RLR V. 3- 2025

# RLR V. 3- 2025

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2025-07-30 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

i Re UWOMBONYE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO RWANDA LAW REPORTS BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2025 Nyakanga, 2025 Law Reports V. 3 - 2025 July, 2025

## Page 2

ii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 3

iii Re UWOMBONYE ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO RWANDA LAW REPORTS BY’INKIKO REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2025 Nyakanga, 2025 Law Reports V. 3 - 2025 July, 2025

## Page 4

iv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 5

v Re UWOMBONYE ISHAKIRO

ISHAKIRO ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA................................................................................iii II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ......................................... iv IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. ix AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... xi IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................... xv AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................ xxi Re UWOMBONYE .................................................................... 1 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA .................................... 37 BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI ..................... 55 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA 73 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA ...................................... 99 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA .................................... 183 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA .......................... 239 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI ... 299 v vii vii viii xi xiii xv xix xxv

## Page 6

vi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 7

vii Re UWOMBONYE

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

NZAYISENGA Daniel

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

vii

## Page 8

viii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

Prof. Dr. Ngagi M. Alphonse Perezida wa Komite, Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire Dr. Muhire G. Yves Visi Perezida wa Komite, Umwarimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda Bwiza N. Blanche Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’inkiko Kalihangabo Isabelle Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga Rukundakuvuga F. Regis Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire Kaliwabo Charles Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire Dr. Karimunda M. Aimé Umuyobozi Mukuru wa ILPD Habarurema Jean Pierre Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru Nkurunziza Valens Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’inkiko Umuzayire B: Bibiane Visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe Ivugururwa ry`Amategeko Nsengiyumva Jean Claude Umugenzuzi w’inkiko

## Page 9

ix Re UWOMBONYE

Kibuka Jean Luc Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi Murererehe Saouda Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru Dr. Nshimiyimana Didace Urugereko Rwihariye rw'Urukiko Rukuru ruburanisha Ibyaha Mpuzamahanga n'Ibyaha byambuka Imbibi Lt Col Kalibu Phanuel Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikale Ninahazwa Roselyne Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu Dr. Bideri Diogène Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu Kabibi Specioza Intumwa ya Leta Uwimana Christine Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye Giraneza Clémentine Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye Umutesi Vestine Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

## Page 10

x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Mukamana Valentine Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze Dr Zikamwabahari Jean de Dieu Umwalimu muri University of Kigali Kamali Jean Damascene Umwalimu muri ULK Karake Canisius Umwalimu muri UNILAK Dr. Habimana Pie Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka Bagabo Faustin Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

## Page 11

xi Re UWOMBONYE

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 3 [2025]. Nk’uko mubizi, tubahitiramo imanza zikubiyemo bimwe mu bisubizo by’ibibazo muhura nabyo kenshi, haba mu mirimo yanyu ndetse no mu buzima bwa buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza zirindwi (7) zikurikira: urubanza rumwe (1) zerekeranye n’ibirego bisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’imbonezamubano, imanza eshatu (3) z’inshinjabyaha, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’ubucuruzi n’imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza. Iki cyegeranyo kiboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi: https://amategeko.gov.rw

MUKANTAGANZWA Domitilla Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

xi

## Page 12

xii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 13

xiii Re UWOMBONYE

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki Cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2025] 3 RLR

xiii

## Page 14

xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 15

xv Re UWOMBONYE

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu wa 2003 ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu. Ingingo ya 3 na 15. Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 16 Ukuboza 1966 yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki. Ingingo ya 14. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 yerekeye gukumira no guhana jenoside. Ingingo ya 3 n’iya 4. Ingingo ya 3. Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. Ingingo ya 108. Ingingo ya 155 Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. Ingingo ya 20, 49, 91 n’iya 93. Ingingo ya 1 n’iya 92. Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko. Ingingo ya 62 n’iya 69. Ingingo ya 52 Ingingo ya 52 n’iya 105 Ingingo ya 105. xv

## Page 16

xvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 158 niya 260. Ingingo ya 111 na 144 Ingingo ya 111 na 114 Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo. Ingingo ya 4, 6, 19, 81 n’iya 82. Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo. Ingingo ya 3, 63, 65 n’iya 119 Ingingo ya 65 n’iya 119 Itegeko No 02/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002 rihindura Itegeko – teka No 32/75 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri. Ingingo ya 2; Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka. Ingingo ya 5; Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 28/05/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga. Ingingo ya 2, 18, 19.

## Page 17

xvii Re UWOMBONYE

b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga Itegeko ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana. Ingingo ya 76, 82, 96, 113, 114 n’iya 115. Ingingo ya 132 Itegeko No 16/2004 ryo kuwa 19/06/2004 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko-Gacaca. Ingingo ya 6. Itegeko No 32/2009 ryo ku wa 18/11/2009 rigenga inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa. Ingingo ya 110 Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. Ingingo ya 184.

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

## Page 18

xviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 19

xix Re UWOMBONYE IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Re Ngendahayo Kabuye, RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2021/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/02/2023. Re Murangwa, RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2022. Re Murangwa, RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/019/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019. Re Akagera Business Group, RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/09/2016. Bagaragaza v SIRWA SARL (ADD) RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 14/02/2024. Insurance Company ltd n’ Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2022/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 02/12/2022. Ngizweninshuti v Muhima, RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga wa 21/02/2020, Nditiribambe n’abandi v Nyamaswa, RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020, Mukamana Mamique n’abandi v Candali Vérène n’abandi, RS/ INJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC, n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciwe kuwa 28/07/2020. Road Solution Pavements Product v Mailco Ltd, RC/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 25/09/2020. xix

## Page 20

xx ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

SANLAM Assurance Générales Plc v University of Rwanda RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2020/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/11/2020. Ubushinjacyaha v Bandora Charles, RPA 0001/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/03/2019. Ubushinjacyaha na Nshimiyimana Alexis n’abandi, RPAA 0059/08/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/11/2010. BUFCOFFEE Ltd v TEUSCHER INVEST Ltd, yahindutse KIVUBELT COFFEE Ltd RCOMAA 00012/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 22/07/2022 RODAS IMPORTER AND DISTRIBUTOR Ltd v Gasangwa Jean Baptiste n’abandi, RCOMAA 00042/2023/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/11/2023. Ubushinjacyaha vs. Munyagishari, RPA/GEN 00004/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 7/5/2021. Ubushinjacyaha vs Twahirwa François, RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA16 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/7/2023. Ubushinjacyaha vs. Shema Ernest, RPAA 00050/2024/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 26/4/2024. Ubushinjacyaha vs Abayisenga n’abandi, RPA 00016/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 22/3/2024. Ubushinjacyaha vs. Nsabimana Alias Sankara n’abandi, RPA 00060/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 04/04/2022.

## Page 21

xxi Re UWOMBONYE IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

Ubushinjacyaha v Ntaganzwa Ladislas, RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 3/3/2023. Ubushinjacyaha vs Birindabagabo Jean-Paul, RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 8/4/2022. Ubushinjacyaha vs Kabilimana Jean Damascène, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 16/10/2020. Ubushinjacyaha vs Twagirayezu Wenceslas, RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 31/ 07/2024. Ubushinjacyaha v Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (ICTR), Urugereko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 16/11/2001 Ubushinjacyaha v Seromba Athanase, ICTR-01-66-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 12/03/2008 Ubushinjacyaha v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 21 /05/2007. Ubushinjacyaha v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28 /04/ 2005. Ubushinjacyaha vs Nahimana Ferdinand n’abandi, ICTR 99-52- A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28/10/2007.

## Page 22

xxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ubushinjacyaha v Simon Bikindi, ICTR-01-72-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, Urugereko rw'ubujurire ku wa 18 Werurwe 2010. Ubushinjacyaha v Jean Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-S, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 19 /10/ 2000. Ubushinjacyaha v Munyakazi Yussuf, ICTR-97-36A-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28/09/2011. Ubushinjacyaha v Nchamihigo Simeon, Case ICTR-2001-63-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 18/03/ 2010. Ubushinjacyaha v Kalimanzira Callxte, ICTR -05-88-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 20/10/ 2010. Ubushinjacyaha v. Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 4 /09/1998. Ubushinjacyaha v. Zigiranyirazo Protais, ICTR-01-73-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 16 /11/2009. Ubushinjacyaha v Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 26 /05/2003 Ubushinjacyaha v Musema, ICTR-96-13-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 27 /01/ 2000.

## Page 23

xxiii AMAGAMBO MPINE

Ubushinjacyaha v Bikindi Simon, ICT–2001-72–T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) ku wa 02/12/2008. Ubushinjacyaha vs Bagosora Théoneste n’abandi, ICTR-98-41- T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda Ubushinjacyaha vs Renzaho, ICTR-97-31-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 14/07/2009. Ubushinjacyaha vs Gatete Jean Baptiste, ICTR-2000-61-T rwaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 31/03/2011. Ubushinjacyaha v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, ICTR-99-54A-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 23 /01/ 2003 Ubushinjacyaha v Karemera n’abandi, ICTR-98-44-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 29/09/2014. Ubushinjacyaha v Jean Paul Akayesu, ICTR -96-4-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 2/09/1998. Ubushinjacyaha v Ntagerura André n’abandi, ICTR-99-46-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 7/07/2006.

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

## Page 24

xxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 25

xxv AMAGAMBO MPINE

AMAGAMBO MPINE 1. Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba gukuraho ingingo z’itegeko kuko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Ububasha bwo kwemeza ko ingingo z’amategeko ngengamikorere zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga –Mu bubasha Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite, Umushingamategeko ntiyashyizemo kugenzura ko amategeko ngengamikorere anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Re UWOMBONYE, RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2023/SC 1 Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko – Kuba uwifuza kuba Avoka yasabwa gukora ikizamini mbere yo kwinjira mu mwuga kugirango hasuzumwe ubumenyi bwe, mu gihe ibyo bidasabwa abari mu zindi ngaga z’abakora imirimo yigenga kimwe n’abakora imirimo isanzwe y’ubucuruzi, ntibifatwa nko kutamureshyeshya n’abandi imbere y’amategeko, kuko imirimo bakora atari imwe. Re UWOMBONYE, RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2023/SC 1 2. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’ubukungu – Uwahohotewe wagize ubumuga buhoraho Uwahohotewe mu mpanuka wagize ubumuga buhoraho agomba guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’ubukungu hatitawe ku kuba yarakomeje cyangwa atarakomeje akazi. RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA, RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2023/SC 73 xxv

## Page 26

xxvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Ihinduka ry’umurongo – Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe – Uwahohotewe mu mpanuka wagize ubumuga buhoraho agomba guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi kuko mu ngaruka ubumuga buhoraho bugira ku burambe harimo no gutakaza amahirwe yo kuzamurwa mu ntera, uyu murongo ukaba uhindura uwari usanzwe wo mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC rwa Prime Insurance Company Ltd na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, aho izo ndishyi zahabwaga gusa uwatakaje akazi. RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA, RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2023/SC 73 3. Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Igisobanuro cya Sheki – Sheki itangwa hagamijwe kwishyura uyihawe – Igihe nta kindi gisobanuro kiyiherekeje, bigomba kumvikana iteka ko igamije kwishyura umwenda uyitanze abereyemo uyihawe. NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI, RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA 299 4. Amategeko agenga imanza nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cya jenoside – Umugambi wihariye (special intent cyangwa dolus specialis) – Ububi bw’icyaha cya jenoside bukigira kandi icyaha cyihariye, ari umugambi wihariye (special intent) wo kurimbura abantu bahuriye ku gihugu, ubwoko, idini cyangwa ibara ry’uruhu, uyu mwihariko ukaba ushingirwaho mu mihanire y’abakoze iki cyaha. UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA 183

## Page 27

xxvii AMAGAMBO MPINE

Gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside – Gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside bifatwa nk’icyaha cya jenoside ku buryo ubushake bwihariye bwo gukora ibyo byaha byombi ari bumwe, bivuze ko ubwumvikane hagati y’abantu babiri (2) cyangwa benshi bwo gukora jenoside buba bugamije kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, byakorwa n’umwe cyangwa benshi muri bo. UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA, RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA 99 Kuba icyitso mu cyaha cya Jenoside – Ubushake bwo kuba icyitso muri jenoside bugaragara mu gihe uregwa kuba icyitso mu cyaha cya jenoside yafashije cyangwa yahagarikiye cyangwa yashutse, azi icyo abigiriye kandi abishaka, undi muntu cyangwa abandi bantu gukora jenoside. UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA, RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA 99 Impamvu nkomezacyaha n’impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Uburemere bw’icyaha n’impamvu nkomezacyaha zigize icyaha, ntibyabangamira Umucamanza kwemeza impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zagaragaye mu nyungu z’uwahamwe n’icyaha, agamije kumugenera mu bushishozi bwe igihano gishingiye k’uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo n’imibereho ye bwite (individualisation de la peine). UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA, RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA 99

## Page 28

xxviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

5.Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – gusubirishamo urubanza – gusubirishwamo urubanza rwaciwe mu bujurire – iyo urubanza rwasubirishijwemo ari urubanza rwajuririwe bwa mbere, iyo rwongeye kujuririrwa, ubwo bujurire bufatwa nk’ubujurire bwa kabiri kuko kuba umuburanyi waregwaga yasubirishamo urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru adahari ntibirugira urubanza ruciwe ku rwego rwa mbere. BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI, RCA 00014/2023/CA 55 6. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Kwakira ikirego – Mu manza zisabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gashingiye ku kuba Urukiko rutarakiriye ikirego rwagomba kwakira, Urukiko ruburanisha urubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo, iyo rusanze ikirego cyaragombaga kwakirwa, ruracyakira rukakiburanisha mu mizi. BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2023/SC 37 Kugoboka ku bushake mu rubanza – Kugaragaza inyungu yemewe n’Amategeko – Inyungu z’umuburanyi ugoboka mu rubanza zigaragarira mu kuba yabasha no kurutambamira mu gihe yaba atarabashije kurugobokamo. NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI, RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA 299 Kuregera amafaranga y’ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza – Umuburanyi wemerewe kuregera ko Urukiko rutegeka undi baburana kumwishyura amafaranga y’ibyo yatakaje ku

## Page 29

xxix AMAGAMBO MPINE

rubanza, kuyagenerwa ntibishidikanywaho ko bigomba gushingira mbere na mbere ku kuba atsinda urubanza ayasabamo ku zindi ngingo z’ikiregerwa cy’ibanze. NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI, RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA 299 7. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Urukiko ntirutegetswe gusubiza ku bisobanuro (arguments) byose byatanzwe n’ababuranyi, ahubwo rugomba gusubiza ku byo basaba byose (demandes), rugaragaza impamvu zishimangira ibisubizo byarwo. UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA, RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA 99 Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Ihame rya sinari “alibi” – Bitavanyeho ihame ry’uko Ubushinjacyaha ari bwo bufite inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bishinja uregwa, iri hame rihinduka mu gihe uregwa aburanisha ingingo ya “alibi” igamije kwerekana ko yari ahandi hantu hatandukanye n’aho ashinjwa kuba yarakoreye ibyaha, agomba kubishyigikirisha ibimenyetso bifatika, bihamya ishingiro rya “alibi” aburanisha. UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA 183 Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Ubuhamya – Agaciro k’ubuhamya – Ubuhamya bugira agaciro iyo hitawe k’ubumenyi ababutanga bafite ku kibazo batangira ubwo buhamya – Ubuhamya ntibuteshwa agaciro n’uko ababutanze bafitanye amasano hagati yabo cyangwa se bafite inyungu mu rubanza ahubwo ni iyo ako gaciro kadashingiye ku kuri kuburimo – Urukiko ni rwo rwemeza

## Page 30

xxx ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

agaciro k’ubuhamya nyuma yo gusesengura imvugo z’abatangabuhamya. UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA 183 Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha –Ubuhamya – Agaciro k’ubuhamya – Kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavugaho kimwe, ubuhamya bwabo ntibwateshwa agaciro kuko bishoboka ko bakwibeshya bitewe n’igihe gishize icyaha gikozwe. UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA 183 Ifungwa n’ifungurwa – Ifungurwa ry’agateganyo – Umuntu ufunzwe mu rwego rw’urubanza yaciriwe mu mizi, ntashobora kujurira anenga icyemezo yafungiweho by’agateganyo ashingiye ku kuba inzego z’ikurikiranacyaha zitarubahirije amategeko arebana n’ifatwa n’ifungwa ry’agateganyo. UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA, RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA 239

## Page 31

xxxi Re UWOMBONYE

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

## Page 32

xxxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 33

xxxiii Re UWOMBONYE

IKIREGO GISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA

## Page 34

xxxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 35

1 Re UWOMBONYE

Re UWOMBONYE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2023/SC (Mukamulisa, J.P., Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Kalihangabo na Kazungu, J.) 12 Mata 2024] Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba gukuraho ingingo z’itegeko kuko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Ububasha bwo kwemeza ko ingingo z’amategeko ngengamikorere zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga –Mu bubasha Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite, Umushingamategeko ntiyashyizemo kugenzura ko amategeko ngengamikorere anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko – Kuba uwifuza kuba Avoka yasabwa gukora ikizamini mbere yo kwinjira mu mwuga kugirango hasuzumwe ubumenyi bwe, mu gihe ibyo bidasabwa abari mu zindi ngaga z’abakora imirimo yigenga kimwe n’abakora imirimo isanzwe y’ubucuruzi, ntibifatwa nko kutamureshyeshya n’abandi imbere y’amategeko, kuko imirimo bakora atari imwe. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uwombonye yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 6, agace ka 5 n’iya 82 igika cya 3 z’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ndetse na zimwe mu ngingo z’Amategeko Ngengamikorere y’urwo Rugaga, arizo ingingo ya 79, igika cya 7, n’iya 83, igika cya 3, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, kuko zigaragaramo kutareshyeshya abantu imbere y’amategeko. Ingingo yaregeye, ni izirebana n’ibisabwa kugira ngo umuntu 1

## Page 36

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ashobore kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, by’umwihariko izerekeye impamyabushobozi itangwa n’Ikigo gishinzwe kwigisha no guteza imbere amategeko (ILPD), kimwe n’izirebana n’ikizamini gitangwa n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka. Urega akomeza avuga avuga ko kuba Abacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha batarasonewe kugira impamyabushobozi ya ILPD nk’uko byakozwe ku bari basanzwe ku rutonde rw’Abavoka n’urw’Abadefanseri igihe Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru ryatangiraga gukurikizwa, habayeho kutareshya imbere y’amategeko. Avuga kandi ko Avoka nk’umuntu utanga serivisi, nk’abandi bose bakora imirimo yigenga (professions libérales), atagombye gukoreshwa ikizamini kugira ngo yemererwe kwinjira mu Rugaga. Asobanura kandi ko ingingo ya 8 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru iha imbaraga Itegeko Ngengamikorere ry’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, ikaba igaragaza ko kugira ngo ujye ku rutonde rw’abunganira abandi ugomba kuba wujuje ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6 y’iryo Tegeko, ko kizira gukora ikizamini inshuro zirenze ebyiri mu gihe cy’imyaka itanu, akaba asanga ibyo binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko ko byavanwaho. Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda wari muri uru rubanza, we avuga ko umwuga w’ubwavoka ari umwuga wihariye, utandukanye n’indi myuga, ukaba ugira amategeko n’amahame biwugenga kugira ngo ukorwe kinyamwuga, kandi abawukora bakagira ibyo basabwa bijyanye n’ubumenyi buhagije n’imyitwarire iganisha ku gukora kinyamwuga. Kuri iki kibazo, avuga kandi ko Urega atabashije kugaragaza uburyo ingingo ya 6, agace ka 5, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko ntaho Itegeko Nshinga rivuga ko hari aho umuntu atemerewe gukora

## Page 37

3 Re UWOMBONYE

ikizamini, cyangwa se uwaba yarabujijwe kwinjira adakoze ikizamini mu gihe abandi bo binjiye batagikoze. Bityo, akaba asaba uru Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ko ikirego cy’Urega kitagomba guhabwa ishingiro. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Mu bubasha Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite, Umushingamategeko ntiyashyizemo kugenzura ko amategeko ngengamikorere anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. 2. Kuba uwifuza kuba Avoka yasabwa gukora ikizamini mbere yo kwinjira mu mwuga, kugirango hasuzumwe ubumenyi bwe, mu gihe ibyo bidasabwa abari mu zindi ngaga z’abakora imirimo yigenga kimwe n’abakora imirimo isanzwe y’ubucuruzi, ntibifatwa nko kutamureshyeshya n’abandi imbere y’amategeko, kuko imirimo bakora atari imwe. 3. Umushingamategeko yari afite uburenganzira busesuye bwo guteganyiriza icyiciro cy’abari basanzwe ku rutonde rw’Abavoka n’urw’Abadefanseri ingingo z’inzibacyuho zihariye kandi abona ko zikwiye, ashingiye ku gihe bari bamaze mu mwuga; kuba izo ngingo zitareba Abacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha bikaba bitanyuranyije n’ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko. Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo y’itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, nta shingiro gifite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu wa 2003 ryavuguruwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 3, 15. Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 62 n’iya 69.

## Page 38

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 4, 6, 19, 81 n’iya 82. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2021/SC, Re Ngendahayo Kabuye, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/02/2023. RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2022. RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/019/SC, Re Murangwa, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Re Akagera Business Group, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/09/2016. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 14/04/2023, Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 6, agace ka 3o n’aka 5o; n’ingingo ya 82, igika cya 3, z’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda (Itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza), kuko harimo kutareshya kw’abantu imbere y’amategeko. Mu nama ntegurarubanza yabaye ku wa 28/02/2024, urega yavuze ko agace ka 3o k’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru aretse kukaregera, akaba ari yo mpamvu kataza kugarukwaho.

## Page 39

5 Re UWOMBONYE

[2] Yasabye kandi kwemeza ko ingingo ya 79, igika cya 7, n’iya 83, igika cya 3, z’Amategeko Ngengamikorere y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda yo ku wa 16/09/2014, zihabwa imbaraga n’ingingo ya 8, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [3] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi asobanura ko ingingo ya 8 iha imbaraga Itegeko Ngengamikorere ry’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, igaragaza ko kugira ngo ujye ku rutonde rw’abunganira abandi ugomba kuba wujuje ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6 y’iryo Tegeko, ko kizira gukora ikizamini inshuro zirenze ebyiri mu gihe cy’imyaka itanu, akaba asanga ibyo binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [4] Avuga ko nk’umunyamategeko kandi uharanira ko abantu bose bareshya kandi amategeko akabarengera kimwe, yiyambaje Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo rusuzume ingingo zivuzwe haruguru, ibirimo binyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga bihinduke. [5] Ikirego cyaranditswe gihabwa RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2023/SC, iburanisha ry’urubanza rishyirwa ku wa 04/03/2024. [6] Kuri iyo tariki, ababuranyi baritabye, iburanisha ribera mu ruhame, Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi yunganiwe na Me Nyamaswa Raphaël, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Kabibi Spéçiose, habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi afite inyungu muri uru rubanza, n’icyo kumenya niba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego gisaba gukuraho ingingo z’Amategeko Ngengamikorere kuko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.

## Page 40

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

1. Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba Uwombonye Hirwa sudi afite inyungu mu rubanza [7] Nyuma yo kumva ibisobanuro by’urega n’iby’Intumwa ya Leta, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe mu buryo bukurikira: a. Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/12/2022, haregagamo Murangwa Edward, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko mu gusuzuma inyungu z’urega hagomba kurebwa ibintu bikurikira, kuba hariho kimwe muri byo bikaba byihagije kugira ngo Urukiko rwemeze ko urega afite inyungu: - Niba hari itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba urega cyangwa icyiciro abarizwamo by’umwihariko ku buryo afite inyungu ku giti cye zo gutanga ikirego. Urugero ni nk’Itegeko rireba abanyamakuru, abaganga, abarimu, n’abandi; - Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba abaturage muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo, ibyo bikaba ari byo bihesha umuntu uwo ari we wese rishobora kuzagiraho ingaruka inyungu zo kuriregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga; - Niba uwatanze ikirego ari umwavoka, uyu akaba mu nyungu z’ubutabera, yemerewe gutanga ikirego mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko kabone nubwo nta nyungu we ku giti cye yaba afite muri icyo kirego.

## Page 41

7 Re UWOMBONYE

b. Ku bireba uru rubanza, Urukiko rusanga ingingo Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi aregera ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, zireba umuntu wese ushobora gusaba kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, agakora umurimo wo kuburanira abandi cyangwa gutanga inama mu byerekeye amategeko. Mu nyandiko ye itanga ikirego, agaragaza ko ari umunyamategeko wahoze ari Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu, ubu akaba ari mu kiruhuko cy’izabukuru. c. Urukiko rusanga, nk’umuntu wize amategeko agakora n’imirimo ijyanye nayo, Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi yarebwa ku giti cye n’izo ngingo, igihe cyose yashaka kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, akaba rero afite inyungu bwite muri uru rubanza. 2. Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo kwemeza ko ingingo z’Amategeko Ngengamikorere zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga [8] Urukiko, rumaze kumva ibisobanuro by’urega n’iby’Intumwa ya Leta, rwafatiye mu ntebe icyemezo gikurikira: a. Ingingo ya 69, 1o y’ Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo gukemura impaka mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa nyuma bukurikira: 1°gufata icyemezo ku birego birebana n’uko amategeko ngenga, amasezerano mpuzamahanga, amategeko n’amategeko-teka anyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga; […]. b. Ikigaragara muri iyi ngingo, ni uko mu bubasha Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite, Umushingamategeko atashyizemo kugenzura ko amategeko ngengamikorere anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.

## Page 42

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

c. Urukiko rusanga ibyo byumvikana kuko amategeko ngengamikorere cyangwa amabwiriza muri rusange, aba agomba gushingira ku itegeko naryo ritagomba kuba rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Mu gihe itegeko ashingiyeho rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ni ryo riregerwa hashingiwe ku bubasha buteganywa mu ngingo ya 69, 1o yavuzwe hejuru. d. Mu gihe ibiteganyijwe mu mategeko ngengamikorere ari byo binyuranyije n’itegeko ashingiyeho cyangwa bikaba binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, uwo bibangamiye afite izindi nzira zo guharanira uburenganzira bwe, zitari ukuregera umucamanza ushinzwe kurinda iremezo ry’Itegeko nshinga, zirimo izi zikurikira: - Afite uburenganzira bwo gusaba Umucamanza wese kudakurikiza amategeko ngengamikorere anyuranyije n’itegeko cyangwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, mu kirego yaba yashyikirijwe, ashingiye ku ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko ari ryo Tegeko ry’Igihugu risumba ayandi; ko itegeko ryose, icyemezo cyangwa igikorwa cyose binyuranyije naryo bitagira agaciro. Urukiko rusanga ibyo atari umwihariko w’u Rwanda, kuko nko mu Bwami bw’Ububiligi, ingingo ya 159 y’Itegeko Nshinga iha Umucamanza ububasha bwo kudakurikiza amabwiriza bigaragara ko anyuranyije n’amategeko kimwe n’Itegeko Nshinga, ariko ntimuha ububasha bwo kuvanaho

## Page 43

9 Re UWOMBONYE

amabwiriza cyangwa ingingo zayo bitewe n’uko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga1. - Ashobora kandi kuregera indishyi ku mucamanza ubifitiye ububasha, mu gihe ashobora kugaragaza ko amategeko ngengamikorere anyuranyije n’itegeko cyangwa n’Itegeko Nshinga hari icyo yamwangirije2. - Ashobora nanone kuregera umucamanza ufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi,

1“L’article 159 de la Constitution “oblige en effet le pouvoir judiciaire à ne pas appliquer, dans un litige qui lui est soumis, l’acte réglementaire illégal. La non-conformité à la loi s’entend au sens large en ce qu’elle vise également la non-conformité à la Constitution. En d’autres termes, par le biais de l’exception de l’illégalité, tout juge peut refuser sans limite de temps d’appliquer un acte réglementaire, qui serait contraire à la Constitution”. “Cette prérogative constitutionnelle ne permet cependant au juge judiciaire de vérifier la constitutionnalité d’un acte réglementaire que de manière incidente, c’est-à-dire qu’à l’occasion d’un litige ayant pour objet un droit subjectif ou à l’occasion d’une poursuite répressive. En outre, elle n’a pas pour effet, contrairement à un arrêt d’annulation, de faire disparaître l’acte réglementaire jugé inconstitutionnel de l’ordonnancement juridique. Cette déclaration d’inconstitutionnalité n’a donc de valeur qu’inter partes. Elle est revêtue d’une autorité relative de chose jugée”; Professeur Pierre Nihoul, Juge à la Cour Constitutionnelle de Belgique, Le contrôle constitutionnel des règlements en Belgique, p.3, [consulté le 28/02/2024], https://www.const- court.be/public/stet/n/Le- Contr%C3%B4le-Constitutionnel-des- R%C3%A8glements-en-Belgique-oral.pdf 2 “[….] tout règlement inconstitutionnel peut être porté devant le juge judiciaire en vue d’obtenir, de l’auteur de ce règlement, réparation du dommage causé par un tel acte pour autant bien entendu que soient établis le dommage et le lien de causalité entre la faute et le dommage. Cette voie permet donc d’obtenir du juge judiciaire le même constat d’illégalité que celui opéré par le juge administratif et, en outre, la réparation en nature ou par équivalent du préjudice qui en résulte, sans toutefois aboutir à la censure radicale du règlement incriminé”; Ibidem, p.4.

## Page 44

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

asaba kuvanaho ibyemezo byafashwe hashingiwe ku mategeko ngengamikorere anyuranyije n’amategeko cyangwa anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ibi nabyo ntibyaba ari umwihariko w’u Rwanda, kuko no mu Bwami bw’Ububiligi ariko bimeze3. e. Hari ibindi Bihugu nka Bénin na Gabon aho bishoboka kuregera kwemeza ko amabwiriza anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga imbere y’Umucamanza ushinzwe kurinda iremezo ry’iryo Tegeko4, ariko si wo murongo Umushingamategeko wo mu Rwanda yashatse gufata.

3 “Le Conseil d’Etat peut aussi, à l’occasion d’un recours en annulation dirigé contre un acte individuel ou contre un acte réglementaire, contrôler par voie incidente un règlement sur lequel est fondé l’acte directement contesté. Il faut évidemment qu’il y ait un lien entre l’acte qui fait l’objet du recours principal et le règlement contesté de manière incidente pour que l’exception d’illégalité soit admissible”; Ibidem, p.6 4Article 84 of Gabon's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2011: The Constitutional Court obligatorily rules over: […] “The Constitutionality of organic laws and other laws before their promulgation, of regulatory acts that directly affect the fundamental rights of the human person and public liberties”; Article 85 of the same Text: […] Other categories of law as well as regulatory acts may be deferred to the Constitutional Court either by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the presidents of the Chambers of Parliament or a tenth of members from each Chamber, the presidents of the Supreme Court, the Council of the State and the Court of Accountancy, or any citizen or moral person damaged by the law or act in dispute”; https://www.google.com/search?q=la+constitution+du+gabon+pdf&rlz=1C1 GCEU_en- Art 117 de la Constitution de la République du Bénin. “La Cour Constitutionnelle - Statue obligatoirement sur: […]

## Page 45

11 Re UWOMBONYE

f. Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga rudafite ububasha bwo kwemeza ko ingingo z’Amategeko Ngengamikorere zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo rukaba rutari busuzume ikibazo cyo kumenya niba igika cya 7 cy’ingingo ya 79, n’igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 83, z’Amategeko Ngengamikorere y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [9] Nyuma y’icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko ku byerekeye ububasha bwarwo, UWOMBONYE HIRWA Sudi yavuze ko ikibazo cyo kumenya niba igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 8 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, agikuye mu kirego, kuko cyarebanaga n’ibijyanye n’Amategeko Ngengamikorere. [10] Ku bijyanye n’urubanza mu mizi, Urukiko rwasuzumye ibibazo bikurikira: - Kumenya niba igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 82, y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda,

la constitutionnalité des lois et des actes réglementaires censés porter atteinte aux droits fondamentaux de la personne humaine et aux libertés publiques et en général, sur la violation des droits de la personne humaine”; […] Art 121 du même texte: “La Cour Constitutionnelle, à la demande du Président de la République ou de tout membre de l'Assemblée Nationale, se prononce sur la constitutionnalité des lois avant leur promulgation. Elle se prononce d'office sur la constitutionnalité des lois et de tout texte réglementaire censés porter atteinte aux droits fondamentaux de la personne humaine et aux libertés publiques […]”, https://cdn.accf- francophonie.org/2019/03/benin-constitution-1990.pdf

## Page 46

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga; - Kumenya niba agace ka 5o k’ ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, kanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga [11] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi n’umwunganira bavuga ko igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, iteganya ko usaba kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka agomba kuba afite impamyabushobozi y’Ikigo cyo Kwigisha no Guteza Imbere Amategeko (ILPD muri uru rubanza) yemewe na Leta cyangwa irihwanye naryo, inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera impamvu zikurikira: a. Mu ngingo ya 19, agace ka 1°, y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2023 ryavuzwe haruguru, uburambe bw’abakoze mu Bushinjacyaha no mu Bucamanza bwaremewe, ariko byagera igihe cyo gusaba kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka bagasabwa impamyabushobozi

## Page 47

13 Re UWOMBONYE

kandi igihe cy'ivugurura ry'Itegeko rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, bagenzi babo bari mu Rugaga batarayisabwe. b. Abashinjacyaha n'Abacamanza ntibashyizwe ku rwego rumwe n'abavugwa mu ngingo ya 19, agace ka 1° imaze kuvugwa, kandi bose barize bimwe, bafite uburambe bungana mu mategeko, Abavoka n’Abashinjacyaha bakaba banahuje uburyo bwo kuburana (technique de plaidoirie). Kuba hari ibyo bamwe basabwa abandi ntibabisabwe, bigaragaza kutareshya imbere y'amategeko. c. Mu bindi bihugu iryo tandukaniro bararirenze (mu Burundi5 no muri Repubulika Iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo6), kuko nta mpamyabushobozi y’inyongera isabwa abavuye mu Bucamanza ndetse no mu Bushinjacyaha.

5 Loi N°1/17 du 24 Juillet 2023 portant modification de la loi N°1/014 DU 29 Novembre 2002 portant réforme du statut de la profession d’Avocat, article 7, https://senat.bi/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Gouvernement- Statut-de-La- Profession-d’Avocat.pdf. 6 Ordonnance-Loi No 79-028 du 28 septembre 1979 portant organisation du barreau, du corps des défenseurs judiciaires et du corps des mandataires de l’État, https://www.leganet.cd/Legislation/Droit%20Judiciaire/OL79.28.28.09.79.ht m (mu ngingo ya 21 ntaho bigaragara ko bategetse ko abinjira muri Barreau yabo bagomba gukora ibizami). N.B: Iri tegeko bigaragara ko ryakozwe igihugu kikitwa Zaire. Ikigaragaza ko rigikurikizwa ni Itegeko ngengamikorere ry’Urugaga. Reba kuri link https://legalrdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RIC- Barreau_LegalRDC.pdf na https://legalrdc.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/RIC-Barreau_LegalRDC.pdf.

## Page 48

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[12] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi n’umwunganira bavuga kandi ko iki kibazo kireba gusa Abacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha bafite uburambe mu kazi, ko kitareba abanyamategeko bakirangiza kwiga. [13] Ku birebana n’uko ingingo ya 82, agace ka 3, yaregeye iri mu cyiciro kivuga ku birebana n’inzibacyuho, Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi n’umwunganira bavuga ko ariko bimeze, ko ariko icyo bazinenga ari ukuba zitarigeze zitanga igihe iyo nzibacyuho izarangirira. Bongeraho ko ku bivugwa n’uhagarariye Leta ko Avoka ahabwa amahugurwa cyangwa ubumenyi bwihariye, basanga uwo mwihariko udahari; ahubwo ko ntawabatandukanya ku bumenyi kuko ari amahugurwa ari n’uburyo bw’imyitwarire (déontologie) usanga babihuje n’Abashinjacyaha hamwe n'Abacamanza. [14] Basoza basaba Urukiko kwemeza ko igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, cyavanwaho kuko harimo kutareshyeshya abafite uburambe bumwe (Abacamanza, Abashinjacyaha n’Abavoka); kikaba kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [15] Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ibyo uwatanze ikirego avuga bidakwiye guhabwa ishingiro, kubera impamvu zikurikira: a. Umwuga w’ubwavoka, kimwe n’indi myuga yigenga, ugira amategeko n’amahame biwugenga kugira ngo ukorwe kinyamwuga, kandi abawukora bakagira ibyo basabwa bijyanye n’ubumenyi buhagije.

## Page 49

15 Re UWOMBONYE

b. Kuba ari umwuga wigenga ntibivuga ko utagira amategeko awugenga, ahubwo bisobanura ko uwukora adafatwa nk’umukozi ugengwa n’undi muntu. Umwuga w’ubwavoka ni umwuga wihariye ku buryo udakwiye guhuzwa cyangwa kugereranywa n’indi myuga nk’ubucuruzi cyangwa ububaji, kuko uretse kuba ugamije kuburanira no kunganira abantu imbere y’ubutabera n’izindi nzego z’ubuyobozi, unafasha inzego z’ubutabera kugera ku butabera bwifuzwa (l’Avocat est l’auxiliaire de la justice). c. Urugaga rw’Abavoka ni rwo murinzi w’amategeko, icyubahiro n’ishema by’umwuga w’ubwavoka, akaba ari yo mpamvu mu nshingano zarwo harimo kugenzura ibyangombwa by’abagize Urugaga no gukurikirana imyifatire yabo nk’uko biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 4 y’Itegeko rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda. d. Buri mwuga wigenga ufite uburyo ukorwamo, ari yo mpamvu hari Inama y’Igihugu y’Abaforomokazi, Abaforomo n’Ababyaza7; Urugaga Nyarwanda rw’Abakora Imirimo ishamikiye ku Buvuzi8; Urugaga rw’Abahanga mu by’Imiti9; Urugaga rw’Abaganga

7 Itegeko N° 25/2008 ryo kuwa 25/07/2008 rishyiraho Inama y’Igihugu y’Abaforomokazi, Abaforomo n’ababyaza rikanagena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha byayo; Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda (IG.L.R.R.) nimero 21bis yo ku wa 01/11/2008. 8 Itegeko N° 46/2012 ryo ku wa 14/01/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga nyarwanda rw’abakora imirimo ishamikiye ku buvuzi kandi rikagena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha byarwo; IG.L.R.R. nimero idasanzwe yo ku wa 17/01/2013. 9 Itegeko No 45/2012 ryo ku wa 14/01/2013 rigena imitunganyirize, imikorere n’ububasha by’ Urugaga rw’abahanga mu by’imiti; IG.L.R.R. nimero idasanzwe yo ku wa 17/01/2013.

## Page 50

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

b’Amatungo10; Umurimo w’Ubunoteri11; Urugaga rw’Abahesha b’Inkiko b’Umwuga12 n’izindi. Izi ngaga zishinzwe kugenzura ko buri mwuga ukorwa hakurikijwe amategeko n’amahame ya kinyamwuga awugenga. e. Ihame ryo kureshya kw’abantu bose imbere y’amategeko rivugwa mu ngingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ryumvikanisha ko itegeko rireba abantu bose kimwe, ko abantu barebwa n’ikintu kimwe cyangwa bafite ibyo bahuriyeho ari bo bagomba gufatwa kimwe (Equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike). Ingingo ya 15 yaba itubahirijwe igihe gusa hari abashaka kwinjira mu mwuga w’ubwavoka itegeko risaba impamyabumenyi ya ILPD, abandi ntibayisabwe kandi nta mpamvu ifatika cyangwa y’umwihariko yemewe n’amategeko. f. Kuba ingingo ya 82, agace ka 313 y’Itegeko rigenga Urugaga rw’Abavoka itanga irengayobora ku bijyanye n’impamyabumenyi ya ILPD ku bafite uburambe bw’imyaka 6 mu mwuga w’ubwavoka n’abari Abadefanseri, byatewe n’uko bari bafite umwihariko

10 Itegeko N° 56/2013 ryo ku wa 09/08/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’abaganga b’amatungo mu Rwanda rikanagena inshingano, imiterere n’imikorere byarwo; IG.L.R.R. nimero 42 yo ku wa 21/10/2013. 11 Itegeko No 13bis/2014 ryo ku wa 21/05/2014 rigenga umurimo w’Ubunoteri nk’uko ryahinduwe; IG.L.R.R. nimero idasanzwe yo ku wa 29/05/2014. 12 Itegeko N° 12/2013 ryo ku wa 22/03/2013 rigenga umurimo w’Abahesha b’Inkiko; IG.L.R.R. nimero 14 yo ku wa 08/04/2013. 13[...] Icyakora, ibivugwa mu gika cya 2 cy’iyi ngingo, ntibireba Abavoka bafite uburambe bw’imyaka itandatu (6) banditse ku rutonde rw’Abavoka n’Abadefanseri bafite uburambe bw’imyaka itandatu (6) banditse ku rutonde rw’Abadefanseri.

## Page 51

17 Re UWOMBONYE

hagendewe ku kuba impamyabumenyi ya ILPD igamije gufasha kwiga imikorere y’umwuga bakunze kwita “practical modular based knowledge”, bitandukanye n’amashuri ya kaminuza aho yo yigisha “theoretical knowledge”. Abari bamaze imyaka 6 banditse ku rutonde, bigaga umwuga banakora, ndetse bakaba barahawe n’amahugurwa menshi muri CNFJ14 mu rwego rwo kubaka urugaga rwigenga, harimo amahugurwa ajyanye n’uburyo bwo kuburana ndetse n’imyitwarire imbere y’umucamanza, ku buryo bitari ngombwa kongera kwiga ILPD. Kuba rero haritawe kuri uwo mwihariko, bikaba bitakwitwa ubusumbane cyangwa ivangura. g. Ingingo ya 82, agace ka 3, iri mu cyiciro kivuga ku birebana n’inzibacyuho, kandi ingingo zo muri icyo cyiciro ziba zigambiriye gukemura ibyuho byaterwa n’Itegeko rishya. Mbere y’uko Itegeko ryo mu mwaka wa 2013 rijyaho, hari abari basanzwe ari Abavoka n’Abadefanseri, iyo ngingo ikaba yarashyizweho mu rwego rwo kubungabunga uburenganzira budasubirwaho (droits acquis) bw’abari bagiye kubumbirwa mu Rugaga rumwe; bityo iryo tegeko rikaba ritari kuvuga ku Bacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha kandi batari mu bari basanzwe muri izo ngaga, nta n’uburenganzira bwabo bwahungabanyijwe. h. Kuvuga ko ingingo z’inzibacyuho zitigeze zigena igihe ibyo ziteganya bizarangirira, nta gaciro byahabwa kuko atari buri gihe ingingo z’inzibacyuho ziteganya igihe izamara.

14Centre National de Formation Judiciaire.

## Page 52

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

i. Ibyo urega avuga ko ingingo ya 82, agace ka 3, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru yavanwaho, byateza ikibazo abayivugwagamo, kandi n’inyungu bwite urega yari afite atanga ikirego zikavaho, kuko impamyabumenyi ya ILPD yaba isabwa bose. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, iteganya mu gika cyayo cya mbere ko mu gihe kitarenze imyaka itatu (3) ikurikira itangazwa ry’iri tegeko mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, abinjira mu mwuga w’ubwavoka bemererwa kuwinjiramo hatitawe ku mpamyabushobozi isabwa y’Ikigo cyo Kwigisha no Guteza imbere amategeko ivugwa mu ngingo ya 6 y’iri tegeko. [17] Mu gika cyayo cya kabiri, iyo ngingo iteganya ko Abavoka bari ku rutonde rushya rw’Abavoka no kuri lisiti nshya y’abamenyerezwa umwuga nk’uko biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 81 y’iri tegeko, bahawe igihe kitarenze imyaka itatu (3) kugira ngo babe bujuje ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6 y’iri tegeko ku bijyanye n’Ikigo cyo Kwigisha no Guteza imbere Amategeko. [18] Mu gika cya gatatu, ingingo ya 82 imaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko ibivugwa mu gika cya 2 cyayo, bitareba Abavoka bafite uburambe bw’imyaka itandatu (6) banditse ku rutonde rw’ Abavoka n’Abadefanseri bafite uburambe bw’imyaka itandatu (6) banditse ku rutonde rw’Abadefanseri. Iki gika ni cyo urega avuga ko kinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga ashingiye ku kuba kivuga Abavoka n’Abadefanseri,

## Page 53

19 Re UWOMBONYE

ntikivugwemo Abacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha, kandi bose barize bimwe, banafite uburambe bungana mu mategeko. [19] Iyi ngingo ya 82 y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, igaragara mu ngingo z’inzibacyuho. Ingingo z’inzibacyuho, ni ingingo zifasha kuziba ibyuho cyangwa gukemura ibibazo byaterwa n’uko hari ibyo itegeko rishya riteganya bitari bisanzwe biteganyijwe mu itegeko risimbuwe15. [20] Umuhanga mu mategeko Bernhard Pulver, avuga ko Umushingamategeko afite uburenganzira busesuye bwo guteganya ingingo z’inzibacyuho abona ko zikwiye, kandi ko izo ngingo ziba mu byiciro binyuranye. Muri ibyo byiciro, avugamo icy’abantu bari basanzwe barebwa n’Itegeko, bafite ibyo bari bariteguyeho bakurikije ibyasabwaga n’itegeko ryari risanzweho. Asobanura ko kuri abo bantu, mu ngingo z’inzibacyuho hashobora guteganywa ko itegeko risanzwe rikomeza gukurikizwa, cyangwa bagateganyirizwa uburyo bwihariye. Atanga urugero rw’aho, kugirango umuntu akore umwuga runaka, itegeko rishya rimusaba kuba yarize kaminuza, kandi itegeko ryari risanzweho ryamusabaga gusa kuba yarabonye amahugurwa muri uwo mwuga. Avuga ko ingingo z’inzibacyuho zishobora guteganya ko abantu bari bamaze igihe runaka bakora uwo mwuga,

15 “Une disposition transitoire est une règle de droit qui régit la transition entre l’ancien droit et le nouveau droit”; Bernhard PULVER, Le droit transitoire – parent pauvre de la législation? p.2, [consulté le 21/03/2024], https://leges.weblaw.ch/fr/dam/publicationsystem_leges/2005/3/LeGes_2005 _3_91-103.pdf

## Page 54

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bakomeza gukora badafite impamyabushobozi ya kaminuza, cyangwa bakoroherezwa uburyo bwo kuyibona.16 [21] Ubwoko bw’ingingo z’inzibacyuho busobanurwa n’umuhanga Bernhard Pulver, burahura n’ubuteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 82 y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, aho abinjira mu mwuga w’ubwavoka n’abari bawusanzwemo, bahawe igihe cyo kuzuza ibisabwa mu Itegeko rishya bijyanye n’impamyabushobozi ya ILPD bitasabwaga mu Itegeko ryari risanzweho17, haba n’irengayobora ku bari bafite uburambe bw’imyaka 6 banditse ku rutonde rw’Abavoka n’urw’Abadefenseri bo batasabwe iyo mpamyabushobozi. [22] Urukiko rusanga irengayobora riteganyijwe mu ngingo y’inzibacyuho ya 82, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, ritarashoboraga kureba Abacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha kuko batari mu bari bafite

16 “En principe, le législateur dispose d’une grande liberté d’appréciation pour fixer le régime transitoire qui lui semble équitable. Plusieurs types de dispositions transitoires s’offrent (sans prétention d’exhaustivité): […] – Adoption de règles particulières pour les situations préexistantes. Il peut se révéler judicieux de prévoir des règles matérielles particulières pour régler la situation des justiciables qui ont déjà pris des dispositions en fonction de l’ancien droit. On peut soit continuer à leur appliquer tel quel l’ancien droit ou bien prévoir pour eux un régime intermédiaire, particulier. Cas classique: si, pour l’exercice d’une profession, on exige dorénavant une formation universitaire (alors que, dans l’ancien droit, on n’exigeait qu’une formation professionnelle), le droit transitoire peut prévoir que les personnes qui exerçaient cette profession depuis un certain temps avant l’entrée en vigueur peuvent continuer à l’exercer même sans titre universitaire; on peut également donner à ces personnes la possibilité d’acquérir, à des conditions facilitées, le titre universitaire requis”; Ibidem, p. 5. 17 Itegeko No 03/97 ryo ku wa 19/03/1997 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe.

## Page 55

21 Re UWOMBONYE

uburambe bw’imyaka itandatu banditse ku rutonde rw’Abavoka n’urw’Abadefenseri igihe iri Tegeko ryasohokaga. N’ubwo bize amategeko, bakaba mu mirimo bakora bafite aho bahurira n’abunganira abandi mu nkiko, ikigaragara ni uko Umushingamategeko ashyiraho irengayobora mu ngingo y’inzibacyuho, yari agamije gukemura ikibazo cy’abari bamaze igihe mu mwuga wo kuburanira abandi, ariko badafite impamyabushobozi isabwa mu itegeko rishya. [23] Mu ngingo zikurikira harasuzumwa niba, kuba Abacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha batarashyizwe mu cyiciro kimwe n’icy’abari basanzwe ku rutonde rw’Abavoka n’urw’Abadefanseri, ngo nabo barebwe n’irengayobora riteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 82, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, byaba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [24] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga igira iti: abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko. Itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe. Ibiteganyijwe muri iyi ngingo byasobanuwe mu manza zinyuranye zaciwe n’uru Rukiko, zirimo urubanza rwa Murangwa Edward rwaciwe ku wa 29/11/2019. Muri urwo rubanza, uru Rukiko rwasobanuye mu buryo burambuye uko ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko rikwiye kumvikana, rwifashishije amasezerano mpuzamahanga, ibyemezo binyuranye by’inkiko, ndetse n’ibisobanuro by’abahanga. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko, ibintu bimeze kimwe bifatwa kimwe, naho ibintu bitandukanye bigafatwa ku buryo butandukanye hakurikijwe itandukaniro ryabyo (Things that are

## Page 56

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

alike should be treated alike, and things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness)18. [25] Urukiko rwasobanuye kandi ko n’ubwo abantu bagomba kureshya imbere y’amategeko, kubatandukanya cyangwa kubashyira mu byiciro bititwa buri gihe ivangura. Rwagaragaje ko gutandukanya abantu cyangwa ibyiciro by’abantu bishobora kuba ngombwa bitewe n’ikigambiriwe, hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme (legitimate or rational purpose)19. Ibi bisobanuro byanagarutsweho mu rubanza rwa Ngendahayo Kabuye narwo rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko20. [26] Mu rubanza rwaciwe na Tribunal Fédéral yo mu Busuwisi21, Association Suisse des Psychothérapeutes yaregeraga ko mu itegeko rishya rigenga umwuga wabo, hateganyijwemo ingingo igaragaza ibisabwa kugirango umuntu yemererwe kwinjira muri uwo mwuga, harimo n’impamyabushobozi za Kaminuza, ariko hakaba harashyizwemo ingingo y’inzibacyuho yemerera abari bamaze igihe muri uwo mwuga mbere y’uko itegeko rishya risohoka, gukomeza gukora batagaragaje ibyasabwaga n’itegeko rishya. Bavugaga ko iyo ngingo inyuranyije n’ihame ryo kureshya

18Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 29/11/2019, haburana Murangwa Edward, igika cya 34. 19Ibidem, para 35. 20Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 10/02/2023, haburana Ngendahayo Kabuye, igika cya 39 (uru rubanza rwagarukaga ku byavuzwe no mu rubanza RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, rwaciwe ku wa 23/09/2016, haburana Akagera Business Group, igika cya 18). 21Urubanza ATF 128 I 92, Schweizer Psychotherapeuten Verband SPV, considérant 4 (extrait traduite), [consulté le 21/03/2024], https://relevancy.bger.ch/php/clir/http/index.php?highlight_docid=atf%3A% 2F%2F128-I- 92%3Ade&lang=de&type=show_document

## Page 57

23 Re UWOMBONYE

imbere y’amategeko riteganyijwe mu Itegeko Nshinga, ariko Urukiko rusubiza ko kuba abari bamaze igihe bakora umwuga, bubahiriza iby’itegeko ryasabaga mbere, baremerewe mu ngingo y’inzibacyuho gukomeza gukora bitabaye ngombwa ko bagaragaza iby’itegeko rishya risaba, ntaho binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga22. [27] Ku bijyanye n’ikibazo kirimo gusuzumwa cyo kumenya niba, kuba Abacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha batarebwa n’irengayobora riteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 82, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, nk’uko byakozwe ku bari basanzwe ku rutonde rw’Abavoka n’urw’Abadefanseri, byaba binyuranyije n’ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko; Urukiko rusanga ibyo byiciro byombi bitandukanye. Abari basanzwe ku rutonde rw’Abavoka n’urw’Abadefanseri, bari mu cyiciro cy’abantu bari basanzwe barebwa n’amategeko yavuyeho23, bujuje ibyo ayo mategeko yasabaga, Umushingamategeko akaba yari afite uburenganzira busesuye bwo guteganyiriza icyo cyiciro ingingo z’inzibacyuho zihariye kandi abona ko zikwiye, ashingiye ku gihe bari bamaze mu mwuga. Ibyo rero nk’uko byasobanuwe mu bika bibanza, bikaba bitanyuranyije n’ihame ryo kureshyeshya abantu imbere

22 “Le cas des psychothérapeutes zurichois: une nouvelle loi cantonale exige, pour l’exercice indépendant de cette profession, dorénavant des études universitaires, une formation spéciale ainsi que des experiences professionnelles d’au moins deux ans. Pour les personnes ayant exercé cette profession depuis plusieurs années avant l’entrée en vigueur de ces nouvelles règles, des exigences moins élevées ont été fixées dans les dispositions transitoires. Ces dispositions transitoires ont été jugées comme conformes à la Constitution fédérale par le Tribunal federal”; Bernhard Pulver, op.cit., p.6- 7. 23Itegeko No 03/97 ryo ku wa 19/03/1997 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe.

## Page 58

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’amategeko, kuko bishingiye ku mpamvu yumvikana no ku ntego ifite ireme. [28] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, kitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga 2. Kumenya niba agace ka 50 k’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, kanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga [29] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi n’umwunganira bavuga ko agace ka 50 k’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru kanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, bagatanga ibisobanuro bikurikira: a. Ingingo ya 6, agace ka 5, imaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko usaba kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka agomba kuba yaratsinze ikizamini cyateguwe n’Urugaga. Avoka nk’umuntu utanga serivisi, nk’abandi bose bakora imirimo yigenga (profession libérale), ntiyagombye gukoreshwa ikizamini kugira ngo yemererwe gukora ako kazi. b. Abifuza kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda biyandikisha inshuro imwe gusa mu mwaka kandi bakabanza gukora ipiganwa, mu gihe bizwi ko Avoka akora umurimo wigenga ugamije gutanga serivisi z’amategeko, bivuga ko atari umukozi w’Urugaga, ko ahubwo ari we wimenya kuri byose nko guhemba abo

## Page 59

25 Re UWOMBONYE

akoresha, gukodesha inzu akoreramo, kwigurira ibikoresho n’ibindi nkenerwa bya buri munsi. c. Iyo urebye imiterere y’imirimo y’Avoka, usanga ari umukozi w’abo aha serivisi, bisobanuye ko aribo bagombye gusuzuma ubushobozi bwe, bakareba ko ashoboye cyangwa adashoboye; Urugaga rukaba rudakwiriye gusuzuma ko afite ubushobozi cyangwa ko atabufite kuko atari rwo aha serivisi. d. Ntabwo isuzuma rigamije gutuma Urugaga rwinjirwamo n’abantu bashoboye (intyoza), ahubwo ni inzira iziguye yo gukumira no kuzitira abarwinjiramo, ndetse rikaba risumbanya abanyamategeko. e. Iyo bavuze abantu bakora profession libérale, hazamo n’abakora ubucuruzi, nyamara nta hantu na hamwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda biteganyijwe ko umuntu ushaka kuba umucuruzi abanza kubikorera ikizamini icyo ari cyo cyose, kugira ngo inzego zibishinzwe (Rwanda Development Board, Rwanda Revenue Authority n’izindi) zibashe kumwemerera gukora umwuga we. f. Mu zindi ngaga nk’iz’abaganga, iz’abaforomo n’ababyaza n’izindi nta kizamini gikorwa, hakibazwa impamvu byaba umwihariko w’Urugaga rw’Abavoka, bikaba ari nabyo birimo ikibazo cyo kutubahiriza ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko abantu baba batareshyeshywa imbere y’amategeko. g. Ibivugwa n’uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda ko no mu bindi bihugu bakora isuzumabumenyi kugira ngo umuntu yinjire mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka sibyo, kuko nko mu

## Page 60

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Bufaransa24, nta suzumabumenyi bakora ku benegihugu, ahubwo barikoresha abavuye hanze kandi batagaragaza ko bafite impamyabushobozi y’umwuga w’abunganira abandi (titulaire du certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'Avocat). Mu bihugu duturanye kandi duhuje “système juridique”, nko mu Burundi25, ntaho bakoresha isuzumabumenyi ku winjira mu Rugaga, keretse ku muntu uvuye ku cyo bita petit tableau ajya kuri grand tableau, nabwo akaba agomba kuba amazemo imyaka 2, nyuma y’amahugurwa y’amezi 6. Muri Repubulika Iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo26, mu mategeko yabo

24 Décret N° 91-1197 du 27 novembre 1991 organisant la profession d'avocat, mu ngingo ya 11 ibiteganya muri aya magambo “Sans préjudice des dispositions du titre VI, l'avocat ressortissant d'un Etat ou d'une unité territoriale n'appartenant pas à l'Union européenne ou à l'Espace économique européen, s'il n'est pas titulaire du certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'avocat, doit subir, pour pouvoir s'inscrire à un barreau français, les épreuves d'un examen de contrôle des connaissances en droit français selon des modalités fixées par décret en Conseil d'Etat”, [yasomwe tariki ya 30/10/2023], https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000356568. Loi N° 71-1130 du 31 décembre 1971 portant réforme de certaines professions judiciaires et juridiques, [yasomwe ku rubuga tariki ya 23/10/2023], https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000036850720 25Loi N°1/17 du 24 Juillet 2023 portant modification de la loi N°1/014 du 29 Novembre 2002 portant réforme du statut de la profession d’avocat, article 7, [yasomwe tariki ya 23/10/2002], https://senat.bi/wp- content/uploads/2023/06/GOUVERNEMENT-STATUT-DE-LA- PROFESSION-DAVOCAT, pdf. 26Ordonnance-Loi 79-028 du 28 septembre 1979 portant organisation du barreau, du corps des défenseurs judiciaires et du corps des mandataires de l’État, mu ngingo ya 21 ntaho bigaragara ko bategetse ko abinjira muri barreau yabo bagomba gukora ibizami, [byasomwe tariki ya 23/10/2023], https://www.leganet.cd/Legislation/Droit%20Judiciaire/OL79..28.28.09.79.h tm.

## Page 61

27 Re UWOMBONYE

ntahagaragara ko kugira ngo winjire mu rugaga ubanza gukorerwa isuzumabumenyi. h. Ibivugwa nanone n’uhagarariye Leta ko n’ubwo Abacamanza n’Abashinjacyaha bakora ibijyanye n’amategeko, bitakwitwa ko bafite uburambe n’ubumenyi mu bijyanye n’umwuga w’ubwavoka, ko ahubwo baba bafite uburambe n’ubumenyi mu mwuga w’Ubucamanza n’Ubushinjacyaha, sibyo kuko uburyo Avoka aburanamo, ari nabwo Umushinjacyaha akoresha aburana, Umucamanza akagira icyo akuramo gikiranura bombi. i. Gukoresha isuzumabumenyi abashaka kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, byiyongeraho kubuza umuntu kongera gukora ikizamini mu gihe cy’imyaka itanu (5) iyo yatsinzwe inshuro zirenze ebyiri, bibangamiye uburenganzira bwa muntu kuko aba abujijwe kureshya cyangwa se kungana n’abandi bikorera bahuje imirimo ijyanye n’mategeko. [30] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi n’umwunganira basoza basaba Urukiko kwemeza ko ibiteganywa n’agace ka 5° k’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, bikavanwaho.

N.B Iri tegeko bigaragara ko ryakozwe igihugu kikitwa Zaire, ibigaragara ko rigikurikizwa ni Itegeko ngengamikorere ry’Urugaga. Kureba muri iyi link https://legalrdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RIC- Barreau_LegalRDC.pdf na link https://legalrdc.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/RIC-Barreau_LegalRDC.pdf

## Page 62

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[31] Kuri iki kibazo, muri rusange Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda yatanze ibisobanuro bimwe n’ibyatanzwe ku kibazo cya mbere, ku bijyanye no kuba umwuga w’ubwavoka, kimwe n’indi myuga yigenga, ugira amategeko n’amahame biwugenga kugira ngo ukorwe kinyamwuga, kandi abawukora bakagira ibyo basabwa bijyanye n’ubumenyi buhagije n’imyitwarire iganisha ku gukora kinyamwuga. [32] Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda yongera gusobanura kandi ko umwuga w’ubwavoka ari umwuga wihariye ku buryo udakwiye guhuzwa cyangwa kugereranywa n’indi myuga nk’ubucuruzi cyangwa ububaji. Asobanura ko kuba abifuza kwinjira mu mwuga w’ubwavoka basabwa gukora ikizamini mbere yo kwinjira mu Rugaga, atari umwihariko w’u Rwanda gusa, ahubwo ari imigirire ikurikizwa no mu bindi bihugu. Atanga urugero rwo mu Bufaransa, aho umuntu wifuza kuba Avoka asabwa gukora ikizamini uretse ufite impamyabumenyi y’ikirenga mu mategeko27. [33] Avuga kandi ko Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi atabashije kugaragaza uburyo ingingo ya 6, agace ka 5, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko ntaho Itegeko Nshinga rivuga ko hari aho umuntu atemerewe gukora ikizamini, cyangwa se uwaba yarabujijwe kwinjira adakoze ikizamini mu gihe abandi bo binjiye batagikoze. [34] Asoza avuga ko ahereye ku bisobanuro yatanze, asanga kuba buri muntu wese wifuza gukora umwuga w’ubwavoka

27 Décret N° 91-1197 du 27 Novembre 1991 organisant la profession d’Avocat. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000356568, [Urubuga rwasuwe ku wa 07/06/2023].

## Page 63

29 Re UWOMBONYE

asabwa gukora no gutsinda ikizamini ntaho binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [35] Ingingo ya 6, agace ka 50, y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ibyo ushaka gukora umwuga w’ubwavoka cyangwa imirimo ijyana nawo agomba kuba yujuje, harimo kuba yaratsinze ikizamini cyateguwe n’Urugaga. [36] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi avuga ko iyo ngingo inyuranyije n’ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko riteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ashingiye ku kuba abashaka kwinjira mu mwuga w’ubwavoka basabwa gukora ikizamini, mu gihe bidasabwa abandi bakora imirimo yigenga, nk’abacuruzi cyangwa ababa mu ngaga z’abaganga, abaforomo, n’ababyaza. [37] Nk’uko byagarutsweho ubwo hasuzumwaga ikibazo cya mbere, ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko ryasesenguwe mu buryo burambuye mu manza zinyuranye zaciwe n’uru Rukiko, aho byasobanuwe ko ibintu bimeze kimwe bifatwa kimwe, naho ibintu bitandukanye bigafatwa ku buryo butandukanye hakurikijwe itandukaniro ryabyo. Hasobanuwe kandi ko gutandukanya abantu cyangwa kubashyira mu byiciro bititwa buri gihe kutabareshyeshya, mu gihe hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme. [38] Uru Rukiko rusanga abakora umwuga w’ubwavoka batafatwa mu cyiciro kimwe n’icy’abakora imirimo y’ubucuruzi, kuko umwuga wabo usaba ubumenyi bwihariye kugirango bashobore kugira abantu inama mu byerekeye amategeko,

## Page 64

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kubunganira no kubahagararira mu manza, ndetse bashobore no gufasha inkiko gutanga ubutabera bukwiye, bufite ireme, kandi bufitiwe icyizere. Kuba rero uwifuza kuba Avoka yasabwa gukora ikizamini mbere yo kwinjira mu mwuga, kugirango hasuzumwe ubumenyi bwe, mu gihe ibyo bidasabwa abakora imirimo isanzwe y’ubucuruzi, ntibyafatwa nko kutamureshyeshya n’abandi imbere y’amategeko, kuko imirimo bakora atari imwe. Ntiyagereranywa kandi n’abari mu ngaga z’abaganga, abaforomo n’ababyaza, kuko buri rugaga rugengwa n’amategeko yihariye akaba ari narwo rugena ibyihariye bisabwa uwifuza kurwinjiramo bijyanye n’umwuga rushinzwe. [39] Mu bihugu byinshi, kugirango winjire mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka ubanza gukora ikizamini (ingero: Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika, Canada, Singapore, Kenya, Tanzania, India….)28. Mu bindi bihugu nk’Ubwami bw’u Bubirigi, ikizamini cyo kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka gikorwa n’abaturuka mu bihugu bigize Umuryango w’Ubumwe

28 American University, Washington College of Law, State-by-State Bar Exam Requirements, https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/academicservices/academic- excellence/bar-exam/survey/ - Careerinlaw.net, How to Become a Lawyer in Canada-Official Guidelines, https://careerinlaw.net/ca/ - The Law Society of Singapore, Becoming a Lawyer, https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/our-community/becoming-a- lawyer/ - Council of Legal Education, students guide to the Bar examination, https://cle.or.ke/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/Students-Guide-to- the-Bar-Examination.pdf. - MDM Law Group, 5 steps to becoming a Lawyer in Tanzania, https://mdmlaw.co.tz/5-steps-to-becoming-a-lawyer- in-tanzania/ - Bar Council of India, All India Bar Examination(AIBE), https://www.barcouncilofindia.org/info/aibe

## Page 65

31 Re UWOMBONYE

bw’Uburayi29. Mu Bufaransa, ikizamini cyo kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka gikorwa n’abanyamahanga batize mu Ishuri ryigisha Abavoka muri icyo Gihugu, ariko n’abandi baba barakoze ikizamini kugirango bashobore kwinjira muri iryo

29 Abandi banyamahanga basabwa kubanza kubona impamyabumenyi mu mategeko yemewe (équivalence) binyuze muri Kaminuza zigisha Amategeko.

## Page 66

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

shuri30 (uretse abo umushingamategeko yashatse guteganyiriza irengayobora31).

30 Article 12, al. 1, de la loi No 71-1130 du 31 décembre 1971 portant réforme de certaines professions judiciaires et juridiques, tel modifiée par (Modifié par loi n° 2023-1059 du 20 novembre 2023 - art. 49 (V): “Sous réserve du dernier alinéa de l'article 11, des dispositions réglementaires prises pour l'application de la directive 2005/36/CE du 7 septembre 2005 modifiée précitée et de celles concernant les personnes justifiant de certains titres ou ayant exercé certaines activités, la formation professionnelle exigée pour l'exercice de la profession d'avocat est subordonnée à la réussite à un examen d'accès à un centre régional de formation professionnelle et comprend une formation théorique et pratique d'une durée d'au moins dix-huit mois, sanctionnée par le certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'avocat. Pour être admis à se présenter à l'examen d'accès au centre régional de formation professionnelle, les candidats doivent justifier de l'obtention des soixante premiers crédits d'un master en droit ou de l'un des titres ou diplômes reconnus comme équivalents par arrêté conjoint du ministre de la justice et du ministre chargé des universités”; https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGITEXT000006068396#:~:text=N ul%20ne%20peut%2C%20s'il,%C3%A0% 20la%20Cour%20de%20cassation Article 51, al. 1, du Décret N° 91-1197 du 27 novembre 1991 organisant la profession d'avocat, tel que modifié par le Décret No 2023-1125 du 1er décembre 2023(art.13): “Pour être inscrits dans un centre régional de formation professionnelle, les candidats doivent avoir subi avec succès l'examen d'accès au centre, dont le programme et les modalités sont fixés par arrêté conjoint du garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice, et du ministre chargé de l'enseignement supérieur, après avis du Conseil national des barreaux”; https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000356568. 31 Article 97 du Décret N° 91-1197 du 27 novembre 1991 précité: “Sont dispensés de la condition de diplôme prévue à l'article 11 (2°) de la loi du 31 décembre 1971 précitée, de la formation théorique et pratique, du certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'avocat: 1° Les membres et anciens membres du Conseil d'Etat et les membres et anciens membres du corps des tribunaux administratifs et des cours administratives d'appel;

## Page 67

33 Re UWOMBONYE

[40] Hari ibindi bihugu bidasaba ushaka kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka kubanza gukora ikizamini, harimo ibyavuzwe n’urega. Ikigaragara ni uko ibihugu byose bidakora kimwe, ariko ahenshi ikizamini kikaba gikorwa mu rwego rwo gusuzuma ubushobozi bw’ushaka gukora umurimo w’ubwavoka ufite uruhare runini mu guteza imbere ubutabera. Kuba hari aho kugira ngo ube Avoka bisaba gukora ikizamini, ntaho binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko byasobanuwe hejuru; byaba ikibazo ari uko hari abashaka kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka bamwe basabwe gukora ikizami abandi ntibabisabwe, kandi nta mpamvu ihari yumvikana ishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme. [41] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga agace ka 50 k’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, katanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [42] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi gisaba kwemeza ko igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 82, n’agace ka 50 k’ingingo ya 6, z’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya

2° Les magistrats et anciens magistrats de la Cour des comptes, des chambres régionales des comptes et des chambres territoriales des comptes de la Polynésie française et de la Nouvelle-Calédonie; 3° Les magistrats et anciens magistrats de l'ordre judiciaire régis par l'ordonnance n° 58-1270 du 22 décembre 1958; 4° Les professeurs d'université chargés d'un enseignement juridique; 5° Les avocats au Conseil d'Etat et à la Cour de cassation”.

## Page 68

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, nta shingiro gifite; [43] Rwemeje ko igika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 82, n’agace ka 50 k’ingingo ya 6, z’Itegeko No 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, bitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda.

## Page 69

35 Re UWOMBONYE

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 70

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 71

37 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2023/SC] (Mukamulisa, P.J., Hitiyaremye na Kalihangabo J.) 15 Ugushyingo 2024] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Kwakira ikirego – Mu manza zisabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gashingiye ku kuba Urukiko rutarakiriye ikirego rwagomba kwakira, Urukiko ruburanisha urubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo, iyo rusanze ikirego cyaragombaga kwakirwa, ruracyakira rukakiburanisha mu mizi. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ndererimana Gédéon avuga ko Umuhesha w’inkiko w’umwuga Bimenyimana Innocent yateje cyamunara umutungo we mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, bituma atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi asaba ko iyo cyamunara iteshwa agaciro kuko atigeze ayimenyeshwa. Uru Rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego kitakiriwe kuko cyatanzwe impitagihe. Bimenyimana yatanze inzitizi asaba ko ikirego kitakwakirwa avuga ko cyatanzwe impitagihe kuko cyamunara yabaye nyuma y’imyaka ibiri kandi itegeko riteganya ko utishimiye cyamunara atanga ikirego gisaba kuyitesha mu gihe cy’iminsi 15. Uru rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego kitakiriwe. Ndererimana yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwanze kwakira ikirego cye rushingiye ku kuba yaratinze kugitanga nyamara atari byo, kubera ko uhereye igihe yamenyeye iby’igurishwa ry’umutungo we, nta gukererwa kwabayeho kuko yatanze ikirego mu gihe giteganywa 37

## Page 72

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’amategeko, bityo asaba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi guha ishingiro ikirego cye no gutesha agaciro cyamunara yaregeraga. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ndererimana bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOM 01295/2022/TC rwajuririwe ihinduka kuri byose kuko ikirego nticyakiriwe mu rukiko rubanza kandi cyagombaga kwakirwa nyuma yo kubona ko ibihe byo gutanga ikirego byubahirijwe. Uru Rukiko ariko ntirwategetse ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ruteshwa agaciro ndetse rwoherezwemo kugirango ruburanishwe mu mizi. Bimenyimana yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Uwegukanye umutungo wagurishijwe muri cyamunara nawe yifuje kugoboka muri uru rubanza kubera ko warumaze kumwandikwaho, maze arabyemererwa kuko arufitemo inyungu. Muri uru rubanza rw’akarengane, Bimenyimana Innocent (Umuhesha w’Inkiko) yaburanye avuga ko umutungo uburanwa wa Ndererimana watejwe cyamunara kuko atishyuye inguzanyo yari afitiye sosiyete Universal Trading Ltd. Bimenyimana avuga kandi ko Ndererimana yatanze ikirego gisaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara ariko ntiyubahiriza ibihe byateganyijwe n’amategeko byo kuyiregera kuko cyamunara yabaye ku wa 26/05/2020, agatanga ikirego ku wa 25/05/2022, ni ukuvuga nyuma y’imyaka 2, kandi yaragombaga kugitanga mu gihe kitarenze iminsi 15 nkuko itegeko ribiteganya. Ndererimana Gédéon yiregura avuga ko mbere atigeze amenyeshwa ibijyanye na cyamunara yagurishirijwemo umutungo we, akaba yarayimenye ku wa 10/05/2022 ubwo

## Page 73

39 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

Bimenyimana Innocent yamwohererezaga raporo yayo kuri email, maze atanga ikirego cyo kuyitesha agaciro ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Muhoza ku wa 25/05/2022, ariko nticyakirwa kubera ko urwo rukiko rwemeje ko rudafite ububasha, ariko nyuma yaho yongeye kutanga ikindi kirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 25/07/2022, bityo ko iminsi 15 ivugwa n’Itegeko yayubahirije. Ndererimana Gédéon avuga kandi ko ku itariki ya 26/05/2020 uwo baburana nawe avuga ko cyamunara yabereyeho, byari mu gihe cya Covid 19, bikaba bitarashobokaga ko yabaho hashingiwe ku mabwiriza y’inama y’Abaminisitiri yo ku wa 18/05/2020. Nyuma y’isesengura, Urukiko rusanga, uhereye ku gihe Ndererimana Gédéon yamenyesherejweho raporo ya cyamunara, iminsi 15 ivugwa mu ngingo ya 260, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko N°22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 yarubahirijwe nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabibonye, bityo ko ikirego cye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyaragombaga kwakirwa kigasuzumwa, maze rwemeza ko ikirego cya Bimenyimana Innocent gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kikaba nta shingiro gifite. Incamake y’icyemezo: Mu manza zisabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gashingiye ku kuba Urukiko rutarakiriye ikirego rwagomba kwakira, Urukiko ruburanisha urubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo, iyo rusanze ikirego cyaragombaga kwakirwa, ruracyakira rukakiburanisha mu mizi. Ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane nta shingiro gifite.

## Page 74

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 158 niya 260. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ngizweninshuti v Muhima, RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga wa 21/02/2020. Nditiribambe n’abandi v Nyamaswa, RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020. Mukamana Mamique n’abandi v Candali Vérène n’abandi, RS/ INJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC, n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciwe kuwa 28/07/2020. Bagaragaza v SIRWA SARL (ADD) RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 14/02/2024. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Bimenyimana Innocent, Umuhesha w’inkiko w’umwuga, yateje cyamunara umutungo wa Ndererimana Gédéon ubaruye kuri UPI:4/03/03/04/3678 harangizwa urubanza RCOM 00335/2019/TC rwaciwe ku wa 29/04/2019, Ndererimana Gédéon yatsinzwemo na Universal Trading Ltd, agategekwa kuyishyura 13.067.050 Frw, 202.191 Frw y’inyungu, 600.000 Frw akubiyemo igihembo cy’Avoka, ay’ikurikiranarubanza

## Page 75

41 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

n’igihembo cy’Umuhesha w’inkiko na 20.000 Frw y’amagarama yishyuye atanga ikirego. [2] Ndererimana Gédéon yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Muhoza asaba gutesha agaciro iyo cyamunara, mu rubanza RC 00359/2022/TB/MUH rwaciwe ku wa 17/07/2022, urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego kitakiriwe kubera ko yaregeye urukiko rutabifitiye ububasha. Nyuma y’icyo cyemezo yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi asaba ko cyamunara yabaye ku mutungo we iteshwa agaciro kuko Umuhesha w’Inkiko atigeze ayimumenyesha ndetse akaba ataranubahirije imihango iteganyijwe n’amategeko. Bimenyimana Innocent yatanze inzitizi asaba ko ikirego cya Ndererimana Gédéon kitakwakirwa kuko yagitanze impitagihe. [3] Mu rubanza RCOM 01295/2022/TC rwaciwe ku wa 05/09/2022, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ikirego cya Ndererimana Gédéon kitakiriwe, rumutegeka kwishyura Bimenyimana Innocent 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 50.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [4] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye ku kuba Ndererimana Gédéon yaratanze ikirego cyo gutesha agaciro cyamunara y’umutungo we ubaruye kuri UPI: 4/03/03/04/3678 ku wa 25/07/2022 nyamara iyo cyamunara yarabaye ku wa 26/05/2020, ni ukuvuga nyuma y’imyaka ibiri (2), rusanga yararengeje igihe cy’iminsi 15 cyo gutanga ikirego giteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 260 y’Itegeko n° 22/2018 ryo ku wa

## Page 76

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi1 [5] Ku wa 12/09/2022, Ndererimana Gédéon yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwanze kwakira ikirego cye rushingiye ku kuba yaratinze kugitanga nyamara atari byo, kubera ko uhereye igihe yamenyeye iby’igurishwa ry’umutungo we, ni ukuvuga ku wa 10/05/2022, nta gukererwa kwabayeho; ko kandi yaciwe indishyi zidafite icyo zishingiyeho, asaba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi guha ishingiro ikirego cye no gutesha agaciro cyamunara yaregeraga. [6] Bimenyimana Innocent yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Ndererimana Gédéon kubera ko yatinze kujurira, anavuga ko no ku rwego rwa mbere ikirego kitagombaga kwakirwa nk’uko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwabibonye kubera ko yamenyeshejwe igurishwa ry’umutungo we mu cyamunara, hagashira igihe kigera ku myaka 2 atararegera kuyitesha agaciro, asaba ko iyo nzitizi nayo yakongera gusuzumwa, urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere rukagumaho. [7] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00599/2022/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 07/10/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ndererimana Gédéon bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOM 01295/2022/TC rwajuririwe ihinduka kuri byose. [8] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye ku kuba nta kimenyetso Bimenyimana Innocent

1 Igika cya 4 cy’iyo ngingo kivuga ko ikirego gisaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara gitangwa mu gihe kitarenze iminsi cumi n’itanu (15) uhereye umunsi cyamunara yabereyeho.

## Page 77

43 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

yigeze agaragaza cyerekana ko imihango yose ijyanye na cyamunara yayimenyesheje Ndererimana Gédéon mu bihe biteganyijwe n’amategeko, rusanga urubanza RCOM 01295/2022/TC rwaragombaga kwakirwa n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rugasuzumwa mu mizi. [9] Bimenyimana Innocent yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Nyuma yo gusuzuma icyo kibazo, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, na we yemeza ko urwo rubanza rwongera kuburanishwa, ruhabwa RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2023/SC. [10] Uru rubanza rwahamagawe bwa mbere ku wa 06/06/2024, ariko ntirwaburanishwa ahubwo uru Rukiko rwemeza ko rusubizwa mu bwanditsi bw’Urukiko kugira ngo ruzabanze gukorerwa inama ntegurarubanza ariko Bimenyimana Innocent watumye itaba mbere ahanishwa ihazabu mbonezamubano ingana na 50.000 Frw2. [11] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryongeye gusubukurwa, ribera mu ruhame ku wa 09/10/2024, Bimenyimana Innocent yunganirwa na Me Ndayishimiye Jean Paul naho Ndererimana Gédéon yunganiwe na Me Munyentwari Charles. Hitabye kandi Me Gahutu Joseph ahagarariye Uwambayinema Anne wifuje kugoboka muri uru rubanza kubera ko ari we waguze mu cyamunara umutungo ufite UPI: 4/03/03/04/3678 ndetse ukaba waramaze kumwandikwaho we n'umugabo we Tuyiringire Joseph.

2 Bimenyimana Innocent yishyuye iyo hazabu yaciwe nk’uko bigaragara muri dosiye.

## Page 78

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[12] Nyuma yo kumva ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’ababuranyi ku cyifuzo cyo kugoboka muri uru rubanza cyatanzwe na Uwambayinema Anne, Urukiko rushingiye ku murongo rwatanze mu manza zitandukanye usobanura ko umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo kugoboka ku bushake mu rubanza rw’akarengane akurikije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 113 na 114 z’Itegeko n 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru3, no kuba umutungo wagurishijwe mu cyamunara waraguzwe na Uwambayinema Anne ndetse ukaba umwanditseho, rwemeje ko yemerewe kugoboka muri uru rubanza kuko arufitemo inyungu. [13] Mbere y’iburanisha mu mizi, Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma ibibazo bikurikira: 1) Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Ndererimana Gédéon butaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi; 2) Kumenya niba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi nta bubasha rwari rufite bwo kuburanisha ikirego cyo gutesha agaciro cyamunara yakorewe ku mutungo wa Ndererimana Gédéon. [14] Nyuma yo kumva ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’ababuranyi ku kibazo cya mbere, Uru Rukiko rwasanze inzitizi irebana no kuba Ndererimana Gédéon atarubahirije ibihe by'ubujurire mu Rukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi kubera ko atubahirije igihe cy’iminsi itatu (3) yo kujurira iteganywa n’itegeko, yaratanzwe muri urwo Rukiko ariko ntirugire icyo ruyivugaho.

3 Reba icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyafashwe mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 13/01/2021 mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2019/SC haburana Mukamusoni Petronille na bagenzi be.

## Page 79

45 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

[15] Rushingiye ku ngingo ya 188, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, ubucuruzi n’umurimo nk'uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu4, no ku ngingo ya 275 y'iryo Tegeko5, rwasanze urubanza RCOM 01295/2022/TC rwaraburanishijwe ku wa 1/09/2022, ababuranyi bakamenyeshwa ko ruzasomwa ku wa 5/09/2022, uwo munsi rurasomwa ariko inyandikomvugo y’isomwa ishyirwa muri IECMS ku wa 06/09/2022, naho kopi y’urubanza yo ishyirwa muri dosiye ku wa 07/09/2022. Rushingiye ku ngingo ya 275 yavuzwe haruguru, rwasanze ibihe by’ubujurire bigomba kubarwa guhera ku wa 08/09/2022, umunsi wa nyuma wo kujurira ukaba wari ku wa 12/09/2022 kubera ko itariki ya 10 na 11/09/2022 yari iminsi y’ikiruhuko. Nyuma yo kubona ko ubujurire bwatanzwe ku wa 12/09/2022, Urukiko rwasanze Ndererimana Gédéon yarubahirije ibihe by'ubujurire. [16] Urukiko rwasuzumye kandi ikibazo kijyanye no kuba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi nta bubasha rwari rufite bwo kuburanisha ikirego cyo gutesha agaciro cyamunara yakorewe ku mutungo wa Ndererimana Gédéon, rusanga kitaragiweho impaka mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuko nta muburanyi wasabye ko gisuzumwa. Nyuma yo kumva ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’ababuranyi, rushingiye ku murongo rwatanze mu manza zitandukanye ko kuba urubanza rushobora gusubirishwamo ku

4 Iteganya ko: “Igihe cyo kujuririra icyemezo cyafashwe ku kirego kirebana no gutesha agaciro cyamunara ari iminsi itarenze itatu (3) y’akazi uhereye ku munsi icyemezo cyasomeweho cyangwa ababuranyi bakimenyeyeho”. 5 iteganya ko: “Ku bihe bibarwa mu minsi cyangwa mu masaha, bibarwa umunsi ku munsi, n’isaha ku isaha hakurikijwe igihe bimara kandi umunsi igikorwa cyakoreweho ntubarwamo, ahubwo habarwa umunsi wa nyuma kigomba kurangiriraho”.

## Page 80

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mpamvu z’akarengane rukaburanishwa bundi bushya, bitavuga ko umuburanyi yakwitwaza iyo nzira kugira ngo abe yazana ibirego bishya kandi bitararegewe ntibinasuzumwe mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo, kuko umuburanyi atavuga ko yagize akarengane ku kibazo atigeze asaba Urukiko gusuzuma6, rwemeje ko icyo kibazo kitagomba gusuzumwa mu rwego rw’akarengane muri uru rubanza. [17] Iburanisha ryarakomeje, ababuranyi bajya impaka ku bibazo bijyanye no kumenya niba Ndererimana Gédéon yaratinze kuregera gutesha agaciro cyamunara n’ikibazo kijyanye n’indishyi zinyuranye zasabwe n’ababuranyi. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba Ndererimana Gédéon yaratinze kuregera gutesha agaciro cyamunara [18] Bimenyimana Innocent yunganiwe na Me Ndayishimiye Jean Paul, avuga ko nyuma y’uko Ndererimana Gédéon atsinzwe mu rubanza RCOM 00335/2019/TC, Universal Trading Ltd yatsinze urwo rubanza yamuhaye akazi ko kuyishyuriza, ariko ko igihe cyose yashyiraga Ndererimana Gédéon inyandiko zimwishyuza, yangaga kuzisinya bigera aho agurisha muri

6 Reba urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS rwaciwe ku wa 21/02/2020, haburana Ngizweninshuti Albert na Muhima Giovanni, urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 13/03/2020, haburana Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason na Nyamaswa Faustin n’urubanza RS/ INJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC rwaciwe kuwa 28/07/2020 haburana Mukamana Mamique na bagenzi be na Candali Vérène na bagenzi be).

## Page 81

47 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

cyamunara umutungo we utimukanwa ubaruye kuri UPI: 4/03/03/04/3678. [19] Akomeza avuga ko Ndererimana Gédéon atubahirije ibihe byateganyijwe n’amategeko byo kuregera gutesha agaciro cyamunara, kuko cyamunara yabaye ku wa 26/05/2020, agatanga ikirego ku wa 25/05/2022, ni ukuvuga nyuma y’imyaka 2, nyamara yaragombaga kugitanga mu gihe kitarenze iminsi 15 nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 260 y’Itegeko nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubono, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. [20] Ndererimana Gédéon yunganiwe na Me Munyentwari Charles, avuga ko cyamunara yagurishirijwemo umutungo we yayimenye ku wa 10/05/2022 ubwo Bimenyimana Innocent yamwohererezaga raporo yayo kuri email, atanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Muhoza ku wa 25/05/2022, ariko nticyakirwa kubera ko urwo rukiko rwemeje ku wa 17/07/2022 ko rudafite ububasha, abona kugitanga mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 25/07/2022, ko rero iminsi 15 ivugwa n’Itegeko yayubahirije. [21] Yongeraho ko mbere y’itariki ya 10/05/2022 atari yarigeze amenyeshwa ibijyanye na cyamunara, ko n’inyandiko ziri muri dosiye Bimenyimana Innocent yerekana avuga ko yamumenyesheje ngo akanga kuzisinya, zitavugisha ukuri, ko ahubwo ari we waziyandikiye nyuma yo kubona ko hari amakosa yakoze mu guteza cyamunara umutungo we. [22] Avuga kandi ko nyuma yo kubona uwitwa Tuyiringire Joseph yubatse mu isambu ye ifite UPI 03/03/03/04/3678 yitwaje ko yayiguze mu cyamunara, ku wa 27/01/2022 yiyambaje Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagari ka Gacaca asaba

## Page 82

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kurenganurwa, no ku wa 14/02/2022 yandikira Umuyobozi w’Urugaga rw’Abahesha b’Inkiko b’umwuga nawe amumenyesha ko bavogereye isambu ye bitwaje cyamunara nyamara itarabayeho, ndetse abimenyesha Universal Trading Ltd yarangirizwaga urubanza. [23] Akomeza avuga ko kuri iyo tariki ya 14/02/2022, Avoka wa Universal Trading Ltd yemeje ko Bimenyimana Innocent yarangije urubanza mu buryo batazi kuko nta raporo yabashyikirije cyangwa amafaranga yayivuyemo, bituma ku wa 21/04/2022 yandikira Bimenyimana Innocent amusaba kumenyeshwa ibyakorewe ku mutungo we atabizi, aribwo ku wa 10/05/2024 Bimenyimana Innocent yamwohererezaga email igaragaza raporo y’amafaranga yavuye mu cyamunara yakorewe ku mutungo we, ndetse ku mugereka wayo ashyiraho na raporo ya cyamunara yo ku wa 26/05/2020. [24] Asoza avuga ko ku itariki ya 26/05/2020, bavuga ko cyamunara yabereyeho, byari mu gihe cya Covid 19, bikaba bitarashobokaga ko yabaho hashingiwe ku mabwiriza y’inama y’Abaminisitiri yo ku wa 18/05/2020. [25] Me Gahutu Joseph uburanira Uwambayinema Anne wagobotse muri uru rubanza, avuga ko Ndererimana Gédéon yatinze kuregera gutesha agaciro cyamunara kuko bitumvikana ukuntu yamara imyaka 2 ataramenya ko cyamunara yabaye ku mutungo we. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya 260, igika cya mbere, icya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4, y’Itegeko n° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye

## Page 83

49 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, ivuga ko “Umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu ashobora gusaba Urukiko rw'Ibanze rw'aho cyamunara igomba kubera kuyihagarika iyo: 1° Hatubahirijwe amategeko agenga ishinganisha, ifatira n'itangazwa rya cyamunara; 2° Umutungo ugomba kugurishwa udashobora kugurishwa kubera ubukene bwa nyirawo nk'uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 259 y’iri tegeko; 3° Hari ikimenyetso kidashidikanywaho kigaragaza ko umutungo ugiye kugurishwa atari uw'uryozwa kwishyura. Izi mpamvu ni nazo zishingirwaho mu kirego gisaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara yakozwe. Usaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara, ashobora no kurega umuhesha w’inkiko muri urwo rubanza, iyo hari ibyo ashaka kumuryoza. Ikirego gisaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara gitangwa mu gihe kitarenza iminsi cumi n’itanu (15) uhereye umunsi cyamunara yabereyeho. Ibirego bivugwa muri iyi ngingo bitangwa kandi bikaburanishwa mu bihe by'ibirego byihutirwa”. [27] Ingingo ya 12, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko “Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda.” [28] Impaka muri uru rubanza zishingiye ku kumenya niba Ndererimana Gédéon atarubahirije iminsi 15 yo kuregera kuyitesha agaciro, kubera ko Bimenyimana avuga ko cyamunara yakozwe ku wa 26/05/2020, ikirego kigatangwa ku wa 25/05/2022, naho Ndererimana Gédéon we akavuga ko atigeze amenyeshwa mbere iby’iyo cyamunara kuko yayimenye ku wa 10/05/2022 ubwo yohererezwaga raporo yayo kuri email.

## Page 84

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[29] Urukiko rusanga ibimenyetso Bimenyimana Innocent yerekana bigaragaza ko yamenyesheje Ndererimana Gédéon imihango ya cyamunara yakorewe ku mutungo we, bigizwe n’inyandiko yo ku wa 02/07/2019 yanditswe na Bimenyimana Innocent, ivuga ko Ndererimana Gédéon yahawe inyandiko imusaba kugaragaza umutungo we hamwe na kopi y’urubanza RCOM 00335/2019/TC rwaciwe ku wa 29/04/20197, akanga kuyisinya. [30] Hari kandi inyandiko yo ku wa 25/02/2020, imenyesha Ndererimana Gédéon raporo y’igenagaciro mu kurangiza urubanza RCOM 00335/2019/TC. Muri iyo nyandiko Bimenyimana Innocent avuga ko yahamagaye Ndererimana kuri telefoni ye igendanwa ifite nomero 0784858937 amubwira ko amushaka akamuha iyo nyandiko hamwe na raporo y’igenagaciro, ngo undi amubwira ko akora ibyo yumva. [31] Nk’uko byagarutsweho haruguru, Ndererimana Gédéon we avuga ko atigeze amenyeshwa inyandiko yo ku wa 02/07/2019 hamwe n’iyo ku wa 25/02/2020 zavuzwe haruguru, ko izo nyandiko ari izo Bimenyimana Innocent yiyandikiye ubwe agamije kubeshya, ko kandi iyo agira ubushake bwo kuzimumenyesha yari kumusanga iwe akazimushyikiriza, ko ahubwo yamumenyesheje nyuma raporo ya cyamunara amaze kubona ko hari amakosa yakoze mu guteza cyamunara umutungo we. [32] Urukiko rusanga Ndererimana Gédéon uvuga ko atigeze amenyeshwa mbere iby’iyo cyamunara, atanga ikimenyetso

7 Rwamutegetse kwishyura Universal Trading Ltd 13.067.050 Frw, 202.191 Frw y’inyungu, 600.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka, ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Umuhesha w’inkiko na 20.000 Frw y’amagarama,

## Page 85

51 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

cy’uko yayimenye ku wa 10/05/2022 ubwo Bimenyimana Innocent yamwohererezaga kuri email inyandiko yo ku wa 09/05/2022 irimo raporo y’amafaranga yavuye mu cyamunara yakorewe ku mutungo we, ndetse ku mugereka wayo agashyiraho na raporo ya cyamunara yo ku wa 26/05/2020. Muri iyo nyandiko, Bimenyimana atangira avuga ngo: “mbandikiye iyi baruwa ngira ngo mbahe amakuru arebana na cyamunara nk’uko mwabinsabye mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 14/02/2022 yangezeho ku wa 05/05/2022 nyihawe n’Ubuyobozi bw’Urugaga rw’Abahesha b’Inkiko mu Rwanda…” [33] Urukiko rushingiye ku bivuzwe haruguru, rurasanga n’ubwo Bimenyimana Innocent avuga ko cyamunara yabaye ku wa 26/05/2020, ari naho ahera abara ibihe byagombaga kubahirizwa na Ndererimana Gédéon, atagaragaza ibimenyetso byerekana ko yamenye iby’iyo cyamunara cyane cyane ko we (Ndererimana Gédéon) yatanze ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko yamenyeshejwe raporo ya cyamunara ku wa 10/05/2022 nabwo abanje kuyisaba. Iyi niyo igomba guherwaho habarwa ibihe byo gutanga ikirego, cyane cyane ko Bimenyimana Innocent atigeze ahakana ko kuri iyo tariki yamwoherereje email yavuzwe haruguru cyangwa ngo atange ibindi bimenyetso byerekana ko yamumenyesheje raporo ya cyamunara mbere y’iyo tariki. [34] Urukiko rusanga nyuma yo kumenyeshwa raporo imaze kuvugwa, ku wa 25/07/2022 Ndererimana Gédéon yarabanje gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Muhoza, ariko ku wa 17/07/2022 rwemeza ko rudafite ububasha, nibwo ku wa 25/07/2022 yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi. [35] Urukiko rushingiye ku bimaze kuvugwa, rusanga, uhereye ku gihe yamenyesherejweho raporo ya cyamunara, Ndererimana Gédéon yarubahirije iminsi 15 ivugwa mu ngingo

## Page 86

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ya 260, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko n° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabibonye, ikirego cye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyaragombaga kwakirwa kigasuzumwa. Kubera iyo mpamvu, ikirego cya Bimenyimana Innocent gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane kikaba nta shingiro gifite. [36] Ingingo ya 158, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko n° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryamaze kuvugwa haruguru iteganya ko iyo Urukiko rwajuririwe rusanze urubanza rwari rwaregewe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko urukiko rwaruciye ku rwego rubanza rukavuga ko rutakiriwe kandi rwaragombaga kwakirwa, Urukiko rwajuririwe rurwakira, rukagaragaza ko rwagombaga kwakirwa ku rwego rwa mbere; rukarutesha agaciro maze rukarusubiza Urukiko rwari rwaruciye kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi. [37] Urukiko rurasanga ku wa 25/07/2022 n’ubwo mu rubanza RCOMA 00599/2022/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 07/10/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasuzumye ubujurire bwa Ndererimana Gédéon rugasanga bufite ishingiro ndetse rugategeka ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOM 01295/2022/TC rwajuririwe ihinduka kuri byose, rutarigeze rutegeka ko urwo rubanza rusubizwa Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rwaruciye kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi. [38] Urukiko rusanga hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 158, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko n° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, uru rubanza rwaragombaga koherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kugira ngo rusuzume mu mizi ikirego kijyanye no gutesha agaciro cyamunara Ndererimana Gédéon yari yararushyikirije kuko kugeza ubu kitaraburanishwa. Nyamara harebwe igihe gishize kuva ikirego gitanzwe, kandi bizwi ko ibirego bijyanye no gutesha agaciro cyamunara bifatwa

## Page 87

53 BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

nk’ibyihutirwa kubera kamere yabyo, kurusubiza ku rwego rwa mbere ndetse bikaba bishoboka ko rwazajuririrwa cyangwa rukajya mu karengane, byatuma rushobora kumara ikindi gihe kirekire rutaracibwa. [39] Mu rwego rwo gukosora amakosa yavuzwe haruguru no mu nyungu z’ubutabera, uru Rukiko rusanga rugomba kuburanisha mu mizi ikirego kijyanye no gutesha agaciro cyamunara. Kuba mu rwego rw’akarengane Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaca urubanza ubundi rwari mu bubasha bw’inkiko zo hasi, uru Rukiko rwabikoze no mu manza zinyuranye rwaciye8. [40] Hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa, iburanisha ry’uru rubanza rizakomeza hasuzumwa mu mizi ikirego Ndererimana Gédéon yari yashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, icyo gihe kandi akaba ari nabwo hazasuzumwa ikibazo cy’indishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [41] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Bimenyimana Innocent gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCOMA 00599/2022/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 07/10/2022, nta shingiro gifite;

8 Urugero: Urubanza rubanziriza urundi RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 14/02/2024, haburana Bagaragaza Thaddée na bagenzi be, urupapuro rwa 7 - 8 : Muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rwagarutse ku murongo watanzwe mu rundi rubanza rufite nº RS/Injust/RCOM 00007/2021/SC rwaciwe ku wa 29/04/2022, haburana Sikubwabo Raphaël na RDB.

## Page 88

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[42] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Ndererimana Gédéon mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi cyagombaga kwakirwa kuko cyatanzwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko; [43] Rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza hasuzumwa mu mizi ikirego Ndererimana Gédéon yashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi hamwe n’ikibazo cy’indishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza; [44] Ruvuze ko itariki urubanza ruzongera kuburanishirizwaho ababuranyi bazayimenyeshwa n’Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko.

## Page 89

55 BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI

BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCA 00014/2023/CA (Rutazana, M., P.J.) 20 Ukuboza 2024] Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – gusubirishamo urubanza – gusubirishwamo urubanza rwaciwe mu bujurire – iyo urubanza rwasubirishijwemo ari urubanza rwajuririwe bwa mbere, iyo rwongeye kujuririrwa, ubwo bujurire bufatwa nk’ubujurire bwa kabiri kuko kuba umuburanyi waregwaga yasubirishamo urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru adahari ntibirugira urubanza ruciwe ku rwego rwa mbere. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiye Rwajekare arega Bahizi, Biryukomeye, Babonampoze, Mukankusi, Barawumfitiye na Nyiranduhirabandi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu atambamira urubanza RC3209/29 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Gisenyi rwamwambuye imirima ye. Bahizi yireguye avuga ko ikirego cya Rwajekare kitagomba kwakirwa kuko yarengeje igihe cy’amezi abiri cyo gutambamira urwo rubanza. Barawumfitiye, Nyiranduhirabandi na Mukankusi nabo baregwaga bavuze ko Bahizi yikubiye imirima yasizwe n'ababyeyi babo kandi bagomba kuyigabana. Urukiko mu rubanza RC00178/2019/ TGI/RBV rwemeje ko ikirego cya Rwajekare kitakiriwe kuko urubanza yatambamiye yarumenye ubwo hacibwaga izindi manza zirimo RC 09/98 n’urubanza RC 213/2001, kandi muri izo manza zose Rwajekare yari azirimo nk’uregwa, rwemeza ko atubahirije igihe cy’amezi abiri giteganywa n’itegeko cyo gutambamira urubanza. 55

## Page 90

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Rwajekare yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze avuga ko urubanza RC 3209/29 yarumenye ku wa 08/10/2019 atanga ikirego cyo kurutambamira ku wa 08/11/2019, bityo akaba yarubahirije igihe cy’amezi abiri giteganywa n’amategeko. Urukiko mu rubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rwajekare nta shingiro bufite. Barawumfitiye yasabye gusubirishamo urwo rubanza ashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko rwaburanishijwe arwaye, arabyemererwa, urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa; Urukiko mu rubanza RS/REV/RC00001/2022/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwemeza ko urubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS rwasubirishwagamo rudahindutse. Barawumfitiye yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwaciye imanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS na RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS rushingiye kuri fotokopi itagira kashi, runirengagiza ikimenyetso kiri mu mwanzuro wo kwiregura wa Rwajekare kigaragaza ko urubanza yatambamiye rutabayeho kuko rutaboneka muri classements z’Urukiko. Bahizi yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye kuko urubanza Rwajekare yatambamiye aruzi ndetse ko yasinye ku irangiza rubanza nk’umuburanyi, kandi ko mu bujurire bwe yinjira mu mizi y’urubanza mu gihe ikirego cye kitarakiriwe ku mpamvu y’uko yagitanze akererewe. Abandi baburanyi bose bavuga ko imiburanire yabo ihuye n’iya Barawumfitiye kuko ibyo avuga ko umuvandimwe wabo Bahizi yihariye imitungo y’ababyeyi babo kandi bagombye kuyisangira ari ukuri, basaba ko ubujurire bwe bwakirwa. Muri uru rubanza ntabwo Biryukomeye yireguye.

## Page 91

57 BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI

Urukiko rubyibwirije rwabanje gusuzuma niba urubanza rwatambamiwe hanyuma rukajuririrwa rwafatwa nkaho rujuririwe bwa kabiriri, Urukiko rwemeza mu rubanza RCA00014/2023/CA ko rwafatwa nk’urwajuriwe bwa kabiri kandi rutujuje ibisabwa kugirango ruburanishwe mu bujurire bwa kabiri kuko habayeho gutsindwa mu nkiko z’abanje hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Iyo ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza cyakiriwe, abari ababuranyi mu rubanza rwa mbere basubirana inshingano zabo. Bityo, iyo urubanza rwasubirishijwemo ari urubanza rwajuririwe bwa mbere, rwongeye kujuririrwa, ubwo bujurire bufatwa nk’ubujurire bwa kabiri kuko kuba umuburanyi waregwaga yasubirishamo urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru adahari ntibirugira urubanza ruciwe ku rwego rwa mbere. 2.Mu gusuzuma niba umuburanyi yaratsinzwe mu nkiko zombi zabanje hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe, harebwa icyaburanwaga n’imitekerereze ya buri rukiko (raisonnement juridique) mu kugaragaza impamvu zashingiweho, kugira ngo rugere ku cyemezo rwafashe, hitawe ku kureba niba ingingo zaburanywe ku rwego rubanza ari zo zagarutsweho mu bujurire kandi ko inkiko zombi zazisubijeho mu buryo bumwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Ingingo ya 111, 144 Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, Ingingo ya 52, igika cya 3,

## Page 92

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Imanza zifashishijwe: Road Solution Pavements Product v Mailco Ltd, RC/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 25/09/2020. SANLAM Assurance Générales Plc v University of Rwanda RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2020/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/11/2020. BUFCOFFEE Ltd v TEUSCHER INVEST Ltd, yahindutse KIVUBELT COFFEE Ltd RCOMAA 00012/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 22/07/2022 RODAS IMPORTER AND DISTRIBUTOR Ltd v Gasangwa Jean Baptiste n’abandi, RCOMAA 00042/2023/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/11/2023. Urubanza. I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 08/10/2019 Rwajekare Alexis yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu avuga ko atambamira urubanza RC 3209/29 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Gisenyi rukaba rwaramwambuye imirima ye, abaregwa ari abitwa Bahizi Frodouard, Biryukomeye Fabien, Babonampoze Marc, Mukankusi Marie Rose, Barawumfitiye Vestine na Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice. [2] Bahizi Frodouard yireguye avuga ko ikirego cya Rwajekare Alexis kitagomba kwakirwa kuko yarengeje igihe cy’amezi abiri cyo gutambamira urwo rubanza. Barawumfitiye Vestine, Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice na Mukankusi Marie Rose

## Page 93

59 BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI

nabo baregwaga bavuze ko Bahizi Frodouard yikubiye imirima yasizwe n'ababyeyi babo kandi bagomba kuyigabana. [3] Mu rubanza RC00178/2019/ TGI/RBV rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu kuwa 15/12/2020 rwemeje ko ikirego cya Rwajekare Alexis kitakiriwe kuko urubanza yatambamiye yarumenye ubwo hacibwaga izindi manza zirimo RC 09/98 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Kanto ya Nyamyumba ku wa 25/02/1998 na RC213/2001 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Kanto y’Umujyi wa Gisenyi ku wa 09/05/2003, kandi muri izo manza zose Rwajekare Alexis yari azirimo nk’uregwa, akaba rero atarubahirije igihe cy’amezi abiri giteganywa n’itegeko cyo gutambamira urubanza. Urukiko rwategetse Rwajekare Alexis kwishyura Bahizi Frodouard 500.000Frw yo gukurikirana urubanza n’igihembo cy'Avoka. [4] Urwo rubanza Rwajekare Alexis yarujuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze avuga ko urubanza RC3209/29 yarumenye ku wa 08/10/2019 ikirego cyo kurutambamira ku wa 08/11/2019, bityo akaba yarubahirije igihe cy’amezi abiri giteganywa n’amategeko. [5] Mu rubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze ku wa 27/01/2022 rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rwajekare Alexis nta shingiro bufite, rumutegeka kwishyura Bahizi Frodouard 250.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka ku rwego rw’ubujurire, yiyongera kuri 500.000Frw yo gukurikirana urubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yategetswe kumwishyura ku rwego rwa mbere. [6] Kuwa 12/2/2022, Barawumfitiye Vestine yasabye gusubirishamo urwo rubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS ashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko rwaburanishijwe arwaye,

## Page 94

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

arabyemererwa, urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa; mu rubanza RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze kuwa 11/10/2023 rwemeza ko urubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS rwasubirishwagamo rudahindutse. [7] Kuwa 10/11/2023 Barawumfitiye Vestine yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze rwaciye imanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS na RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS rushingiye kuri fotokopi itagira kashi, runirengagiza ikimenyetso kiri mu mwanzuro wo kwiregura wa Rwajekare Alexis kigaragaza ko urubanza yatambamiye rutabayeho kuko rutaboneka muri classements z’urukiko. [8] Mu myanzuro ye Bahizi Frodouard yatanze inzitizi asaba kutakira ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye Vestine ashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko urubanza Rwajekare Alexis yatambamiye aruzi ndetse ko yasinye mu irangiza rubanza ryarwo nk’umuburanyi, kandi ko mu bujurire bwe yinjira mu mizi y’urubanza mu gihe ikirego cya Rwajekare Alexis kitarakiriwe ku mpamvu y’uko yagitanze akerewe. [9] Uretse Biryukomeye Fabien utarireguye, abandi baburanyi bose bavuga ko imiburanire yabo ihuye n’iya Barawumfitiye Vestine ngo kuko ibyo avuga ko umuvandimwe wabo Bahizi Frodouard yihariye imitungo ababyeyi babo basize kandi bagombye kuyisangira ari ukuri, bagasaba ko ubujurire bwe bwakirwa. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 11/12/2024, Barawumfitiye Vestine yunganiwe na Me Rusobanuka Katisiga Emile, Rwajekare Alexis yunganiwe na Me Ndereyimana André, Bahizi Frodouard ahagarariwe na Me

## Page 95

61 BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI

Rukarishya Philémon, Babonampoze Marc yunganiwe na Me Muhozi Paulin, uyu akanagahararira Mukankusi Marie Rose na Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice, naho Biryukomeye Fabien adahari nta n’impamvu yamenyesheje Urukiko yatumye atitaba, ariko dosiye igaragaza ko yamenyeshejwe itariki y’iburanisha mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [11] Mbere yo gusuzuma ibindi bikubiye mu myanzuro y’ababuranyi, Urukiko rubyibwirije rwabajije ababuranyi niba basanga ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye Vestine bukomoka ku rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumubuye rwa Rubavu muri uru Rukiko bwafatwa nk’ubujurire bukozwe ku rwego rwa mbere cyangwa niba ari ubujurire bwo ku rwego rwa kabiri, no kumenya, mu gihe bwaba ari ubujurire bwa kabiri, niba bwujuje ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 52 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko ku buryo bwaba buri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko, ibyo bibazo biba aribyo bibanza gusuzumwa. [12] Hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasuzuma ikibazo cyo kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye Vestine bukomoka ku rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, buri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko ku buryo bwakwakirwa. Mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga ubujurire butari mu bubasha bwarwo, ruranasuzuma ibijyanye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yasabwe kuri uru rwego.

## Page 96

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA a. Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye Vestine bukomoka ku rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu buri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko ku buryo bwakwakirwa [13] Me Rusobanuka Katisiga Emile mu mwanya wa Barawumfitiye Vestine yunganira, Me Ndereyimana André mu mwanya wa Rwajekare Alexis yunganira na Me Muhozi Paulin mu mwanya wa Babonampoze Marc yunganiye n’uwa Mukankusi Marie Rose na Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice ahagarariye, bose bavuga ko ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye Vestine buri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko bashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko urubanza RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS yajuririye rwaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere, ngo kuko mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze Barawumfitiye Vestine yari yasubirishijemo urubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS. Bavuga kandi ko iyo urubanza yajuririye ruba rutaraciwe ku rwego rwa mbere ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire butari kwakira ubujurire bwe, ndetse ko urubanza rutari guhabwa nimero igaragazwa n’inyuguti RCA. Me Ndereyimana André yongeraho ko ubujurire bwari kuba bwakozwe ku rwego rwa kabiri iyo aza kuba ari Rwajekare Alexis wajuriye; naho Me Muhozi Paulin yongeraho ko Urukiko rubibonye ukundi ububasha bwarwo bwashingira ku kuba amasambu aburanwa afite agaciro ka miliyoni ijana na makumyabiri (120.000 000Frw). [14] Me Rukarishya Philémon uhagarariye Bahizi Frodouard, avuga ko ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye Vestine ari ubujurire bwa kabiri kuko urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, rujuririrwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa

## Page 97

63 BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI

Musanze, urubanza ruciwe Barawumfitiye Vestine arusubirishamo kuko rwaburanishijwe adahari, bityo ubujurire bwe bukaba butagomba kwakirwa kuko hatarebwa umuburanyi wajuriye ahubwo harebwa urubanza rwajuririwe, kandi Barawumfitiye Vestine akaba atagaragaza icyo ubujurire bwe bushingiyeho mu biteganywa n’ingingo ya 52 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Impaka ziri kuri iki kibazo zishingiye ku kumenya niba, harebwe uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu, ubujurire bwakozwe na Barawumfitiye Vestine ajuririra urubanza RS/REV/RC00001/2022/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, nyuma yo gusubirishamo urubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS rwaciwe adahari, buri mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 52 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko. [16] Ingingo ya 144 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya mu gika cyayo ya 2, ko iyo ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza cyakiriwe, abari ababuranyi mu rubanza rwa mbere basubirana inshingano zabo ; uwareze agakomeza kuba urega n’uregwa agakomeza kuba uregwa. [17] Ingingo ya 52, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, iteganya ko ubujurire bwa kabiri budashobora kwakirwa ku muburanyi watsinzwe mu nkiko zombi hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe.

## Page 98

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[18] Ikibazo cyo kumenya niba mu nkiko zabanje umuburanyi yaratsinzwe hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe cyasuzumwe mu manza zitandukanye1 zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ndetse n’uru Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, aho izi nkiko zombi zasobanuye ko mu gusuzuma niba umuburanyi yaratsinzwe mu nkiko zombi zabanje hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe, harebwa icyaburanwaga n’imitekerereze ya buri rukiko (ni ukuvuga raisonnement juridique) mu kugaragaza impamvu zashingiweho, kugira ngo rugere ku cyemezo rwafashe, hitawe ku kureba niba ingingo zaburanywe ku rwego rubanza ari zo zagarutsweho mu bujurire kandi ko inkiko zombi zazisubijeho mu buryo bumwe. [19] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko urubanza RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS rukomoka ku kirego Rwajekare Alexis yatanze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu kuwa 08/10/2019 avuga ko atambamiye urubanza RC3209/29, mu rubanza RC00178/2019lTGI/RBV rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye kitakiriwe ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, mu rubanza Nº RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite; nyuma y’icibwa ry’urwo rubanza Barawumfitiye Vestine arusubirishamo ku mpamvu

1 Muri izi manza harimo: -RC/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 25/09/2020 haburana Road Solution Pavements Product na Mailco Ltd. -RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/11/2020 haburana SANLAM Assurance Générales Plc na University of Rwanda. -RCOMAA 00012/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 22/07/2022 haburana BUFCOFFEE Ltd na TEUSCHER INVEST Ltd, yahindutse KIVUBELT COFFEE Ltd (igika cya 17). -RCOMAA 00042/2023/CA, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 06/11/2023 haburana RODAS IMPORTER AND DISTRIBUTOR Ltd na GASANGWA Jean Baptiste n’abandi.

## Page 99

65 BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI

y’uko rwaciwe arwaye, arabyemererwa ariko nyuma yo kongera gusuzuma mu mizi ingingo zari zaciweho urubanza adahari, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze mu rubanza RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS rwemeza ko nta gihindutse ku rubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS rwari rwasubirishijwemo; hanyuma Barawumvitiye Vestine ajuririra urwo rubanza muri uru Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. [20] Urukiko rurasanga hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, ubujurire uru Rukiko rwashyikirijwe ari ubujurire bwa kabiri kuko hajuririwe urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze ku bujurire rwari rwashyikirijwe na Rwajekare Alexis ; kuba Barawumfitiye Vestine waregwaga yarasubirishijemo urubanza RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS narwo rwari rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko adahari bikaba atari byo birugira urubanza ruciwe ku rwego rwa mbere, kuko mu by’ukuri icyo yakoze atari ugutanga ikirego ku rwego rwa mbere, ahubwo yasabye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze kongera gusuzuma mu mizi, ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa mbere, ingingo rwari rwaciyeho urubanza yasubirishijemo; hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 144 yavuzwe haruguru, nyuma y’uko ikirego cye cyakiriwe ababuranyi bakaba barasubiranye inshingano zabo bari bafite mu rubanza rwasubirishwagamo, Rwajekare Alexis akomeza kuba uwajuriye n’abandi baburanyi harimo na Barawumfitiye Vestine bakomeza kuba abaregwa; bikaba rero byumvikana ko urubanza rwaciwe kuri ubwo busabe bwa Barawumfitiye Vestine rukagumishaho urwo yari yasabye ko rusubirwamo, narwo rufatwa nk’urwaciwe ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa mbere; bityo ubujurire yarukoreye muri uru Rukiko bukaba ari ubujurire bukozwe ku Rwego rwa kabiri, akaba atakwitwaza ko we ari ubwa mbere yari ajuriye kuko ikirebwa ari urubanza rujuririrwa.

