RLR V. 1- 2025

RLR V. 1- 2025

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2025-01-29 - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

i Re MUNYEMANA

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2025 Mutarama, 2025 Law Reports V. 1 - 2025 January, 2025

Page 2

ii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 3

iii Re MUNYEMANA ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO

RWANDA LAW REPORTS BY’INKIKO

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw Icyegeranyo V. 1 - 2025 Mutarama, 2025 Law Reports V. 1 - 2025 January, 2025

Page 4

iv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 5

v Re MUNYEMANA

ISHAKIRO ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA................................................................................iii II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ......................................... iv IRIBURIRO ............................................................................... ix IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. xi AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ........................................xiii IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................... xv AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................ xix Re MUNYEMANA .................................................................... 1 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI .................... 37 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI....................................... 49 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI ........................ 65 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA ..................................................................... 85 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD ............................. 103 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1) ......... 125 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2) .......... 155 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD ............................................................................. 169 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU........................... 195

ISHAKIRO vii vii viii xiii xv xvii xix xxiii 45 1 57 73 95 113 135 165 181 207

Page 6

vi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 7

vii Re MUNYEMANA

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

RWAYITARE Eric

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

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

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Umuyobozi Mukuru wa ILPD

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre

KALIHANGABO Isabelle Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

NKURUNZIZA Valens :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE Bibiane : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’inkiko

Visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe Ivugururwa ry`Amategeko

Page 9

ix Re MUNYEMANA

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Umugenzuzi w’inkiko

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

NINAHAZWA Roselyne :

Dr. BIDERI Diogène :

Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu

Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

KAMALI Canisius :

Umwalimu muri ULK

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace :

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

Umwarimu muri INES - Ruhengeri

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

Page 10

x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

Dr. HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine :

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umwarimu muri University of Kigali

Umwarimu muri UNILAK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi

Page 11

xi Re MUNYEMANA

Page 12

xii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 13

xiii Re MUNYEMANA

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 1 [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 icyenda (9) zikurikira: urubanza rumwe (1) rwerekeranye n’ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, imanza ebyiri (2) z’imbonezamubano, imanza eshatu (3) z’ubucuruzi, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’inshinjayaha n’imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza.

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

XIII

IRIBURIRO

Page 14

xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 15

xv Re MUNYEMANA

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] 1 RLR

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO

Page 16

xvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 17

xvii Re MUNYEMANA

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 15, 16, 19 n’iya 29………...…5 Itegeko N° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 rigenga ibimenyetso ingingo ya 2,53, 87………………………………………………...202 Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 14 n’iya 121…………………………………...5 Itegeko N° 69/2019 ryo ku wa 08/11/2019 rihindura Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 4………………………………………………...5 Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 65……………………………………………………….105 Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 49 n’iya 133………………………………….6 ingingo ya 91 ,92,94,335…………………………….202 Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ingingo ya 181 n’iya 193………………………………52 ingingo ya 51 n’iya 183…………………………….…202 ltegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurirno n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 241……………………………………………39 ingingo ya 9 n’iya 111………………………………..….67

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

Page 18

xviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ingingo ya 241, 7……………………………………….160 Itegeko N° 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/6/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 18………….202 Itegeko N 31/2009 ryo ku wa 26/10/2009 rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge. ingingo ya 195 niya 222………………………...129 Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09 Ukuboza 1948 agamije gukumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside, ingingo ya 2 …………………………………………………………………..….203 Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru Nº 002/2021/0rg yo ku wa 29/06/2021 ahindura amabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru Nº 001/2020/0rg yo ku wa 12/05/2020 agenga ibyerekeye gucunga, gukodesha, kugurisha mu cyamunara ingingo ya 10 (39 bis) ………………………….173 b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga Itegeko Ngenga N° 04/2012/OL ryo ku wa 15/06/2012 rikuraho Inkiko Gacaca, rikanagena uburyo bwo gukemura ibibazo byari mu bubasha bwazo. ingingo ya 3…………………………………….203

Page 19

xix Re MUNYEMANA

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

RS/REV/RCOM 00001/2022/SC, Munyaburanga vs ECOBANK Plc, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 15/07/2022; RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC, Me MHAYIMANA Isaïe vs Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/02/2023. RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC rwa Semapondo Charles na Rwasimpenzi Wellars n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021. RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC rwa Busoro Gervais na Busoro Mugunga Desiré n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/06/2019; RPA 0022/14/CS Ubushinjacyaha vs Bogere Barige rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/03/2018. RPAA 0117/07/CS, Ubushinjacyaha vs Sgt. Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste & Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/09/2010. RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS, Ubushinjacyaha vs Bandora Charles rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/03/2019. RADA 0001/11/CS; KIST v Hashakimana Anastase rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/04/2012, RPAA 00055/2023/CA, Ubushinjacyaha v Niyinizeye Pacifique, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rw’Ubujurire ku wa 22/03/2024. RPAA 00020/2022/CA, Ubushinjacyaha v Kabayiza Sylver, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 05/01/2023.

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

Page 20

xx ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

RS/INJUST/RC 00013/2021/CA, MANIRARORA v RWANDA RUDNIKI LTD rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 28/06/2022. Ubushinjacyaha vs Ntamaherezo Iryamukuru,

RPAA 00141/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 31/05/2023. RPAA 00371/2020/CA, Ubushinjacyaha vs Sezikeye Franҫois rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 15/12/2022. RPAA 00681/2021/CA, Ubushinjacyaha vs Hategikimana Célestin rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 24/3/2023. RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA, Ubushinjacyaha na Ntaganzwa Ladislas, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 03/03/2023. RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA, Ubushinjacyaha vs Birindabagabo Jean Paul, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 08/04/2022. RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA, Ubushinjacyaha vs Kabilimana Jean Damascène, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 16/10/2020. RPAA 00681/2021/CA, Ubushinjacyaha vs Hategekimana Célestin rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 24/3/2023. RCOMA 00546/2022/HCC; UWERA Astrid v MUHAYIMANA Pelagie n’undi rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuwa 02/09/2022.

Page 21

xxi Re MUNYEMANA

RCOMA 00026/2019/HCC; Ngabonziza Joseph v Rugimbana Jean Claude n’undi rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi ku wa 01/03/2019 ICTR-2000-61-T, Ubushinjacyaha v Gatete Jean Baptiste, rwaciwe ku wa 31/03/2011 ICTR-05-88-T, Ubushinjacyaha v Callixte Kalimanzira rwaciwe ku wa. 20/10/2010. ICTR-96-3-A, Ubushinjacyaha v Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda rwaciwe ku wa 26/ 05/2003 ICTR-01- 62 T, Ubushinjacyaha v Bikindi Simon rwaciwe ku wa 2/12/2008 ICTR-95-1-A, Ubushinjacyaha v Kayishema & Ruzindana, rwaciwe ku wa. 21/05/1999 ICTR-04-81-A, Ubushinjacyaha v Setako Ephrem, rwaciwe ku wa 28/9/2011. ICTR-96-13-T Ubushinjacyaha v Musema Alfred, rwaciwe ku wa 25/2/2014. ICTR-99-54 A , Ubushinjacyaha v Kamuhanda Jean de Dieu, rwaciwe ku wa 19/09/2005 ICTR-01-73-A, Ubushinjacyaha vs Zigiranyirazo Protais, rwaciwe ku wa 16/11/2009 ICTR-99-52-A, Ubushinjacyaha vs Nahimana et al. (Media case). rwaciwe ku wa 28/11/2007 IT-98-32/1-A Ubushinjacyaha vs LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ, rwaciwe ku wa 20 July 2009. Simphiwe Raymond Shusha vs. Leta (Africa y’Epfo) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’igihugu y’Africa y’Epfo.

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

Page 22

xxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 23

xxiii

AMAGAMBO MPINE

AMAGAMBO MPINE 1. Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kutavangura – Ntawavuga ko yavanguwe mu gihe ibikorwa na kamere y’ibyo aregwa gukora n’ingaruka zabyo kuri sosiyete bitandukanye n’ibikorwa na kamere y’ibyo uwo yigereranya nawe yakoze, kuko bitahanwa kimwe. Re MUNYEMANA…………………………………….1 2. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ inyongera – Amasezerano y’ inyongera afatwa nk’ amasezerano mashya ajyanye n’igihe imirimo mishya igomba kumara – Imirimo yinyongera yakozwe nyuma y’amasezerano ya mbere igomba kwishyurwa kuko ifatwa nk amasezerano mashya atandukanye n’ ayakozwe mbere AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD…………103 Amasezerano – Kwishyuza igihembo ku masezerano y’inyongera ntibyafatwa nko guhindura igiciro cyemeranyijwe mu masezerano – Uwatanze isoko ntiyakwanga kuzuza inshingano zo kwishyura inyemezabwishyu zatanzwe na rwiyemezamirimo ku mirimo y’ inyongera yakozwe avuga ko ibyo bifatwa nko kongera igiciro cyatanzwe muri financial submission. AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD…………103 3. Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka – Impanuka z’ibinyabiziga byo mu muhanda – Impanuka yateye uwahohotewe gukuramo inda – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatumye uwahohotewe akuramo inda, zigenwa hashingiwe ku mategeko asanzwe cyangwa amahame rusange y’amategeko asanzwe akoreshwa. SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI……….65 xxiii 73 113 113

Page 24

xxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Impanuka yatewe n'ikinyabiziga – Ubuzime – Kuregera indishyi ku mwana udafite imyaka y'ubukure – Igihe ubuzime butangirira kubarwa - Ubuzime bw’ikirego cy’uwangirijwe bushobora guhagarikwa gusa n’impamvu zituma uwangirijwe adashobora gutanga ikirego cyangwa mu gihe atarageza ku myaka y’ubukure.

SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA……………………………..85 4. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gutesha agaciro cyamunara – Gutakamba – Kwandikira umwanditsi Mukuru – Iyo handitswe amabaruwa menshi yuzuzanya – Igihe umuyobozi yashyikirijwe amaburuwa menshi yuzuzanya, ibaruwa iherwaho mu kubara ibihe umuyobozi wandikiwe agomba kuba yasubirijemo, ni iyo yashyikirijwe bwa mbere. Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD………………………………169 Cyamunara – Gutesha agaciro cyamunara – Kwandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru – Ibarwa ry’iminsi kwandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru bikorerwamo – Iminsi iri mu mabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru itaragaragarijwe uburyo ibarwa, ibarwa mu buryo bw’iminsi ikurikirana (jours calendriers consecutifs) – Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru Nº 002/2021/0rg yo ku wa 29/06/2021 ahindura amabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru Nº 001/2020/org yo ku wa 12/05/2020 agenga ibyerekeye gucunga, gukodesha, kugurisha mu cyamunara, no kwegukana ingwate, ingingo ya 10 (39 bis). Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD……………………………….169 95 181 181

Page 25

xxv

AMAGAMBO MPINE

5. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburenganzira ku gihangano – Umuntu ufite umwanya w’ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku cyahimbwe icyo aricyo cyose mu rwego rw'ubuvanganzo, rw'ubugeni n'ubumenyi cyangwa ku gihangano cy’iyumvambona ni umuntu wagihanže cyangwa abafatanyije kugihanga. HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)…………………………………………………….. 125 Umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburenganzira ku gihangano – Kuba umukinnyi (acteur) mu gihangano muntu mu nkuru mpimbano ntibimuhesha uburenganzira bwjumwanditsi wicyo gihangano kuko ibyo akora byose aba abiyoborwamo kandi ategekwa n'umutoza w'abakinnyi. HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)……………………………………………………. 125 Uburyozwe – Umuntu cyangwa sosiyete icuruza ibihangano muntu mu izina ryabo bwite no mu nyungu zabo bwite batabiherewe uburenganzira na nyiri bihangano barabiryozwa kuko birengerwa n’itegeko. HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)...………………………………………………….. 125 Umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburyozwe – Indishyi – Umuntu cyangwa sosiyete icuruza ibihangano muntu mu izina rye bwite no nyungu ze bwite atabiherewe uburenganzira na nyiri bihangano arabiryozwa kuko birengerwa n’itegeko. HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)…………………………………………………….. 155 135 135 135 165

Page 26

xxvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Amategeko agenga imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Icyaha cya jenoside – Ikurikirana ry’icyaha – Kuba uregwa ataravuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca ntibivuzeko atakurikiranwa ku cyaha cya jenoside kuko kuba Urukiko rumwe ntacyo ruvuga ku muntu mu manza rukurikirana, bitavuze ko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha aregwa. UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU……195 Icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana – Itangwa ry’ibihano ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana – Uburemere bw’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana ni imwe mu mpamvu zishingirwaho mu igenwa ry’igihano uwagikoze agomba guhanishwa – Nubwo ibihano bitangwa kuri icyo cyaha biremereye ntibiruta uburemere bwacyo n’ingaruka kigira ku mwana wasambanyijwe, n’izo kigira kuri sosiyete. Re MUNYEMANA……………………………………1 Amategeko agenga imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Impurirane y’ibyaha – Uburyozwacyaha – Icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu – Umuntu ashobora guhamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu hashingiwe ku bikorwa bimwe kubera ko ibikorwa bigize buri cyaha bitandukanye, icyaha cya jenoside gikorwa mu mugambi wo kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, naho icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu kigakorwa mu bitero rusange cyangwa bya simusiga byibasiye abaturage b’abasivile. UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU…………195 Amategeko agenga imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Igihano – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha n’impamvu nkomezacyaha – 207 207

Page 27

xxvii

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Nubwo uregwa yahamwa n’ibyaha bifite uburemere, kandi byagize n’ingaruka zikomeye ku muryango nyarwanda; kuba yarahamwe n’ibi byaha ntibihagije kugira ngo bibe impamvu nkomezacyaha zituma igihano yahanishijwe kiyongera mu gihe Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaje ko yabikoranye urwango n’ubugome birenze iby’abandi bakoze ibyaha mu gace byakorewemo. UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU………....195 6. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Ibihe byo gutanga ikirego – Uburwayi - Ibihe byo gutanga ikirego bishobora kongerwa bitewe n’uburwayi bwashyira umuntu mu mimerere (conditions) ituma atabasha gutekereza, kuvuga, kumva, kwandika, nk’igihe yaba ari muri coma, ku buryo atashobora no kugira uwo aha ububasha bwo kumutangira ikirego Ubuhuza – Inyandiko y’ubuhuza – Isozwa ry’urubanza – Nta y’indi mihango, urubanza rusozwa n’ibikubiye mu mwanzuro w’ubuhuza akaba aribyo bishyirwa mu bikorwa. RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI…….37 Ubujurire – Igihe ubujurire bwagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko ariko ntibwakirwe, icyo cyemezo cyo kutakira ubwo bujurire kivanwaho, ubujurire bugasubizwa muri urwo Rukiko kugira ngo urubanza ruburanishwe mu mizi. UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI…………………49 Ubwumvikane mu manza – Ubuhuza busoza urubanza nta yindi mihango, maze hakarangizwa ibikubiye mu masezerano y’ubwumvikane. HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)…………………………………………………….. 155 207 165 57 45

Page 28

xxviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

7.Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Kuburanisha sinari mpari(Alibi) – Mu gihe umuburanyi aburanisha “sinari mpari” (alibi) by’umwihariko, Ubushinjacyaha nibwo bukomeza kugira inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho byemeza ko ukurikiranywe yakoze icyaha, naho ukurikiranyweho icyaha uvuga ko atari ari aho icyaha cyakorewe mu gihe runaka ku buryo atari kubasha gukora ibyaha ashinjwa, akagira inshingano zo kugaragaza gusa ko atari ahakorewe icyaha. UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU………....195 Ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Ubuhamya – Agaciro k’ubuhamya – Kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavuga kimwe cyangwa bashobora kwibeshyaho mu buryo budakabije, cyangwa iyo ubuhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko budahuje n’ibyavuzwe mbere sibyo byatesha agaciro ubuhamya kuko bishobora kuba byaratewe n’igihe kirekire gishize icyaha gikozwe kugeza igihe ubuhamya butangiweho mu Rukiko. UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU…………195 Ubujurire

–

Kubara ibihe by’ubujurire ku bakurikiranyweho ibyaha batari – hanze Iyo urubanza rusomwe uregwa ari muri kasho, byumvikana ko atashobora kujurira, kuko hashingiwe ku buryo ikoranabuhanga ryubatse (IECMS), imanza zicibwa ku birebana n’abakurikiranyweho ibyaha batari hanze, zimenyeshwa gereza babarizwamo, ubuyobozi bwazo bukazimenyesha abo bireba ndetse bukabafasha gutanga ubujurire bwabo binyuze muri ubwo buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga, ibi bivuze ko uregwa atashobora 207 207

Page 29

xxix

AMAGAMBO MPINE

kumenya ibyavuye mu rubanza yaburanye ngo abe yajurira, ahubwo iyo ageze muri gereza akaba aribwo ashobora kumenya imikirize yarwo, bivuze ko n’ibihe by’ubujurire kuri we bigomba kubarwa guhera kuri uwo munsi. UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI………………...49

57

Page 30

xxx ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 31

xxxi Re MUNYEMANA

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

Page 32

xxxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 33

xxxiii Re MUNYEMANA

IKIREGO GISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO

NSHINGA

Page 34

xxxiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 35

1 Re MUNYEMANA

Re MUNYEMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2023/SC (Ntezilyayo J.P., Hitiyaremye, Mukamulisa, Kalihangabo na Kazungu, J.) 16 Gashyantare 2024] Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kutavangura – Ntawavuga ko yavanguwe mu gihe ibikorwa na kamere y’ibyo aregwa gukora n’ingaruka zabyo kuri sosiyete bitandukanye n’ibikorwa na kamere y’ibyo uwo yigereranya nawe yakoze, kuko bitahanwa kimwe. Amategeko agenga imanza nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana – Itangwa ry’ibihano ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana – Uburemere bw’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana ni imwe mu mpamvu zishingirwaho mu igenwa ry’igihano uwagikoze agomba guhanishwa – Nubwo ibihano bitangwa kuri icyo cyaha biremereye ntibiruta uburemere bwacyo n’ingaruka kigira ku mwana wasambanyijwe, n’izo kigira kuri sosiyete. Incamake y’ikibazo: Munyemana yahamijwe icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi, ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu. Munyemana wari uhagarariwe na Me Kayitana yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba gukuraho igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, kuko binyuranyije n’amahame n’uburenganzira bwa muntu. Avuga ko binyuranyije n’amahame ateganyijwe mu ngingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko ibihano byateganyijwe ari umurengera ugereranyije n’ibihano 1

Page 36

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

biteganywa mu ngingo zindi z’amategeko zihana ibyaha by’ubugome bifite uburemere burenze ubw’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana. Asobanura ko yakatiwe igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 133 (2) y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, kuri ubu iyi ngingo ikaba yarahinduwe n’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 69/2019 ryo ku wa 08/11/2019 rihindura Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. Akomeza avuga ko ibihano biteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo ya 4 binyuranyije n’amahame n’uburenganzira bwa muntu biteganywa n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Asoza avuga ko yatanze iki kirego mu nyungu ze bwite ndetse no mu nyungu rusange nk’umunyarwanda uharanira ubutabera bwuzuye n’iterambere ry’amategeko. Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda asobanura ko iyo urebye uburyo icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana gihanwa mu bihugu byinshi, usanga ibihano biteganywa mu gika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 69/2019 yavuzwe haruguru, atari umurengera, akaba asanga uretse kuvuga gusa ko ibi bika binyuranye n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 z’Itegeko Nshinga ngo kubera ko biteganya ibihano biremereye, urega atagaragaza uburenganzira buba butubahirijwe. Mu bibazo byasuzumwe muri uru rubanza, harimo ikibazo cyo Kumenya niba igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Aha Urega avuga ko iyo ngingo inyuranyije n’amahame ateganyijwe muri izo ngingo z’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko iyo ngingo y’itegeko asabira

Page 37

3 Re MUNYEMANA

gukurwaho iteganya ibihano bikakaye ku basambanya abana kurusha ibiteganyirizwa abantu bakora ibindi byaha bikomeye kurusha icyo gusambanya umwana. Ikindi ni uko guhanisha umuntu igifungo cya burundu kubera gukoza igitsina cye ku cy’umwana ntibyubahiriza ihame ry’uko uburemere bw’igihano bugomba gushingira ku buremere bw’icyaha. Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana kigira ingaruka zikomeye zitandukanye haba ku mitekerereze, imibanire, imyigire ndetse n’imikurire y’ubwonko bw’umwana kandi izo ngaruka zikanamukurikirana n’iyo yakuze. Ni icyaha kandi kigira ingaruka ku muryango muri rusange, bityo ni icyaha kidakwiye gukinishwa cyangwa gupfobywa nk’uko Munyemana ashaka kubikora, kuko mu bihugu byinshi byo ku isi, iki cyaha gihanishwa ibihano bikomeye harimo igifungo cya burundu ndetse n’igihano cy’urupfu. Certa Foundation nk’Inshuti y’Urukiko muri uru rubanza ihagarariwe na Me Kabasinga, ivuga ko gusambanya umwana ari icyaha gikomeye kivogera uburenganzira bwa muntu ku bagikorewe. Ibi ibivuga ishingiye ku masezerano mpuzamahanga arengera uburenganzira bwa muntu, arengera uburenganzira bw’umwana cyangwa aca burundu iavangura iryo ari ryo ryose rikorerwa abagore, ishingiye ku mategeko y’u Rwanda, ku manza zo hanze n’izo mu Rwanda ndetse ishingiye no ku bushakashatsi butandukanye bukorwa ku bijyanye n’uburenganzira bw’umwana. Ikomeza ivuga ko ibihano ku byaha byo gusambanya abana byarashimangiwe byimazeyo kubera ingaruka bisigira umwana wahohotewe, ndetse n’umuryango muri rusange. Isaba ko uru Rukiko rugomba gusesengura niba kuba itegeko ryarashyizeho ibihano bikomeye ku bakora icyaha cyo gusambanya abana, bivuguruza ihame ryo kungana imbere

Page 38

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’amategeko. Isoza ivuga ko Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo yaryo ya 19 itegenya ko umwana wese afite uburenganzira bwo kurengerwa ku buryo bwihariye n’umuryango we, abandi banyarwanda na Leta, bitewe n’ikigero n’imibereho arimo nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko. Kuba bakeneye kurengerwa byihariye kugirango ihohoterwa bakorerwa ricike ndetse bahabwe n’ubutabera mu buryo bwo guhana byimazeyo uwabahohoteye, ntawavuga ko itegeko rivangura ugereranyije n’ibindi byaha bishobora kubakorerwa nk’icyaha cyo gukomeretsa bikabije. Ku kibazo kijyanye no kuba ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange unyuranyije n’ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye, Urega avuga ko nta butabera buboneye aba ahawe iyo uwakojeje igitsina cye ku gitsina cy’umwana, ahanishijwe igifungo cy’imyaka 20 cyangwa cya burundu, mu gihe uwamutemye amaguru n’amaboko ahanishwa igihano kitarenze imyaka 15. Ibi bivuze ko aba yahawe igihano gifite ubukana budahuye n’uburemere bw’icyaha yakoze. Kuri iki kibazo, Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko kuba ibihano biremereye ntibivuga ko uwahanwe yimwe uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye cyangwa ngo yimwe uburenganzira ateganyirizwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ikindi ni uko Urega atagaragaza ko ibihano biteganyijwe muri iyo ngingo asaba ko yakurwaho bidashyira mu gaciro cyangwa ngo bibe bibangamiye uburenganzira bw’abaturage, akaba agaragaza gusa ko biremereye. Inshuti y’Urukiko ivuga ko izi mpaka ziriho zishobora kugabanya ubukana bw’ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina, ugereranyije n’ubundi buryo bwo kugira nabi. Isobanura ko mu gihe cyo guhangana n’icyaha cyo gukoresha imibonano

Page 39

5 Re MUNYEMANA

mpuzabitsina ku gahato, bikwiye kutibanda gusa ku karengane gashobora kuba ku bakoze icyaha, bavuga ko igihano kidahuye n’uburemere bw’icyaha, kuko kwibanda ku bitekerezo by’uwakoze icyaha utitaye bihagije ku ngaruka zabaye ku wahohotewe, bishobora gutuma mu buryo butagambiriwe habaho imyumvire mu bantu yo gushyira imbere uburenganzira n’ibitekerezo by’abaregwa ibyaha bishingiye ku mibonano mpuzabitsina kuruta kwita ku mibereho y’abahohotewe. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ntawavuga ko yavanguwe mu gihe ibikorwa na kamere y’ibyo aregwa gukora n’ingaruka zabyo kuri sosiyete bitandukanye n’ibikorwa na kamere y’ibyo uwo yigereranya nawe yakoze, kuko bitahanwa kimwe.

2. Uburemere bw’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana ni imwe mu mpamvu zishingirwaho mu igenwa ry’igihano uwagikoze agomba guhanishwa. Nubwo ibihano bitangwa kuri icyo cyaha biremereye ntibiruta uburemere bwacyo n’ingaruka kigira ku mwana wasambanyijwe, n’izo kigira kuri sosiyete. Ikirego nta shingiro gifite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 15, 16, 19 n’iya 29. Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 14 n’iya 121. Itegeko N° 69/2019 ryo ku wa 08/11/2019 rihindura Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 4.

Page 40

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 49 n’iya 133. Act No 4 of 1998, Sexual Offences Special Provisions Act, 1998, section 131. The Sexual Offences Act, No 3 of 2006 of Kenya. The Penal Code (amendment) Act, 2007, section 129. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2021/SC, Re Ngendahayo Kabuye rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/02/2023. RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2020/CS - RS/INCONST/SPEC00006/2020/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 12/02/2021. RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2019/SC, Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/07/2020. RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Kabasinga Florida rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/12/2019. RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2019/SC, Me Murangwa Edward rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019. RS/INJUST/RP00003/2019/SC, Niyonsaba Eric n’Ubushinjacyaha rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/01/2022. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Barry C. Feld and Donna M. Bishop, The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice (Oxford University Press, USA, 12 Jan 2012).

Page 41

7 Re MUNYEMANA

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Me Kayitana Evode ahagarariye Munyemana Dionize yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba gukuraho igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 69/2019 ryo ku wa 08/11/2019 rihindura Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange (Igazeti Special yo ku wa 29/11/2019) kuko asanga binyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda (ryitwa Itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza), mu ngingo yaryo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29. Avuga ko Munyemana Dionize yahamijwe icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi mu rubanza RP 00335/2019/TGI/KNG rwaciwe ku wa 26/05/2020, ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu, rushingiye ku ngingo ya 133 (2) y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, kuri ubu iyi ngingo ikaba yarahinduwe n’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 69/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru. [2] Asobanura ko ibihano biteganywa n’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 69/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru binyuranyije n’amahame n’uburenganzira bwa muntu biteganywa n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ko kandi ibyo bihano ari umurengera ugereranyije n’ibihano biteganywa mu ngingo zindi z’amategeko zihana ibyaha by’ubugome bifite uburemere burenze ubw’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana. Avuga ko yatanze iki kirego mu nyungu ze bwite ndetse no mu nyungu rusange nk’umunyarwanda uharanira ubutabera bwuzuye n’iterambere ry’amategeko.

Page 42

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[3] Me Karemera Georges uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko iyo urebye uburyo icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana gihanwa mu bihugu byinshi, usanga ibihano biteganywa mu gika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 69/2019 yavuzwe haruguru, atari umurengera, akaba asanga uretse kuvuga gusa ko ibi bika binyuranye n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 z’Itegeko Nshinga ngo kubera ko biteganya ibihano biremereye, urega atagaragaza uburenganzira buba butubahirijwe. [4] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 10/01/2024, Me Kayitana Evode ahagarariye Munyemana Dionize, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Karemera Georges. Urukiko rwabanje kwemeza ko ubusabe bwa Certa Foundation bwo kuza mu rubanza nk’inshuti y’Urukiko (Amicus Curiae), mu rwego rwo gutanga ibitekerezo, bwemewe. Rwemeje kandi ko urega afite inyungu zo gutanga ikirego rushingiye ku mirongo rwatanze mu manza zaciwe ku birego bisa n’iki. [5] Nyuma yo gusuzuma ubusabe bw’ababuranyi ku birebana no guhuza ingingo y’itegeko yaregewe n’impinduka zabaye nyuma yo gutanga ikirego, Urukiko rwasanze ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 69/2019 ryo ku wa 08/11/2019 rihindura Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange yaregerwaga, yarahinduwe n’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, maze iburanisha rikomeza hasuzumwa ibibazo bigize urubanza bikurikira: a) Kumenya niba igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018

Page 43

9 Re MUNYEMANA

riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda; b) Kumenya niba igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda; c) Kumenya niba ibihano biteganywa mu gika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange byagabanywa, no kumenya niba bihita bikoreshwa kuri Munyemana Dionize ndetse no ku bantu bose bahamwe n’iki cyaha batararangiza ibihano. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA 1. Kumenya niba igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda [6] Me Kayitana Evode uhagarariye Munyemana Dionize avuga ko ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe. Iyi ngingo kandi ishimangirwa n’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yerekeye uburengazira mu by’imbonezamubano

Page 44

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

no mu bya Politiki u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono ateganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi bafite uburenganzira bwo kurengerwa n’amategeko ku buryo bungana nta kuvangura. Akaba asanga ibiteganywa mu gika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 ryavuzwe haruguru binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, kubera impamvu zikurikira: a) Riteganya ibihano bikakaye ku basambanya abana kurusha ibiteganyirizwa abantu bakora ibindi byaha bikomeye kurusha icyo gusambanya umwana. Urugero, iyo Munyemana Dionize aza gutema umwana aregwa gusambanya, akamuca amaboko cyangwa amaguru yombi, yari guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka itarenze 15 hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 121 (3) y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ryavuzwe haruguru. b) Guhanisha umuntu igifungo cya burundu kubera gukoza igitsina cye ku cy’umwana ntibyubahiriza ihame ry’uko uburemere bw’igihano bugomba gushingira ku buremere bw’icyaha. Iryo hame kandi rishimangirwa n’umuhanga Gregory S. Schneider mu nyandiko yise “Sentencing Proportionality in the States”, rikanagarukwaho n’ikigo cyitwa Sentencing Advisory Council cyo mu gihugu cya Australia. c) Mu bihugu by’amahanga hari aho usanga iki cyaha gihanishwa ibihano bito cyane ugereranyije n’ibiteganywa muri iyi ngingo. Urugero, muri Leta ya California yo muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika ntibirenza imyaka ine (4) ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana, mu gihe icyaha cyo kumuca amaboko cyangwa amaguru byo bihanishwa igifungo cya burundu.

Page 45

11 Re MUNYEMANA

[7] Me Karemera Georges uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda asobanura ko ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga ivuga ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, ko kandi itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe; naho ingingo ya 16 yo ikavuga ku bijyanye no kurindwa ivangura ndetse no kuba abanyarwanda bafite uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bingana, ko ivangura iryo ariryo ryose ribujijwe kandi rihanwa n’amategeko. Avuga ko igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 ryavuzwe haruguru, bitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, kubera impamvu zikurikira: a) Buri gihugu kigira amategeko ahana agaragaza ibyaha n’ibihano, kandi mu kubigena harebwa ububi bw’icyaha n’ingaruka zacyo haba ku wagikorewe (victim) ndetse no kuri sosiyete muri rusange; hagamijwe guhana uwakoze icyaha, gukumira ibyaha (deterrence) no kugorora (rehabilitation). b) Binyuze mu nzego zibifitiye ububasha cyane cyane Inteko Ishinga Amategeko, buri gihugu kigena uburemere bw’icyaha ndetse n’igihano gikwiriye icyo cyaha hagamijwe kugera ku ntego zo guhana, gukumira no kugorora. d) Icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana kigira ingaruka zikomeye zitandukanye haba ku mitekerereze, imibanire, imyigire ndetse n’imikurire y’ubwonko bw’umwana kandi izo ngaruka zikanamukurikirana n’iyo yakuze. Icyo cyaha cyonona kandi kikamunga ubuzima bw’umwana ndetse kigira ingaruka ku muryango muri rusange, bityo icyaha nk’icyo kikaba gikwiye guhanishwa igihano kiremereye, mu rwego rwo guhana abagikoze no gukumira kugira ngo n’abashaka kugikora babe batinya igihano bashobora guhabwa.

Page 46

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

e) Iyo urebye uburyo icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana gihanwa mu bihugu byinshi, usanga ibihano biteganywa atari umurengera. Urugero n’urwo mu bihugu 3 bigize Umuryango w’Ibihugu by’Iburasirazuba bw’Afurika (East African Community) Kenya, Uganda na Tanzania no mu bindi bihugu byinshi, aho usanga iki cyaha gihanishwa ibihano biri hejuru cyane: i) Mu Gihugu cya Kenya, umuntu usambanyije umwana ufite imyaka 11 no munsi yaho ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu, naho iyo umwana afite hagati y’imyaka 12 na 15, ahanishwa igifungo kidashobora kujya munsi y’imyaka 20. ii) Mu Gihugu cya Uganda, umuntu usambanyije umwana uri munsi y’imyaka 18 ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu, naho usambanyije umwana uri munsi y’imyaka 14, ahanishwa igihano cy’urupfu. iii) Mu Gihugu cya Tanzania, umuntu usambanyije umwana uri munsi y’imyaka 14 ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu. iv) Muri Leta ya California, imwe muri Leta zigize Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika, umuntu ufite nibura imyaka 18 usambanyije umwana ufite imyaka 10 no munsi yayo ahanishwa igifungo kiri hagati y’imyaka 25 n’igifungo cya burundu. v) Mu gihugu cya Nigeria, Umuntu usambanyije umwana uri munsi y’imyaka 13 ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu. vi) Muri Northern Ireland, umuntu usambanyije umwana uri munsi y’imyaka 13 ahanishwa igifungo cya burundu.

Page 47

13 Re MUNYEMANA

f) Ukurikije izo ngero zitandukanye, bigaragara ko icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana ari icyaha kidakwiye gukinishwa cyangwa gupfobywa nk’uko Munyemana Dionize ashaka kubikora, kuko mu bihugu byinshi byo ku isi, iki cyaha gihanishwa ibihano bikomeye harimo igifungo cya burundu ndetse n’igihano cy’urupfu. g) Mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwatanze igisobanuro cy’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, ushingiye kuri urwo rubanza usanga igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 ryavuzwe haruguru, ntaho binyuranya n’amahame akubiye mu ngingo ya 15 n’iya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kandi haba mu Rwanda cyangwa mu bindi bihugu, hateganyijwe ko icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana muto gifite uburemere bukomeye kurusha icyaha cyo gukubita no gukomeretsa urega yagarutseho abigereranya. h) Kuba igihano cyaremerera uwakoze icyaha ntibikwiye gufatwa ko icyo gihano ari umurengera, cyangwa ko ingingo igiteganya inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko uburemere bw’igihano budashobora gupimwa cyangwa kugenwa n’umuntu ku giti cye, cyane cyane uwakoze icyaha, nk’uko Munyemana Dionize ashaka kubikora. [8] Mu izina ry’Inshuti y’Urukiko (amicus curiae), Me Kabasinga Florida, uhagarariye Certa Foundation, ashingiye ku Masezerano mpuzamahanga y’Uburenganzira bw’Umwana (Convention on the Rights of the Child), Amasezerano nyafurika yerekeye uburenganzira n’imibereho myiza y’umwana, Amasezerano Nyafurika y’uburenganzira bwa muntu n’abaturage ya Banjul, Amasezerano nyafurika y’uburenganzira

Page 48

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bwa muntu n’abaturage ku burenganzira bw’umugore muri Afurika (Maputo Protocol), Amasezerano mpuzamahanga y’uburenganzira mbonezamubano n’ubwa politiki (ICCPR), n’Amasezerano yerekeye guca burundu ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose rikorerwa abagore (CEDAW), amategeko atandukanye y’u Rwanda, imanza zo hanze ndetse n’izo mu Rwanda, ubushakashatsi butandukanye ndetse n’ibisobanuro bitangwa na UNICEF ku burenganzira bw’abana n’ingimbi, avuga ko: a) Gusambanya umwana ari icyaha gikomeye kivogera uburenganzira bwa muntu ku bagikorewe (victims). Bivogera amahame shingiro y’uburenganzira bwa muntu (fundamental human rights) ku mwana wakorewe iryo hohoterwa, ku mibereho (safety) ku buzima bwe, nko kuba yakwandura ubwandu bw’agakoko gatera SIDA, cyangwa izindi ndwara zandurira mu mibonano mpuzabitsina, ndetse ko ashobora no guhura n’ingorane mu gihe cyo gutwita no kubyara. b) Raporo yakozwe n’Urwego rw’Ubugenzacyaha mu Rwanda (RIB), igaragaza ubwiyongere bwa 27.9 % bw’imanza zakozweho iperereza ugereranyije imibare yo mu mwaka w’ingengo y’imari wa 2018/2019 (3.215) na 2019/2020 (4.013). Raporo imwe ivuga ko umubare w’abana wiyongereyeho gato bava ku 3.215 muri 2019 ukagera kuri 4.265 muri 2020. Imibare igaragaza ko 1.239 (29.1%) y’abahohotewe bari munsi y’imyaka 10 muri 2020, ko kandi 98 % by’izo manza, abahohotewe ari abakobwa. c) Raporo yakozwe n’Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru yagaragaje ko ibyaha byo gusambanya abana byiyongereye kuva ku 1.819 mu mwaka wa 2013 bigera ku 3.793 mu mwaka wa 2020. Iyo raporo igaragaza neza ko icyo cyaha ari ikibazo

Page 49

15 Re MUNYEMANA

gikomereye Leta y’u Rwanda gikeneye gufatirwa ingamba zitajenjetse. Niyo mpamvu icyaha cyo gusambanya abana ndetse n’ibindi bikorwa by’ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina, bigomba gufatwa nk’ihohoterwa ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu. d) Abana b’abakobwa aribo bibasirwa cyane n’ibyo bikorwa bibi, kandi bakaba bakomeje gucecekeshwa, badashobora kubona uburenganzira bwabo no kurindwa nyuma y’ibi bintu bibi bakorerwa. e) Gusambanya umwana ari icyaha gikomeye gitera n’ingaruka nyinshi zitandukanye nk’ihungabana (Trauma) n’akababaro ku basambanyijwe, ndetse ibyo bikabagiraho n’ingaruka kuri ejo habo hazaza, ku mishinga yabo, ku buzima bwabo, ku myigire yabo, ku bukungu bwabo ndetse no mu mibanire yabo n’abandi. f) Abahuye n’ihohoterwa barahahamuka bakumva ko atari abagore buzuye, kuko baba bateshejwe agaciro ku rwego rwo gutakaza icyubahiro cyabo. Niyo mpamvu Guverinoma y’u Rwanda yateye intambwe intambwe mu gukumira no guca burundu ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina, ishyiraho urwego rugamije gushyira mu bikorwa amategeko na politiki yo kurwanya no gukurikirana ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina. g) Habayeho iterambere ry’amategeko na politiki byerekana intambwe igaragara iganisha ku buringanire no gushyiraho uburyo bwiza bwo gukumira no kurwanya ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina, aho ryagizwe icyaha gihanwa n’ibihano biremereye. Ni ngombwa kwerekana ingaruka zishobora guterwa no gukoresha imyumvire ibogamye ishingiye ku nshingano n’imico iranga igitsina

Page 50

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mu bucamanza. Imyumvire ishingiye ku gitsina iyo ikoreshwa mu nzego z’ubutabera ishobora kugira ingaruka zikomeye ku burenganzira bw’ibanze bw’umugore, harimo uburinganire imbere y’amategeko, ubutabera buboneye, n’uburenganzira bwo gukemurirwa ibibazo mu buryo bunoze. h) Ibihano ku byaha byo gusambanya abana byarashimangiwe byimazeyo kubera ingaruka bisigira umwana wahohotewe, ndetse n’umuryango muri rusange. Urukiko rukaba rugomba gusesengura niba kuba itegeko ryarashyizeho ibihano bikomeye ku bakora icyaha cyo gusambanya abana, bivuguruza ihame ryo kungana imbere y’amategeko. i) Gukumira icyaha cyo gusambanya abana bisaba imbaraga nyinshi za Leta hagamijwe ko abakora bene ibi byaha batazongera kubikora ukundi. Bumwe mu buryo bukomeye u Rwanda rwakoresheje ni ugufata gusambanya umwana nk’icyaha gikomeye cy’indengakamere ndetse cyashyizwe mu byaha bidasaza. Umuntu wese wangiza ejo hazaza h’umwana nta mutima aba afite, bityo umuryango, sosiyete na Leta muri rusange bigomba gufatanya kurwanya iryo hohoterwa no kurinda abahohotewe. j) Ihame ryo kungana imbere y’amategeko risobanura ko mu gukurikirana uwakoze icyaha hagomba kubahirizwa uburenganzira bw’uregwa bwo kuburanira mu ruhame, mu rukiko rufite ububasha kandi rwigenga, kandi rwanashyizweho n’itegeko. Iri hame rikaba ryumvikanisha ko amategeko akoreshwa arengera abantu mu buryo bumwe nta vangura rihari, hatitawe ku byiciro babarizwamo muri sosiyete, nko kuba umuntu ari

Page 51

17 Re MUNYEMANA

umukire, umukene, umwana, umuntu mukuru, igitsina, uruhu, umuco, idini cyangwa ikindi icyo aricyo cyose. K) Ku birebana n’uburyo bwo kurengera abana cyane ko ari nabo bahohoterwa cyane, ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko Nshinga ivuga ko umwana wese afite uburenganzira bwo kurengerwa ku buryo bwihariye n’umuryango we, abandi banyarwanda na Leta, bitewe n’ikigero n’imibereho arimo nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko. Abana bakeneye rero kurengerwa byihariye kugirango ihohoterwa bakorerwa ricike ndetse bahabwe n’ubutabera mu buryo bwo guhana byimazeyo uwabahohoteye, bityo akaba ari ntawavuga ko itegeko rivangura ugereranyije n’ibindi byaha bishobora gukorerwa abana nk’icyaha cyo gukomeretsa bikabije.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, igira iti: abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko. Amategeko abarengera ku buryo bumwe. Naho ingingo ya 16 yo ikavuga ko (1) Abanyarwanda bose bavukana kandi bagakomeza kugira uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bingana. (2) Ivangura iryo ari ryo ryose cyangwa kurikwirakwiza byaba bishingiye ku bwoko, ku muryango cyangwa ku gisekuru, ku nzu, ku ibara ry’umubiri, ku gitsina, ku karere, ku byiciro by’imibereho, ku idini cyangwa ukwemera, ku bitekerezo, ku mutungo, ku itandukaniro ry’umuco, ku rurimi, ku bukungu, ku bumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa ubwo mu mutwe no ku rindi vangura iryo ari ryo ryose, birabujijwe kandi bihanwa n’amategeko.

Page 52

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[10] Ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 69/2019 ryo ku wa 08/11/2019 rihindura Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, yahinduwe n’ingingo ya 14 y’ Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. Igika cyayo cya mbere aricyo kivuga ibikorwa bihanirwa mu gika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 byaregewe, kigira kiti: (1) umuntu ukorera ku mwana kimwe mu bikorwa bishingiye ku gitsina bikurikira, aba akoze icyaha: (a)gushyira igitsina cy’umuntu mu gitsina, mu kibuno cyangwa mu kanwa by’umwana; (b)gushyira urugingo urwo ari rwo rwose rw’umubiri w’umuntu mu gitsina cyangwa mu kibuno cy’umwana; (c)gukora ikindi gikorwa cyose ku mubiri w’umwana hagamijwe ishimishamubiri. Naho igika cy’iyo ngingo cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4, bigateganya ko (2) Umuntu uhamijwe n’urukiko gukora kimwe mu bikorwa bivugwa mu gika cya (1) cy’iyi ngingo ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka 20 ariko kitarenze imyaka 25. (3) Iyo gusambanya umwana byakorewe ku mwana uri munsi y’imyaka 14 igihano kiba igifungo cya burundu. (4) Iyo gusambanya umwana byakorewe ku mwana ufite cyangwa urengeje imyaka 14 byamuteye indwara idakira cyangwa ubumuga, igihano kiba igifungo cya burundu. [11] Urukiko rurasanga mu rwego rwo gusesengura no gutanga igisubizo ku kibazo cyavuzwe haruguru, ari ngombwa guhuriza hamwe ingingo eshatu z’ingenzi zikurikira: a) Ihame ryo kureshya n’iryo kutavangura imbere y’amategeko, b) Ingaruka z’icyaha cyo gusambanya abana ndetse n’abatari abana muri rusange.

Page 53

19 Re MUNYEMANA

c) Ihame ry’uko uburemere bw’igihano bushingira ku buremere bw’icyaha (principle of proportionality) a. Ihame ryo kureshya n’iryo kutavangura imbere y’amategeko [12] Ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko n’iryo kutavangura yasesenguwe mu bihe bitandukanye n’uru Rukiko mu manza zitandukanye zaritanzeho umurongo, zirimo urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2021/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 10/02/2023, haburana Ngendahayo Kabuye, aho rwasobanuye ko ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko rijyana n’iryo kutavangura, kandi ko afitanye isano, akaba agomba kureberwa hamwe kuko yombi ahuriza ku kintu cy’ingenzi cyo kudasumbanya abantu mu buryo butemewe cyangwa bubujijwe nta mpamvu, ugamije kugira abo uheza ku burenganzira bemererwa n’amategeko. Urukiko rwavuze kandi ko kureshya imbere y’amategeko no kutavangura bitavuze ko gutandukanya abantu ubwabyo mu bihe byose ari ivangura. Ko ndetse gutandukanya abantu cyangwa ibyiciro by’abantu bishobora kuba ngombwa bitewe n’ikigambiriwe, hari impamvu zumvikana zishingiye ku ntego ifite ireme (legitimate or rational purpose).1 [13] Muri urwo rubanza, uru Rukiko rwashimangiye ko abantu bari mu bihe cyangwa mu byiciro bimwe, bafatwa kimwe, ko iyo badafashwe kimwe nta mpamvu ifite ireme kandi yumvikana, byitwa ivangura, ko Leta ishobora gutandukanya abantu cyangwa ibyiciro by’abantu ariko ntibyitwe kubangamira ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko cyangwa iryo kutavangura, ko kugira ngo bishoboke, igomba kuba ifite impamvu yumvikana,

1 Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/02/2023, haburana Ngendahayo Kabuye na Leta y’u Rwanda, igika cya 36 na 39.

Page 54

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ifite ireme kandi ikurikije amategeko, inagamije inyungu rusange z’abaturage.2 [14] Naho mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC00004/2019/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 24/07/2020, haburana Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné, mu gika cya 31, hasobanuwe ko ihame ryo kureshya imbere y’amategeko rivuga ko itegeko rifata nk’abareshya abantu bari mu cyiciro kimwe kandi rigashyirwa mu bikorwa kimwe. Mu yandi magambo, ibisa bifatwa kimwe. Ni ukuvuga ko nta vangura rigomba kubaho ku bantu bari mu bihe bisa no mu buryo busa. Bikumvikana ko abantu batari mu cyiciro kimwe badashobora gufatwa kimwe. [15] Uru Rukiko rwasobanuye nanone izo ngingo mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC haburana Me Murangwa Edward, rugaragaza ko ihame ry’uko abantu bareshya imbere y’amategeko rivuze ko abantu bafatwa kimwe imbere y’itegeko, nta busumbane cyangwa ivangura, n’itegeko rigiyeho rigafata kimwe abo rireba. Rwongeyeho ko ibintu bimeze kimwe bifatwa kimwe, naho ibintu bitandukanye bigafatwa ku buryo butandukanye hakurikijwe itandukaniro ryabyo, ko kandi n’ubwo abantu bagomba kureshya imbere y’amategeko, kubatandukanya cyangwa kubashyira mu byiciro bititwa buri gihe ivangura. b. Ingaruka z’icyaha cyo gusambanya abana ndetse n’abatari abana muri rusange [16] Mu cyegeranyo cyasohowe n’Umuryango w’Abibumbye, gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Inkiko Mpuzamahanga ku ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina, harimo Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, urwashyiriweho

2 Idem, igika cya 57.

Page 55

21 Re MUNYEMANA

Yugoslavia n’urwashyiriweho Sierra Leone, hagaragaramo ko ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina ritera ububabare bukabije no kubabara ku mubiri ndetse no mu ntekerezo. Kubabara mu ntekerezo ku wakorewe ihohoterwa bishobora gukongezwa na sosiyete ndetse n’ibiranga umuco kandi bikaba biremereye byihariye binamara igihe kinini cyane.3 Gukoreshwa imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato bitera ububabare bukabije ku mubiri no mu bitekerezo. Ububabare mu bitekerezo bw’abantu bakoreshejwe imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato bushobora kongerwa bitewe n’ibyerekeye imibereho n’umuco kandi bikagira ingaruka zikomeye kandi z’igihe kirekire. [17] Urubanza R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada, rwasobanuye ko kugirango habe uburyo bukwiye bwo kurwanya icyaha cyo gusambanya abana, mu kugena igihano ari ingenzi ku bacamanza kubanza kumva mu buryo bunoze uburemere bw’ububi bwo gusambanya abana ndetse n’igikomere bitera. Uru rubanza rwagaragaje ko kunanirwa kumenya cyangwa kwemeranya n’inyungu umushingamategeko agamije kurinda mu bijyanye no kurwanya ibyaha bishobora gutuma habaho gutesha agaciro mu buryo budakwiye uburemere bw’icyaha. Ibi bishobora gutuma kandi imitekerereze idafite ireme icengera mu mihango ijyanye n’igenwa ry’igihano, ingaruka zikaba kudatahura ndetse no

3 United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Review of the Sexual Violence Elements of the Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone in the Light of Security Council Resolution 1820, (United Nations, 2010), p.

34. States that “Rape causes severe pain and suffering, both physical and psychological. The psychological suffering of persons upon whom rape is inflicted may be exacerbated by social and cultural conditions and can be particularly acute and long lasting.”

Page 56

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

gukoresha nabi impamvu nkomeza cyaha cyangwa impamvu nyoroshya cyaha. Kumva mu buryo bunoze igikomere cyatewe n’icyaha bituma hatangwa igihano mu murongo uhuye n’imyumvire igezweho muri sosiyete yumva kamere n’uburemere bw’ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina rikorewe abana, bikanatuma imyumvire itariyo no kwibwira kubi bitinjira mu igenwa ry’igihano.4 [18] Urwo rubanza rumaze kuvugwa rukomeza rugaragaza ko inyungu shingiro umushingamategeko aba arengera mu kugena ibihano ku byaha byo gusambanya abana ari ubwigenge bwa muntu, kudahungabanywa ku mubiri, kudahungabanywa mu by’imibonano mpuzabitsina, ikuzo, no kungana kw’abana. Rwagaragaje kandi ko ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina rikorewe abana rihungabanya ubwigenge bwa muntu bw’umwana mu buryo butandukanye no ku muntu mukuru kuko umwana aba adafite ububasha bwo kwemera gukora imibonano mpuzabitsina n’umuntu mukuru, bisobanuye ko aba agikeneye uburenganzira

4 R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, para 50, ruboneka kuri https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc- csc/scc-csc/en/item/18238/index.do? q=R.+v.+Friesen states that “To effectively respond to sexual violence against children, sentencing judges need to properly understand the wrongfulness of sexual offences against children and the profound harm that they cause. Getting the wrongfulness and harmfulness right is important…. failure to recognize or appreciate the interests that the legislative scheme of offences protects can result in unreasonable underestimations of the gravity of the offence. Similarly, it can result in stereotypical reasoning filtering into the sentencing process and the consequent misidentification and misapplication of aggravating and mitigating factors. Properly understanding the harmfulness will help bring sentencing law into line with society’s contemporary understanding of the nature and gravity of sexual violence against children and will ensure that past biases and myths do not filter into the sentencing process.”

Page 57

23 Re MUNYEMANA

bwo gukura butarangwamo gufatiranwa akoreshwa imibonano mpuzabitsina n’abakuze.5 [19] Urwo rubanza kandi mu gika cya 76 kugeza ku cya 80, ruvuga ko gusambanya abana ari ikibi muzi, gikomeretsa mu buryo bweruye, buri gihe bigashyira umwana mu mage yo gukomereka bikomeye, ku rwego byigaragaza, igikomere nyirizina kikaba kijyana n’umwihariko wa buri cyaha. Iryo hohoterwa buri gihe rijyana no gukoresha imbaraga zijyanye na kamere y’imibonano mpuzabitsina ku mwana. Ikindi cyagaragajwe n’urwo rubanza ni uko impamvu zikomeza icyo cyaha zituruka ku buryo guhungabanywa ku bwigenge ku bijyanye n’imibonano mpuzabitsina ku mwana byiyongeraho guhungabanywa ku mubiri w’umwana. Urukiko rwemeje kandi ko ukora icyaha ahuza imyanya ndangagitsina ye n’iy’umwana, bigatera ihohoterwa mu ntekerezo kandi ko mu buryo buhamye ihohoterwa ry’umubiri risobekeranye n’ihohoterwa mu ntekerezo. Rwanagaragaje ko ibikomere mu mubiri no mu ntekerezo by’umwana biba karande bagendana mu bwana bwe bwose.6

5 Ibid., para 54 – 59. States that “This emphasis on personal autonomy, bodily integrity, sexual integrity, dignity, and equality requires courts to focus their attention on emotional and psychological harm, not simply physical harm. Sexual violence against children can cause serious emotional and psychological harm that may often be more pervasive and permanent in its effect than any physical harm…... These forms of harm are particularly pronounced for children. Sexual violence can interfere with children’s self- fulfillment and healthy and autonomous development to adulthood precisely because children are still developing and learning the skills and qualities to overcome adversity. For this reason, even a single instance of sexual violence can permanently alter the course of a child’s life.” 6 Idem., para 77. States that “…violence is always inherent in the act of applying force of a sexual nature to a child. Far from removing the violence, the sexual dimension instead aggravates the wrongfulness of the violence by

Page 58

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

c. Ihame ry’uko uburemere bw’igihano bushingira ku buremere bw’icyaha (principle of proportionality) [20] Mu rubanza R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, rwavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwasobanuye ihame ryo kuba uburemere bw’igihano bugomba gushingira ku buremere bw’icyaha, aho rwasobanuye ko ibihano byose bigendana n’ihame ryo kuba igihano kigomba kuba kingana n’uburemere bw’icyaha ndetse n’urwego uwagikoze akwiye kuryozwaho (principle of proportionality). Umucamanza ugena igihano yita na none ku rindi hame ryo kuba abanyabyaha bamwe, bakoze icyaha kimwe, mu buryo bumwe, bagomba guhabwa igihano kimwe (principle of parity). Amahame abiri amaze kuvugwa ntabwo avuguruzanya, ahubwo kubahiriza rimwe nibyo bituma irindi naryo ryubahirizwa. Nanone kandi, uburyo bwatuma hatangwa igihano kimwe ku bitameze kimwe nabwo buba butubahirije ihame ryo kuba igihano kigomba kuba kingana n’uburemere bw’icyaha n’ihame ryo kuba abanyabyaha bamwe, bakoze icyaha kimwe mu buryo bumwe bagomba guhabwa igihano kimwe. Iri hame rimaze kuvugwa niryo

adding interference with the child’s sexual integrity to the interference with the child’s bodily integrity. Physical contact of a sexual nature with a child always means that the offender has interfered with both the child’s security of the person from any non-consensual contact or threats of force and the child’s bodily integrity, which lies at the core of human dignity and autonomy. Such physical sexual contact is also a form of psychological violence precisely because bodily and psychological integrity are closely linked. The degree of physical interference and the intensity of physical and psychological violence vary depending on the facts of individual cases. However, any physical contact of a sexual nature with a child always constitutes a wrongful act of physical and psychological violence even if it is not accompanied by additional physical violence and does not result in physical or psychological injury. Courts must always give effect to this inherent violence since it forms an integral component of the normative character of the offender’s conduct.”

Page 59

25 Re MUNYEMANA

rigaragaza mu buryo ngiro uko uburemere bw’igihano bugomba gushingira ku buremere bw’icyaha.7 [21] Abahanga mu mategeko bavuga kandi ko ihame ry’uburemere bw’igihano bugomba gushingira ku buremere bw’icyaha (principle of proportionality) ritegeka ko igihano ku cyaha kigomba gutangwa hadashingiwe gusa kuri kamere y’ibikorwa bigize icyaha byakozwe, ahubwo ko hanashingirwa ku buryozwe n’umugayo uwagikoze akwiye. Bimwe mu byitabwaho inkiko zagiye zigenderaho igihe zemeza urwego umuntu ari buryozweho ku bikorwa bigize icyaha akaba ari ububasha bwe bwo gufata icyemezo (decision-making capacity), uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo, ndetse n’imyitwarire imuranga.8 [22] Ukurikije ibisobanuro n’imirongo byatanzwe mu manza zavuzwe haruguru zaciwe n’uru Rukiko kw’ihame ryo kureshya n’iryo kutavangura imbere y’amategeko, Urukiko rurasanga

7 R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, para 30-33, available at https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc- csc/scc-csc/en/item/18238/index.do? q=R.+v.+Friesen. states that “Parity and proportionality do not exist in tension; rather, parity is an expression of proportionality. A consistent application of proportionality will lead to parity. Conversely, an approach that assigns the same sentence to unlike cases can achieve neither parity nor proportionality. In practice, parity gives meaning to proportionality.” 8 Barry C. Feld and Donna M. Bishop, The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice (Oxford University Press, USA, 12 Jan 2012), p. 539, states that “Basic principles of proportionality dictate that criminal punishment should be meted out not only based on the nature of the perpetrator’s criminal actions, but also by his blameworthiness. Included among the factors that the courts have traditionally considered when determining the degree to which a person is held responsible or blameworthy for criminal actions are the individual’s decision- making capacity, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, and the individual’s character.”

Page 60

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

urega atabasha kugaragaza uburyo ibihano ku cyaha cyo gusambanya abana binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, usibye kugereranya ibihano bihanishwa uwahamwe n’icyo cyaha n’ibihabwa uwahamwe n’icyaha cyo gukubita no gukomeretsa byaviriyemo uwakorewe icyaha ingaruka zigaragara ku mubiri nko gucibwa ukuboko. [23] Urukiko rushingiye ku isesengura ryakozwe haruguru, ndetse no ku manza zitandukanye zisesengura amahame ateganywa mu ngingo ya 15 na 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga, rurasanga ibyo byaha byombi bitandukanye, bityo n’ababikoze bakaba batahanwa kimwe kandi bahanirwa ibyaha bitandukanye, hakaba ntawavuga ko yavanguwe mu gihe ibikorwa na kamere y’ibyo aregwa gukora n’ingaruka zabyo kuri sosiyete bitandukanye n’ibikorwa na kamere y’ibyo uwo yigereranya nawe yakoze. [24] Kubera izo mpamvu zose zavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 14, mu gika cya 2, icya 3, n’icya 4, y’ Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 16 z’Itegeko Nshinga.

2. Kumenya niba igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda [25] Me Kayitana Evode uhagarariye Munyemana Dionize avuga ko Itegeko Nshinga mu ngingo yaryo ya 29 iteganya ko buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye[...]; kandi ko mu gusobanura ubutabera buboneye n’ibibukubiyemo,

Page 61

27 Re MUNYEMANA

Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 04/10/2019, rwagaragaje ko “ubutabera buboneye bugizwe n’uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa mu migendekere y’urubanza hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko (procedural due process) n’ubutabera buboneye bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage (substantive due process). Akaba asanga ibihano biteganywa mu gika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru bikabije uburemere ugereranyije n’uburemere bw’icyaha, bikaba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga kubera impamvu zikurikira: a. Umuntu utemye umwana akamuca amaguru cyangwa amaboko we ahanishwa imyaka itarenze 15, bikaba bitumvikana ukuntu gukoza igitsina ku cy’umwana, rimwe na rimwe uwabikoze ntagere no ku gikorwa nyirizina cyo kumusambanya, nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bubivuga mu rubanza rwa Munyemana Dionize, yahanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka 20 cyangwa icya burundu. b. Nta butabera buboneye umuntu yavuga ko yabonye mu gihe yahawe ibihano bifite ubukana budahuye n’uburemere bw’icyaha yakoze. c. Hari abantu benshi basambanyijwe bakiri batoya, kandi ubu bakaba bubatse, barabyaye, bakora akazi neza, nta kibazo gikomeye bafite mu buzima. Urugero rw’umuntu wasambanyijwe akiri muto ubu akaba ari mu bantu bakomeye ku isi, akaba ari Pastor Joyce Meyer wavuzwe haruguru, witangira ubuhamya ko se yamusambanyije

Page 62

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

akiri umwana inshuro zigera kuri 200, ariko ubu bikaba bitaramubujije kuba ari umudamu ufite urugo rukomeye, ndetse ari n’umupasitori ukomeye ku isi. d. Mu bikorwa bimwe bihanwa mu ngingo y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, harimo ibitanagize igikorwa cya “pénetration sexuelle”, nko gukorakora umwana ku gitsina cyangwa ku mabere cyangwa kumusoma ugamije ishimishamubiri. Asanga nta butabera buboneye iyi ngingo itanga kuko uwasomye umwana akatirwa imyaka 20 cyangwa igifungo cya burundu, mu gihe uwamutemye akamuca amaboko cyangwa amaguru ahanishwa imyaka itarenze 15. Niyo mpamvu avuga ko harimo akarengane, kabuzwa muri “substantive due process” ivugwa mu ngingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. e. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC haburana Kabasinga Florida, rwasobanuye ko mu mategeko y’u Rwanda hagaragaramo akarengane mu bihano, bityo Urukiko rukaba rwarasabye ko hashyirwaho politiki yo guhana yemerera Umucamanza ubwisanzure bwo gutanga igihano akurikije uburemere bw'icyaha n’ingaruka cyateye. [26] Me Karemera Georges uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda asobanura ko ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga irebana n’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye (right to due process / droit à la guarantie judiciaire). Akavuga ko igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4, by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, bitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kubera impamvu zikurikira:

Page 63

29 Re MUNYEMANA

a. Kuba ibihano biremereye ntibivuga ko uwahanwe yimwe uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye cyangwa se ko atahawe uburenganzira butenganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. b. Ku bijyanye n’ubutabera buboneye (substantive due process), urega ntagaragaza ko ibihano biteganyijwe mu gika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 yavuzwe haruguru, bidashyira mu gaciro, cyangwa ngo bibe bibangamiye uburenganzira bw’abaturage. Icyo agaragaza gusa ni uko ibihano biremereye ibyo bikaba bidahura n’ibyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasobanuye mu rubanza yagaragaje mu mwanzuro we. c. Urega yatanze urugero kuri Pastor Joyce Meyer, ashaka kugaragaza ko icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana kidafite ingaruka zikomeye, bitandukanye cyane n’ukuri, kuko ubwe yivugira ko kuba se umubyara yaramusambanyije kuva akiri muto byamugizeho ingaruka zikomeye cyane mu mikurire ye, ko ndetse bigoye kwiyumvisha ingaruka mbi gusambanya umwana bigira kuri uwo mwana.9 d. Ibihano bigenewe abakoze icyaha cyo gusambanya abana bigamije kurinda uburenganzira bw’abana ndetse na sosiyete muri rusange, bibarinda abantu nka Munyemana Dionize, kandi bikanakumira abandi bantu

9 Pasiteri Joyce Meyer abivuga muri aya magambo: “I was so profoundly ashamed because of this. I was ashamed of me, and I was ashamed of my father and what he did. I was also constantly afraid. There was no place I ever felt safe growing up. I don't think we can even begin to imagine what kind of damage this does to a child. At school I pretended I had a normal life, but I felt lonely all the time and different from everyone else. I never felt like I fit in….”

Page 64

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bashobora kugira igitekerezo cyo gukora icyo cyaha ariko ntibagikore kubera gutinya igihano bashobora guhabwa baramutse bishoye muri icyo cyaha. [27] Mu izina ry’Inshuti y’Urukiko (amicus curiae) (i.e. Certa Foundation), Me Kabasinga Florida, uyihagarariye avuga ko: a. Impaka ziriho zishobora kugabanya ubukana bw’ihohoterwa rishingiye ku gitsina, ugereranyije n’ubundi buryo bwo kugira nabi. Uku gupfobya kukaba gushobora gushimangira mu buryo butagenderewe imyumvire igabanya uburemere bw’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana no gukinisha imyumvire y’uwahohotewe. b. Kwibanda gusa ku bikorwa bifatika bigize icyaha bishobora kubuza kumenya neza ingaruka mbi zikomoka kw’ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, cyane cyane irikorerwa umwana ndetse bikanagira ingaruka zo kumvikanisha ko ko igihano cy’ibi byaha kidakwiye. c. Birakwiye ko mu butabera hatagarukirwa gusa ku gusesengura ingaruka ku mubiri zo gukoreshwa imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato kuko n’ubwo zishobora kuba ziremereye ushingiye ku kuba bamwe mu bahohotewe byarabateye ubumuga, zimwe mu ngingo zabo zigatakaza imikorere, cyangwa bagahura n’ibibazo byo gutwita, abandi bagapfa kubera gukuramo inda, ingaruka mu mitekerereze y’uwakoreshejwe imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato cyangwa uwasambanyijwe ziraremereye kandi akenshi zikaba zirengagizwa. d. Igitekerezo cy’uko abarokotse gukoreshwa imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato bashobora kubaho neza, gukora

Page 65

31 Re MUNYEMANA

no kugira imiryango nk’uko byavuzwe ahanini mu nkuru ya Joyce Meyer, bishobora kuba ukuri kuri bamwe, nyamara ntibikuraho ihungabana abarokotse iryo hohotera akenshi bahangana naryo. Joyce Meyer mu magambo ye ntiyigeza avuga ko atagizweho ingaruka n’ihohoterwa yakorewe. e. Ubushakashatsi bwakozwe hagati ya Kamena 2015 na Nyakanga 2016 mu bitaro by’igihugu bya Kenyatta n’ibitaro by’abagore bya Nairobi, bwakorewe ku bantu 40 bakoreshejwe imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato n’imiryango yabo, bwagaragaje ko abana bakoreshwejwe imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato baragize ingaruka mbi mu bijyanye no kutitwara neza mu masomo, kwiyubaha guke, kwiheba, ndetse n’imibanire mibi n’abandi. f. Mu gihe hasesengurwa ibijyanye no gukoreshwa imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato, hagomba kandi kurebwa ingaruka iki cyaha gishobora kugira ku bagize umuryango w’abahohotewe, kuko bitewe no guhohoterwa na se, murumuna wa Joyce Meyer yabaswe n’ibiyobyabwenge ndetse birangira yiyahuye. Ibi bigaragaza ko gukoreshwa imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato bigera ku yindi ntera yo kurimbura abagize umuryango ukikije abahohotewe. g. Mu gihe cyo guhangana n’icyaha cyo gukoresha imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato, birakwiye kutibanda gusa ku karengane gashobora kuba ku bakoze icyaha, bavuga ko igihano kidahuye n’uburemere bw’icyaha, kuko kwibanda ku bitekerezo by’uwakoze icyaha utitaye bihagije ku ngaruka zabaye ku wahohotewe, bishobora gutuma mu buryo butagambiriwe habaho imyumvire mu bantu yo gushyira imbere uburenganzira n’ibitekerezo

Page 66

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

by’abaregwa ibyaha bishingiye ku mibonano mpuzabitsina kuruta kwita ku mibereho y’abahohotewe. h. Mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Amerika rw’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu haburana Linda Loaiza v. Venezuwela, Urukiko rwemeje ko gukoresha Linda Loaiza imibonano mpuzabitsina ku gahato byagize uruhare mu kuvogera ubuzima bwe ku bijyanye n’imibonano mpuzabitsina, kandi bikuraho uburenganzira bwe bwo guhitamo mu bwisanzure uwo bazakorana imibonano mpuzabitsina, bigatuma atakaza uburenganzira bwe bwo gufata ibyemezo bikwiye ku mikorere y’ibanze y’umubiri. i. Ni ngombwa gukorana ubwitonzi ibiganiro bishingiye ku ngingo zikomeye nko gusambanya umwana, hirindwa imvugo ishobora kwimakaza imyumvire mibi cyangwa ibangamira ubuzima bw’abahohotewe. j. Uwakoze icyaha ahanwa kuko bikwiye (retribution), hatabujijwe ubundi buryo bwo guhana nko guhana nk’uburyo bwo kubuza uwakoze icyaha gukomeza kwidegembya (incapacitation), gahana nk’uburyo bwo gukumira icyaha (deterrence), guhana nk’uburyo bwo kugorora no gusubiza uwakoze icyaha mu buzima busanzwe (rehabilitation), no guhana nk’uburyo bwo gusana cyangwa kuriha ibyangiritse (reparation). k. Hari amoko y’ihohoterwa rikorerwa abana, kandi rishobora gukorwa hatagombye kwinjira (penetration) mu myanya y’igitsinagore cyangwa kwangirika kw’agahu gatwikira igitsinagore. Hari n’ihohoterwa rikorerwa abahungu cyangwa irikorerwa abana hakoreshejwe indi myanya itari igitsina cy’umugore

Page 67

33 Re MUNYEMANA

cyangwa ibindi bikorwa byose biganisha ku ishimishamubiri, nko kwinjiza igitsina mu kanwa k’umwana, n’ibindi byinshi, rikaba ritareberwa gusa ku miterere y’agahu gatwikira igitsinagore cyangwa ubusugi. Urukiko rw’Ubujurire muri Uganda rwagaragaje ko mu kwemeza ko habayeho icyaha cy’ihohoterwa rikorerwa abana rishingiye ku gitsina, atari ngombwa kuba harabayeho imibonano mpuzabitsina mu buryo bwimbitse, kuko kwinjira gato bihagije kugirango bibe bigize icyaha ndetse ko kuba umwana w’umukobwa cyangwa igitsinagore adafite akarangabusugi atari ikimenyetso cyagenderwaho mu kwemeza ko yahohotewe.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [28] Ingingo ya 29, interuro ya mbere, y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko buri muntu afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, [….]. [29] Ingingo ya 49, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange igaragaraza ibyo umucamanza akurikiza mu gutanga igihano. Iteganya ko umucamanza atanga igihano akurikije uburemere bw'icyaha, ingaruka icyaha cyateye, impamvu zatumye agikora, uko uwagikoze yari asanzwe yitwara, imibereho ye bwite n’uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo. […]. [30] Mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, ku wa 04/12/2019, haburana Kabasinga Florida, uru Rukiko rwasobanuye ko ubutabera buboneye busobanurwa mu buryo butandukanye; hari ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku

Page 68

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

migendekere (procedural due process: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles). Ni ukuvuga uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa mu migendekere y’urubanza hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko. Hari n’Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa n’itegeko “substantive due process”: protection against enactement of arbitrary and unreasonable legislation or other measures that would violate peoples’rights.” Ubu buryo bwo bubuza ishyirwaho ry’amategeko cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’abaturage. [31] Mu rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2020/CS - RS/INCONST/SPEC00006/2020/CS rwaciwe ku wa 12/02/2021, uru Rukiko rwemeje ko ingingo iteganya igifungo cya burundu ku muntu wakoze icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana kidashobora kugabanywa kubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, nta gaciro ifite kubera ko inyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ibi bivuze ko igihe bigaragara ko hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, igifungo cya burundu kivugwa muri iyo ngingo gishobora kugabanywa, ndetse mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 28/01/2022, haburana Niyonsaba Eric n’Ubushinjacyaha, rwagabanyije igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu cyari cyahawe Niyonsaba Eric ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana yahamijwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, maze rushingiye ku mpamvu nyoroshyacyaha rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka cumi n’itanu (15). [32] Urukiko rurasanga ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru bigaragaza ko mu gihe umucamanza asanze hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, atabujijwe kugabanyiriza igihano uhamwe

Page 69

35 Re MUNYEMANA

n’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana, bitandukanye n’ibyo Me Kayitana Evode avuga. [33] Ku birebana n’uburemere bw’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana nk’imwe mu mpamvu zishingirwaho mu igenwa ry’igihano uregwa agomba guhanishwa, mu rubanza Botha v The State (546/2021) [2022] ZASCA 87 (08 June 2022),10 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubujurire mu gihugu cy’Afurika y’Epfo, aho icyasuzumwaga kwari ukumenya icyakorwa ku gihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka 36 gishingiye ku giteranyo cy’ibihano cyatanzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Gauteng, Pretoria, kubera impurirane y’ibyaha by’ihohotera rishingiye ku gitsina, rwasuzumye niba harabaye kurengera cyangwa se harimo gukabya mu buryo budakwiye, runasuzuma niba ari ngombwa ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubujurire ruhagarika icyo gihano binyuze mu zindi nzira ziteganywa n’amategeko. Mu isesengura ryakozwe rikubiye mu gika cya 18,

10 Ruboneka kuri https://www.supremecourtofappeal.org.za/index.php/component/jdownloads/ summary/38- judgments-2022/3845-botha-v-the-state-546-2021-2022-zasca- 87-08-june-2022, cyangwa kuri https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2022/87.html., mu gika cya 18. “The aggravating factors far outweigh the mitigating factors in this case. The individual sentences were not severe. The gravity of the offences and the scourge of such offences on helpless and vulnerable children cannot be downplayed and the effect of these crimes cannot be understated. The impact on the family structure and community, as well as the psychological harm and adverse emotional impact on the child, are well known. A concurrence of the sentences was not possible on account of the abominable conduct of the appellant. 13 We accept that a sentence of 36 years’ imprisonment is severe, but the facts of this case are such that a sentence of 36 years’ imprisonment is not shockingly disproportionate to the crime. The high court did not exercise its discretion unreasonably. There is no reason to interfere with the sentences imposed.”

Page 70

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwasobanuye ko impamvu nkomezacyaha zarutaga impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, uburemere bw’icyaha n’icyasha cyo gusambanywa ku bana badafite kirengera kitafatwa nk’ikintu cyoroshye, kuko ingaruka bigira ku miterere y’umuryango na sosiyete muri rusange, igikomere cyo mu ntekerezo n’amarangamutima mabi ku mwana, bizwi neza. […]. Urukiko rwemeye ko igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka 36 gikomeye koko, ariko ko kidakomeye kurusha uburemere bw’ibyaha cyatanzweho. Urwo Rukiko rwasanze Urukiko Rukuru rutarakoresheje ububasha ku mahitamo yarwo mu buryo budashyize mu gaciro. [34] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, mu isesengura ryakozwe ku kibazo cya mbere cyasuzumwe haruguru, ndetse n’iryakozwe ku kibazo gisuzumwa muri iki gice, uburemere icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana gifite n’ingaruka kimugiraho, ndetse n’izo kigira kuri sosiyete, n’ubwo koko ibihano bitangwa kuri icyo cyaha biremereye ntibiruta ingaruka zacyo n’uburemere bwacyo. Rusanga kandi uburemere bw’icyo cyaha bwaragaragajwe muri raporo zakozwe n’Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha(RIB),11 n’urw’Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru (NPPA)12 aho byagaragaye ko habaye izamuka rikabije ry’icyaha cyo gusambanya abana.

11 Raporo y’Urwego rw'Igihugu rushinzwe ubugenzacyaha (RIB), Statistical Analysis of Child Defilement - From July 2018 to June 2021, at page 4 states that “…. in three fiscal years a total of 12,840 cases were recorded indicating an increase of 1,897 representing the rate of 55%. A total number of 13,646 victims and 13,485 suspects were recorded. The number of victims increased by 2,334 (66%) while suspects increased with margin of 2,096 (59%).” 12 Raporo igaragaza ibikorwa byakozwe n’Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru mu mwaka wa 2019 – 2020, ku rupapuro rwa 25, yerekana uko amadosiye y’ibyaha by’ihohotera rishingiye ku gitsina yagiye yiyongera mu myaka 7 yari ishize (Nyakanga 2013 – Kamena 2020), igaragaza ko muri 2013-2014 ibyaha byo

Page 71

37 Re MUNYEMANA

[35] Urukiko rurasanga nanone nk’uko byagaragajwe n’Inshuti y’Urukiko, mu gihe cyo guhangana n’icyaha cyo gusambanya abana, bidakwiye kwibanda gusa ku karengane gashobora kuba ku bakoze icyaha bavuga ko igihano kidahuye n’uburemere bw’icyaha, utitaye bihagije ku ngaruka zabaye k’uwahohotewe, kuko bishobora gutuma mu buryo butagambiriwe, habaho imyumvire mu bantu yo gushyira imbere uburenganzira n’ibitekerezo by’abakoze ibyaha bishingiye ku mibonano mpuzabitsina kuruta kwita ku mibereho y’abahohotewe. Ibyo byose bikaba bikwiye kwitabwaho mu gutanga igihano. [36] Guhanisha icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana ibihano biremereye hashingiwe ku ngaruka zikomeye kandi z’igihe kirekire kigira k’uwahohotewe by’umwihariko no kuri sosiyete muri rusange, si umwihariko w’igihugu cy’u Rwanda nk’uko

gusambanya abana byari 1.819 naho muri 2019-2020 bikaba byari bigeze kuri 3.793.

Page 72

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bigaragara mu mategeko ahana ibyaha y’ibihugu nka Uganda,13 Kenya,14 na Tanzania.15

13 The Penal Code (amendment) Act, 2007, section 129 states that “(1) Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years, commits a felony known as defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment. (2) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding eighteen years. (3) Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4) commits a felony called aggravated defilement and is, on conviction by the High Court, liable to suffer death.” 14 The Sexual Offences Act, no 3 of 2006 of Kenya, states that “(1) A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement. (2) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life. (3) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years. (4) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for

a term of not less than fifteen years.” 15 Tanzania: Act No. 4 of 1998, Sexual Offences Special Provisions Act, 1998, section 131, states that “(1) Any person who commits rape is except in the cases provided for in the renumbered subsection (2), liable to be punished with imprisonment for life, and in any case for imprisonment of not less than thirty years with corporal punishment, and with fine, and shall in addition be ordered to pay compensation of an amount determined by the court, to the person in respect of whom the offence was committed for the injuries caused to such person. (2) Notwithstanding the provision of any law, where the offence is committed by a boy who is of the age of eighteen years or less, he shall- (A)if a first offender, be sentenced to corporal punishment only; (B)if a second time offender, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of twelve months with corporal punishment; (C)if a third time and recidivist offender he shall be sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to subsection (1). (3) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section whoever commits an offence of rape

Page 73

39 Re MUNYEMANA

[37] Urukiko rurasanga Me Kayitana Evode, uhagarariye Munyena Dionize, aterekana uburyo ingingo ya 14, igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange aregera, ibangamiye uburenganzira bw’urega ku butabera buboneye buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [38] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Munyemana Dionize asaba Urukiko ko ibihano biteganywa mu gika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4 by’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 ryavuzwe haruguru byagabanywa, kandi bigahita bikoreshwa kuri we ndetse no ku bantu bose bahamwe n’iki cyaha batararangiza ibihano, bitakiri ngombwa ko bisuzumwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [39] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Munyemana Dionize, uhagarariwe na Me Kayitana Evode, gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 14, igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4, y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16 n’iya 29 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, nta shingiro gifite. [40] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 14, igika cya 2, icya 3 n’icya 4, y’Itegeko Nº 059/2023 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023 rihindura Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano

to a girl under the age of ten years shall on conviction be sentenced to life imprisonment.”

Page 74

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

muri rusange, itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15, iya 16, n’iya 29 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda.

