The rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction implementation practices: A human right-based analysis of the Rwandan experience

Abstract This study provides a right-based analysis of the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction implementation practices in Rwanda. It answers the mode of implementation of the ICTR and the Gacaca court system and assessed the consistency of these mechanisms with HRBA principles using a qualitative-content approach. The study revealed the consistency of ICTR operations with the HRBA principle on the rule of law; yet, the Gacaca court system appeared the opposite. Therefore, the need to identify and strengthen specific rule of law mechanisms to prosecute respective human rights and humanitarian law violations to reduce clashes. The study recommends sanctions be applied to all perpetrators of international crimes in accordance with their level of perpetration.


Introduction
The rule of law is defined as the processes and procedures in governance where all entities, persons, and institutions (both public and private) deemed accountable to the laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated and consistent with international human rights standards (Hout, 2020). It is the practice that seeks to create an enabling environment that allows the acceptable laws of the land to rule, but not the feelings or the wishes of an institution or an individual. According to research, the rule of law is key in coordinating peace Harry Amankwaah ABOUT THE AUTHOR Harry Amankwaah is a Human Rights Analyst, the Right to Education Advocate, and Tutor. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from the University of Ghana, Legon, and his Master of Philosophy degree from the Centre for Conflict, Human Rights and Peace Studies at the University of Education, Winneba. His research interest: Human Rights-Based Approach to Policy Implementation; the Child's Right to Education, & the Rule of Law and Armed Conflict Reconstruction Implementation Practices in Africa. .
(2) To examine the consistency of the ICTR and the Gacaca court practices with the HRBA principles.

This research seeks to address the following questions
(1) What was the mode of implementation of the ICTR and the Gacaca court, as the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction mechanism in Rwanda?
(2) In what ways were the ICTR and Gacaca court system implementation practices consistent with the HRBA principles?

Significance of the research
The purpose of this study is to add to the existing Africanist literature on the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction implementation practices: a model in respect of how an international crime violation could be adjudicated using indigenous mechanisms in Africa. It also seeks to suggest how both high-and low-level perpetrators of international crimes could be equally prosecuted and accorded the necessary sanctions as required by law. This seeks to be an indispensable tool to help resolve both national, communal, and local armed conflicts in Africa.

