PROSECUTION v. MUNYAKAZI ET.AL

# PROSECUTION v. MUNYAKAZI ET.AL

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2025-06-27 - Case/document no.: RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2023/SC - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

PROSECUTION v. MUNYAKAZI ET.AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT - RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2023/SC (Hitiyaremye, P.J, Kazungu and Muhumuza J.) June 27, 2025] Criminal procedure – A criminal intent – Conspiracy to commit an offense - A crime of conspiracy to commit an offense is considered complete whenever two or more persons share the intention to commit an offense and agree on the manner in which it will be carried out, even if the crime itself is carried out by only one of them or is not ultimately executed. Facts: In the present case, the Prosecution brought charges against the accused, alleging that Munyakazi and his accomplices conspired to kill a person known as Sifa, as established by various witnesses. It is further alleged that on the evening of 22/02/2020, between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., two children of Manifashe and Sifa were set on fire while they were inside their home. The act was preceded by the breaking of a window glass of the room in which they were sleeping. The child aged two years died instantly, while the other child, aged three and a half years, sustained severe burns resulting in permanent disability, namely the amputation of a leg. When the case reached the High Court, Musanze Chamber, the accused were acquitted of the charges in case n0 RPA 00395/2021/HC/MUS, decided on 07/07/2022. In that judgment, the individuals identified as Nsengiyumva, Munyakazi, Mugiraneza, and Uwamariya were found guilty of the offence of ethnic discrimination, but were acquitted of the offences of murder, while the individuals identified as Munyamahoro and Hitimana were acquitted of all charges. The Prosecution filed an application for review on the grounds of injustice, which was decided by the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court had disregarded sufficient elements of evidence establishing the accused persons’ criminal liability for the offences with which they were charged, including murder, wilful arson of a building, intentional assault resulting in permanent disability, and the offence of discrimination. The Prosecution further contended that these offences were preceded by discriminatory acts committed against a person known as Sifa since the time she married a person known as Manifashe. The Prosecution therefore sought review of the case, submitting that the High Court acquitted the accused of the aforementioned offences on the ground that no one had seen them commit the acts or coming from the scene, and that there was no evidence in connection with them and the crime scene at the time the offences were committed. The Prosecution argued that the Court reached this conclusion while disregarding testimonial evidence, including the statement given by Munyamahoro during the criminal investigation Bureau, in which he indicated that there had been a conspiracy to harm Sifa. In that statement, he explained that Nsengiyumva used to visit their home (at Munyakazi’s residence) and encouraged them to join him using the expression “kumwiyungaho” in order to kill Sifa. Among the issues examined by the Supreme Court was whether there existed evidence that the High Court, Musanze Chamber, had disregarded, which could establish the conviction of Munyakazi, Mugiraneza, Uwamariya, Munyamahoro, and Nsengiyumva for the offences of murder, wilful arson of a building, and intentional assault and battery resulting in permanent disability. The Court found that some acts had been committed at different times, but as part of a common plan planned by the families of Munyakazi and Nsengiyumva, aimed at harming the

## Page 2

family of Sifa and Jérôme on the basis of ethnic discrimination. The Court further held that the grounds relied upon by the High Court to convict the accused of the offence of ethnic discrimination were the same grounds that ought to have been relied upon to convict them of the offences of murder, wilful arson of a building, and intentional assault and battery resulting in permanent disability. Held: - For a criminal conspiracy to exist, there must be an agreement to commit an act that is defined by law as a criminal offence. The sharing of the intention to commit an offence and the guily mind of how the offence is to be carried out constitute the conspiracy to commit an offence, which is punishable by law even if the offence itself is ultimately committed by only one of the conspirators or is not carried out at all. The agreement to commit the offence is, in itself, sufficient. Application for review the case on grounds of injustice is justified; Munyakazi, Mugiraneza, Munyamahoro, Uwamariya and Nsengiyumva are convicted of the offences against them of discrimination, murder, wilful arson of someone and that of intentional assault and battery resulting in permanent disability; Hitimana is convicted of the offence of ethnic discrimination. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law nO 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence, article 48, 53 and that of 81. Law nO 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, Article 20,61,62,107,121,163 and that of 180. California Penal Code Section 182-185 Caselaws referred to: Prosecution vs Nshimiyimana Alexis and others, RPAA 0059/08/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 19/11/2010. Doctrines referred to: Charles Montaldo, What Is a Conspiracy? Crime and Criminal Justice,http://crime.about.com/od/Crime101. Raoul Declercq, La preuve en matière pénale, Bruxelles, Editions juridiques Swinnen H., 1988, p.25. H-D. Bosly et Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de la procédure pénale, Bruxelles, La Charte, 2001, p.926. Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2012, 4è édition, p.1191 Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On the evening of 22/02/2020, between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., in Marantima Village, Rwebeya Cell, Cyuve Sector, Musanze District, two children of Manifashe Jérôme and Sifa