Page 75

41 Re MUNYEMANA

Page 76

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 77

43

AMAGAMBO MPINE

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

Page 78

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 79

45 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI

RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA– RS/REV/RAD00001/2021/SC (Mukamulisa, J.P., Muhumuza na Kazungu, J.) 22 Gashyantare 2024] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Ubuhuza – Inyandiko y’ubuhuza – Isozwa ry’urubanza – Nta y’indi mihango, urubanza rusozwa n’ibikubiye mu mwanzuro w’ubuhuza akaba aribyo bishyirwa mu bikorwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: Rutazibwa umwana wa Nyakwigendera Fundi, yakusanyije imitungo yose yasizwe na Se, ikaba igomba kuzungurwa n’abana bose ba Nyakwigendera, ikaba igizwe n’ubutaka buherereye mu Karere ka Nyamasheke, aka Rutsiro n'aka Karongi. Nyuma yo gukusanya iyo mitungo yashatse kuyimurikira abana bose maze barabyanga kuko batashakaga ko aba umutware w’umuryango wa Fundi, ndetse bo bagashaka ko ½ cy’iyo mitungo ari cyo bazungura ikindi gice ntikizungurwe ahubwo kigahabwa umugore w’isezerano wa Nyakwigendera Mukandutiye. Izo mpaka n’izo zatumye Rutazibwa atanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi asaba kumurika uwo mutungo wasizwe na Fundi yegeranyije, guhabwa umugabane we ukavanwa mu bufatanyamutungo no gusubizwa amafaranga yakoresheje muri icyo gikorwa cyo kwegeranya umutungo uzungurwa. Mbere y’uko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rufata icyemezo, Mukandutiye yiyandikishijeho imwe mu mitungo igomba 45

Page 80

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuzungurwa, ahabwa n’ibyangombwa bya burundu byayo ariko Rutazibwa arabimurega maze Urukiko rwemeza ko igaruka mu mitungo y’umuryango wa Fundi. Ikibazo cy’amasambu Urega yari yaregeye avuga ko yanditse kuri MINIRENA hamwe n’amasambu atagaragara ku rutonde rw’amasambu rwatanzwe n’Umubitsi w’Impapurompamo z’Ubutaka, Urukiko rwemej ko aguma kubo yanditseho. Urega yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, urugereko rwa Rusizi, icyo cyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye, maze ruca urwo rubanza RADA00001/2016/HC/RSZK rwemeza ko ikirego cy’Urega nta shingiro gifite. Iki cyemezo yakijuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, naho Mukandutiye atanga ubujurire bwuririye k’ubundi ariko urwo Rukiko na rwo rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo nta shingiro bufite. Rutazibwa yatanze ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RADAA00004/2017/SC muri uru Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ariko nticyahabwa ishingiro maze bituma yongera bwa kabiri kugisubirishamo ingingo nshya avuga ko iyo ngingo itandukanye n’iya suzumwe mbere. Muri urwo rubanza, Ababuranyi bose bemeye ko ikibazo cyabo gicyemuka hiyambajwe inzira y’ubuhuza, bose bahitamo guhuzwa na Me Butare, Urukiko rurabyemeza, anahabwa igihe cyo gukora iyo mirimo no kurushyikiriza raporo y’ibyavuye mu buhuza. Nyuma y’uko impande zombi zumvikanye ku bibazo bari bafitanye bijyanye n’umutungo uburanwa, uru Rukiko rwasuzumye niba umwanzuro w’ubuhuza ugomba kwemezwa kuko muri uwo mwanzuro impande zombi zemeranyijwe ko ubutaka bwari kuri Leta bwandikwa ku bazungura ba Fundi n’ubundi butaka butanditse ku bazungura bugaragara mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya, abazungura ba Fundi bakazashyikiriza Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe ubutaka ibisabwa

Page 81

47 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI

bigenwa n’amategeko bukabandikwaho mu gihe nta makimbirane arimo. Naho ku kibazo cy’amasambu afitwe n’abaturage aherereye mu Karere ka Rutsiro, Ababuranyi bose bemeranyijwe ko yandikwa ku bazungura ba Fundi. Bityo, Ababuranyi bakaba basaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko uwo mwanzuro w’ubuhuza waba ariwo ushyirwa mu bikorwa, dore ko nta kindi kibazo bagifitanye. Incamake y’icyemezo: Nta y’indi mihango, urubanza rusozwa n’ibikubiye mu mwanzuro w’ubuhuza akaba aribyo bishyirwa mu bikorwa. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, gikemuwe nk'uko ababuranyi babyemeranyijweho mu mwanzuro w'ubuhuza. Amategeko yashingiweho: ltegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurirno n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 241. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y'URUBANZA [1] Fundi Project yapfuye ku wa 23/01/1997, asiga umugore we w'isezerano witwa Mukandutiye Bellancille n'abana

Page 82

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

babyaranye, asiga n'abandi bana yabyaye ku bandi bagore batandukanye. Rutazibwa Alexandre, umwe mu bana ba Fundi Project, avuga ko yaje gushakisha imitungo yasizwe na se igomba kuzungurwa, igizwe n'ubutaka buherereye mu Karere ka Nyamasheke, aka Rutsiro n'aka Karongi, ko nyuma yo kuyegeranya yashatse kuyimurikira umuryango ariko ahura n'ingorane za bamwe mu bavandimwe be batamushakaga nk'umutware wo kwa se Fundi Project, bakaba barifuzaga ko 1/2 cy'uwo mutungo kitazungurwa ahubwo cyahabwa Mukandutiye Bellancille, umugore w'isezerano wa Fundi Project. [2] Izo mpaka zatumye Rutazibwa Alexandre atanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi, asaba kumurika umutungo yegeranyije wasizwe na nyakwigendera Fundi Project, anasaba guhabwa umugabane we ukava mu bufatanyamutungo, gusubizwa amafaranga yatanze mu gushakisha no kwegeranya uwo mutungo uzungurwa. Ikirego cyanditswe kuri RC211/13/TGI/KRGI. [3] Mbere y’uko Urukiko Rwisurnbuye rwa Karongi rufata icyemezo, Mukandutiye Bellancille yiyandikishijeho imwe mu mitungo igomba kuzungurwa, maze ahabwa ibyangombwa bya burundu by'ubwo butaka. Ibyo byatumye Rutazibwa Alexandre abimuregera mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi, asaba ko ubutaka bwanditswe kuri Mukandutiye Bellancille busubizwa abazungu•a be. Fundi Project kimwe n'amasambu ataboneka ku rutonde rw'arnasambu rwatanzwe n'Umubitsi w'Impapurompamo z'Ubutaka ndetse n'ubwanditswe kuri MINIRENA. Icyo kirego cyanditswe kuri RAD0039/14/TGI/KRGI. [4] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi rwaciye urubanza RAD0039/14/TGI/KRGI, ku wa 14/07/2016, rwemeza ko

Page 83

49 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI

ubutaka bufite UPI 03/07/4/5439, 03/07/4/5442, 03/07/4/5452, 03/07/4/5482, 03/07/4/5489, 03/07/4/5490, 03/07/4/5491,

03/07/4/5493, 03/07/4/5501, 03/07/4/5509, 03/07/4/5516, 03/07/4/5534, 03/07/4/5506, bukurwa kuri Mukandutiye Bellancille bwari bwanditsweho bukagarurwa mu muryango wa Fundi Project ugizwe n'abazungura be, bakabwandikwaho. Rwemeza kandi ko ubutaka bwanditswe kuri MINIRENA ibugumana, naho ubwo Rutazibwa Alexandre yasabye Ikigo gishinzwe umutungo kamere (RNRA) gushyira ku rutonde rw’amasambu agornba kugarurwa mu muryango wa Fundi Project bukaba butagomba kugarurwa ahubwo bugomba kuguma kubo bwanditseho. [5] Rutazibwa Alexandre yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi ruri i Karongi; ku wa 17/03/2017, urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza RADA00001/2016/HC/RSZK, rwemeza ko ubujunire bwe nta shingiro bufite, ko imikirize y'urubanza RAD0039/14/TGI/KGI rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Karongi idahindutse mu ngingo zayo zose. [6] Rutazibwa Alexandre yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw'Ikirenga, Mukandutiye Bellancille nawe atanga ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, ku wa 02/02/2018 Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruca urubanza RADAA00004/2017/SC, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Rutazibwa Alexandre n’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwa Mukandutiye Bellancille nta shingiro bufite, rutegeka Rutazibwa Alexandre kwishyura MINIRENA na RNRA, buri wese 400.000Frw yIkurikiranarubanza. [7] Ku wa 18/04/2018, Rutazibwa Alexandre yatanze ikirego gisubirishamo urubanza RADAA00004/2017/SC rwaciwe ku wa 02/02/2018 ingingo nshya avuga ko habaye uburiganya mu icibwa ry'urubanza asubirishamo; ku wa 27/09/2019, Urukiko

Page 84

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rw'Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/REV/RAD 00001/2018/SC, rwemeje ko icyo kirego kitakiriwe ngo gisuzumwe. [8] Ku wa 27/11/2020, Rutazibwa Alexandre yongeye gutanga ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza RADAA00004/2017/SC ingingo nshya, avuga ko ashingira ku mpamvu itandukanye n’iyo yari yashingiyeho mu rubanza RS/REV/RAD00001/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/09/2019, ikirego cyandikwa mu gitabo cy'ibirego cy'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga kuri RS/REV/RAD00001/2021/SC. [9] Uru rubanza rwagombaga kuburanishwa ku wa 09/02/2022 ariko rurasubikwa kuko Rutazibwa Alexandre na Mukandutiye Bellancille batitabye kandi nta rnpamvu. Urukiko rwabaciye ihazabu mbonezamubano y'ibihumbi ijana (100.000Frw) buri were kubera gutinza urubanza. [10] Ku wa 19/04/2022 urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame Rutazibwa Alexandre yunganiwe na Me Mutembe Protais, Mukandutiye Bellancille ahagarariwe na Iribaza Rose, akunganirwa na Me Rugemintwaza Jean Marie Vianney, Leta y’u Rwanda MINIRENA mu Izina ry’Intumwa Nkuru. ya Leta ihagarariwe na Me Cyubahiro Fiat, Ikigo cy’lgihugu gishinzwe ubutaka gihagarariwe na Me Habiyambere Clement. [11] Muri iryo buranisha ababuranyi bose bemeye ko ikibazo cyabo cyakernuka hiyambajwe inzira y’ubuhuza, bose bahitamo guhuzwa na Me Butare Emmanuel, Urukiko rurabyemeza, anahabwa igihe cyo gukora iyo mirimo no kurushyikiriza raporo y’ibyavuye mu buhuza. Ku wa 29/08/2022, urnuhuza. yoherereje Urukiko umwanzuro w’ubuhuza washyizweho umukono n'ababuranyi bose.

Page 85

51 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI

[12] Iburanisha ryo kwemeza umwanzuro w'ubuhuza ryabaye ku wa 10/10/2022, ababuranyi bole bitabye, kandi bahagarariwe nka mbere. [13] Urukiko rwabanje kwibutsa ababuranyi aho urubanza rugeze harimo no kubamenyesha ko rwabonye umwanzuro w'ubuhuza impande zone zashyizeho umukono, basabwa kugira icyo babivugaho. Me Mutembe Protais yavuze ko ubuhuza bwakernuye ikibazo kirebana n'amasambu ya Fundi Project yari yanditswe kuri Leta y’u Rwanda kuko byavugwaga ko ari ibishanga kandi ataribyo, ko ayo masambu yegukanye bene Fundi Project, ikibazo kitacyemutse akaba ari icy'arnasambu yasaranganyijwe hagati ya bene Fundi Project n'abaturage, ko abo baturage bemera ko nta makimbirane bafitanye na bene Fundi Project, ko rero ikitararangira ari ukubasinyisha, asaba ko urubanza rwasubikwa igikorwa cyo kubasinyisha kikarangira, kugira ngo ayo masambu nayo azandikwe ku bazungura ba Fundi Project. [14] Me Cyubahiro Fiat uhagarariye Leta y'u Rwanda yavuze ko ubuhuza bwakozwe ku kibazo cy'isambu Rutazibwa Alexandre yari afitanye na Leta bwarangije icyo kibazo, ko nawe yemera ko ubwo butaka ari ubw’abazungura ba Fundi Project bakaba. Banabwandikwaho. Yakomeje avuga ko nta mpamvu yo gusubika iburanisha kugira ngo urega akomeze gusinyisha abaturage kuko iby'ayo masambu bitari mu biburanwa muri uru rubanza. [15] Me Habiyambere Clement uhagarariye Ikigo cy'Igihugu gishinzwe Ubutaka yavuze ko ubuhuza bwanzuye ko hari formalites abazungura ba Fundi Project bagomba kuzuza kugira ngo Ikigo cy'Igihugu gishinzwe Ubutaka kibandikeho ubutaka bwabo bavuga ko bufitwe n'abandi bantu, ko nawe asatiga nta

Page 86

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mpamvu yo gusubika iburanisha cyane cyane ko ibyo Rutazibwa asaba bari babyumvikanyeho mu buhuza. [16] Nyuma yo kubona inyandiko igaragaza ko ababuranyi bumvikanye ariko uruhande rwa Rutazibwa Alexandre rukifuza guhabwa igihe kugira ngo rukemure ikibazo cy’amasambu atarandikwa kuri “Succession Fundi Project”, Urukiko rwemeye gusubika urubanza, rumuha igihe cy’ukwezi kumwe cyo gukemura icyo kibazo. [17] Uru rubanza rwongeye kuburanishwa ku wa 19/12/2022 no ku wa 24/04/2023, harebwa niba ibyasabwe byaragezweho, Urukiko rusanga bitaragerwaho kuko urega yavugaga ko nta kibazo afitanye n’abaturage, ko ahubwo imbogamizi bagifite ari ukubabonera rimwe kugira ngo basinye. Urukiko rwarnwongeye igihe cya nyuma cy'amezi abiri, nyuma y'aho ikibazo cyaba kitarakemuka, rukazafata icyemezo. [18] Iburanisha ryongeye gufungurwa ku wa. 13/02/2024, hitaba Me Mutembe Protais ahagarariye Rutazibwa Alexandre, Leta y’u Rwanda mu izina ry’Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta ihagarariwe na Me Cyubahiro Fiat, Ikigo cy'lgihugu gishinzwe ubutaka gihagarariwe na Me Habiyambere Clement, Mukandutiye Bellancille na Iribagiza Rose umuhagarariye batitabye. [19] Nyuma yo kubona ko Mukandutiye Bellancille uhagarariwe na Iribagiza Rose atitabye kandi yaramenyeshejwe itariki y'urubanza muri “system”, hemejwe ko urubanza ruburanishwa adahari. [20] Me Habiyambere Clement uhagarariye Ikigo cy'Igihugu gishinzwe ubutaka yahawe ijambo ngo asobanure inyandiko

Page 87

53 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI

yashyize muri system, avuga ko Ikigo aburanira cyakoze ibyo Urukiko rwari rwategetse, abazungura ba Fundi Project bakaba baranditsweho ubutaka buherereyc mu Karere ka Karongi na Nyamasheke, ubutaka busigaye batarandikwaho akaba ari ubuherereye mu Karere ka Rutsiro, ko ariko naho abaturage bole bemeye ko ari ubw’abazungura ba Fundi Project, ko rero igisigaye gusa ari uko bubandikwaho. [21] Me Mutembe Protais uhagarariye Rutazibwa Alexandre avuga ko abazungura ba Fundi Project bamaze gutanga ibikenewe byose kugira ngo bandikweho ubutaka buri mu Karere ka Rutsiro, ko asanga igisigaye ari “formalites administratives” bazakurikirana, ko nta mpungenge agifite kuva uhagarariye Ikigo cy’ubutaka avuga ko bamaze kwakira inyandiko zose zikenewe kugira ngo bikorwe, asoza avuga ko yemeye ibyavuye mu buhuza, ko nta n’impamvu yindi ihari yatuma uru rubanza rudapfundikirwa. Asaba Urukiko kuzemeza ibikubiye mu nyandiko y’ubuhuza. [22] Me Habiyambere Clement na Me Cyubahiro Fiat nabo bemeje ko nta gisigaye gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza, kuko impaka zose zakemutse, ko Urukiko rwakwemeza ubuhuza, Rutazibwa Alexandre agasigara akurikirana “formalites administratives” zo kwandikisha ubutaka busigaye bwo mu Karere ka Rutsiro.

Page 88

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO 1. Kumenya niba umwanzuro w'ubuhuza ugomba kwemezwa [23] Nk'uko bikubiye mu mwanzuro w'ubuhuza wo ku wa 29/08/2022, biragaragara ko ababuranyi bemeranyijwe ko ubutaka bufite UPI: 3/07/04/02/5447 na UPI: 3/07/04/02/5448 buvanwa kuri Leta bukandilma ku bazungura ba Fundi Project, ko ubundi butaka bufite UPI:3/07/04/02/5449, UPI:3/07/04/02/5445 na UPI: 3/07/04/02/5444 atari ubw’abazungura ba Fundi Project, ko butagize ikiburanwa. Ababuranyi hose banemeranyijwe ko ubundi butaka butanditse ku bazungura ba Fundi Project bugaragara mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya, abazungura ba Fundi Project bazashyikiriza Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe ubutaka ibisabwa bigenwa n'arnategeko bakabandikwaho mu gihe nta makimbirane arimo. Ababuranyi bose bemeje ko baretse indishyi n’igihembo cy'avoka byasabwe muri uru rubanza. [24] Nk’uko byavuzwe haruguru, ku bijyariye n'amasambu afitwe n’abaturage mu Karere ka Rutsiro, Rutazibwa Alexandre yari yasabye mbere ko Urukiko rwategereza akandikwa ku bazungura ba Fundi Projet mbere yo kwemeza ubuhuza, mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 13/02/2024, ababuranyi bose bemeranyijwe ko ubwo ibyangombwa Rutazibwa Alexandre yasabwaga kuzuza yabikoze, nayo izandikwa ku bazungura ba FundiProject, basaba bose ko ubwo nta kindi kibazo, urubanza rwarangizwa nk'uko byejwe niumuhuza. [25] Urukiko rurasanga uru rubanza rugomba gusozwa nta yindi mihango, ibikubiye mu mwanzuro w'ubuhuza wo ku wa 29/08/2022 akaba aribyo bishyirwa mu bikorwa nk'uko

Page 89

55 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE N’ABANDI

biteganywa n'ingingo ya 241, 7° y’ltegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y'imanza z'imbonezarnubano, iziubucuruzi, iz’umurirno n'iz'ubutegetsi, ivuga ko inyandiko y'ubwumvikane iriho umukono w'impande zombi n'ubwunzi byakorewe hanze y'Urukiko, ari inyandikompesha. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [26] Rwemeje ko ikirego Urukiko rwari rwarashyikirijwe na Rutazibwa Alexandre cyo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RADAA00004/2017/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw'Ikirenga ku wa 02/02/2018, gikernuwe nk’uko ababuranyi babyemeranyijweho mu mwanzuro w’ubuhuza wo ku wa 29/08/2022 uri ku mugereka w’uru rubanza. [27] Rutegetse ko umwanzuro w'ubuhuza urangizwa uko wanditse.

Page 90

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 91

57 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPAA 00477/2023/CA (Kanyange, P.J.) 21 Kamena 2024] Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ubujurire – Ibihe by’ubujurire – Iyo urubanza rusomwe uregwa ari muri kasho, byumvikana ko atashobora kujurira, kuko hashingiwe ku buryo ikoranabuhanga ryubatse (IECMS), imanza zicibwa ku birebana n’abakurikiranyweho ibyaha batari hanze, zimenyeshwa gereza babarizwamo, ubuyobozi bwazo bukazimenyesha abo bireba ndetse bukabafasha gutanga ubujurire bwabo binyuze muri ubwo buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga, ibi bivuze ko uregwa atashobora kumenya ibyavuye mu rubanza yaburanye ngo abe yajurira, ahubwo iyo ageze muri gereza akaba aribwo ashobora kumenya imikirize yarwo, bivuze ko n’ibihe by’ubujurire kuri we bigomba kubarwa guhera kuri uwo munsi. Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ubujurire – Igihe ubujurire bwagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko ariko ntibwakirwe, icyo cyemezo cyo kutakira ubwo bujurire kivanwaho, ubujurire bugasubizwa muri urwo Rukiko kugira ngo urubanza ruburanishwe mu mizi. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa rwa Rusizi, uregwa akurikiranywe ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana, nyuma yuko uregwa afatiwe mu cyuho na se w’umwana M.M w’imyaka cumi n’irindwi (17) amusambanya, mu kumukurikirana Ubushinjacyaha bwashingiraga ku bimenyetso birimo kuba yaracyemeye mu ibazwa rye akanagishinjwa n’umwana yasambanyije 57

Page 92

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’abatangabuhamya bamufatiye mu cyuho. Uregwa yaburanye yemera icyaha avuga ariko ko bari babyumvikanyeho kuko yamubwiye ko afite imyaka cumi n’umunani (18). Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20). Uregwa yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, avuga ko yahanishijwe ibihano birebire kandi yaremeye icyaha. Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwe kuko bwatanzwe nyuma y’ibihe by’ubujurire biteganywa n’Itegeko, bitewe n’uko urubanza yajuririye rwaciwe ku wa 27/05/2021, akora umwanzuro ku wa 28/07/2021, ushyikirizwa Urukiko ku wa 02/08/2021, ko rero yatinze kujurira kuko atagombaga kurenza itariki ya 26/05/2021. Uregwa yaburanye kuri iyi nzitizi avuga ko gutinda kujurira byatewe n’ibihe bya covid na guma mu rugo kuko yamenyeshejwe urubanza ku wa 26/07/2021 akajurira ku wa 28/07/2021, ko ageze muri gereza ari bwo yabonye uko ajurira. Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe butakiriwe kuko bwatanzwe nyuma y’ibihe biteganywa n’amategeko. Uregwa yatanze ubujurire bwa kabiri mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kwakira ubujurire bwe rwirengagije ko urubanza yari yajuririye rwaciwe ari muri kasho kubera ibihe bya covid 19, akaba yarashoboye kujurira ageze muri Gereza; ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga ubujurire bwe bwaragombaga kwakirwa, urubanza rwakoherezwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi. Ubushinjacyaha nabwo bwaburanye buvuga ko ubujurire bwa Nyandwi bwagombaga kwakirwa, kuko yaburanye ari muri kasho kubera ibihe bya covid igihugu cyarimo, byatumye abari

Page 93

59 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI

muri kasho babatinzayo kugira ngo batajya muri gereza bakaba bakwanduza abandi, bakaba baramenyaga imikirize y’imanza zabo bageze muri gereza akaba atari kubona uko ajurira; ko rero urubanza rwe rwakoherezwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, kugira ngo ruburanishwe mu mizi. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo urubanza rusomwe uregwa ari muri kasho, byumvikana ko atashobora kujurira, kuko hashingiwe ku buryo ikoranabuhanga ryubatse (IECMS), imanza zicibwa ku birebana n’abakurikiranyweho ibyaha batari hanze, zimenyeshwa gereza babarizwamo, ubuyobozi bwazo bukazimenyesha abo bireba ndetse bukabafasha gutanga ubujurire bwabo binyuze muri ubwo buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga, ibi bivuze ko uregwa atashobora kumenya ibyavuye mu rubanza yaburanye ngo abe yajurira, ahubwo iyo ageze muri gereza akaba aribwo ashobora kumenya imikirize yarwo, bivuze ko n’ibihe by’ubujurire kuri we bigomba kubarwa guhera kuri uwo munsi.

2. Igihe ubujurire bwagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko ariko ntibwakirwe, icyo cyemezo cyo kutakira ubwo bujurire kivanwaho, ubujurire bugasubizwa muri urwo Rukiko kugira ngo urubanza ruburanishwe mu mizi. Bityo ikirego cy’ubujurire cya Nyandwi gisubijwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kugira ngo rukiburanishe mu mizi. Urubanza rwajuririwe ruvanyweho. Dosiye isubijwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kugirango iburanishwe.

Page 94

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, Ingingo ya 181 n’iya 193. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha vs Bogere Barige, RPA 0022/14/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/03/2018. Ubushinjacyaha vs Niyinizeye Pacifique, RPAA 00055/2023/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rw’Ubujurire ku wa 22/03/2024. Ubushinjacyaha vs Kabayiza Sylver, RPAA 00020/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 05/01/2023. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 24/04/2021, Nyandwi Innocent yafatiwe mu cyuho na se w’umwana w’imyaka cumi n’irindwi (17) wahawe izina rya M.M mu rubanza rujuririrwa ariho aramusambanya, atabaza abaturanyi barahurura bahita bamufata bamujyana mu Bugenzacyaha atangira gukurikiranwa. [2] Nyuma y’iperereza, Ubushinjacyaha bwamureze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana, bushingiye ku kuba yaracyemeye mu ibazwa rye akanagishinjwa n’umwana yasambanyije n’abatangabuhamya bamufatiye mu cyuho, hakaba n’icyemezo cy’amavuko kigaragaza ko M.M yari afite imyaka cumi n’irindwi (17), bumusabira guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri n’itanu (25).

Page 95

61 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI

[3] Nyandwi Innocent yireguye avuga ko yasambanyije M.M ku wa 30/04/2021 kandi ko yari inshuroo ya 3, ariko ko bari babyumvikanyeho kuko yamubwiye ko afite imyaka cumi n’umunani (18). [4] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza no RP 00144/2023/TGI/RSZ ku wa 27/05/2021, rusanga hari ibimenyetso bihamya icyaha Nyandwi Innocent bigizwe :  n’imvugo ze, aho kuva agifatwa yemeye icyaha asobanura ko yasambanyije M.M inshuro zirenga ebyiri ;  imvugo za M.M wamushinje ko yamusambanyije ;  imvugo z’abantangabuhamya barimo se w’uwo mwana wamufatiye mu cyuho ;  icyemezo cy’amavuko cya M.M kigaragaza ko yasambanyijwe afite imyaka cumi n’irindwi (17), ko rero imvugo ya Nyandwi Innocent y’uko yamusambanyije babyumvikanyeho kandi ko yari mukuru nta gaciro yahabwa, kuko ivuguruzwa n’icyo cyemezo. Rwasanze ariko kuba kuva mu nzego z’iperereza, Nyandwi Innocent yaremeye icyaha ataruhanyije, byamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, maze rwemeza ko ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20). [5] Nyandwi Innocent yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, avuga ko yahanishijwe ibihano birebire kandi yaremeye icyaha.

Page 96

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[6] Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bwe kuko bwatanzwe nyuma y’ibihe by’ubujurire biteganywa n’Itegeko, bitewe n’uko urubanza yajuririye rwaciwe ku wa 27/05/2021, akora umwanzuro ku wa 28/07/2021, ushyikirizwa Urukiko ku wa 02/08/2021, ko rero yatinze kujurira kuko atagombaga kurenza itariki ya 26/05/2021. [7] Kuri iyo nzitizi Nyandwi Innocent yavuze ko gutinda kujurira byatewe n’ibihe bya covid na guma mu rugo kuko yamenyeshejwe urubanza ku wa 26/07/2021 akajurira ku wa 28/07/2021, ko ageze muri gereza ari bwo yabonye uko ajurira. [8] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza no RPA 00327/2021/HC/RSZ ku wa 09/11/2023, rusanga :  urubanza Nyandwi Innocent yajuririye rwaraburanishijwe ahari, amenyeshwa ko ruzasomwa ku wa 27/05/2021, ajurira ku wa 28/07/2021 hashize amezi agera kuri abiri (2), ni ukuvuga nyuma y’igihe cy’iminsi 30 giteganywa n’itegeko, kandi nk’uko byatanzweho umurongo n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga1, umuburanyi wari uhari cyangwa ahagarariwe igihe urubanza rwacibwaga, uwamenyeshejwe umunsi ruzacibwaho ntaze cyangwa ngo yohereze umuhagararira, agomba kujurira mu gihe kitarenga iminsi mirongo itatu (30) uhereye ku itariki urubanza rwaciriweho;  ko ibyo Nyandwi Innocent avuga ko ibihe bigomba kubarwa kuva igihe yamenyesherejwe urubanza ku wa 26/07/2021, binyuranye n’umurongo wo mu rubanza rwavuzwe haruguru;

1 Rwabishingiye ku rubanza RPA 0022/14/CS rwaciwe ku wa 23/03/2018

Page 97

63 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI

 ko n’ibyo avuga ko yatinze kujurira bitewe no gushyirwa mu kato na guma mu rugo, nta kimenyetso abigaragariza, ko kandi bizwi ko igihe cy’icyorezo cya covid 19, akazi kakorwaga mu buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga. Rwemeje rero ko ubujurire bwe butakiriwe kuko bwatanzwe nyuma y’ibihe biteganywa n’amategeko. [9] Nyandwi Innocent yatanze ubujurire bwa kabiri mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, urubanza rwandikwa kuri no RPAA 00477/2023/CA, ruhabwa itariki yo kuburanishwa yo ku wa 04/06/2024, uwo munsi ruburanishwa yunganiwe na Me Ntazika Néhémie, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Ninahazwa Roselyne, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. [10] Mu myanzuro y’ubujurire no mu miburanire, Nyandwi Innocent n’umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kwakira ubujurire bwe rwirengagije ko urubanza yari yajuririye rwaciwe ari muri kasho kubera ibihe bya covid 19, akaba yarashoboye kujurira ageze muri Gereza; ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga ubujurire bwe bwaragombaga kwakirwa, urubanza rwakoherezwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi. [11] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha nawe avuga ko ubujurire bwa Nyandwi Innocent bwagombaga kwakirwa, kuko yaburanye ari muri kasho kubera ibihe bya covid igihugu cyarimo, akaba atari kubona uko ajurira; ko rero urubanza rwe rwakoherezwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, kugira ngo ruburanishwe mu mizi.

Page 98

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[12] Impaka ziri muri uru rubanza zishingiye ku kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Nyandwi Innocent bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko Rukuru. II. ISESENGURA RY’IKIBAZO KIGIZE

URUBANZA  Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa Nyandwi Innocent bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi [13] Nyandwi Innocent n’umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwanze kwakira ubujurire bwe ngo kuko yabutanze nyuma y’ibihe by’ubujurire biteganywa n’amategeko, rwirengagije ko byatewe n’impamvu itigobotorwa y’icyorezo cya covid 19, kuko ku rwego rwa mbere yaburanye ari kuri kasho urubanza rucibwa ari ho akiri kuko bangaga ko bajya aho abandi bari mu rwego rwo kwirinda icyo cyorezo, ko yamenyeshejwe imikirize y’urubanza ku wa 12/07/2021 akajurira ku wa 28/07/2021, ko rero ubujurire bwe bwagombaga kwakirwa bugasuzumwa, ko kuba bitarakozwe urubanza rwasubizwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kugira ngo ruruburanishe. [14] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko dosiye ya Nyandwi Innocent igaragaza ko yaburanye ku rwego rwa mbere ku wa 26/04/2021 afungiye muri kasho, urubanza rusomwa ku wa 27/05/2021 ariho agifungiye bitewe n’ibihe bidasanzwe byatewe na covid 19 byatumye abari muri kasho babatinzayo kugira ngo batajya muri gereza bakaba bakwanduza abandi, bakaba baramenyaga imikirize y’imanza zabo bageze muri gereza kandi dosiye ikaba igaragaza ko Nyandwi Innocent yagezeyo ku wa 08/07/2021, ko rero kubera ibyo bihe

Page 99

65 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI

bidasanzwe, ibihe by’ubujurire bwabarwa guhera igihe yagereye muri gereza, bityo hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya ya 193 y’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, Urukiko rukemeza ko ubujurire bwe bwagombaga kwakirwa, rugatesha agaciro urubanza rwajuririwe maze ubujurire bwe bukohererezwa Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kugira ngo ruburanishwe mu mizi.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ingingo ya 181 y’Itegeko nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko: ’’Kujurira bikorwa mu gihe kitarenze iminsi mirongoitatu (30) uhereye ku itariki urubanza rwaciriweho ku muburanyi wari uhari ahagarariwe igihe urubanza rwacibwaga. Icyo gihe gikurikizwa kandi ku muburanyi wamenyeshejwe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, umunsi urubanza ruzacibwaho ntaze cyangwa ngo yohereze umuhagararira. Kujurira bikorwa mu gihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu (30) uhereye ku itariki urubanza rwamenyesherejwe umuburanyi utari uhari igihe rwasomwaga’’. [16] Ku birebana n’igihe ubujurire bugomba gukorerwa, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwabitanzeho umurongo mu rubanza nº RPA 0022/14/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/03/2018 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bogere Barige wakurikijwe mu zindi zaciwe nyuma harimo urubanza nº RPAA 00055/2023/CA rwaciwe ku wa 22/03/2024 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Niyinizeye Pacifique, uwo murongo ukaba uvuga ko umuburanyi wari uhari cyangwa ahagarariwe igihe urubanza rwacibwaga ndetse n’uwamenyeshejwe mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko umunsi urubanza ruzacibwaho ntaze

Page 100

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyangwa ngo yohereze umuhagararira, bagomba kujurira mu gihe kitarenze iminsi 30 uhereye ku itariki urubanza rwaciriweho. [17] Nk’uko dosiye ibigaragaza, Nyandwi Innocent yaburanye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi ku wa 26/05/2021, amenyeshwa ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 27/05/2021 kandi uwo munsi rurasomwa. Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko ku wa 08/07/2021 ari bwo Nyandwi Innocent yageze mu Igororero rya Rusizi (RCS arriving date), bivuze ko urubanza yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, rwaciwe akiri muri kasho bitewe n’ibihe bya covid 19 byatumye abagororwa baguma mu kato mu rwego rwo gukumira ikwirakwira ry’icyo cyorezo nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bubivuga, bivuze ko ibyo Urukiko Rukuru rwavuze ko nta kimenyetso NYANDWI yatanze cy’uko yari mu kato, bivuguruzwa n’ibiri muri dosiye kuko igargza ko yageze mu Igororero rya 08/07/2021. [18] N’ubwo hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 181 y’Itegeko nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru bikanashimangirwa n’umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza rwavuzwe haruguru, igihe cyo kujurira kuri Nyandwi Innocent cyaragombaga kubarwa guhera ku wa 27/05/2021 bitewe n’uko yamenyeshejwe umunsi urubanza ruzasomerwaho kabone n’ubwo atari kwitaba kuri uwo munsi, Urukiko rurasanga ariko kuba urubanza rwarasomwe ari muri kasho, byumvikana ko atashoboraga kujurira, kuko hashingiwe ku buryo ikoranabuhanga ryubatse (IECMS), imanza zicibwa ku birebana n’abakurikiranyweho ibyaha batari hanze, zimenyeshwa gereza babarizwamo, ubuyobozi bwazo bukazimenyesha abo bireba ndetse bukabafasha gutanga ubujurire bwabo binyuze muri ubwo buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga, kuko n’ubwo Urukiko Rukuru rwavuze ko muri icyo gihe hakoreshwaga ikoranabuhanga,

Page 101

67 UBUSHINJACYAHA v NYANDWI

rutasobanuye uburyo umuntu wabaga ari muri kasho yashoboraga gukoresha iryo koranabuhanga mu kumenya urubanza yaburanye no kuba yajurira. [19] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba urubanza Nyandwi Innocent yaburanye ku rwego rwa mbere rwaraciwe akiri muri kasho y’Ubugenzacyaha kubera ibihe Igihugu cyarimo byatewe n’icyorezo cya covid, bivuze ko atashoboraga kumenya ibyavuye mu rubanza yaburanye ngo abe yajurira, ahubwo ageze muri gereza ku wa 08/07/2021 akaba aribwo yashoboraga kumenya imikirize yarwo, bivuze ko n’ibihe by’ubujurire kuri we byagombaga kubarwa guhera kuri uwo munsi, bityo kuba yaranditse ibaruwa y’ubujurire ku wa 28/7/2021, akaba yari mu gihe cy’iminsi 30 giteganywa n’amategeko, kuko n’ubwo Ubuyobozi bw’Igororero butashyizeho itariki bwakiriyeho ibaruwa ye kandi biri mu nshingano zabwo, bigomba gufatwa ko bwayakiriye uwo munsi, bivuze rero ko ubujurire bwe bwagombaga kwakirwa bugasuzumwa. [20] Ku birebana n’Urukiko rugomba kuburanisha ubujurire bwa Nyandwi Innocent, Urukiko rurasanga nta mpaka zihari kuko ababuranyi bemeranya ko urubanza rugomba gusubizwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, ibyo kandi bikaba bihura n’ibiteganywa n’ ingingo ya 193, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko n° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha2, bikanahura

2 Iyo urukiko rwajuririwe rusanze urubanza rwari rwaregewe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko urukiko rwaruciye ku rwego rubanza rukavuga ko rutakiriwe kandi rwaragombaga kwakirwa, Urukiko rwajuririwe rurarwakira, rukagaragaza ko rwagombaga kwakirwa ku rwego rwa mbere; rukarutesha agaciro maze rukarusubiza urukiko rwari rwaruciye kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi, nta yindi ngwate y’amagarama itanzwe”

Page 102

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’ibyemejwe mu zindi manza zarimo ikibazo nk’iki, nk’urubanza nº RPAA 00020/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 05/01/2023 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Kabayiza Sylver, aho nyuma yo gusanga ubujurire bwe bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, rwemeje ko urubanza urwo Rukiko rwaciye rwo kutakira ubwo bujurire ruvanweho, ko ubujurire bwe busubira muri urwo Rukiko kugira ngo urubanza ruburanishwe mu mizi. [21] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rurasanga ubujurire bwa Nyandwi Innocent bwaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi, bityo urubanza rwajuririwe rukaba ruvanweho, ikirego cy’ubujurire yari yatanze kigasubizwa muri urwo Rukiko kugira ngo rukiburanishe mu mizi. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [22] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Nyandwi Innocent bufite ishingiro; [23] Rwemeje ko ubujurire yatanze mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi bwagombaga kwakirwa; [24] Rwemeje ko urubanza nº RPA 00327/2021/HC/RSZ rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi ku wa 09/11/2023, ruvanweho; [25] Rutegetse ko dosiye isubizwa mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rusizi kugira ngo ruburanishe ubujurire Nyandwi Innocent yari yaratanze; [26] Rwemeje ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

Page 103

69

AMAGAMBO MPINE

.

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

Page 104

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 105

71

AMAGAMBO MPINE

IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO

Page 106

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 107

73 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE - RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2022/CA (Munyangeri, P.J., Ngagi, Kamere, J.) 15 Ugushyingo 2024] Amategeko agenga imanza z’imbonezamubano – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka – Impanuka z’ibinyabiziga byo mu muhanda – Impanuka yateye uwahohotewe gukuramo inda – Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatumye uwahohotewe akuramo inda, zigenwa hashingiwe ku mategeko asanzwe cyangwa amahame rusange y’amategeko asanzwe akoreshwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku mpanuka yabaye ikozwe n’ikinyabiziga cyari gifite ubwishingizi bwa SANLAM PLc ikomeretsa Nyiraneza wari utwite inda y’amezi arindwi (7) bituma iyo nda ivamo nkuko byagaragajwe na raporo ya muganga. Nyiraneza n’umugabo we Hakizimana ndetse n’abana babo 2, basabye umwishingizi kubaha indishyi zikomoka ku rupfu rw’uwo mwana, ariko SANLAM ntiyazibaha kuko zidateganywa n’itegeko. Aba batanze ikiregpo mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rwemeza ko nta ndishyi zigomba gutangwa kuko uwo bazisabira adafite umwirondoro kandi na raporo ya polisi yakozwe impanuka ikiba ikaba igaragaza ko uwahohotewe ari Nyiraneza. Abarega bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru basaba indishyi, urwo rukiko rwemeza ko bakwiye guhabwa indishyi hashingiwe ku mahame rusange asanzwe akoreshwa. SANLAM PLc ntiyanyuzwe maze ijya mu nzira z’akarengane, urubanza 73

Page 108

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ruhabwa Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ngo rwongere ku ruburanisha. Uru rukiko rwasuzumye ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rutaragombaga gushingira ku ihame rusange mu kugena indishyi z’akababaro. SANLAM AG PLc isobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko rwa Musanze rwayitegetse kwishyura indishyi zingana na Frw 2.000.000 rushingiye ku mategeko rusange aho gushingira ku mategeko yihariye. Ikomeza ivuga ko kuba itegeko ryihariye ridateganya izo ndishyi byari bihagije ko Urukiko rutegeka ko izo ndishyi zidakwiriye gutangwa. Abaregera indishyi basobanura ko nta karengane SANLAM yakorewe kuko indishyi zatanzwe zikomoka ku mpanuka yakorewe Nyiraneza igahitana ubuzima bw’umwana yari atwite hashingiwe ku ihame rivuga ko igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyir’ugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse. Bakaomeza bavuga ko umucamanza yemerewe gushingira ku mahame y’amategeko ku bibazo bidateganywa n’amategeko. Incamake y’icyemezo: Indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatumye uwahohotewe akuramo inda, zigenwa hashingiwe ku mategeko asanzwe cyangwa amahame rusange y’amategeko asanzwe akoreshwa. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, nta shingiro gifite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano,

Page 109

75 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 9, 111 Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INJUST/RC 00013/2021/CA, MANIRARORA v RWANDA RUDNIKI LTD rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Uburire ku wa 28/06/2022. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Jacques FLOUR et al., “Droit Civil Les Obligations, Le fait juridique”, 12 éd., Dalloz, 2007, P.97. Urubanza IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 27/07/2018, mu gihe cya saa kumi n’ebyiri z’umugoroba (18h00), mu Mudugudu wa Nteranya, Akagari ka Nyirakigugu, Umurenge wa Jenda, Akarere ka Nyabihu, habaye impanuka, imodoka TRUCK MITSHUBISHI FUSO, ifite plaque RAD 068 C yari itwawe na MUKESHIMANA Laurent igonga Nyiraneza wari ufite inda y’amezi arindwi n’igice iramukomeretsa biza gutuma inda yari atwite ivamo, iyo modoka ikaba yari ifite ubwishingizi muri SORAS AG Ltd yahindutse SANLAM AG Plc. Nyiraneza, umugabo we Hakizimana n’abana babo Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine basabye SORAS AG Ltd kubaha indishyi z’akababaro kubera uwo mwana wabo wavukijwe ubuzima n’iyo mpanuka, ibasubiza ko izo ndishyi zikomoka ku nda yavuyemo ntaho ziteganywa n’itegeko, bityo ko idashobora kuzitanga. Ibyo byatumye

Page 110

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

baregera Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu basaba indishyi z’akababaro zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka. [2] SORAS AG Ltd yahindutse SANLAM AG Plc yireguye ivuga ko nta ndishyi zatangwa muri urwo rubanza ngo kuko nta tegeko riziteganya ndetse ko n’inyandikomvugo y’impanuka itagaragaza uwahohotewe kandi n’abasaba indishyi bakaba batagaragaza izina ry’uwahohotewe. [3] Mu rubanza No RC 00005/2019/TGI/RBV rwaciwe ku wa 11/10/2019, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 10 y’Itegeko No 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw’umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga n’ingingo ya 24 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 rwemeje ko nta ndishyi z’akababaro abarega bakwiye guhabwa, kuko uwo bashingiraho bazisaba atagira umwirondoro wuzuye, nta cyemezo cy’amavuko ye, nta n’icyemezo cy’uko yapfuye kiriho ndetse n’inyandikomvugo yakozwe na polisi akaba atari we ivuga ahubwo ivuga uwitwa Nyiraneza kandi ko atari we ushingirwaho n’abarega mu gusaba indishyi z’akababaro. [4] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rwemeje ko ikirego rwashyikirijwe na Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine, basaba indishyi zishingiye ku nda y’umwana nyina yari atwite utaravuka, nta shingiro gifite, ko nta ndishyi SORAS AG Ltd yahindutse SANLAM AG Plc igomba guha abarega kuko zidateganywa n’amategeko. Rutegeka Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine gufatanya kwishyura SORAS AG Ltd igihembo cya

Page 111

77 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

Avoka wayiburaniye gihwanye n’amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) n’ibihumbi ijana (100.000 Frw) y’ingendo bakoze bakurikirana urubanza. [5] Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine bahagarariwe na Me NSABIMANA Jean Damascène bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, bavuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rwirengagije dosiye yakozwe na polisi n’inyandiko ya muganga yo ku wa 28/07/2018, bigaragaza ko Nyiraneza yakoze impanuka atwite umwana w’umuhungu w’ibyumweru 30, raporo ya muganga igaragaza ko iyo mpanuka yatumye umwana apfira mu nda bigatuma babaga nyina kugira ngo bamukuremo umwana, ko iyo mpanuka iyo itaza kuba uwo mwana wari mu nda ntacyo yagombaga kuba, ko kandi nta kababaro karuta ako kubura umwana wari utegerejwe mu muryango, hanyuma basaba ko icyemezo cyafashwe ku rwego rwa mbere cyahindurwa abarega bakagenerwa indishyi z’akababaro basaba. [6] SANLAM AG Plc yireguye ivuga ko nta ndishyi bakwiriye guhabwa kuko ntaho ziteganywa n’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, ko kandi Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu rwabisesenguye neza rugaragaza ko ntazo bakwiriye guhabwa, hanyuma isaba ko urubanza rujuririrwa rugumaho. [7] Mu rubanza No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS rwaciwe ku wa 18/06/2020, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rushingiye ku nyandikomvugo y’impanuka yakozwe na Police yo ku wa 27/07/2018, igaragaza ko Nyiraneza yagonzwe n’imodoka akajyanwa mu Bitaro bya Ruhengeri na raporo ya muganga igaragaza ko umwana Nyiraneza yari atwite yari afite ibyumweru

Page 112

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

30 akaba yarapfiriye mu nda ya nyina bitewe n’impanuka nyina yagize, rwasobanuye ko kuba Nyiraneza yari atwite inda ikavamo bitewe n’iyo mpanuka, ndetse akaba yarabazwe kugira ngo bamukure umwana mu nda, bigaragaza ko yagize akababaro, rusanga kuba Iteka rya Perezida ridateganya indishyi zitangwa mu gihe uwari utwite inda yavuyemo bitewe n’impanuka yabaye, indishyi zigomba gutangwa hifashishijwe amategeko rusange (droit commun), hanyuma mu bushishozi bwarwo rugenera Nyiraneza wakuyemo inda n’umugabo we Hakizimana indishyi zingana n’amafaranga miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw) kuri bombi, rusanga abana babo bo batazikwiriye kuko nta kigaragara bangirijwe cyatuma bahabwa indishyi. [8] Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwemeje ko ikirego cy’ubujurire cyatanzwe gifite ishingiro kuri Nyiraneza n’umugabo we Hakizimana gusa, naho ku bana babo Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine nta shingiro gifite, ko urubanza No RCA 00005/2019/TGI/RBV rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rubavu ku wa 11/10/2019, ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. Rutegeka SORAS AG Ltd yahindutse SANLAM AG Plc kwishyura Nyiraneza n’umugabo we Hakizimana indishyi zingana n’amafaranga miliyoni ebyiri n’ibihumbi magana atanu na mirongo inani na magana inani (2.580.800 Frw). [9] SANLAM AG Plc yasabye ko urubanza No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze mu cyemezo No 212/CJ/2022, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeza ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, arwohereza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kugira ngo abe ari rwo ruzaruburanisha; ikirego cyandikwa kuri No RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2022/CA.

Page 113

79 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

[10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 06/11/2024, SANLAM AG Plc ihagarariwe na Me Nkiranuye Gratien, naho Nyiraneza na Hakizimana n’abana babo Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine bahagarariwe na Me Ahishakiye Callixte. [11] Mu myanzuro no mu miburanire ya SANLAM AG Plc ivuga ko yarenganyijwe n’urubanza No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS kuko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwayitegetse kwishyura Nyiraneza n’umugabo we Hakizimana indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw z’uko Nyiraneza yakuyemo inda biturutse ku mpanuka yagize yo mu muhanda rushingiye ku mategeko rusange (droit commun), kandi rwaragombaga gushingira ku Itegeko Nº 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigendera ku butaka, ndetse no ku 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. Ivuga kandi ko n’iyo Urukiko rubibona ukundi rwari kubara indishyi rushingiye ku buryo indishyi z’akababaro zabazwe mu rubanza No RCAA 00049/14/SC, hagatangwa 3000x30x12x0,75% bihwanye na 810.000 Frw, bombi akaba 1,620,000Frw. Nyiraneza na Hakizimana n’abana babo Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine bireguye bavuga ko nta karengane SANLAM AG Plc yagiriwe, cyane ko yirengagiza ko iyo hatabaho iyo mpanuka yo mu muhanda uwo mwana atari gupfa, ko kandi nta kababaro karuta ako kubura umwana wari utegerejwe mu muryango, akaza gupfa azize urupfu rutunguranye rw’impanuka yo mu muhanda, ndetse ko n’indishyi zatanzwe zashingiye ku ihame rusange ry’amategeko rivuga ko igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyir’ugukora

Page 114

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse, ko kandi amategeko yemerera Umucamanza gushingira ku ihame ry’amategeko. Basaba ko bagenerwa amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza1. [12] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, Urukiko rurasanga hagomba gusuzumwa ibibazo bikurikira:  Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rutaragombaga gushingira ku ihame rusange mu kugena indishyi z’akabaro;  Kumenya ishingiro ry’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa muri uru rubanza. II.ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA i. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rutaragombaga gushingira ku ihame rusange mu kugena indishyi z’akababaro [13] Uhagarariye

SANLAM AG Plc avuga ko iyi yarenganyijwe n’urubanza No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS kuko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwayitegetse kwishyura Nyiraneza n’umugabo we Hakizimana indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw z’uko Nyiraneza yakuyemo inda

1 Mu iburanisha uhagarariye Nyiraneza n’abandi amaze gusobanurirwa imanza zaciwe n’imirongo yatanzwe n’inkiko, yaretse inzitizi yari yatanze yo kutakira ikirego cyatanzwe na SANLAM AG Plc ndetse ababuranyi bemeranya n’Urukiko ko ikibazo cyo kumenya niba indishyi zatanzwe zigomba kwiyongera, kimwe n’icy’indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza bitagomba gusuzumwa hashingiwe ku mirongo iriho yatanzwe n’inkiko, kandi igomba kubahirizwa.

Page 115

81 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

biturutse ku mpanuka yagize yo mu muhanda rushingiye ku mategeko rusange (droit commun), kandi rwaragombaga gushingira ku Itegeko nº 41/2001 ryavuzwe haruguru no ku Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 ryavuzwe haruguru, rukabona ko nta ndishyi zigomba gutangwa kuko zidateganyijwe muri ayo mategeko. [14] Asobanura ko mu gika cya 12 cy’urubanza No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS rusubirishwamo ku impamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwavuze ko kuba impanuka ari yo yatumye inda ya Nyiraneza y’ibyumweru 30 ivamo bigaragaza ko habaye (dommage) cyangwa se akababaro bitewe n’iyo mpanuka, mu bika bya 16- 18 by’urwo rubanza ruvuga ko Urukiko rusanga indishyi zigomba gutangwa hashingiwe ku mategeko rusange (droit commun), kuko Iteka rya Perezida No 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 ridateganya indishyi zitangwa mu gihe uwari utwite inda yavuyemo bitewe n’impanuka, hanyuma rusanga zigomba gutangwa mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko, akaba asanga urwo Rukiko rwarirengagije ibiteganywa mu ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ivuga ko “Umucamanza aca urubanza ashingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana n’ikirego yaregewe”, ko rero Urukiko rutagomba kujya mu byo gushishoza ndetse n’ibindi byinshi mu gihe hari amategeko asobanutse arebana n’indishyi z’ibikomere ku mubiri zikomoka ku mpanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri, ko rero ayo mategeko ari yo rwagombaga gukoresha. [15] Asobanura ko ayo mategeko yagombaga gukoreshwa ari:

Page 116

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

 Itegeko Nº 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigendera ku butaka, aho mu ngingo yaryo ya 1 havugwamo ko iryo tegeko rigamije gushyiraho uburyo bwo kugena indishyi ku bahohotewe n’impanuka zatewe n’ibinyabiziga bigendesha moteri bigendera ku butaka;  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, aho mu ingingo ya 1 ivuga ko iri Teka rishyiraho uburyo itegeko N°41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye itangwa ry'indishyi ku bahohotewe n'impanuka zo ku mubiri zitewe n'imodoka, rigomba gukoreshwa, mu ingingo ya 2 igasobanura ijambo uwahohotewe n’impanuka ko ari umuntu wahohotewe akagira impanuka yo ku mubiri itewe n'ikinyabiziga. Ko kuba rero impanuka yabaye ku wa 27/07/2018 yaratewe n’ikinyabiziga FUSO MITSUBISHI gifite plaque RAD 068 C kigendesha moteri, kigakomeretsa Nyiraneza; ibyo bishimangira ko nta kindi Urukiko rwari rukwiye gukoresha kitari amategeko bagaragaje haruguru; ariko Urukiko rwavuze ko rutanze indishyi z’akababaro ngo hashingiwe ku mategeko rusange (droit commun) ndetse n’ubushishozi bw’urukiko. [16] Avuga kandi ko mu busanzwe hari ihame rivuga ko la loi spéciale déroge à la loi générale, ko kuba rero itegeko ryihariye (loi spéciale) hatarateganywagamo indishyi z’akababaro ku ibijyanye n’inda yavuyemo basanga byari bihagije ko Urukiko

Page 117

83 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

ruvuga ko izo ndishyi zidatanzwe kuko zidateganywa n’itegeko. Avuga ko n’icyo Urukiko rwise amategeko rusange rutigeze ruvuga ayo mategeko ayo ariyo; ntirwavuga iryo tegeko rushingiyeho riri rusange (commun) rituma hatangwa indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 2,000,000 Frw ngo rugaragaze nuko zibazwe; cyane ko amwe mu mategeko asanzwe (droit commun) arimo Itegeko Nº 32/2016 ryo ku wa 28/08/2016 rigenga abantu n’umuryango rivuga ko umwana uri munda ahabwa uburenganzira mbonezamubano ari uko avutse ari muzima. Byumvikana neza ko uriho n’uteganywa kubaho amategeko abatandukanya ku buryo budashidikanywaho. [17] Akomeza avuga ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwarageneye Nyiraneza na Hakizimana miliyoni ebyiri (2,000,000 Frw) y’indishyi z’akababaro, basanga uko kugenekereza kwakozwe n’urwo Rukiko bidatanga ubutabera kuri SANLAM AG Plc kubera ko yategetswe kwishyura ibintu bidateganywa n’itegeko rijyanye nabyo kandi hari itegeko risobanutse. Asobanura ko iyo urwo Rukiko ruza gukoresha ibiteganywa mu mategeko yihariye ajyanye no kwishyura indishyi z’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigendera ku butaka, rwari kubona ko ntaho ayo mategeko ateganya indishyi z’akababaro kubera inda yavuyemo bitewe n’impanuka, bityo ko zidakwiye gutangwa kuko ntaho ziteganywa mu itegeko N°41/2001 cyangwa mu Iteka rya Perezida Nº 31/01 yibukijwe haruguru; cyane ko hari indishyi z’akababaro SANLAM AG Plc yishyuye Nyiraneza kandi zakiriwe binyuze mu rubanza No RC 00009/2020/TGI/RBV rwaciwe ku wa 11/06/20202, bityo ko indishyi z’akababaro (impozamarira) zategetswe zingana na 2,000,000 Frw zikwiye

2 Mu iburanisha, uhagarariye SANLAM AG Plc yasobanuye ko indishyi zatanzwe ntaho zihuriye no kuba inda yaravuyemo bitewe n’impanuka.

Page 118

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

gukurwaho kuko zidashingiye ku itegeko ryihariye rihuje na kamere y’ikiburanwa. [18] Avuga na none ko n’ubwo Urukiko rwabibona ukundi rugasanga hari indishyi zigomba gutangwa, zabarwa hashingiwe ku Iteka rya Perezida ryibukijwe haruguru hagakurikizwa umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza No RCAA 00049/14/SC, hagatangwa 3000x30x12x0,75% bihwanye na 810.000 Frw, bityo Hakizimana na Nyiraneza, buri wese akagenerwa 810.000 Fr, bombi bagahabwa 1.620.000 Frw. [19] Uhagarariye Nyiraneza na Hakizimana n’abana babo Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine yiregura avuga ko nta karengane SANLAM AG Plc yagiriwe mu rubanza No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, kuko yirengagiza ko imodoka TRUCK MITSUBISHI FUSO ifite plaque RAD 068C, yari ifite ubwishingizi muri SANLAM AG Plc, yagonze Nyiraneza iramukomeretsa bikomeye ndetse ihitana ubuzima bw’umwana yari atwite wari ufite ibyumweru 30 nk’uko byemejwe na muganga, ko kandi yirengagiza ko indishyi zingana na 2,000,000 Frw zatanzwe mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane zashingiye ku ikosa ikinyabiziga yishingiye cyakoze kikangiza bikomeye ubuzima bwa Nyiraneza akavanamo inda, kandi ihame ari uko igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyir’ugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse (principe de la réparation du préjudice causé), ko rero iyo hatabaho iyo mpanuka uwo mwana atari gupfa, byongeye kandi ko nta kababaro karuta ako kubura umwana wari utegerejwe mu muryango, akaza gupfa azize urupfu rutunguranye rw’impanuka. [20] Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza

Page 119

85 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi yemerera Umucamanza gushingira ku mahame y’amategeko, ku bibazo bidateganywa n’amategeko, ko kuba Nyiraneza yarabazwe agaterurwamo umwana wapfuye ufite ibyumweru 30 bitewe n’impanuka yagize; Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukwiye kubona ko indishyi z’akababaro zatanzwe zikurikije amategeko kuko zatanzwe mu murongo w’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko Jean Chevallier na Louis Bach mu gitabo cyabo Droit Civil : introduction à l’étude du droit – les personnes physiques – la famille – les biens – les obligations – les sûretés, aho ku rupapuro rwa 404 banditse ko igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyir’ugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse (“Tout fait quelconque de l’homme qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer”. [21] Akomeza avuga ko muri dosiye ya polisi harimo inyandiko yiswe réquisition à expert yakozwe na Polisi ndetse n’inyandiko ya muganga yo ku wa 28/07/2018 igaragaza ko Nyiraneza yakoze impanuka atwite umwana w’umuhungu w’ibyumweru 30 wari ufite ikiro kimwe n’igice (1,500 Kgs), ko kandi iyo mpanuka yatumye uwo mwana apfira mu nda bagakora opération akavanwa mu nda ya nyina yapfuye. Bityo akaba asanga nta karengane kari mu rubanza rusubirishwamo.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [22] Ingingo ya 9 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 ibikurikira: “Umucamanza aca urubanza ashingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko zirebana n’ikirego yaregewe. Iyo nta tegeko rijyanye

Page 120

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’ikiburanwa ashingira ku mategeko asanga yashyiraho mu gihe yaba ashinzwe kuyashyiraho, yifashishije ibyemezo byagiye bifatwa n’inkiko, umuco, amahame rusange agenga amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko”. [23] Ihame rusange ryubabahirizwa mu mategeko ni uko igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyir’ugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse (“Tout fait quelconque de l’homme qui cause à autrui un dommage oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer”)3. Iri hame ryagiye rikoreshwa mu manza nyinshi zirimo urubanza No

RCOMAA 00034/2023/CA4, urubanza No RCAA 00003/2024/CA-RCAA 00004/2024/CA5

n’urubanza

No

RS/INJUST/RC 00003/2022/CA6. [24] Urukiko rusesenguriye hamwe ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, n’ihame rusange naryo ryibukijwe haruguru, rusanga mu gihe bigaragaye ko itegeko risanzwe cyangwa ryihariye ntacyo ryateganyije ku kibazo runaka cyagombye kuba cyaratangiwe igisubizo muri iryo tegeko, hanyuma Umucamanza agashyikirizwa icyo kibazo, nta kimubuza kugikemura yifashishije ibyemezo byagiye bifatwa n’inkiko, umuco,

3 Jacques FLOUR et al., “Droit Civil Les Obligations, Le fait juridique”, 12 éd., Dalloz, 2007, P.97. 4 Reba igika cya 38 cy’urubanza N˚ RCOMAA 00034/2023/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 19/04/2024, ANGEL COLLECTION Co Ltd yaburanye na Muhayimana Uziel na BANK OF KIGALI Plc. 5 Reba urubanza No RCAA 00003/2024/CA-RCAA 00004/2024/CA rwaciwe ku wa 26/04/2024, Mudatsikira Valens na Gisanabagabo Félicien baburana na HABIMANA Jean Marie Vianney hamwe na SINAYOBYE Emmanuel. 6 Reba igika cya 33 cy’urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00003/2022/CA rwaciwe ku wa 25/09/2024, haburana NSANZUBUHORO Justin na NYAMASWA Rukundo Emmanuel.

Page 121

87 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

amahame rusange agenga amategeko n’inyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko. Ikindi kandi, mu gihe bigaragaye ko itegeko ryihariye ntacyo ryateganyije, ariko bikaba bigaragara ko hari igikorwa cy’umuntu cyangirije undi, nta cyabuza ko hashingiwe ku ihame rusange, uwangirijwe n’icyo gikorwa agenerwa indishyi. Mu yandi magambo, mu gihe Itegeko Nº 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigendera ku butaka n’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, zitateganyije uburyo indishyi z’akabaro zigenwa mu gihe habaye impanuka itejwe n’ikinyabiziga gifite moteri yatumye inda ivamo, nta kibuza ko izo ndishyi zitangwa hashingiwe ku mategeko rusange (droit commun) cyangwa amahame rusange y’amategeko (principes généraux de droit). Ibyo kugena indishyi hashingiwe ku mategeko rusange n’amahame rusange y’amategeko ninako byemejwe mu rubanza No RS/INJUST/RC 00013/2021/CA rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 28/06/2022, MANIRARORA Jean de Dieu yaburanye na RWANDA RUDNIKI Ltd hamwe na SANLAM AG Plc. [25] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, dosiye igaragaza ko icyaregewe mu rubanza No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS rusubirishwamo ku impamvu z’akarengane ari indishyi z’akababaro zikomoka ku mpanuka yo mu muhanda yatewe n’imodoka TRUCK MITSHUBISHI FUSO, ifite plaque RAD 068 C yari yishingiwe na SORAS AG Ltd yahindutse SANLAM AG Plc yagonze Nyiraneza wari utwite inda y’umwana w’umuhungu y’ibyumweru 30, igatuma umwana apfira mu nda, bakamubaga kugira ngo bakuremo uwo mwana. Igaragaza kandi ko Nyiraneza n’umugabo we Hakizimana n’abana babo Uwineza

Page 122

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine bareze SANLAM AG Plc basaba indishyi z’akababaro kubera uwo mwana wapfiriye mu nda bitewe n’impanuka yo mu mahanda. [26] Dosiye igaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwasanze kuba Iteka rya Perezida ridateganya indishyi zitangwa mu gihe uwari utwite inda yavuyemo bitewe n’impanuka yabaye, indishyi zigomba gutangwa hifashishijwe amategeko rusange (droit commun), hanyuma mu bushishozi bwarwo rugenera Nyiraneza n’umugabo we Hakizimana indishyi zingana na miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw) kuri bombi, rusanga abana babo bo batazikwiriye kuko nta kigaragara bangirijwe cyatuma bahabwa indishyi. [27] Urukiko rurasanga, icyo ababuranyi bahurizaho kandi kidashidikanywaho ari uko habaye impanuka y’imodoka yatumye inda y’umwana w’umuhungu yari imaze ibyumweru 30 ivamo, iyo impanuka ikaba yaratewe n’imodoka TRUCK MITSHUBISHI FUSO, ifite plaque RAD 068 C yari yishingiwe na SORAS AG Plc yahindutse SANLAM AG Plc yagonze Nyiraneza, ikindi n’uko indishyi z’akababaro zisabwa zidateganyijwe n’amategeko ajyanye n’impanuka zo mu muhanda yibukiijwe haruguru7. Icyo zitumvikanaho ni uko SANLAM AG Plc ivuga ko mu gihe izo ndishyi zidateganijwe n’amategeko nta mpamvu zari kugenerwa Nyiraneza n’umugabo we, inavuga kandi ko n’iyo Urukiko rwabibona ukundi rugasanga izo ndishyi zigomba gutangwa, zabarwa hashingiwe ku

7 Itegeko Nº 41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001 ryerekeye imyishyurire y’abangirijwe n’impanuka zitewe n’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri kandi bigendera ku butaka n’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.

Page 123

89 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

biteganywa n’amategeko yibukijwe haruguru. Naho ku ruhande rwa Nyiraneza n’abandi bavuga ko indishyi zagombaga kubarwa hashingiwe ku mahame rusange kuko zidateganyijwe mu mategeko yavuzwe haruguru. [28] Urukiko rurasanga, kuba nta gushidikanya ko Nyiraneza yari atwite inda y’ibyumweru 30 ikavamo bitewe n’impanuka yagize itejwe n’ikinyabiziga gifite ubwishingizi bwa SANLAM AG Plc, ndetse akaba yarabazwe kugira ngo bamukure umwana mu nda, ibyo byumvikanisha ko yangirijwe n’impanuka kuko ari yo yatumye umwana yari atwite apfa, kandi urupfu rw’uwo mwana yari ategereje, ni igikorwa cyamuteje akababaro kadashidikanywaho, akaba we n’umugabo we baragombaga kugenerwa indishyi mpozamarira/akababaro zishingiye ku rupfu rw’uwo mwana yari atwite. Kuba kandi n’uburanira SANLAM AG Plc nawe yemera ko inda yavuyemo bitewe n’iyo mpanuka, birumvikana ko ntaho yahera avuga ko nta ndishyi mpozamarira zatangwa ashingiye gusa ko bene izo ndishyi zidateganyijwe n’amategeko ajyanye n’impanuka zo mu muhanda yavuzwe haruguru, nkaho ari ubwo buryo rukumbi bwo kugena indishyi buteganywa n’amategeko. Urukiko rurasanga kandi SANLAM AG Plc itagaragaza ko hari impamvu ituma yigobotora uburyozwe kuri iyo mpanuka yatejwe n’imodoka yari yishingiye. [29] Urukiko rurasanga, mu gihe SANLAM AG Plc itagaragaza ko hari amategeko yihariye agenga indishyi mpozamarira/akababaro mu bihe nk’ibyabaye kuri Nyiraneza, noneho ngo Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rube rwarirengagije ihame ko amategeko yihariye (régle spéciale) agira isumbwe ku mategeko asanzwe (droit commun) “specialia generalibus derogant”, nta kosa rwakoze rushingira ku ihame rusange ry’amategeko risanzwe rikoreshwa mu gihe hari

Page 124

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi, kuko gitegeka nyir’ugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse. Bityo mu gihe nta tegeko ryihariye rigena uburyo bene izo ndishyi zibarwa, hakoreshwa ihame rusange, nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwabigenje. [30] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo uburanira SANLAM AG Plc avuga ko n’ubwo Urukiko rwabibona ukundi rugasanga hari indishyi zigomba gutangwa, zabarwa hashingiwe ku Iteka rya Perezida ryibukijwe haruguru hagakurikizwa umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza No

RCAA 00049/14/SC, hagatangwa 3000x30x12x0,75% bihwanye na 810.000 Frw, bityo Hakizimana na Nyiraneza, buri wese akagenerwa 810.000 Frw, Urukiko rurasanga nta shingiro byahabwa, kuko nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, iryo Teka ntabwo ryigeze riteganya uburyo indishyi mpozamarira/akababaro zikomoka ku kuvanamo inda bitewe n’impanuka y’imodoka zibarwa; bityo rero nta mpamvu yatuma rishingirwaho mu kubara bene izo ndishyi zitari mu zo ryateganyije. [31] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, rwakoze mu kugenera Nyiraneza na Hakizimana indishyi z’akababaro rushingiye ku mategeko rusange/ihame rusange, kuko nta tegeko ryihariye rwirengagije; bityo nta karengane kari mu No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ku wa 18/06/2020.

Page 125

91 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

ii. Kumenya niba amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa muri uru rubanza afite ishingiro [32] Uhagarariye Nyiraneza na Hakizimana n’abana babo Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine avuga ko basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gutegeka SANLAM AG Plc guha Hakizimana na Nyiraneza amafaranga ibihumbi magana atandatu (600.000 Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza hamwe n’ingendo na miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw) y’igihembo cya Avoka. [33] Uhagarariye SANLAM AG Plc avuga ko ku bijyanye n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka abaregwa basaba, Urukiko rukwiye kubona ko nta shingiro afite, kuko kuba urubanza ruri mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire bikomoka ku ndishyi zatanzwe zidateganywa n’amategeko.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryibukijwe haruguru iteganya ibikurikira: "Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza ni ikirego gishamikiye ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo, gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe". [35] Urukiko rurasanga, kuba byagaragaye ko SANLAM AG Plc itarenganyijwe n’urubanza yasubirishijemo No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ku wa 18/06/2020, kandi Nyiraneza na

Page 126

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Hakizimana bakaba barakurikiranye urubanza, bakanashaka Avoka ubaburanira muri uru rubanza, rurasanga bo n’abana babo Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine bagomba kugenerwa amafaranga y’ibyagiye ku rubanza mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko, kuko ayo basaba nta kigaragaza ko ari yo batanze, bityo rubageneye bose hamwe amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ibihumbi magana abiri (200.000 Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza, kuri uru rwego, agomba kwishyurwa na SANLAM AG Plc. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [36] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na SANLAM AG Plc gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane urubanza No RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Musanze, ku wa 18/06/2020, nta shingiro gifite. [37] Rutegetse SANLAM AG Plc kwishyura Nyiraneza, Hakizimana n’abana babo Uwineza Delphine na Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 Frw) y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ibihumbi magana abiri (200.000 Frw) y’ikurikiranarubanza, kuri uru rwego.

Page 127

93 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA N’UNDI

Page 128

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 129

95 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA

SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/INJUST/RC 00006/2022/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J, Muhumuza, Karimunda, J.) 23 Kamena 2023] Amategeko agenga imanza z’i mbonezamubano – Impanuka yatewe n'ikinyabiziga – Ubuzime – Kuregera indishyi ku mwana udafite imyaka y'ubukure – Igihe ubuzime butangirira kubarwa - Ubuzime bw’ikirego cy’uwangirijwe bushobora guhagarikwa gusa n’impamvu zituma uwangirijwe adashobora gutanga ikirego cyangwa mu gihe atarageza ku myaka y’ubukure. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Ibihe byo gutanga ikirego – Uburwayi - Ibihe byo gutanga ikirego bishobora kongerwa bitewe n’uburwayi bwashyira umuntu mu mimerere (conditions) ituma atabasha gutekereza, kuvuga, kumva, kwandika, nk’igihe yaba ari muri coma, ku buryo atashobora no kugira uwo aha ububasha bwo kumutangira ikirego. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Uwizeyimana, wakomerekeye mu mpanuka y’imodoka yishingiwe na SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd (SONARWA) agacika akaboko, ayirega asaba ko itegekwa kumuha indishyi zinyuranye zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka. Uregwa yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira icyo kirego avuga ko urega yarengeje igihe cy’imyaka itanu (5) iteganywa n’amategeko ku bijyanye no kuregera indishyi zikomoka ku 95

Page 130

96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mpanuka. Urwo Rukiko rwasanze ikirego kigomba kwakirwa, rutegeka

SONARWA guha Uwizeyimana indishyiz’imbangamiraburanga, iz’imbonezamubano, iz’akababaro, izo gutakaza amahirwe yo gushaka n’amafaranga y’ibyakoreshejwe. Uregwa yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, nuko rushingiye ku kuba n’ubwo Nyirasimpunga yaratoraguye Uwizeyimana, atigeze amugira umwana ku buryo yari kumukurikiranira indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka no kuba yaritabye Imana nyuma y’imyaka ibiri impanuka ibaye, nyuma agakomeza kurerwa n’abaturanyi, rusanga kuba yararengeje imyaka itanu ataratanga ikirego, ubwo busaze budakwiye kubarwa kuko yari akiri umwana kandi nta babyeyi cyangwa abishingizi yari afite. SONARWA yasabye ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo, hemezwa ko ruburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba harabaye ubuzime bwo gusaba indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yo mu muhanda. SONARWA isobanura ko ikirego cya Uwizeyimana kitagombaga kwakirwa kuko atubahirije igihe cy’imyaka itanu (5) yo gukurikirana indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka akaba yaragitanze nyuma y’imyaka cumi n’umwe (11) impanuka ibaye, kandi ko Leta yakabaye yarakimukurikiraniye nk’umwana utari ufite umurera. Uwizeyimana we avuga ko ikirego cyagombaga kwakirwa hashingiwe ku kuba nk’umwana udafite ababyeyi, yaragitanze amaze kuzuza imyaka y’ubukure. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ubuzime bw’ikirego cy’uwangirijwe bushobora guhagarikwa gusa n’impamvu zituma uwangirijwe adashobora gutanga ikirego cyangwa mu gihe atarageza ku myaka y’ubukure.

Page 131

97 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA

2. Ibihe byo gutanga ikirego bishobora kongerwa bitewe n’uburwayi bwashyira umuntu mu mimerere (conditions) ituma atabasha gutekereza, kuvuga, kumva, kwandika, nk’igihe yaba ari muri coma, ku buryo atashobora no kugira uwo aha ububasha bwo kumutangira ikirego. Ikirego cyatanzwe gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza nt shingiro gifite. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018, ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 111; Itegeko-Teka N° 32/1975 ryo ku wa 7/8/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire butegetswe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, ingingo ya 10. Imanza zifashijwe: RS/REV/RCOM 00001/2022/SC, Munyaburanga vs ECOBANK Plc, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 15/07/2022; RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC, Me MHAYIMANA Isaïe vs Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/02/2023. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: B. Beigner & Sonia BEN, Droit des assurances, 2021, Paris, LGDJ, Lextenso, Pge 611. Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 2, 21 février 2008, 07- 12.801,

Page 132

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT00001 8166899. I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Tariki ya 27/01/2006 Uwizeyimana Clarisse wari ufite imyaka umunani (8) y’amavuko yagonzwe n’imodoka Toyota Hilux RDF 331 D yari ifite ubwishingizi muri SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd, acika ukuboko kw’ibumoso. [2] Nyuma yo kuzuza imyaka y’ubukure, Uwizeyimana Clarisse yandikiye SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd ku wa 25/09/2017, ayisaba indishyi zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka, yongera kuyandikira ku wa 22/08/2018 ayihanangiriza ariko ntiyamusubiza, maze atanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ku wa 26/09/2018 arusaba kuyitegeka kumuha indishyi zitandukanye zikomoka kuri iyo mpanuka. [3] SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira icyo kirego ivuga ko Uwizeyimana Clarisse yarengeje igihe cy’imyaka itanu (5) iteganywa n’amategeko ku bijyanye no kuregera indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka. Me Gabiro David wamuburaniraga yireguye kuri iyo nzitizi, avuga ko nta shingiro ifite kuko Uwizeyimana Clarisse yatangiye gukurikirana indishyi amaze kuzuza imyaka y’ubukure kubera ko nta babyeyi agira, akaba yari yaratoraguwe n’umukecuru witwa Nyirasimpunga Laurence badafite icyo bapfana akiri uruhinja, nyuma nawe akaza gupfa, akarerwa n’abaturanyi, kandi akaba yarakoze impanuka afite imyaka umunani (8) ku buryo atari yemerewe gukurikirana indishyi.

Page 133

99 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA

[4] Mu rubanza N° RC 00847/2018/TGI/NYGE, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwasanze ikirego cya Uwizeyimana Clarisse kigomba kwakirwa, kandi rwemeza ko Uwizeyimana Clarisse yacitse akaboko biturutse ku mpanuka yatejwe n’ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe na SONARWA General Insurance Ltd, rusanga akwiye guhabwa indishyi zikurikira: • Indishyi z’imbangamiraburanga zingana na 1.620.000 Frw; • Indishyi mbonezamubano zingana na 9.765.219 Frw; • Indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 1.620.000 Frw; • Indishyi zo gutakaza amahirwe yo gushaka zingana na 2.160.000 Frw; • Gusubizwa amafaranga yakoreshejwe akurikirana dosiye agizwe na 6.000 Frw yo kugura dosiye, 1.700 Frw yo kugura ibyemezo, 10.000 Frw yishyuwe za raporo za muganga, 600.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 100.000 Frw yo gukurikirana urubanza. [5] SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, isaba gusuzuma ibirebana n’iyakirwa ry’ikirego cyatanzwe na Uwizeyimana Clarisse kuko kuba umukecuru wamureraga yarapfuye hashize imyaka ibiri yose iyo mpanuka ibaye, bitumvikana impamvu atamutangiye icyo kirego cyangwa kitatanzwe n’abaturanyi bakomeje kumurera cyane ko bamenye iby’iyo mpanuka. Inasaba kandi gusuzuma niba Uwizeyimana Clarisse yaragombaga kugenerwa indishyi.

Page 134

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[6] Ku wa 25/10/2019, Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza

NO RCA 00289/2019/HC/KIG, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd nta shingiro bufite rushingiye ku kuba n’ubwo Nyirasimpunga Laurence yaratoraguye Uwizeyimana Clarisse, atigeze amugira umwana ku buryo yari kumukurikiranira indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka no kuba yaritabye Imana nyuma y’imyaka ibiri impanuka ibaye, nyuma agakomeza kurerwa n’abaturanyi. Rusobanura ko kuba yararengeje imyaka itanu ataratanga ikirego, ubwo busaze budakwiye kubarwa kuko yari akiri umwana kandi nta babyeyi cyangwa abishingizi yari afite. [7] Ku wa 22/11/2019, SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire isaba ko urubanza No RCA 00289/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 25/10/2019 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Amaze gusuzuma ubusabe bwayo, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire nawe yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amusaba ko urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, amaze kubona raporo yakozwe kuri urwo rubanza, ku wa 22/08/2022 yafashe icyemezo No 131/CJ/2022 cy’uko urubanza No RCA 00289/2019/HC/KIG rwongera kuburanwa, ruhabwa no RS/INJUST/RC 00006/2022/SC. [8] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 23/05/2023, SONARWA General Insurance Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Bimenyimana Eric naho Uwizeyimana Clarisse ahagarariwe na Me Gabiro David, ababuranyi bajya impaka ku bibazo byo kumenya niba harabaye ubuzime bwo gukurikirana ikirego cy’indishyi no kumenya niba hari indishyi SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd igomba gusubizwa, naho ikibazo

Page 135

101 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA

kirebana no kumenya niba ubumuga bwagaragaye kuri Uwizeyimana Clarisse bwaraturutse ku mpanuka, uhagarariye SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd yemereye mu iburanisha ko kitigeze kiburanwaho mu manza zabanje, kikaba rero kitasuzumwa bwa mbere ku rwego rw’akarengane nk’uko byatanzweho umurongo mu manza zitandukanye.1 Iburanisha risojwe, ababuranyi bamenyeshejwe ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 23/06/2023. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO i. Kumenya niba harabaye ubuzime bwo gusaba indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yo mu muhanda [9] Me Bimenyimana Eric uhagarariye SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd avuga ko ikirego kitagombaga kwakirwa ngo gisuzumwe kuko nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandikomvugo yakozwe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha, impanuka yabaye ku wa 27/01/2006, Uwizeyimana Clarisse ayimenyesha umwishingizi bwa mbere ku wa 25/09/2017, ni ukuvuga hashize imyaka irenga 11, ibyo bikaba binyuranije n’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 01/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002 rihindura kandi rikuzuza Itegeko Nº 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 rirebana n’ubwishingizi muri rusange.2

1 Reba urubanza No RS/ INJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/07/2020, haburana Mukamana Mamique na Vérène CANDALI n’abandi; urubanza No RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21/02/2020, haburana Ngizweninshuti Albert na Muhima Giovanni n’urubanza Nº RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 13/03/2020, haburana Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason na Nyamaswa Faustin. 2 ………iteganya ko ikirego cyose cy’umuntu wangirijwe kiregerwa uwishingiwe, gikomoka kuri iri tegeko Teka gisibangana hashize imyaka itanu

Page 136

102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[10] Akomeza asobanura ko Itegeko N° 01/2002 ryavuzwe haruguru riteganya ko impanuka igomba kumenyekanishwa mu myaka itanu (5) kuva ibaye, bitaba ibyo, iryo menyekanisha ntirigire agaciro. Ku bw’ibyo, akaba asanga Urukiko rutaragombaga guha agaciro imenyekanisha ryakozwe na Uwizeyimana Clarisse kuko yarengeje ibihe biteganywa n’amategeko, bityo akaba adashobora no gusaba indishyi. [11] Avuga kandi ko PV de synthèse d’accident de roulage igaragaza ko abarega (plaignants) ari Ubushinjacyaha (Ministère Public) na Nyirasimpunga Laurence, inzego z’ibanze zikaba zaremeje ko Nyirasimpunga Laurence ariwe watoraguye Uwizeyimana Clarisse, akaba ari nawe wari umutunze icyo gihe, bikumvikana ko kuba yarabonye ubushobozi bwo kumuhagararira mu Bugenzacyaha, yaragombaga no kumuhagararira mu kumenyekanisha impanuka no gusaba indishyi. Ariko ko n’iyo Nyirasimpunga Laurence atari kubikora, abatangabuhamya babonye iby’iyo mpanuka cyangwa abaturanyi bamusigaranye nabo bari bafite ububasha bwo gukurikiranira Uwizeyimana Clarisse icyo kibazo. [12] Avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rutagomba kwakira ikirego cya Uwizeyimana Clarisse, ahubwo ko uyu yari kwiyambaza izindi nzira kugira ngo arenganurwe hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 128 y’ Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryakurikizwaga impanuka ikorwa. Asobanura ko Uwizeyimana Clarisse yashoboraga gukurikirana uburenganzira bwe ku ndishyi yifashishije Conseil de Tutelle, cyangwa agasaba Leta kuzikurikirana kubera ko ariyo

(5), uhereye ku munsi igikorwa cyateye ibyago cyabereyeho (Itegeko –Teka Nº 32/75 ryo ku wa 07 kanama 1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire butegetswe ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri)

Page 137

103 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA

ireberera abana badafite kirengera. Agaragaza ko ibihe by’ubuzime byashoboraga guhagarara gusa mu gihe bari gushobora kugaragaza ko batangiye gusaba ko habaho ubwumvikane. [13] Me Gabiro David uhagarariye Uwizeyimana Clarisse avuga ko asanga SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd yitiranya umuhango wo kumenyesha impanuka, n’uwo gukurikirana indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka. Asobanura ko umuhango wo kumenyekanisha impanuka utarebaga Uwizeyimana Clarisse kuko ukorwa na nyir’ikinyabiziga kiba cyateje iyo mpanuka, ahubwo ko yarebwaga no gukurikirana indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatejwe n’ikinyabiziga cyari cyishingiwe na SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd. Avuga ko bitewe n’uko yari akiri umwana (mineur civil), amategeko atamwemereraga kwikurikiranira indishyi, ko ubundi byari gukorwa n’ababyeyi be iyo aba abazi, kandi nk’uko byasobanuwe mu manza zabanje, yatoraguwe ari uruhinja. [14] Akomeza avuga ko uwitwa Nyiransimpunga Laurence wari waramutoraguye nawe nta bubasha yari afite bwo gukurikirana izi ndishyi kuko atari umwishingizi we (tuteur) cyangwa ngo abe yaremeye kumwiyandikishaho nk’umuntu umurera mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, na nyuma y’uko yitabye Imana, abasigaye barera Uwizeyimana Clarisse nabo batari bafite ububasha bwo kuregera indishyi kuko batigeze bamwiyandikishaho nk’uko amategeko abiteganya. Izo akaba arizo mpamvu zatumye Uwizeyimana Clarisse ategereza ko abanza kuzuza imyaka y’ubukure kugira ngo yitangire ikirego. [15] Avuga kandi ko n’ubwo SONARWA General Insurance Ltd ivuga ko ikirego cya Uwizeyimana Clarisse kitagombaga kwakirwa, ishingiye ku gihe cy’imyaka 5 cyo kuba uwahohotewe

Page 138

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yamenyekanishije impanuka asaba indishyi giteganywa n’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko nº 01/2002 ryo ku wa 17/01/2002 rihindura rikanuzuza Itegeko-Teka nº20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 rirebana n’ubwishingizi muri rusange, iteganya ibijyanye n’ibihe by’imyaka 5 yo kuregera indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka, yirengagiza ko ingingo ya 10, igika cya 2 n’icya 3 n’ingingo ya 11 y’Itegeko –Teka nº 32/75 ryo ku wa 7/8/1975 rijyanye n’ubwishingire buturutse ku buryozwe butewe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, yateganyije irengayobora ku birebana n’ibyo bihe. [16] Asoza avuga ko kuba mu manza zabanje, inkiko zaragaragaje icyo zashingiyeho mu gufata ibyemezo nko mu rubanza N° RC 00847/2018/TGI/NYGE mu gika cya 11 no mu rubanza N° RCA 00289/2019/HC/KIG mu bika cya 13, 14, 15 na 16, aho Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje ibitekerezo by’abahanga ku birebana n’ubusaze ndetse runasesengura neza ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Teka Nº 32/1975 ryo ku wa 7/8/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire butegetswe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, asanga nta karengane kagaragara mu mikirize y’urubanza N° RCA 00289/2019/HC/KIG, ahubwo ko ari ukutanyurwa n’icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Ingingo ya 10, mu gika cyayo cya 1, y’Itegeko-Teka N° 32/1975 ryo ku wa 7/8/1975 ryerekeye ubwishingire butegetswe n’ibigenzwa ku butaka bifite moteri, iteganya ko ikirego cy’uwangirijwe n’uwishingiye gisaza mu gihe cy’imyaka itanu ibarwa guhera igihe impamvu gikomokaho yabereye; naho mu gika cya 2 hakavugwa ko impamvu zihagarika ubuzime

Page 139

105 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA

bw’ikirego cy’uwangirijwe, zinahagarika ubuzime bw’ikirego cy’uwishingiye. [18] Itegeko rishyiraho Interuro y’Ibanze n’Igitabo cya mbere cy’Urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryakurikizwaga impanuka yamugaje Uwizeyimana Clarisse iba, mu ngingo yaryo ya 431, yateganyaga ko imyaka y’ubukure ari imyaka 21. Naho Itegeko n° 32/2016 ryo ku wa 28/08/2016 rigenga abantu n’umuryango mu ngingo ya 113 ryo riyishyira kuri cumi n’umunani (18) y’amavuko. [19] Urukiko rurasanga ababuranyi bemeranya ko Uwizeyimana Clarisse yagize impanuka ku wa 27/01/2006 afite imyaka 8 y’amavuko, adafite ababyeyi, acika ukuboko. Icyo batemeranyaho ari nacyo kigize impaka muri uru rubanza, ni ukuba uhagarariye SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd avuga ko ikirego cye kitagombaga kwakirwa kuko atubahirije igihe cy’imyaka 5 yo gukurikirana indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka, kandi ko n’ubwo atari afite ababyeyi nk’uko babiburanisha, Leta yari kuzikurikirana kubera ko kureberera abana badafite kirengera biri mu nshingano zayo. Naho uhagarariye Uwizeyimana Clarisse avuga ko ikirego cyagombaga kwakirwa hashingiwe ku kuba nk’umwana udafite ababyeyi, yaragitanze amaze kuzuza imyaka y’ubukure. [20] Mu rubanza N° RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko, haburana Me MHAYIMANA Isaïe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasobanuye ‘ubuzime’ nk’uburyo bwo gutuma habaho kuzima k’uburenganzira bitewe n’uko uwari ufite ubwo burenganzira cyangwa ububasha ntacyo yakoze mu gihe runaka. Ubuzime bukaba butangira kubarwa igihe ufite uburenganzira yamenyeye

Page 140

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyangwa yagombaga kuba yamenye ibikorwa bituma abukoresha.3 [21] Urukiko rurasanga icyumvikana mu ngingo ya 10, igika cyayo cya 1 n’icya 2 y’Itegeko-Teka N° 32/1975 ryavuzwe haruguru no mu bisobanuro by’ubuzime, ari uko uwangirijwe n’impanuka afite igihe cy’imyaka itanu cyo gusaba umwishingizi indishyi ziyikomokaho, atabikora ubwo burenganzira bukazima. Itegeko ariko rikemera ko hashobora kubaho impamvu zishobora guhagarika ubuzime bw’ikirego cy’uwangirijwe n’ubwo ritazirondoye cyangwa ngo rizisobanure. [22] Dosiye y’uru rubanza igaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze nta buzime bwabaye ku kirego cya Uwizeyimana Clarisse gisaba SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka, rushingiye ku kuba Uwizeyimana Clarisse yarakoze impanuka afite imyaka 8, kandi Nyirasimpunga Laurence wamureraga akaba ataramwiyandikishijeho nk’umwana kimwe n’abaturanyi bamureze nyuma y’aho apfiriye, rusanga kuba uwakabaye atanga ikirego yari atarageza ku myaka y’ubukure ari impamvu yatumye ibihe by’ubusaze by’ikirego byateganyijwe n’itegeko biba bisubitswe kubarwa. [23] Ku bijyanye n’ibarwa ry’ibihe byo gutanga ikirego k’umuntu utarageza imyaka y’ubukure cyangwa undi muntu udafite ububasha, abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko ubuzime bw’ikirego cy’uwangirijwe gishobora guhagarikwa gusa n’impamvu zituma uwangirijwe adashobora gutanga ikirego

3 Reba urubanza N° RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 17/02/2023 haburana Me MHAYIMANA Isaïe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, ku rupapuro rwa 8, igika cya 14.