Literature review
The rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction is considered a subfield of Transitional Justice (Lyday & Stromsem, 2005; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2006;Role of UNDP in Crisis and Post-Conflict Situations, 2002). Yet, the two are often used interchangeably (Rooney, 2014). Distinctly, the rule of law application in armed conflict reconstruction seeks to provide redress for victims of international crimes and punish perpetrators toward restoration of dysfunctional and disrupted criminal justice systems. It seeks to address past abuses and violations in a way that they do not reoccur. This is consistent with the mainstream literature on International Criminal Justice jurisprudence, which sees the rule of law as a vehicle that makes accountability and security operational (A global UNDP programme for justice and security, 2008-2011Haverman, 2012;Kalshoven & Zegveld, 2001;Shinoda, 2001). Research shows that, International Criminal Court (ICC) involvement in justice delivery in post armed conflict reconstruction appears indirect response, but a call by either state parties or enthusiastic members of the human right community (Bergsmo & Wiley, 2008). In this vein, ICC operations stresses on the complementarity principle (ICRC national implementation database, 2013). It emphasizes sequential application of justice delivery mechanisms (Carter, 2010). This principle first gives greater leeway to the State in investigations and prosecutions of high-level perpetrators of international crimes (Carter, 2010, p. 168). In this regard, the affected State leads the investigations and prosecutions of perpetration of international crimes; thereafter, the ICC ad hoc or hybrid International Criminal Tribunals follows up to bring to trial high-level perpetrators of international crimes, particularly where the State party is either unwilling or unable to do so (Carter, 2010;Sriram et al., 2010;Wolter, 2005).
However, the reverse appears to be what was used to handle the Rwandan armed conflict reconstruction (Amnesty International,, 2002; PRI-Final monitoring and research report on the Gacaca process, 2009). Despite, Rwanda is signatory to most of the international and regional Human Rights and Humanitarian treaties at the time of committing the regrettable act. Notable among these treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Accessioned, 16 April 1975); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Signatory, 1 May 1980 andRatified, 2 May 1981); the Convention on Non-Application of Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (Signatory, 6 January 1969 andRatified, 22 April 1969) and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Accession on 16 April 1975). At the regional level, Rwanda is signatory to the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (Signatory, 10 September 1969 andRatified, 19 November 1979) and lately, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights among others. Therefore, ought to have been protected in accordance with international human rights standards.
Amidst these international treaty affiliations, was an existing conflict between the exiled Tutsi guerrilla forces led by the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) and the Hutu government which the Arusha Peace Accords ostensibly ended through constitutional concessions (Mamdani, 2001;Melvern, 2000;Wheeler, 2002). However, the recurring tension as a result of the perceived lapses in the Arusha Peace Accords seem to have commutated to the killing of president Habyarimana in 1994 (Arnault, 2006;Scorgie, 2004;Stedman, 2001;Willard, 2014). This according to research triggered the mass killings of close to 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus (Amnesty International,, 2002). The escalated tribal killings led to the establishment of the case of genocide against the Hutus as provided in Article II(a) & III(b) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), of which killing members of a group through conspiracy and direct public incitement constitutes genocide (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1951;Sriram et al., 2010). In this regard, the Security Council Resolution 935 established a case of grave violations and recommended investigations toward prosecution of perpetrators by an independent and International Criminal Tribunal (Sriram et al., 2010, pp. 171-173). In accordance, the ICTR was established through Resolution 955 in November 1994.
Equally, Article VI of the CPPCG (1951) mandates trial of perpetrators of the crime of genocide by competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed. However, what happens particularly where an armed conflict appears to have either ravaged the criminal justice system or has rendered it skeletal appears underrepresented in conflict reconstruction literature. In such instance, the role a home-grown Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanism could play as an alternative model to the mainstream court system appears not to have been thoroughly examined. Therefore, this study on the mode of the establishment of the Gacaca courts which combined features of modern court system and traditional conflict resolution mechanism appears consistent with international standards (Lyday & Stromsem, 2005; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2006;Role of UNDP in Crisis and Post-Conflict Situations, 2002). This study is necessary, since literature on home-grown models to resolve international crime violations in Africa appears underrepresented. But, extensively written literature supports international standards such as the hybrid ICC systems which mainly emphasizes investigations and prosecutions of only high-level perpetrators of international crimes in a post-armed conflict environment. Again, is the ICTR before the Gacaca tribunal sequential application consistent with the complementarity principle? Importantly, how the concurrent but sequential application of the Gacaca court system and the ICTR operation could be synchronized with human rights principles to impact sustainable peace development in Africa appears not to have been clearly articulated.