## Page 3

Célestine were set on fire while inside their home, following the breaking of the window glass of the room in which they were sleeping. The child named Ikirezi Kundwa Délice, aged two (2) years, died instantly, while the other child, Umutoniwacu Agatako Winner, aged three and a half (3.5) years, sustained severe burns resulting in disability, namely the amputation of a leg. [2] Following these events, an investigation was conducted, resulting in the arrest of Munyakazi Evariste; his daughter, Uwamariya Visensiya; his sons, Munyamahoro Innocent and Mugiraneza Ildephonse; as well as Nsengiyumva Théoneste, who was the Social, Economic and Development Officer (SEDO) of Cyamvumba Cell in Kabatwa Sector, and Hitimana Jean de Dieu, who was the Head of Marantima Village.The Prosecution brought charges against Munyakazi Evariste, his sons and daughter, and Nsengiyumva Théoneste for the offences of discrimination, murder, wilful arson of a building, and intentional assault and battery resulting in permanent disability. Hitimana Jean de Dieu was charged solely with the offence of discrimination. The Prosecution thereafter referred the case to the Intermediate Court of Musanze. [3] In the Case n0 RP 00209/2020/TGI/MUS, decided on 08/04/2021, the Court declared Nsengiyumva Théoneste, Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Munyamahoro Innocent, and Uwamariya Visensiya convicted of the offences of ethnic discrimination, murder, willful arson of another person and intentional assault and battery, and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. The Court further declared Hitimana Jean de Dieu convicted of the offence of ethnic discrimination and sentenced him to seven (7) years’ imprisonment and a fine of Frw 1,000,000. [4] All the accused appealed against this judgment before the High Court, Musanze Chamber, their appeal was registered under n0 RPA 00395/2021/HC/MUS. By its decision of 07/07/2022, the Court declared Nsengiyumva Théoneste, Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse and Uwamariya Visensiya convicted of the offence of ethnic discrimination, but acquitted of the offences of murder, willful arson of another person’s building, and intentional assault resulting in permanent disability, and sentenced them to seven (7) years’ imprisonment and a fine of one million (Frw 1,000,000) Rwandan francs. The Court further declared Munyamahoro Innocent and Hitimana Jean de Dieu acquitted of all the charges brought against them and ordered their immediate release. [5] The court explained that there were no sufficient and conclusive elements of evidence to prove the offences of murder, willful arson of another person’s building, and intentional assault resulting in permanent disability against all the accused who were prosecuted for those offences. It further explained that there was no conclusive element of evidence proving that Hitimana Jean de Dieu committed the offence of ethnic discrimination, and that no act constituting ethnic discrimination was established in respect of Munyamahoro Innocent. [6] The Prosecution wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting for review of that judgment on grounds of injustice. After examining the request, the President of the Court of Appeal petitioned to the President of the Supreme Court for a review on grounds of injustice. Upon considering the report submitted to him, on 03/11/2023 the President of the Supreme Court rendered Decision n0 165/CJ/2023, ordering that the case be retried, and it was registered under n0 RS/INJUST/RP00003/2023/SC.

## Page 4

[7] The case was called on15/05/2024, and all parties appeared; however, the case was not tried1 and was adjourned several times for various reasons2. The hearing was resumed on 07/05/2025.The Prosecution was represented by Gakwerere Javan, a National Prosecutor; Munyakazi Evariste, Nsengiyumva Théoneste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Uwamariya Visensiya and Munyamahoro Innocent were assisted by Counsel Uwamahoro Nyiranzayino Christine; Hitimana Jean de Dieu was assisted by Counsel Nyirabera Josephine.; [8] In both his submissions and pleadings, the representative of the Prosecution argues that the High Court, Musanze Chamber, ignored sufficient elements of evidence establishing the accused persons’ guilt in respect of the alleged offences. He further submitted that those offences were preceded by acts of discrimination against SIFA Célestine from the time she married Manifashe Jerôme, and subsequently conspired to kill her, as confirmed by various witnesses. [9] Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Uwamariya Visensiya, Munyamahoro Innocent, and Nsengiyumva Théoneste submitted that they never formed any conspiracy to kill Sifa Célestine, and that there is no evidence linking them to the scene where the alleged offences were committed, because on 22/02/2020 they were not at home, and at the time when the children were allegedly set on fire, they had not yet arrived at home. Hitimana Jean de Dieu also contends that there is no evidence establishing his guilt in respect of the offence of discrimination with which he is charged, as he never ignored any complaint that Sifa Célestine may have brought to him. [10] In this instant case, the Court examined the following issues: a) Whether there are elements of evidence establishing that Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Uwamariya Visensiya, Munyamahoro Innocent and Nsengiyumva Théoneste committed the offences of murder, willful arson of nother person’s building, and intentional assault resulting in permanent disability, which the High Court, Musanze Chamber, allegedly disregarded; b) Whether there are elements of evidence establishing that Munyamahoro Innocent and Hitimana Jean de Dieu alias Bondo committed the offence of ethnic discrimination, which was disregarded by the High Court, Musanze Chamber; c) To determine the penalties to be imposed on the accused persons. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether there are elements of evidence establishing that Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Uwamariya Visensiya, Munyamahoro Innocent and Nsengiyumva Théoneste committed the offences of murder, willful arson of nother

1 In order for the Prosecution to interrogate the witnesses referred to in the judgment rendered by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, which did not interrogate, and also to interrogates other witnesses who submitted their written testimony in the system on the day of the hearing. 2 They include being one of the judges in the bench was no longer belonging to the Supreme Court and the Court having conducted an investigation at the scene of the crime.

