References: In law, there is a general right of appeal to any court decisions in accordance with the rules of appeal procedures. Only the decision made by the Supreme Court may not be appealed, pursuant to article 144 of the constitution:

"The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The decisions of the Supreme Court shall not be subject to appeal save in terms of petitions for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy or revision of a judicial decision. Its decisions are binding on all parties concerned whether such are organs of the State, public officials, civilians, military, judicial officers or private individuals."

References: In practice, appeals are resolved within a reasonable time period. According to Justice Johnston Busingye, a judge of the High Court of the Republic: "Generally appeals are acted upon quickly. But in the Supreme Court and the High court of the Republic there are sometimes inevitable backlogs. This is because the judicial reforms were instituted only three years ago, judges of the high court are still not enough acquainted with the reforms and we have not opened branches outside of Kigali. But the appeals are acknowledged promptly and cases move steadily towards resolution."

David Asiimwe, a private advocate (interview Oct. 4, Kigali) says: "Appeals on criminal cases are generally acted upon quickly, but appeals on civil cases may take years while some appeals may not be acknowledged, and even simple cases may take years to resolve."

References: In practice, citizens can use the appeals mechanism at a reasonable cost, according to James Munganeza, an employees with Forum for Activists Against Torture (FACT) a local human rights nongovernmental organization (NGO) (interview September 30): "The appeals mechanism is an affordable option to both ordinary and middle-class citizens who seek to challenge criminal judgments. The appeals fee is 8,000 Rwandan francs [US$14]maximum."

Justice Johnston Busingye says: "The only big challenge to litigants in Rwanda is in raising the fund to engage an advocate. Advocates are expensive, but the court fees are generally negligible either at first instance or during appeals."

Peer Review Comments: These fees must be put in context. First, how much is it to launch an appeal, and what percentage of average monthly incomes does this represent? I suspect that for Rwandans employed in the formal sector, the appeal process is affordable but for some 80 percent of Rwandans, access the courts is limited, and cost is a real factor.

References: In practice, judgments in the criminal system follow written law according to Emmanuel Butare, a lecturer Kigali Private university: "Pursuant to provisions of the law, every court decision must indicate the grounds on which it is based, be written in its entirety and shall be delivered in open court. A judge's decision must be based on nothing but the law."

According to Justice Sam Rugege (interview October 3): "Judgments in the criminal system are made according to established legal code and conduct. The only exceptional cases in which individuals are treated by a separate process is in the traditional Gacaca court system that deals with the exceptional genocide crimes that involved ordinary citizens."

Peer Review Comments: Judicial impartiality and independence is shaped by corruption as well as political interference from the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). See the 2009 Ombudsman Report which identifies that judiciary as a corrupt institution as well as Human Right Watch's "Law and Realty" (2008).

References: In practice, judicial decisions enforced by the state under the supervision of public court bailiffs soon after the final court ruling according to Justice Sam Rugege (interview October 3).

But the annual report of the National Human Rights Commission, which was presented to Parliament on May 11, said that one of the challenges is the unnecessary delay in execution of definitive and final court decisions.

References: In law, the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed pursuant to article 44 of the constitution: "The judiciary as the guardian of the rights and freedoms of the public ensures respect thereof in accordance with procedures determined by law."

Article 140 of the constitution also provides that : "The Judiciary is independent and separate from the legislative and executive branches of government. Justice is rendered in the name of the people and nobody may be a judge in his or her own cause. They shall not be challenged except through ways and procedures determined by law."

References: In practice, national-level judges are protected from political interference according to the interviewees.

Johnston Busingye, judge of the High Court says that national-level judges operate independently of the political process, without incentive or pressure to render favorable judgments in politically sensitive cases. "We the Judges never comment on political debates because this would mean we are partisans and not impartial legal practitioners."