## Page 100

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[21] Urukiko rurasanga kuba kuri uru rwego urubanza rwarahawe numero RCA ubwayo bidahagije ngo bishingirweho hemezwa ko rwajuririwe ku rwego rwa mbere, kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe, ikirebwa ari aho urubanza rwatangiriye n’uko rwagiye rujuririrwa. [22] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ku nzego zombi zabanje, inkiko zombi zaremeje ko ikirego cya Rwajekare Alexis kitakiriwe hashingiwe ku mpamvu zimwe kuko Urukiko Rwisumbuye wa Rubavu rwashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko urubanza atambamira yarumenye ubwo hacibwaga izindi manza zaciwe mbere (zirimo RC 09/98 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Kanto ya Nyamyumba ku wa 25/02/1998 na RC213/2001 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Kanto y’Umujyi wa Gisenyi ku wa 09/05/2003), akaba rero atarubahirije igihe cy’amezi abiri giteganywa n’itegeko cyo gutambamira urubanza ; Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze narwo, nyuma y’uko ajuriye avuga ko ibihe biteganywa n’Itegeko yabyubahirije kuko urubanza yatambamiye yarumenye ku wa ku wa 08/10/2019 ikirego cyo kurutambamira akagitanga ku wa 08/11/2019, narwo rugasanga urubanza yatambamiye yararumenye ubwo ababyeyi be baruburananga na Bahizi Frodouard mu mwaka wa 2001, ko rero nk’uko byanabonywe n’URukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu atubahirije igihe cy’amezi abiri giteganywa n’itegeko, cyo gutambamira urubanza ; uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga imitekerereze y’inkiko zombi zabanje mu kugaragaza impamvu zashingiweho kugira ngo zigere ku cyemezo zafashe ari imwe. [23] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe no ku ngingo ya 52 igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, uru Rukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye

## Page 101

67 BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE N’UNDI

Vestine butagomba kwakirwa kuko butari mu bubasha bw’uru Rukiko. b. Kumenya ishingiro ry’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka bisabwa n’ababuranyi kuri uru rwego [24] Barawumfitiye Vestine asaba Urukiko Rw’ubujurire gutegeka Bahizi Frodourd kumwishyura 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice nawe asaba Urukiko gutegeka Bahizi Frodourd kumwishyura 800.000Frw y’indishyi zo gukomeza kumushora mu manza. Izo ndishyi ntacyo Bahizi Frodouard yazivuzeho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [25] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi igira iti : “Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe”. [26] Urukiko rurasanga Barawumfitiye Vestine ariwe wajuriye muri uru Rukiko kandi nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru ubujurire bwe bukaba butakiriwe, hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 111 yibukijwe haruguru, akaba nta mafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza akwiriye kugenerwa kuko ariwe wishoye mu manza. Urukiko rurasanga kandi Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice nawe indishyi asaba zo gukomeza gushorwa mu manza

## Page 102

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

atazigenerwa kuko yasabye kuzishyurwa na Bahizi Frodouard kandi uyu akaba atarigeze amuzana muri uru rubanza kuko atariwe wajuriye. Naho abandi baburanyi bakaba nta mafaranga y’ikurikrianarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka basabye. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [27] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Barawumfitiye Vestine butakiriwe kuko butari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire. [28] Ruvuze ko amagarama yatanzwe na Barawumfitiye Vestine ajurira ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

## Page 103

69 Re UWOMBONYE

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 104

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 105

71 Re UWOMBONYE

IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 106

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 107

73 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2023/SC (Cyanzayire, P., Hitiyaremye, Kazungu J.) 05 Mata 2024] Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’ubukungu – Uwahohotewe wagize ubumuga buhoraho Uwahohotewe mu mpanuka wagize ubumuga buhoraho agomba guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’ubukungu hatitawe ku kuba yarakomeje cyangwa atarakomeje akazi. Ihinduka ry’umurongo – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zikozwe n’ibinyabiziga – Ihinduka ry’umurongo – Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe – Uwahohotewe mu mpanuka wagize ubumuga buhoraho agomba guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi kuko mu ngaruka ubumuga buhoraho bugira ku burambe harimo no gutakaza amahirwe yo kuzamurwa mu ntera, uyu murongo ukaba uhindura uwari usanzwe wo mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC rwa Prime Insurance Company Ltd na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, aho izo ndishyi zahabwaga gusa uwatakaje akazi. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku mpanuka yabaye ikozwe n’ikinyabiziga cyari gifite ubwishingizi bwa Radiant Insurance Company Ltd (Radiant) hanyuma imusigira ubumuga bungana na 31% nkuko byemejwe n’abaganga b’impande zombi. Ubwumvikane ku ndishyi bunaniranye, Mukaneza yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa 73

## Page 108

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyarugenge asaba ko yahabwa indishyi zitandukanye. Urukiko rwemeje ko yahabwa indishyi zirimo n’izibangamirabukungu ndetse n’iz’ibangamira ryu’uburambe mu kazi. Radiant ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza irujurira mu Rukiko Rukuru ivuga ko Mukaneza atagombaga guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu n’iz’ibangamira ry’uburambe kandi yarakomeje gukora akazi ke ndetse akabona n’umushahara we wose. Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ubujurire nta shingiro bufite gusa ruhindura uburyo indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zabazwe. Radiant yagiye mu nzira z’akarengane maze urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hasuzumwa ibibazo byo kumenya kumenya niba Mukaneza akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ndetse n’indishyi z’ibangamira burambe mu kazi. Radiant ivuga ko indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zihabwa uwahohotewe watakaje inyungu yakuraga mu kazi kandi akaba agomba kubigaragaza akaba isanga rero Mukaneza atagaragaza uguhungabana yagize mu rwego rw’ubukungu kuko we yakomeje gukira akazi anahabwabwa n’umushahara yari asanzwe abona. Radiant ikomeza ivuga ko Mukaneza atari akwiriye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamiraburambe kuko atari mu bemerewe guhabwa izi ndishyi nk’uko biri mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC00010/2022/SC rwaciwe ku wa 02/12/2022 haburana Prime Insurance Company ltd na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude. Mukaneza asobanura ko uwahohotewe adahabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ari uko yatakaje akazi gusa kandi burundu, ko ahubwo icyangombwa ari ukugira ubumuga buhoraho kandi ubwo bumuga akaba abufite ndetse ko bushobora no kwiyongera cyangwa bukaza mu gihe kizaza bukaba bwaranamugizeho ingaruka kuko ubu yasezeye ku kazi kubera kunanirwa kujya

## Page 109

75 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

gukorera ahatari mu biro bimusaba kugenda n’amaguru. Akomeza asobanura ko akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamiraburambe kuko ziteganywa n’itegeko kandi akaba yujuje ibyo itegeko risaba. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Uwahohotewe mu mpanuka wagize ubumuga buhoraho agomba guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’ubukubgu hatitawe ku kuba yarakomeje cyangwa atarakomeje akazi bityo ibivugwa na Radiant akaba nta shingiro bifite. 2. Uwahohotewe mu mpanuka wagize ubumuga buhoraho agomba guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi kuko mu ngaruka ubumuga buhoraho bugira ku burambe harimo no gutakaza amahirwe yo kuzamurwa mu ntera, uyu murongo ukaba uhindura uwari usanzwe wo mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC rwa Prime Insurance Company Ltd na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, aho izo ndishyi zahabwaga gusa uwatakaje akazi. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza nta shingiro gifite. Nta gihindutse ku rubanza rusubirishwamo. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 02/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002 rihindura Itegeko – teka No 32/75 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, ingingo ya 2; Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka, ingingo ya 5;

## Page 110

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 28/05/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 2, 18, 19. Imanza zifashishijwe: Prime Insurance Company ltd v Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2022/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 02/12/2022. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Yvonne Lambert – Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, Systèmes d’indemnisation, 3ème édition, 1996, Dalloz, P. 100 § 57; S. BAEYENS, L. FAGNART, C JAUMAN, Tableau Indicatif 2016, Union Royale des Juges de Paix et de Police, A.S.B.L., La Charte, 2017, P. 13-14; Cassation, 2è chambre civile, 23 mai 2019. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 09/04/2019, moto TVS Victor RE 012 G ifite ubwishingizi muri Radiant yakoze impanuka ikomerekeramo Mukaneza Clarisse, umugenzi yari itwaye, bimuviramo ubumuga bwa 31%, nk’uko byemejwe n’itsinda ry’abaganga ryashyizweho n’impande zombi. [2] Ubwumvikane ku ndishyi zigomba kwishyurwa ntibwashobotse, bituma Mukaneza Clarisse aregera Urukiko

## Page 111

77 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ikirego cyandikwa kuri No RC 00743/2020/TGI/NYGE. [3] Mu kirego cye yasabye indishyi zikurikira:  Iz’ibangamirabukungu;  Iz’akababaro (pretium doloris);  Izerekeye ibangamira ry’uburanga (préjudice esthétique);  Iz’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi (préjudice de carrière);  Amafaranga yo kwivuza, ingendo, kugura dosiye n’ibindi byakoreshejwe;  Igihembo cya Avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. [4] Radiant yireguye ivuga ko Mukaneza Clarisse nta ndishyi z’ibangamirabukungu n’iz’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi akwiye guhabwa kuko nyuma y’impanuka yakomeje gukora kandi ahembwa uko bisanzwe, ibi ikabishingira ku bimenyetso yitangiye ubwe: icyemezo cy’umushahara na relevés za RSSB. [5] Yanavugaga ko nta ndishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga Mukaneza Clarisse akwiye guhabwa kuko nta rwego rw’ibangamira ry’uburanga abakemurampaka bamugeneye, ko ubwo ntabwo babonye. Ku birebana n’amafaranga yo kwivuza, ingendo n’ibindi, ivuga ko yemera kwishyura gusa ayatangiwe ibimenyetso angana na 927.434 Frw. Naho ku birebana n’igihembo cya Avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza, yasubije ko isanga 550.000 Frw ahagije.

## Page 112

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[6] Ku itariki ya 21/09/2021, Urukiko rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego cya Mukaneza Clarisse gifite ishingiro kandi rutegeka Radiant kumwishyura indishyi zikurikira:  Indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu = 40.236.251 Frw;  Indishyi z’akababaro = 432.000 Frw;  Indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi = 4.948.410 Frw;  Indishyiz’ibangamira ry’uburanga = 216.000 Frw;  Amafaranga ajyanye no kwivuza, ingendo, kugura ibyemezo na dosiye =1.547.434 Frw;  Igihembo cya Avoka = 500.000 Frw;  Amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza = 100.000 Frw;  Igarama = 20.000 Frw. [7] Urukiko rwasobanuye ko indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zishingiye ku ngingo 18 y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, kandi zibariwe ku mushahara wa 824.735 Frw, imyaka 32 Mukaneza yari asigaje gukora kugira ngo ajye mu kiruhuko cy’izabukuru, ku bumuga buhoraho bwa 31% no ku gipimo cy’ibitsa cya 4,5%. [8] Rwasobanuye nanone ko indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga zishingiye ku rwego rwemejwe n’abaganga b’impande zombi: 3/6 rugaragara kuri formulaire de consolidation des lésions no kuri contre-expertise médicale de consolidation: ibangamira ry’uburanga riciriritse.

## Page 113

79 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

[9] Ku byerekeye indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi, rusobanura ko kuba impanuka yarasigiye Mukaneza Clarisse ubumuga buhoraho bwa 31% bituma imbaraga ze zigabanuka bityo n’igihe cye cy’uburambe mu kazi kikaba kizagabanuka. [10] Ku byerekeye indishyi z’akababaro, impande zombi zemeranywa ko Mukaneza Clarisse akwiye kuzihabwa kandi zingana na 432.000 Frw. [11] Ku byerekeye amafaranga yakoreshejwe mu kwivuza, mu ngendo, kugura dosiye n’ibyemezo bitandukanye, rusobanura ko ayo rwagennye ari ayagaragarijwe ibimenyetso, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 13 y’Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe hejuru. [12] Ku byerekeye igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza, urukiko rwasobanuye ko rushingiye ku ngingo ya 111 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’izubutegetsi, ayo rwagennye akwiye. [13] Radiant yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, ivuga ko Mukaneza Clarisse yagenewe indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu kandi yarakomeje gukora nyuma y’impanuka ndetse akomeza guhembwa zikaba zinyuranye n’ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N° 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka, ndetse n’ibanditswe na Yvonne Lambert Faivre; kuba Urukiko rwarabariye indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ku gipimo cy’ibitsa cya 4% kandi cyaranganaga na 7,701% umunsi w’isomwa ry’urubanza no kuba rwaratanze indishyi z’ibangamira

## Page 114

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ry’uburambe mu kazi kandi rwari rumaze gutanga indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu. [14] Mukaneza Clarisse yireguye avuga ko izo mpamvu z’ubujurire zidafite ishingiro, ahubwo atanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bwa Radiant, asaba ko indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu n’iz’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi zibarirwa ku mushahara mbumbe (umushahara ubariyemo n’inyongera/avantages); anasaba ko ku rwego rw’ubujurire yahabwa indishyi zikubiyemo amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [15] Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza Nº RCA 00266/2021/HC/KIG ku wa 30/09/2022, ruvuga ko ubujurire bwa Radiant nta shingiro bufite, ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ruhindutse ku ngingo imwe yerekeye uburyo bwo kubara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, ruyitegeka kwishyura izingana na 25.566.785 Frw na 1.000.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cy’avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza. [16] Impamvu ya mbere rwashingiyeho icyemezo cyarwo ni uko ntahateganyijwe ko uwahohotewe agomba gutakaza akazi yakoraga burundu kugira ngo ahabwe indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu; iya kabiri ikaba ari uko igipimo cy’ibitsa cyariho umunsi urubanza rucibwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge cyanganaga na 8,363% aho kuba 4,5%. Rwasobanuye mu mpamvu ya gatatu ko indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi zatanzwe zifite ishingiro kandi zabazwe neza, hashingiwe ku mushahara Mukaneza Clarisse yatahanaga (rémunération nette), runavuga ko ku rwego rw’ubujurire indishyi zisabwa na Mukaneza zifite ishingiro kuko Radiant yamushoye mu manza.

## Page 115

81 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

[17] Ku wa 28/10/2022, Radiant yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire isaba ko urubanza No RCA00266/2021/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 30/9/2022 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, ku wa 20/09/2023, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko uru rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [18] Mu cyemezo cye N° 127/CJ/2023 cyo ku wa 26/09 /2023, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeje ko urubanza No RCA 00266/2021/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwongera kuburanishwa, ruhabwa N° RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2023/SC. [19] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 04/03/2024, Radiant ihagarariwe na Me Ndayisaba Fidèle; Mukaneza Clarisse yunganiwe na Me NEMEYABAHIZI Jean Paul, hasuzumwa ibijyanye no kumenya niba Mukaneza Clarisse akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu; niba akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga; niba akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi; ndetse hanasuzumwa ishingiro ry’indishyi zisabwa n’ababuranyi muri uru rubanza. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba Mukaneza Clarisse akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu [20] Me Ndayisaba Fidèle uhagarariye Radiant avuga ko indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zihabwa uwahohotewe watakaje inyungu yakuraga mu kazi kandi akaba agomba kubigaragaza, ko

## Page 116

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibyo babishingira ku ngingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N° 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryavuzwe haruguru no ku byanditswe na Yvonne LAMBERT FAIVRE mu gitabo cye yise Droit du dommage corporel, systèmes d’indemnisation, aho agira ati: « Iyo nyuma y’itariki ubumuga bwagaragariyeho yemejwe n’abaganga, uwahohotewe asubiye ku kazi adatakaje umusaruro yakuraga mu murimo we, nta gihombo cyo mu rwego rw’umurimo kibaho ». « Tuziko ihame ryo kwishyura ibyangijwe byose ribuza ukwikungahaza » « Ibyishyuwe kubera impanuka n’ibizatakazwa mu bihe bizaza kubera yo, n’igihombo mbonezamusaruro byishyurwa mu mafaranga, bigengwa n’amategeko yerekeye umutungo : amafaranga yakiriwe nk’indishyi asimbura ayishyuwe cyangwa yatakajwe kubera impanuka, ndetse n’ikirego cy’indishyi ubwacyo gifite kamere y’umutungo»1. [21] Asobanura ko muri iyi dosiye, Mukaneza Clarisse nyuma y’impanuka yakomeje gukora akazi ke ndetse ahembwa umushahara we nk’uko bisanzwe, ko nta hungabana yagize mu rwego rw’ubukungu. Asoza avuga ko Radiant inenga Urukiko Rukuru kuba rwarirengagije imiburanire yayo, rugahamishaho indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zari zategetswe n’Urukiko

1 Y. LAMBERT FAIVRE, Droit du dommage corporel, systèmes d’indemnisation, 3ème édition, Dalloz, 1996, pages 182, 185, 193: “après la consolidation, si le blessé reprend ses activités sans diminution de revenus, il n’y a aucun préjudice professionnel futur”; “On sait que le principe indemnitaire impose une indemnisation totale de la victime, mais sans enrichissement”; « Pertes subies et gains manqués constituent des préjudices économiques dont la compensation en argent s’effectue dans le cadre classique du droit patrimonial: l’argent reçu en indemnité remplace dans le patrimoine de la victime de l’argent dépensé ou non perçu du fait de l’accident et l’action en réparation est elle-même sans conteste patrimoniale… »;

## Page 117

83 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 182 y’Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe, ikaba isaba Urukiko kuzivanaho kuko nta shingiro zifite. [22] Mukaneza Clarisse na Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul umwunganira, bavuga ko ingingo ya 5 iburanishwa na Radiant idakwiye kumvikana ko uwahohotewe ahabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ari uko yatakaje akazi gusa kandi burundu. Basobanura ko ahubwo icyangombwa ari ukugira ubumuga buhoraho, ko iyo bumaze kugaragara indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu zigomba gutangwa kandi zikabarwa hashingiwe ku Iteka rya Perezida 3, ko Iteka rinavugwa mu ngingo ya 5 ariko Radiant ikaba yirengagiza igika cyayo cya kabiri (2). [23] Bakomeza bavuga ko Radiant ivugisha iyi ngingo ibyo itavuga; ko inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko yiyambaza zidahuye na kamere y’ikiburanwa hano; ahubwo ko Iteka rya Perezida ryakoreshejwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye risobanutse kandi rikaba ryarakoreshejwe neza. [24] Basoza bavuga ko ingaruka z’ubumuga zitagaragara ako kanya, ko zishobora kugaragara mu gihe kizaza; ko n’ikimenyimenyi ari uko Mukaneza atagikora kuko nyuma y’impanuka atabashije gukorera kuri ‘terrain’ nk’uko umurimo we wabimusabaga, kuko akinafite tiges mu kaguru.

2 Ingingo 18, igika cya 1, tiret 1 y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 28/05/2003: “Iyo ari ubumuga buhoraho burengeje 30%, indishyi y’ibangamirabukungu ikorwa hakurikijwe amategeko akurikira: iyo uwahohotewe akora umwuga ahemberwa, ahabwa amafaranga abarwa hakurijwe igihembo umuntu atahana, urwego rw’ubumuga n’imyaka ye”. 3 Mu ngingo za 17 na 18. Ingingo 17 ivuga uburyo indishyi mbangamirabukungu zibarwa iyo hari ubumuga buhoraho butarenze 30%.

## Page 118

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[25] Kuri ibi, uhagarariye Radiant avuga ko gusezera ku kazi kwa Mukaneza Clarisse ari uburenganzira bwe, ko ariko nta kigaragaza ko bifitanye isano n’impanuka yagize kuko ntacyo yabibwiyeho umukoresha we. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya 2, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko No 02/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002 rihindura Itegeko – teka No 32/75 ryo ku wa 07/08/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingizi butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, iteganya ko «Indishyi z’ubwishingizi zishyurwa igihe habaye ibyago ku bantu, hakurikijwe itegeko ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abagize impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bifite moteri». [27] Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko No 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigenda ku butaka, iteganya ko « Iyo impanuka yateye ubumuga uwangirijwe bumubuza gukora akazi burundu, agomba guhabwa amafaranga y’indishyi kubera ubusembwa ku mubiri, guhungabana mu bwenge cyangwa kubera ingaruka bifite ku nyungu yavanaga ku mwuga we atagishoboye gukora kubera ubumuga». Mu gika cya kabiri iyo ngingo iteganya ko «indishyi zigenwa hakurikijwe Iteka rya Perezida wa Repubulika». [28] Urukiko rusanga ikibazo nyamukuru Radiant igaragaza ari ukuba Mukaneza Clarisse yaragenewe indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu kandi nyuma y’impanuka yarakomeje akazi ndetse akanakomeza guhembwa, ariho ihera ivuga ko hirengagijwe ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko No 41/2001 ryavuzwe haruguru.

## Page 119

85 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

[29] Urukiko rusanga ikibazo kiri kuri iyi ngingo ari ihinduranya ry’indimi kuko ahanditse « Iyo impanuka yateye ubumuga uwangirijwe bumubuza gukora akazi burundu […] », mu gifransa handitse « Lorsque le dommage a causé une incapacité permanente […] ». Ugereranyije izi nteruro mu ndimi zombi ntizivuga ikintu kimwe. Rusanga iyi ngingo ikwiye kumvikana ko uwawohotewe wishyurwa indishyi ari uwasigiwe n’impanuka ubumuga azahorana bw’ikigero runaka; itegeko rikaba rivuga ko azishyurwa indishyi zibariwe kuri icyo kigero, icyo kigero kikaba ari igihombo kizahoraho mu rwego rw’ubushobozi umuntu afite butuma akora. [30] Urukiko rusanga ibyo iyo ngingo iteganya bidakwiye kumvikana nk’aho uwahohotewe wishyurwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu ari uwavuye mu kazi burundu, wagatakaje burundu, cyangwa wamugaye udashobora kugira icyo akora. [31] Ingingo ya 2 y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 28/05/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, isobanura « ubumuga buhoraho nk’igabanuka ry’ubushobozi bw’umubiri, ryo gutekereza no kumva cyangwa ry’ubwenge riterwa no kumererwa nabi cyane k’umubiri w’uwahohotewe ». Mu gika cyayo cya kabiri, iyo ngingo iteganya ko « ubumuga butewe n’impanuka bufatwa ko buhoraho uhereye ku itariki bwagaragariyeho yemejwe n’abaganga hakurikijwe uburyo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 5 ». [32] Iyi ngingo itanga umucyo ku gisobanuro cy’ubumuga buhoraho n’igihe butangira gufatwa nk’uburiho; kuba uwagize ubwo bumuga yakomeza gukora akazi ntibivanaho ko abufite; hakurikijwe ikigero cyabwo cyemejwe n’abaganga hari

## Page 120

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

icyagabanutse ku bushobozi yari afite bwo gukora akazi, kuko nubwo yaba ataragatakaje uyu munsi, ariko ntiyakize. [33] Iri sesengura rihura n’ibyanditse mu gitabo cya Yvonne Lambert – Faivre, ahanditse ko itariki ubumuga buhoraho bwagaragariyeho yemejwe n’abaganga, ari ihura n’igihe ibikomere bitagihindutse, ku buryo ubuvuzi buba butagikenewe, uretse gusa ubujyanye no kwirinda ko habaho gusubira inyuma, ku buryo bishoboka kugaragaza ikigero cy’ubumuga buhoraho aribwo shingiro ry’igihombo gihoraho. Kudahinduka kw’ibikomere guherekejwe n’ubumuga buhoraho ntibivuze ko umuntu yakize4. [34] Kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko rusanga Radiant idahakana ko impanuka yasigiye Mukaneza Clarisse ubumuga buhoraho bwa 31% nk’uko byemejwe muri raporo yo ku wa 05/08/2020 yakozwe n’itsinda ry’abaganga ryashyizweho n’impande zombi nyuma y’uko zinaniwe kumvikana ku kigero cy’ubumuga cyari cyagaragajwe muri expertise ndetse no muri contre-expertise zakorewe Mukaneza Clarisse. Igisigaye akaba ari ukumenya niba uwo impanuka yasigiye ubumuga buhoraho, ashobora guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu mu gihe yakomeje gukora akazi, agakomeza kubona umushahara we.

4 Yvonne Lambert – Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, Systèmes d’indemnisation, 3ème édition, 1996, Dalloz, P. 100 § 57 : « le texte de la ‘‘Mission d’expertise 1987’’définit la date de consolidation comme ‘‘le moment où les lésions se fixent et prennent un caractère permanent, tel qu’un traitement n’est plus nécessaire, si ce n’est pour éviter une aggravation, et qu’il est possible d’apprécier un certain degré d’incapacité permanente réalisant un préjudice définitif’’ : la consolidation avec séquelles n’est donc pas guérison ».

## Page 121

87 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

[35] Ingingo ya 18 y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/2001 ryo ku wa 28/05/2003 ryavuzwe, iteganya uburyo abagize ubumuga buhoraho burengeje 30% bishyurwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, mu gace kayo ka mbere ikavuga ko « Iyo uwahohotewe akora umurimo ahemberwa, ahabwa amafaranga abarwa hakurikijwe igihembo umuntu atahana, urwego rw’ubumuga n’imyaka ye ». [36] Ingingo imaze kuvugwa yumvikanisha ko uwahohotewe wagize ubumuga buhoraho ku kigero kirengeje 30%, afite uburenganzira ku ndishyi z’ibangamirabukungu hakurikijwe ikigero cy’ubumuga yagize; ntabwo ivuga niba uwo muntu agomba kuba yatakaje akazi cyangwa se umushahara yahembwaga kugira ngo ahabwe indishyi. Ibi bishimangirwa n’aho iyo ngingo igira iti: « iyo akora umurimo uhemberwa » ikaba itavuga « iyo yakoraga umurimo uhemberwa » ngo bibe byakumvikana nk’aho yamaze gutakaza uwo murimo yakoraga. [37] Ibi ni nabyo byagarutsweho n’Abahanga mu mategeko S. Baeyens, J.-L. Jauman, M. Vandeweerdt basobanura ko igihombo cyatewe n’ubumuga buhoraho uwahohotewe yagize, gishobora kuba gutakaza umusaruro yabonaga, cyangwa se gutakaza imbaraga n’ubushobozi yari afite bwo gukora neza inshingano ze mu kazi, ndetse no kuba amahirwe cyangwa agaciro yari afite ku isoko ry’umurimo bigabanuka (Le dommage matériel que subit la victime à la suite d’une incapacité permanente de travail peut consister en une perte de revenus et/ ou en la nécessité de fournir des efforts accrus dans l’accomplissement de ses tâches professionnelles et/ou en une diminution de sa valeur économique sur le marché du travail).5

5 S. Baeyens, L. Fagnart, C Jauman, Tableau Indicatif 2016, Union Royale des Juges de Paix et de Police, A.S.B.L., La Charte, 2017, P. 13-14

## Page 122

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[38] Urukiko rushingiye ku byavuzwe haruguru, rusanga Mukaneza Clarisse wagize ubumuga buhoraho bwa 31%, agomba guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu hatitawe ku kuba yarakomeje akazi. Rusanga rutashingira ku nyandiko z’abahanga Radiant ishingiraho ivuga ko uwakomeje gukora akazi nyuma y’impanuka, agakomeza guhembwa, adakwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu, mu gihe izo nyandiko zitandukanye n’ibiteganywa n’amategeko y’u Rwanda mu ngingo zavuzwe kuko zo ntaho zibuza ko uwakomeje akazi ahabwa indishyi. [39] Urukiko rushingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko no ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, rusanga Mukaneza Clarisse akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu nk’uko byari byemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, bityo Radiant ikaba nta karengane yagiriwe kuri iyi ngingo. b. Kumenya niba Mukaneza Clarisse akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga [40] Me Ndayisaba Fidèle uhagarariye Radiant yibutsa ko ingingo ya 19 y’Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko muganga agereranya ibangamira ry’uburanga akurikije ikigereranyo cy’inzego 6. Ko nyamara muri iyi dosiye, itsinda ry’abaganga ryashyizweho n’impande zombi ntacyo ryavuze ku ibangamira ry’uburanga rya Mukaneza Clarisse. Asoza avuga ko kubera iyo mpamvu indishyi zatanzwe n’Urukiko nta shingiro zifite, zikaba zikwiye kuvanwaho. [41] Mukaneza Clarisse na Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul umwunganira basobanura ko itsinda ry’abaganga ryashyizweho n’impande zombi kugira ngo rikemure gusa ikibazo cy’ubumuga buhoraho kuko aricyo cyonyine zitumvikanagaho. Ko ku

## Page 123

89 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

ikubitiro ibangamira ry’uburanga ryumvikanyweho n’abaganga b’impande zombi kuko bose bemeje ko rifite ikigero cya 3/6. Indishyi zatanzwe rero zikaba zifite ishingiro kandi zikwiye kugumaho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [42] Ingingo ya 19, igika cya 2, y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 28/05/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko ibangamira ry’uburanga abaganga bazarigereranya hakurikijwe icyigereranyo cy’inzego 6, ritangirwe indishyi ku buryo bukurikira: urwego rwa 3: Igereranya riciriritse 20% y’umushahara w’umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n’amategeko (…). [43] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko nyuma y’impanuka Mukaneza Clarisse yakorewe expertise médicale de consolidation, muganga akagaragaza ko afite ubumuga buhoraho bungana na 50% ndetse n’ibangamira ry’uburanga rya 3/6. Radiant ariko ntiyemeye iyi consolidation maze muganga wayo akorera Mukaneza Clarisse contre - expertise we agaragaza ubumuga buhoraho bwa 20% n’ibangamira ry’uburanga ringana na 3/6, Mukaneza Clarisse nawe ntiyayemera bituma buri ruhande rushyiraho muganga warwo kugira ngo bakore itsinda ry’abaganga bakemure impaka, aribo baje kwemeza ko Mukaneza Clarisse afite ubumuga buhoraho bwa 31% ariko ntibashyiraho ikigero cy’ibangamira ry’uburanga. [44] Kuri iki kibazo, Urukiko rusanga kuba muganga wo ku ruhande rwa Radiant wakoreye Mukaneza Clarisse contre– expertise de consolidation yaremeje urwego rw’ibangamira

## Page 124

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ry’uburanga rwa 3/6 nk’uko byari byemejwe na muganga wo ku ruhande rwa Mukaneza wakoze expertise de consolidation, bigaragaza ko bari babyemeranyijweho ; bityo bika bitari mu byagibwagaho impaka bigomba gushyirirwaho itsinda ry’abaganga bo kubikemura, kuko iri ryashyizweho kugira ngo rikemure ikibazo cyari gihari ku bijyanye n’ikigero cy’ubumuga buhoraho impande zombi zitari zumvikanyeho. [45] Urukiko rusanga kandi ibyo Radiant ivuga ko kuba abakemurampaka batarashyizemo ikigero cy’ibangamira ry’uburanga bivuga ko babonye ko ntaryo, bitahabwa ishingiro kuko bigaragara ko bitari mu byo basuzumye, dore ko ntacyo barivuzeho, ndetse no muri correspondances6 impande zombi zagiranye bashyiraho abo bakemurampa, hakaba ntahagaragara ko hari inshingano bahawe zo gusuzuma n’ibijyanye n’ibangamira ry’uburanga, kuko iyo basuzuma bagasanga ntaryo baba barabivuze muri raporo bakoze. Byongeye kandi iyo iryo bangamira ry’uburanga riba ridahari, muganga wo ku ruhande rwa Radiant ntiyari kuba yarabyemeje muri raporo yakoze kuko yashimangiye ibyemejwe na muganga wo ku ruhande rwa Mukaneza Clarisse.

6 Muri email umukozi wa Radiant yandikiye Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul ku wa 09/07/2020, yamumenyeshaga ko amwoherereje raporo muganga wa Radiant yakoreye umukiriya we Mukaneza Clarisse, kuri uwo munsi, Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul yasubije iyo email avuga ko yabonye Contre – expertise yakorewe Mukaneza Clarisse, ariko ko nyuma yo kuyisuzumana nawe basanze irimo gupfobya ububabare yagize, bakaba batayemera. Ku wa 15/07/2020, umukozi wa Radiant yongeye kwandikira Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul, amumenyesha izina rya muganga wo ku ruhande rwa Radiant (Dr Kagambirwa Emmanuel) n’aho akorera, anamumenyesha ko uyu muganga yazahura n’uwo ku ruhande rwa Mukaneza Clarisse. Kuwa 21/07/2020, Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul yasubije nawe abamenyesha muganga wo ku ruhande rwa Mukaneza Clarisse (Col Prof Byimana John) anabamenyesha aho akorera.

## Page 125

91 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

[46] Urukiko rushingiye ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, rusanga Mukaneza Clarisse akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburanga nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, bityo Radiant ikaba nta karengane yagiriwe kuri iyi ngingo. c. Kumenya niba Mukaneza Clarisse akwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi [47] Me Ndayisaba Fidèle uhagarariye Radiant avuga ko Mukaneza yakomeje gukora nyuma y’impanuka kandi agahembwa nk’uko bisanzwe, ko kubera iyo mpamvu adakwiriye guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi, ahubwo agomba gusubiza izo yahawe. Akomeza asobanura ko Mukaneza Clarisse atari mu bemerewe guhabwa izi ndishyi nk’uko biri mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC00010/2022/SC rwaciwe ku wa 02/12/2022 haburana Prime Insurance Company ltd / Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude. [48] Mukaneza Clarisse na Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul umwunganira bibukije ko mu Rukiko Rukuru, Radiant yaburanaga ivuga ko izi ndishyi zidakwiye kubangikanywa n’indishyi z’ibangamirabukungu; bakomeza bavuga ko basanga zikwiye gutangwa kuko ziteganyijwe n’Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe, ko kandi izatanzwe zifite ishingiro. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [49] Ingingo ya 19, igika cya 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 28/05/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi ari:

## Page 126

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

i. Gutakaza amahirwe y’akazi umunyeshuri wo mu mashuri yisumbuye, wo mu mashuri y’imyuga, wo mu mashuri makuru cyangwa andi angana nayo ashobora kwizera; ii. Gutakaza uburambe mu kazi ku muntu wari usanzwe akora (….) [50] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko Mukaneza Clarisse yari umukozi wa LODA, ku mwanya wa Data Analysis Specialist. Igaragaza kandi ko nyuma y’impanuka yakomeje gukora muri LODA, ariko ko yasinye amasezerano y’akazi y’amezi 6 ahera ku itariki ya 01/01/2022, akongera gusinya andi y’amezi 3 guhera ku itariki ya 01/07/2022, ndetse akaza kwandika ibaruwa isezera akazi ku wa 26/07/2022 amanyesha LODA ko azagahagarika ku wa 31/07/2022. [51] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza kandi ko Mukaneza Clarisse yagize ubumuga buhoraho bwa 31% nk’uko byari byavuzwe haruguru, Mukaneza avuga ko kuba mu kazi ke, akenshi yarakoreraga kuri terrain kandi afite tiges mu kaguru, yabonye atagishoboye kugakora kubera ingaruka yatewe n’impanuka, akagasezera, kandi ko n’umukoresha we yari asigaye amusinyisha amasezerano y’igihe gito. [52] Urukiko rusanga nubwo Mukaneza Clarisse atahise atakaza akazi nyuma y’impanuka, atari agifite ubushobozi bwe bwose bwo kugakora neza kubera ubumuga yatewe n’iyo mpanuka. Rusanga Mukaneza Clarisse nk’umuntu ufite tiges mu kaguru, hari imirimo atashobora gukora bitewe n’imiterere yayo, ibyo bikaba bigomba kubarirwa mu gihombo yatewe n’ubumuga buhoraho yagize buturutse ku mpanuka. Ibi ni nabyo abahanga bavuzwe haruguru basobanura, ko « (…) igihombo umuntu

## Page 127

93 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

aterwa n’ubumuga buhoraho, gishobora no kuba gutakaza imbaraga n’ubushobozi yari afite bwo gukora inshingano ze z’akazi cyangwa se no kuba agaciro yari afite ku isoko ry’umurimo kagabanuka»7. [53] Urukiko rusanga kandi mu ngaruka ubumuga buhoraho bugira ku burambe mu kazi k’uwari usanzwe akora, harimo no gutakaza amahirwe yo kuzamurwa mu ntera mu kazi; aya mahirwe yatakajwe akaba ari mu ndishyi zishyurwa uwawohotewe. Ibi ni nako byemejwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rwo mu Bufaransa, rwaciwe ku itariki ya 23/05/20198. Ibi bisobanuro birahindura ibyari byatanzwe mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC rwa Prime Insurance Company Ltd na Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, aho uru Rukiko rwari rwavuze ko indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi zigomba kumvikana nk’indishyi zo gutakaza akazi. [54] Urukiko rusanga kandi ubumuga buhoraho impanuka yateye Mukaneza Clarisse bwaraje gutuma asezera akazi kuko yabonaga atagishoboye kugakora neza, n’ubwo atagasezeye impanuka ikimara kuba, ibyo nabyo bishimangira igihombo

7 Op. cit., P. 13-14 8 Cassation, 2è chambre civile, 23 mai 2019 : « Mais attendu qu’ayant relevé, que compte tenu des restrictions importantes à une activité, du marché du travail et de son âge, un retour à l’emploi de M.R…était très aléatoire, c’est sans encourir les griefs du moyen que la cour d’appel a réparé au titre d’incidence professionnelle, la perte de chance pour M.R…d’une promotion professionnelle, préjudice distinct de celui réparé au titre de la perte de gains professionnels futurs calculée au vu de son ancien salaire et qui n’intégrait pas l’évolution de carrière qu’il aurait pu espérer » (Indemnisation de la perte de carrière au titre d’incidence professionnelle, Actualité juridique du dommage corporel [ online]: https://publications-prairial.fr/ajdc, consulté le 03/04/2024.

## Page 128

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yatewe n’ubumuga buhoraho buturutse ku mpanuka, bityo akaba agomba guhabwa indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi. [55] Urukiko rushingiye ku bisobanuro byatanzwe, rusanga indishyi z’ibangamira ry’uburambe mu kazi Mukaneza Clarisse yahawe yari azikwiye, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba nta kosa rwakoze mu kuzimugenera, bityo hakaba nta karengane Radiant yagiriwe kuri iyi ngingo. d. Kumenya ishingiro ry’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza [56] Me Ndayisaba Fidèle uhagarariye Radiant avuga ko Mukaneza Clarisse yayishoye mu manza bitari ngombwa, bityo ko isaba ko ategekwa kuyishyura indishyi za 2.500.000 Frw, zikubiyemo igihembo cy’Avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. [57] Mukaneza Clarisse na Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul umwunganira bibutsa ko yakomerekeye mu mpanuka itejwe n’ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe na Radiant. Bakomeza bavuga ko indishyi zisabwa na Radiant nta shingiro zifite, kuko ariyo yanze kurangiza ikibazo mu bwumvikane, ko ndetse naho dosiye igiriye mu nkiko yanze guhagarika imanza kuko yagiye ijurira kugeza uyu munsi. Basoza basaba indishyi za 1.500.000 Frw zo gushorwa mu manza kuri uru rwego. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [58] Urukiko rusanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka Radiant isaba idakwiye kuyahabwa kuko ikirego cyayo kitahawe ishingiro. Urukiko rusanga kandi indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza Mukaneza Clarisse asaba adakwiye

## Page 129

95 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

kuzihabwa kuko atabasha kugaragaza ko Radiant yatanze ikirego cy’akarengane igamije kumushora mu manza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [59] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Radiant Insurance Company Ltd cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza Nº RCA 00266/2021/HC/KIG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 30/09/2022, nta shingiro gifite; [60] Rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza No RCA 00266/2021/HC/KIG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 30/09/2022.

## Page 130

96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 131

97 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

IMANZA Z’INSHINJABYAHA

## Page 132

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 133

99 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE - RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA (Gakwaya, P.J., Umugwaneza, Tugireyezu, J.) 14 Gashyantare 2025] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Urukiko ntirutegetswe gusubiza ku bisobanuro (arguments) byose byatanzwe n’ababuranyi, ahubwo rugomba gusubiza ku byo basaba byose (demandes), rugaragaza impamvu zishimangira ibisubizo byarwo. Amategeko agenga imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside – Gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside bifatwa nk’icyaha cya jenoside ku buryo ubushake bwihariye bwo gukora ibyo byaha byombi ari bumwe, bivuze ko ubwumvikane hagati y’abantu babiri (2) cyangwa benshi bwo gukora jenoside buba bugamije kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, byakorwa n’umwe cyangwa benshi muri bo. Amategeko agenga imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Kuba icyitso mu cyaha cya Jenoside – Ubushake bwo kuba icyitso muri jenoside bugaragara mu gihe uregwa kuba icyitso mu cyaha cya jenoside yafashije cyangwa yahagarikiye cyangwa yashutse, azi icyo abigiriye kandi abishaka, undi muntu cyangwa abandi bantu gukora jenoside. Amategeko agenga imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Impamvu nkomezacyaha n’impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Uburemere bw’icyaha n’impamvu nkomezacyaha zigize icyaha, ntibyabangamira Umucamanza kwemeza impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zagaragaye mu nyungu z’uwahamwe n’icyaha, agamije kumugenera mu bushishozi bwe igihano gishingiye 99

## Page 134

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

k’uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo n’imibereho ye bwite (individualisation de la peine). Incamake y’ikibazo: Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Mugimba Jean Baptiste wari umukozi wa Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda, akaba n’Umunyamabanga Mukuru w’agateganyo w’ishyaka rya CDR ku rwego rw’Igihugu mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi, icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside. Yaburanye ahakana ibyaha aregwa, avuga ko nta bimenyetso Ubushinjacyaha bushingiraho bubimurega, ariko Urukiko rushingiye ku gisobanuro cy’ingingo ya 93 agace ka 1° na 5° y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, iteganya ko gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’ubufatanyacyaha muri jenoside bihanwa nk’icyaha cya jenoside, ndetse n’ibisobanuro ku gucura umugambi wa jenoside byatanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza n˚ RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles, rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko ku wa 22/03/2019, hamwe n’ibijyanye n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside byatanzwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza n˚ICTR-96-13-A haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred, rwaciwe n’Urwo Rukiko ku wa 27/1/ 2000, rwemeza ko ahamwa n’ibyaha aregwa, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 25. Impande zombi ntizishimiye urwo rubanza, zirujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, Mugimba Jean Baptiste anenga kuba mu gushingira ku buhamya bw’umutangabuhamya DAM rwarahisemo gusa igice kimwe cyabwo kimushinja, kandi bwari bugizwe n’ibice bibiri, harimo n’ubumushinjura, nyamara bigaragara ko ibyo yavuze amushinja ari ibintu yihimbiye kuko byavugurujwe n’abandi batangabuhamya. Kuba Urukiko

## Page 135

101 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

rwaramuhamije ibikorwa by’icyaha bitabayeho, kuba rwaranze gusuzuma bimwe mu bimenyetso bishinjura, ibindi ntirubihe agaciro, kuba rwarashingiye ku batangabuhamya batavugisha ukuri, kuba rwaranyuranije n’umurongo watangajwe mu cyegeranyo V.1-2015 cyasohowe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga muri Mutarama, 2015, uvuga ko bitemewe gushingira ku buhamya buvuguruzanya no kuba rutarubahirije amategeko agenga ibyaha rwamuhamije, agasaba kugirwa umwere. Ku rundi ruhande, Ubushinjacyaha bwo bunenga kuba Urukiko rutarahaye agaciro ubuhamya bwatanzwe na Nyabyenda Jean Marie Vianney, rukavuga ko burimo urujijo rudasobanuye aho rushingiye, no kuba rwaragabanyirije igihano Mugimba Jean Baptiste rutagaragaje icyo rushingiyeho. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Urukiko ntirutegestwe gusubiza ku bisobanuro (arguments) byose byatanzwe n’ababuranyi, ahubwo rugomba gusubiza ku byo basaba byose (demandes), rugaragaza impamvu zishimangira ibisubizo byarwo. 2. Gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside bifatwa nk’icyaha cya jenoside ku buryo ubushake bwihariye bwo gukora ibyo byaha byombi ari bumwe, bivuze ko ubwumvikane hagati y’abantu babiri (2) cyangwa benshi bwo gukora jenoside buba bugamije kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, byakorwa n’umwe cyangwa benshi muri bo. 3. Ubushake bwo kuba icyitso muri jenoside bugaragara mu gihe uregwa kuba icyitso mu cyaha cya jenoside yafashije cyangwa yahagarikiye cyangwa yashutse, azi icyo abigiriye kandi abishaka, undi muntu cyangwa abandi bantu gukora jenoside, azi neza ko uwo muntu cyangwa abo bantu barimo gukora jenoside.

## Page 136

102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

4. Uburemere bw’icyaha n’impamvu nkomezacyaha zigize icyaha, ntibyabangamira Umucamanza kwemeza impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zagaragaye mu nyungu z’uwahamwe n’icyaha, agamije kumugenera mu bushishozi bwe igihano gishingiye k’uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo n’imibereho ye bwite (individualisation de la peine). Ubujurire bwa Mugimba nta shingiro bufite; Ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, Ingingo ya 20, 49, 91 n’iya 93. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha vs. Munyagishari, RPA/GEN 00004/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 7/5/2021. Ubushinjacyaha vs Twahirwa François, RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA16 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/7/2023. Ubushinjacyaha vs. Shema Ernest, RPAA 00050/2024/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 26/4/2024. Ubushinjacyaha vs Abayisenga n’abandi, RPA 00016/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 22/3/2024. Ubushinjacyaha vs. Nsabimana Alias Sankara n’abandi, RPA 00060/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 04 Mata 2022. Ubushinjacyaha v Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (ICTR), Urugereko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 16/11/2001.

## Page 137

103 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

Ubushinjacyaha vs Bagosora Théoneste n’abandi, ICTR-98-41-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda. ku wa 18/12/2008. Ubushinjacyaha vs Renzaho Tharcisse rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, ICTR-97-31-T. Ubushinjacyaha vs Gatete Jean Baptiste, ICTR-2000-61-T rwaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda. Ubushinjacyaha v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28 /04/2005. Ubushinjacyaha v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 21 /05/ 2007. Ubushinjacyaha v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, ICTR-99-54A-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 23/01/2003. Ubushinjacyaha v. Zigiranyirazo Protais, ICTR-01-73-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 16 /11/2009. Ubushinjacyaha v Ntaganzwa Ladislas, RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rw’Ubujurire ku wa 3/3/2023. Ubushinjacyaha v Birindabagabo Jean-Paul, RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rw’Ubujurire ku wa 8/4/2022. Ubushinjacyaha v Kabilimana Jean Damascène, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rw’Ubujurire ku wa 16/10/2020. Ubushinjacyaha v Twagirayezu Wenceslas, RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rw’Ubujurire.

## Page 138

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ubushinjacyaha v Musema, ICTR-96-13-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 27 /01/ 2000. Ubushinjacyaha vs Nahimana Ferdinand n’abandi, ICTR 99-52-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28/10/2007. Ubushinjacyaha vs Simon Bikindi, ICTR-01-72-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, Urugereko rw'ubujurire ku wa 18 /03/2010. Ubushinjacyaha v Jean Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-S, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 19 /10/ 2000. Inyandiko z’abahanga: Gaston Stéfani, Georges Levasseur et Bernard Bouloc, ‘’ Procédure pénale’’, 16e édition, Dalloz, Paris, 1996, P. 681, n° 669. Henri-D. Bosly et Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de procédure pénale, 2e édition, La Charte, Bruges, 2001, P. 906. Crim. 11 mai 1971, Bull. n° 147, Gaz. Pal. 1971.2. 524, in Gaston Stéfani, Georges Levasseur et Bernard Bouloc, op.cit., P. 682, n° 669. Antoine Rubbens, Le Droit judiciaire congolais, L’instruction criminelle et la procédure pénale, Tome III, Larcier, Bruxelles, 1965, P. 220, n° 214. Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, P. 722. Jean Pradel, Procédure pénale, 10e édition, Cujas, Paris, 2000, P. 680, n° 784.

## Page 139

105 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

Urubanza IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nyuma ya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, Mugimba Jean Baptiste wari utuye muri Serire ya Kabuguru, Segiteri ya Nyakabanda, Komini ya Nyarugenge, mu mazu y’abakozi ba Banki Nkuru y’u Rwanda aho nawe yakoraga, akaba n’Umunyamabanga Mukuru w’agateganyo w’ishyaka rya CDR ku rwego rw’Igihugu, yahungiye mu gihugu cy’Ubuholandi. Mu kwezi k’Ugushyingo 2012, Ubushinjacyaha bw’u Rwanda bwasabye ko afatwa akoherezwa mu Rwanda kugira ngo abe ariho aburanishirizwa ibyaha birebana na jenoside akurikiranyweho. Ku wa 11/07/2014, Urukiko rwo muri icyo gihugu (The Hague Court District) rwafashe icyemezo cy’uko yoherezwa kuburanira mu Rwanda. [2] Ubushinjacyaha bwamureze mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi, icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside. Mugimba Jean Baptiste yaburanye ahakana ibyaha aregwa, avuga ko nta bimenyetso Ubushinjacyaha bushingiraho bubimurega. [3] Mu rubanza n˚ RP/GEN 00002/2017/HC/HCCIC rwaciwe ku wa 28/5/2020, Urukiko rushingiye ku gisobanuro cy’ingingo ya 93 agace ka 1° na 5° y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, iteganya ko gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’ubufatanyacyaha muri jenoside bihanwa nk’icyaha cya jenoside, ndetse n’ibisobanuro ku gucura umugambi wa jenoside byatanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza n˚ RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS haburana Ubushinjacyaha na

## Page 140

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Bandora Charles, rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko ku wa 22/03/2019, hamwe n’ibijyanye n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside byatanzwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza n˚ICTR-96-13-A haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred, rwaciwe n’Urwo Rukiko ku wa 27/1/ 2000, rwemeje ko: - Mugimba Jean Baptiste ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside. - Ruhanisha Mugimba Jean Baptiste igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25). [4] Mugimba Jean Baptiste, ndetse n’Ubushinjacyaha ntibishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza, barujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. [5] Mu mwanzuro w’ubujurire wa Mugimba Jean Baptiste wo ku wa 14/4/2022, avuga ko anenga urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuba mu gushingira ku buhamya bw’umutangabuhamya DAM rwarahisemo gusa igice kimwe cyabwo kimushinja, kandi bwari bugizwe n’ibice bibiri, harimo n’ubumushinjura, nyamara bigaragara ko ibyo yavuze amushinja ari ibintu yihimbiye kuko byavugurujwe n’abandi batangabuhamya bemeje ko inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 ari nayo Urukiko rwashingiyeho rwemeza ko ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, ntayo bazi yabayeho kandi yaravugaga ko nabo bari bayirimo. Kuba urwo Rukiko rwaramuhamije ibikorwa by’icyaha bitabayeho, kuba rwaranze gusuzuma bimwe mu bimenyetso bishinjura, ibindi ntirubihe agaciro, kuba rwarashingiye ku batangabuhamya batavugisha ukuri, kuba rwaranyuranije n’umurongo watangajwe mu cyegeranyo V.1- 2015 cyasohowe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga muri Mutarama, 2015, uvuga ko bitemewe gushingira ku buhamya

## Page 141

107 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

buvuguruzanya no kuba rutarubahirije amategeko agenga ibyaha rwamuhamije, asaba kugirwa umwere. [6] Ubushinjacyaha bwireguye buvuga ko ibikorwa byose bigize icyaha bwabitangiye ibimenyetso bishingiye ku buhamya bw’ababibonye hamwe no ku bindi bimenyetso rwashyikirije Urukiko. Naho ku bijyanye n’umurongo watanzwe, buvuga ko ntacyo bwawuvugaho kuko ntaho uhuriye n’urubanza rwaciwe, ndetse n’amategeko avuga ko atubahirijwe, bukaba busanga ntayo agaragaza, ahubwo bugasaba ko ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu. [7] Naho mu mwanzuro w’ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha bwo bunenga urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuba rutarahaye agaciro ubuhamya bwatanzwe na Nyabyenda Jean Marie Vianney, rukavuga ko burimo urujijo rudasobanuye aho rushingiye, no kuba rwaragabanyirije igihano Mugimba Jean Baptiste rutagaragaje icyo rushingiyeho. [8] Mugimba Jean Baptiste yireguye avuga ko asanga nta kosa Urukiko rwakoze kuko yaba ku buhamya no ku gihano rwatanze, rwabitangiye ibisobanuro. [9] Ubujurire bwahurijwe hamwe, urubanza ruhabwa n° RPA/GEN 00001/2022/CA, iburanisha rishyirwa ku wa 16/7/2024, Mugimba Jean Baptiste yunganiwe na Me Gatera Gashabana na Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Nkusi Faustin na Bideri Diogène, Abashinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. Uwo munsi Inteko iburanisha yumvikanye n’ababuranyi ku mpande zombi kuri gahunda (calendrier) y’uburyo iburanisha rizagenda, maze iburanisha rikurikiyeho rishyirwa ku wa 16/9/2024 saa tatu za mu gitondo.

## Page 142

108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[10] Hagendewe ku myanzuro no ku miburanire y’ababuranyi, uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga ibibazo bigomba gusuzumwa ari ibi bikurikira: A. Ibyerekeye ubujurire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste a. Kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rwaraciriye urubanza Mugimba Jean Baptiste rutitaye ku gikorwa cy’icyaha rwaregewe. b. Kumenya niba hari ibimenyetso bishinjura Mugimba Jean Baptiste Urukiko rwabanje rwirengagije gusuzuma, ibindi ntirubihe agaciro, ndetse rukaba rwaramuhamije icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside rushingiye ku mvugo z’abatangabuhamya babiri zitizewe. c. Kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rwaranyuranije n’umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bigatuma ruca urubanza rushingiye ku buhamya buvuguruzanya. d. Kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rwarahamije Mugimba Jean Baptiste icyaha cyo gucurura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside rutagaragaje umugambi wihariye wo gukora ibyo byaha yaba yaragize. B. Ibyerekeye ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha a. Kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rwarakoze ikosa ryo kudaha agaciro ubuhamya bushinja bwa NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney. b. Kumenya niba Mugimba Jean Baptiste atari akwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano.

## Page 143

109 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO A. Ibyerekeye ubujurire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste a. Kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rwaraciriye urubanza Mugimba Jean Baptiste rutitaye ku gikorwa cy’icyaha rwaregewe. [11] Mugimba Jean Baptiste avuga ko yarezwe ku rwego rwa mbere kuba mu nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yarumvikanye n’abakonseye bagategura jenoside mu ma Segiteri ane (4) mu Mujyi wa Kigali. Asobanura ko ku rupapuro rwa cumi (10) rw’inyandiko itanga ikirego (acte d’accusation-indictment), Ubushinjacyaha bugaragaza umugambi uwo ariwo wo kwica Abatutsi n’abantu buvuga ko yawugiranye nabo bari iwe mu rugo, ni ukuvuga abakonseye ba Segiteri Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega na Nyamirambo, ariko ko ikibazo cyabaye ari uko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi, rwemeje ko yakoze icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi, awugiranye n’abandi bantu batari abo bankoseye nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bwabimuregaga, ndetse uwo mugambi yahamijwe ukaba urebana gusa na Segiteri Nyakabanda, nyamara Ubushinjacyaha bumurega umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi muri Segeteri enye (4) zavuzwe haruguru. Asoza avuga ko ibi bigaragaza ko urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza ku bikorwa bitaregewe. [12] Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène, wunganira Mugimba Jean Baptiste, avuga ko nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka mirongo

## Page 144

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

itanu na karindwi (57) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi rwakoze amakosa yo gufata cyemezo cyarwo ku kirego rutaregewe kuko rushingiye ku mvugo z’umutangabuhamya DAM, rwemeje ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi, yagiranye n’abandi bantu, batari abakonseye ba Segiteri Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega na Nyamirambo, kandi ataribyo Ubushinjacyaha bwari bwaregeye nk’uko bigaragara ku rupapuro rwa cumi (10) rw’inyandiko itanga ikirego, aho Mugimba Jean Baptiste yarezwe kuba yaracuze umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi awugiranye n’Abakonseye bane (4) n’umutangabuhamya DAM. [13] Me Gatera Gashabana avuga ko mu gace ka mirongo ine n’icyenda (49), aka mirongo itanu (50) n’aka mirongo itanu na kane (54), Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi rwagaragaje ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakoresheje inama iwe mu rugo, ari kumwe n’abantu batandukanye, barimo abasirikare, abakonseye ba ma Segiteri ane (4), bakora ama liste y’Abatutsi bagombaga kwicwa, runagaragaza ko hari abatangabuhamya bumviswe bavuga ko batayizi, n’umwe gusa avuga ko ayizi, ariwe DAM, rushingiye gusa ku mvugo y’uwo mutangabuhamya, none mu gace ka mirongo itanu na karindwi (57) n’aka mirongo itanu n’umunani (58) rwanzura ko yakoze icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, nyamara ibikorwa byagaragajwe n’uwo mutangabuhamya bitandukanye n’ibikorwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste yarezwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, ko rero ibyo bigaragaza ko urwo Rukiko rwirengagije ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 10 y’Itegeko n° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/4/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi kuko rwaciye urubanza kucyo rutararegewe.

## Page 145

111 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

[14] Mu mwanzuro wa Mugimba Jean Baptiste watanzwe na Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène umwunganira, avuga ko inama yo gutegura jenoside Ubushinjacyaha bugaragaza mu kirego cyabwo ari iyo buvuga ko yabereye kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste ku wa 8/4/1994, hagati ya saa mbiri na saa yine n’igice za mu gitondo (8h00-10h30), bukanavuga ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yari yayitumiyemo abantu benshi barimo umutangabuhamya DAM n’aba Konseye ba za Segiteri Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega na Nyamirambo zo mu Mujyi wa Kigali, ko nyamara Urukiko rwabanje rwihaye ububasha bwo guhindura ikirego, rwirengagije Itegeko ubutabera bw’u Rwanda bugenderaho, rirutegeka guca urubanza ku cyaregewe gusa, kandi kuri icyo cyonyine1, ruca urubanza ku mugambi wavuzwe n’umutangabuhamya DAM wabaye hagati y’uregwa n’abandi bantu, ariko batagaragajwe n’ikirego, kandi ruhitamo kudaha agaciro amagambo ye, aho yarubwiye ko inama yemera atari iriya yaregewe n’Ubushinjacyaha, kuko we iyo yemera yarimo, abo bakonseye batari bayirimo, kandi uwo mugambi warebanaga gusa na Segiteri Nyakabanda. [15] Me Baragondoza Jean Damascène akomeza avuga ko aho kugira ngo Urukiko rwabanje ruteshe agaciro ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha kuko nta mutangabuhamya n’umwe wabwo, cyane cyane Kivuta Regero Innocent, Imananibishaka Jean Berchmans alias Barananiye Sukari na Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney, wigeze yemeza ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakoranye inama n’aba Konseye, ahubwo mu kumuhamya icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, rwashingiye ku buhamya bwa

1 Ingingo ya 7 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi “Umucamanza aca urubanza ku cyasabwe cyose kandi kuri icyo cyonyine”.

## Page 146

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

DAM, nyamara yaratanze ubuhamya bushinja n’ubushinjura, aho yasobanuye ko inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yabereye kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste, ko abizi neza kuko yari yayitumiwemo, ariko mu iburanisha ryabaye ku wa 9/10/2008 avuga ko bariya bakonseye ba za Segiteri Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega na Nyamirambo batari muri iyo nama, nyamara Urukiko ruha agaciro gusa ubuhamya bwe bushinja. [16] Asoza asaba uru Rukiko gushingira ku ngingo ya 7 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, rukemeza ko Urukiko rwabanje rutagombaga guca urubanza ku bundi ‘’bwumvikane’’ bwazanywe n’umutangabuhamya DAM, Ubushinjacyaha butatanzeho ikirego. [17] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ku rupapuro rwa cumi (10) n’urwa cumi na rimwe (11) z’inyandiko itanga ikirego, bwareze Mugimba Jean Baptiste kuba yarakoresheje inama iwe yacuriwemo umugambi wo gukora jenoside, ko ataragewe kuba muri iyo nama harimo abantu runaka, ko icyaregewe ari igikorwa cyo gucura umugambi cyabaye mu nama yakorewe iwe mu rugo. Buvuga ko uretse n’ibyo, nk’uko bigaragara mu kirego cyabwo, butareze gusa kuba muri iyo nama harimo abakonseye gusa, ahubwo hari harimo n’abandi bantu, ko rero icy’ingezi ari uko inama yabayeho kandi icurwamo umugambi wo gukora jenoside. [18] Mu mwanzuro wabwo, Ubushinjacyaha bwasobanuye ko nk’uko bigaragara kuva ku gace ka mirongo itanu na gatatu (53) kugera ku ka mirongo irindwi na kane (74) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rwabanje rwasuzumye niba ku wa 8/4/1994 hari inama Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakoresheje iwe mu rugo, yacuriwemo umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi, ko rero igikorwa cyari

## Page 147

113 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

cyaregewe atari uko bariya bakonseye bari bayirimo, ahubwo igikorwa ari inama ubwayo, yabamo abo ba Konseye cyangwa batayibamo. Bwasobanuye kandi ko mu kirego cyabwo butigeze buvuga ko iriya nama Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakoresheje yarimo we n’abakonseye batatu (3) gusa ngo noneho byumvikane ko iyo umutangabuhamya DAM yavuze yagiyemo kwa Mugimba JeanBaptitse nta bandi ba konseye bari bayirimo, ngo bisobanure ko ari indi nama itandukanye n’iyo Ubushinjacyaha bwaregeye, ko uretse n’ibyo muri icyo kirego, ndetse no mu mvugo za DAM bigaragara ko iyo nama yitabiriwe n’abantu batandukanye. [19] Ubushinjacyaha bwasobanuye na none ko kimwe mu bikorwa bwari bwaregeye Urukiko ari nacyo Mugimba Jean Baptiste ajuririra, ari inama itegura jenoside yakorewe iwe ku wa 8/4/1994, ko kandi ari nacyo Urukiko rwabanje rwaciyeho urubanza, maze rwemeza ko koko iyo nama yabaye kandi ko ari igikorwa kigize icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside, ko rero Urukiko rwabanje rutarirengagije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 7 y’Itegeko n° 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/6/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ihame ry’amategeko ryemeza ko Inkiko nshinjabyaha ziregerwa igikorwa kigize icyaha2, ryumvikanisha ko izo Nkiko zisuzuma ibikorwa zashyikirijwe mu buryo byemewe

2 ‘’ La juridiction de jugement est saisie in rem’’, Gaston Stéfani, Georges Levasseur et Bernard Bouloc, ‘’ Procédure pénale’’, 16e édition, Dalloz, Paris, 1996, P. 681, n° 669.

## Page 148

114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’amategeko, kandi bikaba ari byonyine zisuzuma3, bivuze ko zidashobora guhindura cyangwa kongera ibikorwa zitashyikirijwe cyangwa bitagaragara mu nyandiko itanga ikirego, ngo zibisuzume4. [21] Inyandiko y’Ubushinjacyaha itanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi, ku ruparuro rwayo rwa cumi (10), igaragaza ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste aregwa kuba yarakoresheje inama iwe mu rugo tariki ya 8/4/1994 hagati ya saa mbili na saa yine za mu gitondo, inama izamo abitwa Mbarushimana Callixte, Mugenzi Joseph, Mudahinyuka Jean- Marie Vianney alias Zuzu, Twahirwa Oreste, Rwagahungu Innocent, Nibizi Alphonse, Kivuta Regero Innocent, Kigingi Habyarimana bahimbaga Général de Brigade, Sakabaka, Zacharie mwene Rwatambuga, uwari uyoboye ingabo mu Karere k’Imirwano ka Nyamirambo Col. Hakizimana Edouard, Lt. Kanyamuhanda, Lt. Museruka, Lt. Kamari, Lt. Baziruwiha, hajemo kandi Ntamfurayishyari Félix wakoraga muri Ambassade y'u Rwanda i Kampala, hari aba Conseillers ba Secteurs

3 “La juridiction de jugement doit statuer sur tous les faits dont elle est valablement saisie (…..) et uniquement sur ceux-là’’, Crim. 23 juillet 1967, J.C.P. 1968. II 15678, note J. Michaud, in idem. ‘’ La saisine du juge concerne uniquement le fait précis indiqué dans l’acte de saisine; ce dernier ne doit mentionner ni tous les éléments juridiques constitutifs du fait mis à charge ni tous les éléments de fait. Il appartient au juge, si besoin est, d’apprécier la portée de l’acte de saisine, sans toutefois violer la foi due à cet acte, (….)’’, Cass., 2 juin 1887, Pas., I, P.283, in Henri-D. Bosly et Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de procédure pénale, 2e édition, La Charte, Bruges, 2001, P. 906. 4 ‘’Mais elle ne saurait substituer ou ajouter aux faits dont elle est saisie d’autres faits non visés dans l’acte de saisine’’, Crim. 11 mai 1971, Bull. n° 147, Gaz. Pal. 1971.2. 524, in Gaston Stéfani, Georges Levasseur et Bernard Bouloc, op.cit., P. 682, n° 669.

## Page 149

115 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega na Nyamirambo, hari kandi abahagarariye interahamwe n'impuzamugambi muri ayo ma Secteurs, barimo Ndahayo Godefroid wa Nyakabanda, Habyalimana wa Nyamirambo, Zuberi wa Biryogo na Stan wa Gitega. lyi nama yize uburyo bagomba kwica Abatutsi, hakorwa amalisiti y'Abatutsi bagomba kwicwa, uburyo hashyirwaho za barrières zizafasha mu kwica Abatutsi, uburyo babona imbunda zo gukoresha kwica Abatutsi5. Ibi bikaba ari nabyo bigaragara mu gace ka munani (8) n’aka cyenda (9) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa. [22] Mu gace ka mirongo ine n’icyenda (49) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi rwasobanuye mu magambo make ko Ubushinjacyaha burega Mugimba Jean Baptiste icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside buvuga ko mbere ya 1994 yakoreshaga inama iwe mu rugo zitegura kwica Abatutsi zazagamo abantu benshi barimo interahamwe, nyuma y’izo nama Abatutsi bagakubitwa, bunamurega kuba yarakoresheje inama iwe mu rugo ku wa 8/4/1994 yateguriwemo kwica Abatutsi yarimo abantu batandukanye barimo abasirikare, abakonseye b’amasegiteri Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Gitega na Biryogo, abaresiponsabule b’amaselire, interahamwe n’impuzamugambi, ko muri iyo nama hakorewemo lisiti y’Abatutsi bagomba kwicwa, inemerezwamo gushyiraho za bariyeri zo gufasha mu bwicanyi, Mugimba Jean Baptiste anayisabiramo imbunda zo gukoresha muri ubwo bwicanyi.

5 Ku rupapuro rwa cumi na rimwe (11) rw’inyandiko itanga ikirego, hagaragara ko muri iyo nama MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste yasabye Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard uwari uyoboye Ingabo mu Karere k’Imirwano ka Nyamirambo, imbunda zizakoreshwa muri Nyakabanda, nawe arazimwemerera, kandi zaratanzwe zikoreshwa mu kwica Abatutsi.

## Page 150

116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[23] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka mirongo itanu na rimwe (51) kugeza ku ka mirongo irindwi (70) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa, rushingiye ku ngingo ya 107, igika cya mbere, n’iya 108 z’Itegeko n° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/9/2019 ryerekeye imburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha no ku ngingo ya 62, 65 n’iya 119 z’Itegeko n° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, rwasuzumye ubuhamya bwatanzwe mu Rukiko n’ubwatanzwe mu iperereza ku birebana n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 ivugwa ko yabereye mu rugo kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste, rwasanze ko hari abatangabuhamya bemeza ko nta nama bazi yahabereye (Murasandonyi Augustin, DIM, Mugabire Jean de Dieu, Mutegandege Charles, Mutamuriza Xavérine, Mugenzi Védaste, Imananibishaka Jean Berchmans alias Barananiye Sukari, Kivuta Regero Innocent), abandi bekemeza ko iyo nama yabaye, kandi ko bari bayirimo cyangwa bayibwiwe (DAM na DFM), ndetse n’ubuhamya bw’abatangabuhamya batanzwe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste (DJM na DKM), rwanzura mu gace ka mirongo irindwi na rimwe (71) k’urwo rubanza, ko hashingiwe ku

## Page 151

117 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

mvugo za DAM6 na DFM7 hagomba kwemezwa ko ku wa 8/4/1994 mu rugo kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste habereye inama yacuriwemo umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi bo muri Segiteri ya

6 Nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka makumyabiri na rimwe (21) na makumyabiri na kabiri (22) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa, mu Rukiko Rukuru, DAM yasobanuye ko ku wa 8/4/1994 yazindukiye ku biro bya segiteri agiye gutanga ibyangombwa ku bantu bari barataye indangamuntu, bigeze nka saa moya n’igice uwitwa Nkamirabashaka Sostène aza kumubwira ko Mugimba Jean- Baptiste amushaka iwe, ajyayo ahagera saa moya n’iminota mirongo itatu n’itanu (7h35), ahasanga abantu bari mu nzu bagera kuri cumi na babiri (12) barimo Koloneli Hakizimana Edouard, Dr. Mugenzi Joseph, Mbarushimana Callixte wakoraga muri PNUD, Kivuta Regero Innocent, Kigingi Habyarimana wari interahamwe, Rwagahungu Innocent wari resiponsabule wa selire ya Kabuguru, Sakabaka wabaga kwa Ngenzi, Zakariya umuhungu wa Rwatambuga, Mudahinyuka Jean-Marie Vianney alias Zuzu, Nyabyenda, Twahirwa n`abandi benshi bagera ku munani (8) bari hanze barinze abari mu nzu, ko nka saa mbili Mugimba Jean-Baptiste yabakoresheje inama yagejeje nka saa yine n’igice, ko uretse we wari uhagarariye konseye wa Nyakabanda, nta wundi mukonseye wari uyirimo. Yakomeje avuga ko icyo iyo nama yari igamije kwari ukubwirwa ko indege ya Perezida Habyarimana yahanuwe, ko bagomba kwirwanaho bakarwanya ibyitso n’uko bugarijwe n’inkotanyi, ko icyo gihe Mugimba Jean-Baptitse yasabye Koloneli Hakizimana Edouard wari muri iyo nama imbunda zo kwirinda bakarwanya Abatutsi, hanakorwa amalisiti y’abagomba kwicwa barimo Abatutsi bitaga ibyitso n’Abahutu batavugaga rumwe n’ishyaka rya MRND, ko buri wese mu bari mu nama yatangaga izina ry’uwagombaga kwicwa, Mugimba Jean-Baptiste avuga Ndungutse Jean Bosco, Higiro Isaïe na Dogiteri Emmanuel wakoraga muri ONAPO, ko nawe ubwe yatanze amazina y’abandi barimo umuryango wa Bagabo Dany, Mukakimenyi na Kayibanda kandi ko nyuma abavuzwe baje kwicwa. Yasobanuye ko uwakoze lisiti yandika amazina ari Niyibizi Alphonse, ko arangije yayihaye Mugimba Jean-Baptiste, uyu nawe ayiha uwitwa Kigingi. Yanavuze ko n’ubwo yari Umuyobozi muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda, yitabiriye iyo nama yatumijwe na Mugimba Jean-Baptiste kuko uyu yari afite ububasha nka nyumbakumi wamuyoboraga, akaba yari n’umunyabwenge wari muri comité de crise yarimo abantu bize bunganiraga abakonseye mu gukora ubwicanyi yashyizweho ku wa 30/4/1994, akaba yari n’Umunyamabanga Mukuru w’ishyaka rya CDR, ko bakoranaga kuko MRND na CDR bari bamwe.

## Page 152

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyakabanda no mu nkengero zayo, ikorerwamo amalisiti y’Abatutsi bagombaga kwicwa, ndetse Mugimba Jean Baptiste ayisabiramo imbunda zo gukoresha muri ubwo bwicanyi. [24] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga isuzuma ry’inyandiko itanga ikirego rigaragaza ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yarezwe kuba ku wa 8/4/1994, hagati ya saa mbili na saa yine za mu gitondo, yaratumiye abantu batandukanye mu inama yabereye iwe mu rugo, aho bumvikanye, bacura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, biga uburyo bagomba kwica Abatutsi, bakora amalisti y’Abatutsi bagomba kwica, uburyo bazashyiraho barrières zizafasha mu kwica Abatutsi n’uburyo babona imbunda zo gukoresha kwica Abatutsi; ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakurikiranyweho ubwumvikane bwabaye hagati ye n’abantu batandukanye bwakorewe mu inama yakoresheje iwe mu rugo ku wa 8/4/1994, bacura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, bagamije kwica Abatutsi. [25] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kandi umutangabuhamya DAM ashinja Mugimba Jean Baptiste kuba ku wa 8/4/1994, yarakoresheje inama iwe mu rugo, akanamutumiramo, akahasanga abantu batandukanye, bamwe bari mu nzu (12), abandi bari hanze (8); asobanura ko icyo iyo nama yari igamije kwari ukubwirwa ko indege ya Perezida Habyarimana yahanuwe,

7 Nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka makumyabiri na gatatu (23) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, DFM yasobanuye mu Rukiko Rukuru ko iby’uko ku wa 8/4/1994 Mugimba Jean-Baptiste yatumiye iwe mu rugo inama yitabirwa n’abantu benshi barimo abitwa Kigingi, Niyibizi Alphonse na Koloneli Hakizimana yabibwiwe n’abantu bakoranaga bari bayirimo, ko yanayibwiwe na resiponsabule wa selire witwa Kaboneye Théoneste n’uwitwa Nyirimanzi Grégoire abasanze imbere ya sitade i Nyamirambo ari kumwe n’abaturage bavugiraga rimwe ko abantu bahiciwe biturutse ku nama yabereye kwa MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste no ku nterahamwe yitwaga Zuzu.

## Page 153

119 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

ko bagomba kwirwanaho bakarwanya ibyitso n’uko bugarijwe n’inkotanyi, ko icyo gihe Mugimba JeanBaptitse yasabye Col. Hakizimana Edouard wari muri iyo nama imbunda zo kwirinda bakarwanya Abatutsi, hanakorwa amalisiti y’abagomba kwicwa barimo Abatutsi bitaga ibyitso n’Abahutu batavugaga rumwe n’ishyaka rya MRND. [26] Hashingiwe ku byagaragajwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko yarezwe ku rwego rwa mbere kuba mu nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yarumvikanye n’abakonseye bagategura jenoside mu ma Segiteri ane (4) mu Mujyi wa Kigali, bitahabwa agaciro kuko ahubwo yarezwe kuba ari kumwe n’abantu batandukanye iwe mu rugo ku wa 8/4/1994 barumvikanye bagacura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, bakica Abatutsi, ntabwo Ubushinjacyaha bwamureze buvuga ko by’umwihariko yakoresheje inama iwe kuri iyo tariki, acura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’abakonseye gusa b’amasegiteri Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Gitega na Biryogo kugira ngo bice Abatutsi bahatuye. [27] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kandi n’ubwo ubuhamya bushinja bwa DAM budashimangira ko muri iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, abakonseye ba Segiteri Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Gitega na Biryogo barimo, bitavuze ko ibikorwa uwo mutangabuhamya yagaragaje bitandukanye n’ibikorwa byagaragajwe n’Ubushinjacyaha burega Mugimba Jean Baptiste ku rwego rwa mbere kuko icya ngombwa ari uko haba ibikorwa byagaragajwe n’Ubushinjacyaha n’ibyagaragajwe n’umutangabuhamya DAM, byose bishimangira ko ku wa 8/4/1994 yakoresheje inama iwe mu rugo mu gitondo, aho abantu batandukanye barimo bumvikanye, bacura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, bakora amalisti y’Abatutsi bagomba kwicwa, baniga

## Page 154

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

uburyo babona imbunda zo gukoresha mu kubica. Rurasanga na none kuba Ubushinjacyaha budashoboye kugaragaza ko abo bakonseye bayo masegiteri bari mubo bumwikanye muri iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, bagacura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, bitavuze ko ibikorwa yarezwe byaba byahinduwe kuko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko yacuze muri iyo nama uwo mugambi n’abandi bantu bavugwa mu kirego cyatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, icya ngombwa kikaba rwagaragaje ko muri iyo nama habayeho koko ubwumvikanye n’abantu mu gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. [28] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko yarezwe n’Ubushinjacyaha kuba baracuze umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Gitega na Biryogo, ariko Urukiko rwabanje rukaba rwaranzuye ko uwo mugambi wari ugamije kwica Abatutsi bo muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda gusa, ko rero urwo Rukiko rwahinduye ibikorwa bigize icyaha yarezwe, bitahabwa agaciro kuko mu nyandiko itanga ikirego ntaho bigaragara mu buryo butaziguye ko aribyo koko yarezwe, ahubwo igaragaza ko aregwa kuba muri iyo nama, yari yarasabye Col. Hakizimana Edouard, wari uyoboye ingabo mu Karere k’Imirwano ka Nyamirambo, imbunda zo gukoresha ubwicanyi muri Nyakabanda. [29] Hashingiwe ku byagaragajwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga uretse ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yahawe ku rwego rwa mbere uburenganzira (umwanya n’uburyo) bwo kwiregura ku bikorwa yarezwe n’Ubushinjacyaha no ku buhamya bwa DAM, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi rutarahinduye ibikorwa bigize icyaha Mugimba Jean Baptiste

## Page 155

121 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

yarezwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, bivuze ko rwaciye urubanza ku gikorwa rwaregewe, bityo iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwe ikaba nta shingiro ifite. b. Kumenya niba hari ibimenyetso bishinjura Mugimba Jean Baptiste Urukiko rwabanje rwirengagije gusuzuma, ibindi ntirubihe agaciro, ndetse rukaba rwaramuhamije icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside rushingiye ku mvugo z’abatangabuhamya babiri zitizewe i. Ku byerekeye ibimenyetso by’inyandiko bishinjura Mugimba Jean Baptiste, Urukiko rwabanje rwirengagije gusuzuma [30] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 110 n’iya 139, agace ka karindwi (7°) z’Itegeko n° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/9/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ishinjabyaha, Urukiko rwabanje rwakoze amakosa yo kudasuzuma ibimenyetso by’inyandiko bimushinjura yarugaragarije, bigizwe n’inyandiko légalisé mu mwaka wa 2011 yahimbiwemo iriya nama aregwa yo ku wa 8/4/1994, bikaba bivugwa ko ibikubiyemo byemejwe n’Inteko Gacaca ya Nyarugunga ku wa 31/12/2010 nyamara ataribyo, ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha gifite n° Pro-justitia RONPJ: 0305920/S1/12/NR/NJ cyo ku wa 25/7/2012 n’urubanza no RP 0345/12/TB/NYG rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 21/2/2013. [31] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira basobanura ko inyandiko légalisé ariyo yagaragaje bwa mbere inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, igashimangira ko iyo nama yavugiwemo bwa mbere mu

## Page 156

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nteko Gacaca ya Nyakabanda, ikaza no kwemezwa n’Inteko Gacaca ya Nyarugunga yo ku wa 31/12/2010 ku rwego rw’ubujurire, kandi ibyo byose byaje kunyomozwa n’amakuru yaturutse muri CNLG (Komisiyo y’Igihugu yo kurwanya jenoside) n’iperereza ryakozwe n’urwo Rukiko. Basobanura kandi ko ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha n° Pro-justitia RONPJ 0305920/S1/12/NR/NJ cyo ku wa 25/7/2012 kigaragaza ko hari abantu bakurikiranyweho kuba baratanze ubuhamya bw’ibinyoma mu Nkiko Gacaca bagamije kwigarurira inzu za Mugimba Jean Baptiste, umwe muri bo akaba yaremeye icyaha avuga ko uko guhimbira Mugimba Jean Baptiste ibyaha byakorerwaga mu kabari kitwa Panorama. Basobanura na none ko mu rubanza no RP 0345/12/TB/NYG, Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko uwo mutangabuhamya yakoze icyaha cyo gutanga ubuhamya bw’ibinyoma mu Nkiko Gacaca. [32] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira basoza bavuga ko ibi bimenyetso byose bishimangira ko ibyo Mugimba Jean Baptiste aregwa ari ibinyoma byaturutse ku gatsiko k’abantu bahuriraga muri ‘’Panorama’’ (cabaret) mu mwaka wa 2010, bakamuhimbira ibyaha bagamije kwigarurira imitungo ye, nyamara urwo Rukiko rwanze gusuzuma ibyo bimenyetso n’ibyavuye mu iperereza ubwarwo rwikoreye rushaka kumenya niba koko iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 aregwa yaravuzwe mu Nteko Gacaca, ahubwo ruhitamo gushingira ku gice cy’ubuhamya bwa DAM bumushinja8. [33] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste nta shingiro bifite kuko ibimenyetso byose Urukiko rwashyikirijwe rwabisuzumye, ko ibijyanye n’ibyo yaburanishije agaragaza ko yahimbiwe ibirego n’abashakaga kwigarurira

8 Reba agace ka 57 k’urubanza rujuririrwa.

## Page 157

123 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

imitungo ye byasuzumwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, maze nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka cumi n’umunani (18) n’aka mirongo irindwi na kamwe (71) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa, rwemeza ko nta shingiro bifite. Basobanura ko harebwe ibikorwa aregwa mu nyandiko itanga ikirego, ibyo bimenyetso ntaho bihuriye nabyo kuko mu Nkiko Gacaca Mugimba Jean Baptiste yaregwaga gusahura imitungo y’abandi, naho mu rubanza no RP 0345/12/TB/NYG, hakaba hararegwagamo abantu bamubesheye mu Nkiko Gacaca, umwe muri bo aza guhamwa n’icyaha. Basobanura kandi ko uretse n’ibyo, ibyo bimenyetso bidashimangira ko atakoze icyaha aregwa, ko kuba byagaragaye ko bamubeshyeye muri izo manza, bitavuze ko n’ibindi byose aregwa yaba abeshyerwa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste zishingiye ku kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije ibimenyetso by’inyandiko bishimangira ko ibyaha aregwa ari ibinyoma, cyane cyane ko rutagaragaje mu rubanza rwaciye ibisobanuro byatumye rutabiha agaciro, ibi bikaba byatuma urubanza rujuririrwa ruteshwa agaciro. [35] Nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza n° ICTR-96-13-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (ICTR), Urugereko rw’Ubujurire, kuba mu bisobanuro rwatanze, Urukiko rwabanje cyangwa Urukiko rwaciwe urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere rutaravuze ikimenyetso runaka cyangwa

## Page 158

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubuhamya runaka, ntibivuze byanze bikunze ko rwabirengagije9, ntirunategetswe kugaragaza mu buryo burambuye impamvu yatumye rubiha cyangwa rutabiha agaciro10. Mu rubanza n° IT- 96-21-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho ex- Yougoslavie, Urugereko rw’Ubujurire, hemejwe ko Urugereko rwa mbere rudagetswe, mu rubanza rwarwo, kugaragaza no gusobanura imyanzuro yarwo ku bisobanuro byose (arguments) byaragajwe mu rubanza11. [36] Umuhanga mu mategeko, Antoine Rubbens12, asobanura ko Urukiko rutagomba gusubiza ku bisobanuro (arguments) byose byatanzwe n’ababuranyi, ko ariko rugomba gusubiza ku byo basaba byose (demandes), rugaragaza impamvu zishimangira ibisubizo byarwo. Ari nabyo Abahanga mu mategeko, Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs na Adrien Masset, basobanura bashingiye ku murongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rusesa imanza rw’u Bubiligi, wemeje ko urubanza rugomba gusubiza ku buryo bweruye cyangwa butaziguye ku byasabwe byose n’ababuranyi, ku nzitizi batanze no ku mpaka (impamvu) bagaragaje, ariko ko rudategetswe gusuzuma imwe ku yindi muzo bagaragaje zose,

9 ‘’Il ne s’ensuit pas forcément que, dès lors qu’une Chambre de première instance n’a pas évoqué telle preuve ou tel témoignage à l’occasion de son raisonnement, c’est qu’elle l’a méconnu’’, par. 20. 10 ‘’La Chambre de première instance n’est pas tenue d’exposer dans le détail les raisons qui l’ont conduite à admettre ou à rejeter un témoignage donné’’, idem. 11‘’La Chambre de première instance n’est pas tenue, dans son jugement, d’exposer et de justifier ses conclusions quant à chacun des arguments présentés au cours du procès’’, Par. 498. 12 ‘’Il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à tous les arguments des parties publiques ou privées, mais bien à chacune de leurs demandes, et c’est chacune de ces réponses qu’il convient de motiver’’, Antoine Rubbens, Le Droit judiciaire congolais, L’instruction criminelle et la procédure pénale, Tome III, Larcier, Bruxelles, 1965, P. 220, n° 214.

## Page 159

125 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

icyagombwa ni uko mu rubanza rwaciwe hagaragaramo impamvu zatumye ibyasabwe, inzitizi zatanzwe n’impaka (impamvu) zagaragajwe bitahawe agaciro13. [37] Nk’uko bigaragara mu mwanzuro w’ibanze wa Mugimba Jean Baptiste mu rubanza n° RP/GEN 0002/2017/HC/HCCIC, yasobanuye ko ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha nta bimenyetso bifatika gishingiyeho, ko cyaje gushimangira ibyaha byahimbwe bikitirirwa urubanza rw’Inteko Gacaca y’ubujurire ya Nyarugunga yo ku wa 31/12/2010, ko ibyo binyoma bigaragara mu nyandiko yahawe n’Ambassade y’u Buholandi mu Rwanda iturutse mu Bushinjacyaha, nyamara inyandiko yatanzwe na CNLG yo ku wa 26/1/2017 ishimangira ko nta nyandiko n’imwe ivuga Mugimba Jean Baptiste mu Rukiko Gacaca rwa Nyakabanda, kandi ikaba yaraherekejwe n’inyandikomvugo yerekana amagambo yose yavugiwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Inteko Gacaca y’ubujurire ya Nyarugunga rwo ku wa 31/12/2010. Yavuze kandi ko inyandiko “Pro-justitia RONPJ: 0305920/S1/12/NR/NJ” y’Ubushinjacyaha yo ku wa 25/7/2012

13 “La décision doit répondre explicitement ou implicitement à toutes les demandes, les exceptions et les moyens, formulés par les parties et le ministère public. Le juge ne doit toutefois pas les examiner un à un: il suffit que de l’ensemble de la décision apparaissent les raisons pour lesquelles la demande, le moyen ou l’exception a été rejeté’’, Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, P. 722. “ Attendu que si le juge du fond doit répondre à tout chef de demande, à toute défense et à toute exception présentée par l’une des parties, il n’est pas tenu de rencontrer en termes exprès les arguments ou allégations de pur fait; que les décisions sont suffisamment et légalement motivées si elles opposent à ces arguments ou allégations une appréciation de fait dont résulte leur défaut de fondement’’, Cass., 27 février 1939, Pas., 1939, I, p.101 in Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, idem.

## Page 160

126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugenge n° RP 0345/12/TB/NYG cyo ku wa 21/2/2013 zigaragaza ko yashinjwe ibinyoma mu Nkiko Gacaca, ndetse ko umwe mu baregwaga muri urwo rubanza yahanishijwe icyaha cyo gutanga ubuhamya bw’ibinyoma, ahanishwa igihano cyigifungo cy’umwaka umwe (1), bitewe n’uko yaburanye yemera icyo cyaha. Yanavuze ko kuba inyandiko ya CNLG yo ku wa 26/1/2017 yerekana ku buryo butaziguye ko ibyaha bya Jenoside aregwa muri uru rubanza bitigeze bivugirwa mu Nteko Gacaca ya Nyarugunga yo ku wa 31/12/2010, byonyine bihagije kugira ngo hemezwe ko ari ibihimbano. [38] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko mu bimenyetso byatanzwe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste mu Rukiko Rukuru, harimo inyandiko yo ku wa 3/5/2012 irebana n’amakuru y’inyongera muri dosiye DCM/AT-U 100624.0036 ya Mugimba Jean Baptiste, dosiye RONPJ: 0305920/S1/12/NR/NJ y’Ubushinjacyaha (Acte d’accusation) burega Hategekimana Charles icyaha cyo gutanga ubuhamya bw’ibinyoma mu Rukiko Gacaca, urubanza n° RP 0345/12/TB/NYG rwaciwe ku wa 21/2/2013 n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyarugenge, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na HATEGEKIMANA Charles, aregwa icyaha cyo gutanga ubuhamya bw’ibinyoma mu Rukiko Gacaca rw’Ubujurire rwa Nyarugenge, aho yatanze ubwo buhamya agamije kwemeza ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yasahuye muri dépôt y’inzoga ya Bigirumwami Aloys mu mwaka wa 1994; urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ahamwa n’icyo cyaha. [39] Agace ka cumi na karindwi (17) n’aka cumi n’umunani (18) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa tugaragaza ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yaburanye avuga ko ikigaragaza ko atakoze ibyaha aregwa, ari ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca ryabereye muri

## Page 161

127 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

Segiteri Nyakabanda rishimangira ko nta ruhare yagize mu bwicanyi bwahabaye, ndetse na Komisiyo y’Igihugu ishinzwe kurwanya jenoside, mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 26/1/2017 isubiza iy’Ubushinjacyaha, yavuze ko nta makuru imufiteho ku byaha bya jenoside yakekwagaho gukora muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda. Yaburanye kandi avuga ko ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha gishingiye ku bugambanyi yakorewe n’abashakaga kumutwarira imitungo, bamureze muri Gacaca kubasahura, bamubeshyera. [40] Mu gace ka mirongo itanu (50) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, ku birebana n’ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Mugimba Jean Baptiste yarakoresheje inama iwe mu rugo zicuriwemo umugambi wo gukora jenoside, Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje ko uregwa yireguye atanga ibimenyetso birimo abatangabuhamya n’inyandiko zinyuranye zirimo kopi z’amabaruwa y’umutangabuhamya wahawe izina rya DAM yandikiye Inkiko Gacaca yirega anemera ibyaha n’ibindi. [41] Urubanza rujuririrwa rugaragaza ko kuva mu gace karwo ka mirongo itatu (53) kugeza ku ka mirongo irindwi (70), Urukiko Rukuru rwasuzumye ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’ababuranyi, runasobanura impamvu zifite cyangwa zidafite agaciro, na none mu gace ka mirongo irindwi na kamwe (71) rwanzura ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko no 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ubuhamya bwatanzwe na DAM na DFM bugomba gushingirwaho hemezwa ko ku wa 8/4/1994 mu rugo kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste habereye inama yacuriwemo umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi bo muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda no mu nkengero zayo, ikorerwamo amalisiti y’Abatutsi bagombaga kwicwa, ndetse Mugimba Jean Baptiste ayisabiramo imbunda zo gukoresha muri ubwo bwicanyi; ko rero ibyo Mugimba Jean

## Page 162

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Baptiste avuga ko ibyaha aregwa byahimbwe n’abashakaga kwigarurira imitungo ye n’uko bishingiye ku mwanya yari afite mu ishyaka rya CDR nta shingiro bifite. [42] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwaranzuye ko ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko ibyaha aregwa byahimbwe n’abashakaga kwigarurira imitungo ye nta shingiro bifite kuko rwasanze mu bushishozi bwarwo ubuhamya bwa DAM na DFM bwizewe ku birebana n’inama aregwa ko yakoresheje iwe mu rugo ku wa 8/4/1994, yacuriwemo umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi bo muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda no mu nkengero zayo, ikorerwamo amalisiti y’Abatutsi bagombaga kwicwa, ndetse ayisabiramo imbunda zo gukoresha muri ubwo bwicanyi, bigaragaza nta shiti ko rutirengagije ibimenyetso by’inyandiko yatanze byavuzwe haruguru, n’ubwo by’umwihariko rutagaragaje isuzuma rwakoreye ikimenyetso kimwe ku kindi (buri kimenyetso) byatumye bidahabwa agaciro yifuzaga. [43] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga rero hashingiwe ku bisobanuro no ku mirongo yagaragajwe haruguru, nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze mu kugaragaza mu buryo butaziguye (implicitement) impamvu yatumye ibyo bimenyetso bitizerwa, bityo iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste ikaba nta shingiro ifite. ii. Ku byerekeye ibimenyetso bishinjura Mugimba Jean Baptiste, Urukiko rwabanje rutahaye agaciro [44] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko rwabanje rutahaye agaciro ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’abatangabuhamya bashinjura aribo DKM na DJM barugaragarije ko igihe kivugwa ko yakoreshejeho inama iwe mu

## Page 163

129 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

rugo ku wa 8/4/1994, bamubonye ahandi ahantu, umwe akaba yaravuze ko yamubonye ajya kwishyuza amafaranga y’ubukode (loyer), undi avuga ko icyo gihe yamubonye ku Gitega. [45] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bakomeza bavuga ko urwo Rukiko rutagombaga kwemeza ko ubuhamya bwa DKM na DJM butavuguruza ko inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yabayeho14, rwirengagije ikibazo cy’amasaha avugwa, kuko Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko inama yabaye hagati ya saa mbiri (8h00) na saa ine n’igice (10h30) za mu gitondo, kandi abo batangabuhamya bo bararusobanuriye ko uwo munsi muri ayo masaha yabarizwaga ku Gitega n’i Nyamirambo kuri Mirongo ine, ko rero bagaragaje ko iyo nama ntayo bazi yabayeho, bemeza ko ku masaha avugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha bari kumwe nawe, akaba rero atarashoboraga kuba ari muri iyo nama bivugwa ko yakoreshereje iwe muri ayo masaha. Bavuga kandi ko atashoboraga kubera ahantu habiri icyarimwe, bakaba basanga Urukiko Rukuru rwari gushishoza rugasesengura neza izo mvugo, rukabona ko zivuguruza ibyavuzwe n’umutangabuhamya DAM, rukemeza ko hari ugushidikanya kugomba kurengera uregwa. Basoza bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagaragaje ibisobanuro bihagije (motivation insuffisante) rutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwa DKM na DJM. [46] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibijyanye n’ibimenyetso bimushinjura Urukiko Rukuru rwaba rwaratesheje agaciro nabyo nta shingiro bifite, kuko mu gace ka mirongo itanu n’icyenda (59) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye impamvu ubuhamya bwa KIVUTA REGERO Innocent butashingirwaho ko ari uko budashyigikiwe n’ikindi kimenyetso cyangwa ubundi

14 Reba agace ka 60 k’urubanza rujuririrwa.

## Page 164

130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

buhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko, mu gace ka mirongo itandatu (60) k’urubanza rujuririrwa na none rugaragaza ko ubuhamya bwa DJM na DKM ntaho bushinjura Mugimba Jean Baptiste. [47] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga kandi ko mu buhamya bwabo, DKM na DJM bagaragaje ko nta bumenyi bafite kucyo uregwa yari yabazaniye mu Rukiko, ariyo mpamvu mu gace ka mirongo itandatu (60) n’aka mirongo itandatu na kabiri (62) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko ibyo bavuze, ntacyo birufasha kuko bitavanaho ko hari abandi bantu bazi ko iyo nama aregwa kuba yakoresheje ku wa 8/4/1994 yabaye, kandi banayigiyemo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [48] Impaka muri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste zishingiye ku kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rwarakoze amakosa yo gusesengura nabi uburemere bw’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya DKM na DJM, ruzitesha agaciro, nyamara zivuguruza ibyo aregwa bishimangirwa n’umutangabuhamya DAM kuko zigaragaza ko atakoresheje iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 kubera ko mu masaha aregwa, atari mu rugo iwe. [49] Nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza n° RPA/GEN 00004/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 7/5/2021, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bernard Munyagishari, ntibihagije k’uwajuriye kuvuga ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa harimo ukwibeshya gushingiye ku ngingo y’itegeko cyangwa hagaragaramo amakosa y’amategeko, agomba no kugaragaza ibisobanuro mu mategeko bishimangira ibyo avuga, akanagaragaza uko kwibeshya gutuma icyemezo cyafashwe cyateshwa agaciro. Ku birebana n’ukwibeshya gushingiye ku

## Page 165

131 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

byabaye, Urukiko, mu bujurire, ruhindura icyemezo cyafashwe gusa mu gihe uwajuriye yagaragaje ko isuzuma ryakozwe n’Urukiko rwabanje ku bijyanye n’ibikorwa bigize icyaha ryatumye urubanza rucibwa nabi15. [50] Nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza no RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA16 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/7/2023, rusuzuma ikibazo cyo kumenya icyizere imvugo z’abatangabuhamya zifitiwe ku buryo zashingirwaho nk’ikimenyetso gifatika mu rubanza, ihame ku birebana n’ubuhamya ni uko umutangabuhamya avuga mu Rukiko ibyo yiboneye cyangwa ibyo yumvise mu buryo butaziguye, ko Urukiko rwonyine rusuzuma mu bushishozi icyizere cyangwa ireme bukwiye guhabwa; uwo murongo ukaba wakurikijwe mu rubanza no RPAA 00050/2024/CA rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 26/4/2024, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Shema Ernest no mu

15 ‘’ Par ailleurs, il se comprend aisément des termes de l’article 18 précité qu’il ne suffit pas à l’appelant de relever telle erreur de droit, encore faut-il qu’il présente une argumentation juridique au soutien de sa thèse et qu’il démontre en quoi cette erreur de droit invalide la décision critiquée. Quant à l’erreur de fait, une jurisprudence constante de la Chambre d’appel du Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda établit que les constatations de fait erronées faites par le premier juge ne sauraient uniquement être infirmées ou modifiées au degré d’appel que s’il en est résulté une erreur judiciaire. En outre, elle indique que la juridiction d’appel n’infirmera les constatations de la juridiction de premier degré que lorsqu’aucun juge de fait n’aurait raisonnablement pu parvenir à la même conclusion ou lorsque celles-ci sont totalement erronées. Aussi, la juridiction d’appel doit se garder d’infirmer à la légère les circonstances matérielles de l’infraction telles que constatées par la juridiction de première instance dans la décision attaquée; Urubanza rwa MUNYAGISHARI Bernard, Para. 14. 16 Reba urubanza no RPAA/Gén. 00002/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/7/2023, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na TWAHIRWA François.

## Page 166

132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rubanza n° RPAA 00386/2021/CA rwaciwe ku wa 3/7/2024, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Kayinamura Télésphore alias Maso na Ryabonyende Cyriaque. [51] Mu gace ka mirongo itanu na karindwi (57) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi rwasobanuye ko ubuhamya bwa DAM bugomba gushingirwaho nk’ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko ku wa 8/4/1994, Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakoresheje inama iwe mu rugo icurirwamo umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi cyane cyane ko ubwo buhamya buhura n’imvugo ze zo mu Bugenzacyaha, ndetse n’izo ku wa 7/12/2016 mu Bushinjacyaha. [52] Mu gace ka mirongo itandatu (60) n’aka mirongo itandatu na kabiri (62) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi rwasobanuye ko abatangabuhamya DJM na DKM batanzwe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste batavuguruza ko hari inama yakoresheje kuko ibyo batanzeho ubuhamya ari uko ku wa 8/4/1994 bamubonye aho bari batuye ku Gitega n’i Nyamirambo aho bita kuri Mirongwine; ko ibyo DJM avuga ko yamubonye saa mbiri (8h00’) cyangwa saa tatu (9h00’), naho DKM akavuga ko yamubonye saa yine (10h00’), mu gihe DAM we avuga ko yari kumwe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste mu nama hagati ya saa mbiri (8h00’) na saa yine n’igice (10h30’), bitatuma ubuhamya bwe (DAM) bwemeza ko iyo nama yabaye budahabwa agaciro kuko rwasanze bufite ireme kandi bushyigikiwe n’ibindi bimenyetso. [53] Nk’uko byaragarutsweho haruguru, nyuma yo gusuzuma ibyemenyetso byose byagaragajwe n’ababuranyi, Urukiko rubanza rwanzuye ko ubuhamya bwatanzwe na DAM na DFM

## Page 167

133 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

bugomba gushingirwaho hemezwa ko ku wa 8/4/1994 mu rugo kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste habereye inama yacuriwemo umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi bo muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda no mu nkengero zayo, ikorerwamo amalisiti y’Abatutsi bagombaga kwicwa, ndetse Mugimba Jean Baptiste ayisabiramo imbunda zo gukoresha muri ubwo bwicanyi. [54] Inyandiko y’iburanisha yo ku wa 9/10/2018 igaragaza ko umutangabuhamya DAM yasobanuriye Urukiko rwabanje ko ku wa 8/4/1994, habaye inama kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste, yatangiye saa mbiri (8h00’) irangira saa yine (10h00’) cyangwa saa yine n’igice (10h30’). [55] Nk’uko inyandiko y’iburanisha yo ku wa 30/9/2019 ibigaragaza, umutangabuhamya DJM yabwiye Urukiko rubanza ko yari kumwe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste iwabo mu rugo ku Gitega ku wa 8/4/1994, hari saa mbiri n’igice (8h30’) cyangwa saa tatu (9h00’) za mugitondo, yaje gusezera Se, naho umutangabuhamya DKM yarubwiye ko yari kumwe nawe kuri iyo tariki saa yine (10h00’) kuri Mirongo ine mu Rwampara ku cyapa kinini, yaje kumwishyuza amafaranga y’ubukode. [56] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ku birebana cyane cyane n’amasaha avugwa ko yakoresherejeho inama aregwa, kuba DJM na DKM baravuguruje ibyavuzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bumurega, bigashimangirwa n’umutangabuhamya DAM, ko Urukiko rwabanje rwagombaga kwanzura ko ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha nta shingiro gifite kuko ukuvuguruzanya hagati y’umutangabuhamya ushinja n’abatangabuhamya bashinjura gutera ugushidikanya kubyo aregwa, kugomba kumurengera, bitahabwa agaciro kuko atari ko bigomba kugenda buri gihe, kuko isuzuma ry’ubuhamya

## Page 168

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bwatanzwe rikorwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko rushakisha ukuri ku byabaye, rukemeza ko bwizewe cyangwa butizewe. [57] Hashingiwe ku bivugwa mu gace kabanziriza aka, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga n’ubwo abatangabuhamya DJM na DKM bavuguruza umutangabuhamya DAM, bitavuze byanze bikunze ko Urukiko rwabanje rwari rufite ishingano yo gutesha agaciro ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha, ahubwo urwo Rukiko mu bushishozi bwarwo, rusuzumye imvugo z’abo batangabuhamya, rwasanze ubuhamya bwa DJM na DKM nta reme bufite ku mpamvu rwagaragaje y’uko busobanura gusa ko ku wa 8/4/1994, umwe yamubonye ku Gitega, undi amubona kuri Mirongo ine, rubutesha agaciro, ahubwo rusanga ubwa DAM bwizewe kuko busobanura neza uko yatumiwe mu nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 nk’Umuyobozi muri Segiteri Nyakabanda, agaragaza abari bayirimo, ibyemezo byayifatiwemo, birimo kwirwanaho barwanya ibyitso, gukora urutonde rw’abagomba kwicwa no gusaba imbunda, ko rero ubuhamya bwa DJM na DKM butatuma ubwa DAM budahabwa agaciro. [58] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga rero ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko Urukiko rubanza rwakoze amakosa yo kudaha agaciro ubuhamya bwa DJM na DKM buvuguruza ubwa DAM, rutanga ibisobanuro bidahagije, kandi uko kuvuguruzanya konyine kwari gutuma agirwa umwere kuko kugaragaza ugushidikanya kwagomba kumurengera, bitahabwa agaciro, bityo iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwe ikaba nta shingiro ifite.

## Page 169

135 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

iii. Ku byerekeye ubuhamya butizewe Urukiko rwabanje rwashingiyeho ruhamya Mugimba Jean Baptiste ibyaha yarezwe [59] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwashingiye ku mvugo ya DAM rumuhamya ibyaha aregwa, nyamara itavugisha ukuri. Basobanura ko DAM yavuze ko ubutumire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste bwamusanze ku Murenge ku kazi, nyamara ku wa 8/4/1994 wari umunsi wa kabiri wa jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, ko byari bikomeye muri Nyakabanda ku buryo DAM atashoboraga kuri iyo tariki, mu masaha moya n’igice (7h30’) za mugitondo kujya gutanga ibyangombwa by’abantu batakaje amarangamuntu, kandi icyo gihe nta muntu, washoboraga gusohoka adaherekejwe n’abasirikare, akazi kose kari kahagaritswe, ibi bikaba byaranemejwe mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bagosora Théoneste n’abandi17 rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (ICTR). Bakomeza basobanura kandi ko DAM atavugishije ukuri kuko yabwiye Urukiko rwabanje ko ibirebana n’iyo nama yabivuze na mbere mu Nkiko Gacaca, kandi mu by’ukuri nta byigeze bivugwa nk’uko Urukiko rwabanje rwabibonye nyuma y’uko rwikorera iperereza muri CNLG, ndetse DAM aburana mu Nkiko Gacaca nta na hamwe yigeze avuga ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste ari mu bantu bakoze jenoside. Basoza bavuga ko na none DAM atavugishije ukuri kuko Mugimba Jean Baptiste atari kumutumira mu nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 nk’umu Conseiller wa Segiteri Nyakabanda, kuko yamubaye ku wa 13/4/1994 nyuma y’uko agaragaye nk’interahamwe ikomeye mu bwicanyi bwakozwe na mbere yaho, ibi bikaba byagaragajwe mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na

17 Reba para. 2024 y’urubanza n° ICTR-98-41-T

## Page 170

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Renzaho Tharcisse rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (ICTR) 18. [60] Ku birebana n’umutangabuhamya DFM Urukiko rubanza rwashingiyeho, Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko imvugo ze zitavugisha ukuri kuko yemeje ko azi neza Mugimba Jean Baptiste, avuga ko yamumenye mu mwaka wa 1980, ubwo yarangizaga kaminuza akaza gukora stage muri BNR, nyamara Mugimba Jean Baptiste yaratangiye gukorerayo mu mwaka wa 1982, ndetse ibindi byose DFM yabwiye Urukiko, bikaba ari ibyo yabwiwe na DAM n’abantu bakoranaga, atari ibindu yiboneye, bivuze ko ubuhamya bwe budashimangira ubwa DAM. Basoza bavuga ko kubw’ibyo, Urukiko rubanza rutari gushingira ku mvugo z’umutangabuhamya umwe rwemeza ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakoze ibyaha yahamijwe kuko ibyo yavuze bidahagije mu kugaragaza ukuri ku byabaye cyangwa kwemeza ko uregwa afite uruhare mu bikorwa aregwa. [61] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste by’uko imvugo za DAM zagombaga guteshwa agaciro n’Urukiko rubanza kuko yasobanuye ko ku wa 8/4/1994 mu gitondo yari yagiye ku Murenge gutanga indangamuntu kandi bitarashobokaga, nta shingiro bifite kuko igihe cya jenoside hagiyeho gouvernement ya Kambanda ifite gahunda, bashyiraho abakozi bahabwa imirimo, ndetse uretse abahigwaga abandi ubuzima bwarakomeje, imirimo irakomeza, amasoko yararemaga, amashuli yarigaga, abicaga n’abatarahigwaga bakomeza ubuzima busanzwe, ndetse na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ubwe yavuze ko we n’umuryango we basohotse bajya ahantu hatandukanye (ku Gitega no kuri Mirongo ine), bajya no ku Gisenyi. Buvuga kandi ko uretse

18 Reba para. 466 y’urubanza n° ICTR-97-31-T.

## Page 171

137 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

n’ibyo, Mugimba Jean Baptiste yitangiye ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko ku italiki ya 8/4/1994 kuri perefegitura Perefe Renzaho Tharcisse yakoresheje inama y’abakonseye. [62] Ku birebana kandi no kuba Urukiko rubanza rwaragombaga gutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwa DAM kuko ku wa 8/4/1994, Mugimba Jean Baptiste atashoboraga kumutumira nka Conseiller wa Segiteri Nyakabanda kubera ko yamubaye gusa ku wa 13/4/1994, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko icyo gihe DAM yari responsable wa Selire ya Kabuguru, aza no gusimbura Conseiller wa Nyakabanda wari wahunze, ko rero yamutumiye akiri umu Conseiller by’agateganyo (periode of acting-intérim), akaza kwemezwa burundu ku wa 14/4/1994. [63] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko ubuhamya bwa DAM bwagombaga guteshwa agaciro kuko mu Nkiko Gacaca atamuvuze ku rutonde rw’abakoze jenoside muri Nyakabanda, ndetse akaba ataravuze inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 aregwa, bitahabwa agaciro kuko mu Nkiko Gacaca, DAM yabazwaga ku bimureba ku giti cye, ko nk’uko byasobanuwe mu gace ka mirongo itandatu na karindwi (67) n’aka mirongo itandatu n’icyenda (69) tw’urubanza rujuririrwa, kuba DAM ataramuvuze, ntavuge n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, bitavuze ko atakurikiranwa igihe habonetse ibimenyetso bimuhamya ibyaha aregwa19, bitanavuze ko iyo nama itabayeho. [64] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo Mugimba Jean Baptiste avuga ku mutangabuhamya DFM wavuze ko amuzi muri BNR mu mwaka

19 Reba para. 130 y’urubanza ICTR-2000-61-T rwa Gatete Jean-Baptiste rwaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere n‘Urukiko Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda.

## Page 172

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

wa 1980, nyamara we yarahaje mu mwaka wa 1982, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko iyo itaba inenge ku buhamya yamutanzeho yatuma butizerwa, kuko harebwe imyaka ishize kuva igihe yahuriye na Mugimba Jean Baptiste bwa mbere kugera uyu munsi, ari myinshi ku buryo kwibeshya cyangwa kunyuranya ku birebana n’ibihe ibintu byabereyemo bitewe n’igihe gishize bishoboka cyane, nk’uko byanemejwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, nko mu rubanza rwa Muhimana Michael20 no mu rubanza rwa Kamuhanda Jean de Dieu21, ko rero kuba DFM yakwibeshya ku mwaka yamuboneye bwa mbere, mu gihe yari abibajijwe nyuma y’imyaka igera kuri mirongo itatu n’itandatu (36), nta gitangaje ko yakwibeshya ku mwaka. [65] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko Urukiko rubanza rutari gushingira ku mvugo z’umutangabuhamya umwe (DAM) rwemeza ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakoze ibyaha yahamijwe kuko ibyavuzwe n’umutangabuhamya umwe bidahagije mu kugaragaza ukuri ku byabaye cyangwa kwemeza ko uregwa afite uruhare ku bikorwa aregwa, nta shingiro bifite kuko mu kwemeza ko inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yabayeho, urwo Rukiko rutashingiye gusa ku mvugo za DAM, ahubwo rwanashingiye ku mvugo za DFM nawe wabyemeje; ko nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka mirongo itandatu na

20 Case N° ICTR-95-1B, The Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana, judgment of 28 April 2005, para. 65 “The Chamber is of the view that in situations where witnesses are called to testify on events which took place over a decade ago, discrepancies relating to the time and date of the event may occur”. 21 Case N° Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, judgment of 23 January 2003, para.35 “The Chamber recognises, in addition, the time that had elapsed between the time of the events in question ad the testimonies of the Witness”.

## Page 173

139 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

gatanu (65) n’aka mirongo itandatu na gatandatu (66), urwo Rukiko rwasesenguye imvugo zabo rwifashishije ingingo z’amategeko n’imirongo yafashwe n’Inkiko mpuzamahanga mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [66] Impaka ziri muri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste zishingiye ku kumenya niba harebwe ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’Urukiko rwabanje mu rubanza rujuririrwa, rwarakoze amakosa yo kumuhamya ibyaha aregwa rushingira ku buhamya butizewe, ibi bikaba bituma urwo rubanza rugomba guteshwa agaciro. [67] Nk’uko byagarutsweho haruguru, mu rubanza n° RPA/GEN 00004/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 7/5/2021, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Munyagishari Bernard, hemejwe ko bidahagije k’uwajuriye kuvuga ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa harimo ukwibeshya gushingiye ku ngingo y’itegeko cyangwa hagaragaramo amakosa y’amategeko, agomba no kugaragaza ibisobanuro mu mategeko bishimangira ibyo avuga, akanagaragaza uko kwibeshya gutuma icyemezo cyafashwe cyateshwa agaciro. Ku birebana n’ukwibeshya gushingiye ku byabaye, Urukiko, mu bujurire, ruhindura icyemezo cyafashwe gusa mu gihe uwajuriye yagaragaje ko isuzuma ryakozwe n’Urukiko rwabanje ku bijyanye n’ibikorwa bigize icyaha ryatumye urubanza rucibwa nabi22, bivuze ko mu bujurire,

22 ‘’Par ailleurs, il se comprend aisément des termes de l’article 18 précité qu’il ne suffit pas à l’appelant de relever telle erreur de droit, encore faut- il qu’il présente une argumentation juridique au soutien de sa thèse et qu’il démontre en quoi cette erreur de droit invalide la décision critiquée. Quant

## Page 174

140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

uwajuriye adashobora kugaruka (gusubira) gusa ku ngingo ze yaburanishije ku rwego rwa mbere, kandi zitarahawe ishingiro, atagaragaza amakosa Urukiko rwabanje rwaba rwarakoze ruzitesha agaciro n’uko ayo makosa agomba gukosorwa23. [68] Nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza n° RPAA/GEN 00002/2018/CA rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 25/7/2023, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Twahirwa François, umutangabuhamya avuga mu Rukiko ibyo yiboneye cyangwa ibyo yumvise mu buryo butaziguye, ko Urukiko rwonyine rusuzuma mu bushishozi icyizere cyangwa ireme bukwiye guhabwa; ko harebwe ububasha bw’Urukiko bwo gusuzuma mu bwigenge no mu bushishozi bwarwo ibimenyetso byose rwashyikirijwe, harebwe na none intego y’amategeko y’ibimenyetso (objectif du droit de la preuve) yo gushakisha ukuri, Inkiko zemera ibimenyetso biziguye (preuve indirecte) cyangwa ibimenyetso bishingiye ku mabwire iyo byizewe (preuve par ouï-

à l’erreur de fait, une jurisprudence constante de la Chambre d’appel du Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda établit que les constatations de fait erronées faites par le premier juge ne sauraient uniquement être infirmées ou modifiées au degré d’appel que s’il en est résulté une erreur judiciaire. En outre, elle indique que la juridiction d’appel n’infirmera les constatations de la juridiction de premier degré que lorsqu’aucun juge de fait n’aurait raisonnablement pu parvenir à la même conclusion ou lorsque celles-ci sont totalement erronées. Aussi, la juridiction d’appel doit se garder d’infirmer à la légère les circonstances matérielles de l’infraction telles que constatées par la juridiction de première instance dans la décision attaquée; Urubanza rwa MUNYAGISHARI Bernard, Para. 14. 23 ‘’Une partie ne saurait se contenter de répéter en appel des arguments qui ont échoué en première instance, à moins de démontrer que leur rejet constituait une erreur de nature à justifier l’intervention de la Chambre d’appel’’, Affaire n° ICTR-01-73-A, Procureur contre Zigiranyirazo Protais, Para. 12. Dans ce sens, voir également l’Affaire n° ICTR-01-74- A Procureur contre François KARERA, Para. 11.

## Page 175

141 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

dire), bivuze ko ari ihame ko ubuhamya butaziguye cyangwa ubuhamya buziguye bwemewe iyo bwizewe. [69] Nk’uko kandi byemejwe mu manza nº RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA24, nº RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA25 na n° RPAA/GEN 00009/2019/CA26, bikaza no kwemezwa mu manza n° RPAA/GEN 00002/2018/CA27 na n° RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA28, kwivuguruza cyangwa ivuguruzanya ry’abatangabuhamya ku birebana n’amatariki, amasaha, imyambaro, aho umuntu yari ahagaze cyangwa iyo ubuhamya umutangabuhamya yatangiye mu Rukiko budahuje n’ibyo yavuze mbere, ntibifatwa nk’inenge ikabije yatesha agaciro ubuhamya, ahubwo, harebwe igihe kinini kiba gishize hagati y’igihe ibikorwa by’ubwicanyi byakoreweho n’igihe ubuhamya bwatangiwe, izo ari inenge ntoya ku buryo zitatesha agaciro ireme ryabwo kuko bishoboka ko umutangabuhamya atakwibuka neza ibyo atangira ubuhamya. Hemejwe kandi mu rubanza n° RPAA

24 Reba agace ka 27 k’urubanza nº RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rwaciwe ku wa 3/3/2023, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Ntaganzwa Ladislas. 25 Reba agace ka 125 k’urubanza nº RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rwaciwe ku wa 8/4/2022, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Birindabagabo Jean-Paul. 26 Reba agace ka 71 k’urubanza no RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 16/10/2020 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na KABILIMANA Jean Damascène. 27 ‘’Ukutavuga ibintu kimwe k’umutangabuhamya bishobora guterwa n’igihe kiba gishize ibyo atangaho ubuhamya bibaye, ntibikuraho icyizere cyabo cyangwa ireme ryabyo’’, reba agace ka 54 k‘urubanza n° RPAA/GEN 00002/2018/CA, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Twahirwa François. 28 Reba agace ka 174 k’urubanza n° RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Twagirayezu Wenceslas.

## Page 176

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

00141/2022/CA29, ukwivuguruza ku tuntu duto duto bidatesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya bwatanzwe. [70] Inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha yo ku wa 9/10/2018 igaragaza ko umutangabuhamya DAM yabwiye Urukiko rwabanje ko kuva mu mwaka wa 1990 yari responsable wa Cellule Kabuguru, mu mwaka wa 1993 aba na percepteur w’isoko rya Nyamirambo, byombi abifatanije, ndetse muri uwo mwaka anaba Perezida wa MRND muri iyo Cellule. Yavuze kandi ko yasimburaga Conseiller wa Nyakabanda iyo yabaga arwaye, ko mu mwaka wa 1994, ku wa 14/4/1994, yagizwe Conseiller y’Umurenge wa Nyakabanda kugeza ku wa 3/7/1994 kuko uwo yari yasimbuye yaregwaga kuba icyitso cy’inkotanyi. Yanavuze ko igihe Mugimba Jean Baptiste yatumizaga iyo nama, we yari umusimbura wa Conseiller, yari atarajyaho nka Conseiller. [71] Mu gace ka mirongo itandatu na gatanu (65) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rwabanje rwasobanuye ko ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko ubuhamya bwa DAM butashingirwaho hemezwa ko iyo nama yabaye kubera ko ari we wenyine ubyemeza nabyo nta shingiro bifite, kuko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko no 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/6/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ko nta cyabuza ko ubuhamya bwe bushingirwaho kuko bufite ingingo zikiranuye kandi zihuye n’ikiburanwa. Byongeye kandi, nk’uko byasobanuwe, ubwo buhamya bukaba bunashimangirwa n’ubwa DFM wari Umuyobozi muri Komini Nyarugenge. [72] Urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye mu gace ka mirongo itandatu na gatandatu (66) k’urwo rubanza ko ibyo kuba ubuhamya

29 Reba agace ka 33 k’urwo rubanza, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Ntamaherezo Iryamukuru.

## Page 177

143 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

bw’umutangabuhamya umwe bushobora gushingirwaho ari nabyo byasobanuwe mu manza zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyirweho u Rwanda nko mu rubanza rwa Musema Alfred aho rwasobanuye ko Urukiko rushobora gushingira ku buhamya bw’umuntu umwe iyo rusanze bufite ireme kandi uwabutanze yakwizerwa30, ndetse no mu zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho icyahoze ari Yugosilaviya nk’urubanza rwa Haradinaj n’abandi n’urwa TADIC aho zemeje ko Urukiko rushobora gushingira ku buhamya bw’umutangabuhamya umwe n’iyo byaba ari ku gikorwa cy’ingenzi bitabaye ngombwa ko haba hari ibindi bimenyetso bibushyigikira31. [73] Mu gace ka mirongo itandatu na karindwi (67) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rubanza rwasobanuye ko ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko hari amabaruwa DAM yandikiye Inkiko Gacaca yirega anemera ibyaha harimo iyo ku wa 6/12/2007 yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Rwezamenyo n’iyo ku wa 21/9/2005 yandikiye Perezida w’inama mpuzabikorwa w’Urukiko Gacaca rw’Akagari ka Kabuguru atavugamo ibijyanye n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yabereye mu rugo rwe, nta shingiro bifite kuko muri ayo mabaruwa yavugaga ibikorwa yakoze bimureba ku giti cye, ikindi kuba ataravuzemo ibirebana n’iyo nama bikaba bitavuze ko itabayeho kubera ko

30 “La Chambre peut statuer sur la foi d’un témoignage unique, dès lors qu’à son avis, ce témoignage est pertinent et crédible”, affaire n° ICTR-96- 13-T, Le Procureur contre Alfred Musema du 27 janvier 2000, par. 43. 31 Voir aussi arrêt IT-04-84-A. Haradinaj et al, par. 219 : “La Chambre d’appel rappelle qu’une chambre de première instance peut se fonder sur la déposition d’un seul témoin pour formuler ses constatations. La déposition d’un seul témoin même sur un fait essentiel peut être versée au dossier sans avoir à être corroborée” et Arrêt Tadić, par. 65.

## Page 178

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko rwasanze hari ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bigaragaza ko yabayeho. [74] Na none mu gace ka mirongo itandatu n’icyenda (69), urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye ko kuba DAM ataratanze amakuru ku birebana n’iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 mu gihe yaburanaga muri Gacaca bitatuma igihe ayavugiye adahabwa ishingiro, ndetse bitavuze ko iyo nama itabayeho kandi ko yayikoresheje kuko iyo hasuzumwa uruhare rw’umuntu uregwa ikirebwa ari ibikorwa bye ku giti cye, ndetse n’ibimenyetso byatanzwe. Ibi bikaba bihura n’ibyemejwe n’Urukiko mpanabyaha mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda nko mu rubanza rwa Gatete Jean- Baptiste n’izindi aho Urukiko rwagaragaje ko kuba abatangabuhamya bataravuze Gatete Jean-Baptiste mu manza za Gacaca nta kamaro bimufitiye, ko kuba ataravuzwe bitavuze ko ntacyo yakoze, ko kuba bataramuvuze bishobora kuba byaratewe n’uko batamubabajijweho32. [75] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko ubuhamya bwa DAM butizewe kuko yavuze ko

32 ‘’La Défense soutient également que le nom de GATETE n’a pas été cité lors des procès gacaca tenus à Rwankuba à partir de 2003, et que BBR et AIZ n’ont pas parlé de l’accusé lorsqu’ils ont relaté pendant ces procès les faits survenus à Rwankuba en avril 1994. La Chambre estime cependant que le fait que le nom de Gatete n’ait pas été cité lors de ces procès est sans importance. C’est en effet pure hypothèse que d’affirmer que la non-mention d’un accusé dans d’autres procédures judicaires signifie nécessairement qu’il est hors de cause. La Chambre rappelle par ailleurs que BBR et AIZ ont témoigné dans des procès gacaca concernant des personnes distinctes. Il est donc plausible qu’ils n’auraient pas nécessairement fourni de manière spontanée des informations concernant Gatete et qu’on ne leur aurait pas nécessairement posé des questions à son sujet”, ICTR-2000-61-T, Le Procureur c/ Gatete Jean-Baptiste, 31 Mars 2011, p.43, par.130.

