REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
B.P. 160 KIGALI
Website: www.minijust.gov.rw

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION POLICY

September, 2022

1
 Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................... 3
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS ................................................................... 4
FOREWORD ..................................................................................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 8
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 10
II. SITUATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................12
2.1. SWOT Analysis............................................................................. 13
2.2. Stakeholders’ views ..................................................................14
III. POLICY ORIENTATION ..................................................................... 15
3.1. Vision................................................................................................ 15
3.2. Mission ............................................................................................ 15
3.3. Objectives...................................................................................... 15
3.3.1. General Objective ...................................................... 15
3.3.2. Specific objectives ...................................................... 16
3.4. Guiding principles ..................................................................... 16
3.4.1. Community Based Processes ..................................... 16
3.4.2. Needs and Interest – Based Approach ..................... 17
3.4.3. Voluntariness ............................................................... 17
3.4.4. Confidentiality ............................................................. 17
3.4.5. Safe Space .................................................................... 17
3.4.6. Trauma-Informed Approach ...................................... 18
3.4.7. Flexible, Integrated, Interdisciplinary Approach..... 18
3.4.8. Continuous stakeholders’ dialogue .......................... 18
3.5. Benchmarking and best practices ......................................19
IV. RECOMMENDED POLICY ACTIONS ........................................... 20
V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .................................................................21
5.1. Detailed activities ......................................................................21
5.2. Awareness and Communication Plan ............................... 21
5.2.1. Objectives of the ADR Communication and
Awareness Plan ..................................................................... 21
5.2.2. Phasing of the awareness and communication
plan ......................................................................................... 22
5.2.3. The key targeted groups for ADR awareness .......... 22
5.2.4. Stakeholder Messages ............................................... 23
VI. IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION .......... 24
6.1. Financial Impact ........................................................................ 24
6.2. Legal Impact ............................................................................... 25
VII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................. 27
ANNEXES .................................................................................................... 28
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

JRLOS Justice, Reconciliation, Law and Order Sector

KIAC Kigali International Arbitration Centre

NST1 National Strategy for Transformation 1

United Nations Commission on International
UNCITRAL Trade Law

3
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
1. Adversarial system: This is a judicial system or mode of
dispute resolution in which the competing claims of parties are
presented by legal representatives who have interest. In
criminal matters for instance, the system is the two-sided
structure under which criminal trial courts operate, putting the
prosecution against the defense.

2. Adjudicating approach: The concept refers to processes of

decision making that involve a neutral third party with the
authority to determine a binding resolution through some form
of judgment or award. The adjudication is carried out in various
forms, but most commonly occurs in the court system.
3. Community-led mediation: It is a form of mediation that
offers constructive processes for resolving differences and
conflicts between individuals, groups and organizations, based
into their community. In such exercise, participants control the
process and create their own alternatives to avoidance,
destructive confrontation, prolonged litigation or violence.
4. Mediation: A process in which a third party, that is supposed
to be impartial, has no stake in the outcome, and has no power
to impose a decision, guides disputants through a non-
adversarial discussion process that has as its goal the settling
of disputes. It is an effort to put the parties in indirect contact,
gain trust and confidence in each other, set agendas, clarify
issues, arrange venues, reduce tensions, and explore the
interests of either party.
5. Plea-bargaining: This is the process whereby a criminal
defendant and prosecutor reach a mutually satisfactory
disposition of a criminal case, subject to court approval. The
plea bargaining usually involves the defendant's pleading
guilty to a lesser charge, or to only one of several charges. It
also may involve a guilty plea as charged, with the prosecution
recommending leniency in sentencing. The judge, however, is
not bound to follow the prosecution’s recommendation.

4
6. Pre-filing mediation: Also known as pre-litigation mediation,
this is an attempt to resolve a case before initiating the formal
legal process. Conducted prior to filing a formal lawsuit, it is a
consensual process whereby the plaintiff and the respondent
come together to settle the dispute amicably.
7. Pre-trial mediation: Also known as pre-trial conference, this
is a session that is conducted by an experienced registrar who
looks at the case from all sides and can help concerned parties
explore options to try to resolve their dispute, rather than
proceed to trial.

8. Restorative circles: A restorative circle is a technique that

builds and restores relationships through equal opportunity
sharing and listening. Restorative justice circles provide an
opportunity for community members to come together to
address harmful behavior in a process that explores harms and
needs, obligations, and necessary engagement.