Page 141

107 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA

cyangwa mu gihe atarageza ku myaka y’ubukure;4 uko ni nako byanemejwe n’Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rwo mu Bufaransa.5 Urundi rugero rw’impamvu ishobora gutinza itangwa ry’ikirego rwatanzwe mu rubanza No RS/REV/RCOM 00001/2022/SC, rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko, MUNYABURANGA aburana na ECOBANK Plc ku wa 15/07/2022, mu gika cya 29, aho rwasobanuye ko ibihe byo gutanga ikirego bishobora kongerwa bitewe n’uburwayi bwashyira umuntu mu mimerere (conditions) ituma atabasha gutekereza, kuvuga, kumva, kwandika, nk’igihe yaba ari muri coma, ku buryo atashobora no kugira uwo aha ububasha bwo kumutangira ikirego. [24] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga kuba impanuka yarabaye Uwizeyimana Clarisse afite imyaka 8, kandi nk’uko ababuranyi babyemeranyaho, atari afite ababyeyi cyangwa umwishingizi, byumvikanisha ko nta wundi muntu wari ufite ububasha bwo gukurikirana indishyi zikomoka ku bumuga yatewe n’impanuka yatejwe n’imodoka yishingiwe na SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd, rukaba rusanga igihe cy’imyaka itanu cyarahagaze kubarwa kuko Uwizeyimana Clarisse yari akiri umwana adashobora kuzikurikirana, cyongera

4 B. Beigner & Sonia BEN, Droit des assurances, 2021, Paris, LGDJ, Lextenso, Pge 611. La prescription biennale ne peut être suspendue que par les circonstances mettant la partie dans l’impossibilité d’agir ou durant la minorité de l’assuré. 5 Mu rubanza Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 2, 21 février 2008, 07- 12.801 : ttendu que, selon le premier de ces textes, l'action en garantie de l'assuré à l'encontre de l'assureur est interrompue par une des causes ordinaires d'interruption de la prescription ; que, selon le second, la prescription ne court pas contre les mineurs non émancipés et les majeurs en tutelle sauf ce qui est dit à l'article 2278 et à l'exception des cas déterminés par la loi.̏ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000018166899

Page 142

108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

gutangira kubarwa uhereye igihe yuzurije imyaka y’ubukure, ni ukuvuga imyaka 18. Iby’uhagararire SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd avuga ko mu gihe cyagenwe Leta yari kuba yarakurikiraniye indishyi Uwizeyimana Clarisse, nk’umwana utari ufite umureberera, ntibimwambura uburenganzira bwo kuzikurikiranira amaze kugira imyaka y’ubukure. Kubera izo mpamvu zose, Urukiko rusanga, nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, nta buzime bwabayeho. [25] Urukiko rurasanga bitakiri ngombwa gusuzuma niba indishyi SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd yishyuye ikwiye kuzisubizwa n’inyungu yazo kuko nta karengane kagaragara mu kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwaremeje ko nta buzime bwabaye, rukagenera Uwizeyimana Clarisse indishyi. b. Kumenya ishingiro ry’igihembo cy’Avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza bisabwa n’ababuranyi [26] Me Nkurunziza Jean Pierre uhagarariye SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd asaba Urukiko gutegeka Uwizeyimana Clarisse kuyisubiza amafaranga y’igihembo cy’Avoka n’ayikurikiranarubanza yatanze kuva ikirego gitangwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye kugeza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga angana na 3.000.000 Frw, harimo ay’igihembo cy’Avoka angana na 2.000.000 Frw ku nzego zose, na 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza ku nzego zose, kuko iki kirego cyatumye SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd yitabaza abanyamategeko. [27] Me Gabiro David avuga ko nta ndishyi SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd igomba guhabwa kuko yasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane izi neza ko nta shingiro bifite, ikaba igomba kwirengera ingaruka zabyo.

Page 143

109 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v UWIZEYIMANA

Avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo 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 ndetse n’ingingo ya 32 y’amabwiriza rusanga ashyiraho ibihembo mbonera by’Avoka, asaba Urukiko gutegeka SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd kwishyura Uwizeyimana Clarisse amafaranga y’igihembo cy’Avoka hamwe n’ikurikiranarubanza byose bingana na 3.000.000 Frw (igihembo cy’Avoka kingana na 2.500.000 Frw, n’ikurikiranarubanza rya 500.000 Frw). [28] Uhagarariye SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd yiregura avuga ko idakwiye kubazwa ibyo Uwizeyimana Clarisse yakoresheje mu rubanza rw’akarengane kuko atariyo yamuhamagaje mu rubanza, kandi bakaba bataranagaragaje ibimenyetso by’amafaranga basaba kuko mu Nkiko zibanza bayahawe, amafaranga 3.000.000 y’ikurikiranarubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba asanga ari umurengera.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Ingingo ya 111 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 “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.”

Page 144

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[30] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd isaba itayakwiriye kuko ntacyo itsindiye muri uru rubanza. [31] Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza Uwizeyimana Clarisse asaba agomba kuyahabwa kuko byabaye ngombwa gukurikirana urubanza bitewe no kuba SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd ariyo yasabye gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bikaba ngombwa ko ashaka umuburanira. Icyakora kubera ko ayo asaba ari menshi, kandi atagaragaza ko ariyo koko yatanzwe kuri uru rubanza, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko akaba agenewe 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [32] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd isaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza No RCA 00289/2019/HC/KIG, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 25/10/2019, nta shingiro gifite. [33] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza No RCA 00289/2019/HC/KIG, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 25/10/2019 idahindutse. [34] Rutegetse SONARWA General Insurance Company Ltd guha Uwizeyimana Clarisse igihembo cya Avoka cya 500.000 Frw, na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw

Page 145

111

AMAGAMBO MPINE

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

Page 146

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 147

113 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00007/2022/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Muhumuza na Karimunda, J.) 26 Gicurasi 2023] Amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ inyongera – Amasezerano y’ inyongera afatwa nk’ amasezerano mashya ajyanye n’igihe imirimo mishya igomba kumara – Imirimo yinyongera yakozwe nyuma y’amasezerano ya mbere igomba kwishyurwa kuko ifatwa nk amasezerano mashya atandukanye n’ ayakozwe mbere – Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 65. Amasezerano – Kwishyuza igihembo ku masezerano y’inyongera ntibyafatwa nko guhindura igiciro cyemeranyijwe mu masezerano – Uwatanze isoko ntiyakwanga kuzuza inshingano zo kwishyura inyemezabwishyu zatanzwe na rwiyemezamirimo ku mirimo y’ inyongera yakozwe avuga ko ibyo bifatwa nko kongera igiciro cyatanzwe muri financial submission. Incamake y ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku masezerano Sosiyete yitwa V.CO Ltd yagiranye n’Akarere ka Gatsibo yo gukurikirana no kugenzura imirimo yo kubaka Agakiriro ka Kabarore yagombaga gukorwa na company yitwa ECOTRAP. V.CO Ltd. ECOTRAP. V.CO Ltd ivuga yokoze indi mirimo yinyongera bisabwe n akarere, ariko kanga kuyishyura bituma itanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, isaba ko yishyurwa amafaranga 28.068.133 iyo Sosiyete ivuga ko yakoreye mu gihe cy’amezi 15 113

Page 148

114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’iminsi 26 kiyongere ku mezi 24 yari ateganyijwe mu masezerano, inasaba kwishyurwa izindi ndishyi zinyuranye. Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano V.CO Ltd yakoranye n’Akarere yarateganyaga ko igiciro cy’ayo masezerano kizwi kandi kidashobora kongerwa n’ubwo igihe amasezerano yazamara cyaba kiyongereye, bityo ibyo isaba kwishyurwa igihe cy’inyongera ntaho biteganyijwe mu masezerano, maze ruyitegeka kwishyura Akarere ka Gatsibo indishyi z’ibyakozwe ku rubanza. Sosiyete V.CO Ltd ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza maze ijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba gusuzuma niba kwishyuza igihembo ku masezerano y’inyongera ari uguhindura igiciro cyemeranyijwe mu masezerano. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze igiciro kivugwa mu masezerano kitarahinduwe ahubwo icyahinduwe ari igihe imirimo yakozwemo kuko yiyongereye, maze rutegeka Akarere ka Gatsibo kwishyura V.CO Ltd ikiguzi cy’imirimo yakoze mu gihe kiyongereye ku cyari giteganyijwe mu masezerano. Akarere ka Gatsibo kasabye ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kavuga ko akarengane gashingiye ku kuba Akarere karategetswe kwishyura 28.068.133 Frw yiyongera kuri 42.456.000 Frw yumvikanweho mu masezerano, kandi V.CO Ltd yaramaze kwishyurwa, bityo ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibimenyetso rwashyikirijwe ndetse n’amategeko ajyanye n’ikiburanwa. Sosiyete V.CO Ltd yiregura ivuga ko amasezerano yo gukurikirana imirimo yo kubaka agakiriro ka Kabarore yari kumara amezi 24, guhera ku wa 16/02/2015 kugeza ku wa

Page 149

115 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

16/02/2017 ku giciro cya 42.456.000Frw, ko ntaho ateganya ko igiciro ari forfaitaire/lumpsum, avuga ko nyuma y’uko ECOTRAP inaniwe kubaka, isoko ryahawe Reserve Force, imirimo yagombaga gukorwa n’ibikoresho by’ubwubatsi birahinduka, n’igihe isoko ryari kumara kiriyongera, ibi bihita bigira ingaruka ku masezerano V.CO Ltd yakoranye n’Akarere ka Gatsibo. Incamake y icyemezo: 1. Amasezerano y’ inyongera afatwa nk’ amasezerano mashya ajyanye n’igihe imirimo mishya igomba kumara. Imirimo yinyongera yakozwe nyuma y’amasezerano ya mbere igomba kwishyurwa kuko ifatwa nk’ amasezerano mashya atandukanye n’ayakozwe mbere.

2. Uwatanze isoko ntiyakwanga kuzuza inshingano zo kwishyura inyemezabwishyu zatanzwe na rwiyemezamirimo ku mirimo y’ inyongera yakozwe avuga ko ibyo bifatwa nko kongera igiciro cyatanzwe muri financial submission. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza nta shingiro gifite; Amagarama y’ urubanza aherereye ku wa rezwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 65. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

Page 150

116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 16/02/2015, Sosiyete yitwa V.CO Ltd yakoranye amasezerano Nᵒ 012/GAT/INFRA/14-15 n’Akarere ka Gatsibo yo gukurikirana no kugenzura imirimo yo kubaka Agakiriro ka Kabarore yagombaga gukorwa na company yitwa ECOTRAP. Imirimo yari ikubiye mu masezerano Nᵒ 009/GAT/INFRA/14-15 yo ku wa 23/03/2015 Akarere kari gafitanye na ECOTRAP. [2] V.CO Ltd yagombaga gukora iyo mirimo y’ubugenzuzi mu gihe kingana n’amezi 24 ku mafaranga 42.456.000, ikaba yaragombaga kuyirangiza ku wa 16/02/2017. ECOTRAP yatangiye kubaka na V.CO Ltd ikora ubugenzuzi, ariko ECOTRAP yaje kunanirwa imirimo biba ngombwa ko Akarere gahindura rwiyemezamirimo, gakorana amasezerano mashya na Reserve Force iba ari yo ikomeza imirimo yo kubaka Agakiriro ka Kabarore. [3] V.CO Ltd yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko Akarere ka Gatsibo kahatirwa kuyishyura amafaranga y’amezi 15 n’iminsi 26 yiyongereye ku gihe cyari giteganyijwe mu masezerano. Isobanura ko mu masezerano Akarere kakoranye na Reserve Force habayemo impinduka ku birebana n’ibikoresho ndetse n’igihe imirimo yamaze, bityo bigira ingaruka ku masezerano V.CO Ltd nayo yari ifitanye n’Akarere ka Gatsibo kuko ibyagenzurwaga byari bihindutse, haba ku ngano ndetse no ku gihe bigomba gukorerwamo. Ivuga ko ubugenzuzi V.CO Ltd yagombaga gukora mu gihe cy’amezi 24 byabaye ngombwa ko ibukora mu gihe cy’amezi 39 n’iminsi 26 kubera ihinduka rya ba rwiyemezamirimo bagombaga gukorerwa ubugenzuzi, no ku

Page 151

117 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

birebana n’imirimo yagombaga gukorwa; ko amezi 24 y’ubugenzuzi arangiye Akarere kasabye V.CO Ltd gukomeza imirimo kakayimenyesha mu bihe bitatu bitandukanye, ko ku masezerano bagiranye hongereweho igihe. [4] V.CO Ltd ivuga ko yishyuje imirimo y’inyongera (ni ukuvuga amafaranga y’amezi 15 n’iminsi 26 yiyongereye ku gihe cyari giteganyijwe mu masezerano bitayiturutseho) ariko Akarere kanga kuyishyura. V.CO Ltd yasabye Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi guhatira Akarere ka Gatsibo kwishyura amafaranga angana na 28.068.133 yo mu gihe cy’amezi 15 n’iminsi 26 abariwe kuri 1.769.000 Frw buri kwezi no kwishyura izindi ndishyi zitandukanye zirimo igihombo byamuteye. [5] Akarere ka Gatsibo kireguye kemera ko ku wa 16/02/2015, kagiranye amasezerano Nᵒ 012/GAT/INFRA/14-15 na V.CO Ltd yari yerekeranye no kugenzura ibikorwa by’ubwubatsi bw’Agakiriro mu Murenge wa Kabarore yagombaga kumara amezi makumyabiri n’ane (24) kuko yagombaga kurangira ku wa 16/02/2017, impande zombi zikaba zaremeranyijwe ku giciro cy’ayo masezerano kingana na 42.456.000 Frw. Kavuga ko kubera ko uwatsindiye isoko atubahirije ingengabihe yari mu masezerano, byabaye ngombwa ko V.CO Ltd yongererwa igihe kugira ngo irangize imirimo ijyanye n’isoko yatsindiye, ayo masezerano akaba yarongerewe mu bihe bitatu kandi V.CO Ltd ikaba yarabimenyeshejwe binyuze mu mabaruwa atandukanye, Akarere kandi kayimenyesheje ko usibye igihe cyongerewe, izindi ngingo z’amasezerano zitahindutse. Akarere kavuga ko katunguwe no kumva V.CO Ltd yishyuza andi mafaranga angana na 28.068.133 ivuga ko akomoka ku mirimo yakozwe mu gihe cy’inyongera nyamara mu masezerano impande zombi zari zarumvikanye ku

Page 152

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mubare mbumbe w’amafaranga azishyurwa isoko ryose rirangiye. [6] Ku wa 30/09/2020, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOM 00648/2020/TC, rwemeza ko ikirego cya V.CO Ltd nta shingiro gifite. Rwasanze ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano V.CO Ltd yagiranye n’Akarere yarateganyaga ko igiciro cy’ayo masezerano kizwi kandi kidashobora kongerwa n’ubwo igihe amasezerano yazamara cyaba kiyongereye, ko ibyo V.CO Ltd isaba byo kwishyurwa igihe cy’inyongera ntaho biteganyijwe mu masezerano kuko impande zombi zumvikanye ko igiciro cy’isoko ryose kidahinduka, ryaba rirangiye mbere cyangwa nyuma y’igihe cyateganyijwe. Rwategetse V.CO Ltd kwishyura Akarere ka Gatsibo indishyi za 600.000 Frw z'ibyakozwe ku rubanza. [7] V.CO Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba gusuzuma niba kwishyuza igihembo ku masezerano y'inyongera ari uguhindura igiciro, ikirego cyayo gihabwa Nº RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC. [8] Mu bujurire, Akarere ka Gatsibo kavuze ko impamvu z’ubujurire za V.CO Ltd zitahabwa ishingiro kuko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwatanze ubutabera rushingiye ku kuri no ku bimenyetso rwari rwagaragarijwe. [9] Ku wa 26/05/2021, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC, rutegeka Akarere ka Gatsibo kwishyura V.CO Ltd 28.068.133 Frw y’imirimo y’inyongera nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 64 y'Itegeko Nᵒ 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, na 1.500.000 Frw y’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka.

Page 153

119 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

[10] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze igiciro kivugwa mu masezerano kitarahinduwe ahubwo ko icyahinduwe ari igihe imirimo yakozwemo kuko yiyongereye, naho igiciro kikaba cyaragumye kuba icyatanzwe muri financial submission kikanemerwa n’Akarere ka Gatsibo igihe kagishyiraga mu masezerano kagaragaza amafaranga azishyurwa ku mirimo ahuye n’ayatanzwe na rwiyemezamirimo muri iyo financial submission. [11] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze kandi byari gufatwa ko igiciro cyahinduwe mu gihe V.CO Ltd yari kuba yishyuza imirimo y’inyongera itanga igiciro kiri hejuru y’amafaranga 1.769.000 yatanze muri financial submission yayo; bityo, ko ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano impande zombi zagiranye idateganya ko amafaranga yavuzwe ariyo azishyurwa ku mirimo yose izakorwa, ahubwo ko icyo ibuza ari uko igiciro gihindurwa haba mw’ishyirwa mu bikorwa by’imirimo cyangwa se mu gihe habayeho amasezerano y’inyongera. [12] Iyo mikirize ntiyanyuze Akarere ka Gatsibo, bituma ku wa 22/06/2021 kandikira Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire gasaba ko urubanza Nº RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga asaba ko urubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. [13] Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe yafashe icyemezo 044/CJ/2022, ko urubanza RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ruhabwa RS/INJUST/RCOM 00007/2022/SC.

Page 154

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[14] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 18/10/2022, Akarere gahagarariwe na Me Rugamba Théoneste hamwe na Me Uwamahoro Marie Grace, V.CO Ltd ihagarariwe na KALISA Théogène yunganiwe na Me Habineza Jean Paul. Muri iryo buranisha Urukiko rwasobanuriye ababuranyi akamaro k’ubuhuza, bemera kujya gukemura ikibazo cyabo mu bwumvikane, bahitamo ko Me Rwabigwi Augustin ababera umuhuza. [15] Nyuma yo kubona raporo y’umuhuza igaragaza ko ubuhuza bwananiranye, iburanisha ry’uru rubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 21/02/2023, uwo munsi ariko urubanza ntirwaburishwa, rwimurirwa ku wa 18/04/2023 kubera ko Me Uwamahoro Marie Grace atashoboye kwitabira iburanisha kubera uburwayi. [16] Ku wa 18/04/2023, urubanza rwaraburanishijwe, Akarere gahagarariwe na Me Uwamahoro Marie Grace hamwe na Me Bunani Bonavanture, V.CO Ltd ihagarariwe na Kalisa Théogène, yunganiwe na Me Habineza Jean Paul. [17] Muri iryo buranisha, ababuranyi bagiye impaka ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Akarere ka Gatsibo kagomba gutegekwa kwishyura V.CO Ltd imirimo yakoze mu gihe cy’inyongera y’amasezerano n’ibijyanye n’indishyi z’igihembo cya Avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza asabwa kuri uru rwego.

Page 155

121 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO i. Kumenya niba Akarere ka Gatsibo kagomba gutegekwa kwishyura V.CO Ltd imirimo yakozwe mu gihe cy’inyongera y’amasezerano. [18] Me Uwamahoro Marie Grace na Me Bunani Bonaventure baburanira Akarere ka Gatsibo, bavuga ko muri uru rubanza, akarengane gashingiye ku kuba Akarere karategetswe kwishyura 28.068.133 Frw yiyongera kuri 42.456.000 Frw yumvikanweho mu masezerano, kandi V.CO Ltd yaramaze kwishyurwa, bikaba bigaragara ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibimenyetso rwashyikirijwe ndetse n’amategeko ajyanye n’ikiburanwa. [19] Basobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwageze kuri icyo cyemezo rwirengagije ibimenyetso bikurikira: - Ingingo ya 2 (4), iya 9 n’iya 111 z’Amasezerarano yo ku wa 16/02/2015 ziteganya ko imirimo izamara amezi 24 ku kiguzi ndahinduka cya 42.456.000 Frw kabone nubwo igihe amasezerano yari kuzamara cyahinduka kigabanuka cyangwa kikiyongera, bityo ko contract extension letters V.CO Ltd iburanisha zidakwiye gufatwa nk’amasezerano mashya ahubwo zikwiye kumvikana nk’izongereye igihe amasezerano impande zombi zari zifitanye;

1 Iyo ngingo ivuga ko: “this contract is concluded for a period of 24 months starting from the date of signing of this contract by both parties, unless terminated earlier or extended by agreement of the parties in an executed addendum to this contract.”

Page 156

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Ingingo ya 4, igika cya 2,2 y’Amasezerano ishyira ku rutonde ubusumbane (hierarchy) bw’ibimenyetso nk’uko impande zombi zabigennye. Ibyo bimenyetso bikaba bisumbana mu buryo bukurikira: (a) Amasezerano, (b) Terms of reference (TOR), (c) Minutes of negotiations, (d) Notification, (e) Request for proposal, (f) Financial proposal. - Terms of Reference iri ku rupapuro rwa 43 mu gitabo cy’ipiganwa igaragaza ko V.CO Ltd yari kujya ihembwa bitewe n’ijanisha ry’imirimo yakoze aho kuba umubare w’amezi iyo mirimo yakozwemo, ibyo bikaba binashimangirwa n’uko V.CO Ltd ntaho yigeze itanga inyemezabwishyu (invoice) ya buri kwezi. [20] Bavuga na none ko mu gika cya 20 cy’urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye icyemezo cyarwo kuri financial proposal iri ku mwanya wa gatandatu ku rutonde rw’ibimenyetso, nyamara itari kurutishwa amasezerano, Terms of Reference n’ibindi bimenyetso biri muri dosiye biyirusha agaciro. Basobanura ko financial proposal yafashwe nk’imwe mu nyandiko zigize amasezerano kandi V.CO Ltd nayo yivugira ko ari offer ishobora guhinduka kuko nyuma yayo haganirwa ku biciro (contract negotiation), ibyumvikanweho bigakorerwa amasezerano.

2 Icyo gika kigira kiti: “should there be any conflict or ambiguity any of the above listed documents, priority shall be given in the order as listed above”

Page 157

123 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

[21] Basoza bavuga ko indi mpamvu igaragaza akarengane ari uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ingingo ya 63,3 iya 64 n’iya 66 z’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano kuko nta handi rwari gukura icyumvikanweho n’icyari kigamijwe n’impande zombi kandi cyabaye itegeko kuri bo uretse mu masezerano no muri Terms of Reference. Basanga kuba Urukiko rutarahaye agaciro iby’uko igiciro cyari forfaitaire cyangwa lumpsum kandi kidashobora guhinduka binyuranye kandi n’ingingo ya 45, igika cya kabiri n’icya gatatu y’Iteka rya Minisitiri N° 001/14/10/TC ryo ku wa 19/02/2014 rishyiraho amabwiriza agenga ipiganwa n’amasezerano by’icyitegererezo iteganya ko nta hindura ry’igiciro rishoboka nyuma y’itariki yari iteganyijwe mu masezerano, keretse ku bw’umvikane bw’impande zombi, habanje guhindurwa amasezerano. [22] Kalisa Théogène uhagarariye V.CO Ltd na Me Habineza Jean Paul, umwunganira, bavuga ko amasezerano yo gukurikirana imirimo yo kubaka agakiriro ka Kabarore yari kumara amezi 24, guhera ku wa 16/02/2015 kugeza ku wa 16/02/2017 ku giciro cya 42.456.000Frw, ko ntaho ateganya ko igiciro ari forfaitaire/lumpsum. Basobanura ko nyuma y’uko ECOTRAP inaniwe kubaka, isoko ryahawe Reserve Force, imirimo yagombaga gukorwa n’ibikoresho by’ubwubatsi birahinduka, n’igihe isoko ryari kumara kiriyongera, ibi bihita bigira ingaruka ku masezerano V.CO Ltd yakoranye n’Akarere ka Gatsibo kuko ibyagenzurwaga byari bihindutse haba ku ngano ndetse no ku gihe byagombaga gukorerwamo.

3 Iyo ngingo ivuga ko “Gusesengura amasezerano cyangwa imwe mu ngingo zayo ni ugusobanura icyo ayo masezerano agamije n’icyasezeranyijwe.”

Page 158

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[23] Bavuga ko ECOTRAP yari yaratsindiye isoko rifite agaciro ka 650.578.520 Frw mu gihe rwiyemezamirimo wa kabiri yagombaga gukomereza aho ECOTRAP yari igejeje, ariko ko yaje kongererwa imirimo ifite agaciro ka 990.354.430 Frw, ari nabyo byatumye ubugenzuzi V.CO Ltd yagombaga gukora mu gihe cy’amezi 24 yarabukoze mu gihe cy’amezi 39 n’iminsi 26. [24] Bavuga na none ko nyuma y’amezi 24 y’ubugenzuzi yari mu masezerano ya mbere, Akarere ka Gatsibo kandikiye V.CO Ltd ku wa 16/02/2017, ari nawo munsi amasezerano ya mbere yari yarangiriyeho, kamusaba gukomeza imirimo kugeza ku wa 16/08/2017, iyo tariki igeze arongera yandikirwa indi baruwa imuha amasezerano y’inyongera kugeza ku wa 16/12/2017, naho ku ncuro ya gatatu, ahabwa ibaruwa imuha amasezerano guhera ku wa 19/03/2018 kugeza ku wa 15/07/2018. Basobanura ko kuba V.CO Ltd yishyuza igihe yakoze nyuma y’amasezerano ya mbere atari uguhindura amasezerano, kuko igihe cy’akazi cyari cyumvikanweho cyiyongereye. [25] Bavuga na none ko iby’uko igiciro cyari forfaitaire/lumpsum atari byo kuko amasezerano yari afite igihe kizwi, kibariye ku mezi 24 ku giciro cya 42.456.000 Frw, bivuze ko yari 1.769.000 Frw buri kwezi nk’uko bigaragara muri financial submission ndetse ko kugeza ubu Akarere ka Gatsibo ntaho kagaragaza ko iki giciro cyigeze gihinduka kuko amafaranga yishyujwe yari abariye ku giciro cya buri kwezi hashingiwe ku gihe cyari muri Extension Contracts. Basanga ibyo Akarere ka Gatsibo kavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibimenyetso, ingingo z’amategeko cyangwa amabwiriza bikagatera akarengane kagaragarira buri wese nta shingiro bifite, ahubwo ko kavugisha ibimenyetso

Page 159

125 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

n’ingingo z’amategeko ibyo bitavuga kuko kwishyuza imirimo y'inyongera bidasobanuye guhindura ibiciro.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano igira iti: “Amasezerano ntategeka gusa icyemejwe ahubwo yongeraho n'ingaruka ugushyira mu kuri, imigenzereze cyangwa amategeko byageneye inshingano bikurikije kamere yayo”. Naho ingingo ya 66 y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko gusesengura amasezerano cyangwa imwe mu ngingo zayo ari ugusobanura icyo ayo masezerano agamije n’icyasezeranyijwe. [27] Ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano yo ku 16/02/2015 impande zombi zagiranye kandi zemera, ivuga ko imirimo izakorwa mu mezi 24 kandi ko ikiguzi cyayo ari 42.456.000 Frw, ndetse ko igiciro kitagomba guhinduka amasezerano yarangira mbere cyangwa nyuma cyangwa yakongerwa.4 [28] Impaka hagati y’ababuranyi zishingiye ku myumvire y’ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano impande zombi zagiranye. Akarere kavuga ko rwiyemezamirimo adakwiye kwishyuza imirimo y’inyongera kuko igiciro bumvikanye ari ndahinduka, amasezerano yaba arangiye mu gihe cyumvikanweho cyangwa icyo gihe cyaba cyahindutse kikagabanuka cyangwa kikiyongera. V.CO Ltd yo isanga igihe cy’amezi 24 cyari gihwanye n’agaciro

4 The contract prices for the consultancy services is Forty-Two Millions, Four Hundred Fifty-Six Thouasands Rwandan Francs Only/For all project (42,546,000 Frw) all taxes inclusive, in the period of Twenty-Four (24) months. The contract price is fixed and cannot be revised during the course of the contract, or during an extansion of time thereof

Page 160

126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ka 42.456.000 Frw cyararangiye, ariko kirangira imirimo yo itararangira, kuko rwiyemezamirimo mushya yahinduriwe inshingano ndetse n’ikiguzi kirahinduka, Akerere ka Gatsibo kayiha andi masezerano kugeza iyo mirimo irangiye, iyo mirimo yiyongereye nyuma y’amasezerano ya mbere akaba ariyo yishyuza. [29] Muri dosiye bigaragara kandi ko mu gika cya 20 cy’urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 4 y’amasezerano iteganya ko inyandiko yitwa financial submission proposal ari imwe mu zigize amasezerano, nta guhindura ibiciro kwabayeho nk’uko Akarere ka Gatsibo kabivugaga kubera ko bigaragara ko iyo agaciro k’isoko ka 42.456.000 Frw kagabanyijwe ku mezi 24 yari mu masezerano, bibyara 1.769.000 Frw buri kwezi. [30] Urukiko rurasanga Akarere ka Gatsibo kemera ibaruwa yo ku wa 31/01/2017, iyo ku wa 01/08/2017 n’iyo ku wa 18/04/2018 zose zifite impamvu yo kongera amasezerano (contract extension) mu buryo bukurikira: - Ibaruwa ya mbere iyongera kuva ku wa 31/01/2017 kugeza ku wa 16/08/2017; - Ibaruwa ya kabiri iyongera kuva ku wa 16/08/2017 kugeza ku wa 16/12/2017; - Ibaruwa ya gatatu iyongera kuva ku wa 19/03/20185 kugeza ku wa 15/07/2018.

5 Bigaragara ko hagati y’ibaruwa ya 2 n’iya 3 V.CO Ltd yari imaze igihe cy’amezi 2 n’iminsi 3 itarongererwa amasezerano.

Page 161

127 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

[31] Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 9, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’amasezerano yo ku wa 16/02/2015 hagati y’Akarere ka Gatsibo na V.CO Ltd by’uko igiciro cy’amasezerano ari 42.456.000 Frw ndahinduka mu gihe cy’amezi 24 y’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano cyangwa mu gihe cy’inyongera bigomba kureberwa mu mbibi z’ayo masezerano n’icyo impande zombi zari zigamije, kuko ayo masezerano yashoboraga kurangira mu mezi 24 nk’uko byateganyijwe, cyangwa akarangira mbere kuko rwiyemezamirimo ufite isoko ry’ibanze (ECOTRAP) yihutishije imirimo cyangwa se agatinda kurangira kubera ko amasezerano y’ibanze yahagaritswe igihe runaka akongera gusubukurwa, kandi V.CO Ltd ikaba itari kwishyuza icyo gihe amasezerano y’ibanze yahagaritswe kuko nayo nta mirimo y’ubugenzuzi iba yarakoze. [32] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 45 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri N° 001/14/10/TC ryo ku wa 19/02/2014 ababuranira Akarere ka Gatsibo bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije, itakoreshwa ku byabaye mu masezerano hagati ya V.CO Ltd n’Akarere ka Gatsibo kuko ayo masezerano atahinduwe, nta n’ibiciro byasubiwemo. Ahubwo icyabaye akaba ari igihe akazi kagombaga kurangirira cyiyongereye kandi ibyo bikaba byari byarateganyijwe mu masezerano impande zombi zagiranye. Ikindi n’uko amafaranga uregwa muri uru rubanza yishyuza ari akubiye mu masezerano hashingiwe kuri financial submission proposal igize amasezerano, nkuko byasobanuwe mu bindi bika bigize uru rubanza. [33] Urukiko rurasanga kuvuga ko imirimo yose y’inyongera yakozwe na V.CO Ltd nyuma y’amezi 24 ikubiye mu biteganywa n’ingingo ya 9 y’amasezerano cyangwa muri Terms of Reference

Page 162

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

byaba binyuranyije n’ibyo impande zombi zumvikanye kubera ko: i. i.Igihe cy’amasezerano nticyarenga amezi 24 ngo igiciro cy’amasezerano kigume ari cya kindi, keretse harabayeho ihagarikwa ry’imirimo ryatumye igihe kiyongera; bitabaye ibyo, byaba bivuze ko iyo ngingo yanditswe mu nyungu z’Akarere ka Gatsibo gusa nyamara iri mu masezerano magirirane y’inyungu (contrat synallagmatique à titre onéreux); ii. ii.Igihe cy’amasezerano kiramutse kirenze, ikiguzi cyumvikanweho ntigihuzwe n’igihe cy’inyongera, byatera uruhande rwatanze isoko kwikungahaza nta mpamvu; iii. Igihe cy’amasezerano kiramutse kirenze icyumvikanweho, igiciro kikaguma uko kiri byaba bivuze ko amasezerano yasinywe Akarere ka Gatsibo gateganya ko rwiyemezamirimo wahawe isoko ry’ibanze atazarisoza mu gihe cyumvikanyweho, ibyo kandi byaba binyuranyije n’amategeko kuko iyo ngingo yaba irimo uburyarya (bad faith) nyamara abakoranye amasezerano bafite inshingano zo kuyashyira mu bikorwa nta buryarya (in good faith). [34] Urukiko rurasanga ibijyanye n’uburyo bwo gusesengura ingingo z’amasezerano biteganywa n’ingingo ya 71 y’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano ivuga ko mu guhitamo igisobanuro cyumvikana kw’isezeranya, ku masezerano cyangwa imwe mu ngingo ziyagize, igisobanuro rusange kigenderwaho ni ikitagendera ku ruhande rwatanze amagambo yakoreshejwe cyangwa uruhande rwandikishije inyandiko. Ibi ni nabyo bishimangirwa n’umuhanga Philippe Le

Page 163

129 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

Tourneau nawe usobanura ko ugushidikanya ku ngingo zigize amasezerano kugomba gusesengurwa mu nyungu z’uwo yakorewe (la convention s’interprète contre celui qui l’a stipulé et en faveur de celui qui a contracté l’obligation).6 [35] Ikigaragarira Urukiko ni uko amasezerano yo ku wa 16/02/2015 yarangiye nyuma y’amezi 24, Akarere ka Gatsibo ntikakora addendum cyangwa amasezerano mashya nk’uko byari biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 11 y’ayo masezerano. Ibi byumvikanisha ko Akerere ka Gatsibo katavuga ko ayo masezerano ariyo yakomeje nyamara igihe kiyemerera ko yari kumara cyari cyarangiye. [36] Urukiko rurasanga, uretse ku bijyanye n’igihe, Akarere ka Gatsibo karagiye gasaba V.CO Ltd mu bihe bitandukanye gukora imirimo y’inyongera hashingiwe ku ngingo zari zarumvikanweho mu masezerano yo ku wa 16/02/2015, bityo bikaba bikwiye gufatwa ko buri rwandiko rwa contract extension rwari amasezerano mashya ku bijyanye n’igihe iyo mirimo mishya yagombaga kumara. [37] Urukiko rurasanga rero ibyo Akarere ka Gatsibo kaburanisha by’uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 647 y’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, cyangwa ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 45 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri n° 001/14/10/TC ryo ku wa 19/02/2014 ngo kuko rutabonye ko ibyo V.CO Ltd yakoze ari uguhindura ibiciro byumvikanyweho mu masezerano, nta

6 Reba Philippe Le Tourneau, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, régime d’indemnisation, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p. 1156. 7 Iyi ngingo iteganya ko amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye.

Page 164

130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

shingiro bifite, kuko icyabaye ari ukongera igihe akazi kagombaga kurangirira kandi byakozwe n’Akarere ka Gatsibo, naho iby’ibiciro n’ubundi byari byarateganyijwe mu masezerano nk’uko bigaragazwa na financial submission proposal nk’imwe mu nyandiko igize amasezerano. [38] Urukiko rurasanga ubwo V.CO Ltd yishyuzaga imirimo y’inyongera, Akarere ka Gatsibo kari gakwiye gushyira mu kuri nkuko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko n° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 ryavuzwe haruguru, kakishyura katazuyaje inyemezabuguzi za rwiyemezamirimo, kuko nibwo kari kuba kujuje inshingano yo gushyira mu bikorwa ibyo kiyemeje mu masezerano8. Muri urwo rwego, dosiye igaragaza ko nyuma y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, Akarere kabanje kwerekana ubushake bwo kwishyura V.CO Ltd, ndetse kagaragaza n’igihe bizakorerwa habonetse amafaranga mu ngengo y’imari ya 2022-2023, gusa nyuma kaje kwisubiraho. [39] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa, uru Rukiko rurasanga ku bijyanye n’ihame ry’uko V.CO Ltd igomba kwishyurwa imirimo y’inyongera yakoze, ntacyo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije. Icyakora, bigaragarira Urukiko ko amezi V.CO Ltd yakoze ari 37 n’iminsi 26 (amezi 24 ari mu masezerano yo ku wa 16/02/2015, amezi 6 ari mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 31/01/2017, amezi 4 ari mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 16/08/2017 n’amezi atatu n’iminsi 26 biri mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 19/03/2018), bivuze ko amafaranga igomba kwishyurwa angana na 1.769.000 Frw x amezi 13 n’iminsi 269 bihwanye na 24.530.133 Frw.

8 Ingingo ya 7.2: The Client shall a.: Pay the invoices submitted by the Consultant within the time limit specified in this contract. 9 Aho kuba amezi 39 n’iminsi 26 nk’uko V.CO Ltd ibivuga.

Page 165

131 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

B. Kumenya niba hari indishyi zigomba gutangwa muri uru rubanza. [40] Me Uwamahoro Marie Grace na Me Bunani Bonaventure bavuga ko mu gika cya 24 cy’urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse Akarere ka Gatsibo kwishyura V.CO Ltd indishyi zingana na 1.500.000 Frw ajyanye n’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka ndetse no gusubiza amagarama angana na 60.000 Frw ngo kuko Akarere ka Gatsibo kayishoye mu manza z’amaherere kanga kubahiriza inshingano bigatuma hari ibyo V.CO Ltd itakaza, ariko ko nabyo bitera akarengane kuko urwo Rukiko rwirengagije amategeko n’amasezerano yabaye hagati y’impande zombi yerekana ko Akarere ka Gatsibo nta nshingano katubahirije, ko ahubwo ariko kashowe mu manza zidafite ishingiro. [41] Bavuga kandi ko mu gika cya 25 cy’urwo rubanza, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwategetse ko indishyi zasabwe n’Akarere ka Gatsibo zingana na 2.500.000 Frw zihwanye n’igihembo cy’Avoka cya 2.000.000 Frw hamwe na 500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza nta shingiro zifite hiregangijwe ibimenyetso, bityo ko basaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kwemeza ko izo ndishyi zifite ishingiro. [42] Kalisa Théogène yunganiwe na Me Habineza Jean Paul bavuga ko nta ndishyi Akarere ka Gatsibo gakwiye guhabwa kuko ari ko katumye habaho imanza. Basaba ahubwo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gusuzuma ibyo V.CO Ltd isaba no kubiha ishingiro kuko ikomeje gusiragizwa mu nkiko, cyane cyane ko Akarere kari katangiye procedure yo kwishyura nk‘uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko z’ubuyobozi bwako zerekanaga uburyo kateganyaga kwishyura V.CO Ltd mu ngengo y’imali ya 20222023. Basaba

Page 166

132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gutegeka Akarere ka Gatsibo kwishyura V.CO Ltd 3.500.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza ikanasubizwa 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo yishyuye Avoka uyiburanira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [43] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zinyuranye zisabwa n’Akarere ka Gatsibo muri uru rubanza katazihabwa kuko ntacyo gatsindiye. [44] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza asabwa na V.CO Ltd muri uru rubanza yayahabwa kuko byagaragaye ko yatsinze urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ariko Akarere ka Gatsibo ntikanyurwa gakomeza urubanza, bituma nayo ikomeza kurukurikirana. Urukiko rurasanga ariko amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza V.CO Ltd isaba angana na 3.500.000 itayatangira ibimenyetso, bityo mu bushishozi bwarwo rukaba ruyigeneye angana na 300.000 Frw. [45] Urukiko rurasanga kandi amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa na V.CO Ltd afite ishingiro kuko yagombye gushaka Avoka uyiburanira, bityo kuba Akarere ka Gatsibo gatsindwa muri uru rubanza kakaba kagomba kuyishyura 500.000 Frw kuri uru rwego, agenwe mu bushishozi bwarwo. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [46] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe n’Akarere ka Gatsibo cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCOMA

Page 167

133 AKARERE KA GATSIBO v. V.CO LTD

00670/2020/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 26/05/2021, nta shingiro gifite; [47] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza

RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 26/05/2021, ihindutse gusa ku bijyanye n’ingano y’amafaranga y’imirimo y’inyongera Akarere ka Gatsibo kagomba kwishyura V.CO Ltd; [48] Rutegetse Akarere ka Gatsibo kwishyura V.CO Ltd 24.530.133 Frw; [49] Rutegetse Akarere ka Gatsibo guha V.CO Ltd amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 300.000 hamwe n’ay’igihembo cya Avoka angana na 500.000 Frw, yose hamwe akaba 800.000 Frw.

Page 168

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 169

135 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2022/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye Kazungu na Kalihangabo J.) 23 Kamena 2023] Amategeko arengera umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburenganzira ku gihangano – Umuntu ufite umwanya w’ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku cyahimbwe icyo aricyo cyose mu rwego rw'ubuvanganzo, rw'ubugeni n'ubumenyi cyangwa ku gihangano cy’iyumvambona ni umuntu wagihanže cyangwa abafatanyije kugihanga. Amategeko arengera umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburenganzira ku gihangano – Kuba umukinnyi (acteur) mu gihangano muntu mu nkuru mpimbano ntibimuhesha uburenganzira bwjumwanditsi wicyo gihangano kuko ibyo akora byose aba abiyoborwamo kandi ategekwa n'umutoza w'abakinnyi. Amategeko arengera umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburyozwe – Umuntu cyangwa sosiyete icuruza ibihangano muntu mu izina ryabo bwite no mu nyungu zabo bwite batabiherewe uburenganzira na nyiri bihangano barabiryozwa kuko birengerwa n’itegeko. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uwitwa Habyalimana Charles yareze MTN Rwandacell Ltd mu Rukiko rw'Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, avuga ko MTN yakoresheje mu bucuruzi bwayo buyibyarira inyungu ibihangano muntu bye (personnages fictifs) 135

Page 170

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kanyombya na Sekaganda, itabiherewe uburenganzira, ikaba yarahungabanyije uburenganzira bwe bw'umuhanzi kuri ibyo bihangano, kuko ari uburenganzira nyamuntu n'uburenganzira bw'umutungo, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko kuyitegeka kumuha indishyi zitandukanye. MTN yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cya Habyalimana Charles, ivuga ko nta bubasha afite bwo gutanga ikirego kuko certificate of registration igaragaza ko Société de production audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2a2m ariyo yahawe uburenganzira bwo kurengera ibyo bihangano Habyarimana avuga ko aribye. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego kitakiriwe kuko adafite ububasha. Habyalimana yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi, maze rwemeza ko afite ububasha bwo kuregera ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na sekaganda, bityo ko imikirize y'urubanza rwajuririwe iteshejwe agaciro, maze urubanza rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rwjUbucuruzi kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi. Urubanza rwoherejwe mu Rukiko rw'Ubucuruzi, sosiyete Yellow dot Rwanda Ltd, sosiyete Netsolutions Ltd, Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bagobokeshwa mu rubanza bisabwe na MTN. Urukiko rwemeje ko MTN yakoresheje abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda mu bucuruzi biyibyarira inyungu ibifitiye uburenganzira. Habyalimana yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, maze rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, ajurira nanone mu Rukiko rw'Ubujurire, urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa kabiri yatanze butari mu bubasha bwarwo. Nyuma yaho, Habyarimana yanditse asaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane avuga ko umuhanzi w'igihangano ari we ufite umwanya w'ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku

Page 171

137 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

burenganzira bw'umutungo ku gihangano cye kandi ko kugira ngo umuntu afatwe nka nyir'igihangano bihagije ko izina rye rigaragara ku gihangano mu buryo busanzwe bukoreshwa iyo nta kimenyetso kibivuguruza. MTN yisobanura ivuga ko filimi zakinywemo abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda zitandikishijwe ku mazina ya Habyarimana ahubwo zandikishijwe na Société de production Audio, Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2 à 2m yanditse kuri Marie Goretti Niragire, ku buryo ariyo igaragara kuri certificat, bityo ko ariyo ifite uburenganzira bw'umuhanzi kuri ibyo bihangano. Sosiyete Netsolutions Ltd nayo yiregura ivuga ko ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Habyalimana Charles ari nyir'ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda ntacyo akivugaho kuko amasezerano Netsolutions Ltd yagiranye na Niyitegeka Gratien arebana n'inzenya ze bwite, akaba ntaho ahuriye n'ibyo bihangano muntu. Niyitegeka Gratien avuga ko abisabwe na Habyalimana Charles yakinnye umuntu muhangano Sekaganda muri filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA, ko nta handi yakoresheje iryo zina usibye ko mu buzima busanzwe baramuhamagara akitaba, avuga kandi ko abona nta mpamvu yagombaga kuzanwa mu rubanza kuko amasezerano yagiranye na Netsolutions Ltd ntaho ahuriye n'umuntu muhangano Sekaganda. Kayitankore Ndjoli (Kanyombya) nawe aburana avuga ko atari umuntu muhangano wa Habyalimana Charles kuko batigeze bakorana amasezerano, kandi ko izina Kanyombya yakinnye kuva mu mwaka wa 2002 yitwa muri filimi ari we warihimbiye, bityo ko niba Habyalimana Charles yarandikishije iryo zina aryita igihangano cye yaba ari amakosa yakoze kuko yakabaye yaramusabye uburenganzira bwo gukoresha izina rye no kuryandikisha.

Page 172

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Habyarimana avuga kandi ko asaba ko MTN yategekwa kumuha indishyi zishingiye ku kuba yakoresheje ibihangano bye mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu, nta burenganzira yabitangiye, avuga kandi ko ibyo MTN ivuga ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda ataribyo byacurujwe ku rubuga rwayo, ahubwo ko hacurujwe inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien nta shingiro bifite. Habyarimana yerekana kandi ko MTN ikora ubucuruzi bw'amayinite (unités), internet n'ibindi, ku buryo iyo umuntu akeneye gucuruza content, yo imuha platform acururizaho, bakemeranya uburyo bazagabana inyungu, MTN ivuga nanone ko kugira ngo ibihangano bifatwe nk'aho bikoreshejwe nta burenganzira bitangiwe, bigomba kuba byarandikishijwe nk'umutungo bwite, kandi ko nta kimenyetso Habyalimana Charles agaragaza ko yandikishije ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda nk'umutungo we bwite, ko n'icyandikishijwe muri RDB ari filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA atari ibyo bihangano muntu. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Umuntu ufite umwanya w’ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku cyahimbwe icyo aricyo cyose mu rwego rw'ubuvanganzo, rw'ubugeni n'ubumenyi Cyangwa ku gihangano cy’iyumvambona ni umuntu wagihanže cyangwa abafatanyije kugihanga.

2. Kuba umukinnyi (acteur) mu gihangano muntu mu nkuru mpimbano ntibimuhesha uburenganzira bwjumwanditsi wicyo gihangano kuko ibyo akora byose aba abiyoborwamo kandi ategekwa n'umutoza w'abakinnyi.

Page 173

139 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

3. Umuntu cyangwa sosiyete icuruza ibihangano muntu mu izina ryabo bwite no nyungu zabo bwite batabiherewe uburenganzira na nyiri bihangano barabiryozwa kuko birengerwa n’itegeko. 4.Kwandikisha igihangano muntu muri RDB byonyine ntibihagije kugira ngo ukigireho uburenganzira nyamuntu mu gihe nta bimenyetso bigaragaza ko ari wowe wahanze ibyo bihangano. MTN yakoresheje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda bya Habyalimana Charles mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu nta burenganzira ibifitiye. Urubanza ruzakomeza hasuzumwa ikibazo kirebana n'indishyi ku munsi ababuranyi bazamenyeshwa n'ubwanditsi. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N 31/2009 ryo ku wa 26/10/2009 rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge, ingingo ya 195 niya 222. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y'URUBANZA [1] Habyalimana Charles yareze MTN Rwandacell Ltd Ciza kugenda yitwa MTN muri uru rubanza) mu rukiko rwahoze ari Urukiko rw'Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, isaba ko yategekwa kumuha indishyi zinyuranye zishingiye ku kuba yarakoresheje mu bucuruzi bwayo buyibyarira inyungu ibihangano muntu bye

Page 174

140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

(personnages fictifs) Kanyombya na Sekaganda, itabiherewe uburenganzira, muri uko kubacuruza ikaba yarahungabanyije uburenganzira bwe bw'umuhanzi kuri ibyo bihangano, ari uburenganzira nyamuntu n'uburenganzira bw'umutungo. [2] Yasobanuraga ko ibyo bihangano muntu bye Kanyombya na Sekaganda bigaragara mu gitabo cyitwa BIBLE 1 mu l'indi cyitwa SCENAR102 no muri filimi NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA ÂGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, ZIRARA ZISHYA yanditse akanayobora, ko MTN igendeye ku bwamamare bwabo yubatse icyo yise SERIVISI Y'URWENYA YA KANYOMBYA na SERIVISI YIKINAMICO Sekaganda, inabahindurira imisusire. [3] MTN yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cya Habyalimana Charles, ivuga ko nta bubasha afite bwo kugitanga kuko certificate of registration N16/09/RDB igaragaza ko Société de production audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2a2m ariyo yahawe uburenganzira bwo kurengera ibyo bihangano. Mu rubanza RCOM Nyarugenge rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Habyalimana Charles kitakiriwe kuko adafite ububasha bwo kugitanga.

1 Asobanura ko BIBLE ari agatabo gakubiyemo amazina y'abantu bahangano n'imiterere ya buri wese, icyo bapfana hagati yabo ku buryo umuntu nyamuntu ujya gukina wese aba yumva neza urnuntu muhangano watekerejwe uko ateye n'ah0 ahurira na bagenzi be, 2 Asobanura ko SCENARIO ari igitabo cyerekana amagambo buri mukinnyi agomba kuvuga n'uburyo agomba kuyavugamo, ibikorwa agomba gukora, uburyo abikora n'igihe abikorera, amarangamutima amuranga buri gihe cyose, ko aricyo gikubiyemo inkuru (intrigue) yose uko yakabaye nk'uko igomba kugaragazwa n'abakinnyi.

Page 175

141 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

[4] Habyalimana Charles yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi, maze mu rubanza

RCOMA 00055/2017/CHC/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 08/03/2018 rwemeza ko afite ububasha bwo kuregera ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na sekaganda bigaragara muri générique za filimi NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, ZIRARA ZISHYA byakoreshejwe mu bindi bikorwa nta burenganzira bitangiwe, ruvuga ko imikirize y'urubanza rwajuririwe iteshejwe agaciro, rutegeka ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rwjUbucuruzi kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi, runategeka MTN kumwishyura 800.000 Frw y'igihembo cya Avoka. [5] Urubanza rwoherejwe mu Rukiko rw'Ubucuruzi, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, Netsolutions Ltd, Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bagobokeshwa mu rubanza bisabwe na MTN. Mu rubanza RCOM 00731/2019/TC rwaciwe ku wa 04/10/2019, urwo rukiko rwemeje ko MTN, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd zakoresheje abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda mu bucuruzi bizibyarira inyungu zibifitiye uburenganzira, rutegeka Habyalimana Charles guha MTN 700.000 Frw y'igihembo cya Avoka. [6] Urwo rukiko rwafashe icyo cyemezo rusobanura ko: a. Muri générique ya filimi

ZIRARA

ZISHYA hagaragaramo umuntu muhangano witwa Sekaganda ufite amazina nyakuri ya Niyitegeka Gratien, muri iyo filimi hamwe no muri filimi HARANIRA KUBAHO na

NTAWE

UMENYA

IYO

BWIRA

AGEZE hagaragaramo umuntu muhangano witwa Kanyombya usanzwe witwa Kayitankore Ndjoli. Ibyo ni ibimenyetso bihamya ko Kayitankore Ndjoli na

Page 176

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Niyitegeka Gratien bafatanyije na Habyalimana Charles guhanga abantu bahangano bavuzwe no guhanga filimi bakinnyemo abo bantu bahangano, bakaba bafite uburenganzira bungana n'ubwa Habyalimana Charles kuri abo bantu bahangano bakinnye muri filimi zavuzwe; b. Nubwo Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien baba bari bafitanye amasezerano y'umurimo na Habyalimana Charles mu gihe bakinaga filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA,

HARANIRA

RUBAHO bitwa Kanyombya na Sekaganda, ntibibambura uburenganzira ku bantu bahangano bakinnye bitwa, keretse amasezerano bagiranye na Habyalimana Charles ababuza ku buryo bweruye gukoresha ayo mazina y'abantu bahangano; c. Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bari bafite uburenganzira bwo gukora amasezerano agurisha ibihangano byabo by'urwenya bahimbye mu mazina y'ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda kuko bagurishaga umutungo wabo bwite. d. Nta kosa MTN, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd zakoze zicuruza inzenya zitiriwe abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda kuko bari babiherewe uburenganzira na Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bafatanyije na Habyalimana Charles kubahanga. [7] Habyalimana Charles yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi. Mu rubanza RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 15/01/2021j Urukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, rumutegeka guha MTN 1.000.000 Frw igihembo cya Avoka na 700.000 Frw y'ikurikiranarubanza.

Page 177

143 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

[8] Urwo rukiko rwasobanuye ko Habyalimana Charles yivugira ko ntacyo arega Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien kandi ko nta kibazo afite ku masezerano bagiranye na Yellowdots Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd kuko yerekeranye n'inzenya zabo bwitej alcaba adahakana ibyavuzwe na Kayitankore Ndjoli ko izina Kanyombya ariwe waryihimbiye aryita character yakinnye muri filimi NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, ZIRARA ZISHYA bakoranye, bityo rero ko ntaho rwahera rwemeza ko icyo yise ibihangano muntu bye bya Kanyombya na Sekaganda (characters) byagaragaye muri izo filimi ari nabyo bicishwa ku rubuga rwa M TN ku buryo hasuzumwa niba MTN, Yellowdots Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd zarabiherewe uruhushya na ba nyirabyo. [9] Habyalimana Charles yajuririye Urukiko rw'Ubujurire, urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa kabiri yatanze butari mu bubasha bwarwo. Ku wa 18/11/2021, Me Bundogo Innocent, mu izina rya Habyalimana Charles yandikiye Perezida w'Urukik0 rw'Ubujurire, asaba ko urubanza RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rwjUbucuruzi ku wa 15/01/2021 rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane, navve amaze kubisuzuma yandikira Perezida w'Urukiko rw'lkirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'lkirenga amaze gusuzuma raporo yashyikirijwe, yemeje ko urubanza rwavuzwe rwongera kuburanishwa, rushyirwa kuri gahunda y'iburanisha yo ku wa 18/01/2023 mu Rukiko rw'lkirenga. [10] Kuri iyi tariki Urukiko rwahamagaye urubanza rusanga hitabye Habyalimana Charles yunganiwe na Me Bundogo Innocent, MTN ihagarariwe na Me Kabera Jean Claude afatanyije na Me Bizimana Emmanuel, Netsolutions Ltd

Page 178

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ihagarariwe na Me Semadwinga Claude, Niyitegeka Gratien ahagarariwe na Me Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, Kayitankore Ndjoli yitabye ariko adafite Avoka naho Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd ititabye ariko yarahamagawe ahatazwi. Urukiko rushingiye ko Kayitankore Ndjoli nta Avoka afite kandi bitemewe ko umuburanyi aburana imbere y'Urukiko rw'lkirenga atamufite, rwasubitse iburanisha kugira ngo ahabwe igihe cyo kumushaka, runategeka ko mu iburanisha rizakurikiraho Niyitegeka Gratien nawe azitaba ubwe. [11] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 17/04/2023) Habyalimana Charles yunganiwe na Me Bundogo Innocent, MTN ihagarariwe na Me Kabera Jean Claude afatanyije na Me Bizimana Emmanuel, Netsolutions Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Semadwinga Claude, Niyitegeka Gratien yunganiwe na Me Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, Kayitankore Ndjoli yunganiwe na Me Nshimiyimana Moubaraka naho Yellow dot Rwanda Ltd ititabye ariko yarahamagawe ahatazwi. [12] Urukiko rwahereye ku nzitizi yatanzwe na Me Semadwinga Claude, mu izina rya Netsolutions Ltd, avuga ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n'ingingo ya 55 y'ltegeko N 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bwinkiko, ikirego cya Habyalimana Charles kitagombaga kwakirwa kuko nta karengane agaragaza mu kirego cye, rumenyesha ababuranyi ko atari ngombwa kuyisuzuma kuko kidashingiye ku mpamvu ndemyagihugu kandi, nk'uko byafashweho umurongo mu manza zinyuranye3, iyo Perezida w'Urukiko rw'lkirenga yemeje 1<0

3 Urubanza Nº RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC hagati ya Busoro Gervais na Busoro Mugunga Desire n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/06/2019, igika cya 18 n’urubanza Nº RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC

Page 179

145 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa, ruburanishwa mu mizi nta zindi nzitizi zitanzwe zatuma urubanza rutaburanishwa mu mizi uretse inzitizi ndemyagihugu. [13] Nyuma yo gufata icyo cyemezo, urubanza rwakomeje iburanisha mu mizi, Ibibazo byaburanyweho ni ibi bikurikira: a. Kumenya nyir'uburenganzira burengerwa ku bihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda b. Kumenya niba MTN yaracuruje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda nta burenganzira bitangiwe. c. Ku bijyanye n'indishyi zisabwa na Habyalimana Charles zishingiye ku byo avuga ko MTN yacuruje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda ibahinduriye imisusire kandi nta burenganzira bitangiwe, ndetse n'indishyi zisabwa kuri uru rwego, Urukiko rwamenyesheje ababuranyi ko hazabanza gufatwa icyemezo ku bibazo bibiri bimaze kuvugwa.

11. ISESENGURA RY'IBIBAZO ¥1GIZE

URUBANZA a. Kumenya nyir'uburenganzira burengerwa n'itegeko ku bihangano muntu kanyombya na sekaganda [14] Habyalimana Charles na Me Bundogo Innocent umwunganira bavuga ko mu rubanza RCOMA 00876/2019/1- lcc, Urukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko imikirize ÿ'urubanza rwari rwajuririwe idahindutse, rwirengagije ko urwo

hagati ya Semapondo Charles na Rwasimpenzi Wellars n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021.

Page 180

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rukiko rwivuguruje, aho rwavuze ko nyuma yo gusuzuma générique za filimi ZIRÂRA ZISHYA, HARANIRA KUBAHO na NTAWE UMENYA IYO BWIRA AGEZE zigaragaramo ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, rwasanze umwanditsi n'umuyobozi wazo ari Habyalimana Charles naho Kayitankore Ndjori na Niyitegeka Gratien ari abakinnyi, ariko rukanzura ko bafatanyije guhanga, nyamara umukinnyi adashobora kwitwa umuhanzi kuko ingingo ya 227 y'ltegeko no 31/2009 ryo ku wa 26/10/2009 rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge ivuga ko abafite uburenganzira bw'ubuhanzi ari abafatanyije guhanga nk'uwayoboye imirimo, umutoza, umwanditsi w'umukino, cyangwa umuhimbyi wa m uzika. [15] Bavuga ko umuhanzi w'igihangano ari we ufite umwanya w'ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku gihangano cye kandi ko kugira ngo umuntu afatwe nka nyir'igihangano bihagije ko izina rye rigaragara ku gihangano mu buryo busanzwe bukoreshwa iyo nta kimenyetso kibivuguruza, ibi bakaba babishingira ku ngingo za 222 na 223 z’ltegeko ryavuzwe rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge. [16] Basobanura ko mu ikorwa ry'igihangano cy'iyumvabona nka filimi, habamo imyuga myinshi, ko abahanga mu mwuga wo gukora filimi bagaragaza imyuga y'ingenzi 57 igizwe n'imyuga ÿ'abahanzi bahanga (conception) n'imyuga y'abakozi bakora ibyo bategetswe (execution), bashyira mu bikorwa ibyatekerejwe n'abahanzi, umwanditsi akaba ari mu bahanga, naho umukinnyi ari mu bashyira mu bikorwa. [17] Bavuga ko umuntu muhangano ahangwa mbere y'uko filimi ubwayo ikorwa, agahangwa n'umwanditsi wa filimi witwa

Page 181

147 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

scénariste wabanje gukora BIBLE ikubiyemo imisusire n'imiterere y'abantu bahangano akabishyira mu gitabo cyitwa SCENARIO ari nacyo gikurikizwa mu gihe cyo gukora filimiy ko rero umukinnyi akina umuntu muhangano wahanzwe mbere, akamukina yubahiriza amabwiriza ahabwa njumuyobozi w'umukino, icyo gikorwa cyo gukina akagihemberwa bikarangirira aho nta bundi burenganzira ku gihangano ategereje. [18] Batanga urugero rw'umuntu muhangano uzwi ku isi yose witwa JAMES BOND, bakavuga ko yahanzwe na IAN FLEMING muri 1953, ariko ko filimi ya mbere ya JAMES BOND yakozwe muri 1962 nyuma y'imyaka icyenda, ko kugeza muri 2019 hari hamaze gukinwa kuri JAMES BOND filimi zigeze kuri 25, amaze gukinwan'abantu bagera ku 9 batandukanye. Bavuga ko igihangano muntu JAMES BOND ari icya IAN Fleming n'abamukomokaho igihe cyose kitaraba umutungo wa rubanda, ko umukinnyi we aza agakina akagenda hakazaza undi. [19] Batanga n'urugero rw'umuntu muhangano ukundwa n'abana wit-wa SPIDER MAN wahanzwe na STAN LEE na STEVE DITKO, ubu nawe umaze gukinwa n i abantu barenga 8, umwe akaza agakina akagenda, undi akaza, igihangano muntu cyo kigakomeza kuba icy'abo bahanzi (co-auteurs) igihe cyose bakiriho, ndetse n'abazungura babo, kugeza kigiye mu mutungo wa rubanda. [20] Me Kabera Jean Claude na Me Bizimana Emmanuel bahagarariye MTN bavuga ko filimi zakinywemo abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda zandikishijwe na Société de production Audio, Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2 à 2m yanditse kuri Marie Goretti Niragire, ku buryo ariyo igaragara

Page 182

148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuri certificat, bityo ko ariyo ifite uburenganzira bw'umuhanzi kuri ibyo bihangano. [21] Me Semadwinga Claude uhagarariye Netsolutions Ltd avuga ko ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Habyalimana Charles ari nyir'ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda ntacyo akivugaho kuko amasezerano Netsolutions Ltd yagiranye na Niyitegeka Gratien arebana n'inzenya ze bwite, akaba ntaho ahuriye n'ibyo bihangano muntu. [22] Niyitegeka Gratien avuga ko abisabwe na Habyalimana Charles yakinnye umuntu muhangano Sekaganda muri filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA, ko nta handi yakoresheje iryo zina usibye ko mu buzima busanzwe barimuhamagara akitaba. Me Uwamahoro Marie Grâce umwunganira nawe avuga ko nta mpamvu Niyitegeka Gratien yagombaga kuzanwa mu rubanza kuko amasezerano yagiranye na Netsolutions Ltd ntaho ahuriye n'umuntu muhangano Sekaganda. [23] Kayitankore Ndjoli avuga ko atari umuntu muhangano wa Habyalimana Charles, ko izina Kanyombya yakinnye yitwa muri filimi za Habyalimana Charles ari we warihimbiye, ko niba Habyalimana Charles yarandikishije iryo zina aryita igihangano cye yaba ari amakosa yakoze kuko yakabaye yaramusabye uburenganzira bwo gukoresha izina rye no kuryandikisha. Ku kibazo yabajijwe cyo kumenya igihe yatangiriye gukoresha izina Kanyombya, yasubije ko ari uguhera muri 2002 akorana na Habyalimana Charles. Me Nshimiyimana Moubaraka umwunganira nawe avuga ko Kayitankore Ndjoli atigeze agirana amasezerano na Habyalimana Charles ko azaba umuhangano muntu we, ku buryo ÿaba yarishe amasezerano bagiranye.

Page 183

149 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [24] Itegeko N 31/2009 ryo ku wa 26/10/2009 rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge, rigena, mu ngingo yaryo ya 195, agace ka mbere, ko ibihangano by'umwimerere mu buvanganzo, mu bugeni no mu bumenyi bifite uburenganzira bwo kurengerwa n'iryo tegeko, rikagaragaza bimwe mu bihangano by'ubwenge by'umwimerere mu rwego rw'ubuvanganzo, ubugeni n'ubumenyi birengerwa naryo. Muri byo havugwamo ibihangano bikozwe mu nyandiko (ibitabo, udutabo n'izindi nyandiko) n'ibihangano by'iyumvabona. [25] Iryo tegeko rigena kandi, mu ngingo yaryo ya 222, ko umuhanzi w'igihangano ari we ufite umwanya w'ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku gihangano cye, naho mu ngingo yaryo ya 227 rikagena ko abafite umwanya w'ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku gihangano cy'iyumvabona ari abafatanyije guhanga icyo gihangano nk'uwayoboye imirimo, umutoza, umwanditsi w'umukino, cyangwa urnuhimbyi wa muzika. [26] Itegeko ryavuzwe rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge ritanga ibisobanuro by'amagambo yerekeye uburenganzira bw'umuhanzi mu ngingo yaryo ya 6. Bivugwamo ko: - Umuhanzi ari umuntu wahanze igihangano(mu gace ka 2); - Igihangano ari icyahimbwe icyo aricyo cyose mu rwego rw'ubuvanganzo, rw'ubugeni cyangwa ubumenyi (mu gace ka 17);

Page 184

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Igihangano cy'iyumvambona ari igihangano kigizwe n'uruhererekane rw'amashusho yegeranyijwe agasa nk'aho ayega, giherekejwe cyangwa kidaherekejwe n'amajwi, kandi igihe giherekejwe n'amajwi kikaba gishobora kumvwa (mu gace ka 19); - Igihangano cy'ubufatanye ari igihangano cyahanzwe ku bufatahyè bw'abahanzi babiri cyangwa benshi ( mu gace ka 22). [27] Ingingo z’itegeko zivuzwe haruguru zumvikanisha neza ko ufite umwanya w’ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku cyahimbwe icyo aricyo cyose mu rwego rw'ubuvanganzo, rw'ubugeni n'ubumenyi Cyangwa ku gihangano cy’iyumvambona ari umuntu wagihanže cyangwa abafatanyije kugihanga. [28] Ku birebana n'ibisabwa kugira ngo igihangano cy'ubwenge cyjumwimerere kirengerwe, ingingo ya 197 y'itegeko rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge igira iti: kurengera igihangano cy'ubwenge cy'umwimerere biteganywa n'iri tegeko ntibibanza gusabirwa uruhushya mu buyobozi. Icyakora, iyo ibyo bibayeho, abahanze ibihangano birengerwa h liri tegeko bashobora kwandikisha ibihangano byabo mu buyobozi bubifitiye ububasha (igika cya mbere), ndetse ko kurengera bitangira gukorwa kuva igihangano gihimbwa, n'iyo cyaba kitarashyizwe ku gikoresho gifatika, Igihangano cyitwa ko cyahimbwe, n'iyo cyaba kitarashyirwa ahagaragara, igihe cyatangiye gutunganywa n'iyo cyaba kitararangira n'igihe umuhanzi akigitekerezaho (igika cya kabiri). Ibivuzwe muri ibi bika bibiri byumvikanisha neza ko igihangano kirindwa n'iyo cyaba kitarandikishijwe, ndetse n'iyo kigikorwa.

Page 185

151 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

[29] Ku birebana n'ibimenyetso bigaragaza nyir'uburenganzira bw'umuhanzi ku gihangano ( titulaire des droits ďauteur), ingingo ya 223 y'iryo tegeko, mu gice cyayo cya mbere, igira iti: kugira ngo umuhanzi w'igihangano afatwe nka nyir'igihangano, iyo nta kimenyetso kibivuguruza, kandi ashobore kuba afite uburenganzira bwo kuregera indishyi zijyanye no guhungabanya uburenganzira bw'umuhanzi, birahagije ko izina rye rigaragara ku gihangano mu buryo busanzwe bukoreshwa. [30] Ku birebana n'uru rubanza, mu bimenyetso Habyalimana Charles yatanze agaragaza ko ari we nyirjuburenganzira ku bantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda, harimo: - BIBLES zikubiyemo amazina y'abakinyi muri filimi

NTAWE

UMENYA

AHO

BWIRA AGEZEi HARANIRA KUBAHO na ZIRARA ZISHYA. Muri BIBLE ya filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA hagaragaramo umuntu muhangano witwa Sekaganda; muri BIBLE y'iyo filimi hamwe no muri

BIBLE za filimiHARANIRA KUBAHO na NTAWE UMENYA

IYO

BWIRA

AGEZE hagaragaramoumuntu muhangano witwa Kanyombya; - Incamake ya filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA ivugwamo ko iyo filimi ari saison ya gatatu y'inkuru yatangiranye na NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE ariyo saison ya mbere na HARANIRA KUBAHO ariyo saison ya kabiri, nayo ivugwamo ko umwanditsi w'umukino ari Habyarimana Charles; - Générique zisoza n'izibanza za filimi NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO na ZIRARA ZISHYA, zivugwamo ko uwanditse akanayobora imikino ari Habyalimana

Page 186

152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Charles, ko Kayitankore Ndjoli yakinnye yitwa Kanyombya. Bivugwamo kandi muri Générique ya filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA ko Niyitegeka Gratien yakinnye yitwa Sekaganda. [31] Urukiko rurasanga kuba muri générique zibanza n'izisoza za filimi NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO na ZIRARA ZISHYA uko ari eshatu bivugwamo ko Habyalimana Charles ari umwanditsi wazo, bihagije ubwabyo kugaragaza ko ari we wenyine wahanze abantu bahangano biswe KANYOMBYA na Sekaganda bavugwa muri izo filimi kuko nta kimenyetso cyatanzwe kibivuguruza, hakaba nta yandi mazina y'uwanditse ziriya filimi agaragaramo ngo bibe byakwitwa ko hari uwo bafatanyije. [32] Urukiko rurasanga, usibye ibivugwa muri générique za filimi zavuzwe k'uwazanditse akanaziyobora, inyandiko zigizwe na bible za filimi NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO na ZIRARA ZISHYA, incamake ya filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA, zishyirwa nazo ku rutonde rw' ibihangano birengerwa n'itegeko rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge, hashingiye ku bivugwa mu ngingo yaryo ya 195 yavuzwe haruguru, zishimangira ko Habyalimana Charles ariwe wahanze filimi abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda bavugwamo. [33] Urukiko rurasanga kandi kuba bivugwa muri générique y'izo filimi ko Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien ari abakinnyi, bihagije nabyo kugaragaza ko nta ruhare bagize mu ihangwa ry'abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda bakinnye bitwa, kuko, kuba umuntu yarakinnye igihangano muntu mu nkuru mpimbano bitamuhesha uburenganzira

Page 187

153 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

bwjumwanditsi. Ibi bikaba byumvikana kuko ibyo bakora byose baba babiyoborwamo kandi bategekwa n'umutoza w'abakinnyi. [34] Ku bijyanye n'ibyo M TN iburanisha ko Société de production Audio, Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2 ů 2m ariyo ifite uburenganzira bw'umuhanzi ku bihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda kuko ariyo yandikishije muri RDB filimi bagaragaramo, Urukiko rurasanga nta shingiro bifite kuko ibimenyetso byatanzwe bigizwe na générique, bible n'incamake bigaragaza ko uwahanze ibyo bihangano ari Habyalimana Charles, ingingo za 222 na 227 zavuzwe haruguru z'itegeko rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge zikaba ziteganya ko abahanzi cyangwa afatanyije guhanga igihangano aribo bafite umwanya w'ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku gihangano cyjiyumvabona. [35] Ku bijyanye n'ibyo Kayitankore Ndjoli avuga ko izina Kanyombya ari iryo yihimbye Urukiko rurasanga bitafatwaho ukuri kuko nawe ubwe yemera ko yatangiye kurikoresha guhera muri 2002 akorana na Habyalimana Charles, bikaba bigaragara muri générique za filimi N TAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO na ZIRARA ZISHYA ko nta rundi ruhare yazigizemo uretse kuba yarazikinnyemo. [36] Hashingiwe ku itegeko no ku bimenyetso byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Habyalimana Charles ariwe nyir'uburenganzira burengerwa n'itegeko ku bihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda.

Page 188

154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

b. Kumenya mba mtn yarakoresheje ibihangano muntu kanyombya na sekaganda mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu nta burenganzira bitangiwe [37] Habyalimana Charles na Me Bundogo Innocent umwunganira bavuga ko Urukiko rw'Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko MTN i Yellow dot Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd zacuruje inzenya zitiriwe ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda babiherewe uburenganzira na ba nyirabyo Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien kuko bafatanyije na Habyalimana Charles guhanga abo bantu bahangano no guhanga filimi bakinnyemo abo bantu bahangano, ko Urukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi narwo, aho gukosora icyo cyemezo, rwavuze ko nta bimenyetso byatanzwe bigaragaza ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda aribyo bicishwa ku rubuga rwa MTN ku buryo hasuzumwa niba yarabiherewe uruhushya na nyirabyo, rwirengagije ibimenyetso bashyize muri dosiye bigaragaza ko MTN, igendeye ku bwamamare bwjibyo bihangano muntu, yubatse icyo yise SERIVISI Y'URWENYA YA Kanyombya n'icyo yise SERIVISI Y'IKINAMICO SEKAGANDA. [38] Bavuga kandi ko MTN yazanye mu rubanza Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd na Netsolütions Ltd byagiranye amasezerano kugira ngo byitwe ko yakoze ibyo yari ifitiye uruhushya, ivuga ko ibyo bigo byabaga byahawe uburenganzira na Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien hakurikijwe amasezerano bagiranye, nyamara nta na hamwe ayo masezerano atanga uburenganzira bwo gukoresha ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, ari nayo mpamvu ntacyo abarega kimwe n'ibigo byavuzwe, akaba ahubwo arega MTN kuko bigaragara ko yacuruje inzenya/content zabo yifashishije ubwamamare bw'ibyo bihangano muntu KANYOMBYA na SEKAGANDA, ibi akaba aribyo bita

Page 189

155 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

character merchandising, bivuga gukoresha umuntu hagendewe ku bwamamare bwe kugira ngo abamukunda bitabire igicuruzwa. [39] Bavuga ko nta wundi wari guha MTN uburenganzira bwo gucuruza ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda uretse Habyalimana Charles ubwe nk'umuhanzi wjibyo bihangano, kuba MTN yarabikoresheje mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu, nta burenganzira yabitangiye, ndetse yaranabihinduriye isura, akaba ariyo mpamvu asaba ko yategekwa kubitangira indishyi. [40] Me Kabera Jean Claude na Me Bizimana Emmanuel bahagarariye MTN bavuga ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda ataribyo byacurujwe ku rubuga rwayo, ahubwo ko hacurujwe inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien. [41] Bavuga kandi ko MTN ikora ubucuruzi bw'amayinite (unités), internet n'ibindi, ku buryo iyo umuntu akeneye gucuruza content, yo imuha platform acururizaho, bakemeranya uburyo bazagabana inyungu, ko ari muri urwo rwego MTN yagiranye amasezerano n'ibigo Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd. [42] Bakomeza bavuga ko serivisi zacaga ku rubuga rwa MTN atari izayo, ko ibigo Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd aribyo byishakiye ababiha inzenya biyizeza ko bizifiteho uburenganzira busesuye kuko byazihawe na ba nyirazo, ko rero ibyo Habyalimana Charles avuga ko hakoreshejwe ibihangano bye Kanyombya na Sekaganda atari MTN yabiryozwa kuko nta masezerano yagiranye na Niyitegeka Gratien cyangwa Kayitankore Ndjoli ku buryo yaba yari ifite inshingano zo kugenzura uburenganzira bafite ku nzenya bahaye Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd hakurikijwe amasezerano bakoranye.

