are more often than not conducted by the army leadership. Victim participation in these courts is also unheard of. This makes them feel that the road to hold state actors accountable is yet to be traveled.

Which road should victims travel?

As noted from the experiences of these communities, most of the crimes committed by the NRA were crimes before 2002. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court only allows the Court to deal with crimes committed after the 1st of July 2002. Therefore, while peace is here and recovery is underway, where will accountability of State Actors be? Not with the ICC of course.

Can the victims travel the road of the International Crimes Division (ICD) of the High Court – formed as a result of the negotiations between the Government of Uganda and the LRA for trying LRA leaders in Uganda? As much as this would have been another viable option, the timing of the violations makes it less traveled as well.

As I conclude, there is need for state actors to be held accountable in other fora other than the court martial and this can only happen when there is a political will for it. 

Lino Owor Ogora

AS NORTHERN UGANDA continues on its road to recovery, complex questions remain unanswered regarding how perpetrators who committed crimes during the conflict can be held accountable. One of these complicated questions is how to hold accountable individuals who bear dual victim-perpetrator identities. Another key question is whether or not amnesty should be granted to former perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Debates on reparations, and what forms it will take, also continue to dominate the post-conflict discourse in northern Uganda. Then there is the question of how to hold state perpetrators accountable and finally, what options can be pursued as alternatives to prosecutions. The ongoing trial of Colonel Thomas Kwoyelo before Uganda’s International Crimes Division (ICD) offers a case study of how the pursuit of justice in northern Uganda is complicated by various factors.

 Colonel Thomas Kwoyelo is the first senior commander of the LRA to be subjected to trial in Uganda’s International Crimes Division (ICD) court. He was born around 1972 to Oyella Roselina from Gaya Parubanga in Pabo and the late Jokodino Omona Opototap from Cici clan in Pogo. He was the fourth child out of eleven children of which only seven (three boys and four girls) survived, with the other four dying in their infancy. In line with his paternal lineage, Kwoyelo’s ancestry is traced to the Cici clan, who mostly hail from Acut-Cama village, Pogo parish, Pabo sub-county in present-day Amuru District, northern Uganda. He is said to have been abducted by the LRA in 1987 and carried off into captivity where he was trained into a soldier. Over the years, he rose through the ranks and eventually became one of the high ranking LRA commanders. In February 2009 he was captured by the UPDF and detained for a few months before being presented in court in July 2009.

On 11 July 2011, he appeared before the ICD charged with 12 substantive counts and 53 alternative counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity to which he pleaded not guilty. His defense lawyers then raised a preliminary objection concerning the question of whether or not Kwoyelo was entitled to amnesty. The question of amnesty sparked off a succession of court battles between the prosecution and the defense team, culminating in a referral of the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which is yet to make a ruling on this matter. Clause 3 of Uganda’s Amnesty Act of 2000 offers pardon to, “…any Ugandan who has at any time since the 26th day of January, 1986, engaged in or is engaging in war or armed rebellion against the government of the Republic of Uganda.”

On 25 May 2012, Part 2 of this Act, regarding the awarding of Amnesty expired. Despite the fact that there will be no more granting of amnesty to future reporters, the case of Thomas Kwoyelo may have established a precedent for future cases that could come up for trial before the ICD. In the absence of official granting of amnesty, questions will remain regarding which perpetrators qualify for prosecution before the ICD and which perpetrators need to be handled through other alternative justice mechanisms such as traditional justice.

In addition, the fate of adult commanders of the LRA who were abducted as children and turned into the perpetrators they are today has been a topic of substantial discussion. People like Kwoyelo carry dual identities in which they can be labeled victims and perpetrators at the same time. Having been abducted while young and vulnerable, Kwoyelo was a victim. Having committed crimes after the age of 18 years, Kwoyelo should take responsibility for his actions. On the other hand, any human rights activists and proponents of accountability proceedings frequently insist that on becoming adults, such individuals need to take full responsibility for their actions. The dual victim-perpetrator identity presents a dilemma which needs to be solved when handling future perpetrators of the LRA.

As the ICD goes about its mission of ending impunity in Uganda, discussions on reparations must not be left out. According to the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, victims of gross and serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law are entitled to reparations for harm suffered. Some generally accepted forms of reparations include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. These reparations may be delivered materially or symbolically, and individually or collectively. For the ICD to truly serve the interests of victims in northern Uganda, reparations must be integrated into the trial process, regardless of trial outcomes. A comprehensive reparations programme by the Government, implemented in conjunction with the ICD, can go a long way in delivering justice to victims of conflict in northern Uganda.