## Page 179

145 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

ubutumire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste mu nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 bwamusanze ku kazi kuri Segiteri (Murenge) mu masaha moya n’igice (7h30’) za mugitondo, nyamara kuri iyo tariki, ibintu byari bikomeye muri Nyakabanda ku buryo atashoboraga kujya gutanga ibyangombwa by’abantu batakaje amarangamuntu, kandi icyo gihe nta muntu washoboraga gusohoka adaherekejwe n’abasirikare, akazi kose kari kahagaritswe, bitahabwa agaciro kuko n’ubwo mu rubanza n° ICTR-98-41-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bagosora Théoneste n’abandi, Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwagaragaje ko ku wa 7/4/1984, Minisiteri y’Ingabo yamenyesheje abaturage urupfu rwa Perezida wa Repubulika, inabasaba kuguma mu rugo kugeza ubwo izabamenyesha andi mabwiriza, bitavuze ko nta muntu wagiye hanze ku wa 8/4/1994, kubera ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste ubwe yemeye ko kuri iyo tariki yageze ku Gitega no kuri Mirongo ine, ndetse n’abantangabuhamya Nyabyenda Jean-Marie, Murasandonyi Augustin, Mugabire Jean de Dieu na DIM33 bemeje ko kuva ku wa 7/4/1994, kuri Segiteri ( Murenge) ya Nyakabanda hagiye habera inama, na none nk’uko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yabiburanishije mu Rukiko rubanza, ashingira ku rubanza ICTR- 97-31-T rwaPerefe Renzaho Tharcisse, uyu yayoboye inama ku wa 8/4/1994 kuri Perefegitura, bivuze ko hari abantu basohokaga mu ngo. [76] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko ubuhamya bwa DAM butizewe kuko atari kumutumira mu nama ku wa 8/4/1994 nka Conseiller ya Segiteri (Umurenge) ya Nyakabanda kuko icyo gihe yari umuntu utazwi mu Buyobozi bw’Umurenge wa Nyakabanda, ko ndetse yaje kuba Conseiller gusa kuva ku wa 13/4/1994, bitahabwa agaciro kuko nta na hamwe DAM yemeje ko yatumiwe muri iyo nama nka

33 Reba ibice bya 24, 25, 26, 27 na 28 by’urubanza rujuririrwa.

## Page 180

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Conseiller w’Umurenge wa Nyakanda, ahubwo nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, yayigiyemo nk’umusimbura wa Conseiller, aza kwemezwa burundu ku wa 14/4/1994, ibi bikaba bishimangira nta shiti n’ibimenyetso byatanzwe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ubwe. Rurasanga kandi ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko atari gutumira umutangabuhamya DAM muri iyo nama kuko atari azwi mu Buyobozi bw’Umurenge wa Nyakabanda, nabyo nta gaciro byahabwa kuko kuva mu mwaka wa 1990, yabaye responsable wa Cellule Kabuguru, mu mwaka wa 1993 aba na percepteur w’isoko ya Nyamirambo abifatanije byombi, ndetse muri uwo mwaka anaba Perezida wa MRND muri iyo Cellule, akaba yaranasimburaga Conseiller wa Nyakabanda iyo yabaga arwaye. [77] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko ubuhamya bwa DAM butizewe kuko mu Nkiko Gacaca atamuvuze ku rutonde rw’abakoze jenoside muri Nyakabanda, ndetse akaba ataravuze inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 aregwa, bitahabwa agaciro kubera ko nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru mu mirongo y’amategeko abiteganya, atagaragaza inenge ku bisobanuro byatanzwe n’Urukiko rwabanje rusubiza kuri iki kibazo, kandi bikaba bitemewe ko mu bujurire, uwajuriye agaruka (asubira) gusa ku ngingo ze yaburanishije ku rwego rwa mbere, zitahawe ishingiro, atagaragaje amakosa Urukiko rwabanje rwaba rwarakoze ruzitesha agaciro n’uko ayo makosa agomba gukosorwa. [78] Ku bivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko ubuhamya bwa DFM butagombaga gushingirwaho n’Urukiko rubanza rumuhamya ibyaha aregwa, kuko butiziwe ku mpamvu y’uko yavuze ko amuzi muri BNR mu mwaka wa 1980, nyamara we yaratangiyeyo akazi mu mwaka wa 1982, ndetse n’ibindi

## Page 181

147 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

byose yavuze, akaba yarabibwiwe na DAM n’abantu bakoranaga, atari ibintu yiboneye, bitahabwa agaciro kuko hashingiwe ku mirongo yagaragajwe haruguru, nta gitangaje ko nyuma y’imyaka mirongo itatu n’itandatu (36), umuntu yakwibeshya ku matariki cyangwa ku mwaka ibintu asobanura bibaye, kandi kwibeshya kuri ibyo bintu bikaba bitatesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya bwatanzwe kuko ari utuntu dutoya tutagira ingaruka ku bikorwa bigize ibyaha uregwa akurikiranyweho, by’umwihariko muri uru rubanza iyo myaka ivugwa ikaba irebana n’igihe umutangabuhamya DFM yamenyanye na Mugimba Jean Baptiste. Rurasanga kandi hashingiwe ku murongo watanzwe ku birebana n’amabwire wagaragajwe haruguru, nta kosa Urukiko rwabanje rwakoze rushingira ku mvugo za DAM kuko harebwe ububasha bw’Urukiko bwo gusuzuma mu bwigenge no mu bushishozi bwarwo ibimenyetso byose rwashyikirijwe, harebwe na none intego y’amategeko y’ibimenyetso yo gushakisha ukuri, Inkiko zemera ibimenyetso biziguye cyangwa ibimenyetso bishingiye ku mabwire iyo byizewe. [79] Ku birebana n’ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko Urukiko rubanza rutari gushingira ku mvugo z’umutangabuhamya umwe, ariwe DAM, rwemeza ko yakoze ibyaha yahamijwe kuko ubuhamya bw’umuntu umwe budahagije mu kwemeza ko uregwa afite uruhare mu bikorwa aregwa, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nta gaciro byahabwa kubera ko uretse ko yivuguruza ndetse ibyo avuga ataribyo, kuko urwo Rukiko rwashingiye no ku mvugo z’umutangabuhamya DFM, akaba atagaragaza inenge ku bisobanuro byatanzwe mu rubanza rujuririrwa, rusobanura ko Urukiko rushobora gushingira ku mvugo z’umutangabuhamya umwe mu kwemeza ko uwakurikiranyweho icyaha afite

## Page 182

148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

uruhare ku byo aregwa mu gihe rusanga bufite ireme kandi uwabutanze yakwizerwa. [80] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose byagaragajwe mu bika bibanziriza icyi, Urukiko rw’Ubujuirire rurasanga Mugimba Jean Baptiste atagaragaza ko Urukiko rwabanje rwakoze amakosa yo kumuhamya ibyaha aregwa rushingira ku buhamya butizewe, bityo iyi ngingo ye y’ubujurire ikaba nta shingiro ifite. c. Kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rwaranyuranije n’umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bigatuma ruca urubanza rushingiye ku buhamya buvuguruzanya. [81] Mu mwanzuro wa Mugimba Jean Baptiste avuga ko DAM na Nyabyenda Jean- Marie Vianney ari abatangabuhamya batanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, baje kuvuguruzanya imbere y’Urukiko rwabanje, aho bombi bemera ko babaye mu nama imwe, ku wa 8/4/1994, yateguye ubwicanyi bwabereye muri Segiteri Nyakabanda, DAM akavuga ko yabereye kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste, Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney we akavuga ko yabereye kuri Etat-Major y’Interahamwe zo muri Nyakabanda, nyamara Urukiko rwabanje rubirengaho, rurenga no ku bindi bimenyetso byose bishinjura Mugimba Jean Baptiste yatanze, rushingira ku gice kimwe cy’ubuhamya bwa DAM gishinja gusa, akaba asaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gushingira ku byemejwe mu rubanza no RPAA 0034/10/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 8/11/2013,34 ko kuvuguruzanya mu buhamya bibutesha agaciro, aho rwasobanuye ko mu gihe abatangabuhamya bavuga mu buryo butandukanye ibintu bemeza ko baboneye igihe kimwe,

34 Muri urwo rubanza, Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Nshiyimana Samuel.

## Page 183

149 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

ubuhamya bwabo bwose butashingirwaho ngo uregwa ahamwe n’icyaha, ko rero kuba abatangabuhamya bombi (DAM na Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney) bavuguruzanya ku birebana n’inama bavuga ko yabaye ku wa 8/4/1994, kuvuguruzanya kwabo bidakwiye kumubangamira we nk’uregwa, ahubwo bitesha agaciro ikirego gishingiye ku mvugo zabo zimushinja icyaha. [82] Mu iburanisha, Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko icyo banenga urubanza rujuririrwa, ari uko ku birebana n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, Urukiko rubanza rwemeje ko ubuhamya bwa DAM bwizeye, nyamara buvuguruzwa n’ubundi buhamya bwatanzwe n’abandi batangabuhamya batanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, aribo Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney, Kivuta Regero Innocent na Imananibishaka Jean Berchmans. Basobanura ko urwo Rukiko rwanze gufata uko bikwiye imvugo zabo kuko uretse Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney wavuze mu Rukiko ko iyo nama yabereye kuri Etat-major y’iterahamwe muri Nyakabanda, abandi bose bavuze ko batazi iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, ko rero hari ukuvuguruzanya hagati y’imvugo zabo n’iyo ya DAM wemeza ko iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yabereye mu rugo kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste, bityo guha agaciro ubuhamya bwa DAM agaciro binyuranyije n’umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza no RPAA 0034/10/CS rwavuzwe haruguru. [83] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko iyi mpamvu y’ubujurire nta shingiro ifite cyane ko urubanza rushingirwaho rudahura n’urubanza rujuririrwa, bugasobanura ko mu rubanza no RPAA 0034/10/CS, ikibazo cyahawe umurongo ari igihe abatangabuhamya babiri bavuga ko babonye ibintu bimwe mu gihe kimwe bakabivuga mu buryo butandukanye, nyamara ku bireba abatangabuhamya DAM na Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney bo bakaba batavuguruzanya, ahubwo kuva mu iperereza bavugaga

## Page 184

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibirebana n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 mu buryo bumwe, ariko nyuma mu Rukiko Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney aza guhindura imvugo biturutse ku mafaranga yahawe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste, ariyo mpamvu ibirebana no guhindura imvugo kwa Nyabyenda Jean-Baptiste Ubushinjacyaha bwabijuririye. [84] Mu iburanisha, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko kuba Kivuta Regero Innocent na Imananibishaka Jean Berchmans bavuze ko batazi inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, DAM akavuga ko ayizi, ibi atari ukuvuguruzanya kuvugwa kandi kusobanurwa muri urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [85] Impaka ziri muri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste ni ukumenya niba Urukiko rubanza rutarubahirije umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza no RPAA 0034/10/CS, ruha agaciro ubuhamya bwa DAM kandi buvugurazanya n’ubwa bandi batangabuhamya aribo Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney, Kivuta Regero Innocent na Imananibishaka Jean Berchmans, ibi bikaba byaratumye atabona ubutabera bukwiye. [86] Nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza no RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA35 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/7/2023, rusuzuma ikibazo cyo kumenya icyizere imvugo z’abatangabuhamya zifitiwe ku buryo zashingirwaho nk’ikimenyetso gifatika mu rubanza, ihame ku birebana

35 Reba urubanza no RPAA/Gén. 00002/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/7/2023, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Twahirwa François.

## Page 185

151 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

n’ubuhamya ni uko umutangabuhamya avuga mu Rukiko ibyo yiboneye cyangwa ibyo yumvise mu buryo butaziguye, ko Urukiko rwonyine rusuzuma mu bushishozi icyizere cyangwa ireme bukwiye guhabwa. [87] Mu rubanza no RPAA 0034/10/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 8/11/2013, nk’uko bigaragara mu gace karwo ka cumi na kane (14), urwo Rukiko rwasanze mu batangabuhamya babajijwe bashinja uregwa kuba yarasambanyije umwana utarageza ku myaka cumi n’ine (14), ari Umubyeyi Francine, umubyeyi w’umwana bivugwa ko yasambanyijwe, wavuze ko ku munsi ibyo biba mu gihe cya nimugoroba, yabajije aho umwana we ari, bamubwira ko ari kumwe n’uregwa, yisubirira mu nzu, yanavuze ko nyuma yahamagaye uregwa amusaba kumuzanira umwana we, uyu amusohokana amuteruye asinzira, ko nyuma yaje kumukarabya, akoze ku gitsina umwana avuza induru, arebye abona hariho udusebe n’amasohoro, ngo ahita ajya kubyereka kwa shebuja w’uregwa ari we Gatete. Undi wabajijwe ni Ugirase Goretti, uyu akaba ari umukobwa W’umubyeyi Francine, we wavuze ko bashatse umwana hose bakamubura, nyina atangira kumutuka, babona uregwa amusohokanye kwa Gatete amuteruye, ko ku mugoroba ari bwo nyina yabonye ko umwana we yangiritse ubwo yamwuhagiraga akajya kubibwira kwa nyirabuja w’uregwa. Ibi ariko bikaba bitandukanye n’ibyo nyina avuga ko yahamagaye Samuel ngo amuzane (kuko yari azi neza ko ari ho ari). [88] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka cumi na gatanu (15) k’urwo rubanza, nyuma yo gusuzuma izo mvugo ebyiri, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasobanuye ko ibivugwa n’abo batangabuhamya bitandukanye kuko umwe avuga ko yahamagaye uregwa ngo amuzanire umwana, undi akavuga ko uregwa ubwe wamuzanye

## Page 186

152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nyuma yo kumubura, ko rero kuba ibyatangajwe n’abo batangabuhamya, bavuga mu buryo butandukanye ibintu bemeza ko baboneye igihe kimwe, rutabishingiraho ngo rwemeze nta shiti ko Nshimiyimana Samuel ahamwa n’icyaha aregwa, cyane cyane ko batanavuga ko bamubonye akora icyaha cyangwa se ngo babe barabyumvanye abamubonye, binakubitiyeho ko na Gatete, shebuja w’uregwa, avuga ko yari yahiriwe, ariko akaba atarabonye amwangiza. [89] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka makumyabiri na rimwe (21) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, DAM yabwiye Urukiko rwabanje ko ku wa 8/4/1994 yazindukiye ku biro bya Segiteri agiye gutanga ibyangombwa ku bantu bari barataye indangamuntu, bigeze nka saa moya n’igice, uwitwa Nkamirabashaka Sostène aza kumubwira ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste amushaka iwe, ajyayo ahagera saa moya n’iminota mirongo itatu n’itanu (7h 35’), ahasanga abantu batandukanye bari mu nzu bagera kuri cumi na babiri (12) n`abandi benshi bagera ku munani (8) bari hanze barinze abari mu nzu, ko nka saa mbiri (8h00’), Mugimba Jean Baptiste yabakoresheje inama yagejeje nka saa yine n’igice (10h30’), ko uretse we wari uhagarariye Konseye wa Nyakabanda, nta wundi mukonseye wari uyirimo. [90] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka makumyabiri na kane (24) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, Nyabyenda Jean-Marie yabwiye Urukiko rubanza ko nta nama yabereye kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste ku wa 8/4/1994 azi, ko icyo yibuka yanasobanuriye Ubushinjacyaha, ari uko kuri iyo tariki ku kabari k’uwitwa Musonera mu Kagari ka Munanira, Segiteri ya Nyakabanda aho abayobozi b’ishyaka rya CDR n’irya MRND bateraniraga, bakahita kuri Etat Major y’interahamwe, habereye inama yari yatumijwe na Ntamfurayishyari.

## Page 187

153 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

[91] Mu gace ka mirongo itanu na gatanu (55) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rubanza rwagaragaje ko mu Bugenzacyaha, Imananibishaka Jean Berchmans alias Barananiye Sukari yavuze ko nta ruhare rwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste muri jenoside yamenye, ko icyo azi ari uko aho yari atuye bahitaga muri CDR. [92] Na none mu gace ka mirongo itanu n’icyenda (59) k’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rwabanje rwagaragaje ko mu Bugenzacyaha, Kivuta Regero Innocent yavuze ko nta nama yayobowe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste yagiyemo, ko nta n’izindi manza bigeze bahuriramo. [93] Isuzuma ry’ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza no RPAA 0034/10/CS rwavuzwe haruguru, rigaragaza ko urwo Rukiko rwatesheje agaciro ubwo buhamya kuko abo batangabuhamya bavugaga mu buryo butandukanye ibintu babonye igihe kimwe, nyamara muri uru rubanza bikaba atariko bimeze kuko umutangabuhamya DAM yemeza ko hari inama yabereye mu rugo kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste ku wa 8/4/1994 mu gihe Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney, Kivuta Regero Innocent na Imananibishaka Jean Berchmans alias Barananiye Sukari bavuze ko batazi iyo nama, bivuze ko nta gutandukanya kuri mu mvugo zabo ku bikorwa baba baraboneye igihe kimwe. [94] Hashingiwe ku bivugwa mu gace kabanziriza aka, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Urukiko rwabanje rutarakoze ikosa ryo kutubahiriza umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza no RPAA 0034/10/CS, kuko ibyasuzumwe muri urwo rubanza bidasa cyangwa bitandukanye n’ibigize impaka muri uru rubanza. [95] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ahubwo hashingiwe ku murongo wagaragajwe haruguru watanzwe n’uru Rukiko mu

## Page 188

154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rubanza no RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA, Urukiko rwabanje rwarasuzumye mu bushishozi bwarwo icyizere cyangwa ireme bikwiye guhabwa ubwo buhamya, rushakisha ukuri ku byabaye, rwemeza ko ubuhamya bwa DAM bwizewe kuko asobanura neza uko yatumiwe muri iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 nk’umuyobozi muri Segiteri Nyakabanda, akagaragaza abari bayirimo, ibyemezo byayifatiwemo birimo kwirwanaho barwanya ibyitso, gukora urutonde rw’abagomba kwicwa no gusaba imbunda zo gukoresha mu kwica Abatutsi. [96] Uretse n’ibyo, nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Rusesa imanza rwo mu Bufaransa, ku birebana n’ubuhamya bwatanzwe buvuguruzanya, Umucamanza asuzuma agaciro kabwo,niyo asanga buvuguruzanya, ashobora kwemeza ko ubuhamya runaka bwizewe kuko buvugisha ukuri mu buryo budashindikanywaho36. Ibi byumvikanisha ko atari buri gihe uko Urukiko ruhuye n’ubuhamya buvuguruzanya, rubutesha agaciro. [97] Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste nta shingiro ifite.

36 ‘’ (….), le juge peut apprécier la valeur des témoignages et choisir, s’ils sont contradictoires, ceux qui lui semblent les plus sincères’’, Crim., 27 mars 1931, B.C., n° 93; 13 janvier 1960, B.C., n°17, in Jean Pradel, Procédure pénale, 10e édition, Cujas, Paris, 2000, P. 680, n° 784.

## Page 189

155 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

d. Kumenya niba Urukiko rubanza rwarahamije Mugimba Jean Baptiste icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside rutagaragaje umugambi wihariye wo gukora ibyo byaha yaba yaragize [98] Mu mwanzuro no mu miburanire yabo, Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze amakosa yo kumuhamya icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside, nyamara rutagaragaje umugambi wihariye wo gukora ibyo byaha yaba yaragize. [99] Ku birebana n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside rwamuhamije, Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwakimuhamije rushingiye ku bikorwa byo gushyirishaho za bariyeri, gukora liste, gusaba no gutanga imbunda no gutoza interahamwe, nyamara ibyo bikorwa ubwabyo bidashobora gufatwa nk’icyaha ahubwo icyari kigamijwe ari ukwirwanaho kw’abaturage (Défense civile), hakurikije ibyavuzwe n’umutangabuhamya DAM, aho kuba gucura umugambi wa jenoside, ko rero mu kumuhamya icyo cyaha, Urukiko Rukuru rutagaragaje ubushake bwe bwihariye bwo gukora icyaha cya jenoside na cyane ko Urukiko ubwarwo rwari rwemeje ko nta gikorwa na kimwe cya jenoside yagizemo uruhare. [100] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira basobanura ko mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (ICTR) nk’urwa Gatete Jean-Baptiste, urwa Musema Alfred, urwa Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be, urwa Nyiramasuhuko Pauline na bagenzi be n’izindi, hasobanuwe ko gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ari ubwumvikane abantu nibura babiri (2) bagirana bagamije gukora jenoside, ko

## Page 190

156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kumvikana ari cyo gikorwa gifatika kigize icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, ko kandi uretse icyo gikorwa gifatika kigizwe n’ubwumvikane bwo gukora icyo cyaha, ugikora agomba kuba anafite umugambi wihariye wo gukora jenoside, usobanurwa nk‘ubushake bwihariye bwo kurimbura itsinda ry’abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini bazira icyo bari cyo, ariko ko mu guhamya Mugimba Jean Baptiste icyo cyaha, Urukiko Rukuru rutubahirije ibyo byose, ngo rugaragaze mu buryo budashidikanywaho ubwumvikane yagiranye n’abandi bwo kurimbura Abatutsi nk’umugambi wihariye. Mu gusoza basaba uru Rukiko ko kuba hataragaragajwe uwo mugambi wihariye, yagirwa umwere nk’uko byagenze mu rubanza rwa Minisitiri Ntagerura André rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda. [101] Ku birebana n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside, Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwakoze amakosa yo kukimuhamya rushingiye ku kuba DAM yaremeje ko mu nama yabereye iwe ku wa 8/4/1994, Mugimba Jean Baptiste ari we wasabye imbunda Koloneli Hakizimana Edouard akaba arizo zicishijwe Abatutsi. Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganirabasobanura ko uretse no kuba izo mbunda ntazo yasabye, n’ubwo icyo gikorwa ashinjwa cyaba cyarabaye, Urukiko rwabanje rutagombaga kumuhamya icyo cyaha, kuko ubwacyo ari igikorwa kidafatwa nk’icyaha mu gihe hatagaragajwe umuntu wishwe n’iyo mbunda yatanzwe cyangwa ngo hagaragazwe ko izo mbunda zasabwe zikanatangwa hagamijwe gukora jenoside. [102] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko impamvu y’uko Urukiko rubanza rutagaragaje umugambi wihariye wa

## Page 191

157 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

Mugimba Jean Baptiste mu byaha rwahamuhamije nta shingiro ikwiye guhabwa, kuko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze ibyo rwagombaga gukora, ndetse mu gika cya 82 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa rugaragaza ko uwo mugambi wihariye wabayeho. [103] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha basobanura ko mu rubanza rwa Niyitegeka Eliezer, mu gika cya 423, hamwe no mu rubanza rwa Musema Alfred, Urukiko Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) rwasobanuye ko kuba abantu baruhuye bakavuga uko ubwicanyi bugiye gukorwa ubwabyo bihanirwa kabone n’aho nta bantu baba bishwe, naho kuri Niyitegeka Eliezer (mu gika cya 427), urwo Rukiko (TPIR) rwagaragaje ko kuba yaragiye mu nama ya Kayishema na Ruzindana Obed zigafatirwamo ibyemezo byo gutanga intwaro no gutera abantu bari bahungiye mu Bisesero, uko guhura ubwabyo bihanirwa, ko bihujwe n’uru rubanza, uwari mu nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yavuze ko icyari kigamijwe ari ukubabwira ko indege ya Perezida Habyarimana yahanuwe, ko bagomba kwirwanaho, ko muri iyo nama Mugimba Jean Baptiste yasabye imbunda, hakorwa amalisite y’abazicwa ndetse na Mugimba Jean-Baptiste agira abo atanga bagomba kwicwa, ndetse koko abo bantu baza kwicwa, bikaba byumvikana ko haba mu gutanga imbunda, gushyiraho bariyeri no gukora liste z’abagomba kwicwa, icyari kigamijwe kwari ukwica Abatutsi, ari naho hagaragarira umugambi wihariye wo gukora jenoside nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabyemeje. [104] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga kandi ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yabaye icyitso muri jenoside kuko yatanze imbunda, kandi izo mbunda ari zo zifashishijwe mu kwica Abatutsi biciwe kuri bariyeri zitandukanye nk’uko byemejwe n’abatangabuhamya DAM na DFM.

## Page 192

158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [105] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rutaragaragaje umugambi wihariye (élément intentionnnel spécial-dol spécial) wa Mugimba Jean Baptiste wo gucura umugambi (Conspiration) wa jenoside n’uwo kuba icyitso muri jenoside, ku buryo yagombaga kugirwa umwere. i. Ku birebana n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside [106] Ingingo ya 20 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange iteganya ko ‘’ Gucura umugambi wo gukora icyaha ari ubwumvikane hagati y’abantu babiri (2) cyangwa benshi bugamije gukora icyaha cyakorwa n’umwe cyangwa benshi muri bo’’. [107] Ingingo ya 91 y’iryo Tegeko ivuga ko : ‘’icyaha cya jenoside ari ukwica abantu, kubatera ubumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa bwo mu mutwe, kubashyira ubigambiriye mu mibereho ishobora gutuma barimbuka bose cyangwa harimbuka igice cyabo, gufata ibyemezo bibabuza kubyara no kubambura ku ngufu urubyaro rwabo ukaruha abandi bantu badahuje, bikozwe bigambiriwe, bigamije kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, haba mu bihe bisanzwe cyangwa mu bihe by'intambara’’. [108] Ingingo ya 93, agace ka mbere (1°), y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko bitabangamiye ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iri tegeko ku byerekeye ubwinjiracyaha, gucura umugambi wo gukora icyaha n’ubufatanyacyaha, gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside bihanishwa ibihano biteganyirijwe icyaha cya jenoside.

## Page 193

159 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

[109] Izo ngingo zumvikanisha ko gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside bifatwa nk’icyaha cya jenoside ku buryo ubushake bwihariye bwo gukora ibyo byaha byombi ari bumwe, bivuze ko ubwumvikane hagati y’abantu babiri (2) cyangwa benshi bwo gukora jenoside buba bugamije kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, byakorwa n’umwe cyangwa benshi muri bo. [110] Ibivugwa mu gace kabanziriza aka ni nabyo byemejwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (ICTR), aho rwasobanuye ko ubushake (élément moral ou intentionnel) bugize icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside bugaragarira mu bwumvikane buhuriweho n’abantu benshi, bugamije gukora icyaha cya jenoside, ni ukuvuga kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini37.

37 ‘’ S’agissant de l’élément moral constitutif de l’infraction d’entente en vue de commettre le génocide, la Chambre relève qu’il reside dans l’intention concertée de commettre le génocide, c’est à dire de détruire, en tout ou en partie, un groupe national, ethnique, racial ou religieux comme tel. il appert ainsi à la chambre que l’intention requise pour le crime d’entente en vue de commetre le génocide est ipso facto l’intention requise pour le crime de génocide, soit le dol spécial caractéristique de ce dernier’’, reba agace ka 192 k’urubanza n° ICTR-96-13-T rwa Musema Alfred. ‘’ L’entente en vue de commettre le génocide (….), est définie comme une resolution d’agir sur laquelle au moins deux personnes se sont accordées, en vue de commettre un génocide. Cet accord entre des individus ayant pour but la commission du génocide (ou résolution d’agir concertée) e constitue l’élément matériel (actus reus); en outre, les indivudus parties à l’accord doivent être animés de l’intention de détruire en tout ou en partie un groupe national, ethnique, racial ou religieux comme tel ethnique,

## Page 194

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[111] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka 78, 79, 80, 81 na 82, rushingiye ku ngingo ya 20, iya 93, agace ka mbere (1°), y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ku ngingo ya 3 b. y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 9/12/1948 arebana no gukumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside, u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono ku wa 12/2/1975, ku manza zitandukanye38 zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda39no ku rubanza n° RPA/Gen 0001/15/CS40 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rwabanje rwasobanuye ko kuba Mugimba Jean Baptiste yaratumije inama iwe mu rugo igakorerwamo ubwumvikane bwo kwica Abatutsi bo muri Segiteri Nyakabanda, rukabihuza n‘ibimaze gusobanurwa ku birebana n’ingingo z’amategeko zavuzwe, ku manza zaciwe no ku bimenyetso, rwemeje ko

racial ou religieux comme tel (l’élément intntionnel ou mens rea)’’, reba agace ka 894 k’urubanza n° ICTR 99-52-A rwa Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be. 38 Urubanza n° ICTR-2000-61-T rwa Gatete Jean-Baptiste, urubanza n° ICTR- 96-13-T rwa Musema Alfred, urubanza n° ICTR n° ICTR-99-52-A rwa Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be, urubanza n° ICTR-98-42-T rwa Nyiramasuhuko Pauline na bagenzi be n’urubanza n° ICTR-98-44D-T rwa Nzabonimana Callixte. 39 Urukiko rubanze rwagaragaje ko muri izo manza, urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye ko gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ari ubwumvikane abantu nibura babiri (2) bagirana bagamije gukora jenoside, ko kumvikana ari cyo gikorwa gifatika kigize icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. Rwasobanuye kandi ko uretse icyo gikorwa gifatika kigizwe n’ubwumvikane bwo gukora icyo cyaha, ugikora agomba kuba anafite umugambi wihariye wo gukora jenoside, usobanurwa nk‘ubushake bwihariye bwo kurimbura itsinda ry’abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo. 40 Urubanza n° RPA/Gen 0001/15/CS rwa Bandora Charles, rwaciwe ku wa 22/3/2019.

## Page 195

161 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

ahamwa n‘icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside giteganywa n’ingingo ya 93, agace ka mbere (1o) y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 ryavuzwe. [112] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga n’ubwo Urukiko rubanza rutavuze mu buryo butaziguye (direct) ubushake bwihariye (dol spécial) bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste bwo gukora icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, ariko isuzuma rya gace ka mirongo inani (80) k’urubanza rujuririrwa aho ku birebana n’ubushake bwihariye bwo gukora icyo cyaha, rwagarutse ku byemejwe mu rubanza n° ICTR-98-44D-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Nzabonimana Callixte, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, ko ubwumvikane bwo gukora jenoside bukorwa bugamije (ubushake bwihariye) kurimbura itsinda ry’abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, rigaragaza nta shiti ko rwagaragaje mu buryo buziguye (implicitement) ko rwasanze mu nama yabereye iwe ku wa 8/4/1994, Mugimba Jean Baptiste yarumvikanye n’abandi kwica Abatutsi bagamije kurimbura ubwoko bwabo. [113] Ku birebana n’ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko ibyo aregwa ko mu nama ivugwa yumvikanye n’abandi gushyirishyaho za bariyeri, gukora liste y’abantu bagomba kwicwa, gusaba no gutanga imbunda no gutoza interahamwe, ubwabyo bidashobora gufatwa nk’icyaha, ko ahubwo ibyemejwe muri iyo nama, nk’uko byavuzwe n’umutangabuhamya DAM bigomba gufatwa nka auto-défense civile, nk’uko byemejwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga n’ubwo Mugimba Jean Baptiste ashaka kugaragaza ko n’ubwo iyo nama yaba yarabaye, yari kuba igamije gushyiraho

## Page 196

162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

auto-défense civile, bitahabwa agaciro kuko Urukiko rubanza rwagaragaje ko iyo nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yabayeho ndetse n’impamvu zishimangira ko ibyumvikanyweho byari bigamije kurimbura Abatutsi. Rurasanga kandi harebwe igihe iyo nama yabereye, n’ubwo havuzwemo n’Abahutu batavugaga rumwe n’ishyaka rya MRND, bitakuraho ko icya mbere cyari kigambiriwe, ari kurimbura ubwoko bw’Abatutsi, nk’uko byasobanuwe mu rubanza n° ICTR -98-41-T, Urukiko rubishingiye ku mvugo z’umuhanga41. [114] Ku bivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagaragaje mu buryo budashidikanywaho ubushake bwe bwihariye bwo gukora icyaha cya jenoside kuko rwemeje ko nta gikorwa na kimwe cya jenoside yagizemo uruhare, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga bitahabwa agaciro kuko ku birebana n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, kugira ngo hemezwe ko ukurikiranweho icyo cyaha yagikoze, bidasaba ko hagaragazwa ko ku giti cye hari kimwe mu bikorwa bigize icyaha cya jenoside yaba yarakoze, ari nabyo Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwasobanuye mu rubanza n° ICTR-96-13-T42.

41 Umuhanga Alison Des Forges yasobanuye ibi bikurikira: ‘’ qu’à l’origine, la défense civile avait pour vocation de répondre à la situation créée par la reprise des hostilités par le FPR, en février 1993, ce qui était tout à fait compréhensible. À son dire, elle s’était transformée au fil du temps en se donnant notamment pour mission, postérieurement au 6 avril 1994, de perpétrer des attaques contre les Tutsis’’, reba agace ka 490 k’urwo rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na BAGOSORA Théoneste n’abagenzi be. 42 ‘’S’agissant du crime d’entente en vue de commettre le génocide, c’est bien l’acte d’entente per se, autrement dit le proceed de l’entente, qui est incriminé et non pas son résultat. La Chambre remarque à cet égard que, aussi bien dans

## Page 197

163 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

[115] Hashingiwe ku byagaragajwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko Urukiko rwabanje rutagaragaje mu buryo budashidikanywaho ubushake bwe bwihariye bwo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, nta shingiro bifite. ii. Ku birebana n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside [116] Mu rubanza n° RP/GEN 00002/2017/HC/HCCIC rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ntamabyaliro Agnès, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiye ku byemejwe mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza n° ICTR- 96-4-T rwaciwe ku wa 2/9/1998, hagati y’Ubushinjacyaha na Akayezu Jean-Paul43, rwasobanuye ko ubushake bwo kuba icyitso muri jenoside bugaragara mu gihe uregwa kuba icyitso mu cyaha cya jenoside yafashije cyangwa yahagarikiye cyangwa yashutse, azi icyo abigiriye kandi abishaka, undi muntu cyangwa abandi bantu gukora jenoside, azi neza ko uwo muntu cyangwa abo bantu barimo gukora jenoside, n’ubwo uregwa yaba atari afite umugambi wo kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa idini, bazira icyo baricyo.

les systèmes d’inspiration romano-continentale que dans ceux de tradition anglo-saxonne, le crime d’entente est considéré comme une infraction formelle, ou inchoate, pour laquelle seul compte l’acte criminel en tant que tel, et non le résultat de cet acte. La Chanbre est d’avis que le crime d’entente en vue de commettre le génocide est reprehensible même s’il n’a pas été suivi d’effet, c’est-à-dire même si l’infraction principale, en l’occurnce le génocide, n’a pas été réalisé’’. Reba agace ka 193 n’aka 194 k’urwo rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred. 43 Reba agace ka 545 k’urubanza n° ICTR-96-4-T rwaciwe ku wa 2/9/1998.

## Page 198

164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[117] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gace ka 177 n’aka 178 tw’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rwabanje, rushingiye ku manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda44, rwasobanuye ko uretse ibikorwa bifatika bigize icyaha cyo kuba icyitso, mu gihe icyaha kirimo gikorwa, ugikora agomba kuba arimo gufasha ukora icyaha cy’ibanze, bivuze ko amufasha azi neza ibyo arimo gukora, ko icyakora atari ngombwa ko ugikora ubwe aba afite umugambi wo gukora jenoside nk‘ufitwe n‘uwo wakoze icyo cyaha cy‘ibanze, rwanzura ko kuba Mugimba Jean Baptiste yarasabye anatanga imbunda azi ko zizakoreshwa mu

44 “S’agissant de l’élément moral ou intentionnel de la complicité en général, la Chambre estime qu’il suppose la conscience chez l’agent, au moment où il agit, du concours qu’il apporte dans la réalisation de l’infraction principale. Autrement dit, l’agent doit avoir agi en connaissance de cause ”, reba agace ka 180 k’urubanza n° ICTR-96-13-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred. ‘’Dans les cas de complicité, la volonté criminelle requise existe dès lors que l’agent agit sachant qu’il aide l’auteur principal ou les auteurs principaux à commettre le crime matériel. Il n’est pas nécessaire que l’accusé connaisse l’infraction précise qui est entrain d’être commise par l’auteur principal ou les auteurs principaux, mais il doit avoir connaissance des éléments essentiels du crime matériel et doit avoir agi en ayant conscience qu’il soutenait de la sorte la commission du crime matériel”, reba agace ka 768 k’urubanza n° ICTR-98-44A-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Kajelijeli Juvénal. “La mens rea requise pour I'aide et I'encouragement à commettre le génocide est la connaissance que le complice avait de l’intention génocidaire qui animait les auteurs principaux “, reba agace ka 364 k’urubanza n° ICTR-96-I0-A na ICTR--17-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ntakirutimana Elisaphan na Ntakirutimana Gérald.

## Page 199

165 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

kwica Abatutsi, rusanga ahamwa n‘icyaha cyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside [118] Hashingiwe ku murongo wagaragajwe no ku bisobanuro byatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga urwo Rukiko rwaragaragaje mu buryo busobanutse ko yabaye icyitso muri jenoside kuko nyuma yo kugaragaza ibikorwa bigize icyaha cyo kuba icyitso nko gutanga ibikoresho nk’intwaro cyangwa ubundi buryo bwose bufasha gukora jenoside, gutanga inkunga cyangwa kuba hafi y’uwakoze icyaha cya jenoside mu byagiteguye cyangwa byatumye gikorwa (…)45 no kugaragaza ko ukora icyaha cyo kuba icyitso agomba kuba afasha ukora icyaha cy’ibanze azi neza ibyo arimo gukora, rwagaragaje ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste yatanze inkunga y’imbunda zicishijwe Abatutsi muri Segiteri Nyakabanda zirimo eshanu (5) yasabiye mu nama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, azitanga ku mabariyeri azi neza ko zizakoreshwa mu kwica Abatutsi. [119] Hashingiwe ku byavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nta kosa Urukiko rwabanje rwakoze ryo kutaragaza ubushake bwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste mu gukora icyaha yahamijwe cyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside. [120] Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ingingo y’ubujurire ya Mugimba Jean Baptiste y’uko Urukiko rwabanje rwamuhamije icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside rutaragaragaje umugambi wihariye yagize wo gukora ibyo byaha, nta shingiro ifite.

45 Reba agace ka 176 k’urubanza rujuririrwa.

## Page 200

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

B. Ibyerekeye ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha a. Kumenya niba Urukiko rwabanje rwarakoze ikosa ryo kudaha agaciro ubuhamya bushinja bwa Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney [121] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko habayeho gusesengura ibintu uko bitari, ndetse ko Urukiko rubanza rwirengagije ireme n’uburyo Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney yasobanuye ibyo azi neza, adategwa, anagaragaza mu myirondoro ye ko yari atuye muri cellule ya Kabuguru, kandi iyi cellule ikaba ari nayo Mugimba Jean Baptiste yari atuyemo, ko bigaragaza ko yari asanzwe amuzi kuko bari baturanye; ku bijyanye n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 ivugwa, agasobanura ko yayigiyemo nk’umusirikare kandi wakurikiraniraga hafi ibikorwa by’interahamwe n’impuzamugambi, aho avuga ko inama yari iyobowe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste afatanije na Ntamfurayishyari, ibyifuzo byabo bakabishyikiriza Col. Hakizimana Edouard, wabemereye kubaha imbunda, yohereza imodoka ye ya Toyota Hilux y’umutuku kujya kuzizana, ziratangwa, ndetse muri iyo nama hafatirwamo icyemezo cyo gushyiraho za barrières muri Secteurs Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Biryogo na Gitega, hanakorwa urutonde rw’Abatutsi bagombaga kwicwa. Buvuga kandi ko kuba Urukiko rubanza rwaravuze ko amakuru yatanze ajyanye n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 arimo urujijo, akaba ataba ikimenyetso mu rubanza, bitewe n’uburyo avuga yakoreshejwe inyandikomvugo y’ibazwa mu Bushinjacyaha, rukabiheraho ruyitesha agaciro, nta shingiro bifite kuko yabajijwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, asubiza adategwa, agaragaza itariki inama yabereyeho, aho yabereye, abayitabiriye n’ibyayivugiwemo kandi asinya nta gahato ashyizweho.

## Page 201

167 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

[122] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza busobanura ko ibyemejwe n’Urukiko rwabanje by’uko Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney yasanze inyandikomvugo yanditse, ataribyo kuko hari ubusobanuro burambuye (details) Ubushinjacyaha butari kumenya atari we ubutanze, nk’imyirondoro ye n’ibyo yakoraga mu kazi ke ka gisirikare, kuba yarabaye umutoza w’interahamwe i Gabiro n’ibindi; ko rero ubuhamya bwa Nyabyenda Jean- Marie Vianney budateye urujijo nk’uko Urukiko rwabanje rwabyemeje, ahubwo yahinduye imvugo ageze mu Rukiko, kubera ruswa yemerewe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste nk’uko nawe ubwe yabyiyemereye mu ibazwa rye rya kabiri aho yavuze ko kubera ubuzima bubi bwo muri Gereza yemeye amafaranga y’u Rwanda ibihumbi ijana (100.000 Frw) ya Mugimba Jean Baptiste akaba yari amaze kwakiraho amafaranga y’u Rwanda ibihumbi mirongo itatu (30.000 Frw), ibyo kandi hakaba hari abatangabuhamya babajijwe mu iperereza ryakozwe n’Ubushinjacyaha babyemeza, ariko Urukiko ku rwego rwa mbere rukaba rutarigeze rusuzuma inyandiko mvugo zabo ngo ruzihuze n’ibyo Nyabyenda Jean- Marie Vianney ubwe yivugiye ku bijyanye na ruswa yahawe. [123] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza busaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gushingira ku rubanza n° RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/3/2019, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles, aho muri urwo rubanza abatangabuhamya Baziga Emmanuel na Hakizimana de Gaulle basobanuye ko ibyo bavuze mu Bushinjacyaha babihatiwe, Urukiko rusanga iyo mvugo nta shingiro ifite kuko ibyo bavuze bihuye n’ibyo abandi bavuze, kandi iby’uko babivuze ku gahato bakaba batabitangira ibimenyetso; maze rwemeze ko ubuhamya bwa Nyabyenda Jean- Marie Vianney nta rujijo buteye kuko asobanura ibyo afitiye ubumenyi kandi ahuza n’ibyo abandi batangabuhamya (DAM na DFM) basobanuye, ndetse ibyo

## Page 202

168 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yavugiye imbere y’Urukiko ahindura imvugo akaba nta bimenyetso yabitangiye, byongeye kandi akaba yararanzwe no kwivuguruza aho yabanje kuvuga ko ibyo yavuze mu Bushinjacyaha yabihatiwe, ubundi avuga ko atariwe wabivuze, ubundi avuga ko yabivuze yacanganyikiwe, ubundi avuga ko yasubije uko Ubushinjacyaha bwabishakaga, ibyo byose bikaba bitari bikwiye gukuraho ireme ry’ibyo yavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha. [124] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko ubuhamya bwa Nyabyenda Jean- Marie Vianney yatangiye imbere yabwo bufite ireme, nta shingiro bifite kuko mu Bushinjacyaha uyu atigeze abazwa, ahubwo yasanze inyandikomvugo yateguwe akorerwa iyicarubozo kugira ngo ayisinye, ageze mu Rukiko Rukuru arabazwa avugisha ukuri, kandi ko ubuhamya bwemewe n’amategeko ari ubutangiwe mu Rukiko. Bavuga kandi ko bitumvikana ukuntu Ubushinjacyaha bwakwifuza ko Urukiko rwashingira ku nyandikomvugo bwikoreshereje bwifashishije abatangabuhamya babwo DAM na DFM batavugisha ukuri, mu gihe butigeze bukurikirana mu buryo bukurikije amategeko icyaha cya ruswa buvuga ko cyabaye, ngo bugaragaze ko ibikubiye muri izo nyandikomvugo z’abatangabuhamya bwatanze ari ukuri. [125] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bakomeza bavuga ko inyandikomvugo z’abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha zigaragaza ko icyaha cya ruswa cyakozwe mu mwaka wa 2018, mu gihe abatangabuhamya DAM na DFM bitabye Urukiko kugira ngo batange ubuhamya bwabo bushinja Mugimba Jean Baptiste, umwe ku wa 9/10/2018 (DAM) naho undi (DFM) ku wa 19/12/2018 no ku wa 17/1/2019, ntihagira n’umwe muri bo ubwira Urukiko ibirebana n’icyo cyaha cya ruswa mu buhamya

## Page 203

169 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

bwe, kandi Ubushinjacyaha bugaragaza ko izo nyandikomvugo zari zarakozwe mbere y’uko bitaba Urukiko, basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kwemeza ko ubuhamya bwa Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney yatangiye imbere y’Urukiko, ku matariki ya 29/1/2019, 10/4/2019 na 16/5/2019 aribwo bwemewe n’Itegeko, bukanashingirwaho, Mugimba Jean Baptiste akagirwa umwere kuko bumushinjura. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [126] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumenya niba ubuhamya bwatanzwe na Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney mu Bushinjacyaha bufite ireme ku buryo bwagombaga gushingirwaho mu guhamya Mugimba Jean Baptiste ibyaha aregwa. [127] Ku birebana n’agaciro gahabwa ubuhamya, ingingo ya 53 y’Itegeko n° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/6/2024 rigenga ibimenyetso ivuga ko “Urwego rufite ububasha rusuzuma ukwemerwa cyangwa ukutemerwa n’agaciro by’ikimenyetso gishingiye ku buhamya. Ntirwita ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya, ahubwo rwita cyane ku bumenyi bw’ibyabaye no ku budakemwa bw’ubuhamya batanga”. [128] Ibivugwa muri iyi ngingo bihura n’ibyemejwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’uru Rukiko nk’urubanza no RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA46 n’urubanza no RPAA 00050/2024/CA47, Urukiko rwonyine rusuzuma mu bushishozi icyizere cyangwa

46 Reba urubanza no RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/7/2023, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Twahirwa François. 47 Reba urubanza no RPAA 00050/2024/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 26/4/2024, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Shema Ernest.

## Page 204

170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ireme ubuhamya bwatanzwe bukwiye guhabwa. Ari nabyo byemejwe mu rubanza n° ICTR- 01-72-A rwaciwe ku wa 18 Werurwe 2010 n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, Urugereko rw'ubujurire, Simon Bikindi aburana n’Ubushinjacyaha, aho mu gika cyarwo cya 119, rwemeje ko “Mu kugena uburemere bw’ibimenyetso byerekeranye n’ubuhamya, Urukiko ari rwo rufite ububasha (discrétion) bwo kwita ku birebana nabwo byose48”. [129] By’umwihariko, ku birebana n’ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’umutangabuhamya ku rwego rw’iperereza, buvuguruzanya n’ubwo yatanze mu Rukiko, Urukiko Rusesa imanza rwo mu Bubiligi rwemeje ko Urukiko rusuzumana ubushishozi agaciro bukwiye guhabwa, rukemeza ubwizewe49, bivuze ko Urukiko rushobora mu bushishozi bwarwo kwemeza ko ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’umutangabuhamya mu rwego rw’iperereza bwizewe kuruta ubwatanzwe mu Rukiko, cyangwa rukemeza ko ubwatanzwe mu Rukiko aribwo bwizewe kuruta ubwantanzwe mu rwego rw’iperereza.

48 “In determining the weight to attach to the evidence of any witness, the Trial Chamber has a broad discretion to consider all relevant factors.” 49 “ 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’’, Cass., 2 décembre 1974, J.T., 1975, P. 62, in in Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, op.cit., P. 1052. “Lorsqu’un témoin a été entendu à plusieurs reprises, le juge du fond apprécie souverainement en fait la foi qui doit être accordée aux déclarations successives d’un témoin et ce, conformément au principe de la libre appréciation de la prevue”, Cass., 18 février 1973, Pas., I, P. 580, Cass., 14 avril 1992, Bull., 1992, P. 732, in Henri-D. Bosly et Damien Vandermeersch, op.cit., P. 942.

## Page 205

171 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

[130] Dosiye igaragaza ko umutangabuhamya Nyabyenda Jean- Marie Vianney ari imbere y’Ubushinjacyaha ku wa 9/2/2017, yemeje ko ku itariki ya 8/4/1994, Mugimba Jean Baptiste yatumije inama mu rugo iwe igamije gutegura no gushyira mu bikorwa ubwicanyi bw’Abatutsi, yitabirwa n’abantu batandukanye nawe arimo (Nyabyendajean-Marie Vianney) nk’umusirikare wakurikiraniraga hafi ibikorwa by’interahamwe n’impuzamugambi, Col. Hakizimana Edouard uwari uyoboye ingabo mu Karere k’imirwano ka Nyamirambo, Lt. Kanyamuhanda, Lt. Musekura, Lt. Baziruwiha, Ntamfurayishyari Félix wari mu byara wa Perezida Habyarimana wakoraga muri Ambassade y’u Rwanda i Kampala, abari abayobozi ba za Segiteri (Conseillers) za Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega na Nyamirambo, abahagarariye interahamwe n’impuzamugambi muri izo Segiteri barimo Ndahayo Godefroid wa Nyakabanda, Habyarimana wa Nyamirambo, hari na Zuberi na Sitan wa Gitega. [131] Mu buhamya bwa Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney mu Bushinjacyaha yakomeje avuga ko, muri iyo nama, hafashwe icyemezo cyo gushyiraho za bariyeri muri Segiteri za Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Biryogo na Gitega, hakorwa urutonde rw’abagombaga kwicwa, hatangwa imbunda zitanzwe na Col. Hakizimana Edouard zihabwa abayobozi bari bakuriye interahamwe n’impuzamugambi, zikwirakwizwa ku ma bariyeri, harimo na bariyeri yari ku irembo kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste ihabwa umuhungu wamukoreraga witwaga Nkamiyabashaka Sostène. Yavuze kandi ko muri iyo nama Mugimba Jean Baptiste yavuze ko uwibeshya akarya amafaranga y’Abatutsi ngo arabahisha nawe agomba kujyana nabo, anavuga ko akeneye kubona umurambo wa Bizimana Loti wari umuhanzi waje kwicwa n’uwitwa Habyarimana Fréderic. Inyandikomvugo ye mu

## Page 206

172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Bushinjacyaha igaragaza ko nyuma yo kuyisoma, yemeye ko ihuye n’ibyo yavuze, ayishyiraho umukono. [132] Dosiye igaragaza ko Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney ari imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi, yahinduye imvugo ashinjura Mugimba Jean Baptiste, avuga ko inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 yahamagajwe na Ntamfurayishyari Félix iyoborwa na Col. Hakizimana Edouard wari uyoboye Akarere k’imirwano ka Kigali, ko yabereye kwa Musonera kuri Etat Major y’interahamwe mu Kagari ka Munanira, Segiteri ya Nyakabanda aho abayobozi ba CDR na MRND bateraniraga, ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste atigeze yitabira iyo nama. Yavuze kandi ko inyandikomvugo yo mu Bushinjacyaha yasanze iteguwe ayisinyishwa ku gahato50. [133] Nk’uko byagarutsweho haruguru, mu buhamya bwa DAM yatanze mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi, yemeje ko yitabiriye inama yabere kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste ku wa 8/4/1994, avuga ko iyo nama yatumijwe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ibera iwe mu rugo, yitabirirwa b’abantu batandukanye barimo Col. Hakizimana, Dr. Mugenzi Joseph, Mbarushimana Callixte, Niyibizi Alphonse, Kivuta Regero Innocent, Kigingi Habyarimana wari interahamwe, Rwagahunga Innocent wari umu Serire muri Kabuguru, Sakabaka, Zacharie, Mudahinduka Jean- Marie Vianney alias Zuzu, Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney, Twahirwa Oreste n’abandi bantu 8 bari hanze bacunze umutekano.

50 Reba inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ry’urubanza rujuririrwa yo ku wa 29/1/2019.

## Page 207

173 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

Yavuze kandi ko muri iyo nama hakozwe ama liste y’Abatutsi n’ibyitso bagombaga kwicwa51. [134] Muri dosiye hari na none ubuhamya bwa DFM yatanze nawe mu Rukiko rwabanje, yemeza ko ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste habereye inama, ko n’ubwo atari ayirimo ariko yarimo abantu bakoranaga bamubwiye ko yabayeho, anayibwirwa na resiponsabule wa Selire witwa Kaboneye Théoneste ndetse na Nyirimanzi Grégoire. Mu buhamya bwe avuga ko iyo nama yitabiriwe n’abantu benshi barimo Col. Hakizimana Edouard, Capt. Nyaminani, interahamwe yitwagaga Habyarimana alias Kigingi, Niyibizi Alphonse n’abandi, ko muri iyo nama hakozwe ama liste y’Abatutsi bagombaga kwicwa, hanatangwa n’imbunda mu ma Segiteri ya Nyakabanda na Nyamirambo52. [135] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 72 na 73 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rwabanje rwasanze amakuru yatanzwe na Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney ku bijyanye n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994 atashingirwaho kubera ko ibyo yavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 9/2/2017, yageze mu Rukiko akabihindura avuga ko iyo nama itabereye mu rugo kwa Mugimba Jean Baptiste ku wa 8/4/1994, ahubwo yabereye mu Nyakabanda ku kabari ka Musonera hitwaga kuri Etat Major y’interahamwe, kandi uburyo avugamo uko yakoreshejwe inyandikomvugo y’ibazwa rye mu Bushinjacyaha burimo urujijo ku buryo itagomba gushingirwaho kubera ko hamwe avuga ko yahamagajwe n’Abashinjacyaha bamwereka inyandikomvugo iteguye, nyuma yo kuyisoma

51 Reba inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ry’urubanza rujuririrwa yo ku wa 9/10/2018. 52 Reba inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ry’urubanza rujuririrwa yo ku wa19/12/2018

## Page 208

174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bamusaba kuyisinya arabyemera, ahandi akavuga ko bamusabye kuyisoma kugira ngo yohererezwe Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru aho yaje kuyisinyira, ahandi akavuga ko iyo nyandikomvugo bari barayiteguriye undi muntu bakoranye ibyaha maze bahindura amazina ye bayasimbuza aya Mugimba Jean Baptiste. [136] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko imvugo za Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney mu Bushinjacyaha zitagomba gushingirwaho, kuko ubuhamya bwemewe n’amategeko ari ubwatangiwe mu Rukiko, bityo ko ubwo yatanze mu Rukiko rubanza aribwo bukwiye gushingirwaho, akagirwa umwere, bitahabwa agaciro kubera ko hashingiwe ku mirongo yagaragajwe haruguru, mu manza nshinjabyaha ibimenyetso byose byemewe, ko ikimenyetso ababuranyi bagize icyo bavugaho mu iburanisha gishobora gushingirwaho mu gufata icyemezo53, Urukiko rukaba rushobora kwemeza ko ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’umutangabuhamya mu rwego rw’iperereza bwizewe kuruta ubwatanzwe mu Rukiko, cyangwa ubwatanzwe mu Rukiko nabwo bwizewe kuruta ubwatanzwe mu rwego rw’iperereza. [137] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibivugwa na Mugimba Jean Baptiste ko nk’uko Urukiko rwabanje rwabyemeje, imvugo za Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney mu Bushinjacyaha zitera gushidikanya, zikaba zitashingirwaho, kuko mu Rukiko yaravuze ko ubuhamya bukubiye mu nyandikomvugo yo mu Bushinjacyaha yasanze iteguye bamusaba kuyisinya arabyemera, ubundi avuga ko bamusabye kuyisoma kugira ngo yohererezwe Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru aho yaje kuyisinyira, ubundi akavuga ko

53 Reba igika cya 95 cy’urubanza n° RPA 00016/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 22/3/2024, haburana Ubushinjacyaha, Abayisenga Vénant na bagenzi be

## Page 209

175 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

iyo nyandikomvugo bari barayiteguriye undi muntu bakoranye ibyaha maze bahindura amazina ye bayasimbuza aya Mugimba Jean Baptiste, bitahabwa agaciro kubera ko mu gihe uwo mutangabuhamya ataragaragarije Urukiko rubanza ikimenyetso gishimangira ibyo yavuze, imvugo ze mu Bushinjacyaha zitari guteshwa agaciro, bikaba ari nako urwo Rukiko rwagombaga kubibona. [138] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, rushingiye rero ku bisobanuro bigaragara mu bika bibanziriza aka, ku ngingo ya 53 y’Itegeko n° 062/2024 ryavuzwe haruguru no ku murongo watanzwe mu manza zaciwe n’uru Rukiko zagaragajwe haruguru no mu rubanza n° ICTR-01-72-A narwo rwavuzwe haruguru, rurasanga ubuhamya bwa Nyabyenda Jean-Marie Vianney bwo mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 9/2/2017 ku bijyanye n’inama yo ku wa 8/4/1994, bwaragombaga guhabwa ishingiro bugashingirwaho mu kwemeza ko kuri iyo tariki ya 8/4/1994, Mugimba Jean Baptiste yakoresheje inama iwe mu rugo icurirwamo umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi cyane cyane ko ubwo buhamya buhura neza n’ubwa DAM na DFM bwagaragajwe haruguru, ndetse bukaba bwaranashingiweho mu rubanza rujuririrwa54. [139] Naho ku bijyanye n’imiburanire y’Ubushinjacyaha y’uko kuba Nyabyenda Jean- Marie Vianney yarahinduye imvugo ageze mu Rukiko yabitewe na ruswa yemerewe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga hashingiwe ku byavuzwe haruguru atari ngombwa kubigarukaho. [140] Kubera impamvu zose zimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Urukiko rwabanje rwarakoze ikosa ryo kudaha agaciro ubuhamya bwa Nyabyenda Jean-Marie

54 Reba igika cya 57 n’icya 58 by’urubanza rujuririrwa.

## Page 210

176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Vianney bwo mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 9/2/2017, bityo iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha ikaba ifite shingiro. b. Kumenya niba Mugimba Jean Baptiste atari akwiriye kugabanyirizwa igihano [141] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko mu Rukiko rubanza bwasabye ko Mugimba Jean Baptise yahanishwa igifungo cya burundu, bunagaragaza impamvu aricyo gihano akwiye guhanishwa, zirimo kuba ibikorwa yakoze byaragize ingaruka ziremereye mu muryango nyarwanda kuko byatumye hapfa umubare munini w’Abatutsi bo muri Komine Nyarugenge, by’umwihariko muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda, no kuba umwanya n’ububasha Mugimba Jean Baptiste yari afite ku bayoboke ba CDR n’abaturage muri rusange, byaratumye ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 akoresha inama mu rugo, abakangurira kwitabira ubwicanyi bwakorerwaga Abatutsi, ibyo byose bikaba byari bikwiye kwitabwaho mu kugena ibihano akwiye guhanishwa. [142] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza buvuga ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru ntacyo rwavuze kuri izo mpamvu, busanga ari inenge igomba gukosorwa, kuko n’ubwo Urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kugabanyiriza uregwa igihano, ariko rugomba no ku bitangira ibisobanuro, bitandukanye n’ibyo rwemeje mu rubanza rujuririrwa ko uregwa agomba kugabanyirizwa igihano kuko atagoye Urukiko, bikaba bidahagije, kuko hari hakenewe ibisobanuro ku buryo umuntu yakwumva ko igifungo cya burundu cyasabwe kitari gikwiriye; busaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ko Mugimba Jean Baptiste ahabwa igifungo cya burundu bwari bwasabye kuko bwatanze ibisobanuro bigaragaza impamvu bumusabira icyo gihano.

## Page 211

177 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

[143] Mugimba Jean Baptiste n’abamwunganira bavuga ko mu Rukiko rubanza, Ubushinjacyaha bwasabye ko yahanishwa igifungo cya burundu, bunagaragaza impamvu bugisaba, nabo basaba ko yagabanyirizwa igihano n’icyo babishingiro, Urukiko rufata icyemezo cyo kumugabanyiriza igihano, rubitangira ibisobanuro nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 183 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, ko batabona impamvu Ubushinjacyaha bujurira igihano cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25) Mugimba Jean Baptiste yahanishijwe mu gihe bwemera ko Urukiko rufite ububasha bwo kugabanyiriza uregwa igihano, bukanagaragaza itegeko ribigena, byongeye urubanza rujuririrwa rwamaze imyaka irenga itanu (5) ruburanishwa mu mizi ku rwego rwa mbere, nta munsi n’umwe uregwa yigeze yanga kwitaba Urukiko, cyangwa ngo agaragaze uguhangana n’ubutabera, ahubwo yatanze ibisobanuro bye mu kinyabupfura cyagaragariye buri muntu wese ku birego byose Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze, basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kwemeza ko ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha nta shingiro bufite. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [144] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumenya niba uburemere bw’ibyaha uregwa yahamijwe n’umwanya n’ububasha yari afite muri CDR no ku baturage muri rusange byari kuba impamvu yo kutamugabanyiriza igihano ku rwego rwa mbere. [145] Nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza n° RPA 00060/2021/CA rwaciwe ku wa 4/4/2022,Umucamanza, mu gutanga igihano, areba imibereho y’uwakoze icyaha mbere yo kugikora, igihe yagikoraga na nyuma yo kugikora, akazihuza n’uko icyaha cyakozwe, uburemere bwacyo n’ingaruka cyateye muri sosiyete, ndetse afite uburenganzira bwo kugenera ukurikiranywe,

## Page 212

178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

impamvu nyoroshyacyaha n’ubwo icyaha aregwa cyaba ari icyaha cy’ubugome (crime) cyangwa icyaha gikomeye (délit), kuko nta mwihariko Itegeko ryashyize ku cyaha runaka55. [146] Muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko kwemeza impamvu nyoroshyacyaha bidakuraho uburemere bw’icyaha, bivuze ko kugabanyiriza igihano uwahamwe n’icyaha bitagabanya na gato uburemere bw’icyaha yakoze56. Ibyo byumvikanisha ko uburemere bw’icyaha n’impamvu nkomezacyaha zigize icyaha, bitabangamira Umucamanza kwemeza mu nyungu z’uwahamwe n’icyaha impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zagaragaye, agamije kumugenera mu bushishozi bwe igihano gishingiye k’uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo n’imibereho ye bwite (individualisation de la peine), ari yo mpamvu Umushingamategeko yateganyije ko Umucamanza, mu kugena igihano, agomba kwita ku mpamvu nkomezacyaha no ku mpamvu nyoroshyacyaha57. [147] Ku birebana n’ibyaha Mugimba Jean Baptiste yahamijwe, dosiye igaragaza ko yahamijwe icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso (ubufatanyacyaha) muri jonoside. Ibi byaha bikaba bihanwa nk’icyaha cya jenoside nk’uko

55 Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwatanze uwo murongo rusobanura ibingomba kumvikana mu bivugwa mu ngingo ya 49 n’iya 58 z’Itegeko n˚ 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. 56 “Un constat de circonstances atténuantes se réfère à l’évaluation de la sentence et n’ôte rien à la gravité de l’infraction. Il atténue la peine et non le crime. On n’observera toutefois que l’atténuation de la peine ne réduit en aucune façon le degré de gravité du crime, la question relève davantage du pardon que du moyen justificatif’’, affaire n˚ ICTR-97-23-S, Procureur contre Jean Kambanda, Jugement portant condamnation, P.27, n˚56. 57 Ingingo ya 49, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko n˚ 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. 34 Igika cya 675 n’icya 678 by’urubanza rujuririrwa.

## Page 213

179 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

biteganywa n’ingingo ya 93, agace ka 1° n’aka 5°, y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu58. Naho ku bijyanye n’ihanwa ry’icyaha cya jenoside, ingingo ya 92 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa haruguru iteganya uwagihamijwe ahanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu. [148] Nk’uko kopi y’urubanza rujuririrwa ibigaragaza mu gika cya 183 n’icya 184, mu Rukiko rubanza, Mugimba Jean Baptiste yagabanyirijwe igihano, ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25), aho guhanishwa igifungo cya burundu giteganyijwe ku byaha yahamijwe birimo icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso muri jenoside (complicity in jenoside), harebwe imikorere y’ibyo byaha no kuba ataragoye ubutabera. [149] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga n’ubwo Urukiko rubanza rwagabanyirije Mugimba Jean Baptiste igihano mu bushishozi bwarwo, rutari rukwiye kwemeza ko agabanyirizwa igihano giteganywa n’Itegeko ku mpamvu y’uko atarugoye aburana, rutagaragaje mu buryo bwumvikana ibyo rushingiraho, bityo uru Rukiko rukaba rutemeranywa n’ibyemejwe ku rwego rwa mbere. [150] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga n’ubwo ibyaha yahamijwe ari ibyaha by’ubugome biremereye, birebewe hamwe n’ububasha yari afite muri CDR nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bubivuga, hashingiwe ku murongo wagaragajwe haruguru, bitabuza ko

58 Ivuga ko “Bitabangamiye ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iri tegeko ku byerekeye ubwinjiracyaha, gucura umugambi wo gukora icyaha n’ubufatanyacyaha, ibikorwa bikurikira bihanishwa ibihano biteganyirijwe icyaha cya jenoside: 1º gucura umugambi wo gukora Jenoside; 5º ubufatanyacyaha muri Jenoside”.

## Page 214

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Mugimba Jean Baptiste agabanyirizwa igihano mu gihe hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha. Uru Rukiko rurasanga na none mu iburanisha rya Mugimba Jean Baptiste muri uru Rukiko no mu Rukiko rwabanje, Mugimba Jean Baptiste yaragize imyifatire myiza yatumye iburanisha ry’urubanza rigenda neza kuko nta subika ry’urubanza ryabayeho rimuturutseho cyangwa ngo habe izindi mpamvu zatinza urubanza ahubwo igihe cyose yagaragaje ubushake bwo kuburana no kugira ngo iburanisha rigende neza, bityo aka atararuhije Urukiko. Rurasanga kuba atararuhije Urukiko urwo arirwo rwose nk’uko bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, byamubera impamvu ituma agabanyirizwa igihano giteganywa n’Itegeko, agahanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25), aho guhanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu. [151] Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha nta shingiro ifite. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [152] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Mugimba Jean Baptiste nta shingiro bufite. [153] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [154] Rwemeje ko urubanza no RP/GEN 00002/2017/HC/HCCIC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi ku wa 17/3/2022 rudahindutse.

## Page 215

181 UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUGIMBA

[155] Rwemeje ko igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25) Mugimba Jean Baptiste yahawe ku rwego rwa mbere kigumyeho. [156] Rwemeje ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 216

182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 217

183 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA– (Nyirandabaruta, J. P., Kaliwabo na Umugwaneza J.) 20 Ukwakira 2020] Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso n’itangwa ryabyo – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Ihame rya sinari “alibi” – Bitavanyeho ihame ry’uko Ubushinjacyaha ari bwo bufite inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bishinja uregwa, iri hame rihinduka mu gihe uregwa aburanisha ingingo ya “alibi” igamije kwerekana ko yari ahandi hantu hatandukanye n’aho ashinjwa kuba yarakoreye ibyaha, agomba kubishyigikirisha ibimenyetso bifatika, bihamya ishingiro rya “alibi” aburanisha. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso n’itangwa ryabyo – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Ubuhamya – Agaciro k’ubuhamya – Ubuhamya bugira agaciro iyo hitawe k’ubumenyi ababutanga bafite ku kibazo batangira ubwo buhamya – Ubuhamya ntibuteshwa agaciro n’uko ababutanze bafitanye amasano hagati yabo cyangwa se bafite inyungu mu rubanza ahubwo ni iyo ako gaciro kadashingiye ku kuri kuburimo – Urukiko ni rwo rwemeza agaciro k’ubuhamya nyuma yo gusesengura imvugo z’abatangabuhamya. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso n’itangwa ryabyo – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha –Ubuhamya – Agaciro k’ubuhamya – Kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavugaho kimwe, ubuhamya bwabo ntibwateshwa agaciro kuko bishoboka ko bakwibeshya bitewe n’igihe gishize icyaha gikozwe. Amategeko agenga imanza nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cya jenoside – Umugambi wihariye (special intent cyangwa dolus specialis) – 183

## Page 218

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ububi bw’icyaha cya jenoside bukigira kandi icyaha cyihariye, ari umugambi wihariye (special intent) wo kurimbura abantu bahuriye ku gihugu, ubwoko, idini cyangwa ibara ry’uruhu, uyu mwihariko ukaba ushingirwaho mu mihanire y’abakoze iki cyaha. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ubushinjacyaha bwareze bundi bushya Kabilima mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe nyuma y’uko urwo Rukiko rumaze gutesha agaciro imanza zose yari yaraburanye mu nkiko Gacaca, akagirwa umwere ku cyaha cya jenoside aregwa, kigizwe no gushishikariza umugambi w’ubwicanyi, kuyobora no kugenzura ibikorwa bya jenoside byakorewe mu Murenge wa Rusenge, gukora urutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi bari bataricwa, no gusambanya ku gahato abana b’abakobwa b’Atutsi. Muri ibi byaha aregwa, uru rukiko rwemeje ko ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi n’icyo gukora urutonde rw’abana b’abatutsi baje kwicwa muri jenoside yakorewe abatutsi, bikaba bigize icyaha cya jenoside, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko. Kabalima yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibe avuga ko igihe ibikorwa aregwa byakorwaga atari ari aho i Bunge byakorewe, ngo bikaba ari akagambane yakorewe n’abamushinja ibinyoma ku nyungu zabo. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko urubanza rujuririrwa ruhindutse kuri bimwe, ko ahamwa n’ubwicanyi nk’icyaha cya jenoside, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25) rushingiye ku kuba yarakoze icyaha akiri umusore muto no kuba nta myitwarire mibi yamuranze mbere na nyuma yo gukora ibyaha ashinjwa. Nyuma yo kutanyurwa n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru, Kabilima yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ariko urubanza rwe

## Page 219

185 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire nyuma y’ivugururwa ry’ububasha bw’inkiko. Yajuriye avuga ko yahaniwe icyaha kimwe incuro 2, ko yahamijwe ibyaha byakorewe i Bunge mu gihe we yagaragaje abatangabuhamya bemeza ko icyo gihe yari i Kigali, no kuba abatangabuhamya bamushinja bararanzwe no kwivuguruza. Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije imvugo z’abaturanyi be bagizwe na bamwe mu barokotse ubwicanyi bwakorewe i Bunge ndetse na bamwe mu babugizemo uruhare, bose bavuga ko batigeze bamubona iwabo i Bunge muri icyo gihe. Bityo, akaba asoza asaba Urukiko kugirwa umwere kuko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha ashinjwa bivugwa ko yakoreye i Bunge kubera ko yari i Kigali, ngo akaba yarahageze, ubwicanyi bwararangiye muri ako gace. Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi buvuga ko Uregwa atagombaga kugirwa umwere ku cyaha cyo gukora urutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi baje kwicwa, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwagabanyije igihano nta mpamvu rusobanuye, ko rutasobanuye aho ruhera rwemeza ko yakoze icyaha ari muto mu gihe yari afite imyaka 21 y’amavuko, ko rwirengagije ko ushinjwa yamamaye mu bwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge. Buvuga ko uku kwamamara kwe kugaragazwa n’ibyavuye mu ikusanyamakuru ryo mu murenge wa Rusenge ndetse n’ibindi bimenyetso byari bisanzwe muri dosiye. Ubushinjacyaha kandi bwisobanuye buvuga ko ingingo yo kuba Uregwa avuga ko yari i Kigali mu gihe ubwicanyi bwakorwa i Bunge, nta shingiro yahabwa kubera ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasesenguye neza iyo ngingo rusanga abamushinjura bamwe batavugisha ukuri, dore ko ikusanyamakuru ryagaragaje ko yamamaye muri ubwo bwicanyi kuva tariki ya 14/04/1994 kugeza ku wa 19/04/1994 kandi ko abamushinja bamuzi neza

## Page 220

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nk’umuntu bari baturanye; naho abo avuga ko bamushinjura ari abantu bahinduye imvugo nyuma y’uko agarutse mu Rwanda. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ubushinjacyaha ni bwo bufite inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bishinja uregwa. Iyo umuburanyi aburanisha ingingo ya alibi ni we ugomba gutanga ibimenyetso bifite ireme biyishyigikira. Bityo, Kabilima ntiyabashije kugaragariza uru Rukiko ibimenyetso bifatika, birimo abatangabuhamya bativuguruza, bishimangira neza ko yari ari i Kigali mu gihe ibikorwa by’ubwicanyi ashinjwa byakorewe mu Kabuga ka Bunge. 2. Ubuhamya bugira agaciro iyo hitawe k’ubumenyi ababutanga bafite ku kibazo batangira ubwo buhamya. Ubuhamya ntibuteshwa agaciro n’uko ababutanze bafitanye amasano hagati yabo cyangwa se bafite inyungu mu rubanza ahubwo ni iyo ako gaciro kadashingiye ku kuri kuburimo. Urukiko ni rwo rwemeza agaciro k’ubuhamya nyuma yo gusesengura imvugo z’abatangabuhamya. 3. Kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavugaho kimwe cyangwa bashobora kwibeshya ho mu buryo budakabije, ubuhamya bwabo ntibwateshwa agaciro kuko bishoboka ko bakwibeshya bitewe n’igihe kirekire gishize icyaha gikozwe. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwuririye k’ubundi bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amagarama aherera ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho:

## Page 221

187 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

Itegeko ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 76, 82, 96, 113, 114 n’iya 115. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 yerekeye gukumira no guhana jenoside, ingingo ya 3 n’iya 4. Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 108. Itegeko No 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 1 n’iya 92. Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryerekeye ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 52 n’iya 105. Itegeko No 16/2004 ryo kuwa 19/06/2004 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko-Gacaca, ingingo ya 6. Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3, 63, 65 n’iya 119. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha v Nzajyibwami, RPA 0101/09/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 01/06/2012. Ubushinjacyaha v Munyakazi Yussuf, ICTR-97-36A-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28/09/ 2011. Ubushinjacyaha v Nshimiyimana Alexis et Crts, RPAA 0059/08/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/11/2010 Ubushinjacyaha v Nchamihigo Simeon, ICTR-2001-63-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 18/03/ 2010.

## Page 222

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ubushinjacyaha v Nahimana Ferdinand and al., ICTR-99-52-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28/11/2007. Ubushinjacyaha v Kalimanzira Callxte, Case ICTR -05-88-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 20/10/2010. Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, ICT–2001-72–T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) ku wa 02/12/2008. Ubushinjacyaha v. Kambanda, Judgment and Sentence, ICTR- 97-23-S, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 4/09/1998. Croatia v. Serbia, International Court of Justice, Judgment of 03/02/2015. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kabilima Jean Damascène yaciriwe urubanza adahari n’Urukiko Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Bunge aregwa ibyaha bya jenoside yakoreye muri Bunge, ahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka 30. Kabilima Jean Damascène yasubirishijemo urubanza, Urukiko Gacaca rwa Bunge 2 rumugira umwere ku byaha yaregwaga. Dosiye yajuririwe Urukiko Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Kibeho rwahanishije Kabilima Jean Damascène, nanone adahari, igifungo cy’imyaka 19. Kabilima Jean Damascène yasubirishijemo urwo rubanza, ruza gucibwa n’Urukiko Gacaca rwa Kanombe B rwamuhamije ibyaha bimushyira mu cyiciro cya mbere, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko.

## Page 223

189 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[2] Kabilima Jean Damascène yaregeye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe asubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Gacaca rw’Umurenge wa Kanombe B, maze ku wa 17/10/2014, Urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko imanza zaciwe n’inkiko Gacaca ku kibazo cya Kabilima Jean Damascène zose zikuweho kubera ko Urukiko Gacaca rwa Kanombe B rwamuburanishije rutabifitiye ububasha mu gihe rwari rumaze kumushyira mu cyiciro cya mbere cy’abakoze jenoside. [3] Ubushinjacyaha bwakoze dosiye bundi bushya, burega Kabilima Jean Damascène mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe, rumurega icyaha cya jenoside kigizwe no gushishikariza umugambi w’ubwicanyi, kuyobora no kugenzura ibikorwa bya jenoside byakorewe mu Murenge wa Rusenge, gukora urutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi bari bataricwa, no gusambanya ku gahato abana b’abakobwa b’Atutsi. [4] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe mu rubanza RP GEN 003/15/TGI/NYBE rwaciwe ku wa 21/09/2016, rwemeje ko Kabilima Jean Damascène adahamwa n’icyaha cyo kuyobora no kugenzura jenoside n’icyo gushishikariza umugambi w’ubwicanyi bw’abatutsi bari basigaye mu Murenge wa Rusenge n’icyo gusambanya ku gahato abana b’abakobwa b’Abatutsi, ko ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi n’icyo gukora urutonde rw’abana b’abatutsi baje kwicwa muri jenoside yakorewe abatutsi, bigize icyaha cya jenoside, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko. [5] Kabilima Jean Damascène yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi, avuga ko yahamijwe icyaha kandi atari i Bunge hagati y’itariki 14 na 19/05/1994, igihe ibikorwa

## Page 224

190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

by’ubwicanyi bwakorewe abatutsi aregwa byakorwaga, ko ibindi byaha aregwa ari akagambane yakorewe n’abamushinja ibinyoma ku nyungu zabo. [6] Mu rubanza RPA GEN 00006/2017/HC/HCCI rwaciwe ku wa 31/01/2018, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RP GEN 00003/15/TGI/NYBE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe ku wa 21/09/2016, ihindutse kuri bimwe, ko Kabilima Jean Damascène adahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside gishingiye ku rutonde yakoze rw’abana b’Abatutsi bari bataricwa bakaza kwicwa nyuma, ko ahamwa n’ubwicanyi nk’icyaha cya jenoside, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25) rushingiye ku kuba yarakoze icyaha akiri umusore muto no kuba nta myitwarire mibi yamuranze mbere na nyuma yo gukora ibyaha ashinjwa. [7] Kabilima Jean Damascène yunganiwe na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko yahaniwe icyaha kimwe incuro 2, ko yahamijwe ibyaha byakorewe i Bunge mu gihe we yagaragaje abatangabuhamya bemeza ko icyo gihe yari i Kigali, no kuba abatangabuhamya bamushinja bararanzwe no kwivuguruza, asaba kugirwa umwere kuko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha ashinjwa. [8] Ubushinjacyaha nabwo bwajuriye buvuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène atagombaga kugirwa umwere ku cyaha cyo gukora urutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi baje kwicwa, kuko ngo ubwe yiyemereye imbere y’Urukiko Gacaca ko yakoze uru rutonde. Bwajuriye kandi buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwagabanyije igihano nta mpamvu rusobanuye, ko rutasobanuye aho ruhera rwemeza ko yakoze icyaha ari muto mu gihe yari afite imyaka 21 y’amavuko, ko rwirengagije ko ushinjwa yamamaye mu bwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge.

## Page 225

191 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[9] Mu gihe uru rubanza rutari rwakaburanishijwe, ububasha bw’Inkiko bwaravuguruwe, urubanza rushyikirizwa Urukiko rw’Ubujurire hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 521 n’iya 1052 z’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryerekeye ububasha bw’inkiko. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishirijwe mu ruhame ku wa 02/07/2020, Kabilima Jean Damascène yunganiwe na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal naho Ubushijacyaha buhagarariwe na Mutayoba Alphonse, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. Iburanisha rigitangira, Kabilima Jean Damascène amaze kubyumvikanaho n’umwunganira, yamenyesheje Urukiko ko ingingo irebana no kuba yaraciriwe urubanza incuro ebyiri ayivanye ku rutonde rw’ingingo ze z’ubujurire. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO II. 1. Ubujurire bwa Kabilima Jean Damascène 1. Kumenya niba Kabilima Jean Damascène atari i Bunge ku matariki bivugwa ko yahakoreye ibyaha bya jenoside

1 Ingingo ya 52, igika cya kabiri y’Itegeko y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryerekeye ububasha bw’inkiko: Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza… 2 Ingingo ya 105, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryerekeye ububasha bw’inkiko: guhera igihe iri tegeko ritangiriye gukurikizwa, uretse imanza zatangiye kuburanishwa, imanza zose zitakiri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko zaregewe, zohererezwa Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’iri tegeko.

## Page 226

192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[11] Kabilima Jean Damascène wunganiwe na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, yajuriye avuga ko Urukiko rwamuhamije ubwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge hagati y’itariki ya 16/04/1994 n’iya 19/04/1994 rwirengagije ibimenyetso byerekana ko kuri ayo matariki yari i Kigali, bityo ko atashoboraga kuba icyarimwe ahantu hatandukanye. Mu gusobanura ibimenyetso bye, Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko hirengagijwe ubuhamya bwatanzwe na Kayibanda Jean Baptiste wasobanuye ko bari kumwe i Kigali (kwa Gashugi) kuva tariki ya 06/04/1994 kugeza tariki 09/04/1994 ngo akongera kumubona ku wa 23/04/1994 muri CICR aho bahuriye aje gufata imfashanyo. Asobanura ko ubuhamya bwa Kayibanda Jean Baptiste bushyigikirwa no kuba nyuma y’urupfu rwa Perezida Habyarimana Juvénal, mu ijoro ryo ku wa 06/04/1994, hashyizweho umukwabo ku buryo atashoboraga kuva i Kigali ngo agere iwabo i Bunge, ko yatwawe na “Aumonier” w’abasirikare wamugejeje i Butare agakomereza i Bunge, akaba yaragezeyo ku wa 25/04/1994, ubwicanyi bwaho bwararangiye. [12] Kabilima Jean Damascène akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije imvugo z’abaturanyi be bagizwe na bamwe mu barokotse ubwicanyi bwakorewe i Bunge (Ndahunga Stefano, Nkusi Angelbert na Karera Charles), ndetse na bamwe mu babugizemo uruhare (Nzirabatinyi Vincent, Rudatsinda Athanase na Rekeraho), bose bavuga ko batigeze bamubona iwabo i Bunge ku matariki yavuzwe haruguru. Akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rwemeje ko yari i Bunge rushingiye ku mvugo ya Mazimpaka Désiré wari mu kigero cy’imyaka 9 mu mwaka wa 1994, umushinja urupfu rwa Batutsi, rwirengagije imvugo ya Nkusi Angelbert (umubyeyi wa Mazimpaka Désqiré akaba na mukuru wa Batutsi) wavuze ko batigeze bamenya uwishe Batutsi kuko bari mu kivunge cy’abantu benshi kandi hatabona neza.

## Page 227

193 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[13] By’umwihariko Kabilima Jean Damascène yanenze icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyashingiye ku mvugo ya Mukamabano Philomène wavuze ko yamubonanye n’umubyeyi we ku marembo y’iwabo ku wa 15 Mata 1994, uyu ngo akaba yaragiye arangwa no kwivuguruza, aho mu Bushinjacyaha yavuze ko yahunze ava i Bunge ku wa 14/04/1994 kandi ko atongeye kuhagaruka, nyamara ngo ageze imbere y’Urukiko Gacaca rwa Kanombe B avuga ko yahavuye ku wa 15/04/1994, Kabilima Jean Damascène akavuga ko impamvu uyu amushinja ibinyoma ari urupfu rw’umugabo we Musoni Festus amugerekaho amubeshyera. [14] Kabilima Jean Damascène na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal umwunganira bavuga kandi ko Urukiko rwemeje ko yari i Bunge rushingiye ku ikusanyamakuru ryavuye muri CNLG, ryakozwe ku buryo butubahirije amategeko kuko ngo n’uwitwa Murindabigwi Augustin bavuga ko yari Perezida w’inyangamugayo z’Akagali ka Bunge atigeze aba kuri uwo mwanya, kimwe na Karemangingo bitirira kuba umutangabuhamya umushinja nyamara atarabayeho. [15] Kabilima Jean Damascène yanzura kuri iyi ngingo avuga ko akwiye kugirwa umwere ku bwicanyi bivugwa ko yakoreye i Bunge kubera ko yari i Kigali, ngo akaba yarageze i Bunge ku wa 25/04/1994, ubwicanyi bwararangiye muri ako gace. [16] Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Mutayoba Alphonse, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu, bwavuze ko ingingo yo kuba Kabilima Jean Damascène yari i Kigali mu gihe cy’ubwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge Urukiko Rukuru rwayisesenguye rugasanga Kayibanda Jean Baptiste atavugisha ukuri, kuko mu Bushinjacyaha yavuze ko yamaranye na Kabilima Jean Damascène iminsi 2 kwa Gashugi hanyuma

## Page 228

194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

agahita ajya muri CICR ku wa 09/04/1994, ko nyuma y’aho atigeze yongera kumubona, nyamara asubiye kubazwa avuga ko bongeye kubonana ku wa 23/04/1994. Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza buvuga ko ikusanyamakuru ryakorewe mu Kagari ka Bunge ryerekanye ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yamamaye mu bwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge kuva tariki ya 14/04/1994 kugeza ku wa 19/04/1994 kandi ko abamushinja bamuzi neza nk’umuntu bari baturanye; ko n’abo avuga bamushinjura ari abantu bahinduye imvugo nyuma y’uko agarutse mu Rwanda. [17] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga kandi ko kuba Kabilima Jean Damascène yari i Bunge, abishinjwa na Mukanyarwaya, Mazimpaka Désiré, KDA, ndetse na Museruka Théoneste wahamirije imbere y’Ubushinjacyaha ko yamwiboneye i Bunge ku itariki ya 17/04/1994 yitwaje imbunda, gusa ngo uyu mutangabuhamya akaba yaraje gupfa ku buryo budasobanutse ataratanga ubuhamya bwe mu Rukiko. Bwasobanuye kandi ko umutangabuhamya Mukamabano Philomène wikomwa na Kabilima Jean Damascène, Urukiko rutigeze rushingira ku buhamya bwe kubera gushidikanya, naho Murindahabi Augustin akaba yaratanzwe n’ushinjwa nk’umutangabuhamya umushinjura, bityo akaba adashobora kumwihakana. [18] Ubushinjacyaha kandi bwisobanuye buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, mu gika cya 22 cy’urubanza rwaciye, rwasobanuye impamvu rwashingiyeho ruhakana ubuhamya bw’abantu bavuze ko batabonye Kabilima Jean Damascène mu bikorwa by’ubwicanyi byabereye i Bunge, kandi ko uyu atagaragaza aho Urukiko Rukuru rwivuguruje mu isesengura rwakoze. [19] Ubushinjacyaha bwakomeje busobanura ko imvugo ya Kabilima Jean Damascène uhakana ibyavuye mu ikusanyamakuru ryabereye mu Murenge wa Rusenge, avuga ko

## Page 229

195 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

zahimbwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, nta shingiro ikwiye guhabwa, kuko izi nyandiko ziriho kashe ya CNLG kandi ko bwaje kuzisaba CNLG bubitegetswe n’Urukiko. Buvuga kandi ko izi nyandiko zaje zuzuza ibindi bimenyetso byari bisanzwe muri dosiye, byose hamwe bikaba bihuriza mu kwemeza uruhare rwa Kabilima Jean Damascène mu bwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge, bityo ko ingingo aburanisha avuga ko yari i Kigali aho kuba i Bunge nta shingiro ifite. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana. Naho ingingo ya 108 y’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ikavuga ko ibimenyetso bishobora gushingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barabigiyeho impaka. Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose bishinja cyangwa bishinjura ari byo kandi bishobora kwemerwa. [21] Urukiko rurasanga, ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Kabilima Jean Damascène yari i Kigali cyangwa i Bunge hagati y’itariki ya 14 Mata 1994 n’iya 19 Mata 1994 cyaragiweho impaka kuva mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye no mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwarasesenguye imvugo z’abatangabuhamya batanzwe n’impande zombi ruzigereranyije n’ibyavuye mu makayi y’ikusanyamakuru ryabereye mu Murenge wa Rusenge, ari ho rwahereye rwemeza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari i Bunge ku matariki yavuzwe haruguru.

## Page 230

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[22] Urukiko rurasanga, bitavanyeho ihame ry’uko Ubushinjacyaha ari bwo bufite inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bishinja uregwa3, iri hame rihinduka mu gihe uregwa aburanisha ingingo ya “alibi” igamije kwerekana ko yari ahandi hantu hatandukanye n’aho ashinjwa kuba yarakoreye ibyaha, agomba kubishyigikirisha ibimenyetso bifatika, bihamya ishingiro rya “alibi” aburanisha. Ibi niko byasobanuwe mu manza nyinshi zaciwe n’inkiko Mpuzamahanga harimo urw’Ubushinjacyaha na Munyakazi Yussuf rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda4, mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Nchamihigo Siméon5, no mu rubanza rwa Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be6.

3 Ingingo ya 107 y’ Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko uwakorewe icyaha cyangwa se abamufiteho uburenganzira iyo baregeye indishyi z’akababaro cyangwa biregeye umuburanyi, ni bo bagomba gutanga ibimenyetso byemeza icyaha. 4 Case ICTR-97-36A-A, Prosecution versus Munyakazi Yussuf, 28th September,2011, in parag. 25: “Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber has held that Trial Chambers are endowed with the discretion to require corroboration (…). Therefore, the Trial Chamber has not shifted the burden of proof in assessing Munyakazi’s alibi; all that it has done, and this quite properly, is to note that there was no supporting evidence of the alibi.” 5 Case ICTR-2001-63-A, Prosecutor versus Nchamihigo Simeon, 18th March,2010, in parag. 92 “By raising an alibi, an accused is simply denying that he was in a position to commit the crime with which he was charged. An accused does not bear the burden of proving his alibi beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, “[h]e must simply produce the evidence tending to show that he was not present at the time of the alleged crime”. 6 Case No ICTR-99-52-A, Prosecutor versus Nahimana Ferdinand and al. “The Appeals Chamber recalls that, in raising an alibi defence, the defendant is claiming that, objectively, he was not in a position to commit the crime. It is for the accused to decide what line of defence to adopt in order to raise doubt in the mind of the judges as to his responsibility for the offences charged, in this case by producing evidence tending to support or to establish the alleged alibi”.

## Page 231

197 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[23] Urukiko rurasanga Kabilima Jean Damascène uvuga ko ibyaha ashinjwa byakorewe i Bunge ku wa 14 Mata- 19 Mata 1994, mu gihe we yari i Kigali, uyu agomba kubitangira ibimenyetso bihinyuza ibyashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko yari i Bunge, ari byo Urukiko ruza gusuzuma mu bika bikurikira iki. [24] Urukiko rurasanga ibimenyetso Kabilima Jean Damascène yatanze bigizwe n’ubuhamya bwa Kayibanda Jean Baptiste uvuga ko yamubonye i Kigali ku wa 6-8 Mata 1994 no kuwa 23 Mata 1994, n’ubuhamya bwa Nkusi Angelbert, Mudatinya Athanase, Nzirabatinyi Vincent na Rekeraho bavuga ko batamubonye i Bunge ku matariki yavuzwe haruguru. [25] Urukiko rurasanga, umutangabuhamya Kayibanda Jean Baptiste watanzwe na Kabilima Jean Damascène, yaranenzwe kuba yivuguruza mu mvugo ze, aho mu Bushinjacyaha yavuze ko yatandukanye na Kabilima Jean Damascène ku wa 09/04/1994 ahungiye muri CICR kandi ko batigeze bongera guhura, naho imbere y’Urukiko Gacaca rwa Kanombe B ku wa 17/03/2011, imbere y’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe ku wa 24/02/2012 n’imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 13/09/2017 avuga ko yasubiye kubonana na Kabilima Jean Damascène ku wa 23/04/1994, uyu aje gufata ibyo kurya muri CICR. Urukiko rurasanga nta kosa ryakozwe n’Urukiko rubanza mu gutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwa Kayibanda Jean Baptiste kuko yivuguruza ku ngingo y’ingenzi yatumye atangwa nk’umutangabuhamya. [26] Urukiko rurasanga, Nkusi Angelbert, Mudatinya Athanase, Nzirabatinyi Vincent na Rekeraho bavugwa na Kabilima Jean Damascène ko ari abaturanyi be kandi ko bahamya ko batigeze bamubona mu bitero byahitanye abatutsi i Bunge,

## Page 232

198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko rubanza rwarabanenze ko mu gihe cy’ikusanyamakuru ryabanjirije inkiko gacaca, aba bemeje ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yabonetse mu bitero bitandukanye byabereye i Bunge no mu nkengero zayo hagati y’itariki ya 14/04/1994 n’iya 19/04/1994; nyuma y’uko Kabilima Jean Damascène ageze mu Rwanda, aba baza kwivuguruza imbere y’Urukiko Gacaca rwa Kanombe B, ndetse bamwe muri bo barabihanirwa. [27] Urukiko rurasanga ubuhamya bwa Ndahunga Steven wari Perezida w’ikusanyamakuru mu Kagari ka Bunge uvuga ko yahungiye i Burundi ku wa 14/04/1994 na Serubibi wari Perezida w’inteko ya Bunge uvuga ko yahungiye i Burundi hagati y’itariki ya 14 n’iya 15/04/1994, aba bombi ngo bakaba barasize Kabilima Jean Damascène ataragera i Bunge, ntacyo bufasha mu kwemeza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari i Kigali ku matariki yavuzwe bitewe n’igihe bahungiye, ugereranyije n’igihe fatizo (hagati yo ku wa 14/04/1994 no ku wa 19/04/1994) cy’ubwicanyi Kabilima Jean Damascène ashinjwa muri Bunge. [28] Urukiko rurasanga, uretse no kuba abatangabuhamya bavuga ko batabonye Kabilima Jean Damascène i Bunge bararanzwe no kwivuguruza, kandi iyi ngingo ya “alibi” aburanisha yagombye guhabwa ireme n’ibimenyetso by’abamubonye i Kigali ku matariki yavuzwe, bityo bikerekana ko atashoboraga kubera icyarimwe i Kigali n’i Bunge hakurikijwe intera ihatandukanyije, kuruta abavuga ko batamubonye i Bunge kuko aba badashobora kurwemeza ko kutamubona aho bari baherereye mu gihe runaka bivuze ko atashoboraga kuba ari ahandi mu Kagari ka Bunge. [29] Igitekerezo cyo kuba ushinjwa uburanisha “alibi” agomba gutanga abatangabuhamya bemeza ko bamubonye aho avuga ko yari ari mu mwanya w’aho ashinjwa ko yakoreye

## Page 233

199 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

ibyaha, cyagarutsweho n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza rwa Kalimanzira Callixte, muri aya magambo: “The notification of alibi shall specify the place or places at which the accused claims to have been present at the time of the alleged crime and the names and addresses of witnesses and any other evidence upon which the accused intends to rely to establish the alibi.” The Appeals Chamber has held that the manner in which an alibi is presented may impact its credibility. Therefore, it was within the Trial Chamber’s discretion to take this into account in assessing the alibi evidence in this case”.7 [30] Urukiko rurasanga mu nyandiko mvugo z’abantu bavuga ko babonye Kabilima Jean Damascène i Bunge ku wa 14/4/1994 no ku wa 15/04/1994 harimo Mukazera Marie Jeanne (côte7-8), Kabagwiza Veneranda, Mukambonera Alivera (côte 21-24), Museruka Théoneste (côte 26-28), Kabarenzi Xaverine (côte 34- 36), Mukanyarwaya Josepha (côte19-20), Mukanyarwaya Josée (côte 38-39) Mukanyarwaya Annonciate (côte 41-42), Mukamabano Philomène (côte 13-14) na Kankesha Agnès. [31] Urukiko rurasanga na none, iperereza ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe muri Komisiyo ishinzwe kurwanya jenoside (CNLG), ryaragaragaje amakayi abumbiyemo ikusanyamakuru ryakorewe mu Kagali ka Bunge, aho mu ikayi nimero 1 Kabilima Jean Damascène ya garagaye ku rutonde rw’abantu bari mu Kagali ka Bunge mu gihe cy’ubwicanyi bwahakorewe muri Mata 1994, na none akaboneka ku rutonde rw’abantu bahawe intwaro zo kwica abatutsi ndetse no ku rutonde rw’abantu bagiye kuri bariyeri. Iperereza

7 Case ICTR -05-88-A, Prosecutor versus Kalimanzira Callxte, 20th Oct. 2010, parag. 56.

## Page 234

200 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ryagaragaje ko mu ikayi ifite nimero 2, Kabilima Jean Damascène yari mu bantu bakoze urutonde rw’Abatutsi bo muri Bunge bagombaga kwicwa, ko kandi yabonetse muri nyumbakumi yayoborwaga na Kagaba muri Bunge atanga ibikoresho byo kwica ndetse anabarizwa mu mutwe witwara gisirikare. Iperereza ryagaragaje nanone ikayi idafite nimero kandi idafite igifuniko, ibonekamo ingo zagabweho ibitero, Kabilima Jean Damascène akaba ari umwe mu bagabye ibyo bitero. Na none mu ikayi ifite nimero 5, ikusanyamakuru ryagaragaje ko muri nyumbakumi yayoborwaga na Ngayaberura Evariste, Kabilima Jean Damascène yagaragaye ku rutonde rw’abakoze jenoside n’urw’abatanze ibikoresho by’ubwicanyi n’abatanze amabwiriza yo kujya kuri bariyeri, naho mu ikayi ifite nimero 215, avugwaho kuba yarakoze urutonde rw’abagombaga kwicwa no kujya mu bitero byahitanye abatutsi muri Bunge. [32] Urukiko rurasanga, amakuru avuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki ari ikimenyetso kirwemeza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari i Bunge hagati y’itariki ya 14 n’iya 19 Mata 1994 kuko impande zombi zemeranywa ko aribwo ibikorwa by’ubwicanyi byarimbanyije mu Kagali ka Bunge ari nabyo bikorwa byatanzwe ho amakuru agaragaza uruhare rwe. [33] Urukiko rurasanga, ikimenyetso cy’ikusanyamakuru gifite agaciro mu kwemeza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari i Bunge hagati y’itariki ya 14 Mata 1994 n’iya 19 Mata 1994 kubera ko iri kusanyamakuru ryakozwe ritagendereye gushinja Kabilima Jean Damascène ku giti cye, ahubwo ryakozwe ku buryo bwa rusange mu rwego rwo kwegeranya amakuru y’ibyabaye mu gihe cya jenoside yakorewe abatutsi mu 1994, bityo kuba uyu agarukwaho mu makayi atandukanye, bikaba

## Page 235

201 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

bigize ikimenyetso gifatika kandi cyuzuza imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bavuzwe haruguru. [34] Urukiko rurasanga, uretse no kuba hari ukwivuguruza kuri bamwe mu batangabuhamya Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko batamubonye i Bunge ku wa 14-19 Mata 1994, nyamara kandi nta n’umwe muribo wahamya adashidikanya ko, kuba ataramubonye aho yari ari (en un lieu fixe), uyu atari ahandi mu Kagari ka Bunge; kubera iyo mpamvu, ubuhamya bw’abavuga ko bamubonye i Bunge ku matariki yavuzwe bukaba bufite ireme kuruta ubw’abavuga ko batamubonye. [35] Hakurikijwe ibimenyetso bimaze kugaragazwa hejuru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo (alibi) Kabilima Jean Damascène aburanisha yo kuba yari i Kigali hagati y’itariki ya 14/04/1994 n’iya 19/04/1994 aho kuba i Bunge ahakorewe ibyaha ashinjwa, nta shingiro ifite. 2. Kumenya niba Kabilima Jean Damascène yarahamijwe icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bwakorewe Batutsi na Musoni hashingiwe ku buhamya burimo guhuzagurika no kuvuguruzanya [36] Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko mu buhamya Urukiko rwashingiyeho rumuhamya icyaha harimo n’ubw’abantu batabaho, ko mu gika cya [25] rwashingiye ku buhamya bwa Murindahabi Augustin wari Perezida w’inyangamugayo mu Kagari ka Bunge, ntawigeze abaho witwa atyo, naho mu gika cya [9] rukaba rwarashingiye ku buhamya bwa Karemangingo ngo wireze ibyaha bya jenoside mu Rukiko Gacaca rwa Kanombe B, Kabilima yaburanyemo, nyamara uwo muntu atabaho, n’ubuhamya bwe butagaragara muri dosiye.

## Page 236

202 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[37] Avuga ko mu gika cya [75], Urukiko rwemeje ko yagize uruhare mu rupfu rw’Abatutsi barimo uwitwa Batutsi rushingiye ku buhamya buvuguruzanya, ko mu gika cya [50] rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwa Nkusi Anglebert, mukuru wa Batutsi bari kumwe ubwo yicwaga ngo nuko yavuze ko hatabonaga, nyamara rugashingira ku buhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré (igika cya [45]), mwene Nkusi Anglebert, umwana muto wari ufite imyaka icyenda (9) icyo gihe, wari kumwe na se, na se wabo Batutsi muri iryo joro, kandi uwo mwana avuguruzanya na se, kuko avuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yabateye grenade, mu gihe se wari umufashe akaboko bahunga avuga ko abishe murumuna we Batutsi atababonye, Urukiko rukaba rwarahaye agaciro imvugo y’umwana ntirwite ku mvugo ya se kandi bose bari kumwe na Batutsi, ko mu gihe ubuhamya bwa Nkusi Anglebert bwanzwe ku mpamvu yuko yavuze ko atabonaga, ubw’umwana we bari kumwe muri iryo joro nabwo budakwiriye guhabwa agaciro kuko burimo ugushidikanya gukomeye. [38] Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga kandi ko aho uwo mwana Mazimpaka Désiré yabaga, i Cyuna, ari kure cyane ya Bunge, ko hari nka kilometero mirongo itanu (50km), ko rero umwana w’imyaka 9 atashoboraga kumumenya kuko nta hantu bigeze bahurira, ko ibyo avuga ari ibyo bamwigishije kubera urubanza, atabonye uwateye Gerenade, na cyane cyane ko se yavuze ko igitero yakibonye, ko abishi ari Ntaganzwa w’umupolisi wabateye grenade, nyamara Urukiko rukaba rwarahaye agaciro ubuhamya bw’umwana, rukakima ubwa se bari kumwe. [39] Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko urupfu rwa Batutsi rusobanurwa na mukuru we Nkusi Anglebert bari kumwe igihe yicwaga (côte 201), Kaberuka Alexis (côte 200) Kabera Charles

## Page 237

203 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

(côte 200) n’abireze igitero yiciwemo aribo Mudatinya Athanase (côte 200) uvuga ko hari ku cyumweru ku wa 17/04/1994, ko icyo gitero kishe Batutsi n’abo bari kumwe gisobanurwa n’abakirokotse n’abakireze, bakaba ntaho bavuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari akirimo, ko rero Urukiko yajuririye rugomba kubishingiraho rukamurenganura. [40] Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko umutangabuhamya KDA yavuze ko yahungaga ava mu Nyakibanda, i Runyinya kandi ko yavuyeyo ku wa 19/04/1994, abandi bakavuga ko ubwicanyi bw’i Bunge bwabaye kuwa 15/04/1994, bivuze ko KDA yahunze ubwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge bwarabaye, ariko akaba avuga ko yabonye Kabilima Jean Damascène ari kumwe na Batutsi, Urukiko rukabishingiraho kandi Mazimpaka Désiré na Nkusi Anglebert nabo bavuga ko bari kumwe kandi abo bose bataraturutse ahantu hamwe; ko ikibazo afite ku mutangabuhamya KDA ari uko yavuze ko yamubonye muri jenocide, ubundi akavuga ko yamubonye atera grenade, ko ibyo bituma ubuhamya bwe bushidikanwaho. [41] Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko umutangabuhamya Mukanyarwaya Josepha uvukana na KDA, nawe avuga ko yahunze aturutse mu Nyakibanda, I Runyinya, avuga ko yabonye urupfu rwa Batutsi w’i Cyuna, ikibazo ku buhamya bwe kikaba gishingiye ku matariki, kuko avuga ko bavuye mu Nyakibanda ku wa 19/04/1994, mu gihe Mazimpaka Désiré na Nkusi Anglebert baturutse Nyakizu bavuga ko batewe “grenade” i Bunge ku Kabuga ku wa 15/04/1994, naho Mukanyarwaya Josepha akavuga ko Batutsi yiciwe ku Kamabuye, ko ubwo buhamya buvuguruzanya ku byo abatangabuhamya babonye n’igihe babiboneye, aho babiboneye, n’ibyo abandi bari kumwe nabo barokotse babonye, barimo Karera Charles (côte 200)

## Page 238

204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

wavuze ko yari kumwe na Batutsi kandi ko yabonye uwateye grenade yamwishe, ko ari umupolisi witwa Ntaganzwa Etienne hari na Kaberuka Alexis (côte 200). Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga kandi ko hari n’abicanyi bari bahari barimo uwitwa Mudatinya Athanase (côte 200) uvuga ko yari mu gitero cyishe Batutsi n’abo bari kumwe. [42] Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko Urukiko rwemeje ko Musoni yapfanye na Batutsi kandi Rekeraho Vincent wari mu bamwishe yaravuze ko bica Musoni atari kumwe na Batutsi n’aho baguye atari hamwe, ko Musoni nawe yaguye Bunge ariko atari mu kabuga ka Bunge, ko abamushyinguye barimo Ndahunga Etienne (côte 247) bavuga ko atapfanye na Batutsi. [43] Avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ibyo byose, rwirengagiza no kugera iwabo ngo rurebe uko hateye, ngo rubone ko Nyakizu, Akabuga ka Bunge, Akabuga ka Jali n’Akabuga ko ku Rusengero rwa ADPR, ibintu bidashobora kuhakorerwa umunsi umwe kubera intera ihari. [44] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, wunganira Kabilima Jean Damascène, avuga ko Musoni Festus yari umugabo wa Mukamabano Filomène, ko jenoside iba Kabilima Jean Damascène yigaga mu mwaka wa Gatandatu w’amashuri yisumbuye muri seminari ntoya, ko agereranyije n’uko yanganaga, ubuhamya bwa Mukamabano Philomène butashingirwaho kuko yavuze ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari mu gitero cy’abishe umugabo we, nyamara muri Gacaca y’Akagari ka Bunge yo ku wa 21/02/2012, Ruzindana yarivugiye ko aribo bwamwishe, n’igihe bamwiciye, kandi no mu buhamya bwa Kayitaba Melane atigeze avuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari muri icyo gitero.

## Page 239

205 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[45] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, akomeza avuga ko ku rupapuro rwa 25, igika cya 60 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko rwavuze ko ubuhamya bwa KDA, Mazimpaka Désiré na Mukanyarwaya Josepha bwuzuzanya kandi nyamara buvuguruzanya, ikindi ko umuntu uvuye Cyahinda ahunga ajya i Burundi atashoboraga kunyura i Bunge, ko bitari gushoboka ko abo bantu bicirwa aho hantu hamwe, kandi ko Mazimpaka Désiré wari hamwe na se Nkusi Anglebert, yavuze ko Fidèle yahereje Kabilima grenade akayijugunya mu bantu bakitura hasi bamwe bagapfa, naho Mukanyarwaya Josepha yavuze ko Kabilima yabateye grenade, ubundi ko atabonye icyo yari afite, ikindi ko urebye aho yakomokaga nta kuntu yari kuba azi neza Kabilima Jean Damascène wari umusore ubyiruka. [46] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, avuga ko mu gika cya [53] Urukiko rwavuze ko ubuhamya bwa Mukamabano Philomène butashingirwaho, maze ruha agaciro ubuhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré na Mukanyarwaya Josepha, ko aho urukiko rwivuguruje kandi abakoze jenoside babyiyemerera kandi bakaba batavuga Kabilima Jean Damascène mu bufatanyacyaha. [47] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, avuga ko nk’uko yabisobanuye mu Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rujuririrwa, Kabilima Jean Damscène yahamijwe icyaha cy’ubwicanyi hashingirwa ku mvugo z’abatangabuhamya ndetse n’amakuru yagaragajwe mu makayi atandukanye y’Inkiko Gacaca, ko umutangabuhamya Mukamabano Philomène mu Rukiko Gacaca rwa Kanombe B (Côte 33) yavuze abeshya ko ibyo arega Kabilima yabihagazeho nyamara yarahunze Kabilima Jean Damscène ataragera i Bunge kuko yahunze kuwa 14/04/1994 cyangwa kuwa 15/04/1994 Kabilima Jean Damascène akahagera ku wa 25/04/1994, ariko akavuga ko yamubonye ku irembo

## Page 240

206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ry’iwabo ahunga (iwabo wa Kabilima); ko kuba avuga ko atongeye kubona Kabilima Jean Damascène nyuma yo kumunyuraho ahunga (côte ya 36), bituma umuntu yibaza ibyo amuvugaho aho yabiboneye. [48] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, avuga ko ku byerekeye abishwe bagatabwa muri WC, Kabilima Jean Damscène ashinjwa n’abatangabuhamya batanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, ko Sindikubwabo (Côte 46/Kanombe B) na Rekeraho Vincent (Côte 46- 47/Kanombe B) babisobanura, ko nta na hamwe bigeze bajyana na Kabilima Jean Damscène. Avuga ko umutangabuhamya Habimana (Côte 2-3/Bunge) afite urutonde rw’abagize uruhare muri icyo gikorwa kandi Kabilima Jean Damscène ataruriho, kandi ko ariko n’abandi babibona; ko Mudatinya Athanase (Côte 49/Kanombe B) asobanura ko yireze ndetse akemera uruhare yagize muri jenocide, ko ariko muri ubwo bwicanyi atafatanyije na Kabilima Jean Damscène; ko Nzirabatinyi Vincent (Côte 50/Kanombe B) yasobanuye ko ikusanyamakuru ryakorewe muri Gereza ntacyo ryagaragaje ku ruhare rwa Kabilima mu bwicanyi bakoreye i Bunge. [49] Me Munyemana Gatsimbayi Pascal, avuga ko Mukazera Jeanne (Côte 37/Kanombe B), usibye no kuba yari afite imyaka 9 igihe cya jenocide, avuga ko yumvise bavuga ko grenade yishe Batutsi ari Kabilima Jean Damscène wayiteye; ko Mulindabigwi Augustin (Côte 39/Kanombe B) wari Perezida w’inyangamugayo za Gacaca mu Kagali ka Bunge, ahamya ko mu ikusanyamakuru Kabilima Jean Damascène atigeze avugwa mu bishe umuryango wa Mukamabano Philomène, ko ibyo kandi ari nako bigaragara mu nyandiko yandikiwe Inteko Gacaca (Côte 21/Kanombe B); ko Mukanyarwaya Josepha Côte 40/Kanombe B) yabajijwe niba ibyo ashinja Kabilima Jean Damscène yari abizi mbere hose,

## Page 241

207 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

akavuga ko aburana mbere atabimenye, yamushinje aho abimenyeye; Sindikubwabo Célestin (Côte 45/Kanombe B) yasobanuye ko yitabiriye ibitero akavuga n’abo bafatanyije, ko ariko Kabilima Jean Damscène batafatanyije, kandi amuzi guhera mbere ya jenocide. [50] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal avuga ko ku byerekeye urupfu rwa Batutsi, Kabilima ashinjwa, Karera Charles wacitse ku icumu rya jenoside wari kumwe na Batutsi bahunga, asobanura uko byagenze (Côte 50/Kanombe B), ko grenade yamuhitanye yatewe n’uwitwa Ntaganzwa wari umupolisi, ko na Kaberuka Alexis (Côte 60/Kanombe B) asobanura uko byagenze, ndetse ko ibyo Urukiko ruzasanga kuri Côte 4-5/Bunge, ari nako byavuzwe ku byerekeye urupfu rwa Batutsi; ko Ndahunga Etienne wacitse ku icumu i Bunge (Côte 50/Kanombe B), avuga ko yarinze ahunga atarabona Kabilima kandi ko ntacyo amuziho mu ikusanyamakuru kandi ko yari Perezida waryo; ko abatangabuhamya babajijwe (Côte 53- 54/Kanombe B) bemeza ko Batutsi yazize grenade; ko Karerangabo (Côte 54/Kanombe B) avuga uwishe Musoni Festus, umugabo wa Mukamabano Philomène; ibyo Mukambonera Alivera avuga kuri Kabilima Jean Damscène akaba yaravuze ko ari ibyo yumviye mu nkambi ko musaza we yishwe na Kabilima Jean Damascène; ko Kayitaba Melane (Côte 54/Kanombe B) ahamya ko yireze urupfu rwa Musoni Festus kandi ko atafatanyije na Kabilima Jean Damascène. [51] Avuga kandi ko amakayi atandukanye Urukiko rushingiraho, usibye no kuba ntayo Kabilima Jean Damascène yashyikirijwe ngo abashe kugira icyo ayavugaho, n’ibiyakubiyemo atari ukuri kuko bihabanye n’ibyavuzwe n’abaturage imbere y’Inteko Gacaca iburanisha, bikaba bitangaje

## Page 242

208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuba Urukiko rushingira ku nyandiko rwise ko ari amakuru yatanzwe bizwi ko bene ibyo bimenyetso bitari kamara, ko bihuzwa n’ibindi hagamijwe ukuri nyako, akaba asanga uru Rukiko rukwiye kurenga iyo myumvire. [52] Akomeza avuga ko mu buhamya bwa Museruka, yavuze ikibazo cy’imbunda kandi ikivugwa kuri Kabilima Jean Damascène ari grenade, naho mu buhamya bwa KDB uvukana na Mazimpaka Désiré abana ba Nkusi Anglebert, bavuga ko icyo gihe bari hamwe, ko ibyo bisobanura ko ubuhamya bwabo bwari kuba buvuga ikintu kimwe, ko hakwibazwa aho bakuye grenade kandi mu ibazwa ryabo yaravuze ko nta kintu yabonye Kabilima Jean Damscène afite, akaba abona ko Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaje uruhare rwa Kabilima Jean Damascène mu rupfu rwa Batutsi na Musoni. [53] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ku bijyanye n’abatangabuhamya Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko ruburanisha imanza z’ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi rwashingiyeho rwemeza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bwakorewe Batutsi n’abandi biciwe i Bunge, ko kuba Urukiko rwarashingiye ku buhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré aho gushingira ku bwa se Nkusi Anglebert ari uko sewabo Batutsi ari we wari umufashe akaboko, atari se, icyo Mazimpaka Désiré yavuze akaba ari uko yabonye ikintu giturika kigahitana sewabo ko atabonye uwakibateye, ko yahise muri icyo kivunge, kandi ko ubuhamya bwatanzwe na Mukamazimpaka Désiré wavuze ko grenade yatewe na Kabilima Jean Damascène bwuzuzanya n’ubwa Mazimpaka Désiré; ko Mukanyarwaya we avuga ko ubwo bavaga Nyakizu, yumvise ko umugabo we bamwishe atewe grenade kandi ko ari ba Kabilima Jean Damascène babamaze, naho ibyo kuvuga ko abo bantu bari

## Page 243

209 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

ahantu hatandukanye butabitindaho, ko abantu bashobora kuva mu mihanda yose bakagira n’aho bahurira kuko abicanyi bagenda batangatanga. [54] Avuga kandi ko Kayitaba Melane yireze ko yari mu bishe Musoni Festus bari kumwe na Kabilima Jean Damascène, ko Ndatinya yashinje Kabilima Jean Damascène ko yahawe imbunda ku wa 17/04/1994, ko Karerangabo yavuze ko batera kwa Musoni Festus bari kumwe na Kabilima afite imbunda, ko naho Nkusi Anglebert mu nyandikomvugo yo ku wa 24/09/2012 yavuze ko atazi Kabilima Jean Damascène, nyuma mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko ruburanisha imanza z’ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi ku wa 13/09/2017, akavuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène atari uw’i Bunge ahubwo ari uw’i Cyuna, kandi ko igihe hakorwaga jenoside Kabilima Jean Damascène atari i Bunge , ubuhamya bwe bukaba burimo ikibazo cyo kutavugisha ukuri. [55] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha akomeza avuga ko ku bijyanye n’amatariki ubwicanyi bwabereyeho, ko kuva ku wa 14 na 15/04/1994 abantu bari batangiye gusakabaka, ko ubwicanyi bwatangiye ku wa 16 na 17, naho ibyo Mukanyarwaya yavuze akaba ari byo yavanye mu ikusanyamakuru ubwo yari avuye i Burundi. [56] Avuga ko uwitwa Museruka Théoneste (Côte 5-28) yabajijwe mu Bushinjacyaha ariko akaza gupfa atarabazwa n’Urukiko, akaba yarasize avuze ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari afite imbunda yakoreshaga yari yarahawe na Konseye ku wa 17/04/1994, kandi ko ayo makuru yatanzwe mbere y’uko Kabilima Jean Damascène agaruka mu Gihugu kuko babisinyiye ku wa 14/09/2005, bayatanga bisanzuye, ariko aho Kabilima agarukiye mu Gihugu batangira guhindura imvugo, ko nk’uko

## Page 244

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bigaragara kuri “côte 103”, Nkusi Anglebert yafatanyije n’Umukuru w’Akagari gukusanya abantu bo gushinjura Kabilima Jean Damascène, muri 2012 avuga ko atamuzi, muri 2017 mu Rukiko avuga ko amuzi ko atari uw’i Bunge ari uw’i Cyuna, ukuri kwe kukaba kugerwa ku mashyi, asoza avuga ko nta gushidikanya ku bimenyetso bafite by’uruhare Kabilima Jean Damascène yagize mu bwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge, kuko bifatika. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [57] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo ivuga ko buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana. [58] Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 rivuzwe haruguru, igira iti: urukiko ni rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ikaba ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa. Ntirwitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya. Rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze nta cyo bihimbira. [59] Nk’uko bigaragara mu rubanza rujuririrwa guhera mu gika cya [46] kugeza ku cya [61], Urukiko Rukuru rwasesenguye ubuhamya bushinja n’ubushinjura Kabilima Jean Damascène mu rwego rwo gushaka kumenya uruhare yaba yaragize mu iyicwa ry’Abatutsi ryabereye mu Kabuga ka Bunge ryahitanye Batutsi, Musoni Festus n’abandi, rwanzura mu gika cya [60], ko ubuhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré, ubwa KDA n’ubwa Mukanyarwaya Josepha bwuzuzana ku buryo bugaragaza neza ibyabaye, kuko bwose buvuga ku gitero cyabereye mu Kabuga

## Page 245

211 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

ka Bunge kandi bose babonye Kabilima Jean Damascène atera grenade, kandi Mazimpaka Désiré na Mukanyarwaya Josepha bakaba bari basanzwe bamuzi, naho KDA yamenye ko ari Kabilima Jean Damascène wabateye grenade abibwiwe n’umugabo we wari umaze kuraswa asamba, Mazimpaka Désiré akaba yaravuze ko iyo grenade ariyo yahitanye Batutsi naho KDA na Mukanyarwaya Josepha bakaba baravuze abandi bantu bahitanywe n’iyo grenade mu gitero Kabilima Jean Damascène aregwa, aribo Musoni Festus, Nshimiyimana, Karitanyi n’abandi. [60] Ku byo Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko mu gika cya [9] n’icya [25] by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhamije icyaha (uruhare yagize mu bwicanyi bwabereye mu Kabuga ka Bunge) rushingiye ku buhamya bwa Karemangingo wireze ibyaha bya jenoside mu Rukiko-Gacaca Kabilima Jean Damascène yaburanyemo rwa Kanombe B kandi uwo muntu atarigeze abaho nta n’ubuhamya bwe bugaragara muri dosiye, no ku buhamya bwa Murindabigwi wari perezida w’Abunzi i Bunge kandi nta wigeze abaho witwa iryo zina, uru Rukiko rusanga iyo mvugo ye nta shingiro ifite, kuko mu gika cya cyenda (9) hagaragara imvugo y’Ubushinjacyaha kandi nta zina Murindabigwi Augustin rivugwa muri icyo gika, naho ibivugwa mu gika cya [25] akaba ari imvugo ya Kabilima Jean Damascène ubwe, atari iy’Urukiko. [61] Urukiko rurasanga kandi mu isesengura ry’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru guhera mu gika cya [46] kugeza mu gika cya [59], ndetse no mu mwanzuro urwo Rukiko rwafashe ku ruhare rwa Kabilima Jean Damascène mu bwicanyi bwakorewe mu Kabuga ka Bunge, ugaragara mu gika cya [60], cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, ntacyo urwo Rukiko rwavuze kuri Karemangingo cyangwa Murindabigwi, ibyo

## Page 246

212 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kabilima na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal bavuga ko rwashingiye ku buhamya bw'abantu batabaho bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [62] Ku byo Kabilima Jean Damascène na Avoka umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutakabaye rwaramuhamije icyaha rushingiye ku buhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré wavuze ko yari mu babateye grenade yahitanye se wabo Batutsi n’abandi kandi rwaranze ubwa se Nkusi Anglebert bari kumwe ku mpamvu y’uko yavuze ko hatabonaga, Urukiko Rukuru rwaranze gushingira ku buhamya bwa Nkusi Anglebert ku mpamvu y’uko yivuguruza mu byo avuga, kuko avuga ko (igika cya [50]) murumuna we Batutsi bari kumwe yishwe na grenade yatewe n’umupolisi wa Komini witwaga Ntaganzwa kandi avuga ko hatabonaga ku buryo atashoboraga kumenya abari mu gitero, rusanga ubuhamya bwe budakiranuye. Naho ubuhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré wavuze ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari mu bantu bateye grenade yahitanye se wabo Batutsi n’abandi, bwahawe agaciro ku mpamvu y’uko Mazimpaka Désiré agaragaza ko yari asanzwe azi neza Kabilima Jean Damascène kuko bari basanzwe bahurira mu kibaya, aho uyu yabigishirizaga gukina umupira, bwuzuzanya n’ubwatanzwe na Mukanyarwaya Josepha wavuze (igika cya [59]) ko yari mu batutsi benshi bahunze baturuka i Nyakizu banyuze i Bunge, aho basanze igitero, akaba yarabonye Kabilima Jean Damascène i Bunge mu bicanyi abatera grenade yahitanye abantu benshi barimo umugabo wabo Karitanyi Innocent wari umucuruzi, umwana wa muramukazi we witwa Nshimiyimana, Batutsi w’i Cyuna n’abandi, igakomeretsa n’umwana we Kabarisa Eugène, ndetse n’ubwa KDA nawe wavuze ko yamenye Kabilima Jean Damascène mu gihe cya jenoside, ko yamubonye i Bunge ari mu bicanyi... (igika cya 58); ko yabateyemo grenade yahitanye

## Page 247

213 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

nyirabukwe, kandi ko n’umugabo we yarasiwe aho akamubwira ko Kabilima Jean Damascène wiganye na murumuna we ari we urimo kubatera grenade. [63] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru, rwarahaye agaciro ubuhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré rukakima ubwa Nkusi Anglebert, ari uko nk’uko rwabisobanuye mu gika cya [50], Nkusi Anglebert yivuguruza mu byo avuga, kuko avuga ko hatabonaga neza ku buryo atashoboraga kumenya abagize igitero, nyamara akemeza ko grenade yatewe na Ntaganzwa kandi avuga ko atabonaga neza, mu gihe ubuhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré wavuze ibyo yabonye bwuzuzanya n’ubwa Mukanyarwaya Josepha n’ubwa KDA, nabo bavuze ibyo babonye bihura n’ibya gerenade yateye ikica abantu batandukanye nk’uko byibukijwe haruguru. [64] Rusanga rero impamvu yatumye ubuhamya bwa Nkusi Anglebert butemerwa n’Urukiko Rukuru ari uko yivuguruza mu byo avuga, ibyo Kabilima Jean Damascène na Avoka umwunganira bavuga ko ubwo buhamya butahawe agaciro kubera ko yavuze ko hatabonaga kuko hari nijoro, bashaka kumvikanisha ko kuba Nkusi Anglebert yari kumwe na Mazimpaka Désiré bisobanura ko ibyo uyu yavuze ko yabonye nabyo bitagombaga guhabwa agaciro kuko bose batarebaga neza bikaba nta shingiro bifite, kuko ubuhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré bwuzuzanya n’ubw’abandi babajijwe, mu gihe ubwa Nkusi Anglebert buvuguruzanya kuko hamwe avuga ko hatabonaga, ubundi akavuga ko Batutsi yishwe n’umupolisi wa Komini witwa Ntanganzwa. [65] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ibyo Kabilima Jean Damascène na Avoka umwunganira bavuga ko harebwe ko mu gihe cya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi muri 1994, Mazimpaka

## Page 248

214 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Désiré yari afite imyaka icyenda (9) gusa, n’aho yabaga (i Cyuna) bitashobokaga ko amenya Kabilima Jean Damascène, nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, Mazimpaka Désiré yari asanzwe azi neza Kabilima Jean Damascène kuko bahuriraga mu kibaya aho yabigishirizaga gukina umupira, kandi imvugo ze zikaba zuzuzanya n’iz’abandi batangabuhamya babajijwe, bityo akaba nta mpamvu ubuhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré butahabwa agaciro, cyane cyane ko bwunganiwe n’ubwa Mukanyarwaya Josepha n’ubwa KDA.8 [66] Ku byo Kabilima Jean Damascène na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal umwunganira bavuga ko igitero kishe Batutsi kivugwa n’abakirokotse nka Kaberuka Alexis na Kabera Charles, Ndahunga Stefano, Nkusi Anglebert na Nyirimana Innocent n’abakireze nka Mudatinya Athanase na Nzirabatinyi Vincent, ariko ko nk’uko babigaragarije Urukiko-Gacaca rwa Kanombe B, bose ntawe uvuga ko yabonye Kabilima Jean Damascène muri icyo gitero, ndetse ko n’urupfu rwa Musoni Festus ko Karerangabo yavuze uwamwishe mu Rukiko-Gacaca rwa Kanombe B na Kayitaba Melane akaba yararwireze, Urukiko Rukuru, rwagaragaje guhera mu gika cya [48] kugeza ku cya [51], ko ubuhamya bw’abo bantu ntacyo bwamarira Kabilima Jean Damascène ku byaha aregwa, ko ibyo Rekeraho Charles avuga ko yaturanye na Kabilima Jean Damascène kandi bareranywe, agasobanura ko ibitero yagiyemo nta “grenade” yatewemo ko bakoreshaga impiri, bidashinjura Kabilima Jean Damascène kuko ntaho bihuriye n’ibyo aregwa.