Page 190

156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[43] Bavuga nanone ko kugira ngo ibihangano bifatwe nk'aho bikoreshejwe nta burenganzira bitangiwe, bigomba kuba byarandikishijwe nk'umutungo bwite, ko nta kimenyetso Habyalimana Charles agaragaza ko yandikishije ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda nk'umutungo we bwite, ko n'icyandikishijwe muri RDB ari filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA atari ibyo bihangano muntu. [44] Me Semadwinga Claude uhagarariye Netsolutions Ltd avuga ko nta masezerano yihariye Netsolutions Ltd yakoranye na MTN ku bireba icuruzwa ry'inzenya kubera ko yari isanzwe iyiha platform yo gucuruza products zayo, ko MTN yabahaye urubuga ariko ko ibyo bashyizemo ari ibyo abahanzi babahaye birebana n'ibihangano byabo bwite, ko n'amasezerano yagiranye na Niyitegeka Gratien arebana nj inzenya ze bwite, akaba ntaho ahuriye n'igihangano muntu Sekaganda [45] Niyitegeka Gratien nawe avuga ko ibihangano yagurishije ari ibyo yahanze ku giti cye, ko nta masezerano yasinye aha Netsolutions Ltd n'undi uwo ariwe wese uburenganzira bwo gukoresha izina Sekaganda mu bikorwa byamamaza ibihangano bye bwite, cyane cyane ko nk'umuhanzi aba akeneye ko ibikorwa bye byamamara mu izina rye. [46] Ku bijyanye no kuba mu masezerano yagiranye na Netsolutions Ltd amazina ye barayakurikije amagambo A.K.A Sekaganda, avuga ko ari imyandikire ariko ko bitavuze ko inzenya yakinnye zari kwitwa iza Sekaganda. Me Uwamahoro Grace umwunganira nawe avuga ko nta bimenyetso MTN itanga bigaragaza ko Niyitegeka Gratien yatanze uburenganzira bwo kwamamaza inzenya ze hakoreshejwe izina rya Sekaganda.

Page 191

157 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

[47] Me Nshimiyimana Moubaraka wunganira Kayitankore Ndjoli avuga ko amasezerano uyu afitanye na Yellowdot Ltd ntaho ahuriye n'ibihangano biregerwa kuko inzenya ze arizo yatanze hakurikijwe amasezerano yakoranye na Yellowdot Ltd, kandi ko muri izo nzenya atigeze akoreshamo izina Kanyombya.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [48] Kugira ngo Urukiko rusuzume ikibazo cyo kumenya niba MTN yarakoresheje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu nta burenganzira bitangiwe, ni ngombwa kubanza gusuzuma ibibazo bikurikira: - Kumenya niba ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda byaracurujwe ku rubuga rwa MTN n'uruhare yaba yarabigizemo. - Niba MTN yaracuruje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, kumenya niba yaragombaga kubiherwa uburenganzira na Habyalimana Charles. a) Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda byaracurujwe ku rubuga rwa MTN n'uruhare yaba yarabigizemo [49] Mu gusuzuma niba ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda byaracurujwe ku rubuga rwa MTN nk'uko Habyalimana Charles abivuga, cyangwa niba ibyacurujwe ku rubuga rwayo ari inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien nk'uko MTN ibivuga, nta handi Urukiko rwahera usibye ku bimenyetso biri muri dosiye.

Page 192

158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[50] Ingingo ya 12 y'ltegeko N22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y'imanza z'imbonezamubano, iz'ubucuruzi, iz'umurimo jiz'ubutegetsi iteganya, mu gika cyayo cya mbere, ko urega agomba kugaragaza n ibimenyetso by'ibyo aregera. lyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda. Ingingo ya 3 y'ltegeko N15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n'itangwa ryabyo nayo iteganya, mu gika cyayo cya mbere, ko buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw'ibyo aburana. [51] Muri dosiye yjuru rubanza, harimo ibimenyetso bikurikira: - a.Ubutumwa bugufi bushishikariza abafatabuguzi ba MTN kugana Serivisi y'urwenya ya Kanyombya bahamagaye kuri 765 na enregistrement ÿumvisha ko iyo bahamagaraga kuri iyo nomero bababwiraga ngo kumva urwenya rw'uyu munsi kanda 1. Kujya muri kontiyanyu kanda 2. Kurnva urwenya rw'inkirigito kanda 3; Mukiriya mwiza mwahisemo urwenya rw'umunota, kwiyandikisha mu ifatabuguzi ry'ukwezi ku mafaranga 400 kanda 1, ifatabuguzi ry'icyumweru ku mafaranga 100 kanda 2, bakubahiriza ayo mabwiriza bakabaha ibyo MTN yise URWENYA RWA KAÑŸOMBYA. - b.Ubutumwa bugufi bushishikariza abafatabuguzi ba MTN kugana

SERIVISI Y'URWENYA YA Sekaganda buteye butya: Sekaganda! Hamagara 1757 wumve urwenya, ndetse na enregistrement yumvisha ko iyo bakurikizaga amabwiriza bababwiraga ngo Ikaze na none muri serivisi y'ikinamico. Kumva Sekaganda kanda 1. Kumva

Page 193

159 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

SEBURIKOKO kanda 2, kumva UMUTWARE kanda 3; hano mushobora kumva ikinamico zitandukanye harimo iz' urukundo, izisekeje ndetse n'izindi nyinshi. Iyandikishe muri serivisiy'icyumweruy'ikinamico wumve Sekaganda, UMUTWARE na ku buntu mu minota 20 ya mbere. Kubyemeza kanda 1 ku mafqranga 15 iminota 5. [52] Urukiko rurasanga kuba abafatabuguzi ba MTN barohererezwaga ubutumwa bubashishikariza guhamagara kuri nomero 765 babwirwa ko bagiye kumva inzenya za Kanyombya, bayihamagara bagasangamo ahubwo inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli, no kuba barohererezwaga ubutumwa bubashishikariza guhamagara kuri nomero 1757 babwirwa ko bagiye kumva inzenya za Sekaganda, bayihamagara bagasangamo ahubwo inzenya za Niyitegeka Gratien, bigaragaza ubwabyo ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda byifashishijwe mu kwamamaza/gucuruza inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien. [53] Byongeye kandi, kuba Kayitankore Ndjoli ari nawe wakinnye muri filimi Haranira KUBAHO, NTAWE UMENYA IYO BWIRA AGEZE, ZIRARA ZISHYA yitwa Kanyombya na Niyitegeka Gratien akaba yarakinnye muri filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA yitwa Sekaganda Urukiko rurasanga igikorwa cyo guhuza ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda n'inzenya z'abakinnye ibyo bihangano muntu, bigaragaza ko icyari kigenderewe ari ukwifashisha ubwamamare bw'abo bantu kugira ngo ababakunda bitabire kugura inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bahamagara kuri nomero za telefone zari zagenewe icyo gikorwa, bikaba byumvikanisha ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda byacurujwe ku rubuga rwa

Page 194

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

MTN, Urukiko rukaba rero rusanga ibyo ivuga ko hacurujwe gusa inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien nta shingiro bifite. [54] -Ku bijyanye no kumenya uruhare rwa MTN muri icyo gikorwa, hasuzumwa nanone ibimenyetso bitandukanye byashyizwe muri dosiye. Usibye ubutumwa bwavuzwe haruguru ku gika cya 50 cy'uru rubanza, harimo; - Ubutumwa bugufi bwohererejwe abafatabuguzi ba MTN bugira buti:  Yello, Ifatabuguzi ryanyu rya Kanyornbya 1 min daily ryakunze, Muhawe iminsi itatu mukoresha serivisi ku buntu, Hamagara 765 uryoherwe n 'u rwenya;  Y'ello, Ifatabuguzi ryawe rya Kanyombya I min ya buri munsi ntiryavuguruwe kuko nta mafaranga ahagije mufitemo. Mwongeremo amafaranga;  Yello. Ifatabuguzi ryawe rya serivisi ya Kanyombya 1 min rycz buri munsi ryahagaritswe, Wakongera gufata ifatabuguzi wohereza stop 1 kuri 765 Ubutumwa bugufi bwohererejwe abafatabuguzi ba MT N mu gihe bayibajije amafaranga asigaye ku makarita yabo, ibagaragariza amafaranga basigajemo, hagakurikiraho amagambo akurikira: Sekaganda! Harnagara 1757 wumve urwenya.

Page 195

161 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

- Amasezerano MTN yagiranye na Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd ku wa 26/04/2016 avugwamo ko ari ayo gucuruza amakuru y'imikino. - Amasezerano MTN yagiranye na Netsolutions Ltd ku wa 27/08/2014 avugwamo ibijyanye n'imikoranire yabo. - Amasezerano Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd yagiranye na Kayitankore Ndjoli ku wa 09/05/2016 n'ayo Netsolutions Ltd yagiranye na Niyitegeka Gratien ku wa 28/07 /2016 avuga ko bazajya bayiha audio content. [55] Urukiko rurasanga iyo hasuzumwe amasezerano MTN yagiranye na Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd na Netsolutions Ltd, ndetse n'ayo ibi bigo byagiranye na Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bose bagobokeshejwe mu rubanza na MTN, ntahavugwamo imikoreshereze y'ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, ibi bikaba bihura n'ibyo Niyitegeka Gratien na Kayitankore Ndjoli bavuga ko bagurishije ibihangano byabo mu mazina yabo bwite kandi ko ntaho bakoreshejemo amazina Kanyombya na Sekaganda. [56] Urukiko rurasanga n'iyo hasuzumwe ubutumwa bwohererezwaga abafatabuguzi ba MTN, ntaho bigaragara ko bwatanzwe na Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd cyangwa Netsolutions Ltd kuko ntaho bugaragaramo amazina y'ibyo bigo, ku buryo hakwemezwa ko aribyo byongeyemo amagambo ahuza inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien n'ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, ahubwo bigaragara ko butanzwe na MTN mu mazina yayo ubwayo. [57] Urukiko rurasanga ubwo butumwa bugaragaza kandi ko ibikorwa byose by'ubucuruzi byakorwaga na MTN mu izina

Page 196

162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ryayo yonyine kuko ariyo yamamazaga icuruzwa ry'ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, niyo yagiranaga amasezerano n'umufatabuguzi wayo, niyo yasesaga amasezerano iyo umufatabuguzi nta mafaranga yabaga afite ku ikarita ya MTN, niyo kandi yakiraga ubwishyu bwose buvuye muri ubwo bucuruzi. [58] Hashingiwe rero ku bimenyetso byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga MTN yaracuruje mu izina ryayo bwite no mu nyungu zayo bwite ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda bya Habyalimana Charles, ibyifashishije mu kwamamaza inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien. b) Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba nta burenganzira MTN yari ifite bwo gucuruza ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda itabiherewe uburenganzira na Habyalimana Charles [59] Ingingo ya 228 y'ltegeko N 31/2009 ryo ku wa 26/10/2009 rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu byjubwenge igira iti: uburenganzira nyamuntu ntibwegurirwa undi nyirabwo akiriho, butangwa gusa biciye mu nzira y'umurage cyangwa hashingiwe ku itegeko rigenga izungura. [60] Ingingo ya 229 y'iryo tegeko nayo igira iti: uburenganzira ku mutungo w'igihangano ni umutungo wimukanwa, kandi bushobora kwegurirwa abakiriho biciye mu buryo bw'umurage cyangwa hashingiwe ku itegekö rigenga izungura. Mu gihe cyose ubwo burenganzira bukirengerwa, nyir'uburenganzira bw'umuhanzi ku gihangano ashobora kubwegurira urnuntu Uwo ariwe wese ku giti cye cyangwa ishyirahamwe, 111< 0 bwakabaye cyangwa igice cyabwo biciye mu masezerano (igika Cya mbere). Amasezerano agira agaciro gusa iyo akozwe mu

Page 197

163 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

nyandiko kandi agashyirwaho umukono n'impande zose zayagiranye ( igika cya kabiri). [61] Ibivuzwe muri izi ngingo bigomba kureberwa hamwe n'ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 199, igika cya 2, y'iryo tegeko iteganya ko n'iyo uburenganzira ku mutungo bwakwegurirwa abandi urnuhanzi w'igihangano afite uburenganzira bwo kwanga ko igihangano cye cyangizwa, cyononwa cyangwa gihindurirwa isura [..„..] n'iya 200, igika cya mbere, agace ka 3, ÿ'iryo tegeko iteganya ko umuhanzi w'igihangano ari we wenyine ufite uburenganzira bwo gutegura ihinduramiterere, imitunganyirize y'igihangano cye mu bundi burycj ndetse no kukibyazamo ibindi bintu. [62] Ku birebana n'uru rubanza, byagaragajwe haruguru ko Habyalimana Charles ari we wahanze ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, ko MTN, igendeye ku bwamamare bwabo yabakoresheje mu bucuruzi bwayo mu kwamamaza inzenya za Rayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien. Byagaragaje kandi ko MTN itari yabanje kubisabira uburenganzira Habyalimana Charles, ibi nayo ikaba itabihakana usibye ko yiregura ivuga ko atabyandikishije muri RDB nk'umutungo bwite, bityo ko atavuga ko byakoreshejwe nta burenganzira bitangiwe. [63] Urukiko rurasanga, nubwo MTN itagaragaza itegeko ishingiraho ibivuga, ÿitiranya ibirebana n'ibirango (marques), bivugwa mu nteruro ya kabiri y'ltegeko N 31/2009 ryo ku wa 26/10/2009 rigamije kurengera umutungo bwite mu by'ubwenge, bigomba kwandikishwa nk'umutungo bwite kugira ngo uwabyandikishije abigireho uburenganzira bwihariye

Page 198

164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

hakurikijwe ibivugwa mu ngingo yaryo ya 141 4, n'ibirebana n'ibihangano by'umwimerere mu buvanganzo, mu bugeni no mu bumenyi, birengerwa, nk'uko bisobanurwa mu ngingo yaryo ya 197 yavuzwe haruguru, bitabanje gusabirwa uruhushya mu buyobozi, ndetse kuva bigihimbwa, ni iyo byaba bitarashyirwa ku bikoresho bifatika. [64] Hashingiwe rero ku mategeko yavuzwe no ku bimenyetso byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga MTN yarakoresheje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu, nta burenganzira ibifitiye kuko itari yabiherewe uburenganzira na Habyalimana Charles, ari nawe nyir'uburenganzira burengerwa n'itegeko kuri ibyo bihangano. III. ICYEMEZO CY'URUKIKO [65] Rwemeje ko MTN yakoresheje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda bya Habyalimana Charles mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu nta burenganzira ibifitiye; [66] Rwemeje ko urubanza ruzakomeza hasuzumwa ikibazo kirebana n'indishyi ku munsi ababuranyi bazamenyeshwa n'ubwanditsi.

4 Uburenganzira bwihariye ku kirango butangwa n'iri tegeko bubonwa iyo cyandikishijwe hakurikijwe ingingo zikubiye muri iri tegeko/Le droit exclusifà une marque conféré par la présente loi s'acquiert par l'enregistrement c nformément aux dispositions de la présente loi.

Page 199

165 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)

HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2022/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Hitiyaremye, Cyanzayire, Kazungu, Kalihangabo J.) 05 Werurwe 2024] Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Umutungo bwite mu by’ubwenge – Uburyozwe – Indishyi – Umuntu cyangwa sosiyete icuruza ibihangano muntu mu izina rye bwite no nyungu ze bwite atabiherewe uburenganzira na nyiri bihangano arabiryozwa kuko birengerwa n’itegeko. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Ubwumvikane – Ubuhuza busoza urubanza nta yindi mihango, maze hakarangizwa ibikubiye mu masezerano y’ubwumvikane. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uwitwa Habyarimana Charles yareze MTN Rwandacell Ltd mu Rukiko rw'Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, avuga ko MTN yakoresheje mu bucuruzi bwayo buyibyarira inyungu ibihangano muntu bye (personnages fictifs) Kanyombya na Sekaganda, itabiherewe uburenganzira, ikaba yarahungabanyije uburenganzira bwe bw'umuhanzi kuri ibyo bihangano, kuko ari uburenganzira nyamuntu n'uburenganzira bw'umutungo, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko kuyitegeka kumuha indishyi zitandukanye. MTN yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cya Habyarimana Charles, ivuga ko nta bubasha afite bwo gutanga ikirego kuko certificate of registration igaragaza ko Société de production audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2a2m ariyo yahawe uburenganzira 165

Page 200

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bwo kurengera ibyo bihangano Habyarimana avuga ko aribye. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego kitakiriwe kuko adafite ububasha. Habyarimana yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi, maze rwemeza ko afite ububasha bwo kuregera ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na sekaganda, bityo ko imikirize y'urubanza rwajuririwe iteshejwe agaciro, maze urubanza rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi. Urubanza rwoherejwe mu Rukiko rw'Ubucuruzi, sosiyete Yellow dot Rwanda Ltd, sosiyete Netsolutions Ltd, Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bagobokeshwa mu rubanza bisabwe na MTN. Urukiko rwemeje ko MTN yakoresheje abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda mu bucuruzi biyibyarira inyungu ibifitiye uburenganzira. Habyarimana yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, maze rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, ajurira nanone mu Rukiko rw'Ubujurire, urwo rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa kabiri yatanze butari mu bubasha bwarwo. Nyuma yaho, Habyarimana yanditse asaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane avuga ko umuhanzi w'igihangano ari we ufite umwanya w'ibanze ku burenganzira nyamuntu no ku burenganzira bw'umutungo ku gihangano cye kandi ko kugira ngo umuntu afatwe nka nyir'igihangano bihagije ko izina rye rigaragara ku gihangano mu buryo busanzwe bukoreshwa iyo nta kimenyetso kibivuguruza. MTN yisobanura ivuga ko filimi zakinywemo abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda zitandikishijwe ku mazina ya Habyarimana ahubwo zandikishijwe na Société de production

Page 201

167 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)

Audio, Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2 à 2m yanditse kuri Marie Goretti Niragire, ku buryo ariyo igaragara kuri certificat, bityo ko ariyo ifite uburenganzira bw'umuhanzi kuri ibyo bihangano. Sosiyete Netsolutions Ltd nayo yiregura ivuga ko ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Habyarimana Charles ari nyir'ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda ntacyo akivugaho kuko amasezerano Netsolutions Ltd yagiranye na Niyitegeka Gratien arebana n'inzenya ze bwite, akaba ntaho ahuriye n'ibyo bihangano muntu. Niyitegeka Gratien avuga ko abisabwe na Habyalimana Charles yakinnye umuntu muhangano Sekaganda muri filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA, ko nta handi yakoresheje iryo zina usibye ko mu buzima busanzwe baramuhamagara akitaba, avuga kandi ko abona nta mpamvu yagombaga kuzanwa mu rubanza kuko amasezerano yagiranye na Netsolutions Ltd ntaho ahuriye n'umuntu muhangano Sekaganda. Kayitankore Ndjoli (Kanyombya) nawe aburana avuga ko atari umuntu muhangano wa Habyarimana Charles kuko batigeze bakorana amasezerano, kandi ko izina Kanyombya yakinnye kuva mu mwaka wa 2002 yitwa muri filimi ari we warihimbiye, bityo ko niba Habyarimana Charles yarandikishije iryo zina aryita igihangano cye yaba ari amakosa yakoze kuko yakabaye yaramusabye uburenganzira bwo gukoresha izina rye no kuryandikisha. Habyarimana avuga kandi ko asaba ko MTN yategekwa kumuha indishyi zishingiye ku kuba yakoresheje ibihangano bye mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu, nta burenganzira yabitangiye, avuga kandi ko ibyo MTN ivuga ko ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda ataribyo byacurujwe ku rubuga

Page 202

168 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwayo, ahubwo ko hacurujwe inzenya za Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien nta shingiro bifite. Habyarimana yerekana kandi ko MTN ikora ubucuruzi bw'amayinite (unités), internet n'ibindi, ku buryo iyo umuntu akeneye gucuruza content, yo imuha platform acururizaho, bakemeranya uburyo bazagabana inyungu. MTN ivuga nanone ko kugira ngo ibihangano bifatwe nk'aho bikoreshejwe nta burenganzira bitangiwe, bigomba kuba byarandikishijwe nk’umutungo bwite, kandi ko nta kimenyetso Habyarimana Charles agaragaza ko yandikishije ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda nk'umutungo we bwite, ko n'icyandikishijwe muri RDB ari filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA atari ibyo bihangano muntu. Urubanza rwakomeje mu mizi, hasuzumwa ibibazo byo Kumenya nyir’uburenganzira burengerwa ku bihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, no Kumenya niba MTN yaracuruje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda nta burenganzira bitangiwe. Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zisabwa na Habyarimana Charles zishingiye ku byo avuga ko MTN yacuruje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda nta burenganzira bitangiwe, ndetse n’indishyi zisabwa kuri uru rwego, Urukiko rwamenyesheje ababuranyi ko hazabanza gufatwa icyemezo ku bibazo bibiri bimaze kuvugwa. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rubanziriza urundi, rwemeza ko Habyarimana Charles ariwe nyir’uburenganzira burengerwa n’itegeko ku bihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, rwemeza kandi ko MTN yakoresheje ibyo bihangano muntu bya

Page 203

169 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)

Habyarimana Charles mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu nta burenganzira ibifitiye. Nyuma y’icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rwongeye guhamagara ababuranyi kugira ngo haburanishwe ikibazo cy’indishyi cyari gisigaye. Iburanisha rigitangira, ababuranyi bamenyesheje Urukiko ko bifuza kujya mu buhuza, ndetse bemeranya ku muhuza Prof. Sam Rugege, urukiko rurabyemeza. Prof. Sam Rugege yashyikirije Urukiko raporo y’ubuhuza, ivuga ko Habyarimana Charles na MTN bashoboye kumvikana ku kibazo cy’indishyi, kandi ko impande zombi zasinye amasezerano y’ubwumvikane ku kibazo kirebana n’indishyi. Urukiko rwamenyesheje abari mu rubanza ko rwabonye raporo y’umuhuza ivuga ko impaka bari bafitanye ku ndishyi zakemutse burundu, kandi ko nta gisigaye gusuzumwa. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Umuntu cyangwa sosiyete icuruza ibihangano muntu mu izina rye bwite no nyungu ze bwite atabiherewe uburenganzira na nyiri bihangano arabiryozwa kuko birengerwa n’itegeko. 2.Ubuhuza busoza urubanza nta yindi mihango, maze hakarangizwa ibikubiye mu masezerano y’ubwumvikane. Urukiko rutegetse ko umwanzuro w’ubuhuza urangizwa uko wanditse. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano,

Page 204

170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 241, 7°. Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC rwa Busoro Gervais na Busoro Mugunga Desiré n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/06/2019; Urubanza RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC rwa Semapondo Charles na Rwasimpenzi Wellars n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Habyarimana Charles yareze MTN Rwandacell Ltd (yitwa MTN muri uru rubanza) mu rukiko rwahoze ari Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, isaba ko yategekwa kumuha indishyi zinyuranye zishingiye ku kuba yarakoresheje mu bucuruzi bwayo buyibyarira inyungu ibihangano muntu bye (personnages fictifs) Kanyombya na Sekaganda, itabiherewe uburenganzira. [2] Yasobanuraga ko ibyo bihangano muntu bigaragara mu gitabo cyitwa BIBLE, mu kindi cyitwa SCENARIO no muri filimi NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, ZIRARA ZISHYA yanditse akanayobora; ko MTN igendeye ku bwamamare bwabo yubatse icyo yise SERIVISI Y’URWENYA YA Kanyombya na SERIVISI Y’IKINAMICO Sekaganda, inabahindurira imisusire.

Page 205

171 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)

[3] MTN yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego, ivuga ko Habyarimana Charles nta bubasha afite bwo kugitanga kuko certificate of registration Nº 16/09/RDB igaragaza ko Société de production audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2a2m ariyo yahawe uburengazira bwo kurengera ibyo bihangano. Mu rubanza RCOM 00999/2017/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 29/12/2017, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Habyarimana Charles kitakiriwe kuko adafite ububasha bwo kugitanga. [4] Habyarimana Charles yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, maze mu rubanza

RCOMA 00055/2017/CHC/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 08/03/2018, rwemeza ko afite ububasha bwo kuregera ko abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda, bagaragara muri générique za filimi NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, ZIRARA ZISHYA bakoreshejwe mu bindi bikorwa nta burenganzira bitangiwe, ruvuga ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe iteshejwe agaciro, ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi, runategeka MTN kumwishyura 800.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka. [5] Urubanza rwoherejwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi,

YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd,

NETSOLUTIONS Ltd, Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bagobokeshwa mu rubanza bisabwe na MTN. Mu rubanza RCOM 00731/2019/TC rwaciwe ku wa 04/10/2019, urwo rukiko rwemeje ko MTN, YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd na NETSOLUTIONS Ltd zakoresheje abantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda, mu rwego rw’ubucuruzi ku buryo buzibyarira inyungu zibifitiye

Page 206

172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

uburenganzira, rutegeka Habyarimana Charles guha MTN 700.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka. [6] Urwo rukiko rwafashe icyo cyemezo rusobanura ko: a. Muri générique ya filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA hagaragaramo umuntu muhangano witwa Sekaganda,, ufite amazina nyakuri ya NIYITEGEKA Gratien, muri iyo filimi hamwe no muri filimi HARANIRA KUBAHO na

NTAWE

UMENYA

IYO

BWIRA

AGEZE hagaragaramo umuntu muhangano witwa Kanyombya usanzwe witwa Kayitankore Ndjoli. Ibyo ni ibimenyetso bihamya ko Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien bafatanyije na Habyarimana Charles guhanga abantu bahangano bavuzwe no guhanga filimi bakinnyemo abo bantu bahangano, bakaba bafite uburenganzira bungana n’ubwa Habyarimana Charles kuri abo bantu bahangano bakinnye muri filimi zavuzwe; b. Nubwo Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien baba bari bafitanye amasezerano y’umurimo na Habyarimana Charles mu gihe bakinaga filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA,

HARANIRA

KUBAHO bitwa Kanyombya na Sekaganda, ntibibambura uburenganzira ku bantu bahangano bakinnye bitwa, keretse amasezerano bagiranye na Habyarimana Charles ababuza ku buryo bweruye gukoresha ayo mazina y’abantu bahangano; c. Kuba Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien barakoze amasezerano agurisha ibihangano byabo by’urwenya/inzenya bahimbye mu mazina y’ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda, bari babifiteho uburenganzira kuko bagurishaga umutungo wabo bwite;

Page 207

173 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)

d. Kuba MTN, YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd na NETSOLUTIONS Ltd baracuruje inzenya zitiriwe abo bantu bahangano Kanyombya na Sekaganda, nta kosa bakoze kuko bari babiherewe uburenganzira na ba nyirabyo Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien, kandi aba bafatanyije na Habyarimana Charles guhanga abantu bahangano bavuzwe. [7] Habyarimana Charles yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi. Mu rubanza RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 15/01/2021, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, rumutegeka guha MTN 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 700.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [8] Urwo rukiko rwasobanuye ko Habyarimana Charles yivugira ko ntacyo arega Kayitankore Ndjoli na Niyitegeka Gratien, kandi ko nta kibazo afite ku masezerano bagiranye na YELLOWDOTS Rwanda Ltd na NETSOLUTIONS Ltd kuko yerekeranye n’inzenya zabo bwite, akaba adahakana ibyavuzwe na Kayitankore Ndjoli ko izina Kanyombya ariwe waryihimbiye aryita iyo character yagaragaye muri filimi bakoranye. Urukiko rwavuze ko ntaho rwahera rwemeza ko icyo Habyarimana Charles yise ibihangano muntu bye bya Kanyombya na Sekaganda, (characters) bagaragaye muri filimi ZIRARA ZISHYA, HARANIRA KUBAHO na NTAWE UMENYA IYO BWIRA AGEZE, ari byo bicishwa no ku rubuga rwa MTN. [9] Habyarimana Charles yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, urwo Rukiko rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa kabiri yatanze butari mu bubasha bwarwo. Ku wa 18/11/2021, Me Bundogo Innocent, mu izina rya Habyarimana Charles yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, asaba ko urubanza RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 15/01/2021

Page 208

174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, nawe amaze kubisuzuma yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amaze gusuzuma raporo yashyikirijwe, yemeje ko urubanza rwavuzwe rwongera kuburanishwa, rushyirwa kuri gahunda y’iburanisha yo ku wa 18/01/2023 mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [10] Kuri iyi tariki Urukiko rwahamagaye urubanza rusanga hitabye Habyarimana Charles yunganiwe na Me Bundogo Innocent, MTN ihagarariwe na Me Kabera Jean Claude afatanyije na Me Bizimana Emmanuel, NETSOLUTIONS Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Semadwinga Claude, Niyitegeka Gratien ahagarariwe na Me Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, Kayitankore Ndjoli yitabye ariko adafite Avoka, naho YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd ititabye ariko yarahamagawe ahatazwi. Urukiko rushingiye ku kuba Kayitankore Ndjoli nta Avoka afite kandi bitemewe ko umuburanyi aburana imbere y’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga atamufite, rwasubitse iburanisha kugira ngo ahabwe igihe cyo kumushaka, runategeka ko mu iburanisha ry’ubutaha na Niyitegeka Gratien azitaba ubwe na Avoka we. [11] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 17/04/2023, Habyarimana Charles yunganiwe na Me Bundogo Innocent, MTN ihagarariwe na Me Kabera Jean Claude afatanyije na Me Bizimana Emmanuel, NETSOLUTIONS Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Semadwinga Claude, Niyitegeka Gratien yunganiwe na Me Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, Kayitankore Ndjoli yunganiwe na Me Nshimiyimana Moubaraka naho YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd ititabye ariko yarahamagawe ahatazwi. [12] Urukiko rwahereye ku nzitizi yatanzwe na Me Semadwinga Claude, mu izina rya NETSOLUTIONS Ltd, avuga

Page 209

175 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)

ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 55 y’Itegeko N 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ikirego cya Habyarimana Charles kitagombaga kwakirwa kuko nta karengane agaragaza mu kirego cye, rumenyesha ababuranyi ko atari ngombwa kuyisuzuma kuko idashingiye ku mpamvu ndemyagihugu kandi, nk’uko byafashweho umurongo mu manza zinyuranye1, iyo Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeje ko urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa, ruburanishwa mu mizi nta zindi nzitizi zitanzwe zatuma urubanza rutaburanishwa mu mizi uretse inzitizi ndemyagihugu. [13] Nyuma yo gufata icyo cyemezo, urubanza rwakomeje mu mizi. Ibibazo byaburanyweho ni ibi bikurikira: a. Kumenya nyir’uburenganzira burengerwa ku bihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda; b. Kumenya niba MTN yaracuruje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda nta burenganzira bitangiwe. Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zisabwa na Habyarimana Charles zishingiye ku byo avuga ko MTN yacuruje ibihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda nta burenganzira bitangiwe, ndetse n’indishyi zisabwa kuri uru rwego, Urukiko rwamenyesheje ababuranyi ko hazabanza gufatwa icyemezo ku bibazo bibiri bimaze kuvugwa.

1 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC hagati ya Busoro Gervais na Busoro Mugunga Desiré n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 28/06/2019, igika cya 18; n’urubanza RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC hagati ya Semapondo Charles na Rwasimpenzi Wellars n’abandi, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021.

Page 210

176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[14] Ku wa 23/06/2023, Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rubanziriza urundi, rwemeza ko: a. Habyarimana Charles ariwe nyir’uburenganzira burengerwa n’itegeko ku bihangano muntu Kanyombya na Sekaganda; b. MTN yakoresheje ibyo bihangano muntu bya Habyarimana Charles mu bucuruzi buyibyarira inyungu nta burenganzira ibifitiye. [15] Nyuma y’icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rwongeye guhamagara ababuranyi kugira ngo haburanishwe ikibazo cy’indishyi cyari gisigaye. Ku wa 17/10/2023, bose baritabye, Habyarimana Charles yunganiwe na Me Bundogo Innocent, MTN ihagarariwe na Me Kabera Jean Claude, NETSOLUTIONS Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Semadwinga Claude, Niyitegeka Gratien ahagarariwe na Me Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, Kayitankore Ndjoli yunganiwe na Me Karangwa Olivier, naho YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd ititabye ariko yarahamagawe ahatazwi. [16] Iburanisha rigitangira, ababuranyi bamenyesheje Urukiko ko bifuza kujya mu buhuza, ndetse bemeranya ku muhuza Prof. Sam Rugege. [17] Nyuma yo kumva ibyifuzo by’ababuranyi, Urukiko rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’uru rubanza risubitswe, ababuranyi bakajya mu buhuza. Rwemeje kandi ko Prof. Sam Rugege ari we muhuza muri uru rubanza hagati ya Habyarimana Charles na MTN, ko agomba gutanga raporo y’ubuhuza bitarenze ku wa 31/12/2023. [18] Ku wa 29/12/2023, Prof. Sam Rugege yashyikirije Urukiko raporo y’ubuhuza yakozwe kuri iyo tariki, ivuga ko

Page 211

177 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)

Habyarimana Charles na MTN bashoboye kumvikana ku kibazo cy’indishyi, ku buryo ku wa 28/12/2023, basinye amasezerano y’ubwumvikane mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2022/SC ku kibazo kirebana n’indishyi. [19] Iburanisha ryo kwemeza umwanzuro w’ubuhuza ryabaye ku wa 05/03/2024, abari mu rubanza bose bitabye, Habyarimana Charles yunganiwe na Me Bundogo Innocent, MTN ihagarariwe na Me Kabera Jean Claude, Niyitegeka Gratien ahagarariwe na Me Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, Kayitankore Ndjoli yunganiwe na Me Kagabo Théoneste, naho NETSOLUTIONS Ltd na YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd zititabye ariko zarahamagawe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. Urukiko rwamenyesheje abari mu rubanza ko rwabonye raporo y’umuhuza ivuga ko impaka bari bafitanye ku ndishyi zakemutse burundu, kandi ko nta gisigaye gusuzumwa. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYACYO Kumenya niba Umwanzuro w’ubuhuza wakwemezwa  [20] Hashingiwe kuri raporo y’ubuhuza yo ku wa 29/12/2023 ivuga ko Habyarimana Charles na MTN bumvikanye ku kibazo cy’indishyi cyari gisigaye gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga uru rubanza rugomba gusozwa nta yindi mihango, bityo hakazarangizwa ibikubiye mu masezerano y’ubwumvikane Habyarimana Charles na MTN bagiranye ku wa 28/12/2023, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 241, 7° 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 inyandiko y’ubwumvikane iriho

Page 212

178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

umukono w’impande zombi n’ubwunzi byakorewe hanze y’urukiko ari inyandikompesha. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [21] Rwemeje ko ikibazo cy’indishyi cyari gisigaye gusuzumwa mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 000002/2021/SC, gikemuwe nk’uko Habyarimana Charles na MTN Rwandacell Ltd babyemeranyijweho mu masezerano bagiranye. [22] Rutegetse ko umwanzuro w’ubuhuza urangizwa uko wanditse.

Page 213

179 HABYARIMANA v. MTN RWANDACELL LTD (1)

Page 214

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 215

181 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCOMAA 00090/2022/CA (Rukundakuvuga, P.J., Munyangeri na Umugwaneza, J.) 14 Ukwakira 2022] Amategeko agenga imanza z’ubucuruzi – Cyamunara – Gutesha agaciro cyamunara – Kwandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru – Ibarwa ry’iminsi kwandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru bikorerwamo – Iminsi iri mu mabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru itaragaragarijwe uburyo ibarwa, ibarwa mu buryo bw’iminsi ikurikirana (jours calendriers consecutifs) – Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru Nº 002/2021/0rg yo ku wa 29/06/2021 ahindura amabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru Nº 001/2020/org yo ku wa 12/05/2020 agenga ibyerekeye gucunga, gukodesha, kugurisha mu cyamunara, no kwegukana ingwate, ingingo ya 10 (39 bis). Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Gutesha agaciro cyamunara – Gutakamba – Kwandikira umwanditsi Mukuru – Iyo handitswe amabaruwa menshi yuzuzanya – Igihe umuyobozi yashyikirijwe amaburuwa menshi yuzuzanya, ibaruwa iherwaho mu kubara ibihe umuyobozi wandikiwe agomba kuba yasubirijemo, ni iyo yashyikirijwe bwa mbere. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yasabye inguzanyo mu mabanki abiri ari yo Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc na Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, itanga ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/08/01/599; yaje kunanirwa kwishyura iyo myenda bituma umutungo yatanzeho ingwate 181

Page 216

182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

utezwa cyamunara, bikozwe n’ushinzwe kugurisha ingwate Me Muhire Samuel, maze wegukanwa na Alliance Investment Group Ltd ndetse ushinzwe kugurisha ingwate akora raporo ya cyamunara ayishyikiriza umwanditsi Mukuru, maze yandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru imusaba gutesha agaciro iyo cyamunara, ndetse yongera kwandika indi baruwa yise ko yuzuza iya mbere, igaragaza ko mu mpamvu zituma isaba gutesha agaciro iyo cyamunara harimo n’ikibazo cy’ingano y’umwenda wishyuzwa. Nawe mu gusubiza ayo maburuwa yombi amenyesha Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd ko nta mpamvu ihari yatuma cyamunara iteshwa agaciro. Nyuma yo kutishimira icyo cyemezo cy’umwanditsi Mukuru, Kigali Business Center yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’ubucuruzi irega Me Muhire isaba Urukiko gutesha agaciro cyamunara yakorewe ku mutungo wayo kuko itubahirije amategeko. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego kitakiriwe kuko urega yarengeje igihe cyo gushyikiriza Umwanditsi Mukuru ikibazo cye n’igihe cyo kuregera Urukiko. KBC Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije ingingo ya 275 na 276 z’Itegeko No22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ziteganya uburyo ibihe bibarwa. Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko KBC Ltd yandikiye Umwanditsi Mukuru iminsi itanu ivugwa mu Mabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru itararenga. Rwemeje kandi ko ikirego cyatanzwe mu bihe biteganywa n’itegeko, rushingiye ku kuba ibyo bihe bigomba kubarwa uhereye ku gihe Umwanditsi Mukuru yaboneye ibaruwa, rutegeka ko urubanza rwajuririwe

Page 217

183 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

rwohererezwa Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi nta yindi ngwate y’amagarama itanzwe. Me Muhire, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc na Alliance Investment Group Ltd bajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire bavugako Urukiko Rukuru rw’ubucuruzi rwakoresheje nabi amategeko agenga uburyo bwo kubara ibihe byo gusaba Umwanditsi Mukuru gutesha agaciro cyamunara ndetse n’ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko, maze rwemeza ko Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yubahirije ibihe kandi itarabyubahirije. Mu miburanire yabo bavuga ko iminsi itanu iteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 10 (39 bis) y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru idakwiye kubarwa mu buryo buteganywa mu ngingo ya 275 n’iya 276 z’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’Imbonezamubano, iz’Ubucuruzi, iz’Umurimo n’iz’Ubutegetsi; ikaba ahubwo igomba kubarwa nk’iminsi ikurikiranye y’ingengaminsi (consecutive calendar days/jours calendriers consécutifs); bityo imikirize y’urubanza rujuririrwa ikaba igomba guteshwa agaciro kuko Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yandikiye Umwanditsi Mukuru igihe giteganywa n’amategeko cyararenze. KBC Ltd ivuga ko mu kubara ibihe by’iminsi 5 yo kwandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru hagaragazwa inenge kuri cyamunara yakozwe bigomba kubarwa hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 275 n’iya 276 z’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’Imbonezamubano, iz’Ubucuruzi, iz’Umurimo n’iz’Ubutegetsi, ikavuga ko bitari ngombwa ko Umwanditsi Mukuru avuga ko iminsi itanu ivugwa mu ngingo ya 10 (39 Bis) ari iminsi y’akazi kuko iyo ngingo ikwiye gufatwa nk’iyuzuza iya 260 y’itegeko NO 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, ikavuga kandi ko ingingo ya 274 y’iryo tegeko itirengagijwe kuko yo iteganya ko uretse mu gihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi, ibihe bigomba kubarwa

Page 218

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

hakurikijwe iminsi y’akazi nyamara amabwiriza y’umwanditsi yo akaba atari itegeko. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba uregwa (KBC) yararegeye Urukiko akererewe hakemurwa impaka ku ibaruwa mbarutso yo kubara ibihe byo gusubiza iyo umwanditsi Mukuru yandikiwe amabaruwa menshi, abajuriye bavugako KBC Ltd yandikiye Umwanditsi Mukuru amusaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara, yongera kwandika ibaruwa ya kabiri ifatwa nk’inyongera ku ibaruwa ya mbere bityo ibaruwa ya kabiri itandukanye n’iya mbere, bavugako Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutagombaga kuyiheraho mu kubara ibihe byo gutanga ikirego ahubwo haragombaga gushingirwa ku ibaruwa ya mbere. Ku ruhande rw’uregwa (KBC Ltd) ivugako ibaruwa atari yo igenderwaho habarwa ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko ahubwo ikigenderwaho ari igisubizo cy’Umwanditsi Mukuru, akavuga kandi ko ibihe byo kuba Umwanditsi Mukuru yatanze igisubizo bigomba kubarwa uhereye igihe yaboneye ibaruwa ya nyuma. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iminsi iri mu mabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru Nº 002/2021/0rg yo ku wa 29/06/2021 ahindura amabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru Nº 001/2020/org yo ku wa 12/05/2020 agenga ibyerekeye gucunga, gukodesha, kugurisha mu cyamunara itaragaragarijwe uburyo ibarwa, ibarwa mu buryo bw’iminsi ikurikirana (jours calendriers consécutifs) 2. Igihe umuyobozi yashyikirijwe amaburuwa menshi yuzuzanya, ibaruwa iherwaho mu kubara ibihe umuyobozi wandikiwe agomba kuba yasubirijemo, ni iyo yashyikirijwe bwa mbere. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro.

Page 219

185 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 260 igika cya 5. Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru Nº 002/2021/0rg yo ku wa 29/06/2021 ahindura amabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru Nº 001/2020/0rg yo ku wa 12/05/2020 agenga ibyerekeye gucunga, gukodesha, kugurisha mu cyamunara, ingingo ya 10 (39 bis). Imanza zashingiweho: Urubanza RADA 0001/11/CS; KIST v Hashakimana Anastase rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/04/2012, Urubanza RCOMA 00026/2019/HCC; Ngabonziza Joseph v Rugimbana Jean Claude n’undi rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi ku wa 01/03/2019, Urubanza RCOMA 00546/2022/HCC; UWERA Astrid v MUHAYIMANA Pelagie n’undi rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuwa 02/09/2022. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yasabye inguzanyo mu mabanki abiri ari yo Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc na Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, itanga ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/08/01/599. Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yaje kunanirwa kwishyura iyo myenda, bituma ku wa 02/08/2022 umutungo yatanzeho ingwate utezwa cyamunara,

Page 220

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bikozwe n’ushinzwe kugurisha ingwate Me Muhire Samuel, maze wegukanwa na Alliance Investment Group Ltd. [2] Ku wa 04/08/2022, Me Muhire Samuel yakoze raporo ya cyamunara ayishyikiriza umwanditsi Mukuru. Ku wa 09/08/2022 Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yandikiye Umwanditsi Mukuru imusaba gutesha agaciro iyo cyamunara, ndetse no kuwa ku wa 10/08/2022 yongera kwandika indi baruwa yise ko yuzuza iya mbere, igaragaza ko mu mpamvu zituma isaba gutesha agaciro iyo cyamunara harimo n’ikibazo cy’ingano y’umwenda wishyuzwa. Umwanditsi Mukuru yasuribirije hamwe izo baruwa zombi ku wa 17/08/2022, amenyesha Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd ko nta mpamvu ihari yatuma cyamunara iteshwa agaciro. [3] Ku wa 23/08/2022, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi irega Me Muhire Samuel, isaba Urukiko gutesha agaciro cyamunara yakorewe ku mutungo wayo kuko itubahirije amategeko. Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc na Alliance Investment Group Ltd zagobotse ku bushake muri urwo rubanza. Equity Bank Rwanda Plc na Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc zitanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego cyatanzwe na Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd kuko yarengeje igihe cyo gusaba Umwanditsi Mukuru gutesha agaciro cyamunara. Me Muhire Samuel n’abagobotse bose batanze n’indi nzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kuko hatubahirijwe ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko. [4] Mu rubanza RCOM 01314/2022/TC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 06/09/2022, Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cya Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd kitakiriwe kuko yarengeje igihe cyo gushyikiriza Umwanditsi Mukuru ikibazo cyayo n’igihe cyo kuregera Urukiko.

Page 221

187 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

[5] Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd ntiyanyuzwe n’icyo cyemezo ikijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ingingo ya 275 na 276 z’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ziteganya uburyo ibihe bibarwa. Inenga ko ibyo Urukiko rwavuze ko ikirego cyayo kitakirewe kubera ko Umwanditsi Mukuru atandikiwe mu gihe cy’iminsi 5 ikurikiranye kandi ikaba yararengeje ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko kuko yareze ihereye ku gihe yaboneye igisubizo cy’Umwanditsi Mukuru kandi uyu yari yarakererewe gusubiza. [6] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00594/2022/HCC, rwaciwe ku wa 23/09/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yandikiye Umwanditsi Mukuru iminsi itanu ivugwa mu Mabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru itararenga kuko iyo minsi ibarwa hakurikijwe ingingo ya 275 na 276 y’itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru. Rwemeje kandi ko ikirego cyayo cyatanzwe mu bihe biteganywa n’itegeko, rushingiye ku kuba ibyo bihe bigomba kubarwa uhereye ku gihe Umwanditsi Mukuru yaboneye ibaruwa ya Kigali Business Center Ltd yuzuza iya mbere. Rutegeka ko urubanza RCOM 01314/2022/TC rwajuririwe rwohererezwa Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi nta yindi ngwate y’amagarama itanzwe. [7] Me Muhire Samuel, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc na Alliance Investment Group Ltd bajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwabo buhurizwa hamwe mu rubanza

RCOMAA 00090/2022/CA. [8] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryashyizwe ku wa 11/10/2022. Uwo munsi ugeze Me Abasa Fazili yitaba ahagarariye Me

Page 222

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Muhire Samuel ; Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc ihagarariwe na Me Mubangizi Frank ; Alliance Investment Group Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Kayigirwa Telesphore ; Equity Bank Rwanda Plc ihagarariwe na Me Karemera Frank naho Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Karayiga William na Me Mudenge Richard. [9] Mu bujurire bwabo abajuriye bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoresheje nabi amategeko agenga uburyo bwo kubara ibihe byo gusaba Umwanditsi Mukuru gutesha agaciro cyamunara ndetse n’ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko, maze rwemeza ko Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yubahirije ibihe kandi itarabyubahirije. Ikindi banenga ni uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwifashishije ingingo z’amategeko mpanabyaha zitajyanye n’ikibazo cyo gutesha agaciro cyamunara, rutagaragaje n’icyo runenga ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi. Me Muhire Samuel na Equity Bank Rwanda plc basaba gusubizwa amafaranga y’ikurikinarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka ariko by’umwihariko Me Muhire Samuel agasaba n’indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza. II.

IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO [10] Muri uru rubanza Urukiko rurasanga ibibazo bigize impaka bigomba gusuzumwa ari ibi bikurikira: a. Kumenya niba Kigali Business Centre (KBC) Ltd yarandikiye umwanditsi Mukuru imusaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara, ikererewe ; b. Kumenya niba Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yararegeye Urukiko ikererewe.

Page 223

189 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

c. Ibyereke indishyi, igihembo cy’Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza a) Kumenya niba Kigali Business Centre (KBC) Ltd yarandikiye umwanditsi Mukuru imusaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara, ikererewe [11] Equity Bank Rwanda Plc na Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc zinenga uburyo Urukiko Rukuru rwabazemo ibihe byo kwandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru n’uburyo rwasesenguye ingingo ya 10 (39 bis) y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru Nº 002/2021/ORG yo ku wa 29/06/2021 ahindura amabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru Nº 001/2020/ORG yo ku wa 12/05/2020 agenga ibyerekeye gucunga, gukodesha, kugurisha mu cyamunara, no kwegukana ingwate. [12] Ku bijyanye n’uburyo ibihe byabazwe, uhagarariye Equity Bank Rwanda Plc avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabaze iminsi itanu yo kwandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru ivugwa mu ngingo ya 10 (39 bis) y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru yavuzwe haruguru nk’aho ari iminsi y’akazi nyamara atari ko bimeza. Avuga ko iyo urebye muri ayo Mabwiriza usanga aho Umwanditsi Mukuru yashatse ko iminsi yateganyijwe ibarwa nk’iminsi y’akazi, yagiye abigaragaza. Atanga uregero rw’ingingo ya 8(2), iya 9, 10, 16, 20 n’iya 21 z’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru Nº 001/2020/ORG yo ku wa 12/05/20201 . Asobanura ko rero ibyo byumvikanisha ko ahandi hose atabivuze iyo minsi ibarwa nk’uko ikurikirana.

1 Ingingo ya 8 yerekeye iyemezwa rya gahunda yo gucunga ingwate ivuga iminsi 7 y’akazi; iya 9 yerekeye imenyekanisha rya gahunda yo gucunga ingwate yemejwe ivuga iminsi 5 y’akazi; iya 10 yerekeye ivugururwa rya gahunda yo gucunga ingwate yemejwe iteganywa iminsi 7 y’akazi; iya 16

Page 224

190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[13] Uhagarariye Equity Bank Plc anenga kandi uburyo mu gusesengura ingingo ya 10 (39 bis) y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru yavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi bwayihuje n’ingingo ya 260 y’itegeko NO 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi rwirengagije ko ayo mabwiriza ntaho ahuriye n’iryo Tegeko kuko yo ashingiye ku Itegeko Nº 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2010 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu. [14] Uhagarariye Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc nawe avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabaze iyo minsi mu buryo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 275 n’iya 276 z’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru rwirengagije ko ingingo ya 10 (39 bis) y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru iteganya iminsi itanu (5) uhereye ku munsi raporo ya cyamunara yatangiwe. Avuga ko uburyo iyo ngingo yanditse bwumvikanisha ko n’umunsi raporo yakiriweho ubarwa. [15] Abajuriye bose bemeza ko iminsi itanu iteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 10 (39 bis) y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru yavuzwe haruguru idakwiye kubarwa mu buryo buteganywa mu ngingo ya 275 n’iya 276 z’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishiriza y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. Iyo minsi ikaba ahubwo igomba kubarwa nk’iminsi ikurikiranye y’ingengaminsi (consecutive

yerekeye iyemezwa rya raporo isoza icungwa ry’ingwate ivuga iminsi 7 y’akazi; iya 20 yerekeye iby’amasezerano y’ubukode bw’ingwate iteganywa iminsi 2 y’akazi yo gushyikiriza umwanditsi Mukuru kopi y’amasezerano naho iya 21 ivuga ku bijyanye no gutangira gushyirwa mu bikorwa kw’amasezerano y’ubukode bw’ingwate ikavuga iminsi 7 y’akazi.

Page 225

191 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

calendar days/jours calendriers consécutifs); bityo imikirize y’urubanza rujuririrwa ikaba igomba guteshwa agaciro kuko bigaragara ko Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yandikiye Umwanditsi Mukuru igihe giteganywa n’amategeko cyararenze. [16] Abahagarariye Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd basubiza ko mu kubara ibihe by’iminsi itanu (5) ivugwa mu ngingo ya 10 (39bis) y‘Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru Nº 002/2021/Org yo ku wa 29/06/2021 yavuzwe haruguru, hagomba gushingirwa ku ngingo za 275 na 276 z’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ; kandi ibyo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukaba rwarabitanzeho umucyo uhagije mu bika bya 25 kugeza 35 by’urubanza rujuririrwa. Basobanura ko bitari ngombwa ko Umwanditsi Mukuru avuga ko iminsi itanu ivugwa mu ngingo ya 10 (39 Bis) ari iminsi y’akazi kuko iyo ngingo ikwiye gufatwa nk’iyuzuza iya 260 y’itegeko NO 22/2018 ryavuzwe. Bakavuga ko kandi ingingo ya 274 y’iryo tegeko itirengagijwe kuko yo iteganya ko uretse mu gihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi, ibihe bigomba kubarwa hakurikijwe iminsi y’akazi nyamara amabwiriza y’umwanditsi yo akaba atari itegeko. Bongeraho ko iyo Umwanditsi Mukuru aza gusanga Kigali Business Centre (KBC) Ltd yararengeje igihe cyo gusaba ko cyamunara iteshwa agaciro, yari kuyisubiza ko yarengeje igihe ; nyamara akaba atari ko yayisubije. [17] Mu gusoza bagaragaza ko raporo ya cyamunara yakozwe ku wa 04/08/2022, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru ku wa 09/08/2022, ku wa 10/08/2022 bandika ibaruwa yuzuza iya mbere. Hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo za 275 na 276 z’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, umunsi igikorwa cyakoreweho, iminsi y’impera z’icyumweru ndetse n’umunsi w’ikiruhuko wabaye ku itariki ya

Page 226

192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

05/08/2022 (Umunsi w’Umuganura) ntibarwa. Bityo, kwandikira Umwanditsi Mukuru bikaba byaragombaga gutangira kubarwa ku itariki ya 08/08/2022 ; Bikaba bigaragara ko Kigali Business Centre (KBC) Ltd yandikiye Umwanditsi Mukuru mu bihe biteganywa n’amategeko.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumenya niba iminsi itanu ivugwa mu mabwiriza y’umwanditsi Mukuru yo kwandika usaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara ari iminsi ikurikiranye cyangwa niba ari iminsi ibarwa hakurwamo iminsi y’ibiruhuko n’iminsi y’impera z’icyumweru. Impaka kandi zishingiye no ku kumenya niba umunsi raporo ya cyamunara yakiriweho ubarirwa muri iyo minsi itanu cyangwa utabarirwamo. [19] Ingingo ya 10 (39 bis) y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru Nº 002/2021/0rg yo ku wa 29/06/2021 ahindura amabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru Nº 001/2020/org yo ku wa 12/05/2020 agenga ibyerekeye gucunga, gukodesha, kugurisha mu cyamunara, no kwegukana ingwate iteganya ko ... Ubifitemo inyungu ufite icyo anenga cyamunara cyangwa imigendekere yayo, ashobora, mu minsi itanu (5) uhereye ku munsi yakiriyeho raporo ya cyamunara, gusaba mu nyandiko Umwanditsi Mukuru ko asuzuma inenge yagaragajwe akayifataho icyemezo gikwiye. Usaba agenera kopi uwashinzwe gucunga ingwate. [20] Muri iyi ngingo Umwanditsi Mukuru yateganyije igihe cy’iminsi itanu ariko ntiyasobanura niba ari iminsi isanzwe ikurikiranye cyangwa niba ari iminsi y’akazi. Kugeza ubu kandi nta rubanza rwaciwe kuri iki kibazo ngo rugitangeho umurongo,

Page 227

193 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

haba mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga cyangwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. Urukiko Rukuru rwo mu gucyemura iki kibazo mu rubanza rujuririrwa rwasobanuye ko iminsi ivugwa mu ngingo ya 10 (39bis) y’amabwiriza y’umwanditsi Mukuru igomba kubarwa ivanywemo iminsi y’impera z’icyumweru n’iminsi y’ikiruhuko, kuko iyo ngingo yongewe mu mabwiriza nk’iyuzuza ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 260 y’itegeko No 002/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishiriza y’imanza z’imbonezamubona, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ko rero ibihe biteganywa muri iyo ngingo bigomba kubarwa hakurikijwe uburyo buteganywa n’iryo tegeko. [21] Koko rero, ingingo ya 260 ivugwa mu gika cyayo cya 5 iteganywa ko guhagarika no gutesha agaciro cyamunara ku mitungo igurishwa hashingiwe ku cyemezo cyo kugurisha ingwate cyatanzwe n’Umwanditsi Mukuru, bisabwa Umwanditsi Mukuru. Umwanditsi Mukuru atanga igisubizo mu gihe kitarenze iminsi itatu (3) y’akazi...”. Kuba rero iyo ngingo itaravuze igihe Umwanditsi Mukuru abisabwamo, byumvikana nk’aho amabwiriza y’umwanditsi Mukuru asa n’asobanura iminsi Umwanditsi Mukuru agomba kwandikirwamo. Uru Rukiko rurasanga icyakora kwemeza ko aya mabwiriza ashyira mu bikorwa ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 260 atari byo, kuko nk’uko bigaragara mu irangashingiro ryayo, ayo mabwiriza ashingiye ku Itegeko Nº 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2010 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa nk’uko ryahinduwe kugeza ubu, cyane cyane mu ngingo yaryo ya 19. Bikaba byumvikana ko bishoboka rwose kugena Ibihe bivugwa muri ayo mabwiriza hatitawe ku biteganywa mu itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishiriza y’imanza z’imbonezamubona, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.

Page 228

194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[22] Uru Rukiko rusanga iyo urebye imanza zaciwe ku byerekeye ibarwa ry’ibindi bihe biri mu mabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru aho atasobanuye uko bibarwa usanga izo manza zaremeje ko ibyo bihe bibarwa mu buryo bw’iminsi ikurikiranye. Urugero ni nk’urubanza

RCOMA 00546/2022/HCC rwaciwe 02/09/2022, haburana Uwera Astrid na Muhayimana Pelagie n’undi2 , aho Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasuzumaga niba iminsi icumi (10) yo gutangaza cyamunara ivugwa mu ngingo ya 29 y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru N° 001/2020/ORG yarubahirijwe, rukemeza ko yubahirijwe rubaze iminsi 10 mu buryo bw’iminsi ikurikiranye. Hari kandi urubanza RCOMA 00026/2019/HCC rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko ku wa 01/03/2019, haburana Ngabonziza Joseph na Rugimbana Jean Claude n’undi, rwasuzumye niba ibihe by’iminsi 7 yavugwaga mu ngingo ya 12 y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru N°03/2010/ORG yo ku wa 16/11/2010 yarubarijwe naho rwemeza ko yubahirijwe rubaze iminsi ikurikiranye.3

2 Muri uru rubanza mu ibika bya 25-26 Urukiko rwasesenguye niba ibihe by’iminsi 10 biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 29 y’amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru byarubahirijwe, maze rusanga amatangazo yaratangajwe ku wa 25/5/2022 kuri ISANGO STAR, no ku wa 26/5/2022 kuri Amakuru Media Ltd, ipiganwa ritangira ku wa 06/6/2022. Maze rwemeza ko harimo iminsi icumi ko rero ibihe biteganywa n’amategeko byubahirijwe. 3 Muri uru rubanza kuva mu gika cya 13-17, Urukiko rwasesenguye impamvu y’iminsi 7 iteganywa mu ngingo yari iya 12 y’Amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru n°03/2010/ORG yo ku wa 16/11/2010 agenga ibyerekeye gukodesha, kugurisha muri cyamunara ndetse no kwegukana ingwate, maze runasuzuma niba iyo minsi yarubahijwe. Rusanga hari aho y’ubahirijwe n’aho itubahirijwe. Nko ku bireba cyamunara yagombaga kuba ku wa 18/08/2017 itangazo ryayo rikagezwa ku murenge ku wa 11/08/2017, rwemeje ko ko aho ngaho iyo minsi yubahirijwe. Kandi bigaragara ko habazwe iminsi ikurikiranye

Page 229

195 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

[23] Icyo izo manza zihuriyeho ni uko zitanga umucyo ku byerekeye kubara ibihe biri mu mabwiriza y’umwanditsi Mukuru iyo atagaragaje uko bibarwa; akaba ari nawo mucyo wagombaga kumurikira Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza rujuririrwa. Koko rero, nk’uko biteganywa mu mabwiriza ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga4, Urukiko ruba rugomba gukurikiza umurongo usanzwe mu manza ku bibazo bisa n’ibyo rusuzuma. Kuba rero Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaranyuranyije n’uwo murongo nta mpamvu imara impaka ku buryo budasubirwaho rushingiyeho, uru Rukiko rusanga ari amakosa agomba gukosorwa, hakemezwa ko iminsi iri mu mabwiriza y’umwanditsi mukuru itaragaragarijwe uburyo ibarwa, ibarwa mu buryo bw’iminsi ikurikirana nk’uko urwo Rukiko rusanzwe rubigenza. [24] Naho ku bijyanye no kumenya niba umunsi igikorwa cyakoreweho nawo ubarirwa mu minsi iteganywa mu ngingo ya 10 39(bis) y’amabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru, Urukiko rusanga imvugo “uhereye” ikunze kugaruka mu mategeko mu bijyanye n’ibarwa ry’ibihe, haba mu itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishiriza y’imanza mbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi (275)5 ndetse no mu itegeko

4 Amabwiriza no 001/2021 yo ku wa 15/03/2021 ya Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agenga itangazwa ry’imanza mu cyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, mu ngingo yayo ya 9-igika cya kabiri ateganya ko “Buri mucamanza ategetswe kubahiriza umurongo usanzweho, waba uwo ku rwego rw’Urukiko arimo, cyangwa urwisumbuyeho uko inkiko zigenda zisumbana.” Aya mabwiriza wayasanga: https://www.judiciary.gov.rw/fileadmin/Publications/Laws/3_- _Amabwiriza_CJ_-_Ibyegeranyo.pdf 5 Iyi ngingo ya 275 y’itegeko no 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanzaz’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko « ku bihe bibarwa mu minsi cyangwa mu masaha,

Page 230

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha (ingingo ya 262)6, ayo mategeko agaragaza ko umunsi igikorwa cyakoreweho utabarirwa mu bihe byateganyijwe mu minsi. Uru rukiko rusanga rero nta mpamvu idasanzwe yatuma imvugo “uhereye” igaragara mu mabwiriza y’Umwanditsi Mukuru yavuzwe, yo yumvikana ukundi. [25] Muri uru rubanza raporo ya cyamunara yatanzwe ku wa 04/08/2022, Kigali Business Centre (KCB) Ltd yandikira umwanditsi Mukuru bwa mbere ku wa 09/08/2022, yongera kumwandikira ibaruwa yuzuza iya mbere ku wa 10/08/2022. [26] Hakurikijwe ko ibihe bigomba kubarwa mu buryo bw’iminsi ikurikiranye nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, bivuze ko ibaruwa Kigali Business Centre (KCB) Ltd yanditse ku wa 09/08/2022 yanditswe mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko ; naho iyanditswe ku italiki ya 10/08/2022 bigaragara ko yanditswe igihe giteganyijwe n’amategeko cyararenze. b) Kumenya niba Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yararegeye Urukiko ikererewe. [27] Uhagarariye Me Muhire Samuel avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabaze ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko,

bibarwa umunsi ku munsi, n’isaha ku isaha hakurikijwe igihe bimara kandi umunsi igikorwa cyakoreweho ntubarwamo, ahubwo habarwa umunsi wa nyuma kigomba kurangiriraho. » 6 Ingingo ya 262 y’itegeko no 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko « Ibihe bibarwa mu minsi cyangwa mu masaha, bibarwa kuva saa sita z’ijoro kugeza saa sita z’ijoroz’umunsi ukurikiraho; ntabwo umunsi w’inyandiko cyangwa w’igikorwa bishingiyeho ubarirwamo, icyakora umunsi wa nyuma wabyo ubarirwamo wose.»

Page 231

197 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

ruhereye ku ibaruwa ya Kigali Business Center (KBC Ltd) yo ku wa 10/08/2022, nyamara iyo baruwa yari iya kabiri. Avuga ko iyo usesenguye ibyo amategeko ateganya usanga Umwanditsi Mukuru yandikirwa inshuro imwe gusa, ahubwo uwamwandikiye yasanga hari ibyo yanditse mbere bidasobanutse akaba yakwandika indi baruwa ya kabiri ifatwa nk’inyongera ku ya mbere, akaba ari nabyo Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yakoze. Avuga ko n’iyo ibaruwa yo ku wa 10/08/2022 yakwitwa ibaruwa ya kabiri itandukanye n’iya mbere, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutagombaga kuyiheraho mu kubara ibihe byo gutanga ikirego, kuko inenge iyikubiyemo y’ingano y’umwenda Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yatanze nk’impamvu yo gutesha agaciro cyamunara, itigeze iyishyikiriza Urukiko. Ibyo bikaba bisobanuye ko na Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd ubwayo yayitesheje agaciro ; ikaba rero itaragombaga gushingirwaho mu kubara ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko, ahubwo haragombaga gushingirwa ku ibaruwa yo ku wa 09/08/2022. [28] Avuga kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoresheje ingingo ya 9 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishiriza y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ruvuga ko nta tegeko ririho rigena uburyo bwo kubara ibihe iyo handitswe amabaruwa menshi, maze rwiyambaza ingingo ya 7 yo mu itegeko ry’imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha yerekeye igihe cyo gutangira kubara ubusaze bw’ikirego cy’ikurikiranacyaha : ibintu bidafite aho bihuriye n’impaka ziri muri uru rubanza. [29] Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc na Alliance Investment Group Ltd bavuga ko usaba gutesha agaciro cyamunara ashobora kwandika inshuro zose ashaka mu gihe ari mu bihe biteganywa n’itegeko ariko ibaruwa ye ya mbere

Page 232

198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ikaba ari yo iherwaho habarwa ibihe byo kuba yashubijwe, kuko izindi zose aba ari inyongera. Bavuga ko rero kuba Umwanditsi Mukuru atarasubirije igihe uhereye ku ibaruwa ya mbere, ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko byagomba gutangira kubarwa uhereye ku munsi wa nyuma Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd yagombaga kuba yaboneyeho igisubizo ; bityo bitewe n’uko yanditse bwa mbere ku wa 09/08/2022, igihe ntarengwa yagombaga kuba yaherewe igisubizo cyari ku wa 12/08/2022. Ibihe byo kuregera urukiko bikaba byaragombaga kubarwa kuva kuri iyo tariki, aho kubarwa hagendewe ku gisubizo cyaje gikererewe. Basobanura ko rero, uhereye ku munsi bagombaga kuba baboneye igisubizo itariki 12/08/2022, ukavanamo iminsi y’impera z’icyumweru n’iminsi y’ibiruhuko yemewe, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd itagombaga kurenza itariki ya 22/08/2022 itararegera Urukiko ; nyamara ikaba yarareze icyererewe ku wa 23/08/2022. [30] Abahagarariye Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd bavuga ko ibaruwa atari yo igenderwaho habarwa ibihe byo kuregera Urukiko ahubwo ikigenderwaho ari igisubizo cy’Umwanditsi Mukuru nk’uko ingingo ya 260, igika cya nyuma y’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ibiteganya, na cyane ko kurega bishingira ku kutanyurwa n’icyemezo cy’umwanditsi Mukuru. Basobanura ko Umwanditsi Mukuru yasubije ku wa 17/08/2022, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd itanga ikirego cyayo ku wa 23/08/2022, kuko umunsi wa 20/08/2022, na 21/08/2022, yari iminsi y’impera z’icyumweru ikaba itabarwa nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 275 na 276 z’Itegeko NO 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru.

Page 233

199 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

[31] Abahagarariye Kigali Business Centre (KBC) Ltd bavuga kandi ko uretse n’ibyo, bidakwiye no gufatwa ko umwanditsi Mukuru yatinze gusubiza kuko nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwabisobanuye, ibihe byo kuba Umwanditsi Mukuru yatanze igisubizo bigomba kubarwa uhereye igihe yaboneye ibaruwa ya nyuma ni ukuvuga ku wa 10/08/2022. Bakavuga ko ibyo abarega bitwaza ko impamvu zari muri iyo baruwa ya nyuma Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd itigize iyigarukaho mu byatumye iregera Urukiko, nta shingiro bikwiye guhabwa kuko nta kibuza ko ishobora kunyurwa n’ibisobanuro yahawe kuri iyo ngingo igasanga bitari ngombwa kongera kubishyikiriza Urukiko. Bityo, bakaba basanga nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoze rigomba gukosorwa n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [32] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumenya ibaruwa mbarutso yo kubara ibihe byo gusubiza iyo umwanditsi Mukuru yandikiwe amabaruwa menshi. Mu yandi magambo, ese iminsi itatu yo kuba umwanditsi Mukuru yasubije uwasabye gutesha agaciro cyamunara itangira kubarwa ryari iyo Umwanditsi Mukuru yandikiwe inshuro zirenze imwe ? Ese iyo asubije akererewe, ibihe byo kuregera urukiko byo bihera he bibarwa ? Ku gisubizo cye cyangwa ku gihe ntarengwa yagombaga kuba yasubirije ? [33] Ingingo ya 260 igika cya 5 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 … Guhagarika no gutesha agaciro cyamunara ku mitungo igurishwa hashingiwe ku cyemezo cyo kugurisha

Page 234

200 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ingwate cyatanzwe n’Umwanditsi Mukuru, bisabwa Umwanditsi Mukuru. Umwanditsi Mukuru atanga igisubizo mu gihe kitarenze iminsi itatu (3) y’akazi. Iyo hari utishimiye igisubizo cy’Umwanditsi Mukuru cyangwa udahawe igisubizo mu gihe giteganywa muri iki gika, abitangira ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi hakurikijwe ibivugwa muri iyi ngingo, mu gihe kitarenze iminsi itanu (5) y’akazi uhereye igihe yamenyeye icyo gisubizo. [34] Iyi ngingo yumvikanisha ko umwanditsi Mukuru ashobora gusubiza cyangwa ntasubize mu gihe cy’iminsi itatu giteganyijwe. Iyo iyo minsi itatu ishize adasubije, uwamwandikiye aba agomba guhita aregera urukiko mu gihe kitarenze iminsi itanu. Naho iyo asubije muri icyo gihe giteganyijwe, utanyuzwe n’igisubizo cye aregera urukiko mu minsi itanu ihereye igihe yaboneye igisubizo. Ibi binasobanuye ko iyo umwanditsi mukuru atinze gusubiza bidaha uwanenze cyamunara uburenganzira bwo kubanza gutegereza igisubizo cye kugira ngo azabone kuregera urukiko. [35] Ku byerekeye ibaruwa ikwiye guherwaho mu kubara ibihe byo kuba Umwanditsi Mukuru yatanze igisubizo iyo handitswe amabaruwa yuzuzanya, uru Rukiko rusanga ikibazo gisa nk’iki cyarasuzumwe mu rubanza RADA 0001/11/CS ku wa 27/04/20127 , aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko iyo habaye gutakambira umuyobozi inshuro nyinshi, itakamba rya mbere rikozwe ari ryo riherwaho habarwa igihe cyo kuregera urukiko gitangira kubarwa. Uwo murongo ni nawo wagiye ukurikizwa

7 Reba mu gika cya 14 cy’ Urubanza RADA 0001/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/04/2012 haburana KIST na Hashakimana Anastase

Page 235

201 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

mu manza zakurikiyeho8. Bityo, ku bibazo birebana n’ubusabe bwashyikirijwe umuyobozi mu mabaruwa yuzuzanya, uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga ibaruwa ya mbere ariyo igomba guherwaho habarwa ibihe umuyobozi wandikiwe agomba kuba yasubirijemo. [36] Muri uru rubanza Kigali Business Center Ltd yandikiye Umwanditsi Mukuru bwa mbere ku italiki 09/08/2022, uhereye kuri iyo taliki ukabara iminsi itatu usanga Umwanditsi Mukuru yaragombaga gusubiza bitarenze itariki 12/08/2022, ariko ntiyasubiza icyo gihe ahubwo asubiza ku wa 17/08/2022. Ibyo bivuze ko igihe cyo kuregera urukiko cy’iminsi itanu giteganywa n’itegeko cyagombaga kubarwa uhereye ku italiki ya 12/08/2022, uwo munsi utabariwemo. Bityo, ikirego kikaba kitaragombaga kurenza itariki 22/08/2022 kitaratangwa. Nyamara nk’uko bigaragara Kigali Business Centre (KBC) Ltd yo ikaba yaratanze ikirego cyayo ku wa 23/08/2022. [37] Kubera izo mpamvu, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga Kigali Business Centre (KBC) Ltd itarubahirije ibihe biteganywa n’amategeko, mu kuregera Urukiko. Bityo Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukaba rwaribeshye mu kwemeza ko ikirego cyayo cyagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi. c) Ibyereke indishyi, igihembo cy’avoka n’ikurikirana rubanza [38] Uhagarariye Me Muhire Samuel asaba Urukiko gutegeka Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd kumuha 1.000.000 Frw

8 8 Reba Urubanza RADA 0029/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/05/2014 haburana Gwakaya Emmanuel na Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

Page 236

202 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y'igihembo cy'Avoka na 500.000 Frw y'ikurikiranarubanza hamwe na 2.000.000 Frw yo kumushora mu manza nta mpamvu. [39] Equity Bank Rwanda Plc nayo ivuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga ubujurire bwayo bufite ishingiro, rwategeka Kigali Business Centre (KBC) Ltd kuyisubiza amafaranga yatanze muri uru rubanza kuva mu rwego rwa mbere kugeza kuri uru rwego angana na 3.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 1.000.000frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [40] Kigali Business Centre KBC Ltd ivuga ko indishyi Me Muhire Samuel asaba zidakwiye guhabwa ishingiro, kuko ari we wakoze amakosa yo guteza cyamunara mu buryo budakurikije amategeko. Ivuga kandi ko n’indishyi Equity Bank Rwanda Plc isaba nta shingiro zifite kuko ariyo yizanye ku bushake muri uru rubanza. [41] Kigali Business Centre KBC Ltd nayo ivuga ko kuba abajuriye baratsinzwe ku mpamvu zumvikana ariko bagakomeza kuyishora mu manza zitari ngombwa, abajuriye bose bakwiye gutegekwa kuyiha 3.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka ndetse na 1.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [42] Ingingo ya 111 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 ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ari ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza.

Page 237

203 Me MUHIRE N’ABANDI v. KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

[43] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza Me Muhire Samuel yasabye ayakwiye kuko kuva imanza zatangira kugeza ubu yashatse Avoka wamuhagarariye muri izi manza akanazikurikira. Bityo akaba agenewe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko 700.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 300.000 Frw, kuko atagaragaza ibimenyetso bihamya ko amafaranga ibihumbi magana atanu asaba ari yo yatakaje mu gukurikirana urubanza. [44] Naho ku bireba Equity Bank Plc, Urukiko rurasanga ubwo urubanza rwatangiraga mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, Kigali Business Center Ltd itarigeze irega Equity Bank Plc, ahubwo iyi ari yo yagobotse ku bushake bwayo muri izi manza. Bityo yaba igihembo cya Avoka ayihagarariye ndetse n’ibyo yatakaje muri izi manza ikaba ntawe ikwiye kubiryoza. [45] Ku bireba Kigali Business Center Ltd, Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka ndetse n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza ntayo yahabwa kuko ari yo yareze ikererewe, bityo ikaba ikwiye no kwirengera ibyo yatakaje muri izi manza. [46] Naho ku byerekeye indishyi zisabwa na Me Muhire Samuel zo gushorwa mu manza, Urukiko rurasanga atazikwiye kuko mu kuregera urukiko nta kigaragaza ko Kigali Business Center yari igamije kuruhanya gusa, ahubwo yari igamije kurengera uburenganzira bwayo.

Page 238

204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [47] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Me Muhire Samuel, ubwa Equity Bank Plc, ubwa Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc, Alliance Investment Group Ltd bifite ishingiro; [48] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMA 00594/2022/HCC rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru rw'Ubucuruzi ku wa 23/09/2022, ruhindutse ; [49] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd cyo gutesha agaciro cyamunara yakozwe na Me Muhire Samuel, ku wa 02/08/2022, ikorewe ku mutungo ufite UPI 1/02/08/01/599, kitagombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ; [50] Rwemeje ko indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza zasabwe na Me Muhire Samuel kimwe n’izasabwe na Kigali Business Center Ltd nta shingiro zifite ; [51] Rutegetse Kigali Business Center guha Muhire Samuel, amafaranga y’u Rwanda Miliyoni imwe (1.000.000 Frw) akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza ; [52] Rutegetse Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd gusubiza Me Muhire Samuel, ingwate y’amagarama yatanze kuri uru rwego.

Page 239

205

AMAGAMBO MPINE

URUBANZA RW’INSHINJABYAHA

Page 240

206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 241

207 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA (Rukundakuvuga P.J. Gakwaya na Mukamurenzi J.) 31 Nyakanga 2024] Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Kuburanisha sinari mpari(Alibi) – Mu gihe umuburanyi aburanisha “sinari mpari” (alibi) by’umwihariko, Ubushinjacyaha nibwo bukomeza kugira inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho byemeza ko ukurikiranywe yakoze icyaha, naho ukurikiranyweho icyaha uvuga ko atari ari aho icyaha cyakorewe mu gihe runaka ku buryo atari kubasha gukora ibyaha ashinjwa, akagira inshingano zo kugaragaza gusa ko atari ahakorewe icyaha. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Ubuhamya – Agaciro k’ubuhamya – Kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavuga kimwe cyangwa bashobora kwibeshyaho mu buryo budakabije, cyangwa iyo ubuhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko budahuje n’ibyavuzwe mbere sibyo byatesha agaciro ubuhamya kuko bishobora kuba byaratewe n’igihe kirekire gishize icyaha gikozwe kugeza igihe ubuhamya butangiweho mu Rukiko. Amategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ikurikirana ry’icyaha – Icyaha cya jenoside – Kuba uregwa ataravuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca ntibivuzeko atakurikiranwa ku cyaha cya jenoside kuko kuba Urukiko rumwe ntacyo ruvuga ku muntu mu manza rukurikirana, bitavuze ko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha aregwa. 207

Page 242

208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Amategeko yerekeye imanza nshinjabyaha – Impurirane y’ibyaha – Uburyozwacyaha – Icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu – Umuntu ashobora guhamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu hashingiwe ku bikorwa bimwe kubera ko ibikorwa bigize buri cyaha bitandukanye, icyaha cya jenoside gikorwa mu mugambi wo kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, naho icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu kigakorwa mu bitero rusange cyangwa bya simusiga byibasiye abaturage b’abasivile. Amategeko yerekeye imanza nshinjabyaha – Jenoside – Igihano – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha n’impamvu nkomezacyaha – Nubwo uregwa yahamwa n’ibyaha bifite uburemere, kandi byagize n’ingaruka zikomeye ku muryango nyarwanda; kuba yarahamwe n’ibi byaha ntibihagije kugira ngo bibe impamvu nkomezacyaha zituma igihano yahanishijwe kiyongera mu gihe Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaje ko yabikoranye urwango n’ubugome birenze iby’abandi bakoze ibyaha mu gace byakorewemo. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyambuka imbibi, Ubushinjacyaha bukurikiranye Twagirayezu ku cyaha cyo kwica nk’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu buvuga ko ibikorwa bigize ibi byaha uregwa yabikoreye mu Karere ka Rubavu mu cyahoze ari Komini Rwerere, Ubushinjacyaha bukaba bwaramureze hifashishijwe Ibimenyetso bigizwe n’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya batandukanye n’imvugo za Twagirayezu ubwo yabazwaga mu gihugu cya Denmark, bigaragaza ko igihe ibikorwa bigize ibyaha

Page 243

209 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

aregwa byakorwaga yari mu Rwanda kandi ko yabigizemo uruhare. Uregwa yaburanye avuga ko atari akwiye gukurikiranwaho icyaha cyo kwica nk’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu kuko amatariki Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ibi byaha byakoreweho n’uduce dutandukanye byakorewemo, mu cyahoze ari Perefegitura ya Gisenyi, we atashoboraga kuhagaragara kuko yari mu cyahoze ari Zaïre, ari yo Repubulika Iharanira Demokarasi ya Kongo (RDC). Imyiregurire ye ya“sinari mpari” (alibi) yayitangiye ibimenyetso birimo abatangabuhamya avuga ko bari kumwe cyangwa babonanye muri Congo hamwe n’inyandiko yiswe pétition yakozwe n’abantu bemeza ko bari kumwe icyo gihe, n’inyandiko yiswe décharge y’amafaranga y'amazayire yakiriye ubwo yari muri icyo gihugu. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko uregwa yashoboye gutanga ibimenyetso bigizwe n’inyandiko n’ubuhamya bigaragaza ugushidikanya ku bimenyetso by’Ubushinjacyaha bushingiraho buvuga ko yari mu Rwanda kuva ku wa 7 kugeza ku wa 9/04/1994. Urukiko rwemeje kandi ko Ubushinjacyaha bwo butabashije kugaragaza ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bigaragaza ko uregwa yakoze ibyaha aregwa ku matariki n’ahantu byavuzwe haruguru nuko rushingiye kuri iryo sesengura rwanzura ko uregwa adahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu aregwa, rutegeka ko ahita arekurwa urubanza rukimara gusomwa. Umucamanza umwe (1) muri batatu (3) bagize inteko iburanisha uru rubanza yagaragaje igitekerezo kinyuranye n’icy’abandi. Ubushinjacyaha ntibwishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, bujuririra Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, bunenga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwaremeje ko Twagirayezu atari mu Rwanda ubwo ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga rwirengagije ubuhamya, ibimenyetso n’amategeko

Page 244

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bwagaragaje, rukamugira umwere ku byaha akurikiranyweho. Kubyerekeye imiburanire ya sinari mpari(Alibi), buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoresheje nabi umurongo ugaragara mu manza zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda no mu manza zaciwe mu bindi bihugu ku bijyanye n’imyiregurire ya sinari mpari, bituma rushyira ku Bushinjacyaha inshingano zo gutanga ibimenyetso bijyanye n’iyo myiregurire nk’aho ari uburyo busanzwe bwo kwiregura, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko habayeho ikosa ryo gucurika uburyo ibimenyetso bya ‘’sinari mpari’’ bitangwa. Bukomeza buvuga ko bwatanze ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko uregwa yari mu Rwanda ubwo Abatutsi batangiraga kwicwa kuva ku wa 6 Mata 1994, birimo inyandiko zoherejwe n’inzego z’ubutabera za Denmark zikubiyemo amakuru yatanzwe n’uregwa ubwe ubwo yasabaga ubuhungiro mu gihugu cya Denmark no muri Polisi y’icyo gihugu. Ubushinjacyaha bunenga kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye agaciro kadakwiye imyiregurire ya “sinari mpari” ishingiye ku nyandiko yiswe pétition et témoignages, pour l’innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu n’indi yiswe décharge. Kuri iyi mpamvu y’ubujurire uregwa yayiburanyeho avuga ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa nta kosa ryakozwe ku bijyanye n’amahame agenga itangwa ry’ibimenyetso ku myiregurire ishingiye kuri ‘’sinari mpari’’ kuko mu isesengura ry’urubanza, Urukiko Rukuru rwerekanye imanza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire n’izaciwe n’inkiko mpanabyaha mpuzamahanga rusanga zihuriza ku murongo uvuga ko uwireguza “sinari mpari” aba agomba gutanga ibimenyetso bifatika bituma habaho gushidikanya ku bivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha. Ubushinjacyaha bwajuriye buvuga kandi ko Twagirayezu yagizwe umwere hirengagijwe ibimenyetso n’amategeko bigaragaza ko ahamwa n’ibyaha aregwa, ko Urukiko Rukuru

Page 245

211 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

rwemeje ko abatangabuhamya bashinja Twagirayezu batamuzi ruvuga ko bavuguruzanya ku buryo bukabije ku cyo yakoraga, ku bijyanye n’umwanya yari afite mu bikorwa by’amashyaka ya politike cyangwa ubwamamare bwe muri rusange, ndetse no ku miterere imwe n’imwe y’umubiri we, nyamara icyo bose bahurijeho busanga ari cyo cy’ingenzi gikwiye kwitabwaho, ari uko yari umwarimu, akora mu nzego z’uburezi kandi nawe akaba abyiyemerera. Kuri iyi mpamvu y’ubujurire Twagirayezu yaburanye avuga ko ikibazo kijyanye n’uko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha babajijwe batamuzi yakigaragaje kuva akiri muri Denmark, kuko uburyo bamuvuga bagendeye ku murimo yakoraga w’ubwarimu n’aho yawukoreraga, imiterere ye ku mubiri, ubutunzi yari afite n’umwanya mu mashyaka ya politike, bigaragaza ko umuntu bavuga atari we cyangwa batamuzi, kuko iyo baba bamuzi neza, batari kuyoberwa ko yigishaga mu ishuri ryigenga kuri Gacuba II ku Gisenyi kuva muri Nzeri 1993 kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994. Avuga ko yemeranywa n’umwanzuro w’Urukiko Rukuru ugaragara mu gika cya 145 n’icya 146, kuko uburyo abatangabuhamya bivuguruza, bakanavuguruzanya bigaragaza ko batamuzi. Ubushinjacyaha buvuga kandi ko Urukiko Rukuru rwivuguruje aho rwemeje ko kuba uregwa ataravuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca bitabuza ko yakurikiranwaho icyaha cya jenoside, ariko ku bireba Twagirayezu ruvuga ko

uburyo abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bamugaragaza nk’uwamamaye mu bikorwa n’inama zitegura jenoside, ndetse n’ibikorwa bya jenoside nyir’izina, atari kubura kuvugwa muri Gacaca mu duce twose Ubushinjacyaha buvuga yayoboyemo ubwicanyi. Busobanura ko iryo sesengura ntacyo rishingiyeho (objective criteria), kuko mu gihe cy’ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca hari abantu benshi bagize uruhare muri jenoside batavuzwe bibagiranye kubera impamvu zitandukanye. Ko rero

Page 246

212 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bitumvikana uburyo Urukiko Rukuru rwabonye ko Twagirayezu we atari kwibagirana ku buryo uwagaragaza uruhare rwe muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu 1994, iki gihe yaba atavugisha ukuri. Kuri iyi mpamvu y’ubujurire uregwa yaburanye avuga ko mu nyandiko yo kumufata, Ubushinjacyaha bwavugaga ko yari umuntu w’igihangange, ufite imitungo n’ibindi byinshi, ndetse harebwe n’imvugo za bamwe mu batangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha nta kuntu atari kuvugwa mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Mu gihe umuburanyi aburanisha “sinari mpari” (alibi) by’umwihariko, Ubushinjacyaha nibwo bukomeza kugira inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho byemeza ko ukurikiranywe yakoze icyaha, naho ukurikiranyweho icyaha uvuga ko atari ari aho icyaha cyakorewe mu gihe runaka ku buryo atari kubasha gukora ibyaha ashinjwa, akagira inshingano zo kugaragaza gusa ko atari ahakorewe icyaha.