## Page 5

person’s building, and intentional assault resulting in permanent disability, which the High Court, Musanze Chamber, allegedly disregarded. [11] The representative of the Public Prosecution stated that the High Court acquitted the accused of the aforementioned offenses on the grounds that no one had witnessed them committing the acts or leaving the scene, and that there was no evidence linking them to the scene of the crime during the commission of those offenses. The Court allegedly did so while ignoring the testimony of Munyamahoro Innocent during Investigation, who indicated that there had been a conspiracy to harm SIFA Célestine because Nsengiyumva had been coming to their home (at Munyakazi), and had encouraged others to join him where he used to call “kumwiyungaho”, in order to kill Sifa. [12] He futher argued that in his testimony, Munyamahoro indicated that those he suspected of burning the children of Sifa Célestine were Nsengiyumva, Mugiraneza, and Uwamariya, as they were constantly in conflict with her. The representative of the Public Prosecution Authority also explained that Munyamahoro stated that Mugiraneza was frequently requesting them (his parents and siblings) to fight against SIFA and kill her, failing so, lead to sell and emmigrate. He further noted that Uwamariya also raised about that ideology of Mugiraneza during her interrogation in the Investigation Bureau, stating that her brother had indeed stated. [13] Munyakazi Evariste in his defense, denied the charges against him, and that when the security organs arrived at the scene of the alleged crime, they found nothing else had burned and he wonders how a house set on fire with gasoline could fail to ignite, and nothing also showing that fire had been extinguished, and one child had already been removed from the house and therefore, Sifa Célestine should indicate who assisted in extinguishing the fire and removing the child from the house. [14] Mugiraneza denies the charges brought against him. He states that he has no conflict with SIFA Célestine that would make him want to harm her; that Nsengiyumva hates him because he had one of his relatives imprisoned because of Mugiraneza, and therefore they could not have planned anything together; and he never accepts the testimony of Gakara Danani and Habyarimana Emmanuel because he has disputes with them. [15] Uwamariya Visensiya denies the charges brought against her, stating that there was no conspiracy to cause harm to Sifa Célestine; that her co-accused are adults such that she could not have engaged with them in any plan. She further contends that she never accepts the testimony of Gakara Danani, Habyarimana Emmanuel and Rucagu Boniface on the grounds that they are existing disputes with her family. [16] Munyamahoro Innocent argues that he denies the charges brought against him, stating that Nsengiyumva did not come to his home to incite them to harm Sifa Célestine; that no conspiracy to commit the alleged offences ever existed; and that on the very day of the commission of the alleged offence, he was being visited by his wife’s parents, making it impossible for him to both receive visitors and participate in any act intended to harm Sifa. He concludes by rejecting the testimony of Gakara Danani, Habyarimana Emmanuel, and Rucagu Boniface, on the grounds that there are existing disputes between him and those witnesses.

## Page 6

[17] Nsengiyumva Théoneste, in his defense, states that he was not a friend of the Munyakazi family such that they could have conspired the alleged plan; that he had no dispute with Jérôme, as he sold him land to allow access for his vehicle at a time when other neighbors had refused. He further states that he does not accept the testimony of Munyamahoro, arguing that they had no occasion to meet in order to conspire the alleged plan as he used to be busy. He requests the Court to declare founded the testimony of Uwimbabazi Providence and Mukundente Liliane, who stated that there was no discrimination in Marantima Village. He concludes by rejecting the testimony of Habyarimana Emmanuel. [18] Counsel Uwamahoro Nyiranzayino Christine, assisting Munyakazi, Nsengiyumva, Munyamahoro, Mugiraneza and Uwamariya, submits that the statements given by Munyakazi and Munyamahoro during the investigation bureau should not be valid, as they amount to mere speculation, and that what Munyamahoro stated was the result of panic. She further indicates that the defense does not accept the testimony of Habyarimana Emmanuel and Gakara Danani. She goes on to explain that the issue at hand concerned access for Jérôme’s vehicle, which was subsequently resolved, and that the authorities decided that Jérôme would purchase from Munyakazi the portion of land necessary to allow vehicle access; this decision was documented in an official report. She states that none of the reports produced indicate that the alleged discrimination occurred, and that consequently no evidence has been presented to establish the alleged conspiracy in this case. She added that the defense rejects the testimony of Habyarimana Emmanuel and Gakara Danani. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [19] In this present case, the root cause is whether there are sufficient elements of evidence establishing that the accused mentoned above committed the offences of murder, willful arson of another person’s property, and intentional assault and battery resulting in permanent disability, which the High Court, Musanze Chamber, disregarded. [20] Article 20 of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, as amended, provides as follows: “Conspiracy to commit an offence is an agreement between two (2) or more persons to engage in the commission of an offence by any one or more of them. Conspiracy to commit an offence is punishable by the same penalty as the intended offence. Any person involved in conspiracy but who reports it to administrative authorities, judicial or security organs and disclose to them the names of involved criminals and their accomplices is exempted from the penalty prescribed for conspiracy if he/she reports it before the commission of the offence in respect of which conspiracy takes place.” [21] As explained under Sections 182–185 of the California Penal Code, any undoutful act marking the beginning of the commission of an offence is not required to establish a conspiracy, the essential is to prove that, two or more persons had the intent and agreed to commit an offence3.

3 Conspiracy is when “two or more persons conspire to commit a crime.” They do not actually have to take any action towards committing the crime, but it must be proven that they both intended and agreed on that end. California Penal Code of 2005, Section 182-185.