9. Retributive justice: A system of criminal justice based on the

punishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation. As a
criminal justice system, it focuses solely on punishment, rather
than deterrence—prevention of future crimes. Under other
perspectives, it is a theory of punishment that when an offender
breaks the law, justice requires that they suffer in return.

5
FOREWORD
ADR mechanisms are not new in Rwandan history. Traditionally,
Rwandans took a problem-solving approach to justice
anchored on community participation in a variety of dispute
resolution forums. Citizens resolved conflicts of all kinds into
families, in the neighborhood and sometimes before leaders at
different levels of the administration, in a manner that
safeguards peace, rebuilds relationships and consolidates
social cohesion.

Leave alone the fact that it is a constitutional principle to

constantly quest for solutions through dialogue and consensus,
the need for a national ADR policy is reflected in NST1 under
priority number 1 of the pillar of Governance that aims to
enhance alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, promote
the culture of problem solving in families and amicable
settlement of disputes.

In line with this priority area, the JRLOS Six-year Strategic Plan
2018/2019-2023/2024 includes among other activities under
the outcome of Universal Access to Justice, the development
and implementation of an ADR policy to ensure citizens’
ownership and participation in quality justice.

With aim to develop an ADR Policy that will harmonize existing

frameworks, introduce new ones wherever it will seem suitable
and avail an overall guiding document for disputes settlement
through alternatives to litigation, existing laws and regulations
encouraging or directing parties in dispute to try to reach an
amicable settlement were analyzed, informal and formal
practices visited, key informants and focused groups
discussions organized for consultation. This allowed drafters to
align properly ideas and produce a well principled ADR Policy
that will guide future initiatives, ensure required coordination of
interventions and contribute to the Justice Service delivery.

Various stakeholders including Government institutions,

Development Partners, Private and Civil Society Organizations
made significant contribution in the preparation of this Policy.

6
To this end, we are grateful for their time and the invaluable
inputs shared to have this policy developed. We believe that all
stakeholders will work in close partnership to ensure smooth
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of this policy.
Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Office

7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Policy is a roadmap for Rwanda to continuously improve,
coordinate and expand the use of ADR to all dimensions of life
in Rwanda. In doing so, Rwanda builds on the strong
foundations of its history, culture and national commitment to
develop homegrown solutions while enriching its legal system
with global innovations in the field.
To formulate the Policy, extensive research was conducted on
ADR practice at international, regional and local levels. In
addition to an extensive desk review, a citizen consultation was
conducted to gather the perspectives of all ADR actors and
their beneficiaries. The research produced the following key
conclusions that support this Policy:
 Rwandans prefer ADR: Although Rwandans appear to have a
high reliance on litigation in court, overall, they are very often
dissatisfied with it and they would actually prefer the dispute
resolution processes in which all stakeholders may participate
and dialogue to reach a mutual understanding in the form of
a resolution.
 ADR is viewed as a Rwandan system: Although the term ADR
was developed and applied from a Western context,
Rwandans recognize ADR as their own ordinary, historical, and
cultural approach for addressing conflict and harm.
 Mediation is progressively and consistently emerging as the
most preferred ADR mechanism both at local and
international levels: There are many kinds of ADR, and
although they differ, their terms are often used
interchangeably, notably, conciliation, arbitration and
mediation.
 In Rwanda, there is a need for ADR and mediation in
particular, to be enhanced and coordinated: While there are
many formal and informal ADR mechanisms applied in
Rwanda, they are insufficiently developed. ADR mechanisms
need to be linked and integrated with the conventional justice
system to facilitate the enforcement of the outcomes in case
the voluntary enforcement is not possible.

8
 ADR in the post-colonial and post-genocide context needs
to be trauma-informed: Research revealed that the changing
profile of conflict and crime in Rwanda reflects the trauma of
its history. Fortunately, research also supports the conclusion
that ADR is the most suitable approach for effectively
addressing the causes and consequences of historical and
cultural trauma and fostering societal healing.