2. Kugira ngo inyandiko ifatwe nk’ikimenyetso gihamya ko umuntu yari ahantu runaka ni uko haba hashobora kugaragazwa ikimenyetso gifatika cyerekana igihe iyo nyandiko yakorewe n’aho yakorewe kuko mu rwego rwo kwirengera umuntu ashobora kwandika inyandiko akabeshya aho yayikoreye n’igihe yakorewe. Bityo inyandiko yiswe décharge, ntiyaba gihamya yihagije ko Twagirayezu yari muri Congo mu gihe cyavuzwe kuko ubugenzuzi bwayikoreweho butabashije kugaragaza igihe yakorewe. Ku bijyanye n’inyandiko yiswe pétition yanditswe n’abantu bari muri Congo bahamya ko Twagirayezu yari kumwe nabo kuva tariki ya 6 kugeza ku ya 9 Mata 1994, kuba iyo nyandiko iriho amasano atariyo, bituma ikemangwa.

Page 247

213 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

3. Kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavuga kimwe cyangwa bashobora kwibeshyaho mu buryo budakabije, cyangwa iyo ubuhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko budahuje n’ibyavuzwe mbere sibyo byatesha agaciro ubuhamya kuko bishobora kuba byaratewe n’igihe kirekire gishize icyaha gikozwe kugeza igihe ubuhamya butangiweho mu Rukiko.

4. Kuba uregwa ataravuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca ntibivuzeko atakurikiranwa ku cyaha cya jenoside kuko kuba Urukiko rumwe ntacyo ruvuga ku muntu mu manza rukurikirana, bitavuze ko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha aregwa, kuko ikirebwa ari ibikorwa bye ku giti cye n’ibimenyetso, bityo Urukiko Rukuru rwarivuguruje kuko nyuma yo kugaragaza ko kuba umuntu ataravuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca bitavuze ko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha aregwa, rukaba rutari kwemeza ko Twagirayezu (uregwa) byanze bikunze yari kuvugwa muri Gacaca.

5. Umuntu ashobora guhamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu hashingiwe ku bikorwa bimwe kubera ko ibikorwa bigize buri cyaha bitandukanye, icyaha cya jenoside gikorwa mu mugambi wo kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, naho icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu kigakorwa mu bitero rusange cyangwa bya simusiga byibasiye abaturage b’abasivile. Bityo umuntu uri mu bakoze ibikorwa by’ubwicanyi byagambiriwe, bikozwe n’ibitero byibasira abantu bagize itsinda runaka rihuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bigamije kubarimbura bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo kubera icyo bari cyo, bikorewe abasivile, mu bihe bisanzwe cyangwa by’intambara, afatwa nk’uwakoze icyarimwe mu mpurirane

Page 248

214 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mbonezamugambi icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyibasiye inyoko muntu.

6. Nubwo uregwa yahamwa n’ibyaha bifite uburemere, kandi byagize n’ingaruka zikomeye ku muryango nyarwanda; kuba yarahamwe n’ibi byaha ntibihagije kugira ngo bibe impamvu nkomezacyaha zituma igihano ahanishijwe kiyongera mu gihe Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaje ko yabikoranye urwango n’ubugome birenze iby’abandi bakoze ibyaha mu gace byakorewemo, bityo kuba ibyaha bihama Twagirayezu bitamushyira mu rwego rw’abateguye cyangwa urw’abayoboye ibitero byishe abatutsi no kuba ari ubwa mbere ahamijwe icyaha, ahanishijwe igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20)\ Urubanza RP/GEN 00003/2019/HC/HCCIC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibe ku wa 11/01/2024 ruhindutse mu ngigo zarwo zose; Uregwa ahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha kibasiye inyokomuntu; Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 rigenga ibimenyetso, Ingingo ya 2,53, 87 Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 51 n’iya183. Itegeko Nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ingingo ya 91 ,92,94,335. Itegeko N° 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/6/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda, ingingo ya 18.

Page 249

215 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Ingingo ya 2 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09 Ukuboza 1948 agamije gukumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside yemejwe mu Rwanda binyuze mu Itegeko - Teka no 08/75 ryo ku wa 12/02/1975. Itegeko Ngenga N° 04/2012/OL ryo ku wa 15/06/2012 rikuraho Inkiko Gacaca, rikanagena uburyo bwo gukemura ibibazo byari mu bubasha bwazo, Ingingo ya 3. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha vs Sgt. Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste & Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin, RPAA 0117/07/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/09/2010, icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’Inkiko, vol. II, 2011. Ubushinjacyaha vs Bandora Charles, RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/03/2019. Ubushinjacyaha vs Ntamaherezo Iryamukuru,

RPAA 00141/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 31/05/2023. Ubushinjacyaha vs Sezikeye Franҫois, RPAA 00371/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 15/12/2022. Ubushinjacyaha vs Hategikimana Célestin,

RPAA 00681/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 24/3/2023. Ubushinjacyaha na Ntaganzwa Ladislas, RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 03/03/2023. Ubushinjacyaha vs Birindabagabo Jean Paul, RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 08/04/2022. Ubushinjacyaha vs Kabilimana Jean Damascène, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 16/10/2020.

Page 250

216 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ubushinjacyaha vs Hategekimana Célestin,

RPAA 00681/2021/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 24/3/2023. Ubushinjacyaha vs Gatete Jean Baptiste, Case no ICTR-2000-61- T, para.

130. Ubushinjacyaha vvs Callixte Kalimanzira, Case No. ICTR-05- 88-T, para. 748-752. Ubushinjacyaha vs Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, Case no. ICTR-96-3-A, para.

488. Ubushinjacyaha vs Bikindi Simon, Case no ICTR-01- 62 T (2/12/2008), p.12, para.

32. Ubushinjacyaha vs Kayishema & Ruzindana, Case, ICTR-95-1- A, para.

106. Ubushinjacyaha vs Setako Ephrem, Case n° ICTR-04-81-A rwaciwe ku wa 28/9/2011. Ubushinjacyaha vs Musema Alfred, Case n° ICTR-96-13-T rwaciwe ku wa 25/2/2014. Simphiwe Raymond Shusha vs. Leta (Africa y’Epfo) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’igihugu y’Africa y’Epfo. Ubushinjacyaha vs Kamuhanda Jean de Dieu, Case N° ICTR-99- 54 A Ubushinjacyaha vs Zigiranyirazo Protais, Case N° ICTR-01-73- A Ubushinjacyaha vs Nahimana et al. (Media case). Case N° ICTR- 99-52-A Ubushinjacyaha vs Nahimana na bagenzi be (Media case), Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, para.

417. Ubushinjacyaha vs LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ, case No. IT-98-32/1-A, para. 362.

Page 251

217 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Inyandiko z’abahanga: Association Henri Capitant, Vocabulaire juridique, 6e édition, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1996, P.

612. Ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro; Uregwa ahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha kibasiye inyokomuntu; Uregwa ahanishijwe igihano cy’ igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20).

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nyuma y’uko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yoherejwe n’igihugu cya Danmark kugira ngo aburanishwe n’Inkiko z’u Rwanda ku byaha bitandukanye yaketsweho gukora mu 1994, birimo ubwicanyi bwakorewe mu Karere ka Rubavu mu cyahoze ari Komini Rwerere kuva ku itariki ya 7 kugera ku ya 12 Mata 1994, by’umwihariko, kuri bariyeri yo hafi y’uwitwa Gacamena, kuri ISAR-Tamira, kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende, kuri Kiliziya ya Busasamana, ku Nyundo, ku Ishuri rikuru rya Saint Fidèle n’ahiswe commune rouge. Ubushinjacyaha bwamureze mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha Mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi (muri uru rubanza rwiswe Urukiko Rukuru), icyaha cyo kwica nk’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu.

Page 252

218 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[2] Twagirayezu Wenceslas yireguye ahakana ibyaha aregwa avuga ko ku matariki ya 7, iya 8 n’iya 9/04/1994 yari mu gihugu cya Zaïre, ubu cyitwa Repubulika Iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo (RDC) aho yari mu biruhuko bya Pasika kuva mu mpera z’ukwezi kwa Werurwe 1994 kugeza ku itariki ya 9 Mata 1994, ubwo yageraga iwabo mu ijoro. Iyo myiregurire ye ishingiye kuri “sinari mpari” (alibi) yayitangiye ibimenyetso birimo abatangabuhamya avuga ko bari kumwe cyangwa babonanye muri RDC hamwe n’inyandiko yiswe pétition yakozwe n’abantu bemeza ko bari kumwe icyo gihe, n’inyandiko yiswe décharge y’amafaranga y'amazayire yakiriye ubwo yari muri RDC. Kuri iyi myiregurire, Ubushinjacyaha nabwo bwatanze ibimenyetso birimo imvugo z’abatangabuhamya n’imvugo za twagirayezu Wenceslas ubwo yabazwaga ari muri Denmark, bigaragaza ko kuri ayo matariki igihe ibikorwa bigize ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga yari mu Rwanda kandi ko yabigizemo uruhare. [3] Mu rubanza nº RP/GEN 00003/2019/HC/HCCIC rwaciwe ku wa 11/01/2024, Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamuhanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi rwemeje ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yashoboye gutanga ibimenyetso bigizwe n’inyandiko n’ubuhamya bigaragaza ugushidikanya ku bimenyetso by’Ubushinjacyaha bushingiraho buvuga ko yari mu Rwanda kuva ku wa 7 kugeza ku wa 9/04/1994. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje kandi ko Ubushinjacyaha bwo butabashije kugaragaza ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bigaragaza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoze ibyaha aregwa ku matariki n’ahantu byavuzwe haruguru. Urukiko Rukuru rushingiye kuri iryo sesengura rwanzura ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas adahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu aregwa, rutegeka ko ahita arekurwa urubanza

Page 253

219 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

rukimara gusomwa. Umucamanza umwe (1) muri batatu (3) bagize inteko iburanisha uru rubanza yagaragaje igitekerezo kinyuranye n’icy’abandi. [4] Ubushinjacyaha ntibwishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, bujuririra Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, urubanza ruhabwa no RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA, iburanisha rishyirwa ku wa 13/05/2024, ruburanishwa kuva kuri uwo munsi kugeza ku wa 23/05/2024, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yunganiwe na Me

BIKOTWA Bruce na Me Gashema Félicien, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Harindintwari Côme na NIYONZIMA Vincent, Abashinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. [5] Muri make, mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire Ubushinjacyaha bunenga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwaremeje ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atari mu Rwanda ubwo ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga rwirengagije ubuhamya, ibimenyetso n’amategeko bwagaragaje, rukamugira umwere ku byaha akurikiranyweho. Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga nta shingiro bifite kuko Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje impamvu, amategeko n’ibimenyetso rwashingiyeho rumugira umwere. [6] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ibibazo bikwiye gusuzumwa ari ibi bikurikira: A. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa mu kwemeza ko haba hari ugushidikanya ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda mu gihe ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga. B. Kumenya niba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yaragizwe umwere hirengagijwe ibimenyetso n’amategeko bigaragaza ko ahamwa n’ibyaha aregwa.

Page 254

220 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

C. Ibyerekeye ibihano bisabwa n’Ubushinjacyaha. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO BIGIZE

URUBANZA A. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa mu kwemeza ko haba hari ugushidikanya ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda mu gihe ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga. A.1. Ku birebana n’ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko mu isesengura ry’imyiregurire ishingiye kuri sinari mpari hakozwe amakosa yo kubushyiraho inshingano zo kuyitangira ibimenyetso. [7] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko mu gusesengura imyiregurire ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas uvuga ko atari mu Rwanda ku itariki ya 7, iya 8 n’iya 9 z’ukwezi kwa Mata 1994, guhera ku gika cya 36 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwakoresheje nabi umurongo ugaragara mu manza zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda no mu manza zaciwe mu bindi bihugu ku bijyanye n’imyiregurire ya sinari mpari, bituma rushyira ku Bushinjacyaha inshingano zo gutanga ibimenyetso bijyanye n’iyo myiregurire nk’aho ari uburyo busanzwe bwo kwiregura. Bakomeza bavuga ko habayeho ikosa ryo gucurika uburyo ibimenyetso bya ‘’sinari mpari’’ bitangwa, kuko, nk’uko uru Rukiko rwabisobanuye mu rubanza n° RPAA/GEN 00009/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 16/10/2020, haburana Kabirima Jean Damascène, uwireguza ‘’sinari mpari’’ ni we ugomba gutanga ibimenyetso1, ko rero

1 Igika cya 22 cy’urwo rubanza.

Page 255

221 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Twagirayezu Wenceslas ari we ugomba gutanga ibimenyetso bifatika bigaragaza aho yari ari ubwo ibikorwa bigize ibyaha akurikiranyweho byakorwaga. Ubushinjacyaha busoza buvuga ko igihe hari ukunyuranya hagati y’umurongo watanzwe n’inkiko zo hanze n’uwatanzwe n’inkiko z’u Rwanda ku kibazo runaka, umurongo watanzwe n’inkiko z’u Rwanda ari wo ugomba gukurikizwa. [8] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko mu rubanza rujuririrwa nta kosa ryakozwe ku bijyanye n’amahame agenga itangwa ry’ibimenyetso ku myiregurire ishingiye kuri ‘’sinari mpari’’ kuko mu isesengura ry’urubanza, Urukiko Rukuru rwerekanye imanza zitandukanye zaciwe n’uru Rukiko2 n’izaciwe n’inkiko mpanabyaha mpuzamahanga rusanga zihuriza ku murongo uvuga ko uwireguza “sinari mpari” aba agomba gutanga ibimenyetso bifatika bituma habaho gushidikanya ku bivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha. Bavuga ko rero Twagirayezu Wenceslas nk’uregwa yakoze inshingano ze kuko yatanze ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko atari mu Rwanda ku itariki ya 7, iya 8, n’iya 9 Mata 1994 kuko icyo gihe yari mu biruhuko bya Pasika mu gihugu cya Repubulika iharanira Demokarasi ya Congo (RDC).

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Impaka kuri iki kibazo zishingiye ku kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaribeshye mu gushyira ku Bushinjacyaha ishingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bijyanye n’imyiregurire ya ‘’sinari mpari’’ yazamuwe n’uregwa. Mu yandi magambo,

2 Urubanza rwa Birindabagabo n’urwa Hategekimana n’urubanza rwa Sergent Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste na Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin.

Page 256

222 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inshingano z’uwireguza sinarimpari mu gutanga ibimenyetso zigarukira he, iz’urega (Ubushinjacyaha) zo ni izihe mu miburanire ishingiye kuri “sinari mpari”? [10] Ku birebana n’imyiregurire ya ‘’sinari mpari’’, uru Rukiko rwaciye imanza zitandukanye, nk’urubanza n° RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA hagati y’Ubushinjacyaha na Birindabagabo Jean-Paul, aho rushingiye ku manza zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda3, rwasobanuye ko ku birebana n’ugomba gutanga ibimenyetso mu gihe umuburanyi aburanisha “sinari mpari” (alibi) by’umwihariko, Ubushinjacyaha ari bwo bukomeza kugira inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho byemeza ko ukurikiranywe yakoze icyaha, naho ukurikiranyweho icyaha uvuga ko atari ari aho icyaha cyakorewe mu gihe runaka ku buryo atari kubasha gukora ibyaha ashinjwa, akagira inshingano zo kugaragaza gusa ko atari ahakorewe icyaha4. [11] Inshingano z’impande zombi mu rubanza rurimo uwireguza “sinari mpari” zasobanuwe neza n’Urugereko rw’Ubujurire rw’Inkiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga zashyiriweho u Rwanda n’icyahoze ari Yougoslavie5. Koko rero, mu manza zitandukanye, urugereko rw’Ubujurire muri izo nkiko zagiye zihura n’ikibazo cy’abaregwa baburanishije “sinari

3 Izo manza ni urubanza n° ICTR-99-54 A rwa Kamuhanda Jean de Dieu ; urubanza n° ICTR-01-73-A rwa Zigiranyirazo Protais n’urubanza ICTR- 99- 52-A rwa Nahimana et al. (Media case). 4 Ibi ni ko byemejwe mu rubanza n° RPAA 00371/2020/CA rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Sezikeye Franҫois rwaciwe ku wa 15/12/2022 no mu rubanza n° RPAA 00681/2021/CA rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Hategikimana Célestin rwaciwe ku wa 24/3/202 5 Reba urubanza rwaciwe mu bujurire habura Ubushinjacyaha na Nahimana na bagenzi be (Media case), Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, para. 417.

Page 257

223 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

mpari” mu rwego rwa mbere, inkiko zikagaragaza ko ibimenyetso batanze bidahagije kugira ngo iyo “sinari mpari” yabo igire ishingiro, bakajurira bavuga ko amategeko agenga imiburanire ya sinari mpari yishwe kuko basabwe gutanga ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho, kandi ibyo ubundi biri mu nshingano z’Ubushinjacyaha6. Urugereko rw’ubujurire akenshi zagiye zisubiza ko n’ubwo ubushinjacyaha bugumana inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bigaragaza ko uregwa atari aho avuga ko yari ari, uregwa na we wireguza “sinari mpari” agomba gutanga ibimenyetso ko atari aho icyaha cyakorerwe igihe cyakorwaga, ku rwego rutuma umucamanza yemera ko atashoboraga kuba yari ahari koko7. Muri make umurongo wagaragaye muri izo manza, ni uko ku byerekeye uregwa uburanisha sinari mpari, n’ubwo adasabwa ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho (beyong reasonable doubt) nk’uko bisabwa ubushinjacyaha, kumusaba ibimenyetso bifatika bituma koko umucamanza yagira ugushidikanya ku bivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha, si ukubusanya inshingano z’urega n’iz’uregwa. [12] Mu yandi magambo, ku birebana n’uru rubanza rujuririrwa, Ubushinjacyaha bwari bufite inshingano yo kugaragaza ku buryo budashidikanywaho ko igihe jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi yakorwaga ku Gisenyi, kuva ku itariki 07 kugeza ku ya 09 Mata 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda, naho we akagaragaza ku buryo butuma urukiko rwemeranya na we ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga nta shingiro

6 Reba urubanza rwaciwe mu bujurire habura Ubushinjacyaha na Lukić & Lukić, case No. IT-98-32/1-A, para. 362. 7 Reba urubanza rwaciwe mu bujurire habura Ubushinjacyaha na Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, Para. 488.

Page 258

224 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bifite kuko yari mu mahanga nk’uko abyireguza8. Akaba ari no muri urwo rwego hagiye gusuzumwa mu bika bikurikiraho niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoresheje nabi izo nshingano z’impande ziburana mu itangwa ry’ibimenyetso, bigatuma rwemeza ko bishoboka ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atari mu Rwanda ubwo jenoside yakorerwaga Abatutsi ku Gisenyi, mu matariki yavuzwe9. [13] Mu Rukiko Rukuru, ubushinjacyaha bwasobanuye ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda ubwo ibyaha byavuzwe byakorwaga bushingiye ku mvugo ye bwite asaba ubuhungiro muri Denmark igaragaza ko yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994; ku kuba nta kimenyetso na kimwe cyabugenewe (official) yatanze kigaragaza ko yigeze yambuka umupaka no ku nenge zigaragara mu nyandiko yiswe “pétition et témoignage pour l’innocence de Mr. Twagirayezu Wenceslas’’” cyangwa indi yiswe “décharge”. Twagirayezu Wenceslas we yasobanuye urwego yavuzemo ko atigeze ava mu Rwanda, agaragaza ko igihe yasubizaga ku kibazo cyo kumenya aho yari hagati ya Mutarama na Nyakanga 1994, yasubije ko yari mu Rwanda kuko kujya muri Congo atigeze abifata nko kujya mu mahanga; ko kujyayo bitagomberaga icyangombwa gitanzwe mu buryo buri official, ko yari asanzwe ajyayo muri ubwo buryo, kandi ko hari n’abatangabuhamya bo muri Congo bagaragaje mu nyandiko yabo yiswe pétition et témoignage pour innocence de Twagirayezu Wenceslas, bakanabihamya imbere y’urukiko ko muri icyo gihe bari kumwe nawe muri Congo, ndetse hakaba hari n’inyandiko yiswe décharge yakorewe aho muri Congo icyo gihe.

8 Reba urubanza rwaciwe mu bujurire habura Ubushinjacyaha na Kayishema & Ruzindana, Case, ICTR-95-1-A, para. 106. 9 Reba igika cya 53 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa.

Page 259

225 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[14] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko bigaragara mu rubanza rujuririrwa kuva mu gika cya mirongo itatu na gatandatu (36) kugeza ku cya mirongo ine (40), Urukiko Rukuru rwatangiye rugaragaza ihame rikurikizwa ku birebana n’imyiregurire ya “sinari mpari” mu gutanga ibimenyetso biyishimangira; rusobanura ko ukurikiranyweho icyaha afite inshingano yo gutanga gusa ibimenyetso bishimangira ko atari ahakorewe icyaha aregwa, mu gihe Ubushinjacyaha bwo bukomeza kugira ishingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso bidashindikanywaho byemeza ko ukurikiranwe yakoze icyo cyaha aregwa, rubyemeza rushingiye ku manza zaciwe n’Inkiko z’u Rwanda10, nazo zifashishije amategeko mpuzamahanga n’ibyemezo by’Inkiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga11 n’iz’ibindi bihugu12. [15] Urukiko Rukuru ruhereye kuri ibyo, mu gika cya 53 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, rwasobanuye ko ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’uregwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas bigaragaza ko bishoboka ko ku matariki ya 7, iya 8 n’iya 9 z’ukwezi kwa Mata 1994, yaba yari muri RDC, ahantu hatandukanye n’aho Ubushinjacyaha buvuga yakoreye ibikorwa bigize ibyaha akuriranyweho kuri aya matariki; maze mu gika cya 197 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, urwo rukiko rwemeza ko uregwa yashoboye kugaragaza ibimenyetso bigizwe n’inyandiko n’ubuhamya bishyira ugushidikanya ku byo Ubushinjacyaha

10 Urubanza n° RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rwa Birindabagabo Jean-Paul rwaciwe ku wa 8/4/2022 n’urubanza n° RPAA 00681/2021/CA rwa Hategekimana Célestin rwaciwe ku wa 24/3/2023. 11 Reba urubanza rwaciwe mu bujurire habura Ubushinjacyaha na SETAKO Ephrem, Case n° ICTR-04-81-A rwaciwe ku wa 28/9/2011 n’urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred, Case n° ICTR-96-13-T rwaciwe ku wa 25/2/2014. 12 Urubanza rwa Simphiwe Raymond Shusha na Leta (Africa y’Epfo) rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’igihugu y’Africa y’Epfo.

Page 260

226 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

buvuga ko yari ari mu Rwanda kuva ku wa 7 kugeza ku wa 9/4/1994, nyamara Ubushinjacyaha bwo ntibwabashije kugaragaza ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bigaragaza ko ibimenyetso uregwa ashingiraho yerekana ko yari muri RDC kuri aya matariki atari ukuri. [16] Ku bivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko Urukiko rwabanje rwirengagije ibyasobanuwe mu rubanza n° RPAA/GEN 00009/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 16/10/2020 n’uru Rukiko, aho rwasobanuye ko uwireguza ‘’sinari mpari’’ ari we ugomba gutanga ibimenyetso bifatika bigaragaza aho yari ari ubwo ibikorwa bigize ibyaha akurikiranyweho byakorwaga, bushaka kumvikanisha ko uwo murongo unyuranye n’uwatanzwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’inkiko mpuzamahanga kandi ariwo ugomba gukurikizwa, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga atari byo, kuko urwo rubanza rutanyuranya n’imirongo yatanzwe mu zindi manza zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda. Icyo urwo rubanza rwasobanuye ni uko uregwa agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso bifatika bishimangira imyiregurire ye ya ‘’sinari mpari’’13, bivuze ko agomba gutanga ibimenyetso bitera ugushidikanya ku bimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bigaragaza ko yari aho icyaha cyakorewe. [17] Nk’uko rero bigaragara mu gika kibanziriza iki, Urukiko Rukuru rwagumye mu murongo usanzweho mu mahame agenga itangwa ry’ibimenyetso ku bireba inshingano za buri mu buranyi mu iburana rishingiye kuri “sinari mpari”, kuko rwagumishije inshingano zo gutanga ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho (beyond reasonable doubt) ku ruhande rw’Ubushinjacyaha naho uregwa

13Reba igika cya 22 cy’urwo rubanza.

Page 261

227 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

akaguma mu murongo wo gutanga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko atari ahari ku buryo butera gushidikanya. [18] Ikibazo gisigaye gusuzumwa akaba ari ukumenya niba koko ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha byari ibimenyetso bitari ku rwego rw’ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho, cyangwa niba ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’uruhande rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas byari ku rwego ruhagije rutuma Urukiko Rukuru rushidikanya ku byemezwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda ubwo jenoside yakorwaga ku Gisenyi kuva ku wa 07 kugeza ku wa 09/04/1994. A.2. Ku birebana n’ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwiregangije ibimenyetso bwatanze bihamya ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda igihe ibyaha akurikiranweho byakorwaga 1. Inyandiko zoherejwe n’inzego z’ubutabera za Denmark zikubiyemo imvugo za Twagirayezu Wenceslas [19] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko batanze ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda ubwo Abatutsi batangiraga kwicwa kuva ku wa 6 Mata 1994, birimo inyandiko zoherejwe n’inzego z’ubutabera za Denmark zikubiyemo amakuru yatanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ubwe ubwo yasabaga ubuhungiro mu gihugu cya Denmark no muri Polisi y’icyo gihugu14. Basobanura ko muri izo nyandiko ku rupapuro rwa p-09-350, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabajijwe na Polisi ya Denmark aho yari ari kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994, asubiza ko yari ku Gisenyi mu Rwanda, ku rupapuro rwa p-09-351 yavuze ko yari ashyigikiye

14 Kuva ku rupapuro rwa p-09-310 kugeza ku rwa p-09-371.

Page 262

228 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibikorwa by’interahamwe ariko atashyigikiye ibikorwa by’ubwicanyi, ubwo zatangiraga kubukora, ko basanga izo mvugo ze zigaragaza ko interahamwe zitangira guhiga no kwica Abatutsi yari ahari, kuko n’abakoze ubwicanyi bwibasiye Abatutsi bemeza ko babukoranye, ko rero ibyo avuga ko atari ahari igihe ibyo bikorwa by’ubwicanyi byakorwaga bitari bikwiye guhabwa agaciro n’Urukiko kuko atari kuvuga ko atashyigikiye ibikorwa by’interahamwe adahari. [20] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga kuba Urukiko Rukuru, mu gika cya 48 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, rwaremeje ko ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yavuze ubwo yasabaga ubuhingiro muri Denmark ko yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994, bidasobanura ko yavugaga ko atigeze ahava na rimwe muri icyo gihe, ko agaciro k’ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yavuze kagomba gusesengurwa no kumvikana harebwe ibihe n’impamvu byavugiwe. Bavuga ko ibyo rwabivuze ntaho rubishingiye, ko bigaragaza ahubwo ko imyiregurire y’uregwa rwayigize ihame. [21] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ibirebana n’imvugo ze asaba ubuhungiro, Urukiko Rukuru rwabivuzeho mu gika cya 48, agace ka mbere, cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, rugaragaza ko bidasobanura ko atigeze ava mu Rwanda na rimwe muri icyo gihe. Bakomeza bavuga ko ubwo yasabaga ubuhungiro, urwego rw’abinjira rwo muri Denmark rwamubajije aho yari ari hagati ya Mutarama na Nyakanga 1994, asubiza ko yari mu Rwanda, ko nta bindi yari kongeraho kuko nta n’ikindi bamubazaga. Naho ibyo yavuze ko yashyigikiye interahamwe, birebana n’ibyabaye mu mwaka wa 1997, ubwo abacengezi bateraga gereza yari afungiyemo muri komine Rwerere bakabafungura, akabasha guhungira muri Congo; ko

Page 263

229 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

ibyo yavuze ko yagendeye kure ari ubwicanyi bwakozwe n’interahamwe nyuma y’itariki ya 9/4/1994 ubwo yari yaraye agarutse mu Rwanda kuko mbere y’aho, kuva ku itariki ya 6 kugera ku ya 9/4/1994 atari ahari. [22] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira banavuga ko ubwo yasabaga ubuhungiro havuzwe ko yakoze ibyaha mu Rwanda, ahamagarwa na immigration ya Denmark imubaza ibirebana no gusaba ubuhungiro gusa, ko kuba mu ibazwa rye yaragaragaje ko yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugera muri Nyakanga 1994 atari ukwibeshyera kuko icyo bari bakeneye ari ukumenya aho yari ari, ko bitanavuze ko atigeze ajya muri Congo kandi ko atigeze abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark ku birebana n’ibyaha aregwa nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bubivuga, ko ahubwo bateruye ibyo yavugiye muri immigration aba ari byo bashyira muri dosiye ye.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Impaka kuri iki kibazo zishingiye ku kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarasesenguye nabi uburemere bw’imvugo z’uregwa ubwo yasabaga ubuhingiro mu gihugu cya Denmark, zemeza ko yari ari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994, ko rero n’igihe ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga ku Gisenyi muri Mata 94 yari mu Rwanda, rugatesha agaciro icyo kimenyetso nta mpamvu ifatika rushingiyeho. [24] Nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, hakurikijwe amahame agenga itangwa ry’ibimenyetso mu miburanire ishingiye kuri “sinari mpari”, Ubushinjacyaha busabwa gutanga ikimenyetso kitagibwaho impaka mu kugaragaza ko uregwa yari mu Rwanda, naho uburanisha sinari mpari akaba agomba gutanga impamvu

Page 264

230 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ifatika ituma umucamanza yemera ko ibyo avuga bifite ishingiro ku buryo bimutera gushidikanya ku byo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga. [25] Nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko-mvugo ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas yo ku wa 28/8/2002 yakorewe imbere ya Servisi ya Denmark ishinzwe abinjira mu gihugu mu rwego rwo gusuzuma ubusabe bwe bw’ubuhungiro, nyuma yo kumenyeshwa ko ikigamijwe muri icyo kiganiro ari ugucukumbura isano iri hagati y’ibikorwa bye bya politiki, harimo by’umwihariko n’imikoranire ye n’interahamwe n’impamvu ituma asaba ubuhungiro muri rusange, yasobanuye ko nk’Umuhutu, yashyigikiye interahamwe, ko ariko nta bikorwa yigeze azikorera, ko atigeze ajya mu bikorwa bya gisirikare interahamwe zakoze mu gihe cy’intambara cyangwa ibyo zari zirimo gukora muri icyo gihe yabazwaga. Yasobanuye kandi ko yashyigikiye ibitekerezo byabo byo kubasubiza iwabo mu Rwanda, bakabaho nk’abaturage basanzwe mu gihugu kavukire cyabo, kandi bakabasha kugira uburenganzira bwo kugaragaza ibitekezo byabo, ndetse ko yafashije abantu guhunga bava mu Rwanda bajya muri RDC. [26] Muri iyo nyandiko-mvugo ye, abajijwe aho yari ari hagati ya Mutarama na Nyakanga 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yasobanuye ko yabaga muri Gisenyi mu Rwanda, aho yigishaga imibare mu ishuri ryisumbuye rya Collège y’Ababatisite ya Gacuba II, ko kuva mu mwaka wa 1994 kugeza mu wa 1996, yabaga mu nkambi y’impunzi ya Kibumba (UNHCR) muri région ya Kivu. [27] Mu gika cya 48, agace ka mbere, cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yavuze asaba ubuhingiro muri Denmark by’uko yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugeza Nyakanga 1994, bidasobanura ko

Page 265

231 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

atigeze ava mu Rwanda na rimwe muri icyo gihe, cyane ko agaciro k’ibyo yavuze asaba ubuhingiro kagomba gusesengurwa no kumvikana harebwe ibihe n’impamvu byavugiwe. [28] Ikibazo gihari, akaba ari ukumenya niba iri sesengura ry’Urukiko Rukuru ryarahaye agaciro gakwiye ibisobanuro yatanze ku birebana n’imvugo ze: a. kuba yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994 no b. kuba yarashyigikiye ibikorwa by’interahamwe; byari bihagije ku buryo bitera umucamanza gushidikanya ku ireme ry’izo mvugo. [29] Ku birebana no kuba yaravuze ko yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga isesengura ribitesha agaciro ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwemeza ko iyo mvugo itafatwa nk’aho yemeraga ko yari mu Rwanda ku itariki ya 7, iya 8 n’iya 9 z’ukwezi kwa Mata 1994 ngo kuko yayivuze asubiza ku bibazo yabazwaga muri rusange birebana n’ubusabe bwe bw’ubuhingiro, nta shingiro rifite kubera impamvu zikurikira: a. Twagirayezu Wenceslas yiyemereye nta gahato ko yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugera muri Nyakanga 1994; bivuze ko n’igihe jenoside yakorerwaga Abatutsi yari ahari; b. Kuba ibyo yarabivuze mu rwego rwo gusaba ubuhungiro, ntibyari kuba impamvu itesha agaciro ireme ry’ibyo yiyemereye kuko ahubwo bigaragaza ko ubwo yabyiyemereye ntacyo ashinjwa, nta nyungu yihariye abifitemo, ari byo bigaragaza

Page 266

232 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubuziranenge bw’iyo mvugo ye nk’ubuhamya. Ibindi yasobanuye mu Rukiko ku bijyanye n’icyatumye abivuga atyo muri immigration ya Denmark, akaba yarabikoze gusa mu rwego rwo kwirwanaho aho amariye kubona ko guhakana ko yari mu Rwanda aribyo afitemo inyungu ; c. Naho ku birebana no kuba yarabajijwe ikibazo muri rusange, bityo akaba na we yaragombaga kugisubiza muri rusange, uru Rukiko rusanga nabyo nta shingiro byari bikwiye guhabwa, kuko kubazwa ikibazo muri rusange atari byo byari kumutera kwibeshyera cyane cyane imbere y’urwego asanzwe azi neza ko kurutangamo amakuru atariyo (kandi afite andi mahitamo) bishobora kumuviramo kubura ubuhungiro ; d. Isesengura ry’Urukiko Rukuru rishingiye ku kuba atarabajijwe ibisobanuro byihariye biganisha ku gihe nyakuri jenoside yakorwaga ku Gisenyi, ngo akaba ari byo byaba byaratumye atavuga ko hari igihe atahabaye, uru Rukiko rusanga nabyo nta shingiro bifite, kuko ahubwo iyo bikorwa bityo byari gutuma ubuhamya bwe butakaza ubuziranenge bwo kutagira aho bubogamiye, kuko byari gutuma ashaka uburyo yatanga igisubizo kitazamuteza ibibazo. [30] Ku bijyanye no kuba yaravuze ko yashyigikiye ibikorwa by’interahamwe, Ubushinjacyaha bwavuze ko ibyo atabivuga atari kumwe nazo mu Rwanda. Uru Rukiko rusanga iyi ngingo Urukiko Rukuru rutarayisubijeho by’umwihariko kuko rwayifatiye hamwe n’ubuhamya bwatangiwe muri immigration ya Denmark. Ariko nk’uko byumvikana, uru Rukiko rusanga imvugo yo gushyigikira umuntu cyangwa igikorwa, idasaba ko uba uri kumwe na we, cyangwa uri aho icyo gikorwa kibera. Bityo, ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga kuri iyi mvugo yo gushyigikira interahamwe, yo bikaba nta shingiro bifite.

Page 267

233 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

2. Ku bijyanye no kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas atarerekanye urwandiko rw’inzira yambukiyeho ajya muri Congo [31] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko banenga isesengura ry’Urukiko Rukuru mu gika cya 49 kuko rigaragaramo kugenekereza. Urugero ni nk’aho Urukiko Rukuru ruvuga ko kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas atabasha kugaragaza impapuro zigaragaza ko yagiye muri Congo bitavuze ko atagiyeyo. Bavuga ko n’ibyo kuba yaragendeye ku ikarita y’umunyeshuri atari cyo cyagaragajwe mu rubanza; bakaba basaba uru Rukiko kuzabisuzuma kuko mu kugaragaza ko yari muri Congo, yazanye abavandimwe be gusa n’inshuti ze bo muri Congo; bikaba bitumvikana impamvu nta bandi bantu bo mu Rwanda babimenye ko yagiyeyo bikamenywa nabo muri Congo gusa. Basanga rero yaragombaga kwerekana ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko yagiyeyo, ko Urukiko rutari kugendera ku byo avuga gusa ko yanyuze mu nzira zitemewe kandi rutagaragaje impamvu ituma ibyo bigomba kwemerwa bityo. [32] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko kwambuka umupaka bikorwa mu buryo butandukanye, ko hari abambuka nta byangombwa cyangwa se babifite. Bavuga ko we yambuka atanyuze ku mupaka kuko Komini yabo iri ku mupaka neza, hagati hakaba harimo ikibaya bambuka bitabaye ngombwa ko banyura ku mupaka ku Gisenyi. Basobanura kandi ko n’iyo babaga banyuze ku mupaka berekanaga indangamuntu gusa; ko rero nta kosa riri mu isesengura ry’Urukiko kuko n’Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaza itegeko ryishwe. Basoza bavuga ko kujya muri Congo byari ubuzima bwe bwite, ko nta nshingano yari afite yo kuvuga ko agiyeyo; ko ahubwo ikibazo yakigize mu

Page 268

234 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kugaruka ku itariki ya 8 n’iya 9/4/1994 kubera ko jenoside yari yatangiye, umupaka urinzwe n’abasirikare benshi.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [33] Mu gusobanura ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagiye muri Congo; nta byangombwa afite bigaragaza ko yambutse umupaka ajya muri Congo, ahubwo ikigaragara ni uko avuga ko yambukaga bitabaye ngombwa ko aca ku mupaka. Ikibazo gihari akaba ari ukumenya niba yaratanze ibimenyetso bifatika byagombye gutuma umucamanza agira ugushidikanya kwatumye Urukiko Rukuru rwemera ko bishoboka ko n’ubwo nta kigaragaza ko yambutse umupaka, yaba yari muri Congo ubwo jenoside yakorwaga ku Gisenyi hagati y’itariki ya 07 n’iya 09 Mata 1994. [34] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 49 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko imiburanire y’Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atagaragaza urwandiko rw’inzira yambukiyeho ajya muri RDC n’urwo yagarukiyeho, cyangwa umuntu wabonye yambuka umupaka nta shingiro ifite, kuko kuba uregwa adashobora kugaragaza inyandiko yemewe n’Ubuyobozi y’uburyo yambutse bitavuze ko atagiye muri RDC kuko ashobora no kuba yo nta byangombwa afite, nk’uko uregwa yiyemerera ko kuva muri RDC yambuka mu Rwanda ku wa 9/4/1994 atanyuze ku mupaka. [35] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibi bisobanuro by’Urukiko Rukuru kuri iyi ngingo bidahagije kuko mu buryo busanzwe, ikimenyetso kamara kigaragaza ko umuntu yagiye mu kindi gihugu ari inyandiko z’inzira. Kuba utabifite rero kandi uhamya ko wabaye mu kindi igihugu si ibintu bisanzwe, Urukiko

Page 269

235 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

rwaheraho rwemeza mu buryo bworoshye ngo birashoboka ko umuntu yambutse umupaka. Uru Rukiko rusanga, mu gihe nta kimenyetso nk’iki kibonetse, uwireguza sinari mpari aba agomba gutanga ibimenyetso biri ku rwego rwatuma Umucamanza ashidikanya ku byo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko yari mu Rwanda koko, birebewe hamwe n’ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha. Ireme ry’ibyavuzwe n’abatangabuhamya kuri iyi ngingo rikaba ari ryo rigiye gusesengurwa mu bika bikurikira.

3. Ibyerekeye ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutahaye agaciro gakwiye imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bemeza ko jenoside itangira Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda. [36] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga ko mu gika cya 48 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rutasuzumiye hamwe imvugo za Pasteur Kaberuka Théophile yavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha mu mwaka wa 2019 n’uwa 2021 n’ubuhamya yatangiye mu Rukiko, ngo rubone ko yivuguruza kandi adakwiye kwizerwa. Bavuga ko Kaberuka Théophile abazwa mu Bushinjacyaha yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atigeze ajya muri Congo, akaba yari yanemeye kuzabitangamo ubuhamya ariko nyuma akaza mu Rukiko amushinjura, noneho yemeza ko yari yaramubwiye ko azajya muri Congo mu biruhuko bya Pasika. Bakaba banenga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagize icyo ruvuga kuri izo nenge, ahubwo rukamuvugira ibyo atavuze, ngo “yagize urujijo ku ijambo amahanga”; ngo “yumvaga ko RDC itarimo”. [37] Ubushinjacyaha bwemeza ko iyo Urukiko ruza gusuzumira hamwe inyandikomvugo ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’iya Kaberuka Théophile mu iperereza, rwari kubona ko atigeze ajya muri Congo kuko mu mvugo z’uregwa yemezaga ko avuye muri Congo yakiriwe na Kaberuka Théophile, nyamara

Page 270

236 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nyir’ubwite akaba yarahakanye ko yaba yarigeze amwakira, ko atanamubonye n’ubwo Twagirayezu yari yamuzanye mu Rukiko ngo yemeze ko yagiye muri Congo, akaba yaranamuherekeje kugera yambutse umupaka. Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko nyamara Kaberuka Théophile ageze mu Rukiko yivugiye ko ibyo kujya mu biruhuko bigeze kubiganira. [38] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga kandi ko isesengura ry’Urukiko mu gika cya 48, ku bireba imvugo za Nkezabera Paulin ryabogamiye ku ruhande rumwe kuko umutangabuhamya yavuze ko mu minsi ibiri (2) mbere y’uko jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi iba, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yaje kumutira gitari ariko ko aho jenoside itangiriye atongeye kumubona, ko Urukiko rwitiranyije iyo minsi ibiri n’impera z’ukwezi kwa gatatu bituma ruvuga ko harimo gukekeranya, rwirengagije ko iyo minsi ibiri ari tariki ya 4 n’iya 5 Mata 1994, bigaragaza ko jenoside itangira Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda atari muri Congo nk’uko abivuga kandi ko Nkezabera Paulin ari umuntu usobanukiwe atari kwitiranya icyumweru n’iminsi ibiri. [39] Banavuga ko umutangabuhamya Nahimana Emmanuel wari ushinzwe iby’iyobokamana ku kigo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yigishagaho, abazwa mu Bushinjacyaha yagaragaje ko nko kuva ku ya 2 kugeza ku ya 6 Mata 1994 na mbere yaho muri Werurwe 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari ahari na nyuma yaho kugera bahunze, ko akeka ko yabaga mu kigo kuko yari Préfet de discipline kuko bahamusangaga bakanahamusiga ndetse ko yasaga nk’umwana wo kwa Nkezabera Paulin. Bavuga ko izo mvugo ze zigaragaza ko baziranye ariko mu kuzisesengura Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwaravuze ko zitashingirwaho kuko yemeza ko yari ahari abishingiye ku kuba yari asanzwe azi aho

Page 271

237 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

atuye, aho kugaragaza uburyo bwihariye yamubonyemo muri icyo gihe. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bakaba basanga isesengura ryakozwe n’Urukiko ritandukanye n’ibyo Nahimana Emmanuel yavuze. Banavuga ko banenga Urukiko Rukuru kuba rwaremeje ko imvugo ze zitashingirwaho mu rubanza kuko nta bundi buhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko buzishimangira nk’uko ingingo ya 8, igika cya 2 n’icya 3 y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/6/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda ibiteganya, nyamara atari byo kuko hari abatangabuhamya bakoranye ibyaha na Twagirayezu Wenceslas bemeza ko yari mu Rwanda. [40] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Ubushinjacyaha buhindura imvugo ziri mu nyandikomvugo y’ibazwa rya Kaberuka Théophile kuko bwamubajije niba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yarigeze ajya mu mahanga arabihakana, kuko mu gace k'iwabo Congo batayifata nk’amahanga, bumva ko ugiye mu mahanga ari uwafashe indege. Bakavuga ko ntakwivuguruza kuri mu mvugo ze zo mu iperereza no mu buhamya yatangiye mu Rukiko, kuko Kaberuka Théophile mu Rukiko yavuze ko ubwo yabazwaga n’Ubushinjacyaha atumvise ko amahanga yavugwaga na RDC irimo, ko ariyo mpamvu yasubije ko yamenye ko yagiye mu mahanga mu mwaka wa 2000 bavuye mu ntambara y’abacengezi. Bongeraho ko kuba yaraje mu Rukiko nk’umutangabuhamya wa Twagirayezu bitaba impamvu ituma atizerwa cyangwa ngo ubuhamya bwe bushidikanyweho, kuko Ubushinjacyaha butanga urutonde rw’abatangabuhamya, Kaberuka Théophile atari aruriho, ko nta n’ikigaragaza ko yari yaremeye kumushinja, naho ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko yavuze ko ubwo yari agarutse mu Rwanda atamwakiriye, ibyo batazi aho byaturutse ariko ko baturanye ku buryo atashoboraga kugera iwabo atahanyuze.

Page 272

238 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[41] Ku byerekeye imvugo za Nkezabera Paulin, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko atigeze agaragaza itariki ya nyuma baherukaga kubonana ubwo yamutiraga gitari, ko ahubwo yakekeranyije akavuga “nko mu minsi ibiri mbere ya jenoside”. Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rutaragarukiye mu kwerekana ko akekeranya, ahubwo rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 8 y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/6/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda, rwanagaragaje ko imvugo ze zitashingirwaho kuko nta buhamya yatanze mu Rukiko. Bavuga kandi ko ubwo yabazwaga, aho yavuze ko yamwakiriye, yashakaga kuvuga ko yamwakiriye mu kazi ubwo yasubiraga muri paroisse kubera ko bo batigeze bafunga, ko nta n’icyo yari cyo ku buryo Nkezabera Paulin wari i Gisenyi na Kaberuka Théophile wari i Rwerere bombi bari kuza kumwakira agarutse mu Rwanda ku wa 09/04/1994. Bavuga ko ku itariki ya 9 yaje mu ijoro, bucya hari amateraniro ku itariki ya 10/04/1994, icyo gihe akaba aribwo yabonanye na Kaberuka Théophile kuko yari Pasteur, bikaba bishoboka ko Nkezabera Paulin we atamubonye kuko hari abantu benshi. [42] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira banavuga ko yakoranaga na Nahimana Emmanuel wari kontabure, ko ariko uyu atari kumenya icyo yakoraga umunsi ku munsi kuko icyo gihe hari mu biruhuko, ndetse n’amatariki avuga yamubonyeho yakekeranyaga, atavuga aho yamubonye, akaba ataranazanwe mu Rukiko ngo atange ubuhamya. Byongeye kandi ibyo Nahimana Emmanuel yavuze ko atazi aho yari acumbitse, ko ahubwo akeka ko yabaga mu kigo kubera ko yari Préfet de discipline, ko bamusangaga mu kigo bakanahamusiga, bitahabwa agaciro kuko yari asanzwe azi neza ko atashoboraga kuba mu kigo cy’abakobwa, dore ko abahungu bigaga bataha; ko ibyo

Page 273

239 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

yavuze rero bigaragaza ko atari azi neza aho atuye, ko n’ibyabaye icyo gihe nta makuru yari abifiteho.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [43] Impaka kuri iki kibazo zishingiye ku kumenya niba imvugo z’aba batangabuhamya (Kaberuka Théophile, Nkezabera Paulin na Nahimana Emmanuel) zari zifite ireme ku buryo zitera Urukiko Rukuru gushidikanya niba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda ubwo jenoside yabaga ku Gisenyi hagati y’itariki ya 7 kugera ku ya cyenda Nyakanga 1994. [44] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga, nyuma y’imvugo za Twagirayezu Wenceslas yiyemereye ko yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga muri immigration ya Denmark nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, na nyuma y’uko bigaragaye ko nta byangombwa by’inzira bigaragaza ko yigeze yambuka umupaka, ari ngombwa gusesengura buri mvugo y’aba batangabuhamya, kugira ngo rurebe niba hari ireme zifite ryari gutera Urukiko Rukuru gushidikanya ko koko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ashobora kuba yari ari muri DRC, mu gihe cyavuzwe. a) Ku bireba ubuhamya bwa Kaberuka Théophile [45] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya mirongo ine n’umunani (48) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko imvugo ya Kaberuka Théophile mu iperereza y’uko uregwa nta biruhuko yari kujyamo mu mahanga kuri Pasika y’umwaka wa 1994 kuko umwaka w’amashuri utangira mu kwezi kwa cyenda (9), ukarangira mu kwa gatandatu (6) k’undi mwaka, zitafatwa nk’ikimenyetso cy’uko atagiye muri RDC, kuko mu Rukiko yasobanuye ko uregwa yari yaramubwiye ko azaruhukira muri

Page 274

240 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

RDC kuri Pasika, ibi bigaragaza ko yagize urujijo ku ijambo ‘’amahanga’’, ko amahanga yavugaga RDC itarimo. [46] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko ku wa 17/12/2018 mu Bugenzacyaha, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yasobanuye ko mu bantu bazi ko yageze mu Rwanda ku wa 9/4/1994 harimo mama we, Pasteur Kaberuka Théophile, mukase, Buduye, Niwenshuti Ladislas na Nkezabera Paulin. [47] Inyandikomvugo ya Kaberuka Théophile yo ku wa 8/7/2019 mu Bushinjacyaha igaragaza ko yabajijwe niba mbere y’uko jenoside iba, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yaba yarigeze ajya mu mahanga cyangwa ataragiyeyo, yasubije ko atagiyeyo, ko mbere ya 1994 yari mu Rwanda kuko icyo gihe umwaka w’amashuri watangiraga mu kwa cyenda ukarangira mu kwa gatandatu, bakajya muri grandes vacances, ko nta kuntu yari kugenda amashuri atarafunga. Yakomeje avuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagiye mu mahanga mu mwaka wa 2000 bavuye mu ntambara y’abacengezi, ko atamubonaga mu gihe cya jenoside, ko yumvise nyuma ya jenoside ko yagiye muri Congo. Naho mu nyandiko-mvugo ye yo ku wa 23/11/2021, Kaberuka Théophile yasobanuye ko yaturanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuko kuva iwabo ujya iwe ari nk’iminota icumi (10), ko atigeze amubona kuva jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi itangira tariki ya 6/4/1994 kugeza ubwo abaturage bo mu gace kabo bahungaga, ko yongeye kumubona mu mwaka wa 2000 amubwira ko agiye kujya mu mahanga ya kure. Yanasobanuye ko atigeze amwakira avuye Congo ku wa 9/4/1994, ko yamuherukaga mu mwaka wa 1993 mbere ya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi. [48] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 22/4/2022, abajijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru n’Ubushinjacyaha ku birebana n’ikiruhuko cya Pasika cy’umwaka wa 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga ko yafatiye

Page 275

241 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

muri Congo, KABERUKA Théophile yasobanuye ko yagiye kumusura mu mpera z’umwaka wa 1993 aho yari acumbitse ku Kanyarutambi hafi na Gacuba, amubwira ko ibiruhuko bya Pasika azabiruhukira muri Congo, ko kuba icyo gihe ataramubonye iwabo, yumvise ko ariyo yagiye. [49] Nk’uko biboneka, Kaberuka Théophile mu ibazwa rye rya mbere ku wa 8/7/2019 mu Bushinjacyaha, yemeje ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atigeze ajya mu mahanga ndetse anabitangira ibisobanuro: ngo Twagirayezu Wenceslas ntiyashoboraga kugenda kuko umwaka w’amashuri watangiraga mu kwa cyenda ukarangira mu kwa gatandatu. Nyamara mu ibazwa rye ryo ku wa 23/11/2021, Kaberuka Théophile yavuze ko yaherukaga kumubona mu mwaka wa 1993; muri ayo mabazwa yombi, yanavuze ko mu gihe cya jenoside atigeze amubona. Naho mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 22/4/2022, Kaberuka Théophile yasobanuye ko yagiye kumusura mu mpera z’umwaka wa 1993 aho yari acumbitse ku Kanyarutambi hafi na Gacuba, amubwira ko ibiruhuko bya Pasika azabiruhukira muri Congo, ko kuba icyo gihe ataramubonye iwabo, yumvise ko ariyo yagiye. Byongeye kandi ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yemeje ko Kaberuka Théophile ari mu bazi ko yagarutse mu Rwanda ku wa 09/04/1994 avuye muri Congo, mu nyandiko-mvugo yo ku wa 23/11/2021 Kaberuka Théophile yarabihakanye. [50] Uru Rukiko rurasanga ubuhamya bwa Kaberuka Théophile bugaragaza ko ataherukanaga na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ndetse n’amakuru yamutanzeho ku bijyanye no kumenya niba yarigeze ava mu Rwanda mu gihe cya jenoside, bikaba biboneka ko ari ukugenekereza bikabije ku buryo bitari bikwiye ko byatera Urukiko Rukuru ugushidikanya ku bijyanye no kumenya niba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda

Page 276

242 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubigereranyije no kuba yariyemereye ko yari mu Rwanda kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994, akaba atanagaragaza inyandiko z’inzira zigaragaza ko yambutse umupaka. b) Ku bijyanye n’ubuhamya bwa Nkezabera Paulin [51] Ku bireba Nkezabera Paulin, mu nyandiko-mvugo ye yo ku wa 21/6/2020 mu Bushinjacyaha, yasobanuye ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yamutiye gitari nko mu minsi ibiri mbere y’uko jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi itangira, ntibongera guhura. Abajijwe niba uregwa yari aho ku ishuri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi iba, yasubije ko mbere y’uko iba, yabaga aho kuko yazaga mu rugo iwe, ko aza no gutwara gitari mbere gato y’uko jenoside itangira, yari aho ku ishuri. [52] Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko iyi imvugo ye itashingirwaho hemezwa aho uregwa yari ari mu Rwanda kuko irimo gukekeranya, cyane ko iminsi ibiri (2) mbere y’uko jenoside iba avuga ko uregwa yaje kumutira gitari, yegeranye cyane n’impera za Werurwe 1994 nawe avuga ko yaviriye mu Rwanda. Rwanasobanuye ko uretse ko imvugo ya Nkezabera Paulin nta reme ifite, itanashingirwaho mu gihe idashyigikiwe n’ubuhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 8, igika cya kabiri (2) n’icya gatatu (3), y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda15.

15 Ingingo ya 8, igika cya kabiri (2) n’icya gatatu (3), y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda iteganya ko Urukiko Rukuru rudashobora guhamya umuntu icyaha rushingiye gusa ku buhamya bwanditse bwatanzwe mbere n’abatangabuhamya batigeze batanga ubuhamya mu iburanisha. Icyakora, Urukiko Rukuru rushobora

Page 277

243 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[53] Uru Rukiko rurasanga, ubwo Urukiko Rukuru rwari rumaze kubona ko imvugo ya Nkezabera Paulin itashingirwaho nk’ubuhamya kuko itavugiwe mu Rukiko kandi ikaba idashyigikiwe n’ibindi bimenyetso, bitari na ngombwa gusesengura ireme ryayo ngo rwiriwe rujya gusobanura imvugo ze rushaka kumvikanisha ko bishoboka ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ashobora kuba yaravuye mu gihugu. Rusanga kandi ku bw’ibyo, n’ibyo Ubushinjacyaha bunenga ku isesengura ryakorewe imvugo z’uyu mutangabuhamya nta shingiro bifite kuko atari ho ikibazo kiri. c) Ku bijyanye n’ubuhamya bwa Nahimana Emmanuel [54] Mu nyandikomvugo ye yo ku wa 15/7/2020 mu Bushinjacyaha, Nahimana Emmanuel yasobanuye ko mbere ya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, nko mu matariki ya 2, 3, 4, 5, 6/4/1994, na mbere yaho nko mu kwa gatatu, mbere y’uko jenoside iba, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari ahari akorera kuri Collège Baptiste Gacuba II, ko no mu gihe cya jenoside yari ahari kugeza igihe abantu bahungiye, ko indege ya Perezida Habyarimana Juvénal ihanuka ku wa 6/4/1994 yari i Gisenyi na Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari aho ku kigo kuko wabonaga asa n’umwana wa Nkezabera Paulin. Abajijwe uburyo yamubonaga n’aho yari, Nahimana Emmanuel yasubije ko yari ahari kuko yabaga mu kigo cya Collège Baptiste Gacuba II. [55] Mu gika cya mirongo ine n’umunani (48) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko Nahimana Emmanuel ibyo yavuze ko nko ku matariki kuva ku ya 2 kugeza ku ya 6 Mata 1994 na mbere yaho, nko mu kwezi kwa Werurwe

guhamya umuntu icyaha rushingiye ku gaciro k’ubwo buhamya bwanditse iyo ubwo buhamya bufite ubundi bubushyigikira.

Page 278

244 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

1994, uregwa yari ahari, ko kandi wabonaga asa nk’umwana wo kwa Nkezabera Paulin, bitashingirwaho kuko yabyemeje ashingiye gusa ku kuba yari asanzwe azi aho atuye, aho kugaragaza uburyo bwihariye yamubonyemo muri icyo gihe. Rwasobanuye kandi ko uretse no kuba nta reme bifite, bitashingirwaho muri uru rubanza kuko bidashyigikiwe n’ubuhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko. [56] Uru Rukiko rurasanga, kuri ubu buhamya bwa Nahimana Emmanuel nabwo, ubwo Urukiko Rukuru rwari rumaze kubona ko imvugo ye itashingirwaho nk’ubuhamya kuko itavugiwe mu Rukiko kandi ikaba idashyigikiwe n’ibindi bimenyetso nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 8, igika cya kabiri (2) n’icya gatatu (3), y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda, bitari na ngombwa gusesengura ireme ryayo ngo runasobanure imvugo ze rushaka kumvikanisha ko bishoboka ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ashobora kuba yaravuye mu gihugu muri icyo gihe. Rusanga kandi ku bw’ibyo, n’ibyo Ubushinjacyaha bunenga ku isesengura ryakorewe imvugo z’uyu mutangabuhamya nta shingiro bifite kuko atari ho ikibazo kiri. [57] Muri make uru rukiko rurasanga Urukiko Rukuru rutarahaye agaciro gakwiye imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bemeza ko jenoside itangira Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe mu bika bibanza, ubuhamya bwa Kaberuka Théophile bugaragaza ko ataherukanaga na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku buryo yagira icyo avuga gifite agaciro gatera Urukiko gushidikanya ku kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yaba atari mu Rwanda igihe ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga. Naho ubuhamya bwa Nkezabera Paulin na Nahimana Emmanuel bukaba butari bukwiye kugira icyo bwungura ku bijyanye n’impaka zigamije kumenya niba

Page 279

245 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda, kuko ubuhamya bwabo butatangiwe mu Rukiko cyangwa ngo bushimangirwe n’ibindi bimenyetso nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwari rwanabibonye. A.3. Ibyerekeye agaciro kahawe inyandiko zatanzwe n’uregwa nk’ibimenyetso bya “sinari mpari”. [58] Ubushinjacyaha bunenga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye agaciro kadakwiye imyiregurire ya “sinari mpari” ishingiye ku nyandiko yiswe pétition et témoignages, pour l’innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu n’indi yiswe décharge.

1. Ibyerekeye inyandiko yiswe pétition [59] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko inyandiko yiswe pétition et témoignages, pour l’innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu itagombaga guhabwa agaciro nk’ikimenyetso mu rubanza kandi n’ibyo abatangabuhamya bayivuzemo bikaba bivuguruzanya ku buryo bitagombaga gushingirwaho hemezwa ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ashobora kuba atari mu Rwanda ubwo ibyaha akurikiranweho byakorwaga. a. Kuba pétition itaragombaga guhabwa agaciro nk’ikimenyetso mu rubanza [60] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko mu gika cya 50 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye agaciro inyandiko yiswe pétition et témoignages, pour l’innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu rutagize icyo ruvuga ku nenge bagaragaje zituma itaragombaga gushingirwaho nk’ikimenyetso, zirimo kuba iyo nyandiko ari igitekerezo gihimbano cyanditswe n’umuntu umwe ari we Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze,

Page 280

246 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

agasinyisha abandi; kuba mu bayigaragaraho hari abatarayisinye no kuba barahamije ibyo batazi. Ibyo bikaba bigaragaza ko yari igamije gusa kumukingira ikibaba no gushyira igitutu ku nzego z’ubutabera za Denmark, bityo hatitawe ku bayikoze, aho yakorewe n’amakuru ayikubiyemo aho yava hose, ikaba itaragombaga kwemerwa. [61] Ku byerekeye kuba iyo nyandiko yaranditswe n’umuntu umwe, abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko yanditswe na Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, agasinyisha inshuti za Twagirayezu Wenceslas ziba muri RDC, amakuru ayikubiyemo akaba ataranditswe cyangwa ngo ategurwe n’abo yitiriwe nk’uko babigaragaje ubwo bari bageze imbere y’Urukiko. Bavuga kandi ko abasinye kuri iyo pétition, nta ruhare bagize mu itegurwa ryayo, ko itegurwa batari bahari, ndetse ko batari bazi n’ibiyikubiyemo. Bavuga ko bahamagawe, bagasabwa gusinya ndetse bamwe bakemeza ko basinye batasomye ibiyigize. [62] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko abatangabuhamya nka Madingo Ndabundu Ignace na Lukando Manu alias Pasteur Dusabe bayisinye bayizaniwe na Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas kugira ngo bemeze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atakoze jenoside, bagasinya batazi ibiyikubiyemo; ko uwitwa Bakali Murefu Innocent we yivugiye ko yahamagawe na Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze akamusanga iwe akamusaba kuyisinyaho amubwira ko ubuhamya bwe bushobora kuzagira akamaro, naho Maombi Muromba Estella we akaba yaravuze ko yazaniwe urupapuro na Pasteur Manirafasha wa CBCA ngo asinye ariko atazi ibirimo; ibyo akaba ari nako byagendekeye abandi benshi bayisinyeho. [63] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga kandi ko kuba iyo nyandiko igaragaho amazina y’abantu mirongo itatu n’umwe

Page 281

247 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

(31), muri bo hakaba harimo 5 batigeze bayisinyaho, ndetse batujurijweho nomero z’indangamuntu na telefone, bigaragaza ko n’abayiteguye batabashije kubageraho ngo babasinyishe. [64] Ku nenge zagaragajwe n’abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko pétition ari igitekerezo cy’umuntu umwe usaba abandi kucyemera, ko bashobora kuba bahari igihe cyo kuyitegura cyangwa badahari bagasabwa gusa kuyisinyaho, ko icya ngombwa ari uko bemera igitekerezo kiyigaragaramo. Ku bireba uru rubanza, bavuga ko byari kuba ikibazo iyo abatangabuhamya basinye kuri pétition baba barageze imbere y’Urukiko bagahakana ko ari bo basinye cyangwa bakagaragaza ko batigeze bamubona hagati y’itariki ya 6 n’iya 9/4/1994, ko rero kuba barayisinye ari uko hari amakuru bari bafite kuri Twagirayezu Wenceslas, banemera ko bamubonye nibura umunsi umwe muri ayo matariki.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [65] Impaka kuri iki kibazo zishingiye ku kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije inenge ziri mu nyandiko yiswe pétition, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko bwarugaragarije, zari gutuma idafatwa nk’ikimenyetso, iri kosa ryakozwe n’urwo Rukiko rikaba ryaratumye hemezwa ishingiro ry’imyiregurire ya ‘’sinari mpari’’ y’uregwa. [66] Mu nyandiko yo ku wa 31/5/2018 ifite impamvu igira iti: ‘’pétition et témoignage pour l’innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu’’, yashyizweho umukono n’abantu batandukanye, bandikira Ministre de la Justice du Royaume de Danemark, abo bantu basobanura ko bagiye kumuha amakuru kuri Twagirayezu Wenceslas agaragaza ko nta ruhare afite ku byo aregwa.

Page 282

248 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Basobanura muri rusange ubuzima bwe kuva mu mwaka wa 1982 kugeza ku mu mwaka wa 2000, ariko bagaragaza cyane ibyo yakoze kuva mu mpera z’ukwezi kwa Werurwe 1994 kugeza ku wa 9/4/1994, umunsi bavuga ko yasubiye mu Rwanda. Muri iyo nyandiko basaba Minisitiri w’ubutabera w’igihugu cya Denmark kuza gukora iperereza iwabo aho Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari, mu biruhuko bya Pasika by’umwaka wa 1994, igihe ubwicanyi bwatangiye mu Rwanda. Ku mugereka w’iyo nyandiko hagaragara urutonde rw’abantu mirongo itatu n’umwe (31) bemeza ko icyo gihe, babonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas iwabo muri Congo. [67] By’umwihariko, ku birebana n’uru rubanza, muri iyo nyandiko bavuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yageze muri Congo mu mpera z’ukwezi kwa gatatu ku mwaka wa 1994 mu bihuruko bya Pasika, agera i Luhanga aje mu materaniro y’ivugabutumwa (campagne d’évangélisation), arangiye, ku wa 6/4/1994, Nikuze na Maombi Muromba baramuherekeza kugeza Bweru- Muhongozi aho yaraye kuri Chapelle CBK Muhongozi. Ku wa 7/4/1994, abifashijwemo na Bokalos yabonye imodoka, akomeza ajya i Goma, aho yaraye kuri CBK Virunga. Ku wa 8/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagiye i Kibati, aho yabonanye na Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas wamuhaye amafaranga yo koherereza Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, asubira i Goma. Ku wa 9/4/1994, nyuma yo kubona ko gusubira mu Rwanda aciye kuri petite barrière bidakunze, yagiye i Kibati, ku mugoroba Bahati na Madingo Ndabundu Ignace baramuherekeza bamugeza i Cyabwato, akomereza mu Rwanda mu Mudugudu wa Gabiro kugera ageze iwabo Gacurabwenge-Rubikiro. [68] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 19/4/2022 mu Rukiko Rukuru, ku birebana na pétition, Umutangabuhamya Maombi Nyiraromba

Page 283

249 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Estella, bakunda kwita Muromba, yasobanuriye urwo Rukiko ko Pasiteri Manirafasha ariwe wamuzaniye urutonde rw’abantu bemeza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri Congo ku matariki avugwa muri pétition, ko nyuma yo kubazwa niba yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku matariki ya 3, 4, 5 na 6/4/1994, akemeza ko bari kumwe, yashyize umukono kuri urwo rutonde, anemera ko azatanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko. [69] Muri iryo buranisha na none, Umutangabuhamya Madingo Ndabundu Ignace yasobanuye ko bamaze kumva ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yafunzwe kubera ko aregwa kuba yarakoze jenoside, bashyize umukono kuri urwo rutonde kuko bari bazi ko yabaye iwabo, kandi yahamaze igihe, ko we ubwe yashyizeho umukono kuko yemezaga ko icyo gihe yabaye iwabo. [70] Mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 20/4/2022, umutangabuhamya Lukando Manu yasobanuye ko umusaza Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas ariwe wamuzaniye iyo nyandiko, amusobanurira uko ikibazo giteye muri rusange, ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yafunzwe azira itsembatsemba ry’Abatutsi, ko kubera ko yari azi ko yamuherukaga ku wa 9/4/1994, yashyize umukono kuri iyo nyandiko. [71] Mu gika cya mirongo itanu (50) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko kuba Pasiteri Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze ari we wasinyishije bagenzi be inyandiko yiswe pétition, atari inenge yatuma idafatwa nk’ikimenyetso muri uru rubanza kuko mubayisinyeho babajijwe mu Rukiko, bose bemeje ko bayisinye bazi ko igamije gushinjura uregwa; naho ku bijyanye n’abayiriho batayisinye, Pasiteri Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze yasobanuye ku buryo bwumvikana ko bitatewe no kutemera ibiyikubiyemo, ko ahubwo byatewe n’uko batabonetse.

Page 284

250 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[72] Isesengura ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ryumvikanisha ko kuba bamwe mu bashyize umukono kuri iyo nyandiko bumviswe nk’abatangabuhamya mu Rukiko, bose baremeye umukono wabo, ndetse banemera ko bazi ko igamije gushinjura uregwa no kuba abandi bagaragaramo batashoboye kuyishyiraho umukono kuko batabonetse, inenge zazamuwe n’Ubushinjacyaha zitayitesha agaciro nk’ikimenyetso. [73] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Ubushinjacyaha burusaba gutesha agaciro nk’ikimenyetso pétition ivugwa muri uru rubanza kubera ko ari inyandiko yanditswe n’umuntu umwe, agasaba abandi gushyiraho umukono batazi ibyanditswemo no ku kuba bamwe mu bantu bagaragaramo batarayishyizeho umukono, ni ukuvuga abantu batanu (5) mu bantu mirongo itatu n’umwe (31). [74] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga inyandiko yiswe pétition itateshwa agaciro nk’ikimenyetso ku mpamvu y’uko yanditswe n’umuntu umwe gusa, agasaba abandi kuyishyiraho umukono, kuko muri kamere yayo n’ubusanzwe ari inyandiko yandikwa n’umuntu umwe cyangwa benshi, agashakisha cyangwa bagashakisha n’abandi bayishyiraho umukono kuko bemeranya ku biyikubiyemo, basaba ubuyobozi runaka gukora cyangwa kugira ibyo bwemeza16. Icya ngombwa ni uko ibiyivuzwemo bisobanurwa n’abayanditse imbere y’Urukiko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 8, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/6/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda.

16 Plus spécialement, demande adressée par un particulier ou groupe de particuliers à une autorité publique, la priant d’exercer sa compétence de telle façon (….), Association Henri Capitant, Vocabulaire juridique, 6e édition, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1996, P. 612.

Page 285

251 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[75] Naho ku bijyanye no kuba hari abagaragara kuri iyo nyandiko batayishyizeho umukono, aribo Masika Walire, Kambale Mangolopa, Muhindo Kangero, Rev. Ndakirande Ndayishimiye na Kaneza Bitwayiki, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibyo atari ikibazo kuko ibiyikubiyemo bigomba kubazwa abayisinyeho akaba ari nabo bagomba kubyemeza imbere y’Urukiko; naho ku batarasinye, bikaba bivuze ko ibiri muri iyo nyandiko bitabareba, bakaba nta n’icyo babibazwaho. [76] Ku birebana n’ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko pétition itakwemerwa nk’ikimenyetso kuko abatangabuhamya nka Maombi Nyiraromba Estella, Madingo Ndabundu Ignace na Lukando Manu, bayishyizeho umukono batazi ibiyikubiyemo, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga bitahabwa agaciro kuko, nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, abo batangabuhamya basobanuye neza imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru ko nyuma yo kubasobanurira ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yafunzwe kubera ko aregwa jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu kwezi kwa Mata 1994, bashyize umukono kuri iyo nyandiko bahamya ko bari kumwe nawe icyo gihe, bivuze ko bari bazi neza ibiyikubiyemo. Rurasanga kandi ari nako Urukiko Rukuru rwabisobanuye mu gika cya mirongo itanu (50) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, ariko Ubushinjacyaha bwagarutse ku miburanire yabwo ku rwego rwa mbere, butagaragaza amakosa yaba yarakozwe n’urwo Rukiko mu bisobanuro byarwo. [77] Muri make, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga inyandiko yo ku wa 31/5/2018 yiswe pétition muri uru rubanza, ubwayo idashobora gufatwa nk’ikimenyetso cyizewe mu rubanza gishimangira ko uregwa yari muri Congo igihe ibikorwa aregwa byakorwaga, kuko inyandiko nk’iyi igira akamaro k’ubuhamya bwemewe mu Rukiko iyo ba nyiri ukuyandika baje guhamya ibiyikubiyemo mu Rukiko. Kuba rero Urukiko Rukuru

Page 286

252 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwarayifashishije rugahamagara abayanditse mu Rukiko ngo basobanure ibiyikubiyemo nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya mirongo itanu (50) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, ubwabyo si ikosa, ahubwo ikigomba kugenzurwa ni ireme ryahawe ibyavuzwe n’abo batangabuhamya. b. Kuba abatangabuhamya baranditse amasano bafitanye na Twagirayezu atariyo ku nyandiko yiswe pétition [78] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banavuga ko mu Rukiko, abatangabuhamya bashinjura bagaragaje ko nta masano bafitanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, mu gihe muri pétition basinyiye ko bafitanye amasano atandukanye. Bavuga ko abatangabuhamya Bakari Murefu Innocent na Lukando Manu alias Pasteur Dusabe babwiye Urukiko ko nta sano bafitanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, nyamara muri pétition buri wese yaragaragaje ko ari mubyara we (son cousin). Banenga ko Urukiko Rukuru, mu gika cya mirongo itanu na rimwe (51) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, rwavuze ko kuba abatangabuhamya basinye kuri pétition barageze mu Rukiko bagahakana amasano ari hagati yabo n’uregwa atari inenge yatuma iyo nyandiko idafatwa nk’ikimenyetso mu rubanza. Bo basanga atari byo, kuko iyo nyandiko ya pétition ari document officiel idashobora kwandikwaho ibintu bidahuje n’ukuri. Bavuga ko Urukiko rwagombaga kubona ahubwo ko ibyo bitesha agaciro iyo nyandiko. [79] Ku bireba abatangabuhamya Bakari Murefu Innocent na Lukando Manu bageze imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru bagahakana amasano bafitanye n’uregwa kandi muri pétition bari bagaragaje ko bayafitanye, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko bemeranya n’ibisobanuro by’Urukiko Rukuru ko “kuba abatangabuhamya barahakanye aya amasano atari ikibazo

Page 287

253 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

cyatuma ubuhamya bwabo buteshwa agaciro”, cyane ko n’ubu, Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaza mu rwego rw’amategeko inenge irimo.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [80] Mu gika cya mirongo itanu na rimwe (51) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko kuba abasinye iyi nyandiko bumviswe mu Rukiko barahakanye amasano hagati yabo n’uregwa agaragara muri iyi nyandiko, bitafatwa nk’inenge yatuma iyi nyandiko idafatwa nk’ikimenyetso muri uru rubanza, kuko basobanuye ko bitewe n’umuco wabo umuntu yita inshuti cyangwa umuturanyi, se cyangwa mubyara we (papa, cousin...) bitewe n’uko babanye n’uko bubahanye, ari nayo mpamvu mu nyandiko ya “décharge” Twagirayezu Wenceslas yanditse avuga ko yatumwe n’umubyeyi we Pasiteri Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze kandi atari we se umubyara. [81] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba abatangabuhamya Bakari Murefu Innocent na Lukando Manu barabwiye Urukiko ko nta sano bafitanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, nyamara mu nyandiko yo ku wa 31/5/2018 (pétition) barandikiye Minisiteri y’ubutabera y’igihugu cya Denmark, buri wese agaragaza ko ari mubyara we, bitera gukemanga ukuri ku byo bahamya. Naho ibyavuzwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ko bisanzwe gukoresha imvugo ziha abantu icyubahiro gishingiye ku masano, uru Rukiko rusanga nta shingiro byahabwa kuko inyandiko igenewe urwego rw’igihugu (document officiel) hadashobora kwandikwamo ibibonetse byose kandi ubyandika azi neza abo igenewe n’icyo igamije.

Page 288

254 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

c. Kuba ibyo abatangabuhamya bavuze mu Rukiko bitandukanye n’ibyo basinyiye muri pétition  Imiburanire y’Ubushinjacyaha [82] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga Urukiko Rukuru kuba rwarahaye agaciro ubuhamya bw’abantu basinye kuri “pétition” kandi bigaragara ko ibyo bavuze binyuranye n’ibyo basinye bemeza ko bazi ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoze kuva ku itariki ya 6 kugeza ku itariki ya 9/4/1994 kandi batari bari kumwe. Ibyo babisobanura mu buryo bukurikira: - Mu Rukiko Rukuru, Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze yavuze ko yakiriye Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku itariki ya 1/4/1994, batandukana ku itariki ya 6/4/1994 agarutse mu Rwanda, ko kuva icyo gihe bongeye kubonana hashize imyaka ibiri (2). Ibyo bikaba binyuranye n’ibyo yavuze muri pétition kuko ho avuga ko yamugezeho mu mpera za Werurwe 1994, akaba azi n’ibyo yakoze kugera ku itariki ya 9/4/1994. - Mvunabandi Kagabo we, mu Rukiko Rukuru, yavuze ko yaherukanaga na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku itariki 7/4/1994 mu gitondo bari i Luhanga, kandi ko nyuma y’aho nta makuru ye yongeye kumenya. Ibi bitandukanye n’ibyanditse muri pétition ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yahagurutse i Luhanga ku wa 6/4/1994, akaba yaranasinyiye ko azi ibye kugeza ku itariki ya 9/4/1994. - Mu Rukiko Rukuru, Maombi Mulomba Estella yavuze ko yaherekeje Twagirayezu Wenceslas ubwo yavaga i Luhanga mu giterane ku itariki ya 6/4/1994, amugeza i Bweru, ko kuva batandukanye nta makuru ye yongeye kumenya, ariko muri

Page 289

255 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

pétition yasinye yemeza ko ku itariki ya 6, iya 7 n’iya 8/4/1994 nabwo yamubonye muri Congo. - Kuri aba batangabuhamya bombi, abahagaririye Ubushinjacyaha banongeraho ko isesengura ryakozwe n’Urukiko mu gika cya mirongo ine na karindwi (47) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa rihabanye n’ukuri kw’ibintu, kuko rwagaragaje ko ibyo Mvunabandi Kagabo avuga ko yaherukanaga na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku itariki ya 7/4/1994 bari i Luhanga bidakwiye gushingirwaho, nyamara ruha agaciro ibivugwa na Maombi Mulomba Estella wavuze ko yaherekeje Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku itariki ya 6/4/1994, ntacyo rushingiyeho. - Madingo Ndabundu Ignace, mu Rukiko Rukuru, yavuze ko yaherukaga kubona Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku wa 9/4/1994 muri Congo, amucisha Kibati, Cyabwato aza mu Rwanda, ko nta bundi yongeye kumubona uretse imbere y’Urukiko, ariko muri pétition yasinye yemeza ko ku itariki ya 6, iya 7 n’iya 8/4/1994 nabwo yamubonye muri Congo. - Umutangabuhamya Bakali Murefu Innocent atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yemeje ko yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas aje gufata amafaranga ya Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze kwa Kikwindi Kimende Ladislas ku wa 8/4/1994, ariko muri pétition yasinye yemeza ko yanamubonye ku itariki ya 6, iya 7 n’iya 9/4/1994. - Umutangabuhamya Lukando Manu ari mu Rukiko, yavuze ko yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku wa 9/4/1994, ko yamugezeho aho yari atuye ku mupaka aza mu Rwanda, ariko nawe muri pétition yasinye yemeza ko yanamubonye ku itariki ya 6, iya 7 n’iya 8/4/1994.