8 Ingingo ya 63 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko abana batarengeje imyaka 14 kimwe n’abantu bakuru badafite ubushobozi bemerewe gutanga ubuhamya mu nkiko batarahiye iyo babasha kubara inkuru y’uko byagenze, ariko ubuhamya bwabo bugomba kunganirwa n’ibindi bimenyetso.

## Page 249

215 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[67] Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje kandi ko Mudatinya Etienne nawe adashinjura Kabilima kuko avuga ko atari asanzwe amuzi, akaba ataranamenye niba yari mu gitero kimwe nawe cyahitanye Batutsi akaba ataramenye igihe Batutsi yapfiriye kuko yabimenye afunguwe; ko ubuhamya bwa Nkusi Anglebert nta gaciro bwahabwa kuko yivuguruza, aho avuga ko atashoboraga kumenya neza abari bagize igitero, ariko akemeza ko “grenade” yatewe na Ntaganzwa. Naho ubuhamya bwa Ndahunga Stefano n’ubwa Nzirabatinyi, ntacyo bwafasha muri uru rubanza kuko ibyo bireze ntaho bihuriye n’ibyo Kabilima Jean Damascène aregwa muri uru rubanza. [68] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Kabilima Jean Damascène na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal umwunganira, batarashoboye kuvuguruza ibyo Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiyeho rwemeza ko ubuhamya bwa Kaberuka Alexis, Kabera Charles, Ndahunga Stefano, Nkusi Anglebert, Mudatinya Athanase na Nzirabatinyi Vincent butashingirwaho, kuko batigeze banenga ibyo urwo Rukiko rwashingiyeho, bakaba rero ari nta n’aho bashingira basaba uru Rukiko kuba rwabushingiraho ruhindura icyemezo Kabilima Jean Damascène yafatiwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe. [69] Ku byo Kabilima Jean Damascène n’Avoka we bavuga ko ubuhamya bwa KDA ndetse n’ubwa Mukanyarwaya Josepha butahabwa agaciro ku mpamvu y’uko bavuga ko babonye Kabilima Jean Damascène ari kumwe na Batutsi i Bunge ku wa 15/04/1994 kandi bavuga ko bahageze bahunga baturutse mu Nyakibanda, aho bavuye ku wa 19/04/1994, ubuhamya bwabo bukaba buvuguruzanya n’ibyo abandi batangabuhamya bari kumwe nabo barokotse babonye, nka Karera Charles (côte 200), Kaberuka Alexis (côte 200), aho babibonye n’igihe babiboneye,

## Page 250

216 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, ubuhamya bwa Mazimpaka Désiré, Mukanyarwaya Josepha n’ubwa KDA bwuzuzanya, bukaba butateshwa agaciro n’uko buvuguruzanya n’ubwatanzwe na Nkusi Anglebert, ubwa Kabera Charles, Kaberuka Alexis na Mudatinya Athanase kuko rwagaragaje ko ubuhamya bwabo butashingirwaho ku mpamvu y’uko ntacyo bwamarira Kabilima Jean Damascène muri uru rubanza. [70] Urukiko rusanga uretse n’ibyo kandi, ubuhamya bwa Nkusi Anglebert, ubwa Kabera Charles, Kaberuka Alexis na Mudatinya Athanase bushidikanywaho, ku mpamvu y’uko bwatanzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ku kagambane na Kabilima Jean Damascène, bugamije kuvuguruza amakuru yatanzwe mu gihe cy’ikusanyamakuru, nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandikomvugo Ubushinjacyaha bwakoreye Rindiro Tharicisse wahoze ari inyangamugayo mu Rukiko-Gacaca rwa Kanombe B, wavuze ko bamwe muri abo batangabuhamya (Mudatinya Athanase na Nzirabatinyi Vincent) bari barashinje Kabilima Jean Damascène mu ikusanyamakuru bivuguruje bakabeshya Urukiko-gacaca bagamije kumushinjura bikabaviramo guhanishwa gufungwa amezi atandatu, aho mu nyandiko ziri kuri côte 188-190, côte 191-194, côte 195-197, côte 198-199 na côte 200- 201, bigaragara ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yandikiye Nsengimana Jean Marie Vianney, Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagari ka Bunge amubwira abantu amushakira bazavuga ibyo babonye i Bunge, uyu akabashaka akabakoresha inyandikomvugo yoherereje Kabilima Jean Damascène ziboneka kuri côte 200-201, uwo muyobozi akaba yaranakurikiranyweho gukora imirimo y’Ubugenzacyaha bitari mu bubasha bwe.

## Page 251

217 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[71] Ku byo Kabilima Jean Damascène na Avoka we bavuga ko ubuhamya bwa KDA n’ubwa Mukanyarwaya Josepha bwateshwa agaciro hashingiwe ku itariki bavuga bamuboneyeho n’iyo bavuga ko bahungiyeho, kuko bavuga ko bahunze baturuka mu Nyakibanda i Runyinya ku wa 19/04/1994, ariko bakavuga ko babonye Kabilima Jean Damascène ari kumwe na Batutsi ku wa 15/04/1994, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga mu gihe imvugo ya KDA n’iya Mukanyarwaya Josepha zishyigikiwe n’iz’abandi bemeza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yagize uruhare mu iyicwa rya Batutsi nk’uko byerekanywe haruguru kandi bikagaragazwa mu ikusanyamakuru, ko yari mu gitero cyamuhitanye i Bunge, kuba KDA na Mukanyarwaya Josepha batarashoboye guhuza amatariki bavuga bahungiyeho n’ay’igihe ubwicanyi bw’i Bunge bwahitanye Batutsi n’abandi benshi, sibyo byatesha agaciro ubuhamya bwabo, kuko bishoboka ko bakwibeshya ku matariki, bitewe n’ibihe bikomeye banyuzemo, kandi bikaba byaterwa nanone n’igihe kirekire cyari gishize jenoside yakorewe abatutsi ibaye, bityo nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza ICT–2001-72–T, rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) ku wa 02/12/2008, aho rwasobanuye ko kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavuga kimwe cyangwa bashobora kwibeshya ho mu buryo budakabije, cyangwa iyo ubuhamya bw’umutangabuhamya yatangiye mu Rukiko budahuje n’ibyo yavuze mbere, bitagira ingaruka ku kwizerwa k’ubuhamya bwabo kuko bishobora kuba byaratewe n’igihe kirekire gishize cyo kuva ku itariki icyaha cyakoreweho nk’uko bigaragarira mu nyandiko itanga ikirego kugeza ku itariki ubwo buhamya bwatangiweho mu Rukiko.9

9 ICTR –2001 -72 –T The Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi, par. 32 rendu le 2/12/2008: “La Chambre reconnaît qu'il s'est écoulé une longue période entre la date des faits allégués dans l'acte d'accusation et celle des dépositions à

## Page 252

218 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[72] Ku bijyanye n’uko Urukiko Rukuru rutageze iwabo wa Kabilima Jean Damascène ngo rurebe uko hateye, uru Rukiko rurasanga mu gihe Urukiko Rukuru rwanyuzwe n’ibimenyetso rwabonye rugasanga atari ngombwa kongera gukora irindi perereza (kuko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe hari iryo rwakoze muri CNG), bitatesha agaciro icyemezo rwafashe, cyane cyane ko atari itegeko ko Urukiko rukora iperereza igihe cyose rubisabwe.10 [73] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Kabilima Jean Damascène na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko Musoni yapfanye na Batutsi kandi Rekeraho Vincent wari mu bamwishe yaravuze ko bica Musoni atari kumwe na Kabilima, ko Musoni nawe yaguye Bunge ariko atari mu kabuga ka Bunge, ko no mu bamushyinguye, uwitwa Ndahunga Etienne (côte 247) avuga ko Musoni Festus atapfanye na Batutsi, nta shingiro bifite kuko ari ntaho bigaragara mu rubanza rujuririrwa ko hari aho Urukiko rwahamije Kabilima Jean Damascène icyaha rushingiye ku buhamya bwatanzwe na Rekeraho Vincent na Ndahunga Etienne, kuko rwavuze ko ubuhamya bwabo ntacyo bwafasha kuko budahuye n’ibyo Kabilima Jean Damascène akurikiranyweho. Rurasanga ahubwo nk’uko byanavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rwaramuhamije icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bwakorewe Batutsi, Musoni n’abandi rushingiye ku buhamya bw’abantu bamushinje barimo Mazimpaka Desiré, Mukanyarwaya Josepha, na KDA.

I'audience. Ainsi, Ie manque de précision ou I'existence de contradictions mineures entre les dépositions de différents témoins ou entre la déposition d'un témoin et ses déclarations antérieures, n'ont généralement pas été considérés comme jetant nécessairement Ie discrédit sur ces dépositions”. 10 Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, igitabo cya 4, nimero 15, ukwakira 2012 (Urubanza RPA 0101/09/CS rwaciwe ku wa 01/06/2012, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Nzajyibwami, p,38).

## Page 253

219 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[74] Urukiko rusanga ibyo Me Munyemana Gatsimbnyi Pascal avuga ko ibyo Mukamabano Philomène ashinja Kabilima Jean Damascène ko yari mu gitero cyishe umugabo we bitahabwa agaciro kuko ngo icyo gihe Kabilima Jean Damascène yari akiga muri Seminari ntoya, nta shingiro byahabwa kuko kuba yarigaga mu Seminari ntoya ibyo bidasobanura ko atagiye mu bitero byishe abatutsi. Rusanga kandi kuba avuga ko ibyo Mukamabano Philomène amushinja bitahabwa ishingiro kubera ko Ruzindana yavugiye mu Rukiko-Gacaca rwa Bunge ku wa 21/12/2012 ko aribo bamwishe kandi ko na Kayitaba Melane atigeze avuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari muri icyo gitero, nabyo nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko mbere y’uko bivuguruza muri iyo gacaca ya Bunge, mu ikusanyamakuru Ruzindana yari yireze ko yari mu gitero kishe Musoni ari kumwe na Kabilima Jean Damascène, Ndatinya Athanase yashinje Kabilima Jean Damascène ko bamuhaye imbunda ku wa 17/04/1994, naho Karerangabo yavuze ko batera kwa Musoni bari kumwe na Kabilima Jean Damascène afite imbunda. [75] Rusanga ibyo Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko ubuhamya bwa Mukamabano Philomène uvuga ko yamubonye ahunga ku wa 15/04/1994, atari ukuri kuko yahunze Kabilima ataragera i Bunge, nta shingiro byahabwa kuko byamaze kugaragazwa ko kuri ayo matariki Kabilima Jean Damascène yari i Bunge, atari i Kigali nk’uko aburana abivuga. Naho iby’uko umuntu uvuye Cyahinda ahunga ajya i Burundi atashoboraga kunyura i Bunge, nabyo bikaba nta shingiro bifite kuko nk’umuntu wahungaga ubwicanyi yashoboraga kunyura aho ariho hose, atitaye ku cyerekezo cy’aho yifuza kujya, abitewe n’ibihe yarimo ahigwa ngo yicwe.

## Page 254

220 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[76] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Kabilima Jean Damascène atarashyikirijwe amakaye y’ikusangamakuru ngo agire icyo ayavugaho atari impamvu yatuma icyo kimenyetso giteshwa agaciro kuko ayo makuru Urukiko rwayabonye ubwo rwakoraga iperereza muri CNLG kandi nk’uko bigaragara ku rupapuro rwa 7, igika cya [14] cy’urubanza RP GEN 0003/15/TGI/NYBE, mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe, Kabilima Jean Damascène n’umwunganizi we Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal bagize icyo babivugaho. Naho iby’uko ibikubiye muri ayo makayi atari ukuri, bikaba nta gaciro byahabwa kuko nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru (igika cya 33), ayo makuru yatanzwe hatagamijwe kumushinja, ahubwo yakusanyijwe mu buryo bwa rusange mu rwego rwo kwegeranya amakuru y’ibyabaye mu gihe cya jenoside yakorewe abatutsi muri 1994. Nta cyabuza rero ko ayo makuru aherwaho hamwe n’ibindi bimenyetso, hasuzumwa niba ibyaha akurikiranywe ho bimuhama. [77] Urukiko rw’’Ubujurire nyuma y’iri sesengura, rurasanga Kabilima Jean Damascène na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal umwunganira, batarashoboye kuvuguruza ibyo Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiyeho rumuhamya uruhare yagize mu bwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge mu gihe cya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994, bwahitanye Batutsi na Musoni Festus n’abandi bari kumwe, bityo ibyo bavuga ko yahamijwe icyaha cy’ubwicanyi bwakorewe Batutsi na Musoni Festus hashingiwe ku buhamya burimo guhuzagurika no kuvuguzanya bikaba nta shingiro bifite. II.2. Ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha 1. Kumenya niba Kabilima Jean Damascène yarakoze urutonde rw’abana b’abatutsi bari bataricwa abishaka

## Page 255

221 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

kandi azi ko bagomba kwicwa ku buryo yabihanirwa nk’uwakoze icyaha cya jenoside [78] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahanaguyeho Kabilima Jean Damascène icyaha cya jenocide gishingiye ku rutonde yakoze rw’abana b’abatutsi bari bataricwa nyuma bakaza kwicwa, rwirengagije ibimenyetso bwarugaragarije bishingiye cyane ku mvugo za Kabilima Jean Damascène ubwe no kubuhamya atigeze anyomoza, ko Urukiko mu gika cya 68 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe rwagaragaje ko Kabilima Jean Damascène nta bushake yari afite bwo gukora icyaha cyo gukora urutonde kandi ko nta cyemeza ko yari asangiye umugambi na Rwandenzi na Nyamukaza mw’iyicwa ry’abo bana b’abatutsi, nyamara ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yakoze urwo rutonde ku bushake kandi azi neza ko ikigamijwe ari uko abo bana bicwa, ko kandi nk’uko babisobanuye mu gika cya 64-66 cy’urubanza rujurirwa, Kabilima Jean Damascène yari umuntu mukuru urengeje imyaka 20, arimo kurangiza amashuri yisumbuye, azi ko Abatutsi aribo barimo kwicwa. [79] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza buvuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène mu bisobanuro yagiye atanga kw’ikorwa ry’urwo rutonde rw’abana bagombaga kwicwa, yagiye ahindagura imvugo aho muri Gacaca yavuze ko yakoze uru rutonde mu rwego rwo kurindira abo bana umutekano, ubundi avuga ko bashakaga kumenya uko bagabana imitungo y’abahigwaga (Abatutsi), ko ageze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye ho yahakanye kuba yarakoze uru rutonde ariko ageze mu Rukiko Rukuru ararwemera, buvuga ko guhindagura imvugo kwe bigaragaza ko yari azi ko ibyo yakoze ari icyaha. [80] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko mu Rukiko Rukuru basabye ko Kabilima Jean Damascène asobanura ukuntu yasabwe

## Page 256

222 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kwandika imitungo ntabe aribyo akora ahubwo akandika amazina y’abana bihishe muri ako gace abiburira igisubizo ariko Urukiko ntirwabiha agaciro, ko kandi Urukiko rwagarutse ku buhamya bw’abakecuru bari bahishe aba bana rukirengagiza ubwa Kayitaba Melane nawe warubahishe, ko kandi kuba Narame Thacienne yaravuze ko atabonye Kabilima Jean Damascène mu bantu baje gutwara abana iwe bitavuga ko we atagiye mu zindi ngo, kuko mu buhamya bwe yongeyeho ko atazi abagiye mu zindi ngo. Avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije kandi ubuhamya Ndutiye Jean Baptiste yatangiye muri Gacaca (cote 538 doc CNLG – Kanombe B) aho yavuze ko mu bo bafatanyije kwica abana ba Ruhinguka Claver na Kabilima Jean Damascène yarimo. Avuga ko Urukiko barwibukije kenshi ko Kabilima Jean Damascène mu Nkiko-Gacaca yivugiye ko yagendanaga na Rwandenzi Michel na Nyamukaza azi ko ari abicanyi ruharwa, ko bitumvikana ukuntu umwicanyi yamusabye gukora urutonde rw’imitungo akandika amazina y’abana bataricwa, ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagaragaza icyashingiweho ruvuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène atari asangiye umugambi n’abicanyi mu iyicwa ry’abo bana. [81] Kabilima Jean Damascène na Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal umwunganira bavuga ko hari abantu Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza kumutsindiraho arimo Rwandenzi na Nyamukaza nyamara bo akaba nta dosiye bigeze bakorerwa muri Gacaca cyangwa mu zindi nkiko ngo abe yarabaye umufatanyacyaha wabo, ko hari abantu bireze ndetse bagasaba imbabazi ku rupfu rw’abo bana barimo Nzirabatinyi Vincent na Ndutiye Jean Baptitse kandi nta ruhare ruziguye cyangwa rutaziguye bamushinja kuba yaragize mu rupfu rw’abo bana.

## Page 257

223 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[82] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal wunganira Kabilima Jean Damascène, avuga ko iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha idakwiye guhabwa ishingiro kuko butagaragaza ibisobanuro bivanaho isesengura ryakozwe n’Urukiko kuri iyi ngingo, ko mu gusesengura iyi ngingo Urukiko rwitaye cyane ku buhamya bwatanzwe n’abari aho icyo gikorwa cyabereye, imyitwarire y’abari aho ndetse n’ibyakurikiye icyo gikorwa maze rwemeza ko nta ruhare rwaba uruziguye cyangwa urutaziguye Kabilima Jean Damascène yagize mu rupfu rwabo, rwemeza ko ari umwere kuri icyo gikorwa, ko ari naho bashingira bavuga ko iyi ngingo y’ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha nta shingiro ifite. [83] Akomeza avuga ko kuri côte ya 41 umutangabuhamya Narame Thacienne mu iburanisha ryabereye mu Rukiko-Gacaca rwa Kanombe B, yasobanuye ko Nyamukaza na Rwandenzi Bategetse Kabilima Jean Damascène kubandikira abantu bari bakiriho i Bunge, kuri “côte ya 42” ho yasobanuye ko Kabilima Jean Damascène atari mu gitero cyajyanye abo bana b’abatutsi; ko kuri “côte ya 42” kandi, hagaragara ubuhamya bwa Kabarenzi Xavérine wasobanuye ko Kabilima yategetswe kwandika nk’umuntu wari aho kandi ko icyo gihe nta kintu yari afite, kuri côte ya 43 Kabarenzi Xavérine akaba naho yaravuze ko nta ntwaro bari bafite ubwo bari kumwe na Kabilima Jean Damascène kuko bari bihagarariye nk’abana, ibi kandi bikaba byaravuzwe na Kayitaba Melane kuri “côte 55” mu nteko y’Urukiko-Gacaca rwa Kanombe B. [84] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal anavuga ko nta gikorwa cy’ubwicanyi cyakurikiye inama yakozwe biturutse ku rutonde bavuga ko rwakozwe n’uwo yunganira, ko Urukiko rudakwiye gushingira ku mpamvu y’uko Kabilima Jean

## Page 258

224 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Damascène yari muri iyo nama kuko yari ahari nk’abandi bantu bategetswe n’Ubuyobozi kuyijyamo, kandi ko kwitabira inama ubwabyo atari icyaha, ko Urukiko rukwiye gusesengura imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bemeza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène nk’umwana wari muri iyo nama azi kwandika yategetswe n’abayobozi gukora urutonde, cyane ko bemeza ko icyo gihe nta kintu yari afite, bikaba byerekana ko nta mugambi mubisha yari afite. [85] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal yavuze ko ibyo bavuga byasesenguwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) mu rubanza Ubushinjacyaha bwaregagamo Mugenzi Justin na Mugiraneza Prosper, aho Mugenzi Justin nk’umuntu wari minisitiri yari yahamijwe ibikorwa byo kwitabira inama zayobowe na Perezida Sindikubwabo Théodor, ariko Urugereko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rwaremeje ko ibyo bitagize icyaha kuko yuzuzaga inshingano ze nka Minisistiri, ibi kandi bikaba byaranemejwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Mbere rw’Iremezo rwa Kibuye ku wa 31/07/2002 aho rwavuze ko kubyerekeranye n’inama yabereye ku Kibuye yayobowe na Kambanda Jean, ko nta wahita yemeza ko uwagiye mu nama yishe cyane ko mbere y’inama na nyuma y’inama nta bikorwa bibi biyiherekeje byabayeho aregwa, kandi ko nta jambo ribi yavugiyemo, ko n’amabi yavugiyemo nta kigaragaza ko yagiye kuyashyira mu bikorwa kuko kujya mu nama atari icyaha nko gushyira mu bikorwa ibyavugiwemo, ibyo bikaba byaratumye ibyaha Hategekimana Sabine yaregwaga bitamuhama kuko ibyashingirwagaho byarimo gukeka no gushidikanya, ko rero asanga ibi byavuzwe n’izo nkiko zombi bigaragaza ko ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha ndetse n’ibimenyetso byabwo nta shingiro bifite, bikaba bidakwiye ko uwo yunganira ahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside hashingiwe mu

## Page 259

225 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

kugenekereza kuko TPIR yagaragaje ko iki cyaha kitagenekerezwa. [86] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal wunganira Kabilima Jean Damascène, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasesenguye ubuhamya bwa Narame Thacienne na Ruhinguka, Kabarenzi Xavérine, bose babajijwe kandi bari muri iyo nama, rubona haba mu myiteguro y’iyo nama cyangwa mu iyicwa ry’abo bana nta ruhare rwa Kabilima Jean Damascène rwarimo, nk’uko bigaragara mu bika bya 70 na 72 by’incarubanza ndetse no mu gika cya 73, Urukiko rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 96 y’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe. [87] Asoza avuga ko kuva mu Bushinjacyaha Kabilima Jean Damascène yagiye avuga ko nta rutonde yigeze akora kugira ngo abana bicwe, ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko anyuranya n’uwo yunganira atari byo, ko Urukiko rwanavuze ko nta kimenyetso kigaragaza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yaba yaragize umugambi mu itegurwa cyangwa mu ikorwa rya buriya bwicanyi. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [88] Ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, igira iti: mu manza nshinjabyaha, ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe uburyo bwo kuhaba ngo banyomozanye. Urukiko ruhamya ku buryo butavuguruzwa ko ibimenyetso byose birega cyangwa biregura ari byo kandi ko bishobora kwemerwa.

## Page 260

226 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[89] Ingingo ya 65 y’iryo Tegeko igira iti: urukiko ni rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ikaba ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa. Ntirwitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya. Rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze nta cyo bihimbira. [90] Mu icibwa ry’urubanza RPA/GEN00006/2016/HCCIC rwajuririwe, Urukiko rwashingiye ku buhamya bwa Narame Thacienne n’ubwa Kabarenzi Xavérine, bose bemeza ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yari mu nama, maze Nyamukaza na Rwandezi Michel bakamuhereza urupapuro n’ikaramu ku itegeko ngo yandike amazina y’abo bana n’ay’ababahishe arabandika, ruvuga ko uretse ibyo Kabilima Jean Damascène yakoze, nta kindi Ubushinjacyaha bwagaragaje mu myifatire ye no mu mikorere ye cyerekana ko ibyo yakoze yari asangiye umugambi na Rwandezi na Nyamukaza, rubishingiraho ruvuga ko icyo cyaha kitamuhama. [91] Mu buhamya bwa Kabarenzi Xavérine (côte 35-36), avuga ko iyo nama yari yatumijwe na Konseye Rwandenzi Michel yari igamije guhamagaza abantu bari bahishe Abatutsi, ndetse ko nawe bamuhamagaye ngo azane umwana yari ahishe kuko we yari mu batarahigwaga, maze Nyamukaza na Rwandenzi Michel basubika inama kubera ko bwari bwije, bavuga ko indi nama izabera mu rya Bidandi, ariko baravuga ngo nibandike abo Batutsi n’ababacumbikiye, ko aribwo bahaye Kabilima Jean Damascène urupapuro n’ikaramu ku itegeko ngo niyandike amazina y’abo bantu, maze Nzirabatinyi Vincent wari umuselire akagenda amubwira amazina. Anavuga ko uwo munsi

## Page 261

227 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

nta muntu bishe, ko abo banditswe bishwe mu kwezi kwa gatandatu 1994. [92] Mu buhamya bwa Narame Thacienne (côte 32), yasobanuye ko yabonye Kabilima Jean Damascène mu bari baje mu nama, maze Nyamukaza na Rwandenzi Michel bamuha ikaramu n’urupapuro ngo yandike abantu bahishe abana b’Abatutsi, ko nibababura bazabibazwa, ko mu bandi yibuka bafatanyije kubandika harimo Bizumuremyi na Mbonimpa. Uwitwa Museruka Théoneste, nawe mu buhamya bwe, avuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène ari mu bakoze urutonde rw’Abatutsi ba Bunge bagombaga kwicwa (côte 27). Ibyo kandi niko byavuzwe na Mukamabano Philomène wanavuze ko mu gihe cya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi muri 1994 Kabilima Jean Damascène yakoranaga n’abayobozi ba Komini Nyakizu, yitwara gisirikare, ko no mu nama bakoraga zateguraga jenocide ari we wabandikiraga, akaba ari muri urwo rwego yakoze urutonde rw’Abatutsi bagombaga kwicwa (côte 13-14). [93] Mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyamagabe mu rubanza RP GEN 0003/15/TGI/NYGBE, Kabilima Jean Damascène yaburanye avuga ko inama yabayeho itumijwe na Burugumesitiri izamo abaturage bose nawe ayizamo nk’abandi, mu gihe itaratangira basaba ko babarebera umuntu wabandikira maze aba ariwe bahitamo, mu gihe atarandika bavuga ko bwije ko izakomereza mu rya Bidandi. Naho mu miburanire ye mu Rukiko Rukuru, avuga ko adahakana ko yakoze urutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi bari bataricwa nyuma bakaza kwicwa, ariko ko urwo rutonde yarukoze abitegetswe na Rwandenzi Michel na Nyamukaza (côte 69). Ageze mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurure, Kabilima Jean Damascène yavuze ko icyo gihe hatumijwe inama y’igihiriri cy’abaturage, ko ubwo bari mu nama ari bwo babajije

## Page 262

228 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

uwaba azi gusoma no kwandika, ashyira hejuru ukuboko bamubwira kuza imbere, ariko ko uwo munsi inama yasubitswe, ko rero nta rutonde yigeze akora, ko n’ibivugwa byose ari amarangamutima. [94] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko bigaragara mu gika kibanziriza iki, Kabilima Jean Damascène yararanzwe no guhinduranya imvugo ku bijyanye n’uburyo urutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi bari bataricwa nyuma bakaza kwicwa rwakozwe, kuko yabanje kuvuga ko abaturage aribo bamutoranyije ariko ko uwo munsi nta rutonde yakoze kuko inama yahise isubikwa kubera ubwire, ubundi ko yarukoze ashyizweho agahato, nyuma akavuga ko ari we wahisemo gukora urutonde rw’abo bana ku bushake bwe, ariko ko atarukoze kuko inama yasubitswe. [95] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso n’itangwa ryabyo ryavuzwe haruguru, ibiteganya, icyitabwaho kugira ngo ubuhamya bugire agaciro ari ubumenyi abubutanze bafite ku kibazo batangira ubuhamya. Nk’uko kandi byemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RPAA 0059/08/CS rwaciye kuwa 19/11/2010, ubuhamya ntibuteshwa agaciro n’uko ababutanze bafitanye amasano hagati yabo cyangwa se bafite inyungu mu rubanza, kuko agaciro kabwo kadashingiye ku babutanga ahubwo gashingira ku kuri gukubiye muri ubwo buhamya, ako gaciro kakemezwa n’Urukiko nyuma yo gusesengura imvugo z’abatangabuhamya.11 Rurasanga rero imvugo z’abatangabuhamya Narame Thacienna na Kabarenzi Xavérine bose bahuriza ku kuba n’ubwo inama yasubitswe kubera ubwire, ariko igikorwa cyo gukora urutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi

11 RPAA 0059/08/CS rwaciwe kuwa 19/11/2010, Ubushinjacyaha vs Nshimiyimana Alexis et Crts.

## Page 263

229 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

cyarakozwe kuri uwo munsi, izo mvugo zahabwa agaciro kuko n’ubwo baba bafitanye isano n’abana bishwe, bigaragara ko nyuma baje kwicwa basanzwe aho bari bahishwe, bityo ibyo Kabilima Jean Damascène avuga ko nta rutonde rw’abo bana yakoze kuko inama y’uwo munsi yasubitswe urutonde rudakozwe bikaba nta shingiro byahabwa. [96] Urukiko ruhuje imvugo za Kabilima Jean Damascène n’ibyavuzwe n’abatangabuhamya, aribo Narame Thacienne, Muberuka Théoneste, Mukamabano Philomène ndetse na Kabarenzi Xavérine, rurasanga guhakana kwe bidakuraho ko ari we wakoze rutonde rw’abo bana b’Abatutsi bari bataricwa nyuma bakaza kwicwa, igisigaye akaba ari ugusuzuma niba urwo rutonde rwarakozwe mu mugambi wo kwica abana barushyizweho kandi niba ari rwo rwahereweho kugira ngo abo bana b’Abatutsi bicwe. [97] Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba Kabilima Jean Damascène yari azi umugambi uri inyuma y’ikorwa ry’urwo rutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi bari bataricwa, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga mu buhamya bwa Kabarenzi Xavérine bwavuzwe haruguru, avuga ko yari mu bantu batahigwaga (abahutu), ko nawe bamwanditse kubera yari afite umwana yahishe, ibi bigashimangirwa n’imvugo za Kabilima Jean Damascène y’uko icyatumye bakora urutonde rw’abo bana byari ukugira ngo bazabone uko bagabana ibyabo, bikagaragaza ko mu gihe Kabilima Jean Damascène yakoraga urutonde rw’abo bana, yari azi neza umugambi wo kubica wari ubyihishe inyuma, kuko batari kugabana imitungo y’abantu bakiriho. Ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko yari yamaze kugira inyifato ndetse n’imyitwarire ishyigikira umugambi w’ubwicanyi, yari asangiye na Rwandenzi Michel na Nyamukaza bamuhaye akazi ko kubandika, ibyo

## Page 264

230 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko Rukuru rwavuze ko atari asangiye umugambi n’abicanyi mu iyicwa ry’abo bana bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [98] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kandi ubwo Kabilima Jean Damascène yakoraga urutonde rw’abana b’Abatutsi ndetse n’ingo zicumbikiye, abo bana bari bataricwa, bikorwa mu gihe cya genoside yakorewe Abatutsi ubwicanyi bwaratangiye kandi bugikomeza, bamwe mu babyeyi b’abo bana bamaze kwicwa, abandi bashoboye guhunga nabo barahunze, bityo akaba atavuga ko akora urwo rutonde atari azi ikigamijwe, kandi avuga ko bagombaga kugabana imitungo y’iwabo. Ikindi kandi urutonde Kabilima Jean Damascène yakoze si urutonde rw’abana bose, ahubwo yakoze urutonde rwihariye, rw’abana b’Abatutsi bari bataricwa, azi ko ibarura ry’abo rigamije kugira ngo hatagira umututsi wibagirana agacika umugambi wo kubarimbura wariho muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, kugira ngo bagabane ibyabo. [99] Urukiko rurasanga Kabilima Jean Damascène yarakoze urutonde rw’abana b’abatutsi azi neza ko hagamijwe kubica kandi koko baza kwicwa bazira ubwoko bwabo, ibi bikaba bimugira icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera inkunga ikomeye yatanze, nk’uko bisobanurwa mu ngingo ya 1, 5o mu gace ka b, y’Itegeko No 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange12, kuko yakoze urutonde rw’abo bana azi neza ko ikigamijwe ari ukugira ngo bicwe n’ubwo we yaba ataragize uruhare ruziguye cyangwa rutaziguye mu kubica nk’uko abivuga, icyangombwa akaba ari uko igikorwa yakoze

12 Iyi ngingo igira iti: icyitso ni umuntu wafashije uwakoze icyaha mu byagiteguye bigaragarira muri kimwe mu bikorwa bikurikira: b) ufasha uwakoze icyaha mu byagiteguye, mu byoroheje imikorere yacyo cyangwa mu byakinonosoye kandi yarabikoze abizi, cyangwa uwashishikaje uwakoze icyaha.

## Page 265

231 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

cyo kubandika, yagikoze azi neza ko bazicwa bakigarurira imitungo yari iy’ababyeyi babo bari bamaze kwicwa abandi bahunze, kandi icyo gikorwa cyo gukora urutonde kikaba cyarafashije ababishe kutibeshya kuri bo igihe ubwicanyi bwari burimbanije i Bunge. [100] Rusanga rero nk’uko bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, ku bijyanye n’ikorwa ry’urwo rutonde, Kabilima Jean Damascène yarabaye icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside, iki cyaha kikaba giteganywa kandi kikanahanwa n’ingingo ya 3 n’iya 4, y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 yerekeye gukumira no guhana jenoside13, n’ ingingo ya 114 y’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeo ahana ibyaha, ryariho urubanza rucibwa, kigahanishwa ingingo ya 115 y’iryo Tegeko Ngenga. 2. Kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwaragabanyirije ibihano Kabilima Jean Damascène nta mpamvu rushingiyeho [101] Ubushinjacyaha bwajurijwe n’uko Urukiko Rukuru, rwagabanyirije ibihano Kabilima Jean Damascène rushingiye ku kuba yarakoze icyaha cya jenoside akiri umusore muto no kuba nta myitwarire mibi yamuranze mbere yo gukora icyaha cya jenoside akurikiranyweho kimwe na nyuma yo gukora iki cyaha. Bwasobanuye ko Kabilima Jean Damascène wari mu mwaka usoza amashuli yisumbuye mu Iseminali ntoya yari azi neza

13 Iyi ngingo igira iti: “The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article IV Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”.

## Page 266

232 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

amahano yakorwaga mu Gihugu, ko kandi Urukiko rutagaragaje niba ubuto buvugwa kuri Kabilima Jean Damascène bureberwa muri “excuse de minorité” mu gihe biboneka ko yakoze ibyaha ashinjwa afite imyaka 21 y’amavuko. [102] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutashoboye gusobanura aho rwashingiye ruvuga ko Kabilima Jean Damascène yaranzwe n’imyitwarire myiza mbere yo gukora icyaha cya jenoside mu gihe ibimenyetso byagaragajwe n’Ikigo gishinzwe kurwanya jenoside bigaragaza ko uyu yabaye icyamamare mu bwicanyi bwabereye i Bunge, bityo ko kugira imyitwarire myiza bidashobora kubangikiranywa no kuba icyamamare mu bwicanyi. Bwavuze kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha, ivuga ko mu kugena ibihano, Urukiko rugomba kubanza kureba impamvu nkomezacyaha mbere yo kureba impamvu nyoroshyacyaha. [103] Ubushinjacyaha bwanzuye busaba uru Rukiko gushingira ku ngingo ya 113 n’iya 115 z’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012/OL rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, Kabilima Jean Damascène akagumishwa ku gifungo cya burundu yari yahanishijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye kubera ko yamamaye muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi i Bunge bisobanurwa no kuba yaritabiriye inama zitegura ubwicanyi akaba no mu mitwe yitwara gisirikare, kuba yaragaragaye kuri bariyeri zicirwagaho Abatutsi, akanahabwa imbunda, byatumye Inkiko-Gacaca zimushyira mu rwego rwa mbere. [104] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko kuba Kabilima Jean Damascène yaramamaye mu bwicanyi byagaragajwe n’ikusanyamakuru ryakorewe i Bunge rikubiye mu makayi

## Page 267

233 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

abitswe na Komisiyo ishinzwe kurwanya jenoside kandi ko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwiboneye ibyo bimenyetso, ko kandi uyu yagaragaye mu bitero byinshi ari kumwe n’abicanyi ruharwa barimo Rwandenzi na Nyamukaza, bityo ko mu kumuhana Urukiko rwagombaga guha agaciro impamvu nkomezacyaha mbere yo gusuzuma impamvu nyoroshyacyaha nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 82 y’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012/OL rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha. [105] Kabilima Jean Damascène yireguye kuri ubwo bujurire avuga ko nta kintu na kimwe cyari kumugira ruharwa no kuba icyamamare mu bwicanyi aregwa kuko nta ruhare yabugizemo, ko kandi inyandiko zavuye muri CNLG atemera ukuri kwazo kuko ziri mu bimenyetso yajuririye kandi ko yasabye ko zizanwa mu Rukiko ntibikorwe. Akomeza avuga ko Ubushinjacyaha bwakomeje kumwitirira ko yabaye ruharwa afatanyije na Rwandenzi wari umuyobozi wa komini Nyakizu na Nyamukaza wayoboraga Segiteri ariko bukaba butagaragaza dosiye yaregewe Urukiko imugira umufatanyacyaha cyangwa icyitso cy’aba bayobozi. [106] Me Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal wunganira Kabilima Jean Damascène, yasabye Urukiko kudashingira ku nyandiko zatanzwe na CNLG rufata uwo yunganira nk’umuntu wabaye ruharwa mu bwicanyi aregwa kuko ibizikubiyemo bishidikanywaho bitewe n’uko amakuru bivugwa ko azikubiyemo atatanzwe ku buryo bukurikije ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko No 16/2004 ryo kuwa 19/06/2004 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Inkiko-Gacaca.

## Page 268

234 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [107] Ingingo ya 76 y’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ryariho igihe Kabilima Jean Damascène yacirwaga urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, iteganya ko umucamanza ari we uha agaciro impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, ari izakibanjirije, izagiherekeje cyangwa izakurikiye. Kwemera impamvu zoroshya uburemere bw’icyaha bigomba gusobanurwa. a. Ku birebana n’imyitwarire ya Kabilima Jean Damascène mbere na nyuma ya jenoside yakorewe abatutsi mu 1994 [108] Urukiko Rukuru mu kugabanyiriza igihano Kabilima Jean Damascène, rwasobanuye ko nta myitwarire mibi yigeze imuranga cyangwa ibangamiye sosiyete haba mbere cyangwa nyuma ya jenoside yakorewe abatutsi mu 1994, uyu ashinjwa kuba yaragizemo uruhare. [109] Urukiko rurasanga jenoside ari icyaha cy’indengakamere gishyirwa mu rwego rwa “crime du droit des gens” ndetse n’Inkiko Mpuzamahanga zikaba zigifata nka “crime qui choque la conscience humaine”.14

14 Croatia v. Serbia, International Court of Justice, Judgment of 03/02/2015, parag. 87: “The Court has also repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of customary international law. That was emphasized by the Court in its 1951 Advisory Opinion .The origins of the Convention show that it was the intention of the United Nations to condemn and punish genocide as ‘a crime under international law’ involving a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, a denial which shocks the conscience of mankind and results in great losses to humanity, and which is contrary to moral law and the spirit and aims of the United Nations (resolution 96 (I) of the General Assembly, 11 December 1946). The first consequence arising from this conception is that the principles underlying the Convention are principles

## Page 269

235 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

[110] Imyimtwarire ya Kabilima Jean Damascène uhamwe n’iki cyaha ntishobora kumubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha kuko, umuntu ugambirira kumaraho ubwoko ndetse akabishyira mu bikorwa, adashobora kwitirirwa imyitwarire myiza haba mbere yo gukora icyaha, kuko icyaha atagikoze ku buryo bumutunguye, haba nyuma yo kugikora, kuko uyu atigeze ababazwa n’ibyo yakoze ngo abyicuze anabisabire imbabazi. [111] Urukiko rurasanga Uruyisumbuyekiko Rukuru rutarashoboye gusobanura bihagije impamvu nyoroshyacyaha ishingiye ku myitwarire myiza ya Kabilima Jean Damascène ngo ruyihuze n’ububi bukabije bw’icyaha cya jenoside rwamuhamije. b. Ku birebana no kuba Kabilima Jean Damascène yarakoze icyaha akiri umusore muto [112] Urukiko rurasanga, umwirondoro wa Kabilima Jean Damascène ugaragaza ko yavutse mu 1973, ibyaha aregwa akaba ashinjwa kuba yarabikoze muri Mata 1994, bivuze ko yari afite imyaka 21 y’amavuko. [113] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bubiburanisha, Urukiko Rukuru rudasobanura aho rwashingiye rwemeza ko yakoze icyaha ari muto, nk’umuntu wari mu mwaka wa nyuma usoza amashuli yisumbuye mu Iseminari ntoya, yari ajijutse bihagije bituma amenya ububi n’ingaruka z’icyaha cya jenoside yakoze, bityo iyi ikaba itaba impamvu igabanya ububi bw’icyaha yakoze.

which are recognized by civilized nations as binding on States, even without any conventional obligation. A second consequence is the universal character both of the condemnation of genocide and of the co-operation required ‘in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge. (Preamble to the Convention).”

## Page 270

236 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

c. Ku birebana no kuba Kabilima Jean Damascène yahanwa hashingiwe ku kuba yaramamaye mu bwicanyi bwakorewe i Bunge [114] Urukiko rurasanga, ikirego Kabilima Jean Damascène yarezwe kigaruka ku gitero yagizemo uruhare cyahitanye Batutsi n’abandi bari kumwe, Ubushinjacyaha bukaba butaramureze ibindi bitero yagizemo uruhare. Urukiko rurasanga, rudashobora kugena igihano rushingiye ku kuba ushinjwa yaramamaye mu bwicanyi yakoreye hirya no hino mu gihe Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaje ibindi bitero yagize mo uruhare uretse icyavuzwe haruguru. d. Ku byerekeye igihano Kabilima Jean Damascène yahanishwa [115] Ingingo ya 115 y’itegeko Ngenga N° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryariho urubanza Kabilima Jean Damascène ajuririra rucibwa, iteganya ko umuntu wese ukoze, haba mu gihe gisanzwe cyangwa mu gihe cy'intambara, icyaha cya jenoside nk'uko giteganyijwe mu ngingo ibanziriza iyi, ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu cy’umwihariko. [116] Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko Inteko Rusange y’Umuryango w’Abibumbye yabitangaje, icyaha cya jenocide ari uguhakana mu buryo bweruye uburenganzira bwo kubaho bw’igice cy’abantu runaka kandi ko bihungabanya imyumvire n’imitekerereze ya muntu; naho Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/194815 yerekeye gukumira no guhana jenoside,

15 U.N General Assembly, 1946, Res. 260, The crime of genocide is “a denial of the right to existence of entire human groups and noted that such denial

## Page 271

237 UBUSHINJACYAHA v KABILIMA

akavuga ko mu bihe byose byaranze amateka y’isi, icyaha cya jenoside cyateye inyokomuntu gutakaza abantu benshi16. [117] Urukiko rurasanga ububi bw’icyaha cya jenoside bukigira kandi icyaha cyihariye, ari umugambi wihariye (special intent) wo kurimbura abantu bahuriye ku gihugu, ubwoko, idini cyangwa ibara ry’uruhu, uyu mwihariko ukaba ushingirwaho mu mihanire y’abakoze iki cyaha nk’uko byasobanuwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Kambanda Jean.17 [118] Urukiko rurasanga, hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa hejuru bijyanye n’imiterere y’icyaha cya jenocide n’umwihariko wacyo, icyo cyaha kigomba guhanwa mu buryo bwihariye bitewe n’ingaruka zidasanzwe gisiga aho cyakorewe n’abagikorewe, bityo Kabilima jean Damascène uhamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside ndetse n’icyo kuba icyitso mu cyaha cya jenoside, agomba guhanishwa igifungo cya burundu giteganywa mu ngingo ya 92 y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 rigena ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange kuko aricyo gihano cyoroheje ugereranyije n’igifungo cya burundu cy’umwihariko

shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and the spirit and aims of the United Nations.” 16 “Le Préambule de la Convention Internationale du 09/12/1948 pour la prévention et la répretion du crime de génoside stipule qu’à toutes les périodes de l’histoire, le génoside a infligé des grandes pertes a l’humanité”. 17 Reba urubanza Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgment and Sentence, ICTR-97- 23-S,4 September 1998, para. 16. Aho rwavuze ko: “The crime of genocide is unique because of its element of dolus specialis (special intent) which requires that the crime be committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such; hence the Chamber is of the opinion that genocide constitutes the crime of crimes, which must be taken into account when deciding the sentence.”

## Page 272

238 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyateganywaga mu ngingo ya 115 y’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana ryariho urubanza rucibwa mu nkiko zibanza. III ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [119] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Kabilima Jean Damascène nta shingiro bufite. [120] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [121] Rwemeje ko urubanza RP Gen 00006/2017/HC/HCCIC rwaciwe ku wa 31/01/2018 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi ruhindutse kuri bimwe. [122] Rwemeje ko Kabilima Jean Damascène ahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside. [123] Ruhanishije Kabilima Jean Damascène igifungo cya burundu. [124] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku isanduku ya Leta.

## Page 273

239 Re UWOMBONYE

UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA – (Rugabirwa, J. P., Kaliwabo na Tugireyezu J.) 28 Gashyantare 2020] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ifungwa n’ifungurwa – Ifungurwa ry’agateganyo – Umuntu ufunzwe mu rwego rw’urubanza yaciriwe mu mizi, ntashobora kujurira anenga icyemezo yafungiweho by’agateganyo ashingiye ku kuba inzego z’ikurikiranacyaha zitarubahirije amategeko arebana n’ifatwa n’ifungwa ry’agateganyo. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Habyarimana aregwa ko ubwo yari mu nzego z’ubuyobozi bw’ishyaka rya MRND ku rwego rwa Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali yakoze ibyaha bigamije gucura umugambi, gutegura, gushishikariza abandi, kugenzura no kuyobora jenoside cyangwa ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu. Uru rukiko rwemeje ko ahamwa n’ibikorwa byo gushishikariza, kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi no kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi hagamijwe gukora icyaha cya jenoside n’ibyaha byibasiye inyoko muntu. Ku kijyanye n’inzitizi yari yatanze yo kuba yarafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, Urukiko rwemeje ko itahabwa agaciro kuko yayitanze mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko. Uregwa yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibe avuga ko Urukiko rwabanje rwirengagije ko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, rumuburanisha atunganiwe, kandi ko 239

## Page 274

240 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwaburanishije urubanza mu mizi rutabanje gusuzuma inzitizi yatanze. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko iyo nzitizi yagombaga kubanza gusuzumwa ariko ko kuri uru rwego rw’ubujurire rutayisuzuma kuko urubanza mu mizi rwamaze gucibwa. Ku bijyanye n’ibirego bishya Uregwa yasabaga ko bitasuzumwa kuko byazanywe mu bujurire n’Ubushinjacyaha kandi bitari mu mbibi z’ibyajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ibikubiye mu bimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha biri mu mbibi z’ubujurire bwe kuko birebana n’uruhare rwe nk’umwe mu bayobozi b’ishyaka rya MRND mu kwitabira inama zitegura jenoside, gutoranya urubyiruko, kuruha imyitozo n’ibikoresho, bikaba atari ibirego bishya uretse uruhare rwe mu ishingwa rya radiyo RTLM rutagomba gusuzumwa kuko atarurezwe ku rwego rwa mbere. Bityo, rwemeza ko ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside, ariko ko adahamwa no kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye, ruhamishaho igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko yahanishijwe ku rwego rwa mbere. Ibi byatumye ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ariko urubanza rwe rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’ubujurire kubera impinduka zakozwe mu rwego rw’ubucamanza, hagashyirwaho uru Rukiko. Mu bujurire bwe yakomeje agaragaza ko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ariko Ubushinjacyaha bugasobanura ko adafunzwe muri ubwo buryo kuko yahanishijwe igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko, kuba icyo cyemezo cyarafashwe hatagaragajwe itegeko ryashingiweho ntacyo bihindura dore ko ari ikibazo cy’imyandikire y’urubanza atari ibigize inenge yarwo.

## Page 275

241 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umuntu ufunzwe mu rwego rw’urubanza yaciriwe mu mizi, ntashobora kujurira anenga icyemezo yafungiweho by’agateganyo ashingiye ku kuba inzego z’ikurikiranacyaha zitarubahirije amategeko arebana n’ifatwa n’ifungwa ry’agateganyo. 2. Nta muburanyi ushobora kwitwaza ko urubanza rwaciwe n'urundi rukiko rwamugize umwere mu gihe atarubayemo umuburanyi. 3. Urukiko nirwo rufite inshingano zo kwemeza ibimenyetso bigomba guhabwa agaciro rumaze kumva abatangabuhamya. Umucamanza ashobora guha agaciro igice kimwe cy'ubuhamya, ikindi ntigihabwe agaciro. Mu gihe ubuhamya bubiri buvuguruzanya, nyuma yo kumva abatangabuhamya, urukiko ni rwo rwemeza ko ubuhamya runaka aribwo bufite ishingiro. 4. Nubwo kidateganyijwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda, icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside ni icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi ihindutse kuri bimwe. Amagarama aherera ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko-Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 132. Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 16 Ukuboza 1966 yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki, ingingo ya 14.

## Page 276

242 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside, ingingo ya 3. Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo kuwa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 155. Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 105. Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 184. Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 65 n’iya 119. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles, RPA 0001/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/03/2019. Ubushinjacyaha v Karemera n’abandi, ICTR-98-44-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 29/09/2014. Ubushinjacyaha v Simon Bikindi, ICTR-01-72-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, Urugereko rw'ubujurire ku wa 18 Werurwe 2010. Ubushinjacyaha v Munyakazi Yussuf, ICTR-97-36A-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28th /09/2011. Ubushinjacyaha v Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-A, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 26 /05/2003. Ubushinjacyaha v Jean Paul Akayesu, ICTR -96-4-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 2/09/1998.

## Page 277

243 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

Ubushinjacyaha v Seromba Athanase, ICTR-01-66-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 12/03/2008. Ubushinjacyaha v Ntagerura André n’abandi, ICTR-99-46-A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 7/07/2006. Ubushinjacyaha v Musema, ICTR-96-13-T, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 27/01/ 2000. Ubushinjacyaha vs Nahimana Ferdinand n’abandi, ICTR 99-52- A rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku wa 28/10/2007. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Habyarimana Jean yari Perezida w’ishyaka rya MRND (Mouvement Révolutionaire National pour le Développement) muri Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali, akaba n’umwe mu bari bagize Biro Politiki (Bureau Politique) y’iryo shyaka ku rwego rw’igihugu. Aregwa ko ubwo yari mu nzego z’ubuyobozi bw’ishyaka rya MRND ku rwego rwa Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali yakoze ibyaha bigamije gucura umugambi, gutegura, gushishikariza abandi, kugenzura no kuyobora jenoside cyangwa ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, by’umwihariko kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi atoranya urubyiruko rwo guha imyitozo ya gisirikare, akanaruha ibikoresho byicishijwe abatutsi, kujya mu nama zitegura jenoside, kugenzura za bariyeri ziva Nyabugogo ku isoko kugeza ku Muhima ku ishuli rya

## Page 278

244 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

APACOPE, ari naho hiciwe abantu benshi barimo uwitwa Rutayisire alias Tigana. [2] Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ku itariki ya 01/03/2016, uru Rukiko ruca urubanza RP GEN 0002/15/TGI/NYGE rwemeza ko Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’ibikorwa byo gushishikariza, kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi no kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi hagamijwe gukora icyaha cya jenoside n’ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, ruvuga ko inzitizi irebana no gufungwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko yari yatanzwe na Habyarimana Jean itahabwa agaciro kuko yayitanze mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko. [3] Habyarimana Jean ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi1, avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwirengagije ko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ko rwamuburanishije atunganiwe, kandi ko rwaburanishije urubanza mu mizi rutabanje gusuzuma inzitizi yatanze. [4] Mu bujurire bwe kandi, Habyarimana Jean yavugaga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwirengagije ko atari gukurikiranwaho icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi kubera ko cyashaje, ko yahamijwe ibyaha hashingiwe ku buhamya budafatika, bwashatswe hagamijwe kumuhamya ibyaha ndetse ko ababutanze batahamagawe mu Rukiko, kandi ko Urukiko rwanze ko Ubushinjacyaha buzana zimwe mu nyandiko

1 Muri uru rubanza, mu rwego rwo guhina amagambo harakoreshwa Urukiko Rukuru mu kuvuga Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibe.

## Page 279

245 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

zimurenganura zirimo inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ku ifunga n’ifungurwa ry’agateganyo n’iperereza ryakozwe n’Ubushinjacyaha mu murenge wa Muhima. [5] Mu rubanza RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI rwaciwe ku wa 28/04/2017, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze koko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwaragombaga kubanza gusuzuma inzitizi yatanzwe na Habyarimana Jean y’uko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ariko ko ku rwego rw’ubujurire rutayisuzuma kuko urubanza mu mizi rwamaze gucibwa, ndetse Habyarimana Jean agahanishwa igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko, ko rero gusuzuma iyo nzitizi ntacyo byahindura. [6] Ku birebana n’ibirego bishya Habyarimana Jean yavugaga ko Ubushinjacyaha bwazanye mu bujurire, avuga ko bitari mu mbibi z’ibyajuririwe, agasaba ko bitasuzumwa, muri byo akavuga inama aregwa ko yakoranye na Renzaho Tharcisse mu rwego rwo gutegura jenoside, uruhare rw’ishyaka rya MRND mu gutegura jenoside, kuba mu bashinze radiyo RTLM (Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) no kuyobora ibitero hirya no hino mu gihugu uretse ku Muhima, Urukiko rwasanze ibikubiye mu bimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha biri mu mbibi z’ubujurire bwe kuko birebana n’uruhare rwe nk’umwe mu bayobozi b’ishyaka rya MRND mu kwitabira inama zitegura jenoside, gutoranya urubyiruko, kuruha imyitozo n’ibikoresho, bikaba atari ibirego bishya uretse uruhare rwe mu ishingwa rya radiyo RTLM rutagomba gusuzumwa kuko atarurezwe ku rwego rwa mbere. [7] Urukiko rwanzuye ko ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ruvuga ko ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no

## Page 280

246 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside, ariko ko adahamwa no kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ruhamishaho igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko yahanishijwe ku rwego rwa mbere. [8] Habyarimana Jean ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko rwasuzuma ibirebana n’uko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwafashe icyemezo rudashingiye ku manza zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR)2, ko atahawe umwanya wo kuvuguruzanya n’abatangabuhamya bamushinja, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bamushinjura no kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa mu kumuhamya icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside. [9] Nyuma y’ishyirwaho ry’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean bwoherejwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 105 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko3, buhabwa RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA. [10] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 13/11/2019 ariko uwo munsi rirasubikwa kubera ko abacamanza bari bari mu mahugurwa, ryimurirwa ku wa 18/11/2019; kuva uwo munsi urubanza rugenda rusubikwa ku mpamvu zitandukanye. Urubanza rwongeye kuburanishwa mu ruhame ku itariki ya

2 Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda. 3 Ingingo ya 105, igika cya mbere: guhera igihe iri tegeko ritangiriye gukurikizwa, uretse imanza zatangiye kuburanishwa, imanza zose zitakiri mu bubasha bw’urukiko zaregewe, zohererezwa Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’iri tegeko.

## Page 281

247 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

09/01/2020 n’iya 13/01/2020, Habyarimana Jean yunganiwe na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Rudatinya Nyangezi Gaspard, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Ibibazo bigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza akaba ari: - Kumenya niba Habyarimana Jean afunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko; - Kumenya niba urubanza rwa Matayo Ngirumpatse na Edouard Karemera rwaciwe na TPIR rwakuraho Habyarimana Jean uburyozwacyaha ku bwumvikane mu mugambi wo gukora jenoside; - Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaragombaga byanze bikunze gutumiza Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent kugira ngo bavuguruzanye na Habyarimana Jean no kumenya niba bagomba gutumizwa n’uru Rukiko kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya; - Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bashinjura Habyarimana Jean; - Kumenya niba hari ikosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze mu guhamya Habyarimana Jean icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside.

## Page 282

248 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

1. Kumenya niba Habyarimana Jean afunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko [11] Habyarimana Jean na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire, umwunganira, bavuga ko mu gika cya 12 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe muri uru Rukiko, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaragombaga kubanza gukemura inzitizi Habyarimana Jean yari yaratanze ku rwego rwa mbere irebana n’uko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko mbere yo kuburanisha urubanza mu mizi nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 105, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe urubanza rwaburanishwaga, ariko ko urwo Rukiko Rukuru rutakosoye iyo nenge, ko ahubwo rwasobanuye ko ntacyo rwabikoraho kuko afunzwe hashingiwe ku rubanza rwamukatiye igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko, maze ruhita ruburanisha urubanza mu mizi rutabanje gufata icyemezo kuri iyo nzitizi, kandi ko rutagaragaje amategeko rwashingiyeho rufata icyo cyemezo. Basaba uru Rukiko ko rwafata icyemezo kuri iyo nzitizi kugira ngo Habyarimana Jean afungurwe by’agateganyo mbere y’icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi. [12] Habyarimana Jean asobanura ko yafashwe ku wa 20/12/1996, hashingiwe ku rutonde rw’abakoze icyaha cya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994, afungirwa muri Gereza ku wa 12/03/1997, ko ku wa 02/04/1997 yakorewe inyandiko imufunga by’agateganyo (MAP)4, ariko ko atigeze ashyikirizwa umucamanza kugira ngo amufatire icyemezo kimufunga by’agateganyo, ko ahubwo mu mwaka wa 2009, aribwo yamenye ko atagira dosiye, nyamara uwari Umuyobozi

4 Mandat d’arrêt provisoire.

## Page 283

249 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

wa Gereza witwa Gahima Rusa n’uwari Porokireri ku Rwego Rwisumbuye witwa Ndibwami Rugambwa bakomeje kumufunga mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko bashingiye ku nyandiko zimufunga by’agateganyo zataye agaciro bituma agira igihombo gikomeye n’iyicarubozo ryo mu bwonko (Torture psychologique) kuko yahatiwe kwemera ibyaha atakoze no kubishinja bagenzi be, kuvutswa uburenganzira n’amahirwe yo kuburana adafunzwe no kubona umwunganizi, ariko ko azabitangira ikirego cyihariye mu Rukiko rubifitiye ububasha kugira ngo abo bayobozi bamufunze mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko mu gihe cy’imyaka 20 yose bazabihanirwe n’amategeko banabimuhere indishyi kabone n’ubwo zaba ari symbolique. [13] Habyarimana Jean n’umwunganira bavuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 78, 8º na 96, igika cya 3, z’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, akwiye gufungurwa by’agateganyo mbere y’icibwa ry’uru rubanza kuko nta cyemezo cy’umucamanza kimufunga by’agateganyo cyigeze gikorwa, kandi ko agifatwa nk’umwere nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Basaba uru Rukiko ko rwazashingira ku rubanza RP 00036/2017/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, ku wa 06/12/2018, Ubushinjacyaha buburana na Nshimiyimana Diane Rwigara na Mukangemanyi Adeline Rwigara, kuko urwo Rukiko rwarekuye abaregwa kandi bari bafunzwe by’agateganyo. [14] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacya avuga ko Habyarimana Jean adafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko yahanishijwe igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabisobanuye mu gika cya 12 cy’urubanza

## Page 284

250 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rujuririrwa, ko kuba umucamanza w’urwo Rukiko ataragaragaje ingingo z’Itegeko yashingiyeho afata icyo cyemezo kijyanye n’uko adafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ari uburyo bw’imyandikire y’urubanza ariko bitagize inenge yarwo. [15] Avuga kandi ko hatashingirwa ku ngingo ya 96, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, kuko Habyarimana Jean atajuririye icyemezo kimufunga by’agateganyo, kandi ko no mu Rukiko Rukuru, Habyarimana Jean atari agifunze by’agateganyo, ko ahubwo yajuririye urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri rwamuhanishije igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko, bivuze rero ko agomba kuguma muri “situation” yo gufungwa yashyizwemo n’inkiko zabanje, maze akaburana ubujurire bwe bwa kabiri afunze nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 184, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe Habyarimana Jean yaburanaga, ariko niba yifuza kurega abamufunze mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, yazabitangira ikirego cyihariye mu Rukiko rubifitiye ububasha nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 144 na 145 z’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, kubera ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rudafite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere ikirego cyerekeranye n’ifungwa rinyuranyije n’amategeko. [16] Avuga na none ko hatashingirwa ku rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Rwigara Diane kuko yafunguwe kubera ko yagizwe umwere, ariko ko Habyarimana Jean afunze mu rwego rwo kurangiza urubanza rwamukatiye igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru.

## Page 285

251 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Ingingo ya 184, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe Habyarimana Jean yaburanaga, iteganya ko ushinjwa wari ufunze mbere yo gucirwa urubanza rwategetse ko afungwa, akomeza gufungwa n’ubwo yaba yarajuriye5. [18] Imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe muri uru Rukiko, igaragaza, mu gika cyarwo cya 12, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko n’ubwo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rutabanje gukemura inzitizi yari yatanzwe na Habyarimana Jean irebana n’uko yafunzwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko mbere yo kuburanisha urubanza mu mizi nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko, ariko ko rutasuzuma iyo nzitizi ku rwego Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwamuhanishije igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko kubera ibyaha yakoze, ko ahubwo rugomba gusuzuma impamvu ze z’ubujurire kugira ngo hamenyekane niba zifite ishingiro cyangwa zitarifite. Nyuma yo kuburanisha urwo rubanza mu mizi, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside, n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside, maze rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko nk’uko bigaragarira mu gika cya 145 na 147 by’urubanza rwajuririwe.

5 Iyo ngingo ninayo yahindutse ingingo ya 187, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko “Uregwa wari ufunze mbere yo gucirwa urubanza rwategetse ko afungwa, akomeza gufungwa n’ubwo yaba yarajuriye.

## Page 286

252 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[19] Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo Habyarimana Jean yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko nk’uko byemejwe n’Inkiko zabanje, ariko ko rutasuzuma iki kibazo hagamijwe kumenya niba ashobora gufungurwa by’agateganyo mbere y’icibwa ry’uru rubanza kuko ntacyo byamumarira kubera ko afunzwe mu rwego rwo kurangiza igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko yahawe kubera icyaha cya jenoside akurikiranyweho, bigaragara ko nta kosa urwo Rukiko rwakoze ubwo rwemezaga ko Habyarimana Jean aburana ubujurire bwe afunze, bivuze rero ko atafungurwa by’agateganyo mbere y’icibwa ry’uru rubanza nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 187, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru. [20] Urukiko rurasanga rutashingira ku rubanza RP 00036/2017/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 06/12/2018, Ubushinjacyaha buburana na Mukangemanyi Adeline Rwigara na bagenzi be rushingirwaho na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire wunganira Habyarimana Jean kuko muri urwo rubanza abaregwa barekuwe kubera ko bagizwe abere ku cyaha cyo guteza imvururu cyangwa imidugararo muri rubanda bari bakurikiranyweho n’Ubushinjacyaha, nyamara muri uru rubanza, Habyarimana Jean yafunzwe kubera ko yahanishijwe igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. 2. Kumenya niba urubanza rwa Matayo Ngirumpatse na Edouard Karemera rwaciwe na TPIR rwakuraho Habyarimana Jean uburyozwacyaha ku bwumvikane mu mugambi wo gukora jenoside6

6 Ibirebana n’inyito y’iki cyaha, biragarukwaho muri uru rubanza mu gice cya II.5.

## Page 287

253 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[21] Habyarimana Jean yunganiwe na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire yajuriye avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhamije icyaha cy’ubwumvikane mu mugambi wo gukora jenoside, rwirengagije urubanza ICTR-98-44-T rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyireho u Rwanda (TPIR) rwemeje ko mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994 nta bwumvikane bwo gukora jenoside bwigeze buba ku birebana na Matayo Ngirumpatse na Edouard Karemera kimwe n’abandi bayobozi bakuru b’ishyaka MRND. [22] Habyarimana Jean yisobanuye avuga ko mu gihe byagaragaye ko abayobozi bakuru b’ishyaka MRND nta bwumvikane bagize bwo gukora jenoside, ko we nk’umuyobozi wa MRND ku rwego rw’Umujyi wa Kigali ataryozwa gushyiraho umutwe w’interahamwa no kuwuha imyitozo ya gisirikare hagamijwe gukora jenoside, kandi ko Ubushinjacyaha buterekana inama n’ubwumvikane yaba yarakoranye n’abayobozi bari bamwungirije cyangwa undi uwo ari we wese hagamijwe gukora jenoside. [23] Habyarimana Jean yasabye ko ku bw’iyo mpamvu, hakurikizwa igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 9 y’amategeko agenga Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ivuga ko nta muntu ushobora kuburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Igihugu ku bikorwa binyuranyije ku buryo bukomeye n’amategeko mpuzamahanga areba inyokomuntu niba yaraburanishijwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, ku bikorwa bimwe. [24] Ubushinjacyaha bwasubije ko urubanza rwa Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard ntacyo rurengeraho Habyarimana Jean, ko ahubwo uyu afata igice cy’urubanza abona kimufitiye inyungu yirengagije ko uru rubanza mu gika cyarwo cya [201]

## Page 288

254 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwemeje ko Ngirumpatse nk’umuyobozi wa MRND yari afite ububasha bugenzura ibikorwa by’interahamwe, ko kandi n’umutangabuhamya HJB yemeje ko Habyarimana ubwe yagize uruhare mu gutoranya abasore bajya mu mutwe w’interahamwe. [25] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza buvuga ko Urukiko mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwemeje ko komite yayoboraga MRND ku rwego rw’Igihugu itashoboraga kugeza ubutumwa ku barwanashyaka bitanyuze kuri perezida w’ishyaka ku rwego rwa perefegitura7, kandi ko Habyarimana Jean adakurikiranyweho kuba umuyobozi w’interahamwe, ko ahubwo aryozwa uruhare yagize mu ishyirwaho ry’uyu mutwe no kuwutoza ibya gisirikare hagamijwe kurimbura abatutsi, ibi bikaba byaragaragajwe mu nama zitandukanye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya ngingo ya 155 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo kuwa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, mu gika cyayo cya 2, iteganya ko nta gukurikirana kundi kubaho iyo ushinjwa agaragaje ko mu mahanga yaciriwe urubanza rudasubirwaho (ku cyaha akurikiranyweho). [27] Ingingo ya 14 mu gace kayo ka 7 y’Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 16 Ukuboza 1966 yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki ivuga ko nta muntu ushobora gukurikiranwaho icyaha yahanaguweho

7 ICTR-98-44-T urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard, igika cya 201: “De plus, la Chambre juge peu probable que le Comité National Provisoire ait pu, sans l’implication du président préfectoral s’adresser aux militants du MRND”.

## Page 289

255 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

cyangwa ku cyaha yakatiweho burundu mu rubanza rudasubirwamo hakurikijwe amategeko n’imiburanishirize y’imanza zishinja ibyaha bya buri gihugu.8 [28] Urukiko rurasanga urubanza ICTR-98-44-T rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR), nyuma yo gusesengura ibimenyetso rwashyikirijwe ku bireba uruhare rwa Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard mu ishyirwaho ry’umutwe w’interahamwe no kuwutoza ibya gisirikare, n’uburyo bagiye umugambi wo kurimbura abatutsi, na nyuma yo gusobanura inama zitandukanye ubuyobozi n’abayoboke ba MRND bitabiriye n’uburyo muri izo nama abatutsi bafashwe nk’abanzi, rwarasanze bahamwa n’ibyaha bya jenosode, gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ubwicanyi mu gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise) kabone n’ubwo nta buryozwacyaha bushobora kwemezwa harebwe ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki 08/04/19949, ariko mu bujurire urwo Rukiko rukaba rwaremeje ko Karemera Edouard na Ngirumpatse Matayo bahamwa n’icyaha cya jenosode, gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ubwicanyi bakoze nyuma y’itariki 18/04/1994 mu rwego rwo gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise)10, Karemera Edouard na

8 Art. 14 point 7 du Pacte International du 16 Décembre 1966 relatif aux droits civils et politiques ratifié par le Rwanda par le Décret-loi Nº 8/7bya5 du 12 Février 1975. 9 ICTR-98-44-T urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard, igika cya 1573: Aucune déclaration de culpabilité ne serait dès lors être prononcée relativement aux faits survenus avant le 8 avril 1994. 10 ICTR-98-44-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera et Mathieu Ngirumpatse, Ibika bya 146-156.

## Page 290

256 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ngirumpatse Matayo bakaba rero bataragizwe abere kuri ibyo bikorwa nk’uko Habyarimana abiburanisha. [29] Ikindi kandi Urukiko rw’ubujurire rurasanga Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku rwego rwa mbere rwari rwasanze Ngirumpatse na Karemera badahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside hashingiwe ku bikorwa byabaye mbere ya 08/04/1994 maze ku rwego rw’ubujurire (ICTR-98-44-A) urwo Rukiko ruhindura icyemezo cy’Urugereko rw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye cyavugaga ko Ngirumpatse Matayo ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ariko rugumishaho umwanzuro uhamya Karemera Edouard icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside byibura ku itariki ya 25/05/199411; bivuze ko urwo Rukiko rwasuzumye ibimenyetso kuri buri wese ku giti cye, ari nacyo Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze ku bireba Habyarimana Jean, mbere yo kumuhamya ibyaha akurikiranyweho12. [30] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rero rurasanga haba ku cyaha cya jenosode, gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu byakozwe mu gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint criminal entreprise) haba no ku cyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jeoside (entente en vue de commettre le génocide), Ngirumpatse na Karemera batarabigizweho abere nk’uko Habyarimana Jean abiburanisha,

11 ICTR-98-44-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera et Mathieu Ngirumpatse, Igika cya 745: “The Appeals Chamber has reversed the Trial Chamber's finding that Ngirumpatse was responsible for conspiracy to commit genocide, but has upheld the Trial Chamber's finding that Karemera was responsible for conspiracyt o commit genocide by at least 25 May 1994.” 12 Reba urubanza RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI.

## Page 291

257 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

keretse gusa ku bikorwa byabyaye mbere y’itariki 08/04/199413, bityo ingingo y’ubujurire ya Habyarimana Jean y’uko we nk’uwari umuyobozi wa MRND ku rwego rw’Umujyi wa Kigali adashobora guhamwa n’ubwumvikane mu mugambi wo gukora jenoside mu gihe Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard nk’abayobozi bakuru ba MRND batahamwe n’iki cyaha ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [31] Urukiko rurasanga na none ingingo y’ubujurire ya Habyarimana Jean isaba ko hubahirizwa ingingo ya 9 ya Sitati zigenga Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda14 nta shingiro bufite kuko urubanza ICTR- 98- 44-T avuga ko rwamuvanyeho ku buryo budasubirwaho (force de chose jugée) ubwumvikane ku mugambi wo gukora jenoside, uyu atigeze arubamo umuburanyi, ibiruvugwamo bikaba bireba Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard bonyine kuko aribo baruvugwamo, ari nabo barengerwa n’ingingo ya 9 ivuzwe muri iki gika mu gihe baba baregewe inkiko ku byaha bamaze gucirwaho urubanza. Ibi ni nako ingingo ya 155 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ibivuga, aho mu gika cyayo cya kabiri, iteganya ko nta gukurikirana kundi kubaho iyo ushinjwa agaragaje ko mu mahanga yaciriwe urubanza rudasubirwaho (ku cyaha akurikiranyweho); Habyarimana Jean we rero akaba atagaragaza ko yigeze acibwa urubanza mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda.

13 Ibirebana n’uruhare rwa Habyarimana Jean ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994 birasuzumwa mu gice cya II.5 cy’uru rubanza. 14 “No person shall be tried before a national court for acts constituting serious violations of international humanitarian law under the present Statute, for which he or she has already been tried by the International Tribunal for Rwanda.”

## Page 292

258 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[32] Rushingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko n’ibisobanuro bivuzwe haruguru no ku nyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko bemeza ko ababuranyi ku giti cyabo kandi ku kiburanwa cyaciriweho urubanza, ari bo bonyine barengerwa n’ihame rya “autorité de la chose jugée”15, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ingingo y’ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean y’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije gushingira ku rubanza rwa Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard kandi rwaramuhanaguyeho uburyozwacyaha ku bwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside nta shingiro ifite. 3. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaragombaga byanze bikunze gutumiza Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent kugira ngo bavuguruzanye na Habyarimana Jean, no kumenya niba bagomba gutumizwa n’uru Rukiko kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya [33] Habyarimana Jean avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhamije ibyaha rushingiye ku buhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite n’ubwa Mbarushimana Vincent, kandi rutarabahamagaje kugira ngo bavuguruzanye kuko ubuhamya bwabo bushidikanywaho. Asobanura ko ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite bukwiye guteshwa agaciro kubera ko burimo ivuguruzanya kuko mu Bushinjacyaha atigeze avuga

15 Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procedure pénale, 2eme éd., Larcier, 2006, pp.978- 981: “Pour qu’il y ait “autorité de la chose jugée” du pénal sur le pénal, il faut que la demande soit formée contre les mêmes parties en la même qualité et que les prévenus soient poursuivis pour les mêmes faits que ceux qui ont déjà fait l’objet d’un jugement. Il n’y a pas d’autorité de la chose jugée entre co-autreurs et complices s’ils sont poursuivis séparément. La décision rendue précédemment ne peut ni leur nuire ni leur profiter, même si cela débouche sur des décisions contradictoires”.

## Page 293

259 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

ibyerekeranye na “Comité de Crise”, ko ahubwo yayivuze mu buhamya yahaye urwo Rukiko igihe rwakoraga iperereza mu bitaro by’i Kanombe yari arwariyemo, kandi ko yanongeyemo amazina y’abandi batangabuhamya atavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha. [34] Avuga nanone ko ubuhamya Mbarushimana Vincent yatangiye mu nzego z’iperereza bukwiye guteshwa agaciro kuko atabutangiye mu Rukiko Rukuru kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya, ko ahubwo urwo Rukiko rwamushakishije rukamubura bitewe n’uko yavuze ko atatanga ubuhamya atabanje kubonana na Nyiringondo Epaphrodite wamukoreshaga muri Coopérative y’Abapineri. Asaba uru Rukiko ko rwabahamagaza kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya. [35] Habyarimana Jean asobanura ko ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite butahabwa agaciro kuko yavuze ko yagiye kwiyandikisha kwa Konseye wa Segiteri ya Muhima igihe bashakaga abasore bo kujya mu Nterahamwe, maze abona icyiciro cya mbere kijemo “Comité National Provisoire”y’Interahamwe, Habyarimana Jean, Ngirumpatse na Kabuga, kandi ko yabonye icyiciro cya kabiri kizamo Munyakazi wategekaga Jandarumeri na Renzaho Tharcisse wari Perefe w’Umujyi wa Kigali, ariko ko uretse ko izo nama zitabayeho, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite atashoboraga kuzizamo kuko ari umututsi wabaga muri Parti Libéral (PL). [36] Avuga kandi ko Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yavuze ko muri izo nama, Habyarimana Jean yahaye Konseye wa Segiteri ya Muhima amabwiriza yo kwandika abasore bifuzaga kujya mu Nterahamwe, ariko ko Habyarimana Jean atashoboraga kwivanga mu bikorwa by’Interahamwe kuko zari zifite Perezida, Visi - Perezida na Secrétaire wazo. Ikindi avuga, ni uko Konseye wa Segiteri ya Muhima, wari umukozi wa Leta, cyangwa Renzaho

## Page 294

260 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Tharcisse na Munyakazi, bari abasirikare, batashoboraga kujya mu Mashyaka ya Politiki, ko ahubwo byigeze gukorwa gusa igihe MRND yari Parti - Etat. [37] Asobanura ko mu buhamya bwe, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yavuze ko yari yiteguye kujya gushinja Habyarimana Jean muri Gacaca, ariko ko atabikoze kubera ko yasanze Habyarimana Jean yarashyizwe mu cyiciro cya mbere cy’abakoze jenoside bagombaga kuburanira mu Nkiko, akaba yibaza impamvu atatanze ubwo buhamya mu nyandiko icyo gihe. [38] Akomeza asobanura ko Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yavuze ko Kamatamu yatumiraga abasore kwitoza ubuterahamwe, ariko ko nyuma y’aho yavuze ko yabatumiraga kugira ngo bajye gucunga umutekano, ndetse ko n’Ubushinjacyaha bwavuze ko Habyarimana Jean yabaga muri “Comité de Crise”, nyamara umutangabuhamya witwa Mukagatare akaba yaravuze ko iyo “Comité de Crise” itigeze ibaho. [39] Yongeraho ko Mbarushimana Vincent yavuze ko habaye inama yari irimo Habyarimana Jean na Ngirumpatse yahamagariraga urubyiruko kujya kwitoza imyitozo ya gisirikare, kandi ko Habyarimana Jean yajyanye abo basore muri Camp Kigali akoresheje imodoka ye ya Land Rover, ndetse yabanje no kwirukana Abatutsi nk’uko byanashimangiwe na Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, ariko ko we (Habyarimana Jean) atashoboraga kujyana abo basore muri Camp Kigali akoresheje iyo modoka ye kuko bari benshi cyane. [40] Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire umwunganira, avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 111 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko gushidikanya birengera ushinjwa,

## Page 295

261 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent butahabwa agaciro kuko babogamiye ku ruhande rw’Ubushinjacyaha, kandi ko batabutangiye mu Rukiko kugira ngo Habyarimana Jean agire icyo abibariza imbonankubone. [41] Avuga kandi ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 62 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko ubuhamya ari ubutangiwe mu Rukiko, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent bakwiye gutumizwa muri uru Rukiko kugira ngo bahatangire ubuhamya bwabo, no kugira ngo Habyarimana Jean n’umwunganira bagire ibyo bababaza, kuko Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yabutangiye mu bitaro by’i Kanombe, aho yari arwariye, ariko ko Habyarimana Jean atahawe amahirwe yo kumuvuguruza kuko atari ahari, ko n’ubwo Mbarushimana Vincent yari yarabuze, akwiye kongera guhamagazwa muri uru Rukiko kugira ngo atange ubuhamya bwe no kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya, yakongera kubura akaba aribwo hafatwa icyemezo cy’uko yabuze burundu. [42] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 86 y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko ibimenyetso mu manza z’inshinjabyaha bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye, no ku ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko ari Urukiko rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, asanga Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent batakongera guhamagazwa nk’abatangabuhamya muri uru Rukiko, kuko ubuhamya batangiye mu nzego z’iperereza bufite agaciro kuko bwunganiwe n’ubwatangiwe mu Rukiko Rukuru na

## Page 296

262 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJD na HJE nk’uko bigaragarira mu gika cya 35 kugeza ku cya 39 na 47 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, kandi ko Habyarimana Jean yahawe umwanya uhagije wo kubabaza ibibazo byose yifuzaga, barabimusubiza. [43] Asobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze Nyiringondo Epaphrodite aho yari arwariye mu bitaro by’i Kanombe, rumubaza ibibazo byose Habyarimana Jean yifuzaga kumubaza, arabisubiza, ko nyuma y’aho, rwasomeye Habyarimana Jean n’Ubushinjacyaha izo mvugo ze nabo bagira icyo bazivugaho. [44] Akomeza asobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahamagaje Mbarushimana Vincent kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya, ariko ko ritabaye kubera ko yabuze kuko inyandiko z’ihamagara ziri muri dosiye zivuga ko atakibarizwa aho yari atuye, ariko ko ubuhamya bwe bufite agaciro kuko bwatanzwe mu nzego z’iperereza mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [45] Yongeraho ko n’ubwo Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent bahamagazwa muri uru Rukiko, ntacyo barumarira kuko barangije gutanga ubuhamya bwabo mu nzego z’iperereza, no mu Rukiko Rukuru, kandi ko ubuhamya bwabo bufite agaciro kuko bwunganiwe n’ubw’abandi batangabuhamya buri muri dosiye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [46] Ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko mu manza nshinjabyaha ibimenyetso mu manza bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe uburyo bwo

## Page 297

263 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

kuhaba ngo banyomozanye. Naho ingingo ya 62 y’iryo Tegeko, igateganya ko ubuhamya ni ibivugwa mu rukiko bivuzwe n’umuntu wabibonye cyangwa wabyumvise ubwe ku byerekeye ikiburanwa. [47] Na none ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko Urukiko ari rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ko ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ko ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa, ko rutitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya, ko ahubwo rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze nta cyo bihimbira. [48] Abahanga mu mategeko basobanura ko n’ubwo ihame ry’ivuguruzanya ryemerera ababuranyi b’impande zombi kuvuguruza no kujya impaka ku bimenyetso byabonetse igihe cy’iperereza mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha, ariko ko umucamanza uburanisha urubanza mu mizi ashobora guca urubanza ashingiye kuri ibyo bimenyetso bitabaye ngombwa ko abatangabuhamya babajijwe igihe cy’iperereza bongera gusubira mu mvugo zabo igihe cy’iburanisha.16 [49] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014, n’imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru, ku wa 23/11/2016, igihe rwakoraga iperereza mu bitaro bya Kanombe, aho Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yari arwariye, uyu yarusobanuriye ko

16 Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacob et Adrien Masset, Manuel de Procédure Pénale, Liège, Belgique, 2012, p.758: “Le caractère contradictoire de la procédure permet, certes, aux parties de contredire et discuter les éléments recueillis au cours de la phase préliminaire du procès pénal, mais (…) le juge du fond peut fonder sa conviction sur des éléments de l’information et de l’instruction qui ont été recueillis non contradictoirement et qui ne doivent pas nécessairement être repris oralement et contradictoirement à l’audience”.

## Page 298

264 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Habyarimana Jean yagize uruhare mu gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwigishijwe ibya gisirikare, kandi ko nyuma y’aho, urwo rubyiruko rwishe abatutsi benshi barimo Rutayisire Deo alias Tigana, Gasongo, Munyankindi na Vénantie. [50] Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko nyuma y’iryo perereza, urwo Rukiko rwasubukuye iburanisha ku wa 08/12/2016, maze Habyarimana Jean n’Ubushinjacyaha bahabwa umwanya uhagije wo kugira icyo bavuga kuri ubwo buhamya, aho muri rusange, Habyarimana Jean yavuze ko ubuhamya Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yatanze igihe cy’iperereza, butahabwa agaciro kuko budahuye n’ubwo yatanze mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014. [51] Muri dosiye hari kandi ubuhamya Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo yatangiye mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014, aho yashinje Habyarimana Jean kuba yarateranyirije hamwe urubyiruko rwo ku Muhima na Kimisagara muri Camp Kigali, aho rwatorejwe imbunda, kandi ko hagati yo ku wa 10 no ku wa 13/04/1994, urwo rubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwishe ibyitso bikomeye by’Inkotanyi. [52] Dosiye igaragaza na none ko iburanisha ry’urubanza rujuririrwa ryagiye ryimurirwa ku matariki atandukanye yo ku wa 20/10/2016, ku wa 24/10/2016, ku wa 01/11/2016, no ku wa 11/11/2016, kugira ngo Urukiko Rukuru rwumve Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo nk’umutangabuhamya nk’uko na Habyarimana Jean yabyifuzaga, ariko ko uwo mutangabuhamya atabonetse bitewe n’uko batamenye aho abarizwa, ariko ko Habyarimana Jean yahawe umwanya uhagije wo kugira icyo avuga ku buhamya yatangiye mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014 bwavuzwe haruguru, no ku bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite bwavuzwe haruguru nk’uko bigaragarira mu bika bya [20], [52], [53], [98], [99] na [108] by’urwo rubanza.

## Page 299

265 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[53] Na none imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe muri uru Rukiko, igaragaza mu gika cyarwo cya 36, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo bwavuzwe haruguru, bukwiye gufatwa nk’ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko Habyarimana Jean yabaye mu batoranyije urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwigishijwe ibya gisirikare kuko bavuze ibyo bazi, banahagazeho, kubera ko bari bari mu rubyiruko rwatoranywaga, uretse ko babavanyemo kubera ko bari abatutsi. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje kandi ko ubwo buhamya bukwiye guhabwa agaciro kuko bushimangirwa n’ubwatanzwe n’abandi batangabuhamya barimo Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC na HJE, bemeje ko Habyarimana Jean ari mu batoranyije urubyiruko rwo kwigisha ibya gisirikare abifashijwemo n’abayobozi b’ama Komini n’ama Segiteri yabishishikarije, kandi ko yanarukoresheje inama ku cyicaro cy’ishyaka rya MRND kiri ku Muhima ku nzu ya Kabuga mbere y’uko rwoherezwa mu myitozo ya gisirikare nk’uko abo batangabuhamya babisobanuye mu bika bya [37], [38], [39], [40] na [41] by’urubanza rwajuririwe. [54] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’Itegeko no ku bisobanuro by’abahanga byavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga, kuba mu iburanisha ry’urubanza, Habyarimana Jean yarahawe umwanya uhagije wo kuvuguruza ubuhamya bwatanzwe na Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo nk’uko bigaragarira mu bika bya [20], [52], [53], [98], [99] na [108] by’urubanza rwajuririwe, kandi mu bushishozi bwarwo nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, urwo Rukiko rukaba rwarasanze ubwo buhamya bufite agaciro kuko bwunganiwe n’ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’abandi batangabuhamya barimo Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC na HJE

## Page 300

266 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nk’uko rwabisobanuye mu gika cya 41 cy’urwo rubanza, bigaragara ko nta kosa urwo Rukiko rwakoze ubwo rwashingiraga ku buhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo bukubiye mu nyandikomvugo bakorewe mu Bushinjacyaha n’imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru, igihe cy’iperereza, kubera ko mu manza z’inshinjabyaha ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe umwanya wo kuhaba no kunyomozanya nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, bivuze rero ko atari ngombwa ko uru Rukiko rwongera guhamagaza byanze bikunze Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo muri uru rubanza kugira ngo bavuguruzanye na Habyarimana Jean, cyane cyane ko Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo ataboneka kubera ko ntawe uzi aho aherereye nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. [55] Urukiko rurasanga, kuba ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite n’ubwa Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo bufite agaciro kubera ko bwunganiwe n’ibindi bimenyetso bigizwe n’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya batandukanye nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, bukwiye gusuzumirwa hamwe n’ibindi bimenyetso biri muri dosiye kugira ngo hamenyekane niba koko Habyarimana Jean yarakoze ibyaha yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru nk’uko biza gusobanurwa mu bindi bika by’uru rubanza. [56] Urukiko rurasanga imvugo ya Habyarimana Jean y’uko ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite butahabwa agaciro kubera ko burimo ivuguruzanya nta shingiro ifite, kuko kuba, imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yaba yarongeyemo amagambo arebana na “Comité de crise” n’amazina y’abatangabuhamya atavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha,

## Page 301

267 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

atari ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko yivuguruje, ahubwo bigaragara ko impamvu yatumye yongeramo ayo magambo, ari uko hari hashize igihe kirekire kirenga imyaka makumyabiri (20) yose kuva jenoside yakorewe abatutsi ibaye mu mwaka wa 1994 n’igihe yatangiye ubwo buhamya mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014, n’imbere y’urwo Rukiko ku wa 23/12/2016. Ibyo bihuje kandi n’ibyemejwe mu rubanza ICT–2001-72–T, rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) ku wa 02/12/2008, aho rwasobanuye ko kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavuga kimwe cyangwa bashobora kwibeshya ho mu buryo budakabije, cyangwa iyo ubuhamya bw’umutangabuhamya yatangiye mu Rukiko budahuje n’ibyo yavuze mbere, bitagira ingaruka ku kwizerwa k’ubuhamya bwabo kuko bishobora kuba byaratewe n’igihe kirekire gishize cyo kuva ku itariki icyaha cyakoreweho nk’uko bigaragarira mu nyandiko itanga ikirego kugeza ku itariki ubwo buhamya bwatangiwe ho mu Rukiko17. [57] Urukiko rurasanga, na none nta kosa urwo Rukiko rwakoze ubwo rwahaga agaciro igice kimwe cy’ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite kijyanye n’uko Habyarimana Jean yagize uruhare mu gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwahawe imyitozo ya gisirikare, ikindi ntigihabwe agaciro, kuko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, ari Urukiko rwonyine rufite ububasha bwo gusesengura imvugo

17 ICTR –2001 -72 –T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Simon Bikindi, igika cya 32: “La Chambre reconnaît qu'il s'est écoulé une longue période entre la date des faits allégués dans l'acte d'accusation et celle des dépositions à I'audience. Ainsi, Ie manque de précision ou I'existence de contradictions mineures entre les dépositions de différents témoins ou entre la déposition d'un témoin et ses déclarations antérieures, n'ont généralement pas été considérés comme jetant nécessairement Ie discrédit sur ces dépositions”.

## Page 302

268 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

z’abatangabuhamya no kwemeza ko zihuje cyangwa zidahuje n’ikiburanwa, hashingiwe ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze nta cyo bihimbira. Ibyo bihuje kandi n’ibyemejwe mu rubanza ICT –2001-72 –T, rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon rwavuzwe haruguru, aho Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) rwasobanuye ko igice kimwe cy’ubuhamya gishobora guhabwa agaciro mu gihe aricyo cyizewe18. 4. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bashinjura Habyarimana Jean [58] Habyarimana Jean yunganiwe na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire avuga ko hari ubuhamya bumushinjura Urukiko Rukuru rutahaye agaciro, muri bwo hakaba harimo ubuhamya bwa Setiba Joseph wari Perezida w’Interahamwe muri Segiteri ya Kigali wavuze ko uwitwa Turatsinze Jean Pierre ari we wayoboraga interahamwe muri Kigali Ngali, kandi ko ari we wakumiriye interahamwe ubwo zari zigiye gutera iwe zishaka abatutsi yari yarahishe, akanasobanura ko intwaro zahabwaga izo nterahamwe zatangirwaga ku Kigo cya gisirikare ahakorerwaga imyitozo; bivuze ko rero atari we wazitangaga nk’uko yabirezwe. [59] Akomeza avuga ko undi mutangabuhamya wiswe HJD wari Perezida w’Interahamwe muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda yatumijwe kugira ngo aze amushinjure ku birebana n’ubuhamya bwari bwatanzwe n’umutangabuhamya HJC, uyu akaba yari interahamwe yamamaye nk’uko byemejwe n’umutangabuhamya wiswe ALJ mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga

18 ICTR –2001 -72 –T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, igika cya 32: “Même si elle a parfois décidé de ne pas se fonder sur certains aspects de la déposition d’un témoin, la Chambre a néamoins retenu d’autres parties de celle- ci jugées fiables et crédibles”.

## Page 303

269 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

rwashyiriweho u Rwanda na HJE mu Rukiko Rukuru, mu buhamya bwa HJC akaba yari yemeje ko ku wa 15/05/1994 habaye inama yo guhiga abatutsi bari basigaye muri za Segiteri na za Nyumbakumi yari iyobowe na Renzaho Tharcisse; nyamara Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rutarahaye agaciro ubuhamya bw’uyu HJD wavuze ko iyo nama yo ku wa 15/05/1994 ntayabaye, ko ahubwo ku wa 20/05/1994 ari bwo habaye inama ku ishuri rya Nyakabanda igamije gushaka interahamwe zijya gufasha abasirikare kubohoza Mburabuturo yari yafashwe n’inkotanyi. [60] Habyarimana Jean avuga ko ubundi buhamya butitaweho n’Urukiko Rukuru ari ubw’uwitwa Mucanda Vital wavuze ko ari we (Habyarimana Jean) wakiraga inama na za mitingi (meetings) kandi ko zabaga zirimo abahutu, abatutsi n’abatwa, nyamara ibyo yavuze urwo Rukiko rukaba rwarabyirengagije mu gufata icyemezo. [61] Ku byerekeye inama yo ku wa 16/01/1994; Habyarimana Jean asobanura ko nyuma y’uko FPR iteye habayeho urwicyekwe hagati y’abahutu n’abatutsi, hakaba hari n’ikindi kibazo gikomeye cy’abakiga n’abanyenduga, ndetse no guhangana gushingiye ku Turere hagati y’ishyaka rya MDR rya Kayibanda na MRND ya Habyarimana, iyi nama rero ikaba yari igamije kubwira interahamwe ko zigomba kwitonda. Habyarimana Jean avuga ko ingengabitekerezo ya “Hutu Power” ikomoka ku magambo yavuzwe na Karamira muri meeting yo ku wa 23/10/1993 aho abaturage bose (abahutu, abatwa, abatutsi) bari bahamagariwe kwamagana iyicwa rya Perezida Ndadaye, maze nawe (Habyarimana Jean) akaba yarafashemo ijambo. [62] Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire wunganira Habyarimana Jean avuga ko muri ubwo buhamya bushinjura Habayarimana Jean, abatangabuhamya bagaragaje ko atari we wagize uruhare muri za

## Page 304

270 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mitingi zo gukangurira abahutu kwica abatutsi no mu itegurwa rya jenoside, ko Ubushinjacyaha butabasha gutanga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko Habyarimana Jean yagize uruhare mu gushishikariza abahutu n’interahamwe gukora jenoside yakorewe abatutsi, maze asaba ko bugaragaza cassette, extrait cyangwa ubuhamya bwanditse byerekana uruhare rwe ku buryo bufatika. Avuga na none ko uwo yunganira yahamijwe ko yari mu nama yabereye kuri stade ya Nyamirambo ishishikariza abahutu kwica abatutsi, nyamara icyo yari igamije ari ukwamagana urupfu rwa Ndadaye wari Perezida w’u Burundi ndetse ko Habyarimana adahakana ko yari ayirimo kandi ko yafashemo ijambo, ko ariko yari agamije guhumuriza abantu muri rusange no guhosha insoresore zari zitangiye gukora ibikorwa bibi. [63] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko imvugo za Setiba Joseph zivuguruzanya n’iz’abandi batangabuhamya, harimo HJE, HJA ndetse n’iza Habyarimana Jean ubwe nk’uko bigaragara mu bika bya [69] kugeza kuri [77] by’urubanza rwajuririwe, aho Urukiko Rukuru rwagiye rugaragaza impamvu rutahaye agaciro imvugo z’abatangabuhamya, kandi ko bitumvikana ukuntu Setiba Joseph wari watangarije Ubushinjacyaha ko atazi Habyarimana Jean, ubwo bwamubazaga bumusanze muri Gereza yageze mu Rukiko akavuga ko amuzi kandi ko nta kibi yakoze muri jenoside yakorewe abatutsi, ko rero uku kwivuguruza ari ko kwatumye Urukiko Rukuru rudashingira ku buhamya bwe. [64] Akomeza avuga ko imvugo z’umutangabuhamya witwa HJD zidakwiye gushingirwaho, kuko Habyarimana Jean atigeze agaragaza ikimenyetso cy’uko koko yari Perezida w’Interahamwe muri Nyakabanda, naho imvugo z’umutangabuhamya HJC Urukiko Rukuru rukaba

## Page 305

271 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

rwarazishingiyeho kuko yari ari mu nama yashishikarije abahutu kwica abatutsi, kandi ko nawe ari Habyarimana Jean wari wamwitangiye ubwe kugira ngo amushinjure, ndetse ko hari n’undi yari yashatse wavuze ko atigeze ashishikariza abahutu kwica abatutsi, ko ahubwo yabashishikarizaga kumvikana, nyamara ko ibi atari ukuri kuko mu nama zitandukanye zashishikarizaga abahutu kwica abatutsi, Habyarimana Jean yavugaga ko umwanzi w’u Burundi ari nawe mwanzi w’u Rwanda, asaba abahutu kwishyira hamwe kugira ngo barwanye umwanzi ari we mututsi, ibi akaba yarabigarutseho mu nama yabaye ku wa 16/01/1994 nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya [569] cy’urubanza rwa Karemera Edouard na Matayo Ngirumpatse. [65] Ku bijyanye n’itangwa ry’intwaro, uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko n’ubwo Habyarimana Jean avuga ko hari abatangabuhamya bamushinjura, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye uruhare rwe nk’uko bigaragara mu bika bya [69] kugeza kuri [77] by’urubanza rwajuririwe ko kandi kuba Habyarimana Jean yari umuyobozi wa MRND ku rwego rw’Umujyi wa Kigali ndetse iri shyaka akaba ari naryo ryabagamo interahamwe, kwemeza ko atagize uruhare mu itangwa ry’intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside byaba ari ukubeshya kuko yahuraga kenshi n’abandi bayobozi muri gahunda zose, harimo n’aba gisirikare. [66] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko amagambo Habyarimana Jean yavugiye muri “meeting” yo ku wa 23/10/1993 n’iyo ku wa 16/01/1994 akangurira abahutu kwishyira hamwe ngo barwanye umwanzi agaragara mu bika bya [521], [522], [514], [517], [518] na [519] by’urubanza rwa Karemera Edouard na Matayo Ngirumpatse naho mu gika cya [524] cy’urwo rubanza ho hakaba hagaragara aho yavugiye

## Page 306

272 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibyerekeye idéologie hutu power. Avuga ko muri meeting yo ku wa 16/01/1994 nk’uko bigaragara by’umwihariko mu bika bya [573] na [574], Habyarimana Jean yavuze ko agiye gutanga inyandiko igaragaza ikibazo kiri hagati y’abahutu n’abatutsi n’uburyo bwo gukosora umwanzi ari we mututsi. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga kandi ko umutangabuhamya HJC ari we wasobanuye ko Conseiller Karushara Rose yasabye imbunda mu nama bari barimo, nyamara Habyarimana Jean akaba ataramuvuguruje, bivuze ko yari ashyigikiye ibyo yavuze; ibi bikaba bigaragaza uruhare rwe mu bikorwa byo gushishikariza abantu gukora jenoside no kubashyigikira. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [67] Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N⁰ 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko urukiko ari rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ikaba ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa. Ntirwitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya. Rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze, ntacyo bihimbira. [68] Dosiye igaragaza ko mu rubanza rwajuririwe, Setiba Joseph, HJD na Mucanda Vital bemeje ko nta mikoranire yari hagati y’interahamwe n’ubuyobozi bw’ishyaka rya MRND, ko nta n’umuyobozi w’ishyaka rya MRND wagize uruhare mu gikorwa cyo gutoranya urubyiruko rwatojwe ibya gisirikare, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwaremeje ko izo mvugo nta shingiro zifite, kuko nabo ubwabo bemeza ko hari ibikorwa interahamwe zahuriragamo n’abayobozi ba MRND birimo za meeting, kurindira umutekano abarwanashyaka bazirimo,

## Page 307

273 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

imyigaragambyo no gushishikariza urubyiruko kujya mu ishyaka rya MRND19. [69] Mu bujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhamije uruhare muri jenoside yakorewe abatutsi mu Rwanda mu mwaka w’1994 rwirengagije imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bamushinjuye ari bo Setiba Joseph, HJD wahawe iryo zina ku bw’umutekano we na Mucanda Vital, uru Rukiko rukaba rugiye gusesengura niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije izo mvugo. Ku bireba umutangabuhamya Setiba Joseph [70] Dosiye igaragaza ko mu iburanisha ryo ku itariki ya 28/02/2017, mu Rukiko Rukuru, Setiba Joseph yasobanuye ko we na bagenzi be b’interahamwe batari bafite imikoranire ya buri gihe n’ishyaka rya MRND, uretse nk’igihe habaga habaye mitingi (meeting) mu Mujyi wa Kigali cyangwa mu myigaragambyo, muri icyo gihe bakaba baroherezwaga n’ubuyobozi bw’interahamwe k’ukuriye iryo shyaka ku rwego rw’Umujyi akabereka icyo bagomba gukora muri mitingi cyangwa mu myigaragambyo. Yasobanuye ko uwitwa Turatsinze Jean Pierre ari we wakoranaga bya hafi n’ishyaka rya MRND akabahuza n’ubuyobozi bukuru bwaryo ku rwego rw’Igihugu, kandi ko atigeze abona Habyarimana Jean muri gahunda z’interahamwe, ko ahubwo yamubonaga muri mitingi zaberaga kuri Stade Régional i Nyamirambo muri 1993 kuko ari we wakiraga abashyitsi. Ku birebana n’imyitozo n’imbunda byahabwaga interahamwe, Setiba Joseph yavuze ko byari bishinzwe abasirikare ari nabo babajyanaga i Gabiro, kandi ko nta muyobozi n’umwe w’ishyaka wabaga ahari.

19 Urubanza RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI, igika cya [42].

## Page 308

274 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[71] Nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, mu bujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean avuga ko Setiba Joseph wari Perezida w’Interahamwe muri Segiteri ya Kigali yamushinjuye ubwo yasobanuraga ko Turatsinze Jean Pierre ari we wayoboraga interahamwe muri Kigali Ngali ndetse ko ari we wakumiriye interahamwe zashakaga gutera iwe zishaka abatutsi yari ahishe, anasobanura ko intwaro zatangirwaga mu Kigo cya gisirikare, bityo ko nta ruhare yagize mu itangwa ryazo. [72] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba Setiba Joseph yaravuze ko Turatsinze Jean Pierre ari we wayoboraga interahamwe muri Kigali Ngali bitagaragaza ko yashinjuye Habyarimana Jean kuko atarezwe kuyobora interahamwe ngo Setiba Joseph abe yarabivuguruje; ahubwo yahamijwe ibyaha bitandukanye yakoze nk’uwari Perezida w’ishyaka rya MRND muri Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali, aribyo icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside hashingiwe ku buhamya bwa Nkubito, HJE, HJC, HJB, HJA, Mbarushimana na Nyiringongo babajijwe mu iperereza n’imbere y’Urukiko. [73] Ku birebana no kuba Setiba Joseph yaba yarakumiriye interahamwe zashakaga gutera kwa Habyarimana Jean zishakayo abatutsi yari ahishe, Urukiko rurasanga iki kibazo Setiba Joseph yarakibajijwe ku birebana n’uruhare rw’ubuyobozi bwa MRND kuri za bariyeri, ariko iki cyaha cyo kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi Habyarimana Jean akaba ataragihamijwe, naho ibyo kuba haba hari abatutsi yari ahishe bikaba atari ikimenyetso kimushinjura kuko bidakuraho ibindi bikorwa bigize icyaha cya jenoside yakoze nk’uko yabihamijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru.

## Page 309

275 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[74] Ku birebana n’ibikorwa byo gutanga imbunda n’imyitozo ku nterahamwe, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, imvugo ya Setiba Joseh ivuguruzwa n’iya Nkubito Isaac wari Perezida w’ishyaka rya MRND mu cyahoze ari Komini Kacyiru wabarijwe mu iburanisha ryo ku itariki ya 28/02/2017 mu Rukiko Rukuru asobanura ko nyuma y’inama yabereye kuri stade i Nyamirambo, mu mwaka wa 1993 hakurikiyeho gutoza urubyiruko rwa MRND n’urwa PSD (Parti Social Democrate) rwitwaga abakombozi, bakajya ku biro bya MRND (Permanence) bagakora inama, bakabwirwa ko umwanzi ari umututsi, ndetse ko nyuma boherejwe mu mahugurwa i Gabiro bamaze guhabwa amabwiriza n’abayobozi barimo na Habyarimana Jean, akaba yaravuze ko ibyo avuga bimwe yabyiboneye, ibindi yabibwiwe. [75] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, imvugo ya Nkubito Isaac ikwiye guhabwa agaciro kubera ko ishyigikirwa n’iya HJA babarijwe umunsi umwe, uyu akaba yaravuze ko urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwatoranywaga n’abahagarariye MRND mu rwego rwa Segiteri na Serire, barimo Kaboyi Jérémie wari Konseye wa Segiteri Nyamirambo na Karushara Rose wari Konseye wa Segiteri Kimisagara, amabwiriza yo kubatoza akaba yarayavanaga mu buyobozi bukuru bwa MRND harimo na Habyarimana Jean. Rurasanga ibi byaranagarutsweho na HJB wavuze ko yabanaga na Habyarimana Jean mu ishyaka rya MRND, asobanura ko nk’umuyobozi w’iryo shyaka, Habyarimana Jean atari kuyoberwa iby’ishyirwaho ry’urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwabanje gushyirwa mu Mujyi wa Kigali, rugahabwa imyitozo ya gisirikare n’intwaro rwifashishaga mu bitero rwagabaga, iyo myitozo ikaba yarakorerwaga kwa Kabuga ku Muhima, mu Mutara, mu Bigogwe n’ahandi, kandi ko izi nterahamwe zabaga

## Page 310

276 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zavuye i Kigali ari zo zishe abatutsi mu Bugesera, mu Bigogwe, i Butare n’ahandi hantu hatandukanye, ko ibirebana n’imyitozo yabibonaga cyane cyane mu maraporo yabaga ariho umukono wa Habyarimana Jean. [76] Urukiko rurasanga kandi n’abandi babajijwe barimo HJC, HJE, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent mu Rukiko Rukuru baremeje ko Habyarimana Jean yagize uruhare mu itangwa ry’imbunda ku nterahamwe kuko HJC uri mu bazihawe yavuze ko mbere y’itangwa ry’imbunda habanje kuba inama ku wa 15/5/1994 na Habyarimana Jean yarimo ashyigikira icyo gitekerezo cyari gitanzwe na Karushara Rose20, ndetse ko na HJE yavuze ko Habyarimana Jean nk’umuyobozi wa MRND yagize uruhare mu ishyirwaho ry’umutwe w’interahamwe no mu kuziha imyitozo ya gisirikare. Urukiko rurasanga nanone abatangabuhamya babajijwe n’Ubushinjacyaha mu iperereza ari bo Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent nabo baragaragaje uruhare rwa Habyarimana Jean mu gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe, kubaha imyitozo no kubaha imbunda bagombaga gukoresha mu kwica abatutsi ndetse ibyerekeranye no guha imbunda Interahamwe bikaba byaranagarutsweho kandi bikanemezwa mu rubanza ICTR-98- 44-T Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanye na Edouard Karemera na Ngirumpatse Matayo21.

20 Yari Konseye wa Segiteri Kimisagara 21 ICTR-98-44-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera hamwe na Mathieu Ngirumpatse, igika cya 444: “La chambre conclut que le Procureur a établi au délà de tout doute raisonnable qu’à compter de 1993, des armes ont été fournies aux Interahamwe pendant que d’autres étaient stockées pour leur ệtre distribuées à une date ultérieure”.

## Page 311

277 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[77] Urukikiko rurasanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, ubuhamya bwa Nkubito Isaac, HJC na HJE aribwo bukwiye guhabwa agaciro kuko bafite ubumenyi buhagije ku byabaye kuko bamwe muri bo bari interahamwe zakoranye bya hafi na Habyarimana Jean mu ishyaka rya MRND, mu gihe Setiba Joseph atakoranaga buri gihe naryo ku buryo byatuma amenya gahunda za Habyarimana Jean nk’uko yabyiyemereye mu buhamya bwe bwavuzwe haruguru. [78] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga rero Urukiko Rukuru rutarirengagije ubuhamya bwatanzwe na SETIBA Joseph nk’uko Habyarimana Jean abivuga, ahubwo rwarabusesenguye maze rugasanga butahabwa agaciro kubera ko buvuguruzwa n’ubwa Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJE, Nyirangondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent, Urukiko rukaba rusanga ari bo bafite ubumenyi buhagije ku byabaye, kuko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo yibukijwe haruguru, ari Urukiko rwonyine rufite ububasha bwo gusesengura imvugo z’abatangabuhamya no kwemeza ko zihuje cyangwa zidahuje n’ikiburanwa, hashingiwe ku bumenyi bwabo by’ibyabaye no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze. Uko guhitamo ubuhamya hashingiwe ku byabaye, bikaba bihuje n’ibyemejwse n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza rwa Yussuf Munyakazi aho Urukiko rwashingiye ku bimenyetso by’Ubushinjacyaha aho gushingira ku by’urega kuko rusanga mu gihe hagaragara ikinyuranyo mu bintu byabaye, Urukiko rubanza arirwo ruba rufite inshingano zo kwemeza ibimenyetso bigomba guhabwa agaciro rumaze kumva abatangabuhamya22.

22 ICTR-97-36A-A, rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Yussuf Munyakazi, igika cya 118: “The Appeals Chamber recalls that, when faced with competing versions of events, it is the duty of the Trial Chamber that heard the witnesses to determine

## Page 312

278 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ku bireba umutangabuhamya HJD [79] Dosiye igaragaza ko HJD wahawe iri zina kubw’umutekano we, akaba yari Perezida wa MRND muri Segiteri Nyakabanda, nawe yabarijwe mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 28/02/2017 mu Rukiko Rukuru, avuga ko ubuyobozi bw’interahamwe ntaho bwahuriraga n’ubwi’ishyaka rya MRND, cyakora ko ubuyobozi bwa MRND bwashoboraga gusaba ubw’interahamwe kubaha abasore ngo bakorane mitingi (meeting), akaba ari uwitwa Turatsinze wari ushinzwe coordination yazo. Yavuze ko nta nama azi yabaye ku wa 15/05/1994 igamije guhiga abatutsi, ko iyo azi ari iyabaye mu mpera z’uko kwezi igamije gushaka abasore bo kubohoza umusozi wa Mburabuturo yakoreshejwe n’abasirikare kandi ko nta na rimwe yigeze abona Habyarimana Jean aza mu Nyakabanda gusaba abasore b’interahamwe, ndetse ko nta ruhare MRND n’abayobozi bayo ku rwego rw’Umujyi bagize mu gutegura no gukora jenoside yakorewe abatutsi. [80] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Habyarimana Jean avuga ko yasabye ko HJD abazwa kugira ngo abeshyuze amakuru yari yatanzwe na HJC wemeje ko ku wa 15/05/1994 habaye inama yo guhiga abatutsi bari basigaye muri za Segiteri na za Nyumbakumi, ko ahubwo habaye iyari igamije gushaka abasore bo kubohoza Mburabututo yari yafashwe n’inkotanyi, ariko ko ibyo yavuze Urukiko Rukuru rutabihaye agaciro. [81] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga HJD yaravuze ko atazi inama yo kuwa 15/05/1994 yari igamije guhiga abatutsi, ahubwo

which evidence it considers more probative. Based on the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber finds that it was reasonable for the Trial Chamber to accept the Prosecution evidence over Witness Nahimana’s account.”

## Page 313

279 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

ko iyo azi ari iyabaye mu mpera z’ukwezi kwa gatanu 1994 yari igamije kubohoza Mburabuturo, nyamara HJC akaba yarasobannuye ko iyo nama yo ku wa 15/05/1994 yabayeho, ko kandi yari iyobowe na Colonel Renzaho Tharcisse, Colonel Ndahimana wari ukuriye ingabo mu Mujyi wa Kigali n’Uburasirazuba, Colonel Edouard Hakizimana ndetse ko na Habyarimana ubwe yari ayirimo, ko yari igamije guhiga abatutsi mu ngo zabo kandi ko we ubwe yahawe imbunda eshanu kuko hari hakenewe intwaro zo kwifashisha muri ibyo bikorwa nk’uko byari byagaragajwe na Karushara Rose, Habyarimana Jean agashyigikira iki gitekerezo; uburyo HJC abivuga bikaba bigaragaza ko avuga koko ibyo yahagazeho, Urukiko rukaba rubona nta nyungu yaba afite yo kubeshyera Habyarimana Jean cyane ko yari mu Nterahamwe kandi bizwi ko zikomoka muri MRND. Urukiko rurasanga rero ibyo Habyarimana Jean avuga ko uyu mutangabuhamya HJD amushinjura atari byo kuko inama avuga yamushinjuyeho atayizi, kandi akaba atavuguruza amakuru yatanzwe na HJC wayimushinje; bityo icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru cyo kudaha agaciro ubuhamya bwa HJD kuri iyi ngingo kikaba nta nenge gifite. [82] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye ubuhamya bwatanzwe na HJC aribwo bufite ishingiro ugereranije n’ubwatanzwe na HJD, ibyo bikaba bihuje n’ibyemejwe mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda aho rwemeje mu rubanza rwa Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda ko mu gihe ubuhamya bubiri buvuguruzanya, Urukiko rubanza nyuma yo kumva abatangabuhamya arirwo rwemeza ko ubuhamya runaka aribwo bufite ishingiro23.

23 ICTR-96-3-A rwa Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, igika cya 501: Appeals Chamber recalled that “where there are two conflicting

## Page 314

280 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ku birebana n’umutangabuhamya Mucanda Vital [83] Mucanda Vital nawe yabarijwe mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 28/02/2017 avuga ko yari interahamwe ku rwego rwa Segiteri, ari n’umukuru wabo ushinzwe animation muri Segiteri Gitega ku Karambo, asobanura ko bagendanaga n’abarwanashyaka babo bakabarindira umutekano, ko uwitwa Twahirwa Séraphin ari we wababwiraga ibyo bagombaga gukora, haba kujya mu myigaragambyo cyangwa muri za mitingi. Yavuze ko ntaho bahuriraga na Habyarimana Jean, uretse mu myigaragambyo no muri za mitingi, ko atageraga mu nama zabo, aho yibuka bahuriye akaba ari muri mitingi yabereye i Nyamirambo mu mwaka wa 1993, akaba yaranayifashemo ijambo avuga ko ari abatwa, abatutsi, n’abahutu bagomba kumenya ko umwanzi w’u Rwanda ari nawe mwanzi w’u Burundi, ko bose bamaganye iyicwa rya Perezida Ndadaye. [84] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga mu miburanire ye, Habyarimana Jean yari yasabye ko Mucanda Vital abazwa kugira ngo asobanure ko ari we wakiraga za mitingi zabaga zirimo abaturage bose, abahutu, abatutsi n’abatwa, ibi Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwarabyirengagije. [85] Ku birebana n’ibyavuzwe na Mucanda Vital, Urukiko rurasanga mu bisobanuro yahaye Urukiko yaravuze ko ubuyobozi bwa MRND ntaho bwahuriraga n’ubw’interahamwe, uretse kujyana mu myigaragambyo no muri za mitingi, nyamara nk’uko byavuzwe na Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, Mbarushimana Vincent, HJA, HJB, HJE na Nkubito Isaac, Habyarimana Jean nk’umuyobozi w’ishyaka rya MRND mu Mujyi wa Kigali

testimonies, it falls to the Trial Chamber before which the witness testified to decide which of the testimonies has more weight […].”

## Page 315

281 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

yaragize uruhare rukomeye mu gushyiraho urubyiruko rw’interahamwe ndetse no kuziha imyitozo n’imbunda zakoreshejwe mu guhiga no kwica abatutsi. [86] Urukiko rurasanga ku birebana na meeting yo ku wa 23/10/1993, Mucanda Vital yaravuze ko icyo Habyarimana Jean yavuze ari uko bamaganye iyicwa rya Perezida Ndadaye24, ndetse ko umwanzi w’u Burundi ari nawe mwanzi w’u Rwanda kandi ko icyo gihe hari abatwa, abahutu n’abatutsi, na Habyarimana ubwe akaba adahakana ko yafashe ijambo muri iyo mitingi, nyamara Nkubito Isaac, HJA na HJE bakaba barasobanuriye Urukiko Rukuru ko iyo bavugaga umwanzi byabaga bishatse kuvuga umututsi, ibyo ndetse bikaba byaranasobanuwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza ICTR-98-44- T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera hamwe na Mathieu Ngirumpatse25, bityo rero kuba muri iyi nama Habyarimana Jean yarafashe ijambo akamagana umwanzi w’u Rwanda bikaba bigaragaza ko yashishikarije ku buryo bukomeye abari bayirimo kwishyira hamwe bakarwanya abatutsi aho bari hose. [87] Urukiko rurasanga imvugo ya Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire wunganira Habyarimana Jean y’uko icyari kigamijwe mu nama yo ku wa 23/10/1993 ari ukwamagana urupfu rwa Ndadaye wari Perezida w’u Burundi nta shingiro bifite kuko n’ubwo byaba byaravuzweho, abafashe amagambo muri iyo mitingi barimo na Habayarimana Jean bagarutse cyane ku gushishikariza abari bayirimo kwishyira hamwe bakarwanya umwanzi ari we mututsi

24Uyu yari Perezida w’u Burundi kuva 10/07/1993 kugeza ku wa 21/10/1993; Region week.com, consulté le 17/02/2010. 25 ICTR-98-44-T urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard Igika cya [537].