Harson Mutabazi, a magistrate of the Kigali Court of Higher Instance (interview, Oct. 3, Nyamirambo Suburb, Kigali) says: "We are protected from political or any form of interference; our terms of service are clearly stipulated in the law. We even work in accordance with a code of professional ethics. If any legal practitioner feels the contract has been abused, he or she reserves the right to challenge the decision to the relevant court."

Peer Review Comments: The State or Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has always attempted to influence the judiciary to attain political goals.

In its publication "Law and Reality" (July 2008; [ LINK ]), Human Rights Watch explicitly and credibly points out how the RPF uses the judiciary to fight political opponents.

One high-profile case in point involves former president Pasteur Bizimungu and his co-defendants. After threatening to run against Kagame, Bizimungu was arrested, tried and convicted upon trumped-up charges that were orchestrated by the RPF. He has since been pardoned by Kagame after serving a few years of his 15-year sentence.

Peer Review Comments: I believe this score is inflated. True, there is no official government interference in the judicial process and judges appear to have free reign.

However, In practice, judges are widely known to be corrupt, at both the domestic and "gacaca" court levels. Government interference is common place, and numerous decisions, notably prominent cases dealing with individuals accused of genocide, are shaped by politics. Judges that seek to operate independently are harassed by the government (usually representatives of the Ministry of Justice or Ministry of Local Government) and can be imprisoned, fined or physically intimidated to gain their compliance on how specific rulings will be decided. The government has full control of the military courts.

References: In law, there is a transparent and objective system for distributing cases to national-level judges.

According to Article 5 of the law governing the Supreme Council of the Judiciary: Cases shall be assigned to judges in a transparent and equitable manner in accordance to their competences without any external interferences.

References: In law, national-level judges are protected from removal without relevant justification.

Pursuant to the constitutional provision, article 142: "Unless the law otherwise provides, judges confirmed in office shall hold tenure for life; they shall not be suspended, transferred, even if it is for the purposes of promotion, retired prematurely or otherwise removed from office.

"In the exercise of their functions, judges follow the law and only the law. "The law on the status of judges and other judicial personnel shall determine the remuneration and other benefits due to them."

References: In practice, in the last year, no judges have been physically harmed because of adjudicating corruption cases, according to the Justice Minister Tarcise Karugarama, and Deputy Chief Justice Sam Rugege ((interview October 3).

References: In practice, in the last year, no judges have been killed because of adjudicating corruption cases according to the interviewees mentioned above.

Peer Review Comments: Yes, this practice of killing judges has stopped as the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has further consolidated its control over the socio-political realm.

The genocide suspects were categorized into three sections. The first category of suspects are the planners and supervisors of the genocide and crimes against humanity who are tried in classic international and national courts of law. The other two categories involve individual citizens who were involved in injuring other innocent citizens, stealing their property or destruction of their property on the basis of ethnicity.

References: In practice, judicial decisions are not affected by racial or ethnic bias according to the officials mentioned above.

Emmanuel Butare, a lawyer and lecturer at Kigali Private University, also says: "I have neither heard nor read any court decisions based on racial or ethnic biases."

Peer Review Comments: The first and foremost most prominent judges are Tutsis. Secondly, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) is predominantly Tutsi, Thirdly the so-called political opponents to the RPF are mainly Hutus. So the reality here regarding racial or ethnic bias is anyone's guess.

Peer Review Comments: While the government has outlawed references to ethnicity, it remains the case that certain members of the Rwandan population are targeted for what they have done, or are perceived to have done, during the 1994 genocide. This means that former Hutus are unduly targeted and are largely unable to express themselves in the public sphere. Allegations of corruption are common to coerce the compliance of perceived or real opponents to the vision of the government for rebuilding and reconciling the country.

The "gacaca" courts are not immune to political interference, as the National Service of Gacaca Courts, oversee the process at the local level. "Gacaca" judges tend to be former Tutsis who are seen as persons of integrity in Rwandan society. This all but eliminates former Hutus from public life, albeit subtly as there are no official statistics on how one's ethnicity (as perceived by the state) shapes the justice one receives.