Highlights of the comprehensive recommendations of this

Policy include:

 Creation of Pre-Filing Mediation for family, labor,

administrative, commercial and in all other civil matters
 Mandatory Pre-Filing Mediation for all civil and
administrative matters
 Create Restorative Justice Options Across the Criminal
Justice Process
 Create a trauma-informed ADR system
 Create a Mediation Institutional and Legal Framework
 Enhance capacity in ADR and raise awareness about
proposed schemes and available ADR providers

This Policy is the result of a national dialogue about justice in

Rwanda and how ADR can contribute to it. At the heart of its
recommendations is the continuation of this dialogical process
by giving the dialogue a home, structured and financed to be
self-sustaining so that the conversation and learning can be
continuously aligned with Rwanda’s ever changing and
developing reality. Ultimately, this Policy reflects Rwanda’s
apparent destiny to make sense of the incomprehensible and
to demonstrate the full strength of the human spirit to rise
above the difficulties of the past to meet the promises of the
future.

9
I. INTRODUCTION
This Policy was commissioned by the Government of Rwanda
that called for a comprehensive national ADR Policy that is
research based, rooted and founded on Rwandan values while
at the same time, considering other best practices from
elsewhere around the globe. Accordingly, a citizens’
consultation was conducted on how dispute resolution has
been conducted historically in Rwanda and how it is practiced
here today, along with the aspects of Rwandan culture that
relate to dispute resolution. In addition, providers and
beneficiaries of ADR services were interviewed to identify
strengths and weaknesses of the current system and to solicit
ideas for improvement. Research was also conducted on ADR
practice regionally and internationally and recommendations
for practice made for all dimensions of the national life
including but not limited to family, commercial, administrative,
social and criminal matters to ultimately improve access to
justice.

The term "alternative dispute resolution" or "ADR" is often used

to describe a wide variety of dispute resolution mechanisms
that are short of, or alternative to, full-scale court processes. It
is an all-encompassing term which refers to multiple non-
judicial methods of handling conflict between parties.

Although the term “ADR” arose from the Western context where
anything other than the adversarial system is considered
“alternative”, resolving conflicts through dialogue, involvement
of the surrounding community with the ultimate goal of
reaching the most beneficial resolution for the parties and their
communities is considered by Rwandans as their approach of
justice for long. This is even what is reflected in the Constitution
of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 where article
10 (6) provides that the State of Rwanda commits itself to
upholding the principle of “constant quest for solutions through
dialogue and consensus” among other principles.

10
The purpose of this Policy is to ensure that people in Rwanda
effectively and satisfactorily resolve their disputes with mutual
understanding and play a key role in finding a collective and
appropriate response to conflicts, injustices, and harm in the
Rwandan society.

The Policy provides guidance and a coordination structure for

all stakeholders in dispute resolution in ways that will help the
Rwandan society build on its tradition of using justice
mechanisms to uproot the causes of conflict and harm. The
ultimate purpose is for the Justice Sector to design, implement
and develop a well - functioning, accessible, coordinated and
sustainable ADR system that will operate in complementarity
with the court system and contribute significantly to the
national goals by furthering the empowerment, productivity,
and social cohesion of the Rwandan people.

11
II. SITUATION ANALYSIS
For the purpose of developing this ADR policy, a situational
analysis was conducted through a literature review that
examined aspects of the Rwandan context that call for ADR
development both in civil and criminal traditional justice,
culture, ADR innovations, ADR related policies, strategies, laws,
formal and informal practices, as well as global trends in civil
and criminal matters.

A purposive sampling targeting both institutions and individuals

with experiences of working with ADR practices allowed in-
depth interviews with key informants either individually or
through guided group discussions, Focus Groups discussions
with beneficiaries of ADR providers. Two hundred and eighty-
one (281) respondents out of a targeted population of 300
selected to represent all Provinces and Kigali City, based on
age, profession, gender, experience and best ADR practices. A
proper analysis of findings revealed key following problems or
paradoxes:
 An overreliance on litigation and a dissatisfaction with
outcomes of the Courts system;
 An overreliance on a retributive system and serious
aspirations for a restorative justice empowering communities
and families;
 Existence of various informal ADR mechanisms with no
professional guidelines and linkage with the Court system;
 Some ADR providers without basic skills to assist in disputes
settlement;
 Lack of proper ADR service providers inter-connection or
coordination system to ensure information sharing, data
collection, documentation, monitoring and evaluation;
 Many laws recommending ADR in different fields and no
effective practice developed;
 Predominance of the conventional court system while
Rwandans believe in ADR that addresses rights, needs and
relationships;
 Rwandans prefer ADR in all aspects except in capital offences
including armed robbery, defilement, rape, corruption,

12
 terrorism and other security related cases that may jeopardize
a country’s security.

