UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKASHEMA N’UNDI

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKASHEMA N’UNDI

Mukashema's confession was inconsistent and contradicted by her investigative statements, thus not credible for mitigation. Both Mukashema and Bihimana were found to have jointly planned and executed the murder, with evidence supporting their joint criminal enterprise. Statements made during investigation were properly considered as evidence against both accused.

Citation
RLR V.1-2017
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Appellant/accused: Mukashema Janvière; Appellant/accused: Bihimana Jean Baptiste
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
16 October 2015
Case Number
RPA0176/11/CS
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Confession, Mitigation of Sentence, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Evidence Assessment, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en, rw, fr
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Confession Mitigation of Sentence Joint Criminal Enterprise Evidence Assessment Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Mukashema Janvière

Appellant/accused

Bihimana Jean Baptiste

Appellant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mukashema's confession warranted mitigation of sentence
  2. 2 Whether Bihimana was wrongly convicted as an accomplice
  3. 3 Whether statements made during investigation can be relied upon when changed at trial

Ratio Decidendi

Mukashema's confession was inconsistent and contradicted by her investigative statements, thus not credible for mitigation. Both Mukashema and Bihimana were found to have jointly planned and executed the murder, with evidence supporting their joint criminal enterprise. Statements made during investigation were properly considered as evidence against both accused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court (RPA0069/10/HC/KIG of 16/6/2011) is upheld.
  • Court costs to be borne by the State.