SAM Organization for Rights and Liberties and the Association of Abductees’ Mothers have released a research study titled “Prospects for Implementing Transitional Justice in Yemen: A Comparative Study with the Rwandan Experience”, authored by researcher Adel Dashila as part of the SPARK Project supported by the DTI Institute. The study explores the prospects of achieving transitional justice in Yemen after years of conflict and highlights lessons learned from Rwanda’s post-genocide transformation—from a nation torn apart by atrocities into a model of national reconciliation and state reconstruction.
The paper analyzes the structural, political, and social challenges facing any future transitional justice process in Yemen. It draws a comparative framework between the Yemeni and Rwandan contexts in terms of institutional structure, legal environment, reparation mechanisms, community reconciliation, and national memory. The aim is to derive practical approaches that could be adapted locally to achieve a just and lasting peace.
The study centers on a key question: How can Yemen benefit from Rwanda’s experience in transitional justice to address the legacy of war and achieve sustainable national reconciliation? It notes that post-genocide Rwanda (after 1994) developed a multi-layered justice model combining the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, national and military courts, and Gacaca community courts rooted in customary traditions, alongside comprehensive programs for reparations, memory-building, and institutional reform. Despite the different roots of conflict—ethnic in Rwanda and political/territorial in Yemen—the study argues that key aspects of Rwanda’s experience can be localized in Yemen, particularly by revitalizing tribal customs as complementary mechanisms for restorative justice, designing hybrid compensation programs combining material and symbolic reparations, and establishing an inclusive national memory framework.
According to the findings, Rwanda’s relative success relied on three decisive factors: military victory that unified the state, a strong centralized political will, and the innovative use of Gacaca courts that relieved the formal judiciary while promoting public participation in truth-telling and reparations. Yemen, by contrast, still lacks unified authority and shared political will. Its judicial, security, educational, and media institutions are fragmented, and the influence of non-state armed groups and regional actors complicates the scene—making comprehensive criminal justice both politically and socially costly under current conditions.
Tracing Yemen’s transitional justice trajectory, the paper reviews debates that began after the February 11, 2011 revolution—from youth demands for accountability, through the Gulf Initiative’s negotiated justice that granted immunity in exchange for political transition, to the National Dialogue Conference (2013–2014) discussions of a transitional justice law and reparations fund. The 2014 coup and the subsequent all-out war in 2015 derailed that process and erased the fragile groundwork laid for reform, plunging the country into open conflict that halted consensus on justice mechanisms, timelines, and scope.
The study outlines major challenges facing both criminal accountability and reparations: a fragmented judiciary, weak enforcement capacity, divided security and military institutions, overlapping victim-perpetrator roles among warring parties, and an overwhelming backlog of cases and damages exceeding the state’s financial and administrative capacity. It warns that a “do-everything-at-once” approach is unrealistic and advocates a phased strategy prioritizing achievable steps—such as reparations, local restorative justice, and systematic truth documentation that could pave the way for accountability in the future.
Examining the Rwandan case, the study describes how Gacaca courts, rooted in traditional community justice, became a vital component of Rwanda’s post-genocide recovery. They allowed open testimonies, offender confessions, public apologies, and participatory reconciliation through social, symbolic, and material means. This helped ease prison overcrowding and accelerated reparative processes from the grassroots level. The study acknowledges criticisms of Gacaca, including risks of witness intimidation, limited access to legal counsel, local bias, pressure for public confessions, inadequate protection for victims of sexual violence, marginalization of minorities like the Twa, and the perception of “victor’s justice.” Nevertheless, their low cost, inclusivity, and procedural efficiency enabled Rwanda to process about 1.2 million cases (2001–2012) and foster horizontal social healing.
On reparations, the report highlights Rwanda’s Genocide Survivors Support and Assistance Fund (FARG), housing and health programs, educational and economic empowerment initiatives, and poverty-reduction projects like “Girinka” (One Cow per Poor Family). It also underscores symbolic measures—six national memory sites (Kigali, Murambi, Nyamata, Ntarama, Bisesero, and Nyarubuye)—linking remembrance, education, and awareness to combat hate speech and prevent recurrence. Legislative reforms and institution-building in media, education, and justice sectors tied reconciliation to national unity, though the study notes the potential risk of a single, state-dominated narrative that may marginalize alternative memories.