The HRBA requires all treaties and public policies to further the realization of human rights principles (UNRISD, 2016). In this regard, HRBA application to the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction practices seek to assure both victims and survivals of international crime violations of their rights to justice (MacGinty, 2014). Particularly, the HRBA highlights five cardinal principles which underpins its operations: respect for the rule of law, participation and inclusion, transparency and accountability, best interest, as well as equality and non-discrimination (Gebre et al., 2011;Nwosile, 2005;Frezzo, 2015;Esia-Donkon, 2005;Elechi, 2004). However, how its integration with the rule of law mechanisms impact armed conflict reconstruction appears underrepresented. This integrated approach as expatiate below seeks to provide the requisite knowledge, values, and skills needed to promote justice delivery to ensure sustainable peace development in Africa (UNRISD, 2016).
The respect for the rule of law application in armed conflict reconstruction emphasizes equality before the law, certainty, and respect for the fundamental human rights of citizens. In this regard, the ICCPR Article (14) & (16) respectively stresses the due process of law with a particular emphasis on rights to fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial court (Haas, 2014, pp. 116-117). According to research, the adherence to these provisions allows both international and national laws to govern to reduce impunity and increase access to social justice. In pursuance with this commitment, the ICTR delivered landmark cases, among them is case number ICTR-96-4-T, in respect of the Prosecutor Versus Jean Paul Akayesu (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1998;Sriram et al., 2010). In this case, cumulative charges were leveled against the accuse, notable among the charges was his failure to prevent sexual violence against the Tutsi women, whose verdict is considered an international case law (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1998). This trial appears to have followed the due process of law, where the accused was granted right to counsel through to verdict. However, the accused was found guilty of most of the charges leveled against him, except for not guilty of violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva convention and Article 4(2)(e) of Additional Protocol II and Complicity in Genocide (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1998, p. 294).
The participation and inclusion principle principally stresses key stakeholder involvement in justice public policy implementation practices. This participatory approach to social policy seems to help in the protection of the vulnerable against structural violations during policy implementations (Taylor & Robinson, 2019). However, available literature on the ICTR operations identified some level of challenges in terms of the location of the tribunal, which appears to impede stakeholder inclusiveness in justice delivery (Moriarty, 2018;Sida, 2015;UNRISD, 2016). However, the Gacaca tribunals appeared much closer in proximity, although research considers this justice delivery model as just a prehensive prosecution strategy (Le Mon, 2006). Yet, how stakeholder inclusiveness in criminal justice implementation practices impact the international criminal jurisprudence in Africa appears not to have received the needed attention.
The third principle, borders on non-discrimination and equality: it seeks to empower the citizenry to stand against all forms of discriminatory practices (Division of Policy, Evaluation and Training, 2008). It emphasizes equal treatment (UNICEF, 2015). In pursuance, the ICTR demonstrated the essence of equality and nonimmunity of accused from criminal prosecution by undertaking a landmark case which prosecuted Jean Kambanda, who was the interim prime minister of Rwanda during the genocide and accorded him the required sanction (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1998).
Again, the transparency and accountability principle principally emphasize clarity of rules and procedures in the dissemination of information in armed conflict reconstruction (Martin & Muff, 2012). This involves prompt information distribution from policy formulators through to beneficiaries (UNRISD, 2016). Accountability, on the other hand, is where relevant stakeholders proactively cooperate to fulfill their commitment to the protection of all citizens against structural violations in justice delivery (Sotonye-Frank, 2015). On legal accountability, the ICTR indicted about 93 individuals, secured 61 conviction and 14 acquittals (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1998), while the Gacaca courts had a conviction rate of 86% and tried over a million suspects (PRI-Final monitoring and research report on the Gacaca process, 2009). Last is the best interest principle, which broadly describes how the well-being of the victims of international crimes violations could be assured. This principle emphasizes equal protection of the security and safety of all citizenry.
Essentially, this literature review highlights some profound gaps in the Africanist literature in respect of how the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction mechanisms incorporating HRBA principles impact sustainable peace development. The aim is to reassert how an Africanized model based on this integrated approach could help in the adjudication of human rights and humanitarian law breaches in the aftermath of an internal armed conflict. It supports the promotion of necessary sanction to be accorded both high-and low-level perpetrators of international crime violations in accordance with their level of perpetuation.