## Page 316

282 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nk’uko abatangabuhamya babajijwe mu iperereza no mu Rukiko Rukuru bavuzwe haruguru babisobanuye, ndetse ibi bikaba byaranasobanuwe n’abatangabuhamya ALC, UB na AWD bari muri iyo mitingi nk’uko byasobanuwe mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Karemera Edouard hamwe na Ngirumpatse Mathieu rwabereye mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR)26 ; igisobanuro cy’ijambo umwanzi byavugaga umututsi kikaba kandi cyaratanzwe mu rubanza ICTR -96-4-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Jean Paul Akayesu.27 [88] Rurasanga kandi Habyarimana Jean yari no mu nama yo ku wa 16/01/1994 nk’uko nawe yabyemereye uru Rukiko mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 13/01/2020 ndetse bikaba binagaragara mu gika cya [573] cy’urubanza ICTR-98-44-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera hamwe na Mathieu Ngirumpatse rwibukijwe haruguru, Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rukaba rwaremeje mu gika cyarwo cya [598], ko Ubushinjacyaha bwagaragaje nta gushidikanya ko kuwa 16/01/1994, kuri Stade Nyamirambo habereye “meeting” yari irimo Karemera Edouard, Ngirumpatse Mathieu n’abandi bayobozi bakuru b’ishyaka rya MRND kandi banafashemo ijambo, ko n’abagize umutwe w’interahamwe bari bayirimo, abari bayirimo bose bakaba barashyigikiye igitekerezo cya Hutu Power28, ibi bikaba bishimangira uruhare rwa Habyarimana Jean

26 ICTR 98-44-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera hamwe na Mathieu Ngirumpatse, igika cya [520], [521], [522] na [524]. 27 ICTR -96-4-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Jean Paul Akayesu igika cya 123. 28 ICTR 98-44-T: [….], De l’avis de la Chambre, “Le Procureur a établi au – delà de tout doute raisonnable qu’un meeting s’était tenu au stade de Nyamirambo le 16 janvier 1994, que Karemera, Ngirumpatse et d’autres hauts responsables du MRND avaient assisté à ce meeting et s’étaient adressés à l’assistance, que des membres de la milice Interahamwe y avaient

## Page 317

283 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

mu nama zitandukanye zacuriwemo umugambi wo kumvisha abahutu ko bagomba kwishyira hamwe bakarwanya abatutsi, iyi nama ikaba itari igamije kubwira interahamwe ko zigomba kwitonda gusa nk’uko Habyarimana Jean abiburanisha. [89] Rusanga na none ibyo Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire avuga ko mu kugaragaza uruhare rwa Habyarimana Jean hagomba kwifashishwa cassette, extrait cyangwa ubuhamya bwanditse nta shingiro bifite kuko ibimenyetso by’abatangabuhamya bitabujijwe muri bene izi manza, ndetse itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo rikaba riteganya ko mu manza nshinjabyaha, ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe umwanya kugira ngo banyomozanye, ibi bikaba bigaragaza ihame ry’ubwigenge mu gutanga ibimenyetso uretse ibibujijwe n’amategeko (liberté de la preuve) mu manza nshinjabyaha29, bityo rero hakaba nta mpamvu yatuma ibimenyetso by’abatangabuhamya bitahabwa agaciro kandi nabyo byemewe, ahubwo Habyarimana Jean n’umwunganizi we bakaba bafite inshingano yo kuvuguruza ubuhamya bw’abatangabuhamya bamushinja, ariko nyamara bakaba batarabashije kuvuguruza ubwo buhamya bumushinja ibyaha akurikiranyweho. [90] Hakurikijwe ibisobanuro bitanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Urukiko Rukuru rutarirengagije imvugo za HJD, Setiba Joseph na Mucanda Vital, ahubwo rwarazisesenguriye hamwe n’ibindi bimenyetso biri muri dosiye,

également pris part, et qu’on y avait épousé la cause de l’idéologie Hutu Power”. 29 Ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko N⁰15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo.

## Page 318

284 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rugasanga nta shingiro zifite, uru Rukiko rukaba rwemeranywa n’umwanzuro wafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuko nk’uko byagaragajwe hari ubundi buhamya buvuguruza ubwatanzwe na HJD, Mucanda Vital na Setiba Joseph, akaba ari bwo bukwiye guhabwa agaciro kubera impamvu zasobanuwe haruguru. 5. Kumenya niba hari ikosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze mu guhamya Habyarimana Jean icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside [91] Habyarimana Jean avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze amakosa mu kumuhamya icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside hashingiye ku mvugo z’abatagabuhamya bamushinja, mu gihe Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwemeje ko Ngirumpatse Matayo, Karemera Edouard kimwe n’abandi bayobozi bakuru ba MRND badahamwa n’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994. [92] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko uru rubanza rwa Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera rutarengera Habyarimana Jean kuko adakurikiranyweho kuba yari umuyobozi w’Interahamwe, ko ahubwo aryozwa uruhare yagize mu ishyirwaho ry’uwo mutwe no kuwutoza ibya gisirikare hagamijwe kurimbura abatutsi nk’uko byemejwe n’abatangabuhamya. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA

## Page 319

285 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

Ku birebana no kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarahamije Habyarimana Jean icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside [93] Ingingo ya 132, 4º y’Itegeko-Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana30 ndetse n’ingingo ya 3, b y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira ry’icyaha cya jenoside31 biteganya icyaha cyo kujya no gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. Icyo cyaha kikaba cyaranasobanuwe kandi mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda harimo urwa Alfred Musema rwaciwe ku wa 27/01/2000 aho rwavuze ko gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ari ukumvikana cyangwa guhuza igitekerezo hagati y’abantu babiri cyangwa barenze, icyumvikanyweho kikaba ari ugukora jenoside32.

30 Bitabangamiye ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iri Tegeko–Ngenga ku byerekeye ubwinjiracyaha n’ubufatanyacyaha, ibikorwa bikurikira bihanishwa ibihano biteganyirijwe ibyaha bivugwa muri uyu Mutwe […] kujya umugambi wo gukora icyo cyaha n’ubwo bitashyirwa mu bikorwa [..]. Ibikubiye muri iyi ngingo ni nabyo dusanga mu ngingo ya 93, 1º y’Itegeko Nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. 31 [….] The following acts shall be punishable […] Conspiracy to commit genocide (Art. 3, e of The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 32 ICTR-96-13-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred, igika 191 “… La Chambre définit l’entente en vue de commettre le genocide comme une résolution d’agir sur laquelle au moins deux personnes se sont accordées en vue de commettre un jenocide”, ICTR-99-52-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be, igika cya 344; ICTR-99-46-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ntagerura André na bagenzi be, igika cya 92; ICTR- 01-66-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Seromba Athanase, igika cya 218.

## Page 320

286 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[94] Urukiko Rukuru rwahamije Habyarimana Jean icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside rushingiye ku ngingo ya 132, 4⁰ y’Itegeko-Ngenga N⁰ 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana no ku mvugo z’abatagabuhamya bamushinja barimo Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJE bemeje ko yagize uruhare mu gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwahawe imyitozo ya gisirikare n’ibikoresho byakoreshejwe mu kwica abatutsi ari ku Muhima ku nzu ya Kabuga afatanyije na Ngirumpatse Mathieu, Nzirorera Joseph, renzaho Tharcisse, Munyakazi Laurent, Kajuga Robert, Rutaganda Georges, Kamatamu Euphrasie n’abandi, kandi n’ahandi muri Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali, urwo rubyiruko rukaba rwaratoranywaga rugahabwa imyitozo n’ibikoresho byakoreshejwe jenoside. [95] Ikindi cyashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu guhamya Habyarimana Jean ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside ni uko yakoreshaga inama abayobozi b’ishyaka rya MRND ku rwego rwa Komini yari akuriye akabagezaho imyanzuro y’inama zo mu buyobozi bukuru bw’iryo shyaka yo kumenya umwanzi uwo ari we n’uko bagomba kumurwanya nabo bakajya kubigeza kubo bari bakuriye ku rwego rwa Segiteri, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwaravuze ko kuba yarakoraga inama n’abayobozi, ibyo ababwiye bakemera kubigeza ku bandi bigaragaza ko babaga babyumvikanyeho muri iyo nama. Rwasanze na none kuba Habyarimana Jean yari mu nama yo ku wa 15/05/1994 yari yatumijwe na Perefe Renzaho Tharcisse irimo abantu batandukanye barimo Colonel Ndahimana, Colonel Edouard Hakizimana na Konseye Karushara Rose ikavugirwamo ibyo guhiga abatutsi n’ibyitso byari bisigaye, ndetse n’ibyo gutanga imbunda kugira ngo icyo gikorwa gishoboke, nyuma y’aho izo mbunda zigatangwa, nabyo byerekana ko muri iyo nama

## Page 321

287 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

habereyemo ubwumvikane bwo guhiga abatutsi n’abo bitaga ibyitso33. [96] Rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 132, 4⁰ y’Itegeko-Ngenga N⁰ 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana hamwe n’ingingo ya 3, b y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira ry’icyaha cya jenoside ndetse no ku byabaye, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga inyito y’icyaha cyahamijwe Habyarimana Jean n’Urukiko Rukuru yaragombaga kuba gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, aho kuba ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside, kubera ko ubwumvikane atariyo nyito iteganywa n’Itegeko, ahubwo ari igisobanuro kigaragaza uko icyaha kigerwaho. Ibi akaba ari nabyo byemejwe mu rubanza RPA 0001/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles, aho uyu yari yahamijwe icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside mu Rukiko Rukuru ariko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rugahindura inyito, rukemeza ko ari ugucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside.34 Aha Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rusanga n’ubwo bitandukaniye ku ijambo kujya umugambi no gucura umugambi, ariko muri rusange inyito yo kujya umugambi wo gukora jenoside ikoreshwa mu ngingo ya 132, 4⁰ y’Itegeko-Ngenga N⁰ 01/2012/OL ryavuzwe haruguru, ihura n’iyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ikoreshwa mu ngingo ya 3, b y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira ry’icyaha cya jenoside ndetse n’inyito yo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside yakoreshejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga muri urwo rubanza rwa Bandora Charles.

33 Urubanza RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI, Igika cya 131-133. 34 RPA 0001/12/CS rwaciwe ku wa 22/03/2019 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles, igika cya 53.

## Page 322

288 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[97] Ku birebana n’uko Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza ICTR-98-44-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera na Ngirumpatse Matayo rwemeje ko Edouard Karemera, Ngirumpatse Matayo ndetse n’abandi bayobozi ba MRND batahamywa ibyaha bya jenosode, gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ubwicanyi bakoze mu rwego rwo gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise) hamwe n’icyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside rushingiye ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki ya 8/04/1994, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga koko Urugereko rw’Ubujurire rw’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwaremeje nta buryozwacyaha bushingiye ku gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise) bushobora kwemeza harebwe ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki 08/04/199435 ko kandi biri mu gaciro kwemeza ko uruhare rwa Karemera na Ngirumpatse mu byabaye mbere y'itariki ya 8/04/1994 rutari mu rwego rwo gukora ibyaha bikubiye muri Sitati36; ko rero, Urugereko rwa Mbere rw'Iremezo rutibeshye mu kuvuga ko atari wo mwanzuro wonyine washoboraga gukurwa mu bimenyetso bifatika byatuma Karemera na Ngirumpatse bahamywa icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside hashingiwe ku byabaye mbere y’itariki 8/04/99437.

35 ICTR-98-44-T urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard, igika cya 1573: “Aucune déclaration de culpabilité ne serait dès lors être prononcée relativement aux faits survenus avant le 8 avril 1994.” 36 Statut du Tribunal Pénal International pour Le Rwanda. 37 ICTR-98-44-A rwaciwe ku wa 29/09/2014 rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera et Mathieu Ngirumpatse, igika cya 741: “The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the considerations identified by the Trial Chamber reasonably support its finding on the reasonable possibility that Karemera's and

## Page 323

289 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[98] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ariko n’ubwo byemejwe gutyo, urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rutareba Habyarimana Jean nk’uko aruburanisha, ko ahubwo rureba Karemera Edouard na Ngirumpatse Matayo barubayemo ababuranyi, bityo Habyarimana Jean akaba adashobora kurwitwaza avuga ko rwamugize umwere ku byaha byo gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ubwicanyi bakoze mu rwego rwo gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise) no ku cyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994 nk’uko byasobanuwe mu gice cya II muri uru rubanza (II.2). [99] Ku birebana n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Habyarimana Jean we yarahamijwe icyo cyaha n’Urukiko Rukuru hashingiwe ku bimenyetso by’inama n’ibikorwa byabaye muri 1993, ni ukuvuga mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994 hamwe n’ibya nyuma y’iyo tariki. [100] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba hanashingirwa no ku bimenyetso bya mbere ya 08/04/1994 mu kumuhamya icyaha , Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga uretse n’uko hari izindi nyandiko z’abahanga bemeje ko n’ubwo bwose jenoside nyirizina yakozwe ahanini kuva ku itariki 7/04/1994 kugeza mu mpera za Nyakanga 1994, ko ariko yari yarateguwe mbere yaho

Ngirumpatse's involvement in the pre-8 April 1994 events had not been conducted with the intent that crimes covered by the Statute be committed. Consequently, the Trial Chamber did not err in concluding that it was not the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the circumstantial evidence that Karemera and Ngirumpatse possessed the requisite mens rea for a conviction for conspiracy to commit genocide in relation to the pre-8 April 1994 events.”

## Page 324

290 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyane, ko kandi yakomeje gukorwa n’abari barayiteguye, abayishyize mu bikorwa n’ibyitso byabo ndetse bakanayikomeza mu mpeshyi na nyuma yo kwambuka umupaka wa Zaïre n’u Rwanda38, muri uru rubanza rwa Habyarimana Jean by’umwihariko, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rusanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye hari abatangabuhamya barimo Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC na HJE, bemeje ko Habyarimana Jean yari mu nama zabaye muri 1993 no ku wa 15/05/1994 zari zigamije gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe, ruhabwa imyitozo ya gisirikare n’ibikoresho birimo n’imbunda, uru rubyiruko rukaba rwaragize uruhare rukomeye mu gukora jenoside mu Mujyi wa Kigali no mu bice bitandukanye by’igihugu. [101] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kandi nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, uretse gusa ku birebana n’inyito yahinduwe, iki cyaha kigaragazwa n’uko Habyarimana Jean nk’umuyobozi wa MRND mu Mujyi wa Kigali yagize uruhare mu nama zitandukanye yayoboye asobanurira abo yari akuriye ko umwanzi ari umututsi nk’uko abatangabuhamya barimo Nkubito na HJB bagaragajwe haruguru babisobanuye, nabo bakabigeza ku bo bayoboye, ndetse no kuba yari mu nama yo wa 15/5/1994 yari igamije gukangurira abaturage guhiga abatutsi n’ibyitso byari bisigaye ndetse hagatangwa intwaro zo kwifashishwa muri ibyo bikorwa, kubw’ibyo Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rwemeranywa

38 Géraud de La Pradelle, Imprescriptible: L’implication française dans le génocide tutsi portée devant les tribunaux, France, 2005, p. 109: “ Bien sur, le génocide proprement dit a été commis pour l’essentiel, sur le territoire national du Rwanda entre le 7 avril et la fin juillet 1994 ; mais Il a été préparé de longue date et l’activité criminelle de ses concepteurs, comme de ses agents et complices, ne s’est pas arrêtée à la fin de l’été, une fois passée la frontière qui sépare le Rwanda du Zaïre.”

## Page 325

291 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

n’Urukiko Rukuru, uretse gusa ku birebana n’inyito y’icyaha, mu guhamya Habyarimana Jean icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. Ku birebana no kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarahamije Habyarimana Jean icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside [102] Ingingo ya 132, 3⁰ y’Itegeko-Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana39 n’ingingo ya 3 y‘Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga arebana no gukumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside40 biteganya kandi bigahana icyaha cyo gushishikariza gukora genoside. Ibikorwa byo gushishikariza gukora jenoside byanasobanuwe mu rubanza ICTR-2001-72-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, aho rwasobanuye ko gushishikariza gukora jenoside bisaba ko ubikora aba afite umugambi wo gukora jenoside kandi ko atari ngombwa ko hagira igikorwa kigamije gukora jenoside kibikurikira41.

39 Bitabangamiye ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iri Tegeko -Ngenga ku byerekeye ubwinjiracyaha n’ubufatanyacyaha, ibikorwa bikurikira bihanishwa ibihano biteganyirijwe ibyaha bivugwa muri uyu mutwe […] gushishikariza abantu gukora icyo cyaha n’ubwo bitashyirwa mu bikorwa [..]. Ibikubiye muri iyi ngingo ni nabyo dusanga mu ngingo ya 93, 3º y’Itegeko Nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. 40 The following acts shall be punishable […] “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” (Art.3, c of The Convention on the Prevention and punishment of the crime of Genocide. 41 ICTR -2001-72-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, igika cya 419: “Commet le crime d’incitation directe et publique à commettre le genocide la personne qui agit avec l’intention d’inciter directement et publiquement autrui à commettre le génocide, ce qui suppose l’existence d’une intention génocide.

## Page 326

292 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[103] Naho ingingo ya 132, 5⁰ y’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko42 igateganya kandi igahana icyaha cyo gushyigikira umuntu ushaka gukora icyo cyaha n’ubwo atagishyira mu bikorwa. [104] Urukiko Rukuru rumaze kubona ko Habyarimana Jean yabaye icyitso mu gukora jenoside (complicité de génocide) ndetse akanashishikariza gukora jenoside (incitation à commettre le génocide) kubera ibikorwa bitandukanye yakoze byavuzwe haruguru, rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 98 y’Itegeko-Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana maze rubihuriza hamwe rumuhamya icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside. [105] Ku ruhande rumwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwabonye ko Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gushishikariza gukora jenoside hashingiwe ku kuba yari mu nama yo ku wa 23/10/1993 yavugiyemo amagambo atandukanye yo gushishikariza abahutu kwishyira hamwe bakarwanya umwanzi ari we mututsi nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru ku rundi ruhande rubona ko yabaye icyitso mu cyaha cya jenoside rushingiye ku kuba yaragize uruhare mu guha urubyiruko rw’interahamwe imyitozo ya gisirikare n’intwaro, no kuba mu kwezi kwa 5/1994 yaragiye mu

Infraction formelle, l’incitation directe et publique à commettre le génocide est punissable mệme si aucun acte de génocide n’en a résulté”. 42 Bitabangamiye ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iri Tegeko–Ngenga ku byerekeye ubwinjiracyaha n’ubufatanyacyaha, ibikorwa bikurikira bihanishwa ibihano biteganyirijwe ibyaha bivugwa muri uyu Mutwe […] gushyigikira umuntu ushaka gukora icyo cyaha n’ubwo atagishyira mu bikorwa. Ibikubiye muri iyi ngingo ni nabyo dusanga mu ngingo ya 93, 5º y’Itegeko Nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange.

## Page 327

293 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

nama agashyigikira ko hatangwa imbunda zo guhiga abatutsi bari basigaye mu maserire ari nabyo bigaragaza ko yatanze inkunga ya ngombwa ku bantu bishe abatutsi kuri za bariyeri, mu ngo ndetse n’ahandi babaga bihishe hirya no hino muri Perefegiture y’Umujyi wa Kigali no hirya no hino mu gihugu43. [106] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabonye Habyarimana Jean ahamwe n’ibyaha akurikiranyweho, ariko ku birebana n’inyito y’ibyaha yahamijwe, rukaba rusanga rugomba gukosora iyo nyito ihuriza hamwe icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cya jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside (complicité de genocide pour avoir inciter à commettre le génocide) rukemeza ko kuri iyi ngingo hashingiwe ku bimenyetso byagaragajwe haruguru Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside (complicité de génocide) hamwe n’icyaha cyo gushishikariza gukora jenoside (incitation à commettre le génocide), buri cyose nk’icyaha cyihagije, kubera ko buri cyaha cyose gifite ibikigize bitandukanye n’iby’ikindi ndetse ibikorwa byashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu kwemeza ibyo byaha byombi bikaba bitandukanye. [107] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga rero Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’ibyaha byose uko ari bitatu, aribyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, kuba icyitso mu gukora jenoside no gushishikariza gukora jenoside, bikaba bigize impurirane mbonezamugambi nk’uko isobanurwa mu ngingo ya 84 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N⁰ 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 ryibukijwe haruguru44 kubera ko byose byakozwe mu mugambi

43 Igika cya 139 cy’urubanza RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI. 44 Iyo ku gikorwa kimwe gusa cyangwa byinshi, uwakoze icyaha yari guhanishwa ibihano byinshi byo gufungwa cyangwa by’ihazabu,

## Page 328

294 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

umwe wo gukora jenoside, bityo Habyarimana Jean akaba agomba guhanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu giteganyirijwe ibyo byaha, aho kuba igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko yari yahanishijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuko icyo gihano kitagiteganyijwe ma mategeko y’u Rwanda hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 26 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange.45 [108] Hakurikijwe ibisobanuro bitanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean nta shingiro bufite kuko nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye nta bimenyetso yatanze bivuguruza ibyashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu kumuhamya ibyo byaha, bityo urubanza RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 28/04/2017 rukaba rutagomba guhinduka, uretse gusa ku birebana n’inyito zari zahawe ibyaha Habyarimana Jean yahamijwe no ku birebana n’igihano. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [109] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean nta shingiro bufite. [110] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI rwaciwe ku wa 28/04/2017 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego

umucamanza amuhanisha igihano kiruta ibindi yongera igihe cyangwa umubare bitewe n’uburyo ibyaha byakozwe ariko ntarenze urugero ntarengwa wongeyeho icya kabiri cy’icyo gihano kirushije ibindi gukomera. 45 Iyo ngingo ya 26 ivuga ko igihano cy’igifungo gishobora kumara igihe kizwi cyangwa kikaba icya burundu.

## Page 329

295 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi ihindutse gusa ku birebana n’inyito y’ibyaha no ku gihano yahanishijwe. [111] Rwemeje ko Habayarimana ahamwa n’ibyaha byo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside no gushishikariza abandi gukora jenoside. [112] Ruhanishije Habyarimana Jean igifungo cya burundu. [113] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku isanduka ya Leta.

## Page 330

296 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 331

297 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

URUBANZA RW’UBUCURUZI

## Page 332

298 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 333

299 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA (Rukundakuvuga, P.J., Kamere na Rugabirwa, J.) 29 Nzeri 2023] Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Igisobanuro cya Sheki – Sheki itangwa hagamijwe kwishyura uyihawe – Igihe nta kindi gisobanuro kiyiherekeje, bigomba kumvikana iteka ko igamije kwishyura umwenda uyitanze abereyemo uyihawe. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kugoboka ku bushake mu rubanza – Kugaragaza inyungu yemewe n’amategeko – Inyungu z’umuburanyi ugoboka mu rubanza zigaragarira mu kuba yabasha no kurutambamira mu gihe yaba atarabashije kurugobokamo. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Kuregera amafaranga y’ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza – Umuburanyi wemerewe kuregera ko Urukiko rutegeka undi baburana kumwishyura amafaranga y’ibyo yatakaje ku rubanza, kuyagenerwa ntibishidikanywaho ko bigomba gushingira mbere na mbere ku kuba atsinda urubanza ayasabamo ku zindi ngingo z’ikiregerwa cy’ibanze. Incamake y’ikibazo: NFCS Ltd yagiranye amasezerano na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yo kuyisiziriza ibibanza bibiri bizubakwaho amazu aciriritse, ayo 299

## Page 334

300 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

masezerano aza kuvugururwa, impande zombi zumvikana ko NFCS Ltd nimara gukora akazi kangana na 60% izishyurwa 50% by’agaciro k’isoko ariko akaba atari ko byagenze kuko ubwo yari imaze gukora icyo gice cy’akazi impande zombi zemeranyijwe itishyuwe ahubwo NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd isesa amasezerano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, bituma NFCS Ltd iyirega mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko ruyitegeka kwishyura umwenda, inyungu zawo hamwe n’indishyi zitandukanye, ndetse urubanza rukarangizwa by’agateganyo ku mafaranga NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yemera. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, uregwa agomba kwishyura 109.859.976 FRW ahwanye n’imirimo yose yakozwe n’inyungu zayo, amafaranga 132.300.000 uregwa asaba mu kirego kiregera kwiregura yo gukosora ibyangijwe ntayo ahawe ndetse ko nta rangizarubanza ry’agateganyo rizabaho. Uregwa atishimiye imikirize y’urubanza yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’ubucuruzi, Gasirikare Evariste agoboka ku bushake muri urwo rubanza avuga ko yasinyanye na NFCS Ltd amasezerano y’ubufatanye bw’akazi; akaba yaragombaga gutanga amafaranga yose azifashishwa mu gusiza ibibanza no kubaka urukuta, naho NFCS Ltd igakurikirana ikorwa ry’iyo mirimo ndetse banumvikana ko bazajya basinya kuri konti iri muri Equity Bank Rwanda Plc izanyuzwaho ubwishyu; hanyuma bwaboneka hakazabanza gukurwamo amafaranga yose yakoreshejwe kugeza akazi karangiye, inyungu isigaye ikaba ari yo igabanwa n’impande zombi,

## Page 335

301 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

akaba yaragobotse ku bushake avuga ko ayo masezerano atubahirijwe ahubwo yumvise ko hari urubanza NFCS Ltd ifitanye na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd, bityo ukugoboka kukaba kugamije kugira ngo urukiko nirufata icyemezo ku mwenda uburanwa, ruzanahatire NFCS Ltd kubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire budafite ishingiro; ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi busaba gukomeza kubarirwa inyungu bufite ishingiro, ko hagumyeho imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, uretse inyungu n’indishyi byiyongera ku byagenwe ku rwego rubanza, hamwe n’iyishyurwa ry’umwenda n’igabana ry’inyungu zikomoka ku isoko hagati ya Gasirikare Evariste na NFCS Ltd. NFCS Ltd ntiyishimiye iyo mikirize y’urubanza, ijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire ababuranyi bose bitabye buri ruhande rurisobanura, impaka zibanda k’uburyo NFCS Ltd na Gasirikare Evariste bagomba kugabana amafaranga Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd igomba kwishyura hashingiwe ku masezerano y’isoko ryo gusiza ibibanza yagiranye na NFCS Ltd. Nyuma y’izo mpaka zose, Urukiko rw’ubujurire rusuzuma ibibazo bitandukanye. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba 30.000.000 Frw agaragara kuri sheki yo ku wa 30/10/2019 NFCS Ltd yahaye Gasirikare Evariste yaragombaga kwiyongera ku mwenda wa 48.000.000 Frws cyangwa niba yaragombaga kubarirwa muri uwo mwenda; uwajuriye avugako iyo Sheki Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwayibaze nk’undi mwenda hirengagijwe inyandiko yakorewe Gasirikare Evariste mu rwego rwo kuvugurura amasezerano

## Page 336

302 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y'umwenda kuko yari yaratinze kwishyurwa ndetse bakemeranywa ko umwenda amubereyemo ari 48 000 000 Frw, akavugako Urwo Rukiko rwirengagije amategeko n’ibimenyetso yarushyikirije. Uregwa avugako iyo sheki yayihawe nyuma y’uko kuri uwo munsi hari andi mafaranga yari amaze kongera guha urega mu ntoki mu byiciro bitatu, umunsi umwe, kandi ko icyo iyo sheki yari igamije ari ukugaragaza ko yemera ko yakiriye ayo mafaranga nk’undi mwenda wagombaga kwiyongera kuri 48.000.000 Frw y’umwenda yari iherutse kwemera. Ku kibazo kijyanye no kumenya niba 8 500 000 Frw agaragara kuri sheki yo kuwa 06/06/2019 yaragombaga kubarirwa mu mwenda NFCS Ltd igomba kwishyura Gasirikare, uwajuriye avugako yayihaye uregwa ataratangira iryo soko, Urukiko rutagombaga kuyibarira mu mafaranga rwemeje ko agomba kwishyura kuko bitari bikubiye mu byo impande zombi zumvikanye mu masezerano zagiranye. Avuga kandi ko uretse kuba iyo sheki uregwa yari akiyibitse, amafaranga ayigaragaraho yamaze kwishyurwa mu bundi buryo bwo kuyashyira kuri konti. Uregwa yemera ko uwo mwenda ukomoka ku yandi masezerano bagiranye atajyanye n’isoko, ariko akavuga ko mu gihe yari amenye ko hari Urubanza nta cyari kumubuza kurugobokamo ngo yishyuze umwenda wose aberewemo. Ku kibazo cyerekeranye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza, n’igihembo cya Avoka, Uregwa avuga ko urega yamusiragije mu Nkiko bituma ashaka

## Page 337

303 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

umwunganira, bityo agasaba Urukiko gutegeka urega kumwishyura ayo mafaranga. Ku rundi ruhande urega avugako amafaranga asabwa nta shingiro afite. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Sheki itangwa hagamijwe kwishyura uyihawe; igihe nta kindi gisobanuro kiyiherekeje, bigomba kumvikana iteka ko igamije kwishyura umwenda uyitanze abereyemo uyihawe. 2. Inyungu z’umuburanyi ugoboka mu rubanza zigaragarira mu kuba yabasha no kurutambamira mu gihe yaba atarabashije kurugobokamo. Bivuze ko umuburanyi wagobotse adashobora kuzana ikibazo kidafitanye isano n’ikiburanwa mu rubanza hagati y’ababuranyi bari barusanzwemo. 3. Umuburanyi wemerewe kuregera ko Urukiko rutegeka undi baburana kumwishyura amafaranga y’ibyo yatakaje ku rubanza, kuyagenerwa ntibishidikanywaho ko bigomba gushingira mbere na mbere ku kuba atsinda urubanza ayasabamo ku zindi ngingo z’ikiregerwa cy’ibanze. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Amagarama ahwanye n’ibyarukozwemo. Amategeko yifashishijwe: Itegeko No 32/2009 ryo ku wa 18/11/2009 rigenga inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa, Ingingo y’110, Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano,

## Page 338

304 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 111, 114. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 28/6/2019, NFCS Ltd yagiranye na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd amasezerano yo kuyisiziriza ibibanza bibiri bibaruwe kuri UPI : 1/02/06/1772 na UPI : 1/03/01/06/1763 bizubakwaho amazu aciriritse ku giciro kingana na 220.516.372 FRW, ndetse ko byagombaga gukorwa mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe (1 month) kuva amasezerano asinywe n’impande zombi. Ayo masezerano yavuguruwe kuwa 19/08/2019 yongererwa igihe yagombaga gukorwamo kiva ku kwezi kumwe kigera ku mezi atatu, yongera na none kuvugururwa kuwa 09/09/2019. Ikindi impande zombi zumvikanye ni uko NFCS Ltd nimara gukora akazi kangana na 60%, izishyurwa 50 % by’agaciro k’isoko ariko ko atari ko byagenze kuko NFCS Ltd ubwo yari imaze gukora igice cy’akazi impande zombi zemeranyijwe, yashyikirije NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd facture ingana na 110.258.186 FRW kugira ngo yishyure ariko yanga kwishyura yitwaje impamvu zidafite ishingiro, ahubwo isesa amasezerano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko.

## Page 339

305 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

[2] NFCS Ltd ivuga ko nyuma y’iryo seswa ry’amasezerano yasabye kwishyurwa akazi kose yakoze gahwanye na 156.641.898 FRW ariko NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ikomeza kwanga kwishyura. Ibyo byatumye iyiregera Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko ruyitegeka kwishyura uwo mwenda, inyungu zawo hamwe n’indishyi zitandukanye, ndetse ngo urubanza rukarangizwa by’agateganyo ku mafaranga NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yemera. [3] NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ivuga ko amafaranga NFCS Ltd isaba kwishyurwa ntayo ikwiye guhabwa kuko imirimo yakoze idahwanye n’aregerwa, ahubwo ko ifite agaciro kangana na 52.833.165 FRW ndetse ko n’ibyakozwe bitakozwe kinyamwuga, ahubwo ko NFCS Ltd yabyangije. Basaba ahubwo ko NFCS Ltd yatanga amafaranga yo gukosora ibyangijwe hamwe n’indishyi zitandukanye. Muri urwo rubanza urukiko rwashyizeho Shumbusho Jean Pierre nk’inzobere izafatanya na Nsengimana Joseph ku ruhande rwa NFCS Ltd na Mbanza Philbert ku ruhande rwa NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd kugaragaza ingano y’akazi kakozwe na NFCS Ltd n’agaciro k’ibyakozwe. [4] Mu rubanza RCOM 1005/2020/TC rwaciwe kuwa 21/07/2021, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ikirego cya NFCS Ltd gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ko NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd igomba kuyishyura 109.859.976 FRW ahwanye n’imirimo yose yakoze, inyungu zayo zingana na 14.098.767 FRW, 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, 100.000 Frw y’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza na 20.000 Frw y’igarama ry’urubanza. Urukiko kandi

## Page 340

306 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwemeje ko amafaranga 132.300.000 FRW NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd isaba mu kirego kiregera kwiregura yo gukosora ibyangijwe ntayo ihawe ndetse ko nta rangizarubanza ry’agateganyo rizabaho. [5] NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi. Mu mpamvu zatumye ijurira ariko ko urukiko rwashingiye kuri raporo yakozwe kandi rwari rwagaragarijwe inenge zikomeye ziri muri iyo raporo zo kuba bataragaragaje agaciro k’ibyakozwe hagendewe kuri qualité yabyo, kuba urukiko rwarayitegetse kwishyura NFCS Ltd igikorwa cya “Fill from cutting Debris” n’icya “Removing the excavated soil form the construction area and deposit those to the specified area out of construction platform” kandi itarigeze ibikora, no kuba hari amafaranga ya avansi angana na 5.000.000 FRW yishyuwe NFCS Ltd mbere yo gutangira imirimo ariko akaba atarakuwe mu mwenda yategetswe kwishyurwa. Yavuze kandi ko urukiko rwayitegetse kwishyura amafaranga y’ibikorwa byakozwe arimo n’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kandi ko rutahaye agaciro ikirego cyayo kijyanye no kwishyura 132.300.000 FRW yo gukosora ibyo NFCS Ltd yangije. Yavuze kandi ko inyungu n’indishyi zatanzwe ku rwego rubanza zitari zikwiye. [6] NFCS Ltd yireguye ku mpamvu z’ubujurire bwa NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ivuga muri rusange ko nta shingiro zifite. [7] Gasirikare Evariste yagobotse ku bushake muri uru rubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire. Avuga ko kuwa 28/06/2019 NFCS Ltd yahawe na NEXTGEN Developers

## Page 341

307 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

Ltd isoko ariko nta mafaranga ifite yo kurikora. Asobanura ko ibyo byatumye kuwa 29/07/2019 asinyana na NFCS Ltd amasezerano y’ubufatanye bw’akazi. [8] Nk’uko bigaragara muri ayo masezerano, Gasirikare Evariste yagombaga gutanga amafaranga yose azifashishwa mu gusiza ibibanza no kubaka urukuta, naho NFCS Ltd igakurikirana ikorwa ry’iyo mirimo. Ikindi bumvikanye ni uko bombi bazajya basinya kuri konti no 4002200200179 iri muri Equity Bank Rwanda Plc izanyuzwaho ubwishyu; ko ubwishyu nibuboneka hazabanza gukurwamo amafaranga yose yakoreshejwe kugeza akazi karangiye, inyungu isigaye ikaba ari yo igabanwa n’impande zombi. [9] Gasirikare Evariste avuga ko ayo masezerano NFCS Ltd itayubahirije kuko yanze kumushyira kuri iyo konti ndetse ngo akaba yaranatanze amafaranga yari akenewe yose kugira ngo akazi gakorwe neza, agategereza ko NFCS Ltd yubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye agaheba ahubwo akumva ko iyo sosiyete ifitanye urubanza na NEXTGEN Developers Ltd. Ibyo bikaba ari byo byatumye arugobokamo ku bushake kugira ngo urukiko nirufata icyemezo ku mwenda uburanwa, ruzanahatire NFCS Ltd kubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye. [10] Gasirikare asaba ko mu mafaranga azagenerwa NFCS Ltd hazakurwamo 86.500.000 FRW yashoye mu mirimo yakorewe NEXTGEN Developers Ltd hiyongereyeho inyungu n’indishyi zitandukanye, ndetse rukanemeza ko amafaranga asigaye ku yo baregeye agabanwa n’impande zombi nk’uko zabyumvikanyeho

## Page 342

308 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mu masezerano y’ubufatanye bw’akazi yo kuwa 29/07/2019. Asaba kandi ko ku mwenda wemerwa na NFCS Ltd habaho irangizarubanza ry’agateganyo. [11] Ku wa 11/11/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urwo rubanza RCOMA00592/2021/HCC, rufata ibyemezo binyuranye bikurikira : a) Ko ubujurire bwa NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd nta shingiro bufite ; b) Ko ubujurire bwurirye ku bundi bwa NFCS Ltd busaba gukomeza kubarirwa inyungu bufite ishingiro ; c) Ko NFCS Ltd igomba guhabwa na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd inyungu zingana na 11.882.382 Frw ; d) Ko NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd igomba guha NFCS Ltd indishyi z’ibyatakajwe muri urwo rubanza ku rwego rw’ubujurire zingana na 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 100.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 600.000 Frw ; e) Ko NFCS Ltd irimo Gasirikare Evariste umwenda ungana 86.500.000 Frw ; f) Ko nk’uko byemejwe ku rwego rubanza, umwenda remezo NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd irimo NFCS Ltd ungana na 109.859.976 Frw kandi ko igomba kubanza kwishyuraho Gasirikare Evariste mu mwanya wa NFCS Ltd umwenda ungana na 86.500.000 Frw avuzwe

## Page 343

309 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

haruguru, andi asigaye bakayagabana nk’inyungu nk’uko bayumvikanye, buri wese agahabwa 11.679.988 Frw ; g) Ko irangizarubanza ry’agateganyo risabwa muri uru rubanza nta shingiro rifite. h) Ko hagumyeho imikirize y’urubanza RCOM 1005/2020/TC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kuwa 21/07/2021, uretse inyungu n’indishyi bimaze kuvugwa haruguru byiyongera ku byagenwe ku rwego rubanza, hamwe n’iyishyurwa ry’umwenda n’igabana ry’inyungu zikomoka ku isoko hagati ya Gasirikare Evariste na NFCS Ltd byavuzwe haruguru ; i) Ko 40.000 Frw NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yatanzeho ingwate y’amagarama ijurira ahwanye n’ibyakozwe byose muri urwo rubanza. [12] NFCS Ltd ntiyishimiye iyo mikirize y’urubanza, irujuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwayo bwandikwa kuri RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA, iburanisha ry’urubanza rishyirwa ku wa 11/05/2023; uwo munsi ugeze ryimuriwe ku wa 06/06/2023 kuko umwe mu bacamanza bagize inteko yikuye mu nteko iburanisha. Kuri uwo munsi, hitabye NFCS Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Mberabagabo Balinda Richard, NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Bunani Bonaventure, naho Gasirikare Evariste ahagarariwe na Me Gasominari Jean Baptiste, Urukiko rugaragariza ababurany ibaruwa Nishimwe Rosine, umuyobozi wa

## Page 344

310 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

NFCS Ltd, yagejeje muri dosiye i saa moya n’iminota umunani (07h08’) ku munsi iburanisha ryagombaga kuberaho irumenyesha ko Me Mberabagabo Balinda Richard atahawe uburenganzirasaba bwo kumukurikiranira urwo rubanza, anasaba ko urubanza rwasubikwa agashaka undi uzamwunganira. [13] Nyuma yo kumva icyo ababuranyi bavuga ku bikubiye muri iyo baruwa Urukiko rwariherereye maze ku wa 13/06/2023, mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwemeza ko guhera ku wa 06/06/2023 Me Mberabagabo Balinda Richard yambuwe ububasha bwo guhagararira NFCS Ltd muri uru rubanza kandi rutegeka NFCS Ltd gushaka undi Avoka wo kuyihagararira cyangwa se kuyunganira mu bisigaje gukorwa kuri uru rubanza. Iburanisha ryimuriwe ku wa 23/06/2023, ariko uwo munsi ntirwaburanishwa kuko Avoka wagombaga guhagararira NFCS Ltd atari yabonye igihe gihagije cyo kwitegura ahubwo iburanisha ryimurirwa ku wa 06/09/2023. [14] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 06/09/2023, nyuma yo gusomera ababuranyi raporo y’urubanza, Urukiko rwumvise ibisobanuro by’ababuranyi ku kibazo rwababajije rubyibwirije kijyanye no kumenya niba muri uru rubanza Urukiko rukwiye gusuzuma mu mizi ingingo z’ubujurire bwa NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd bugaragara nk’ubwatanzwe bwuririye ku bw’ibanze bwa NFC Ltd mu gihe muri ubwo bujurire bw’ibanze nta kigaragaramo NFCS Ltd itanyuzweho ku byo yaburanyaga NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd mu rubanza rwajuririwe, ahubwo hakagaragaramo gusa ibyo NFCS Ltd itanyuzweho ku byo yaburanyaga Gasirikare

## Page 345

311 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

Evariste birebana gusa n’uburyo bwo kugabana amafaranga NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rwajuririwe. Isomwa ry’icyemezo cy’Urukiko kuri icyo kibazo ryabaye ku wa 15/09/2023, Urukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd butakiriwe kuko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi budashobora kwakirwa mu gihe uwajuriye ntacyo aryoza uwabutanze 1, ko iburanisha rizakomeza ku wa 18/09/2023 guhera saa tatu za mugitondo. [15] Kuri uwo munsi, ababuranyi bose baritabye buri ruhande rurisobanura, impaka zibanda ku ngingo zisigaye z’urubanza zirebana n’uburyo NFCS Ltd na Gasirikare Evariste bagomba kugabana amafaranga Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd igomba kwishyura hashingiwe ku masezerano y’isoko ryo gusiza ibibanza yagiranye na NFCS Ltd. [16] NFCS Ltd yaburanye ivuga ko uruhare rw’amafaranga ya Gasirikare Evariste mu ikorwa ry’imirimo y’isoko rya NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd rungana na 48.000.000 Frw yumvikanyweho mu nyandiko yo ku wa 25/10/2019, naho Gasirikare Evariste akaburana ashimangira ibyemejwe mu rubanza rujurirwa ko uruhare rwe ari 86.500.000 Frw agizwe na 48.000.000 Frw impande zombi zemeranwaho, hiyongeraho 8.500.000 Frw agaragara kuri sheki yo ku wa 06/06/2019 NFCS Ltd ndetse na 30.000.000 Frw agaragara kuri sheki yo ku wa 30/10/2019 NFCS Ltd yahaye Gasirikare

1 Reba icyemezo mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi cyo ku wa 15/09/2023.

## Page 346

312 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Evariste. NFCS Ltd yo ivuga ko ibya sheki ya 8.500.000 Frw bidakwiye kuzanwa kuburanirwa mu rubanza rurebana no kuregera amafaranga y’isoko ryatanzwe na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd, naho sheki ya 30.000.000 Frw ikaba atari umwenda mushya wiyongeraga kuri 48.000.000 Frw ahubwo ko yari igamije kwishyura igice cy’umwenda wa 48.000.000 Frw wari umaze kwemeranwaho, ikaba yari kwishyurwa mu gihe NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yari kuba itanze ubwishyu kuri konti ya NFCS Ltd iyo cheque yatanzweho. Gasirikare Evariste kandi asaba ko NFCS Ltd itegekwa kumwishyura 18% y‘indishyi mbonezamusaruro z’amafaranga yose agomba kwishyurwa, kubera kumushora mu manza ku maherere ; impande zombi zikanasaba indishyi zirebana n’amafaranga y’ibyagenze ku rubanza. [17] Urukiko rushingiye kuri izo mpaka, rurasuzuma ibibazo bikurikira: - Kumenya niba 30.000.000 Frw agaragara kuri sheki yo ku wa 30/10/2019 NFCS Ltd yahaye Gasirikare Evariste yaragombaga kwiyongera ku mwenda wa 48.000.000 Frws cyangwa niba yaragomba kubarirwa muri uwo mwenda ; - Kumenya niba 8.500.000 Frw agaragara kuri sheki yo ku wa 06/06/2019 yaragombaga kubarirwa mu mwenda NFCS Ltd igomba kwishyura Gasirikare Evariste ukomoka ku ikorwa ry’Isoko rya NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd;

## Page 347

313 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

- Kumenya niba inyungu Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwageneye NFCS Ltd zaragombaga kugenerwa Gasirikare Evariste wenyine; - Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaragombaga gutegeka NFCS Ltd kwishyura GASIRIKARE Evariste 18% y ‘indishyi mbonezamusaruro z’amafaranga yose agomba kwishyurwa, kubera kumushora mu manza ku maherere ; - Ikibazo cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa n’ababuranyi. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA A. Kumenya niba 30.000.000 Frw agaragara kuri sheki yo ku wa 30/10/2019 NFCS Ltd yahaye Gasirikare Evariste yaragombaga kwiyongera ku mwenda wa 48.000.000 Frws cyangwa niba yaragombaga kubarirwa muri uwo mwenda [18] Uhagarariye NFCS Ltd avuga ko sheki yo ku wa 30/10/2019 ya 30.000.000 Frw NFCS Ltd yahaye Gasirikare Evariste Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwayibaze nk’undi mwenda NFCS Ltd ifitiye Gasirikare Evariste hirengagijwe inyandiko yo ku wa 25/10/2019 Nishimwe Rosine, umuyobozi wa NFCS Ltd yari aherutse gukorera Gasirikare Evariste mu rwego rwo kuvugurura amasezerano y'umwenda yari amufitiye kuko yari yaratinze kwishyurwa. Avuga ko muri iyo nyandiko umuyobozi wa NFCS Ltd yumvikanye na Gasirikare ko

## Page 348

314 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

48.000.000 Frw ari yo mafaranga NFCS Ltd yari imaze guhabwa na Gasirikare kugeza kuri uwo munsi, ikaba ari yo yonyine yari imubereyemo; ko rero hejuru ya 48.000.000 Frw NFCS Ltd yemera, Urukiko Rukuru rutagombaga kongeraho na 30.000.000 Frw rwirengagije amategeko n’ibimenyetso yarushyikirije NFCS Ltd isobanura ko n’ubwo yanditseho itariki ya 30/10/2019 ngo yakozwe ku wa 25/10/2019 igamije kuzishyurwa hagabanywa uwo mwenda wa 48.000.000 Frw wari umaze kwemeranywaho kandi ngo ishyirwaho itariki (NFCS Ltd) yari yitezeho kuzaba yaramaze kubona ubwishyu buturutse kuri NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. [19] Gasirikare Evariste n’umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko rwemeje ko NFCS Ltd igomba kwishyura Gasirikare Evariste ariya mafaranga rushingiye ku bimenyetso yarushyikirije birimo sheki ya 30.000.000 Frw NFCS Ltd yahaye Gasirikare Evariste amaze kuyongera andi 30.000.000Frw kugira ngo ikomeze imirimo nyuma yo kurangiza 60% y' imirimo. Gasirikare Evariste asobanura ko iyo sheki yayihawe na NFCS Ltd ku wa 30/10/2019 nyuma y’uko kuri uwo munsi hari andi mafaranga yari amaze kongera kuyiha mu ntoki mu byiciro bitatu, umunsi umwe, kandi ko icyo iyo sheki yari igamije ari ukugaragaza ko NFCS Ltd yemera ko yakiriye ayo mafaranga nk’undi mwenda wagombaga kwiyongera kuri 48.000.000 Frw y’umwenda yari iherutse kwemera ku wa 25/10/2019. [20] Uhagarariye NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd avuga ko iyi ngingo nta kintu iyivugaho kuko ibyo NFCS Ltd yumvikanye na Gasirikare Evariste bitayireba.

## Page 349

315 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumenya no gusobanukirwa neza icyari kigamijwe NFCS Ltd iha Gasirikare Evariste sheki ya 30.000.000 Frw yo ku wa 30/10/2019. [22] Ingingo ya 110 y’ Itegeko No 32/2009 ryo ku wa 18/11/2009 rigenga inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa ryagenderwagaho mu gihe sheki iburanwa muri uru rubanza yakorwaga, akaba ari nayo yasubiwemo n’ingingo ya 3, agace ka 7o y’Itegeko No 060/2021 ryo ku wa 14/10/2021 rigenga inyandiko zishobora gucuruzwa, igira iti: “Sheki ni inyandiko itavuguruzwa itanzwe n’uwayishyizeho umukono igenewe banki imwe cyangwa ikigo cy’imari kimwe, isaba kwishyura mu gihe bisabwe, umubare w’amafaranga usobanuye kuri sheki. Iyo sheki igomba kwishyurwa nyir’ubwite, umuntu wateganyijwe cyangwa uyitwaje. [..]”. [23] Nk’uko byumvikana rero, hashingiwe ku gisobanuro cya sheki kivugwa muri izi ngingo, nta kindi sheki itangirwa n’uyitanga uretse kwishyura uyihawe. Mu yandi magambo, igihe nta kindi gisobanuro kiyiherekeje, bigomba kumvikana iteka ko iyo sheki igamije kwishyura umwenda uyitanze abereyemo uyihawe. Uwo mwenda ushobora kuba impamvu iyo ariyo yose ituma uyitanze yishyura uyihawe. [24] Ku birebana n’igisobanuro n’impamvu bya sheki ya 30.000.000 Frw yo ku wa 30/10/2019, uru Rukiko rurasanga hashingiwe ku cyo sheki ari cyo mu buryo

## Page 350

316 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

budashidikanywaho, kigaragajwe haruguru, mu gihe haba nta kindi gisobanuro cyatanzwe, iyo sheki yatanzwe na NFCS yaba yari igamije kwishyura Gasirikare. [25] Dosiye y’uru rubanza igaragaza ko ku wa 29/07/2019, ukwezi kumwe nyuma y’isinywa ry’amasezerano yo gutegura site y’ibibanza yavuzwe haruguru, ari bwo NFCS Ltd yasinyanye na Gasirikare Evariste icyiswe “amasezerano y’ubufatanye bw’akazi”, aho mu iriburiro ryayo agaragaza ko ubufatanye agamije ari ubwo gukora isoko (ryo gutegura site y’ibibanza) ryavuzwe haruguru NFCS Ltd yahawe na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd2. Ingingo ya 2 y’aya masezerano igaragaza uburyo impande zombi zayagiranye zemeranyijwe ku nshingano buri ruhande ruzabazwa n’urundi mu magambo akurikira : “Gasirikare Evariste nk’umufatanyabikorwa wa NFCS Ltd yemeye kuzana amafaranga yo gukora iryo soko ryo gusiza no kubaka mur de soutenement ryatanzwe na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd kugeza rirangiye, NFCS Ltd igakurikirana imirimo kugeza irangiye, nawe agakurikirana uko amafaranga azakoreshwa”. Ingingo ya 3 yo iteganya icyo buri ruhande ruzabona nk’igihembo ku nshingano zarwo zimaze kuvugwa haruguru.

2 Mu iriburiro ry’ayo masezerano aragira ati: “Hagati ya company NFCS Ltd … na GASIRIKARE Evariste … bagiranye amasezerano y’ubufatanye bw’akazi ko gukora isoko ryo gusiza ikibanza no kubaka mur de soutenement kiri mu Mudugudu wa KARAMA, Akagari ka Nyabikenke, Umurenge wa Bumbogo, Akarere ka Gasabo ryahawe company NFCS Ltd ritanzwe na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd, ayo masezerano akaba ateye atya: …”.

## Page 351

317 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

[26] Dosiye y’uru rubanza igaragaza na none inyandiko yo ku wa 25/10/2019 yanditswe na Nishimwe Rosine, umuyobozi wa NFCS Ltd, kandi na Gasirikare Evariste aburana yemera. Iyo nyandiko ikaba igaragaramo mu buryo budashikanywaho ko kugera kuri uwo munsi nta yandi mafaranga Gasirikare Evariste yari yarahaye NFCS Ltd arebana n’isoko ryavuzwe haruguru bagombaga gufatanya gukora kugira ngo bazagabane mu buryo bungana inyungu zizarikomokaho3. Nk’uko kandi impande zombi zibyemeranywaho, iyo Gasirikare Evariste yabaga hari amafaranga ahaye NFCS Ltd muri urwo rwego, NFCS Ltd yamukoreraga inyandiko igaragaza ko iyakiriye, bityo haba inyandiko nyinshi. Ibyo nibyo byatumye ku wa 25/10/2019 bakora inyandiko imwe igamije kuzibumbira muri imwe no gusimbura izo zindi nyinshi zayibanjirije4. [27] Muri urwo rwego, uru Rukiko rurasanga sheki ya 30.000.000 Frw NFCS Ltd yahaye Gasirikare Evariste ku munsi umwe (ku wa 25/10/2019) cyangwa se iminsi itanu (ku wa 30/10/2019) nyuma y’uko bemeranwa ko umwenda imurimo umaze kugera kuri 48.000.000 Frw, nta kundi rwayifata uretse gusa kuba yari igamije kwishyura uwo mwenda wari wemeranyijweho cyane ko nta kindi gisobanuro cyayiherekeje. Naho ku birebana no

3 Iyi nyandiko ibivuga muri aya magambo: “Njyewe NISHIMWE Rosine maze guhabwa na GASIRIKARE Evariste amafaranga angana na miliyoni mirongo ine n’umunani (48.000.000 Frw) ku isoko turimo gukorana ry’I Bumbogo”. 4 Inyandiko yo ku wa 25/10/2019 isoza ibivuga muri aya magambo: “Izabanje nanditse nta gaciro zigifite zijyanye n’amafaranga agenda ampa yo gukora iryo soko rya Bumbogo”.

## Page 352

318 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuba iyo sheki yaba yarakozwe ku itariki ya 30/10/2019 iyanditseho cyangwa se ku itariki 25/10/2019 impande zombi zemeranyijweho ku mwenda usigaye wanganaga na 48.000.000 Frw, uru Rukiko rurasanga kubijyaho impaka ntacyo byahindura ku kijyanye n’icyo igomba kuba igamije muri kamere yayo nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. [28] Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa na Gasirikare Evariste ko iyo sheki ari ingwate cyangwa se ikimenyetso cy’undi mwenda yari amaze guha NFCS Ltd umunsi umwe mu nshuro eshatu kandi utanzwe mu ntoki (cash) bitafatwaho ukuri, kuko nta kindi kimenyetso kigaragaza ku buryo butagibwaho impaka impamvu zayo, cyane cyane ko uburyo avuga ko yayitanzemo bunyuranye n’ubwari bumenyerewe, aho mu mikoranire yabo isanzwe, iyo hari amafaranga nk’aya Gasirikare Evariste yabaga ahaye NFCS Ltd habagaho n‘inyandiko zihariye zo kuyakira nawe yakorerwaga na NFCS Ltd. [29] Kubera izi mpamvu, uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga aya 30.000.000 Frw akwiye kubarirwa ahubwo mu mwenda wa 48.0000.000 Frws NFCS Ltd igomba Gasirikare Evariste kuko iyo sheki n’ubwo yatanzwe itigeze yishyurwa aho kuba inyongera kuri yo nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwari rwabifashe, bityo bikaba bigomba gukosorwa, izo 30.000.000 Frw zigakurwa mu yo rwari rwamugeneye

B. Kumenya niba 8.500.000Frw agaragara kuri sheki yo ku wa 06/06/2019 yaragombaga kubarirwa mu mwenda NFCS Ltd igomba kwishyura Gasirikare

## Page 353

319 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

Evariste ukomoka ku ikorwa ry’isoko rya NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd; [30] Uhagarariye NFCS Ltd avuga ko sheki ya 8.500.000 Frw yo ku wa 06/06/2019 umuyobozi wa NFCS Ltd yari yarahaye Gasirikare Evariste ataratangira iryo soko rya NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd Urukiko rutagombaga kuyibarira mu mafaranga rwemeje ko NFCS Ltd igomba Gasirikare Evariste kuko bitari bikubiye mu byo impande zombi zumvikanye mu masezerano zagiranye. Avuga kandi ko uretse kuba iyo sheki Gasirikare Evariste yari akiyibitse, ngo amafaranga ayigaragaraho yamaze kwishyurwa mu bundi buryo bwo kuyashyira kuri konti ya Gasirikare Evariste uko yakabaye ngo kuko nta gisobanura impamvu yayamaranye icyo gihe cyose azi neza ko atishyuwe. [31] Gasirikare Evariste nawe yemera ko uwo mwenda ukomoka ku yandi masezerano bagiranye atajyanye n’iri soko rya NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd, ariko akavuga ko mu gihe yari amenye ko hari Urubanza hagati ya NFCS Ltd na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd, nta cyari kumubuza kurugobokamo ngo yishyuze umwenda wose amubereyemo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [32] Impaka kuri iki kibazo zishingiye ku kumenya niba impamvu yo kugoboka mu rubanza ishobora kuba iyo ariyo yose n’iyo yaba idashingiye ku kibazo kiri mu rubanza rugobokwamo. Mu yandi magambo, ikibazo ni ukumenya niba hashingiwe ku mikoranire n’imigabanire

## Page 354

320 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’urwunguko byumvikanweho hagati ya Gasirikare na NFCS bishoboka ko sheki ya 8.500.000 Frw ibarirwa mu bigomba kugabanwa bikomoka ku isoko rya NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. [33] Ingingo ya 114, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko kugira ngo ikirego cye cyakirwe, ugoboka ku bushake agomba kugaragaza inyungu yemewe n’amategeko, itaziguye kandi ye bwite. Inyungu yemewe ni iy‘umuburanyi utagobotse mu rubanza ashobora gukurikirana atambamira imikirize yarwo. Koko rero, iyo atashoboye kurugobokamo kandi yari arufitemo inyungu ashobora kuzirengera arutambamira. Igihe rero icyo aburana kitaburanwe muri urwo rubanza ntaba yemerewe kurutambamira kuko nta nyungu aba arufitemo. Mu yandi magambo, inyungu z’umuburanyi ugoboka mu rubanza zigaragarira mu kuba yabasha no kurutambamira mu gihe yaba atarabashije kurugobokamo. Ibyo bivuze ko umuburanyi wagobotse adashobora kuzanamo ikibazo kidafitanye isano n’ikiburanwa mu rubanza hagati y’ababuranyi bari barusanzwemo. [34] Urukiko rurasanga bisobanutse neza mu masezerano y’ubufatanye bw’akazi yo ku wa 28/07/2019 ko inshingano n’ibihembo bya NFCS Ltd na Gasirikare Evariste bivugwa muri ayo masezerano ari gusa ibigomba kuba bifitanye isano n’isoko NFCS Ltd yahawe na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd mu masezerano yo ku wa 28/06/2019. Ibi bikaba bivuze ko ibijyanye na sheki ya

## Page 355

321 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

8.500.000 Frw yo ku wa 06/06//2019 na Gasirikare Evariste ubwe yiyemerera ko idafitanye isano n’iryo soko bitagombaga kubarirwa mu mwenda wemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, mu gihe ibijyanye n’iyi sheki ntaho bihuriye n’isoko rya NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. [35] Kubera izo mpamvu, Uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga ingingo irebana na sheki ya 8.500.000 Frw yo ku wa 06/06//2019 itaragombaga no gusuzumirwa muri uru rubanza, bityo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukaba rwarakoze ikosa mu kugenera Gasirikare amafaranga ayivugwamo. C. Kumenya niba inyungu Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwageneye NFCS Ltd zaragombaga kugenerwa Gasirikare Evariste wenyine [36] Gasirikare Evariste n’umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse ko NFCS Ltd ari yo ihabwa inyungu zikomoka ku mafaranga y'imirimo yakoreye NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ntiyishyurwe rwirengagije ko izo nyungu zose zikomoka kuri 86.500.000 Frw yashowe na Gasirikare Evariste. Gasirikare Evariste avuga ko izo nyungu ari we wagombaga kuzihabwa, kuko ari we washoye amafaranga yose nk’uko amasezerano abiteganya, akaba ari na we wagize igihombo kuko kutishyura kwa NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ari we byagizeho ingaruka zikomeye, kuko yatanze amafaranga yose yo gukora imirimo naho NFCS Ltd icyo yakoze akaba ari ugukurikirana imirimo gusa nk’uko amasezerano y‘imikoranire yabo yabiteganyaga.

## Page 356

322 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[37] Gasirikare Evariste n’umwunganira banenga kandi uburyo izo nyungu zabazwe. Bavuga ko Urukiko rwemeje ko NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd igomba kwishyura 109.859.976 Frw y’agaciro k’imirimo yakozwe, inyungu mbonezamusaruro zagenwe n'Urukiko rw'Ubucuruzi ku rwego rubanza zingana na 14.092.761 Frw, naho ku rwego rw’ubujurire Urukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi rwemeza izindi zingana na 11.882.382 Frw, naho inyungu Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwageneye buri ruhande nyuma yo kuzigabana ku buryo bungana ziba 11.679.988 Frw, igiteranyo cy'inyungu mbonezamusaruro kikaba gihwanye na 25.981.149 Frw. [38] Ku birebana n’uko inyungu mbonezamusaruro zagombaga kubarwa n'uruhare rwa buri wese, basanga mu mafaranga Urukiko rwategetse ko yishyurwa angana na 109.859.976 Frw, Gasirikare Evariste yarashoye 86.500.000 Frw ; bikaba bigaragara ko ayo yashoye aruta ayo NFCS Ltd yashoye inshuro 8.4, bityo inyungu mbonezamusaruro zategetswe n'Urukiko GASIRIKARE Evariste agomba kugabana na NFCS Ltd zikaba zaragombaga kubarwa hakurikijwe icyo buri wese yashoye. Ni ukuvuga ko ku ruhande rwa NFCS Ltd zari kuba : 25.981.149: 8,4 = 3.092.994 Frw naho ku ruhande rwa Gasirikare Evariste zikaba : 25.981.149 – 3.092.994 = 22.888.155 Frw. [39] Uhagarariye NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd avuga ko NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ntacyo ivuga kuri iyi ngingo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA

## Page 357

323 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

[40] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumenya uko inyungu NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yategetswe kwishyura zigomba kugabanwa hagati ya Gasirikare Evariste na NFCS Ltd. [41] Ingingo ya 2 y’amasezerano y’ubufatanye bw’akazi yo ku wa 29/07/2019 impande zombi zagiranye ivuga ko Gasirikare Evariste nk’umufatanyabikorwa wa NFCS Ltd yemeye kuzana amafaranga yo gukora iryo soko no kubaka mur de soutenement ryatanzwe na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd kugeza rirangiye, NFCS Ltd igakurikirana imirimo kugeza irangiye, nawe agakurikirana uko amafaranga azakoreshwa; naho ingingo ya 3 y’ayo masezerano ikavuga ko NFCS Ltd n’uwo bafatanyije iryo soko Gasirikare Evariste bazagabana inyungu zizava muri iryo soko kuri 50% havuyemo ibyakoreshejwe byose kuri iryo soko (dépenses) ndetse n’imisoro ya Leta, buri wese akazafata 50%, isoko ryose rifite agaciro kangana na 220,516,372 FRW. [42] Izi ngingo zombi z’aya masezerano, zisomewe hamwe, zumvikanisha ko ku mafaranga yose akomotse ku isoko rya NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS habanza kuvanwamo ayashowe na Gasirikare (akayagenerwa), hakanavanwamo ayakoreshejwe kuri iryo soko, asigaye yose akaba ariyo agomba kugabanywa impande zombi ku buryo bungana. [43] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko ku rwego rwa mbere Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko amafaranga NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd igomba kwishyura NFCS Ltd ari 109.859.976 Frw y’agaciro k’imirimo

## Page 358

324 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’isoko yakozwe kugeza riseshwe, na 14.098.767 Frw y’inyungu z’ubukererwe bwo kuyishyura. Urubanza rugeze mu bujurire na Gasirikare Evariste amaze kurugobokamo, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwagumishijeho amafaranga amaze kuvugwa haruguru, ahubwo ku ndishyi/inyungu z’ubukererwe zavuzwe haruguru rwongeraho izindi zingana na 11.882.382 Frw zibariwe ku gihe cyari gishize haciwe urubanza rwo mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwari rwajuririwe. Ibi bikaba bivuze ko amafaranga agendanye n’isoko ry’imirimo kandi arebwa n’impaka z‘igabana hagati ya NFCS Ltd na Gasirikare inkiko zamaze gutegeka NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ari 109.859.976Frw + 14.098.767Frw + 11.882.382Frw = 135.841.125 Frw. [44] Ku bijyanye n’uburyo bwo kugabana ayo mafaranga, Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko bimaze gusobanurwa mu gika cya 42 cy’uru rubanza, mu mafaranga yose 135.841.125 Frw yagombaga kwishyurwa na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd haragombaga kubanza gukurwamo 48.000.000Frw y’igishoro kigomba kubanza kugarukira Gasirikare Evariste, 87.841.127 Frw asigaye akaba ari yo nyungu igomba kugabanywa NFCS Ltd na Gasirikare Evariste mu buryo bungana. Ni ukuvuga ko buri wese agomba kugenerwa 87.841.127 Frw x 50% = 43.920.563 Frw. Mu yandi magambo, kuri 135.841.125 Frw yose hamwe agomba kwishyurwa na NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd, uruhare rwa NFCS Ltd rurebana gusa n’inyungu, urwo ruhare rukaba rungana na 43.920.563 Frw; naho uruhare rwa Gasirikare Evariste rukaba rungana na 48.000.000

## Page 359

325 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

Frw yemejwe ko ari yo yashoye4, hakiyongeraho 43.920.563 Frw y’uruhare rwe ku nyungu nyuma yo kuzigabana na NFCS Ltd mu buryo bungana, yose hamwe akaba 91.920.563 Frw. [45] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, uru Rukiko rurasanga ibyari byemejwe n’Urukiko mu kugenera NFCS Ltd yonyine inyungu zikomoka ku gukererwa kwishyura kwa NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd nta shingiro bifite kuko binyuranyije n’igabana riringanije ry’inyungu zose zakomotse ku isoko ryumvikanweho n’impande zombi, bityo ubujurire bwa Gasirikare Evariste bwuririye ku bundi bukaba bufite ishingiro kuri iyi ngingo yo kuba izo nyungu zose zitagomba kwiharirwa na NFCS Ltd yonyine ariko na none bukaba nta shingiro bufite kubirebana no kuba ari we wenyine ugomba kuziharira. D. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaragombaga gutegeka NFCS Ltd kwishyura Gasirikare Evariste 18% y ‘indishyi mbonezamusaruro z’amafaranga yose agomba kwishyurwa, kubera kumushora mu manza ku maherere. [46] Mu bujurire bwuririye ku bundi, Gasirikari Evariste n’umwunganira basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gutegeka NFCS Ltd kwishyura Gasirikare Evariste indishyi mbonezamusaruro zingana na 18% y'amafaranga yose agomba kwishyurwa ahwanye na 98.179.988Frw +22.888.155Frw= 121.068.143 X 18% = 21.792.265Frw,

4 Reba igika cya 29 cy’uru rubanza.

## Page 360

326 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kubera gukomeza kumushora mu manza z’amaherere, aho kumwishyura. [47] Uhagarariye NFCS Ltd yiregura ku ndishyi mbonezamusaruro Gasirikare Evariste asaba avuga ko Urukiko rwazazisuzuma, hanyuma rwasanga azikwiriye rukazitanga. [48] Uhagarariye NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd avuga ko ntacyo NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ivuga kuri iyi ngingo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [49] Ingingo ya 150,5o y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko ujurira agomba kugaragaza icyo anenga urubanza rujuririrwa. Naho ingingo yaryo ya 154, igika cya 4 ikongeraho ko hadashobora gutangwa ikirego gishya ku rwego rw’ubujurire. [50] Mu rubanza rujuririrwa, indishyi Gasirikare asaba zo kumushora mu manza z’amaherere aho kumwishyura, ntizigize ziburanwa. Ahubwo nk’uko bigaragara, ni ubwa mbere kuri uru rwego rw’ubujurire bwa kabiri Gasirikare Evariste aziregeye; bityo iyi ngingo irebana n’izi ndishyi ikaba itagomba kwakirwa ngo isuzumwe kuko yatanzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. E. Ibyerekeye amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa n’ababuranyi

## Page 361

327 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

[51] Gasirikare Evariste n’umwunganira basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gutegeka NFCS Ltd kumwishyura 1.300.000Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza, kuko NFCS Ltd aho kumwishyura yatanze ikirego cy'ubujurire kugira ngo akomeze asiragire mu nkiko, bigatuma yariyambaje umunyamategeko wo kumuburanira. [52] Uhagarariye NFCS Ltd avuga ko amafaranga asabwa na Gasirikare Evariste nta shingiro afite. [53] Uhagarariye NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd avuga ko nta muburanyi NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ifite icyo isaba nk’uko nayo nta wagize icyo ayisaba kuri uru rwego. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [54] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo kuwa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. (…) kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe. [55] Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo umuburanyi yemerewe gushingira ku ngingo y’itegeko yibukijwe haruguru akemererwa kuregera ko Urukiko rutegeka undi

## Page 362

328 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

baburana kumwishyura bene aya mafaranga y’ibyo yatakaje ku rubanza, kuyagenerwa byo ntibishidikanywaho ko bigomba gushingira mbere na mbere ku kuba atsinda urubanza ayasabamo ku zindi ngingo z’ikiregerwa cy’ibanze. [56] Muri uru rubanza ubujurire bwa NFCS Ltd yatanze ihanganyemo na Gasirikare Evariste Urukiko rwasanze bugomba guhabwa ishingiro nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, naho ubwa Gasirikare Evariste bwabwuririyeho buhabwa ishingiro gusa ku kuba NFCS Ltd itagomba kwiharira inyungu z’ubukererwe zaciwe NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd ariko na none ntibwahabwa ishingiro ku byari byasabwe ko Gasirikare Evariste ari we ukwiye kuziharira. [57] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa na Gasirikare Evariste nta shingiro agomba guhabwa, ko buri muburanyi kuri uru rwego agomba kwirengera amafaranga y’ibyo yatanze ku rubanza. [58] Urukiko rurasanga ahubwo rugomba kwibutsa ko ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ibigenda ku rubanza, ku rwego rwa mbere Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd guha NFCS Ltd 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka, 100.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 20.000Frw y’igarama ryatanzwe, naho ku rwego rw’ubujurire bwa mbere Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutegeka NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd guha NFCS Ltd andi 600.000 Frw agizwe na 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 100.000 Frw

## Page 363

329 NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD N’UNDI

y’ikurikiranarubanza. Ibi bikaba bivuze ko amafaranga yose hamwe y’ibyagenze kuri uru rubanza ku nzego zose NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd yategetswe kwishyura NFCS Ltd angana na 1.220.000 Frw agizwe na 1.000.000 Frw y’ibihembo bya Avoka, 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 20.000 Frw y’igarama ryatanzwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [59] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa NFCS Ltd bufite ishingiro kuri byose naho ubujurire bwa Gasirikare Evariste bubwuririyeho bukagira ishingiro kuri bimwe; [60] Rwemeje ko nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza rwajuririwe amafaranga NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd igomba kwishyura angana na 135.841.125 Frw nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru; [61] Rwemeje ko mu mafaranga amaze kuvugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki 43.920.563 Frw ari yo NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd igomba kwishyura NFCS Ltd naho 91.920.563 Frw ikayishyura Gasirikare Evariste nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru; [62] Rutegetse NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd kwishyura NFCS Ltd 43.920.563 Frw; [63] Rutegetse NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd kwishyura Gasirikare Evariste 91.920.563 Frw;

## Page 364

330 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[64] Rwibukije NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd kwishyura NFCS Ltd 1.220.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, ibihembo bya Avoka n’igarama ry’urubanza ku nzego zabanje yategetswe n’Urukiko mu rubanza rwajuririwe; [65] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza yatanzwe na NFCS Ltd kuri uru rwego ahwanye n’ibyarukozwemo.

## Page 365

i SUBJECT INDEX

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 366

ii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 367

iii SUBJECT INDEX i TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii I. LAW REPORTING TEAM ............................................. iii II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ..................... v PREFACE ................................................................................. ix SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ..................................................... xi CITATION ................................................................................ xi LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ xiii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED ........................................... xvi SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................... xxi Re UWOMBONYE .................................................................... 1 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA .................................. 35 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL ....................... 51 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA 69 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA .............................................. 95 PROSECUTION v KABILIMA ............................................ 175 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA ................................. 233 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL ....... 295 v v vii xi xiii xiii xv xix xxiii iii

## Page 368

iv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 369

v SUBJECT INDEX iii TEAM OF EDITORS

I. LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

NZAYISENGA Daniel

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

v

## Page 370

vi RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 371

vii SUBJECT INDEX II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

Prof. Dr. Ngagi M. Alphonse President of the Committee, Judge of the Court of Appeal Dr. Muhire G. Yves Vice President of the Committee Lecturer in the School of Law University of Rwanda Bwiza N. Blanche Secretary of the Committee Inspector of courts Kalihangabo Isabelle Judge of the Supreme Court Rukundakuvuga F. Regis President of the Court of Appeal Kaliwabo Charles Judge of the Court of Appeal Dr. Karimunda M. Aimé Rector of Institute of Legal Practice and Development Habarurema Jean Pierre President of the High Court Nkurunziza Valens Inspector General of Courts Umuzayire B: Bibiane Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission vii

## Page 372

viii RWANDA LAW REPORTS Nsengiyumva Jean Claude Inspector of courts Kibuka Jean Luc Judge of Commercial High Court Murererehe Saouda Judge of the High Court Dr. Nshimiyimana Didace Judge of the High Court Chamber for International and Cross-border Crimes Lt Col Kalibu Phanuel Judge of Military Court Ninahazwa Roselyne Prosecutor at National Level Dr. Bideri Diogène Prosecutor at National Level Kabibi Specioza State Attorney Uwimana Christine Judge of the Intermediate Court Giraneza Clémentine Judge of the Intermediate Court Umutesi Vestine Judge of the Commercial Court Mukamana Valentine Judge of the Primary Court

## Page 373

ix SUBJECT INDEX Dr Zikamwabahari Jean de Dieu Lecturer at the University of Kigali Kamali Jean Damascene Lecturer at UNILAK Karake Canisius Lecturer at ULK Dr. Habimana Pie Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association Bagabo Faustin Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

## Page 374

x RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 375

xi SUBJECT INDEX PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 3 [2025]. As usual, we select cases that solve some of the legal issues you encounter, either in your career or in your daily life. This volume contains seven (7) cases, which includes; one (1) case relating to the petition seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, one (1) civil case, three (3) criminal cases, one (1) commercial case and two (2) procedural cases. These law reports can be accessed on https://amategeko.gov.rw/

MUKANTAGANZWA Domitilla President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

xi

## Page 376

xii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 377

xiii SUBJECT INDEX SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited as: [2025] 3 RLR

xiii

## Page 378

xiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 379

xv SUBJECT INDEX iii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED a. Current laws The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda 2003 revised to date. Articles 3, 15. International covenant on civil and political rights of 16 December 1966. Article 14. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide of 09/12/1948, articles 3 and 4.. Article 3 and 4. Article 3. Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure. Article 108. Article 155 Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general. Article 20, 49, 91 and 93. Article 1 and 92. Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. Article 62 and 69. Article 52 Article 52 and 105 Article 105. xv

## Page 380

xvi RWANDA LAW REPORTS Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. Article 158 and 260. Article 111 and 144 Article 111 and 114 Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning. Article 4, 6, 19, 81 and 82. Law N0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production. Article 3, 63, 65 and 119 Article 65 and 119 Law N o 02/2002 of 17/01/2002 modifying law-order no 32/75 of August, 1, 1975 relating to the compulsory civil liability insurance with regard to automotive vehicles. Article 2 Law No 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 relating to the compensation of victims of physical accidents caused by motorized land vehicles. Article 5 Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 relating to compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles. Article 2, 18 and 19.

## Page 381

xvii SUBJECT INDEX

b. Repealed laws Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code. Article 76, 82, 96, 113, 114 and 115. Article 132 Organic Law n° 16/2004 of 19/6/2004 establinshing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts. Article 6. Law Nº 32/2009 of 18/11/2009 governing negotiable instruments. Article 110 Law Nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure. Article 184.

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED

## Page 382

xviii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 383

xix SUBJECT INDEX LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED

Re Ngendahayo Kabuye, RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2021/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023. Re Murangwa, RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022. Re Murangwa, RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/019/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019. Re Akagera Business Group, RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016. Bagaragaza v SIRWA SARL (ADD) RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 14/02/2024. Insurance Company Ltd v Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2022/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 02/12/2022. Ngizweninshuti v Muhima, RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 21/02/2020, Nditiribambe et.al v Nyamaswa, RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 13/03/2020, Mukamana Mamique et.al v Candali Vérène et.al, RS/ INJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/07/2020. Road Solution Pavements Product v Mailco Ltd, RC/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 25/09/2020. xix

## Page 384

xx RWANDA LAW REPORTS SANLAM Assurance Générales Plc v University of Rwanda RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2020/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/11/2020. Ubushinjacyaha v Bandora Charles, RPA 0001/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/03/2019. Ubushinjacyaha v Nshimiyimana Alexis et .al, RPAA 0059/08/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/11/2010. BUFCOFFEE Ltd v TEUSCHER INVEST Ltd, currently known as KIVUBELT COFFEE Ltd RCOMAA 00012/2022/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 22/07/2022 RODAS IMPORTER AND DISTRIBUTOR Ltd v Gasangwa Jean Baptiste et.al, RCOMAA 00042/2023/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 06/11/2023. Prosecution v Munyagishari, RPA/GEN 00004/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 7/5/2021. Prosecution v Twahirwa François, RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA16 rendered by the Court of Apeal on 25/7/2023. Prosecution v Shema Ernest, RPAA 00050/2024/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 26/4/2024. Prosecution v Abayisenga et.al, RPA 00016/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 22/3/2024. Prosecution v Nsabimana Alias Sankara et.al, RPA 00060/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 04/04/2022. Prosecution v Ntaganzwa Ladislas, RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 3/3/2023.

## Page 385

xxi SUBJECT INDEX

iii Prosecution v Birindabagabo Jean-Paul, RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 8/4/2022. Prosecution v Kabilimana Jean Damascène, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 16/10/2020. Prosecution v Twagirayezu Wenceslas, RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA rendered by the Court of Apeal on 31/ 07/2024. Prosecution v Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-A rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 16/11/2001 Prosecution v Seromba Athanase, ICTR-01-66-A rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 12/03/2008 Prosecution v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 21 /05/2007. Prosecution v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 28 /04/ 2005. Prosecution v Ntagerura André et .al., ICTR-99-46-A rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 7/07/2006. Prosecution vs Nahimana Ferdinand André et .al, ICTR 99-52-A rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 28/10/2007. Prosecution v Simon Bikindi, ICTR-01-72-A rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 18/03/ 2010. Prosecution v Jean Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-S, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 19 /10/ 2000. Prosecution v Munyakazi Yussuf, ICTR-97-36A-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 28/09/2011. LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED

## Page 386

xxii RWANDA LAW REPORTS i Prosecution v Nchamihigo Simeon, Case ICTR-2001-63-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 18/03/ 2010. Prosecution v Kalimanzira Callxte, ICTR -05-88-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 20/10/ 2010. Prosecution v. Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 4 /09/1998. Prosecution v. Zigiranyirazo Protais, ICTR-01-73-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 16 /11/2009. Prosecution v Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 26 /05/2003 Prosecution v Musema, ICTR-96-13-T, rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 27 /01/ 2000. Prosecution v Bikindi Simon, ICT–2001-72–T, rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 02/12/2008. Prosecution vs Bagosora Théoneste André et .al, ICTR-98-41-T, rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 18/12/2008. Prosecution vs Renzaho, ICTR-97-31-T, rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 14/07/2009. Prosecution vs Gatete Jean Baptiste, ICTR-2000-61-T rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 31/03/2011. Prosecution v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, ICTR-99-54A-T, rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 23 /01/ 2003 Prosecution v Karemera et.al, ICTR-98-44-T, rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 29/09/2014. Prosecution v Jean Paul Akayesu, ICTR -96-4-T, rendered by ICTR, Trial chamber on 2/09/1998.

## Page 387

xxiii SUBJECT INDEX SUBJECT INDEX 1. Constitution – – Petition seeking to declare a provision of law unconstitutional– Jurisdiction to declare unconstitutional the provisions of internal rules and regulations – With reference to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the legislator has not conferred on it the jurisdiction to review the unconstitutionality of internal rules and regulations. Re UWOMBONYE, RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2023/SC 1 The principle of equality before the law – Requiring an individual who wishes to practice as advocate to sit for a test prior to entering the profession, in order to assess his or her knowledge, cannot be considered a violation of the principle of equality before the law, even though such a requirement is not imposed on members of other professional associations or those engaged in ordinary commercial activities, since the nature of the work performed is not the same. Re UWOMBONYE, RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2023/SC 1 2. Law governing civil cases – Compensation for motorcycle accident injuries – Compensation for financial loss – The victim who sustained a permanent incapacity – The victim of an accident who sustained a permanent incapacity is entitled to compensation for financial loss regardless of whether he/she continued working or not. RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA, RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2023/SC 69 Overruling precedent – Compensation for motorcycle accident injuries – Compensation for hindrance of working xxiii

## Page 388

xxiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS experience – The victim of an accident who sustained a permanent incapacity is entitled to compensation for hindrance of working experience because

the consequences of a permanent incapacity include the loss of a chance of promotion – This precedent overrules the existing one set out in the case RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC involving Prime Insurance Company Ltd and Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, where such compensation was granted only to a person who had lost a job. RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA, RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2023/SC. …………………………………………………. 3. Law governing commercial cases – Definition of a cheque – A cheque is issued to pay a payee – When no other explanation is attached to it, it must always be understood that it is intended to pay the debt owed by a drawer to a payee. NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET. AL., RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA…………………………………………………. 4. Law governing criminal cases – Genocide – Special intent (genocidal intent or dolus specialis ) – The gravity of the crime of genocide which makes it also a special crime, is a special intent (genocidal intent or dolus specialis ) to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group and this specificity is based on in sentencing the perpetrators of this crime. PROSECUTION v KABILIMA, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA 175

## Page 389

xxv SUBJECT INDEX Conspiracy to commit genocide –Conspiracy to commit genocide is considered a crime of genocide in such a way that the specific intent to commit these two crimes is the same, which means that the agreement between two (2) or more people to commit genocide is aimed at destroying in whole or in part people, who have in common the nationality, race, skin color or religion, because of who they are, and it is done by one or more of them. PROSECUTION v MUGIMBA, RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA 95 Complicity in genocide – The intention of complicity in genocide is evident when the alleged accomplice in the crime of genocide helped or prevented or deceived, knowing what he/she did and wanted, another person or people to commit genocide, knowing for sure that such person or those people are committing genocide, even if the accused did not intend to destroy all people or some of them, who have in common the same nationality, ethnicity, skin color or religion, because of who they are. PROSECUTION v MUGIMBA, RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA 95 Aggravating and mitgating circurmstances – The seriousness of the crime and the aggravating circumstances that constitute the crime, do not bar the judge from acknowledging the mitigating circumstances that appeared in the interests of the convicted person, aiming to sentence him/her based on the way the crime was committed and his personal life (individualisation de la peine). PROSECUTION v MUGIMBA, RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA 95

## Page 390

xxvi RWANDA LAW REPORTS Criminal liability – Acquittal – No accused can claim that a judgment from another court acquitted him/her as long as they have not been involved as a party. PROSECUTION v HABYARIMANA, RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA 235 5. Civil procedure – Opposition – Opposition to the judgment rendered at the appeal instance – When an opposition is filed against the judgment rendered at first appeal, in case it is subject to another appeal, this appeal shall be considered as the second appeal because the fact that the defaulting defendant appeals against the judgment rendered by the High Court does not make it the judgment rendered at first instance. BARAWUMFITIYE v RWAJEKARE ET.AL., RCA 00014/2023/CA 51 6. Commercial procedure – Invalidation of auction – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – In the interests of justice, the Supreme Court may adjudicate a case relating to the invalidation of an auction that is normally within the jurisdiction of the primary courts. BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA, RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2023/SC 35 Voluntary intervention in the case - Demonstrating a legitimate interest – The interest of the party who voluntarily intervenes in the case is shown by their ability to apply for third party opposition in case they were unable to intervene voluntarily in it. NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET. AL, RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA 297

## Page 391

xxvii SUBJECT INDEX

Claiming procedural fees - A party is permitted to request that the Court order another party to pay them the procedural fees, the allocation of which is undoubtedly based on the fact that they win the case in which they claim them on other issues of the initial claim. NFCS LTD v. NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD LTD ET. AL, RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA 297 7. Criminal procedure –The judgment must respond expressly or directly to all the requests of the parties, to the objections they presented and to the arguments (reasons) they put forward, but it is not required to examine all of them one by one, what is essential is that the decided case indicates the reasons why the requests, the objections and arguments (reasons) presented were invalidated. PROSECUTION v MUGIMBA, RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA 95 Production of evidences in criminal cases – The defence of alibi – The Prosecution has the responsibility to produce incriminating evidence against the accused, but the party who pleads alibi is the one who has to produce tangible elements of evidence to prove it. PROSECUTION v KABILIMA, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA 175 Production of evidence in criminal cases – Testimony – The value of testimony –Testimony is valid based on the knowledge of the witness on the subject matter in dispute– - Testimony is not invalidated by the fact that the witnesses are relatives or have interest in the case, but the value is not based on the truth of the content – The Court itself

## Page 392

xxviii RWANDA LAW REPORTS determines the value of the testimony after analyzing the statements of the witnesses PROSECUTION v KABILIMA, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA 175 Production of evidence in criminal cases – Testimony - Value of testimony – The witnesses ‘contradiction does not discredit their testimonies because they are likely to be mistaken due to the time elapsed from the commission of the crime. PROSECUTION v KABILIMA, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA 175 Production of evidence in criminal cases – Testimony – Probative value of testimony – The determination of the probative value of testimonial evidence following the hearing of witness declarations – A judge may consider certain parts of testimony and reject other parts – In the event witness declarations from two witnesses contradict each other after the hearing of witnesses, it is the court that determines which witness declarations are valid. PROSECUTION v HABYARIMANA, RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA 235 Detention and release – Provisional release – A person detained in the context of enforcement of the penalty of imprisonment he/she has been sentenced to cannot be provisionally released on grounds of unlawful detention by investigation organs. PROSECUTION v HABYARIMANA, RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA 235

## Page 393

SPECIAL CLAIMS

## Page 395

PETITION SEEKING TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

## Page 397

1 Re UWOMBONYE 1

Re UWOMBONYE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2023/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Kalihangabo and Kazungu, J.) April 12, 2024] Constitution – Petition seeking to declare a provision of law unconstitutional– Jurisdiction to declare unconstitutional the provisions of internal rules and regulations – With reference to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the legislator has not conferred on it the jurisdiction to review the unconstitutionality of internal rules and regulations. Constitution – The principle of equality before the law – Requiring an individual who wishes to practice as advocate to sit for a test prior to entering the profession, in order to assess his or her knowledge, cannot be considered a violation of the principle of equality before the law, even though such a requirement is not imposed on members of other professional associations or those engaged in ordinary commercial activities, since the nature of the work performed is not the same. Facts: Uwombonye petitioned the Supreme Court requesting to hold that Article 6, paragraph 5, and Article 82, paragraph 3, of Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Rwanda Bar Association and determining its organization and functioning, as well as certain provisions of the Bar Association’s Internal Rules and Regulations, namely their Article 79, paragraph 7, and Article 83, paragraph 3, are inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, on the grounds that they violate the principle of equality before the law. The contested provisions relate

## Page 398

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO to the requirements for admission to the Bar Association in Rwanda, particularly those concerning the diploma issued by the Institute of Legal Practice and Development (ILPD), as well as the test conducted by the Bar Association. The petitioner further argues that the fact that Judges and Prosecutors were not required to hold a diploma from ILPD, unlike those who were already registered on the list of Advocates and Judicial Defenders when the Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 came into force, constitutes unequal treatment before the law. He also contends that an advocate, as a service provider similar to other professionals in liberal professions, should not be required to sit for a test in order to be admitted to the Bar Association. The petitioner submits that the Internal Rules and Regulations of the Bar Association in Rwanda stipulate that, to be registered as a practicing advocate, one must meet the requirements set out in Article 6 of the mentioned Law and it is prohibited to sit for the admission test more than twice within a period of five years, he realizes that this provision violates the Article 15 of the Constitution and therefore requests to the Court to repeal it. The representative of the Government of Rwanda in the hearing states that the profession of advocate is specialized and distinct from other professions, which is governed by specific laws and principles to ensure the professionalism, it sets for practitioners the requirements to meet certain standards of knowledge and ethical behaviour. In this regard, he further contends that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate how Article 6(5) of the aforementioned Law violates the Constitution, since the Constitution does not prohibit tests or restrict admission to the profession without such requirements. He therefore requests to the Supreme Court to declare the petition unfounded.

## Page 399

3 Re UWOMBONYE Held: 1. With reference to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the legislator has not conferred on it the jurisdiction to review the unconstitutionality of internal rules and regulations. 2. Requiring an individual who wishes to become an Advocate to sit for a test prior to entering the profession, in order to assess his or her knowledge, cannot be considered a violation of the principle of equality before the law, even though such a requirement is not imposed on members of other professional associations or those engaged in ordinary commercial activities, since the nature of the work performed is not the same. 3. The legislator had full discretion to enact specific transitional provisions for those already registered as Advocates and Judicial Defenders, based on their years of professional experience, where deemed appropriate. The fact that such provisions do not extend to Judges and Prosecutors does not constitute a violation of the principle of equality before the law. The petition seeking to declare unconstitutional a provision of law lacks merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda 2003 revised to date, articles 3, 15. Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 62 and 69. Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, articles 4, 6, 19, 81 and 82.

## Page 400

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Cases referred to: RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2021/SC, Re Ngendahayo Kabuye, rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023. RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC, Re Murangwa, rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022. RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/019/SC, Re Murangwa, rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019. RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, Re Akagera Business Group, rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/09/2016. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 14/04/2023, Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi filed a petition before the Supreme Court requesting to declare that Article 6, paragraphs 30 and 50, and Article 82, paragraph 3, of Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, establishing the Rwanda Bar Association and determining its organization and functioning, are inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), as they constitute unequal treatment before the law. During the pre-trial conference held on 28/02/2024, the petitioner stated that he had withdrawn his challenge to paragraph 30 of Article 6 of the aforementioned law, and therefore, it would not be addressed further. [2] He also requested to the Court to hold that Article 79, paragraph 7, and Article 83, paragraph 3, of the Internal rules and Regulations of the Bar Association in Rwanda dated 16/09/2014, which is referred to Article 8, paragraph 3, of the aforementioned

## Page 401

5 Re UWOMBONYE Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, are contrary to the Article 15 of the Constitution. [3] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi explains that Article 8 emphasizes on the Internal Rules and Regulations of the Bar Association in Rwanda, it reads that, in order to be admitted as a practicing advocate, one must fulfil the requirements set forth in Article 6 of the mentioned Law, and it is prohibited to sit for the test more than twice within a five-year period. He contends that these provisions violate Article 15 of the Constitution. [4] He states that, as a legal practitioner and an advocate for equal treatment and protection for all before the law, he has petitioned the Supreme Court to examine the aforementioned provisions and to repeal any that are inconsistent with the Constitution. [5] The case was registered under RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2023/SC, and the hearing was scheduled for 04/03/2024. [6] On the hearing date, the parties appeared, and the hearing was held in public. Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi was represented by Counsel Nyamaswa Raphaël, while the Government of Rwanda was represented by Counsel Kabibi Spéciose. The Court first examined whether Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi had interest in the case and whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear a claim challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Internal rules and Regulations.

## Page 402

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Determine whether Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi has interest in the case [7] After hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner and the Representative of the Government, the Court ruled as follows : a. In the interlocutory judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/12/2022, whereby the petitioner was Murangwa Edward, the Court clarified that, in assessing the petitioner’s legal interest, the following factors must be considered, and the presence of any one of them suffices to establish such interest : - If the contested law alleged to be unconstitutional directly affects the petitioner or the category to which he belongs, thereby granting them a personal interest in filing the petition. For example, laws specifically addressing journalists, doctors, teachers, and similar professions ; - If the contested law impacts the general public, potentially infringing upon their rights, thus allowing any person who might be affected to challenge its constitutionality ; - If the petitioner is an advocate, he or she may, in the interest of justice, file a petition to promote the law or protect the rights of those affected by the law, even if he or she has no direct personal interest in the case. b. Regarding the present case, the Court finds that the provisions challenged by Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi as unconstitutional pertain to any person seeking admission

## Page 403

7 Re UWOMBONYE to the Bar Association to practice as advocate or legal advisor. In his petition, he states that he is a legal professional who formerly served as a Prosecutor at the national level and is now retired. c. c. The Court concludes that, as an individual with legal training and professional experience in the field, Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi could personally be affected by these provisions, in case he seeks admission to the Bar Association ; therefore, he has a personal interest in this case. Determine whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Internal rules and Regulations [8] After hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner and the Government Representative, the Court rendered the following decision on the bench : a. Article 69, 1o of the Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts reads that “The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the following disputes at first and last instances : 1° take decision on petitions on the unconstitutionality of organic laws, international instruments, laws and decree-laws ; […]. b. This article indicates that, with reference to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Legislator did not include the jurisdiction to review whether organic laws or internal rules and regulations are inconsistent with the Constitution. c. The Court finds this interpretation logical, as internal rules and regulations or instructions in general must be based on

## Page 404

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO a law that itself must not contradict the Constitution. When the underlying law conflicts with the Constitution, it is the law that should be challenged, based on the jurisdiction provided under Article 69, paragraph 1, mentioned above. d. In case where the provisions within internal rules and regulations conflict either with the law on which they are based or with the Constitution itself, the aggrieved party has other legal alternatives to assert his/her rights, other than filing a claim before the judge responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the Constitution. These alternatives include the following : - He has the right to request any judge to disregard internal rules and regulations that conflict with the law or the Constitution in any case brought before them, based on Article 3 of the Constitution, which establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and stipulates that any law, decision, or action contrary to it is null and void. The Court finds that this is not unique to Rwanda; for instance, in the Kingdom of Belgium, Article 159 of the Constitution grants to judges the power to disregard regulations that clearly violate the law or the Constitution but does not empower them to annul such regulations or their provisions due to their unconstitutionality1.

1 “L’article 159 de la Constitution “oblige en effet le pouvoir judiciaire à ne pas appliquer, dans un litige qui lui est soumis, l’acte réglementaire illégal. La non- conformité à la loi s’entend au sens large en ce qu’elle vise également la non- conformité à la Constitution. En d’autres termes, par le biais de l’exception de l’illégalité, tout juge peut refuser sans limite de temps d’appliquer un acte réglementaire, qui serait contraire à la Constitution”.

## Page 405

9 Re UWOMBONYE - He may also seek compensation before a competent judge if he/she can demonstrate that the internal rules and regulations conflicting with the law or the Constitution caused him harm2. - Additionally, he may bring a case before an administrative court, requesting the annulment of decisions made based on internal rules and regulations that violate the law or the Constitution. This approach is also not unique to Rwanda, as a similar procedure exists in the Kingdom of Belgium3.

“Cette prérogative constitutionnelle ne permet cependant au juge judiciaire de vérifier la constitutionnalité d’un acte réglementaire que de manière incidente, c’est-à-dire qu’à l’occasion d’un litige ayant pour objet un droit subjectif ou à l’occasion d’une poursuite répressive. En outre, elle n’a pas pour effet, contrairement à un arrêt d’annulation, de faire disparaître l’acte réglementaire jugé inconstitutionnel de l’ordonnancement juridique. Cette déclaration d’inconstitutionnalité n’a donc de valeur qu’inter partes. Elle est revêtue d’une autorité relative de chose jugée”; Professeur Pierre Nihoul, Juge à la Cour Constitutionnelle de Belgique, Le contrôle constitutionnel des règlements en Belgique, p.3, [consulté le 28/02/2024], https://www.const- court.be/public/stet/n/Le- Contr%C3%B4le-Constitutionnel-des- R%C3%A8glements-en-Belgique-oral.pdf 2 “[….] tout règlement inconstitutionnel peut être porté devant le juge judiciaire en vue d’obtenir, de l’auteur de ce règlement, réparation du dommage causé par un tel acte pour autant bien entendu que soient établis le dommage et le lien de causalité entre la faute et le dommage. Cette voie permet donc d’obtenir du juge judiciaire le même constat d’illégalité que celui opéré par le juge administratif et, en outre, la réparation en nature ou par équivalent du préjudice qui en résulte, sans toutefois aboutir à la censure radicale du règlement incriminé”; Ibidem, p.4. 3 “Le Conseil d’Etat peut aussi, à l’occasion d’un recours en annulation dirigé contre un acte individuel ou contre un acte réglementaire, contrôler par voie incidente un règlement sur lequel est fondé l’acte directement contesté. Il faut évidemment qu’il y ait un lien entre l’acte qui fait l’objet du recours principal et

## Page 406

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO e. There are other countries, such as Benin and Gabon, where it is possible to petition the Constitutional Court to rule on whether internal rules and regulations conflict with the Constitution4. However, this is not the approach adopted by Rwandan legislation.

le règlement contesté de manière incidente pour que l’exception d’illégalité soit admissible”; Ibidem, p.6 4 Article 84 of Gabon's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2011: The Constitutional Court obligatorily rules over: […] “The Constitutionality of organic laws and other laws before their promulgation, of regulatory acts that directly affect the fundamental rights of the human person and public liberties”; Article 85 of the same Text: […] Other categories of law as well as regulatory acts may be deferred to the Constitutional Court either by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the presidents of the Chambers of Parliament or a tenth of members from each Chamber, the presidents of the Supreme Court, the Council of the State and the Court of Accountancy, or any citizen or moral person damaged by the law or act in dispute”; https://www.google.com/search?q=la+constitution+du+gabon+pdf&rlz=1C1G CEU_en- Art 117 de la Constitution de la République du Bénin. “La Cour Constitutionnelle - Statue obligatoirement sur: […] la constitutionnalité des lois et des actes réglementaires censés porter atteinte aux droits fondamentaux de la personne humaine et aux libertés publiques et en général, sur la violation des droits de la personne humaine”; […] Art 121 du même texte: “La Cour Constitutionnelle, à la demande du Président de la République ou de tout membre de l'Assemblée Nationale, se prononce sur la constitutionnalité des lois avant leur promulgation. Elle se prononce d'office sur la constitutionnalité des lois et de tout texte réglementaire censés porter atteinte aux droits fondamentaux de la personne humaine et aux libertés publiques […]”, https://cdn.accf- francophonie.org/2019/03/benin-constitution- 1990.pdf

## Page 407

11 Re UWOMBONYE f. Basing on the aforementioned explanations, the Court finds that it does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the provisions of the Internal Rules and Regulations violate the Constitution. Consequently, it will not examine whether Article 79, paragraph 7, and Article 83, paragraph 3, of the Internal Rules and Regulations of the Rwanda Bar Association are inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution. [9] After the Court's decision regarding its jurisdiction, UWOMBONYE HIRWA Sudi stated that he withdrew from the case the issue concerning whether Article 8, paragraph 3, of Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 is inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution, as it was related to the matters concerning the Internal Rules and Regulations. [10] Regarding the merits of the case, the Court analysed the following issues: - Whether Article 82, paragraph 3, of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Rwanda Bar Association and determining its organization and functioning, is inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution; - Whether Article 6, subparagraph 5, of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Rwanda Bar Association and determining its organization and functioning, is inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution.

## Page 408

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES OF THE CASE 1.Whether Article 82, paragraph 3, of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, is inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution [11] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi and his counsel argue that paragraph 3 of Article 82 of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, reading that any person applying for the admission to the Bar must hold a diploma from the Institute of Legal Practice and Development (ILPD) recognized by the State or equivalent, is in violation of Article 15 of the Constitution for the following reasons : a. In Article 19, paragraph 1 of the aforementioned Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, the professional experience of the Prosecutors and Judges is recognized, but when it comes to applying for admission to the Bar Association, applicants are required to hold a qualification, whereas their counterparts in the Bar at the time of the revision of the law establishing the Rwanda Bar Association were not required to do so. b. Prosecutors and Judges are not treated on the same level as the individuals mentioned in Article 19, paragraph 1° previously referenced, despite all having received the same education and having equal experience in law, with both Lawyers and Prosecutors also having equal pleading skills. The requirement for some and not for others constitutes inequality before the law.

## Page 409

13 Re UWOMBONYE c. In other countries, such distinctions have been overcome (in Burundi5 and the Democratic Republic of Congo6), where no additional qualification is required for those coming from the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution. [12] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi and his counsel further state that this issue concerns only judges and prosecutors with professional experience and does not apply to newly qualified lawyers. [13] With regard to the issue of Article 82(3), which they have challenged as relating to transitional provisions, Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi and his counsel contend that it is the matter, but they challenge the fact that they did not clearly define the transitional period. They also add that, in response to the Government representative's statement about lawyers with special training or knowledge, they find this exception unfounded. They argue that no distinction should be made on the basis of knowledge, as the training and conduct (deontology) requirements for prosecutors and judges are the same as for lawyers.

5 Loi N°1/17 du 24 Juillet 2023 portant modification de la loi N°1/014 DU 29 Novembre 2002 portant réforme du statut de la profession d’Avocat, article 7, https://senat.bi/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Gouvernement- Statut-de-La- Profession-d’Avocat.pdf. 6 Ordonnance-Loi No 79-028 du 28 septembre 1979 portant organisation du barreau, du corps des défenseurs judiciaires et du corps des mandataires de l’État, https://www.leganet.cd/Legislation/Droit%20Judiciaire/OL79.28.28.09.79.htm (article 21 does not any way provide that those seeking admission to the Bar must sit for a test). N.B: The law appears to have been drafted when the country was called Zaire. What indicates that it is still in effect is the regulatory framework of the Bar Association Law. See link https://legalrdc.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/RIC-Barreau_LegalRDC.pdf and https://legalrdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RIC-Barreau_LegalRDC.pdf.

## Page 410

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [14] Finally, they request to the Court to declare that Article 82, paragraph 3 of Law No. 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organisation and functioning should be repealed, as it discriminates between persons with similar experience (judges, prosecutors and lawyers), which is contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution. [15] The representative of the Government of Rwanda argues that the claims made by the petitioner should not be considered for the following reasons: a. The profession of advocate, like other liberal professions, has regulations and principles that govern it to ensure professionalism, and practitioners are required to meet certain standards of knowledge. b. Being a liberal profession does not imply a lack of regulation, but rather means that the practitioner is not considered an employee working under the authority of another person. The profession of an advocate is special and should not be equated with or compared to other professions like business or carpentry, on grounds that beyond its role in representing and advising individuals in legal matters, it also assists the justice system in achieving the desired justice (the advocate is an auxiliary of the justice system). c. The Bar Association is the guardian of the laws, the dignity, and the honor of the profession of advocate, and that is why it is responsible for verifying the qualifications of its members and monitoring their conduct, as provided for in Article 4 of the Law establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda.

## Page 411

15 Re UWOMBONYE d. Every liberal profession has its own specific functioning, this is why there are national councils for professions such as National Council of Nurses and Midwives7; Rwanda Allied Health Professions Council8, Council of Pharmacists9; Council of Veterinary Doctors10; the Office of the Notary11; the Council of Professional Bailiffs12 among others. These bodies are tasked with ensuring that each profession operates in accordance with its respective laws and professional ethics. e. The principle of equality before the law, as outlined in Article 15 of the Constitution, means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike. Article 15 would be violated if certain people seeking to enter the legal profession are required to have the ILPD diploma while others are not, without a legitimate and rational justification.

7 Law N°25/2008 of 25/07/2008 establishing the National Council of Nurses and Midwives and determining its organisation, functioning and competence; Official Gazette (IG.L.R.R.) no 21bis of 01/11/2008. 8 Law N°46/2012 of 14/01/2013 establishing the Rwanda Allied Health Professions Council and determining its organisation, functioning and competence; IG.L.R.R. n° Special of 17/01/2013. 9 Law No 45/2012 of 14/01/2013 on organisation, functioning and competence of the Council of Pharmacists; IG.L.R.R. n° Special of 17/01/2013. 10 law n° 56/2013 of 09/08/2013 establishing Rwanda Council of Veterinary Doctors and determining its mission, organization and functioning; IG.L.R.R. n° Special of 21/10/2013. 11 Law No 13bis/2014 of 21/05/2014 governing the Office of Notary as amended to date; IG.L.R.R. n° Special of 29/05/2014. 12 Law N° 12/2013 of 22/03/2013 governing the Bailiff Function; IG.L.R.R. n° Special of 08/04/2013.

## Page 412

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO f. The fact that Article 82, paragraph 313 of the Law establishing the Bar Association exempts individuals with at least six years of experience in the legal field and those who were former judicial defenders from the ILPD qualification requirement is based on the recognition of their unique status. They had acquired practical knowledge through years of practice and training, particularly through the CNFJ14's extensive programs. Therefore, there was no need for them to repeat their studies at ILPD. Since that particular consideration was taken into account, it cannot be regarded as discrimination or inequality. g. Article 82, paragraph 3 falls under the section on transitional provisions, which are intended to fill gaps created by the new law. Prior to the entry into force of the 2013 Law, there were already practicing advocates and judicial defenders, and this provision was introduced to protect the acquired rights of those who were to be merged into a single Bar Association. Therefore, the law did not refer to judges and prosecutors as they were not part of these existing associations and none of their rights were infringed. h. It is inappropriate to argue that the transitional provisions are invalid because they did not specify the duration of their application. Not all transitional provisions have a fixed period.

13 [...] However, the provisions of Paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply to Advocates that are already enrolled on the roll of the Bar Association with six (6) years of experience working as Advocates or to the Judicial Defenders enrolled on the roll of the Board of Judicial Defenders with six (6) years of experience working as Judicial Defenders. 14 Centre National de Formation Judiciaire.

## Page 413

17 Re UWOMBONYE i. If the petitioner’s request to repeal Article 82, paragraph 3 is granted, it could create a problem for the individuals it concerns, and undermine the personal interest of the petitioner he had by filing the claim, as the ILPD diploma would then be required for everyone. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [16] Article 82 of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organisation and functioning provides that within a period not exceeding three (3) years from the date of publication of this Law in Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, access to the advocate’s profession shall be allowed without considering a precondition of having a certificate from the Institute of Legal Practice and Development referred to in Article 6 of this Law. [17] The second paragraph of the very article reads that Advocates enrolled on the new roll of the Bar Association and on the list of interns as provided for in Article 81 of this Law shall have three (3) years to comply with the provisions of Article 6 of this Law as far as the Institute of Legal Practice and Development is concerned. [18] The third paragraph of the aforementioned article 82 provides that the provisions of Paragraph 2 of this Article shall not apply to Advocates that are already enrolled on the roll of the Bar Association with six (6) years of experience working as Advocates or to the Judicial Defenders enrolled on the roll of the Board of Judicial Defenders with six (6) years of experience working as Judicial Defenders. This is the paragraph which the petitioner alleges to be inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution, on

## Page 414

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO ground that it refers to advocates and judicial defenders but does not mention judges and prosecutors, even though they all underwent the same studies and have the same experience in legal practice. [19] This Article 82 of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 mentioned above appears under the transitional provisions. Transitional provisions are articles that help to fill gaps or resolve issues that may arise due to the new law introducing measures that were not previously provided for in the repealed law15. [20] The legal scholar Bernhard Pulver states that the legislator has full discretion to establish transitional provisions as deemed appropriate, and that such provisions fall into different categories. Among these categories, he highlights the case of individuals who were already subject to the previous law and had made preparations in accordance with its requirements. He explains that, for such individuals, transitional provisions may stipulate that the former law continues to apply or that special arrangements are made for them. He provides an example where, under a new law, practicing a certain profession requires a university degree, whereas the previous law only required vocational training. In such a case, transitional provisions may allow individuals who have been practicing the profession for a certain period to continue without the university degree or offer them facilitated means to obtain it16.

15 “Une disposition transitoire est une règle de droit qui régit la transition entre l’ancien droit et le nouveau droit”; Bernhard PULVER, Le droit transitoire – parent pauvre de la législation? p.2, [consulté le 21/03/2024], https://leges.weblaw.ch/fr/dam/publicationsystem_leges/2005/3/LeGes_2005_3 _91-103.pdf 16 “En principe, le législateur dispose d’une grande liberté d’appréciation pour fixer le régime transitoire qui lui semble équitable. Plusieurs types de dispositions transitoires s’offrent (sans prétention d’exhaustivité): […]

## Page 415

19 Re UWOMBONYE [21] The types of transitional provisions described by the legal scholar Bernhard Pulver align with those set forth in Article 82 of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 referenced above. In this context, individuals entering the legal profession, as well as those already practicing, were granted a period to meet the new legal requirements concerning the ILPD certificate, which had not been mandated under the previous law17. Furthermore, an exemption was provided for those with six years of professional experience who were already registered on the lists of advocates and judicial defenders, as they were not required to provide the ILPD certificate. [22] The Court finds that the exception provided under the transitional provision in Article 82, paragraph 3, of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, referenced above, could not be applied to Judges and Prosecutors, as they were not among those with six years of experience registered on the lists of Advocates and Defenders at the time the Law came into force. Although they studied law and perform duties related to legal representation in court, it is clear that the legislator, in establishing the exception

– Adoption de règles particulières pour les situations préexistantes. Il peut se révéler judicieux de prévoir des règles matérielles particulières pour régler la situation des justiciables qui ont déjà pris des dispositions en fonction de l’ancien droit. On peut soit continuer à leur appliquer tel quel l’ancien droit ou bien prévoir pour eux un régime intermédiaire, particulier. Cas classique: si, pour l’exercice d’une profession, on exige dorénavant une formation universitaire (alors que, dans l’ancien droit, on n’exigeait qu’une formation professionnelle), le droit transitoire peut prévoir que les personnes qui exerçaient cette profession depuis un certain temps avant l’entrée en vigueur peuvent continuer à l’exercer même sans titre universitaire; on peut également donner à ces personnes la possibilité d’acquérir, à des conditions facilitées, le titre universitaire requis”; Ibidem, p. 5. 17 Law nº 03/97 of 19/03/1997 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda as modified and complemented to date.

## Page 416

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO within the transitional provision, intended to address the situation of those who had long been practicing as legal representatives but did not have the certificate required under the new law. [23] The following sections will examine whether the exclusion of Judges and Prosecutors from the same category as those already listed as Advocates and Judicial Defenders—thereby denying them the benefit of the exception provided under Article 82, paragraph 3, of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013—constitutes a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution. [24] Article 15 of the Constitution reads that all human beings are equal before the law. They enjoy equal protection of the law. The provisions of this Article have been interpreted in various cases decided by this Court, including the case of Murangwa Edward decided on 29/11/2019. In that case, the Court provided a detailed interpretation of the principle of equality before the law, drawing upon international treaties, various judicial decisions, and expert commentaries. The Court explained that “Things that are alike should be treated alike, and things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unlikeness”18. [25] The Court further explained that although individuals must be treated equally before the law, distinguishing between people or categorizing them does not always amount to discrimination. It emphasized that differentiating between individuals or groups may be necessary depending on the intended purpose, provided there are reasonable grounds based on a legitimate or rational objective19.

18 Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, rendered on 29/11/2019, Murangwa Edward, paragraph 34. 19 Ibidem, para 35.

## Page 417

21 Re UWOMBONYE This interpretation was also reiterated in the case of Ngendahayo Kabuye, likewise decided by this Court20. [26] In a case decided by the Swiss Federal Tribunal21, the Association Suisse des Psychothérapeutes challenged a new law regulating their profession. The law introduced new requirements for entry into the profession, including university qualifications, but also provided a transitional provision allowing those who had been practicing for some time prior to the enactment of the new law to continue working without meeting the new requirements. The Association argued that this provision violated the constitutional principle of equality before the law. However, the Court held that allowing practitioners who had been working in compliance with the previous legal framework to continue practicing under the transitional provision, without having to fulfil the new legal requirements, is not in any case inconsistent with the Constitution22.

20 Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, rendered on 10/02/2023, Ngendahayo Kabuye, paragraph 39 (this judgment reiterated on what was stated in the judgment RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS, rendered on 23/09/2016, Akagera Business Group, paragraph 18). 21 Judgment ATF 128 I 92, Schweizer Psychotherapeuten Verband SPV, considérant 4 (extrait traduite), [consulté le 21/03/2024], https://relevancy.bger.ch/php/clir/http/index.php?highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F %2F128-I- 92%3Ade&lang=de&type=show_document. 22 “Le cas des psychothérapeutes zurichois: une nouvelle loi cantonale exige, pour l’exercice indépendant de cette profession, dorénavant des études universitaires, une formation spéciale ainsi que des experiences professionnelles d’au moins deux ans. Pour les personnes ayant exercé cette profession depuis plusieurs années avant l’entrée en vigueur de ces nouvelles règles, des exigences moins élevées ont été fixées dans les dispositions transitoires. Ces dispositions transitoires ont été jugées comme conformes à la Constitution fédérale par le Tribunal federal”; Bernhard Pulver, op.cit., p.6-7.

## Page 418

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [27] Regarding the issue under consideration—whether the exclusion of Judges and Prosecutors from the transitional provision set forth in Article 82, paragraph 3, of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, unlike those already enrolled as Advocates and Judicial Defenders, violates the principle of equality before the law—the Court finds that the two categories are distinct. Those already on the list of Advocates and Judicial Defenders belonged to a category of individuals who were previously governed by the repealed law23 and had met its requirements. The legislator, therefore, had full discretion to establish specific transitional provisions for that category, as deemed appropriate, based on the duration of their professional practice. As previously explained, this does not violate the principle of equality before the law, as it is based on reasonable grounds and serves a legitimate purpose. [28] In light of all the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that paragraph 3 of Article 82 of Law No. 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, is not inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution. 2. Determine whether Article 6, subparagraph 5, of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, is inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution [29] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi and his legal counsel claim that Article 6, subparagraph 5, of the aforementioned Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, is inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution, based on the following grounds:

23 Law nº 03/97 of 19/03/1997 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda as modified and complemented to date.

## Page 419

23 Re UWOMBONYE a. Article 6, paragraph 5, as mentioned above, stipulates that anyone seeking to be admitted to the Bar Association in Rwanda must have passed a test conducted by the Bar Association. A lawyer, as a service provider, like others practicing liberal professions, should not be required to sit for a test to be authorized to practice this profession. b. Those wishing to be admitted to the Bar Association in Rwanda must register only once a year and must first compete through a selection process. It is well known that an advocate practices a liberal profession aimed at providing legal services, meaning that they are not an employee of the Bar Association; rather, they are responsible for all aspects such as paying their employees, renting their office space, purchasing equipment, and other daily needs. c. In consideration of the nature of an advocate's work, it is evident that he/she is an employee of the clients to whom he/she provides services, meaning that those clients should be the ones evaluating the advocate’s ability to assess whether they are competent or not. The Bar Association is not responsible for evaluating their competence since it is not a client of an advocate. d. The purpose of the test is not to enroll qualified individuals (skilled persons) into the Bar Association, rather it serves as a direct path to exclude and limit access to the Bar Association, which also creates inequality among lawyers. e. When referring to individuals practicing liberal professions, they also include those engaged in business activities. However, it is not provided under the laws of

## Page 420

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Rwanda that a person seeking to be a businessperson must firstly undergo any kind of test in order for the relevant authorities (Rwanda Development Board, Rwanda Revenue Authority, among others) to grant them the permission to practice their profession. f. In other councils such as the one for medical doctors, nurses and midwives, among others, no admission test is required. Thus, it raises the question of why the Bar Association in Rwanda would be an exception, which could also be seen as a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution, as people are not equally treated before the law. g. The argument made by the representative of the Government of Rwanda that tests are required in other countries prior admission to the Bar Association is not accurate. For example, in France24, no admission test is required for nationals; however, the test is only for foreigners who do not demonstrate possession of a professional certificate in legal representation (titulaire du certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'Avocat). In our

24 Décret N° 91-1197 du 27 novembre 1991 organisant la profession d'avocat, article 11 provides for this in the following statements “Sans préjudice des dispositions du titre VI, l'avocat ressortissant d'un Etat ou d'une unité territoriale n'appartenant pas à l'Union européenne ou à l'Espace économique européen, s'il n'est pas titulaire du certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'avocat, doit subir, pour pouvoir s'inscrire à un barreau français, les épreuves d'un examen de contrôle des connaissances en droit français selon des modalités fixées par décret en Conseil d'Etat”, [accessed on 30/10/2023], https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000356568. Loi N° 71-1130 du 31 décembre 1971 portant réforme de certaines professions judiciaires et juridiques, [accessed on 23/10/2023] from the website, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000036850720

## Page 421

25 Re UWOMBONYE neighboring countries with similar legal systems, like Burundi25, no test is required for admission to the Bar Association, except for those transitioning from what they call the “petit tableau” to the “grand tableau,” and even then, they must have had two years of experience, after six months of training. In the Democratic Republic of Congo26, their laws do not require a test prior admission to the Bar Association. h. The argument made by the representative of the Government that although judges and prosecutors work in legal matters, they cannot be considered as having experience and knowledge in the practice of the profession of advocate, but rather in the profession of judiciary and prosecution, is incorrect, on grounds that the pleading techniques used by an advocate in court are similar to those employed by prosecutors during their cases, while judges derive their rulings from both.

25 Loi N°1/17 du 24 Juillet 2023 portant modification de la loi N°1/014 du 29 Novembre 2002 portant réforme du statut de la profession d’avocat, article 7, [accessed on 23/10/2002], https://senat.bi/wp- content/uploads/2023/06/GOUVERNEMENT-STATUT-DE-LA- PROFESSION-DAVOCAT, pdf. 26 Ordonnance-Loi 79-028 du 28 septembre 1979 portant organisation du barreau, du corps des défenseurs judiciaires et du corps des mandataires de l’État, article 21, no test is provided for admission to the Bar, [accessed on 23/10/2023], https://www.leganet.cd/Legislation/Droit%20Judiciaire/OL79..28.28.09.79.htm N.B. This law appears to have been enacted when the country was still called Zaire, and the applicable provisions seem to be those of the Regulatory Law of the Bar Association. For reference, see the following links: https://legalrdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RIC-Barreau_LegalRDC.pdf https://legalrdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RIC-Barreau_LegalRDC.pdf

## Page 422

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO i. The requirement for a test for individuals seeking to be admitted to the Bar Association in Rwanda, along with the prohibition of re-taking the test within five (5) years if they fail more than twice, infringes upon human rights, as it prevents them from having the same rights or being equally treated as others practicing the same legal profession. [30] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi and his legal counsel conclude by requesting the Court to declare that the provisions of paragraph 5° of Article 6 of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, are inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution and should therefore be repealed. [31] Regarding this issue, the Representative of the Government of Rwanda generally provided the same explanations as those given for the first issue, emphasizing that the legal profession, like other liberal professions, is governed by laws and principles to ensure its professional practice. Furthermore, practitioners are required to meet certain standards related to adequate knowledge and ethical conduct to uphold professionalism. [32] The Representative of the Government of Rwanda further explains that the legal profession is a distinct profession that should not be equated or compared with other professions such as commerce or carpentry. She clarifies that the requirement for those seeking to practice the legal profession to sit for a test prior admission to the Bar Association is not unique to Rwanda but is a common practice in other countries. She cites the example of France, where an individual aspiring to become an advocate must

## Page 423

27 Re UWOMBONYE sit for a test, except for those holding an advanced law degree (PhD)27. [33] She also argues that Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi has failed to demonstrate how Article 6, subparagraph 5 of the aforementioned law is inconsistent with the Constitution, as the Constitution does not prohibit sitting for tests prior admission to any profession or stipulate that certain individuals are entitled to enter the profession without sitting for a test while others are required to do so. [34] In conclusion, she states that, based on her explanations, the requirement that every person wishing to practice a professional of an advocate must take and pass an examination does not contravene Article 15 of the Constitution. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [35] Article 6, subparagraph 5 of the aforementioned Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 outlines the requirements for those wishing to practice the profession of advocate or the necessary experience related to this profession, including the passing of the test conducted by the Bar Association. [36] Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi argues that this provision is inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law as enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution. He bases his argument on the fact that individuals seeking to practice the profession of advocate are required to sit for a test, whereas this requirement does not apply to other professionals in liberal practices, such as

27 Décret N° 91-1197 du 27 Novembre 1991 organisant la profession d’Avocat. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000356568 , [accessed on 07/06/2023].