## Page 7

[22] Charles MONTALDO also explains that it is not necessary to establish any act aimed at executing the offence of conspiracy; that conspiracy is sufficient, even if there was no act amounting to an attempt to commit the crime occured4. [23] The aforementioned demonstrate that, for a conspiracy to exist, there must be an agreement to carry out an act that is classified as a criminal offence by law. The sharing of the intent to commit an offence and the mutual understanding that the offence will be carried out constitute the conspiracy punishable by law, even if the offence is ultimately committed by only one of the conspirators or is not committed at all; the conspiracy is sufficient. [24] Article 81 of Law n0 62/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence provides that the competent organ admits the human presumption only if it is relevant, precise and consistent and in such case only as the law admits evidence by any means. [25] Legal scholar Raoul DECLERCQ states that, in accordance with the provisions of the law, while making a decision, it is the judge, exercising independence and impartiality, who determines the value of the evidence before them in the case file5. Similarly, scholars H.-D. Bosly and Damien VANDERMEERSCH state that when the law does not provide a specific modality of evidence production, the trial judge, acting freely and independently, assesses the weight of the evidence and bases their judgment and decision on that assessment6. [26] The aforementioned also indicates that the law recognizes that a judge, in the exercise of their independence and discretion, determines the weight of the evidence before them in the case file, and that such evidence is evaluated based on all circumstances of the case. [27] The case file indicates that Manifashe Jérôme came to reside in Marantima Village in 2008; at that time, his neighbors, including the family of Munyakazi and that of Nsengiyumva, welcomed him warmly, and they lived together peacefully without any problems. [28] The case file further shows that in 2016, he married Sifa Célestine, after which problems began, allegedly instigated by the family of Munyakazi and that of Nsengiyumva, who conspired to harm the family of Manifashe and Sifa Célestine. From that time, acts of violence occurred, including: calling Sifa a snake, calling her a witch, telling her to go live in Karwasa where other Tutsis reside, making noise to her when she went out, ambushing her, throwing stones at her, threatening Jérôme that they would harm him because he had brought in them a witch, building a stone wall on the road to prevent his vehicle from exiting the enclosure, throwing stones and

4 The crime of conspiracy can be charged whether or not the crime is ever actually carried out. And in some jurisdictions, no action toward carrying out the crime has to be proven for a conspiracy to exist. For example, if two people plan to rob and bank and they go buy ski masks to wear during the robbery, they can be charged with conspiracy to commit bank robbery, even if they never actually rob the bank or even attempt to rob the bank. Buying ski masks is not a crime, but it furthers the conspiracy to commit a crime, Charles Montaldo, What Is a Conspiracy?, Crime and Criminal Justice,http://crime.about.com/od/Crime_101. 5 « Sous réserves des exceptions prévues par la loi, le juge apprécie librement et souverainement la valeur probante des éléments qui se trouvent à sa disposition pour fonder sa décision » (Raoul Declercq, La preuve en matière pénale, Bruxelles, Editions juridiques Swinnen H., 1988, p.25). 6 « Lorsque la loi n’établit pas un mode spécial de preuve, le juge du fond apprécie souverainement en fait la valeur probante des éléments sur lesquels il fonde sa conviction » (H-D. Bosly et Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de la procédure pénale, Bruxelles, La Charte, 2001, p.926).

## Page 8

injured her, and throwing excreta to her house, as confirmed by witness Murwanashyaka Célestin while asked by the Intermediate Court of Musanze. The case file shows that these acts escalated to the point where Uwamariya assaulted Sifa, for which the Primary Court of Muhoza sentenced her to three (3) years’ imprisonment and a fine of Frw 500,000. [29] As explained by the Prosecution, these acts were carried out at different times but within the framework of a plan devised by the family of Munyakazi and that of Nsengiyumva aimed at harming the family of Sifa Célestine and Jérôme, based on ethnic discrimination. a. Regarding Munyakazi Evariste [30] The Court finds that Munyakazi Evariste is accused by his son, Munyamahoro Innocent, during his interrogation on 23/02/2020, at the Criminal Investigation Bureau, he was asked about the role of his parents in the burning of Sifa’s children, who immediately replied that he could not deny their involvement, as they had disputes that had led to litigation between them. He added that they may have collaborated with Nsengiyumva in a manner of which he was unaware7. [31] Another witness, Gakara Danani, told the Criminal Investigation Bureau that he suspects SIFA’s children were burned by members of the family of Munyakazi because of the hatred they held toward Sifa for being a Tutsi woman8. Regarding the question of who participated in burning Sifa’s children in the house, Uwamariya Visensiya, although she responded that she did not know them, added that no neighbor lives with her in good relationship.9 b. Regarding Uwamariya Visensiya [32] Witness Mukantazinda Béatha, during her interrogation at the Criminal Investigation Bureau on 25/02/2020, stated that while they were at Munyakazi’s house, a girl (Uwamariya) ran in shouting that they had to turn off the lights at Sifa’s house and that the children were burned. The witness also explained that the girl came after Innocent (Munyamahoro) had gone outside towards the road10. [33] In his interrogation at the Criminal Investigation Bureau, as stated above, Munyamahoro Innocent stated that among those he suspects of burning SIFA’s children includes Uwamariya Visensiya. Munyakazi also stated that among those he suspects of participating in that offence includes Uwamariya11. [34] The Court further finds that, in the hearing report before the Intermediate Court of Musanze on 23/02/2021, Uwamariya stated that on the day of the offence, her brother called her to go somewhere12, after which she returned to keep laundry at the church. During the hearing, she also said that when she arrived home to fetch water, she found the situation had occurred and that the police had already arrived. However, before the same Court, in the hearing of 31/05/2021, she stated that on 22/02/2020 she was at the church washing choir clothes, then returned home to go

7 Statement of interrogation of Munyamahoro Innocent of 23/02/2020, p.3, C29. 8 Statement of interrogation of Gakara Danani of 26/02/2020, p.2, C 73 9 Statement of interrogation of Uwamariya Visensia of 25/02/2020, p.3, C25. 10 Statement of interrogation of Mukantazinda Béatha of 25/02/2020, p.2, C50. 11 Statement of interrogation of Munyakazi Evariste of 23/02/2020, p.2, C13 12 Hearing report of 23/02/2021, p.6