Page 290

256 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[83] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banavuga ko ikindi banenga ari uko ntacyo Urukiko Rukuru rwavuze ku bijyanye n’uko bamwe mu batangabuhamya banyuranyije n’icyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabazaniye mu Rukiko. Bavuga ko: - Twagirayezu Wenceslas yifuzaga ko Madingo Ndabundu Ignace17 aza mu Rukiko guhamya ko ku wa 8/4/1994 bari kumwe muri Congo kwa Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas ubwo yafataga amafaranga y’amazayire magana atatu (300). Ibi nyamara Madingo Ndabundu Ignace yarabihakanye mu Rukiko, kuko ho yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yamugezeho ku wa 9/4/1994 aho yakoraga kuri groupement i Kibati. Ikindi yavugiye mu Rukiko ni uko Twagirayezu Wenceslas amaze gufungwa aribwo Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas yamweretse décharge yamukoreye, akaba ari nabwo yamuzaniye pétition ngo ayisinye mu gihe Twagirayezu Wenceslas yashatse kumvisha Urukiko ko bari kumwe ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 asinya décharge. - Twagirayezu Wenceslas yifuzaga ko umutangabuhamya Bakali Murefu Innocent aza guhamya ko ubwo yakoraga décharge y’amafaranga y’amazayire 300 igenewe Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas bari kumwe. Ibi nyamara Bakali Murefu Innocent ageze mu Rukiko sibyo yavuze, ahubwo avuga ko ku wa 8/4/1994 yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas ajya kwa Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas gufata amafaranga ya Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze. [84] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga kandi ko bagaragaje ko ubuhamya bwa Lukando Manu alias Pasteur Dusabe, uri mu basinye pétition, budakwiye gushingirwaho, ariko Urukiko Rukuru rurabyirengagiza. Basobanura ko ibyo

17 Inyandiko y’iburanisha yo ku wa 19/4/2022.

Page 291

257 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Lukando Manu alias Pasteur Dusabe avuga ko ku itariki ya 9/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yamugezeho mu ma saa cyenda cyangwa saa kumi i Kanyanja aho yari atuye kandi akavuga ko hari hafi y’umupaka, hirya ye nta yandi mazu ahari; amuherekeza nk’isaha ari wenyine amugeza ku mupaka, mu gihe hari undi mutangabuhamya witwa Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline nawe wavuze ko afite inzu ya nyuma ku mupaka, avuga ko ku wa 9/4/1994 yaherekeje Twagirayezu Wenceslas ari wenyine aza mu Rwanda. Bagasobanura ko bitumvikana uburyo bavuga ko bombi bamuherekeje igihe kimwe ahantu hamwe ariko ntibabonane. [85] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yazanye mu Rukiko Musuba’o Mangalopa kugira ngo yemeze ko ku wa 31/3/94 ajya i Luhanga yaraye i Goma ku witwa Kanyere, nyirakuru wa Musuba’o Mangalopa, ko ku itariki ya 9/4/1994 yongeye kuharara ari kumwe n’uwo musuba’o Mangalopa avuye Kisangani, ariko Urukiko Rukuru rukaba ntacyo rwabivuzeho ngo rubone ko ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga nta kuri kurimo. Ibyo babisobanura muri ubu buryo: [85] - umutangabuhamya Musuba’o Mangalopa avuga ko azi neza Twagirayezu Wenceslas ariko akavuga ko, n’ubwo atibuka neza, ku itariki ya 31/3/1994 yari i Goma, ko yararaga kwa nyirakuru Kanyere. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko ibyo uyu mutangabuhamya avuga bigaragaza ko ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga atari byo kuko we avuga ko yakiriwe na Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze ku itariki ya 1/4/1994 i Luhanga; ibyo bikaba bidashoboka ko mu gihe cy’umunsi umwe yaba yavuye i Goma akagera i Luhanga kuko kuva Luhanga ujya i Goma hari urugendo rw’iminsi 3. - umutangabuhamya Musuba’o Mangalopa anavuga ko ku matariki ya 5 cyangwa iya 6/4/1994 yasize Twagirayezu

Page 292

258 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Wenceslas i Goma we ari kwerekeza i Kisangani, ariko Twagirayezu Wenceslas we mu nyandikomvugo ye yo mu Bugenzacyaha ku wa 17/12/2018 akavuga ko ku wa 6/4/1994 yari i Luhanga. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko nabyo bidashoboka. - Na none umutangabuhamya Musuba’o Mangalopa avuga ko yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku itariki ya 8 n’iya 9/4/1994 i Goma kandi yari i Kisangani mu gihe hari urugendo rw’iminsi 3 kuvayo uza i Goma. Ibyo bigaragaza ko ibyo avuga ko bari kumwe i Goma kuri ayo matariki bidashoboka, kuko atashoboraga kuba yavuye i Kisangani yagarutse i Goma.  Imyiregurire ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas [86] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko kuba mu buhamya bwa Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze yaravuze ko yamwakiriye i Luhanga ku itariki ya 1/4/1994, ariko muri pétition hakaba handitse ko yahageze mu mpera z’ukwezi kwa Werurwe 1994 nta kwivuguruza kurimo, kuko ari cyo gihe yatangiriye ibiruhuko, kandi kuva i Goma ugera i Luhanga hakaba hatari urugendo rw’umunsi umwe. Banavuga ko ku byo abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko yasinye pétition yemeza ko azi ibyo yakoze ku itariki ya 7, iya 8 n’iya 9/4/1994 atari byo, kuko mu buhamya bwe, Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze atigeze yemeza ko yamubonye kuri ayo matariki, ahubwo yasinye yemeza ko yamubonye igihe yageraga i Luhanga n’igihe batandukaniye ku itariki ya 6/4/1994. Naho ibya nyuma y’iyo tariki ariwe wabimubwiye ubwo yasubiraga muri Congo nyuma y’imyaka ibiri (2), akamubwira amakuru yose y’urugendo yakoze kuva batandukanye ku itariki ya 6/4/1994 kugeza agarutse mu Rwanda.

Page 293

259 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[87] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bakomeza bavuga ko umutangabuhamya Mvunabandi Kagabo nawe ativuguruza, kuko, nk’uko yabisobanuye mu buhamya bwe, ku itariki ya 6/4/1994 saa kumi n’ebyiri babonanye ari i Luhanga, bongera guhurira i Muhongozi mu gitondo cyo ku itariki ya 7/4/1994 bumva amakuru y’uko indege ya Perezida Habyarimana Juvénal yahanutse, ko asinya pétition ari byo yashakaga kwemeza, naho kuba igaragaramo n’andi matariki ya 8 n’iya 9/04/1994, byatewe n’uko pétition yagombaga gusinywa n’itsinda ry’abantu bemezaga ko bamubonye muri Congo kuva ku itariki ya 06 kugera ku ya 09/04/1994. [88] Ku bireba ubuhamya bwa Maombi Mulomba Estella, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko nabwo butavuguruzanya n’ibyo yasinyiye muri pétition, kuko, nk’uko yabisobanuye, igiterane cy’ivugabutumwa kirangiye ku wa 6/4/1994, abisabwe na Pasteur Senzoga, yamuherekeje bava i Luhanga, amugeza i Bweru, akaba yarasinye bitewe n’ayo makuru yari azi y’igihe baherukanaga muri Congo, ariko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko yasinyiye n’ibyabaye ku matariki ya 7, 8, n’iya 9/4/1994 bikaba atari byo. [89] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira banasobanura ko ubuhamya bwa Mvunabandi Kagabo butavuguruzanya n’ubwa Maombi Mulomba Estella, kuko uyu ari we wamuherekeje bava i Luhanga ku wa 6/4/1994, amugeza i Bweru, bamaze gutandukana we yakomeje urugendo ajya kurara ahitwa Muhongozi kugira ngo azakomeze ajya i Kitchanga, ko aho Muhongozi ari ho mu gitondo cyo ku itariki ya 7/4/1994 yahuriye na Mvunabandi Kagabo ajya mu isoko. Bavuga ko kuba mu gika cya 47 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa haranditswe ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabonaniye na Mvunabandi Kagabo i

Page 294

260 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Luhanga ku itariki ya 6 n’iya 7/4/1994 ari ukudasobanukirwa ahantu n’inyito zaho ariko na Muhongozi iri muri Luhanga. Bongeraho ko ariko basanga Urukiko rutari gutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwa Mvunabandi Kagabo, kuko ibyo avuga bidahindura ukuri ko ku itariki ya 6 n’iya 7/4/1994 yari muri Congo. [90] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko Madingo Ndabundu Ignace na Lukando Manu basinya pétition bashakaga kwemeza gusa ko ku itariki ya 9/4/1994 babonanye ari muri Congo. [91] Ku birebana n’ikibazo cy’amatariki cyazamuwe n’Ubushinjacyaha, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira basoza basobanura ko kuba abatangabuhamya barageze mu Rukiko bakavuga ko bamubonye umunsi umwe hagati y’itariki ya 06 kugeza ku ya 9/4/1994, bitagaragaza ko banyuranya n’ibyo basinyiye muri pétition, ko byari kuba ikibazo iyo bagera imbere y’Urukiko bagahakana ko basinye cyangwa bakagaragaza ko batigeze bamubona muri Congo icyo gihe. Banasobanura ko kuba barasinye byatewe n’uko hari amakuru bari bamuziho, banemera ko umunsi umwe muri ayo matariki bamubonye. Bongeraho ko, nk’uko bigaragara muri pétition, basabye Ubuyobozi bwa Danemark ko mu gihe baba batanyuzwe n’ibiri muri iyo nyandiko bakwikorera iperereza kandi ko koko baje mu Rwanda kurikora. Ibi bivuze ko ibikubiye muri pétition atari ibitekerezo bahimbye nk’uko abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bashaka kubyumvikanisha. [92] Ku byerekeye ibivugwa n’abagaharariye Ubushinjacyaha ko Madingo Ndabundu Ignace na Bakari Murefu Innocent batavuze ibyo bazaniwe mu Rukiko; ku birebana na Madingo Ndabundu Ignace, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira

Page 295

261 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

bavuga ko ntaho bigeze bavuga ko bamuzaniye kugira ngo yemeze ko bari kumwe kwa Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas igihe yamuhaga amafaranga ya Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze ku wa 8/4/1994, ko ahubwo bashakaga ko aza kwemeza ko kuri iyo tariki yamuciyeho gusa n’uko ku wa 9/4/1994 yamuherekeje agaruka mu Rwanda. Banavuga ko nta nyandikomvugo ye (Twagirayezu Wenceslas) yigeze avugamo ko akora décharge bari kumwe na Madingo Ndabundu Ignace, ahubwo uyu mutangabuhamya yabwiye Urukiko ko yamenye ko yayikoze abibwiwe na Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas, aranayimwereka. Bongeraho ko bagaragarije Urukiko Rukuru amakosa agaragara mu nyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ku byerekeye ubuhamya bwa Madingo Ndabundu Ignace, bagasaba ko akosorwa, ariko Urukiko rubabwira ko ari udukosa tutaremereye. [93] Ku birebana n’inenge itangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ijyanye n’ubuhamya bwa Lukando Manu bagereranya n’ubwa Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline ku birebana no kumuherekeza bakamugeza ku mupaka, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko nta shingiro ifite, kuko ku itariki ya 9/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabanje kugera kwa Lukando Manu, baraganira nk’isaha, aramuherekeza byo kumurenza irembo, amugeza hafi yo kwa Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline baturanye naho arahaca, aba ari we umuherekeza amugeza mu Kibaya. Bongeraho ko Lukando Manu atigeze avuga ko yamugejeje mu Kibaya, ahubwo we yamubuzaga kugaruka mu Rwanda, kandi abazwa yagaragaje ko amuzi kuko yari asanzwe amubona anyura aho mu kibaya, anavuga ko yemeye gusinya pétition kubera ko yari amuzi kandi azi ko aho yabibazwa hose yabihamya. Ku byerekeye amasaha Lukando Manu na Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline bamuherekejeho, Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga ko atayibuka neza ariko hari nyuma ya saa sita,

Page 296

262 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ko isaha ya saa mbili Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline yavuze atari yo. [94] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru rutarashingiye ku buhamya bwa Musuba’o Mangalopa ari uko rudategetswe gushingira ku buhamya bwose bwatanzwe. Bongeraho ko uwo mutangabuhamya bamutanze nk’umuntu watanga amakuru y’uko babanaga kwa nyirakuru, ariko ko amatariki yagiye avuga atari yo, kuko yagiye akekeranya ku buryo byagaragaye ko adafite ubumenyi ku byo yavugaga, cyane ko nyirakuru ari we wari wamubwiye ko yahanyuze, uretse ko no mu gutanga ubuhamya atashoboraga guhisha amarangamutima.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [95] Impaka kuri iki kibazo zishingiye ku kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze amakosa yo kutabona ko kuba abashyize umukono ku nyandiko yo ku wa 31/5/2018, bemera ko babonaga Twagirayezu Wenceslas buri munsi kuva mu mpera z’ukwezi kwa gatatu kugeza ku wa 9/4/1994, nyamara bamwe mu batanze ubuhamya mu Rukiko barivuguruje bemeza ahubwo ko bamubonye umunsi runaka. Ikindi ni ukumenya niba kuba bamwe mu batangabuhamya baravuze amasano atariyo ku nyandiko yiswe pétition hari icyo bihindura ku ireme ry’ubuhamya bwabo no kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije ukwivuguruza n’inenge zagaragajwe mu mvugo z’abatangabuhamya, ndetse hagati y’ibyavuzwe n’uregwa na bamwe mu batangabuhamya, bikaba byari gutuma Urukiko Rukuru rubona ko ibikubiye mu nyandiko yo ku wa 31/5/2018 bidafite ireme ryatuma haba gushidikanya ku byemezwa ko

Page 297

263 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Twagirayezu Wenceslas ko yari muri Congo ubwo ibyaha akurikiranwaho byakorwaga.

1. Ibyerekeye kuba abatangabuhamya baremeje amatariki amwe mu gihe inyandiko basinye ihamya ko bazi ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri Congo kuva ku wa 6 kugeza ku wa 9 Mata 1994 [96] Kimwe mu biranga inyandiko yo mu bwoko bwa “pétition” ni uko yandikwa n’umuntu umwe cyangwa itsinda ry’abantu, igamije gusobanura cyangwa gushyigikira igitekerezo runaka kigenewe urwego runaka, hanyuma hagashakwa abandi bagishyikiye, bose bagashyiraho umukono. Byumvikana ko abashyizeho umukono bose atariko baba bemeza buri kintu kiyikubiyemo ku rwego rumwe n’abayanditse. Muri ubwo buryo buri wese aba afite icyo ashaka kwemeza by’umwihariko muri icyo gitekerezo rusange; aka ari nacyo aba ashobora guhagararaho akagisobanura igihe abajijwe icyatumye ayisinyaho. Niyo mpamvu iyo guhamagarwa mu Rukiko biba ari uburyo bwo kumuha umwanya wo gusobanura neza ibyo yashakaga kumvikanisha mu nyandiko yasinye. Akaba ari nabyo bituma buri wese ashobora gutanga ibisobanuro bitandukanye n’iby’undi. [97] Mu nyandiko yo ku wa 31/5/2018 yiswe “pétition et témoignage pour l’innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu’’, yashyizweho umukono n’abantu batandukanye, bandikira Ministre de la Justice du Royaume de Danemark, hagaragaramo ko abayishyizeho umukono bari bagamije gutanga ubuhamya (amakuru) bafite kuri Twagirayezu Wenceslas bugaragaza ko ari umwere kubyo aregwa. Ku birebana n’amatariki akekwa kuba yarakozeho ibyaha aregwa, igaragaza ko bemeza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yageze i Luhanga muri Congo mu mpera z’ukwezi

Page 298

264 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kwa Werurwe, umwaka wa 1994, ko ku wa 6/4/1994 yagiye i Bweru-Muhongozi, ku wa 7/4/1994 akomeza ajya i Goma, ku wa 8/4/1994 ajya i Kibati, agaruka i Goma aho yaraye. Igaragaza kandi ko bemeje ko ku wa 9/4/1994 yasubiye i Kibati, anyuze i Cyabwato, arambuka aza mu Rwanda. [98] Mu gika cya mirongo ine na kane (44) n’icya mirongo ine na gatandatu (46) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko bamwe mu basinye pétition bemereye Urukiko ko bayisinyeho buri wese yemeza icyo azi kuri Twagirayezu Wenceslas, uko bahuye nawe, ndetse n’umunsi byabereyeho n’ibyo bavuganye. Mu kubisobanura gutyo, Urukiko Rukuru rwashatse kumvikanisha ko abashyize umukono kuri iyo nyandiko, babikoze badashaka kuvuga cyangwa kugaragaza ko icyo gihe bamubonaga buri munsi kuva mu mpera z’ukwezi kwa gatatu kugeza ku wa 9/4/1994. Muri ibi bika, urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye ko imvugo z’abatangabuhamya (Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, Maombi Malomba Estella, Bakari Murefu Innocent, Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline, Madingo Ndabundu Ignace, Lukando Manu zemeza igihe Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari kumwe nabo muri RDC hagati y’itariki ya 6 n’iya 9 Mata 1994. [99] Urukiko rw’ubujurire rukaba rusanga, nta kosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze mu kumva ibyo buri wese yashatse gusobanura muri iyo nyandiko. Mu bika bikurikira harasuzumwa ireme ry’ibisobanuro bya buri wese hagamijwe kureba niba byari ku rwego rutuma umucamanza agira ugushidikanya ku byo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda ubwo ibyaha akurikiranweho byakorwaga.

2. Ibyerekeye ireme ry’ubuhamya bw’abemeza ko bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas muri Congo.

Page 299

265 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[100] Mu gusesengura ireme ry’ibyo abatangabuhamya bavuze ku majya n’amaza ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas muri Congo mu mpera za Werurwe kugera ku itariki ya 09 Mata 1994, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurita ku byavuzwe kuri buri tariki kuva ajya muri Congo kugera agaruka mu Rwanda. [101] Ku wa 31/3/1994, nk’uko yabibwiye Urukiko Rukuru18, umutangabuhamya Musuba’o Luc Mangalopa, n’ubwo yavuze ko atibuka neza, kuri iyo itariki Twagirayezu Wenceslas yamusanze i Goma kwa nyirakuru Kanyere avuye mu Rwanda. Nyamara, Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze ndetse na Maombi Mulomba Estella19 bo bavuze ko ku itariki ya 1/4/1994 kugeza ku wa 06/04/1994 bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas i Luhanga20. Ariko Musuba’o Luc Mangalopa we yavuze ko mu matariki ya 5 cyangwa ya 6 Mata 1994, yagiye i Butembo yerekeza Kisangani amusize i Goma kwa nyirakuru, hanyuma agarutse amusanga na none i Goma ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 kwa nyirakuru ubwo yavaga i Masisi agiye mu Rwanda. [102] Mu iburanisha ry’urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, umutangabuhamya Mvunabandi Kagabo we yavuze ko ku wa 6/4/1994 yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas i Luhanga saa kumi n’ebyeri, bakongera kubonana ku wa 7/4/1994 mu gitondo saa kumi n’ebyiri n’igice (6h30), bumva mu amakuru kuri radio ko indege ya Perezida Habyarimana Juvénal yahanutse. Kuba bari kumwe kuri ayo matariki, binemezwa n’uwunganira Twagirayezu Wenceslas ubwo yasobanuraga impamvu

18 Reba inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ryo ku wa 21/4/2022. 19 MAOMBI MULOMBA Estella yemeje ko bari kumwe ku itariki ya 03/4/1994 amateraniro arangiye. 20 Reba inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha yo ku wa 19/4/2022.

Page 300

266 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bamuzanye nk’umutangabuhamya mu rubanza21. Umutangabuhamya Maombi Mulomba Estella we avuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yavuye i Luhanga ku wa 6/4/1994, ko yamuherekeje ari kumwe n’uwitwa Nikuze bakamugeza Bweru aho yashoboraga kubona imodoka imugeza i Kitchanga, babisabwe na Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze. [103] Ku wa 08/04/1994, nk’uko yabibwiye Urukiko Rukuru, umutangabuhamya Bakali Mulefu Innocent22 yavuze ko kuri iyo tariki nka saa tanu z’amanywa yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas ajya kwa Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas gufata amafaranga y’ibiti Pasiteri Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze yari yaragurishije, anandika “décharge”. Uru Rukiko ruributsa ko Musuba’o Luc Mangalopa we yavuze ko kuri iyo tariki yamusanze i Goma avuye Kisangani. [104] Ku wa 09/04/1994, nk’uko yabibwiye Urukiko Rukuru, umutangabuhamya Madingo Ndabundu Ignace yavuze ko yabonanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuri iyo tariki nka saa tatu za mugitondo (9h00) ubwo yamusangaga kuri groupement, amubwira ko ashaka gutambukira i Kibati, nawe amunyuza i Cyabwato, Twagirayezu Wenceslas akomeza urugendo. Umutangabuhamya Lukando Manu nawe yemeje ko kuri iyo tariki yabonanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku mugoroba hafi mu ma saa cyenda (15h00) cyangwa saa kumi (16h00), avuye Goma- Cyabwato, ko bamaranye nk’isaha yose, amubwira ko agiye mu Rwanda kureba nyina, aza kwambukira i Kanyanja. Umutangabuhamya Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline nawe yabwiye Urukiko Rukuru ko yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku

21 Reba inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha yo ku wa 19/4/2022. 22 Mu nyandiko yiswe pétition bigaragara ko Bakali Murefu atuye i Kibati kuri 8 km uvuye i Goma.

Page 301

267 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

wa 9/4/1994 i Kanyanja, yarusobanuriye ko yamugezeho mu rugo mu ma saa mbiri za mugitondo (8h00) aturutse i Cyabwato, baganira nk’iminota mirongo itatu (30), hanyuma amuherekeza nk’amasaha abiri (2), ariko ntiyamugeza ku mupaka wari kure, asubira inyuma, we akomeza urugendo ajya mu Rwanda. [105] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 44 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasesenguye ubuhamya bw’aba batangabuhamya bose ariko ntirwagira icyo ruvuga ku buhamya bwa Musuba’o Luc Mangalopa ngo rugaragaze impamvu ntacyo rumuvugaho, nyamara kandi nk’uko bigaragara ubuhamya bwe buvuguruzanya n’ubw’abandi cyane cyane ku byerekeye aho Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari ari igihe yari muri Congo, i Goma cyangwa i Luhanga. Ibyo Ubushinjacyaha bwabibonye nk’inenge ikomeye, mu gihe Twagirayezu Wenceslas we asanga kuba Urukiko rutaritaye ku byo avuga ari uko yasaga n’ufite ikibazo mu gusobanura ibyo avuga, kandi ko Urukiko rudategetswe gushingira ku mvugo z’abatangabuhamya bose. [106] Urukiko rurasanga koko Urukiko rudategetswe kugaragaza buri gihe impamvu rudashingira ku buhamya runaka. Ariko igihe bigaragara ko ubuhamya runaka bunyuranya ku buryo bugaragara n’ubw’abandi, Urukiko rwagombye kugira icyo rubivugaho. Kuba rutaragize icyo rubivugaho ni inenge ikomeye kuko ituma bigaragara nk’aho ibyo rwemeje bibogamiye ku ruhande rumwe. Uru Rukiko rurasanga ariko, kuba abatangabuhamya banyuranya ku matariki n’amasaha ari inenge nto itatuma muri rusange ubuhamya butakaza ireme ryabwo, harebwe igihe gishize ibyo batangaho ubuhamya bibaye.

2. Ku byerekeye inyandiko ya décharge

Page 302

268 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[107] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga ko mu bika bya mirongo itanu na kabiri (52) na mirongo itanu na gatatu (53) by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku nyandiko yiswe décharge, rwemeza ko ari ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri Congo ubwo iyo nyandiko yakorwaga. Bavuga ko ibyo atari byo kubera impamvu zikurikira: - ntibyumvikana impamvu Twagirayezu Wenceslas yaba yarakoreye Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas décharge igihe yakiraga amafaranga amuhaye agenewe Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, ariko we ntakorerwe décharge na Muhindo Kandiro kugira ngo azayamuhere Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze; - abatangabuhamya bavuze ku bijyanye na décharge, Ubushinjacyaha bwari bwagaragaje ko atari abatangabuhamya bashobora kwizerwa bushingiye ku mvugo zabo zivuguruzanya ku bijyanye n’ibisobanuro byabo ku byo banditse muri pétition, ariko rurarenga rubiha agaciro; - kuba isuzuma rya gihanga (forensic expertise) ryakorewe iyo décharge muri Denmark ryerekanye ko nta kigaragaza igihe yakorewe. [108] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga nta shingiro bifite kubera impamvu zikurikira: - ibyereke kuba yarakoreye Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas décharge ariko we ntayikorerwe igihe yari ahaye Muhindo Kandiro amafaranga yo gushyikiriza Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, bavuga ko ibyo atari ikibazo kuko Muhindo Kandiro nta nshingano yari afite zo kuyikora kubera ko icyo yari

Page 303

269 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

akeneye kubona ari amafaranga yagombaga gushyikiriza Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, naho we akaba yarayikoze mu rwego rwo gushaka ikimurengera; - ibyo abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga bahuza pétition na décharge ari ugushaka gushyira Urukiko mu rujijo; - hakozwe raporo y’abahanga yemeza ko umukono na sinyatire ari ibya Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko icyo batabashije kumenya ari igihe yandikiwe ariko itariki yandikiweho ya 8/4/1994 igaragara, ko Ubushinjacyaha bubinenga bwagombye kwerekana ikibivuguruza.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [109] Impaka kuri iki kibazo ni ukumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze amakosa yo kwemeza ko inyandiko yiswe décharge ari ikimenyetso gishimangira ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri Congo igihe havugwa ko yaba yarakoze ibyaha aregwa, rwirengagiza inenge bwagaragaje iyo nyandiko ifite zituma itagombaga gufutwa ityo. [110] Kugira ngo inyandiko ifatwe nk’ikimenyetso gihamya ko umuntu yari ahantu runaka yemeza ko yari ari igihe iyo nyandiko yakorwaga, ni uko haba hashobora kugaragazwa ikimenyetso gifatika cyerekana igihe iyo nyandiko yakorewe n’aho yakorewe. Ibyo ni ngombwa kuko mu rwego rwo kwirengera umuntu ashobora kwandika inyandiko akabeshya aho yayikoreye n’igihe yakorewe. Gutanga inyandiko nk’ikimenyetso cy’uko wari ahantu igihe runaka wishingirikirije ko ari byo biyanditseho, ubwabyo ntibishobora guhamya ko ari cyo gihe yakorewe

Page 304

270 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyangwa ko ariho yakorewe, igihe bitunganiwe n’ikimenyetso gifatika.23 [111] Mu gika cya mirongo ine na gatanu (45) cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko inyandiko ya décharge Twagirayezu Wenceslas yanditse ku wa 8/4/1994 yakira amafaranga ya Pasiteri Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze ishimangirwa n’ubuhamya bwa Bakari Murefu Innocent wasobanuye ko yari kwa Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas ubwo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yayandikaga, ndetse n’ubuhamya bwa Madingo Ntabuntu Ignace wabwiye Urukiko ko ubwo bari bamaze kumenya ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yafunzwe ashinjwa gukora jenoside, Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas yamweretse inyandiko yasinyiye iwe ku wa 8/4/1994. [112] Mu gika cya 52 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko inyandiko ya décharge yahimbwe mu rwego rwo gushaka ibimenyetso bishinjura Twagirayezu Wenceslas nta shingiro byahabwa kuko nta nenge n’imwe yaba ishingiye ku miterere cyangwa ku biyikubiyemo bugaragaza, yatuma iteshwa agaciro, uretse kuvuga gusa ko yahimbwe. [113] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 28 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Ubushinjacyaha bunenga inyandiko yiswe décharge, bwavuze ko gushingira kuri iyo nyandiko yo ku wa 8/4/1994 mu guhamya ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atari mu Rwanda kuri iyi tariki ari ukugenekereza, kuko nta cyabuza y’uko kuri iyo tariki umuntu yaba ari i Goma kandi akaba yanataha mu Rwanda, cyane ko nta kimenyetso simusiga cyerekana ko iyo décharge yabayeho

23Reba urubanza mu bujurire haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, Case no. ICTR-96-3-A, para. 488.

Page 305

271 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

mu gihe Twagirayezu Wenceslas atabasha kugaragaza inyandiko y’uwo yashyikirije ayo mafaranga n’icyo Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas yashingiyeho yemera kuyamuha. [114] Nk’uko none bigaragara mu mwanzuro w’Ubushinjacyaha wo ku wa 31/5/2022 kuri défense ya alibi ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas, Ubushinjacyaha bwanengaga inyandiko ya décharge ku kuba atari umwimerere, ko ari kopi. Muri uwo mwanzuro, Ubushinjacyaha bwavuze kandi ko nta kimenyetso simusiga cyerekana ko décharge ivugwa yabayeho kuko bitumvikana impamvu mu gihe Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakiraga amafaranga yakoze décharge, nyamara akaba atabasha kwerekana ikimenyetso décharge cy’uko nawe afite uwo yayashyikirije ari we Muhindo Kangero. [115] Muri dosiye y’urubanza harimo inyandiko yiswe ‘‘Transcript from the record of judgments of the Eastern High Court’’ havugwamo ko abahanga (The National forensic center) b’igihugu cya Denmark basuzumye inyandiko yiswe décharge yo ku wa 8/4/1994 kugira ngo bamenye niba koko umukono ugaragaramo ari uwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas, banzuye ko ari umukono we, ariko ko batashoboye kumenya igihe umuti w’ikaramu yakoresheje asinya, wakorewe24. Muri dosiye harimo kandi inyandiko ya National Enhed for Saerlig Kriminalitet (Police special crimes unit) yanditswe ku wa 21/5/2024 aho

24 The National Forensic Center has conducted an examination of whether the signature on the receipt document produced during the proceedings, which indicates that it was issued in Goma on 8 April 1994, has been subscribed by Wenceslas Twagirayezu. In a statement dated 4 June 2018 it is concluded that "There is a probability bordering on certainty that the contested signature 'Wenceslas Twagirayezu' on KTI was subscribed by Wenceslas Twagirayezu." In addition, it has been stated about the examination that it is not possible to date the ballpoint pen pasta used for the contested signature’’.

Page 306

272 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

hagaragaramo ko ku wa 4/6/2018, abahanga basuzumye umwimerere w’inyandiko yo ku wa 8/4/1994 (décharge), bagasanga umukono uriho ari uwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ariko bikaba bitarashobotse kumenya igihe umuti w’ikaramu yakoreshejwe ashyira umukono kuri iyo nyandiko wakorewe25. [116] Ku birebana n’impamvu ya mbere n’iya kabiri Ubushinjacyaha bugaragaza bunenga urubanza rujuririrwa ku bijyanye na décharge, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibyo Ubushinjacyaha bushingiraho bunenga iyo nyandiko yiswe décharge atari cyo kibazo ahubwo ikibazo kiri mu ireme ryayo nk’ikimenyetso kigaragaza aho Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri icyo gihe kuko nk’uko byagaragajwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, ibimenyetso bya gihanga byagaragajwe idashobora gutuma hamenyekana igihe nyakuri iyo nyandiko yakorewe n’aho yakorewe. Kuba rero nta kimenyetso gifatika kigaragaza igihe iyo nyandiko yakorewe kigeze gitangwa, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga iyo décharge idashobora kuba ikimenyetso cyizewe gihamya ko yakorewe igihe bayitirira. [117] Muri rusange nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, uru Rukiko rwasanze ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze ikosa ryo kudaha agaciro ubuhamya bwa Nkezabera Paulin na Nahimana Emmanuel bwemeza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu Rwanda mu biruhuko bya Pasika mu mwaka wa 1994, nta shingiro bifite kuko ubuhamya bwabo butagiweho impaka mu Rukiko; naho ku byerekeye ubuhamya bwa Kaberuka Théophile, uru Rukiko rwasanze Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze

25 The 4th of june 2018 NKC stated tahat appendix X-02-01-001: - The original KT1 was examined.- It was no possible to date the ink used for signature. - There was a probality bordering on certainty that the signature was that of WT (Wenceslas Twagirayezu).

Page 307

273 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

ikosa mu kubuha agaciro kandi yaragaragaje ko ataherukanaga na Twagirayezu Wenceslas. [118] Urukiko rw’ubujurire rwasanze kandi Twagirayezu Wenceslas yariyemereye ko kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994 yari mu Rwanda, nta cyangombwa kigaragaza ko yambutse umupaka, kandi inyandiko yiswe décharge, nayo itaba gihamya yihagije ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri Congo mu gihe cyavuzwe kuko ubugenzuzi bwayikoreweho butabashije kugaragaza igihe yakorewe. Ku bijyanye n’inyandiko yiswe pétition yanditswe n’abantu bari muri Congo bahamya ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari kumwe nabo kuva tariki ya 6 kugeza ku ya 9 Mata 1994, uru Rukiko rwasanze iriho amasano atariyo, ku buryo bituma ikemangwa. [119] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasanze kandi ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko iyo nyandiko yiswe pétition itari ikwiye guhabwa agaciro, nta shingiro bifite kuko icyangombwa ari uko ibiyikubiyemo bigibwaho impaka imbere y’Urukiko. Rwanasanze kandi ko kuba mu Rukiko abatangabuhamya baremeje ibinyuranye n’ibyo bemeje mu nyandiko basinye, kuko buri wese yemeje ibijyanye n’itariki yaboneyeho Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gihe cyavuzwe, nabyo nta shingiro bifite kuko mu nyandiko nk’iyo, buri wese aba ahagaze ku byo yemera, akaba ari nabyo aba agomba gusobanura igihe abibajijwe. [120] Nyuma yo gusuzuma ireme ry’ibyo buri wese yasobanuye ku byo yasinyiye muri iyo nyandiko, uru Rukiko rwasanze hari abatangabuhamya banyuranya ku masaha n’amatariki, ariko rusanga ari ibintu bito bitatuma ubwabyo byonyine bitesha agaciro ubuhamya bwabo. Ibi ariko bikaba ubwabyo atari gihamya ko bishoboka ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri

Page 308

274 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Congo nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabyemeje26, igihe hataragenzurwa ibijyanye n’ibyo ashinjwa ku ruhare yagize muri jenoside, binagereranyijwe n’izindi nenge zagaragajwe mu bika bibanziriza iki. B. Kumenya niba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yaragizwe umwere hirengagijwe ibimenyetso n’amategeko bigaragaza ko ahamwa n’ibyaha aregwa. B.1 Kumenya niba hari ikosa ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru mu kwemeza ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha batazi Twagirayezu Wenceslas.  Imiburanire y’Ubushinjacyaha [121] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga ko mu gika cya 145 n’icya 146 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko abatangabuhamya bashinja Twagirayezu Wenceslas batamuzi ruvuga ko bavuguruzanya ku buryo bukabije ku cyo yakoraga, ku bijyanye n’umwanya yari afite mu bikorwa by’amashyaka ya politike cyangwa ubwamamare bwe muri rusange, ndetse no ku miterere imwe n’imwe y’umubiri we, nyamara icyo bose bahurijeho busanga ari cyo cy’ingenzi gikwiye kwitabwaho, ari uko yari umwarimu, akora mu nzego z’uburezi kandi nawe akaba abyiyemerera. [122] Bakomeza basobanura ko, nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bwari bwabigaragaje mu mwanzuro wo kwiregura mu Rukiko Rukuru ndetse n’umwe mu bacamanza akabigarukaho muri dissenting opinion, kuba abatangabuhamya badahuriza ku hantu Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoreraga n’igihe yahakoreye atari

26 Reba igika cya 53 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa.

Page 309

275 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

inenge ikomeye yatuma hemezwa ko batamuzi kandi barerekanye uburyo bamuzi, ko bazi umuryango we, aho yize ndetse bamwe bakaba ari n’abaturanyi be. Bashimangira ko harebwe igihe gishize, jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu 1994 ikozwe, hanitawe ku bihe bikomeye abakoze jenoside n’abayikorerwaga barimo n’ubuzima banyuzemo kugeza ubu, kuba buri mutangabuhamya wese mu buryo bwe yaravuze ibyo yibuka, ariko bakabusanya ku tuntu duto, bidakwiye gutesha ireme ubuhamya bwabo. [123] Ubushinjacyaha busobanura ko abatangabuhamya berekanye ko bazi Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu buryo bukurikira: - Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yagaragaje ko azi Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuko yaragiraga inka hafi y’iwabo, ko yakundaga kumubona atwaye ibitabo; - DTC abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ari umugabo w’imibiri yombi, ufite umutwe umeze nk’uburungushuye, ko kandi atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yemeje ko amuzi; - Biryamo Joseph mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umugenzuzi w’amashuri yose yo muri Rwerere kuva mu mwaka wa 1986, ko amuzi ariko batigeze baba inshuti. Abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha bw’u Rwanda yavuze ko yari umwarimu mu ishuri ribanza rya Munanira. N’ubwo hari aho yajijinganyije ku izina rye, hamwe akavuga ko yitwa Nsengiyumva Wellars, yakongera kubazwa ahandi akavuga yitwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas, atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yavuze ko yari umwarimu usimbura ku ishuri rya Munanira. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru

Page 310

276 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwafashe imvugo ya Biryamo Joseph uko itari, ruvuga ko mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark yahamije ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umugenzuzi w’amashuri muri Rwerere, nyamara atarabihamije ahubwo yaravuze ko ari ibyo yatekerezaga, ko ikigaragara ari uko Biryamo Joseph aho yabajijwe hose yakomeje gushimangira ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoraga mu nzego z’uburezi. - Umutangabuhamya Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean abazwa mu Bugezacyaha bwa Denmark yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umwarimu i Munanira. Mu Bugenzacyaha bw’u Rwanda avuga ko yari Diregiteri w’Ikigo cy’amashuri cya Munanira, naho atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yavuze ko yari umwarimu usimbura ku kigo cy’amashuri cya Munanira. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko n’ubwo hari aho adahuza imvugo, ariko nawe agaragaza ko yakoraga mu nzego z’uburezi kandi ku kigo cy’ishuri rya Munanira, ko ibisobanuro yatanze mu Rukiko bigaragaza ko yari asanzwe amuzi kuko yavuze ko akomoka i Gacurabwenge, ko yamumenye kuko yanyuraga iwabo agiye gusura Pasiteri Munyankindi Seth. - Umutangabuhamya Shyengo Joseph we yabwiye Urukiko ko nyuma ariho yaje kumenya ko yari mwarimu usimbura, bigaragaza ko yagerageje gushaka amakuru, bituma atanga ayizewe. - Umutangabuhamya Munana Tatien mu ibazwa rye ryo ku wa 18/12/2013 mu Bugenzacyaha yagize ati: “Imyitwarire ya mbere ya jenoside, icyo muziho ni uko mu mwaka wa 1993, ntabwo nibuka ukwezi neza ariko hari hagati yo mu kwezi kwa 7 n’ukwa 8 twajyanye muri meeting yabereye mu Ruhengeri kuri stade yari iyobowe na Bucyana wari ukuriye CDR mu rwego rw’igihugu na Barayagwiza, twari twatumiwemo mu rwego rw’amashyaka

Page 311

277 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Gisenyi na Ruhengeri (...), (...) icyo batubwiye muri iyo nama, badukanguriraga kurwanya umututsi wese, bamwitaga inyenzi.  Ku byerekeye icyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoraga [124] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko abatangabuhamya batibeshye ku cyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoraga, kuko mu iperereza bavugaga ko yari umwarimu, ntibahurize ku kigo yigishagaho n’urwego rw’ubuyobozi yari afite mu nzego z’uburezi, batanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko bemeza ko yari umwarimu usimbura ku ishuri ribanza rya Munanira. Bongeraho ko, n’ubwo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umukozi uhoraho kuri Collège Baptiste mu Mujyi wa Gisenyi guhera mu mwaka wa 1993 ubwo yari avuye kwiga, nta cyo banenga ibivugwa n’abatangabuhamya batanze bemeza ko mbere ya jenoside yari umwarimu usimbura ku ishuri ribanza rya Munanira27. [125] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga ko mu gushimangira ko abatangabuhamya bashinja batazi neza Twagirayezu Wenceslas, Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku nyandikomvugo zo mu Bushinjacyaha za Kabera Samuel, Kanyabugoyi Théoneste na Nzabarankize Obed, ko ariko n’ubwo izo nyandikomvugo zabo ziri muri dosiye, Ubushinjacyaha butanga ikirego butabashyize mu batangabuhamya buzifashisha mu rubanza, nyamara Urukiko rubafata nk’aho aribwo bwabatanze, ndetse imvugo zabo zikoreshwa mu buryo budahura

27 Abatangabuhamya bageze mu Rukiko bakavuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umwarimu usimbura ni Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean, Shyengo Joseph, Habingoma Théobald, Biryamo Joseph, DTA, DTB. Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent, mu Rukiko yavuze ko umuntu wese babonaga afite ibitabo babaga bazi ko ari mwarimu.

Page 312

278 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’icyasuzumwaga. Bavuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rwabonaga ko rugomba gushingira ku mvugo z’abantu batatanze ubuhamya mu Rukiko, rwari kuvuga no ku mvugo za Munana Tatien wemeje ko yajyanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas muri meeting ya CDR mu Ruhengeri, Maniragaba Théodomir, Ntaganda Claude na Gasasira Patrick, Ubushinjacyaha bwari bwashyize ku rutonde rw’abatangabuhamya bazaza mu Rukiko ariko ntibaze kubera ko batari bari mu gihugu, kuko imvugo zabo zirimo amakuru y’ingenzi yuzuzanya n’ubuhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko.  Ku birebana n’uko Twagirayezu Wenceslas asa (imiterere imwe n’imwe y’umubiri we) [126] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko mu isesengura ry’ubuhamya buvuga uko Twagirayezu Wenceslas asa habayemo kubogama, kuko Urukiko rwafatiye hamwe ibivugwa n’abatangabuhamya bashinja, ruvuga ko batari bamuzi, nyamara ibyo bavuga bigaragaza ko na mbere ya jenoside bari basanzwe bamuzi, n’ibyo bavuga bihura n’ibivugwa n’abatangabuhamya batanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ubwe. Basobanura ko, nk’umutangabuhamya DTA abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark yavuze ko yari afite amenyo asohoka imbere, ukuboko kuremaye ngo kuko yigeze guhanuka mu giti akiri umwana, afite umutwe usongoye, ariko rushingira ku bivugwa n’umutangabuhamya Kaberuka Théophile ushinjura, nyamara bamuvuga mu buryo bumwe. [127] Bakomeza bavuga ko abandi batangabuhamya bagaragaje imiterere ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas ari uwitwa Shyengo Joseph wavuze ko amuzi nk’umusore uringaniye, utabyibushye, ufite agatwe kaza imbere28, umutangabuhamya DTC avuga ko ari

28 Inyandikomvugo yo ku wa 03/12/2013 mu Bugenzacyaha.

Page 313

279 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

umugabo ufite imyaka 45, ufite 1m75, ukomeye, mu mpanga henda kuba nk’uruziga, ko ibindi atabyibuka kuko amuheruka kera29, naho mu Rukiko avuga ko amuzi. Basoza bavuga ko Ubushinjacyaha bwatanze abatangabuhamya bazi neza uregwa, ko butumva uburyo Urukiko rwakwemeza ko batamuzi, rutagaragaje ku buryo burambuye aho ibyo bavuga bitandukanira n’abandi ruvuga ko bo bamuzi.  Ku byerekeye ubwamamare bwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas [128] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga ko mu gika cya 146, Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye ishingiro ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’umwunganizi we bavuga ko ashinjwa n’abatangabuhamya batamuzi, rushingiye ku kuba abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bamugaragaza nk’umuntu ukomeye w’umukire wari uzwi mu gace k’iwabo, wahembwaga neza n’ubutegetsi kandi ufite ubutaka bunini, wabaga ari kumwe kenshi na Bunani Jean wari umugenzuzi w’Akarere k’amashuri, wahagarariraga interahamwe muri za mitingi zateguraga jenoside, cyangwa wari ukuriye MRND na CDR ku nzego za Komini cyangwa Segiteri, wagendanaga na Munyagishari Bernard wari ukuriye interahamwe mu rwego rw’icyahoze ari Perefegitura ya Gisenyi na Ntamaherezo wari ukuriye interahamwe muri Gacurabwenge, ndetse na Bikindi Simon wamamaye muri jenoside. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bananenga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwavuze ko mbere ya Nyakanga 1991, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umunyeshuri mu mashuri yisumbuye muri RDC kandi ari ho yabaga, akaza rimwe na rimwe iwabo mu biruhuko, akaba yaranakomeje kuba muri RDC

29 Umutangabuhamya abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark, P-09-217

Page 314

280 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nyuma y’uko arangije kwiga kugeza agarutse mu Rwanda muri Kamena 1993. [129] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banavuga ko basanga isesengura ry’urukiko ryarirengagije ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yivugiye mu nyandiko yoherejwe n’Igihugu cya Denmark cyane izijyanye n’Ubugenzacyaha bw’Abinjira n’abasohoka ku rupapuro P-09-328-P-09-329, aho yagaragaje imirimo yakoze, y’uko yabaye umwarimu n’umubyobozi ushinzwe imyitwarire ku Ishuri ryisumbuye ry’Ababatisite rya Gacuba II, umuyobozi ushinzwe imyitwarire kuva mu mwaka wa 1993 kugeza mu 1994, umuyobozi w’urubyiruko rwa gikristu kuva mu 1991 kugeza 1994 mu ishami ry’akarere ka AEBR, Gisenyi, umwe mu bagize komite ishinzwe guhuza ibikorwa by’itorero n’imiryango itari iya Leta iharanira uburenganzira bwa muntu kuva mu mwaka wa 1993 kugeza mu mwaka 1994 i Gisenyi. Banavuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu ibazwa rye mu Bugenzacyaha ryo ku wa 17/12/2018 yavuze ko kuva mu mwaka 1991 kugeza mu 1994 ndetse na nyuma yaho atigeze aba umuyoboke w’ishyaka na rimwe rya politique, kuko yari mu murimo w’Imana muri Eglise Baptiste mu Rwanda muri Paroisse ya AEBR Kageshi, Segiteri Gabiro, Komini Rwerere, ko ari ho yakoreraga umurimo ari umwanditsi w’itorero, aza no kuba umuyobozi w’urubyiruko mu ntara ya AEBR Gisenyi. [130] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko ibyo bimenyetso byerekana neza ko Urukiko rwafashe ibintu uko bitari, ruha imyireguririre ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas ukuri ntayegayezwa, rwirengagiza nkana ibimenyetso bivuguruza imyiregurire ye kandi yitangiye bigaragaza ko kuva mu mwaka wa 1991 kugeza mu mwaka wa1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabonekaga mu Rwanda aho yari atuye, ari mu mirimo y’itorero

Page 315

281 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

rya AEBR, ari no mu nzego zaryo, ayobora urubyiruko rwa AEBR mu Karere ka Gisenyi, ko ari nayo mpamvu Twagirayezu Wenceslas yafatwaga nk’umuyobozi ukomeye, uvuga rikijyana, kuko yayoboraga urubyiruko, kuba bamwita umuyobozi w’interahamwe nta kosa babibonamo, kandi ko yemeye ko yari ashyigikiye interahamwe, kandi abenshi mu nterahamwe bari urubyiruko rwari mu mashyaka ya politike yari yiganje muri ako gace. Banavuga ko kuba hari umutangabuhamya uvuga ko yari mu ishyaka rya MRND, undi akavuga ko yari mu rya CDR, atari inenge yatuma hemezwa ko batari bamuzi. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha basoza bavuga ko isesengura ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru atari ryo, kuko ugukomera kuvugwa kujyanye n’uwo yari we nyuma yo kurangiza amashuri; ari uko muri icyo gihe, umuntu warangije amashuri yisumbuye yabaga akomeye.  Imyiregurire ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas  Ku byerekeye icyo yakoraga [131] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ikibazo kijyanye n’uko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha babajijwe batamuzi yakigaragaje kuva akiri muri Denmark, kuko uburyo bamuvuga bagendeye ku murimo yakoraga w’ubwarimu n’aho yawukoreraga, imiterere ye ku mubiri, ubutunzi yari afite n’umwanya mu mashyaka ya politike, bigaragaza ko umuntu bavuga atari we cyangwa batamuzi, kuko iyo baba bamuzi neza, batari kuyoberwa ko yigishaga mu ishuri ryigenga kuri Gacuba II ku Gisenyi kuva muri Nzeri 1993 kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994. Bavuga ko bemeranywa n’umwanzuro w’Urukiko Rukuru ugaragara mu gika cya 145 n’icya 146, kuko uburyo abatangabuhamya bivuguruza, bakanavuguruzanya bigaragaza ko batamuzi.

Page 316

282 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[132] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bakomeza bavuga ko ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko Urukiko Rukuru rwabogamiye ku bivugwa n’abatangabuhamya bamushinjura kandi bahuza imvugo n’abamushinja, nta shingiro bifite kuko imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bamushinja zaranzwe no kwivuguruza no kuvuguruzanya. Icya mbere, babazwa mu Bugenzacyaha bwo mu gihugu cya Denmark no mu Bugenzacyaha cyangwa mu Bushinjacyaha bwo mu Rwanda bemezaga ko bamuzi neza, ariko mu kugaragaza icyo yakoraga bamwe bakavuga ko yari umwarimu ku kigo cy’amashuri abanza cya Munanira, abandi bakavuga ko yari umwarimu i Busasamana cyangwa umwarimu mu ishuri rya CERAI, hakaba n’abavuga ko yari diregiteri cyangwa insipegiteri w’ishuri ribanza rya Munanira. Icya kabiri, batanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko, abo batangabuhamya bose bahinduye imvugo, bahuriza ku kuvuga ko yari umwarimu w’umusimbura ku kigo cy’amashuri cya Munanira, kandi nabyo atari byo. [133] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga kandi ko nk’umutangabuhamya Shyengo Joseph yabajijwe impamvu yahinduye imvugo, avuga ko yabajije amenya ko yari umwarimu wajyaga asimbura, naho kuba umutangabuhamya Habimana Moïse yaravuze ko yari mwarimu ku Gisenyi, nabyo ntacyo byari kumarira Urukiko kuko ibyo yavuze nabyo bidasobanutse. Bongeraho ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarashingiye ku mvugo z’abatangabuhamya Mpahatanye Mathieu na Kaberuka Théophile yatanze ari uko bagaragaje ko bamuzi neza; Mpahatanye Mathieu yahamije ko atari kuyoberwa ko yigeze yigisha ku ishuri ribanza rya Munanira kuko yabaye resiponsabule w’iryo shuri, akaba yarabihurijeho na Kaberuka Théophile.

Page 317

283 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[134] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga kandi ko ku byerekeranye n’abatangabuhamya Kabera Samuel, Kanyabugoyi Théoneste na Nzabarankize Obed, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko imvugo zabo zakoreshejwe kandi bataratanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha nk’abatangabuhamya babwo, basanga kuba zari muri dosiye nta mpamvu yari gutuma Urukiko Rukuru rutazishingiraho mu gihe rwazisuzumye rugasanga hari aho zihurira n’urubanza, cyane cyane ko mu iburanisha ry’urubanza ku rwego rwa mbere, Ubushinjacyaha butigeze buvuga ko atari ibimenyetso bigomba gushingirwaho, uretse ko byaba ari no guteshuka ku nshingano zabwo zirimo no gushinjura. [135] Bavuga na none ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru ntacyo rwavuze ku mvugo z’abantangabuhamya Munana Tatien, Maniragaba Théodomir, Ntaganda Claude na Gasasira Patrick bari ku rutonde rw’abatangabuhamya babo batabonetse mu Rukiko kuko bari bari mu mahanga, nta shingiro bifite kuko Ubushinjacyaha butigeze bugaragaza ko bari mu mahanga. Banavuga ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru rutarashingiye ku mvugo zabo ari uko rutazihaye agaciro, ko ahubwo icyo Ubushinjacyaha bwagombye kuba bunenga, ari uko zitashingiweho kandi zihura n’ubuhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 8 y’Itegeko rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda, naho ubundi nta mpamvu ishingiye ku mategeko bagaragaza yari gutuma zishingirwaho.  Ku byerekeye uko Twagirayezu Wenceslas asa (imiterere imwe n’imwe y’umubiri we). [136] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira banavuga ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ko abatangabuhamya bamuzi neza kuko bagaragaje uburyo bamuzi

Page 318

284 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ngo kuko bari abaturanyi, bazi umuryango we n’imiterere ye nabyo nta shingiro bifite, kuko ibyo bavuze bijyanye n’imiterere ye, igihagararo cye, uko asa n’ imyaka yari afite, bigaragaza ko atari we bavuga. Bashimangira ko uburyo abatangabuhamya bagiye bavuguruzanya mu kugaragaza ko bamuzi ari byo byashingiweho n’inzego za Denmark zijya kumuha ubwenegihugu, kuko iyo zisanga ibyo bavuga ari byo atari kubuhabwa. [137] Basobanura ko nk’umutangabuhamya DTA abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark yemeje ko azi Twagirayezu Wenceslas cyane, ariko avuga ko afite amenyo asohotse, umutwe w’inyuma usongoye n’akaboko k’iburyo karemaye kubera guhanuka mu giti. Ibyo yavuze bikaba atari ukuri kuko n’ubwo akaboko ke gafite ikibazo bitatewe no guhubuka mu giti, ahubwo kavunitse kubera kukagwira acunga igicugutu. Banavuga ko umutangabuhamya Shyengo Joseph nawe yavuze ko azi uregwa neza, ko ari umugabo w’imyaka mirongo ine n’umunani (48), nyamara we mu mwaka wa 1994, yari afite imyaka makumyabiri n’umwe (21); yanavuze ko afite uburebure bwa metero imwe na mirongo irindwi na gatanu (1,75 M), ari umuntu w’imbaraga, mu gihe we ananutse. [138] Ku byerekeye Biryamo Joseph, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko yavuze ko ari umugabo w’imyaka mirongo itanu (50), ufite uburebure bwa metero imwe na mirongo itanu (1,50 M), ufite imbaraga, munini, ufite inda nini, umutwe wiburungushuye, umutwe w’inyuma usongoye, amenyo y’imbere asohotse, afite akaboko karemaye, anavuga ko amubonye yamumenya. Bavuga ko umutangabuhamya Maniragaba Théodomir we yavuze ko amuzi, ari umunyafurika ufite imbaraga, wa metero imwe na mirongo irindwi na gatanu

Page 319

285 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

(1,75 M), amenyo asohotse n’izuru rirerire, naho umutangabuhamya Nsabimana Léonidas we akaba yaravuze ko ari umugabo w’imyaka mirongo ine n’itanu (45) w’umunyembaraga, ufite mu maso harehare, ariko ko atamwibuka amubonye, ko no ku ifoto atamumenya. Bakomeza bavuga ko umutangabuhamya Habinshuti Jean Ruzibiza nawe yavuze ko ari umugabo wirabura, umunyafurika, ufite metero imwe na mirongo inani (1,80 M), anahamya ko amubonye atamwibuka; ko umutangabuhamya DTB yavuze ko ari umugabo w’umunyafurika wirabura wari hagati y’imyaka 27 na 30, ufite metero imwe na mirongo irindwi (1,70), yavuze ko amubonye yamwerekana, ariko bakaba batabimukoresheje kuko byakozwe gusa kuri Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent wemezaga ko amuzi, ariko bamweretse amafoto icumi (10) arimo n’iya Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahitamo ifoto itari iye.  Ku byerekeye ubwamamare bwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas [139] Ku bijyanye n’umwanya yari afite mu mashyaka ya politiki, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bavuze ko yari Perezida wa CDR cyangwa uwa MRND, nyamara yaragaragarije Urukiko ko nta shyaka na rimwe yigeze abamo, kuko ubuzima bwe bwose yabukoreye muri Congo yiga amashuri yisumbuye, ko iyo aza kuba yarabaye umuyobozi w’ishyaka ari byo aba yarakoresheje asaba ubuhungiro nk’umunyapolitiki. [140] Banavuga ko ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko yari umuntu ukomeye, nta shingiro bifite kuko iwabo bari abantu baciriritse, batari abatunzi bafite amasambu, akaba ataragiye kwiga muri Congo kuko abikunze, ko hajyagayo umuntu ushyizwe hasi cyane (mwene ngofero) kuko n’uwaharangizaga amashuri

Page 320

286 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kubona akazi bitamworoheraga, ko ishuri ryigenga ry’aba Baptiste ari ryo ryonyine ryamuhaye akazi.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [141] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo y’ubujurire zishingiye ku kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa ryo kuvuga ko kuba abatangabuhamya bivuguruza, bakanavuguruzanya ku cyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoraga mbere no mu gihe cya jenoside, umwanya yari afite mu mashyaka ya politike, ubutunzi no ku miterere imwe n’imwe y’umubiri we bigaragaza ko batamuzi neza. [142] Ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda iteganya ko Umushinjacyaha n’uregwa bafite bombi uburenganzira bwo kujuririra icyemezo icyo aricyo cyose cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru mu gihe hari imwe cyangwa zose mu mpamvu zikurikira: 1° ukwibeshya gushingiye ku ngingo y’itegeko gutuma icyo cyemezo gita agaciro; 2° ukwibeshya gushingiye ku byabaye kwatumye urubanza rucibwa nabi. [143] Ingingo ya 183, agace ka 5o n’aka 6o, y’Itegeko n° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko ubujurire bukorwa mu buryo bw’umwanzuro utanga ikirego, ugaragaza urutonde rw’inenge z’urubanza zisabirwa gukosorwa n’ibindi bibazo bigomba gusuzumwa n’ibisobanuro kuri buri nenge cyangwa kuri buri kibazo bigaragaza amakosa yakozwe n’uburyo agomba

Page 321

287 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

gukosorwa hashingiwe ku mategeko n’ibimenyetso n’igisabwa urukiko. [144] Ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko n° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 rigenga ibimenyetso, mu gace kayo ka (i), (i), iteganya ko “ikimenyetso gishingiye ku buhamya ari amagambo avugiwe imbere y’urwego30 rufite ububasha cyangwa yarushyikirijwe mu nyandiko n’umuntu wabonye cyangwa wumvise ibyerekeranye n’ikibazo kiri mu mpaka, naho ingingo ya 53 y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko “Urwego rufite ububasha rusuzuma ukwemerwa cyangwa ukutemerwa n’agaciro by’ikimenyetso gishingiye ku buhamya, ko rutitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya, ahubwo rwita cyane ku bumenyi bw’ibyabaye no ku budakemwa bw’ubuhamya batanga”. [145] Ingingo ya 87 y’Itegeko n° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 ryavuzwe iteganya ko “mu rubanza nshinjabyaha, ikimenyetso gishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe umwanya wo kubijyaho impaka”. [146] Mu gika cya 132 n’icya 136 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwibukije umurongo w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga wafashwe mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngurinzira, aho rwasobanuye ko mu gusuzuma ireme ry’ubuhamya, urukiko rushingira ku bumenyi bw’ababutanga n’uburyo basobanura ibyo biboneye cyangwa bumvise, rukabigereranya n’ibindi

30 Ingingo ya 2, agace ka (cc), y’Itegeko n° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 rigenga ibimenyetso isobanura ko “urwego rufite ububasha” bivuga urukiko cyangwa urwego rwakira ikibazo kiri mu bubasha bwarwo cyangwa rugifataho icyemezo, rushingiye ku bimenyetso”.

Page 322

288 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bimenyetso31. Urukiko Rukuru rwibukije kandi umurongo uri mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Nikomeze Chantal, aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanze ubuhamya budashobora gushingirwaho igihe bwaranzwe no kwivuguruza mu nzego zitandukanye uwabutanze yagiye abazwamo32 n’uwatanzwe mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Gatera Célestin, aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanze ukwivuguruza gukabije kw’abatangabuhamya gutera gushidikanya ku cyo batangira ubuhamya33. [147] Naho mu gika cya 134 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje urubanza rwa POPOVIĆ na bagenzi be rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho icyahoze ari Yugosilaviya, rwasobanuye ko mu gukoresha ubushishozi bwarwo mu isesengura ry’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya, Urukiko rushingira ku bintu binyuranye harebwe umwihariko wa buri rubanza, harimo imyitwarire y’umutangabuhamya mu rukiko, uruhare yagize mu byabaye atangaho ubuhamya, kuba ibyo avuga bishoboka kandi bisobanutse, kuba hari ukwivuguruza cyangwa guhindagura imvugo mu ibazwa rye cyangwa hagati y’ubuhamya bwe n’ikindi kimenyetso, kuba hari impamvu yatuma abeshya, uko yasubije ibibazo yabajijwe n’uruhande rw’uregwa mu rukiko, kandi ko ingaruka nziza cyangwa mbi ugushingira kuri ibi bintu bigira ku buhamya, binyurana bitewe n’imiterere yihariye ya buri rubanza34.

31 Urubanza no RPAA 0118/11/CS rwaciwe ku wa 13/11/2015 rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngurinzira 32 Urubanza no RPA 0003/15/CS rwaciwe ku wa 29/12/2017 rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Nikomeze Chantal 33 Urubanza no RPA 0084/10/CS rwaciwe ku wa 09/05/2014 rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Gatera Céléstin. 34 Urubanza rwo mu bujurire rw’Ubushinjacyaha na POPOVIC Vujadin na bagenzi be, Case no IT-05-88-A, ICTY, para.132.

Page 323

289 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[148] Urukiko Rukuru rwanagarutse ku rubanza rwa Simba Aloys n’Ubushinjacyaha rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda aho muri urwo rubanza hasobanuwe ko urukiko rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ukwivuguruza uko ari ko kose k’umutangabuhamya, gusuzuma niba ikimenyetso, uko kiri, gishobora kwizerwa no gufatwaho ukuri, rukagira n’ububasha bwo kwemera cyangwa kudaha agaciro ingingo z’ingenzi zikigize35. [149] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 145 n’icya 146, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ibyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga ko ashinjwa n’abantu batamuzi neza bifite ishingiro kubera impamvu zikurikira: - kuba abatangabuhamya bamushinja bemeza ko bamuzi neza, bavuguruzanya ku buryo bukabije ku cyo yakoraga kuko mu nzego z’iperereza bamwe bavuga ko yari umwarimu usanzwe, abandi bakavuga ko yari umwarimu usimbura, abandi bakavuga ko yari umuyobozi (diregiteri, insipegiteri), abandi bakavuga ko yari umwarimu ku mashuri abanza cyangwa ko yigishaga mu ishuri rya CERAI, ariko bagera mu Rukiko bose bakavuga ko baje kumenya ko yari umwarimu usimbura, imvugo zihabanye kandi n’ibyo Gasenge Etienne avuga by’uko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yasimburaga abarimu akiri umunyeshuri mu mashuri abanza kubera ubwenge yagiraga; - Kuba abatangabuhamya bavuguruzanya ku bijyanye n’umwanya uregwa yari afite mu bikorwa by’amashyaka ya politiki, aho bamwe bavuga ko yari akuriye MRND, CDR

35 Urubanza rwo mu bujurire rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Simba Aloys, Case no ICTR- 01-76 – A (27/11/2007), para. 103.

Page 324

290 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’interahamwe ku rwego rwa segiteri cyangwa rwa Komini, abandi bakavuga ko yari umuyoboke wa MRND gusa; - kuba bamugaragaza nk’umuntu ukomeye w’umukire wari uzwi mu gace k’iwabo, wahembwaga neza n’ubutegetsi kandi ufite ubutaka bunini, wabaga ari kumwe kenshi na Bunani Jean wari umugenzuzi w’Akarere k’amashuri, Munyagishari Bernard wari ukuriye interahamwe mu rwego rw’icyahoze ari Perefegitura ya Gisenyi na Ntamaherezo wari ukuriye interahamwe muri Gacurabwenge, ndetse na Bikindi Simon wamamaye muri jenoside, nyamara bigaragara ko mbere ya Nyakanga 1991 Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umunyeshuri mu mashuri yisumbuye muri RDC kandi ari yo aba, wazaga rimwe na rimwe iwabo mu biruhuko, kandi wanakomeje kuba muri RDC nyuma y’uko arangije kwiga kugeza agarutse mu Rwanda muri Kamena 1993. [150] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ibyerekeye imiterere y’ibice bimwe na bimwe by’umubiri wa Twagirayezu Wenceslas, bitari mu mpamvu zashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu kwemeza ko abatangabuhamya bashinja batamuzi neza. Ku bw’ibyo, hashingiwe ku bitenganywa n’ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 ryavuzwe n’ingingo ya 183, agace ka 5o n’aka 6o y’Itegeko n° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, uru Rukiko rusanga itagomba gusesengurwa muri uru rubanza. Mu bika bikurikira, uru Rukiko rukaba rugiye gusuzuma gusa impamvu zashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru zagaragajwe haruguru: 1. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije ko batangabuhamya batibeshye ku kazi k’ubwarimu Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoze.

Page 325

291 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[151] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 145 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze abatangabuhamya bashinja bavuguruzanya ku buryo bukabije ku cyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoraga, kuko mu nzego z’iperereza bamwe bavuga ko yari umwarimu usanzwe, abandi bakavuga ko yari umwarimu usimbura, abandi bakavuga ko yari umuyobozi (diregiteri, insipegiteri), abandi bakavuga ko yari umwarimu ku mashuri abanza, abandi ko yigishaga muri CERAI, ariko bagera mu Rukiko, bose bagahuriza ku mvugo y’uko yari umwarimu usimbura, izo mvugo zikaba zihabanye n’ibyo Gasenge Etienne avuga by’uko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yasimburaga abarimu akiri umunyeshuri mu mashuri abanza kubera ubwenge yagiraga. [152] Kuri iyi ngingo ijyanye n’akazi Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoze ku kigo cy’amashuri cya Munanira n’umwanya w’ubuyobozi yari ahafite, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeranywa n’isesengura ry’Urukiko Rukuru ku kuba abatangabuhamya bashinja bavuguruzanya ku bijyanye n’umwanya yari afite mu rwego rw’uburezi n’aho yawukoreraga, ariko uru Rukiko rurasanga kuba abatangabuhamya bashinja barahuzaguritse kuri ibyo, bitari kuba impamvu ituma Urukiko Rukuru rwemeza ku buryo budasubirwaho ko batamuzi, kuko uko kwibeshya ku mwanya w’umurimo n’aho yawukoreraga ari ikintu gito36.

2. Kumenya niba Urukiko rwarirengagije ko abatangabuhamya bagaragaje ko bamuzi kubera ko bahuriraga mu bikorwa by’amashyaka ya politiki. [153] Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko abatangabuhamya bashinja Twagirayezu Wenceslas batamuzi rushingiye ku kuba

36 Reba urubanza ruburanwamo Ubushinjacyaha na BIKINDI Simon, Case no ICTR-01- 62 T (2/12/2008), p.12, para. 32.

Page 326

292 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bavuguruzanya ku bijyanye n’umwanya yari afite mu bikorwa by’amashyaka ya politiki, aho bamwe bavuga ko yari akuriye MRND, CDR n’interahamwe ku rwego rwa segiteri cyangwa rwa Komini, abandi bakavuga ko yari umuyoboke wa MRND gusa, kuba bamugaragaza nk’umuntu ukomeye w’umukire wari uzwi mu gace k’iwabo, wagendanaga n’abantu bamamaye mu bwicanyi n’abari bakuriye interahamwe muri Gisenyi, nyamara mbere ya Nyakanga 1991, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umunyeshuri mu mashuri yisumbuye muri RDC kandi ari yo aba, akaba yarazaga rimwe na rimwe iwabo mu biruhuko, anakomeza kuhaba nyuma y’uko arangije kwiga, agaruka mu Rwanda muri Kamena 199337. [154] Bamwe mu batangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha batanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru baragaragaje ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabaga mu ishyaka rya MRND. Nka Gasenge Etienne atanga ubuhamya yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabaga muri MRND, ko mu gihe cy’amashyaka menshi mu mwaka wa 1991 n’uwa 1992 bahuriraga muri za mitingi muri Mutura na Busasamana, DTC yavuze ko yabaga muri CDR na MRND, kuko byasaga n’aho ari umutwe umwe wa politike, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas na Ntamaherezo bari mu bantu bazaga kubigisha muri meeting bakabaha amakarita ya MRND jenoside itaratangira, Shyengo Joseph yavuze ko yamenye Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuye muri meeting agiye kumukubita. [155] Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark, DTC na Shyengo Joseph bavuga ko yari umukuru w’interahamwe muri Gacurabwenge, akanayobora bariyeri z’aho zose, Ndagijimana Théoneste we avuga ko yari umukuru

37 Reba igika cya 146.

Page 327

293 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

w’interahamwe muri Rwerere. Mu Bugenzacyaha bw’u Rwanda, Habingoma Tonny Théobald yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umukuru w’interahamwe muri Rwerere, mu gihe Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent yavuze ko yari ahagarariye MRND ku rwego rw’Akarere, Shyengo Joseph na Gasenge Etienne bakavuga ko yari umuyoboke wa MRND gusa, Rwasibo Alphonse we akavuga ko Twagirayezu yari akuriye CDR muri Segiteri Gacurabwenge38. [156] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga, n’ubwo bigaragara ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bahuzagurika mu kugaragaza uwo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari we mu bikorwa by’amashyaka ya politike, ntibahurize ku mwanya yari afite mu mashyaka, hakaba hatanagaragazwa ikimenyetso kidashidikanywaho kigaragaza ko yari umuyoboke wa MRND cyangwa CDR, cyangwa yari umukuru w’interahamwe, bitaba impamvu ituma hemezwa ko abatangabuhamya batamuzi. [157] Muri rusange, ku birebana n’iyi ngingo y’ubujurire, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze amakosa yo kwemeza ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha batazi Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuko ibyo rwabyemeje rubishingiye ku tuntu duto duto kandi iyo akaba atari impamvu yatuma ubuhamya buteshwa agaciro nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru.

38 Reba igika cya 141.

Page 328

294 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

B.2. Kumenya niba hari ikosa ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru mu kwemeza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atakoze ibyaha aregwa  Imiburanire y’Ubushinjacyaha [158] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko isesengura ry’Urukiko Rukuru mu gika cya 175, icya 177 n’icya 179 by’urubanza rujuririrwa ririmo ukwivuguruza gukomeye ku bijyanye n’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya. Basobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru ubwarwo rwivuguruje, kuko nyuma yo kugaragaza ko ukuvuguruzanya kw’abatangabuhamya ku tuntu duto mu rubanza bidatesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya batanga, rwanyuranyije n’uwo murongo, rutesha agaciro ubuhamya bw’abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha rushingiye ku kuba ukwivuguruza ku tuntu duto byaragiye biba incuro nyinshi, ku batangabuhamya benshi, bagenda bivuguruza mu buryo bumwe kandi ku bintu bisa, ndetse no kuba hari ukwivuguruza gukabije ku bindi bice by’ubuhamya bwabo. Bavuga ko basanga ibyo atari impamvu yari gutuma rutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwatanzwe, kubera ko kudahuriza ku matariki n’amasaha ibitero byabereyeho, intwaro zakoreshejwe cyangwa zari zifitwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abantu bishwe, bitavuga ko ibyo bitero bitabayeho cyangwa ko uregwa atabigizemo uruhare.  Kuba abatangabuhamya banyuranya ku matariki n’amasaha ibitero byabereyeho [159] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga ko mu gusesengura ubuhamya bwatanzwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwibanze ku kugaragaza ko abatangabuhamya bashinja badahuriza ku matariki ibitero byakoreweho mu duce dutandukanye, rwirengagiza ko amatariki bavuga bayahurizaho

Page 329

295 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

n’abatangabuhamya bashinjura Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ntirwanasuzuma mu buryo bumwe ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’abatangabuhamya b’impande zombi, kuko rutagize icyo ruvuga ku kunyuranya kugaragara mu buhamya bw’abatangabuhamya batanzwe n’uregwa. [160] Ku byerekeye amatariki ubwicanyi bwatangiriyeho, abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko umutangabuhamya Bufono Silas wari umuzamu kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende watanzwe na Twagirayezu Wencenslas yabwiye Urukiko Rukuru ko igitero cyagabwe kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende ku itariki ya 06/04/1994 nka saa sita z’ijoro, ko ku ya 07/04/1994 haje interahamwe nyinshi, abazungu bari bahari babashyira mu nzu imwe, bamazemo nk’ibyumweru bibiri, ko ibyakorwaga yabibonaga. Naho umutangabuhamya Ugwaneza Christophe nawe watanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga ko ubwicanyi bwabaye kuva ku itariki ya 07 kugeza ku ya 12/04/1994. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko ubuhamya bwabo buhura n’ubwa Habingoma Théobald n’ubwa Biryamo Joseph nabo bemeza ko ubwicanyi bwo kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende kimwe n’ubwa Busasamana butabaye umunsi umwe, ko bwatangiye ku wa 07/04/1994, bukomeza ku matariki ya 8, iya 10 n’iya 12/04/1994, ko batabona aho Urukiko Rukuru rwahereye ruvuga ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bivuguruza, ko basanga ahubwo byerekana ko Urukiko Rukuru rwibanze gusa ku myiregurire y’uregwa, rwirengagiza iy’Ubushinjacyaha iyinyomoza. Naho kuba abatangabuhamya bashinja barageze mu Rukiko bagahuriza ku kuba ubwicanyi bwaratangiye ku itariki ya 08/04/1994, bidakwiye gutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwabo, kuko kunyuranya ku munsi bidakuraho ibikorwa by’ubwicanyi byahakorewe.

Page 330

296 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[161] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha banenga kandi isesengura ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku byerekeye igihe Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagaragaye mu bwicanyi bwo kuri Kiriziya ya Busasamana, aho rwagaragaje ko DTC mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark yavuze ko ku wa 07/04/1994 mu gitondo, nyuma y’uko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hiciwe Abatutsikazi 2 n’umugabo umwe, bakomereje i Busasamana; akavuga ko yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas saa saba (13h00) kuri bariyeri ariko mu Rukiko avuga ko ubwicanyi bwo ku Kiriziya ya Busasamana bwabaye ku wa 08/04/1994 saa yine za mu gitondo (10h00). Bavuga ko igihari ari uko nta gushidikanya ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena no kuri Kiriziya ya Busasamana habereye ubwicanyi kandi buba mbere ya saa sita, ariko kuba umutangabuhamya yakwitiranya iminsi cyangwa amasaha, atari inenge yatuma ubuhamya bwe buteshwa agaciro mu gihe ntacyo ahindura cyangwa ngo agoreke ku bwicanyi bwahabareye.  Ku bijyanye n’abantu bishwe n’aho biciwe [162] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko babona ikosa mu isesengura ry’urubanza mu gika cya 174 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, aho mu mpamvu rwashingiyeho rutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwatanzwe, rwaranashingiye ku kuba abatangabuhamya bivuguruza ku birebana n’abishwe n’aho biciwe; ko batabona icyo abishwe bakora muri iryo sesengura. Basobanura ko muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi habayeho ibitero byagabwe ku mbaga y’Abatutsi ahantu hatandukanye bitsemba hafi ya bose, ko mu byo Twagirayezu Wenceslas aregwa harimo kuba yaragiye mu bitero binyuranye byateye muri Kaminuza ya Mudende, ku Kiriziya gatolika ya Busasamana, Commune rouge no ku Nyundo, ndetse no kuba yaragiye kuri bariyeri n’ahandi, ko basanga icy’ingezi ari ukwerekana ko

Page 331

297 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

yagize uruhare muri ibyo bitero n’uko byaguyemo abantu, hakanerekanwa bamwe mu bakiguyemo agomba kuryozwa kimwe n’abandi bari bari kumwe, kubera ko bose bari bafite umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi bagabwagaho ibitero. [163] Bakomeza bavuga ko Ubushinjacyaha bwerekanye amwe mu mazina y’Abatutsi baguye muri ibyo bitero Twagirayezu Wenceslas yarimo. Bwerekanye ko kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende haguye umuryango wa Mucyahangugu n’abana be batatu, umuryango wa Segafura ugizwe n’abantu barenga makumyabiri (20), umuryango wa Barinda, Ngarara n’umugore we, Munyakabera, Mukamurenzi, Kabogi, Hanyurwimfura Emmanuel n’abandi benshi batabashije kumenyakana; ku kiriziya ya Busasamana haguye Abatutsi barimo umuryango w’Abakwejo, umuryango wa Mazeze, Rwamidende, Kanyarutoki Mathias, Mudahuga, Buyayiya, Agnès, ko hari n’uwitwa Rupiya nawe wishwe n’igitero cyarimo Twagirayezu Wenceslas. [164] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko uruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu ikorwa ry’icyaha cya jenoside, rushingiye ku kuba yari mu mugambi mubisha yari ahuriyeho n’abagenzi be (joint criminal entreprise), ko bivuze ko n’iyo hatagaragazwa umuntu runaka yishe ubwe, bitamukuraho uburyozwacyaha kuko buri wese mu bahuriye muri uwo mugambi mubisha, afatwa nk’uwafatanyije n’abandi gukora icyaha n’iyo ibikorwa bifatika byo kugitsotsoba byakozwe gusa na bamwe muri bo ; ko ibi byasobanuwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda

Page 332

298 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’urwashyiriweho icyahoze ari Yugoslavia39 ndetse n’abahanga mu mategeko.  Ku byerekeye intwaro Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoreshaga [165] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko mu gika cya 165 n’icya 166 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwatanzwe rugendeye ku kuba abatangabuhamya badahuriza ku ntwaro Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari afite n’izicishijwe Abatutsi kuri bariyeri, rugaruka cyane ku mutangabuhamya DTC, wavuze ko ku itariki ya 7/04/1994, kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hiciwe abagore 2 n’umugabo umwe, ko Twagirayezu ntacyo yakoze, ko kuri iyo bariyeri yari kumwe n’abasore 5 afite imbunda ya kalachinikov, ahandi akavuga imbunda ya R4, ko basanga kuba hamwe DTC yaravuze imbunda ya Kalachinikov ahandi akavuga iya R4 atari ikibazo, kuko atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko40 yasobanuye ko yari yibeshye, yibuka ko mu makomine hatangwaga imbunda za R4, ko rero Urukiko Rukuru rwagombaga kubona ko kwibeshya ku bwoko bw’imbunda byumvikana kubera ko atari azobereye iby’imbunda.  Imyiregurire ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas [166] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ibivugwa n’abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha ko isesengura ry’urubanza ryabayemo kwivuguruza bituma Urukiko Rukuru rutesha agaciro imvugo z’abatangabuhamya rushingiye ku kuba

39 Reba urubanza ruburanwamo Ubushinjacyaha na Nizeyimana Ildephonse, Case no ICTR-2000-55C-T, ICTR, p. 406, para. 1455. 40 Inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha yo ku wa 18/04/2022 mu Rukiko Rukuru.

Page 333

299 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

bivuguruza ku tuntu duto nta shingiro bifite, ko ahubwo bavugisha icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukiko ibyo kitavuze. Basobanura ko mu gika cya 175 n’icya 177 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje ko kwivuguruza ku tuntu duto bidatesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya, ariko ruvuga ko abatangabuhamya bashinja bagiye bivuguruza ku tuntu duto kandi kenshi, rubihuza n’uko bagiye bivuguruza ku bintu bikomeye, bituma rutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwabo. [167] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira banavuga ko ibyo abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutatandukanyije utuntu duto n’ibikomeye abatangabuhamya bagiye bavuguruzanyaho atari byo, ko ahubwo ikigaragara ari uko bagaragaza ibintu bimwe ibindi bakabireka. Bavuga ko mu gika cya 165 n’icya 166 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje aho abatangabuhamya bivuguruje ku bintu bikomeye, nka Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent, Gasenge Etienne, DTB, DTA na DTC, rusanga ubuhamya bwabo burimo kwivuguruza gukabije mu buryo bukurikira: - Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent yavuze ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hiciwe abagabo babiri n’umukobwa, yongeye kubazwa avuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yavumbuye Abatutsi abicisha imbunda; - Gasenge Etienne abazwa bwa mbere, yavuze ko atigeze yumva ko hari Abatutsi biciwe kuri bariyeri kwa Gacamena, ahandi avuga ko hari umugore n’umwana bishwe na Bunani Jean, Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahari; - DTC yavuze ko atajyanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bitero, ariko nyuma avuga ko yishe abantu 16.

Page 334

300 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Bavuga ko ibi byose bigaragara mu bisobanuro by’Urukiko Rukuru kandi atari ukuvuguruzanya ku tuntu duto, ko ahubwo rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwabo nyuma yo kubona ko abo batangabuhamya bivuguruza ku buryo bukabije ku tuntu duto no ku bintu bikomeye inshuro nyinshi.  Kuba abatangabuhamya banyuranya ku matariki n’amasaha ibitero byabereyeho [168] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga kandi ko ubuhamya bwatanzwe ku bitero byabereye kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende, kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana, kuri Commune rouge no kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, bugaragaza ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha badahuriza ku matariki ibitero byakoreweho no ku bikorwa byabayemo, ko habajijwe umuntu wari uhari, avuga ko ku wa 7/04/1994 hahise hicwa Abatutsi kuva kuri kaminuza ya Mudende bikomereza ku kiriziya ya Busasamana, ariko uwo munsi abatangabuhamya bamwe bavuga ko yari kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende, abandi bakavuga ko yari ku kiriziya ya Busasamana. [169] Bavuga kandi ko n’ibyo abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko habayeho kudafata kimwe abatangabuhamya bashinja n’abashinjura nabyo nta shingiro bifite, kuko abatangabuhamya Ugwaneza Christophe na Bufono Silas bamushinjura, ubuhamya bwabo bwahurije ku kuba ubwicanyi bwaratangiye ku itariki ya 07/04/1994, mu gihe Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bavuguruzanya kuko nka BIRYAMO Joseph adahuza n’abandi. Bongeraho ko nyuma ya jenoside habaye ikusanyamakuru, habaho kwibukiranya amatariki y’ibitero, ubwicanyi bwabaye n’ababugizemo uruhare, ko rero byaba bitumvikana uburyo Ubushinjacyaha bwavuga ko kwibagirwa amatariki ibitero byakoreweho ari ibintu bisanzwe.