The theoretical underpinnings of the study: the Policy Cycle Theory (PCT); the Synthesis Approach and the Neo Synthesis Approach
This study is supported by the above public policy administration theories. They have been sequentially integrated to study the Rule of Law and Armed Conflict Reconstruction implementation practices in Rwanda. Justifiably, a comparable idea that these theories could be applied to the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction implementation practices to promote sustainable peace development appears underrepresented in the Africanist literature, hence this application.
First the PCT: this theory stresses on implementation as an integral part of an endless cycle with discrete and chronological order in public policy administration. It emphasizes policy conception before implementation (Uiennet & Pont, 2017). Therefore, the mode of implementation of any public policy of societal interest should be readily available intuitively. The aim of this adapted theory is to strengthen the international criminal justice system's implementation in Africa. Justifiably, an approach that envisages the concurrent application of the International Criminal Justice system with a home-grown tribunal system to investigate and prosecute both high-and low-level perpetrators of international crimes appear underrepresented.
In this regard, this study supports Hill and Hupe (2002) adjustment to the implementation phase of the PCT to yield the Synthesis Approach. Research shows that, the Synthesis Approach has a "backward mapping with forward mapping integrative mechanisms" (Russell, 2015, p. 17), which supports the amalgamation of policy conception and implementation through stakeholder participation. This appears consistent with research on Armed Conflict Reconstruction practices which indicate that, to prevent war from recurring, any new judicial, social, economic, and political arrangement must include not only the elites (top-class) but all members of the society (bottom-class;Harvard International Review, 2008, p. 17). This notwithstanding, the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction practices in Africa often adapts the top-down approach (Kindiki, 2001). Sriram et al., 2010; Steering Committee of the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda, 1996;Wolter, 2005). Yet, this approach seems to be associated with some inbuilt excessive bureaucratic tendencies toward implementation (Russell, 2015).
Particularly, the top-down approach centralizes social policy administrative processes (Uiennet & Pont, 2017). According to research, this approach to implementation is more useful when policy objectives are clearer and designed comprehensively (Russell, 2015). Regardless, critics see this approach as undemocratic since it marginalizes other stakeholders (Hui, 2013). However, when a policy implementation is considered an emergency, the "top-down approach" becomes inevitable (Devarajan, 2013). The bottom-up approach on the other hand considers implementation as an interactive process (Hill & Hupe, 2002). It recognizes to some extent, the need for stakeholder involvement in policy implementation (Russell, 2015). This is consistent with Hui (2013), that implementation occurs sequentially on two broad factors: the international will and the capacity of the government. It is to afford continuous negotiations throughout a policy process (Uiennet & Pont, 2017). Yet, this approach appears mainly theoretical in armed conflict reconstruction (Sriram et al., 2010). This is due to the perceived bureaucratic tendencies associated with this approach which renders it ineffective and destructive (Fullan, 1994;Hui, 2013). The Synthesis Approach, therefore, amalgamates the top-down bottom-up stand-alone approaches to policy implementation into this single approach (Hill & Hupe, 2002).
Russell built on this synthesis approach to yield the 'Neo Synthesis Approach (Russell, 2015). It incorporates the governance interactive approach with a special emphasis on the need for active stakeholder participation in all social policy implementation practices (Russell, 2015). This is consistent with research, that isolating key stakeholders from policy implementation creates a challenge, which impedes sustainable peace delivery in practice (Hui, 2013). Therefore, the Neo Synthesis Approach appears largely an integrative model when applied to the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction in Africa. It provides a resolute linkage between international intervention and home-grown mechanisms for armed conflict reconstruction. It seeks to extend equal responsibility among all key actors by granting authority to those who traditionally feel left out in ensuring justice toward reconciliation. This appears to resonate with the research questions which seek to demand answers in respect of how the inculcation of the HRBA principles, which emphasizes participation, transparency, accountability, best interest, and non-discrimination among key stakeholders in terms of decision-making in the ICTR and the Gacaca court practices impact sustainable peace development.
In conclusion, these adapted theoretical frameworks emphasize integration through interaction to spread responsibilities among all key actors. This synthetization Approach resonates with this study, since a comparable idea that the integration of these public policy administration theories could be used to explore the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction practices toward the attainment of sustainable peace development in Africa appears underrepresented. The aim of this synthetization approach, is to strengthen the international criminal justice system's implementation practices in Africa.

Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework below has been developed after a critical review of the relevant armed conflict reconstruction concepts, principles, theories, and other related literature based on the Rwandan armed conflict reconstruction implementation practices. It seeks to add to the existing literature on the rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction practices in Africa toward sustainable peace development.

Methodology
This study employs the qualitative approach and a case study design (Patton, 2002) respectively. Philosophically, the constructivist paradigm which evaluates the content of what is said to assert reality was adapted (Adom et al., 2016;Schilling, 2006). The well-documented materials on this subject justify this adapted methodological usage.

Data collection instrument
Largely, the instrument used for data collection was content analysis through print materials on the HRBA principles and "the social media (precisely YouTube) content on the Rwandan armed  (2008). The study purposively used these selected audio-visual materials and other print materials on the HRBA principles as informed by the research questions (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This was to ensure some level of flexibility (Harwood & Garry, 2003).

Data analysis
The thematic analysis approach, through direct content analysis, was employed for this study (Miles & Huberman, 1994;Neuendorf, 2002). There were no personal interviews and questionnaires used to solicit responses; because of an existing wide range of materials on the Rwandan experience by experts, both in print and on social media which were enough for this study.

Findings
This section presents the findings in respect of the Rwandan rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction implementation practices. The focus of this study is to answer the following questions: the mode of implementation of the ICTR and the Gacaca court system, and assessed the consistency of these mechanisms with HRBA principles. But first, presenting the historical background to this conflict and the role incitement played as the genocidal root of this conflict will help put this study into a proper perspective.

The historical background to the Rwandan armed conflict
Predated ethnic and cultural tensions are reported to have contributed to the Rwandan armed conflict which led to the genocide. Ethnically, Rwanda consists of the Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa, with Hutu majority. As documented, the Tutsi ethnic group had a privileged status in the Rwandan society which was believed to be rooted in colonialism under the Belgians. It is largely reported that the Belgians after taking over Rwanda from the Germans adapted the divide-and-rule philosophy which favoured the Tutsis by virtue of their physical appearance. However, this strategy according to experts was an exploitative measure. This fuelled the rift between the Hutus and the Tutsis in post-independent Rwanda creating perpetual tension between the two ethnic groups. The biggest among this recurring tension was the shooting down of the plane carrying president Habyarimana in 1994. This was followed by a somewhat calculated plan to exterminate the Tutsi ethnic group as well as the moderate Hutus by the Hutu extremists.

The genocidal roots of the Rwandan armed conflict
The genocide convention emphasizes that genocide could be committed both in peace and in war times, particularly when members of a group are targeted either through conspiracy or direct public incitement. According to analyst, conspiracy and public incitement played a major role in the mass murder of the Tutsis. The pre-genocide incitements were mainly characterized by the creation of animosity against the Tutsis through propaganda: that they are emigrants from Ethiopia, that the Tutsis had acquired too much wealth illegally due to their affiliation with the Belgians. Again, it is reported that the Hutu extremist media and journalists conspired to use language of hate on their radio programmes to incite the Hutus against the Tutsis. The dehumanization of the Tutsis by referring to them as cockroaches played a major role in their extermination. Also, stories of criminal intent were fabricated against the Tutsis by these Hutu extremists, that the Tutsis were planning to exterminate them. As reported, these criminal incitements as planned and conspired by the Hutu extremists inflamed passions leading to the mass killings of the Tutsis. Experts opined that these criminal conspiracies and public incitements led to the establishment of a case of genocide against the Hutus. Hence, the institution of the ICTR and the Gacaca court system as the rule of law mechanism to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of international crime violations.

Findings on the mode of implementation of the ICTR and the Gacaca court system have been summarized as follows
The constitutionality of the ICTR stemmed from the UN Security Council's resolution 955 of November 1994. As reported, the ICTR had a similar mandate as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. It was to ensure legal accountability by bringing to trial the high-level perpetrators of international crimes during the Rwandan armed conflict. The ICTR as the report shows followed the International Criminal Law jurisprudence which mainly emphasizes retribution. It was an ad-hoc court with a timeline for closure. It was instituted after the commission of experts who examined the grave violations in Rwanda found both sides to have committed crimes against humanity. However, the Hutus in particular were found to have committed the crime of genocide. The ICTR was established in Arusha in Tanzania, therefore lacked the required institutions to enforce its warrants, orders, and instructions unlike a national court system. Reports present the ICTR as a symbolic rule of law mechanism led by the international community to deal with the neglected international crime violations in Rwanda. The ICTR practices according to experts, beseemed a somewhat international transaction, since lawyers, witnesses, staff, defence councils, and prosecutors were all imported.
The mode of implementation of the Gacaca court on the other hand, was the combination of a modern tribunal system and a traditional conflict resolution mechanism. It was a somewhat decentralized traditional justice mechanism rooted in the Organic Law 40/2000. It was instituted after a series of trial runs for its assessment and modifications. This was adapted to help in the adjudication of the atrocities committed in Rwanda during the genocide. As reported, this tribunal system was instituted because of the distraction of the justice system infrastructure in the country. This was necessitated due to the high number of people accused of the genocide. Experts believe that those accused of perpetrating the genocide ranged between 140,000 and 761,000. Therefore, this grassroots justice model used trials as a means of retribution to fast-track reconciliation. The trials were supervised by local leaders elected by the citizenry based on their dedication to the well-being of the people as well as their love for the truth and justice. The elected leaders for the Gacaca courts were not to be formal employees or members of the mainstream criminal justice system, but the ordinary Rwandans with integrity. The introduction of the confession procedure as a means of establishing guilt, and community service as punishment for international crime violations were considered remarkable within the international criminal law jurisprudence.