2.1. SWOT Analysis

A SWOT analysis was made on ADR in Rwanda as presented

below:

a. Strengths:
 Existence of formal ADR services grounded in enacted laws,
regulations and administrative instructions, that reach to
successful results;
 Culturally based homegrown solutions that time to time
helped Rwandans finding ways of solving their problems,
strengthening their Unity and Reconciliation and reinforcing
the social cohesion.

b. Weaknesses:
 Lack of proper policy guidelines, strategic orientations and
coordination framework among ADR providers and
stakeholders;
 Existence of many informal ADR providers improperly trained
and skilled;
 Existence of many laws providing for ADR committees or
services without effective operationalization;
 Lack of ADR practice management tools, skills and linkage
with the court system.

c. Opportunities:
 Real and express will of the Rwandan Authorities to
strengthen ADR as highlighted in NST1, in different policies,
strategies and laws;
 Serious aspirations of the people of Rwanda, to see
themselves empowered to handle and settle disputes using
features and techniques inspired from their own culture and
practices, with the involvement of families and communities.

13
d. Threats:
 Lack of proper trauma-informed system to support ADR
providers;
 Risk of lack of impartiality and neutrality in some cases due to
corruption, nepotism or insufficient ADR skills.

2.2. Stakeholders’ views

Basing on identified problems and considering the ADR

business status, stakeholders expressed different views and
wishes as follow:
 The Rwandan ADR System needs to be enhanced,
coordinated and continuously improved;
 The Rwandan ADR System needs to be integrated with the
existing Court System for a proper complementarity;
 It needs to be a well-resourced System and ADR services be
provided by people having skills to assist the beneficiaries in
reaching the best outcomes in disputes resolution;
 ADR services should be available, known and affordable for
every citizen in each field of law: family, employment,
administration, criminal and all other commercial matters;
 ADR System and service providers must be inclusive of
gender, youth, and vulnerable peoples.

14
III. POLICY ORIENTATION
3.1. Vision

The vision of Rwanda’s ADR policy is:

“A united, reconciled, inclusive, and problem-solving society

where citizens participate actively in resolving their own
disputes and addressing harm and crime under the supervision
and with the support of institutions having dispute resolution
and the enforcement of the resolution’s outcomes under their
mandate.”

3.2. Mission

The mission of Rwanda’s ADR Policy is:

“To enable the establishment, maintenance and continuous

improvement of a well-coordinated, resourced, effective and
accessible ADR system that is well integrated with the existing
court system.”

3.3. Objectives

3.3.1. General Objective

The main objective of this Policy is to provide the necessary

guidance for the creation of an effective, accessible and
coordinated state of the art ADR system, rooted in Rwanda’s
tradition, values and national objectives and integrated with the
court system. Without sacrificing accountability, punishment or
deterrence, the thorough integration of ADR into Rwanda’s
justice system will strike the right balance between the court
system and ADR, while creating a justice system that is flexible
and reflective of societal values.

15
 3.3.2. Specific objectives

In addition to the general objective, this Policy has following

specific objectives:
 Strengthen the institutional and regulatory framework for ADR
services;
 Establish a well-structured ADR system that draws on existing
resources as much as possible;
 Create an enabling legal environment;
 Enhance local capacity in mediation and restorative justice
processes;
 Ensure that through awareness programs, ADR benefits and
opportunities are known, understood, owned and used by
Rwandan citizens irrespective of their social or economic
setting.

3.4. Guiding principles

3.4.1. Community Based Processes

This policy is intended to expand the use of community-based

ADR processes. This means that there should be mechanisms
in place to provide effective mediation of conflict in the
communities in which the conflict arises. By community, the
Policy means not only the place where people live, but in their
families and in the places where they work or do business. Not
only should mediation or other ADR practices be provided in
those communities by members of the same community or by
their local officials, but also by involving community members
themselves in the resolution of the dispute, where doing so
would help in finding sustainable solutions. In effect this means
extending the Abunzi concept to other kinds of communities as
well as expanding the jurisdiction of the Abunzi Committees. A
corollary of this principle is citizen empowerment. Citizens have
both the right and the responsibility to resolve conflict and
contribute to societal healing.

