The Foreign Service Journal, October 2007

eage on the hillside. Without doubt this court had jurisdiction. Emile gave me the gist of the con- fession. Nahimana had joined the killing bands late, only because he was coerced to do so by agents of the bur- gomaster. He was assigned to help hunt down Tutsis who had fled from their homesteads and hidden in the papyrus swamps. He admitted he participated in searches and was com- pelled by his companions to “chop” two boys — teenagers he did not know — found that first day. Thus blooded, Evariste was included in the evening feast of roasted goat meat — an animal seized and slaughtered by other marauders that day. Thereafter, Nahimana confessed, he went to do the “work” required of him by his band. He witnessed sever- al more killings, but did no more chopping himself. He added that he went with heavy heart and thrashed about in the swamps without truly searching for Tutsis. Once, however, he spotted two women, Agnes and Felicia, hiding, cringing in fear with only their mouths poked above the murky water. He motioned to them not to be afraid, then directed nearby hunters to move along. The task before the Gacaca court was to hear testimony about Nahi- mana in order to prove or disprove his statement. First, a survivor spoke, recounting the known facts that several hundred Tutsis from this hillside had been massacred. He recited their family names. Some died when the intera- hamwe (Hutu paramilitary thugs) attacked the mission church nearby, others in their homes, more at road- blocks mounted by the burgomaster’s militia; and still more were chopped or bludgeoned to death after being dragged from the swamps. While the leaders were well known, few lived to identify the killers. Outraged, the victim shook his fin- ger at the assembly stating, “We demand justice. End impunity. Don’t let those who killed and their families conspire to silence.” He concluded that Evariste was a self-confessed kil- ler, his allegation of mercy probably invented, and that he deserved his fate. Then a woman, a neighbor of Nahimana’s, stated her conviction that Evariste was fundamentally a good man from a known family. Sadly, like many in the commune, he had suc- cumbed to the madness of the moment. She believed his reluctance to participate in events and his sparing of the Tutsi women. A Gacaca judge inquired whether Agnes or Felicia survived. After some murmuring, someone responded that she had heard that Agnes did live, but that she was in Kigali and had never returned to her home hillside. The judge asked if anyone could substanti- ate the granting of mercy to the two women. No one responded. A man who lived near the swamp acknowledged that he had seen Evariste among the band that prowl- ed the edges of the swamp and prob- ed its depths. He said he was told by others from the band that the defen- dant chopped the two boys. He added that their bodies probably still lay unrecovered, sunken into the dark, vegetation-choked water. With little else to be said, the judges deliberated among themselves. After a half-hour or so, the president delivered their verdict. Nahimana’s act of mercy could not be substantiat- ed; but his commission of murder was affirmed. He was to be returned to prison to serve another five years. On the drive back to Kigali, Emile expressed satisfaction with the ver- dict. He confided that if not for my presence — that is, a white foreigner critically observing the proceedings — Nahimana would probably have gotten off easier. He added that Evariste’s act of mercy had really occurred. His cousin Agnes had con- firmed it to him. “But,” I remonstrat- ed, “you made no acknowledgement. You should have spoken out.” “No,” Emile replied. “The two boys he killed were my brothers.” 50 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 7 Nahimana’s act of mercy could not be substantiated; but his commission of murder was affirmed.