On the consistency of the ICTR and the Gacaca court implementation practices with HRBA principles, the findings present the following
The rule of law application during the Rwandan armed conflict reconstruction was to assure the victims of international crime violations of their rights. As recorded, the ICTR was to adjudicate the international humanitarian law violations. This was to equip victims with the requisite knowledge, values, and skills needed to assert their rights during the violations. Experts see the ICTR structure to be consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR) provisions which guides the rule of law application. However, the opposite was said about the Gacaca court system which was purely an adapted traditional conflict resolution model which less emphasizes the laid down rule of law procedure in its practices.
On participation and inclusion, the principle stresses the need for active key stakeholder involvement in justice delivery. This participatory approach to the international criminal justice system is to help in the protection of the vulnerable against structural violations as well as human rights and humanitarian abuses. However, experts see the location of the ICTR in Arusha to defeat this principle of participation. Yet, the Gacaca court system as reported was much more inclusive because of its proximity to the people.
The findings on transparency and accountability principally stresses the need for clarity of rules and procedures in the dissemination of information to ensure justice in respect of prompt information distribution to all parties from state actors to both victims and survivors. Accountability on the other hand, is where relevant stakeholders proactively cooperate to fulfill their commitment to the protection of the citizenry against structural violations. Regardless, it is largely reported that most of the perpetrators of the genocide were recruited as staff of the ICTR, which hindered the transparency accountability principle. However, the opposite was said about the transparency and accountability of the Gacaca court system.
On the non-discrimination and equality principle, experts report of disparities in prosecution within the ICTR system where only a few high-level perpetrators were prosecuted as a matter of law. Yet, the Gacaca court prosecuted both high-and low-level perpetrators, although this accorded mandate beseemed to lack this legal jurisdiction within international jurisprudence.
The best interest principle broadly describes how the well-being of international crime victims could be positively affected by justice policy implementation practices. Experts defined well-being as a means to protect the health, security, and safety of victims. However, it is recorded that the ICTR placed much premium on victims of sexual abuse with less emphasis on the health, dignity, safety, and security of the child. The Gacaca courts as report shows, had no formal protection for its Juris, witnesses, defendants, and respondents, exposing them to so many threats which are against best practices.