Furthermore, another complex question is how to hold all perpetrators of crimes accountable. In northern Uganda, it is a known fact that all armed parties to the conflict, including state and non-state actors, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the civilian population. The Juba agreement, however, does not subject state actors or the UPDF in this instance, to prosecution in special courts such as the ICD which were created as a result of the peace negotiations. This is why many people in northern Uganda will continue reiterating their call for prosecution of state actors within the ICD.

Finally, the case of Thomas Kwoyelo also points to the fact that the time has perhaps come to consider options for using alternative justice mechanisms. This would include the use of traditional justice mechanisms to promote reconciliation, truth-seeking and healing between Kwoyelo’s clan and that of his victims. Many representatives of civil society organizations on the ground have advocated for the use of traditional ceremonies to rehabilitate Kwoyelo. Many local residents of Pabo pointed out that after the community is sensitized and ready to receive Kwoyelo back, traditional rituals will be necessary for reconciliation and rehabilitation. However, respondents also had reservations about traditional justice, specifically regarding the fact that ceremonies like mato oput might not be appropriate for Kwoyelo’s situation. Mato oput requires the participation of the perpetrator’s clan as well as clan members of the victim. Nevertheless, Kwoyelo’s trial demonstrated that court prosecution alone may not be the answer to holding perpetrators of crimes accountable. In the event that trials end in a stalemate or cases against perpetrators are dismissed, there is need to promote reconciliation and healing between perpetrators and victims on the ground. Alternative mechanisms are best suited for this.

 In conclusion, questions will remain pending regarding how to go about pursuing justice in northern Uganda. As demonstrated by the trial of Colonel Thomas Kwoyelo, these questions are complex, and will require an enormous amount of work before appropriate solutions are found. 

Dear Readers,

In this edition of Voices magazine we take a look at accountability for gross human rights violations. The contributions in this issue explore the local context of justice and suggest that Ugandans are at a dilemma when it comes to justice for crimes committed during the conflict in northern Uganda. A one size fits all approach doesn’t necessarily apply to victims of conflict.

At JRP, we believe that a bottom to top approach to accountability is the best solution for communities decimated by conflict. We have learnt from the experiences of other countries that transitional justice interventions, ranging from truth commissions, international and national trials, reparations and security sector reforms have helped societies move beyond the past. And yet despite this, in some places such interventions, no matter how well meaning they may be, have made very little difference in the lives of ordinary people.

For more than 20 years, northern Uganda was home to numerous rebellions against the Government of Uganda – most notably the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony. In 2000, an amnesty law was enacted in an attempt to put an end to the bloodshed. The Amnesty Act introduced a simple, non-onerous procedure by which people previously involved in rebellion could renounce violence and return to the community.

To date, tens of thousands of former combatants have returned, taking advantage of government amnesty. Some of the most senior commanders live under the protection and support of the government in military barracks away from the community who suffered violence they perpetuated. The majority, however, have found themselves returning and living side by side with those communities. There, they must co-exist with the very persons against whom they committed atrocities. Many have also opted to join the military, seeing no future for themselves within the community.

Adding to this tension is the fact that the war is not yet over. Kony and his senior commanders remain at large and are on the run causing mayhem in neighboring countries; abducting new children and training them. How do we address the problems that will arise when thousands of ex-combatants return to villages and seek to live alongside victims of the conflict? 

Many people have pointed to prosecution. Ugandans needs no reminder that the intervention of the ICC remains controversial. It is argued that the indictments pushed the LRA to the negotiation table, but on the other hand, the indictments have arguably made negotiations with the LRA more difficult, because Joseph Kony declared that he will not surrender until the ICC indictments are lifted. This stance continues to make many in the North view the ICC as an obstacle to peace —at least in the short term – given the military operations in the region. We are also reminded that punitive approaches alone are limited in their ability to address the complex situation in northern Uganda.

A narrow, punishment-oriented definition of justice is deeply problematic as it does not take into account the political and social dynamics of the conflict or peace building. Paying too much attention to the prosecution of perpetrators may cause one to disregard the pattern of abduction and use of extreme violence used by the LRA to force the will of its commanders. It also does not take into account the widely held view of northern Ugandans that their society as a whole is the collective victim of historical injustice: It does not, for example, take into account the longstanding injustices perpetrated by  the government (such as those in Corner Kilak and Mukura, to mention but a few).

The major concern, therefore, is that a punitive approach to accountability leads to a narrow solution which has the potential to skew our pursuit for justice. Where do we draw the line between the victim and the perpetrator? Many of the articles in this magazine attest to these and other the challenges of accountability and prosecution in northern Uganda.

I wish to thank every contributor and members of JRP staff for this month’s publications. 

Boniface Ojok,

Programme Coordinator

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.