References: "In practice, we have full access to the judicial system like any other citizens. In fact, the post-genocide government has even applied affirmative measures to promote our rights which have been hitherto downtrodden", says Jeanne Akimanzi, a private business lady in Remera, Kigali suburb interview September 30).

According to Jeane D'Arc Mujawamariya, a minister in charge of gender affairs (interview, Oct, 4, in her office in Kigali) says: "Women enjoy full and equal status in the eyes of the courts. There are no exceptions or practices in which women are treated differently by the judicial system."

Peer Review Comments: For peasant women, there is little access to the judiciary. While the national-level legal regime concerning the rights of all women has changed, ostensibly for the better, the fact remains that for peasant, rural women gender discrimination persists, which in turn shapes their access to the judiciary.

References: In law, the state does not provide legal counsel for defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford it; there is no legal requirement for the government to provide impoverished defendants with legal counsel to defend themselves against criminal charges.

References: In practice, the state does not provide adequate legal counsel for defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford it:

"We do not provide it to the accused due to the financial constraints the state also faces," says Justice Minister Tarcise Karugarama. "We only provide legal aid in criminal cases through public prosecutions. We would, of course, wish to help the vulnerable litigants, but cannot afford it. All the government does is to solicit funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and foreign partners."

References: In practice, citizens earning the median yearly income can afford to bring a legal suit. In some cases, according to Tarcise Karugarama, the justice minister, the legal system is an affordable option to middle-class citizens and the elite who seek to redress a grievance. In other cases, the cost is prohibitive because advocates' fees are a significant consideration in whether or not to bring a case.

Emmanuel Butare, a lawyer and lecturer at Kigali Private University, says: "In most cases, ordinary citizens are not ignorant of their rights and even if they do not have the financial strength to engage a private advocate they still address their grievances to the courts."

Ms. Haskell, Human right watch country representative said via e-mail: " winning civil cases in Rwandan courts sometimes depends on how fat the responents' wallet is or how politically influential he/she is. But when it comes to criminal cases, the judge has to be careful or else he is removed in disgrace and this has started happening; recently, it's record 5 judges were sacked in disgrace"

Peer Review Comments: Money plays an important role in the judiciary in not only Rwanda but most African countries, and probably the West. Those who have a lot of money can sometimes buy justice. The reporter's notebook touches on this issue briefly in regard to Karekezi's case and others.

Peer Review Comments: See Human Rights Watch (HRW) 2008.

References: In practice, a typical small retail business can afford to bring a legal suit.

James Karake, a private business man in Kigali says: "For me, the legal system is an affordable option whenever I wish to redress a grievance because I can afford the required costs. But in other cases, the cost is prohibitive and the attorney fees are a significant consideration in whether to bring a case to court."

But Tarcise Karugarama, the justice minister, says that the main obstacle to ordinary people is the exorbitant cost of private advocates.

Peer Review Comments: Again, it depends on who the business is bring a suit against. If they are bringing a suit against a city tycoon, the tycoon will always prevail.

References: In practice, all citizens have access to a court of law, regardless of their geographic location according to the Justice Minister Tarcise Karugarama: "The primary objective of the judicial reforms that were implemented a few years ago was to ensure that courtrooms are accessible to citizens at low cost, from rural courthouse up to the sector level."

"At least now one does not have to travel many kilometers by taxi to reach the court premises; at each and every sector, there is a Court of Primary Instance with full-time judicial personnel to attend to the regular complainants," says Charles Havuga, Chairman of the Kayonza sector in the Eastern Province (interview, Sept. 29.)

Peer Review Comments: If you live in Kigali or one of Rwanda's town (Gisenyi, Butare, Gitarama, etc) justice is accessible. For those living in remote rural areas (an estimated 65 percent of the population), the courts are not readily accessible.