## Page 424

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO businesspersons or members of professional associations for medical doctors, nurses, and midwives. [37] As previously discussed in the analysis of the first issue, the principle of equality before the law has been extensively analysed in various cases adjudicated by this Court. It has been explained that similar situations must be treated alike, while different situations may be treated unalike based on their distinctions. Furthermore, it has been clarified that differentiating between individuals or categorizing them does not necessarily constitute unequal treatment, provided there are reasonable justifications grounded in a legitimate purpose. [38] This Court finds that those practicing the profession of advocate cannot be classified in the same category as those in commercial activities, as it requires specialized knowledge to provide legal advice, represent and assist clients in court, and assist the judiciary in delivering fair, credible, and high-quality justice. Therefore, requiring an aspiring advocate to sit for a test prior admission to the profession, in order to assess their competence, while such a requirement does not apply to those engaged in general commercial activities, cannot be considered a violation of the principle of equality before the law, as these professions are not the same. Likewise, it cannot be compared to associations of medical doctors, nurses, or midwives, as each professional body is governed by its own specific regulations, which determine the unique requirements for entry into the respective profession. [39] In many countries, passing an examination is a prerequisite for admission to the Bar Association (examples include the United

## Page 425

29 Re UWOMBONYE States, Canada, Singapore, Kenya, Tanzania, India, …)28. In other countries, such as the Kingdom of Belgium, the Bar admission examination applies to individuals from European Union member states29. In France, the Bar admission test is required for foreign nationals who did not study at the country's School of Lawyers, as well as for others who must first pass an entrance examination to

28 American University, Washington College of Law, State-by-State Bar Exam Requirements, https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/academicservices/academic- excellence/bar-exam/survey/ - Careerinlaw.net, How to Become a Lawyer in Canada-Official Guidelines, https://careerinlaw.net/ca/ - The Law Society of Singapore, Becoming a Lawyer, https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/our-community/becoming-a- lawyer/ - Council of Legal Education, students guide to the Bar examination, https://cle.or.ke/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/Students-Guide-to-the- Bar-Examination.pdf. - MDM Law Group, 5 steps to becoming a Lawyer in Tanzania, https://mdmlaw.co.tz/5-steps-to-becoming-a-lawyer- in-tanzania/ Bar Council of India, All India Bar Examination(AIBE), https://www.barcouncilofindia.org/info/aibe 29 Other foreign nationals are required to first obtain a recognized law degree equivalency (équivalence) through universities that offer legal education.

## Page 426

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO gain admission to that school30 (except for those for whom the legislator has provided an exemption)31.

30 Article 12, al. 1, de la loi No 71-1130 du 31 décembre 1971 portant réforme de certaines professions judiciaires et juridiques, tel modifiée par (Modifié par loi n° 2023-1059 du 20 novembre 2023 - art. 49 (V): “Sous réserve du dernier alinéa de l'article 11, des dispositions réglementaires prises pour l'application de la directive 2005/36/CE du 7 septembre 2005 modifiée précitée et de celles concernant les personnes justifiant de certains titres ou ayant exercé certaines activités, la formation professionnelle exigée pour l'exercice de la profession d'avocat est subordonnée à la réussite à un examen d'accès à un centre régional de formation professionnelle et comprend une formation théorique et pratique d'une durée d'au moins dix-huit mois, sanctionnée par le certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'avocat. Pour être admis à se présenter à l'examen d'accès au centre régional de formation professionnelle, les candidats doivent justifier de l'obtention des soixante premiers crédits d'un master en droit ou de l'un des titres ou diplômes reconnus comme équivalents par arrêté conjoint du ministre de la justice et du ministre chargé des universités”; https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGITEXT000006068396#:~:text=Nul %20ne%20peut%2C%20s'il,%C3%A0% 20la%20Cour%20de%20cassation Article 51, al. 1, du Décret N° 91-1197 du 27 novembre 1991 organisant la profession d'avocat, tel que modifié par le Décret No 2023-1125 du 1er décembre 2023(art.13): “Pour être inscrits dans un centre régional de formation professionnelle, les candidats doivent avoir subi avec succès l'examen d'accès au centre, dont le programme et les modalités sont fixés par arrêté conjoint du garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice, et du ministre chargé de l'enseignement supérieur, après avis du Conseil national des barreaux”; https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000356568. 31 Article 97 du Décret N° 91-1197 du 27 novembre 1991 précité: “Sont dispensés de la condition de diplôme prévue à l'article 11 (2°) de la loi du 31 décembre 1971 précitée, de la formation théorique et pratique, du certificat d'aptitude à la profession d'avocat: 1° Les membres et anciens membres du Conseil d'Etat et les membres et anciens membres du corps des tribunaux administratifs et des cours administratives d'appel; 2° Les magistrats et anciens magistrats de la Cour des comptes, des chambres régionales des comptes et des chambres territoriales des comptes de la Polynésie française et de la Nouvelle-Calédonie;

## Page 427

31 Re UWOMBONYE [40] There are other countries that do not require candidates to sit for a test prior admission to the Bar Association, including those mentioned by the petitioner. It is evident that different countries follow different approaches ; however, in most cases, a test is conducted to assess the competence of individuals seeking admission to the profession of advocate, which plays a crucial role in the administration of justice. The requirement to pass an examination before becoming an advocate is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as above explained. The issue would arise only if some applicants were required to sit for a test while others were not, without a legitimate and rational justification. [41] In light of all the foregoing elucidations provided, the Court finds that subparagraph 5 of Article 6 of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, is not inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [42] Decides that the petition filed by Uwombonye Hirwa Sudi, seeking to declare that paragraph 3 of Article 82 and subparagraph 5 of Article 6 of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013, establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, are inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, is unfounded ;

3° Les magistrats et anciens magistrats de l'ordre judiciaire régis par l'ordonnance n° 58-1270 du 22 décembre 1958; 4° Les professeurs d'université chargés d'un enseignement juridique; 5° Les avocats au Conseil d'Etat et à la Cour de cassation”.

## Page 428

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO [43] Declares that paragraph 3 of Article 82 and subparagraph 5 of Article 6 of Law No 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, are not inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

## Page 429

33 Re UWOMBONYE

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 430

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 431

35 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA 35

BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT– RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2023/SC] (Mukamulisa, P.J., Kalihangabo and Hitiyaremye J.) November 15, 2024] Commercial procedure – Invalidation of auction – Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – In the interests of justice, the Supreme Court may adjudicate a case relating to the invalidation of an auction that is normally within the jurisdiction of the primary courts. Facts: Ndererimana Gédéon claims that the professional court bailiff Bimenyimana Innocent illegally auctioned his property, prompting him to file a claim in the Commercial Court requesting the invalidataion of the auction because he was not notified of it. Bailiff Bimenyimana raised inadmissibility objection on the grounds of being time-barred as the auction was conducted two years ago, whereas the law provides that any person contesting an auction must file a claim for its invalidation within 15 days. Ndererimana appealed to the Commercial High Court, arguing that the Commercial Court rejected his claim based on his delay in filing it, which was not the case, because from the time he learnt about the sale of his property, there was no delay because he filed the claim within the time limits provided by the law. He therefore requested the Commercial High Court to uphold his claim and invalidate the auction in question. The Commercial High Court upheld Ndererimana's appeal, ordered that the judgment in the case RCOM 01295/2022/TC should be reversed entirely because the claim was not admitted

## Page 432

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO in the trial court and should have been admitted after finding that the time limits for filing the claim were respected. This instant Court however, did not order that the judgment of the Commercial Court should be set aside and that it was transferred that case for the hearing on merits. Bimenyimana wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that the case should be reviewed on grounds of injustice. The successful bidder also wished to intervene in this present case because the property had already been registered to him, and his request was granted because he had an interest in it. Held: In the interests of justice, the Supreme Court may adjudicate a case relating to the invalidation of auction that is normally within the jurisdiction of the primary courts. The application for review of the judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice is unfounded. Statutes and statutory nstruments referred to: Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 158 and 260. Case laws referred to: RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS decided on 21/02/2020, involving Ngizweninshuti Albert v. Muhima Giovanni, RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC decided on 13/03/2020, involving Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason v. Nyamaswa Faustin,

## Page 433

37 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA RS/ INJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC decided on 28/07/2020 involving Mukamana Mamique, others v. Candali Vérène, others), RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2019/SC decided on 14/02/2024, involving Bagaragaza Thaddée, others. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Bimenyimana Innocent, the professional court bailiff, auctioned the assets of Ndererimana Gédéon registered under UPI:4/03/03/04/3678, as a result of the execution of the judgment RCOM 00335/2019/TC rendered on 29/04/2019, in which Ndererimana Gédéon lost the case against Universal Trading Ltd, and was ordered to pay 13,067,050 Frw, 202,191 Frw of interest, 600,000 Frw including counsel’s fees, procedural fees and court bailiff's fees and 20,000 Frw of deposited court fee in filing the claim.

Ndererimana Gédéon filed a claim before the Primary Court of Muhoza requesting for the invalidation of the auction, and in the judgment RC 00359/2022/TB/MUH rendered on 17/07/2022, the Court declared that the claim was not admitted as it has been filed in a court that did not have jurisdiction. Following that decision, he filed a claim with the Commercial Court requesting for the invalidation of the auction conducted on his property on grounds that the Court Bailiff did neither notify him of it nor comply with the procedures provided for by the law. Bimenyimana Innocent raised inadmissibility objection of

## Page 434

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO NDERERIMANA Gédéon's claim because it was filed when the time limits were elapsed.

In the judgment RCOM 01295/2022/TC rendered on 05/09/2022, the Commercial Court declared that Ndererimana Gédéon's claim was not admitted and ordered him to pay to Bimenyimana Innocent 500,000 Frw of counsel’s fees and 50,000 Frw for procedural fees.

In ruling, the Commercial Court based its decision on the fact that Ndererimana Gédéon filed a claim to invalidate the auction of his property registered under UPI: 4/03/03/04/3678 on 25/07/2022, while the auction had been conducted on 26/05/2020, that is, two (2) years later, meaning that he exceeded the 15-days period for filing a claim provided for in article 260 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure1.

On 12/09/2022, Ndererimana Gédéon appealed to the Commercial High Court, arguing that the Commercial Court rejected his claim based on the fact that he delayed to submit it, which was not the case, because from the time he learnt about the sale of his property, that is, on 10/05/2022, there was no delay; and that he was ordered to pay damages without justifications, which led him to request the Commercial High Court to uphold his claim and invalidate the auction in question.

Bimenyimana Innocent raised an objection to the admissibility of Ndererimana Gédéon’s appeal on the grounds

1 Paragraph 4 of that article states that a request for the invalidation of auction is filed within fifteen (15) days from the date on which the auction was conducted.

## Page 435

39 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA that he delayed to file the appeal. He further argued that, even at the first instance, the claim should not have been admitted, as the Commercial Court had rightly found, because Ndererimana had been duly notified of the auction sale of his property but failed to contest its annulment for a period of up to two years. He requested that this objection should be re-examined and that the judgment rendered at the first instance should be upheld.

In the judgment RCOMA 00599/2022/HCC rendered on 07/10/2022, the Commercial High Court declared Ndererimana Gédéon’s appeal founded, and ordered that the judgment of the appealed case RCOM 01295/2022/TC should be entirely reversed.

In making such decision, the Commercial High Court based on the fact that Bimenyimana Innocent failed to provide any evidence to prove that he had notified Ndererimana Gédéon all the procedures related to the auction within the time limits provided for by the law, and this Court found that the case RCOM 01295/2022/TC should have been admitted by the Commercial Court and examined on its merits.

Bimenyimana Innocent wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting the review of the judgment on grounds of injustice. After examining the request, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment should be reviewed on grounds of injustice, and the latter approved the request, and the case was registered under RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2023/SC.

This case was first called on 06/06/2024, but was not heard. Instead, this instant Court decided to return it to the Court’s Registry for a pre-trial conference. However,

## Page 436

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Bimenyimana Innocent, who prevented the pre-trial conference from being done, was fined with 50,000 Frw2.

The hearing was resumed and conducted in public on 09/10/2024, Bimenyimana Innocent was assisted by Counsel Ndayishimiye Jean Paul while Ndererimana Gédéon was assisted by Counsel Munyentwari Charles. Counsel Gahutu Joseph also appeared representing Uwambayinema Anne who wished to intervene in this present case as the successful bidder for the property registered under UPI: 4/03/03/04/3678 which had been already registered in her names jointly with her husband Tuyiringire Joseph.

After hearing the explanations provided by the parties on the request for intervention in this case submitted by Uwambayinema Anne, the Court, based on the position established in various cases stating that every person has the right to voluntarily intervene in injustice case in accordance with the provisions of articles 113 and 114 of Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above3, and the fact that the property sold at auction was bought by Uwambayinema Anne and registered under her names, this ruled that she is allowed to intervene in this instant case because she has an interest in it.

Before the hearing on merits, the Court first considered the following issues:  Whether Ndererimana Gédéon's appeal should not have been admitted by the Commercial High Court;

2 Bimenyimana Innocent paid that fine as indicated in the case file. 3 See the decision of the Court taken in the hearing of 13/01/2021 in the case RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2019/SC involving Mukamusoni Petronille, others.

## Page 437

41 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA  Whether the Commercial Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim for the invalidation of the auction held on the property of Ndererimana Gédéon.

After hearing the arguments presented by the parties regarding the first issue, this Court found that the objection concerning Ndererimana Gédéon's failure to comply with the statutory time limits for appeal before the Commercial High Court — specifically, his failure to respect the three-day (3) appeal period prescribed by law — had been raised before that Court but was not addressed in its ruling.

Based on paragraph 2 of article 188 of Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure as amended to date4, and article 275 of the same Law, this Court found that the case RCOM 01295/2022/TC was heard on 1/09/2022, the parties were notified that it would be pronounced on 5/09/2022, and it was pronounced on that day but the pronouncement report was attached to the IECMS on 06/09/2022, and a copy of the judgment was attached to the case file on 07/09/2022. Based on article 275 mentioned above5, the Court found that the time limits for filing an appeal should be calculated from 08/09/2022, and the last day for filing an appeal would be on 12/09/2022 because the date of 10 and 11/09/2022 were public holidays. After noting that the appeal

4 Provides: “The appeal is made within three (3) working days from the time the order was pronounced or from the day the parties were aware of the decision.”. 5 Provides that: “ The time limits set in terms of days or hours shall be calculated from date to date, or hour to hour. The day of the act or event that gave rise to the claim is not taken into account but the day of expiration is included.”

## Page 438

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO was filed on 12/09/2022, the Court found that Ndererimana Gédéon complied with the time limits for filing appeal.

The Court also considered the issue of whether the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim for the invalidation of the auction conducted on the property of Ndererimana Gédéon, and found that this issue had not been raised before the Commercial High Court, as neither party had requested it to be examined. After hearing the parties' explanations, and based on its established position in similar cases, the Court held that the fact that a case is being reviewed on the grounds of alleged injustice does not allow a party to introduce new claims that were neither raised nor examined in the case under review, because the party does not claim that he suffered injustice on a matter that has not been requested to the Court for consideration6, consequently, the Court ruled that this issue should not be examined at the injustice level in this instant case.

The hearing was resumed, the parties debated on the issues related to whether Ndererimana Gédéon delayed in filing a claim to invalidate the auction and the issue of various damages claimed by the parties.

6 See judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS decided on 21/02/2020, involving Ngizweninshuti Albert v. Muhima Giovanni, Judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC decided on 13/03/2020, involving Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason v. Nyamaswa Faustin and Judgment RS/ INJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC decided on 28/07/2020 involving Mukamana Mamique, others v. Candali Vérène, others).

## Page 439

43 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES i. Whether Ndererimana Gédéon delayed for filing a claim seeking the invalidation of the auction

Bimenyimana Innocent, assisted by Counsel Ndayishimiye Jean Paul, states that, following the fact that Ndererimana Gédéon lost the case RCOM 00335/2019/TC, Universal Trading Ltd—the winning party—engaged him to enforce the judgment and recover the debt. He explains that each time he presented the debt collection documents to Ndererimana Gédéon, the latter refused to sign them, which ultimately resulted in the auction of his immovable property registered under UPI: 4/03/03/04/3678.

He further argues that Ndererimana Gédéon did not comply with the time limits provided for by the law for filing a claim seeking the invalidation of the auction, because the auction was conducted on 26/05/2020, and he filed the claim on 25/05/2022, that is, 2 years later, whereas he should have filed it within 15 days as provided for in article 260 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.

Ndererimana Gédéon, assisted by Counsel Munyentwari Charles, states that he learnt about the auction in which his property was sold on 10/05/2022 when Bimenyimana Innocent sent him its report by email. He filed a claim to the Primary Court of Muhoza on 25/05/2022, but it was rejected because the Court on 17/07/2022, ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear his case, which compelled him to file it before the Commercial Court on

## Page 440

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 25/07/2022, therefore he complied with the 15 days provided for by the Law.

He adds that before the date of 10/05/2022, he had never been informed about the auction, that even the documents in Bimenyimana Innocent’s case file showing that he had informed him and refused to sign them, do not tell the truth, that he was the one who drafted them after realizing that there were errors committed in the auction of his property.

He also states that after noting that a person named Tuyiringire Joseph had built on his land with UPI 03/03/03/04/3678 under the pretext that he had bought it through the auction, on 27/01/2022, he appealed to the Executive Secretary of the Gacaca Cell requesting for justice, and on 14/02/2022 he wrote to the President of the Professional Bailiffs Association and he informed him that they had occupied his land under the pretext of an auction which had not been conducted, and even notified Universal Trading Ltd for which the judgment was executed.

He further states that on the same date of 14/02/2022, the Counsel for Universal Trading Ltd mentioned that Bimenyimana Innocent had enforced the case in unclear manner as he had neither submitted a report nor provided the proceeds from the enforcement, which prompted him to write to Bimenyimana Innocent on 21/04/2022 requesting for information about what had been done to his property without being informed. On 10/05/2024, Bimenyimana Innocent sent him an email showing a report of the proceeds from the auction conducted on his property, and attached the auction report of 26/05/2020.

## Page 441

45 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA

He concludes by stating that on 26/05/2020, the day the auction was conducted, it was during the Covid-19 period, and it was not possible for it to be conducted based on the instructions of the Cabinet meeting held on 18/05/2020.

Counsel Gahutu Joseph, representing Uwambayinema Anne, who intervened in this present case, avers that Ndererimana Gédéon delayed for filing a claim seeking the invalidation of the auction as it is unclear how he spent 2 years without knowing that the auction was connducted on his property. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of article 260 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure as amended to date, provides that “ Any interested person may ask the staying of the auction to the primary court which has jurisdiction at the place of the auction, if: 1° there is a lack of compliance with the laws related to surety, seizure and publication of auction; 2° when the property to be auctioned cannot be sold since the owner is a destitute as provided for by Article 259 of this Law; 3° when there is a certain evidence that the property to be auctioned does not belong to the debtor. The same grounds mentioned are also referred to when a person requests the invalidation of an auction. A person who requests the invalidation of an auction may also file a complaint against a court bailiff to make him or her accountable for a damage. A request for the invalidation of auction is filed within fifteen (15) days from the date on which the auction was conducted. The claims referred to in this Article are heard in the same period as he one provided for a summary procedure”.

## Page 442

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Paragraph 1 of article 12 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that “The claimant must prove a claim, failing which the respondent wins the case.”

The debate in this case is based on whether Ndererimana Gédéon did not respect the 15-day period to file a claim for the invalidation of an auction, because Bimenyimana claims that the auction was conducted on 26/05/2020, and the claim was filed on 25/05/2022, while Ndererimana Gédéon claims that he was not previously notified of the auction because he learnt about it on 10/05/2022 when its report was sent to him by email.

The Court finds that the elements of evidence presented by Bimenyimana Innocent to prove that he notified Ndererimana Gédéon of the auction procedures conducted on his property, are composed of a document dated 02/07/2019 written by Bimenyimana Innocent, stating that Ndererimana Gédéon was given a document requesting him to indicate his property along with the copy of the judgment RCOM 00335/2019/TC decided on 29/04/20197 and he refused to sign on it.

There is also a document dated 25/02/2020, notifying Ndererimana Gédéon of the valuation report for the execution of the judgment RCOM 00335/2019/TC. In that document, Bimenyimana Innocent states that he called Ndererimana on his mobile phone number 0784858937 and told him that he needed him to give him the document and the valuation report and Ndererimana responded by telling him to do whatever he wants.

7 It ordered him to pay to Universal Trading Ltd 13.067.050 Frw, 202.191 Frw for interests, 600.000 Frw for counsel’s fee, procedural fee and Court Bailiff’s fee and 20.000 Frw as deposit court fee.

## Page 443

47 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA

As above reiterated, Ndererimana Gédéon claims that he was never notified of the documents of 02/07/2019 and of 25/02/2020 above mentioned, that these documents were drafted by Bimenyimana Innocent himself with the intention of lying, and that if he had the intention to notify him, he would have gone to his home and handed them to him, but instead, he only notified him of the auction report after realizing that there were errors committed in the auction of his property.

The Court finds that Ndererimana Gédéon who claims that he was not previously notified of the auction, provided evidence that he was informed about it on 10/05/2022 when Bimenyimana Innocent sent him an email of 09/05/2022 consisting of a report on the proceeds of the auction conducted on his property, and attached the auction report dated 26/05/2020. In that email, Bimenyimana begins by stating: “I am writing this letter to provide you with information regarding the auction as requested in your letter of 14/02/2022 reached to me on 05/05/2022 through the Management of the Rwanda Court Bailiffs Association…”

Basing on the foregoing statements, the Court finds that, although Bimenyimana Innocent claims that the auction was conducted on 26/05/2020, from which he counts the time limits that Ndererimana Gédéon should comply with, he does not produce the evidence proving that he was aware of the auction, especially since he (Ndererimana Gédéon) presented the evidence that he was notified of the auction report on 10/05/2022, even after requesting for it. This is the basis for determing the time limits for filing the claim, especially since Bimenyimana Innocent does not deny that on that date he sent to him the email

## Page 444

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO mentioned above or provides other evidence that he notified him of the auction report before that date.

The Court finds that after being notified of the aforementioned report, on 25/07/2022 Ndererimana Gédéon first filed a claim before the Primary Court of Muhoza; however, on 17/07/2022 it declared that it lacked jurisdiction, the rason why on 25/07/2022 he filed a claim before the Commercial Court.

Basing on the aforementioned statements, the Court finds that, from the time he was notified of the auction report, Ndererimana Gédéon complied with the 15-day period referred to in paragraph 3 of article 260 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above, as also upheld by the Commercial High Court, his claim before the Commercial Court would have been admitted for examination. For this reason, Bimenyimana Innocent's claim seeking the review of the judgment on grounds of injustice is unfounded.

Paragraph 2 of article 158 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above provides that if the appeal court finds that the seizure of jurisdiction at the first degree was lawful and that court declared it inadmissible, when it was to receive and judge this case, the court of appeal hears the case and declares that it was of the competence of that lower court; it declares this judgement void and refers the case to the first instance court so that it hears it again on the merits.

The Court finds that on 25/07/2022, even if in the judgment RCOMA 00599/2022/HCC rendered on 07/10/2022, the Commercial High Court analyzed the appeal of Ndererimana Gédéon and declared it justified and ordered that the ruling of the appealed judgment RCOM 01295/2022/TC should be reversed in

## Page 445

49 BIMENYIMANA v. NDERERIMANA all parts, it never ordered that the case had to be transferred to the Commercial Court that had adjudicated it for hearing on the merits.

The Court finds that, based on Article 158, paragraph 2, of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above, this case should have been referred to the Commercial Court for substantive examination of the claim challenging the validity of the auction, which had been brought before that Court by Ndererimana Gédéon, as it has not yet been adjudicated. However, considering the time that has elapsed since the claim was filed, and taking into account that claims contesting the validity of an auction are considered urgent due to their nature, referring the matter back to the first instance court — with the likelihood of further appeals or delays could result in the case remaining unresolved for an extended period.

In order to correct the above-mentioned errors and in the interests of justice, this present Court finds that it should hear the merits of the claim relating to the invalidation of the auction. The fact that at the level of injustice, the Supreme Court adjudicates a case which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the lower courts, this Court applied so in various cases it has adjudicated8.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing of this present case will proceed with an analysis of the merits of the claim that Ndererimana Gédéon submitted to the Commercial Court, at the

8 For example: Interlocutory judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2019/SC decided on 14/02/2024, involving Bagaragaza Thaddée, others, page 7- 8: In that judgment, the Court referred to the position set in the other judgment nº RS/Injust/RCOM 00007/2021/SC decided on 29/04/2022, involving Sikubwabo Raphaël v. RDB.

## Page 446

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO same time the issue of damages claimed in this present case will also be examined. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares the application filed by Bimenyimana Innocent seeking the review on grounds of injustice of the judgment RCOMA 00599/2022/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 07/10/2022, unfounded;

Holds that the claim filed by Ndererimana Gédéon before the Commercial Court should have been admitted as it was filed in accordance with the law;

Decides that the hearing will proceed with the determination of the merits of the claim filed by Ndererimana Gédéon before the Commercial Court and the issue of damages claimed in this present case;

Declares that the date on which the case will be heard again, shall be communicated to the parties by the Registry of the Court.

## Page 447

51 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL 51

BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL [ Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL-RCA 00014/2023/CA (Rutazana, M., P.J.) 20 December 2024] Civil procedure – Opposition – Opposition to the judgment rendered at the appeal instance – When an opposition is filed against the judgment rendered at first appeal, in case it is subject to another appeal, this appeal shall be considered as the second appeal because the fact that the defaulting defendant appeals against the judgment rendered by the High Court does not make it the judgment rendered at first instance. Facts: This case started as a third part opposition filed by Rwajekare against Bahizi, Biryukomeye, Babonampoze, Mukankunsi, Barawumfitiye and Nyiranduhirabandi to the judgment RC 3209/29 rendered by the Tribunal of First Instance of Gisenyi which deprived him of his farmlands. Bahizi contended that the case filed by Rwajekare should not be admitted since it was filed beyond the time limits of two months for filing a third party opposition. The co-defendants Barawumfitiye, Nyiranduhirabandi and Mukankusi alleged that Bahizi appropriated himself all the farmlands left by their parents while they should share them. In the judgment RC 00178/2019/TGI/RBV, the Court declared that the claim filed by Rwajekare was not admitted because he had been aware of the judgment by the time of rendering the judgments RC 09/98 and C 213/2001 to which Rwajekare was a

## Page 448

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO party as the defendant, and held that he did not comply with the two-months’ time limits to file a third party opposition. Rwajekare appealed against that judgment before the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, and alleged that he got informed of the judgment RC 3209/29 on 08/10/2019 and filed the third party opposition against it on 08/11/2019; therefore, he complied with the period of two months provided by the law for filing the third party. In the judgment RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS, the Court held that the appeal lodged by Rwajekare lacks merit. Barawumfitiye applied for opposition to the judgment because the case had been heard when she was sick and her application was granted. In the judgment RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS, the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, held that the judgment subject to opposition was sustained. Barawumfitiye appealed against the judgment before the Court of Appeal and alleged that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze rendered the judgments RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS and RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS on basis of an unsealed judgement copy, and disregarded the element of evidence included in Rwajekare’s defence submissions, proving that the judgement against which he had filed a third party opposition was never heard as it is not found in the court’s archives. Bahizi raised an objection of inadmissibility of the appeal lodged by Barawumfitiye because Rwajekare got informed of the judgment against which he filed opposition since he even signed on the copy of the judgment execution as a party to the case and as per his appeal, he pleads on the merits of the case while the claim was not admitted because he delayed to lodge it.

## Page 449

53 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL All other parties submit that they plead likewise Barawumfitiye because her statements that their brother Bahizi appropriated himself their parents ‘properties while they should share them, are true, they request that her appeal should be admitted. Biryukomeye did not plead in this case. At its own initiative, the Court first examined whether the judgment was subject to third party opposition and thereafter to appeal can be considered as subject to the second appeal; and in the judgment RCA 00014/2023/CA, the Court held that such an appeal can be considered as a second appeal, while it does meet the conditions for being heard on the second appeal because the case was lost in the lower courts for the same grounds. Held 1: When an application for opposition is admitted, the parties remain with their original status in the trial. Therefore, when an opposition is filed against the judgment rendered at first appeal, in case it is subject to another appeal, this appeal shall be considered as the second appeal because the fact that the defaulted defendant appeals against the judgment rendered by the High Court does not make it the judgment rendered at first instance. 2. When examining whether a litigant lost the case before both lower courts for the same grounds, reference is made to the subject matter and the legal reasoning to substantiate the underlying grounds that led to the ruling, by determining whether the issues examined at the first instance, are reiterated at the appeal instance, and whether both courts have analysed them in similar ways.

## Page 450

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Statutes referred to: Law n˚ 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 111, and 1444; Law n˚ 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 52, paragraph 3. Cases referred to: RC/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC, Road Solution Pavements Product v. Mailco Ltd rendered by the Supreme Court on 25/09/2020; RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2020/SC, SANLAM Assurances Générales Plc v. University of Rwanda rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/11/2020; RCOMAA 00012/2022/CA, BUFCOFFEE Ltd v. TEUSCHER INVEST Ltd, which later became KIVU BELT COFFEE Ltd rendered by the Court of Appeal on 22/07/2022, paragraph 17; RCOMAA 00042/2023/CA, RODAS IMPORTER AND DISTRIBUTOR Ltd v. Gasangwa Jean Baptiste et al. rendered by the Supreme Court on 06/11/2023. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 08/10/2019, Rwajekare Alexis filed a claim before the Intermediate Court of Rubavu applying for a third party opposition against the judgment 3209/29 rendered by the f Tribunal of First Instance of Gisenyi which deprived him of his farmlands. The defendants were namely Bahizi Frodouard,

## Page 451

55 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL Biryukomeye Fabien, Babonampoze Marc, Mukankunsi Marie Rose, Barawumfitiye Vestine and Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice.

Bahizi Frodouard contended that the claim lodged by Rwajekare Alexis should not be admitted since he had filed it beyond the two months’ time limits. Barawumfitiye Vestine, Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice, and Mukankusi Marie Rose alleged that Bahizi Frodouard appropriated himself the farmlands left by their parents while they should share them.

In the judgment RC00178/2019/ TGI/RBV rendered on 15/12/2020, the Intermediate Court of Rubavu held that the claim filed by Rwajekare Alexis is not admitted because he got informed of the judgment subject to third party opposition by the time of the hearing of other judgments including the judgment RC 09/98 rendered by the Canton Tribunal of Nyamyumba on 25/02/1998 and judgment RC 213/2001 rendered by the Canton Tribunal of Gisenyi City on 09/05/2003 and Rwajekare Alexis was a defendant in those cases. The Court ordered to Rwajekare Alexis to pay to Bahizi Frodouard 500,000 Frw as counsel and procedural fees.

Rwajekare Alexis appealed against the judgment before the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, stating that he got informed of the judgment on 08/10/2029 and applied for third party opposition on 08/11/2019, therefore, he complied with the two months’ time-limits.

In the judgment RCA00006/2021/HC/MUS rendered on 27/01/2022, the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, held that the appeal of Rwajekare Alexis lacks merit, and ordered to him to pay to Bahizi Frodouard 250,000 Frw as counsel fee at appeal

## Page 452

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO level, in addition to 500,000 Frw for representation and counsel fees he had been ordered to pay to him at the first instance.

On 12/02/2012, Barawumfitiye Vestine applied for opposition against the judgment RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS; based on the fact that the case was heard when she was sick, and her application got granted. In the judgment RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS rendered on 11/10/2023, the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, held that the judgment RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS is sustained.

On 10/11/2023, Barawumfitiye Vestine appealed against the judgment before the Court of Appeal alleging that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, rendered the judgments RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS and RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS on basis of an unsealed judgement copy, and that the Court disregarded the element of evidence included in Rwajekare’s defense submissions, proving that the judgement subject to third party opposition was never heard as it is not found in the court’s archives.

In his submissions Bahizi raised an objection of inadmissibility of the appeal lodged by Barawumfitiye because Rwajekare got informed of the judgment against which he filed opposition since he even signed on the copy of the judgment execution as a party to the case and as per his appeal, he pleads on the merits of the case while the claim was not admitted because he delayed to lodge it.

Apart from Biryukomeye Fabien who did not present his defence, the rest of the litigants submitted that they concur with the arguments of Barawumfitiye Vestine, alleging that it is true that Bahizi Frodouard, their own sibling, appropriated himself the

## Page 453

57 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL properties left by their parents after their death, while they should share it and they requested that her appeal should be admitted.

The case was heard in public on 11/12/2024, Barawumfitiye Vestine being assisted by Counsel Rusobanuka Katisiga Emile, Rwajekare Alexis assisted by Counsel Ndereyimana André, Bahizi Frodouard represented by Counsel Rukarishya Philémon, Babonampoze Marc assisted by Counsel Muhozi Paulin who, at the same time was representing Mukankusi Marie Rose and Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice while Biryukomeye Fabien did not appear before the Court without providing valid reasons while he had been legally summoned.

Before examining the parties’ submissions, the Court, on its own motion, asked to the parties whether the appeal lodged by Barawumfitiye Vestine originated from the case that started in the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, which is considered as the first appeal or whether it has to be construed as the second appeal before this Court and determining whether, in case of the second appeal, it fulfills the conditions that are provided for by article 52 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts in such a way that such an appeal falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. Those were the two issues that were first examined.

Based on the foregoing elucidations, the Court examines whether the appeal by Barawumfitiye Vestine originates from the case that started in the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, falls within the jurisdiction of this Court such that it can be admitted. In case the appeal does not fall within its jurisdiction, the Court shall examine the issue of representation and counsel fees requested for at this level.

## Page 454

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES OF THE CASE 1. Determine whether the appeal lodged by Barawumfitiye Vestine originated from the case that started in the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, falls within the jurisdiction of this Court so that it can be admitted

Counsel Rusobanuka Katisiga Emile representing Barawumfitiye Vestine, Counsel Ndereyimana André assisting Rwajekare Alexis, and Counsel Muhozi Paulin assisting Babonampoze Marc, and representing Mukankusi Marie Rose and Nyiranduhirabandi Béatrice, all allege that the appeal filed by Barawumfitiye Vestine falls within the jurisdiction of this Court; because the appealed judgment RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS was rendered at its first instance, since before the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, Barawumfitiye Vestine had only applied for opposition to the judgment RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS. They also allege that had the appealed judgment not have been rendered at the first instance, the Court Registry would not have registered the claim, and the appeal would not have been registered as RCA. Counsel Ndereyimana André also added that the concerned appeal could only be considered as the second appeal, if it emanated from Rwajekare Alexis; while Counsel Muhozi Paulin added that in case the Court finds it otherwise, its jurisdiction will be based on the fact that the value of the litigated farmlands amounts to one hundred twenty million Rwandan francs (120,000,000 Frw).

Counsel Rukarishya Philémon representing Bahizi Frodouard alleges that the appeal filed by Barawumfitiye Vestine

## Page 455

59 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL is a second appeal because the case started in the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, which later was appealed against before the High Court, Chamber of Musanze; following the judgment pronouncement, Barawumfitiye Vestine applied for opposition against it because the appeal was heard in her absence due to sickness, therefore, her appeal should not be admitted because it is not the appellant status which is considered, rather it is the appealed judgment which is considered since Barawumfitiye Vestine does not substantiate her grounds of appeal based on article 52 of the Law n0 30/2028 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is to determine whether, in consideration of the case which started in the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, the appeal filed by Barawumfitiye Vestine against the judgment RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, after the opposition to the judgment RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS which was rendered in her absence, falls within the jurisdiction of this Court as per the provisions of article 52 of the Law N0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts.

Article 144, paragraph 2 of the Law n˚ 22/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that when an application for opposition is admitted, the parties remain with their original status in the trial, the claimant remains claimant, and the respondent remains respondent.

Article 52, paragraph 3 of the Law n˚ 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that

## Page 456

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO the second appeal cannot be admitted for a party who lost his/her case before both courts for the same reasons.

The issue of determining whether a litigant lost the case before both previous courts for the same reasons has been examined in various cases1 by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal whereby both courts explained that in determining whether a litigant lost the case before both lower courts for the same grounds, reference is made to the subject matter and the legal reasoning to substantiate the underlying grounds that led to the ruling, by determining whether the issues examined at the first instance, are reiterated at the appeal instance, and whether both courts have analyzed them in similar ways.

The case file indicates that the judgment RS/REV/RC 00001/2022/HC/MUS originates from the claim that Rwajekare Alexis lodged before the Intermediate Court of Rubavu on 08/10/2019 applying for a third party opposition against the judgment RC 3209/29. In its judgment RC 00178/2019/TGI/RBV, the Intermediate Court of Rubavu held that the third party opposition is not admitted and Rwajekare

1 These cases include: - Case RC/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC with Road Solution Pavements Products v. Mailco Ltd rendered by the Supreme Court on 25/09/2020; - Case RS/INJUST/RCOM 00003/2020/SC with SANLAM Assurance Générales Plc v. University of Rwanda rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/11/2020; - Case RCOMAA 00012/2022/CA with BUFCOFFEE Ltd v. TEUSCHER INVEST Ltd, the later KIVU BELT COFFEE Ltd, (paragraph 17) rendered by the Court of Appeal on 22/07/2022; - Case RCOMAA 00042/2023/CA with RODAS IMPORTER AND DISTRIBUTOR Ltd v. GASANGWA Jean Baptiste et al. rendered by the Court of Appeal on 06/11/2023.

## Page 457

61 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL Alexis appealed against the above judgment before the High Court, Chamber of Musanze which held in the judgment RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS that his appeal lacks merit. Later on, Barawumfitiye Vestine applied for an opposition alleging that the case was heard in her absence due to sickness and her request was granted. The High Court, Chamber of Musanze reheard the merits of case RS/REV/RC 0001/2022/HC/MUS examined in her absence and sustained the judgement RCA 0006/2021/HC/MUS which was subject to opposition ; Barawumfitiye Vestine appealed against the foregoing judgment before the Court of Appeal.

Considering all the elucidations provided in the preceding paragraph, the appeal filed before this Court is the second appeal since the appeal was filed against the judgment rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, upon appeal lodged by Rwajekare Alexis. The mere fact that Barawumfitiye Vestine applied for opposition against the judgment RCA 00006/2021/HC/MUS rendered by the very Court in her absence, this does not make it a judgment tried on the first instance; rather she requested to the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, to examine on the merits, at the first appeal, the issues examined in the judgment against which she filed application, as per the provisions of the above mentioned article 144. Following her application for opposition, the involved parties remained in their initial status for the judgement subject to opposition whereby Rwajekare Alexis remained appellant while the rest of the litigants and Barawumfitiye Vestine inclusive, remained defendants. It is therefore clear that the hearing that was conducted upon Barawumfitiye Vestine’s application for opposition which later sustained the judgment subject to opposition is as well considered as rendered at first appeal;

## Page 458

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO therefore, the appeal she filed against it before this Court is considered as the second appeal and she cannot pretend that for her it is the first appeal she lodged, because the consideration is made to the appealed judgment.

The Court finds that the fact that, at this instance, the appeal was registered as RCA, is not enough to ascertain that the judgment was appealed at the first instance, because, as it was elucidated, the consideration is made to the first instance and appeals.

The Court also finds that in both previous instances, both courts declared that Rwajekare Alexis’ third party opposition was not admitted due to the same reasons; since the Intermediate Court of Rubavu held that he got informed of the judgment subject to the third party opposition when the the judgment RC 09/98 was heard by the Canton Tribunal of Nyamyumba on 25/02/1998 and the judgment RC 213/2001 rendered by the Canton Tribunal of Gisenyi City on 09/05/2003, thus, he did not comply with the two months’ time limits to apply for a third party opposition; and following his appeal before the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, alleging that he had complied with the time limits for third party opposition, and that he got informed of the judgment on 18/10/2019 and filed his third party opposition on 18/11/2019, the appellate Court found that he had learnt of the judgment subject to opposition by the time his parents litigated with Bahizi Frodouard in 2001. Just as the Intermediate Court of Rubavu found it, the appellate Court as well found that he did not observe the legally provided time limits for applying for third party opposition. This Court therefore found that the legal reasoning of both previous courts leading to their decision, is similar.

## Page 459

63 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL

Basing on all the provided elucidations and the provisions of article 52, paragraph 3 of the aforementioned Law n˚ 30/2018, this Court finds that the appeal lodged by Barawumfitiye Vestine is not admitted because it does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. b. Determine whether the counsel and procedural fees claimed by the parties are well founded at this level.

Barawumfitiye Vestine requested to the Court of Appeal to order to Bahizi Frodouard to pay her 500,000 Frw as procedural fee. Nyiranduhirabandi Beatrice as well requested to the Court to order to Bahizi Frodouard to pay her 800,000 Frw for having dragged her into lawsuits. Bahizi Froduard did not plead about these damages. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2028 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “the claim for court representation is incidental to the principal claim and it aims at repaying the expenses incurred during the judicial proceedings. The claim for legal cost is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim ; and it can also be admitted and adjudicated even when the principal claim is not admitted”

The Court finds that it is Barawumfitiye Vestine who filed appeal before this Court and her appeal was not admitted as it has been above explained ; and based on the provisions of the aforementioned article 111, she deserves no refund for the incurred case-related expenses since she is the very person who initiated the lawsuit. The Court also finds that Nyiranduhirabandi

## Page 460

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Béatrice’s request for the damages for having been dragged into lawsuits is not granted since she sought compensation from Bahizi Frodouard who did not bring her before the Court as the latter did not file any appeal. The rest of the litigants did not request for counsel and procedural fees. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal filed by Barawumfitiye Vestine is not admitted as it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

Rules that the court fees deposited by Barawumfitiye Vestine while filing the appeal cover the expenses of the proceedings.

## Page 461

65 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL

CASES ON MERIT

## Page 462

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 463

67 BARAWUMFITIYE v. RWAJEKARE ET.AL

CIVIL CASES

## Page 464

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 465

69 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA 69

RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT-RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2023/SC (Cyanzayire, P.J, Hitiyaremye, Kazungu, J.) 05 April 2024] Law governing civil cases – Compensation for motorcycle accident injuries – Compensation for financial loss – The victim who sustained a permanent incapacity – The victim of an accident who sustained a permanent incapacity is entitled to compensation for financial loss regardless of whether he/she continued working or not. Overruling precedent – Compensation for motorcycle accident injuries – Compensation for hindrance of working experience – The victim of an accident who sustained a permanent incapacity is entitled to compensation for hindrance of working experience because the consequences of a permanent incapacity include the loss of a chance of promotion – This precedent overrules the existing one set out in the case RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC involving Prime Insurance Company Ltd and Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, where such compensation was granted only to a person who had lost a job. Facts: This case originates from an accident caused by a motor vehicle insured by Radiant Insurance Company Ltd (Radiant), which caused to the victim an incapacity of 31%, as certified by doctors appointed by both sides. Both parties failed to reach an agreement, Mukaneza filed a claim before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge seeking various damages. The Court ruled that she

## Page 466

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO should be granted the damages for financial loss and for hinderance of working experience. Radiant was dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed to the High Court, arguing that Mukaneza should not have been granted the damages for financial loss and hinderance of working experience because she kept on working and earning her whole salary. The High Court found that the appeal had no merit and simply modified the way the economic damages were calculated. Radiant applied for judgment review on grounds of injustice and once again the case was heard by the Supreme Court which determined the issues as to whether Mukaneza is entitled to economic damages and damages for disruption of professional experience. Radiant alleges that the economic damages are granted to the victim who lost his or her job and who has to prove that, and argues that Mukaneza did not prove any economic hardship because she kept on working and earning her whole previous salary. Radiant further contends that Mukaneza should not have been granted damages for hinderance of working experience because she is not entitled to such damages as established in the case RS/INJUST/RC00010/2022/SC decided on 02/12/2022 involving Prime Insurance Company Ltd and Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude. Mukaneza contends that the victim is not granted the damages for financial loss only when he or she lost his or her job permanently, and that what matters most is the fact he or she had sustained permanent incapacity, or which may deteriorate or had affected her because she resigned from the job due to inability to work outside the office, which required her to walk. She explained that she should be granted damages for hinderance of working

## Page 467

71 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA experience because they are provided for by the law and she meets the conditions set by the law. Held: 1. The victim of an accident who sustained permanent incapacity should be granted compensation for financial loss regardless of whether he or she kept on working or not, thus, the Radiant’s claims are unfounded. 2. The victim of an accident who sustained a permanent incapacity should be granted compensation for hinderance of working experience because the loss of promotion is among consequences of a permanent incapacity, this precedent overrules the existing one set out in case RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC involving Prime Insurance Company Ltd and Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, where such compensation was granted only to a person who had lost his job. The application for review lacks merit. Laws referred to: Law N o 02/2002 of 17/01/2002 modifying law-order no 32/75 of August, 1, 1975 relating to the compulsory civil liability insurance with regard to automotive vehicles, article 2; Law No 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 relating to the compensation of victims of physical accidents caused by motorized land vehicles, article 5 Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 relating to compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles, articles 2, 18, 19.

## Page 468

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Cases referred to: Prime Insurance Company Ltd. v Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2022/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 02/12/2022. Legal wrtitings referred to: Yvonne Lambert – Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, Systèmes d’indemnisation, 3ème édition, 1996, Dalloz, P. 100 § 57; S. BAEYENS, L. FAGNART, C JAUMAN, Tableau Indicatif 2016, Union Royale des Juges de Paix et de Police, A.S.B.L., La Charte, 2017, P. 13-14; Cassation, 2è chambre civile, 23 mai 2019. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On April 9, 2019, a Radiant-insured TVS Victor RE 012 G motorcycle crashed, and wounded its passenger Mukaneza Clarisse, and those wounds resulted in an incapacity of 31%, according to a team of doctors appointed by both sides.

No agreement on compensation to be paid was reached, which sparked Mukaneza Clarisse to file a case before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, and her claim was registered under file case No RC 00743/2020/TGI/NYGE.

As per her claim, she requested the following damages:  Compensation for financial loss;  Compnsation for the cost of pain (pretium doloris);

## Page 469

73 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA  Compensation for aesthetic damage;  Compensation for hinderance of working experience ;  Medical fees, travel fees, the cost of case file and other expenses ;  Advocate fee and procedural fee.

Radiant contended that Mukaneza Clarisse should not have been granted compensation for financial loss and for hinderance of working experience, because after the accident, she kept on working and earned her salary normally, and the defendant relied on the evidence she produced herself: her payslip and the statements issued by RSSB.

It also contended that Mukaneza Clarisse was not entitled to compensation for aesthetic damage because no rate of aesthetic damage was assessed by the arbitrators, meaning that they did not find it out. With regard to the medical expenses, travel fees and other expenses, Radiant alleges that they are set to pay those expenses accounted for worth 927,434 Frw. Concerning the advocate fee and the procedural fee, they contended that the amount 550,000 Frw is enough.

On 21 September 2021, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rendered the judgment and held that the case filed by Mukaneza Clarisse has merit and ordered to Radiant to pay the following damages:  Compensation for financial loss = 40,236,251 Frw;  Compensation for the cost of pain = 432,000 Frw;

## Page 470

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO  Compensation for hinderance of working experience = 4,948,410 Frw;  Compensation for aesthetic damage = 216,000 Frw;  Medical expenses, travel fees, the cost of statements and the file =1, 547,434 Frw;  Advocate fee = 500, 000 Frw;  Procedural fee = 100, 000 Frw;  Court fee = 20,000 Frw.

The Court elucidated that the compensation for financial loss is based on Article 18 of Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 establishing a scheme for compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles and is calculated on the basis of a salary of 824,735 Frw, the lucrative survival of 32 years, a permanent incapacity of 31% and an interest of 4.5%.

It also clarified that the compensation for aesthetic damage is based on the rate certified by the doctors appointed by both sides: 3/6 is reflected on consolidation of injuries form and medical re-examination for consolidation1: a moderate aesthetic damage.

In respect of compensation for hinderance of working experience, the Court elucidated that the fact that the accident resulted in the permanent incapacity of 31%, weakened her and shortened her life expectancy.

1 Formulaire de consolidation des lésions et contre-expertise médicale de consolidation

## Page 471

75 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

With regard to compensation for the cost of pain, both parties agreed that Mukaneza Clarisse is entitled to them and their amount is 432,000 Frw.

With regard to medical expenses, travel fees, the cost of the files and various statements, the Court elucidated that it granted compensation that was accounted for as provided for by Article 13 of the abovementioned Presidential Order.

Concerning the advocate fee and the procedural fee, the Court explained that pursuant to Article 111 of Law No 22/2018 of 29 April 2018 on the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the allocated amount was appropriate.

Radiant appealed against that judgment before the High Court, arguing that Mukaneza Clarisse had been granted compensation for financial loss, and had kept on working after the accident and had earned her salary in breach of Article 5 of Law no 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 relating to the compensation of victims of physical accidents caused by motorized land vehicles, as well as the writings by Yvonne Lambert Faivre; that the Court had calculated the damages at the interest rate of 4%, despite that it was 7,701% on the day of the pronouncement and that it had paid compensation for financial loss to the injured party.

Mukaneza Clarisse contended that the grounds of appeal were unfounded and instead she filed a cross appeal, requesting compensation for financial loss and for hinderance of working experience calculated on that basis of the gross salary (salary plus extra allowances); and demanding at the appeal level that she should be granted the damages including the procedural fee and the advocate fee.

## Page 472

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The High Court rendered the judgment Nº RCA 00266/2021/HC/KIG on 30/09/2022, declaring that Radiant's appeal has no merit, that the ruling of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge is modified only as to how the economic damages were calculated, ordering it to pay the sum of 25,566,785 Frw and 1,000,000 Frw including the advocate fee and the procedural fee.

The first reason for its decision was that the victim was not expected to lose her job completely in order to receive economic damages ; the second was that the interest rate in effect on the day the judgment was rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge was 8,363% instead of 4.5%. It stated in the third reason that the damages for hinderance of working experience provided was reasonable and well calculated, on the basis of Mukaneza Clarisse’s net salary, and stated that at the appeal level, the compensation sought by Mukaneza Clarisse was justified because Radiant had dragged her into lawsuits.

On 28/10/2022, Radiant wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting a review of the judgment No RCA00266/2021/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 30/9/2022 on the grounds of injustice After considering the request, on 20/09/2023, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court asking for the case to be reheard due to injustice.

By his decision No 127/CJ/2023 of 26/09/2020, the President of the Supreme Court confirmed the judicial review of case No RCA 00266/2021/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court and the case file was registered under N° RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2023/SC.

## Page 473

77 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

The case was heard in public on 04/03/2024, Radiant was represented by Counsel Ndayisaba Fidèle ; Mukaneza Clarisse was assisted by Counsel NEMEYABAHIZI Jean Paul and the Court examined whether Mukaneza Clarisse should be compensated for financial loss; whether she should be compensated for aesthetic damage; and also examined the basis for compensation claimed by the defendants in this case. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES OF THE CASE 1. Determining whether Mukaneza Clarisse should be granted damages for pecuniary loss

Counsel Ndayisaba Fidèle, representing Radiant, submitted that the damages for pecuniary loss were granted to a victim who has lost his or her job and who is required to prove that, this is based on Article 5 of Law No 41/2001 of 19/09/2001, cited above and Yvonne Lambert Favre in her book Droit du dommage corporel, systémes d'indemnisation, in which she states: 'If, after the date on which the incapacity became apparent, the victim returns to work without losing his or her job, there is no loss of employment.' «We know the principle of compensation for all damages that prevent us from accumulating» «Compensation for future accidents and losses caused by them, and loss of income paid in cash, are governed by the law relating to property : amounts received as compensation for damages in lieu of compensation paid or lost as a result of an

## Page 474

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO accident, as well as the claim for compensation itself having the nature of property2.

He explained that after the accident, Mukaneza Clarisse continued her work and earned her salary as usual, that she did not have any financial problems. He concludes that Radiant criticises the High Court for ignoring its arguments and confirmed damages for pecuniary loss ordered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge pursuant to Article 183 of the Presidential Order, which requires the Court to annul it because it is unfounded.

Mukaneza Clarisse and her legal Counsel Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul argued that Article 5 put forward by Radiant should not be interpreted as meaning that a victim is entitled to damages for pecuniary loss only if he or she has lost his or her job

2 Y. LAMBERT FAIVRE, Droit du dommage corporel, systèmes d’indemnisation, 3ème édition, Dalloz, 1996, pages 182, 185, 193: “après la consolidation, si le blessé reprend ses activités sans diminution de revenus, il n’y a aucun préjudice professionnel futur”; “On sait que le principe indemnitaire impose une indemnisation totale de la victime, mais sans enrichissement”; « Pertes subies et gains manqués constituent des préjudices économiques dont la compensation en argent s’effectue dans le cadre classique du droit patrimonial : l’argent reçu en indemnité remplace dans le patrimoine de la victime de l’argent dépensé ou non perçu du fait de l’accident et l’action en réparation est elle-même sans conteste patrimoniale… »; 3 Article 18, paragraph 1, bullet point 1, of Presidential Order N ° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles provides: “In the case of permanent invalidity in excess of 30%, the social security allowance shall be calculated according to the following rules: if the victim is engaged in an occupational activity, he or she shall receive a lump sum based on the person's unpaid salary, disability level and age”.

## Page 475

79 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA permanently. They state that the only condition is permanent incapacity, that such incapacity is determined, damages for pecuniary loss are due and calculated on the basis of the Presidential Order 4, that the Order is mentioned in Article 5 but Radiant disregards its second paragraph (2).

They added that Radiant misinterprets the legal provision; that the legal doctrine it relies on does not match with the nature of the case, rather, the Presidential Order applied by the Court is clear and has been properly applied.

They conclude that the impact of the incapacity is not immediately apparent, that it can be seen in the future; and it is not surprising that Mukaneza Clarisse does no longer work because after the accident she was not able to work on the field as required by her work, as she still carries a rod in her leg.

In this regard, the legal counsel of Radiant argues that Mukaneza Clarisse's resignation is her right, but that there is no evidence that it has something to do with the accident she went through because she did not report it to her employer. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 2, paragraph 3, of Law No 02/2002 of 17/01/2002 modifying the decree-law no 32/75 of August, 1, 1975 relating to the compulsory civil liability insurance with regard to automotive vehicles provides that «compensation is due when injuries are caused to people in accordance with the law

4 Articles 17 and 18. Article 17 specifies how economic compensation is to be calculated in case of permanent incapacity not exceeding 30%.

## Page 476

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO governing the modalities of compensation of the victims of accidents caused by motor vehicles».

Article 5 of Law No 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 relating to the compensation of victims of physical accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that « if the accident causes permanent incapacity, he or she must receive compensation for the physical disability, mental impairment or impairment of his or her benefits from his or her work which he or she is no longer able to do as a result of the incapacity». In the second paragraph the article provides that "compensation is determined in accordance with the Order of the President of the Republic".

The Court finds that the critical issue raised by Radiant is that Mukaneza Clarisse was granted the damages for pecuniary loss, yet she kept on working after the accident and earned her salary, which it based on alleging that Article 5 of Law No 41/2001 referred to above had been infringed.

The Court finds that the issue in this provision lies in the translation because it provides: «When an accident caused to a victim an incapacity that prevents permanently him/her from working […]», in French it is written «Lorsque le dommage a causé une incapacite permanente […] ».. Comparison in both languages does not mean the same thing. The Court finds that this provision should be construed as meaning that compensation is granted to the victim who had an incapacity lasting for a certain period of time; the law provides that compensation to be granted will be calculated on the basis of that rate of incapacity, which is a permanent loss in terms of the person's ability to work.

The Court finds that the content of that provision should not be construed as meaning that the victim who is entitled to

## Page 477

81 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA compensation is the one who had stopped working permanently, had lost his job completely, or is totally incapacitated.

Article 2 of Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 relating to compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles defines permanent incapacity as a any physical, psychosensory or intellectual disability resulting from an impairment on the body of the victim taken as a whole. In its second paragraph, it provides that « the incapacity caused by an accident shall be considered as permanent from the consolidation date determined by doctors, according to the procedure provided for in Article 5.

This article casts light on the meaning of permanent incapacity and when it begins to be regarded as existing; the fact that the victim continues to work does not exclude the fact that he/she encounters it; according to its extent determined by doctors there is a reduction of their capability to work, for even if he/she has not lost it today, he/she has not yet recovered.

The analysis is in line with Yvonne Lambert – Faivre's writings, which state that the date of permanent incapacity is determined by the doctors, is the one coinciding with the time when the injuries are no longer reversible, so that treatment is no longer necessary, except for the prevention of relapses, so that it is possible to prove the rate of permanent incapacity that is the basis of permanent loss. The persistence of injuries accompanied by permanent incapacity does not necessarily mean that the victim has recovered from injuries5.

5 Yvonne Lambert – Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, Indemnification Systems, 3 editions, 1996 , Dalloz, P. 100 § 57 : « le texte de la ‘‘Mission d’expertise 1987’’définit la date de consolidation comme ‘‘le moment où les

## Page 478

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

In this case, the Court finds that Radiant does not deny that the accident left Mukaneza Clarisse with a permanent incapacity of 31% as confirmed in a report dated 05/08/2020 by a medical team appointed by both parties after they failed to reach the agreement on the extent of the incapacity determined in the expert report and in the medical counter expertise report written in the case of Mukaneza Clarisse. What remains to be determined is whether the victim of the accident, who was left with permanent incapacity, can be granted damages for pecuniary loss while she kept on working and earning her salary.

Article 18 of Presidential Order No 31/2001 of 28 May 2003, which provides for the payment of economic damages for persons with permanent incapacity of more than 30%, states in its first paragraph that «When the victim performs an activity for which he/she is paid, he/she receives an amount calculated on the basis of the person's unpaid salary, rate of incapacity and age».

The aforementioned provision means that the victim, who has suffered a permanent incapacity of more than 30%, is entitled to compensation for financial loss according to the incapacity rate of injuries he or she has suffered; it does not state whether the victim must have lost his or her job or the salary he or she was paid in order to receive compensation. This is also confirmed by the fact that the article states: «when he/she performs a paid job» and does not mention «when he/she performed a paid job» so that it is understandable that he/she has already lost his/her job.

lésions se fixent et prennent un caractère permanent, tel qu’un traitement n’est plus nécessaire, si ce n’est pour éviter une aggravation, et qu’il est possible d’apprécier un certain degré d’incapacité permanente réalisant un préjudice définitif’’ : la consolidation avec séquelles n’est donc pas guérison ».

## Page 479

83 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

This issue was also discussed by the legal scholars Bayeens, J.-L. Jauman, M. Vandeweerdt wo explain that the loss resulting from the permanent incapacity suffered by the victim could be the loss of income earned by him or her, or the loss of strength and capability to perform properly his or her duties at the workplace, as well as the diminishing opportunities or importance that he or she had in the labour market (The material damage suffered by the victim as a result of a permanent inability to work may consist of a loss of income and/or the need to exert increased effort in carrying out their professional tasks and/or a decrease in their economic value in the labor market).6

Basing on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that Mukaneza Clarisse, who has suffered a permanent incapacity of 31%, must receive damages for pecuniary loss regardless of the fact that she kept on working after the accident. The Court finds that it cannot base its reasoning on legal writings relied upon by Radiant alleging that if the victim keeps on working after the accident, and earning his/her salary, he/she is not entitled to damages for financial loss, insofar as these writings are contrary to Rwandan law in the aforementioned provisions as they do not preclude the payment of compensation to the victim who kept on working after the accident.

Basing on the above-mentioned legal provisions and interpretations, the Court finds that Mukaneza Clarisse should be

6S. BAEYENS, L. FAGNART, C Jauman, Tableau Indicatif 2016, Union Royale des Juges de Paix et de Police, A.S.B.L., La Charte, 2017, P. 13-14; Le dommage matériel que subit la victime à la suite d’une incapacité permanente de travail peut consister en une perte de revenus et/ ou en la nécessité de fournir des efforts accrus dans l’accomplissement de ses tâches professionnelles et/ou en une diminution de sa valeur économique sur le marché du travail.

## Page 480

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO granted damages for pecuniary loss as established by the High Court, and therefore Radiant was not subjected to injustice against in this regard. 2. Determining whether Mukaneza Clarisse is entitled to compensation for aesthetic damage

Counsel Ndayisaba Fidèle representing Radiant recalls that Article 19 of the aforementioned Presidential Decree, provides that he assesses an aesthetic damage basing on a scale of 6 categories. However, in this case, the medical team appointed by both sides did not comment on aesthetic damage suffered by Mukaneza Clarisse. He concluded by saying that for this reason, the damages granted by the Court are unfounded and should be annulled.

Mukaneza Clarisse and her lawyer Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul, explained that the medical team was set up by both sides to only address the problem of permanent incapacity because it was the only point they did not agree on. That initially, the aesthetic damage was agreed upon by the doctors from both sides as they agreed that it was of 3/6 scale. The damages are relevant and must be sustained. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 19, paragraph 2, of Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 relating to compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that the aesthetic damage shall be determined by doctors on the basis of a scale of 6 categories: category 3: A weighted average of 20% of the statutory minimum yearly salary (…).

## Page 481

85 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

According to the case file, after the accident, Mukaneza Clarisse was subjected to a medical expertise for consolidation report, and the doctor revealed that she had sustained a 50% permanent incapacity and aesthetic damage of a 3/6 scale. Radiant did not accept the consolidation report and appointed its doctor who wrote a counter expertise report for Mukaneza Clarisse which showed a 20% permanent incapacity and an aesthetic damage of 3/6 scale, Mukaneza Clarisse did not concur with it, which made each party to appoint their own doctor to make up a team of doctors to resolve the dispute, those doctors certified that Mukaneza Clarisse had a permanent incapacity of 31% but did not determine the scale of aesthetic damage.

In this case, the Court finds that the fact that the doctor appointed by Radiant who wrote a counter expertise for consolidation for Mukaneza Clarisse confirmed that the scale of aesthetic damage was 3/6 as confirmed before by the doctor on the side of Mukaneza Clarisse, who had written a consolidation expertise report, which shows that they had agreed on it ; therefore it was not one of the contentious issues that should trigger the appointment of a medical team to resolve it, since this team was appointed to address the problem that existed in relation to the rate of permanent incapacity that the two parties did not agree upon.

The Court also finds that Radiant’s allegations that the fact that the arbitrators did not include the scale of aesthetic damage in the report means that they found it to be non-existent, are not relevant, since it is not part of the issues assessed, even in the correspondence between the7 parties those arbitrators are

7 In an email sent to Counsel Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul sent by Radiant’s employee on July 9, 2020 informing him that he had sent him a report by the

## Page 482

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO mentioned and it is not apparent that they were asked to determine the scale of aesthetic damage, since in case they did not happen to find it out, they would have mentioned it in their report. If there were no evidence of this, the doctor appointed by Radiant would not have confirmed it because he/she confirmed the findings of the doctor appointed by Mukaneza Clarisse’ side.

Basing on the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that Mukaneza Clarisse must be granted the damages for aesthetic damage as held by the High Court; therefore, Radiant was not subjected to injustice in this regard. 3. Determining whether Mukaneza Clarisse is entitled to compensation for hinderance of working experience

Counsel Ndayisaba Fidèle representing Radiant alleges that Mukaneza kept working after the accident and earned her salary as usual, that for this reason she should not receive compensation for hinderance of working experience, but should pay back the amount already received. He further explained that Mukaneza Clarisse is not among those eligible for such

Radiant's doctor on his Mukaneza Clarisse, and on the same day, Counsel Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul replied to the email saying that he had found the counter expertise report written for Mukaneza Clarisse, but that after reviewing it they had also found that it was alleviating her pain, which they did not believe. On 15 July 2020, the Radiant’s employee again wrote to Counsel Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul, informing him of the name of the Radiant’s doctor (Dr. Kagambwe Emmanuel) and of his duty station and informing him that the doctor would meet with the medical doctor appointed on Mukaneza Clarisse’s side. On July 21, 2020, Counsel Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul replied informing them of the medical doctor appointed on the side of Mukaneza Clarisse's side (Col Byimana John) and informed them of his work place.

## Page 483

87 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA compensation as established in the case RS/INJUST/RC00010/2022/SC which was decided on 02/12/2022, and the case was involving Prime Insurance Company Ltd and Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude.

Mukaneza Clarisse and her lawyer Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul, reminded the Court that at the High Court level, Radiant contended that the damages are not compatible with compensation for financial loss; they added that it should be awarded because it was provided for by the Presidential Order and that the granted damages were justified. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 19, paragraph 4, of Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 relating to compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that damages for pecuniary loss stand for: - Either loss of a definite career opportunity reasonably expected for a pupil, a high-school, technical or university student or equivalent; - Loss of experience of a person already in working life (….)

As per the case file, Mukaneza Clarisse was an employee of LODA in the position of Data Analysis Specialist. It also shows that after the accident, she kept on working with LODA, but that she signed a six-month employment contract from 01/01/2022, re-signed for another three months from 01/07/2022,

## Page 484

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO and wrote a letter of resignation on 26/07/2022 informing LODA that she would stop on 31/07/2022.

The case file also shows that Mukaneza Clarisse suffered a permanent incapacity of 31% as mentioned above, Mukaneza argues that the fact that she used to carry out her work on the field and was carrying a rod in her leg, she found herself unable to do so due to the negative impact of the accident, and resigned and that her employer was also signing her a fixed term contract.

The Court finds that, despite the fact that Mukaneza Clarisse did not lose her job immediately after the accident, she was no longer able to do it properly because of the disability caused by it. The Court finds that Mukaneza Clarisse, as a person with a rod in a leg, is unable to perform certain tasks due to their nature, which amounts to the loss incurred due to disability caused by the accident. This is also what the aforementioned experts explain, that «(…) the loss incurred by a person due to permanent incapacity may also be a loss of strength and capability to perform properly his or her duties at the workplace, as well as the diminishing opportunities or importance that he or she had in the labour market »8.

The Court also finds that the impact of permanent incapacity on professional experience as an ordinary employee, including the loss of the opportunity to be promoted in the workplace, this lost chance is part of the compensation payable to the victim. This was also confirmed in a judgment rendered on 23/05/2019 by the Cassation Court in France9. This interpretation

8 Op. cit., P. 13-14 9 Cassation, 2è chambre civile, 23 mai 2019 : « Mais attendu qu’ayant relevé, que compte tenu des restrictions importantes à une activité, du marché du

## Page 485

89 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA overturns the precedent set in the judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00010/2021/SC involving Prime Insurance Company Ltd and Uwimanimpaye Jean Claude, in which the Court had held that compensation for hinderance of working experience must be construed as compensation for loss of employment.

The Court also finds that the permanent incapacity that the accident caused to Mukaneza Clarisse made her resign from job as she felt that she was unable to perform her duties properly, although she did not terminate the contract of employment immediately after the accident, which also confirms the loss suffered as a result of the permanent incapacity resulting from the accident, and should therefore be compensated for hinderance of working experience.

Basing on the aforementioned elucidations, the Court finds that the compensation for hinderance of working experience granted to Mukaneza Clarisse was appropriate, and the High Court did not err in any way whatsoever ; thus, Radiant was not subjected to injustice in this regard. 4. Determining whether the damages requested in this case are appropriate

travail et de son âge, un retour à l’emploi de M.R…était très aléatoire, c’est sans encourir les griefs du moyen que la cour d’appel a réparé au titre d’incidence professionnelle, la perte de chance pour M.R…d’une promotion professionnelle, préjudice distinct de celui réparé au titre de la perte de gains professionnels futurs calculée au vu de son ancien salaire et qui n’intégrait pas l’évolution de carrière qu’il aurait pu espérer » (Indemnisation de la perte de carrière au titre d’incidence professionnelle, Actualité juridique du dommage corporel [ online]: https://publications-prairial.fr/ajdc, consulté le 03/04/2024.

## Page 486

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Counsel Ndayisaba Fidèle representing Radiant alleges that Mukaneza Clarisse had unnecessarily dragged them to courts and that, therefore, she should be ordered to pay to them 2,500,000 Frw as damages, which includes the advocate and procedural fees.

Mukaneza Clarisse and her lawyer Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul reminded that her injuries resulted from the accident caused by a Radiant-insured vehicle. They added that the compensation requested by Radiant is unfounded because it rejected the offer of the amicable settlement, that even after the case was lodged before the Court, it refrained from staying the proceedings and has been appealing until today. They concluded by seeking the damages worth 1,5000, 000 Frw for having been brought unnecessarily to the courts. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the procedural fee and the advocate fee requested by Radiant are not appropriate because its claim was deemed unfounded. The Court also finds that the damages requested by Mukaneza Clarisse for having unnecessarily dragged her to courts are not due because she failed to prove that Radiant filed an application for injustice with the intent to drag her to courts. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares that the application filed by Radiant Insurance Company Ltd for review of the judgment Nº RCA

## Page 487

91 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA 00266/2021/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 30/09/2022 on grounds of injustice has no merit;

Holds that the judgment RCA 00266/2021/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 30/09/2022 is sustained.

## Page 488

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 489

93 RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v MUKANEZA

CRIMINAL CASES

## Page 490

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 491

95 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 95

PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL - RPA /Gén 00001/2022/CA (Gakwaya, P.J., Umugwaneza, Tugireyezu, J.) February 14, 2025] Criminal procedure –The judgment must respond expressly or directly to all the requests of the parties, to the objections they presented and to the arguments (reasons) they put forward, but it is not required to examine all of them one by one, what is essential is that the decided case indicates the reasons why the requests, the objections and arguments (reasons) presented were invalidated. Criminal law – Conspiracy to commit genocide – Conspiracy to commit genocide is considered a crime of genocide in such a way that the specific intent to commit these two crimes is the same, which means that the agreement between two (2) or more people to commit genocide is aimed at destroying in whole or in part people, who have in common the nationality, race, skin color or religion, because of who they are, and it is done by one or more of them. Criminal law – Complicity in genocide – The intention of complicity in genocide is evident when the alleged accomplice in the crime of genocide helped or prevented or deceived, knowing what he/she did and wanted, another person or people to commit genocide, knowing for sure that such person or those people are committing genocide, even if the accused did not intend to destroy all people or some of them, who have in common the same nationality, ethnicity, skin color or religion, because of who they are. Criminal law – Aggravating and mitgating circurmstances – The seriousness of the crime and the aggravating circumstances that constitute the crime, do not bar the judge

## Page 492

96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO from acknowledging the mitigating circumstances that appeared in the interests of the convicted person, aiming to sentence him/her based on the way the crime was committed and his personal life (individualization of the penalty). Facts: The Prosecution indicted MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, former employee of the National Bank of Rwanda and the Acting Secretary General of CDR party at the national level, before the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes, for conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide. He denied the charges against him, stating that there is no evidence upon which the Prosecution relies to indict him, but the Court, based on the interpretation of Article 93, Paragraphs 1 and 5 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, which provides that conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide are punishable as a crime of genocide, as well as the definition of conspiracy of genocide presented by the Supreme Court in the judgment n˚ RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS in Prosecution v. Bandora Charles, rendered on 22/03/2019, and the interpretation related to the complicity in genocide established by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the judgment n˚ICTR-96-13-A, in Prosecution v. MUSEMA Alfred, rendered by that Tribunal on 27/1/2000, which held that he was convicted of the crimes he was accused of , and sentenced him to the imprisonment for a term of 25 years. Both parties were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed against it to the Court of Appeal, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste criticizing the fact that in relying on the testimony of the witness DAM, the Court only chose one part of it against him, yet it consisted of two parts, including the disculpatory one but it is obvious that what he/she stated in charging him is fabricated because it was later

## Page 493

97 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA contradicted by other witnesses. The fact that the Court convicted him of crimes that did not materialize, that it refused to consider some of the disculpatory elements of evidence, and invalidated some other elements of evidence, the fact that it relied upon the witnesses who did not tell the truth, that it did not observe the precedent set and published in the collection V.1-2015 by the Supreme Court in January, 2015, which states that it is not allowed to rely on contradictory testimonies and that it did not comply with the laws determining the offences it convicted him of, requested to be acquitted. On the other hand, the Prosecution criticizes the fact that the Court did not validate the testimony given by Nyabyenda Jean Marie Vianney, and held that the testimony is confusing without indicating its reasons, and that it mitigated the sentence in favour of Mugimba Jean-Baptiste without specifying any basis. Held: The fact that in the explanations it provided, the court of first instance or court in which the proceedings were initiated did not mention a certain element of evidence or certain testimony, does not necessarily mean that it disregarded it, and it is not required to indicate in detail the reason why it validated or invalidated it. The court is not required to respond to all the arguments submitted by the parties, but it must respond to all their requests, indicating the reasons underlying its responses. The judgment must expressly and directly respond to all the requests of the parties, to the objections they presented and to the arguments (reasons) they put forward, but it is not required to examine all of them one by one. The intention (mens rea) of conspiracy to commit genocide is evident in case of the agreement between many people to commit genocide, which means destroying in whole or in

## Page 494

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 98

part people, who have in common the nationality, race, skin color or religion. Conspiracy to commit genocide is committed with the purpose (special intent) to destroy in whole or in part people, who have in common the nationality, race, skin color or religion, because of who they are, this clearly indicates that it indirectly found that in the meeting held at Mugimba Jean-Baptiste’s home, he plotted with others to kill the Tutsi with the aim of destroying them in whole. Regarding the conspiracy to commit genocide, in order to confirm that the person prosecuted for that crime really committed it, it is not necessary to prove that he/she personally committed any of the acts that constitute the crime of genocide. The intention of complicity in genocide is evident in case the alleged accomplice in the crime of genocide helped or prevented or supervised or deceived, knowing what he/she did and wanted, another person or people to commit genocide, knowing for sure that that person or those people are committing genocide, even if the accused did not intend to destroy all people or some of them, who have in common the same nationality, ethnicity, skin color or religion, because of who they are. Thus, due to the fact that Mugimba Jean-Baptiste requested for and distributed guns while he was aware that they would be used to kill the Tutsi, the Court finds him guilty of complicity in the genocide. Acknowledging mitigating circumstances does not rule out the seriousness of the crime, which means that applying mitigating circumstances in favour of a convict does not reduce the gravity of the crime. This means that the gravity of the crime and the aggravating circumstances constituting the crime, do not bar the judge from acknowledging in the interest of the convicted person the aggravating circumstances that have been found, aiming to sentence

## Page 495

99 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 99

him/her based on the manner in which the crime was committed and his personal life, (individualization of the sentence), that is why the legislator stipulated that the judge, in determining the sentence, must take into account the reasons for the continuation of the crime and the reasons for mitigating the crime. So, even though the crimes of which Mugimba Jean-Baptiste was convicted are serious and brutal crimes, it does not prevent him from having his sentence reduced if there are mitigating circumstances. The appeal lacks merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, article 20, 49, 91 and 93. Cases referred to: Prosecutor v. Munyagishari, RPA/GEN 00004/2019/CA rendered by Court of Appeal on 7/5/2021. Prosecutor v Twahirwa François, RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA16 rendered by Court of Appeal on 25/7/2023. Prosecutor v Shema Ernest, RPAA 00050/2024/CA rendered by Court of Appeal on 26/4/2024. Prosecutor v Abayisenga et.al, RPA 00016/2020/CA rendered by Court of Appeal on 22/3/2024. Prosecutor v Nsabimana Alias Sankara et.al, RPA 00060/2021/CA rendered by Court of Appeal on 04/04/ 2022. Prosecutor v Ntaganzwa Ladislas, RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rendered by Court of Appeal on 3/3/2023. Prosecutor v Birindabagabo Jean-Paul, RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rendered by Court of Appeal on 8/4/2022.

## Page 496

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100

Prosecutor v Kabilimana Jean Damascène, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rendered by Court of Appeal on 16/10/2020. Prosecutor v Twagirayezu Wenceslas, RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA rendered by Court of Appeal on Prosecutor v Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-A rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 16/11/2001. Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 21 /05/ 2007. Prosecutor v. Zigiranyirazo Protais, ICTR-01-73-A Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 16 /11/2009 Prosecutor v Nahimana Ferdinand et.al, ICTR 99-52-A rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 28/10/2007. Prosecutor v. Zigiranyirazo Protais, ICTR-01-73-A rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 16/11/2009. Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B-A, rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on 28/10/2007. Prosecutor vs Simon Bikindi, ICTR-01-72-A rendered by ICTR, Appeals chamber on18 /03/2010. Prosecutor v Jean Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-S, rendered by ICTR, Appeal Chamber on 19 /10/ 2000. Prosecutor v Bagosora Théoneste André et .al, ICTR-98-41- T, rendered by ICTR, Trial Chamber on 18/12/2008. Prosecutor vs Renzaho Tharcisse, ICTR-97-31-T rendered by ICTR, Trial Chamber on 14/07/2009 Prosecutor v Gatete Jean Baptiste, ICTR-2000-61-T rendered by ICTR, Trial Chamber on 31/03/2011. Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana, ICTR-95-1B, rendered by ICTR, Trial Chamber on 28 /04/2005. Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, ICTR-99-54A-T, rendered by ICTR, Trial Chamber on 23/01/2003.

## Page 497

101 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 101

Legal wrtitings referred to: Gaston Stéfani, Georges Levasseur et Bernard Bouloc, ‘’ Procédure pénale’’, 16e édition, Dalloz, Paris, 1996, P. 681, n° 669. Henri-D. Bosly et Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de procédure pénale, 2e édition, La Charte, Bruges, 2001, P. 906. Crim. 11 mai 1971, Bull. n° 147, Gaz. Pal. 1971.2. 524, in Gaston Stéfani, Georges Levasseur et Bernard Bouloc, op.cit., P. 682, n° 669. Antoine Rubbens, Le Droit judiciaire congolais, L’instruction criminelle et la procédure pénale, Tome III, Larcier, Bruxelles, 1965, P. 220, n° 214. Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, P. 722. Jean Pradel, Procédure pénale, 10e édition, Cujas, Paris, 2000, P. 680, n° 784. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

After the Genocide against the Tutsi, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste who lived in Kabuguru Cell, Nyakabanda Sector, Nyarugenge Commune, in the houses of the employees of the Central Bank of Rwanda where he also worked, and was the Acting Secretary General of the CDR Party at the national level, fled to the Netherlands. In November 2012, the National Public Prosecution Authority requested that he should be arrested and transferred to Rwanda to stand trial for genocide-related crimes. On 11/07/2014, the Court of that Country (The Hague District Court) decided to transfer him to Rwanda to stand trial.

## Page 498

102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102

The Prosecution indicted him before the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes, for conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide. MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste denied the charges against him, alleging that there are no elements of evidence upon which the Prosecution relies to indict him.

In the judgment n˚ RP/GEN 00002/2017/HC/HCCIC rendered on 28/5/2020, basing on the interpretation of Article 93, paragraphs 1 and 5° of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general which provides that conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide is punishable as a crime of genocide, as well as the definition of conspiracy of genocide presented by the Supreme Court in the judgment n˚ RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS in Prosecution v. Bandora Charles, decided by that Court on 22/03/2019, and the interpretation related to the complicity in genocide established by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the judgment n˚ICTR-96-13-A, in Prosecution v. MUSEMA Alfred, was sentenced by that Court on 27/1/2000, the Court held that: - MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste is convicted of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide - Sentences him to the imprisonment for a term of twenty-five (25) years.

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, as well as the Prosecution were dissatisfied with the judgment, and appealed against it to the Court of Appeal.

In the appeal submissions of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste dated 14/4/2022, he criticizes the judgment rendered by the High Court because in relying on the

## Page 499

103 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 103

testimony of the witness DAM, the Court only chose one part of it against him, yet it consisted of two parts, including the disculpatory one but it is obvious that what he/she stated in charging him is fabricated by him/herself because it was later contradicted by other who testified that the meeting of 8/4/1994 is the one that was relied upon to hold that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit genocide, they stated that they do not know whether it was held, yet he/she stated that they had attended it. Due to the fact that the Court convicted him of the crimes that did not materialize, due to the fact that it disregarded some of the elements of evidence, others were not validated, that it relied upon the witnesses who did not tell the truth, that it did not observe the precedent set and published in the collection V.1- 2015 by the Supreme Court in January, 2015, which states that it is not allowed to rely on contradictory testimonies and due to the fact that it did not comply with the laws determining the crimes for which he was convicted, he requested to be acquitted.

The Prosecution contended that it had provided the elements of evidence for all acts constituting the crime, based on eyewitnesses’ testimonies and other elements of evidence submitted to the Court. As for the precedent that was previously set, it alleged that it cannot retort about it because it is not linked with the decided case, and the he alleged that the laws were not complied with, it notes that he did not indicate them, rather it requests that he should be sentenced to life imprisonment.

With regards to the appeal submissions of the Prosecution, the latter criticizes the judgment of the High Court for invalidating the testimony given by NYABYENDA Jean Marie Vianney, alleging that it is confusing without explaining its reasons, and the fact that it

## Page 500

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 104

reduced the sentence in favour of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste without specifying its basis.

MUGIMBA Jean Baptiste contended that the Court did not err because it justified both the testimony and the sentence.

Both appeal cases were joined and the resulting case was registered under n° RPA/GEN 00001/2022/CA, the hearing was scheduled on 16/7/2024, MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste assisted by Counsel GATERA GASHABANA and Counsel BARAGONDOZA Jean Damascène, the Prosecution represented by NKUSI Faustin and BIDERI Diogène, National Prosecutors. On that day, the Court bench agreed with the parties on both sides on the schedule of the hearing and the next hearing was fixed on 16/9/2024 at 9:00 am.

Based on the submissions and arguments of the parties, this Court finds that the issues to be considered are as follows : A. Regarding the appeal of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste a. Determine whether the lower Court tried MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste without due regard to the criminal act it was seized of. b. Determine whether there are exculpatory elements of evidence in favor of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, that the lower Court disregarded and did not consider others and convicted him of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide on basis of the statements of two unreliable witnesses. c. Determine whether the lower Court did not comply with the precedent set by the Supreme

## Page 501

105 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 105

Court, leading it to make a judgment based on contradictory testimonies. d. Determine whether the lower Court convicted MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide without establishing the specific intent to commit these crimes. B. Concerning the appeal of the Prosecution a. Determine whether the lower Court erred in disregarding the incriminating testimony of NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney. b. Determine whether MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste should not have a reduced sentence. II. LEGAL ISSUES AND ANALYSIS THEREOF A. Regarding the appeal of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste a. Determine whether the lower Court tried MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste without due regard to the criminal act it was seized of

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste alleges that before the Court of the first instance, he was accused of having plotted with the conseillers in the meeting on 8/4/1994 to plan the genocide in four (4) Sectors in the City of Kigali. He explains that on page ten (10) of the indictment, the Prosecution indicates the intention to kill the Tutsi and the people it claims to have conspired with in his home, that is, the Conseiller of Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega and Nyamirambo Sectors, but the issue is that the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international

## Page 502

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 106

and transnational crimes, held that he had committed the crime of conspiracy to kill the Tutsi, jointly with the people other than those conseillers as arraigned by the Prosecution, and the conspiracy for which he is sentenced is only related with Nyakabanda Sector, but the Prosecution accuses him of conspiracy to kill the Tutsi in the four (4) above mentioned Sectors. He concludes by alleging that this indicates that the Court rendered the judgment on the facts that were not part of the indictment.

Counsel BARAGONDOZA Jean Damascène, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste's lawyer, submits that, as indicated in the fifty-seventh (57) paragraph of the appealed judgment, the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes erred in taking its decision on the facts that were not part of the indictment because, after relying on the testimony of the witness DAM, held that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste is convicted of the crime of conspiracy to kill the Tutsi, he committed it with other people, who were not the Conseillers of Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega and Nyamirambo Sectors, while such was not what he was indicted of as it is stated on the page ten (10) of the indictment, whereby MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was accused of conspiracy to kill the Tutsi with four (4) Conseillers and the witness DAM.

Counsel GATERA GASHABANA avers that in paragraphs forty-nine (49), fifty (50) and fifty-four (54), the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes decided that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste held the meetings at his home, together with various people, including soldiers, Conseillers of four (4) Sectors, he made a list of the Tutsi who were to be killed, it also held that there are witnesses who have been heard testifying that they did not know it, and only one who

## Page 503

107 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 107

testifies that he knows it, that is DAM, based only on the statement of that witness, and now in paragraphs fifty-seven (57) and fifty-eight(58), it held that he had committed the conspiracy to commit genocide, while the facts indicated by that witness are different from the facts of which MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was indicted, that this indicates that the Court disregarded the provisions of Article 10 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure because it decided more than it had been asked to.

In the submissions of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste presented by his lawyer, BARAGONDOZA Jean Damascène, he alleges that the meeting to plan the genocide mentioned by the Prosecution in its indictment is the one that took place at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home on 8/4/1994, between 8:00 and 10:30 A.M, and submits that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste had invited many people including the witness DAM and other Conseillers of Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega and Nyamirambo Sectors from the City of Kigali, however, the lower Court assigned to itself the authority to change the claim, by disregarding the law governing the justice system, which requires it to decide only what it is asked to and only that issue1, it rendered the judgment on the intention mentioned by the witness DAM that materialized between the defendant and other people, but not revealed by the indictment, and it disregarded his statements, whereby he stated that the Conseillers were not in the meeting in which he participated as he alleged it and that plan only concerned Nyakabanda Sector.

1 Article 7 of Law n° 21/2012 of 14/6/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure "The judge shall rule only and on all that which is referred to the court".

## Page 504

108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 108

Counsel BARAGONDOZA Jean Damascène proceeds with alleging that the lower Court should not invalidate the indictment since none of the Prosecution witnesses especially KIVUTA REGERO Innocent, IMANANIBISHAKA Jean Berchmans alias BARANANIYE Sukari and NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney who testified that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste had worked with the Conseillers but in convicting him of the conspiracy to commit genocide, the lower Court relied upon the testimony of DAM, yet the witness had given disculpatory and incriminating elements of evidence, whereby he explained that the meeting of 8/4/1994 was held at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home, that he very well knows the fact because he was invited in such meeting, but in the hearing held on 9/10/2008, he alleged that those Conseillers from Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega and Nyamirambo Sectors were not in that meeting, yet the Court only considered his incriminating testimony.

He concludes by requesting this Court to rely on Article 7 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure and to confirm that the lower Court should not decide the case on the other “agreement” brought in by witness DAM, which was not part of the indictment.

The Prosecution asserts that on pages ten (10) and eleven (11) of the indictment, they indicted MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste of having chaired at his home a meeting which planned to commit genocide, that he was not indicted of having had certain people in that meeting, that what he is indicted of is the conspiracy that was committed in the meeting that took place at his home. It avers that apart from that, as indicated in its indictment, not only Conseillers attended the meeting, but also there were other people, that

## Page 505

109 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 109

the most important thing is that the meeting took place and conspiracy to commit genocide was plotted there.

In its indictment, the Prosecution explained that as it is indicated from paragraph fifty-three (53) to paragraph seventy-four (74) of the appealed judgment, the lower Court examined whether on 8/4/1994 there was a meeting chaired by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste at his home, which plotted the conspiracy to kill the Tutsis, so the act for which he was indicted was not the fact that the Conseillers attended it, but it is the meeting itself, whether the Conseillers participated in it or not. It also explained that in its indictment, it did not mention that the meeting MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste held was attended by him and three (3) Conseillers only, so that it can be understood that when the witness DAM testified that at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home, no other Conseillers were present, to mean that it was a different meeting from the one the Prosecution complained about, that apart from what is in the indictment, it is also clear from DAM's statements that the meeting was attended by different people.

The Prosecution also explained that one of the facts that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was indicted of, which is also a ground of appeal for him, is a meeting to plan the genocide held at his home on 8/4/1994, and that it was also the same that the lower Court underscored, and held that the meeting really took place and was indeed an act of conspiracy to commit genocide, so the lower Court did not ignore the provisions of Article 7 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.

## Page 506

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 110

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The principle of law according to which the criminal courts are seized of the facts2, means that these courts examine the facts that are submitted to them, and are the only ones to review3, which means that they cannot change or add facts that have not been submitted to them or that are not mentioned in the indictment, for their consideration4.

The indictment before the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes on page ten (10) indicates that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste is accused of holding a meeting at his home on 8/4/1994 between 08:00 and 10:00 A.M, in which the attendants were MBARUSHIMANA Callixte, MUGENZI Joseph, MUDAHINYUKA Jean-Marie Vianney alias Zuzu, TWAHIRWA Oreste, RWAGAHUNGU Innocent, NIBIZI Alphonse, KIVUTA

2 “The court is seized in rem”, Gaston Stéfani, Georges Levasseur and Bernard Bouloc, ‘’ Procédure pénale’’, 16th edition, Dalloz, Paris, 1996, P. 681, n° 669. 3 “The court must rule on all the facts brought validly before it (…..) and only on those”, Crim. July 23, 1967, J.C.P. 1968. II 15678, note J. Michaud, in idem. ''The referral to the judge concerns only the precise fact indicated in the referral document; the latter must not mention all the legal elements constituting the act charged nor all the factual elements. It is up to the judge, if necessary, to assess the scope of the act of referral, without however violating the faith due to this act, (….)'', Cass., June 2, 1887, Pas., I, P.283, in Henri-D. Bosly and Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de procédure pénale, 2e édition, La Charte, Bruges, 2001, P. 906. 4 “But it cannot substitute or add to the facts brought before it other facts not covered in the referral document”, Crim. May 11, 1971, Bull. No. 147, Gas. Pal. 1971.2. 524, in Gaston Stéfani, Georges Levasseur and Bernard Bouloc, op.cit., p. 682, n° 669.

## Page 507

111 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 111

REGERO Innocent, KIGINGI HABYARIMANA also known as Général de Brigade, SAKABAKA, Zacharie son of RWATAMBUGA, the former military operations commander in Nyamirambo war zone Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard, Lt. KANYAMUHANDA, Lt. MUSERUKA, Lt. KAMARI, Lt. BAZIRUWIHA, there was also NTAMFURAYISHYARI Félix, who worked at the Embassy of Rwanda in Kampala, there were also the Conseillers of NYAKABANDA, BIRYOGO, GITEGA and NYAMIRAMBO Sectors, there were also representatives of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi militia in those Sectors, including NDAHAYO Godefroid of NYAKABANDA, HABYALIMANA of Nyamirambo, ZUBERI of BIRYOGO and Stan of Gitega. This meeting assessed how to kill Tutsis, making the lists of Tutsis to be killed, how to set up barriers that would help in killing the Tutsi, how to get guns to use for killing the Tutsi5. This is what is stated in the paragraphs eight (8) and nine (9) of the appealed judgment.

In paragraph forty-nine (49) of the appealed judgment, the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over the international and transnational crimes briefly explained that the Prosecution accuses MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste of conspiracy to commit genocide, arguing that before 1994, he held meetings at his home to plan to kill the Tutsi, which was attended by many people including Interahamwe, after those meetings the Tutsi were beaten, accusing him of having held a meeting at his home on 8/4/1994 which planned to kill Tutsi which was attended by

5 On page eleven (11) of the complaint document, it appears that in that meeting, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste asked Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard, Army Commander in Nyamirambo war zone for the guns that would be used in Nyakabanda, and the latter accepted, and those guns were distributed and were later used to kill the Tutsis.

## Page 508

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 112

various people including soldiers, Conseillers of Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Gitega and Biryogo Sectors, the cell leaders, Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, in that meeting the list of Tutsi who should be killed was made, and it was authorized to set up roadblocks to assist in the killings, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste requested for guns to be used in those killings.

As mentioned in the fifty-one (51) to seventy (70) paragraphs of the appealed case, basing to articles 107, first paragraph, and 108 of the Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure and to articles 62, 65 and 119 of Law No 15/2004 of 12/6/2004 relating to evidence and its production, which examined the testimony given in Court and given in the investigation regarding the meeting on 8/4/1994 alleged to have taken place at MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste's home, it found that there were witnesses who stated that no meeting took place there (MURASANDONYI Augustin, DIM, MUGABIRE Jean de Dieu, MUTEGANDEGE Charles, MUTAMURIZA Xavérine, MUGENZI Védaste, IMANANIBISHAKA Jean Berchmans alias BARANANIYE Sukari, KIVUTA REGERO Innocent), others confirm that the meeting took place, and that they were involved or were told about it (DAM and DFM), as well as the testimony of the witnesses presented by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste (DJM and DKM), it concluded in paragraph seventy-one (71) of the judgment,

## Page 509

113 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 113

that based on the statements of DAM6 and DFM7, it is worth holding that on 8/4/1994 at MUGIMBA Jean-

6 As indicated in paragraphs twenty-one (21) and twenty-two (22) of the appealed judgment, before the High Court, DAM explained that on 8/4/1994 he went to the Sector Office to give documents to people who had lost their identity cards, he arrived at around 7:30 a.m. a person named NKAMIRABASHAKA Sostène told him that MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste wanted him at his home, he went there at 7:30 and five (7:35), there were twelve (12) people in the house including Colonel HAKIZIMANA Edouard, Dr. MUGENZI Joseph, MBARUSHIMANA Callixte who worked with UNDP, KIVUTA REGERO Innocent, Kigingi HABYARIMANA who was Interahamwe, RWAGAHUNGU Innocent who was the leader of Kabuguru Cell, SAKABAKA who lived at NGENZI’s home, Zakariya, son of RWATAMBUGA, MUDAHINYUKA Jean-Marie Vianney alias Zuzu, NYABYENDA, TWAHIRWA and many others about eight (8) were outside guarding the occupants of the house, that around eight o'clock MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste presided over a meeting at about 10:30 p.m., that apart from him who represented the Conseiller of Nyakabanda Sector, no other conseiller was present. He went on to say that the purpose of the meeting was to be told that President HABYARIMANA's plane had been downed, that they should defend themselves and fight against the accomplices and that they were threatened by the attack, that at that time MUGIMBA Jean-Baptitse asked Colonel HAKIZIMANA Edouard, Army Commander in Nyamirambo war zone for guns to protect themselves against the Tutsi, and lists of those who should be killed including the Tutsi who were called accomplices and Hutu who opposed the MRND party were made, that everyone among those in the meeting gave the name of the person who was to be killed, MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste says that NDUNGUTSE Jean Bosco, HIGIRO Isaïe and Doctor Emmanuel who worked in ONAPO, that he himself gave the names of others including BAGABO Dany family, MUKAKIMENYI and KAYIBANDA and that later those mentioned were killed. He explained that the person who made the list was NIYIBIZI Alphonse, that he gave it to MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, who in turn gave it to Kigingi. He also said that even though he was the Conseiller of Nyakabanda Sector, he attended the meeting which was convened by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste because he had the authority as the leader of nyumbakumi (ten households unit ) who led him, and he was intellectual who was part of crisis committee it included educated people who supported the Conseillers in committing the killings that was put in place on

## Page 510

114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 114

Baptiste's home, a meeting was held and plotted to kill the Tutsi from Nyakabanda Sector and its suburbs, the lists of Tutsi who were to be killed were made, and MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste requested for guns to be used in the killings.

The Court of Appeal finds that the examination of the indictment indicates that on 8/4/1994, between 8:00 and 10:00 A.M., MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste invited different people to a meeting which was held at his home, where they agreed, and conspire to commit genocide, to learn how to kill Tutsi, to make lists of the Tutsi to be killed, how to set up the roadblocks that would help in killing Tutsi and how to find weapons to be used to kill Tutsi. This indicates that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was prosecuted for the agreement between him and different people that was made in the meeting held at his home on 8/4/1994, who planned to commit genocide, with the aim of killing the Tutsi.

The Court of Appeal also finds that the witness DAM incriminates MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste of having held on 8/4/1994 a meeting at his home, and invited him, and found different people, some in the house (12), others outside (8); and explained that the purpose of the meeting

30/4/1994, and he was the Secretary General of the CDR party, that they worked together because MRND and CDR were all the same. 7As indicated in paragraph twenty-three (23) of the appealed judgment, DFM explained in the High Court that on 8/4/1994 MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste convened to his home a meeting attended by many people including Kigingi, NIYIBIZI Alphonse and Colonel HAKIZIMANA, and he was informed by the people who were working with him, that he was told by the cell leader called KABONEYE Théoneste and Nyirimanzi Grégoire who found them in front of the stadium in Nyamirambo alongside with the people who were once saying in chorus that people were killed as a result of the meeting held at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home and at Interahamwe called Zuzu’s home.

## Page 511

115 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 115

was to be told that the plane of President HABYARIMANA had been downed, that they should defend themselves and fight against the attacks and that they are threatened by Inkotanyi, that at that time MUGIMBA Jean-Baptitse requested Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard who was at the meeting to provide them with guns to defend themselves against the Tutsi and the lists of those to be killed were made, including the Tutsi who were called the accomplices and Hutu who opposed the MRND party.

Basing on the abovementioned statements, the Court of Appeal finds that the statement of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste that he was accused at the first level of attending a meeting on 8/4/1994 where he agreed with the Conseillers to plan genocide in four (4) Sectors of the City of Kigali, must be invalidated because he was instead accused of having been with different people at his home on 8/4/1994 where they agreed and conspired to commit genocide, they killed the Tutsi, the Prosecution did not indict him of specifically holding a meeting at his home on that date, he conspired to commit genocide with only the Conseillers of Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Gitega and Biryogo Sectors to kill the Tutsi who were living there.

The Court of Appeal also finds that the incriminating testimony of DAM does not confirm that in the meeting on 8/4/1994, the Conseillers of Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Gitega and Biryogo Sectors were present, which does not mean that the facts shown by the witness are different from the facts shown by the Prosecution against MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste at the first level because what is important is that there are facts shown by the Prosecution and what was revealed by the witness DAM, both assertions confirm that on 8/4/1994 he held a meeting at his home in the morning, where different people were conspiring to commit genocide, making lists of the Tutsi who should be killed, and learning

## Page 512

116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 116

how to get guns to use in killing them. It also finds that the fact that the Prosecution failed to demonstrate that those Conseillers of those Sectors were among those who agreed with him in the meeting of 8/4/1994, and conspired to commit genocide, which does not mean that the facts brought up were changed because the High Court confirmed that he had conspired in that meeting with the other people mentioned in the indictment, what is important is that it showed that in that meeting there was indeed an agreement among people conspiring to commit genocide.

The Court of Appeal finds that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that he was accused by the Prosecution of plotting to kill Tutsi in Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Gitega and Biryogo Sectors, but the lower Court concluded that the plot was intended to kill the Tutsi in Nyakabanda Sector only, that Court changed the constituent elements of the offence he was accused of, are not relevant because the indictment does not show directly that it was what he was indicted of, rather it shows that he had attended the meeting, and had requested Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard, who was in charge of the military operations in Nyamirambo war zone, for the guns to be used in the killings in Nyakabanda.

Based on the abovementioned statements, the Court of Appeal finds that, apart from the fact that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was granted at the first instance the right (time and means) to defend himself against the charges brought against him by the Prosecution and the testimony of DAM, the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes did not change the constituent elements of the offence MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste was accused of by the Prosecution, which means that it decided on the facts it was seized of, so this ground of his appeal is without merit.

## Page 513

117 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 117

b. Determine whether there are exculpatory elements of evidence in favour of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste, that the lower Court disregarded and did not consider others and convicted him of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide on basis of the statements of two unreliable witnesses i. Regarding the documentary exculpatory elements of evidence in favour of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste disregarded by the lower Court

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers allege that, based on articles 110 and 139, subparagraph seven (7°) of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure, the lower Court erred by failing to examine the documentary exculpatory elements of evidence he produced to it, they include the document legalized in 2011, which contains the fabricated meeting dated 8/04/1994 of which he is accused, it is alleged that it has been approved by the Gacaca Court of Nyarugunga on 31/12/2010, while it is not true, the indictment n° Pro-justitia RONPJ: 0305920/S1/12/NR/NJ dated 25/7/2012 and the judgment no RP 0345/12/TB/NYG rendered by the Primary Court of Nyarugenge on 21/2/2013.

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers explain that the legalized document was the one that first revealed the meeting of 8/4/1994, emphasizing that the meeting was evoked for the first time in the Gacaca Court of Nyakabanda, and it was later approved by the Gacaca Court of Nyarugunga of 31/12/2010 at the level of appeal, and all this was confirmed by the information from the CNLG (National Commission against Genocide) and the investigation carried out by that Court. They also explain that the indictment n° Pro-justitia RONPJ 0305920/S1/12/NR/NJ dated 25/7/2012 indicates that some people were prosecuted for having given

## Page 514

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 118

false testimony in the Gacaca Courts in order to appropriate themselces the houses of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, one of them has pleaded guilty saying that fabricating charges against MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste's crimes was done in a bar called Panorama. They explain again that in the judgment n° RP 0345/12/TB/NYG, the Primary Court of Nyarugenge confirmed that such witness committed the crime of giving false testimony in the Gacaca Courts.

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers conclude that all these elements of evidence confirm that the charges against MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste are false, they have been forged by a group of people who used to meet in "Panorama" (bar) in 2010, and they fabricated the charges against him with the aim of appropriating themselves his property, but the Court disregarded these elements of evidence and the investigation findings carried out by the Court itself in a bid to know whether the alleged meeting of 8/4/1994 was really mentioned in the Gacaca Court, but it relied on an excerpt of the DAM's testimony against him8.

The Prosecution avers that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste are irrelevant because the Court considered all the elements of evidence produced to it, that concerning his arguments showing that he was the victim of the fabricated charges by those who wanted to appropriate his property, they were examined by the High Court, and as indicated in the paragraphs eighteen (18) ad seventy-one (71) of the appealed judgment, it held that they are baseless. They explain that, considering the acts of which he is accused in the indictment, these elements of evidence are not linked with it because in the Gacaca Courts, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was accused of looting other people's property, while in the judgment RP 0345/12/TB/NYG, the accused were people who made false statements against him

8 See paragraph 57 of the appealed judgment.

## Page 515

119 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 119

in the Gacaca Courts, one of them was convicted. They also explain that, apart from that, these elements of evidence do not confirm that he did not commit the crime he is accused of, the fact that it was evident that they made false statements against him in those cases, does not mean that other charges against him have been fabricated. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debate on this ground of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste's appeal is based on determining whether the High Court disregarded the documentary elements of evidence that highlight that the charges brought against him are false, especially because it did not mention in the judgment it rendered, the explanations for which it did not consider them, so that the appealed judgment should be quashed.

As held in the judgment n° ICTR-96-13-A rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Appeals Chamber, the fact that in the explanations it provided, the court of first instance or the court where the proceedings were initiated did not mention an element of evidence or testimony, does not necessarily mean that it ignored it9, it is not even required to specify in details the reason why it validated or invalidated it10. In the judgment No. IT-96-21-A rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the Appeals Chamber, held that the Trial Chamber is not bound, in its judgment, to

9“ It does not necessarily imply that, since a trial chamber did not refer to such evidence or testimony during its reasoning, it is because it ignored it,” para. 20. 10“The trial chamber is not required to explain in detail the reasons which led it to admit or reject a given testimony”, idem.

## Page 516

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 120

present and explain its reasons on all arguments presented in the judgment11.

Legal scholar Antoine Rubbens12, explains that the court is not bound to respond to all the arguments presented by the parties, but it should respond to all their requests, showing the reasons supporting its responses. This is what the legal scholars Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs and Adrien Masset, explain based on the precedent set by the Court of Cassation of Belgium, which ruled that the judgment must respond directly or openly to all the requests made by the parties, to the objections they raised and to the arguments (reasons) they presented, but that it is not required to examine one of the other arguments they presented, what is necessary is that the judgment that was rendered indicates the reasons causing the requests, the objections raised and the arguments (reasons) presented to be invalidated13.

11The Trial Chamber is not required, in its judgment, to set out and justify its findings with respect to each of the arguments presented during the trial”, para. 498. 12 ‘’Il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à tous les arguments des parties publiques ou privées, mais bien à chacune de leurs demandes, et c’est chacune de ces réponses qu’il convient de motiver’’, Antoine Rubbens, Le Droit judiciaire congolais, L’instruction criminelle et la procédure pénale, Tome III, Larcier, Bruxelles, 1965, P. 220, n° 214. 13 ‘’La décision doit répondre explicitement ou implicitement à toutes les demandes, les exceptions et les moyens, formulés par les parties et le ministère public. Le juge ne doit toutefois pas les examiner un à un: il suffit que de l’ensemble de la décision apparaissent les raisons pour lesquelles la demande, le moyen ou l’exception a été rejeté’’, Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2006, P. 722. ‘’ Attendu que si le juge du fond doit répondre à tout chef de demande, à toute défense et à toute exception présentée par l’une des parties, il n’est pas tenu de rencontrer en termes exprès les arguments ou allégations de pur fait;

## Page 517

121 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 121

As indicated in the preliminary submissions of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste in case n° RP/GEN 0002/2017/HC/HCCIC, he explained that the indictment is not based on any concrete evidence, that it came to strengthen the fabricated crimes attributed to the decision of the Gacaca Court of Appeal of Nyarugunga of 31/12/2010, that those lies are mentioned in the document he received from the Embassy of Netherlands in Rwanda from the National Public Prosecution Authority; however, the document issued by CNLG on 26/1/2017 insists that there is no document mentioning MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste in the Nyakabanda Gacaca Court, and it was accompanied by the minutes showing all the words uttered in the hearing of the case decided by the Nyarugunga Gacaca Court of Appeal on 12/31/2010. He also stated that the document "Pro-justitia RONPJ: 0305920/S1/12/NR/NJ" of the National Public Prosecution Authority dated 25/7/2012 and the judgment of the Primary Court of Nyarugenge n° RP 0345/12/TB/NYG dated 21/2/2013 indicate that he was falsely accused in the Gacaca Courts, and that one of the defendants in that case was convicted of false testimony and sentenced to one (1) year’s imprisonment, because he pleaded guilty. He also stated that the fact that the document of the CNLG dated 26/1/2017 directly i that the crimes of genocide he is accused of in this case were never mentioned in the Gacaca Court of Nyarugunga dated 31/12/2010, alone is enough to confirm that they are fabricated charges.

The case file indicates that among the elements of evidence given by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste in the High Court, there is the document dated 3/5/2012 regarding

que les décisions sont suffisamment et légalement motivées si elles opposent à ces arguments ou allégations une appréciation de fait dont résulte leur défaut de fondement’’, Cass., 27 février 1939, Pas., 1939, I, p.101 in Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, idem.

## Page 518

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 122

additional information in the file DCM/AT-U 100624.0036 of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, file RONPJ: 0305920/S1/12/NR/NJ of the Prosecution (Indictment) HATEGEKIMANA Charles accused of giving false testimony in the Gacaca Court, the judgment n° RP 0345/12/TB/NYG rendered on 21/2/2013 by the Primary Court of Nyarugenge , in Prosecution v. HATEGEKIMANA Charles, charged with the crime of giving false testimony in the Gacaca Appeal Court of Nyarugenge, where he gave this testimony in order to confirm that MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste looted the beer store of BIGIRUMWAMI Aloys in 1994; that Court held that he is convicted of that offence.

Paragraphs seventeen (17) and eighteen (18) of the appealed judgment indicate that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste contended that the proof that he did not commit the crimes he is accused of is the collection of information from the Gacaca Courts that took place in Nyakabanda Sector which emphasized that he had no role in the killings perpetrated there, as well as the National Commission for the Fight Against Genocide, in the letter dated 26/1/2017 in response of the Prosecution’s letter, stated that it has no information about the crimes of genocide allegedly he committed in Nyakabanda Sector. He also argued that the indictment is based on a plot mounted by those who wanted to appropriate themselves his property, they accused him before Gacaca Courts for having looted their property, they provided false information against him.

In the paragraph fifty (50) of the appealed judgment, regarding the issue of whether MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste held the meetings at his home in which the conspiracy to commit genocide was plotted, the High Court held that the defendant presented the elements of evidence including the witnesses and various documents including copies of letters

## Page 519

123 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 123

written by the witness referred to as DAM to the Gacaca Courts admitting the charges and pleading guilty to crimes.

The appealed judgment indicates that from the paragraph fifty-three (53) to the paragraph seventy (70), the High Court examined the elements of evidence produced by the parties and explained the reasons that are valid or not, and again in the paragraph seventy-one (71), it concluded that, based on the provisions of Article 65 of Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, the testimony given by DAM and DFM must be relied upon to hold that on 8/4/1994 at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste's home a meeting was held in which a plan was made to kill the Tutsi from Nyakabanda Sector and its suburbs, the lists of Tutsi to be killed were made and MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste requested for guns to be used in the killings; therefore, the statements of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the crimes he is accused of were committed by those who wanted to appropriate themselves his property and based on his position in the CDR party, are baseless.

The Court of Appeal finds that the fact that the High Court concluded that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste that the charges against him were committed by those who wanted to appropriate themselves his property are baseless because it found at its discretion that the testimony of DAM and DFM is reliable regarding the meeting allegedly held at his home on 8/4/1994, in which was plotted the plan to kill Tutsi from Nyakabanda Sector and its suburbs and the lists of Tutsi to be killed were established, he requested for the guns to be used in the killings, such facts indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the Court did not disregard the elements of evidence composed of the above- mentioned documents he produced, even though he did not specifically indicate the analysis that was made for every

## Page 520

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 124

element of evidence, so that they were not taken into consideration as he expected.

The Court of Appeal finds that, based on the above- mentioned explanations and positions, the High Court did not err in directly indicating the reason for which these elements of evidence are not reliable ; thus, this ground of appeal of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste is unfounded. ii. Regarding the exculpatory elements of evidence in favour of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste, disregarded by the lower Court

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers submit that the lower Court did not validate the testimony given by the defense witnesses namely DKM and DJM who indicated that the alleged time when he held a meeting at his home on 8/4/1994, they saw him in another place, one of them testified that he had seen him going to collect the rent, the other said that he saw him at Gitega at that time.

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers proceeded with alleging that the Court should not have confirmed that the testimony of DKM and DJM did not contradict the fact that the meeting of 8/4/1994 took place14, ignored the question of the mentioned hours, because the Prosecution says that the meeting took place between eight (8:00) and half past ten (10:30)A.M and those witnesses explained that on that day during those hours the accused was at Gitega and Nyamirambo at Mirongwine, that they showed that they did not know that the meeting took place, they assert that at the hours mentioned by the Prosecution they were with him, that he could not have been in the meeting that is said to have been held at his home during

14 See paragraph 60 of the appealed judgment.

## Page 521

125 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 125

those hours. They also allege that he could not be in two places at the same time, and they find that the High Court should have been careful and carefully analyzed those statements, finding that they contradict the statement of witness DAM, to confirm that there is doubt that should protect the accused. They conclude that the High Court did not provide sufficient explanation (insufficient justification) to invalidate the testimony of DKM and DJM.

The Prosecution alleges that the statement that the High Court may have invalidated the exculpatory elements of evidence, is not irrelevant, because in paragraph fifty-nine (59) of the appealed judgment, the Court explained why the testimony of KIVUTA REGERO Innocent cannot be relied upon as it is not supported by other evidence or other testimony given before the Court , in paragraph sixty (60) of the appealed judgment, it also shows that the testimony of DJM and DKM does not exculpate MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste.

The Prosecution also submits that in their testimonies, DKM and DJM indicated that they had no knowledge as to why the defendant had brought them to the Court, that is why in paragraph sixty (60) and paragraph sixty-two (62) of the appealed judgment, the High Court explained that their statements are not substantial to it because they do not bar the fact that there are other people who know that the meeting for which he is accused to have chaired on 8/4/1994 took place, and they also attended it. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debate on this appeal ground of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste is based on determining whether the lower Court erred in analyzing the substance of the statements of witnesses DKM and DJM and invalidating them, but

## Page 522

126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 126

contradicting the charges emphasized by witness DAM because they indicate that he did not hold the meeting of 8/4/1994 because he was not at home at the alleged time.

As held in the judgment n° RPA/GEN 00004/2019/CA rendered on 7/5/2021, in Prosecution v. Bernard MUNYAGISHARI, it is not enough for the appellant to allege that in the appealed case there is an error based on the provisions of the law or there are errors in the law, he/she must also show explanations in the law that support his/her allegations, and show how the error made the decision to be invalidated. Regarding factual error, the Court, at appeal level, overturns the decision made only if the appellant has indicated that the assessment of the acts constituting the crime made by the lower Court led to miscarriage of justice15.

As held in the judgment n° RPAA/Gen 00002/2018/CA16 rendered by the Court of Appeal on 25/7/2023, while considering the issue of determining the reliability of the testimonies in such a way that they can be

15 ‘’ Furthermore, it is easily understood from the terms of the aforementioned article 18 that it is not enough for the appellant to point out such an error of law, he must also present legal argumentation in support of his thesis and demonstrate how this error of law invalidates the criticized decision. As for the error of fact, consistent case law from the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda establishes that erroneous findings of fact made by the first judge can only be overturned or modified at the level of appeal if a judicial error resulted. In addition, it indicates that the appellate court will only overturn the findings of the court of first instance when no judge of fact could reasonably have reached the same conclusion or when they are totally erroneous. Also, the appeal court must be careful not to lightly overturn the material circumstances of the offense as noted by the court of first instance in the contested decision”; MUNYAGISHARI Bernard case, Para. 14. 16 See judgment no RPAA/Gen. 00002/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 7/25/2023, in Prosecution v.TWAHIRWA François.

## Page 523

127 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 127

relied upon as evidence in the trial, the principle regarding testimony is that the witness submits to the Court what he/she witnessed or what he/she directly heard, that only the Court evaluates at its discretion the reliability or quality that should be attributed to them; that the precedent was observed in case n° RPAA 00050/2024/CA17 decided by this Court on 26/4/2024, in Prosecution v. SHEMA Ernest and in the judgment n° RPAA 00386/2021/CA rendered on 3/7/2024, in Prosecution v. KAYINAMURA Télésphore alias Maso and RYABONYENDE Cyriaque.

In paragraph fifty-seven (57) of the appealed judgment, the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes explained that the testimony of DAM must be relied upon as proof that on 8/4/1994, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste held a meeting at his home in which the plan to kill Tutsis was plotted, especially because this testimony is in line with his statements before the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and those on 7/12/2016 before the Prosecution.

In paragraphs sixty (60) and sixty-two (62) of the appealed judgment, the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes explained that the witnesses DJM and DKM presented by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste did not contradict the fact that there was a meeting that he chaired because their testimony is that on 8/4/1994 they saw him at their residences at Gitega and Nyamirambo at Mirongwine; the statements of DJM that he saw him at two (8:00') or three (9:00'), the statements of DKM that he saw him at four (10:00'), whereas his DAM states that he was with MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste in the meeting between two (8:00') and four-thirty (10:30'), cannot lead to the invalidation of his assertion (DAM) that the meeting took place because it found that it is relevant and supported by other elements of evidence.

## Page 524

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 128

As above reiterated, after considering all the elements of evidence produced by the parties, the lower Court concluded that the testimony given by DAM and DFM must be relied upon to hold that on 8/4/1994 at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home, there was a meeting in which a plan was made to kill the Tutsi from Nyakabanda Sector and its suburbs, the lists of Tutsi to be killed were made, and MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste asked for guns to be used in the killings.

The hearing report of 9/10/2018 indicates that the witness DAM explained to the lower Court that on 8/4/1994, there was a meeting at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home, which started at 8:00 and ended at 10:00 or 10:30 A.M.

As per the hearing report dated 30/9/2019, the witness DJM submitted to the lower Court that he was with MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste at his parents’home in Gitega on 8/4/1994, at around 8:30 or 9:00 A.M, he came to say goodbye to his father, while the witness DKM told to the Court that he was with him at ten (10:00) at Mirongwine, Rwampara at the main bus stop, he came to claim from him the rent fees.

The Court of Appeal finds that MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste's allegations, especially regarding the hours on which he allegedly held the meeting, the fact that DJM and DKM contradicted the statements of the Prosecution, confirmed by the witness DAM, that the lower Court should have concluded that the indictment is groundless because the contradiction between the prosecution witness and defense witness cast doubt on what he is accused of, that must benefit him, cannot be considered because this is not always the case, as the analysis of the testimony given is done at the discretion of the Court for pointing out the truthfulness of the facts and confirming that it is trustworthy or not.

## Page 525

129 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 129

Based on what was mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Court of Appeal finds that, although the witnesses DJM and DKM contradicted the witness DAM, such does not necessarily mean that the lower Court had the task of invalidating the indictment, but the Court at its discretion, having examined the statements of those witnesses, found that the testimony of DJM and DKM is irrelevant because it only explained that on 8/4/1994, one saw him at Gitega, the other saw him at Mirongwine, and invalidated it, but it found DAM’s testimony trustworthy because it clearly explains how he was invited to the meeting on 8/4/1994 as a leader in the Nyakabanda Sector, he indicated the participants, the decisions made, including the civil defense for fighting against accomplices, making a list of those who should be killed and requesting for guns, thus, DJM's and DKM’ testimony cannot lead to invalidating DAM’s one.

The Court of Appeal thus finds that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the lower Court erred in not considering the testimony of DJM and DKM contradicting that of DAM, it provided insufficient explanations, while the contradiction would have led to his acquittal because the doubt should benefit him, are groundless ; consequently, this ground of his appeal is irrelevant. iii. Regarding the unreliable testimony upon which relied the lower Court to convict MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste of the crimes of which he was accused

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers allege that the lower Court relied upon the statement of DAM as a witness to convict him of the crimes of which he is accused, but the testimony was not trustworthy. They explain that DAM stated that he was served with the invitation of

## Page 526

130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 130

MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste at the Sector Office, but on 8/4/1994, which was the second day of the Genocide against the Tutsi, the situation was so risky in Nyakabanda that DAM could not come on that date, at thirty past seven (7:30') A.M to give out the papers to people who had lost their identity cards, and at that time no one could go out without being escorted by the soldiers, all work was stopped, this was confirmed in the case Prosecutor v. BAGOSORA Théoneste and others17 which was decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). They proceed with explaining that DAM did not tell the truth because he told to the lower Court that he had talked about that meeting before in the Gacaca Courts, and in fact it was never mentioned as the lower Court found it out after conducting an investigation in the CNLG, and DAM, when being tried by Gacaca Courts, never stated that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was among the people who committed genocide. They concluded that DAM does not tell the truth because MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste could not have invited him to the meeting of 8/4/1994 as the Conseiller of Nyakabanda Sector, because he took office on 13/4/1994 after he was spotted as a prominent Interahamwe in the previous killings, this was shown in the case Prosecutor v. RENZAHO Tharcisse that was decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) 18.

Regarding the witness DFM upon whom relied the lower Court, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers state that his statements are not trustworthy because he asserted that he well knows MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, that he knew him in 1980, when he graduated from the University and came to work in BNR as an intern, yet MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste started working there in 1982, and everything else DFM told to the Court, was what he

17 See para. 2024 of Case No. ICTR-98-41-T 18 See para. 466 of Case No. ICTR-97-31-T.

## Page 527

131 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 131

was told by DAM and other workmates, not what he witnessed, which means that his testimony does not corroborate DAM's statements. They conclude that, to that effect, the lower Court should not have relied upon the statements of one witness to establish that MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste committed the crimes of which he was convicted because his statements are not enough to disclose the truth about the facts or to establish that the accused was involved in the acts of which he is accused.