## Page 9

to the parish, and afterwards went back to the church; upon returning, she found that the alleged children had been burned, at which point people came and asked her about Nsengiyumva and Munyakazi. Before the High Court, she stated that after fetching water, she saw four motorcycles together, and upon arriving home, she heard people saying that Sifa’s children had been burned. [35] The Court finds that Uwamariya, in her statements to various authorities, contradicted herself, sometimes stating that the offence occurred while she was at her home, on the other hand saying that she returned from fetching water and found that it had happened. When these contradictions are considered alongside the statements of Munyakazi and Munyamahoro during the Criminal Investigation Bureau, in which they initially suspected her of participating in the offence, as well as the statement of Mukantazinda Béatha, such contradictions indicate that she sought to evade her responsibility the commission of the offence. c. Regarding Nsengiyumva Théoneste [36] The Court finds that the suspect is accused by Munyakazi, who stated during his interrogation before the Investigation Bureau that he suspects him of having participated in the offence because he had ongoing conflicts with Sifa, and that on the day the offence was committed he had been at home throughout the day. He is also accused by Munyamahoro Innocent, who stated that during his interrogation before the Investigation Bureau that he suspects him of having committed the offence and that he even went to his home to ask them to collaborate with her in killing SIFA.These allegations are corroborated by the testimony of Habyarimana Emmanuel, who stated that SIFA’s family was harassed by Nsengiyumva Théoneste and Munyakazi on the grounds that she was a Tutsi woman, and that during the time the offence was committed, Nsengiyumva refused to render assistance and instead went into hiding at a neighbour’s home.This is further supported by the statement of Uwabera Alice, the Executive Secretary of Cyuve Sector, who stated that immediately after the offence occurred she intervened, and SIFA informed her that the persons she suspected were Nsengiyumva Théoneste and the family of Munyakazi, as they were the ones who consistently harassed her on the grounds that she was a Tutsi woman. [37] The Court finds that, apart from the incriminating witnesses, the accused himself was characterised by inconsistencies in his statements regarding her whereabouts on the day the offence was committed. During the Investigation, he stated that he had attended various activities in Kabatwa Sector, and that upon returning home, immediately after removing his shoes, he heard screams coming from Sifa’s home and went to render assistance. However, while being interrogated before the Prosecution, he stated that he arrived at his home after 7:30 p.m., found that security organs had already arrived, by entering the home of SIFA and Jérôme as someone who had rendered the assistance, was immediately arrested by the police. It further appears that on the day she was interrogated by the Prosecution, namely on 02/03/2020, he was also issued with a letter by the Executive Secretary of Kabatwa Sector stating that on 22/02/2020 he had spent the whole day in that Sector mobilizing the population to engage in pyrethrum farming. However, among the activities he herself claimed to have carried out on 22/02/2020 in Kabatwa Sector, the mobilization of the population for pyrethrum farming does not appear. During the investigation conducted by this instant Court, his wife, Ikitegetse, and Ntamabyariro Daphrose, the wife of Munyakazi, stated that Nsengiyumva returned from work carrying a bag and

## Page 10

found that the offences had already been committed. His wife further stated that he had spent a week working away from home and that it was on that day that he returned home. d. Regarding Mugiraneza Ildephonse [38] The witness Gakara Danani stated during the Investigation that the individuals he suspects of burning children in the house are Munyakazi and his sons, as they had ongoing conflicts with Jérôme’s family, and had also told him that they would confront him because he had brought in them a Tutsi woman. His involvement in the offence is further demonstrated by the fact that he told his siblings that they should get rid of Sifa, or, if she resisted, they should relocate and flee with her. This idea was confirmed by Munyamahoro and Uwamariya. e. Regarding Munyamahoro Innocent [39] The Court finds that the suspect is accused by Gakara Danani, who stated that he suspects that those who set fire to Sifa’s children are Munyakazi and his sons. This is further corroborated by the testimony of Mukantazinda Béatha, the mother-in-law, who stated that when Uwamariya came running, shouting that the lights should be turned off because Sifa’s children had been burnt in the house, it was at that moment that Innocent came out. Moreover, Munyamahoro himself stated during the Investigation that Nsengiyumva came to their home to incite them to kill Sifa, but he never reported it to the authorities in order to prevent the offence beforehand. Furthermore, wherever Munyamahoro Innocent was interrogated, he never stated that he had arrived at their home on the evening when the offence occurred. f. General conclusion [40] The Court finds that Munyamahoro Innocent stated during the Investigation Bureau that the persons he suspects of having committed the offence of burning SIFA’s and Jérôme’s children are Nsengiyumva, Mugiraneza, and Uwamariya. Munyakazi (his father), on the other hand, stated that the persons he suspects of having involved in the commission of that offence are Nsengiyumva, Uwamariya, and his wife. These statements demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy, as both witnesses maintain that the offence was committed by more than one person. [41] The Court finds that the High Court convicted Munyakazi Evariste, Nsengiyumva Théoneste, Uwamariya Visensiya, and Mugiraneza Ildephonse solely of the offence of discrimination, based on the evidence including the testimony of Munyamahoro Innocent given during the Investigation Bureau, as well as that of witnesses Habyarimana Emmanuel and Gakara Danani; however, it is clear that the hatred they harboured against Sifa, grounded in discrimination, is what led them to devise a plan to burn her children, in case they miss her (Sifa). Uwamariya, while being interrogated in the Investigation Bureau, stated that no neighbour had a good relationship with SIFA. Mukantazinda Béatha stated that, shortly after the offence had been committed, Uwamariya came to her home and told those present to switch off the lights at Sifa’s house the children had been burned inside the house, raising questions as to where she was coming from, how she knew that the children had been burned, and why she did not call upon people to render assistance. [42] The Court further finds that the grounds relied upon by the High Court to convict the accused of the offence of ethnic discrimination are the same grounds that ought to have supported