Discussions
Largely, the mode of implementation of the ICTR in investigating and prosecuting perpetrators of international crimes appeared consistent with literature on the top-down approach to policy implementation practices (Russell, 2015;Shinoda, 2001;Sriram et al., 2010;Uiennet & Pont, 2017). However, the Gacaca court showed an exceptional impact of a bottom-up approach in resolving international crimes (Hill & Hupe, 2002; PRI-Final monitoring and research report on the Gacaca process, 2009;Russell, 2015;Wolter, 2005). On the contrary, the top-down-bottom-up "stand-alone" approaches appear not to work efficiently, as the rule of law mechanism in armed conflict reconstruction practices toward sustainable peace development (Fullan, 1994;Kindiki, K. (2001). Prosecuting the Perpetrators of the, 1994; Russell, 2015;Uiennet & Pont, 2017). The "standalone" approaches often result in policy failure (Hui, 2013) because of its propensity to marginalize other key stakeholders in justice delivery (Devarajan, 2013). The concurrent implementation of these justice mechanisms in Rwanda beseems consistent with Paudel (2009) that justice policy implementation practices must depend on two critical factors: international will and local capacity. Yet, where the ICTR and the Gacaca courts operations converge and diverge appeared underrepresented. Particularly, the consistency of ICTR and the Gacaca courts sequence of application with the ICC complementarity principle seems not to have been clearly defined (ICRC national implementation database, 2013). Therefore, the amalgamation of the stand-alone approaches into the synthesis approach in resolving armed conflicts through the integration of both international will (ICTR) with local capacity (Gacaca courts) through stakeholder participation appears the way forward to sustainable peace development in Africa (Hill & Hupe, 2002;Hui, 2013;Hupe, 2014;Russell, 2015). Regardless, the "stand-alone" approach to resolving international armed conflicts seems to be the norm globally (Sriram et al., 2010).
On the consistency of the ICTR and the Gacaca court practices with HRBA principles: the findings revealed that the ICTR structure and its operations were consistent with the HRBA principles which guide the rule of law application (Haas, 2014;Moriarty, 2018). This notwithstanding, there were a bit of disparity in the ICTR practices with the HRBA principles, the former mainly emphasizes prosecution of only the high-level perpetrators (Lyday & Stromsem, 2005; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2006;Role of UNDP in Crisis and Post-Conflict Situations, 2002), which contradicts the non-discrimination as a non-derogatory right (Division of Policy, Evaluation and Training, 2008). However, the Gacaca court system as a purely traditional conflict resolution model less emphasized the laid down rule of law procedure in its practices (Amnesty International,, 2002;Buckley-Zistel, et al., 2014;Kindiki, K. (2001). Prosecuting the Perpetrators of the, 1994). On the HRBA participation principle: the Gacaca court appeared to be more inclusive, which is consistent with research on the integration of key stakeholders in social policy implementation practices toward the attainment of a policy objective (Russell, 2015;UNRISD, 2016). On the contrary, the location of the ICTR in Arusha defeats the participatory principle of the HRBA (Sotonye-Frank, 2015;Dufvenmark, 2015). Regarding transparency and accountability, the Gacaca court appeared to be consistent with this HRBA principle (Shinoda, 2001;Sriram et al., 2010;UNRISD, 2016) as it had a conviction rate of 86% and tried over a million suspects (PRI-Final monitoring and research report on the Gacaca process, 2009). In terms of the best interest principle, the Gacaca court offered less protection for the security of its participants and juris (Carter, 2010;ICRC national implementation database, 2013;Krings, 2012;Planck, 2003;Seils, 2016;UNRISD, 2016).

Conclusion
An in-depth analysis of this subject concluded on the need to synthesize the ICTR operations and the Gacaca court practices with HRBA principles. It provides the needed rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction adjudication strategy in Africa. This is to aid the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of international crime violations. It provides the mechanism which will accord the due sanctions to both high-and low-level perpetrators of international crimes in accordance with their level of perpetration. This draws the line of legal jurisdiction between the ICTR and the Gacaca court operation as part of the International Criminal Justice Jurisprudence. It is to establish where the ICTR and the Gacaca tribunal implementation practices converge and diverge in addressing conflict of jurisdictions. It provides clear interpretations of the Human Rights and Humanitarian laws' prosecutorial mandate to guide a national rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction implementation practices. This is to help identify the specific variable to address respective human rights or international crime violations to reduce clashes. It assesses the conformity of the ICTR and Gacaca court system to the complementarity principle. It indicates their strength and replicability to help resolve both national and local armed conflicts in Africa to ensure sustainable peace development on the continent.

Recommendation
A model that will accord the due sanctions to both high-and low-level perpetrators of international crimes in accordance with their level of perpetration in the aftermath of an armed conflict toward reconstruction.

Acknowledgements
My deepest gratitude goes to the Awuah-Amankwaah family. My special thanks to my wife, Rose Addai Boateng, my children (Edna, Edwin, and Edward), and all my siblings.

Funding
The author received no direct funding for this research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data Availability Statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

The Rule of Law and Armed Conflict Reconstruction
mechanism is defined as the concurrent but sequential usage of the Gacaca court system and the ICTR in conformity with the ICC's complementarity principles.
2. Implementation practices define the interactions, integration, and negotiations between the international community, the government, and other key stakeholders in terms of decision-making on rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction adjudication strategy in Africa.

Citation information
Cite this article as: The rule of law and armed conflict reconstruction implementation practices: A human rightbased analysis of the Rwandan experience, Harry Amankwaah, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2171573.