The Prosecution avers that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the statements of DAM should be invalidated by the lower Court because he explained that, on 8/4/1994 in the morning, he had gone to the Sector office to give out identity cards while it was no longer possible, are groundless because, during the genocide, the government of Kambanda with a plan was established, they appointed workers who were assigned duties, even apart from those who were hunted down, the normal course of life continued, the work continued, the markets were operating, the schools were attended, the killers and people who were not being hunted down continued their normal lives, even MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste himself stated that himself and his family went out to different places (to Gitega and to Mirongwine), and to Gisenyi. It also submits that, apart from those facts, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste provided evidence that on 8/4/1994 at the Prefecture Headquarters, the Prefet RENZAHO Tharcisse held a meeting of Conseillers.

Regarding the fact that the lower Court had to invalidate DAM's testimony because on 8/4/1994, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste could not have invited him as Conseiller of Nyakabanda Sector because he took office on 13/4/1994, the Prosecution alleges that at that time DAM was the head of Kabuguru Cell, he replaced the Conseiller

## Page 528

132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 132

of Nyakabanda Sector who had fled, thus he invited him while he was acting Conseiller (interim period), and was finally approved on 14/4/1994.

The Prosecution submits that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that DAM's testimony should be invalidated because in the Gacaca Courts he did not mention him in the list of those who had committed genocide in Nyakabanda, and he did not mention the meeting of 8/4/1994 of which he is accused, should not be considered because in the Gacaca Courts, DAM was questioned about his personal involvement, that as explained in paragraphs sixty-seven (67) and sixty-nine (69) of the appealed judgment, the fact that DAM did not mention him, or did not mention the meeting of 8/4/1994, it does not mean that in case there is relevant evidence, he would not be prosecuted for the crimes he is accused of19, which also does not mean that the meeting was not held.

Regarding the statements of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste about the witness DFM who sustained that he knew him in BNR in 1980, while MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste had come in 1982, the Prosecution alleges that if there were no flaws in the testimony he gave that would make it untrustworthy, because looking at the past years from the time he had met MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste for the first time until today, are so many that it is possible to make mistakes or contradictions depending on the circumstances and the time elapsed, as established in various cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, such as in the case of MUHIMANA Michael20 and in the case of

19 See para. 130 of the case ICTR-2000-61-T, GATETE Jean- Baptiste case, decided by the Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 20 Case N° ICTR-95-1B, The Prosecutor v. Mikaeli MUHIMANA, judgment of 28 April 2005, para. 65 “The Chamber is of the view

## Page 529

133 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 133

KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu21 , due to the fact that DFM would be wrong about the year he saw him for the first time, while he was interrogated about thirty-six (36) years later, it is not surprising that he would be wrong about the year.

The Prosecution argues that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the lower Court should not have relied upon the statements of one witness (DAM) to establish that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste had committed crimes of which he was convicted because what was stated by one witness is not enough to prove the truth about the facts or to confirm that the accused is involved in the acts of which he is accused, are irrelevant because for holding that the meeting of 8/4/1994 took place, the Court did not only rely upon the statements of DAM, but also it based on the statements of DFM who also confirmed it; as mentioned in the paragraphs sixty-five (65) and sixty-six (66), the Court analyzed their statements basing on the provisions of the law and the precedents set by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debate on this appeal ground of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste are based on determining whether the explanations given by the lower Court in the appealed judgment, it erred in convicting him of the crimes of which he is accused after relying upon untrustworthy testimony, to that effect, the judgment should be quashed.

that in situations where witnesses are called to testify on events which took place over a decade ago, discrepancies relating to the time and date of the event may occur”. 21 Case N° Case No. ICTR-99-54A-T, The Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu KAMUHANDA, judgment of 23 January 2003, para.35 “The Chamber recognises, in addition, the time that had elapsed between the time of the events in question ad the testimonies of the Witness”.

## Page 530

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 134

As above mentioned, in the judgment n° RPA/GEN 00004/2019/CA rendered on 7/5/2021, in Prosecution v. MUNYAGISHARI Bernard, it was decided that it is not enough for the appellant to allege that the appealed judgment is tainted with an error based on the provision of the law or there is an error of the law, he/she must also show legal explanations that support his/her allegations and show how the error would lead to the invalidation of the decision made. Regarding the factual error, the appellate Court reverses the decision made only if the appellant justifies that the assessment made by the lower court regarding the acts constituting the crime led to miscarriage of justice22, meaning that at the appeal instance, the appellant cannot reiterate the issues presented at the first level, while they were not considered, without indicating the errors made by the court of first instance by invalidating them and how those errors must be rectified23 .

22 ‘’Furthermore, it is easily understood from the terms of the aforementioned article 18 that it is not enough for the appellant to point out such an error of law, he must also present legal argumentation in support of his thesis and demonstrate how this error of law invalidates the criticized decision. As for the error of fact, consistent case law from the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda establishes that erroneous findings of fact made by the first judge can only be overturned or modified at the level of appeal if a judicial error resulted. In addition, it indicates that the appellate court will only overturn the findings of the court of first instance when no judge of fact could reasonably have reached the same conclusion or when they are totally erroneous. Also, the appeal court must be careful not to lightly overturn the material circumstances of the offense as noted by the court of first instance in the contested decision”; MUNYAGISHARI Bernard case, Para. 14. 23 “A party cannot simply repeat on appeal arguments which failed at first instance, unless it demonstrates that their rejection constituted an error such as to justify the intervention of the Appeals Chamber”, Case No. ICTR-01-73-A, The Prosecutor v. ZIGIRANYIRAZO Protais, Para. 12. In this sense, see also Case No. ICTR-01-74-A The Prosecutor v. François KARERA, Para. 11.

## Page 531

135 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 135

As held in the judgment n° RPAA/GEN 00002/2018/CA rendered by this Court on 25/7/2023, in Prosecution v. TWAHIRWA François, the witness states before the Court what he witnessed or what he directly heard, that the Court evaluates at its discretion the reliability and the relevance that must be attributed to it; that considering the Court's jurisdiction to examine independently and at its discretion all the elements of evidence produced, considering the purpose of the law of evidence to determine the truth, the courts admit indirect or hearsay elements of evidence, this means that it is a principle that direct or indirect testimony is admitted if it is trustworthy.

As also held in the judgments nº RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA24, nº RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA25 and nº RPAA/GEN 00009/2019/CA26 , and also decided in the judgment n° RPAA/GEN 00002/2018/CA27 and n° RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA28, self-contradiction or contradiction between the witnesses regarding the dates, hours, clothing, where the person was standing or in case the testimony the witness given before the Court is not

24 See paragraph 27 of the case nº RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA decided on 3/3/2023, The Prosecutor v. NTAGANZWA Ladislas. 25 See paragraph 125 of the judgment nº RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA decided on 8/4/2022, the Prosecutor v. BIRINDABAGABO Jean-Paul. 26 See paragraph 71 of judgment no RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rendered on 16/10/2020, Prosecution v. KABILIMANA Jean Damascène. 27 ‘’The testimonial discrepancy may be due to the time elapsed since the event witnessed had happened, it does not remove his credibility or its relevance", see paragraph 54 of the judgment n° RPAA/GEN 00002/2018/CA, in Prosecution v. TWAHIRWA François. 28 See paragraph 174 of the judgment n° RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA, in Prosecution and TWAGIRAYEZU Wenceslas.

## Page 532

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 136

consistent with what he/she stated before, is not considered a serious flaw that would invalidate the testimony, rather, considering the long time elapsed between the time of the killings and the time the testimony was given, these are minor flaws that do not undermine the relevance of the testimony because it is possible that the witness does not remember exactly what he/she testifies about. Also established in the case n° RPAA 00141/2022/CA29, self- contradiction on minor facts do not detract the quality of the provided testimony.

The hearing report dated 9/10/2018 indicates that the witness DAM told before the lower Court that since 1990 he was the leader of Kabuguru Cell, in 1993 he became the tax collector of Nyamirambo market, exercising both duties, and in that year he later became the President of MRND in that Cell. He also stated that he used to replace the Conseiller of Nyakabanda Sector when he was sick, that in 1994, on 14/4/1994, he was appointed as the Conseiller of Nyakabanda Sector until 3/7/1994 because the person he had replaced was accused of complicity with Inkotanyi. He also stated that when MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste convened the meeting, he was a substitute for the Conseiller, he had not yet taken office as a Conseiller.

In paragraph sixty-five (65) of the appealed judgment, the lower Court explained that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the testimony of DAM cannot be relied upon to confirm that the meeting took place because he was the only one who confirmed it, are irrelevant, because, based on the provisions of Article 65 of the Law n° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, there is no element that precludes to rely upon his testimony because of its relevance, pertinence and

29 See paragraph 33 of that judgment, in Prosecution v. NTAMAHEREZO Iryamukuru.

## Page 533

137 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 137

admissibility. Moreover, as above explained, this testimony was highlighted by DFM who was the Bourgmestre of Nyarugenge Commune.

That Court explained in paragraph sixty-six (66) of that judgment that the testimony of one witness can be relied upon, this was also explained in the cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda such as in MUSEMA Alfred case whereby it explained that the Court can rely upon the testimony of one person if it finds that it is valid and the person who gave it is trustworthy30, as well as in the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, such as in HARADINAJ and others and TADIC whereby it established that the Court can rely upon the testimony of one witness even if it is for an important fact without the need for other evidence to support it31.

In paragraph sixty-seven (67) of the appealed judgment, the lower Court explained that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that there are the letters that DAM wrote to the Gacaca Courts confessing and admitting that he committed crimes, including the one written on 6/12/2007 to the President of the Gacaca Court of Rwezamenyo Sector and the one written on 21/9/2005 to the

30 “The Chamber may rule on the basis of a single testimony, provided that, in its opinion, this testimony is relevant and credible”, case no. ICTR-96-13-T, The Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema, January 27, 2000, para. 43. 31 See also judgment IT-04-84-A. Haradinaj et al, para. 219: “The Appeals Chamber recalls that a trial chamber may rely on the testimony of a single witness to formulate its findings. The testimony of a single witness, even on an essential fact, may be placed in the file without having to be corroborated” and Judgment Tadic, para. 65.

## Page 534

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 138

President of the Coordinating Council of the Gacaca Court of Kabuguru Cell without mentioning the meeting of 8/4/1994 that took place at his home, are irrelevant because in those letters he mentioned his personal actions, and the fact that he did not mention the meeting does not mean that it did not take place because the Court found that there was unquestionable evidence that it took place.

Also in paragraph sixty-nine (69), the Court explained that the fact that DAM did not impart information regarding the meeting of 8/4/1994 during his trial in Gacaca Courts, once he/she stated it, does not make his statement unfounded, even without stating that the meeting was not held and that he chaired it because when assessing the role of the accused person, it is his personal actions, as well as the evidence presented that are taken into consideration. This is in line with what was established by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in GATETE Jean-Baptiste and others wherein the Court pointed out that the fact that the witnesses have not spoken about GATETE Jean-Baptiste and others whereby the Court established that the fact that the witnesses did not mention him in Gacaca Court does not mean that he did nothing, that the fact that they did not mention him, may be due to the fact that they were not asked about him32.

32 ‘''The defense also maintains that GATETE's name was not mentioned during the Gacaca trials held in Rwankuba from 2003, and that BBR and AIZ did not speak of the accused when they recounted during these trials the facts that occurred in Rwankuba in April 1994. The Chamber considers, however, that the fact that Gatete's name was not mentioned during these trials is of no importance. It is indeed pure hypothesis to assert that the non-mention of an accused in other legal proceedings necessarily means that he is exonerated. The Chamber also recalls that BBR and AIZ testified in Gacaca trials concerning different persons. It is therefore plausible that they would not necessarily have spontaneously provided information concerning GATETE and that they would not

## Page 535

139 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 139

The Court of Appeal finds that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the testimony of DAM is unreliable because he stated that he was served with MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste's invitation to the meeting on 8/4/1994 at work at the Sector office at half past seven (7:30) A.M, but on that date, the situation was so risky in Nyakabanda, that he could not go out to give out the papers to the people whose identity cards were lost, and at that time no one could go out without being escorted by soldiers, all activities were stopped, are not irrelevant because, even though in the case n° ICTR-98-41-T in Prosecutor v. BAGOSORA Théoneste and others, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda established that on 7/4/1984, the Ministry of Defense informed the people about the death of the President of the Republic, and requested them to stay at home until further notice, such does not mean that no one went out on 8/4/1994, because MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste himself admitted that on that date he arrived at Gitega and Mirongwine , even the witnesses NYABYENDA Jean- Marie, MURASANDONYI Augustin, MUGABIRE Jean de Dieu and DIM33 testified that since 7/4/1994, there had been meetings at Nyakabanda Sector Office, again as MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste argued in the lower Court, based on the case ICTR-97-31-T Prefet RENZAHO Tharcisse, the latter held the meeting on 8/4/1994 at the Prefecture Headquarters, which means that some people could get out of their homes.

The Court of Appeal finds that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the testimony of DAM is unreliable because he was not invited to the meeting on 8/4/1994 as a Conseiller of Nyakabanda Sector because at

necessarily have been asked questions about it”, ICTR-2000-61-T, The Prosecutor v. GATETE Jean-Baptiste, March 31, 2011, p.43, para.130. 33 See paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the appealed judgment.

## Page 536

140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 140

that time he was an unknown person in the leadership of Nyakabanda Sector, that he even became a Conseiller only from 13/4/1994, are unfounded because DAM never confirmed that he was invited to the meeting as a Conseiller of Nyakanda Sector, but as it was shown above, he had attended it as substitute for the Conseiller, and was finally approved on 14/4/1994, this is confirmed by the documents and the elements of evidence provided by MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste himself. It also finds that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that he could not invite the witness DAM to the meeting because he was not known in Nyakabanda Sector leadership, are also irrelevant because since 1990, he has been the leader of Kabuguru Cell, in 1993 he has been Nyamirambo market tax collector, and occupied both positions and in that year he became the President of MRND in that Cell, and he also used to replace Nyakabanda Conseiller when he was sick.

The Court of Appeal finds that the statements of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the testimony of DAM are unreliable because in the Gacaca Courts he did not mention him in the list of those who committed the genocide in Nyakabanda, and he did not mention the meeting of 8/4/1994 of which he is accused, are irrelevant because as above evoked within the related legal positions, he did not show any flaws in the explanations provided by the lower Court by responding to this issue, and it is not allowed that at appeal level, for the appellant to refer back to his grounds that he presented at the first level, which were not upheld without pointing out the errors made by that the lower Court, by invalidating them and how those errors should be rectified.

Regarding MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste's allegations that the testimony of DFM should not be relied upon by the lower Court to convict him of the crimes he is accused of,

## Page 537

141 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 141

because it is not reliable as he stated that he had known him in BNR in 1980, yet the accused started working there in 1982, and everything else he stated, which he was told by DAM and the people he worked with, was not something he had witnessed, cannot be validated because, based on the precedents above mentioned, it is not surprising that after thirty-six (36) years, a person would be mistaken about the dates or the year when the facts he is talking about happened, and erring about those facts does not detract the testimony given because they are small things that do not affect the acts constituting the crimes the defendant is being prosecuted for, especially in this case when the age in question refers to the precedent set in relation to the hearsay shown above, there was no mistake made by the lower Court in relying upon the statements of DAM because given the authority of the Court to examine independently and at its discretion all the elements of evidence submitted, given the purpose of the law of evidence to find the truth, the Courts accept direct evidence or evidence based on hearsay if it is reliable.

Regarding the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste that the lower Court should not have relied upon the testimony of one witness, that is DAM, to hold that he committed the crimes of which he was convicted because the testimony of one person is not enough to hold that the accused is involved in the acts of which he is accused, the Court of Appeal finds that they are irrelevant because he contradicts himself and what he states is not true, because the Court also relied upon the testimony of witness DFM, and he does not show any flaws in the explanations given in the appealed judgment, and explains that the Court can rely upon the statements of one witness in confirming that the accused is involved in the charges against him when it finds them relevant and the witness is trustworthy.

## Page 538

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 142

Based on all the elucidations presented in the previous paragraphs, the Court of Appeal finds that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste did not prove that the lower Court erred in convicting him of the crimes of which he is accused based on unreliable testimony; therefore, his ground of appeal is unfounded. iv. Determining whether the lower Court did not observe the precedent set by the Supreme Court, leading it to make a judgment based on contradictory testimony

In his submissions, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste submits that DAM and NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney are the witnesses presented by the Prosecution, who came to contradict each other before the lower Court, where both admit that they were in the same meeting, on 8/4/1994, which planned the killings that took place in Nyakabanda Sector, DAM alleging that it was held at MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste’s home, whereas NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney alleges that it took place at the general headquarters of Interahamwe from Nyakabanda, yet the lower Court ignored it, and disregarded all the other exculpatory elements of evidence provided by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, relying on one part of DAM's testimony that is only incriminating, and asking the Court of Appeal to rely on what was established in the judgment RPAA 0034/10/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 8/11/201334, that the contradictions in the testimony invalidate it, where it explained that while the witnesses state in different ways the things they believe they saw at the same time, all their testimonies are not relied upon to confirm that the accused

34 In that case, the parties were the Prosecution v. NSHIYIMANA Samuel.

## Page 539

143 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 143

committed the crimes, thus, both witnesses (DAM and NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney) contradict each other about the meeting that took place on 8/4/1994, their contradictions should not prejudice him as the defendant, but they detract the charge based on their statements incriminating him.

During the hearing, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers allege that they criticize the appealed judgment regarding the meeting of 8/4/1994, the lower Court held that DAM's testimony was reliable, but it was contradicted by other testimonies given by other witnesses presented by the Prosecution, namely NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney, KIVUTA REGERO Innocent and IMANANIBISHAKA Jean Berchmans. They explained that the Court refused to accept their statements because, except for Mr. Jean-Marie Vianney who stated before the Court that the meeting was held at the headquarters of Interahamwe in Nyakabanda, others stated that they did not know about the meeting on 8/4/1994, so there is contradiction between their statements and that of DAM who confirmed that the meeting on 8/4/1994 was held at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home, thus validating the testimony of DAM in violation of the precedent set in case RPAA 0034/10/CS above mentioned.

The Prosecution avers that this ground of appeal is irrelevant because the case he is relying on does not match with the appealed case, explaining that in case No RPAA 0034/10/CS, the issue that was resolved is when two witnesses state that they witnessed the same thing at the same time and say it in different ways, however, regarding the witnesses DAM and NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney, they are not contradictory, but from the investigation they talked about the meeting on 8/4/1994 in the same way, but later in the Court, NYABYENDA Jean- Marie Vianney changed his statement due to the money he

## Page 540

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 144

was given by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, that is the reason why the Prosecution appealed against changing the statements by NYABYENDA Jean-Baptiste.

During the hearing, the Prosecution alleges that since KIVUTA REGERO Innocent and IMANANIBISHAKA Jean Berchmans stated that they did not know of the meeting of 8/4/1994, and DAM stated that he knows of it, this is not a contradiction referred to and explained in the case decided by the Supreme Court. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue in this ground of appeal is to determine whether the lower Court did comply with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the judgment No RPAA 0034/10/CS, validating the testimony of DAM and contradicts that of other witnesses namely NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney, KIVUTA REGERO Innocent and IMANANIBISAKA Jean Berchmans, so that he was denied the right to due process of law.

As decided in the judgment No RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA35 rendered by the Court of Appeal on 25/7/2023, which examined the issue of determining the reliability of the testimonies of witnesses in such a way that they can be used as tangible evidence in the case, the principle regarding the testimony is that the witness submits before the Court what he witnessed or what he directly heard, that the Court alone evaluates the credibility or quality that should be given to it.

35 See case no RPAA/Gen. 00002/2018/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 25/7/2023, in Prosecution v. TWAHIRWA François.

## Page 541

145 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 145

In the judgment RPAA 0034/10/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 8/11/2013, as indicated in paragraph fourteen (14), the Court found that among the witnesses who were interrogated and who incriminate the defendant of having raped a child under fourteen (14) years of age, UMUBYEYI Francine, the mother of the child who was allegedly raped, stated that on the date when the facts happened in the evening, she asked where her child was, they told her that she was with the accused, she went back to the house, she also stated that later she called the accused and asked him to bring his child to her, the accused took him out while the child was dozing, that later she washed her, when she touched her genitals, the child screamed, she looked and saw there were small wounds and sperms, thus she immediately went to show it to the boss of the accused who is GATETE. Another witness interrogated is UGIRASE Goretti, who is the daughter of UMUBYEYI Francine, who said that they searched for the child and did not find the child out, the mother began to insult her, they saw the accused take her out from GATETE’s home and picked her up, that in the evening the mother noticed that her child was damaged when she bathed her and went to inform the defendant's mistress. This is different from what her mother states that she called Samuel to bring her (because she was sure that she was there).

As mentioned in paragraph fifteen (15), after examining the two statements, the Supreme Court explained that the statements of these witnesses are different because one says that she called the accused to bring the child, the other stated that the accused himself brought the child after she missed the child, that the statements made by these witnesses who narrate in different ways what they believe to have witnessed at the same time, the Court cannot rely on it to hold without any doubt that Samuel Nshimiyimana is guilty of the crime of which he is accused, especially that

## Page 542

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 146

they did not state that they saw him committing a crime or that they heard from those who saw him, and also that GATETE, the defendant's boss, states that he had spent the whole day there and had not seen him damaging the child.

As mentioned in paragraph twenty-one (21) of the appealed judgment, DAM submitted before the lower Court that on 8/4/1994, he went to the Sector office early morning to give out papers to people who had lost their identity cards, he had arrived at around 7:30, a person called NKAMIRABASHAKA Sostène told to him that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste wanted him at his house, he went there at 7:35 A.M, where there were about twelve (12) different people in the house and about eighteen (8) others who were outside protecting those in the house, that around eight o'clock (8:00'), MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste held a meeting with them and was closed at 10:30, apart from him who represented the Conseiller of Nyakabanda, there was no other Conseiller who attended the meeting.

As indicated in paragraph twenty-four (24) of the appealed judgment, NYABYENDA Jean-Marie stated before the lower Court that, to the best of his knowledge, there was no meeting held at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s house on 8/4/1994, that what he remembers and explained to the Prosecution, is that on such date at the bar owned by MUSONERA in Munanira Cell, Nyakabanda Sector where leaders of the CDR and MRND parties were gathering, the place also referred to as the Headquarters of Interahamwe, there was a meeting convened by NTAMFURAYISHYARI.

In paragraph fifty-five (55) of the appealed judgment, the lower Court ruled that, before the Prosecution, IMANANIBISHAKA Jean Berchmans alias BARANANIYE Sukari stated that he did not know of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste's involvement in the genocide,

## Page 543

147 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 147

that all he knew was that the place where he lived was called the CDR place.

Again, in paragraph fifty-nine (59) of the appealed judgment, the lower Court ruled that before the investigation body, KIVUTA REGERO Innocent stated that he did not attend the meeting held by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, that they never met in any other cases.

The assessment of the explanations given by the Supreme Court in the case No RPAA 0034/10/CS above mentioned, indicates that the Court dismissed the testimony because the witnesses stated in different ways the facts they saw at the same time, but in this case it is not the case because the witness DAM testifies that there was a meeting at the house of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste on 8/4/1994 when NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney, KIVUTA REGERO Innocent and IMANANIBISHAKA Jean Berchmans alias BARANANIYE Sukari stated that they were not aware of the meeting, meaning that there was no difference in their statements about the facts they had witnessed at the same time.

Based on what is stated in the preceding paragraph, the Court of Appeal finds that the lower Court did not err in not complying with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of the RPAA 0034/10/CS, because the legal issues in that case are not similar or different from what is in dispute in this case.

The Court of Appeal finds instead that based on the above-mentioned precedent set by this Court in the case No RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA, the lower Court examined at its discretion the reliability or relevance that should be attributed to that testimony, looking for the truth of the facts, held that the testimony of DAM is reliable because he

## Page 544

148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 148

clearly explains how he was invited to that meeting on 8/4/1994 as a leader of Nyakabanda Sector, and shows those who attended it, the decisions made including fighting the accomplices, making a list of those who should be killed and asking for guns to be used to kill the Tutsis.

In addition, as confirmed by the French Court of Cassation, regarding contradictory testimonies, the judge evaluates their value, and if he/she finds them contradictory, he/she can hold that a certain testimony is reliable because it casts the truth in an indisputable way36. This means that it is not in all instances that the court invalidates the conflicting testimonies.

For all these reasons, the Court of Appeal finds that the ground of appeal of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste is unfounded. d. Determining whether the lower Court found MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide without proving the specific intent to commit these crimes

In his submissions and his arguments, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers allege that the High Court erred in convicting him of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide, yet it did not prove his specific intent to commit these crimes.

Regarding the conspiracy to commit genocide of which he was convicted, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his

36 ‘’ (….), the judge can assess the value of the testimonies and choose, if they are contradictory, those which seem to him the sincerest’’, Crim., 27 mars 1931, B.C., n° 93; 13 janvier 1960, B.C., n°17, in Jean Pradel, Procédure pénale, 10e édition, Cujas, Paris, 2000, P. 680, n° 784.

## Page 545

149 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 149

lawyers submit that the lower Court convicted him of that crime based on the acts of setting up roadblocks, making lists, requesting for and distributing guns, training the Interahamwe, but these acts themselves cannot be considered a crime but what was intended was the civil defense, according to what was stated by the witness DAM, instead of conspiracy to commit genocide, thus in convicting him of that crime, the High Court did not prove his special intent to commit the genocide, especially since the Court itself had held that he was not involved in any act of genocide. MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers eexpound that in the various cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) such as GATETE Jean-Baptiste case, MUSEMA Alfred case, NAHIMANA Ferdinand case et al., NYIRAMASUHUKO Pauline and others, it was explained that conspiracy to commit genocide is an agreement between at least (2) persons with the intention of committing genocide, that the agreement is the actual action that constitutes the conspiracy to commit genocide, that apart from the actual action that constitutes an agreement to commit the crime, the perpetrator must also have a specific intent to commit genocide, which is defined as a specific will to destroy in whole or in part a group of people or some of them who have in common the nationality, race, skin color or religion because of who they are, but that by convicting MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste of that crime, the High Court did not comply with all that, to show without any doubt the agreement he made with others to destroy the Tutsi as a special intent. In conclusion, they request this Court that because the specific intent was not revealed, he would be acquitted as it happened in Minister NTAGERURA André case which was decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

## Page 546

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 150

Regarding complicity in the genocide, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers allege that the lower Court erred in convicting him based on the fact that DAM testified that in the meeting held at his home on 8/4/1994, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was the one who requested to Colonel HAKIZIMANA Edouard for guns which were used to kill the Tutsi. MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers explain that apart from the fact that he did not request for these guns, even if the act he is accused of had taken place, the lower Court did not convict him of that crime, because it is an act that is not considered a crime if it is not demonstrated that a person was killed with the distributed gun or it is demonstrated that these guns were requested and given for the purpose of committing genocide. The State Attorney contend that the ground that the lower Court did not reveal the specific intent of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste in the crimes for which he was convicted, has no basis, because the High Court did what it had to do, even in paragraph 82 of the appealed judgment, it established that such specific intent existed. The State Attorney explain that in NIYITEGEKA Eliezer case, in paragraph 423, and in MUSEMA Alfred case, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) expounded that the fact that the people met and said that the killings were going to be carried out is punishable itself even if no people were killed, and in NIYITEGEKA Eliezer case (in paragraph 427), the Tribunal (ICTR) established that the fact that he went to the meeting of KAYISHEMA and RUZINDANA Obed which made decisions to give out weapons and attack people who had fled to Bisesero, that the meeting itself is punishable, that if linked to this case, the one who was in the meeting on 8/4/1994 stated that the purpose was to tell them that the plane of President HABYARIMANA was downed, that they

## Page 547

151 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 151

should defend themselves, that in that meeting MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste asked for guns, that the lists of those to be killed were made MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste handed over some people to be killed, and indeed those people were killed, which is understandable that in distributing guns, setting up roadblocks and making lists of those to be killed, the purpose was to kill the Tutsi, where is a specific intent to commit genocide comes in as the High Court so established. The State Attorney also allege that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste became an accomplice in the genocide because he provided guns, and these guns were used to kill the Tutsi who were killed at different roadblocks as confirmed by witnesses DAM and DFM. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The debated issue on this point is based on determining whether the lower Court did not establish the specific intent (basic intent) of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste to conspire to commit genocide and to be an accomplice in genocide, such that he should be acquitted.

i. In respect of conspiracy to commit genocide Article 20 of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general provides that " 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 ". Article 91 of that Law provides that: "the crime of genocide is killing members of the group, causing serious

## Page 548

152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 152

bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, done intentionally, with the aim of destroying in whole or in part the members of the group who share the same nationality, race, skin color or religion, because of who they are, either in time of peace or in time of war ". Article 93, subparagraph one (1°), of that Law provides that without prejudice to other provisions of this Law in relation to attempt, conspiracy and complicity, conspiracy to commit genocide is punishable by the penalties stipulated for the crime of genocide. Those provisions mean that conspiracy to commit genocide is considered a crime of genocide in such a way that the specific intent to commit these two crimes is the same, which means that the agreement between two (2) or more people to commit genocide is aimed at destroying in whole or in part, the group of people, who share the same nationality, race, skin color or religion, because of who they are, that would be done by one or more of them. The content of the previous subparagraph was also established in various cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), whereby it explained that the intention (mens rea) constituting the conspiracy to commit genocide manifested in the agreement of many people, with the aim of committing the crime of genocide, that is, to destroy in whole or in part a group of people who share the nationality, race, skin color or religion37 .

37 '' Regarding the moral element constituting the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, the Chamber notes that it resides in

## Page 549

153 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 153

As indicated in the paragraphs 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82, based on articles 20, 93, subparagraph one (1°), of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, on article 3 b. of the International Convention of December 9, 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ratified by Rwanda on 12/2/1975, on various cases38 decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda39 and on case n° RPA/Gen

the concerted intention to commit genocide, that is to say to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. it thus appears to the chamber that the intention required for the crime of conspiracy with a view to committing genocide is ipso facto the intention required for the crime of genocide, i.e. the special fraud characteristic of the latter'', see paragraph 192 of the judgment n° ICTR-96-13-T MUSEMA Alfred case. “The agreement to commit genocide (….), is defined as a resolution to act on which at least two people have agreed, with a view to committing genocide. This agreement between individuals with the aim of committing genocide (or concerted resolution to act) constitutes the material element (actus reus); in addition, the individuals parties to the agreement must be motivated by the intention to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such ethnic, racial or religious as such (the intentional element or mens rea)'', see paragraph 894 of the judgment n° ICTR 99-52-A of NAHIMANA Ferdinand and others. 38 Case n° ICTR-2000-61-T of GATETE Jean-Baptiste, case n° ICTR- 96-13-T of MUSEMA Alfred, case n° ICTR n° ICTR-99-52-A of NAHIMANA Ferdinand et al., case n° ICTR-98-42-T of NYIRAMASUHUKO Pauline et al and case n° ICTR-98-44D-T of NZABONIMANA Callixte. 39 The court of first instance pointed out that in those cases, the Court explained that conspiracy to commit genocide is an agreement between at least two (2) persons with the intention of committing genocide, that the agreement is the actual act that constitutes the crime of conspiracy to commit genocide. It also explained that apart from the actual action that constitutes the agreement to commit the crime, the perpetrator must also have the specific intent to commit genocide, which is defined as the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a group of persons who have

## Page 550

154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 154

0001/15/CS40 decided by the Supreme Court, the lower Court explained that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste convened a meeting at his home where an agreement was reached to kill the Tutsi of Nyakabanda Sector, and linking it to what has already been explained regarding the aforementioned legal provisions, the case law and the evidence, held that he is convicted of conspiracy to commit genocide provided for by Article 93, first subparagraph of Law nº 68/2018 of 30/8/2018 already mentioned. The Court of Appeal finds that, although the lower Court did not directly mention the special intent of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste to commit the conspiracy to perpetrate genocide, but the examination of paragraph eighty (80) of the appealed judgment regarding the special intent to commit that crime, referred back to what was established in the case n° ICTR-98-44D-T Prosecutor v. NZABONIMANA Callixte case, decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, that the agreement to commit genocide is made with the aim (special intent) to destroy in whole or in part a group of people, who share nationality, ethnicity, skin color or religion, because of who they are, shows that it established indirectly (implicitly) that it found that in the meeting held at his home on 8/4/1994, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste agreed with others to kill the Tutsi with the aim of exterminating their ethnic group. Regarding the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste that what he is alleged to have agreed on in the meeting with others to set up roadblocks, to make a list of

in common the nationality, race, skin color or religion, because of who they are. 40 Case n° RPA/Gen 0001/15/CS of BANDORA Charles, decided on 22/3/2019.

## Page 551

155 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 155

people who should be killed, to ask for and give out guns and to train the Interahamwe, which in itself cannot be considered a crime, that what was decided in that meeting, as stated by the witness DAM, should be considered as civil self-defense, as established in various cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Court of Appeal finds that even though MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste wanted to show that even if the meeting had taken place, it would have been aimed at establishing civil self-defense, are unfounded because the lower Court indicated that the meeting on 8/4/1994 took place and the reasons to confirm that the agreement aimed at destroying the Tutsi. It also finds that given the time when the meeting was held, even though it was mentioned by the Hutu who opposed the MRND party, it does not rule out that the first intention was to destroy the Tutsi ethnicity, as explained in the case n° ICTR -98-41-T, the Court based on the statements of experts41. Regarding the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste that the High Court did not show beyond reasonable doubt the specific intention to commit genocide because it established that he did not participate in any act of genocide, the Court of Appeal finds that they can be validated because, with regard to conspiracy to commit genocide, in order to confirm that the person being prosecuted for it really committed it, it does not require that it should be proven that he personally committed one of the acts that constitute the crime of genocide, which was also what he International

41 Expert Alison Des Forges explained as follows: “that originally, civil defense was intended to respond to the situation created by the resumption of hostilities by the RPF in February 1993, which was entirely understandable. According to him, it changed over time by embracing the mission, after April 6, 1994, of perpetrating attacks against the Tutsis.

## Page 552

156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 156

Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda explained in case no. ICTR- 96-13-T42 . Based on the preceding statements, the Court of Appeal finds that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste that the court of first instance did not unequivocally establish his specific intention to commit genocide, are irrelevant. ii. Regarding the complicity in genocide In the case n° RP/GEN 00002/2017/HC/HCCIC, Prosecutor v. NTAMABYALIRO Agnès, the Court of Appeal based on the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in case n° ICTR-96-4-T rendered on 2/9/1998, in Prosecutor v. AKAYEZU Jean-Paul43 , explained that the intention to be an accomplice in the genocide is characterized when the person accused of being an accomplice in genocide assisted or prevented or supervised, or instigated willingly and deliberately, another person or other people to commit genocide, knowing for sure that that person or those people are committing genocide, even if the accused did not intend to destroy in whole or in part, a group of people who share the same

42 ‘’With regard to the crime of conspiracy to commit genocide, it is an agreement per se, in other words the process of the conspiracy, which is incriminated and not its result. The Chamber notes in this regard that, both in systems of Roman-continental inspiration and in those of Anglo- Saxon tradition, the crime of conspiracy is considered a formal, or inchoate, offense for which only the criminal act as such counts, and not the result of this act. He Chamber is of the opinion that the crime of conspiracy with a view to committing genocide is reprehensible even if it has not been carried out, that is to say even if the main offense, in this case genocide, has not been carried out. See paragraphs 193 and 194 of the case the Prosecutor v. MUSEMA Alfred. 43 See paragraph 545 of Case No. ICTR-96-4-T of 2/9/1998.

## Page 553

157 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 157

nationality, race, skin color or religion, because of who they are. As indicated in paragraphs 177 and 178 of the appealed judgment, the lower Court based on various cases decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda44, explained that apart from the actual acts that constitute the crime of being an accomplice, while the crime is being committed, the accomplice must be helping the perpetrator of the main crime, which means that the accomplice knows exactly what he/she is doing, but it is not necessary that the accomplice has the intention to commit genocide as possessed by the person who committed the main crime, the Court of Appeal concluded that the fact that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste asked for and distributed guns that he knew they would be used to kill Tutsi, and finds him guilty of complicity in genocide

44 “Regarding the moral or intentional element of complicity in general, the Chamber considers that it presupposes awareness on the part of the agent, at the time he/she acts, of the assistance he/she provides in carrying out the main offense. In other words, the agent must have acted with knowledge of the facts", see paragraph 180 of the case n° ICTR- 96-13-A The Prosecutor v. MUSEMA Alfred. ‘’In cases of complicity, the required criminal will exist when the agent acts knowing that he/she is helping the main perpetrator or perpetrators to commit the material crime. It is not necessary for the accused to know the precise offense which is being committed by the main perpetrator or perpetrators, but he must have knowledge of the essential elements of the material crime and must have acted with the knowledge that he/she was thus supporting the commission of the material crime”, see paragraph 768 of the case n° ICTR-98-44A-T The Prosecutor v. KAGELIJELI Juvénal. ''There mens rea required for aid and abetment to commit genocide is the knowledge that the accomplice had of the genocidal intention which animated the main perpetrators”, see paragraph 364 of the case n° ICTR-96-I0-A na ICTR--17-A, The Prosecutor v. NTAKIRUTIMANA Elisaphan and NTAKIRUTIMANA Gérald.

## Page 554

158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 158

Based on the indicated precedent and the explanations provided by the High Court, the Court of Appeal finds that the Court clearly showed that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was an accomplice in the genocide because after showing the constituent elements of complicity in genocide such as providing tools like weapons or any other means that help to commit genocide, providing support or being close to the perpetrator of the crime of genocide in the preparations or caused the act to be committed (...)45 and to show that the perpetrator of complicity must be helping the perpetrator of the main crime knowing well what he/she is doing, it established that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste provided support of firearms that were later used to kill the Tutsi in Nyakabanda Sector including five (5) guns which he requested in the meeting on 8/4/1994, and which he gave out at the roadblocks knowing that they would be used to kill the Tutsi. Based on the abovementioned statements, the Court of Appeal finds that the lower Court did not err in not demonstrating the will of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste in committing the crime of complicity in genocide. For all those reasons, the Court of Appeal finds that the ground of appeal of MUGIMBA Jean Baptiste that the lower Court convicted him of the crime of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide without establishing his specific intent to commit these crimes, is unfounded.

45 See paragraph 176 of the appealed judgment.

## Page 555

159 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 159

B. Regarding the appeal of the Prosecution a. Determining whether the lower Court erred in disregarding the incriminating testimony of NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney The Prosecution alleges that there was a misinterpretation of the facts, and that the Court of first instance ignored the relevance and the manner in which NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney explained what he knew well, speaking clearly and he showed in his profile that he lived in Kabuguru Cell, where MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste lived, which shows that he already knew him because they were neighbors; regarding the meeting on 8/4/1994, he explained that he attended it as a soldier and closely followed up the activities of Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, whereby he states that the meeting was presided over by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste together with NTAMFURAYISHYARI, and submitted their requests to Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard, who agreed to give them guns, sent his red Toyota Hilux car to bring them, they were given out, and in that meeting a decision was made to set up roadblocks in Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Biryogo and Gitega Sectors and a list of Tutsi who were to be killed was made. It also alleges that the fact that the lower Court held that the information he imparted in relation to the meeting of 8/4/1994 is confusing, and should not be the evidence in the case, due to the way he states that he made a statement before the Prosecution, and capitalize on it to invalidate it, is irrelevant because he was interrogated in accordance with the law, he answered clearly, showing the date of the meeting, the place where it took place, the participants and what was deliberated and signed without being forced to do it.

## Page 556

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 160

The Prosecution proceeds with explaining that the findings of the Court of first instance that NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney had found the written statement, are not true because there are details that the Prosecution would not have known if it had not been him who gave them, such as his particulars and what he did in his military service, having been an instructor of Interahamwe in Gabiro, etc.; that NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney's testimony is not confusing as the Court of first instance confirmed, but he changed his statement before the Court, because of the bribe promised by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste as he himself admitted in his second interrogation where he stated that because of the harsh living conditions in prison, he accepted one hundred thousand Rwandan francs (100,000 Frw) from MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and had already received thirty thousand Rwandan Francs (30,000 Frw), and there were some witnesses questioned during investigation by the Prosecution who confirmed it, but the Court of first instance did not examine their statements to relate them to NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney’s personal statements about the bribe he had received. The Prosecution proceeds with requesting the Court of Appeal to rely on the case n° RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 22/3/2019, in Prosecution v. BANDORA Charles, in which the witnesses BAZIGA Emmanuel and HAKIZIMANA de Gaulle explained that what they made statements before the Prosecution out of duress, the Court finds that statement unfounded because what they had stated is consistent with what others stated, and they did not provide evidence of what they stated under duress; and held that the testimony of NYABYENDA Jean- Marie Vianney is not confusing because he explains what he has knowledge of and matches what the other witnesses (DAM and DFM) explained, and what he stated before the Court by changing his statement without any evidence, in

## Page 557

161 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 161

addition, he was characterized by self-contradictions where he first stated that what he had stated before the Prosecution was a result of duress, elsewhere he stated that he was not the one who said it, elsewhere he stated that he was confused, and he stated that he had answered what the Prosecution wanted, all this should not detract the relevance of what he had stated before the Prosecution. MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers aver that the allegations of the Prosecution that NYABYENDA Jean- Marie Vianney's testimony before it is relevant, are unfounded because he was not questioned before the Prosecution, but he found the statement prepared and was tortured to sign it, before the High Court, he was questioned and told the truth, and that the legally valid testimony is the one given before the court. They also submit that it is not clear how the Prosecution would want the Court to rely on the statements it made with the help of its witnesses DAM and DFM who did not tell the truth, while it did not legally prosecute the crime of corruption it claims to have been committed, to prove that the contents of the statements of the witnesses it presented are true. MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers proceeded with alleging that the statements of the Prosecution witnesses show that the crime of corruption was committed in 2018, while the witnesses DAM and DFM appeared before the Court to testify against MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, one on 9/10/2018 (DAM) and the other (DFM) on 19/12/2018 and on 17/1/2019, none of them told the Court about the crime of corruption in their testimony, and the Prosecution shows that these statements were made before they appeared before the Court, requested the Court of Appeal to confirm that the testimony that NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney gave before the Court on 29/1/2019, 10/4/2019 and 16/5/2019 is the one legally accepted, to rely

## Page 558

162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 162

on it and to acquit MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste because they testified in his favour. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The debated issue is based on determining whether the testimony given by NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney before the Prosecution is valid in such a way that it should have been relied upon to convict MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste of the crimes he is accused of. Regarding the validity of a testimonial evidence, article 53 of Law n° 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”. The provision of this article is consistent with what was decided in various cases decided by this Court such as the case n° RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA46 and the case n° RPAA 00050/2024/CA47, it is only the court that evaluates at its discretion the reliability or relevance to be attributed to the testimony given. This was also confirmed in the case n° ICTR-01-72-A decided on March 18, 2010 by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Appeals Chamber, in SIMON BIKINDI v. Prosecution, where in its paragraph 119, it held that " In determining the weight to

46 See case no RPAA/Gén 00002/2018/CA, decided by the Court of Appeal on 25/7/2023, Prosecution v. TWAHIRWA François 47 See case no RPAA 00050/2024/CA was decided by the Court of Appeal on 26/4/2024, Prosecution v. SHEMA Ernest.

## Page 559

163 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 163

attach to the evidence of any witness, the Trial Chamber has a broad discretion to consider all relevant factors48 ”. In particular, regarding the testimony given by the witness at the level of the investigation, which is in conflict with the one given before the court, the Court of Cassation of Belgium held that the Court considers with discretion the probative value that should be attributed, and determines which is reliable49 , which means that the Court can at its discretion hold that the testimony given by the witness at the level of the investigation is more reliable than the one given before the Court, or hold that the one given before the Court is more reliable than the one given at the level of the investigation. The case file indicates that the witness NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney before the Prosecution on 9/2/2017, stated that on 8/4/1994, MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste had convened a meeting at his home with the aim of planning and carrying out the killings of Tutsi, with the participation of different people including himself (NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney) as a soldier who closely monitored the activities of Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard who was the army commander in Nyamirambo Military operations

48 SIMON BIKINDI v. Prosecution case, paragraph 119 49 ''The judge can legally decide that the statement of a witness heard without oath during the preparatory information presents more credibility than that made subsequently by him at the hearing, even under oath’’, Cass., 2 décembre 1974, J.T., 1975, P. 62 , in in Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, op.cit., P. 1052.''When a witness has been heard several times, the trial judge sovereignly assesses in fact the faith which must be given to the successive statements of a witness and this, in accordance with the principle of the free appreciation of the evidence”, Cass., 18 février 1973, Pas., I, P. 580, Cass., 14 avril 1992, Bull., 1992, P. 732, in Henri-D. Bosly et Damien Vandermeersch, op.cit., P. 942.

## Page 560

164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 164

zone, Lt. KANYAMUHANDA, Lt. MUSEKURA, Lt. BAZIRUWIHA, NTAMFURAYISHYARI Félix, cousin to President HABYARIMANA who was working in the Rwandan Embassy in Kampala, the former Conseillers of Nyakabanda, Biryogo, Gitega and Nyamirambo Sectors, the representatives of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi in those Sectors including NDAHAYO Godefroid of Nyakabanda, HABYARIMANA of Nyamirambo, there were also ZUBERI and SITAN of Gitega. In NYABYENDAJean-Marie Vianney’s testimony before the Prosecution he proceeded with saying that, in that meeting, it was decided to set up roadblocks in Nyakabanda, Nyamirambo, Biryogo and Gitega Sectors, a list of those who were to be killed was made, and guns were given by Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard was given to the leaders who led the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi, distributed at the roadblocks, including the roadblock that was set up at the entrance of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home, and was entrusted to the his houseboat called NKAMIYABASHAKA Sostène. He also stated that in that meeting MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste said that whoever received the Tutsi's money to hide them should undergo the same fate as them, and he said that he needed to see the body of BIZIMANA Loti, an artist who was later killed by HABYARIMANA Frederick. His statement before the Prosecution indicates that after reading it, he agreed that it was consistent with what he stated, and signed it. The case file indicates that NYABYENDA Jean- Marie before the High Court, Specialized with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes, changed his statement in favour of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, stating that the meeting on 8/4/1994 was convened by NTAMFURAYISHYARI Félix and presided over by Col. HAKIZIMANA Edouard who was commander of the

## Page 561

165 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 165

military operations zone of Kigali, that it was held at MUSONERA’s home at the Interahamwe Headquarters in Munanira Cell, Nyakabanda Sector where CDR and MRND leaders used to gather, that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste did not attend the meeting. He also stated that the statement before the Prosecution was already prepared and signed under duress50. As mentioned above, in DAM's testimony before the High Court, the Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes, he stated that that he had attended the meeting held by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste on 8/4/1994 at his home, stating that the meeting was convened by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and held at his home, attended by various people including Col. HAKIZIMANA, Dr. MUGENZI Joseph, MBARUSHIMANA Callixte, NIYIBIZI Alphonse, KIVUTA Regero Innocent, KIGINGI HABYARIMANA who was Interahamwe, RWAGAHUNGA Innocent who was the leader of Kabuguru Cell, SAKABAKA, Zacharie, MUDAHINDUKA Jean-Marie Vianney alias Zuzu, NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney, TWAHIRWA Oreste and 8 other people who were outside guarding the occupants. He also stated that in that , the lists of Tutsi and their accomplices who were to be killed were made51. Also, in the case file there is the testimony of DFM given in the lower Court, confirming that on 8/4/1994 at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste’s home there was a meeting, that although he was not present but there were people who worked with him who told him that it had happened, he was told by the cell leaders called KABONEYE Théoneste and Nyirimanzi Grégoire. In his testimony, he states that the meeting was attended by many people including Col.

50 See the hearing report dated 1/29/2019 of the appealed judgment. 51 See the hearing report 9/10/2018 of the appealed judgment.

## Page 562

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 166

HAKIZIMANA Edouard, Capt. NYAMINANI, Interahamwe whose name was HABYARIMANA alias Kigingi, NIYIBIZI Alphonse and others, that in the meeting, the lists of Tutsi who were to be killed were made, and the guns were given out in Nyakabanda and Nyamirambo Sectors52. As indicated in paragraphs 72 and 73 of the appealed judgment, the Court of first instance found that the information provided by NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney regarding the meeting on 8/4/1994 should not be relied upon because what he stated before the Prosecution on 9/2/2017, before the Court he changed his statement stating that the meeting did not take place at MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste's home on 8/4/1994, instead, it was held in Nyakabanda at the MUSONERA’s bar, which was called the Headquarters of Interahamwe, and the way he said about how the statement of his interrogation was made before the Prosecution is so confusing that it should not be relied on because on one hand he states that he was summoned by the Prosecutors and they showed him the prepared statement, after reading it they asked him to sign it and he agreed, on the other hand, he stated that they read it to him so that it would be sent to the General Prosecutor's Office where he signed it, elsewhere he stated that when they had prepared the statement for another person together with whom they committed crimes and changed his name to MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste. The Court of Appeal finds that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that the statements of NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney before the Prosecution should not be relied upon, because the valid testimony is the one given before the court, thus the one he gave before the Court of first instance is the one to be relied upon to acquit

52 See the hearing report dated 12/19/2018 of the appealed judgment.

## Page 563

167 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 167

him, cannot be validated because based on the precedents shown above, in criminal cases all the evidence is accepted, that the evidence the parties debated in the trial can be relied upon in making a decision53, the Court may confirm that the testimony given by the witness at the level of the investigation is more reliable than the one given before the Court, or that the testimony given before the Court is also more reliable than the one given at the level of the investigation. The Court of Appeal finds that the allegations of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste that, as the Court of first instance confirmed, the statements of NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney before the Prosecution were doubtful and cannot be relied upon, because he stated that before the Court that the testimony contained in the statements before the Prosecution he found it prepared and they asked him to sign it and he agreed, elsewhere he states that the statement was prepared for someone else together with whom they committed crimes, they changed the names to that of MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste, which is not valid because as long as that witness did not show the Court of first instance the evidence confirming what he stated, his statements before the Prosecution should not be invalidated, which is also the finding of the Court. The Court of Appeal, based on the explanations in the previous paragraphs, on Article 53 of Law No. 062/2024 mentioned above and on the precedent set in the cases decided by this Court and in the case No. ICTR-01-72-A also mentioned above, finds that the testimony of Mr. Jean-

53 See paragraph 95 of the case n° RPA 00016/2020/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 22/3/2024, Prosecution v. ABAYISENGA Vénant and others.

## Page 564

168 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 168

Marie Vianney before the Prosecution on 9/2/2017 regarding the meeting of 8/4/1994, should have been relied upon to confirm that on 8/4/1994, MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste held a meeting at his home in which the plan to kill Tutsi was plotted, since that testimony matches well with that of DAM and DFM shown above, and it was also based on the case under appeal54. As for the Prosecution's arguments that NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney changed his statement when he appeared before the Court because of the bribe promised by MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste, the Court of Appeal finds that based on the statements mentioned above, it is not necessary to come back to it. For all the reasons explained above, the Court of Appeal finds that the lower Court erred in invalidating the testimony of NYABYENDA Jean-Marie Vianney before the Prosecution on 9/2/2017, so this ground of appeal of the Prosecution is relevant. b. Determining whether MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste was not eligible for a reduced penalty The Prosecution alleges that it requested that MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste should be sentenced to life imprisonment, showing the reasons why it is the right penalty he should be sentenced to, including the fact that his acts seriously affected the Rwandan community because they caused the death of a large number of Tutsi from Nyarugenge Commune, especially in the Nyakabanda Sector, and the position and power that MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste had over the members of the CDR and the local residents in general, enabled him to hold a meeting at home

54 See paragraphs 57 and 58 of the appealed judgment.

## Page 565

169 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 169

on 8/4/1994, and encouraged them to participate in the killings against the Tutsi, all of which should have been taken into account in determining the sentence to which he should be punished. The Prosecution proceeds with alleging that that the fact that the High Court did not hold about those reasons, the Court finds that it is a flaw that needs to be corrected, because even though the Court has the jurisdiction to reduce the sentence, it must also provide explanations, is different with its ruling in the appealed judgment that the defendant should have a reduced sentence because he did not challenge the Court, which is not enough, because there is a need for an explanation for someone who would understand that the life imprisonment requested was not appropriate; it requested the Court of Appeal that MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste should be sentenced to life imprisonment as it had requested it because it had provided the reasons why it requested such penalty. MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste and his lawyers allege that before the Court of first instance, the Prosecution requested that he should be sentenced to life imprisonment, indicating the reasons for its request, it also requested that regarding the reduction of the sentence and the basis for it, the Court decided to reduce the sentence and explained it as indicated in paragraph183 of the appealed judgment, that they do not notice why the Prosecution appealed against the sentence of twenty-five (25) years imposed to MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste while it agrees that the court has the jurisdiction to reduce the sentence imposed to the accused, it indicates the legal basis; in addition, the appealed judgment was pending for five (5) years at the first instance level, the accused never refused to appear before the Court, he never opposed to the justice system, but he gave his explanations in a polite manner that was evident to everyone

## Page 566

170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 170

on all the allegations made by the Prosecution, they requested the Court of Appeal to ascertain that the appeal of the Prosecution lacks merit. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The debated issue on this point is to determine whether the seriousness of the crimes for which the accused is convicted and the position and the power he had over the CDR and local residents in general, would have been a reason for not to reducing the sentence at the first level. As held in the case n° RPA 00060/2021/CA decided on 4/4/2022, the judge, in handing down the sentence, takes into consideration the life of the offender before committing it, when he was committing it and after committing it, he connects them with the crime committed, its seriousness and how it affected society, and the judge has the right to acknowledge in favour of the person prosecuted , the mitigating circumstances even though the crime of which he is accused is a felony or a misdemeanor because the law did not impose specific treatment on a certain offence55 . In that case, the Court explained that acknowledging the mitigating circumstances does not rule out the seriousness of the crime, which means that reducing the sentence of the convicted person does not reduce the seriousness of the crime he committed56. This means that the

55 The Court of Appeal set the precedent explaining what should be construed in the articles 49 and 58 of the Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general. 56 “Acknowledging mitigating circumstances refers to the evaluation of the sentence and does not take away anything from the seriousness of the offense. It mitigates the sentence and not the crime. However, it should be noted that the mitigation of the sentence does not in any way reduce the degree of seriousness of the crime; the question relates more to forgiveness than to the means of justification." case n˚ ICTR-97-23-

## Page 567

171 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 171

seriousness of the crime and the aggravating circumstances of the crime, do not bar the judge from acknowledging in the interest of the convicted person the mitigating circumstances of the crime, with the aim of sentencing him/her based on the manner in which the offence was committed and his personal life (individualization of the sentence), which is the reason why the legislator provided that the judge, in sentencing, must take into account the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances57 . Regarding the crimes MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was convicted of, the case file indicates that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in the genocide. These crimes are punishable as crimes of genocide according to Article 93, subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 5, of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, as modified to date58. As for the punishment for the crime of genocide, Article 92 of the aforementioned Law provides that the person convicted is sentenced to life imprisonment. As per the copy of the appealed judgment in paragraphs 183 and 184, in the lower Court, after reduction of the sentence, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste was sentenced to the imprisonment for a term of twenty-five (25) years

S, the Prosecutor v. Jean KAMBANDA, sentencing judgment, p.27, n˚56. 57 Article 49, paragraph two, of Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general. Paragraphs 675 and 678 of the appealed judgment. 58 It provides that "without prejudice to other provisions of this Law in relation to attempt, conspiracy and complicity, the following acts are punishable by the penalties stipulated for the crime of genocide : 1º conspiracy to commit genocide; 5º complicity in genocide”.

## Page 568

172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 172

instead of the life imprisonment provided for the crimes he was convicted of, including conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide, considering the circumstances surrounding these crimes and having facilitated the smooth administration of justice. The Court of Appeal finds that, even though the lower Court reduced the sentence in favour of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste at its discretion, it should not have held that he was sentenced to a reduced sentence provided by the Law because he facilitated the smooth administration of justice, without clearly mentioning the reasons for its decision, so this Court does not concur with what was held at the first level. The Court of Appeal finds that, even though the crimes of which he was convicted, were serious crimes, considering the power he had in the CDR, according to the Prosecution, based on the precedent set above, it does not prevent MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste from having his sentence reduced if there is a mitigating circumstances. This Court finds that during the trial of MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste in this Court and in the lower Court, MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste had a good attitude that made the trial go smoothly because there was no adjournment in the trial due to him or any other reasons that delayed the trial but he always showed his willingness to plead his case for the trial to proceed smoothly, so he did not bother the Court. It finds that the fact that he did not bother the Court as above mentioned, is the reason why he should have a reduced sentence provided for by the Law, and be sentenced to the imprisonment for a term of twenty-five (25) years, instead of being sentenced to life imprisonment. For all those reasons, the Court of Appeal finds this ground of appeal of the Prosecution is unfounded.

## Page 569

173 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA 173

III. DECISION OF THE COURT Holds that the appeal filed by MUGIMBA Jean- Baptiste is unfounded. Holds that the appeal filed by the Prosecution is grounded in parts. Holds that the judgment no. RP/GEN 00002/2017/HC/HCCIC rendered by the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes on 17/3/2022, is sustained. Holds that the sentence of the imprisonment for a term of of twenty-five (25) years imposed to MUGIMBA Jean-Baptiste in the first instance, is sustained. Declares that the court fees are borne to the Public Treasury.

## Page 570

174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

174

## Page 571

175 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

175

PROSECUTION v KABILIMA [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA– (Nyirandabaruta, P.J, Kaliwabo and Umugwaneza, J.) October 20, 2020] Production of evidence in criminal cases – The defence of Alibi – The Prosecution has the responsibility to produce incriminating evidence against the accused, but the party who pleads alibi is the one who has to produce tangible elements of evidence to prove it. Production of evidence in criminal cases – Testimony - The value of testimony - Testimony is valid based on the knowledge of the witness on the subject matter in dispute- Testimony is not invalidated by the fact that the witnesses are relatives or have interest in the case, but the value is not based on the truth of the content – The Court itself determines the value of the testimony after analyzing the statements of the witnesses. Production of evidence in criminal cases – Testimony - Value of testimony – The witnesses’contradiction does not discredit their testimonies because they are likely to be mistaken due to the time elapsed from the commission of the crime. Genocide – Special intent (genocidal intent or dolus specialis) – The gravity of the crime of genocide which makes it also a special crime, is a special intent (genocidal intent or dolus specialis) to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group and this specificity is based on in sentencing the perpetrators of this crime.

## Page 572

176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Facts: The Prosecution filed a case afresh against Kabilima in the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe following the fact that the very Court set aside all the judgments in which he was a party in Gacaca courts, and he was acquitted of the crime of genocide for which he was prosecuted, such crime is consisted of the incitement to the plan to kill, directing and controlling acts of genocide in Rusenge Sector, establishing the list of Tutsi children who had not been killed, and raping Tutsi girls. Among the charges against him, this Court ruled that he was convicted of the crime of murder and establishing the list of Tutsi children who were killed in the Genocide against the Tutsi, thoses are constitutive of genocide and he was sentenced to the life imprisonment with special provisions. Kabilima appealed to the High Court, the Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes, by stating that when the acts of which he was accused were being carried out in Bunge, he was not around, it was a conspiracy by those who falsely accused him for their personal interest. The High Court held that the appealed judgment is reversed in parts, that he is convicted of murder as a crime of genocide, he was sentenced to the imprisonment of a term of twenty-five (25) years based on the fact that he committed the crime when he was a young man and that he had no bad behavior before and after the commission of the crimes against him. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, Kabilima appealed to the Supreme Court but his case was transferred to the Court of Appeal after the reform of the jurisdiction of courts. He submitted that he was punished twice for the same crime, that he was convicted of the crimes committed in Bunge while he presented witnesses who testified that he was in Kigali at the time, and that the incriminating witnesses were

## Page 573

177 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

characterized by contradictions. He adds that the Court disregarded the statements of his neighbors who are some of the survivors of the killings in Bunge and some of those who participated in the killings, all of them testify that they never saw him at home in Bunge at that time. So, he ends by requesting the Court to be acquitted because he had not been involved in the crimes against him he allegedly committed in Bunge because he was in Kigali, and he arrived there when the killings had ended in that area. The Prosecution filed a cross-appeal arguing that the defendant should not have been acquitted of the crime of establishing the list of Tutsi children to be killed, that the High Court reduced the sentence without motivation, that it did not provide the ground for ruling that he committed the crime when he was young while he was 21 years old, that the Court disregarded the fact that the accused was famous in the killings that happened in Bunge. It submits that being famous is proven by the informatiom collection in Rusenge Sector and other elements of evidence that were already in the case file. The Prosecution also explained that the statement of the defendant that he was in Kigali when the killings were committed in Bunge, has no basis because the High Court thoroughly analyzed the ground and found that some of his exculpatory witnesses were not telling the truth, since the information collection revealed that he became famous in that killings since 14/04/1994 until 19/04/1994 and the incriminating witnesses know him well as their neighbor; and the exculpatory witnesses changed their statements after his return in Rwanda.

## Page 574

178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Held: 1. The Prosecution is responsible for producing the incriminatory elements of evidence against the accused. When a party pleads alibi, it is up to him/her to produce tangibe elements of evidence to support it. Therefore, Kabilima failed to produce before this instant Court tangible elements of evidence, including uncontradictory witnesses, which clearly confirm that he was in Kigali when the killings of which he was accused, were committed in Kabuga in Bunge. 2. Testimony is valid based on the knowledge of the witness on the subject matter in dispute. Testimony is not invalidated by the fact that the witnesses are related to each other or have interest in the case, but the value is not based on the truth of the content - the Court itself determines the value of the testimony after analyzing the statements of the witnesses. 3. The witnesses’contradiction does not discredit their testimonies because they are likely to be mistaken due to the time elapsed from the commission of the crime. Appeal lacks merits. Cross-appeal is founded in parts. Court fee is borne to the Public Treasury. Statutes and statutory referred to: Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 76, 82, 96, 113, 114 and 115. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide of 09/12/1948, articles 3 and 4. Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure, article 108.

## Page 575

179 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

Law n068/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general, articles 1 and 92. Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 52 and 105. Organic Law n° 16/2004 of 19/6/2004 establinshing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts, article 6. Law N0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, articles 3, 63, 65 and 119. Case laws referred to: Prosecution v. Nzajyibwami, RPA 0101/09/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 01/06/2012. Case ICTR-97-36A-A, Prosecution v. Munyakazi Yussuf, 28 September 2011. Prosecution v. Nshimiyimana Alexis al., RPAA 0059/08/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 19/11/2010 Case ICTR-2001-63-A, Prosecutor v. Nchamihigo Simeon, 18 March, 2010. Case ICTR-99-52-A, Prosecutor v. Nahimana Ferdinand and al. Case ICTR -05-88-A, Prosecutor v. Kalimanzira Callxte, 20 October 2010. Prosecution v. Bikindi Simon, ICT–2001-72–T, decided by International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (TPIR) on 02/12/2008. Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgment and Sentence, ICTR-97- 23-S,4 September 1998. Croatia v. Serbia, International Court of Justice, Judgment of 03/02/2015.

## Page 576

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Kabilima Jean Damascène was judged in absentia by the Gacaca Court of Bunge Sector, he was accused of the crimes of genocide he committed in Bunge, and sentenced to the imprisonment of a term of 30 years. Kabilima Jean Damascène applied for opposition of the case, the Gacaca Court of Bunge 2 acquitted him of the crimes for which he was accused of. The case file was appealed to the Gacaca Court of Kibeho Sector, which sentenced Kabilima Jean Damascène, also in absentia, to imprisonment of a term of 19 years. Kabilima Jean Damascène applied for opposition of the case, which was decided by the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B, which convicted him of crimes that put him in the first category, punishing him with a life imprisonment with special provisions. Kabilima Jean Damascène filed the claim to the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe, applying for case review decided by the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B Sector, and on 17/10/2014, that Court ruled that the cases decided by the Gacaca Courts on the issue of Kabilima Jean Damascène were set aside because the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B tried him without jurisdiction when it had already placed him in the first category of genocide perpetrators. The Prosecution prepared a new case file, arraigning Kabilima Jean Damascène in the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe, accusing him of the crime of genocide consisting of inciting to the intention of murder, directing and controlling

## Page 577

181 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

the acts of genocide committed in Rusenge Sector, making a list of the Tutsis children who were not yet killed, and to rape Tutsi girls. The Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe in the case RP GEN 003/15/TGI/NYBE decided on 21/09/2016, declared Kabilima Jean Damascène not guilty of the crime of directing and controlling the genocide and encouraging the plan to kill the Tutsis who were left in Rusenge Region and that of rape of Tutsi girls, that he is convicted of the crime of murder and that of making a list of the Tutsi children who were killed in the genocide against the Tutsis, they constitute the crime of genocide, it sentenced him to the life imprisonment with special provisions. Kabilima Jean Damascène appealed to the High Court, the Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes, stating that he was convicted and yet he was not in Bunge between 14 and 19/05/1994, the period in which the killings against Tutsis were carried out, for the other crimes against him, it is conspiracy between those who falsely accuse him for their own interest. In the case RPA GEN 00006/2017/HC/HCCI decided on 31/01/2018, the High Court declared that the ruling of the case RP GEN 00003/15/TGI/NYBE decided by the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe on 21 /09/2016, was changed in parts, that Kabilima Jean Damascène is not convicted of the crime of genocide based on the list he made of Tutsi children who had not been killed and were killed later, that he is convicted of murder as a crime of genocide, it sentenced him to the imprisonment of a term of twenty-five (25) years based on the fact that he committed the crime when

## Page 578

182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

he was a young man and that he had no bad behavior before and after committing the crimes against him. Kabilima Jean Damascène assisted by Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, appealed to the Supreme Court submitting that he was punished twice for the same crime, that he was convicted of the crimes committed in Bunge while he presented witnesses who testified that he was in Kigali at that time, and that the incriminating witnesses used to contradict themselves, he requests to be acquitted because he did not involve in the crimes against him. The Prosecution also appealed arguing that Kabilima Jean Damascène should not be acquitted of the crime of making a list of Tutsi children who were later killed, because he himself admitted before the Gacaca Court that he established this list. They also appealed stating that the High Court reduced the sentence without explaining the reason, that it did not explain whether he committed the crime as a child while he was 21 years old, that it disregarded that the accused was famous for the killings that happened in Bunge. While this case was pending, the jurisdiction of the Courts has been reformed, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeal based on article 521 and article 1052 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts.

1 Paragraph two of article 52, of the Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts: The Court of Appeal has also jurisdiction to try at the second level of appeal cases tried by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and Military High Court, if such cases… 2 Paragraph one of article 105 of the Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts: From the day this Law comes into force, except cases already under trial, all cases that are no longer in the

## Page 579

183 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

The case was heard in public on 02/07/2020, Kabilima Jean Damascène was assisted by Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal and the Prosecution was represented by Mutayoba Alphonse, the National Prosecutor. At the beginning of the hearing, Kabilima Jean Damascène, after consulting with his Counsel, informed the Court that he withdrew the issue of being convicted twice from his list of grounds of appeal. II. ANALYISIS OF LEGAL ISSUES II. 1. Appeal of Kabilima Jean Damascène 1. Determine whether Kabilima Jean Damascène was not in Bunge on the dates on which he allegedly committed the crime of genocide Kabilima Jean Damascène, assisted by Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, appealed stating that the Court convicted him of the killings which happened in Bunge between 16/04/1994 and 19/04/1994 disregarding the evidence that he was in Kigali on those dates, so he could not be in different places at the same time. In explaining his evidence, Kabilima Jean Damascène avers that the testimony given by Kayibanda Jean Baptiste who explained that they were together in Kigali (at Gashugi’s house) from 06/04/1994 to 09/04/1994 and that he saw him again on 23/04 /1994 in the ICRC where they met coming to receive aid. He explains that the testimony of Kayibanda Jean Baptiste is supported by the fact that after the death of President Habyarimana Juvénal, in the night of 04/06/1994, the patrol was instituted so that he could not leave

jurisdiction of the court seized are transferred to the court with jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Law.

## Page 580

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kigali to reach his home in Bunge, that he was taken by military chaplain who brought him to Butare and he continued to Bunge and he arrived there on 25/04/1994, the killings which were taken place there, were ended. Kabilima Jean Damascène further adds that the Court disregarded the statements made by his neighbors who are some of the survivors of the killings in Bunge (Ndahunga Stefano, Nkusi Angelbert and Karera Charles), as well as some of those who participated in the killings (Nzirabatinyi Vincent, Rudatsinda Athanase and Rekeraho), all ascertain that they never saw him at his home in Bunge on the above dates. He further states that the Court ruled that he was in Bunge based on the statement made by Mazimpaka Désiré who was 9 years old in 1994, accusing him of the death of Batutsi, it disregared the statement made by Nkusi Angelbert (Mazimpaka Désiré's father and elder brother of Batutsi) who maintained that they did not know the person who killed Batutsi because they were in crowd and could not see clearly. In fact, Kabilima Jean Damascène criticized the Court's decision which based on the statement of Mukamabano Philomène who stated that she saw him with her mother at the gates of their home on April 15, 1994, and the latter was characterized by contradictions, where she submitted in the Prosecution that she fled from Bunge on 14/04/1994 and that she did not return there, but before the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B she indicated that she left on 15/04/1994, Kabilima Jean Damascène submitted that the reason for her false accusation against him is the death of her husband Musoni Festus for which she falsely incriminated him.

## Page 581

185 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

Kabilima Jean Damascène and Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, assisting him, also argue that the Court ruled that he was in Bunge based on the information collection from CNLG, which was illegally carried out because they state that Murindabigwi Augustin was the President of the persons of integrity of Bunge Cell while has never been in that position as well as Karemangingo whom they qualify as incriminating witness but he never existed. Kabilima Jean Damascène concludes on this point by arguing that he should be acquitted of the killings of which he is accused and which he committed in Bunge because he was in Kigali, that he arrived in Bunge on 25/04/1994 after the killings in that region had ended. The Prosecution represented by Mutayoba Alphonse, the National Prosecutor, states that the issue of whether Kabilima Jean Damascène was in Kigali at the time of the killings in Bunge, the High Court analyzed it and found that Kayibanda Jean Baptiste was not telling the truth, because in the Prosecution he submitted that he spent 2 days with Kabilima Jean Damascène at Gashugi’s home and then went to the CICR on 09/04/1994, after, he never saw him again, but when he was questioned again he replied that they met again on 23/04/1994. The Prosecution continues stating that the information collection carried out in Bunge Cell revealed that Kabilima Jean Damascène was famous in the murders that took place in Bunge from 14/04/1994 to 19/04/1994 and those who incriminate him know him well as their neighbor; and those he indicates as exculpatory witnesses are people who changed their statements after he returned to Rwanda.

## Page 582

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Prosecution also states that the fact that Kabilima Jean Damascène was in Bunge, as stated by Mukanyarwaya, Mazimpaka Désiré, KDA, and Museruka Théoneste who testified before the Prosecution that he saw him in Bunge on 17/04/1994 carrying a gun, just to this witness died inexplicably before giving his testimony before Court. It also explained that the witness Mukamabano Philomène disqualified by Kabilima Jean Damascène, the Court did not rely on his testimony due to doubt, while Murindahabi Augustin was presented by the accused as a defense witness, so that he cannot deny him. The Prosecution also defended that the High Court, in paragraph 22 of its judgment, explained the reason on which it was based by rejecting the testimony of people who submitted that they did not see Kabilima Jean Damascène in the killings that took place in Bunge, and that he did not show where the High Court contradicted in its analysis. The Prosecution continued to explain that the statement of Kabilima Jean Damascène denying the results of the information collection carried out in Rusenge Sector, mentioning that they were fabricated by the Prosecution, should not be considered as founded, because these documents bear the stamp of CNLG and that it came to request to CNLG under order of the Court. It also states that these documents complemented other elements of evidence that were in the case file, all of which are consistent in confirming the involvement of Kabilima Jean Damascène in the killings that took place in Bunge, therefore, the ground defence that he was in Kigali instead of in Bunge is unfounded.

## Page 583

187 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Article 3 of Law n0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that “each party has the burden of proving his/her allegations”. While article 108 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure states that “the evidence is based on all the facts and legal considerations provided that parties are given an opportunity to present adversary arguments. The court decides at its discretion on the veracity and admissibility of incriminating or exculpatory evidence”. The Court finds that the question of whether Kabilima Jean Damascène was in Kigali or Bunge between April 14, 1994 and April 19, 1994 was debated from the Intermediate Court and the High Court, the High Court having analyzed the statements of the witnesses presented by both parties and compared with the results of the information collection carried out in Rusenge Sector, where it based its ruling that Kabilima Jean Damascène was in Bunge on the dates mentioned above. The Court finds that, regardless of the principle that the Prosecution has the responsibility to provide incriminating evidence3, this principle changes when the defendant pleads the "alibi" aiming at proving that he was in a different place other than where he is suspected of having committed the crimes, to that effect, he must produce tangible elements of evidence to prove the basis of the "alibi" he pleads. This was explained in

3 Article 107 of the law relating to the Criminal perocedure provides that the burden of proof is on the public prosecution or, in case of a claim for damages or private prosecution, on the victim of an offence or his or her rightful beneficiaries.

## Page 584

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

many cases decided by the International Courts, including the case of the Prosecution v. Munyakazi Yussuf, which was decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda4, in the case of the Prosecution v. Nchamihigo Siméon5, and in the case of Nahimana Ferdinand and al.6. The Court finds that Kabilima Jean Damascène states that the crimes against him were committed in Bunge on April 14-19, 1994, while he was in Kigali, this one must provide elements of evidence to contradict those which have been based on by the High Court in ruling that he was in Bunge, which the Court will consider in the following paragraphs. The Court finds that the elements of evidence produced by Kabilima Jean Damascène including the testimony of

4 Case ICTR-97-36A-A, Prosecution versus Munyakazi Yussuf, 28th September,2011, in parag. 25: “Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber has held that Trial Chambers are endowed with the discretion to require corroboration (…). Therefore, the Trial Chamber has not shifted the burden of proof in assessing Munyakazi’s alibi; all that it has done, and this quite properly, is to note that there was no supporting evidence of the alibi.” 5 Case ICTR-2001-63-A, Prosecutor versus Nchamihigo Simeon, 18th March,2010, in parag. 92 “By raising an alibi, an accused is simply denying that he was in a position to commit the crime with which he was charged. An accused does not bear the burden of proving his alibi beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, “[h]e must simply produce the evidence tending to show that he was not present at the time of the alleged crime”. 6 Case No ICTR-99-52-A, Prosecutor versus Nahimana Ferdinand and al. “The Appeals Chamber recalls that, in raising an alibi defence, the defendant is claiming that, objectively, he was not in a position to commit the crime. It is for the accused to decide what line of defence to adopt in order to raise doubt in the mind of the judges as to his responsibility for the offences charged, in this case by producing evidence tending to support or to establish the alleged alibi”.

## Page 585

189 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

Kayibanda Jean Baptiste who submitted that he saw him in Kigali on April 6-8, 1994 and April 23, 1994, and the testimonies of Nkusi Angelbert, Mudatinya Athanase, Nzirabatinyi Vincent and Rekeraho who state that they did not see him in Bunge on the abovementioned dates. The Court finds that the witness Kayibanda Jean Baptiste presented by Kabilima Jean Damascène, has been criticized for contradicting himself in his statements, where he stated in the Prosecution that he left Kabilima Jean Damascène on 04/09/1994 and fled to the CICR and that they never met again, while before Gacaca Court of Kanombe B on 17/03/2011, before the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe on 24/02/2012 and before the High Court on 13/09/2017 he submitted that he met Kabilima Jean Damascène again on 23/04/1994, coming to take food from ICRC. The Court finds that there was no error committed by the Trial Court in discrediting the testimony of Kayibanda Jean Baptiste because he contradicted the main point that led him to be presented as a witness. The Court finds that Nkusi Angelbert, Mudatinya Athanase, Nzirabatinyi Vincent and Rekeraho are mentioned by Kabilima Jean Damascène as his neighbors and they testified that they never saw him during the attacks that killed Tutsis in Bunge, the lower Court criticized them because, during the information collection before Gacaca Courts, these ones confirmed that Kabilima Jean Damascène was involved in various attacks that took place in Bunge and its suburbs between the date of 14/04/1994 and 19/04/1994; after the arrival of Kabilima Jean Damascène in Rwanda, these ones

## Page 586

190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

contradicted themselves before Gacaca Court of Kanombe B, and some of them were punished for such attitude. The Court finds that the testimony of Ndahunga Steven who headed the information collection in Bunge Cell who maintains that he fled to Burundi on 14/04/1994 and Serubibi who was the President of the Bunge bench who states that he fled to Burundi between 14 and 15/04/1994, both left before the arrival of Kabilima Jean Damascène in Bunge, is not substantial to prove that Kabilima Jean Damascène was in Kigali on the mentioned dates due to the time they fled, compared to the reference period (between 14/04/1994 and 19/04/1994) of the killings in Bunge for which Kabilima Jean Damascène is accused. The Court finds that, apart from the fact that the witnesses who submit that they did not see Kabilima Jean Damascène in Bunge contradicted themselves, and this "alibi" issue he puts forward, should be corroborated by the elements of evidence of those who saw him in Kigali on the mentioned dates, it is evident that he could not be at the same time in Kigali and Bunge according to the distance separating those areas, than those who testify that they did not see him in Bunge because they could not ascertain before the Court that the fact of not seeing him where they were in a given time means that he could not have been anywhere else in Bunge Cell. The idea that the accused puts forward "alibi" must provide witnesses who testify that they saw him where he alleges that he was instead of where he is suspected to have committed the crimes, was reiterated by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the case of Kalimanzira Callixte by holding that: “The notification of alibi shall specify

## Page 587

191 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

the place or places at which the accused claims to have been present at the time of the alleged crime and the names and addresses of witnesses and any other evidence upon which the accused intends to rely to establish the alibi.” The Appeals Chamber has held that the manner in which an alibi is presented may impact its credibility. Therefore, it was within the Trial Chamber’s discretion to take this into account in assessing the alibi evidence in this case”.7 The Court finds that the statements of those who sustain that they saw Kabilima Jean Damascène in Bunge on 14/4/1994 and 15/04/1994 include the testimonies of Mukazera Marie Jeanne (côte 7-8), Kabagwiza Veneranda, Mukambonera Alivera (côte 21-24), Museruka Théoneste (côte 26-28), Kabarenzi Xaverine (côte 34-36), Mukanyarwaya Josepha (côte 19-20), Mukanyarwaya Josée (côte 38-39) Mukanyarwaya Annonciate (côte 41-42), Mukamabanano Philomène (côte 13-14) and Kankesha Agnès. The Court also finds that the investigation carried out by the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe in the National Commission for Fight Against Genocide (CNLG), revealed the notebooks containing the information collected in Bunge Cell, where in the notebook number 1 Kabilima Jean Damascène appeared on the list of people who were in Bunge Cell during the massacres in April 1994, and he is also found in the list of people who were given weapons to kill Tutsis and in the list of people who manned the roadblock. The investigation revealed that in the notebook number 2, Kabilima Jean Damascène was among the people who made a list of Tutsis from Bunge who

7 Case ICTR -05-88-A, Prosecutor versus Kalimanzira Callxte, 20th Oct. 2010, parag. 56.

## Page 588

192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

should be killed, and that he was found in a zone led by Kagaba in Bunge, providing tools to kill and being a member of a militia troop. The investigation also revealed a notebook without a number and without a cover, in which there are the houses which were attacked, Kabilima Jean Damascène was one of the attackers. Again, in the notebook number 5, the collected information revealed that in the zone led by Ngayaberura Evariste, Kabilima Jean Damascène appeared on the list of perpetrators of genocide and those who provided tools to kill and those who gave instructions to go to the roadblocks, while in the notebook number 215, it is indicated that he established the list of those who had to be killed and participated in the attacks that killed the Tutsis in Bunge. The Court finds that the information provided in the previous paragraph is evidence provind that Kabilima Jean Damascène was in Bunge between 14th and 19th of April 1994 because both sides agree that it was the time when the killings were committed in Bunge Cell which are also the seme acts reported that reveal his role. The Court finds that the evidence related to the information collection is substantial in ascertaining that Kabilima Jean Damascène was in Bunge between April 14, 1994 and April 19, 1994 because this information collection was not intended to accuse Kabilima Jean Damascène personally, but it was conducted in a general manner in order to gather information about what happened during the genocide against the Tutsis in 1994, so the fact that one is repeatedly mentioned in different notebooks constitutes a substantial evidence which complements the statements of the witnesses mentioned above.

## Page 589

193 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

The Court finds that, apart from the contradictions of some of the witnesses who, according to Kabilima Jean Damascène, did not see him in Bunge on April 14-19, 1994, yet none of them could undoubtedly testify that due to the fact that he did not see him where he was, the accused was not elsewhere in Bunge Cell; therefore, the testimony of those who claim to have seen him in Bunge on the said dates is more valid than that of those who claim not to have seen him. Based on the foregoing elements of evidence, the Court finds that the alibi issue put forward by Kabilima Jean Damascène by stating that he was in Kigali between 14/04/1994 and 19/04/1994 instead of Bunge where were committed the crimes against him, has no basis. 2. Determine whether Kabilima Jean Damascène was convicted of the murder of Batutsi and Musoni based on inconsistent and contradictory testimonies Kabilima Jean Damascène submits that the testimonies on which the Court relied for convicting him include that of the non-existent people, that in paragraph [25] it based on the testimony of Murindahabi Augustin who was the president of the persons of integrity in Bunge Cell, the so named person never existed, and in paragraph [9] it based on the testimony of Karemangingo who allegedly confessed the crimes of genocide in the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B wherein Kabilima was tried, yet such person does not exist and his testimony does not appear in the case file. He submits that in paragraph [75], the Court declared that he was involved in the death of Tutsis, including Batutsi based on contradictory testimony, that in paragraph [50] it

## Page 590

194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

invalidated the testimony of Nkusi Anglebert, the elder brother of Batutsi who was with him when he was killed because he stated that it was night, while it based on the testimony of Mazimpaka Désiré (paragraph [45]), the son of Nkusi Anglebert, a young child who was nine (9) years old at that time, who was with his father, and his uncle Batutsi in that night, and the child contradicts his father, because he submits that Kabilima Jean Damascène threw a grenade on them, while his father who was holding his hand while fleeing stated that he did not see the people who killed his brother Batutsi, the Court validated the statement of a child but did not take into account the statement of his father and yet they were all together with Batutsi, while the testimony of Nkusi Anglebert was rejected on the grounds that he indicated that he could not see, and that of his son who was with him that night also should not be valid because it contains serious doubts. Kabilima Jean Damascène also submits that where the child Mazimpaka Désiré lived, in Cyuna, is very far from Bunge, that it is about fifty kilometers (50km), so a 9-year-old child could not recognize him as there was no place where they had met, what he states is what he was taught because of the case, he did not see the person who threw the grenade, especially that his father ascertains that he saw the attack, the killers were Ntaganzwa and a policeman who threw the grenade on them, yet the Court considered the testimony of the child, and did not consider the testimony of the father who was with him. Kabilima Jean Damascène argues that the death of Batutsi is explained by his elder brother Nkusi Anglebert who was with him by the time he was killed (côte 201), Kaberuka

## Page 591

195 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

Alexis (côte 200) Kabera Charles (côte 200) and those who confessed the attack in which he was killed including Mudatinya Athanase (côte 200) who states that it was on Sunday 17/04/1994, such attack killed Batutsi and those who were with him as submitted by the survivors and those who confesseed themselves, and nowhere they state that Kabilima Jean Damascène participated in the attack, so the appealed Court should rely on it and acquit him. Kabilima Jean Damascène sets forth that the witness KDA submitted that he fled from Nyakibanda, Runyinya and that he left there on 19/04/1994, others sustain that the Bunge massacres happened on 15/04/1994, which means that KDA fled after the occurrence of the massacres in Bunge, but he indicates that he saw Kabilima Jean Damascène with Batutsi, the Court relies on it and Mazimpaka Désiré and Nkusi Anglebert also maintain that they were with him and that they all did not come from the same place; that the issue he has with the witness KDA is that he stated that he saw him during the genocide, otherwise he submitted that he saw him throwing grenade, this makes his testimony doubtful. Kabilima Jean Damascène puts that the witness Mukanyarwaya Josepha, the sibling of KDA, also states that he fled from Nyakibanda, at Runyinya, and that he witnessed the death of Batutsi in Cyuna, the problem with his testimony is based on the dates, because he submits that they left from Nyakibanda on 19/04/1994, while Mazimpaka Désiré and Nkusi Anglebert who came from Nyakizu maintain that a grenade was thrown on them in Bunge at Kabuga on 15/04/1994, while Mukanyarwaya Josepha states that Batutsi was killed at Kamabuye, that this testimony contradicts with

## Page 592

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

what the witnesses saw and when they saw it, where they saw it, and what saw others who were with them who survived including Karera Charles (côte 200) who asserted that he was with Batutsi and saw the person who threw the grenade that killed him, that he was a policeman called Ntaganzwa Etienne and there was Kaberuka Alexis (côte 200). Kabilima Jean Damascène also sustains that there were killers, namely Mudatinya Athanase (côte 200) who states that he was in the attack that killed Batutsi and those who were with him. Kabilima Jean Damascène submits that the Court ruled that Musoni died with Batutsi while Rekeraho Vincent who was among those who killed him stated that when they killed Musoni he was not with Batutsi and they were not killed in the same place, that Musoni also was killed in Bunge but not in Kabuga in Bunge, that those who buried him including Ndahunga Etienne (côte 247) submit that he did not die with Batutsi. He adds that the High Court disregarded all those facts, also it refrained from conducting the field visit to his home in order to inquire about its location and realize that in Nyakizu, Akabuga of Bunge, Akabuga of Jali and Akabuga of ADEPR Church, the events cannot occur there in one day because of the distance. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, assisting Kabilima Jean Damascène, submits that Musoni Festus was the husband of Mukamabano Philomène, that the genocide happened when Kabilima Jean Damascène studied in the sixth year of high school in a minor seminary, that compared to his age at that time, the testimony of Mukamabano Philomène would not be considered because she stated that Kabilima Jean

## Page 593

197 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

Damascène was in the attack of those who killed her husband, however in the Gacaca Court of Bunge Cell on 21/02/2012, Ruzindana himself sustained that they were the ones who killed him, and the time they killed him, even in his testimony, Kayitaba Melane never submitted that Kabilima Jean Damascène was in the attack. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal further argues that on page 25, paragraph 60 of the appealed judgment, the Court held that the testimonies of KDA, Mazimpaka Désiré and Mukanyarwaya Josepha are complementary while they are contradictory, a person who fled from Cyahinda to Burundi, could not pass through Bunge, that it was impossible for those people to be killed at the same place, and that Mazimpaka Désiré, who was with his father Nkusi Anglebert, sustained that Fidèle gave a grenade to Kabilima who threw it on the people who felt down and some died, while Mukanyarwaya Josepha indicated that Kabilima threw a grenade on them, on the other hand, she did not see what he held, in addition, considering where she came from, she could not know Kabilima Jean Damascène who was a growing young man. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal submits that in paragraph [53], the Court upheld that the testimony of Mukamabano Philomène should not be considered, and it considered the testimonies of Mazimpaka Désiré and Mukanyarwaya Josepha, at this point the Court contradicted itself and the genocide perpetrators admitted it and they did not mention Kabilima Jean Damascène as co-offender. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal supports that as he explained in the Court that ruled on the appealed case, Kabilima Jean Damscène was convicted of murder based on the

## Page 594

198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

statements of the witnesses and the information revealed in the various notebooks of Gacaca Courts, that the witness Mukamabano Philomène in the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B (Côte 33) falsely sustained that she witnessed to the charges againt Kabilima, while she fled before Kabilima Jean Damascène arrival in Bunge because he fled on 14/04/1994 or on 15/04/1994 and Kabilima Jean Damascène arrived on 25/04/1994, but she states that she saw him at the gate of his home fleeing (Kabilima’s family home); the fact that she sustains that she never saw again Kabilima Jean Damascène after crossing him when she was fleeing (côte 36), for this, a person wonders about where she witnessed what she is relating about him. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal maintains that, regarding those who were killed and thrown in the toilet, of whom Kabilima Jean Damscène is accused by the prosecution witnesses, that Sindikubwabo (Côte 46/Kanombe B) and Rekeraho Vincent (Côte 46- 47/Kanombe B) explain the fact, that they never went anywhere with Kabilima Jean Damscène. He adds that the witness Habimana (Côte 2- 3/Bunge) has a list of those who were involved in such act and Kabilima Jean Damscène does not appear on it, and that others are of the same stance; that Mudatinya Athanase (Côte 49/Kanombe B) explains that he confessed and admitted his role in the genocide, but during that killing, he did not cooperate with Kabilima Jean Damscène in the genocide; that Nzirabatinyi Vincent (Côte 50/Kanombe B) explained that the information collection carried out in Prison did not reveal anything about the role of Kabilima in the killings committed in Bunge.

## Page 595

199 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

Me Munyemana Gatsimbayi Pascal sustains that Mukazera Jeanne (Côte 37/Kanombe B), in addition to being 9 years old at the time of the genocide, avers that she heard that they stated that the grenade that killed the Tutsis was thrown by Kabilima Jean Damscène; that Mulindabigwi Augustin (Côte 39/Kanombe B) who was the President of the persons of integrity of Gacaca courts in Bunge Cell, testifies that in the information collection Kabilima Jean Damascène was never mentioned in the murder of Mukamabano Philomène's family members, that this also appears in the document addressed to the Gacaca bench ( Côte 21/Kanombe B); that Mukanyarwaya Josepha (Côte 40/Kanombe B) was asked if she knew what she was accusing Kabilima Jean Damscène even previously, and she replied that when he previously pleaded she did not know it, she incriminated him when she knew it; Sindikubwabo Célestin (Côte 45/Kanombe B) explained that he participated in the attacks and mentioned the co-offenders, but Kabilima Jean Damscène did not cooperate with them, and he knew him since before the genocide. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal avers that, regarding to the death of Batutsi of which Kabilima is accused, Karera Charles who survived the genocide who was with the Batutsi when they were fleeing, explains what happened (Côte 50/Kanombe B), that the grenade that killed him was thrown by a person called Ntaganzwa who was a policeman, that Kaberuka Alexis (Côte 60/Kanombe B) explains what happened, and that what the Court found on Côte 4-5/Bunge, was also the same as stated about the death of Batutsi; that Ndahunga Etienne who fled from Bunge (Côte 50/Kanombe B), submits that he fled before seeing Kabilima and that he does not know anything about him in the information collection and

## Page 596

200 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

that he was its President; the interviewed witnesses (Côte 53- 54/Kanombe B) testify that Batutsi killed by a grenade. Karerangabo (Côte 54/Kanombe B) identifies the individual responsible for the death of Musoni Festus who was Mukamabano Philomène's husband. Mukambonera Alivera sustains that Kabilima Jean Damascène was involved in the killing of her elder brother, based on what she heard in the camp. Kayitaba Melane (Côte 54/Kanombe B) affirms that he confessed to the death of Musoni Festus and did not cooperate with Kabilima Jean Damascène. He also advances that the various notebooks relied on by the Court, apart from the fact that any of these notebooks has been presented to Kabilima Jean Damascène for his comments, and the contents are not accurate as they contradict what people stated during the Gacaca bench hearing, which is surprising that the Court relies on documents claimed to contain accurate information, especially when the evidence is insufficient and needs corroboration for a more accurate depiction of the truth, and finds that this instant Court should go beyond that perception. He further adds that in h istestimony, Museruka mentioned the issue of gun while the issue about Kabilima Jean Damascène is a grenade, additionally, KDB, the brother of Mazimpaka Désiré, testify that the children of Nkusi Anglebert were together at that time, this means that their testimonies should be identical, that they wonder where they found grenade while in their interrogation, he stated that when he saw Kabilima Jean Damscène, the latter had nothing, he notes that the Prosecution failed to establish the role of Kabilima Jean Damascène in the death of Batutsi and Musoni.

## Page 597

201 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

The Prosecutor argues that, regarding the witnesses on whom the High Court, the Speciliased Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes based to declare that Kabilima Jean Damascène is convicted of the murder of Batutsi and others who were killed in Bunge, and the fact that the Court relied on the testimony of Mazimpaka Désiré instead of basing on the testimony of his father Nkusi Anglebert, that his uncle Batutsi was the one who held his hand, not his father, what Mazimpaka Désiré sustained was that he saw something exploding which killed his uncle, that he never saw the person who threw it, that he passed through that crowd, and that the testimony given by Mazimpaka Désiré who testified that the grenade was thrown by Kabilima Jean Damascène is consistent with that of Mazimpaka Désiré; Mukanyarwaya asserts that, upon leaving Nyakizu, she learned of her husband's death by being thrown a grenade and he was killed by Kabilima Jean Damascène and fellows, it cannot insist on the statements that those people were in different places, that the people can come from different locations and meet in a given place as the killers surrounded the places. He further adds that Kayitaba Melane admitted to have been among those who killed Musoni Festus together with Kabilima Jean Damascène, that Ndatinya accused Kabilima Jean Damascène that he was given a gun on 17/04/1994, that Karerangabo submitted that they attacked the home of Musoni Festus together with Kabilima who had a gun, while Nkusi Anglebert in the statement of 24/09/2012 stated that he did not know Kabilima Jean Damascène, later in the High Court, the Speciliased Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes on 13/09/2017, he maintained that Kabilima Jean Damascène is not from Bunge, instead from Cyuna, and that

## Page 598

202 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

when the genocide was committed, Kabilima Jean Damascène was not in Bunge, his testimony is not based on the truth. The Prosecutor further adds that, regarding the dates on which the killings occurred, on 14 and 15/04/1994 the people had started telling each other that the killings had started on 16th and 17th, while Mukanyarwaya's testimony was based on information she obtained during the information collection when she came from Burundi. He avers that a person called Museruka Théoneste (Côte 5-28) was interrogated in the Prosecution but he died without being heard before the Court, and before dying, he asserted that Kabilima Jean Damascène had the gun he was using which was given to him by the Conseiller on 17/04/1994, and such information was given before the return of Kabilima Jean Damascène to the country because he signed on the statement on 14/09/2005, they freely provided it, but, upon Kabilima's return to the country they changed their statements, as indicated on "côte 103", Nkusi Anglebert collaborated with the head of the cell to look for the people to discharge Kabilima Jean Damascène, in 2012 he stated that he did not know him, in 2017 before the Court, he maintained that he knew him and he is not from Bunge instead from Cyuna, his truth is insufficient, he concludes by sustaining that there is no doubt about their elements of evidence on the role of Jean Damascène Kabilima in the murder occurred in Bunge, as they are substantial.

## Page 599

203 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Article 3 of Law n0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3 provides that “each party has the burden of proving his/her allegations". Article 65 of Law n0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 mentioned above provides that “The court assesses with discretion the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It is not bound by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their declarations”. As indicated in the appealed judgment from the paragraph [46] to [61], the High Court analyzed the testimonies incriminating and exculpating Kabilima Jean Damascène in order to find out his role in the killings of Tutsis occured in Kabuga of Bunge wherein Musoni Festus and others were killed, it concluded in the paragraph [60] that the testimonies of Mazimpaka Désiré, KDA and that of Mukanyarwaya Josepha are corroborative in a way that they clearly indicate what happened, because all testimonies relate about the attack that occurred in Kabuga of Bunge and everyone saw Kabilima Jean Damascène throwing a grenade, and Mazimpaka Désiré and Mukanyarwaya Josepha already knew him, and KDA found out that it was Kabilima Jean Damascène who threw the grenade on them as told by her husband who was agonizing after being shot, and Mazimpaka Désiré stated that the grenade killed Batutsi while KDA and Mukanyarwaya Josepha have mentioned other people who were killed by that grenade in the attack of which Kabilima Jean Damascène is accused, namely Musoni Festus, Nshimiyimana, Karitanyi and others.

## Page 600

204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

According to the statement of Kabilima Jean Damascène, in the paragraphs [9] and [25] of the appealed judgment, the High Court convicted him (his role in the murder in Kabuga of Bunge) based on the testimony of Karemangingo who confessed the crimes of genocide in the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B wherein Kabilima Jean Damascène was tried and yet that person never existed and his testimony does not appear in the case file, and according to the testimony of Murindabigwi who was the president of Abunzi in Bunge and the so called person never existed, this instant Court finds his statement unfounded, because in the paragraph [9] there is the statement of the Prosecution and the name of Augustin Murindabigwi is not mentioned in that paragraph, while what is stated in paragraph [25] is the statement of Kabilima Jean Damascène himself, not of the Court. The Court also finds that, in the analysis of the statements of the witnesses made by the High Court from paragraph [46] to paragraph [59], and in the decision made by such Court on the role of Kabilima Jean Damascène in the killings occurred in Kabuga of Bunge, which appears in paragraph [60], of the appealed case, the Court did not decide about Karemangingo or Murindabigwi, the statements of Kabilima and Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal that the Court based on the testimony of the non-existed persons, are unfounded. Concerning the statement of Kabilima Jean Damascène and his counsel that the High Court would not have convicted him on basis of the testimony of Mazimpaka Désiré, who testified that he was one of those who threw the grenade that killed his uncle Batutsi and others, while it rejected the

## Page 601

205 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

testimony of Kabilima's father Nkusi Anglebert who was with him on the ground that he submitted that it was night, the High Court did not base on the testimony of Nkusi Anglebert on the grounds that he contradicts himself in his statements, because he maintains (paragraph [50]) that his brother Batutsi was killed by a grenade thrown by a communal policeman named Ntaganzwa and he added that due to the darkness, he could not see and, therefore, could not identify the attackers, the Court finds his testimony doubtful. While the testimony of Mazimpaka Désiré who testified that Kabilima Jean Damascène was among the people who threw grenade that killed his uncle Batusi and others, was considered for the fact that Mazimpaka Désiré added that he already knew Kabilima Jean Damascène well because they used to meet in the valley, where the latter used to coach him how to play football, corroborates with that of Mukanyarwaya Josepha who submitted (paragraph [59]) that she was among many Tutsis who fled from Nyakizu via Bunge, where they met the attack, and she saw Kabilima Jean Damascène in Bunge among the killers, he threw grenade on them which killed many people including her husband called Karitanyi Innocent who was a businessman, the son of her sister-in-law called Nshimiyimana, Batutsi from Cyuna and others, and it injured his son called Kabarisa Eugène, as well as KDA who stated that he knew Kabilima Jean Damascène during the genocide, that he saw him in Bunge in the midst of murders... (paragraph 58); that he threw a grenade on them that killed his mother-in-law, and that her husband was also shot in the spot and told her that Kabilima Jean Damascène, who studied together with his brother, was the one who threw the grenade on them.

## Page 602

206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Court of Appeal finds that the High Court considered the testimony of Mazimpaka Désiré and rejected that of Nkusi Anglebert, as it has explained in paragraph [50], Nkusi Anglebert contradicts himself in his statements, as he submitted that it was night so that he could not identify the attackers, however he confirmed that the grenade was thrown by Ntaganzwa while he sustained that he could not see clearly, while the testimony of Mazimpaka Désiré who related the facts he witnessed and the testimonies of Mukanyarwaya Josepha and KDA who narrated the events they witnessed are in line with the statements about the grenade he threw and killed many persons as above mentioned. Therefore, it finds that the High Court rejected the testimony of Nkusi Anglebert on the grounds of contradictions in his statements, the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène and his counsel that such testimony was not considered because he stated what it was night, they intentionally denote that Nkusi Anglebert was with Mazimpaka Désiré, meaning that his statements that he mentioned what he witnessed should not be considered as both did not see clearly, thus they are unfounded, because Mazimpaka Désiré's testimony is in line with that of the others who were interrogated, while the testimony of Nkusi Anglebert is contradictory because he sustained that it was night on the other hand and on the other one he stated that Batutsi was killed by a communal policeman named Ntanganzwa. The Court of Appeal finds that the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène and his counsel assisting him that they notice that during the genocide against the Tutsis in 1994, Mazimpaka Désiré was only nine (9) years old, and where he

## Page 603

207 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

lived (in Cyuna) it was impossible for him to know Kabilima Jean Damascène, should not be considered, because as stated above, Mazimpaka Désiré already knew Kabilima Jean Damascène well because they used to meet in the valley where he was coaching them to play football, and his statements are in line with that of the other witnesses interrogated; therefore, there is no reason for Mazimpaka Désiré's testimony not to be considered, especially since it is corroborated with that of Mukanyarwaya Josepha and KDA.8 Regarding the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène and Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, assisting him, that the attack killed Batutsi mentioned by survivors such as Kaberuka Alexis, Kabera Charles, Ndahunga Stefano, Nkusi Anglebert and Nyirimana Innocent and those who self confessed such as Mudatinya Athanase and Nzirabatinyi Vincent, but that as they have presented it before the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B, none of them states to have seen Kabilima Jean Damascène in the attack, and even the death of Musoni Festus, Karerangabo identified the person who killed him before the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B and Kayitaba Melane has confessed it, the High Court , mentioned from paragraph [48] to [51], that the testimony of those people could not benefit to Kabilima Jean Damascène from the charges against him, that what Rekeraho Charles contends that he was neighbouring with Kabilima Jean Damascène and they were raised together, explaining that the attacks he was involved in,

8 Article 63 of the law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that Minors not exceeding fourteen (14) years of age as well as incapacitated adults who are able to narrate facts are allowed to testify in court without taking an oath but their testimony must be corroborated by other elements of evidence.

## Page 604

208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

no grenade was thrown but instead using weapons, do not exculpate Kabilima Jean Damascène because they do not relate with the charges against him. The High Court also indicated that Mudatinya Etienne also does not discharge Kabilima as he claims not to have already known him, he did not also know whether he was in the same attack that killed Batutsi. Mudatinya learned about Batutsi's death only after his release from prison, that Nkusi Anglebert's testimony should not be considered as he contradicts himself, whereby he claims that he could not know exactly the individuals who were in the attack, but he confirmed that the "grenade" was thrown by Ntaganzwa. As for the testimony of Ndahunga Stefano and that of Nzirabatinyi, would not do with this instant case as their self confessions are not in line with the charges against Kabilima Jean Damascène in this instant case. The Court of Appeal finds that Kabilima Jean Damascène and his counsel, Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, have failed to refute the High Court's basis declaring that the testimonies of Kaberuka Alexis, Kabera Charles, Ndahunga Stefano, Nkusi Anglebert, Mudatinya Athanase and Nzirabatinyi Vincent should not be relied upon, since they did challenge the motivation of the Court, so they have no basis to ask this instant Court to rely on these testimonies to overturn the decision taken to Kabilima Jean Damascène in the appealed case. Regarding the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène and his counsel that the testimony of KDA and that of Mukanyarwaya Josepha should not be considered on the ground that they state that they saw Kabilima Jean Damascène

## Page 605

209 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

with Batutsi in Bunge on 15/04/1994 and submitting that they arrived there escaping from Nyakibanda, where they left on 19/04/1994, their testimonies contradict with what other witnesses who were with those survivors saw, such as Karera Charles (côte 200), Kaberuka Alexis (côte 200), the location and the time they saw it, the Court of Appeal finds that, as mentioned above, the testimonies of Mazimpaka Désiré, Mukanyarwaya Josepha and KDA are concurring and should not be invalidated on the ground that they contradict with what have presented by Nkusi Anglebert, Kabera Charles, Kaberuka Alexis and Mudatinya Athanase because the Court declared that their testimonies cannot be based on the grounds that it cannot benefit to Kabilima Jean Damascène in this instant case. The Court finds that, apart from that, the testimonies of Nkusi Anglebert, Kabera Charles, Kaberuka Alexis and Mudatinya Athanase are questionable on the grounds that they were illegally produced with the conspiracy of Kabilima Jean Damascène, aiming at contradicting the information provided during the information collection, as stated in the statement of the Prosecution made to Rindiro Tharicisse, who was a person of integrity in the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B, who asserted that some of those witnesses (Mudatinya Athanase and Nzirabatinyi Vincent) had accused Kabilima Jean Damascène in the information collection contradicted and lied the Gacaca Court intending to discharge him, this led to their punishment of six months of imprisonment, where in the documents on côte 188-190, côte 191-194, côte 195-197, côte 198-199 and côte 200-201, it is indicated that Kabilima Jean Damascène wrote to Nsengimana Jean Marie Vianney , the Executive Secretary of the Bunge Cell telling him the people to look for him who should relate what they saw in Bunge, and he looked for them

## Page 606

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

and make written statements which were sent to Kabilima Jean Damascène and they are on côtes 200-201, that leader was also prosecuted for conducting the investigation activities which were not in his duties. Regarding the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène and his counsel that the testimonies of KDA and Mukanyarwaya Josepha should be invalidated based on the date on which they saw him and the date on which they fled, because they sustain that they fled from Nyakibanda in Runyinya on 19/04/1994, but they maintain that they saw Kabilima Jean Damascène with Batutsi on 15/04/1994, the Court of Appeal finds that the statements of KDA and Mukanyarwaya Josepha corroborated with those of others who confirmed that Kabilima Jean Damascène was involved in the killing of Batutsi as indicated in the information collection, that he was in the attack that killed him in Bunge, the fact that KDA and Mukanyarwaya Josepha were not been able to match the dates on which they fled with the dates on which occurred the killings in Bunge wherein were murdered Batutsi and many others, cannot discredit their testimonies, because it is possible that they are wrong about the dates, due to the difficult times they went through and it could also be possible due to the long time that had elapsed since the genocide against the Tutsis happened, so as upheld in the case ICT-2001-72-T, of the Prosecution versus Bikindi Simon, decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on 02/12/2008, where it recognises that a significant period of time has elapsed between the events alleged in the Indictment and the testimonies given in court. Therefore, lack of precision or minor discrepancies between the evidence of different witnesses, or between the testimony of a particular witness and a prior statement, was not

## Page 607

211 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

regarded in general asnecessarily discrediting their evidence Court.9 Regarding the fact that the High Court did not CONU conduct the field visit at home of Kabilima Jean Damascène to inquiry how it locates, this instant Court finds that in case the High Court is satisfied with the evidence provided and found unnecessary to conduct further investigation (because the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe did one in CNLG), does not invalidate its decision, especially since it is not mandatory for the Court to investigate whenever it is requested.10 The Court finds that the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène and his Counsel Gatsimbanyi Pascal that the High Court declared that Musoni died with Batutsi and Rekeraho Vincent, who was among those who killed him, stated that when they killed Musoni, Kabilima was not together with him, that Musoni also died at Bunge but not in Akabuga of Bunge, that even the one who buried him, called Ndahunga Etienne (côte 247) submits that Musoni Festus did not die with Batutsi, have no basis as nowhere appeared in the appealed case that the Court found Kabilima Jean Damascène guilty based on the testimony given by Rekeraho Vincent and Ndahunga Etienne, because it held that their testimonies would not be beneficial because it does not correspond with the charges against Kabilima Jean Damascène. This instant Court finds that, as mentioned above, the Court convicted him of the murder

9 ICTR –2001 -72 –T The Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi, par. 32 rendered on 2/12/2008 10 Rwanda Law Report, Volume 4, number 15, October 2012 (Judgment RPA 0101/09/CS decided on 01/06/2012, Prosecution vs Nzajyibwami, p,38).

## Page 608

212 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

committed against Batutsi, Musoni and others based on the testimonies of the people who incriminated him including Mazimpaka Desiré, Mukanyarwaya Josepha and KDA. The Court finds that the statement of Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal that what Mukamabano Philomène accuses Kabilima Jean Damascène of being involved in the attack that killed her husband should not be valid because at that time, Kabilima Jean Damascène was studying in a minor seminary, should not be considered on the grounds that, the fact that he was studying in a minor seminary, does not mean that he did involve in the attacks that killed the Tutsis. It also finds the fact that he argues that Mukamabano Philomène's accusations against him should not be considered because Ruzindana testified before Gacaca Court of Bunge on 21/12/2012 that they were the ones who killed him and even Kayitaba Melane did not mention that Kabilima Jean Damascène was involved in the attack, should also be considered, because before they contradicted before that Gacaca of Bunge, in the information collection, Ruzindana confessed to have been involved in the attack that killed Musoni together with Kabilima Jean Damascène, Ndatinya Athanase who accused Kabilima Jean Damascène of providing him with a gun on 17/04/1994, while Karerangabo submitted that when they attacked at Musoni’s home, they were with Kabilima Jean Damascène holding a gun. It finds that the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène that the testimony of Mukamabano Philomène saw Kabilima Jean Damascène when she was fleeing on 15/04/1994, are not accurate, this is because she allegedly fled before Kabilima arrived at Bunge ; therefore, they should not be considered,

## Page 609

213 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

especially given the evidence proving that on those dates, Kabilima Jean Damascène was in Bunge, not in Kigali as she submits. Additionally, the argument that a person fleeing from Cyahinda to Burundi could not have passed through Bunge should also not be considered. As someone fleeing from potential harm, they could have taken any route necessary, regardless of the direction, due to the circumstances she was facing of being hunted and targeted for murder. The Court finds that the fact that Kabilima Jean Damascène has not been provided with notebooks containing information for comments, should not be a ground to invalidate that evidence because the Court found that information while conducting an investigation in the CNLG and as indicated on page 7, paragraph [14] of the case RP GEN 0003/15/TGI/NYBE, in the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe, Kabilima Jean Damascène and his Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal had commented about it. The fact that the contents of those notebooks are not true, should not be considered because, as mentioned above (paragraph 33), the information was not given in order to accuse him, but was collected in a general way in order to gather information about what happened during the Genocide against the Tutsis in 1994. There is nothing that prevents the information and other elements of evidence to be based on, for determining whether he is guilty of the crimes against him. The Court of Appeal, after this analysis, finds that Kabilima Jean Damascène and his Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, failed to challenge the elements of evidence on which the High Court relied to convict him for his role in the killings that occurred in Bunge during the genocide

## Page 610

214 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

against the Tutsi in 1994, wherein were murdered Batutsi and Musoni Festus and others who were with him; therefore, the statement that he was convicted of the murder committed against Batutsi and Musoni Festus based on the contradictory testimonies are unfounded. II.2. The appeal of the Prosecution 1. Determine whether Kabilima Jean Damascène established a list of Tutsi children who were not yet killed intentionally and knowing that they should be killed so that he can be punished for such act as jenocide perpetrator The Prosecution argues that the High Court acquitted Kabilima Jean Damascène of the crime of genocide based on the fact that he established the list of Tutsi children who had not yet been killed and were later killed, disregarding the elements of evidence it produced before the Court based mainly on the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène himself and the testimonies that he did not contradict, that the Court in paragraph 68 of the appealed case declared that Kabilima Jean Damascène had no intention of committing the crime of establishing the list and that there is no evidence proving that he shared the intent with Rwandenzi and Nyamukaza in the killing of those Tutsi children, yet that Kabilima Jean Damascène intentionally established that list knowing that the intent was to kill those children, and as explained in paragraphs 64-66 of the appealed case, Kabilima Jean Damascène was an adult of over 20 years old, who was graduating from the high school, knowing that the Tutsis were being killed. The Prosecution further argues that Kabilima Jean Damascène, in his explanation provided regarding the fact of

## Page 611

215 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

establishing the list of children who should be killed, has changed the statements. During the Gacaca proceedings, he claimed to have established the list to ensure the safety of the children. On the other hand, he stated that they intended to know how they should share the property belonging to the targeted individuals (Tutsis), before the Intermediate Court, he denied to have established the list, but before the High Court he admitted it, the Prosecution asserts that changing the satements proves that he knew that his acts constituted a crime. The Prosecution submits that in the High Court, they asked to Kabilima Jean Damascène to explain how he was requested to write down the properties, and he did not do so, but, he wrote down the names of the children hidden in the place and he failed to answer, but the Court never considered it, and that the Court reconsidered the testimonies of the old women who hid these children and disregarded that of Kayitaba Melane who also hid them, and the fact that Narame Thacienne stated that she did not see Kabilima Jean Damascène among the people who came to take the children from her home, such fact does not mean that he never went to other homes, because in her testimony she added that she did not know who went to other homes. He sustains that the Court also disregarded the testimony of Ndutiye Jean Baptiste before Gacaca court (côte 538 doc CNLG – Kanombe B) where he indicated that Kabilima Jean Damascène participated in the killing of the children of Ruhinguka Claver. He puts forth that the Court was reminded many times that Kabilima Jean Damascène in Gacaca Court stated that he used to cross with Rwandenzi Michel and Nyamukaza knowing that they were well-known murderers, that it is not clear how the killer asked him to make a list of properties and write down the names of the children who were

## Page 612

216 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

not yet killed, that the High Court does not indicate the basis to declare that Kabilima Jean Damascène did not share the intent with the murderers in the killing of those children. Kabilima Jean Damascène and his Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal argue that there are people who, according to the Prosecution, allegedly were his co- offenders, including Rwandenzi and Nyamukaza, yet there are no case files against them in Gacaca or other Courts so that he was their co-offender, that there are people who confessed and apologized to the death of those children including Nzirabatinyi Vincent and Ndutiye Jean Baptitse and he is not directly or indirectly accused of being involved in the death of those children. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal, Counsel for Kabilima Jean Damascène, argues that this ground of the appeal of the Prosecution should not be considered because it does not show the explanations that contradict the analysis made by the Court on this issue, that in analyzing this issue the Court insisted on the testimonies provided by those who were present on the crime scene, the conduct of those who were present and the events that followed such act and it ruled that Kabilima Jean Damascène had no direct or indirect involvement in their death, subsequently it acquitted him for such act, that such serves as motivation for them to support that this ground of appeal of the Prosecution has no basis. He furher argues that on “côte 41”, in the hearing held in the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B, a witness Narame Thacienne explained that Nyamukaza and Rwandenzi ordered to Kabilima Jean Damascène to write down the names of persons who were still alive in Bunge, on the " côte 42" she

## Page 613

217 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

explained that Kabilima Jean Damascène was not in the attack that brought the Tutsi children; and that on “côte 41”, there is a testimony of Kabarenzi Xavérine who explained that Kabilima was ordered to write down as someone who was present and that he had nothing at that time, on “côte 43”, Kaberenzi Xavérine sustained that they had no weapons when they were with Kabilima Jean Damascène because they were standing like children, this was also said by Kayitaba Melane on "côte 55" in the hearing held by the Gacaca Court of Kanombe B. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal also submits that there was no act of murder following the meeting that was committed as a result of the list allegedly made by the accussed, that the Court should not base on the ground that Kabilima Jean Damascène was in the meeting because he was there like other persons who were ordered by the authorities to attend it, and that attending the meeting itself does not constitute a crime, that the Court should analyze the statements of the witnesses who believe that Kabilima Jean Damascène as a child who was in that meeting and able to write was ordered by the authorities to establish the list, especially since they believe that at that time he had nothing, this indicates that he had no bad intent. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal adds that their statements were analyzed by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in the Prosecution against Mugenzi Justin and Mugiraneza Prosper case, where Mugenzi Justin as Minister was convicted of acts of participating in meetings led by the President Sindikubwabo Théodore, but the Appeal Chamber declared that he was not guilty because he was fulfilling his duties as a Minister, and this was also upheld

## Page 614

218 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

in the case decided by the Court of First Instance of Kibuye on 31/07/2002 where it ruled that, regarding the meeting held at Kibuye chaired by Kambanda Jean, no one immediately can confirm that anyone who attended the meeting killed, especially that before and after the meeting there were no bad acts followed containing charges against him, and he did not pronounce any bad word, that nothing proves that he effected the bad statements he made during the meeting because attending the meeting is not a crime as to accomplish what was discussed about within the meeting; therefore Hategekimana Sabine was not convicted of the crimes against him as the grounds for accusation were tainted with suspicion and doubt, so he finds that the rulings of both Courts indicate that the appeal of the Prosecution and its evidence are unfounded, and it is inappropriate that the accussed should be convicted of the crime of genocide based on analogy because the ICTR declared that this crime is not subject to analogy. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal assisting Kabilima Jean Damascène, argues that the High Court analyzed the testimonies of Narame Thacienne, Ruhinguka and Kabarenzi Xavérine who were all interrogated and attended the meeting, and it found that either in the preparation of the meeting or in the killing of those children, there was no involvement of Kabilima Jean Damascène, as stated in paragraphs 70 and 72 of the judgment and in paragraph 73, the Court based on article 96 of the Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code which was into force at that time. He concludes that from the Prosecution Kabilima Jean Damascène asserted that he never established a list in order to

## Page 615

219 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

kill children, that the statement of the Prosecution that he contradicts with the accussed is not true, that the Court also declared that there is no evidence to prove that Kabilima Jean Damascène had conspiracy to plan or commit such murder. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Article 119 of Law N0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, provides that in criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means of fact or law provided they are subject to adversarial proceedings. The court rules sovereignly on the validity and relevance of the prosecution or defence evidence. Article 65 of the abovementionned Law provides that the court assesses with discretion the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It is not bound by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their declarations. In the ruling of the appealed case RPA/GEN00006/2016/HCCIC, the Court relied on the testimonies of Narame Thacienne and Kabarenzi Xavérine, both witnesses affirmed that Kabilima Jean Damascène was present at the meeting, during which Nyamukaza and Rwandezi Michel handed him a paper and a pen to record the names of the children and those who were hiding them. The ruling states that, apart from the acts of Kabilima Jean Damascène, the Prosecution failed to present any other evidence regarding his behavior that would establish his involvement in a conspiracy

## Page 616

220 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

with Rwandezi and Nyamukaza, on which it based and declared him not convicted of that crime. In her testimony (côte 35-36), Kabarenzi Xavérine states that the meeting was convened by Sector Conseiller Rwandenzi Michel for the purpose of bringing the people who were hiding the Tutsis, she also was also requested to bring the child she was hiding because she was not among the targeted persons, and Nyamukaza and Rwandenzi Michel postponed the meeting because it was by night, they stated that another meeting should be held in Bidandi, but they added that they should write down the Tutsis and those who hosted them, by that time they gave by force to Kabilima Jean Damascène a piece of paper and a pen to write down the names of those people, Nzirabatinyi Vincent was a cell responsable who read out to him the names. She also adds that they did not kill anyone on that day, those who were recorded were killed in June 1994. In her testimony (côte 32), Narame Thacienne explained that she saw Kabilima Jean Damascène among those who atttended the meeting, Nyamukaza and Rwandenzi Michel gave to him a pen and a piece of paper to write down the names of the people who hid the Tutsi children, that if they did not find them, they would be held responsible, she remembers that others who helped them to write them down, include Bizuremyi and Mbonimpa. Someone called Museruka Théoneste, also in his testimony, testifies that Kabilima Jean Damascène was among those who made the list of Bunge Tutsis who were to be killed (côte 27). This also was testified by Mukamabano Philomène who submitted that during the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 Kabilima Jean Damascène worked with the leaders of Nyakizu Commune, he behaved as a soldier, that in

## Page 617

221 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

the meetings held for planning the genocide, he was the one who took the minutes for them and it is in this context that he made the list of Tutsis to be killed (côte 13-14). In the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe in the case RP GEN 0003/15/TGI/NYGBE, Kabilima Jean Damascène submitted that the meeting was convened by the Bourgmestre and attended by all residents including himself as well as others, before the meeting started, they requested them to look for a person who would take the minutes for them and he was chosen, before he wrote, they stated that it was night and the meeting should be resumed in Bidandi. In his pleading in the High Court, he indicated that he did not deny that he made a list of Tutsi children who had not yet been killed and later they were killed, but that he made that list under the orders of Rwandenzi Michel and Nyamukaza (côte 69). Before the Court of Appeal, Kabilima Jean Damascène sustained that at that time a public meeting was convened, that when they were in the meeting, they asked if there is a person able to read and write, he raised his hand and they told him to come forward, but that day the meeting was postponed, that he never made a list, all statements are emotional. The Court of Appeal finds that, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, Kabilima Jean Damascène was characterized by contradictions regarding the circumstances in which was established the list of Tutsi children who had not yet been killed and later they were killed, because he first stated that the people were the ones who chosed him but that he did not make a list that day because the meeting was immediately postponed because it was night, on the other hand he submitted to have made it under pressure, and then he sustains that he was

## Page 618

222 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

the one who decided to make the list of those children of his own free will, unfortunately he never did it because the meeting was postponed. The Court of Appeal finds that, as provided under the foregoing article 65 of of the Law n0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, the principal element for the testimony validity is the witness knowledge of the facts. As also upheld by the Supreme Court in the case RPAA 0059/08/CS decided on 19/11/2010, the testimony is not invalidated due to the witnesses’relationships or their interest in the case, because its validity is not based on the witnesses but on the truth of the testimony, such validity is confirmed by the Court after analyzing the statements of the witnesses11. It therefore finds that the statements of the witnesses Narame Thacienna and Kabarenzi Xavérine concur on the fact that the meeting was postponed because it was night, but the list of Tutsi children was established on that day, those statements should be taken into account because even if they have relationship with the killed children, it is evident that they were later killed at the place where they were hidden; therefore, the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène that he did not make a list of those children because the meeting of that day was postponed and the list was not made should not be taken into consideration. Contrasting the statements of Kabilima Jean Damascène with the testimonies of the witnesses, namely Narame Thacienne, Muberuka Théoneste, Mukamabano Philomène and Kabarenzi Xavérine, the Court finds that his

11 Case RPAA 0059/08/CS decided on 19/11/2010, Prosecution vs Nshimiyimana Alexis al.

## Page 619

223 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

denial does not eliminate the fact that he was the one who made the list of those Tutsi children who had not been killed and were later murdered, the remaining issue is to examine whether the list was made with the intent to kill the children who were put on it and whether it was the one that was based on to kill those children. Regarding to whether Kabilima Jean Damascène knew the plan behind the compilation of that list of Tutsi children who had not been killed, the Court of Appeal finds that in the testimony of Kabarenzi Xavérine mentioned above, she stated that she was among the people not targeted (Hutu), that they also wrote her because she had a hidden child, this is upheld by the statement of Kabilima Jean Damascène submitting that the purpose of making the list of these children was to facilitate them to share their properties, this indicates that when Kabilima Jean Damascène was making the list of those children, he was well aware of the plan of killing them, because they could not share the properties of the people who were still alive. This indicates that he already had conviction and behavior supporting the murder plan shared with Rwandenzi Michel and Nyamukaza who hired him to write them down, the ruling of the High Court that he did not share the plan with the killers involved in the murder of these children lacks merit. The Court of Appeal also finds that when Kabilima Jean Damascène made a list of Tutsi children and noted the houses where they were hidden, these children were not yet killed, this occurred during the genocide against the Tutsi, and the killings had already commenced and were ongoing, some parents of these children were killed, while others who managed to escape fled as well, so he cannot state that he made the list without

## Page 620

224 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

being aware of the purpose, and yet he maintains that they had to share their properties. Also, the list made by Kabilima Jean Damascène was not a list of all children, but a special list of Tutsi children who had not been killed, knowing that the purpose of this selection was to ensure that no Tutsi would be forgotten and could escape from the plan to exterminate them during the genocide against the Tutsis to facilitate them to share of their properties. The Court finds that Kabilima Jean Damascène made a list of Tutsi children surely kwnowing that the purpose was to kill them and they were finally killed because of their ethnic group, this makes him an accomplice of perpetrators of genocide because of his strong support provided, as explained in article 1, 50 point b, of Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general12, because he made a list of those children surely kwnowing that, the purpose was to be killed even if he did not directly or indirectly participate in killing them as he claims, the fact is that the act he committed, is that he wrote them down, he did it knowing that they would be killed and take possession of the properties belonging to their parents who had already been killed and others fled, in addition to that, such act of making a list helped the killers not to be mistaken about them while the murder was ongoing in Bunge. Therefore, it finds that, as already mentioned above, regarding the list, Kabilima Jean Damascène became the

12 This article states that: accomplice is a person having aided the offender in the means of preparing the offence through any of the following acts: b) a person who knowingly aids or abets the offender in the means of preparing, facilitating or committing the offence or incites the offender.