16
3.4.2. Needs and Interest – Based Approach

The purpose of meditative processes in Rwanda will be to

create solutions that consider the causes and consequences of
conflict and crime by developing mutual understanding
through dialogue of the underlying needs and interests of the
people involved. Though these processes may be designed to
uncover the truth of what happened, they also examine the
deeper truth of how we Rwandans are interconnected and how
we can both hurt, heal and help each other, by meeting one
another’s basic needs that make up our common humanity,
such as the need for dignity, safety, autonomy, understanding
and care.

3.4.3. Voluntariness

A basic principle of mediation and restorative justice is that

these processes are voluntary. One can be ordered to
participate, but ultimately, the parties are empowered to make
their own decisions, including whether or not to continue in the
process. Ultimately the participants decide the outcome and
the agreements need to be voluntary in order to be valid.

3.4.4. Confidentiality

The default assumption should be that the communications

within mediation are to be held as confidential. The participants
can waive confidentiality, and some community-based ADR
schemes may not be designed to be confidential. However, it
should be understood that in all conventional mediation, all
communications are presumed confidential. Nothing that is
said as part of mediation may be introduced in court and no
mediator can be compelled to testify as to what occurred in
mediation.

3.4.5. Safe Space

Resolving conflict and healing harm requires safe space from

where one can freely speak. Often, this means that
communication needs to be confidential, and in other
17
circumstances it means that people need to know that what
they say will be effective in gaining the support they need or
they will be kept safe from retaliation or other harmful
consequences of speaking up. ADR in Rwanda needs to provide
a safe space and conducive environment for both men and
women, boys and girls to ensure access to justice by all who
need it.

3.4.6. Trauma-Informed Approach

Trauma can be both a cause and consequence of both conflict

and crime and this operates intergenerationally. The ADR
system in Rwanda should be trauma informed to ensure that
trauma is not a barrier to participation in ADR processes and to
prevent re-traumatization and secondary trauma.

3.4.7. Flexible, Integrated, Interdisciplinary Approach

No one mechanism, format, or discipline can work to resolve

conflict or heal the wounds of conflict or crime. An effective
ADR system must be flexible and creative to make the best use
of available resources in a context most conducive to
constructive outcomes. This will vary, from case to case. The
ADR system needs to be well integrated into the legal system
and Justice Sector as a whole. Success will involve the
participation of professional and non-professional actors from a
variety of contexts and disciplines. This is why coordination and
collaboration is essential for the success of this initiative.

3.4.8. Continuous stakeholders’ dialogue

Responsive dialogue is both the subject and methodology of

this Policy. Just as the ideas in this policy are the result of
dialogue with practitioners, stakeholders and beneficiaries, so
will implementation, and all that follows for continuous
improvement will proceed through dialogue.

18
3.5. Benchmarking and best practices

Principles upon which this Policy is designed are drawn from

home grown solutions, regional and international best
practices.

Nevertheless, a big part of them such as the expansion of the

use of community-based ADR processes, the continuous
stakeholders’ dialogue, the management of possible traumatic
effects of the conflict, confidentiality, creating safe spaces, as
well as well as special attention on needs and interests of
concerned parties are rooted in the Rwandan culture and are
part of home grown solutions. On the other side, voluntariness,
interdisciplinarity and the necessity of integrating all aspects of
life are some of international best practices and standards.

19
IV. RECOMMENDED POLICY ACTIONS
This policy will be implemented through a series of detailed
activities and sub-activities, with clear indicators and expected
outcomes as highlighted in the implementation plan. The latter
is extracted from following key recommended Policy Actions:
4.1. Enhance ADR in Civil and Administrative Matters by
creating pre-filing Mediation for
family, labor, administrative, commercial and other civil matters;

4.2. Mandate pre-filing ADR for All Civil and Administrative

Matters with the support of all ADR service providers from the
community-led mediation, private sector members, and
mandated public servants and strengthen the culture of
problem solving without necessarily resorting to litigation;

4.3. Introduce Restorative Circles in Criminal Matters for the

victim-offender- families’ members and the community
involvement in crime prevention and management and
mediation of some properly chosen crimes and rehabilitation of
both the victim and the offender, and the safeguard of the
community values;

4.4. Establish a Trauma-Informed ADR System to deal

properly with possible traumatic consequences of the crime on
the victim, the offender, the community and third parties that
intervene for cases handling.