Page 335

301 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [170] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumeya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije ko ibyo abatangabuhamya bavuguruzanyaho byerekeye amatariki ibitero byakoreweho, intwaro zari zifitwe na Twagireyezu Wenceslas n’izo yicishije abantu no ku bantu bishwe mu bitero ari utuntu duto tutagombaga gutesha agaciro ubuhamya batanze ku bikorwa bigize ibyaha Twagirayezu Wenceslas aregwa. [171] Ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko n° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 rigenga ibimenyetso, mu gace kayo ka (i), (i), iteganya ko “ikimenyetso gishingiye ku buhamya ari amagambo avugiwe imbere y’urwego41 rufite ububasha cyangwa yarushyikirijwe mu nyandiko n’umuntu wabonye cyangwa wumvise ibyerekeranye n’ikibazo kiri mu mpaka, naho ingingo ya 53 y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko “Urwego rufite ububasha rusuzuma ukwemerwa cyangwa ukutemerwa n’agaciro by’ikimenyetso gishingiye ku buhamya, ko rutitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya, ahubwo rwita cyane ku bumenyi bw’ibyabaye no ku budakemwa bw’ubuhamya batanga”. [172] Ingingo ya 87 y’Itegeko n° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 ryavuzwe iteganya ko “mu rubanza nshinjabyaha, ikimenyetso gishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe umwanya wo kubijyaho impaka”.

41 Ingingo ya 2, agace ka (cc), y’Itegeko n° 062/2024 ryo ku wa 20/06/2024 rigenga ibimenyetso isobanura ko “urwego rufite ububasha” bivuga urukiko cyangwa urwego rwakira ikibazo kiri mu bubasha bwarwo cyangwa rugifataho icyemezo, rushingiye ku bimenyetso”.

Page 336

302 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[173] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga mu gika cya 176 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwaribukije umurongo ugaragara mu manza zaciwe n’Inkiko z’u Rwanda no mu manza zaciwe n’Inkiko Mpanabayaha Mpuzamahanga uhuriza ku kuba ukwivuguruza ku tuntu duto bidatesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya. Mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Sgt. Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste na Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanze ku birebana n’ubuhamya bwatanzwe, ukwivuguruza kudafatirwa gusa ku magambo umutangabuhamya akoresha, cyangwa kudahuza neza imvugo mu gusobanura imigendekere y’ibyo atangira ubuhamya, ko icya ngombwa ari uko ireme(substance) ry’ibyo avuga ridahinduka42. Mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ntamaherezo Iryamukuru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasobanuye ko ukuvuguruzanya kw’abatangabuhamya ku tuntu duto mu rubanza bidatesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya batanga43. Naho umurongo wagendeweho mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda nko mu rubanza rwa Bikindi Simon, Urukiko rwasanze bitewe n’igihe kinini kiba gishize, hagati y’igihe umutangabuhamya atangiye ubuhamya n’igihe ibikorwa atangiye ubuhamya byakorewe, ukwivuguruza ku tuntu dutoya k’umutangabuhamya cyangwa hagati y’abatangabuhamya bidashobora gutesha agaciro ubuhamya44.

42 Urubanza no RPAA 0117/07/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 17/09/2010, Ubushinjacyaha buburana na Sgt. Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste na Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin, icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’Inkiko, vol. II, 2011, n0 9, urupapuro rwa 60, igika cya 14 43 Urubanza no RPAA 00141/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 31/05/2023 habuburana Ubushinjacyaha na Ntamaherezo Iryamukuru, igika cya 33. 44 urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, Case no ICTR-01- 62 T, (2/12/2008), p.12, para 32.

Page 337

303 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[174] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ruributsa ko uyu murongo ugaragara mu manza zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda wakurikijwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ntaganzwa Ladislas45, urw’Ubushinjacyaha na Birindabagabo Jean-Paul46 n’urw’Ubushinjacyaha na Kabilima Jean Damascène47. Muri izo manza, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire narwo rwasanze 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 kutafatwa nk’inenge ikabije yatesha agaciro ubuhamya, ko 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. [175] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 175 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze, uretse ukwivuguruza gukabije kugaragara mu mvugo z’abatangabuhamya bashinja, hari na none ukwivuguruza kwagiye kugaragara ku tuntu duto na duto nko kwibeshya ku itariki cyangwa isaha, ku ntwaro zakoreshejwe cyangwa zari zifitwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, aho bamwe mu batangabuhamya bavuga ko imbunda yakoresheje ari Kalachinikov, ahandi bakavuga ko ari R4, cyangwa kuvuga ko yari afite imbunda n’ubuhiri, ubundi bakavuga ko yari afite

45 Reba igika cya 27 cy’urubanza Nº RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rwaciwe ku wa 03/03/2023 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Ntaganzwa Ladislas 46 Reba igika cya 125 cy’urubanza Nº RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rwaciwe ku wa 08/04/2022 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Birindabagabo Jean Paul. 47 Reba igika cya 71 cy’urubanza No RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 16/10/2020 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Kabilimana Jean Damascène.

Page 338

304 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imbunda gusa, cyangwa imbunda na gerenade, cyangwa kwibeshya ko uwishwe yari umugore cyangwa umugabo. [176] Naho mu gika cya 177 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze, harebwe umwihariko w’uru urubanza, uburyo ukwivuguruza ku tuntu duto kwagiye kuba inshuro nyinshi, ku batangabuhamya benshi, kandi bagenda bivuguruza mu buryo bumwe kandi ku bintu bisa, bikanahuzwa n’ukwivuguruza gukabije kugaragara ku bindi bice by’ubuhamya, bitesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya n’imvugo byabo. Ibi Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwarabibonye mu mvugo n’ubuhamya bya bamwe mu batangabuhamya nka Habingoma Théobald wavuze mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark ko ubwicanyi bw’i Busasamana n’i Mudende bwabaye hagati yo ku wa 8 na 12 Mata 1994, mu Bugenzacyaha bwa Denmark n’u bw’u Rwanda Biryamo Joseph akavuga ko bwabaye ku wa 7/4/1994; DTC akavuga ko bwabaye ku wa 7/04/1994, nyamara bose bageze mu Rukiko bavuga ko ubu bwicanyi bwabaye ku wa 8/4/1994. [177] Mu kugenzura niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarivuguruje kuko rwemeje ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bivuguruje ku tuntu duto, ariko nyuma rukadushingiraho rutesha agaciro ubwo buhamya ruvuga ko bivuguruje ku tuntu duto inshuro nyinshi kandi ku buryo bukabije. Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasuzuma ubuhamya bwatanzwe hagendewe ku bitero bivugwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagizemo uruhare. a. Igitero cyo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende n’icyo ku kiriziya ya Busasamana. [178] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 153 n’icya 154 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ukwivuguruza no kuvuguruzanya bikabije biri mu buhamya bwa

Page 339

305 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent, Habingoma Théobald, Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean, Biryamo Joseph, bitesha agaciro ireme ryabwo ku buryo butashingirwaho nk’ibimenyetso bidashidikanywaho bihamya uruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bwicanyi bwabereye kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende kubera impamvu zikurikira: - imvugo n’ubuhamya bihera ku kwemeza ko nta ruhare Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize mu bikorwa aregwa, bigakomereza ku gukekeranya ko rwaba rwabayeho, bikarangira umutangabuhamya yemeza ko yiboneye uregwa akora icyaha bifite inenge iremereye ishingiye ku guhindura imvugo no kwivuguruza bituma bitashingirwaho nk’ibigaragaza ukuri kw’ibyabaye; - Ubuhamya buhindagurika ku kintu gikomeye cy’uko ibitero umutangabuhamya avuga yarimo hamwe n’uwo ashinja byagenze, harebwe uko agenda yivuguruza ku kijyanye n’aho byatangiriye, aho byakomereje n’aho byasoreje n’uko bagiye babihuriramo, bituma izi imvugo n’ubuhamya bitagaragaza ukuri kw’ibyabaye. [179] Nk’uko na none bigaragara mu bika bya 159 n’icya 160 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ukwivuguruza mu mvugo no mu buhamya bya Shyengo Joseph, Habingoma Théobald, DTC na Biryamo Joseph, haba kuri buri mutangabuhamya ukwe, haba no kuvuguruzanya hagati yabo ku byerekeye uburyo n’igihe uregwa yagaragaye mu bikorwa bigize ibyaha akurikiranweho byakorewe kuri Paruwasi ya Busasamana gukabije ku buryo bitesha agaciro ireme ryabwo; bityo ko imvugo n’ubuhamya byabo bitashingirwaho hemezwa ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize uruhare mu bwicanyi bwabereye kuri kiliziya ya Busasamana.

Page 340

306 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

1. Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent [180] Ku byerekeranye n’ubuhamywa bwatanzwe na Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent, isesengura ry’Urukiko Rukuru ryagaragaje ko abanza kuvuga ko atazi Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bwicanyi, ariko yakongera kubazwa agahindura akavuga ko bari kumwe mu bwicanyi. [181] Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent abazwa mu iperereza ryakozwe na Polisi ya Denmark, hamwe avuga ko atigeze abona Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gitero cyo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, ahandi akavuga ko ashobora kuba yari ahari, yanavuze ko atazi niba yaragize uruhare muri jenoside, ariko akomeje kubazwa arahindura avuga ko azi Twagirayezu Wenceslas ko yari umuyobozi wa bariyeri yari i Gacurabwenge, ko yanagize uruhare mu iyicwa ry’Abatutsi kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana no kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende, yanavuze ko atashakaga kubivuga kubera ko ari se wabo w’umugore we48. [182] Abazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha bwo mu Rwanda yavuze ko ibitero byose yabijyanagamo na Twagirayezu Wenceslas na Ntamaherezo ari bo bagendaga imbere bafite imbunda abandi bafite amahiri49. [183] Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko, yavuze ko mu bwicanyi bwo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas wazanye na Ntamaherezo n’abandi benshi, abo bombi bari imbere hicwa abantu benshi, ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yarashe, akanatera gerenade, ko ubu bwicanyi bwabaye mbere y’ubwo kuri bariyeri

48 P-09-263. 49 Inyandikomvugo y’ibazwa ryo ku wa 11/12/2013.

Page 341

307 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

yo kwa Gacamena, ko ibi bitero byombi ari byo bakoranye gusa50. [184] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze amakosa mu kwemeza ko ubuhamya bwa Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent buvuguruzanya mu buryo bukabije, rubyemeza nyuma yo gusuzumira hamwe ibyo yavugiye mu iperereza ryakozwe na Polisi ya Denmark n’ibyo yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Rukiko atanga ubuhamya. Nyamara Urukiko Rukuru ntirwagombaga gushingira ku byo yabwiye Polisi ya Denmark kuko abivuga atarahiye, n’uwamusemuriraga nawe atarahiye mbere yo gutangira akazi, ndetse umutangabuhamya akaba ataranasabwe gushyira umukono ku nyandiko yakozwe. Ku bw’ibyo inyandiko ikubiyemo ibyo yavugiye muri Polisi ya Denmark ikaba itujuje ibyangombwa bituma igira agaciro nk’ikimenyetso cyemewe mu Rukiko51; ikaba rero itaragombaga gushingirwaho52. [185] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurebye imiterere y’inyandikomvugo yakozwe ku itariki ya 11/12/2013 mu Bugenzacyaha n’ibyo yavuze mu Rukiko, rusanga nta kwivuguruza kuri mu mvugo za Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent kuko mu Bugenzacyaha yagaragaje ko mu gitero bajyanyemo na Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari afite imbunda, kuba mu Rukiko yarongeyeho ko mu gitero cyo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende yarashe, anatera gerenade, ari uko yabajijwe ku buryo

50 Igika cya 89 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa. 51 Ingingo ya 51 y’Itegeko no 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. 52 Uretse no kuba iyi nyandiko itarasinywe n’uwayibajijwemo, nta n’ubwo yahawe umwanya mu Rukiko wo gusobanura ibyo yazivuzemo.

Page 342

308 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bwihariye icyo Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoresheje intwaro yari afite muri icyo gitero.

2. Habingoma Théobald bita Simpamanuka [186] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 153 n’icya 159 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwa Habingoma Théobald ruvuga ko ahuzagurika mu kuvuga uko ubwicanyi bwagenze, kuko rimwe avuga ko ubwicanyi yabonyemo uregwa bwatangiriye i Busasamana bukomereza i Mudende, yakongera kubazwa agahindura avuga ko bwatangiriye i Mudende bugakomereza i Busasamana, ko hari naho avuga ko ubwo bari mu gitero kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana Twagirayezu Wenceslas yahabasanze, mu gihe ahandi avuga ko yavanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gitero cyo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende bajyana mu gitero cyo kuri Paruwasi ya Busasamana. [187] Umutangabuhamya Habingoma Theobald, wabajijwe na Polisi ya Denmark yitwa Simpamanuka Théobald, yavuze ko jenoside itangira hagati y’itariki ya 07 -12/04/1994, yoherejwe hamwe n’abandi basirikare kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana muri Komini Rwerere, ahahurira na Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’interahamwe nyinshi, ko bahajya bari bafite amabwiriza yo kwica Abatutsi bari bahahungiye bagera ku gihumbi (1000), ko nko mu ma saa munani, Twagirayezu Wenceslas ari bwo ayoboye agatsiko k’interahamwe ku rwego rwa Segiteri kagizwe n’abagabo bagera kuri 600, benshi bafite intwaro gakondo, bake bafite imbunda, Twagirayezu Wenceslas afite grenade eshatu n’imbunda, ko bavuganye kubera ko bari basanzwe baziranye, baninjirana mu kiriziya, ko bakiri aho bahawe amakuru n’abandi basirikare ko hari hakiri impunzi z’Abatutsi zari zihishe kuri

Page 343

309 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

kaminuza ya Mudende, bahita bajyayo bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas53. [188] Ubwo yabazwaga mu Bugenzacyaha ku itariki ya 13/12/2013, Habingoma Théobald yavuze ko hagati y’itariki ya 8 n’iya 12/04/1994, bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gitero cyishe Abatutsi bari bahungiye kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana ari we ukuriye interahamwe za Komine Rwerere, anafite imbunda ya R4 na grenade, ko ikindi gitero bajyanyemo ari icyateye muri kaminuza ya Mudende, ko uwo munsi bavuye kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana bajya no kwica Abatutsi bari bahungiye kuri dispensaire ya Mudende bahagera mu ma saa saba n’igice (13h30). [189] Umutangabuhamya Habingoma Théobald atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru yavuze ko yabaga ari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bitero afite imbunda ya R4, ko ku itariki ya 08/04/1994 igitero cyatangiriye kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende bica Abatutsi bari bahahungiye, barangije bajyana kwica abari bahungiye kuri Paruwasi ya Busasamana. [190] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga, ku mpamvu zagaragajwe haruguru, Urukiko Rukuru rutaragombaga gushingira ku mvugo za Habingoma Théobald yavugiye imbere ya Polisi ya Denmark. Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga kandi kuba mu Bugenzacyaha umutangabuhamya yari yavuze ko hagati y’itariki 8 n’iya 12/04/1994 yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gitero cyatangiriye ku kiriziya ya Busasamana kihavuye kijya kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, naho mu Rukiko akaza kuvuga ko ku itariki ya 08/04/1994 yajyanye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gitero cyatangiriye kuri kaminuza ya Mudende gikomereza kuri

53 Urupapuro rwa P-09-160-164.

Page 344

310 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kiliziya ya Busasamana, ari utuntu duto duto ndetse harebwe igihe gishize ibikorwa bitangwaho ubuhamya bibaye, nta gitangaza kuba umutangabuhamya atakwibuka neza itariki byabereyeho n’aho igitero cyatangiriye.

3. Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean [191] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 153 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwa Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean ruvuga ko hamwe avuga ko kuri kaminuza ya Mudende haterwa ku wa 08/04/1994, yihishe aza kuhava nyuma y’iminsi mike yerekeza ku kiriziya ya Busasamana ari nabwo yahuye n’interahamwe zirimo Twagirayezu Wenceslas, nyamara yongeye kubazwa avuga ko yamubonye ku wa 8/04/1994, umunsi kuri kaminuza ya Mudende haterwa. [192] Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark yavuze ko mu bantu bagabye igitero cya kabiri muri Kaminuza ya Mudende ku wa 8/04/1994, yamenyemo Twagirayezu Wenceslas, anavuga ko ku musozi witwa Rwagare yahahuriye n’interahamwe 30, abona Twagirayezu Wenceslas afite imbunda na grenade, ko yanamubonye arasa umwana w’umukobwa. Hari n’aho yageze avuga ko yavuye kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende agahungira kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana nyuma yo guhindura imvugo bitewe n’uko uwamubazaga yari amaze kumubwira ko abandi bavuga ko mu gitondo cyo ku itariki ya 8 Mata 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas ashobora kuba yari kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana, maze nawe ahita avuga ko bishoboka ko atari ari mu gitero cya kabiri cyo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, yanavuze ko yagerageje kuva kuri kaminuza ya Mudende yiruka agana kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana ashaka kujya muri Congo, ko ari mu

Page 345

311 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

nzira, ahura n’interahamwe zigeze nko kuri mirongo itatu (30) ku musozi witwa Rwagare54. [193] Abazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha yavuze ko yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku wa 8/4/1994 mu gitero cyaje kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, ko ubwo yahunganga yanamubonye kuri bariyeri ya Gacurabwenge, aho yari atuye afite imbunda. Umutangabuhamya Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru, yavuze ko ku itariki ya 7/4/1994, bahungiye kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende, ku wa 08/4/1994 saa mbili za mu gitondo haza ibitero birimo icyaturutse Rwagare muri Rwerere Twagirayezu Wenceslas akirimo afite imbunda n’inkoni yitwa ntampongano y’umwanzi, ari imbere y’abandi. Yanavuze ko bageze muri Congo, Shyengo Joseph yamubwiye ko no ku kiriziya ya Busasamana Twagirayezu Wenceslas yahageze. [194] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga, ku mpamvu zagaragajwe haruguru, Urukiko Rukuru rutaragombaga gushingira ku mvugo Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean yavugiye imbere ya Polisi ya Denmark ruzigereranya n’izo yavugiye mu nzego z’iperereza no mu Rukiko Rukuru. Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga kandi nta kuvuguruzanya kuri mu byo Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Rukiko Rukuru kuko hose yemeje ko kuri kaminuza ya Mudende hatewe ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 kandi ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu gitero afite imbunda. Ku bw’ibyo Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze amakosa yo kwemeza ko Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean yivuguruje ku buryo bukabije.

54 P- 09-222

Page 346

312 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

4. Biryamo Joseph [195] Nk’uko bigaragara na none mu gika cya 153 n’icya 159 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, ubuhamya bwa Biryamo Joseph bwateshejwe agaciro bitewe n’uko yavuze ko nyuma y’ibitero byo kaminuza ya Mudende na kiriziya ya Busasamana byo ku wa 8/4/1994 bagiye kwihemba kuri Komini Rwerere bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, mu gihe Habingoma Théobald we avuga ko nyuma y’ubwicanyi bw’i Mudende na Busasamana bakomereje ku Ishuri rya Saint Fidèle, “Commune rouge” no ku Nyundo bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, naho DTC akavuga ko ubwicanyi bwo ku kiriziya ya Busasamana bwabaye ku wa 8/4/1994, bukomereza kuri Duwani Kabuhanga aho bita i Kinyogo. Bwanateshejwe agaciro kubera ko hari aho yavuze ko mu gitero cy’i Busasamana ku wa 7/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas wari witwaje umuhoro yishe abagore batatu (3) n’abana babiri (2) abatemaguye mu gihe DTC we avuga ko mu gitero cy’i Busasamana ku wa 7/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoresheje imbunda yica abari imbere mu kiriziya ya Busasamana. [196] Biryamo Joseph abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark yavuze ko ku wa 7/4/1994 yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gitero cyo kuri kiliziya ya Busasamana ayoboye agatsiko k’interahamwe karimo na Bikindi Simon na DTC bafite pistolet n’izindi mbunda ariko Twagirayezu Wenceslas we afite umuhoro kandi yanawukoresheje yica abagore batatu (3) n’abana (2) abatemaguye. [197] Abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha bw’u Rwanda, Biryamo Joseph yavuze ko igitero cyo kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende cyabaye ku wa 12/4/1994, ko kandi bakivuyemo bagiye kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana bahasanga Twagirayezu Wenceslas.

Page 347

313 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[198] Biryamo Joseph atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru yavuze ko ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 saa mbiri bari kumwe n’interahamwe, burugumesitiri n’abasirikare bayobowe na Nguyeneza bagiye kwica i Mudende bahageze bahasanga umugenzuzi Bunani Jean na Twagirayezu Wenceslas wari ufite imbunda, hari n’itsinda ry’abantu benshi barimo konseye, aba resiponsabule, abasirikare n’abapolisi, ko barangije saa sita zuzuye (12h00) bakajya Busasamana, kandi ko aho hose Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari afite imbunda ari na yo yicishije Gasanduku na Kanyarutoki bari mu mpunzi zari ku kiriziya ya Busasamana . [199] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga, ku mpamvu zagaragajwe haruguru55, Urukiko Rukuru rutaragombaga gushingira ku mvugo Biryamo Joseph yavugiye imbere ya Polisi ya Denmark ruzigereranya n’izo yavugiye mu nzego z’iperereza no mu Rukiko Rukuru, kandi ko rutagombaga no kuzigereranya n’iza DTC nawe yavugiye muri urwo rwego. [200] Ku byerekeye aho mu buhamya bwe, Biryamo Joseph avuga ko ku wa 8/4/1994 bavuye mu bitero byo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende no ku kiriziya ya Busasamana bagiye kuri komine Rwerere kwihemba bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, naho Habingoma Théobald we akavuga ko ku wa 8/4/1994 nyuma y’ubwicanyi bakomereje ku ishuri rya Saint Fidèle, “Commune rouge” no ku Nyundo bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, mu gihe DTC yavuze ko nyuma y’ubwicanyi bwo ku kiriziya ya Busasamana bwo ku wa 8/4/1994 bakomereje kuri douane Kabuhanga aho bita i Kinyogo, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga kuba badahuza ku byo bakoze nyuma y’ibitero babaga bavuyemo ari ibintu bidatangaje urebye igihe gishize nk’uko

55 Reba igika cya 184 cy’uru rubanza.

Page 348

314 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

byasobanuwe mu rubanza rwa Bikindi Simon rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda no mu manza zaciwe n’uru Rukiko zibukijwe haruguru, kuko icy’ingenzi ari uko abatangabuhamya bose bahuriza ku kuba bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bitero byo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende n’ibyo ku kiriziya ya Busasamana.

5. Shyengo Joseph [201] Nk’uko bigaragara na none mu gika cya 159 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwa Shyengo Joseph kubera ko hamwe avuga ko iby’uruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bwicanyi bw’i Busasamana yabibwiwe na DTC, nyamara yongeye kubazwa avuga ko yamwiboneye muri icyo gitero. [202] Umutangabuhamya Shyengo Joseph abazwaga na Polisi ya Denmark yavuze ko iby’uko ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize uruhare mu bwicanyi bwabereye ku kiriziya ya Busasamana yabibwiwe na DTC, ko we ubwe atari yarigeze yumva avugwa mu bundi bwicanyi. [203] Abazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha bw’u Rwanda, Shyengo Joseph yavuze ko ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 mu gitondo nka saa tatu (9h00), ubwo yari yahungiye kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gitero afite imbunda, interahamwe zirimo kumusaba kuzitiza ngo zirase, zimwita mwarimu, ko ariko atamenye abantu we yishe ku giti cye. [204] Umutangabuhamya Shyengo Joseph atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko, yavuze ko ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 yahungiye kuri paruwasi ya Busasamana, ko yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas afite imbunda ariko atabonye ayirashisha, hari n’aho avuga ko

Page 349

315 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

yabanje guhungira kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, igitero kije nka saa kumi n’ebyiri za mugitondo, ahava yiruka ahungira kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana, ahagera nka saa mbili na mirongo ine. [205] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga, ku mpamvu zagaragajwe haruguru56, Urukiko Rukuru rutaragombaga gushingira ku mvugo Shyengo Joseph yavugiye imbere ya Polisi ya Denmark ruzigereranya n’izo yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Rukiko. [206] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurebye ubuhamya bwe mu Rukiko, rusanga buhura n’imvugo ze mu Bugenzacyaha kuko hose yemeje ko ku wa 8/4/1994 yiboneye Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu gitero cyo ku kiriziya ya Busasamana afite imbunda. Bityo Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwarakoze amakosa yo kwemeza ko imvugo ze zivuguruzanya mu buryo bukabije.

6. Umutangabuhamya DTC [207] Nk’uko bigaragara na none mu gika cya 159 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwa DTC kubera ko hamwe avuga ku wa 7/4/1994 hagati ya saa tatu (9h00) na saa munani (14h00) yagiye mu gitero cy’i Busasamana ari mu modoka atwaye Twagirayezu Wenceslas; ahandi akavuga ko kuri iyi tariki nka saa saba (13h00), ari kuri bariyeri, yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas aje mu gitero i Busasamana ari muri bisi ya ONATRACOM. Indi mpamvu rwashingiyeho ni uko yavuze ko ubwicanyi bw’ i Busasamana bwabaye ku wa 8/4/1994, bukomereza kuri douane Kabuhanga aho bita i Kinyogo; mu gihe Biryamo Joseph avuga ko nyuma y’igitero cyo ku wa 8/4/1994 i Busasamana n’i Mudende bakomereje kuri Komini Rwerere kwihemba, naho Habingoma Théobald we akavuga ko ku wa

56 Reba igika cya 184 cy’uru rubanza.

Page 350

316 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

8/4/1994 nyuma y’ibitero by’i Mudende na Busasamana bakomereje Saint Fidèle, ku Nyundo no kuri “commune rouge” hose bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas. [208] Umutangabuhamya DTC abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark yavuze ko ku itariki ya 7/4/1994 bagiye ku kiriziya cya Busasamana atwaye Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu modoka, mu nzira bahura n’abasirikare 10 n’interahamwe zirenga 100, interahamwe zimena urugi rwa kiriziya zica abantu bari hagati ya 200 na 300, ko muri ubwo bwicanyi bwo ku Kiriziya Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabugizemo uruhare akoresheje imbunda ye. [209] Abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha yavuze ku wa 7/4/1994, mu ma saa sita cyangwa saa saba, yamubonye muri bisi ya ONATRACOM bavuye Gacurabwenge bari kumwe n’abantu benshi bavuye muri Segiteri zitandukanye, bamusanga kuri bariyeri yariho hamwe n’abandi, baje mu gitero cya Busasamana aho bishe Abatutsi benshi barenga 200, ko muri icyo gitero Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari afite imbunda. Naho DTC atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru, yavuze ko ku wa 8/4/1994 saa ine (10h00) mu bwicanyi bwabereye i Busasamana, yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas wari ufite imbunda ya R4, nyuma bakomereza kuri douane Kabuhanga aho bita Kinyogo nko mu ma saa saba, naho ku wa 9/4/1994 bajya mu bwicanyi bw’i Mudende Twagirayezu Wenceslas afite imbunda. [210] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga, ku mpamvu zagaragajwe haruguru, Urukiko Rukuru rutaragombaga gushingira ku mvugo za DTC yavugiye imbere ya Polisi ya Denmark ruzigereranya n’izo yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Rukiko.

Page 351

317 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[211] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga, uretse kunyuranya ku matariki igitero cyo kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana cyabereyeho kuko mu Bugenzacyaha yaravuze ku itariki ya 7/4/1994, mu Rukiko akavuga ko cyabaye ku itariki ya 8/4/1994, bitari gutuma ubuhamya bwe buteshwa agaciro ku mpamvu y’uko buvuguruzanya ku byerekeye amatariki ibitero byabereyeho kuko, nk’uko byasobanuwe, ari utuntu duto harebwe igihe gishize ibyo atangaho ubuhamya bibaye. [212] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kuba yaravuze ko ku wa 8/4/1994 bavuye Busasamana bagakomereza kuri douane ya Kabuhanga aho bita i Kinyogo, hatandukanye n’aho Biryamo Joseph avuga ko nyuma y’igitero cyo ku kiriziya ya Busasamana n’icyo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende bakomereje kuri Komini Rwerere kwihemba, naho Habingoma Théobald we akavuga ko bakomereje ku ishuri Saint Fidèle, ku Nyundo no kuri “commune rouge”, hose bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, atari impamvu ihagije yatesha agaciro ubuhamya bwe, kuko icy’ingenzi bahurizaho bose ari uko bari kumwe mu gitero cyo ku kiriziya ya Busasamana n’icyo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende. [213] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurebye ko ibikorwa batangaho ubuhamya byabaye mu kwezi kwa kane 1994, bakaba barabitanzeho ubuhamya mu Rukiko mu kwezi kwa kane 2022 hashize imyaka 28 bibaye, biroroshye ko hari ibyo bashobora kutibuka neza igihe byabereye, uko byakurikiranye cyangwa bakagira ibyo bibagirwa cyangwa ntibavuge kimwe uko ibintu byagenze. Icy’ingenzi, nk’uko byasobanuwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, akaba ari uko abatangabuhamya bashinja bahuriza ku kuba bari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bitero byo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende no ku kiriziya ya Busasamana byishe

Page 352

318 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Abatutsi bari bahahungiye, kandi kuri ibyo hakaba nta kuvuguruzanya kuriho. [214] Urukiko rugasanga rero Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa ryo kwemeza ko nta ruhare Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize mu gitero cyo kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende n’icyo kuri Kiriziya ya Busasamana rushingiye ku kuba ubuhamya bumushinja buvuguruzanya, kuko uru Rukiko rwasanze ibyo badahurizaho ari utuntu duto tutagomba gutesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya bwabo. b. Bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena [215] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 166 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwagaragaje ko isesengura ry’imvugo zatanzwe ku byerekeranye n’uruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuri bariyeri yiswe iyo kwa Gacamena rigaragaramo ukwivuguruza no kuvuguruzanya bikabije mu buryo bukurira: - Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent, yabanje kuvuga ko ku wa 9/4/1994 yasanze abagabo babiri (2) n’umukobwa umwe (1) biciwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, ariko atamenye ababishe, nyamara yongeye kubazwa avuga ko kuri iyi tariki Twagirayezu Wenceslas yavumbuye Abatutsi abicisha imbunda; - Gasenge Etienne, hamwe avuga ko atigeze yumva ko hari Abatutsi biciwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, yongeye kubazwa avuga ko hari umugore wari uhetse umwana wiciwe kuri iyi bariyeri na Bunani Jean, Twagirayezu Wenceslas na we ahari;

Page 353

319 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

- DTB yabanje kuvuga ko atavuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yishe kanaka kuko nta gitero bajyanyemo, ahandi akavuga ko yagiye mu bitero hirya no hino ndetse ko ku wa 8/4/1994, kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hicirwa abantu cumi na batandatu (16), Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari ahari, afite intwaro gakondo yitwa ntampongano y’umwanzi; - Ku bijyanye n’Abatutsi batatu (3) biciwe kuri bariyeri, Kanyamishoro Nsengiyumva Innocent avuga ko ari abagabo babiri (2) n’umukobwa umwe (1); DTA akavuga ko ari abagore babiri (2) n’umusore, ahandi akavuga ko ari umugore, umugabo n’umwana; DTC we avuga ko ari abagore babiri (2) n’umugabo umwe (1); - Ku bijyanye n’uburyo aba Batutsi batatu (3) bishwe, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent avuga ko atamenye ababishe, ahandi akavuga ko bicishijwe imbunda; DTA na DTC bo bavuga ko bicishijwe amahiri. [216] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga mu gutesha agaciro ubuhamya bwatanzwe ku ruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, Urukiko Rukuru rwaragereranyije ubuhamya bwantangiwe mu Rukiko, imvugo z’abatangabuhamya mu Bushinjacyaha, mu Bugenzacyaha n’ibyo bavuze babazwa na Polisi ya Denmark, ibyo bavuga ku bantu bahaguye, umubare wabo, kuba bari abagore cyangwa abagabo cyangwa abana, uruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu iyicwa ryabo, intwaro bicishijwe, ndetse no ku matariki byabereyeho. [217] Mu bika bikurikiyeho, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasuzuma ibivugwa n’abatangabuhamya bashinja ku byabaye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena.

Page 354

320 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

1. Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent [218] Urukiko Rukuru rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwa Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent, ruvuga ko ubwo yabazwaga na Polisi ya Denmark yabanje kuvuga ko ku wa 9/4/1994 yasanze abagabo babiri (2) n’umukobwa umwe (1) biciwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena ariko atamenye ababishe, nyamara atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko kuri iyo tariki Twagirayezu Wenceslas yavumbuye Abatutsi abicisha imbunda. [219] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark yabanje kuvuga ko nta ruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas azi, ariko nyuma arahindura avuga ko hari ibyaha yakoze muri jenoside ariko ko atashakaga kubivuga kuko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ari se wabo w’umugore we. Yakomeje avuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari umuyobozi wa bariyeri yari i Gacurabwenge, yanavuze ko we yagiye kuri bariyeri inshuro nyinshi ku nzu y’umucuruzi witwa Gacamena nko ku itariki ya 9/4/1994, yariho abantu bari hagati ya 20 na 30 bafite imihoro, amahiri n’izindi ntwaro za gakondo, afite imbunda ye. Yanavuze ko yamenye Twagirayezu Wenceslas, kuko ari we wari ufite ijambo kuri iyo bariyeri; ko yahageze nko mu ma saa sita abona imirambo itatu y’abagabo babiri n’umukobwa umwe w’imyaka 18 irambaraye hasi nko kuri metero 20 uvuye kuri bariyeri, ko atamenye uwabishe, ariko yumvaga ko bishwe n’abantu bari kuri iyo bariyeri. [220] Uyu mutangabuhamya abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha bw’u Rwanda yavuze ko yajyanaga na Twagirayezu Wenceslas kwica, ko mu kwezi kwa 4/1994 ari ku wa kane hari abantu batatu (3)

Page 355

321 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

barimo umukobwa umwe n’abagabo babiri yiciye kuri bariyeri ya Gacurabwenge akoresheje imbunda. [221] Umutangabuhamya Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yavuze ko ku itariki ya 9/4/1994 saa munani z’amanywa (14h00) Twagirayezu Wenceslas “yavumbuye” Abatutsi, ahandi avuga ko “bavumbuye” Abatutsi kuri Rwagare aho bita kwa Gacamena babirukaho, Twagirayezu Wenceslas aba ari we ubicira aho akoresheje imbunda y’urukara atazi ubwoko, ko Abatutsi baguye kuri iyo bariyeri ari benshi. [222] Ku byerekeye amakuru yatangiye kuri Polisi ya Denmark aho avuga ko yabonye imirambo y’abantu batatu (3), ariko ko atamenye uwabishe, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ayo makuru adakwiye gushingirwaho kuko afite inenge nk’uko zakomeje kugarukwaho zijyanye no kuba inyandiko akubiyemo zitarasinywe n’umutangabuhamya, ndetse yaba umutangabuhamya, yaba n’abasemuzi bakaba batararahiye. Bityo, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rutaragombaga kuyashingiraho mu gutesha agaciro ubuhamya yatangiye mu Bugenzacyaha, ndetse akanabisobanura imbere y’u Rukiko. [223] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga mu buhamya bwe mu Rukiko no mu Bugenzacyaha, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent yaragaragaje ko hari abantu Twagirayezu Wenceslas yarasiye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, ibyo bikaba byari bikwiye guhabwa agaciro n’ubwo hamwe avuga ko ari kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena ku itariki ya 9/4/1994, ahandi akavuga kuri bariyeri ya Gacurabwenge mu kwezi kwa kane 1994, ariko atibuka itariki. Nk’uko byasobanuwe no ku bandi batangabuhamya, kutibuka amatariki cyangwa kuvuga ku buryo butandukanye aho ibintu byakorewe si inenge ikomeye yatuma

Page 356

322 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubuhamya butakaza ireme ryabwo, kuko icyangombwa ari uko Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent yahamije ko hari abantu Twagirayezu Wenceslas yiciye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena mu Gacurabwenge, ndetse mu Rukiko Rukuru agasobanura neza itariki byabereyeho57.

2. Gasenge Etienne [224] Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze Gasenge Etienne, hamwe avuga ko atigeze yumva ko hari Abatutsi biciwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, yongeye kubazwa avuga ko hari umugore wari uhetse umwana wiciwe kuri iyi bariyeri na Bunani Jean, Twagirayezu Wenceslas na we ahari. [225] Gasenge Etienne, abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark, yavuze ko yari azi ko i Gacurabwenge hari bariyeri, ariko ko atari yarigeze yumva havugwa iyicwa ry’Abatutsi kuri iyo bariyeri; abazwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ku wa 22/5/2020, yavuze ko nta ruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas azi nyuma y’urupfu rwa Perezida Habyarimana mu mwaka wa1994, ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena ari Bunani Jean wari ufite imbwa yahigishaga Abatutsi, ko atazi niba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari ayiriho, ariko yongeye kubazwa mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 23/11/2021 avuga ko kuri iyo bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, Bunani Jean yaharasiye umugore amuca ibere ariha imbwa, Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahari. [226] Gasenge Etienne atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’umugenzuzi w’amashuri witwaga Bunani Jean babaga kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, ko ku wa 8/4/1994 yamubonye ahagaze nk’umuyobozi avugana na

57 Reba inyandiko y’iburanisha yo ku ku wa 18/04/2022.

Page 357

323 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Bunani Jean, ko ariko atumvise icyo bavuganaga, yanavuze ko mu bicanyi yibuka bari kuri iyo bariyeri barimo Bunani Jean wahigishaga abantu imbwa, Munyarwerere na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko ndetse Bunani Jean yahiciye umugore, amuca ibere ariha imbwa. [227] Nk’uko bigaragara mu mvugo ze, Gasenge Etienne abazwa mu Bushinjacyaha, yavuze ko nta ruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas azi, yongeye kubazwa avuga ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, Bunani Jean yaharasiye umugore amuca ibere ariha imbwa, Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahari, naho atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yavuze ko mu bicanyi yibuka bari kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena barimo Bunani Jean wahigishaga abantu imbwa, Munyarwerere na Twagirayezu Wenceslas. [228] Umutangabuhamya Gasenge Etienne abazwa mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 23/11/2021, ntacyo yavuze ku bijyanye n’akazi, ahubwo yavuze ko azi Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko ari mwene Semugeshi Naason naho nyina yitwa Ntawukazi Rose, ababyeyi be bari batuye muri komine Rwerere58. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba azi Twagirayezu Wenceslas, yasubije ko amuzi kuko yabaye kuri Munanira ari umwarimu kandi nawe yahize, ahavuye ajya kwiga muri Zaïre, avuye yo ajya kwigisha mu mashuri y’ababaptiste kuri Gacuba ya kabiri, yanavuze ko baziranye, ko n’ikimenyimenye yeretse ubushinjacyaha cyangwa ubutabera ifoto ye59. Muri iri bazwa yerekanye ifoto ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga ko yayihawe n’umuhungu wabo wabanaga na nyina muri Congo, barikumutereta kugirango azamushinjure, abasaba ifoto ababeshya ko atamwibuka

58 Inyandiko y’ibazwa rya Gasenge Etienne mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 23/11/2021. 59 Reba inyandikomvugo yok u wa 22/05/2020, ikibazo cya 13.

Page 358

324 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

barayimuha, ariko ko yayisabye kugira ngo azayerekane mu butabera nk’umuntu yari asanzwe azi. [229] Uru Rukiko rusanga umutangabuhamya Gasenge Etienne adakwiye kwizerwa kuko haba mu Rukiko Rukuru, haba no mu Bushinjacyaha yabazwaga afite ifoto ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas, avuga ko ari ikimenyetso cy’uko amuzi kandi ko yayihawe n’abo mu muryango we kugira ngo azamushinjure. Uru Rukiko rusanga uko kugendana ifoto y’uwo ashinja bigaragaza ahubwo ko atari amuzi neza kuko yayifashishaga kugira ngo ijye imwibutsa uwo avuga no kwemeza abo abwira ko amuzi.

3. DTA [230] Uyu mutangabuhamya abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark yavuze ko hagati y’itariki ya 10 n’iya 12/4/1994, kuri bariyeri yari imbere y’umucuruzi witwa Gacamena yariho abantu benshi bafite intwaro gakondo, yabashije kumenyamo Twagirayezu Wenceslas, Rukara na Claver, hafatiwe umugabo, umugore n’umwana, Twagirayezu Wenceslas abaka indangamuntu, maze yegera Bunani Jean wari umuyobozi wa bariyeri amubwira ko abo bantu ari Abatutsi, Bunani Jean ahita atanga amabwiriza yo kubica uko ari batatu, babajyana kure ya bariyeri munsi y’igiti babakubita amahiri kugeza bapfuye. [231] Abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha, DTA yavuze ko hagati y’itariki ya 9 n’iya 15/4/1994, mu ma saa ine cyangwa saa saba, yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena ari kumwe na Bunani Jean, Ntamfura na Claver bafashe abagore babiri b’Abatutsikazi n’umwana w’umusore uri hagati y’imyaka 14 na 17, babajyana kwa Munyazogeye Alphonse wari umunyamakuru nko muri metero 60 uvuye kuri bariyeri, babicisha amahiri babahamba munsi y’igiti cy’avoka.

Page 359

325 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[232] Umutangabuhamya DTA atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize uruhare mu iyicwa ry’Abatutsikazi babiri n’umusore ubwo bari bageze kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena bashaka kwambuka bajya muri RDC, akabahagarika ababaza ibyangombwa, babibuze atangira kubakubita, afatanya n’abandi kubica, babahamba munsi y’avoka yo kwa Munyazogeye, ko agenekereje yibuka ko ubu bwicanyi bwabaye ku wa 10/4/1994. Yanasobanuye ko bicishijwe inkoni, kandi ko bafatanyije kubica, ko barasaga uwirukanse; yongeraho ko Twagirayezu atakoresheje imbunda ya R4 yari afite, yakoresheje amahiri. [233] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga nk’uko byavuzwe no ku bandi batangabuhamya imvugo DTA yavugiye muri Polisi ya Denmark zitaragombaga gushingirwaho mu gutesha agaciro ubuhamya DTA yatangiye mu Rukiko no mu Bugenzacyaha kubera inenge zavuzwe. Naho ibyo yavugiye mu Bugenzacyaha no mu Rukiko bigaragara ko nta kwivuguruza kurimo kuko haba mu Rukiko, haba no mu Bugenzacyaha yagaragaje ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize uruhare mu iyicwa ry’Abatutsikazi babiri n’umusore umwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena akoresheje amahiri hagati y’itariki ya 9 n’iya 15/04/1994.

4. DTB [234] Urukiko Rukuru rwatesheje agaciro ubuhamya bwa DTB rushingiye ku kuba yarabanje kuvuga ko atavuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yishe kanaka kuko nta gitero bajyanyemo, ahandi akavuga ko yagiye mu bitero hirya no hino, ndetse ko ku wa 8/4/1994, kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hiciwe abantu cumi na batandatu (16), Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahari, afite intwaro gakondo yitwa ntampongano y’umwanzi.

Page 360

326 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[235] DTB, abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark, yavuze ko muri jenoside hari bariyeri hafi yo kwa Gacamena, ko yayigiyeho inshuro eshatu (3), kandi ko muri izo nshuro zose yahabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko hari umunsi umwe yabonye imirambo y’abantu nk’icumi (10) cyangwa cumi na babiri (12) hafi y’iyo bariyeri hari insoresore nyinshi zirimo na Twagirayezu Wenceslas. [236] Uyu mutangabuhamya ubwo yabazwaga n’Ubugenzacyaha yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yakoraga kuri bariyeri yari imbere yo kwa Gacamena hafi y’aho yatahaga kwa mushiki we witwa Ukwitegetse Léoncie, ko yabaga afite intwaro gakondo y’impiri bitaga ntampongano y’umwanzi, ko iyo bariyeri yari yarashyizweho kuva mu mwaka wa 1992 kugeza mu mwaka wa 1994 n’ubuyobozi bwa Segiteri Gacurabwenge kugira ngo bajye bahiga Abatutsi n’abo bitaga ibyitso byabo, ko atavuga ko hari umuntu Twagirayezu Wenceslas yishe kuko nta gitero yigeze ajyanamo nawe, ko icyo azi ari uko yakoraga kuri iyo bariyeri. [237] Umutangabuhamya DTB atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko yavuze ko bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yashinzwe kuva mu mwaka wa 1992 mu gihe cy’ibyitso, ko mu mwaka wa 1994 hari umusaza witwa Rusesa wayikubitiweho Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahari, arengerwa n’abaturage ariko bamujyana ku cyahoze ari Komini arafungwa, ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yayibayeho kugeza igihe cya jenoside aho yagiye mu bwicanyi kimwe n’abandi, kuko ku wa 8/4/1994 yayimubonyeho, kandi ko uwo munsi mu gitondo yagize uruhare mu iyicwa ry’abantu cumi na batandatu (16) bahiciwe, ko icyo gihe kuri iyo bariyeri hari imbunda ebyiri (2),Twagirayezu Wenceslas we yari afite intwaro gakondo yitwa ntampongano y’umwanzi.

Page 361

327 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[238] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga nk’uko byavuzwe no ku bandi batangabuhamya imvugo DTB yavugiye muri Polisi ya Denmark zitaragombaga gushingirwaho mu gutesha agaciro ubuhamya yatangiye mu Rukiko no mu Bugenzacyaha kubera inenge zavuzwe. [239] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga icyo ubuhamya DTB yatanze mu Rukiko n’imvugo ze mu Bugenzacyaha bihurizaho ari uko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabaga kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena afite ubuhiri, mu Rukiko asobanura neza ko ku itariki ya 8/4/1994 hiciwe abantu 16 Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahari. [240] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga uyu mutangabuhamya ativuguruza, kuko, n’ubwo abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha yavuze ko atahamya ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yishe kanaka kuko nta gitero bajyanyemo, yashimangiye ko yabaga ari kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena afite intwaro gakondo. Ibi bikaba bitavuguruza ibyo yahamije imbere y’Urukiko ko ku wa 8/4/1994 mu gitondo kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hiciwe abantu 16, kuko icyangombwa ari uko yagaragaje ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari kuri iyo bariyeri yiciweho abantu.

5. DTC [241] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 166 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, ubuhamya bwa DTC ku byerekeye bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena bwateshejwe agaciro kubera kubugereranya n’ubwa Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent, ndetse n’ubwa DTA banyuranya ku gitsina cy’abantu bishwe n’intwaro zakoreshejwe. [242] Uyu mutangabuhamya abazwa na Polisi ya Denmark yavuze ko ku wa 7/4/1994, bishe abagore 3 n’umugabo umwe bahawe amabwiriza na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko ariko we nta

Page 362

328 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

muntu yishe, ko bamaze kwica abo bantu bagiye ku kiriziya ya Busasamana amutwaye mu modoka. Yanavuze ko yari umuyobozi wa bariyeri zose zo muri Segiteri ya Gacurabwenge. [243] DTC, abazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha yavuze ko hagati y’itariki ya 7 n’iya 9/4/1994 mu ma saa yine (10h00), ubwo yari agiye gupakira imboga ahitwa mu Kinogo yabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena afite imbunda ya Kalachnikov ari kumwe n’abasore bagera kuri batanu barimo KAMERE wa Gacamena, abona kuri iyo bariyeri bamaze kuhicira abantu 3 barimo abagore 2 n’umugabo umwe. [244] Umutangabuhamya DTC atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko, yahamije ko yari hamwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bwicanyi bwabereye iwabo kwa Gacamena ku wa 8/4/1994 mu gitondo cya kare afite imbunda ya R4. [245] Uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga ubuhamya bwe buhuriza ku kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yarabaga kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena afite imbunda, hakicirwa abantu. Naho kuba abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha yaravuze ko kuri iyo bariyeri hiciwe abantu hagati y’itariki ya 7 n’iya 9/4/1994, mu Rukiko Rukuru agahamya ko byabaye ku wa 8/4/1994, ntibyatesha agaciro ubuhamya bwe harebwe ibyasobanuwe haruguru ku birebana n’uko harebwe igihe gishize ibyo atangaho ubuhamya bibaye byoroshye kwibeshya ku itariki, uretse ko n’itariki ya 8/4/1994 yavuze iri hagati mu matariki yavuze. Naho kuba yaravuze ko yari afite imbunda yo mu bwoko bwa kalachnikov ahandi akavuga R4, ibyo ntibyari gutuma ubuhamya bwe buteshwa agaciro, kuko uretse n’uko yasobanuriye Urukiko Rukuru icyo yashakaga kuvuga, ntibinatangaje kwitiranya ayo moko yombi y’izo mbunda ku muturage udasanzwe azikoresha.

Page 363

329 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[246] Muri rusange rero, kubireba ubwicanyi bwabereye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, uru Rukiko rurasanga, uretse ibyavuzwe na Gasenge Etienne Urukiko rwasanze bitagomba guhabwa agaciro, abandi batangabuhamya batanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bahuriza ku kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yarabaga kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena; kuba iyo bariyeri yariciweho abantu no kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari afite intwaro. Naho ibyo badahurizaho akaba ari amatariki abantu biciweho, umubare wabo n’igitsina byabo, ikigero cyabo mu myaka n’intwaro bicishijwe. [247] Urukiko rusanga ariko, nk’uko byasobanuwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, ibi bikaba ari ibintu bito bitari gutuma ubuhamya bwabo buteshwa agaciro. Koko rero, harebwe igihe gishize ubwicanyi bwabereye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena bubaye, ntibitangaje kuba badahuza imvugo ku bijyanye n’abantu bishwe harebwe ibitsina byabo, amatariki biciweho, kuba bakwibeshya ku ntwaro zakoreshejwe, cyane cyane ko hari abavuga ko kuri iyo bariyeri habaga hari abafite imbunda, abandi bafite intwaro gakondo. Uru Rukiko rurasanga rero Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa mu kwemeza ko nta bwicanyi bwabereye kuri bariyeri yo Gacamena, ko nta n’uruhare Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabugizemo. c. Ibyerekeye ubwicanyi bwo kuri ISAR-Tamira [248] Ingingo ya 183, agace ka 5o n’aka 6o, y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha n’ingingo ya 18 y’Itegeko n° 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda zumvikanisha ko ubujurire bukorwa mu buryo bw’umwanzuro utanga ikirego, ugaragaza urutonde rw’inenge z’urubanza zisabirwa gukosorwa n’ibindi bibazo bigomba gusuzumwa n’ibisobanuro kuri buri

Page 364

330 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nenge cyangwa kuri buri kibazo bigaragaza amakosa yakozwe n’uburyo agomba gukosorwa hashingiwe ku mategeko n’ibimenyetso n’igisabwa urukiko. Mu yandi magambo, unenga imikirize y’urubanza rujuririrwa agomba kugaragaza inenge rufite, akanagaragaza uburyo yifuza ko yakosorwa. [249] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 168 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ibyerekeye uruhare Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize muri iki gitero cyo muri ISAR- TAMIRA, byaravuzwe n’umutangabuhamya Rwasibo Alphonse abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha. Rwasibo Alphonse yavuze ko ku wa 7/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yamusuye umugore we yabyaye, bigeze mu gihe cya saa yine z’amanywa haza abasirikare babiri barimo uwitwa Nguyeneza Evariste ufite ipeti rya Lieutenant ari kumwe n’uwari ukuriye abasirikare bo mu kigo cya ISAR -TAMIRA, bashaka aho Abatutsi baherereye, na bo babarangira Nyirinkwaya Alfred wari utuye hafi y’ibitaro. Avuga ko abo basirikare babasabye gushorera Nyirinkwaya Alfred n’umugore we wari uhetse umwana, bakabajyana muri position ya ISAR- TAMIRA. Avuga ko igihe bari mu nzira bahuye n’umukecuru witwa Barinkumi, yanze ko nawe bamushorera, abasirikare babategeka kumwica, Twagirayezu Wenceslas yaka uwitwa Mbabariye ubuhiri abukubita uwo mukecuru mu mutwe arapfa; bageze n’imbere bica Nyirinkwaya Alfred n’umugore we, barangije basubirana mu rugo kunywa inzoga. [250] Naho mu gika cya 169 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rusanga ibijyanye n’igitero cyo muri ISAR-TAMIRA, Twagirayezu Wenceslas abishinjwa na Rwasibo Alphonse utarabajijwe mu Rukiko, maze rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 8, igika cya 2 n’icya 3, y’Itegeko no 47/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigena kwimurira imanza muri Repubulika y’u

Page 365

331 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Rwanda ibuza gushingira ku buhamya bwanditse budafite ubundi bubushyigikira bwatangiwe mu Rukiko, rwemeza ko imvugo za RWASIBO Alphonse zitashingirwaho zonyine kuko zitunganiwe n’ibindi bimenyetso. [251] Kuba Ubushinjacyaha butaragaraje amakosa ari mu bisobanuro by’Urukiko Rukuru mu kudashingira ku mvugo za Rwasibo Alphonse kuko ubuhamya bwe butasobanuwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha nta shingiro bifite. d. Ku byerekeye ubwicanyi bwabereye kuri commune rouge, ku ishuri rya Saint Fidèle no ku Nyundo [252] Igika cya 174 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa kigaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ukwivuguruza gukabije ku birebana cyane cyane n’uburyo ibitero byagiye kuri “Commune rouge” no mu nkengero z’aho, ndetse no ku Nyundo byakozwemo, haba ku birebana n’aho byabaga biturutse, haba ku birebana n’uko byakozwe, haba ku birebana n’abishwe n’aho biciwe, gutuma ubu buhamya butagira ireme ku buryo butashingirwaho hemezwa ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize uruhare mu bikorwa bigize ibyaha aregwa byabereye kuri “Commune rouge” no mu nkengero z’aho, no ku Nyundo. [253] Nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 173 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, mu isesengura ku bijyanye n’ibi bitero, Urukiko Rukuru rwagereranyije ubuhamya bwa Habingomba Théobald, ubwa DTC n’ubwa Biryamo Joseph, rusanga burimo ukwivuguruza gukomeye. Ku byerekeye ubuhamya bwa Habingoma Théobald, Urukiko Rukuru rwanabonye ko bufite inenge y’uko mu nzego zose yatanzemo ubuhamya agenda

Page 366

332 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yivuguruza ku byerekeye aho ibitero byatangiriye n’aho byakomereje. [254] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko Habingoma Théobald abazwa mu iperereza rya Polisi ya Denmark yavuze ko hagati yo ku wa 7 no ku wa 12 Mata 1994, ari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, nyuma y’ubwicanyi bwakorewe ku kiriziya ya Busasamana bugakomereza kuri kaminuza ya Mudende kugeza saa moya z’umugoroba, bagiye mu gitero kuri “Petite barrière” bahahurira n’interahamwe zafashe Abatutsi nka magana abiri (200), bajya kubicira ahitwa kuri “Commune rouge”, bakomereza kuri kiriziya ya Nyundo aho bapakiye mu makamyo Abatutsi bagera nko kuri magana atanu (500) bajya kubicira kuri “Commune rouge”. [255] Mu Bugenzacyaha, Habingoma Théobald avuga ko hagati yo ku wa 8 na 12/4/1994, bavuye kwica i Mudende, bakomereza no ku ishuri rya “Institut Saint Fidèle”. Avuga ko bahageze hafi saa kumi n’igice bafata abanyeshuri n’abakozi babo babapakira muri minibus ebyiri (2) babajyana ku Nyundo bigeze nko mu ma saa mbiri z’umugoroba (20h00) barabica, abasirikare bari muri icyo gitero bajya kurara muri camp Gisenyi. [256] Mu Rukiko, Habingoma Théobald yavuze ko ubwicanyi bwabaye ku wa 8/4/1994, aho batangiriye kwica kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, bakomereza kuri Paruwasi ya Busasamana, bavuyeyo bajya ku ishuri rya “Institut Saint Fidèle”, bagezeyo bafata abantu bababwira ko babajyanye kubakiriza ku Nyundo, bagezeyo bafatamo bamwe bajya kubicira kuri “commune rouge”, yanavuze ko aho hose Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari ahari yamubonye. Uyu mutangabuhamya yabajijwe impamvu mbere yari yavuze ko bavuye ku Nyundo batashye muri camp Gisenyi

Page 367

333 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

none akaba abihinduye, yasubije ko bagiye muri camp byose babirangije, bamaze kurasa kuri commune rouge. [257] Mu buhamya bwa DTC yavuze ko ubwicanyi bwabereye hafi y’Ababatisita kuri commune rouge bwabaye ku wa 11 cyangwa ku wa 12/4/1994 kuko babwumvise bavuye gupakira imbunda i Goma. Yanavuze ko bageze kuba pantekote bumva urusaku, bakababwira ko ari Twagirayezu Wenceslas wateye gerenade, bagezeyo basanga ubwicanyi bwarangiye barimo gupakira imirambo. Avuga ko iyi nkuru yayibwiwe na Pasiteri witwa Rukara. [258] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ibijyanye n’aho ibitero byagiye bikomereza, amatariki byabereyeho, umubare w’abantu bishwe, ibitsina byabo, intwaro zakoreshejwe ari ibintu bito bitatesha agaciro ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’abatangabuhamya bashinja ku birebana n’ibyaye kuri commune rouge, ku ishuri rya Saint Fidèle no ku Nyundo. Uru Rukiko kandi rwemeje ko ubuhamya bwatangiwe muri Polisi ya Denmark butari bukwiye gushingirwaho hateshwa agaciro ubundi buhamya bwatangiwe mu Rukiko ku bibazo bisa kuko ubwo buhamya bwatanzwe muri Polisi ya Denmark butagaragaza ko bene kubutanga, kimwe n’abagiye babusemura babusinye nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. Ku bw’ibyo, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze amakosa yo kwemeza ko ubuhamya bwa Habingoma Théobald n’ubwa DTC bwose buvuguruzanya ku buryo bukabije bituma butashingirwaho.

Page 368

334 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

B.3 Ku byerekeye ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko Urukiko Rukuru rwivuguruje rugira Twagirayezu umwere rushingiye ku kuba ataravuzwe muri Gacaca  Imiburanire y’Ubushinjacyaha [259] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko mu gika cya 195 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwivuguruje aho rwemeje ko kuba uregwa ataravuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca bitabuza ko yakurikiranwaho icyaha cya jenoside, ariko ku bireba Twagirayezu Wenceslas ruvuga ko uburyo abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bamugaragaza nk’uwamamaye mu bikorwa n’inama zitegura jenoside, ndetse n’ibikorwa bya jenoside nyir’izina, atari kubura kuvugwa muri Gacaca mu duce twose Ubushinjacyaha buvuga yayoboyemo ubwicanyi. Basobanura ko iryo sesengura ntacyo rishingiyeho (objective criteria), kuko mu gihe cy’ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca hari abantu benshi bagize uruhare muri jenoside batavuzwe bibagiranye kubera impamvu zitandukanye. Bavuga ko rero bitumvikana uburyo Urukiko Rukuru rwabonye ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas we atari kwibagirana ku buryo uwagaragaza uruhare rwe muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu 1994, iki gihe yaba atavugisha ukuri; uretse ko nta n’ikimenyetso rwashingiyeho cyerekana ko amakuru yose ajyanye na jenoside yavugiwe cyangwa se yatanzwe mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca.  Imyiregurire ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas [260] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko mu nyandiko yo kumufata, Ubushinjacyaha bwavugaga ko yari umuntu w’igihangange, ufite imitungo n’ibindi byinshi, ndetse bimugiraho ingaruka afungiwe muri Denmark kuko bamufataga nk’aho yari jenerari bahereye ku byavugwaga ku maradio no ku

Page 369

335 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

nyandiko bahawe n’Ubushinjacyaha. Bavuga ko rero bitumvikana uburyo ubu bavuga ko yari umuntu usanzwe. Basobanura ko atari akomeye mu itorero kuko iryo yari arimo ryari muri amwe bita inzaduka ryo mu cyaro; akaba yari umukorerabushake udahembwa, ko batagomba gufata iby’itorero ngo babihuze na politiki, dore ko basabwe ikimenyetso (carte) kigaragaza ko yari perezida wa CDR ntibakigaragaza. [261] Bongeraho ko harebwe ibyavuzwe n’umutangabuhamya Gasenge Etienne wavuze ko yamubonaga nk’umuyobozi kuri bariyeri, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent we akavuga ko yari umuyobozi wa za bariyeri cyangwa uyobora ibitero, bakanavuga ko yari afite igitinyiro (autorité morale), nta kuntu atari kuvugwa mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca, kandi ko atari kuba yaragendanye na Bunani Jean ngo ntavugwe, ko rero uburyo yavuzwe nta kuntu atari kuvugwa muri Gacaca.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [262] Mu gika cya 195 cy’urubanza rujurirwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze, kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas ataravuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca bitavuze ko atakurikiranwa ku cyaha cya jenoside nk’uko n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwabyemeje mu rubanza rwa Gatete Jean-Baptiste, aho rwemeje ko kuba Gatete Jean-Baptiste atavugwa mu manza zaciwe n’Inkiko Gacaca ntacyo bimarira Urukiko, kuko kuba Urukiko rumwe ntacyo ruvuga ku muntu mu manza rukurikirana bitavuze ko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha aregwa, kuko ikirebwa ari ibikorwa bye ku giti

Page 370

336 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cye n’ibimenyetso60. Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ariko Twagirayezu Wenceslas abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bagaragaza nk’uwamamaye mu bikorwa n’inama zitegura jenoside ndetse n’ibikorwa bya jenoside nyir’izina, atari kutavugwa muri Gacaca mu duce twose Ubushinjacyaha buvuga yakozemo cyangwa yayoboyemo ubwicanyi. [263] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga Urukiko Rukuru rwarivuguruje kuko nyuma yo kugaragaza ko kuba umuntu ataravuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca bitavuze ko ko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha aregwa, rukaba rutari kwemeza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas byanze bikunze yari kuvugwa muri Gacaca ngo kubera Ubushinjacyaha bwamugaragaje nk’uwamamaye mu bikorwa n’inama zitegura jenoside, kuko umurongo ugaragara mu rubanza rwa Gatete Jean-Baptiste ushimangira ko ikirebwa ari ibikorwa bye ku giti cye n’ibimenyetso. B.4 Ku byerekeye ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko abatangabuhamya Twagirayezu Wenceslas yatanze batamushinjura [264] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko kuva ku gika cya 182 kugeza ku cya 192 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwasesenguye imvugo z’abatangabuhamya Twagirayezu Wenceslas yatanze, maze mu gufata umwanzuro rwemeza ko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha batamuzi, ariko ko ibyo abo yatanze bavuga ari ukuri, nyamara ibyo bavuga bishimangira ahubwo ibivugwa n’abatangabuhamya bamushinja.

60 Reba urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Gatete Jean-Baptiste, Case no ICTR- 2000-61-T, para. 130.

Page 371

337 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[265] Bakomeza basobanura ko abatangabuhamya Twagirayezu Wenceslas yatanze kumushinjura bavuga ko nta ruhare yagize mu byaha aregwa, barimo ibyiciro bine: - abemeza ko batabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bikorwa by’ubwicanyi kuko batari aho byakorewe nka Bazege Ntahondi Léa, Mpahatanye Mathieu, Nyirabariyanga Ancille, Kaberuka Théophile n’Akimanimpaye Théoneste; - abemeza ko batari bamuzi nka Ugwaneza Christophe; - abemeza ko batamubonye bitewe n’aho bari bari, intera yabatandukanyaga n’ahantu hakorerwaga icyaha nka Bufono Silas na Nyiramigambi Immaculée; - n’abemeza ko jenoside itangira batari bahari nka Serukiko Théoneste. [266] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha basobanura ko ubuhamya batanze butari bukwiye gushingirwaho kubera impamvu zikurikira: - Umutangabuhamya Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, ugaragara mu gika cya 182 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye agaciro ubuhamya bwe bw’uko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, nta muntu wahafatiwe, ntawahiciwe nta n’uwahakomerekeye ko kandi atigeze ahabona Twagirayezu Wenceslas. Bavuga ko basanga Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije ko Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, yemeje ko yagiye kuri iyo bariyeri inshuro imwe, ko rero atakwemeza kandi atamenya neza ibikorwa byahakorewe, n’abagiye kuri iyo bariyeri mu gihe cyose atayigiyeho no mu gihe hari abandi batangabuhamya bemeza ko kuri iyo bariyeri hiciwe abantu, aribo Bazege Ntahondi Léa, DTC na DTB.

Page 372

338 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Umutangabuhamya Nyirabariyanga Ancille, wari uturanye na bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, agaragara mu gika cya 183 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye ishingiro ubuhamya bwe kubera ko yavuze ko atabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuri iyo bariyeri n’ibyo yavuze ko nta bantu bahaguye. Bavuga ko inenge ari uko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije ko yahigwaga, ko yavuze ko kuva indege ya Perezida Habyarimana ihanutse ku wa 06/04/1994 yatangiye kwihisha mu bihuru no mu buvumo, ko ibi bigaragaza ko atashoboraga kujya mu muhanda, kuko yanavuze ko abakoraga kuri iyo bariyeri yabamenye kuko biyamiriraga, bakavuga n’amazina yabo. - Mu gika cya 184 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye ishingiro ubuhamya bwa Serukiko Théoneste uvuga ko yaburaniye kuri site ya Gacurabwenge akanakatirwa n’Urukiko Gacaca, ko atigeze yumva Twagirayezu Wenceslas avugwa mu bikorwa bya jenoside. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko basanga kuba ataramwumvise bitavuze ko atakoze jenoside, cyane ko jenoside itangira atari ahari, kuko yabwiye Urukiko ko yari i Nyamirambo, ko yageze i Rwerere nyuma y’ibyumweru bibiri ubwicanyi bwararangiye. - Mu gika cya 185 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye ishingiro ubuhamya bw’umutangabuhamya Bufono Silas aho avuga ko mu gitero cyateye i Mudende ku itariki 07/04/1994 atakibonyemo Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko abo yamenye ari Sisiro n’abandi basore batatu. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko n’ubwo yari ahari, ariko atashoboraga kumenya abicanyi bose bahaje, kuko umutangabuhamya Bufono Silas yemeza ko mu ijoro ryo ku wa 06/04/1994 yaraye mu ngano ahava mu gitondo cyo ku wa 07/04/1994 n’uko babakingiranye

Page 373

339 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

mu nzu bahamara ibyumweru bibiri. Uwo mutangabuhamya yanavuze ko abicanyi bari benshi cyane, ariko avuga ko yamenyemo SISIRO n’abandi basore batatu, bikaba byerekana ko atashoboraga kumenya abicanyi bose bahaje. - Mu gika cya187 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye kandi ishingiro ubumya bwa Akimanimpaye Théoneste aho avuga ko kugeza mu kwezi 03/1994 atongeye kubona Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuko abanyeshuri batigaga kandi ko atigeze amwumva mu Nkiko Gacaca. Bavuga ko kuba yaba atarumvise izina rye mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca ya commune rouge no mu nkengero z’ikigo cya Collège Baptiste bidahagije kugira ngo bisobanure ko nta cyaha yakoze, kuko nta hame na rimwe rivuga ko umuntu akurikiranwaho jenoside ari uko yatanzweho amakuru mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca cyane ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yahagiye mu gitero ariko atari umuturage waho. - Mu gika cya 188 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku buhamya bwa Mpahatanye Mathieu uvuga ko aheruka Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu mwaka wa 1990 yiga muri RDC, akanavuga ko mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca havuzwe abayoboye ibikorwa byo kwica Abatutsi, barimo Karema Faustin na Karimunda. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko inenge babona ari uko yari yatanzwe kugira ngo ashinjure Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuri jenoside yakorewe kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana; ariko atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru, yavuze ko ku itariki 8/04/1994 atigeze agera kuri paruwasi ya Busasamana, ko iby’ubwicanyi bwahabereye yabimenye abyumviye mu biganiro n’abandi. Banavuga ko kuba yaramuherukaga mu mwaka wa 1990 byerekana ko atashoboraga kumenya ibikorwa yakoze

Page 374

340 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kandi kuba avuga abayoboye ubwicanyi, bikaba bidakuraho uruhare rw’abandi atavuze. - Mu gika cya 189 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku buhamya bwa Sindambiwe Emmanuel uvuga ko yabaye mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca igihe kinini, ko atigeze yumva bavuga uruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko nta n’umuntu azi wiciwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena. Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko kuba nta muntu azi ko yiciwe kwa Gacamena bitavuze ko ntawahiciwe, kuko hari abatangabuhamya DTC na DTB bemeza ko hari abahiciwe. Bavuga kandi ko n’ibyo avuga ko nko muri metero magana atatu (300m) uvuye kuri iyo bariyeri hari abahiciwe bishwe na Bunani Jean, bihura n’imvugo y’umutangabuhamya Kaberuka Théophile nawe watanzwe n’uregwa. N’ubwo uyu avuga ko atagiye kuri iyo bariyeri, ariko yemeza ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yumvise ko hiciwe abantu barashwe na Inspecteur Bunani Jean. Bavuga kandi ko ibyo kuri paruwasi ya Busasamana umutangabuhamya atabimenye kuko ntaho yageze, ko ikigaragara ari uko nta makuru yari afite kuri Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuko yamuherukaga mu mwaka wa 1990, bivuze ko atabashije kumenya ko mu gihe yigaga muri Congo atahwemaga kugaruka mu biruhuko, ndetse akaba yari ashinzwe n’imirimo y’itorero AEBR muri paruwasi Kageshi, anashinzwe urubyiruko rwa AEBR mu Karere ka Gisenyi, n’uko mu gihe cya jenoside yari iwabo nyamara avuga ko batuye muri Selire imwe. - Mu gika cya 190 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye ishingiro ubuhamya bwa Ugwaneza Christophe uvuga ko atigeze yumva izina rya Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bagize uruhare mu bwicanyi bwakorewe kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, ko abo yibuka babugizemo uruhare ari Biryamo, BIGARE na David.

Page 375

341 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko Ugwaneza Christophe yazanwe mu Rukiko na Twagirayezu Wenceslas avuga ko afite amakuru ahagije ku bakoze jenoside kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, nyamara akavuga ko yibuka abantu batatu gusa barimo Biryamo Joseph kandi uyu ahamya adashidikanya ko yari kumwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bwicanyi bwo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende. Banavuga ko ikindi cyerekana ko ibyo avuga nta shingiro bifite ari uko avuga ko mu bicanyi harimo n’abasirikare, ariko akaba atarabashije kugira n’umwe avugamo, bityo rero ubuhamya bwe bukaba budashobora kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyabaye. Byongeye kandi akaba yaranemeje ko atari asanzwe azi Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko yamubonye bwa mbere mu Rukiko. - Mu gika cya 191 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku buhamya bwa Sebudahe Xavier aho avuga ko yagize uruhare muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi i Gacurabwenge, ariko ko muri icyo gihe atigeze abona Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko aramutse yaragize uruhare muri jenoside, yaba yarajyaga kuyikorera mu tundi duce. Bavuga ko uyu mutangabuhamya atabajijwe mu Rukiko n’ubwo inyandikomvugo ye iri muri dosiye y’Ubushinjacyaha, ko ikosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze ari uko rwafashe ubuhamya bwe igice, kuko yanavuze ko we atigeze ajya mu bitero. Bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwagombaga kubona ko atari kuvuza induru atagiye mu bitero, ko bitumvikana uburyo yabigiyemo ntabone Twagirayezu Wenceslas byagaragajwe ko yagiye mu bitero bitandukanye. Ikindi bavuga ni uko iyo Sebudahe Xavier aba ataragiye mu bitero, atari kumenya uruhare Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabigizemo; uretse ko urwo Rukiko rwaramuvugishije ibyo atavuze kuko we yavugaga ko aho atamubonye ari aho we yakoreye ibyaha.

Page 376

342 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Umutangabuhamya Bazege Ntahondi Léa avuga ko yaherukaga Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu mwaka wa 1992, ko we atigeze agera i Busasamana ubwo ibikorwa by’ubwicanyi byakorwaga kuko yagiyeyo ku itariki ya 09/04/1994 bagiye gukora kuri paruwasi ya Busasamana, abona kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hakorerwa amarorerwa. [267] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko abo ari bo batangabuhamya b’uregwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiyeho ruvuga ko ari bo bafite amakuru yizewe kuri Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko hari n’abandi bumviswe rutagize icyo ruvugaho. Bavuga ko iyo Urukiko rusuzuma imvugo zabo rwari kubona ko ubuhamya bwabo budakwiye kwizerwa bigatuma ruhindura icyemezo rwafashe. [268] Basoza kuri iyi ngingo, bavuga ko umwanzuro w’Urukiko Rukuru ugaragara mu gika cya 192 n’icya 193 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, ntaho uhuriye n’ibyo Ubushinjacyaha bwagaragaje ku bivugwa n’abatangabuhamya b’uregwa bihura n’ibivugwa n’abatangabuhamya bamushinja. Bavuga ko rero Urukiko Rukuru rutagombagagutesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya batanze ku ruhare rwe mu bikorwa bigize ibyaha aregwa.  Imyiregurire ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas [269] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira basobanura ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha bunenga ubuhamya bwa Sebashyitsi Appolinaire wavuze ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena nta muntu wahafatiwe, nta wahiciwe, nta n’uwahakomerekeye, ko kandi atigeze ahabona Twagirayezu Wenceslas bwitwaje ko yavuze ko yagiye kuri iyo bariyeri inshuro imwe, nta shingiro bifite. Ibyo babihera ku kuba mu gufata icyemezo Urukiko

Page 377

343 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Rukuru rutarashingiye gusa ku kuba yararaye rimwe kuri bariyeri yarishinze kwa Gacamena, ko rwanashingiye ku kuba umutangabuhamya yararugaragarije ko azi uregwa, aho yavuze ko yabaye umuhereza kwa Padiri, yiga amashuri abanza ku ishuri ribanza rya Munanira, ajya no kwiga muri RDC. Bavuga kandi ko Urukiko rwahaye agaciro ubuhamya bwe rushingiye ku kuba yari umuyobozi, nyumbakumi muri Kanyabijumba aho bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yari iri kuva mu mwaka wa 1990 kugeza bahunze igihugu; ko yanasobanuye ko we n’uwitwa Mbonyubwabo aribo bari bafite inshingano zo gupanga abarara kuri bariyeri kandi bakanahabwa raporo buri gitondo61, ko ibyo rero bigaragaza ko yari azi ibibera kuri iyo bariyeri. [270] Ku byerekeye umutangabuhamya Bazege Ntahondi Léa wazanwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas kugira ngo agaragarize Urukiko ko yari amuzi no kugira ngo agaragaze amakuru afite ku bakoze amarorerwa yo kwica Abatutsi muri Busasamana, Ubushinjacyaha bukavuga ko atamushinjuye kuko busanga adashobora kuvuga ibyaho kuko yavuze ko yageze i Busasamana kuri paruwasi ku itariki ya 9/04/1994 nta bikorwa by’ubwicanyi birimo kuhabera, ko ahubwo ubwo yajyayo, yageze kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena akabona hakorerwa amarorerwa. Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ibyo ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko atamushinjuye ku bijyanye n’ibitero by’i Busasamana nta shingiro bifite, kuko uretse no kuba ataramuvuze mu bagize uruhare mu bitero byo ku Kiriziya ya Busasamana, nta n’ubwo yamwumvise mu bagize uruhare mu bwicanyi bwahabereye bavuzwe mu ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca. Bavuga ko ahubwo abo yavuze bakoze ubwicanyi muri kariya gace ari interahamwe yitwaga Twagirayezu Mabuye, Suwedi, Benoît na Bunani Jean, ko aho yavuze atageze ari kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena.