In Yemen, the study observes resilient tribal and customary systems historically effective in dispute resolution. These could be institutionalized as supportive—not substitute—mechanisms within a transparent legal framework under state oversight. It points to emerging local reconciliation and restitution initiatives, and growing public preference for peace and dialogue, indicating social readiness for reconciliation once institutional and political guarantees are established. Expanding these efforts, the study argues, requires clear governance, grievance channels, and inclusion of women, youth, and victims themselves in design, implementation, and monitoring.
Structurally, the comparison identifies both similarities and contrasts. Both contexts demand a hybrid justice model merging formal and traditional systems to enhance access, reduce costs, and strengthen participation. Yet Rwanda benefited from a centralized state and cohesive leadership, while Yemen faces institutional fragmentation, multiple armed factions, and heavy regional involvement. Hence, a comprehensive political agreement linking ceasefire to immediate justice, reconciliation, and institutional reform is essential. The study also contrasts Rwanda’s reform of its media sector—redirected toward unity and anti-hate messaging—with Yemen’s polarized media landscape that fuels division, urging professional, ethical, and legal reforms to promote truth-telling, acknowledgment, and social recovery.
Practically, the study outlines three strategic pathways:
Structured community justice: unify and codify customary rules under human-rights safeguards; form local mediation and arbitration committees for lesser violations while referring grave crimes to specialized courts; ensure transparent selection of mediators with integrity and independence; and provide training in human rights, session management, and witness protection, with limited appeal mechanisms to address abuse.
Comprehensive, phased reparations: combine symbolic measures (public apologies, reinstatement ceremonies, property restitution, local memorials) with psychosocial and economic support. A national reparations fund—supported by public budgets, international aid, and assessed fines—should prioritize the most affected groups (widows, orphans, survivors of sexual violence, the missing and their families) through transparent criteria and monitoring mechanisms.
Inclusive national memory: establish a National Memory Museum/Archive documenting all victims without discrimination, alongside educational programs, research centers, and hate-speech observatories. Introduce national remembrance days transcending regional or sectarian divides, support local documentation initiatives linked to a unified digital platform, and reform media and education policies to foster equal citizenship and criminalize incitement and discrimination.
At the institutional level, the study stresses that any political settlement must include a binding transitional justice and institutional reform plan—unifying the judiciary, ending administrative and legal fragmentation, restructuring and integrating security forces under state authority, and updating legislation to ensure accountability, reparations, truth, and protection for victims and witnesses. Success depends on shared political will, independent oversight, and a realistic, phased timeline consistent with state capacity.
The recommendations assign complementary roles:
Civil society organizations should continue systematic documentation and maintain verifiable databases;
Political, tribal, and religious actors should initiate a dialogue on a minimum platform for justice that favors fairness over revenge;
The UN envoy and international partners should provide funding, expertise, and capacity-building, while pressing for a clear transitional justice roadmap with measurable outcomes;
Customary mechanisms should be activated as regulated auxiliaries, linking political reconciliation to justice to secure durable peace.
The study also calls for addressing narrative fragmentation in Yemen through a national memory project preserving all victims’ stories and preventing the monopolization of history by any single party—an ethical and political prerequisite to avoiding recurrence of conflict. Field and social data, including the high public preference for reconciliation, indicate community readiness to embrace restorative justice if legal and institutional guarantees are ensured.
In conclusion, the paper asserts that transitional justice is not merely about courts or compensation but a comprehensive national project encompassing truth-seeking, reparations, institutional reform, and inclusive memory-building. The most viable scenario for Yemen, it concludes, is a consensual justice model—not victor’s justice—rooted in a permanent ceasefire and binding political agreement that re-establishes state authority, fosters accountability within realistic parameters, and rebuilds national identity. By adapting Rwanda’s lessons to its local context, Yemen can develop an indigenous path to justice that honors victims, repairs institutions, restores social trust, and ultimately breaks the cycle of recurrent violence.