## Page 11

their conviction for murder, wilful arson of someone’s building, and intentional assault and battery resulting in permanent disability. Indeed, it was that discrimination which escalated into extreme violence and cruelty, leading the accused to form a plan to burn the children inside the house. The context in which the offences were committed is clear and undoubtful. To declare that the accused are innocent on the ground that no one saw them committing the offence or leaving the scene amounts to wilful disregard of the facts, since the offence would in any event not have been committed openly or in the presence of witnesses. [43] The Court also finds that the perpetrators of the crime were not likely to be seen by anyone, given the location of their residence, as shown in the diagram in the case file prepared by the Rwanda Investigation Bureau. Moreover, the Court itself observed how close their houses were, making it easy for the accused to monitor SIFA’s movements leaving the children alone at home and ensuring that she would return so that they could carry out their malicious plan. Furthermore, the room in which the children were sleeping, is located at the back of the house they lived in, within the compound, and is very well hidden, so that an ordinary person who is not a close neighbor would not know that they were there. [44] The Court, in the course of its investigation conducted on 18/03/2025, Sifa stated that, on the day and at the time when the offence was committed, as she was returning from shopping, she saw Ntamabyariro Daphrose, who, upon seeing her, ran toward her own home. When Sifa arrived at her house, she found that her children had already been burned, and she immediately understood that Ntamabyariro had been keeping her under surveillance. The Court finds that this constitutes additional evidence indicating that the offence was planned at the residence of Munyakazi, and that the perpetrators came from that household as well as from the household of Nsengiyumva, given that their homes are adjacent and that these two families were the ones seeking to cause harm to Sifa. [45] The Court finds that the statements made during the Investigation Bureau on 23/02/2020, immediately after the offence had been committed, are the ones that should be considered. This analysis is consistent with the views expressed by Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs, and Adrien Masset in their book Manuel de procédure pénale, in which they state that a judge may consider the statements made by a witness during the investigation, while disregarding those given during trial13. This further are consistent with the position taken by these scholars in the same book, to the effect that a judge may base a decision on statements made without an oath during the investigation or inquiry, even where such statements are not repeated the same as previously stated under oath during trial14. [46] The Court, based on the legal provisions mentioned above, the writings of legal scholars, and the explanations provided, finds that, in the Case n0 RPA 00395/2021/HC/MUS, the High Court, Musanze Chamber, overlooked clear evidence that would have amounted to the conviction

13 « (…) le juge peut légalement décider que la déclaration d’un témoin entendu sans serment au cours de l’information préparatoire présente plus de crédit que celle faite ultérieurement par celui-ci à l’audience, fût-ce sous serment » (Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2012, 4è édition, p.1191). 14 « Le juge peut fonder sa conviction sur des déclarations faites sans serment au cours de l’instruction préparatoire ou au cours de l’information alors même qu’elles ne sont pas confirmées sous serment à l’audience » (Michel Franchimont et alii, op.cit. p.1160).

## Page 12

of the accused on all the charges brought against them, consequently, the accused ought to have been convicted of the offences of wilful arson of someone’s building, murder, and assault and battery resulting in permanent disability. 2) Whether there are elements of evidence establishing conviction of Munyamahoro Innocent and Hitimana Jean de Dieu, alias Bondo, of the offence of ethnic discrimination, which were disregarded by the High Court, Musanze Chamber. [47] The representative of the Prosecution submits that, on the day Sifa Célestine was beaten by Uwamariya, namely on 19/02/2019, a witness who was present, Rucagu Boniface, stated that, in the words spoken at the scene, he heard Munyamahoro refers to Sifa as a dangerous person, and say that they had sent snake to come and eat them, thereby impossible to declare them acquited of this offence. [48] With regard to Hitimana Jean de Dieu, the Prosecution explains that Munyakazi stated that Hitimana was the one who advised him to construct the wall made of stones across Jérôme’s access road, which constitutes conduct demonstrating that he too supported the plan to harass the family of Jérôme and Sifa. [49] They conclude saying that Munyamahoro and Hitimana were aware of the plan devised to cause harm to SIFA, yet neither of them reported it to the competent authorities. The Prosecution referred to the testimony of Gakara Danani and Murwanashyaka Célestin, who stated that the family of Jérôme and Sifa was persecuted because the wife was a Tutsi woman, and that Hitimana Jean de Dieu was aware of this situation but took no action; however, this testimony was disregarded. [50] Munyamahoro Innocent, in his defence, submits that the allegation that he referred to SIFA as a dangerous person or a snake was made by RUCAGU Boniface, but contends that this is untrue, arguing that had it been true, he would have been prosecuted for it at the time. [51] Counsel Uwamahoro Nyiranzayino Christine, assisting him, submits that the Intermediate Court acted on the basis of emotion, given that the witnesses it heard, including local authorities, stated that they had never been aware of any issue of discrimination, which is nonetheless alleged to have been the root cause of the other offences committed. She further argues that the Prosecution should not rely on incriminating statements attributed to Munyamahoro that were made in the proceedings against Uwamariya Visensiya for assault and battery, in order to use them in this present case, as such statements cannot be treated as newly introduced evidence. [52] Hitimana Jean de Dieu, in his defense, submits that no issue of discrimination has ever been existed in Marantima Village. He states that in 2017, Manifashe was thrown a stone and that the matter relating to that act of violence was duly addressed. He further states that in 2019, there was merely a dispute of a pathway between Manifashe and the family of Munyakazi, and that no issue of discrimination was raised. He also acknowledges that he did not show some negligence in handling certain matters brought to his attention; instead, he resolved them promptly and prepared reports accordingly. He therefore contends that the statements made by Gakara Danani, Rucagu Boniface, Habyarimana Emmanuel, and Murwanashyaka should not be considered, especially