4.5. Enhance International Commercial ADR Practice to

expand KIAC services to mediation and other ADR forms that
combine mediation and arbitration, following the global trend
in international commercial dispute resolution for non-
adjudicatory processes.

4.6. Create an ADR Institutional Framework to Coordinate a

Phased Rollout of Policy Implementation and Oversight and
ensure stakeholders synergy and complementarity.

4.7. Develop ADR Capacities to ensure training programs for

different audiences and creation of ADR management tools.

20
4.8. Enhance ADR Awareness to inform citizens on the benefits
of ADR and their roles and opportunities to contribute in justice
delivery, as well as on the availability of ADR services providers.

4.9. Develop ADR IT Tools to ensure simple, quick and smart

ADR service and support ADR activities management and
monitoring among all stakeholders.

V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

5.1. Detailed activities

Following recommended policy actions, a detailed

implementation plan with clear objectives, activities, sub-
activities, targets, timelines and concerned institutions was
drawn put into annexes of this policy. Year after year, it will be
reviewed basing on continuous evaluation avoid forgetting any
important component, and upgraded to consider any
innovation.

5.2. Awareness and Communication Plan

 The ADR Communication and Awareness Plan will be

premised on the findings from Citizen Policy Consultations
regarding their experiences, practices, lessons, fears and
aspirations.

5.2.1. Objectives of the ADR Communication and Awareness

Plan

 The first objective of the ADR Policy Communication and

Awareness Plan is to ensure that people understand, own, and
utilize dispute resolution mechanisms in their family,
workplaces, business, labor, administrative and other civil
matters.
 The second objective is to increase awareness and
knowledge on the benefits of using ADR services instead of
the court system.
 The third objective is to create awareness on existing ADR
best practices that can be leveraged to promote a well-

21
 functioning, accessible and sustainable ADR system in
Rwanda.

5.2.2. Phasing of the awareness and communication plan

 The first phase will be carried out to communicate and create

awareness of the ADR Policy, the reasons for its existence,
ADR practices, and existing service providers. This phase will
aim to prepare the Rwandan community for ADR practice,
including community and professional mediation as well as
restorative justice processes by describing the benefits of
these ADR processes.
 The second phase will be to prepare citizens for
implementation of the policy, orient citizens on existing
professional service providers, required regulations and
standards of operation as ADR service providers. Awareness
will also inform service providers on capacity building services
available, as well as providing information on the operation of
the ADR institutional framework.
 The third phase will be to carry out ADR communication
impact assessment for the Justice Sector.

5.2.3. The key targeted groups for ADR awareness

Targeted groups include parties who are directly affected by

and/or can influence ADR processes.

 Litigants will be targeted with more interactive educational

communication sessions on a monthly basis to create
awareness of the availability of court mediation. It will be the
role of the judiciary to inform litigants on the benefits of using
mediation not only during the court proceedings but also
through regular educational and information sessions held at
the court.
 The Private Sector and Private Sector Committees to
discuss the existing ADR practices in the commercial sector,
what works, the link with the court system and the role of self-
organized committees of dispute resolution.
 The public Sector / Government, particularly decision
makers, senior officials and ADR providers in the public sector.

22
 General Community (general public), particularly people
who are able to use their influence to sensitize other
community members of the public on ADR practices.
 Civil society organizations, particularly organizations that are
directly involved in ADR services or related interventions and
those that are able to influence stakeholders.
 The Media has more influence to create understanding and
feedback interactive discussions as well as influence policy
makers.

5.2.4. Stakeholder Messages

 Messages will reflect and respond to the audience’s

concerns, needs and expectations. multiple messages will be
produced for different groups. Customized messages will
target specific groups’ needs and aspirations to capture their
attention through interactive education sessions.
 Messages will be aired in different forms including radio and
TV infomercials, slogans, mini documentaries, radio spots,
policy dialogue groups, jingles, media briefings, handbooks
and newspapers, community sensitization and linkage
meetings.
 Key messages for the private sector will relate to the
opportunities associated with use of ADR.
 Key messages for the public sector will focus on gains in
terms of cost, time and faster delivery of justice and citizen
participation in justice delivery.
 Messages to Civil Society Organizations will focus on
collaboration and creating synergy with government
institutions on ADR services and linkage with the court system
to make the outcomes from ADR dispute resolutions
processes legally binding. A detailed list of activities to be
undertaken is provided in the Implementation Plan in annex.
 A specific message for the service providers and beneficiaries
on gender equality consideration in ADR and link it to the
family conflict resolutions.

