Gacaca courts in Rwanda

Hey everyone-
I know that this class is nearing its end, and that most of us are done with our don rags, but this article was just too perfect.

In the SF Chronicle Sunday paper, there is an article about the Gacaca courts in Rwanda that have been given the task of informally bringing justice to the hundreds of thousands accused of committing acts of genocide. Established in 2001, there still remain about 50,000 to be tried under Gacaca, and the Rwandan government wants to end the Gacaca system by the end of the month. With Rwanda's extreme overpopulation of the prison system (prisoners have an average of 17 inches of living space), and judges trying from 10-15 cases per day, the system is already swamped, and to finish in one month seems ridiculous. The article also brings up questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the courts. Because they are informal, there is no standard for punishment, and defendants can be sent to prison for flimsy reasons. Additionally, many claim that judges are susceptible to authorities. But others argue that the root of the Gacaca court is what matters- that what they are working towards is reconciliation between the two parties, not just establishing responsibility.

To spark some discussion-
-Do you think that the Gacaca courts' flaws are enough to bring them to a close? Or is the idea of informal justice worth more than the potential drawbacks?
-What should be done about the crowding of the prison system? Should justice be delayed to accommodate the huge number of criminals? Should prisoners be sent abroad?