## Page 13

since those made by Habyarimana Emmanuel, who succeeded him as village leader and whom he accuses of seeking his imprisonment in order to prevent him from interfering with his leadership. [53] He further states that he never advised Munyakazi to build a wall made of stones along Jérôme’s pathway, as what he sought for, was a compensation. He concludes by stating that when the incident occurred at SIFA’s home, they intervened and found SIFA present, they requested her to identify where the fire originated from, and she showed them a small spot from which the fire had started. It was he who then contacted the Cell Executive Secretary so that an investigation could be initiated, and he was immediately listed among the suspects. [54] Regarding the investigation report conducted by the Court, Hitimana Jean de Dieu submits that the testimony of Habyarimana Emmanuel should not be considered as he contradicts himself: during the investigation he stated that Hitimana was arrested after responding to the incident, on the other hand he stated that Hitimana was merely observing. He further states that the statement that Mugiraneza served as his secretary during his tenure as village leader is not true, and that the allegations that he discriminated against Manifashe and Sifa and refused to prepare reports concerning their complaints are also unfounded, as he did in fact prepare a report regarding the violence committed against Manifashe when he was attacked with stones. [55] Counsel Nyirabera Josephine, counsel for the defense, submits that the inculpatory statements, Uwabera Alice and Gakara Danani, are unfounded, as he was the one who requested the Cell authorities to resolve the dispute concerning the pathway access of the car between Munyakazi and Manifashe Jérôme and that Munyakazi himself testified before the Court that Hitimana never advised him to build a wall, and that the statements made before the Court are the ones that should be relied upon. [56] She further submits that the Prosecution initially charged Hitimana as an accomplice to the offence of discrimination, but later alleged that he was a principal offender, which in itself demonstrates that he never played any role in the commission of the offence with which he is charged. Consequently, the Court should find that all the matters raised are made of doubt, and therefore declares that he was not an accomplice to the offence of ethnic discrimination, and further finds that there are no grounds for the review the case on grounds of injustice. [57] She concludes by stating that she does not accept the testimony of Murwanashyaka Célestin and that of Habyarimana Emmanuel, as their statements are false; for example, he was the one who prepared the report of 20/4/2017 concerning the person who had thrown stones at Manifashe Jérôme. She requests that the Court should base on the testimony of Mukandutiye Albertine, Mukamarara Espérance, and Ntibarikure Vicentien. She further requests the Court to examine the reports appearing on pages (cotes) 79 and 87, as they discharge Hitimana. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [58] The legal issue in this present case is to determine whether there is concrete elements of evidence proving that Munyamahoro Innocent and Hitimana Jean de Dieu, alias Bondo, committed the crime of ethnic discrimination, which was overlooked by the High Court, Musanze Chamber.

## Page 14

[59] Article 163 of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, as amended, provides that any person who commits one of the following acts: 1o act which inconveniences a person or a group of people or causes division among persons or a group of people on the basis of race, ethnicity, origin, clan, family connection, colour of skin, sex, region, nationality, religion, political ideology, economic classes, culture, language, social status, physical or mental disability or physical appearance; 2o acts aimed at denying a person or a group of people their rights granted under the Rwandan law or international conventions ratified by Rwanda, on the basis of race, ethnicity, origin, clan, family connection, colour of skin, sex, region, nationality, religion, political ideology, economic classes, culture, language, social status, physical or mental disability or physical appearance; 3o act instigating a person to deny another person or a group of people their rights granted under the Rwandan law or international conventions ratified by Rwanda, on the basis of race, ethnicity, origin, clan, family connection, colour of skin, sex, region, nationality, religion, political ideology, economic classes, culture, language, social status, physical or mental disability or physical appearance. [60] Article 53 of Law n0 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence provides that the competent organ assesses the admissibility or inadmissibility and probative value of testimonial evidence. It is not bound by the number of witnesses. Instead, it mainly considers their knowledge of facts and sincerity of their declarations. [61] Article 48 of Law n0 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence provides that any person who took part in the commission of an offence, or the victim of the offence, may be heard as a witness. [62] Matters relating to the probative value of testimony were upheld in Case n0 RPAA 0059/08/CS, decided on 19/11/2010, between the Prosecution, Nshimiyimana Alexis, Twagirumukiza Anastase, and Habimana Bosco, in which the Supreme Court held that the testimony of persons is not deprived of its probative value merely because they are related to one another or have an interest in the case, since its value does not depend on the witnesses but instead on the truth contained therein, which is determined solely by the court after analysing the statements of the witnesses. a. Regarding Munyamahoro Innocent [63] The court finds that the witness Gakara Danani alleged that he, his father, and Mugiraneza used to tell Manifashe Jérôme that they would harm him because he had married a Tutsi woman; the court also finds that the witness Rucagu Boniface, from the Ivestigation Bureau, in the case file of Uwamariya Visensiya, who was charged with the crime of assault and batteries committed to Sifa, stated that during a fight he was present and heard Munyamahoro Innocent call Sifa a dangereous person who came to eat them; this statement constitutes element of evidence of ethnic discrimination. b. Regarding Hitimana Jean de Dieu