## Page 621

225 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

accomplice of the perpetrators of genocide, this crime is provided and punished by articles 3 and 4 of The International Convention of 09/12/1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide13, and Article 114 of Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code which was into force at the time the judgment was decided, it is punished under article 115 of that Organic Law. 2. The fact that the High Court reduced the penalty imposed to Kabilima without any supporting ground The Prosecution appealed on the ground that the High Court reduced the penalty of Kabilima Jean Damascène based on the fact that he committed the crime of genocide when he was a young man and that he was not characterised by bad behavior before committing the crime of genocide for which he is prosecuted and after committing this crime. The Prosecution explained that Kabilima Jean Damascène who was in his final year of high school in a minor seminary, was well aware of the atrocities that were being committed in the country. Moreover, the Court did not clarify whether the minority mentioned about Kabilima Jean Damascène is considered as an "minority excuse" since it appears that he committed the crimes against him when he was 21 years old.

13 This article states that: “The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article IV Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”.

## Page 622

226 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Prosecution contends that the High Court did not explain its basis to declare that Kabilima Jean Damascène was characterized by good behavior before committing the crime of genocide while the evidence presented by the National Commission for the Fight Against Genocide indicated that he was notably involved in the killing at Bunge, so that having good morals cannot prevent him from being well-known for murder. The Prosecution also adds that the High Court ignored article 82 of the Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code, which states that in determination of penalties, the Court must first look at the aggravating circumnstances before looking at mitigating circumstances. The Prosecution concluded by requesting this instant Court, in accordance with article 113 and article 115 of of the Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code, to uphold the life imprisonment sentence for Kabilima Jean Damascène as ordered by the Intermediate Court, because he became well-known in the genocide against the Tutsis in Bunge; due to the fact that he attended the planning meetings and was in the armed groups, due to the fact that he appeared at the barriers where Tutsis were killed, and was given a gun, the Gacaca Courts put him in the first category. The Prosecution submits that the fact that Kabilima Jean Damascène was well-known in the murder was pointed out in the course of the collection of information carried out in Bunge and contained in the note books kept by the National Commission for the Fight Against Genocide and even the High Court found those elements of evidence and that he appeared in many attacks together with the well-known killers included Rwandenzi and Nyamukaza, so that in sentencing him, the

## Page 623

227 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

Court should have considered the aggravating circumstances before analysing the mitigating circumstances as stipulated by article 82 of the Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code. Kabilima Jean Damascène defended himself on the appeal arguing that nothing would make him well-known killer and famous in the murder for which he is accused because he was not involved in it, and he never admits the truth from the documents provided by CNLG because they are among the elements of evidence against which he filed appeal and he requested that they should be brought in Court but his request was not granted. Additionally, he mentioned that the Prosecution accused him of being well-known killer in collaboration with Rwandenzi who was the Bourgmestre of Nyakizu commune and Nyamukaza who was the Conseiller, but the Prosecution did not present any indictment incriminating him as co-offender or accomplice of these leaders. Counsel Munyemana Gatsimbanyi Pascal assisting Kabilima Jean Damascène, requested the Court not to base on the documents provided by the CNLG which portray the suspect as well-known killer in the murder of which he is accused because the contents are doubtful due to the fact that the information they allegedly contain was not provided in compliance with article 6 of Organic Law n°16/2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts.

## Page 624

228 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Article 76 of the Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code, which was into force when the case of Kabilima Jean Damascène was decided in the High Court, provides that the judge may consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence. The decision to accept mitigating circumstances must be justified. a. With regard to the behaviour of Kabilima Jean Damascène before and after the genocide committed against Tutsis in 1994 The High Court, in reducing the sentence of Kabilima Jean Damascène, explained that he was not characterised by bad behavior nor his behavior threatened the society either before or after the genocide committed against the Tutsis in 1994 and he is accused to have participated in it. The Court finds that the genocide is a crime classified as a "crime under the law of nations" and the International Courts consider it a "crime which shocks the conscience of mankind”14.

14 Croatia v. Serbia, International Court of Justice, Judgment of 03/02/2015, parag. 87: “The Court has also repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of customary international law. That was emphasized by the Court in its 1951 Advisory Opinion .The origins of the Convention show that it was the intention of the United Nations to condemn and punish genocide as ‘a crime under international law’ involving a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, a denial which shocks the conscience of mankind and results in great losses to humanity, and which is contrary to moral law and the spirit and aims of the United Nations (resolution 96 (I) of the General Assembly, 11 December 1946). The first

## Page 625

229 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

The behavior of Kabilima Jean Damascène who is convicted of this crime cannot be a mitigating factor because a person who intends to exterminate ethnic group and executes his intent, cannot be attributed with good behavior either before committing a crime, because he did not commit the crime in an unexpectedly way, or after committing it, because he did not remorse and asked for forgiveness. The Court finds that the High Court failed to fully explain the mitigating circumstance relating to the good behavior of Kabilima Jean Damascène and connect with the gravity of the crime of genocide of which he was convicted. b. With regard to the fact that Kabilima Jean Damascène committed the crime while he was still a young man The Court finds that the identification of Kabilima Jean Damascène indicates that he was born in 1973, he committed the crimes for which he is accused in April 1994, which means that he was 21 years old. The Court finds that, as the Prosecution submits, the High Court did not explain the basis on which it relied by declaring that he committed the crime at a young age, as a person who was in his last year of high school in a minor seminary, he was convinced enough to know the gravity and consequences of the crime of genocide he committed, therefore

consequence arising from this conception is that the principles underlying the Convention are principles which are recognized by civilized nations as binding on States, even without any conventional obligation. A second consequence is the universal character both of the condemnation of genocide and of the co-operation required ‘in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge. (Preamble to the Convention).”

## Page 626

230 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

this should not be a reason for reduction of the gravity of the crime he committed. c. With regard to the fact that Kabilima Jean Damascène should be punished on basis of the fact that he was well- known in the killings committed in Bunge The Court finds that the case against Kabilima Jean Damascène is related to the attack he was involved in that killed Batutsi and others who were with him, the Prosecution did not charge him with other attacks in which he was involved. The Court finds that it cannot determine the penalty based on the fact that the accused was well-known in the murder he committed in different places while the Prosecution did not indicate any other attacks in which he was involved other than the above mentioned. d. With regard to penalty that should be imposed to Kabilima Jean Damascène Article 115 of Organic Law n° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the Penal Code which was into force when the appealed case of Kabilima Jean Damascène was decided, provides that any person, who commits, in time of peace or in time of war, the crime of genocide as provided in the preceding article, shall be liable to life imprisonment with special provisions. The Court finds that, as the United Nations General Assembly declared, the crime of genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, a denial which shocks the conscience of mankind and results in great losses to

## Page 627

231 PROSECUTION v. MUGIMBA

humanity15 and the International Convention of 09/12/1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, states that “at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity”16. The Court finds that the gravity of the crime of genocide makes it also a special crime, it is a special intent to destroy to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group and this specificity is based on in sentencing the perpetrators of this crime as explained by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the case of the Prosecutor v. Kambanda Jean.17 The Court finds that, based on the aforementioned explanations about the nature of the crime of genocide and its specificity, such crime must be punished in a special way due to the special effects caused by it on the place where it was committed and to the victims, therefore Kabilima Jean Damascène who is convicted of the crime of genocide and that

15 U.N General Assembly, 1946, Res. 260, The crime of genocide is “a denial of the right to existence of entire human groups and noted that such denial shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and the spirit and aims of the United Nations.” 16 The Preamble of International Convention of 09/12/1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 17 See judgment Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgment and Sentence, ICTR- 97-23-S,4 September 1998, para. 16. Where it ruled that: “The crime of genocide is unique because of its element of dolus specialis (special intent) which requires that the crime be committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such; hence the Chamber is of the opinion that genocide constitutes the crime of crimes, which must be taken into account when deciding the sentence.”

## Page 628

232 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

of being an accomplice in the crime of genocide, must be sentenced to life imprisonment provided for in article 92 of the Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general because it is the lesser penalties compared to the life imprisonment with special provisions provided for in article 115 of the Organic Law n0 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code which was into force when the case was decided in the previous Courts. III. DECISION OF THE COURT Holds that the appeal of Kabilima Jean Damascène is unfounded. Holds that the appeal of the Prosecution is founded in parts. Holds that the case RP Gen 00006/2017/HC/HCCIC decided on 31/01/2018 by the High Court, Specialized Chamber hearing international and transnational crimes is reversed in parts. Holds that Kabilima Jean Damascène is convicted of genocide crime and that of being an accomplice of genocide perpetrators. Sentences Kabilima Jean Damascène to life imprisonment. Orders that the court fees are borne to the Public Treasury.

## Page 629

233 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

233

PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA – (Rugabirwa, J. P., Tugireyezu and Kaliwabo, J.) February 28, 2020] Criminal procedure – Detention and release – Provisional release – A person detained in the context of enforcement of the penalty of imprisonment he/she has been sentenced to cannot be provisionally released on grounds of unlawful detention by investigation organs. Criminal procedure – Criminal liability – Acquittal – No accused can claim that a judgment from another court acquitted him/her as long as they have not been involved as a party. Law of evidence – Evidence in criminal cases – Testimony – Probative value of testimony – The determination of the probative value of testimonial evidence following the hearing of witness declarations – A judge may consider certain parts of testimony and reject other parts – In the event witness declarations from two witnesses contradict each other after the hearing of witnesses, it is the court that determines which witness declarations are valid. Criminal procedure – Genocide and crimes against humanity – Crime of Conspiracy to commit genocide – Although it is not provided under Rwandan law, the connivance to commit genocide amounts to the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide.

## Page 630

234 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Facts: This case was initiated for the first time before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, whereby Habyarimana was accused of committing offenses with the intention of conspiracy, planning, inciting others, supervising, and leading genocide or other crimes against humanity while he was exercising a leadership role in the MRND political party up to the level of City of Kigali Prefecture. This Court found him guilty of the acts of inciting, formation of a criminal gang, and leading the barricades where Tutsi people were killed with the intention to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. Concerning the objection, he raised regarding the fact that he had been detained unlawfully, the Court rejected it on the grounds that he raised it in violation of the law. The Court sentenced him to the penalty of life imprisonment with reclusion. The defendant lodged an appeal to the High Court, Specialized Chamber for international and transnational crimes, alleging that the previous court disregarded the fact that he had been imprisoned unlawfully, was tried without legal assistance, and the court heard the merits of the case without prior examining the objection he raised. The High Court held that such an objection should have been examined first, but at this level of appeal, it would not entertain it because the case has already been tried on its merits. Regarding the new charges, the defendant requested that they should not be subject to trial on the grounds that they were introduced in the appeal claim by the prosecution despite falling beyond the scope of the appeal. The High Court found that according to the content of the pieces of evidence submitted by the prosecution, they fall within the scope of his appeal claim because they pertain to his participation as one of the leaders of the MRND political party. This includes being

## Page 631

235 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

present in meetings that planned genocide, selecting the youth, providing training and equipment. Consequently, these are not new charges except for his role in the establishment of the RTLM radio station, which should not be examined because he was not charged with it at the trial court. Therefore, it decided that he is guilty of the offences of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide for having incited to commit genocide and provided equipment used for committing genocide. However, it found him not guilty of heading barricades where Tutsi people were killed, for which he was convicted by the Intermediate Court. The High Court maintained the penalty of life imprisonment with reclusion that he was sentenced to by the trial court. As a result, he lodges an appeal to the Supreme Court, but his case was transferred to the Court of Appeal established by the reform of the judiciary. In his appeal, he maintained that he had been unlawfully detained, which the prosecution refutes because he was sentenced to life imprisonment with reclusion. They argue that the fact that such a decision was taken without citing the relevant law does not have any effect, especially as this involves a defect in the form of the judgment and not in its substance. Held: 1. A person detained in the context of enforcement of the penalty of imprisonment he/she has been sentenced to cannot be provisionally released on grounds of unlawful detention by investigation organs. 2. No accused can claim that a judgment from another court acquitted him/her as long as they have not been involved as a party.

## Page 632

236 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

3. It is the duty of the court to determine the relevant pieces of evidence after hearing the witnesses. 4. A judge may consider certain parts of testimony and reject other parts – In the event witness declarations from two witnesses contradict each other after the hearing of witnesses, it is the court that determines which witness declarations are valid. 4. Although it is not provided under Rwandan law, the connivance to commit genocide amounts to the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide. Appeal with merit. The ruling of the High Court, Specialized Chamber for international and transnational crimes is reversed in parts. Court fees are borne to Public Treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic-Law Nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 132. International covenant on civil and political rights of 16 December 1966, article 14. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 09 December 1948, article 3. Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, article 155. Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 on jurisdiction of courts, article 105. Law Nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article 184.

## Page 633

237 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Law Nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production, article 65 and 119. Cases referred to: Prosecution v. Bandora Charles, RPA 0001/12/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/03/2019. Prosecution v. Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, ICTR-98-44-T. Prosecution v. Simon Bikindi, ICTR –2001 -72 –T. Prosecution v. Yussuf Munyakazi, ICTR-97-36A-A. Prosecution v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-A. Prosecution v. Jean Paul Akayesu, ICTR -96-4-T. Prosecution v. Seromba Athanase, ICTR-01-66-A. Prosecution v. Ntagerura André and co-accused, ICTR-99-46- A. Prosecution v. Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-T. Prosecution v. Nahimana Ferdinand and co-accused, ICTR-99- 52-A. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Habyarimana Jean was the president of MRND (Mouvement Révolutionaire National pour le Développement) in the Prefecture of the City of Kigali and a member of the political bureau of that political organization at the national level. He is accused of committing the acts of conspiracy, planning, inciting others, supervising, and leading genocide or

## Page 634

238 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

other crimes against humanity while being a member of the leadership of MRND at the level of the City of Kigali. Specifically, he is alleged to have formed a criminal gang by selecting youths to receive military training and providing them with equipment used to kill Tutsi people. He is also accused of participating in meetings planning genocide and supervising the barricades extending from Nyabugogo to Muhima to APACOPE School, where many victims, including Rutayisire alias Tigana, were killed.

The judgment was initiated for the first time in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 01/03/2016. This Court tried the case RP GEN 0002/15/TGI/NYGE and found Habyarimana Jean guilty of the acts of inciting, forming a criminal gang, and heading the barricades where Tutsi people were killed with the intent to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. The Court held that the objection regarding the unlawful detention raised by Habyarimana Jean could not be given merit because he raised it irregularly and sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion.

Habyarimana Jean was dissatisfied with the ruling and lodged an appeal to the High Court, Specialized Chamber for international and transnational crimes1, alleging that the Intermediate Court disregarded the fact that he was unlawfully detained, tried without legal assistance, and that it proceeded to try the case on its merits without prior examination of the objection he raised.

1 In this case, "High Court" shall be used to refer to the "High Court, Specialized Chamber for international and transnational crimes."

## Page 635

239 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

In addition, in his appeal, Habyarimana Jean alleged that the High Court disregarded the fact that he should not be charged with the offence of formation of a criminal gang because it was time-barred. He also claimed that he was convicted on the basis of irrelevant witness declarations that were sought with the objective of securing his conviction, and that the witnesses were not summoned to the hearing. Furthermore, he argued that the Court refused to allow the prosecution to present some exculpatory documents, including the hearing minutes on provisional detention and release, and the investigation carried out by the prosecution in Muhima sector.

In the judgment RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI rendered on 28/04/2017, the High Court recognized that the Intermediate Court should have first examined the objection raised by Habyarimana Jean about his unlawful detention. However, at the appeal level, the High Court stated that it would not examine it because the trial of the merits of the case has already been conducted, and Habyarimana Jean was sentenced to life imprisonment with reclusion. Therefore, the examination of that objection is not likely to have any effect.

Regarding new charges that Habyarimana Jean alleged to have been brought at the appeal level by the Prosecution, and not within the scope of the appeal, he requested them to be rejected. These charges include the meeting he is accused to have held with Renzaho Tharcisse for planning genocide, the role of MRND in the planning of genocide, membership in the shareholders of RTLM (Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines), and leading attacks in different locations across the county except at Muhima.The Court found that the contents of

## Page 636

240 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

the evidence provided by the prosecution fall within the scope of his appeal because they relate to his role as one of the leaders of the MRND political organization. This includes his participation in meetings planning genocide, the selection and training of youth, and providing them with equipment, which are not new charges, except for his role in establishing RTLM, which should not be examined since he was not charged with it before the trial court.

The Court decided that Habyarimana Jean's appeal has merit in parts and held that he is guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in committing genocide for inciting to commit genocide and providing munitions that were used to commit genocide. However, the Court found him not guilty of leading the barricades where Tutsi people were killed, as declared by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. It upheld the life imprisonment with reclusion sentence imposed on him by the trial court.

Habyarimana Jean was dissatisfied with the ruling and lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting it to examine several issues. He raised concerns about being unlawfully detained, the High Court's decision without considering the precedents of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)2, not being given adequate time for cross-examination of inculpatory witnesses, and the High Court's disregard of the declarations of exculpatory witnesses. Additionally, he claimed that the High Court made a mistake in declaring him guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide.

2 Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda.

## Page 637

241 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

After the establishment of the Court of Appeal, Habyarimana Jean's appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal in accordance with article 105 of Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdictions of courts3. It was recorded with the docket number RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA.

The hearing of the case was originally scheduled for 13/11/2019, but on that day, it was postponed because the judges were participating in training. It was rescheduled for 18/11/2019, but since then, the hearing has been repeatedly postponed for various reasons. The hearing of the case resumed in public on 09/01/2020 and 13/01/2020. Habyarimana Jean was assisted by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, and the prosecution was represented by Rudatinya Nyangezi Gaspard, a national prosecutor. II. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION Issues that should be determined in this case are as follows : - Whether Habyarimana Jean is unlawfully imprisoned; - Whether the case law of Matayo Ngirumpatse and Edouard Karemera, tried by TPIR, would exculpate Habyarimana Jean from criminal liability for the conspiracy to commit genocide.

3Article 105, paragraph 1: From the day this Law comes into force, except cases already under trial, all cases that are no longer in the jurisdiction of the court seized are transferred to the court with jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Law.

## Page 638

242 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Whether the High Court should have summoned Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent for cross-examination with Habyarimana Jean in any way, and whether the instant court should also summon them for cross-examination. - Whether the High Court disregarded witness declarations exculpating Habyarimana Jean. - Whether the High Court made a mistake in declaring Habyarimana Jean guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide and the offence of complicity in genocide, and providing munitions used to commit genocide. 1. Whether Habyarimana Jean is unlawfully imprisoned

Habyarimana Jean and Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, who assists him, state that in paragraph 12 of the appealed judgment before this court, the High Court found that the Intermediate Court should have priorly addressed the objection raised by Habyarimana Jean before the trial court regarding the fact that he was unlawfully imprisoned before the trial of the merits of the case. This was specified by article 105, paragraph 3 of the Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure that was in force at the time of the trial of the said case. However, the High Court did not rectify such irregularity. Instead, it explained that it would not take any action regarding it because he is in prison based on the judgment that sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion. Therefore, the High Court immediately proceeded to hear the case on its merits before making a decision on such an objection. Additionally, it did not cite the legal instruments it referred to in reaching such a decision. They request this court to address such objection

## Page 639

243 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

and release Habyarimana Jean provisionally before the hearing of the merits of the case.

Habyarimana Jean explains that he was apprehended on 20/12/1996 based on the list of genocide fugitives of the 1994 genocide. He was incarcerated on 12/03/1997, and an arrest warrant MAP)4 was issued for him on 02/04/1997. However, he claims that he was never brought to court for the purpose of provisional detention. Instead, it was only in the year 2009 when he learned that there was no dossier for his case. He alleges that the Director of Prison at the time, named Gahima Rusa, and the prosecutor at the Intermediate level, named Ndibwami Rugambwa, kept him in prison unlawfully based on expired arrest warrants. This caused him psychological torture as he was coerced to admit to offenses he did not commit and implicate his colleagues. Habyarimana Jean also claims that during this time, he was deprived of the right to be tried while free and the right to legal counsel. He states that he intends to file a separate claim before a competent court to seek justice and have these civil servant leaders punished according to the law. Additionally, he seeks damages, even if symbolic, for the 20 years of imprisonment he endured unjustly.

Habyarimana Jean and his legal counsel argue that, based on articles 78 (8º) and 96, paragraph 3 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, he should be provisionally released before the trial of the case. They contend that the judge's provisional detention order has never been issued, and as per Article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, he is still considered innocent. They

4 Mandat d’arrêt provisoire.

## Page 640

244 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

request the instant court to consider the case law RP 00036/2017/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 06/12/2018 between the Prosecution vs Nshimiyimana Diane Rwigara and Mukangemanyi Adeline Rwigara, as that court released the accused despite being provisionally detained.

The Prosecutor argues that Habyarimana Jean is not unlawfully imprisoned because he was sentenced to life imprisonment with reclusion, as even held by the High Court in paragraph 12 of the appealed judgment. They further contend that the fact that the judge did not mention the provisions of the law they applied to reach such a decision is a drafting issue and not a defect in the judgment itself.

He also argues that Article 96, paragraph 3 of the Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure cannot be relied upon in this case, as Habyarimana Jean did not appeal against the provisional arrest warrant. Moreover, even before the High Court, Habyarimana Jean was no longer provisionally detained, as he lodged an appeal against the judgment that was tried at the second instance level, which sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion. This means that he should remain in the same imprisonment situation imposed by the previous courts and should therefore proceed with his second appeal while being in prison, in accordance with Article 184, paragraph one of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure that was in force at the time Habyarimana Jean was under trial.However, if he wishes to sue the persons who unlawfully imprisoned him, he would need to file a separate claim before the competent court in accordance with Articles 144 and 145 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, as mentioned above. This is because

## Page 641

245 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

the Court of Appeal does not have trial jurisdiction over actions related to unlawful imprisonment.

He further argues that the case law between the Prosecution vs Rwigara Diane should not be considered as a precedent in this case. In the Rwigara Diane case, she was released after being declared innocent, but in contrast, Habyarimana Jean is currently imprisoned because of the enforcement of the judgment that sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion, as previously clarified. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 184, paragraph one of the Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure that was into force at the time when Habyarimana Jean’s case was pending trial, provides that the accused held in provisional detention before the detention judgement is rendered, remains in detention notwithstanding his or her appeal5.

The ruling of the judgment appealed before this Court, in paragraph 12, indicates that the High Court held that even though the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge did not address the objection raised by Habyarimana Jean regarding the fact that he was unlawfully imprisoned before the adjudication of the merits of the case according to the law, the High Court asserted that it would not examine such objection raised at the

5This is the same provision that changed to become article 187, paragraph one of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure providing that “The accused held in provisional detention before the detention judgement is rendered, remains in detention notwithstanding his or her appeal.”

## Page 642

246 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyarugenge Intermediate court level, which had sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion for the offenses he committed. Instead, the High Court stated that it should examine his grounds of appeal to establish whether or not they are founded. After hearing the case on its merits, the High Court decided that Habyarimana Jean is guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in committing genocide for inciting to commit genocide and providing ammunition used to commit genocide. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion, as mentioned in paragraphs 145 and 147 of the appealed judgment.

The Court is of the view that although Habyarimana Jean was unlawfully imprisoned as decided by the previous courts, it should not examine this issue to establish whether he would benefit from provisional release before the trial of the current case. This is because such a release would not benefit him in the context of serving out the sentence of life imprisonment with reclusion he received for the offense of genocide he is accused of. This indicates that the previous court did not make any mistake when ruling that Habyarimana Jean should remain in prison while he appealed his case. All these imply that he would not be provisionally released before the trial of this case, according to the provisions of article 187, paragraph one of the aforementioned law.

The Court deems that it cannot rely on the judgment RP 00036/2017/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 06/12/2018 between the prosecution vs Mukangemanyi Adeline Rwigara and co-accused, as raised by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire assisting Habyarimana Jean. This is because in that ruling, the accused were released after being declared

## Page 643

247 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

innocent of the offense of causing uprising or unrest among the population for which they were prosecuted. In contrast, in the instant case, Habyarimana Jean was imprisoned due to being sentenced to life imprisonment with reclusion by the trial court and appellate court, as explained above. Whether the case law of Matayo Ngirumpatse and Edouard Karemera, tried by TPIR, would exculpate Habyarimana Jean from criminal liability for the conspiracy to commit genocide6

Habyarimana Jean, assisted by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, lodged an appeal alleging that the High Court declared him guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, disregarding the judgment ICTR-98-44-T tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ICTR ruling stated that before the date of April 8, 1994, there had been no occurrence of conspiracy to commit genocide with regard to Matayo Ngirumpatse and Edouard Karemera, as well as other high political leaders of MRND.

Habyarimana Jean defended himself, arguing that since it was established that the high leaders of MRND did not conspire to commit genocide, he, as a leader of MRND at the City of Kigali level, should not be held liable for forming the group of Interahamwe and providing them with military training with the purpose of committing genocide. He further contended that the prosecution failed to prove any concertation and conspiracy he may have had with his deputies or any other person with the intent to commit genocide.

6Matters regarding the classification of this offense shall be addressed in the instant case in Part II.5.

## Page 644

248 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Habyarimana Jean requested that, for this reason, the first paragraph of Rule 9 of the rules of procedure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda should be applied. This rule states that no person should be tried by a domestic court for acts that gravely violate international humanitarian law if they have already been tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for the same criminal acts.

The Prosecution replied that the case law of Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard does not benefit Habyarimana Jean in any way. Instead, he selectively considers only the part of the ruling that he believes benefits him, disregarding the fact that paragraph [201] of this judgment established that Ngirumpatse Matayo, as a leader of MRND, had the power to supervise the acts of Interahamwe. Additionally, the witness HJB confirmed that Habyarimana Jean himself played a role in the selection of young people to join the group of Interahamwe.

The Prosecution pursues that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda decided that the leading committee of MRDN at the national level could not transmit the message to the partisans without passing it to the president of the party at the prefecture level7. They clarify that Habyarimana Jean is not prosecuted for merely being the leader of Interahamwe; rather, he is held liable for the role he played in the formation of this group and training it militarily with the intent to exterminate Tutsi, and these actions were revealed in various meetings.

7 ICTR-98-44-T, the case between Prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraph 201: “De plus, la Chambre juge peu probable que le Comité National Provisoire ait pu, sans l’implication du président préfectoral s’adresser aux militants du MRND”.

## Page 645

249 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 155 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal prosecure, paragraph 2, provides that Prosecution cannot be instituted if the accused proves that they were subject to a final judgment delivered abroad (on the offence they are prosecuted for).

Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of December 16, 1966 stating that No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.8

Basing on the case ICTR-98-44-T rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the elements of evidence produced, Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard were found guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, and homicide for their role in the formation of the Interahamwe militia and providing it with military training. They were also found guilty of conspiring to exterminate Tutsi people, based on evidence presented and discussions of various meetings where MRND leaders and partisans participated and tagged Tutsi people as enemies.However, the Court clarified that their criminal liability cannot be engaged for actions that occurred before April 8, 1994.9 Nevertheless, in the appeal, that

8 Art. 14 point 7 du Pacte International du 16 Décembre 1966 relatif aux droits civils et politiques ratifié par le Rwanda par le Décret-loi Nº 8/7bya5 du 12 Février 1975. 9 ICTR-98-44-T Case between the prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraph 1573: Aucune déclaration de culpabilité ne

## Page 646

250 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

court held that Karemera Edouard and Ngirumpatse Matayo are guilty of genocide, inciting to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and murder committed after April 18, 1994, in furtherance of executing the joint criminal enterprise.Therefore, Karemera Edouard and Ngirumpatse Matayo were not declared not guilty of those acts, as alleged by Habyarimana.10

Additionally, the Court of Appeal observes that the trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had initially found Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard not guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide based on actions that occurred before April 08, 1994. However, at the appellate chamber (ICTR-98-44-A), the decision of the trial chamber was changed. The appellate chamber held that Ngirumpatse Matayo is guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, while maintaining the decision that Karemera Edouard is guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, at least from May 25, 199411.This implies that the appellate chamber considered the pieces of evidence regarding each individual's actions, which is the same approach the High Court took in Habyarimana Jean's case before declaring him guilty12.

serait dès lors être prononcée relativement aux faits survenus avant le 8 avril 1994. 10 ICTR-98-44-A Case between the prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraphs 146-156. 11 ICTR-98-44-A between the Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, Paragraph 745: “The Appeals Chamber has reversed the Trial Chamber's finding that Ngirumpatse was responsible for conspiracy to commit genocide, but has upheld the Trial Chamber's finding that Karemera was responsible for conspiracyt o commit genocide by at least 25 May 1994.” 12 See the case RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI.

## Page 647

251 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

The High Court finds, therefore, that whether it is the genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, crimes against humanity committed for the execution of the joint criminal enterprise, or conspiracy to commit an offense, Ngirumpatse and Karemera Edouard were not declared innocent of them, as alleged by Habyarimana Jean, except for criminal actions that occurred before April 8, 199413. Therefore, the ground of appeal raised by Habyarimana Jean, claiming that as the former leader of MRND at the City of Kigali level, he should not be found guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide as long as Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard, as top leaders of MRND, were not declared guilty, lacks merit.

The Court further finds that the ground of appeal advanced by Habyarimana Jean, whereby he requested to respect Article 9 of the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda14, lacks merit because he had not been involved as a party in the judgment ICTR-98-44-T that definitively declared Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard not guilty of the conspiracy to commit genocide. The holdings of this case concern Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard only, as the persons who are involved in it, and they are, by the same reason, protected by Article 9 as stated in this paragraph, in the event they would be accused of the offenses for which they had already been judged. This is the same provision as stated in Article 155 of Law no. 027/2019

13 The role of Habyarimana Jean in the actions that occurred before April 8, 1994, is going to be examined in Part II.5 of this case. 14 “No person shall be tried before a national court for acts constituting serious violations of international humanitarian law under the present Statute, for which he or she has already been tried by the International Tribunal for Rwanda.”

## Page 648

252 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. The second paragraph of this article states that prosecution cannot be instituted if the accused proves that he or she was subject to a final judgment delivered abroad for the same offense he is accused of. However, Habyarimana Jean does not demonstrate that he was judged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Based on the foregoing provisions of the law, the explanations, and the opinions of legal scholars advancing that only parties prosecuted for the same facts are protected by the principle of “res judicata”15, the Court of Appeal finds that Habyarimana Jean's ground of appeal, asserting that the High Court disregarded the application of the judgment of Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard despite him being declared not guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, is groundless. 3. Whether the High Court should have summoned Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent for cross-examination with Habyarimana Jean in any way, and whether the instant Court should also summon them for cross-examination.

15 Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procedure pénale, 2eme éd., Larcier, 2006, pp.978- 981: “Pour qu’il y ait “autorité de la chose jugée” du pénal sur le pénal, il faut que la demande soit formée contre les mêmes parties en la même qualité et que les prévenus soient poursuivis pour les mêmes faits que ceux qui ont déjà fait l’objet d’un jugement. Il n’y a pas d’autorité de la chose jugée entre co-autreurs et complices s’ils sont poursuivis séparément. La décision rendue précédemment ne peut ni leur nuire ni leur profiter, même si cela débouche sur des décisions contradictoires”.

## Page 649

253 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Habyarimana Jean states that the High Court declared him guilty based on the witness declarations of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent without summoning them for cross-examination, arguing that their statements are doubtful. He explains that the testimony of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite should be invalidated because it is contradictory. Before the prosecution, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite never mentioned the "Comité de Crise," but he talked about it during his testimony at the time of the investigation in Kanombe Hospital where he was admitted. Furthermore, he brought in the names of other witnesses that he did not mention before the prosecution.

He further argues that the witness declarations issued by Mbarushimana Vincent before investigation organs should be invalidated. This is because he did not address them to the High Court for cross-examination to be carried out. Instead, the court was unable to locate him as he stated that he could not provide testimony until he met with Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, who used to employ him in the Cooperative of tire repairers. He, therefore, requests the instant court to summon them for cross-examination.

Habyarimana Jean explains that the testimony of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite should not be considered. Nyiringondo Epaphrodite stated that he went to register with the councillor of Muhima sector at the time of the recruitment of young persons to join the Interahamwe group. He claimed to have seen the attendance of the "Comité National Provisoire" of Interahamwe in the first phase, including Habyarimana Jean, Ngirumpatse, and Kabuga. Additionally, he said he saw the attendance of Munyakazi, who was the commander of

## Page 650

254 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

254

gendarmerie, and Renzaho Tharcisse, who was the Prefet of the City of Kigali, in the second phase.However, Habyarimana Jean disputes these statements, asserting that those meetings did not occur. According to Habyarimana Jean, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite would not have been able to attend them due to being a Tutsi and a member of Parti Libéral (PL).

He further argues that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite declared that, in those meetings, Habyarimana Jean instructed the Councillor of Muhima sector to list the young people desirous of joining the Interahamwe. However, Habyarimana Jean would not interfere with Interahamwe actions because they had a president, vice-president, and secretary. Another thing he mentions is that the Councillor of Muhima Sector, who was a civil servant, or Renzaho Tharcisse and Munyakazi, who were soldiers, would not join political organizations. This was because such affiliations were done only during the period of MRND, which was a state party.

He explains that, in his testimony, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite declared that he was prepared to incriminate Habyarimana Jean in the Gacaca court. However, he did not do it because he realized that Habyarimana Jean was listed in the first category of genocidaires that were supposed to be tried in regular courts. He wonders why Nyiringondo Epaphrodite did not provide such testimony in writing at that time.

He pursues the argument that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite stated that Kamatamu used to invite young people to train themselves to be Interahamwe. However, afterward, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite declared that Kamatamu invited them to go and watch over security instead. Furthermore, he points out that the prosecution declared that Habyarimana Jean

## Page 651

255 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

255

was a member of the "Comité de Crise," while another witness named Mukagatare declared that such a "Comité de Crise" never existed.

He added that Mbarushimana Vincent stated that a meeting was held in which Habyarimana Jean and Ngirumpatse attended, calling on young people to be militarily trained. Mbarushimana Vincent further stated that Habyarimana Jean took those people to Camp Kigali using his own vehicle, a Land Rover model. Additionally, he claims that Habyarimana Jean had previously fired Tutsi people, as supported by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite. However, Habyarimana Jean would not be able to bring those young people to Camp Kigali using his own vehicle because there were too many of them.

Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, assisting him, states that based on Article 111 of Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, which provides that the benefit of doubt is given to the accused, the testimony of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent should not be given merit. He argues that their statements align themselves with the prosecution, and they did not declare it before the court, which deprived Habyarimana Jean of the opportunity to ask them questions face to face.

He further states that based on Article 62 of Law no. 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, which provides that testimonial evidence is statements made in court, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent should be summoned to appear before this Court to provide their testimony. This will allow Habyarimana Jean and his legal counsel to ask them questions. He argues that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite provided his testimony while in Kanombe hospital

## Page 652

256 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

where he was admitted, but Habyarimana Jean was not given the opportunity to contradict him because he was not there. Furthermore, he states that although Mbarushimana Vincent was missing, he should be summoned again before this court to provide his testimony and undergo cross-examination. If he remains missing, the conclusion should be drawn that he is definitively missing.

The Prosecutor argues that, based on Article 86 of Law no. 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, evidence in criminal cases is based on all the facts. Furthermore, according to Article 65 of Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, only the court can assess the relevance of testimonial evidence. Cosequently, he notes that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent should not be summoned again as witnesses before this court because the testimony they made before the investigation organs is relevant. This is supported by another testimony made before the High Court by Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJD, and HJE, as indicated by paragraphs 35 to 39 and 47 of the appealed judgment. Additionally, the prosecutor contends that Habyarimana Jean was given enough time to ask them questions as he wished, and they provided answers.

He explains that the High Court attended to Nyiringondo Epaphrodite in Kanombe Hospital, where he was admitted, and asked him all the questions that Habyarimana Jean intended to ask him, to which he replied. Afterward, the court read Nyiringondo Epaphrodite's declarations to both Habyarimana Jean and the prosecution, who also retorted about them.

## Page 653

257 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

He continues to explain that the High Court summoned Mbarushimana Vincent for cross-examination, but it did not occur because he did not appear. The summons contained in the file stated that he is no longer present at his former domicile. Nevertheless, he argues that Mbarushimana Vincent's testimony is relevant because it was provided before the investigation organs in compliance with the law.

He adds that even if Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent are summoned before this court, it would serve no purpose because they have already provided their testimony before the investigation organs and the High Court. Moreover, he argues that their declarations are relevant as they are supported by the testimonial declarations made by other witnesses that are in the dossier. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 119 of the Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that in criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means of fact or law provided they are subject to adversarial proceedings. In addition, article 62 of the same law provides that testimonial evidence consists of statements made in court by an individual regarding what he or she personally saw or heard that is relevant to the subject matter of the trial.

Again, article 65 of the above stated law provides that the court assesses with discretion the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It is not bound by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their

## Page 654

258 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their declarations.

The legal scholars clarify that though the principle of adverserial procedure permits opposing parties to contradict and discuss the evidence collected during the preliminary phase of the criminal trial, but, the trial judge may base his conviction on those elements of evidence without necessarily being repeated orally and adversarially during the hearing by the interrogated witnesses.16

It is noted in the case file that before the prosecution on 24/10/2014 and the High Court on 23/11/2016, during the investigation at Kanombe Hospital where Nyiringondo Epaphrodite was admitted, the latter explained that Habyarimana Jean played a role in selecting youth for interahamwe, who received military training. Subsequently, these youth were involved in the killing of numerous Tutsi individuals, including Rutayisire Deo, also known as Tigana, Gasongo, Munyankindi, and Vénantie.

It is further noted that following that investigation, the court reconvened for a hearing on 08/12/2016. During this hearing, both Habyarimana Jean and the prosecution were given ample time to respond to the testimony. In his response,

16 Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacob et Adrien Masset, Manuel de Procédure Pénale, Liège, Belgique, 2012, p.758: “Le caractère contradictoire de la procédure permet, certes, aux parties de contredire et discuter les éléments recueillis au cours de la phase préliminaire du procès pénal, mais (…) le juge du fond peut fonder sa conviction sur des éléments de l’information et de l’instruction qui ont été recueillis non contradictoirement et qui ne doivent pas nécessairement être repris oralement et contradictoirement à l’audience”.

## Page 655

259 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Habyarimana Jean argued that the testimony given by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite during the initial investigation should not be taken into account, as it contradicts the statement he had given before the prosecution on 24/10/2014.

It is also evident from the file that Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo, provided a testimony to the prosecution on 24/10/2014. In this testimony, he implicated Habyarimana Jean in the process of gathering youth from Muhima and Kimisagara, transporting them to Camp Kigali, and providing them with firearms training. According to his statement, between 10/04/1994 and 13/04/1994, these interahamwe youth were responsible for the killing of the Inkotanyi cadres.

Furthermore, it is observed in the file that the hearing of the case was repeatedly postponed to various dates, including 20/10/2016, 24/10/2016, 01/11/2016, and 11/11/2016, to allow the High Court to hear Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo, as a witness, as per the request of Habyarimana Jean. However, this witness failed to appear due to lack of information about his residence. Nonetheless, Habyarimana Jean was granted ample time to respond to the testimonies he had given before the prosecution on 24/10/2014, as well as those of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite mentioned in paragraphs [20], [52], [53], [98], [99], and [108] of the aforementioned judgment.

Moreover, in paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, the High Court clarified that the testimonies provided by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo, as mentioned previously, should be regarded as evidence supporting the assertion that

## Page 656

260 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Habyarimana Jean was among the individuals involved in the selection of interahamwe youth for military training. Their testimonies are significant as they affirm their direct knowledge of the selection process, despite being sidelined due to their Tutsi ethnicity. The court also determined that such testimony should be accorded weight, as it finds support from other witnesses, including Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, and HJE. These witnesses corroborated that Habyarimana Jean was actively involved in the selection of youth for military training. This involvement was facilitated by the bourgmestres of various Communes and Sectors, as motivated by him. They further detailed that a meeting took place at the MRND party headquarters located in Muhima, specifically the Kabuga building, before the youth were subsequently sent for military training. These clarifications were provided by the witnesses in paragraphs [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41] of the appealed judgment.

In accordance with legal provisions and the opinions of legal scholars, the Court determines that during the case proceedings, Habyarimana Jean was granted ample opportunity, as highlighted in paragraphs [20], [52], [53], [98], [99], and [108] of the appealed judgment, to challenge the testimonies presented by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo. Additionally, exercising its discretion under Article 65 of Law no. 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, the Court has deemed these testimonies credible. They find support in the accounts provided by other witnesses, including Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, and HJE, as elaborated in paragraph 41 of the aforementioned judgment. It is evident that the Court made a reasoned decision in relying on the testimonies of Nyiringondo

## Page 657

261 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, which were documented in the affidavit established by both the prosecution and the High Court for investigative purposes. In criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means of fact or law provided they are subject to adversarial proceedings, as stipulated in Article 119 of the aforementioned law. This underscores the point that there is no necessity to summon Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, particularly considering the unavailability of Mbarushimana Vincent due to his unknown whereabouts, as previously explained. Therefore, it is unnecessary to call them for cross- examination in this case, given the circumstances.

The Court concludes that the validity of the declarations made by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo, rests upon their alignment with alternate forms of evidence presented through the testimonies of multiple witnesses, as mentioned earlier. This assessment should be conducted in conjunction with other evidentiary elements contained within the case file. Such a comprehensive analysis is crucial to determining the extent of Habyarimana Jean's involvement in the offenses for which he was found guilty by the High Court. This matter will be further elucidated in the subsequent paragraphs of this case.

The Court concludes that Habyarimana Jean's assertion that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite's testimony should not carry weight due to its contradictions lacks merit. The inclusion of statements pertaining to the "Comité de crise" before the High Court and the introduction of names of witnesses not previously mentioned to the prosecution does not substantiate a contradiction in his statements. Rather, it is evident that

## Page 658

262 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyiringondo Epaphrodite's addition of these details is likely a consequence of the passage of twenty years since the occurrence of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. This extended time span between the events and his testimony provided before the prosecution on 24/10/2014, as well as before the court on 23/12/2016, offers a plausible explanation for the inclusion of these elements. This also aligns with the conclusions of the judgment ICT–2001-72–T in the case involving the prosecution and Bikindi Simon, who was tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on 02/12/2008. In this judgment, it was elucidated that the existence of contradictions or minor errors in witness statements, or even instances where these statements differ from earlier declarations, should not diminish the credibility of the testimony. This phenomenon may arise due to the considerable passage of time between the occurrence of the offense mentioned in the indictment and the actual presentation of the testimony before the court17.

The Court concludes that, furthermore, the aforementioned court did not err in its consideration of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite's testimony. It deliberated on a portion of his testimony that implicated Habyarimana Jean in the selection of interahamwe youth for military training, while omitting another segment. This action aligns with the

17 ICTR –2001 -72 –T between the Prosecution vs Simon Bikindi, paragraph 32: “La Chambre reconnaît qu'il s'est écoulé une longue période entre la date des faits allégués dans l'acte d'accusation et celle des dépositions à I'audience. Ainsi, Ie manque de précision ou I'existence de contradictions mineures entre les dépositions de différents témoins ou entre la déposition d'un témoin et ses déclarations antérieures, n'ont généralement pas été considérés comme jetant nécessairement Ie discrédit sur ces dépositions”.

## Page 659

263 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

provisions of Article 65 of the aforementioned Law. This article empowers the court to exercise its discretion in evaluating the relevance, pertinence, admissibility, or rejection of testimonial evidence, particularly by assessing the witnesses' understanding of the facts and their objectivity and sincerity in delivering their statements. This also corresponds to the decision rendered in the judgment ICT–2001-72–T of the prosecution versus Bikindi Simon, as mentioned earlier. In this case, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) established that a segment of the testimony can be considered valid as long as it is the portion that holds credibility18. 4. Whether the High Court disregarded witness declarations exculpating Habyarimana Jean

Habyarimana Jean, assisted by counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, states that there exists exculpatory evidence in his favor that was disregarded by the High Court. This evidence includes the testimony provided by Setiba Joseph, the former Interahamwe President in Kigali Sector. Setiba Joseph declared that the person named Turatsinze Jean Pierre was the chairperson of Interahamwe in Kigali Ngali. He further stated that Turatsinze Jean Pierre prevented Interahamwe who were attempting to attack his home, where Tutsi sought refuge. Setiba Joseph explains that the distribution of ammunition to those Interahamwe used to take place in the barracks where training sessions were held. This implies, therefore, that Turatsinze Jean Pierre was not the person in charge of

18 ICTR –2001 -72 –T between the prosecution versus Bikindi Simon, paragraph 32: “Même si elle a parfois décidé de ne pas se fonder sur certains aspects de la déposition d’un témoin, la Chambre a néamoins retenu d’autres parties de celle- ci jugées fiables et crédibles”.

## Page 660

264 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

dispatching the ammunitions to Interahamwe, as he was wrongly accused of doing so.

He continues by stating that another witness, named HJD, who was the president of Interahamwe in the Nyakabanda sector, was summoned to provide exculpatory evidence regarding the testimony given by the HJC witness. This HJC witness was a well-known Interahamwe member, as confirmed by the ALJ witness designated by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, as well as HJE in the High Court.In the testimony of HJC, he asserted that a resolution was reached during a meeting to expel the Tutsi who remained within the sectors and villages. This meeting supposedly occurred on 15/05/1994 and was chaired by Renzaho Tharcisse. However, the High Court disregarded the testimony of HJD, who maintained that the meeting on 15/05/1994 had never taken place. Instead, HJD claimed that the meeting had occurred on 20/05/1994 at Nyakabanda School. The purpose of this meeting was to recruit Interahamwe members in order to support soldiers and reclaim Mburabuturo, which had been seized by the Inkotanyi forces.

Habyarimana Jean argues that another witness's testimony, which was also disregarded by the High Court, is that of Mucanda Vital. Mucanda Vital declared that Habyarimana Jean was the person responsible for conducting the meetings, which used to include Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa individuals. However, the court chose not to consider his statements during deliberation.

Concerning the meeting of 16/01/1994, Habyarimana Jean explained that following the RPF attack, mistrust arose between Hutu and Tutsi populations, accompanied by

## Page 661

265 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

preexisting tensions between Abakiga and Abanyenduga groups, as well as district-based conflicts involving the MDR political party of Kayibanda and the MRND led by Habyarimana Jean. Thus, the purpose of this meeting was to alert the Interahamwe to remain vigilant. Habyarimana Jean explained that the ideology of "Hutu Power" originated from the statements made by Karamira during the meeting of 23/10/1993. This meeting aimed to mobilize the entire population, including Hutu, Twa, and Tutsi, to condemn the assassination of President Ndadaye and he (Habyarimana Jean) delivered a speech during this meeting.

Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, assisting Habyarimana Jean, states that in the exculpatory testimony in favor of Habyarimana Jean, the witnesses indicated that he was not the individual who played a role in the meetings that incited Hutu to kill Tutsi and in the preparation of the genocide. The prosecution is unable to provide evidence that demonstrates Habyarimana Jean's involvement in inciting Hutu individuals to commit genocide against Tutsi. Consequently, he has requested the prosecution to provide a cassette recording, excerpt, or a written testimony that tangibly proves his alleged role. He further states that his client was pronounced guilty due to his alleged involvement in the meeting held at Nyamirambo stadium, where Hutu individuals were supposedly incited to commit violence against Tutsi. However, the actual purpose of the meeting was to condemn the death of Ndadaye, who was the president of Burundi. While Habyarimana does not deny being present at the event or delivering a speech, he maintains that his intention was to provide comfort to the general population and to discourage the youth from engaging in harmful actions.

## Page 662

266 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Prosecutor argues that the statements made by Setiba Joseph are inconsistent with the testimonies of various witnesses, including HJE, HJA, and even Habyarimana Jean himself, as detailed in paragraphs [69] to [77] of the appealed judgment. The High Court provided numerous reasons for rejecting these witness statements, thereby casting doubt on their reliability. It is perplexing that Setiba Joseph, who initially informed the prosecution during prison interviews that he was unfamiliar with Habyarimana Jean, later claimed before the court that he knew him and that he had not committed any wrong during the genocide against the Tutsi. These glaring contradictions are precisely why the High Court chose not to place reliance on his testimony.

He proceeds to argue that the testimony provided by witness identified as HJD should not be regarded as reliable. According to him, Habyarimana Jean has not presented any evidence proving that he was genuinely the president of Interahamwe in Nyakabanda. In contrast, the High Court has found the statements of the witness HJC credible, as he had participated in the meeting that supposedly incited Hutu to commit violence against Tutsi. Habyarimana Jean himself mentioned HJC as a witness in an attempt to absolve himself from guilt. Furthermore, there is another individual he attempted to involve as a witness, who affirmed that he never incited Hutu to harm Tutsi but instead encouraged unity among them. This assertion is, however, untrue because in various meetings where the incitement of Hutu against Tutsi took place, Habyarimana Jean repeatedly stated that the enemies of Burundi are the same as the enemies of Rwanda. He encouraged Hutu to unite against the perceived enemy, the Tutsi, which he expressed during the meeting on 16/01/1994,

## Page 663

267 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

as documented in paragraph [569] of the judgment involving Karemera Edouard and Matayo Ngirumpatse.

Regarding the distribution of ammunition, the prosecutor contends that despite Habyarimana Jean's assertion of having exonerating witnesses on his side, the High Court thoroughly outlined his involvement, as documented in paragraphs [69] to [77] of the appealed judgment. Considering that Habyarimana Jean held a leadership position within the MRND at the City of Kigali level, a political party known to have Interahamwe members, dismissing any role he played in the distribution of ammunition used during the genocide would be a mistake. This is because he was frequently engaged in various meetings with other leaders, including those involving military leaders, in all the agenda.

The Prosecutor presents that the statements made by Habyarimana Jean, inciting Hutu individuals to unite and combat the perceived enemy during the meetings held on 23/10/1993 and 16/01/1994, are documented in paragraphs [521], [522], [514], [517], [518], and [519] of the judgment involving Karemera Edouard and Matayo Ngirumpatse. Additionally, in paragraph [524] of the same judgment, it becomes clear that he expressed the concept of Hutu power ideology. He explains that during the meeting of 16/01/1994, as highlighted particularly in paragraphs [573] and [574], Habyarimana Jean declared his intention to provide a document outlining the conflict between Hutu and Tutsi, along with the methods of punishing the perceived enemy, which in this context were Tutsi individuals. He goes on to argue that it was the witness HJC who clarified that Councillor Karushara Rose had requested firearms during the meeting, and Habyarimana

## Page 664

268 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Jean did not dispute her statement. This lack of contradiction implies his endorsement of her appeal, signifying his involvement in inciting people to partake in acts of genocide and providing support for such actions. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 65 of the Law n⁰ 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that it is the court that assesses with discretion the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It is not bound by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their declarations.

From the case file, it is evident that in the appealed judgment, Setiba Joseph, HJD, and Mucanda Vital asserted that there was no collaboration between Interahamwe and the MRND political organization’s leadership. They also stated that no political party leader played a role in selecting the youth who underwent military training. However, the High Court dismissed these statements as unsubstantiated, as even they themselves acknowledge that there were joint activities carried out by Interahamwe and MRND members. These activities included participating in meetings, providing security services to party supporters during gatherings, participating in demonstrations, and encouraging youth to join the MRND19.

Habyarimana Jean asserts in his appeal that the High Court found him guilty of playing a role in the genocide

19 Judgment RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI, paragraph [42].

## Page 665

269 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

committed against the Tutsi population in Rwanda in 1994, despite the testimonies of exonerating witnesses such as Setiba Joseph, HJD (referred to under this name for security reasons), and Mucanda Vital. The present court shall therefore determine whether the High Court indeed disregarded these statements. Regarding the witness, Setiba Joseph

From the case file, it is evident that during the hearing on 28/02/2017 before the High Court, Setiba Joseph clarified that he and his colleagues, who were part of Interahamwe, did not maintain a permanent collaboration with the MRND party. Their interaction was primarily confined to situations involving gatherings and demonstrations in Kigali. During these events, they were dispatched by the Interahamwe leadership to receive guidance from the top cadre of the MRND party at the City of Kigali level. He emphasized that Turatsinze Jean Pierre was the individual who maintained a close collaboration with the MRND party and acted as a liaison between them and the national leadership. He further stated that he had never witnessed Habyarimana Jean participating in Interahamwe activities. Instead, he recalled seeing Habyarimana Jean present at gatherings held at Stade Régional in Nyamirambo in 1993. Habyarimana's role in those instances was to oversee the welcome of visitors. Concerning the training and provision of firearms to the Interahamwe, Setiba Joseph stated that such tasks were the responsibility of soldiers. These soldiers were also in charge of transporting them to Gabiro. He further indicated that none of the political party leaders used to be present for these activities.

As detailed above, Habyarimana Jean asserts in his appeal that Setiba Joseph, who held the position of

## Page 666

270 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Interahamwe president in Kigali Sector, exonerated him. Setiba Joseph clarified that Turatsinze Jean Pierre served as the leader of Interahamwe in Kigali Ngali. It was Turatsinze who prevented Interahamwe from attacking Habyarimana's home to search for Tutsi individuals he had assisted in hiding. Additionally, Habyarimana Jean explains that the distribution of firearms was conducted within military camps, and as such, he played no role in their dispatch.

The Court of Appeal determines that the fact Setiba Joseph mentioned Turatsinze Jean Pierre as the president of Interahamwe in Kigali Ngali does not necessarily constitute exoneration for Habyarimana Jean. This is because Habyarimana Jean was not specifically charged with holding the position of Interahamwe President, making it unnecessary for Setiba Joseph to contradict such a charge. Instead, Habyarimana Jean was convicted of various offenses stemming from his role as the president of the MRND party in the City of Kigali prefecture. This included charges of conspiring to commit genocide and being complicit in genocide by inciting and distributing firearms used in the genocide. These charges were based on testimonies provided by Nkubito, HJE, HJC, HJB, HJA, Mbarushimana, and Nyiringongo during the investigation and court proceedings.

Regarding the assertion that Setiba Joseph prevented Interahamwe from attacking Habyarimana Jean's residence in search of hidden Tutsi individuals, the Court finds that this question was posed during the inquiry into the role of the MRND leadership at the barricades. Habyarimana Jean was not convicted of leading barricades where Tutsi individuals were killed. Furthermore, the possibility of him hiding Tutsi

## Page 667

271 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

individuals does not serve as exculpatory evidence, as it does not negate the other actions constituting the offense of genocide for which he was found guilty by the High Court.

Regarding the dispatch and training of firearms to Interahamwe, the Court of Appeal acknowledges that, as the High Court also recognized, Setiba Joseph's statement contradicts that of Nkubito Isaac. Nkubito Isaac, the former president of the MRND party in the former Kacyiru Commune, was cross-examined during the hearing on 28/02/2017 before the High Court. He explained that after the meeting held at Nyamirambo stadium in 1993, there were subsequent trainings of MRND and PSD (Parti Social Démocrate) youth, known as Abakombozi. They would convene at the MRND permanent office for meetings, where they were informed that the enemies were Tutsi individuals. Following this, they received training in Gabiro after being briefed by Habyarimana Jean. Therefore, he indicated that while he personally witnessed certain actions mentioned in his statements, others were based on hearsay.

The Court finds, as the High Court has also determined, that Nkubito Isaac's statements should be considered credible. This is further supported by the testimony of HJA, who was interrogated at the same time. HJA stated that the selection of Interahamwe youth was conducted by representatives of the MRND at the sector and cell levels, including individuals like Kaboyi Jérémie, who served as the councillor of Nyamirambo sector, and Karushara Rose, who was the councillor of Kimisagara Sector. These representatives received briefings about the youth's training from the MRND leadership, which included Habyarimana Jean. It is noted that this has also been reiterated by HJB, who stated that he was a member of the

## Page 668

272 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

MRND political party alongside Habyarimana Jean. HJB clarified that as a leader of this party, Habyarimana Jean could not have been unaware of the establishment of the Interahamwe youth. This youth group was initially formed in Kigali city, underwent military training, and was provided with firearms for the attacks they carried out. These trainings occurred at locations such as Kabuga building in Muhima, Bigogwe, and other places. Additionally, HJB emphasized that the same Interahamwe individuals who came from Kigali were responsible for the killings of Tutsi individuals in Bugesera, Bigogwe, Butare, and various other regions. He further asserted that he frequently observed information about these training activities, primarily in reports signed by Habyarimana Jean.

The Court also finds that other witnesses interrogated during the High Court proceedings, including HJC, HJE, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, and Mbarushimana Vincent, asserted that Habyarimana Jean played a role in the distribution of firearms to the Interahamwe. For instance, HJC, who was one of the beneficiaries, stated that the distribution of firearms was preceded by a meeting on 15/5/1994, in which Habyarimana Jean participated and supported that idea raised by Karushara Rose20. Additionally, HJE stated that Habyarimana Jean, as a leader of the MRND, played a role in establishing the Interahamwe wing and organizing their training. The Court further finds that during the investigation phase, witnesses Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent indicated Habyarimana Jean's role in selecting Interahamwe youth, organizing their training, and distributing firearms for their use in the killings of Tutsi individuals.

20 He was the Councillor of Kimisagara Sector

## Page 669

273 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Additionally, the issue of firearms distribution was reiterated and affirmed in the judgment ICTR-98-44-T in the case of the Prosecution against Edouard Karemera and Ngirumpatse Matayo21.

The Court finds that, as even the High Court noted, the testimonies of Nkubito Isaac, HJC, and HJE should be given greater weight. They possess sufficient information about the events, as some of them were closely affiliated with Habyarimana Jean in the MRND party and were also Interahamwe members. In contrast, Setiba Joseph, who did not have a continuous association with the MRND to the extent of being aware of Habyarimana Jean's activities, as he claimed in his testimony, should be considered differently.

The Court of Appeal therefore determines that the High Court did not disregard the testimony provided by Setiba Joseph, as alleged by Habyarimana Jean. Instead, it thoroughly analyzed this testimony and concluded that it should not be given significant weight due to contradictions with the testimony of Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJE, Nyirangondo Epaphrodite, and Mbarushimana Vincent. The Court finds that these individuals possess ample information about the events. According to Article 65 of the law relating to evidence and its production, as mentioned earlier, it is in the court's discretion to judiciously assess the relevance, pertinence, and admissibility or rejection of testimonial

21 ICTR-98-44-T, Prosecution against Edouard Karemera and Ngirumpatse Matayo, paragraph 444: “La chambre conclut que le Procureur a établi au délà de tout doute raisonnable qu’à compter de 1993, des armes ont été fournies aux Interahamwe pendant que d’autres étaient stockées pour leur ệtre distribuées à une date ultérieure”.

## Page 670

274 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

evidence, taking into account the witnesses' knowledge and ability to narrate the facts. The selection of testimony based on the events corroborates the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the case of Yussuf Munyakazi. In that case, the Court relied on the evidence presented by the prosecution rather than considering that presented by the accused. This decision was made because, when discrepancies arise in the events, it is the trial court's responsibility to determine which pieces of evidence should be given credence after hearing from witnesses22. Regarding the witness HJD

It is observed from the case file that HJD, who was provided this name for security reasons and served as the President of MRND in Nyakabanda Sector, was also interrogated during the hearing on 28/02/2017 before the High Court. HJD stated that the leadership of Interahamwe had no direct collaboration with that of MRND. However, the leadership of MRND had the option to request the presence of Interahamwe youth for meetings, and Turatsinze was responsible for such collaboration. He stated that he has no knowledge of the meeting on 15/05/1994 aimed at pursuing Tutsi people. The meeting he is aware of occurred during the last days of that month with the objective of recruiting youths who would liberate Mburabuturo mountain. This meeting was

22 ICTR-97-36A-A, Prosecution vs Yussuf Munyakazi, paragraph 118: “The Appeals Chamber recalls that, when faced with competing versions of events, it is the duty of the Trial Chamber that heard the witnesses to determine which evidence it considers more probative. Based on the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber finds that it was reasonable for the Trial Chamber to accept the Prosecution evidence over Witness Nahimana’s account.”

## Page 671

275 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

organized by the military. He further mentioned that he had never seen Mbarushimana Jean come to Nyakabanda to request Interahamwe youths. Additionally, he emphasized that MRND and its leadership at the city level did not play any role in planning or carrying out the genocide against the Tutsi.

The Court of Appeal observes that Habyarimana Jean claimed that he requested HJD to be interrogated in order to dispute the information provided by HJC. HJC asserted that on 15/05/1994, a decision was made during a meeting to pursue Tutsi individuals who remained in sectors and villages. However, Habyarimana Jean contends that the meeting had a different purpose – recruiting youths for the liberation of Mburabututo, which had been seized by the Inkotanyi forces. Despite his assertions, the High Court did not consider his declarations.

The Court of Appeal acknowledges that HJD stated that he was not aware of the meeting on 15/05/1994 intended for the pursuit of Tutsi individuals. Instead, he claimed knowledge of a meeting held in the last days of May 1994 with the objective of liberating Mburabuturo. However, HJC clarified that the meeting on 15/05/1994 did indeed take place. It was led by Colonel Renzaho Tharcisse, Colonel Ndahimana (the army commander in Kigali City and Eastern region), and Colonel Edouard Hakizimana. HJC also mentioned that Habyarimana Jean was personally present at this meeting, which aimed to pursue Tutsi individuals in their homes. HJC stated that he was given five firearms because they were needed for these activities, based on the opinion of Karushara Rose, an opinion that Habyarimana Jean supported. Therefore, the way HJC narrates these actions suggests that he is recounting what he

## Page 672

276 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

genuinely knows. The court considers that he has no vested interest in fabricating lies against Habyarimana Jean, particularly since he was a member of Interahamwe, a group known to be affiliated with MRND. Therefore, the Court finds that Habyarimana Jean's claims that this witness, HJD, exonerates him are untrue. This is because the meeting regarding which he alleges that HJD exonerated him is unknown to HJD himself. Furthermore, Habyarimana Jean failed to contradict the information provided by HJC, who accused him of being involved in that meeting. Consequently, the decision taken by the High Court to reject the testimony of HJD regarding this issue is justified.

The Court of Appeal notes that, as even the High Court has determined, the testimony provided by HJC carries more weight compared to that provided by HJD. This aligns with the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda whereby it held in the case of Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda that where there are two conflicting testimonies, it falls to the Trial Chamber before which the witness testified to decide which of the testimonies has more weight23. Regarding the witness Mucanda Vital

Mucanda Vital was also interrogated during the hearing on 28/02/2017. He stated that he was a member of Interahamwe at the sector level and served as their moral instructor in Gitega/Karambo sector. He explained that they used to accompany their supporters as their bodyguards, and a person

23 ICTR-96-3-A, Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, paragraph 501: Appeals Chamber recalled that “where there are two conflicting testimonies, it falls to the Trial Chamber before which the witness testified to decide which of the testimonies has more weight […].”

## Page 673

277 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

named Twahirwa Séraphin was responsible for briefing them about their activities, whether it was participating in demonstrations or gatherings. He declared that they had no interactions with Habyarimana Jean, except during demonstrations and gatherings. He stated that he never set foot in their meetings. The one place he remembers coming into contact with Habyarimana Jean was during a gathering held in Nyamirambo in the year 1993. During this gathering, Habyarimana Jean took the floor and stated that whether they were Batwa, Hutu, or Tutsi, they should know that the enemy of Rwanda is also the same enemy of Burundi. He emphasized that they should all condemn the assassination of President Ndadaye.

The Court of Appeal notes that in his pleadings, Habyarimana Jean had requested that Mucanda Vital be interrogated to explain that he was responsible for organizing gatherings that brought together the entire population, including Hutu, Tutsi, and Batwa. However, the High Court disregarded this request.

Regarding the statements of Mucanda Vital, the Court notes that in the explanations he provided to the court, he stated that the leadership of MRND had no collaboration with that of Interahamwe, except for participating in demonstrations and gatherings. However, as advanced by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, Mbarushimana Vincent, HJA, HJB, HJE, and Nkubito Isaac, Habyarimana Jean, as a leader of the MRND party in Kigali City, played a significant role in establishing the Interahamwe youth and providing them with training and firearms that were used to pursue and kill Tutsi.

## Page 674

278 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Court finds that regarding the gathering of 23/10/1993, Micanda Vital stated that Habyarimana Jean's words were that they condemn the assassination of President Ndadaye24 and that the enemy of Burundi is the same as the enemy of Rwanda. He mentioned that at that time, there were Batwa, Hutu, and Tutsi present. Habyarimana Jean does not dispute the fact that he spoke at that gathering. However, Nkubito Isaac, HJA, and HJE clarified to the Court that when they mentioned "the enemy," it meant Tutsi. This interpretation was also supported by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the case ICTR-98-44-T involving the prosecution against Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse25. Therefore, Habyarimana Jean's speech condemning the enemy of Rwanda is an indication that he strongly incited those present to unite in fighting against Tutsi, wherever they may be.

The Court finds that the statements made by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, who is assisting Habyarimana Jean, claiming that the purpose of the meeting on 23/10/1993 was to condemn the death of President Ndadaye of Burundi are groundless. If such had been the case, all the speakers at that meeting, including Habyarimana Jean, have in contrast emphasized on the need to condemn the death of Ndadaye. However, the witnesses interrogated during the investigation phase and before the High Court, as mentioned above, explained that the focus of the meeting was to incite attendees to unite and fight against the enemy, who were the Tutsi. Additionally, this interpretation is supported by the testimony

24He was the President of Burundi since 10/07/1993 until 21/10/1993; Region week.com, visited on 17/02/2010. 25 ICTR-98-44-T prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraph [537].

## Page 675

279 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

of witnesses ALC, UB, and AWD, who were present at the gathering. This interpretation aligns with the case between the Prosecution vs. Karemera Edouard and Ngirumpatse Mathieu, tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)26, where the word "Umwanzi" was defined to mean a Tutsi, as also provided in the case ICTR-96-4-T, Prosecution vs. Jean Paul Akayesu.27

It also finds that Habyarimana Jean participated in the meeting of 16/01/1994, as he himself explained to the present court during the hearing on 13/01/2020. This participation is evident in paragraph [573] of the case ICTR-98-44-T between the Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, as referred to above. In paragraph [598] of the same case, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda decisively established that on 16/01/1994, a demonstration took place at Nyamirambo stadium, during which Karemera Edouard, Ngirumpatse Mathieu, and other top leaders of MRND were given the opportunity to speak. Members of Interahamwe were also in attendance. It is crucial to note that all the attendees expressed support for the idea of "Hutu Power28." This strongly supports Habyarimana Jean's role in various meetings where the plan to unite Hutu and incite them

26 ICTR 98-44-T Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, paragraphs [520], [521], [522] na [524]. 27 ICTR -96-4-T Prosecution vs Jean Paul Akayesu, paragraph 123. 28 ICTR 98-44-T: [….], De l’avis de la Chambre, “Le Procureur a établi au –delà de tout doute raisonnable qu’un meeting s’était tenu au stade de Nyamirambo le 16 janvier 1994, que Karemera, Ngirumpatse et d’autres hauts responsables du MRND avaient assisté à ce meeting et s’étaient adressés à l’assistance, que des membres de la milice Interahamwe y avaient également pris part, et qu’on y avait épousé la cause de l’idéologie Hutu Power”.

## Page 676

280 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

to fight against the Tutsi population was conspired. Contrary to Habyarimana Jean's claim, this meeting was not solely intended to inform the Interahamwe to exercise caution.

It also finds that the arguments presented by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, suggesting that cassette recordings or extracts of written testimony should be used to establish the role of Habyarimana Jean, are unfounded. This is because witness evidence is not excluded in such cases, and the Law relating to evidence and its production stipulates that in criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means, whether factual or legal, as long as they are subject to adversarial proceedings. This demonstrates the freedom in the presentation of evidence within the bounds of the law in criminal cases29. Therefore, there is no valid reason to discredit witness evidence as long as it is lawful. Conversely, Habyarimana Jean and his legal counsel have the duty to challenge witness statements incriminating him, a duty which they have failed to fulfill.

Considering the explanations provided above, the Court of Appeal finds that the High Court did not disregard the statements of HJD, Setiba Joseph, and Mucanda Vital. Instead, it collectively assessed them along with other pieces of evidence available in the file and found them to be without merit. Thus, the present court concurs with the decision reached by the High Court because, as indicated, there are other testimonial statements challenging the one provided by Setiba Joseph. These should be considered for the reasons clarified above.

29 Article 119 of the Law N⁰15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production.

## Page 677

281 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

5. Whether the High Court made a mistake in declaring Habyarimana Jean guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide and the offence of complicity in genocide, and providing munitions used to commit genocide.

Habyarimana Jean argues that the High Court erred in convicting him of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, complicity in inciting to commit genocide, and providing firearms used to commit genocide based on incriminating testimonial declarations. He points out that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda held that Ngirumpatse Matayo, Karemera Edouard, as well as other top leaders of MRND, were not guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide for acts that occurred before 08/04/1994.

The Prosecution argues that the case involving Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera does not benefit Habyarimana Jean because he is not prosecuted for having been an Interahamwe leader. Instead, he is charged for the role he played in the establishment of such a group and training it militarily with the purpose of exterminating Tutsi, as proved by witnesses.

## Page 678

282 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Regarding the fact that the High Court convicted Habyarimana Jean of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide

Article 132(4º) of the Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code30, as well as article 3(b) of the Convention of 09/12/1948 on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide31, provide for the offence of participation and conspiracy to commit genocide. Such offence has also been clarified in various cases tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda incuding that of Alfred Musema tried on 27/01/2000 where it stated that conspiracy to commit genocide consists of a resolution to act on which at least two persons have agreed with a view to committing genocide32.

30Without prejudice to other provisions of this Organic Law relating to attempt and criminal participation, the following acts shall be punished by penalties provided under this Chapter […] conspiracy to commit a crime, even when not followed by the commission [..]. The text of this article is the same as that of article 93(1º) of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general. 31 [….] The following acts shall be punishable […] Conspiracy to commit genocide (Art. 3, e of The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 32 ICTR-96-13-T, Prosecution vs Musema Alfred, paragraph 191 “… La Chambre définit l’entente en vue de commettre le genocide comme une résolution d’agir sur laquelle au moins deux personnes se sont accordées en vue de commettre un jenocide”, ICTR-99-52-A, Prosecution vs Nahimana Ferdinand and co-accused, paragraph 344; ICTR-99-46-A, Prosecution vs Ntagerura André and co-accused, paragraph 92; ICTR-01- 66-A, Prosecution vs Seromba Athanase, paragraph 218.

## Page 679

283 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

The High Court convicted Habyarimana Jean of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide based on Article 132(4⁰) of the Organic Law no. 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012, instituting the penal code. This conviction relied on the testimonies of witnesses who incriminated him, including Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, and HJE. These witnesses asserted that he played a role in selecting Interahamwe youth who received military training and the ammunition used to kill Tutsi individuals. This took place in his presence at Muhima in Kabuga building, in collaboration with individuals such as Ngirumpatse Mathieu, Nzirorera Joseph, Renzaho Tharcisse, Munyakazi Laurent, Kajuga Robert, Rutaganda Georges, Kamatamu Euphrasie, and others. Additionally, similar activities occurred in other parts of the Kigali City prefecture, where youth were selected, trained, and provided with ammunition for use in the genocide.

Another element upon which the High Court relied in convicting Habyarimana Jean of conspiracy to commit genocide is the fact that he frequently held meetings with MRND party leaders at the Commune level, which he headed. During these meetings, he would brief them about the resolutions of the party's top leadership regarding the identification of the enemy and strategies for combating them. Subsequently, these leaders would relay this information to their subordinates at the Sector level. The High Court concluded that the holding of these meetings and the willingness of the leaders to transmit these messages to others indicated a consensus reached during these gatherings. It further concluded that the fact that Habyarimana Jean participated in the meeting of 15/05/1994 convened by Prefet Renzaho Tharcisse, where various individuals were invited,

## Page 680

284 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

including Colonel Ndahimana, Colonel Edouard Hakizimana, and Councilor Karushara Rose, and where the pursuit of remaining Tutsi individuals and their accomplices was on the agenda, along with the dispatch of firearms to facilitate this act, further indicated a consensus to pursue Tutsi and their alleged accomplices33.

Basing on the provisions of article 132(4⁰) of the Organic Law N⁰ 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code and article 3(b) of the Convention of 09/12/1948 on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Court of Appeal finds that the correct classification of the offence for which Habyarimana Jean was convicted by the High Court should have been conspiracy to commit genocide, instead of plotting to commit genocide, because the plotting is not the classification provided by the law; it is rather the definition demonstrating how the offence is reached. This is also the same ruling as in the judgment RPA 0001/12/CS tried by the Supreme Court, between the Prosecution vs Bandora Charles. In this case, Bandora Charles was initially convicted of the offence of plotting to commit genocide by the High Court, but the Supreme Court changed the classification to conspiracy to commit genocide.34 As a matter of fact, the Court of Appeal finds that although there is a difference between the terms "conspiracy" and "plotting," in general, the classification of "conspiracy to commit genocide" used in Article 132(4⁰) of the above-stated Organic Law no. 01/2012/OL is the same as "conspiracy to commit genocide" expressed in Article 3(b) of the Convention of 09/12/1948 on the Prevention and

33 Judgment RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI, paragraphs 131-133. 34 RPA 0001/12/CS rendered on 22/03/2019 involving the Prosecution vs Bandora Charles, paragraph 53.

## Page 681

285 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This classification aligns with the one adopted by the Supreme Court in the case involving Bandora Charles.

Regarding the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in the case ICTR-98-44-T involving the Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Ngirumpatse Matayo, ruled that Edouard Karemera, Ngirumpatse Matayo, as well as other MRND leaders, could not be found guilty of offenses including genocide, incitement to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and murder committed to fulfill the joint criminal enterprise. Additionally, they could not be found guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide based on acts that occurred before 8/04/199435.The Court of Appeal truly finds that the Appellate Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda decided that liability based on joint criminal enterprise could not be established by considering acts that occurred before 08/04/1994. It is reasonable to conclude that the role of Karemera and Ngirumpatse in the acts committed before 8/04/1994 does not fall within the offenses provided by the Statutes36. Therefore, the First Trial Chamber did not err in holding that this was not the only possible resolution that could result from the pieces of material evidence, leading to the conviction of Karemera and Ngirumpatse for conspiracy to commit genocide based on acts that occurred before 8/04/199437.

35 ICTR-98-44-T Prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraph 1573: “Aucune déclaration de culpabilité ne serait dès lors être prononcée relativement aux faits survenus avant le 8 avril 1994.” 36 Statut du Tribunal Pénal International pour Le Rwanda. 37 ICTR-98-44-A tried on 29/09/2014 between the Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, paragraph 741: “The Appeals

## Page 682

286 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Court of Appeal finds, however, that even though it was decided as such, this judgment from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda does not apply to Habyarimana Jean, as he alleges. Instead, it applies to Karemera Edouard and Ngirumpatse Matayo, who were involved in that case. Therefore, Habyarimana Jean should not invoke it to allege that it acquitted him of the offenses of incitement to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, murder committed to fulfill the joint criminal enterprise, and the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide for acts that occurred before 08/04/1994, as clarified in Part II of the instant case (II.2).

Regarding the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, the Court of Appeal finds that Habyarimana Jean was convicted of that offense by the High Court based on pieces of evidence that include meetings and acts that occurred in 1993, which implies events both before and after 08/04/1994. Regarding the issue of whether evidence before 08/04/1994 can be relied upon for his conviction, the Court of Appeal finds that, while some legal scholars have confirmed that although the genocide itself was especially perpetrated on 7/04/1994 until late July 1994, it was planned long before and pursued by the masterminds, perpetrators, and their

Chamber is satisfied that the considerations identified by the Trial Chamber reasonably support its finding on the reasonable possibility that Karemera's and Ngirumpatse's involvement in the pre-8 April 1994 events had not been conducted with the intent that crimes covered by the Statute be committed. Consequently, the Trial Chamber did not err in concluding that it was not the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the circumstantial evidence that Karemera and Ngirumpatse possessed the requisite mens rea for a conviction for conspiracy to commit genocide in relation to the pre-8 April 1994 events.”

## Page 683

287 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

accomplices, continuing during the dry season and after crossing the border between Zaïre and Rwanda38. Therefore, in this case involving Habyarimana Jean, the Court of Appeal finds that it was determined by the High Court that there are witnesses, including Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, and HJE, who asserted that Habyarimana Jean was present in meetings held in 1993 and on 15/05/1994 for the purpose of selecting Interahamwe youth, providing them with military training, and firearms. These youths played a significant role in the perpetration of genocide in Kigali City and various parts of the country. The Court of Appeal finds, further, that as observed by the High Court, aside from the classification that was changed, such an offense is established by the fact that Habyarimana Jean, as an MRND president in Kigali City, played a role in various meetings he presided over. In these meetings, he conveyed to his subordinates that the enemy is the Tutsi, as clarified by witnesses including Nkubito and HJB, as mentioned above. These witnesses also conveyed this message to their subordinates. Additionally, the fact that he was present in the meeting on 15/5/1994 with the purpose of inciting the population to pursue the remaining Tutsi and accomplices, and where firearms were dispatched for such acts, further supports this conclusion. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal concurs

38 Géraud de La Pradelle, Imprescriptible: L’implication française dans le génocide tutsi portée devant les tribunaux, France, 2005, p. 109: “ Bien sur, le génocide proprement dit a été commis pour l’essentiel, sur le territoire national du Rwanda entre le 7 avril et la fin juillet 1994 ; mais Il a été préparé de longue date et l’activité criminelle de ses concepteurs, comme de ses agents et complices, ne s’est pas arrêtée à la fin de l’été, une fois passée la frontière qui sépare le Rwanda du Zaïre.”

## Page 684

288 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

with the High Court regarding the conviction of Habyarimana Jean for the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, except for the classification of the offense. Regarding the conviction of Habyarimana Jean of the offense of being an accomplice in genocide for incitement to commit genocide and the distribution of firearms used in genocide by the High Court Article 132(3⁰) of the Organic Law No. 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code39 and Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide40 define and punish the offense of incitement to commit genocide. The acts of incitement to commit genocide were clarified in the case ICTR-2001-72-T involving the Prosecution against Bikindi Simon. It explained that public incitement to commit genocide presupposes the existence of genocidal intent on the part of the person engaging in it, and it is not necessary for this incitement to be followed by the actual act leading to genocide41.

39 Without prejudice to other provisions of this Organic Law relating to attempt and criminal participation, the following acts shall be punished by penalties provided under this Chapter […] incitement to commit such a crime, even when not followed by the commission […]. The provisions of this article are the same as those of article 93(3º) of Law Nº68/2018 dated 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general. 40 The following acts shall be punishable […] “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” (Art.3, c of The Convention on the Prevention and punishment of the crime of Genocide. 41 ICTR -2001-72-T Prosecution vs Bikindi Simon, paragraph 419: “Commet le crime d’incitation directe et publique à commettre le genocide la personne qui agit avec l’intention d’inciter directement et publiquement autrui à commettre le génocide, ce qui suppose l’existence d’une intention

## Page 685

289 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

In addition, article 132(5⁰) of the Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code42 criminalizes and punishes abetment to commit a crime, even when not followed by the commission. The High Court, having noted that Habyarimana Jean committed complicity in genocide and incitement to commit genocide through various acts as detailed above, relied on article 98 of Organic Law no. 01/2012/OL dated 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code and convicted him of complicity in genocide for inciting people to commit genocide and distributing firearms used in genocide. On one hand, the High Court found Habyarimana Jean guilty of the offense of incitement to commit genocide because he participated in the meeting of 23/10/1993 in which he expressed his intention to incite Hutu to unite and fight the enemy, who were the Tutsi, as clarified above. On the other hand, it found him complicit in genocide because he played a role in providing military training and firearms to Interahamwe youth. Additionally, his participation in the meeting in May 1994, where he supported the distribution of firearms to be used against the hidden Tutsi in the Cells, indicates that he provided significant support to those who killed Tutsi at barricades, in

génocide. Infraction formelle, l’incitation directe et publique à commettre le génocide est punissable mệme si aucun acte de génocide n’en a résulté”. 42 Without prejudice to other provisions of this Organic Law relating to attempt and criminal participation, the following acts shall be punished by penalties provided under this Chapter […] abetment to commit a crime, even when not followed by the commission. The provisions of this article are the same as those of article 93(5º) of Law Nº68/2018 dated 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general.

## Page 686

290 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

homes, and elsewhere within the prefecture of Kigali city and across the country43. The Court of Appeal finds that while the High Court convicted Habyarimana Jean of the offenses he is charged with, it believes that there should be a rectification of the classification of the offense. Specifically, it should distinguish between the offense of complicity in genocide for incitement to commit genocide. Based on the evidence presented above, Habyarimana Jean should be found guilty of complicity in genocide and the offense of incitement to commit genocide as separate and independent offenses. This is because each offense has its own constitutive elements, and the acts relied upon by the High Court to establish these two offenses are distinct. The Court of Appeal finds, therefore, that Habyarimana Jean is guilty of all three offenses, namely conspiracy to commit genocide, complicity in committing genocide, and incitement to commit genocide. These offenses result in the ideal concurrence of offenses, as provided in article 84 of Law N⁰ 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012, as recalled above44, because they all have been committed with the same intent of committing genocide. Therefore, Habyarimana Jean should be subject to a life imprisonment penalty, as provided for such crimes, instead of the life imprisonment with reclusion given to him by the High Court, as such a penalty is not provided for in

43 Paragraph 139 of the judgment RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI. 44 If an offender would receive several penalties of imprisonment or fine as a result of one or several acts, the judge shall apply the most severe penalty and increase its duration or the amount depending on the circumstances of the offences, but not exceeding half (1/2) in addition to the maximum of the most severe penalty.

## Page 687

291 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Rwandan law, as per article 26 of Law n° 68/2018 dated 30/8/2018, determining offenses and penalties in general.45 From the foregoing explanations, the Court of Appeal finds the appeal lodged by Habyarimana Jean without merit. As the High Court also noted, he did not submit any evidence contradicting the evidence relied upon by the High Court for his conviction for those offenses. Consequently, the judgment RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI, tried by the High Court on 28/04/2017, should be upheld, except only regarding the classifications given to the offenses for which Habyarimana Jean was convicted, and the penalty. III. DECISION OF THE COURT Holds that the appeal lodged by Habyarimana Jean is unfounded. Holds that the ruling of the judgment RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI, tried on 28/04/2017 by the High Court, Specialised Chamber for international and transnational crimes, is only reversed with regard to the classification of offenses and the imposed penalty. Convicts Habyarimana of the offenses of conspiracy to commit genocide, complicity in genocide, and incitement to commit genocide. Sentences Habyarimana Jean to life imprisonment.

45 Such article 26 provides that the penalty of imprisonment may be for a fixed term or for life.

## Page 688

292 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Instructs that the court fees are borne to the Public Treasury.

## Page 689

293 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

COMMERCIAL CASE

## Page 690

294 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 691

295 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

295

NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA (Rukundakuvuga, P.J., Kamere and Rugabirwa, J.) 29 September 2023] Law governing commercial cases – Definition of a cheque – A cheque is issued to pay a payee – When no other explanation is attached to it, it must always be understood that it is intended to pay the debt owed by a drawer to a payee. Commercial procedure – Voluntary intervention in the case - Demonstrating a legitimate interest – The interest of the party who voluntarily intervenes in the case is shown by their ability to apply for third party opposition in case they were unable to intervene voluntarily in it. Commercial procedure – Claiming procedural fees - A party is permitted to request that the Court order another party to pay them the procedural fees, the allocation of which is undoubtedly based on the fact that they win the case in which they claim them on other issues of the initial claim. Facts: NFCS Ltd. entered into a contract with NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. for preparing two sites for the construction of affordable houses. This contract was renewed and both parties agreed that once NFCS Ltd. had completed 60% of the work, it will be paid 50% of the bid value, but this did not happen. When NFCS Ltd. had

## Page 692

296 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

completed that part of the work that both parties agreed upon, it received no payment, yet NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. terminated the contract unlawfully, which made NFCS Ltd. sue NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. before the Commercial Court requesting that it be ordered to pay the debt, its interests and various damages, and the case be provisionally executed to the extent of the amount voluntarily that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. accepts. That court held that the case has merit in some respects, that the defendant must pay 109,859,976 FRW equivalent to all the work done and its benefits, that the amount of 132,300,000 the defendant requests as counterclaim to repair the damage are not granted and that there will be no provisional execution. The defendant was not satisfied with the judgment and appealed against it before the Commercial High Court. Evariste Gasirikare intervened voluntarily in the case and stated that he had signed a partnership agreement with NFCS Ltd.; who was supposed to provide all the money that will be spent to prepare the sites and build a wall, while NFCS Ltd. would monitor the execution of those works and agreed that they will be signatories on the account opened in Equity Bank Rwanda Plc to which the payment would be channeled; and once the payment is available, all the money spent until the work is finished would be deducted first, and the remaining profit will be shared by both parties, he intervened voluntarily in the case alleging that that agreement was not complied with but he had learnt that there is a case between NFCS Ltd. and NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd., so the voluntary

## Page 693

297 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

intervention in the case is intended to make sure that force NFCS Ltd. to comply with the agreement they made in case it renders a judgment on the debt in dispute. The Court held that the appeal lacks merit; that the incidental appeal requesting to continue calculating interests has merit, that the judgment of the Commercial Court remains unchanged, except for the interest and the damages in addition to those determined at the first instance, and the payment of the debt and the distribution of the profits accrued from the bid between Gasirikare Evariste and NFCS Ltd. NFCS Ltd. was not satisfied with the judgment, it appealed before the Court of Appeal where all the parties appeared before the court, each party presented its arguments. The debate focused on how NFCS Ltd. and Gasirikare Evariste should share the money that the Commercial High Court ordered NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. to pay based on the tender contract with NFCS Ltd. for preparing the sites. After all these arguments, the Court of Appeal considered various issues. Concerning the issue of determining whether 30,000,000 Frw appearing on the cheque dated 30/10/2019 NFCS Ltd. issued to Gasirikare Evariste should be added to the debt of 48,000,000 Frws or if it should be included in that debt; the appellant alleges that the cheque was considered by the Commercial High Court as another debt regardless of the document made to Gasirikare Evariste in order to renew the debt agreement because they delayed his payment and they agreed that the debt owed to him is 48 000 000 Frw, and he stated that the Court hadignored the law and the evidence he adduced.

## Page 694

298 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The defendant alleges that he was given the cheque after he had given another cash in three installments on the same day, and that the purpose of the cheque was to show that he had accepted that he received the money as another debt that should be added to the debt of 48,000,000 Frw he had recently accepted. In respect of the issue of determining whether the 8,500,000 Frw appearing on the check dated 06/06/2019 should be included in the debt that NFCS Ltd. owes to Gasirikare, the appellant alleges that he gave it to the defendant before the execution of the tender, the Court did not have to count it in the amount that he must pay because it was not part of agreement of the parties to the contract. He also alleges that apart from the fact that the defendant was still keeping the cheque, the amount shown on it has already been paid in another way to deposit it into the account. The defendant admits that the debt originates from another contract they entered into which is not related to the tender, but he alleges that while he knew that there was a case, there was nothing would prevent him from intervening in it to claim the payment of the debt. Regarding the issue of the procedural fees, the advocate fee, the defendant alleges that the claimant dragged it into court which made hit hire an advocate, so it requests the Court to order the claimant to pay it those fees. On the other hand, the claimant alleges that the amount requested is unfounded. Held: 1. A cheque is issued to pay a payee; when no other explanation is attached to it, it must always be understood

## Page 695

299 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

that it is intended to pay the debt owed by a drawer to a payee 2. The interests of the intervening party is shown by their ability to apply for third party opposition in case they were unable to intervene in it voluntarily. It means that the intervening party cannot bring an unrelated issue to the litigation between the parties. 3. A party is permitted to request that the Court orders the other party to pay them the procedural fees, the allocation of which is undoubtedly based on the fact that they win the case in which they claim them on other issues of the initial claim. The appeal has merit. Court fees are equivalent to the case-related expenses. Statutes referred to: Law Nº 32/2009 of 18/11/2009 governing negotiable instruments, article 110. Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 114. Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 111. No cases were referred to.

## Page 696

300 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Judgment BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 28/6/2019, NFCS Ltd entered into a contract with NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. to prepare two sites registered under UPI: 1/02/06/1772 and UPI: 1/03/01/06/1763 for the construction of affordable houses at a cost of FRW 220,516,372, which was to be completed within one month (1 month) from the date of the contract signing by both parties. The contract was renewed on 19/08/2019, and the execution period was extended from one month to three months, and it was renewed again on 09/09/2019. The two parties also agreed that once NFCS Ltd. had completed 60% of the work, it would be paid 50% of the bid value, but this did not happen because NFCS Ltd., after completing the agreed part of the work agreed upon, submitted to NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd an invoice amounting to 110,258,186 FRW requesting payment but refuses to pay under unjustified reasons, but terminates the contract in an unlawful manner.

According to NFCS Ltd., after the termination of the contract, it requested payment for all the work done equal to 156,641,898 FRW but NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. still refused to pay. That led NFCS Ltd. to file a case before the Commercial Court requesting that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. be ordered to pay the debt, its interests and various damages, and that the case be temporarily executed for the amount NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. accepts.

## Page 697

301 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd contends that the money requested for by NFCS Ltd should not be granted because the work done is not equal to the money claimed, but is worth 52,833,165 FRW and that the work was not done professionally, but that NFCS Ltd damaged it. They request instead that NFCS Ltd should provide money to repair the damaged part and various damages. In that case, the court appointed Shumbusho Jean Pierre as an expert who will collaborate with Nsengimana Joseph on behalf of NFCS Ltd and Mbanza Philbert on behalf of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdto find out the work done by NFCS Ltdand its value.

In the judgment RCOM 1005/2020/TC rendered on 21/07/2021, the Commercial Court held that NFCS Ltd.'s claim is partially well founded, that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdshould pay it 109,859,976 FRW equivalent to all the work it carried out, its interests amounting to 14,098,767 FRW, 500,000 Frw of the advocate fee, 100,000 Frw for the procedural fees and 20,000 Frw for court fees. The court also held that the amount of 132,300,000 FRW that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdis requesting b way of counterclaim to repair the damages is not granted and that there will be no provisional execution.

NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdappealed against the judgment before the Commerial High Court. Among the grounds of appeal is that the court relied on the report that was made and it had been shown serious flaws of not having shown the value of the work done based on its quality and the fact that the court ordered it to pay NFCS

## Page 698

302 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ltdthe work of “Fill from cutting Debris" and that of "Removing the excavated soil form the construction area and deposit those to the specified area out of construction platform", yet it never carried it out, and the fact that there is an advance amount of 5,000,000 FRW paid to NFCS Ltdbefore the start of work but which was not deducted from the debt it was ordered to pay. It also stated that the court ordered it to pay the costs of the work done including VAT and that it did not value its claim regarding the payment of 132,300,000 FRW to correct the damage caused by NFCS Ltd. He also stated that the interests and damages granted at the first instance were not appropriate.

NFCS Ltdrebutted NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd.'s grounds of appeal alleging in general that there are irrelevant.

Gasirikare Evariste voluntarily intervened in this case at the appellate level. He alleges that on 28/06/2019, NFCS Ltdwas granted a tender by NEXTGEN Developers Ltdbut they do not have the money to execute it. He explains that on 29/07/2019 he signed with NFCS Ltda partnership agreement.

According to the agreement, Gasirikare Evariste had to provide all the money that would be spent to prepare the sites and build the wall, and NFCS Ltdwould monitor the execution of these works. They also agreed that both of them will sign on account no 4002200200179 in Equity Bank Rwanda Plc to receive the payment; that once the payment is available, the cost of the work done until it is finished will first be deducted from the payment, and the remaining profit will be shared by both parties.

## Page 699

303 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

Gasirikare Evariste alleges that NFCS Ltddid not comply with the agreement because it did not allow him to be a signatory on that account and that he had given all the necessary money for the work to be done properly. He waited for NFCS Ltdto comply with the agreement, but in vain and later learnt that NFCS Ltdis a party to the case against NEXTGEN Developers Ltd which made him voluntarily intervene in the case so that in case the court makes a decision on the debt, the court will also take the opportunity to force NFCS Ltdto comply with the agreement they made.

Gasirikare Evariste requests that 86,500,000 FRW invested in the work done on behalf of NEXTGEN Developers Ltdbe deducted from the money allocated to NFCS Ltd., plus interests and various damages, and it also confirms that the remaining money for the claimant is shared by both parties as agreed in the partnership agreement of 29/07/2019. He also requests a provisional execution order for the debt acknowledged by NFCS Ltd.

On 11/11/2022, the Commercial High Court rendered the judgment RCOMA00592/2021/HCC, making the following various rulings: a That the appeal of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdis groundless; b That the incidental appeal filed by NFCS Ltdrequesting to continue the calculation of interests is well founded;

## Page 700

304 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

c That NFCS Ltdshould be granted by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdthe interests equal to 11,882,382 Frw; d That NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdshould compensate NFCS Ltdfor the losses incurred in the case at the appellate level amounting to 500,000 Frw for the advocate fee and 100,000 Frw for the procedurqal fees, totaling 600,000 Frw; e e) That NFCS Ltdowes 86,500,000 Frw to Gasirikare Evariste; f That as decided by the court, the initial debt that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd owes NFCS Ltdamounting to 109,859,976 Frw and that it must first pay to Gasirikare Evariste, on behalf of NFCS Ltdthe debt equal to 86,500,000 Frw mentioned above, the rest will be divided as profits as agreed, each of them will receive 11,679,988 Frw; g That the provisional execution requested in this case is irrelevant. h That the judgment RCOM 1005/2020/TC decided by the Commercial Court on 21/07/2021 remains unchanged, apart from the interests and damages already mentioned above in addition to those determined at the first instance, with the payment of the debt and the distribution of profits from the tender between Gasirikare Evariste and NFCS Ltdmentioned above; i That 40,000 Frw deposited by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd for court fees while filing the appeal is equal to all that has been done in the case.

## Page 701

305 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

NFCS Ltdwas not satisfied with the judgment, and appealed against it before the Court of Appeal. The appeal case was registered under RCOMAA 00114/2022/CA, the hearing of the case scheduled for 11/05/2023. On this date, the hearing was adjourned until 06/06/2023 because one of the judges withdrew from the case. On that day, NFCS Ltdrepresented by Counsel Mberabagabo Balinda Richard, NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdrepresented by Counsel Bunani Bonaventure, and Gasirikare Evariste represented by Counsel Gasominari Jean Baptiste appeared before the court. The court disclosed the letter by Nishime Rosine, Chied Executive Officer of NFCS Ltd that she had already put in the case file at 07:08 A.M, informing it that Mberabagabo Balinda Richard was not given the power of attorney to follow up the case and requested that the case be postponed to enable her to fire another lawyer.

After hearing what the parties have to say about the contents of that letter, the Court deliberated and adjourned the case hearing until 3/06/2023, in a provisional ruling and held that as of 06/06/2023 Counsel Mberabagabo Balinda Richard was deprived of the authority to represent NFCS Ltdin this case and instructs NFCS Ltdto hire another lawyer to represent it or assist it in the remaining proceedings. The hearing was postponed to 23/06/2023, but the hearing was not held that day because the lawyer who was supposed to represent NFCS Ltddid not get enough time to prepare and the hearing was postponed to 06/09/2023.

## Page 702

306 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

In the hearing of 06/09/2023, after reading the report of the case to the parties, the Court heard the explanations of the parties on the issue raised at its initiative to determine whether in this case the Court should consider the incidental appeal of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltdwhich appears to be filed against NFC Ltdwas suing NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd in the initial appealed case, but it only shows that NFCS Ltd. is not satisfied with what was accusing Garisirare Evariste of only contemplating the way to distribute the money NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. was ordered by the Commercial High Court to pay that decided the appealed judgment. The pronouncement of the Court's judgment on the matter took place on 15/09/2023, the Court held that the incidental appeal filed by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. is not admitted as the appellant does not claim anything from the applicant1, that the case hearing will continue on 18/09/2023 from 09:00 A.M.

On that day, all the parties appeared before the court, each side presented its arguments focused on the remaining points of the case regarding how NFCS Ltd and Gasirikare Evariste should share the money whose payment by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd was ordered by the Commercial High Court based on the tender contract with NFCS Ltd for preparing the construction sites.

NFCS Ltd argued that the financial participation of Gasirikare Evariste in the work of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. is 48,000,000 Frw as agreed in the

1 See the provisional ruling dated 15/09/2023.

## Page 703

307 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

document dated 25/10/2019, while Gasirikare Evariste emphasized what was held in the appealed case that his participation is 86,500,000 Frw comprising 48,000,000 Frw both parties agree upon, adding 8,500,000 Frw appearing on the check dated 06/06/2019 NFCS Ltd and 30,000,000 Frw appearing on the cheque dated 30/10/2019 NFCS Ltd gave to Gasirikare Evariste. NFCS Ltd alleges that the cheque of 8,500,000 Frw should not be debated in the case regarding claiming the price of the tender issued by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd., whereas the cheque of 30,000,000 Frw is not a new debt that was added to the 48,000,000 Frw but was intended to pay part of the debt of 48,000,000 Frw that was already agreed upon, which would be payable when NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd would issue payment to the account of NFCS Ltd when the cheque was issued. Gasirikare Evariste also requests that NFCS Ltd be ordered to pay him 18% of the economic damages from all the money that should be paid, for dragging him into the court ; both sides also claim damages for the procedural fees.

Based on these arguments, the court examines the following issues : - Determining whether 30,000,000 Frw appearing on the check dated 30/10/2019 that NFCS Ltd. issued to Gasirikare Evariste was to be added to the debt of 48,000,000 Frws or whether it was part of that debt; - Determining whether 8,500,000 Frw appearing on the check dated 06/06/2019 should have been considered as a part of the debt that NFCS Ltd. must

## Page 704

308 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

pay to Gasirikare Evariste as a result of the tender execution of the NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. - Determining wether the interest awarded by the Commercial Hight Court to NFCS Ltd should have been awarded to Gasirikare Evariste alone; - Determining whether the High Court should have ordered NFCS Ltd to pay 18% of the costs awarded as economic damages to GASIRIKARE Evariste for draggig him into court; - The issue of procedural and advocate fees requested by the parties. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES A. Determining whether 30,000,000 Frw appearing on the check dated 30/10/2019 that NFCS Ltd issued to Gasirikare Evariste was to be added to the debt of 48,000,000 FRW or if it was part of that debt

The representative of NFCS Ltd alleges that the cheque dated 30/10/2019 for 30,000,000 Frw NFCS Ltd. issued to Gasirikare Evariste was considered as another debt by NFCS Ltd. to Gasirikare Evariste and the document dated 25/10/2019 was ignored. Nishimwe Rosine, manager of NFCS Ltd had recently worked for Gasirikare Evariste in order to renew the loan agreement she owed him because she had been late in paying it. She alleges that in that document, the manager of NFCS Ltd.

## Page 705

309 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

agreed with Gasirikare that 48,000,000 Frw was the amount NFCS Ltd. had already received from Gasirikare until that day, which was the only amount owed to him; that above the 48,000,000 Frw that NFCS Ltd. accepts, the High Court should not have added 30,000,000 Frw ignoring the law and the evidence it submitted to NFCS Ltd explaining that even though it was written on 30/10/2019 it was made on 25/10/2019 with the aim of being paid by reducing the debt 48,000,000 Frw which had already been agreed upon and by which date (NFCS Ltd.) expected to receive payment from NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd..

Gasirikare Evariste and his lawyer allege that the Court held that NFCS Ltd. should pay Gasirikare Evariste this amount based on the evidence he submitted including a cheque for 30,000,000 Frw NFCS Ltd. issued to Gasirikare Evariste after adding another 30,000,000 Frw to continue the work after completing 60% of the work. Gasirikare Evariste explained that the cheque was issued to him by NFCS Ltd. on 30/10/2019 after he had received another amount in cash in three installments on the same day, and that the purpose of the cheque was to show that NFCS Ltd acknowledged reception of the money as another debt that should have been added to the 48,000,000 Frw of the debt he had recently accepted on 25/10/2019.

The representative of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. declined to comment on this issue because what NFCS Ltd. agreed on with Gasirikare Evariste does not concern it.

## Page 706

310 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is based on determining and understanding what was the purpose of NFCS Ltd. when it issued a 30,000,000 Frw cheque dated 30/10/2019.

Article 110 of Law nº32/2009 of 18/11/2009 governing negotiable instruments which was in force when the check in dispute was drawn, which was also revised by Article 3, subparagraph 7 of Law n˚ 060/2021 dated 14/10/2021 governing negotiable instruments, which provides: " a clear and unconditional order in writing that is addressed by its signatory to a financial institution and requires to pay on demand a specific amount of money to the drawer or to a specified person or to the bearer[..]".

As understood, based on the definition of a cheque referred to in these articles, a cheque is not meant for anything other than payment to the payee. In other words, when no other explanation is attached to it, it must always be understood that the check is intended to pay a debt owed by the drawer to the payee. That debt can be any reason why the drawer pays the payee.

Regarding the meaning and purpose of the check of 30,000,000 Frw dated 30/10/2019, this Court finds that based on the fact that the definition of a cheque is undoubtedly the one shown above, in the absence of any other explanation, the cheque issued by NFCS was intended to pay Gasirikare.

## Page 707

311 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

The case file shows that on 29/07/2019, one month after the signing of the agreement to build the sites mentioned above, NFCS Ltd. signed with Gasirikare Evariste the so-called "partnership agreement", where in its introduction it shows that the purpose of the partnership is to execute the tender (to prepare the construction sites) mentioned above that NFCS Ltd.. was granted by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd.2. Article 2 of this agreement shows how both parties have agreed on the obligations each party will be held accountable for in the following words: "Gasirikare Evariste as a partner of NFCS Ltd. agreed to bring money for the execution of the tender of ppreparing the sites and building the supporting wall awarded by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. until it is completed, NFCS Ltd. will monitor the works until they are completed, and Gasirikare Evariste will also monitor how the money will be spent". Article 3 stipulates what each party will receive as a reward for its obligations as mentioned above.

The case file also shows the document dated 25/10/2019 written by Nishimwe Rosine, the manager of NFCS Ltd., and accepted by Gasirikare Evariste. The document clearly shows that up to that date, no other

2 In its the preamble, the agreement stipulates: “Between NFCS Ltd.... and GASIRIKARE Evariste... they entered into a partnership agreement for the tender exedcution consisting of site preparation and building the retaining wall located in KARAMA Village, Nyabikenke Cell, Bumbogo Sector, Gasabo District was awarded by NFCS Ltd. by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd., the contract is as follows: …”.

## Page 708

312 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

money had been given to NFCS Ltd. by Gasirikare Evariste in relation to the above-mentioned tender in which they would work together to share equally the profits3. As agreed upon by both parties, whenever Gasirikare Evariste gave any money to NFCS Ltd. in this regard, NFCS Ltd. would make a document acknowledging that it had received it, so there are many documents. That is what made them on 25/10/2019 write a single document meant to merge them into one and replace the many others that preceded it4.

In this context, this Court finds that the cheque of 30,000,000 Frw that NFCS Ltd. issued to Gasirikare Evariste one day (on 25/10/2019) or five days (on 30/10/2019) after they agreed that the debt had reached 48,000,000 Frw, could only be considered to be meant to pay that debt agreed upon since there was no other explanation attached to it. Regarding the fact that the cheque was made on the date 30/10/2019 which it is written on it or on the date 25/10/2019 both parties agreed on the remaining debt amounting to 48,000,000 Frw, this Court finds that debating this issue does not change anything about what it was intended for as explained above.

3 This document states it as follows: “I, Rosine, after receiving a sum of forty-eight million (48,000,000 Frw) from GASIRIKARE Evariste for the tender execution we agreed to accomplish by way of partnership in Bumbogo.”. 4 The document dated 25/10/2019 states it

as follows: “What I wrote earlier is worthless about the money he has been giving me for the execution of Bumbogo tendert”.

## Page 709

313 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

The court finds that the claim by Gasirikare Evariste that the cheque is a guarantee or evidence of another debt that he had already given to NFCS Ltd. three times a day and was given in cash is not considered true, because there is no other evidence that shows undoubtedly the reasons for it, since the way he alleges havig issued it is different from usual practice, where in their normal interactions, whenever there was money like this that Gasirikare Evariste would have given NFCS Ltd., there would also be a special receipt that was also written by NFCS Ltd..

For these reasons, this Court finds that this 30,000,000 Frw should be counted instead as part of the debt of 48,000,000 FRW that NFCS Ltd. owes to Gasirikare Evariste because that cheque, even though it was issued, was not cashed out instead of being an addition to it as the High Court had found it, and therefore it should be corrected, the 30,000,000 Frw will be subtracted from the amount it had allocated to him. B. Determining whether the 8,500,000 Frw appearing on the cheque dated 06/06/2019 should have been counted as part of the debt that NFCS Ltd. must pay to Gasirikare Evariste from the execution of the tender of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd.

The representative of NFCS Ltd. claims that the cheque of 8,500,000 Frw dated 06/06/2019, the manager of NFCS Ltd. had issued it to Gasirikare Evariste before the execution of the tender of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. She also alleges that the Court should not have included it in the amount to be paid to Gasirikare Evariste

## Page 710

314 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

because it was not part of the agreement. She also alleges that apart from the fact that Gasirikare Evariste had been keeping that cheque, the whole money shown on it had already been paid in another way by putting it in the account. of Gasirikare Evariste because there is no explanation as to why he had kept it all that time knowing for sure that he was not paid.

Gasirikare Evariste also admits that the debt originates from another contract they entered into which is not related to this tender of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd., but he alleges that while he knew that there was a lawsuit between NFCS Ltd. and NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd., nothing would preclude him from intervening in it to claim all the debt owed to him. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is based on determining whether the reason for voluntary intervention in the case can be any even though it is not based on the issue in the case. In other words, the issue is determining whether based on the partnership and profit sharing agreement between the Gasirikare Evariste and NFCS, it is possible that the cheque of 8,500,000 Frw is part of what should be distributed from the tender of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd.

Article 114, paragraph 2, of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that that in order

## Page 711

315 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

for his claim to be admitted, an intervening party must demonstrate a legitimate, direct and personal interest. A legitimate interest is one that a non-intervening party applying for a third-party opposition. Indeed, if they are unable to intervene in the case while they are interested in it, they can protect those interests by applying for a third party opposition. Therefore, when the subject matter was in dispute in that case, they shall not be allowed to apply for third party opposition because they are not interest in it. In other words, the interests of an intervening party are reflected in the fact that they are able to apply for third party opposition when they were unable to intervene in it. This means that an intervening party cannot bring an unrelated issue to the litigation between the other parties.

The court finds that it is clear in the partnership agreement dated 28/07/2019 that the obligations and rewards of NFCS Ltd. and Gasirikare Evariste mentioned in the agreement are only related to the tender NFCS Ltd. received from NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. in the agreement dated 28/06/2019. This means that the cheque of 8,500,000 Frw dated 06/06/2019 even Gasirikare Evariste himself, is not related to the tender thus should not be counted as a being part of the debt approved by the Commercial High Court, while the content of this cheque has nothing to do with the market of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd.

For these reasons, this Court finds that the issue related to the cheque of 8,500,000 Frw dated 06/06/2019 should not have been considered in this case, so the

## Page 712

316 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Commercial High Court erred in granting the mentioned amount to Gasirikare Evariste. C. Determining whether the interests awarded by the Commercial High Court to NFCS Ltd. should have been granted to Gasirikare Evariste alone

Gasirikare Evariste and his advocate allege that the Commercial High Court ordered that NFCS Ltd. is the one to receive the interests from the work done by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd., which was no paid, ignoring that all these interests come from the 86,500,000 Frw invested by Gasirikare Evariste. Gasirikare Evariste claims that he was the one who should have received these interests, because he is the one who invested all the money as stipulated in the agreement, and he was the one who suffered the loss because the non-payment by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. seriously affected him, because he provided all the money to do the work and what NFCS Ltd. did was only to monitor the work as stipulated in their partnership agreement.

Gasirikare Evariste and his advocate also criticize the way these interests were calculated. They allege that the Court decided that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. should pay 109,859,976 Frw of the value of the work done, the interests determined by the Commercial Court at first instance equals 14,092,761 Frw, and at the level of appeal the Commercial High Court approved another amount of 11,882,382 Frw, and the interests that the Commercial High Court granted to each party after equal

## Page 713

317 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

distribution of 11,679,988 Frw, the total interests amounts to 25,981,149 Frw.

In regard to the fact that the interests had to be calculated and everyone's contribution, they found that the money to be paid granted by the Court amounts to 109,859,976 Frw, Gasirikare Evariste invested 86,500,000 Frw; it is clear that the investment is 8.4 times greater than NFCS Ltd.'s investment, so the interests granted by the court, Gasirikare Evariste must be shared with NFCS Ltd. and should be calculated according to what each of them invested. That is, on the side of NFCS Ltd. it must be: 25,981,149: 8.4 = 3,092,994 Frw and on the side of Gasirikare Evariste, it must be: 25,981,149 – 3,092,994 = 22,888,155 Frw.

[39] The representative of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. declined to comment on this matter. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is based on determining how the interests NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. was ordered to pay should be divided between Gasirikare Evariste and NFCS Ltd.

Article 2 of the partnership agreement dated 29/07/2019 between the two parties stipulates that the Gasirikare Evariste as a partner of NFCS Ltd. agreed to bring money to execute the tender and build retaining wall provided by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. until

## Page 714

318 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

completion, NFCS Ltd. would monitor the work until completion, and also he would monitor how the money will be spent; and the article 3 of the agreement provides that NFCS Ltd. and its partner Gasirikare Evariste will share the interests from the tender at 50%, exclusive of all expenses and government taxes, each of them will take 50%, the whole tender has a value of 220,516,372 FRW.

These two articles of this agreement, read together, mean that for all the money derived from the NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS tender, the money invested by Gasirikare will be deducted, and the money spent on the tender will be subtracted, and the rest will be divided equally between the two parties.

The case file shows that at first instance the Commercial Court decided that the amount NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. should pay to NFCS Ltd. is 109,859,976 Frw of the value of the tender work done until termination, and 14,098,767 Frw of interests on arrears. The case reached the appeal level and after Gasirikare Evariste’s voluntary intervention, the Commercial High Court confirmed the amount mentioned above, but added another amount of 11,882,382 Frw to the damages/interests on arrears mentioned above which was calculated at the time when the judgment of the Commercial Court had been appealed against. This means that the money is related to the labor market and is covered by the distribution dispute between NFCS Ltd. Gasirikare Evariste that the courts had already charged NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. is 109,859,976Frw + 14,098,767Frw + 11,882,382Frw = 135,841,125 Frw.

## Page 715

319 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

Regarding the distribution of these funds, the Court finds, as already explained in paragraph 42 of this case, from the total amount of 135,841,125 Frw that had to be paid by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd., 48,000,000 Frw of the capital must be first limited to Gasirikare Evariste, the remaining 87,841,127 Frw the profit shall be distributed equally between NFCS Ltd. and Gasirikare Evariste. That is, everyone should be allocated 87,841,127 Frw x 50% = 43,920,563 Frw. In other words, for a total of 135,841,125 Frw to be paid by NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd., the share of NFCS Ltd. is only for profits, which is equal to 43,920,563 Frw; and the participation of Gasirikare Evariste is equal to 48,000,000 Frw it is confirmed that it is his investment4, plus 43,920,563 Frw of his share of the profits after sharing with NFCS Ltd. equally, totaling 91,920,563 Frw.

Based on the foregoing explanations, this Court finds that what was approved by the Court in allocating to NFCS Ltd. only the interests derived from the late payment of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. is unfounded because it is against the equitable distribution of all profits derived from the tender agreed upon by both parties, so the incidental appeal of Gasirikare Evariste is relevant on this point that all these profits should not be allocated to NFCS Ltd. alone but again it is irrelevant for him who wants to monopolize them.

4 See paragraph 29 of this judgment.

## Page 716

320 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

D. Determining whether the High Court should have ordered NFCS Ltd. to pay GASIRIKARE Evariste 18% of the economic damages of all the money to be paid, because he was dragged into court

In the incidental appeal, Gasirikari Evariste and his advocate request that the Court of Appeal order NFCS Ltd. to pay Gasirikare Evariste the economic damages amounting to 18% of the total amount to be paid equal to 98,179,988Frw + 22,888,155Frw= 121,068,143 X 18% = 21,792,265 Frw, for continuing to involve him in private lawsuits, instead of paying him.

The representative of NFCS Ltd. rebuts the claim of the economic damages by Gasirikare Evariste alleging that the Court may examine them and grant them if it deems them appropriate.

[48] The representative of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. says that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. has nothing to say on this point. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 150, subparagraph 5o of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that the appellant must present his criticism of the appealed case. As for its article 154, paragraph 4 adds that no new complaint can be filed at the appeal level.

## Page 717

321 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

As per the judgment appealed against, the damages requested by Gasirikare Evariste for engaging him in unnecessary lawsuits instead of paying him, are not at issue. On the contrary, apparently, it is the first time at this level of second appeal that Gasirikare Evariste claims them; therefore, this point regarding these damages should not be admitted for consideration in the merits because it was submitted illegally. Regarding the procedural fees and the advocate fee requested by the parties

Gasirikare Evariste and his advocate request the Court of Appeal to order NFCS Ltd. to pay him 1,300,000 Frw including the advocate fee and procedural fees, because instead of paying him, NFCS Ltd. filed an appeal to drag him into court, which made him hire an advocate to assist him.

The representative of NFCS Ltd. alleges that the money requested by Gasirikare Evariste is irrelevant.

The representative of NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. claims that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. does not have any claim from any party and no one made any claim in this regard. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and

## Page 718

322 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

administrative procedure provides that the claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted.

The court finds that even though the party is allowed to rely on the above-mentioned article of the law and is allowed to request the court to the other party to pay him the money for what they lost in the case, the allocation of it is not doubtful that it must be based first and foremost on the fact that they win the case and request it on other points of the principal claim.

In this case, the appeal filed by NFCS Ltd. against Gasirikare Evariste, the Court found that it should be declared well founded as explained above, while Gasirikare Evariste's incidental appeal is only well founded on the fact that NFCS Ltd. should not monopolize the interests on arrears that NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. was ordered to pay, but it should not be declarerd well founded for the claim that Gasirikare Evariste was the one who should monopolize it.

Based on the foregoin explanations, the Court finds that the costs of the procedural fees and the advocate fee requested by Gasirikare Evariste should not be granted, that each party at this stage should bear its lega costs.

The court finds that it should be recalled that in relation to the procedural fees, at the first instance the Commercial Court ordered NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. to pay NFCS Ltd. 500,000 Frw for the advocate fee,

## Page 719

323 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL

100,000 Frw for the procedural fees and 20,000 Frw for the court fees, and at the level of the first appeal the Commercial High Court ordered NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. to pay NFCS Ltd. another 600,000 Frw consisting of 500,000 Frw for the advocate fee and 100,000 Frw for the procedural fees. This means that the total procedural fees at all levels NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. was ordered to pay NFCS Ltd. amount to 1,220,000 Frw consisting of 1,000,000 Frw for the advocate fee, 200,000 Frw for the procedural fees and 20,000 Frw for court fees. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal of NFCS Ltd. has merit in all respects and the appeal of Gasirikare Evariste has some merit;

Holds that as confirmed by the Commercial High Court in the case appealed against, NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. must pay 135,841,125 Frw as explained above;

Holds that of the amount mentioned in the previous paragraph, 43,920,563 Frw is the amount NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. must pay NFCS Ltd. and 91,920,563 Frw to be paid to Gasirikare Evariste as described above;

Orders NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. to pay NFCS Ltd. 43,920,563 Frw;

## Page 720

324 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Orders NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. to pay Gasirikare Evariste 91,920,563 Frw;

Recalls NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS Ltd. to pay NFCS Ltd. 1,220,000 Frw for the procedural fees, the advocate fee and the court fees at the previous instances ordered by the Court in the case appealed against ;

Rules that the court fees deposited by NFCS Ltd. at this level are equivalent to the cost of the proceedings

## Page 721

325 NFCS LTD v NEXTGEN DEVELOPERS LTD ET.AL