23
VI. IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION
6.1. Financial Impact

 This policy promotes financial efficiency by promoting the use

of existing resources in the community to resolve disputes
within those communities. The Policy promotes no cost ADR
through emphasis on Pre-Filing Community Service Mediation
Schemes. In large part, these schemes place the responsibility
for sponsoring the ADR programs on the community in which
the conflict arises through the use of Community Service ADR
volunteers. To the extent that these schemes require the
participation of government actors, they rely on pre-existing
government actors. Eventually the ADR Institute will generate
its own income from training services, accreditation and
continuing education.
 KIAC will continue organizing services and capacity building in
arbitration. The ADR Institution will be designed to address the
need for capacity building in mediation and restorative justice
both domestically and abroad and thereby become financially
self-sustaining. The Institute will also generate income
through fees and dues of those ADR providers who are
regulated, apart from volunteers who will be providing
services on a pro bono basis, who will be waived from these
fees.
 While relying on existing institutions and resources at
community level and in private practice will help to reduce
operational costs, capacity building and awareness will
require funding from either the Government or Development
Partners, more specifically the creation of an ADR
coordination institute to implement policy actions will need
additional funding. In total, the activities that will require
additional funding have an estimated cost of Rwf
2,478,400,000 over a period of five years from 2021/22 to
2026/27.
 An indicative cost estimate and major items of savings is
attached in annexes.

24
6.2. Legal Impact

A significant law reform effort will be needed to enable the

implementation of this Policy, and the body referred to in
Objective I will be responsible for following through with this
law reform initiative. The key features of this law reform
initiative will include:

 Comprehensive enabling legislation that establishes

meditative processes as the term that refers to non-
adjudicative processes that create needs-based solutions to
conflicts and harm; including mediation for civil matters and
restorative justice and plea bargaining in criminal matters.
 The primary term to describe restorative justice mechanisms
will be restorative circles. Among other key aspects of this
enabling legislation will be the enforceability of ADR
outcomes. The legislation will provide guiding principles,
establish ADR schemes and provide guiding principles. It will
establish an ADR Institute to guide the implementation of this
Policy.
 The Law of 2008 Governing Arbitration and Conciliation in
Commercial Matters will be repealed, and two separate laws
will be enacted: a law governing arbitration and a new law
governing mediation. The law governing arbitration will
address the gaps in the current legal framework for arbitration
and allow KIAC to be a default appointing authority in ad hoc
arbitration.
 The law on mediation will adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law of
2018 on Mediation amending the UNCITRAL Model Law of
2002 on International Commercial Conciliation to adopt the
use of the term of mediation in place of conciliation, and to
modernize mediation procedure.
 Rwanda will ratify the United Nations Convention on
Enforcement of International Settlement Agreements arising
from Mediation – The Singapore Convention.
 Abunzi Law will be reviewed to increase the value
competency of the Abunzi within their area of jurisdiction and
to clarify the two phases of the Abunzi process, the first phase
on mediation and the decision phase when there is no
settlement reached between the parties.

25
 The Civil Procedure Code will be amended to reflect this
Policy and related legislation.
 All laws referring to ADR mechanisms will be amended as
required and harmonized to enable the coordination,
localization of ADR providers, ease of capacity building
(training) and the predictability of outcomes throughout the
country.
 The Penal Code will need to be modified to allow for the
operation of restorative justice and plea-bargaining. The
Criminal Procedure Code will also need modification to allow
for restorative justice mechanisms.

26
VII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring and evaluation of this ADR policy will be a joint effort
by all stakeholders coordinated by the Ministry of Justice.
More precisely, monitoring and evaluation will be achieved
through:
 Setting and operationalizing an electronic reporting system of
gender disaggregated cases mediated in court;
 Producing annual reporting of cases mediated in courts and
out of Courts;
 Producing Annual report on diverted cases from Prosecution
 Conduct and impact assessment of the ADR system
throughout all stakeholders’ activities and listening to ADR
service beneficiaries.

27
ANNEXES
1. ADR Policy Development Research document;
2. Major Items of Savings
3. Major Items of Costs

28