## Page 15

[64] Regarding Hitimana Jean de Dieu, the court notes that Munyakazi Evariste, during his interrogation during the Investigation Bureau, stated that he was the one who advised him to build a wall made of stones along the road so that the vehicles of Manifashe and SIFA would be unable to get out; moreover, the witness Gakara Danani stated that he saw the persecution carried out against SIFA but merely observed it without taking any action. This was further upheld by the witness Murwanashyaka Célestin, who was questioned by the Intermediate Court of Musanze during an investigation conducted on 05/03/2021, and who said that Hitimana never reported the problems of Manifashe when they were brought to him, and also stated that the Tutsis had other places where they could live. The court finds that this constitutes elements of evidence proving that he too committed acts of discrimination against Sifa Célestine. [65] The court finds that Hitimana never prepared any report relating to the persecution based on ethnic discrimination against the family of Manifashe and Sifa, and that such discrimination is clear in the case file, with some individuals having already been convicted of this crime by both lower courts. This constitutes element of evidence that he supported such acts. The fact that the High Court has not convicted him such act, amounts to ignoring the elements of evidence. [66] Based on the explanations provided above, the court finds that there are sufficient elements of evidence to establish that Munyamahoro Innocent and Hitimana Jean de Dieu, also known as Bondo, committed the crime of ethnic discrimination. 3) To determine the penalties that should be imposed to the accused persons [67] The Representative of the Prosecution requests that Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Uwamariya Visensiya, Nsengiyumva Théoneste, and Munyamahoro Innocent should be found guilty of the concurrent offenses of murder, wilful arson of another person’s building, intentional assault resulting in permanent disability, and the crime of ethnic discrimination committed against the family of Manifashe Jérôme and his wife SIFA Célestine, and asks that each of them should be sentenced to life imprisonment. [68] He further states that Hitimana Jean de Dieu, alias Bondo, should be found guilty of the crime of ethnic discrimination, which he committed jointly with Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Munyamahoro Innocent, Uwamariya Visensiya, and Nsengiyumva Théoneste, and that be sentenced to seven (7) years’ imprisonment and a fine of Frw 1,000,000. [69] Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Munyamahoro Innocent, Uwamariya Visensiya, Nsengiyumva Théoneste, and Counsel Uwamahoro Nyiranzayino Christine, counsel for them, request the Court to declare all of them acquitted of all charges brought against them before this instant Court. [70] Hitimana Jean de Dieu and Counsel Nyirabera Josephine, Counsel for him, submit that there are no grounds for the review of this case on grounds of injustice since all grounds raised were examined by the High Court and found them unfounded, and requests the Court to declare the application for review the case on grounds of injustice for the decision concerning Hitimana Jean de Dieu remain unchanged. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

## Page 16

[71] The issue before this instant case is to determine the penalties to be imposed on the accused persons. [72] Article 180, paragraph two, of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, as amended, provides that any person who deliberately sets fire on another person’s building upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten (10) years and not more than fifteen (15) years with a fine of not less than three million Rwandan francs (FRW 3,000,000) and not more than five million Rwandan francs (FRW 5,000,000). [73] Article 107 of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above, provides that a person who intentionally kills another person commits murder. Upon conviction, he/ she is liable to life imprisonment. [74] Article 121, paragraph 3, of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above, provides that If assault or battery has caused illness or non-permanent incapacity to work, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of not less than ten (10) years and not more than fifteen (15) years and a fine of not less than three million Rwandan francs (FRW 3,000,000) and not more than five million Rwandan francs (FRW 5,000,000). If assault or battery has resulted in an incurable illness, permanent disability to work, full loss of function of an organ or serious mutilation, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of not less than ten (10) years and not more than fifteen (15) years and a fine of not less than three million Rwandan francs (FRW 3,000,000) and not more than five million Rwandan francs (FRW 5,000,000). [75] Article 163, paragraph 2, of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above, provides that a person convicted of committing one of the acts referred to under Paragraph One of this article is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than five (5) years but not more than seven (7) years and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand Rwandan francs (FRW 500,000) but not more than one million Rwandan francs (FRW 1,000,000). [76] Article 61, paragraph 3, of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above, provides that Ideal concurrence of offences occurs when: 1º a single act constitutes several offences; 2º separate acts which constitute separate offences, are related among themselves as they are aimed at accomplishing a single criminal intent. [77] Article 62, paragraph 2, of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above, provides that in case of ideal concurrence of offences referred to in item 2º of Paragraph 3 of article 61 of this Law, the judge imposes the maximum penalty provided for the most serious offence. [78] The Court finds that there has been an ideal concurrence of offences committed by Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Munyamahoro Innocent, Uwamariya Visensiya, and Nsengiyumva Théoneste because they have committed ethnic discrimination against SIFA Célestine, by persecuting her on the grounds that she is a Tutsi woman, with the intention of causing harm to her. This conduct ultimately resulted in the burning of the house in which the children were sleeping, resulting to the death of one child and the permanent disability of another. Consequently, the Court finds that the maximum statutory penalty applicable is life imprisonment, as provided for the offense of murder.

## Page 17

[79] The court finds that with regard to HITIMANA Jean de Dieu, having been convicted of the offense of ethnic discrimination, he should be sentenced to seven (7) years’ imprisonment and a fine of one million Rwandan francs (Frw 1.000.000). III. DECISION OF THE COURT [80] Declares the application filed by the Prosecution seeking a review the case n0 RPA 00395/2021/HC/MUS on grounds of injustice, which was rendered by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, on 07/07/2022, well-founded; [81] Declares the ruling of the case n0 RPA 00395/2021/HC/MUS, rendered by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, on 07/07/2022, overturned entirely; [82] Declares Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Munyamahoro Innocent, Uwamariya Visensiya, and Nsengiyumva Théoneste convicted of the charges brought against them, namely ethnic discrimination, murder, wilful arson of another person’s building, and intentional assault resulting in permanent disability; [83] Declares Hitimana Jean de Dieu convicted of the offense of ethnic discrimination; [84] Sentences Nsengiyumva Théoneste, Munyakazi Evariste, Mugiraneza Ildephonse, Munyamahoro Innocent, and Uwamariya Visensiya each to life imprisonment; [85] Sentences Hitimana Jean de Dieu to seven (7) years’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of one million Rwandan francs (Frw 1,000,000);