61 Inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha yo ku wa 22/04/2022, urupapuro rwa 7-9.

Page 378

344 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Bavuga ko impamvu Bazege Ntahondi Léa yavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atageze kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena ari uko ataherukaga muri Busasamana, ko yamuherukaga muri Nzeli 1993 aje kwigisha muri Gacuba. [271] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagomba gushingira ku buhamya bwa Mpahatanye Mathieu kuko atigeze agera kuri Kiriziya ya Busasamana nta shingiro bifite. Bavuga ko yazanwe mu Rukiko kugira ngo avuge ko azi neza uregwa, aho akomoka, ko amuheruka mu mwaka wa 1990 n’iby’uko yaba yarabaye umwarimu ku kigo cy’amashuri cya Munanira, ko yagombaga no kuvuga niba yaragize uruhare muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi muri Busasamana. Basobanura ko mu Rukiko Rukuru yagaragaraje ko amuzi, bari baturanye, agaragaza ko atigeze aba umwarimu ku kigo cy’amashuri cya Munanira, anasobanura ko atari kubura kubimenya kuko yari umwarimu ukuriye abandi kuri icyo kigo cya Munanira, ko ibi bigaragaza ko abagiye bavuga ko yari umwarimu kuri Munanira babeshye. Banavuga ko umutangabuhamya Mpahatanye Mathieu yanavuze amazina y’abayoboye ibikorwa byo kwica Abatutsi muri Busasamana, anashimangira ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atari abarimo, kuko yari azi ko yari yaragiye kwiga muri Congo, akaba ntacyo yavuze kimushinja. [272] Bavuga kandi ko ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha by’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye ku buhamya bwa Nyirabariyanga Ancille rwirengagije ko atashoboraga kumenya ibyaberaga kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yari ishinze mu marembo y’inzu ye, ngo kuko ubuvumo yari yihishimo bwari muri uvuye aho bariyeri yari iri nta shingiro bifite, kubera ko Nyirabariyanga Ancille yagaragarije Urukiko ko nta muntu waguye kuri iyo bariyeri

Page 379

345 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

bitewe n’uko ibyahaberaga metero magana ane (400m) byose yabimenyaga, ko abo yamenye ari abaguye haruguru yayo mu cyahoze ari Komine Mutura. Banavuga ko iyo mvugo ye igaragaza ko iyo haza kuba hari abantu baguye kuri iyo bariyeri atari kubura kubimenya mu gihe agaragaza ko hari abo yamenye bo muri Mutura kure y’aho atuye. Bongeraho ko ibyavuzwe n’abatangabuhamya bashinja ku birebana n’uruhare rwe kuri iyo bariyeri bivuguruje bikabije, ndetse baranavuguruzanya ku buryo bukabije bakaba batavuguruza ibyavuzwe na Nyirabariyanga Ancille, cyane cyane ko nta zina ry’umuntu wahiciwe ryagaragajwe n’Ubushinjacyaha. [273] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko n’ibyo abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko umutangabuhamya atari uwo kwizerwa ngo kuko ubuvumo yari yihishemo bwari muri metero magana ane (400m) y’aho ibyaha byaberaga atari byo, kuko icyo yagaragaje ari uko nta muntu waguye kuri bariyeri ya Gacamena, akaba yaranabihurijeho n’abandi batangabuhamya, bityo ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko hari intera ndende ku buryo atabona ibyahabereye, ntacyo bugaragaza bubishingiraho, uretse ko ashobora no kuvuga ibyo yumvise. Bongeraho ko Nyirabariyanga Ancille yacitse ku icumu rya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, nta nyugu yari afite mu kumuhishira mu gihe hari abandi yavuze bagize uruhare muri jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi muri kariya gace. [274] Bakomeza bavuga ko abandi batangabuhamya bavuze ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena nta batutsi bahaguye ari Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, Sindambiwe Emmanuel wari Resiponsabule wa Selire wavuze ko yabonaga raporo, ndetse na Kaberuka Théophile. Banavuga ko ibyo abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha bavuga ko Kaberuka Théophile nawe yavuze ko

Page 380

346 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yigeze kumva bavuga ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hari abantu bahiciwe atari byo, kuko butagaragaza aho yabivugiye, ahubwo ikigaragara mu nyandikomvugo ye yo ku wa 22/04/2022, ari uko yumvise bavuga ko nta muntu wiciwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, ko ibyo kuvuga ko yumvise ko Bunani Jean yaharasiraga abantu byatewe n’uko Ubushinjacyaha bwakomeje kubimubazaho, ariko izo mvugo zombi zikaba zirimo urujijo. [275] Bavuga na none ko icyo bifuje ko Kaberuka Théophile aza kugaragariza Urukiko ari uko azi uregwa, akanemeza ko bari baturanye, ko atari muri Gisenyi, Gacuba II mu gihe cy’ibiruhuko bya Pasika. Mu buhamya bwe akaba yaragaragaje ko amuzi kandi ko yari yaramubwiye ko azajya muri Congo mu biruhuko bya Pasika, anavuga ko bitangiye atongeye kumubona, yanavuze ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atigeze avugwa mu ikusamyamakuru rya Gacaca. Mu bindi yagombaga kuvugaho, harimo n’umuntu witwa Pasteur Rukara wavugwaga ko ari uwo muri AEBR kandi ntawabayeho, kuko abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bavugaga ko ari we wemeje ibyo yakoze muri Gacuba. Bavuga kandi ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha bumunenga ko yabanje kujya ku ruhande rw’Ubushinjacyaha nk’umutangabuhamya ushinja, nyuma akaza mu Rukiko nk’umutangabuhamya ushinjura, atari inenge kuko kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwashingira ku buhamya bwe rukamugira umwere nta kosa ririmo. [276] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga kandi ko ibivugwa n’abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha ko umutangabuhamya Sindambiwe Emmanuel aho kumushinjura amushinja, nta shingiro bifite kuko bamutanze ku bijyanye n’ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko byabereye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena no kugira ngo agaragaze ko amuzi. Mu buhamya bwe yavuze ko atuye Nyarusozi, ko yayoboye Rubikiro, anavuga ko

Page 381

347 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

atigeze abona Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena kandi ko yakiraga raporo zibyaberaga kuri iyo bariyeri, ko ahubwo ubuhamya bwe bugaragaza ko ari umwere. [277] Ku byerekeye ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibivugwa n’umutangabuhamya Bufono Silas bishinja Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ariko Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwarabishingiyeho bumushinjura nta shingiro bifite, kuko uyu mutangabuhamya yazanwe mu Rukiko kugira ngo agaragaze niba yaramubonye mu bantu bateye kuri kaminuza ya Mudende mu ijoro ryo ku wa 06 rishyira ku wa 07/04/1994. Mu buhamya bwe yagaragaje ko atamubonye, ko n’ubwo yaje kujya kwihisha, abagabye ibitero baje abareba, ko nk’umuntu yari asanzwe azi neza, atari kumuyoberwa cyane ko bavuga ko ari we wari uyoboye igitero, ko rero ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko atari kubona abantu bose nta shingiro bifite. Kuba na none yarashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru rumugira umwere ku bikorwa byabereye kuri kaminuza ya Mudende na byo basanga nta kosa ririmo kuko mu buhamya bwe yavuze ko amuzi neza kuko bari baturanye, ko abahateye baje abareba, avuga ko yamenye uwitwa SISIRO wari utuye muri Mutura n’izindi nsoresore ko kandi Twagirayezu Wenceslas iyo aza mubahateye yari kumumenya. [278] Bavuga kandi ko ubuhamya bwa Ugwaneza Christophe butamushinja nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bubivuga, nta n’ikosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze rubushingiraho, kuko kuba atari asanzwe amuzi atari inenge yatuma adatanga ubuhamya bumushinjura, kuko kuba yaravukiye akanakurira mu karere ibikorwa bigize ibyaha aregwa byakorewe, yaranabaye mu nyangamugayo za Gacaca, ndetse akaba ari n’umurinzi w’igihango wafashije abahigwaga muri jenoside, atari kuyoberwa cyangwa kumva ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas

Page 382

348 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nk’umuntu Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko yayoboraga ibitero yagize uruhare mu bwicanyi bwahakorewe, ndetse nawe yivugiye ko atari kubura kutabyumva. Bavuga ko bamutanze nk’umuntu ufite amakuru ahagije kubwicanyi bwabereye kuri kaminuza ya Mudende no muri kariya gace, kandi kuba ashinja Biryamo Joseph, uyu nawe akamushinja, bitavuga ko ibyo Biryamo Joseph avuga ari ko kuri, kuko nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabigaragaje, mu mvugo ze agenda yivuguruza. [279] Bavuga kandi ko ubuhamya bwa Akimanimpaye Théoneste na bwo ntaho buhurira n’ubw’abatangabuhamya bashinja, nta n’impamvu bagaragaza yatuma budashingirwaho. Basobanura ko uyu mutangabuhamya bamuzanye mu Rukiko kugira ngo agaragaze ko igihe ibyaha Twagirayezu Wenceslas aregwa byakorwaga, nta banyeshuri bari bari kuri Collège Baptiste, no kugira ngo agaragaze niba koko muri icyo gihe yaba yaragiye kuri iryo shuri. Yagaragaje ko nta munyeshuri waguye muri icyo kigo, ko atanahabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas; ibyo bikaba bigaragaza ko yari yaragiye muri Congo, kuko iyo ahaba aba yaramubonye. Bongeraho ko Akimanimpaye Théoneste yari kontabure, aza kwirukanwa, aramusimbura, ko iyo aza kuba hari uruhare yagize muri jenoside, yari kumushinja nk’umuntu wamusimbuye. Ku byerekeye ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ko adatanga amakuru yuzuye kuko hari umwana Nkezabera Paulin avuga ko yari ahishe wiciwe mu kigo cya Collège y’Ababatiste, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko hakwiye gusobanurwa niba uwo mwana yaraguye mu kigo kuko atariho uyu yari atuye. [280] Bavuga na none ko ku mutangabuhamya Serukiko Théoneste, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko atari kumenya ibyo uregwa yakoze ngo kuko avuga ko indege ya Perezida

Page 383

349 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

Habyarimana ihanuka yari i Kigali, ko yaje nyuma y’ibyumweru 2 agansanga nta bwicanyi bugihari nta shingiro bifite, kuko icyo uyu mutangabuhamya avuga ari uko nawe yashinjwe ubwicanyi bwa Gacurabwenge, akatirwa n’Urukiko Gacaca, ariko ko atigeze yumva Twagirayezu Wenceslas avugwa mu bikorwa bya jenoside. Bavuga ko ibyo uyu mutangabuhamya yavuze ari ibyo yumvise kandi ari ko kuri kwe; ibyo avuga akaba abifitiye amakuru, bityo ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarashingiye ku buhamya bwe nta kosa rwakoze. [281] Ku mutangabuhamya Sebudahe Xavier, Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bavuga ko atari bo bamutanze, ko ubuhamya yabutangiye mu Bugenzacyaha, ko ibyo Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutarebye ubuhamya bwose atari byo, ahubwo ikigaragara ari uko rwabusesenguye ruvanamo ko amushinjura. Bongeraho ko Sebudahe Xavier yavuze ko azi Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko atigeze amubona mu bwicanyi bwa Gacurabwenge, ko iyo ahaba yari kumumenya. Basoza bavuga ko ubuhamya bwe ahubwo bwagombaga gukoreshwa n’Ubushinjacyaha bukamushinjura kuko nayo ari inshingano yabwo.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [282] Impaka kuri iyi ngingo zishingiye ku kumenya niba mu isesengura ry’ubuhamya, Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze amakosa yo guha agaciro ubuhamya bw’abatangabuhamya bashinjura kandi mu by’ukuri batamushinjura, ahubwobagaragaza ko nta bumenyi bafite ku bikorwa aregwa, kandi n’ibyo bavuga bishimangira iby’abatangabuhamya bashinja.

Page 384

350 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[283] Urukiko rusanga mu gika cya 193 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwaremeje ko ubuhamya bw’abatangabuhamya bashinjura bufite ireme kandi bukwiye kwemerwa kuko bwatanzwe n’abantu bari baturanye n’umuryango wa Twagirayezu Wenceslas kuva mu bwana bwe, abo biganye mu mashuri abanza, abarimu bo mu gace k’iwabo, abayobozi bo mu nzego z’ibanze ku rwego rwa Nyumbakumi na Serile na bamwe mu bagize uruhare mu bikorwa bya jenoside muri kariya gace, bigaragarira Urukiko ko bafite ubumenyi buhagije ku byo batangira ubuhamya. a. Ku byerekeye igitero cyo kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende n’icyo ku kiriziya ya Busasamana [284] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga abatangabuhamya batanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas icyo bahurizaho ari uko bataherukaga kumubona, ko batamwumvise avugwa mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca. Abari aho ibitero byabereye nka Bufono Silas wari kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende igihe igitero cyabaga wemeza ko atamubonye, avuga ko igitero kije yagiye kwihisha, mu gitondo agarutse barabakingirana bakajya barebera mu madirishya. Kuba Bufono Silas ataramubonye mu gitero kinini cyicisha abantu intwaro zirimo amasasu ibyo avuga bikaba bitaba ikimenyetso cyashingirwaho hemezwa ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atageze kuri kaminuza ya Mudede. Undi wari aho ibitero byabereye ni Ugwaneza Christophe, ubuhamya bwe nabwo bukaba butaba ikimenyetso kimushinjura, kuko atashoboraga kumenya niba yari ahari cyangwa atari ahari kuko atari asanzwe amuzi. Ku bw’ibyo, nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya 185 n’icya 190 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwarakoze ikosa ryo kubashingiraho rwemeza ko ubuhamya

Page 385

351 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

bwabo bufite inshingiro ku kuba nta ruhare Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize mu gitero cyo kuri kaminuza ya Mudende62. [285] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ku bireba ubuhamya bwa Bazege Ntahondi Léa, Barangira Tharcisse, Serukiko Théoneste na Mpahatanye Mathieu, n’ubwo Urukiko Rukuru rutabashingiyeho ku bireba uruhare rwa Twagirayezu Wenceslas ku byabaye kuri kaminuza ya Mudende no ku kiriziya ya Busasamana, nabwo butaba ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko atari muri ibyo bitero, kuko Bazege Ntahondi Léa yageze kuri paruwasi igitero cyaraye kibaye, abandi bakavuga ko nta cyo bazi ku byabereye kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana kuko batahageze. [286] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga kuba aba batangabuhamya bahuriza ku kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas ataravuzwe muri baruharwa bo muri kariya gace, nta navugwe mu ikusanya makuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca, nabyo atari ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko atageze kuri kaminuza ya Mudende no kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana, kuko nta kigaragaza ko mu gihe cy’ikusanyamakuru abagize uruhare mu bitero bose bavuzwekuko hari impamvu zitandukanye zashoboraga gutuma batavugwa cyangwa bibagirana. Uru Rukiko rugasanga rero ubuhamya bw’abatangabuhamya bashinjura butavuguruza ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’abatangabuhamya bemeza ko bari kumwe mu bitero bya Mudende na Busasamana. [287] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusesenguye ubuhamya bw’impande zombi ku bijyanye n’ibitero byo kuri Kaminuza ya Mudende no kuri Paruwasi ya Busasamana, rusanga abatangabuhamya bashinja bahuriza ku kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri ibyo bitero afite imbunda, kandi ko

62 Reba igika cya 185 n’icya 190 by’urubanza rujuririrwa

Page 386

352 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

byiciwemo abantu. Icyo badahurizaho cyangwa bivuguruzaho hagereranyijwe imvugo zabo za mbere ni ubuhamya batanze mu Rukiko n’itariki ibyo bitero byakoreweho, amasaha byabereye, aho abicanyi bakomereje ibitero no kuba mu bitero Twagirayezu yaba yarakoresheje imbunda yari afite. b. Ku byerekeye bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena [288] Muri rusange abatangabuhamya batanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas bagaragaje ko nta bwicanyi bwabereye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, kandi ko batigeze bumva izina rye rivugwa mu ikusanyamakuru ry’Inkiko Gacaca. Ibi babisobanura mu buryo bukurikira: - Umutangabuhamya Bazege Ntahondi Léa atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko Rukuru yavuze ko mu gihe cya jenoside, ubwo bari mu mirimo ya Paruwasi mu ijoro, babonye amarorerwa ku mabariyeri menshi nk’iyo kwa Gacamena. Yanavuze ko atigeze abona Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko ahubwo hari interahamwe ikomeye yitwaga Twagirayezu Mabuye n’izindi nterahamwe. - Umutangabuhamya Barangirana Tharcisse yavuze ko yabonye bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena iriho abantu Konseye yari yarahaye imbunda zo kurinda izo bariyeri bitaga abarinzi, ko abo yibuka ari Resiponsabule Mbonyubwabo na Nyumbakumi witwaga Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, ariko nta bantu azi bahiciwe. - Sebashyitsi Appolinaire we yavuze ko kuva mu mwaka wa 1990 yari nyumbakumi muri Kanyabijumba aho bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yari iri, ko n’ubwo atibuka igihe yagiriyeho, yashyizweho na ba Konseye, ba Resiponsabule na Burugumesitiri, ikaba yaravuyeho bahunze bagiye muri RDC. Yasobanuye ko ntawayiyoboraga, ko Resiponsabule wa Selire ari

Page 387

353 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

we wapangaga abayijyagaho, ko nawe yigeze kuyiraraho rimwe, ko nta muntu wahafatiwe, nta wahiciwe, nta n’uwahakomerekeye, ko atigeze ayibonaho Twagirayezu Wenceslas. - Nyirabariyanga Ancille uvuga ko yari umugore wa Gacamena. Yemeza ko kwa Gacamena habaye bariyeri yashyizweho kuva indege ya Perezida Habyarimana ihanutse ariko ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas atigeze ayimubonaho, kuko n’ubwo atashoboraga kujya ku muhanda yamenyaga abayiriho kuko biyamiriraga bakavuga n’amazina yabo, ko nta bantu bahiciwe, ko abantu azi bishwe ari abaguye haruguru y’iwabo cyane muri Mutura. - Serukiko Théoneste yavuze ko muri Gacaca yaburaniye kuri site ya Gacurabwenge aranakatirwa, ariko ko atigeze yumva bavuga Twagirayezu Wenceslas. Muri make ahamya ko atigeze yumva Twagirayezu Wenceslas mu bagize uruhare mu bwicanyi bwabereye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena. - Pasiteri Kaberuka Théophile yavuze ko indege ya Perezida Habyarimana igwa yari i Gacurabwenge, jenoside itangira ari mu rugo, ko atamenye abari bayoboye interahamwe muri Gacurabwenge, ko bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yumvise ko yahabaye ariko atayigezeho, yavuze ko nta bantu bahaguye, ahandi avuga ko yumvise ko Bunani Jean yarasiraga abantu kuri iyo bariyeri. Yanavuze ko mu ikusanyamakuru yari ahari akaba atarumvise bavugamo izina rya Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ko abo yibuka bavuzwe ari Bunani Jean, Kanyamihanda na Barangirana n’abafunzwe nka Sebudari, Obed na Karema. - Mpahatanye Mathieu yavuze ko mu ikusanyamakuru abagaragaye bayoboraga ibikorwa byo kwica Abatutsi bafunzwe nk’uwitwa Karema Faustin na Karimunda, ko na bariyeri yo kwa

Page 388

354 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Gacamena yayumvise ariko atayibonye kandi ko nta muntu azi wayiguyeho. - Sindambiwe Emmanuel avuga ko yari umuyobozi wa Selire kandi yiganye na Twagirayezu Wenceslas, yavuze ko bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yashinzwe mbere gato ya jenoside, iza gukurwaho n’uko FPR ifashe igihugu. Yanavuze ko nta muntu azi wahiciwe kuko nk’uwahayoboye ahazi cyane, ko umuntu wari uyishinzwe ari Bunani Jean wari Insipegiteri w’amashuri, wanamamaye cyane muri jenoside. Yanavuze ko ikusanyamakuru rya Gacaca ryabaye igihe kinini, ariko atumvise bavuga ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yagize uruhare muri jenoside, ko ahubwo hari undi muntu witwa Twagirayezu bahimbaga Ndabanyurahe Mabuye wari utuye hafi yo kwa Burugumesitiri Butsingiri Kantwari muri Gasiza waguye muri RDC mu mwaka wa 1995, ko uwo yari umuturage usanzwe utarize. Yongeyeho ko hafi ya bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena nko muri metero magana atatu (300) haguye abantu bishwe na Bunani Jean na Nkunduwenda kandi ko abo bantu batamenyekanye kuko bari bavuye ruguru muri Mudende. [289] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ikigaragara muri aba batangabuhamya bashinjura Twagirayezu Wenceslas harimo abemeza ko kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena hiciwe abantu. Abo ni nka Sindambiwe Emmanuel, Bazege Ntahondi Léa na Kaberuka Théophile. Hakaba n’abandi bemeza ko ntabahiciwe, nka Nyirabariyanga Ancille, Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, Mpahatanye Mathieu na Barangirana Tharcisse. Abavuga ko hari abahiciwe bahuza n’abatangabuhamya bamushinja; ibyo bikaba bigaragaza ko abahamya ko nta bwicanyi bwahabaye batavuga ukuri. Abahamya ko habereye ubwicanyi, bo banemeza ko batahabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas. Ibyo ariko bikaba

Page 389

355 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

bitavuguruza abahamya ko bahamubonye. Mu bemeza ko habereye ubwicanyi batahabonye TWAGIRAYEZU Wenceslas hari nka Kaberuka Théophile uvuga ko atageze kuri iyo bariyeri, ko n’iby’ubwicanyi bwahabereye yabibwiwe; bikaba byumvikana ko atari kumenya ababigizemo uruhare bose. Naho uvuga ko yabyiboneye nka Bazege Ntahondi Léaavuga ko yabonye hakorerwa amarorerwa mu ijoro, bikaba byumvikana ko nawe atashoboraga kumenya abayagizemo uruhare bose. Naho Sindambiwe Emmanuel uhamya ko yabonye abantu bicwa ariko ko atahabonye Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ireme ry’ubuhamya bwe naryo riracyemangwa nk’uko biza gusobanurwa mu bika bikurikira. [290] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga abatangabuhamya b’impande zombi bahuriza ku kuba muri Gacurabwenge, hari bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yashyizweho mbere ya Mata 1994, kuko nka DTB avuga ko iyo bariyeri yari yarashyizweho kuva mu 1992-1994 n’ubuyobozi bwa Segiteri Gacurabwenge kugira ngo bajye bahiga Abatutsi n’abo bitaga ibyitso byabo, imvugo ye ikaba ishimangirwa na Sindambiwe Emmanuel wari umuyobozi wa selire, uvuga ko yagiyeho mbere gato ya jenoside na Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, wari Nyumbakumi muri Kanyabijumba aho iyo bariyeri yari iri, ndetse Barangirana Tharcisse atanga ubuhamya yavuze ko yabonye bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena iriho abantu Konseye yari yarahaye imbunda zo kurinda izo bariyeri. Ibi bikaba byumvukanisha ko iyo bariyeri yari ihari kandi ko abantu bari bayiriho babaga bafite imbunda. [291] Mu gika cya 192 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko nta muntu wigeze yicirwa kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, rushingiye ku buhamya bw’abatangabuhamya nka Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, Nyirabariyanga Ancille,

Page 390

356 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Sindambiwe Emmanuel. Nyamara igitangaje ni uko Sebashyitsi Appolinaire ahamya ko nta muntu wafatiwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, nta wahiciwe, nta n’uwahakomerekeye, mu gihe abandi batangabuhamya, uretse n’abatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bagaragajwe haruguru, hari n’abatangabuhamya batanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas bahamya ko kuri iyo bariyeri hiciwe abantu, Urukiko Rukuru rutagize icyo ruvuga ku buhamya bwabo. Abo ni nka Bazege Ntahondi Léa wemeje ko hakorewe amarorerwa; Kabera Théophile wavuze ko yumvise bavuga ko Bunani Jean yaharasiraga abantu na Sindambiwe Emmanuel uvuga ko hari abantu Bunani Jean yiciye muri metero magana atatu (300m) uvuye kuri bariyeri. Ibyo bahamya bikaba bihura n’ibyavuzwe n’abatangabuhamya b’Ubushinjacyaha bemeza ko kuri iyo bariyeri haguyeho abantu, ndetse nka DTA abazwa mu Bugenzacyaha akaba yaravuze ko abagore babiri n’umusore bahafatiwe bagiye kubicira nko muri metero mirongo itandatu (60m) uvuye kuri bariyeri, naho mu Rukiko Rukuru avuga ko babanje kubaka ibyangombwa. Ikindi kigaragaza ko Sebashyitsi Appolinaire atashoboraga kuba umutangabuhamya wizewe ni uko avuga ko yigeze kurara kuri iyo bariyeri umunsi umwe, nyamara umutangabuhamya Barangirana Tharcisse nawe watanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas we yemeza ko Sebashyitsi Appolinaire yari mu bantu barindaga bariyeri kandi bahawe imbunda na Konseye. [292] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ibivugwa na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ko ikigaragaza ko Sebashyitsi Appolinaire afite amakuru yizewe ari uko ari we na Responsabule Mbonyubwabo bari bafite inshingano zo gupanga abarara kuri bariyeri kandi bakanahabwa raporo buri gitondo nta shingiro bifite, kuko mu buhamya bwe yagaragaje uguhuzagurika kuko hamwe yemezaga ko ari Responsabule wapangaga abayijyaho, ko

Page 391

357 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

ntawayiyoboraga, ahandi akavuga ko yayirayeho rimwe, ko ikindi gihe yajya kureba abasore yapanze. Ibyo avuga ko nta muntu wayoboraga bariyeri nabyo bikaba bitandukanye n’ibyo Sindambiwe Emmanuel avuga ko iyo bariyeri yayoborwaga na Bunani Jean wari Inspegiteri w’amashuri wamamaye cyane muri jenoside, ko yanahabwaga raporo. [293] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga ubuhamya bwa Nyirabariyanga Ancille n’ubwa Sindambiwe Emmanuel nabwo bufite inenge ikomeye ituma butarashoboraga gushingirwaho nk’ubuhamya bwizewe. nka Nyirabariyanga Ancille, mu buhamya bwe avuga ko nta bantu biciwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, nyamara iyo bariyeri yari imbere y’urugo rwe, kandi hakaba hari abandi batangabuhamya bemeza ko hiciwe abantu, barimo n’abatanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ubwe, nka Bazege Ntahondi Léa, Kaberuka Théophile Na Sindambiwe Emmanuel. Uyu Sindambiwe Emmanuel nawe ubuhamya bwe ntibwari bukwiye kwizerwa kuko nabwo bufite inenge y’uko nk’umuyobozi wa serire yemeza ko nta bwicanyi bwabereye kuri iyo bariyeri mu gihe, nk’uko byavuzwe, hari abandi bemeza ko habereye ubwicanyi. Ikindi kandi mu buhamya bwe hari aho avuga ko hari abantu biciwe kuri metero magana atatu (300 m), uru Rukiko rwasanze bariciwe kuri bariyeri kuko bishwe na Bunani Jean wayiyoboraga. [294] Uru Rukiko rusanga ibivugwa na Twagirayezu Wenceslas ko iyo hagira abantu bagwa kuri iyo bariyeri Nyirabariyanga Ancille atari kubura kubimenya bitewe n’uko ibyahaberaga byose yabimenyaga, n’uko nk’uwacitse ku icumu nta nyungu yari afite yo kumuhishira nabyo nta shingiro bifite, kuko uyu mutangabuhamya avuga ko atashoboraga kujya ku muhanda, ko kuva indege ya Perezida Habyarimana ihanutse,

Page 392

358 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibintu bimaze gukomera we n’abana be bagiye kwihisha mu buvumo ahantu hari intera uvuye iwabo mu rugo, ahandi akavuga ko impamvu atari kubiyoberwa ari uko mbere y’uko bajya kwihisha abakoraga ibikorwa by’ubugizi bwa nabi babivugaga kubera ko babonaga nta cyaha bakora, hakaba n’aho avuga ko bashobora kuba barabivugiye ahandi. Ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko nta makuru ahagije yari afite ku byaberaga kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena. [295] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kandi mu kwemeza ko nta bwicanyi bwabereye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, Urukiko Rukuru ntacyo rwavuze ku buhamya bwa Bazege Ntahondi Léa wemeje ko yabonye kuri iyo bariyeri hakorerwa amarorerwa no ku byo Pasiteri Kaberuka Théophile yavuze ahamya ko yumvise ko Bunani yaharasiraga abantu. Ibyo bikaba bihura n’ibyavuzwe na Sindambiwe Emmanuel ko hari abantu Bunani Jean yiciye nko muri metero magana atatu (300m) uvuye kuri iyo bariyeri. [296] Urukiko rusanga muri aba batangabuhamya Twagirayezu Wenceslas yatanze harimo benshi batanze ubuhamya burimo inenge zikomeye zagombaga gutuma butizerwa kubera ko ibyo bagiye bemeza usanga mu by’ukuri bidashoboka. Uretse abavuzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, hari na Barangirana Tharcisse wavuze ko nta bantu biciwe kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, nyamara ariho yari atuye, azi n’abari bashinzwe iyo bariyeri, mu gihe nk’uko byasobanuwe hari abandi batangabuhamya batanzwe n’impande zombi muri uru rubanza bemeza ko hiciwe abantu. Ibi binareba Mpahatanye Mathieu wavuze ko ibya bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena ari ibyo yumvise gusa kandi nyamara yari ahaturiye kuko yari atuye muri Gacurabwenge aho iyo

Page 393

359 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

bariyeri yari iri, ndetse mu mvugo za benshi ikaba yari ihamaze igihe63. [297] Uru Rukiko rurasanga rero, Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa mu kwemeza ko nta bwicanyi bwabereye kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena, ko nta n’uruhare Twagirayezu Wenceslas yabugizemo.

UMWANZURO RUSANGE [298] Ingingo ya 2 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09 Ukuboza 1948 agamije gukumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside yemejwe mu Rwanda binyuze mu Itegeko - Teka no 08/75 ryo ku wa 12/02/197564, kimwe n’ingingo ya 91, agace ka 1o y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, ziteganya ko icyaha cya Jenoside ari kimwe mu bikorwa bikurikira, gikozwe kigambiriwe, kigamije 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: 1º kwica abo bantu; (…).

63 DTB avuga ko iyo bariyeri yari yarashyizweho kuva mu 1992-1994. 64 Amasezerano ku ikumira n’ihanwa ry’icyaha cya jenoside yo ku wa 09/12/1948 u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono ku wa 12/02/1975 mu ngingo yayo ya 2 ateganya ko icyaha cya jenoside ari kimwe mu bikorwa bikurikira kigamije 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: 1° kwica abo bantu; 2° kubatera ubumuga bw'umubiri cyangwa bwo mu mutwe; 3° kubashyira, ubigambiriye, mu mibereho ishobora gutuma barimbuka bose cyangwa harimbuka igice cyabo; 4° gufata ibyemezo bibabuza kubyara; 5° kubambura ku ngufu urubyaro rwabo ukaruha abandi bantu badahuje.

Page 394

360 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[299] Ingingo ya 94 y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu ari kimwe mu bikorwa bikurikira gikozwe mu bitero rusange cyangwa bya simusiga byibasiye abaturage batari abasirikare: 1º kwica; 2o kurimbura (..). [300] Mu rubanza rwa Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be, Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, rwagaragaje ko umuntu ashobora guhamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu hashingiwe ku bikorwa bimwe kubera ko ibikorwa bigize buri cyaha bitandukanye, icyaha cya jenoside gikorwa mu mugambi wo kurimbura abantu bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo, bahuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bazira icyo bari cyo, naho icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu kigakorwa mu bitero rusange cyangwa bya simusiga byibasiye abaturage b’abasivile65. [301] Mu yandi magambo, umuntu uri mu bakoze ibikorwa by’ubwicanyi byagambiriwe, bikozwe n’ibitero byibasira abantu bagize itsinda runaka rihuriye ku bwenegihugu, ku bwoko, ku ibara ry’uruhu cyangwa ku idini, bigamije kubarimbura bose cyangwa bamwe muri bo kubera icyo bari cyo, bikorewe abasivile, mu bihe bisanzwe cyangwa by’intambara, afatwa nk’uwakoze icyarimwe mu mpurirane mbonezamugambi icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyibasiye inyoko muntu. [302] Nk’uko byasobanuwe mu bika bibanza, uru Rukiko rurasanga Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa mu isesengura ry’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bituma rugira Twagirayezu Wenceslas umwere rushingiye ku kuba ngo abatangabuhamya bashinja bivuguruza ku buryo bukabije. Nyamara nk’uko

65 Reba urubanza rw’ubujurire haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be (Media Case), Case no ICTR -99-52-A, para. 1029.

Page 395

361 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

byasobanuwe, ibyo badahurizaho mu buhamya bwabo ni utuntu duto tutari dukwiye gutesha agaciro ireme ry’ubuhamya bwabo. Uru Rukiko ruranasanga ubuhamya bw’abatangabuhamya batanzwe na Twagirayezu Wenceslas butamushinjura ku bikorwa bigize ibyaha aregwa kuko byagaragaye ko nta bumenyi buhagije bafite ku byo aregwa, bakaba batanakwiye kwizerwa kuko bavuga ibintu bitari ukuri ku buryo bugaragarira uwo ari we wese wasesengura imvugo zabo ahuza ibyo bavuze, aho bari bari n’igihe byakorewe. Icyakora, nk’uko na none byagaragaye, isesengura ry’imvugo z’abatanze ubuhamya bose ntirigaragaza ku buryo budashidikanywaho ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ari mu bari bayoboye ibitero byavuzwe nk’uko Ubushinjacyaha bushaka kubyumvikanisha. [303] Nyuma yo gusuzuma ibimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bigizwe n’ubuhamya bw’abamushinja no gusanga ubuhamya bushinjura nta shingiro bufite, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Twagirayezu Wenceslas yaragize uruhare mu bitero byishe Abatutsi kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana, ku ishuri rya Saint Fidèle, ku Nyundo, kuri commune rouge no kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena kuko byagaraye mu buryo budashidikanywaho ko yari abirimo. Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiye kuri ibyo, no ku kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yariyemereye ko kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Nyakanga 1994 yari mu Rwanda, kuba nta cyangombwa kigaragaza ko yambutse umupaka, ndetse n’inyandiko yiswe décharge ikaba ifite inenge y’uko ntacyemeza ko yakozwe ku itariki yo ku wa 08/04/1994 yitirirwa, rusanga Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze amakosa mu kwemeza ko atari mu Rwanda kuva ku itariki ya 7 kugeza ku itariki ya 09/04/1994 ubwo ibikorwa bigize ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga. Mu yandi magambo, ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’abatangabuhamya banditse

Page 396

362 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inyandiko yemeza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari muri Congo ubwo ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga ntibukwiye kwemerwa nk’ukuri. [304] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga kuba Twagirayezu Wenceslas yari mu bitero byishe Abatutsi benshi bari bahungiye kuri kaminuza ya Mudende no kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana, akaba yaranajyanye n’igitero cyakuye Abatutsi barimo abanyeshuri n’abakozi ku ishuri rya Saint Fidèle kikabajyana ku Nyundo babwirwa ko bagiye kubarokora, babagezayo bamwe bakahabicira, abandi bakajya kubicira aho bise commune rouge, no kuba ubwo yari kumwe n’abandi kuri bariyeri yo kwa Gacamena yaratangiriye Abatutsi bageragezaga guhungira muri RDC, bakabica, bigaragaza nta shiti ko nta kindi bari bagamije atari ukurimbura Abatutsi, bityo akaba ahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside. Uru Rukiko runasanga kandi kuba ibyo byaha yarabikoze mu bitero bigamije kurimbura abantu mu kivunge b’abasivile, yaranakoze icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu. C. Ku byerekeye ibihano bisabwa n’Ubushinjacyaha  Imiburanire y’Ubushinjacyaha [305] Abahagarariye Ubushinjacyaha basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kwakira ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha no kwemeza ko bufite ishingiro, guhindura urubanza rwajuririwe no kwemeza ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kwica nk’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha cyibasiye inyokomuntu. Basobanura ko kubera uburemere bw’ibyaha yakoze n’ingaruka zikomeye ibyo byaha byateje zirimo umubare munini w’Abatutsi wishwe, abatewe ubumuga bwo ku mubiri no mu mutwe n’imfubyi zitagira ingano, basanga

Page 397

363 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

akwiye guhanishwa igifungo cya burundu. Banavuga ko adakwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano kubera uburemere bw’icyaha cya jenoside yakoze n’uruhare yagize mu bitero yagiyemo mu karere k’iwabo ari umuntu ujijutse kuko yari umwarimu. [306] Bavuga kandi ko kuba uburemere bw’icyaha butuma uwagikoze atagabanyirizwa igihano byasobanuwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’uru Rukiko nko mu rubanza no RPAA/GEN 00009/2019/CA haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Kabilima Jean Damascène rwaciwe ku wa 16/10/2020 mu gika cya 109 n’icya 110, ndetse no mu gika cya 125 cy’urubanza rwa Kambanda Jean rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, bityo na Twagirayezu Wenceslas akaba adakwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano.  Imyiregurire ya Twagirayezu Wenceslas [307] Twagirayezu Wenceslas n’abamwunganira bo bavuga ko basanga icyifuzo cy’Ubushinjacyaha cyo guhindura imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru nta shingiro gifite, kubera ko yagaragaje ibimenyetso by’uko atari mu Rwanda ku itariki ya 6 kugeza ku ya 9/04/1994 ubwo ibikorwa bigize ibyaha aregwa byakorwaga, Ubushinjacyaha bukaba butarabashije kugaragaza ibimenyetso bibivuguruza n’ibimenyetso simusiga bihamya ko yakoze ibyaha bumurega. Bavuga ko nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabigaragaje abatangabuhamya b’ubushinjacyaha baranzwe no kwivuguruza ku tuntu duto no ku bintu by’ingenzi, bigaragaza ko nta bumenyi ku byaha akurikiranweho bafite, kuko bavuga ibyo batiboneye n’ibyo batiyumviye. Basoza basaba Urukiko gushingira ku ngingo ya 107 n’iya 111 z’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, rukemeza ko ubujurire bw’ubushinjacyaha nta

Page 398

364 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

shingiro bufite, rukanemeza ko urubanza rwajuririwe rudahindutse.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [308] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Ngenga n° 04/2012/OL ryo ku wa 15/06/2012 rikuraho Inkiko Gacaca, rikanagena uburyo bwo gukemura ibibazo byari mu bubasha bwazo iteganya ibikurikira: “Ikurikiranwa n’ihanwa ry’ibikorwa bigize icyaha cya Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu byakozwe hagati y’itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n'iya 31 Ukuboza 1994 byari bisanzwe biburanishwa n’Inkiko Gacaca, bikorwa n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha hakurikijwe amategeko asanzweho mu ikurikirana n’ihana ry’ibyaha”. [309] Ingingo ya 335 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange iteganya ibikurira: “Iri tegeko ritangira gukurikizwa ku munsi ritangarijweho mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Icyakora, ibyaha bya Jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi n’ibindi byaha byibasiye inyoko muntu byakozwe hagati y’itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n’iya 31 Ukuboza 1994 bihanwa hakurikijwe ibihano biteganyijwe muri iri tegeko uretse ibiteganyijwe ukundi n’itegeko.” [310] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasanze TWAGIRAYEZU Wenceslas ahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha kibasiye inyokomuntu, kubera uruhare yagize mu bitero byagiye kuri kaminuza ya Mudende, kuri kiriziya ya Busasamana bikica Abatutsi bari bahahungiye ndetse akaba yaragize uruhare mu iyicwa ry’Abatutsi bageragezaga guhungira muri RDC biciwe

Page 399

365 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

kuri bariyeri yitiriwe Gacamena yo muri Gacurabwenge yabaga ariho no kuri commune rouge, ku ishuri rya Saint Fidèle no ku Nyundo. [311] Ingingo ya 92 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange nk’uko yahinduwe kugeza ubu66 iteganya ibi bikurikira: « Umuntu ukoze kimwe mu bikorwa bivugwa mu ngingo ya 91 y’iri Tegeko aba akoze icyaha. Iyo abihamijwe n’urukiko ahanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu». Ingingo ya 95 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe yo igateganya ko umuntu wese uhamijwe n’urukiko gukora kimwe mu bikorwa bivugwa mu gace ka 1°, aka 2°, aka 3°, aka 6°, aka 7°, aka 9° n’aka 11° tw’ingingo ya 94 y’iri tegeko, ahanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu. Naho ingingo ya 60 y’iryo Tegeko nk’uko yahinduwe kugeza ubu67 igateganya ko iyo umucamanza yemeje impamvu nyoroshyacyaha, ashobora kugabanya igihano, igifungo cya burundu kikagabanywa ku buryo ariko kitajya munsi y’igihano cy’igifungo cy’imyaka 15. [312] Mu rubanza no RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/03/2019 rwasobanuye ibijyanye n’itangwa ry’igihano mu gihe hari impamvu nyoroshyacyaha n’impamvu nkomezacyaha. Muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zigenwa n’Urukiko mu bushishozi bwarwo, ariko impamvu nkomezacyaha ziba ziteganywa n’itegeko, cyangwa se Ubushinjacyaha bugatanga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ku buryo budashidikanywaho impamvu uwahamwe n’icyaha agomba guhabwa igihano kinini. Muri urwo

66 Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko no 059/23 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023. 67 Ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko no 059/23 ryo ku wa 04/12/2023.

Page 400

366 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rubanza kandi Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwavuze ko n’ubwo Bandora Charles yahamwe n’ibyaha bifite uburemere, kandi byagize n’ingaruka zikomeye ku muryango nyarwanda; kuba yarahamwe n’ibi byaha bidahagije kugira ngo bibe impamvu nkomezacyaha zituma igihano yahanishijwe kiyongera mu gihe Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaje ko yabikoranye urwango n’ubugome birenze iby’abandi bakoze ibyaha mu gace byakorewemo. Ibyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwavuze ni nabyo byemejwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza rwa Kalimanzira Callixte.68 [313] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurebye ibyaha bihama Twagirayezu Wenceslas, ingaruka byagize ku muryango nyarwanda, uburyo byakozwemo, aho ibitero byagiye bisanga Abatutsi aho bahungiye bizeye kuharokokera; mu iyicwa ryabo, nk’uko abatangabuhamya babivuga, hagakoreshwa amasasu n’intwaro gakondo, rusanga ibyaha yakoze bifite uburemere bukomeye. Uru Rukiko rushingiye ariko ku kuba ibyaha yakoze bitamushyira mu rwego rw’abateguye cyangwa urw’abayoboye ibitero byishe abatutsi ahantu havuzwe no kuba ari ubwa mbere ahamijwe icyaha, rusanga agomba guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20). III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [314] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bw’Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro;

68 Reba urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Callixte Kalimanzira, Case No. ICTR-05-88-T, para. 748-752.

Page 401

367 UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAYEZU

[315] Rwemeje ko urubanza no RP/GEN 00003/2019/HC/HCCIC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibe ku wa 11/01/2024 ruhindutse mu ngigo zarwo zose; [316] Rwemeje ko Twagirayezu Wenceslas ahamwa n’icyaha cya jenoside n’icyaha cyo kurimbura nk’icyaha kibasiye inyokomuntu; [317] Ruhanishije Twagirayezu Wenceslas igifungo cy’imyaka makumyabiri (20); [318] Rwemeje ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

Page 402

368 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 403

i

SUBJECT INDEX

RWANDA LAW

REPORTS

ENGLISH VERSION

Page 404

ii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 405

iii

SUBJECT INDEX

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 ............................................ xv SUBJECT iNDEx ................................................................... xix Re MUNYEMANA .................................................................... 1 RUTAZiBWA v MUKANDUTiYE ET AL. ........................... 39 PROSECUTiON v NYANDWi ............................................... 51 SANLAM AG PLC v NYiRANEZA ET AL. ......................... 69 SONARWA GENERAL iNSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWiZEYiMANA ..................................................................... 89 GATSiBO DiSTRiCT v. V.CO LTD .................................... 109 HABYARiMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1) ........ 129 HABYARiMANA v MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2) ......... 161 Me MUHiRE ET. AL v KiGALi BUSiNESS CENTER (KBC) LTD ........................................................................................ 177 PROSECUTiON v TWAGiRAYEZU ................................... 201

TABLE OF CONTENTS v v vii xi xiii xiii xix xvii xxi

Page 406

iv

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 407

v

SUBJECT INDEX

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

RWAYiTARE Eric

TEAM OF EDITORS

Page 408

vi

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 409

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/UR

BWIZA N. Blanche : Secretary of the Committee, inspector of Courts

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : President of Court of Appeal

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Rector of iLPD

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre :

KALIHANGABO Isabelle : President of High Court

Judge of the Supreme Court

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

NKURUNZIZA Valens :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE : Bibiane

inspector General of Courts

Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : inspector of Courts

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial

Page 410

viii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 411

ix

SUBJECT INDEX

High Court

NINAHAZWA Roselyne :

Dr. BIDERI Diogène :

Prosecutor at National level

Prosecutor at National level

KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace : Judge of High Court

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Judge of the intermediate Court Lecturer at iNES- Ruhengeri BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMWABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine :

Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

Lecturer at the University of Kigali Lecturer at UNiLAK

Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association Judge of Commercial Court

Page 412

x

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 413

xi

SUBJECT INDEX

PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 1 [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 nine (9) cases, which includes; one (1) case relating to the petition seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, two (2) civil cases, three (3) commercial cases, one (1) criminal case and two (2) procedural cases.

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

PREFACE

Page 414

xii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 415

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] 1 RLR

SCOPE OF REPORTS

Page 416

xiv

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 417

xv

SUBJECT INDEX

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

CONSIDERED

a. Current laws The Constitution of the republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15, 16, 19 and 29……………………………………5 International Convention of December 9, 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article 2………….208 Law n° 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence, articles 2.53, 87……………………………………………………208 Law Nº 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, articles 14 and 121……………………………………………………5 Law Nº 69/2019 of 08/11/2019 amending law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, article 4………………………………………………………………………5 Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general articles 49 and 133…………………………………5 articles 91,92,94,335……………………………208 Law n° 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure article 181 and 193………………………………54 articles 51 and 183……………………………..208 Law N0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 241……………………………………...…41 articles 9, 111…………………………………….70 article 241, 7°………………………………...…167

LIST OF CASES CONSUDERED

Page 418

xvi

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 65……………………………………………………111 Law N° 31/2009 of 26/10/2009 on the protection of intellectual property, articles 195 and 222…………………………………...133 Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda, article 18…………………………..….208 Instruction of the Registrar General Nº 002/2021/ORG dated 29/06/2021 modifying instructions of the Registrar General Nº 001/2020/0rg dated 12/05/2020/ORG regulating management, leasing, auction sale, article 10 (39 bis)………………………...180

b. Repealed laws Organic Law n°04/2012/OL of 15/06/2012 terminating Gacaca Courts and determining mechanisms for solving issues which were under their jurisdiction, article 3…………………………………208

Page 419

xvii

SUBJECT INDEX

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED

RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2021/SC, Re Ngendahayo Kabuye rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00005/2020/CS - RS/iNCONST/SPEC00006/2020/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 12/02/2021. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2019/SC, Me Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/07/2020. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Kabasinga Florida rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00001/2019/SC, Me Murangwa Edward rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019. RS/iNJUST/RP00003/2019/SC, Prosecution v Niyonsaba Eric rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/01/2022. RS/REV/RCOM 00001/2022/SC, Munyaburanga vs ECOBANK Plc, rendered by the Supreme Court on 15/07/2022; RS/iNJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC, Me MHAYiMANA isaïe vs Rwanda Bar Association, rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/02/2023. RS/iNJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC, Semapondo Charles v Rwasimpenzi Wellars et. al rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021. RS/iNJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC rwa Busoro Gervais v Busoro Mugunga Desiré et. al rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/06/2019; RPA 0022/14/CS Prosecution v Bogere Barige rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/03/2018. RPAA 0117/07/CS, Prosecution v Sgt. Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste et. al rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/09/2010.

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED

Page 420

xviii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS, Prosecution v Bandora Charles rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/03/2019. RADA 0001/11/CS; KiST v Hashakimana Anastase rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/04/2012, RPAA 00055/2023/CA, Prosecution v Niyinizeye Pacifique, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 22/03/2024. RPAA 00020/2022/CA, Prosecution v Kabayiza Sylver, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 05/01/2023. RS/iNJUST/RC 00013/2021/CA, MANiRARORA v RWANDA RUDNiKi LTD rendered by the Court of Appeal on 28/06/2022. RPAA 00141/2022/CA, Prosecution v Ntamaherezo iryamukuru, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 31/05/2023. RPAA 00371/2020/CA, Prosecution v Sezikeye Franҫois rendered by the Court of Appeal on 15/12/2022. RPAA 00681/2021/CA, Prosecution v Hategikimana Célestin rendered by the Court of Appeal on 24/3/2023. RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA, Prosecution v Ntaganzwa Ladislas, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 03/03/2023. RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA, Prosecution v vs Birindabagabo Jean Paul, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 08/04/2022. RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA, Prosecution v Kabilimana Jean Damascène, rendered by the Court of Appeal on 16/10/2020. RPAA 00681/2021/CA, Prosecution v Hategekimana Célestin rendered by the Court of Appeal on 24/3/2023. RCOMA 00546/2022/HCC; UWERA Astrid v MUHAYiMANA et. al. rendered by the Commercial High Court on 02/09/2022.

Page 421

xix

SUBJECT INDEX

RCOMA 00026/2019/HCC; Ngabonziza Joseph v Rugimbana Jean Claude et. al. rendered by the Commercial High Court on 01/03/2019 iCTR-2000-61-T, Prosecution v v Gatete Jean Baptiste, rendered on 31/03/2011 iCTR-05-88-T, Prosecution v v Callixte Kalimanzira rendered on 20/10/2010. iCTR-96-3-A, Prosecution v v Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda rendered on 26/ 05/2003 iCTR-01- 62 T, Prosecution v v Bikindi Simon rendered on 2/12/2008 iCTR-95-1-A, Prosecution v v Kayishema & Ruzindana, rendered on. 21/05/1999 iCTR-04-81-A, Prosecution v v Setako Ephrem, rendered on 28/9/2011. iCTR-96-13-T Prosecution v v Musema Alfred, rendered on 25/2/2014. iCTR-99-54 A, Prosecution v v Kamuhanda Jean de Dieu, rendered on 19/09/2005 iCTR-01-73-A, Prosecution v vs Zigiranyirazo Protais, rendered on 16/11/2009 iCTR-99-52-A, Prosecution v vs Nahimana et al. (Media case). rendered on 28/11/2007 iT-98-32/1-A Prosecution v vs LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ, rendered on 20 July 2009. Simphiwe Raymond Shusha vs. State (South Africa) rendered by the Supreme Court of South Africa.

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED

Page 422

xx

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 423

xxi

SUBJECT INDEX

SUBJECT INDEX

1.The Constitution – The principle of equal treatment before the law and of non-discrimination – No one can claim to have been discriminated against if the nature of his or her actions, the acts he or she is accused of and their impact on society are different from those of the person with whom he or she is comparing him/herself to, because such acts are not subject to the same penalties. Re MUNYEMANA……………………………………..1 2. Civil law – Damages resulting from accidents – Motor vehicle accidents – Accidents resulting in the miscarriage by the victim – Damages resulting from accidents causing the miscarriage by the victim are determined based on ordinary laws or applicable general principles of law. SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL……….....69 Motor vehicle road accident – Prescription – A civil claim lodged by a minor – the claim prescriptive period- the prescription of the victim’s civil claim can only be suspended by the claimant’s impossibility of filing the claim or by the claimant’s lack of civil majority.

SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. UWIZEYIMANA……………………..………89 3. Contract law – Additional contract – An additional contract is considered as a new contract related to the duration of the new works – Additional works performed after the first contract must be paid for as it is considered as a new contract different from the previous one. GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD………………109 xxi

Page 424

xxii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Additional contract – Requesting payment for an additional contract is not considered as a change in the price agreed in the contract – The procuring entity cannot refuse to perform its obligation to pay the invoices issued by the contractor for the additional works performed, alleging that this is considered as an increase in the bidding price presented in the financial submission. GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD………………109 4. Commercial law – intellectual property – Copyright – The primary moral and economic rights to any literary, artistic, scientific, or audiovisual work belong to its creator or those who collaborated in its creation. HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)……………………………………………………. 129 intellectual property – Copyright – Being an actor in a fictional work does not grant a person the rights of the author of that work, as everything they perform is directed and controlled by the director. HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)……………………………………………………. 129 intellectual property – infringement on the copyright – Liability – A person or company that commercially exploits creative works in their own name and for their own benefit without authorization from the rightful owner is liable, as such works are protected by law. HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)……………………………………………………...129 intellectual property – infringement on the copyright – Liability – Damages – A person or company that commercially exploits creative works in their own name

Page 425

xxiii

SUBJECT INDEX

and for their own benefit without authorization from the rightful owner is liable, as such works are protected by law. HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)...................................................................................161 5. Criminal law – Child defilement – Determination of the penalty for the offence of child defilement – The seriousness of the offence of child defilement is one of the factors taken into account in determining the punishment that the offender should receive – Although the penalties for this offence are severe, they remain proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the profound impact it has on both the defiled child and society as a whole. Re MUNYEMANA…………………………………..1 Genocide – The fact that the defendant has not been mentioned in the Gacaca Courts data collection does not mean that he/she cannot be prosecuted for the crime of genocide because the fact that a court does not say anything about a person in the criminal proceedings, does not entail that that he did not participate in the crimes he/she is accused of. PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU……………..201 Offence – Concurrence of offences – Criminal responsibility – Crime of genocide and crime against humanity – A person may be convicted of the crime of genocide and crime against humanity based on the same acts because the acts of each crime are different, the crime of genocide committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, whether in time of peace or in time of war, because of who they are, and the crime against humanity is committed as

Page 426

xxiv

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU………………201 Sentencing – Mitigating and aggravating circumstances – Even if the defendant was convicted of serious crimes, and had gravely affected the Rwandan community; the fact that he/she was convicted of these crimes is not enough to amount to aggravating circumstances to increase the sentence while the Prosecution did not prove that he/she committed them with more hatred and cruelty than other criminals in the area where they were committed. PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU………………201 6. Civil procedure – Mediation–Mediation report – Closing of a case – Without further procedure, a case is closed in consideration of the content of the mediation agreement which is subject to execution. RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE ET AL…………..39 Mediation – Mediation brings to end the case under litigation without further formalities, and the terms of the settlement agreement are executed. HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2)……………………………………………………. 161 7. Commercial procedure - invalidation of an auction – Filing an appeal - Writing to the Registrar General – instances in which several complementary letters are written - When Registrar General receives several complementary letters, the letter that is relied upon in calculating the time limit in which the Registrar General should have replied to the letter, is the one that was submitted first. Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD…………………………………………...177

Page 427

xxv

SUBJECT INDEX

Auction – invalidation of an auction – Writing to the Registrar General – Calculating days for writing to the Registrar General – The days mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General whose calculation formula was not specified, are calculated in the form of consecutive calendar days (jours calendriers consécutifs) – instructions of the Registrar General Nº 002/2021/ORG of 29/06/2021 modifying the instructions of the Registrar General Nº 001/2020/ORG of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage, article 10 (39 bis). Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD…………………………………………..177 8. Criminal procedure – Criminal evidence – Defence – Alibi – When the defendant raises the defense of alibi in particular, the Prosecution still has the responsibility to provide undisputed evidence that proves that the accused has committed a crime, whereas the accused who pretends that he was not at the place where the crime was committed at a certain time such that he/she would not be able to commit the crime he/she is accused of, has the responsibility to prove that he/she was not at the place where the crime was committed. PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU…………….201 Evidence – Criminal evidence – Testimony – Relevance of the testimony –The fact that the witnesses do not state the same thing or may be slightly mistaken, or if the testimony given before the Court does not match what was previously stated, it does not detract the testimony because it may have been caused by a long time elapsed since the time when

Page 428

xxvi

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the crime was committed until the time when the testimony is given before the Court. PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU…………...….201 Time Limits for Appeal - When a judgement is pronounced while the accused is in the police custody, it is clear that s/he cannot file an appeal, because, based on the structure of the system (iECMS), concerning the judgments adjudicated for the suspects who are detained, they are communicated to the correctional facilities where they are detained, the correctional facilities’ administration is then responsible for notifying the concerned individuals and assisting them in filing their appeals through this electronic system, this means that the accused cannot be aware of the court's decision in his/her case to enable him/her to file an appeal, rather, upon arrival in the correction facility, s/he can be informed of the judgment ruling, consequently, the time limits for filing an appeal for such individual must be calculated starting from that day. PROSECUTION v NYANDWI……………………..51 9. Procedural law – Appeal – When an appeal should be admitted by the Court but was dismissed, the decision to reject the appeal is revoked, and the appeal is transferred to the Court so that the case is heard on the merits. PROSECUTION v NYANDWI……………………….51 Time limits for filing a claim – illness – Time limits for filing a claim can be extended due to an illness that might befall on the claimant and deprive him/her the use of certain faculties such as thinking, speaking, hearing or writing, or when so unconscious that he/she cannot even delegate a representation

SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. UWIZEYIMANA……………….…………….89

Page 429

xxvii

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 431

SPECIAL CLAIMS

Page 433

PETITION SEEKING TO DECLARE

A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Page 435

1 Re MUNYEMANA

Re MUNYEMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00001/2023/SC (Ntezilyayo J.P., Hitiyaremye, Mukamulisa, Kalihangabo and Kazungu, J.) February 16, 2024] The Constitution – The principle of equal treatment before the law and of non-discrimination – No one can claim to have been discriminated against if the nature of his or her actions, the acts he or she is accused of and their impact on society are different from those of the person with whom he or she is comparing him/herself to, because such acts are not subject to the same penalties. Criminal procedure – The offence of child defilement – Determination of the penalty for the offence of child defilement – The seriousness of the offence of child defilement is one of the factors taken into account in determining the punishment that the offender should receive – Although the penalties for this offence are severe, they remain proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the profound impact it has on both the defiled child and society as a whole. Facts: Munyemana was convicted of child defilement by the intermediate Court of Karongi and sentenced to life imprisonment. Represented by Counsel Kayitana, Munyemana filed a petition before the Supreme Court, requesting the repeal of paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law nº 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, arguing that these provisions violate fundamental principles and human rights. He claimed that they contradict the principles enshrined in Articles 1

Page 436

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

15, 16, and 29 of the Constitution, as the prescribed penalties are disproportionate compared to those established in other legal provisions punishing more serious violent crimes than child defilement. He explained that he was sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis of article 133, paragraph 2, of Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, determining offenses and penalties in general, which was later amended by Article 4 of Law No. 69/2019 of 08/11/2019, amending Law No. 68/2018. He further argued that the penalties provided for in Article 4 are inconsistent with the principles and human rights enshrined in Articles 15, 16, and 29 of the Constitution. He concluded by stating that he was submitting this petition both in his personal interest and in the public interest as a Rwandan committed to comprehensive justice and the development of legal principles. The representative of the Government of Rwanda explained that, considering how the crime of child defilement is punished in many countries, the penalties provided for in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 4 of Law No. 69/2019 mentioned above are not excessive. He argued that, aside from merely stating that these provisions violate Articles 15, 16, and 29 of the Constitution on the grounds that they impose severe penalties, the petitioner fails to demonstrate which specific rights are being violated. Among the issues examined in this

case was the question of whether paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of December 4, 2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, determining offenses and penalties in general, are inconsistent with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. The petitioner argues that this provision contradicts the principles set forth in these constitutional articles because the law in question prescribes harsher penalties for child defilement than for

Page 437

3 Re MUNYEMANA

other, more serious crimes. Additionally, the petitioner contends that sentencing a person to life imprisonment merely for touching a child’s private parts of the body does not align with the principle that the severity of a penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The representative of the Government of Rwanda argues that the crime of child defilement has severe consequences, affecting a child's mental health, social interactions, education, and brain development, with these effects persisting even into adulthood. Furthermore, this crime has a broader impact on the family and society as a whole. Therefore, it should not be trivialized or downplayed, as Munyemana seeks to do. The representative emphasizes that in many countries worldwide, this crime is punishable by severe penalties, including life imprisonment and even the death penalty. Certa Foundation, acting as amicus curiae in this case and represented by Counsel Kabasinga, argues that child defilement is a serious crime that violates the fundamental human rights of its victims. This argument is based on international conventions that protect human rights, safeguard children's rights and eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. it is also supported by Rwandan laws, national and international jurisprudence and various research studies on children's rights. The Foundation emphasises that

severe penalties for child defilement have been increased because of the serious impact on the victim and society as a whole. it urges the Court to analyse whether the imposition of severe penalties for this crime is contrary to the principle of equality before the law. Finally, Certa Foundation cites Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees that every child has the right to special protection from his or her family, fellow citizens and the State, having regard to his or her

Page 438

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

age and circumstances, as determined by law. Given the need for special protection to eliminate violence against children and ensure justice through severe punishment of perpetrators, it argues that the law does not constitute discrimination compared to other crimes, such as grievous bodily harm. Regarding the issue of whether Article 14 of Law nº 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, is inconsistent with the principle of due process of law, the petitioner argues that due process is not served when a person who merely touches a child's genitals is sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment or life imprisonment, while a person who amputates another person's legs and arms is sentenced to a maximum of 15 years. According to the petitioner, this means that the punishment imposed is not proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed. With regard to this issue, the representative of the Government of Rwanda argues that the severity of the penalties does not mean that the convicted person is denied the right to due process of law or his or her rights under the Constitution. Furthermore, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the penalties provided for in the article whose repeal is sought are unreasonable or violate the rights of citizens, but only argues that they are severe. The amicus curiae argues that these

ongoing debates could potentially diminish the seriousness of sexual violence compared to other forms of harm. They explain that in addressing the crime of rape, the focus should not be solely on the circumstances of the perpetrator, noting that an inappropriate punishment relative to the gravity of the crime could lead to unintended perceptions. These perceptions could prioritise the rights and views of the accused over the lives and well-being of the victims, which could undermine consideration of the profound impact on victims.

Page 439

5 Re MUNYEMANA

Held: 1. No one can claim to have been discriminated against if the nature of his or her actions, the acts he or she is accused of and their impact on society are different from those of the person with whom he or she is comparing him/herself to, because such acts are not subject to the same penalties.

2. The seriousness of the offence of child defilement is one of the factors taken into account in determining the punishment that the offender should receive. Although the penalties for this offence are severe, they remain proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the profound impact it has on both the defiled child and society as a whole. The petition lacks merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15, 16, 19 and 29; Law nº 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, articles 14 and 121; Law nº 69/2019 of 08/11/2019 amending law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, article 4; Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, articles 49 and 133. Act No 4 of 1998, Sexual Offences Special Provisions Act, 1998, section 131; The Sexual Offences Act, No 3 of 2006 of Kenya; The Penal Code (amendment) Act, 2007, section 129.

Page 440

6 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/SPEC00005/2020/CS - RS/iNCONST/SPEC00006/2020/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 12/02/2021. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2019/SC, Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/07/2020. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Kabasinga Florida rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019. RS/iNCONST/SPEC00001/2019/SC, Counsel Murangwa Edward rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019. RS/iNJUST/RP00003/2019/SC, Niyonsaba Eric v Prosecution rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/01/2022. Authors quoted: Barry C. Feld and Donna M. Bishop, The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice (Oxford University Press, USA, 12 Jan 2012). Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Counsel Kayitana Evode, representing Munyemana Dionize, filed a petition before the Supreme Court requesting the repeal of paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 4 of Law No. 69/2019 of 08/11/2019, amending Law No. 68/2018 of August 30, 2018, determining offenses and penalties in general (published in the Special Gazette of 29/11/2019), arguing that they are inconsistent

Page 441

7 Re MUNYEMANA

with the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (referred to as the Constitution in this case), specifically Articles 15, 16, and 29. He stated that Munyemana Dionize was convicted of child defilement by the intermediate Court of Karongi in case RP 00335/2019/TGi/KNG, decided on May 26, 2020, and sentenced to life imprisonment based on Article 133 (2) of Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, determining offenses and penalties in general, which was later amended by Article 4 of the aforementioned Law No. 69/2019.

He states that the penalties provided for in article 4 of the above-mentioned Law No. 69/2019 are contrary to the principles and human rights enshrined in articles 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution. He further argues that these penalties are excessive in comparison with those provided for in other legal provisions for crimes more serious than child defilement. He state that he has submitted this petition both in his personal interest and in the public interest as a Rwandan committed to full justice and the development of the legal system.

Counsel Karemera Georges, representing the Government of Rwanda, argues that the penalties provided for in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 4 of the above-mentioned Act No. 69/2019 are not excessive, given how the crime of child defilement is punished in many countries. He claims that the petitioner, apart from merely stating that these provisions are inconsistent with articles 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution because of the severity of the penalties, fails to demonstrate which specific rights have been violated.

The public hearing was held on 10/01/2024, with Counsel Kayitana Evode representing Munyemana Dionize and the Government of Rwanda represented by Counsel Karemera

Page 442

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Georges. The Court first ruled that the request by Certa Foundation to intervene in the case as Amicus Curiae, for the purpose of providing insights, was granted. it also determined that the petitioner had a legitimate interest in filing the case, based on the directions established in previous judgments on similar claims.

After examining the parties' requests regarding the alignment of the contested legal provision with subsequent amendments made after the petition was filed, the Court found that the contested Article 4 of Law No. 69/2019 of 08/11/2019, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, determining offenses and penalties in general, had already been amended by Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties, and the hearing then proceeded to examine the following issues of the case : a) Whether paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, are inconsistent with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda ; b) Whether paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, are inconsistent with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda ; c) Whether the penalties provided for in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, should be reduced, and whether such reductions would apply to Munyemana

Page 443

9 Re MUNYEMANA

Dionize and all individuals convicted of the same offense who have not yet completed their sentences. II.

ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, are inconsistent with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda

Counsel Kayitana Evode, representing Munyemana Dionize, argues that Article 15 of the Constitution stipulates that All persons are equal before the law, and that they are entitled to equal protection of the law. This article is further reinforced by the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Rwanda is a signatory, which provides that all individuals are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection without discrimination. He contends that the provisions in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, referred to above, are inconsistent with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution for the following reasons : a) it imposes harsher penalties on those convicted of child defilement than on individuals who commit more severe crimes. For instance, if Munyemana Dionize had amputated the arms or legs of the child he is accused of defiling, he would have faced a maximum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment under Article 121(3) of the aforementioned law determining offenses and penalties. b) Sentencing a person to life imprisonment merely for touching a child's genitals does not uphold the principle

Page 444

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

that the severity of a penalty should correspond to the gravity of the offense. This principle is also emphasized by scholar Gregory S. Schneider in his article "Sentencing Proportionality in the States" and is further supported by Australia's Sentencing Advisory Council. c) in some foreign countries, this crime carries significantly lighter penalties than those stipulated in this provision. For example, in the state of California, USA, the penalty for child defilement does not exceed four (4) years, whereas the penalty for amputating a person’s arms or legs is life imprisonment.

Counsel Karemera Georges, representing the Government of Rwanda, submits that Article 15 of the Constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and that they are entitled to equal protection of the law. Furthermore, Article 16 addresses protection against discrimination, affirming that all Rwandans have equal rights and freedoms and that any form of discrimination is prohibited and punishable by law. He argues that paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, mentioned above, is not inconsistent with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution for the following reasons: a. Every country establishes criminal laws that determine offenses and their corresponding penalties, taking into account the gravity of the crime and its impact on the victim as well as society at large. The objective is to punish the offender, deter crime, and rehabilitate offenders. b. Through competent institutions, particularly the legislature (Parliament), each country determines the severity of

Page 445

11 Re MUNYEMANA

crimes and appropriate punishments to achieve the goals of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. c. The crime of child defilement has severe consequences on a child's psychological well-being, social interactions, education, and brain development, with effects persisting into adulthood. This crime damages and undermines the child's life and has repercussions on the family as a whole. Therefore, it warrants a severe punishment to both punish perpetrators and deter potential offenders from committing such acts in fear of potential penalties. d. A comparative analysis of legal systems in various countries shows that the prescribed penalties for child defilement are not excessive. Examples from three East African Community (EAC) member states—Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania—alongside other jurisdictions, indicate that this offense carries severe penalties : i. in Kenya, a person convicted of defiling a child aged 11 years or younger is sentenced to life imprisonment, while defilement of a child aged between 12 and 15 years carries a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. ii. in Uganda, defilement of a child under 18 years is punishable by life imprisonment, whereas defiling a child under 14 years may result in the death penalty. iii. in Tanzania, defiling a child under 14 years carries a mandatory life sentence. iv. in California, USA, an adult (18 years or older) convicted of defiling a child aged 10 or younger faces a sentence ranging from 25 years to life imprisonment.

Page 446

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

v. in Nigeria, defilement of a child under 13 years is punishable by life imprisonment. vi. in Northern ireland, defiling a child under 13 years is punishable by life imprisonment. e. Based on these examples, it is evident that child defilement is a serious offense that should neither be underestimated nor downplayed, as Munyemana Dionize attempts to do. in many countries worldwide, this crime carries severe penalties, including life imprisonment and, in some cases, the death penalty. f. in case RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC, the Supreme Court provided an interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Based on that ruling, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, as mentioned above, do not violate the principles enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Moreover, whether in Rwanda or other jurisdictions, child defilement of a minor is considered more severe than the offense of assault and battery, which the petitioner, Munyemana Dionize, attempts to use as a point of comparison. g. The fact that a penalty is severe for an offender should not be considered excessive or unconstitutional. The gravity of a punishment cannot be determined or measured solely by an individual, especially the convicted person, as Munyemana Dionize attempts to argue.

Acting as Amicus Curiae, Counsel Kabasinga Florida, representing Certa Foundation, bases her arguments on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the Banjul Charter on Human

Page 447

13 Re MUNYEMANA

and Peoples' Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol), the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iCCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), various Rwandan laws, international and Rwandan case law, numerous research studies, and UNiCEF's interpretations on the rights of children and adolescents, she argues that: a. Child defilement is a serious crime that violates the human rights of the victims. it infringes upon the fundamental human rights of the child subjected to such abuse, including their safety and health, as they may contract HiV/AiDS or other sexually transmitted infections and face complications during pregnancy and childbirth. b. A report by the Rwanda investigation Bureau (RiB) indicates a 27.9% increase in cases investigated, comparing data from the 2018/2019 fiscal year (3,215 cases) to 2019/2020 (4,013 cases). Another report states that the number of child victims slightly increased from 3,215 in 2019 to 4,265 in 2020. The statistics show that in 2020, 1,239 children (29.1%) who suffered sexual abuse were under 10 years old, and that 98% of the victims in these cases were girls. c. A report by the National Public Prosecution Authority highlighted that cases of child defilement increased from 1,819 in 2013 to 3,793 in 2020. This report clearly demonstrates that this crime is a serious challenge for the Government of Rwanda, requiring strict measures. Therefore, child defilement and other forms of gender-

Page 448

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

based violence should be recognized as violations of human rights. d. Girls are the primary victims of such crimes, and they continue to be silenced, unable to access their rights and protection after enduring these atrocities. e. Child defilement is a serious crime with multiple consequences, including trauma and suffering for the victims. These effects extend to their future, affecting their aspirations, health, education, economic opportunities, and relationships. f. Survivors of sexual violence often experience psychological distress, and feel incomplete as women, having been degraded to the point of losing their dignity. This is why the Government of Rwanda has taken significant steps to prevent and eradicate gender-based violence by establishing institutions dedicated to enforcing laws and policies against such crimes. g. Legal and policy advancements have significantly contributed to gender equality and the establishment of effective mechanisms for preventing and combating gender-based violence, making it a heavily sanctioned crime. it is crucial to recognize the dangers of gender bias in judicial reasoning, as gender-based stereotypes in the justice system can significantly impact fundamental rights, including equality before the law, fair trials, and due process of law. h. Strict penalties for child defilement have seriously been reinforced due to the severe consequences on the victim and society at large. The court must assess whether the

Page 449

15 Re MUNYEMANA

legal provisions imposing rigorous penalties for child defilement violate the principle of equality before the law. i. Preventing child defilement requires substantial government effort to ensure that perpetrators never reoffend. One of Rwanda’s key measures has been recognizing child defilement as an extremely serious and imprescriptible crime. Anyone who harms a child’s future lacks moral conscience, making it imperative for families, society, and the government to unite in combating such violations and protecting victims. j. The principle of equality before the law means that in the prosecution of a criminal offence, the accused must be given the right to a public trial by a competent and independent court established by the law. This principle guarantees that laws protect all individuals equally, without discrimination based on social status, wealth, age, gender, race, culture, religion, or any other characteristic. k. Regarding child protection, since children are the most affected, Article 19 of the Constitution states that every child has the right to specific mechanisms of protection by his or her family, other Rwandans and the State, depending on his or her age and living conditions, as provided for by the law. Therefore, children require special protection to eliminate violence against them and ensure that justice is served through the effective prosecution of perpetrators. Thus, the law cannot be said to be discriminatory compared to other crimes against children, such as aggravated battery.

Page 450

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda reads that: “All persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law”. And article 16 of the same Constitution stipulates that: (1) “All Rwandans are born and remain equal in rights and freedoms. (2) Discrimination of any kind or its propaganda based on, inter alia, ethnic origin, family or ancestry, clan, skin colour or race, sex, region, economic categories, religion or faith, opinion, fortune, cultural differences, language, economic status, physical or mental disability or any other form of discrimination are prohibited and punishable by law.

Article 4 of Law No. 69/2019 of 08/11/2019 amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general was modified by Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general. its first paragraph, which outlines the punishable acts referenced in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the contested provision, states that: (1) “A person who commits one of the following sexual acts on a child, commits an offence: (a) to insert a sexual organ of a person into the sexual organ, anus or mouth of a child; (b) to insert any organ of the human body into a sexual organ or anus of a child; (c) to perform any other act on the body of a child for the purpose of sexual arousal. Paragraph 2, 3 and 4, provide that: (2) A person convicted of committing any of the acts referred to in Paragraph (1) of this Article is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years but not more than 25 years. (3) if child defilement is committed on a child under 14 years of age, the penalty is life imprisonment. (4) When

Page 451

17 Re MUNYEMANA

child defilement is committed on a child of 14 years of age or older and caused him or her an incurable disease or a disability, the penalty is life imprisonment.

The Court finds that in order to analyse and provide an answer to the issue raised above, it is necessary to consider the following three key principles: a. The principle of equality before the law and of non- discrimination; b. The consequences of the crime of child defilement, both against children and non-children in general; c. The principle of proportionality between the seriousness of the offence and the punishment. a. The principle of equality before the law and of non- discrimination

The principle of equality before the law and the principle of non-discrimination have been analyzed by this Court in various cases, including case RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2021/SC, decided on 10/02/2023, Ngendahayo Kabuye, in which a direction thereof has been established. in that case, the Court explained that the principle of equality before the law is closely linked to the principle of non- discrimination, and both should be considered together. These principles emphasize that no one should be unfairly or unlawfully denied rights granted by law. The Court further stated that equality before the law and non-discrimination do not imply that all distinctions between individuals are inherently discriminatory.

Page 452

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Differentiating between individuals or groups can be necessary if it serves a legitimate or rational purpose1.

in that case, the Court emphasized that individuals in similar situations or categories must be treated equally and that failure to do so without a legitimate and reasonable justification constitutes discrimination. it further stated that the Government may differentiate between individuals or groups without violating the principle of equality before the law or the principle of non- discrimination, provided that such differentiation is based on a reasonable and legitimate justification, complies with the law, and serves the public interest2.

in the case RS/iNCONST/SPEC00004/2019/SC, decided on 24/07/2020, for Counsel Nzafashwanayo Dieudonné, paragraph 31, it was explained that the principle of equality before the law means that the law must treat individuals within the same category equally and be applied uniformly. in other words, similar cases must be treated alike, meaning that no discrimination should exist among individuals in similar situations. it follows that individuals who do not belong to the same category cannot be treated the same way.

The Court also elaborated on these principles in case RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00001/2019/SC involving Me Murangwa Edward, emphasising that the principle of equality before the law means that individuals must be treated equally before the law, without discrimination or favour, and that any law enacted must

1 Judgment RS/iNCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023, Ngendahayo Kabuye v the Government of Rwanda, paragraphs 36 and 39. 2 idem, paragraph 57.

Page 453

19 Re MUNYEMANA

apply equally to those it governs. The Court also stated that similar cases must be treated alike, while different cases should be treated differently according to their differences. Moreover, although individuals should be equal before the law, differentiation or categorisation does not always constitute discrimination. b. The consequences of the crime of child defilement, both against children and non-children in general

A review published by the United Nations, which compiles judgments rendered by international Courts on gender- based violence—including the international Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the international Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone—reveals that gender-based violence causes severe physical and psychological suffering. The psychological trauma experienced by victims of such violence can be exacerbated by societal and cultural factors, making it particularly severe and long-lasting3. Forced sexual intercourse inflicts extreme physical and mental pain, and the psychological suffering of survivors may be intensified by social and cultural circumstances, leading to profound and enduring consequences.

3 United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Review of the Sexual Violence Elements of the Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone in the Light of Security Council Resolution 1820, (United Nations, 2010), p.

34. States that “Rape causes severe pain and suffering, both physical and psychological. The psychological suffering of persons upon whom rape is inflicted may be exacerbated by social and cultural conditions and can be particularly acute and long lasting.”

Page 454

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The judgment R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, emphasized that in order to effectively combat the crime of child defilement, judges must first fully understand the gravity and harm caused by such offenses when determining sentences. The ruling highlighted that failing to recognize or align with the legislator’s intent behind laws against such crimes can lead to an improper undervaluation of their severity. This, in turn, can allow flawed reasoning to influence sentencing practices, resulting in the misapplication of aggravating or mitigating factors. A thorough understanding of the harm caused by these offenses ensures that sentences reflect contemporary societal awareness of the nature and gravity of gender-based violence against children, preventing misconceptions and biases from affecting sentencing decisions4.

The aforementioned judgment further emphasized that the fundamental interests protected by sentencing laws for child defilement offenses include personal autonomy, bodily integrity, sexual integrity, dignity, and the equality of children. it

4 R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, para 50, accessible on https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc- csc/scc-csc/en/item/18238/index.do? q=R.+v.+Friesen states that “To effectively respond to sexual violence against children, sentencing judges need to properly understand the wrongfulness of sexual offences against children and the profound harm that they cause. Getting the wrongfulness and harmfulness right is important…. failure to recognize or appreciate the interests that the legislative scheme of offences protects can result in unreasonable underestimations of the gravity of the offence. Similarly, it can result in stereotypical reasoning filtering into the sentencing process and the consequent misidentification and misapplication of aggravating and mitigating factors. Properly understanding the harmfulness will help bring sentencing law into line with society’s contemporary understanding of the nature and gravity of sexual violence against children and will ensure that past biases and myths do not filter into the sentencing process.”

Page 455

21 Re MUNYEMANA

underscored that sexual violence against children infringes upon their autonomy in a distinct manner compared to adults, as children lack the legal capacity to consent to sexual activity with adults. This means they require protection to ensure their development is free from exploitation and coercion into sexual acts by older individuals5.

The judgment also stated, in paragraphs 76 to 80, that child defilement is inherently evil and causes severe harm, always placing the child at significant risk of serious injury. The ruling emphasized that the harm inflicted is inherent to the nature of each offense. Such abuse invariably involves the use of force inherent in the act of sexual penetration against a child. Additionally, the court highlighted that aggravating factors stem from the compounded violation of the child’s sexual autonomy alongside physical harm. The ruling affirmed that when an offender engages in sexual acts with a child, it results in both psychological and physical trauma. Furthermore, it established that physical and psychological harm are deeply intertwined, with the effects of such abuse leaving lifelong scars on the child’s well-being6.

5 ibid., para 54 – 59. States that “This emphasis on personal autonomy, bodily integrity, sexual integrity, dignity, and equality requires courts to focus their attention on emotional and psychological harm, not simply physical harm. Sexual violence against children can cause serious emotional and psychological harm that may often be more pervasive and permanent in its effect than any physical harm…... These forms of harm are particularly pronounced for children. Sexual violence can interfere with children’s self- fulfillment and healthy and autonomous development to adulthood precisely because children are still developing and learning the skills and qualities to overcome adversity. For this reason, even a single instance of sexual violence can permanently alter the course of a child’s life.” 6 Idem., para 77. States that “…violence is always inherent in the act of applying force of a sexual nature to a child. Far from removing the violence,

Page 456

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

c. The principle of proportionality between the seriousness of the offence and the punishment

in the aforementioned judgment, R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, the Supreme Court of Canada elaborated on the principle that the severity of a sentence must correspond to the gravity of the offense. The court explained that all sentencing aligns with the principle that punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the offender (principle of proportionality). A judge determining a sentence also considers the principle that offenders who commit the same crime under similar circumstances should receive similar punishments (principle of parity). These two principles are not contradictory; rather, adherence to one ensures the fulfilment of the other. Conversely, imposing identical sentences for offenses that are not identical would violate both the principle of proportionality and the

the sexual dimension instead aggravates the wrongfulness of the violence by adding interference with the child’s sexual integrity to the interference with the child’s bodily integrity. Physical contact of a sexual nature with a child always means that the offender has interfered with both the child’s security of the person from any non-consensual contact or threats of force and the child’s bodily integrity, which lies at the core of human dignity and autonomy. Such physical sexual contact is also a form of psychological violence precisely because bodily and psychological integrity are closely linked. The degree of physical interference and the intensity of physical and psychological violence vary depending on the facts of individual cases. However, any physical contact of a sexual nature with a child always constitutes a wrongful act of physical and psychological violence even if it is not accompanied by additional physical violence and does not result in physical or psychological injury. Courts must always give effect to this inherent violence since it forms an integral component of the normative character of the offender’s conduct.”

Page 457

23 Re MUNYEMANA

principle of parity. This principle ultimately illustrates how sentencing must be based on the gravity of the offense7.

Law scholars further state that basic principles of proportionality dictate that criminal punishment should be meted out not only based on the nature of the perpetrator’s criminal actions, but also by his blameworthiness. included among the factors that the courts have traditionally considered when determining the degree to which a person is held responsible or blameworthy for criminal actions are the individual’s decision- making capacity, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, and the individual’s character8.

On the basis of the explanations and precedents established in the above-mentioned cases decided by this Court with regard to the principles of equality and non-discrimination before the law, the Court finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated how the penalties for the crime of child defilement are inconsistent with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner merely compares the sentences imposed on those convicted of this crime with those imposed on persons found guilty of assault and battery resulting in visible bodily harm, such as the amputation of an arm.

7 R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, para 30-33, available at https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc- csc/scc-csc/en/item/18238/index.do? q=R.+v.+Friesen. states that “Parity and proportionality do not exist in tension; rather, parity is an expression of proportionality. A consistent application of proportionality will lead to parity. Conversely, an approach that assigns the same sentence to unlike cases can achieve neither parity nor proportionality. In practice, parity gives meaning to proportionality.” 8 Barry C. Feld and Donna M. Bishop, The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice (Oxford University Press, USA, 12 Jan 2012), p. 539

Page 458

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Based on the above analysis and various cases interpreting the principles enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, the Court finds that these two crimes are distinct. Consequently, those who commit them cannot be subjected to the same punishment, as they are punished for different offenses. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that there was discrimination when the nature of the acts committed and their impact on society differ from those of the person with whom the petitioner seeks comparison.

For all the reasons outlined above, the Court finds that Article 14, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, which provides for crimes and penalties in general, does not contradict Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Whether paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, are inconsistent with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda

Counsel Kayitana Evode, representing Munyemana Dionize, argues that Article 29 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to due process of law [...]; and that in interpreting due process of law and its components, the Supreme Court, in judgment RS/iNCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC rendered on 04/10/2019, stated that “due process of law consists of a set of requirements that must be observed in the conduct of a trial based on the principles established by law (procedural due process) and due process of law that prevents the enactment of laws or other unreasonable measures that infringe on citizens' rights (substantive due process)." He contends that the penalties

Page 459

25 Re MUNYEMANA

provided in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, mentioned above, are excessively severe in comparison to the gravity of the crime, thus being inconsistent with Article 29 of the Constitution for the following reasons: a. A person who amputates a child's legs or arms is sentenced to no more than 15 years in prison, which raises concerns about the disproportionate severity of a 20-year or life imprisonment sentence for merely touching a child's genitals, sometimes without even committing the full act of sexual assault, as stated by the Prosecution in the case of Munyemana Dionize. b. No due process of law can be claimed when a person receives a sentence whose severity is not proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed. c. There are many people who have experienced child defilement who now have stable families, children and successful careers without significant life difficulties. One example of someone who faced child defilement and gone on to become an influential global figure is Pastor Joyce Meyer, who has publicly testified that her father defiled her around 200 times. However, this did not stop her from building a strong family and becoming one of the world's most prominent pastors. d. Some of the acts punishable under this law do not involve actual "sexual penetration", such as touching a child's genitals or breasts, or kissing a child for the purpose of sexual arousal. The argument is that this provision does not ensure due process of law, as a person convicted of merely kissing a child could face 20 years or life

Page 460

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imprisonment, while someone who amputates a child's limbs would receive no more than 15 years. This, he argues, constitutes an injustice prohibited by the principle of "substantive due process" enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution. e. The Supreme Court, in case RS/iNCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC involving Kabasinga Florida, explained that Rwandan laws contain sentencing disparities. Consequently, the Court recommended the establishment of a sentencing policy that grants judges the discretion to impose penalties based on the severity of the crime and its impact.

Counsel Karemera Georges, representing the Government of Rwanda, argues that Article 29 of the Constitution pertains to the right to due process of law ("droit à la garantie judiciaire"). He argues that paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, do not contradict Article 29 of the Constitution for the following reasons: a. The severity of a sentence does not imply that the convicted person has been denied the right to due process or that they have not been granted the rights guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution. b. Regarding substantive due process, the petitioner fails to demonstrate that the penalties provided for in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Article 14 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, mentioned above, are unreasonable or infringe on the rights of citizens. The petitioner merely argues that the penalties are severe, which does not align

Page 461

27 Re MUNYEMANA

with the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited in his submissions. c. The petitioner referenced Pastor Joyce Meyer as an example to suggest that the crime of child defilement does not have severe consequences. However, this assertion is fundamentally incorrect, as Pastor Joyce Meyer herself has stated that being defiled by her father from a young age had a profoundly negative impact on her development. it is difficult to fully grasp the extent of the harm caused to a child who is subjected to such abuse9. d. The penalties imposed on individuals convicted of child defilement aim to protect the rights of children and society at large. They serve to safeguard children from individuals like Munyemana Dionize and act as a deterrent to potential offenders who might contemplate committing such crimes but refrain due to fear of the punishment they could face.

On behalf of the Amicus Curiae (Certa Foundation), Counsel Kabasinga Florida, its representative, states that: a. The ongoing debates may downplay the severity of gender-based violence compared to other forms of harm. This minimization could unintentionally reinforce

9 Pastor Joyce Meyer states this in the following words: “I was so profoundly ashamed because of this. I was ashamed of me, and I was ashamed of my father and what he did. I was also constantly afraid. There was no place I ever felt safe growing up. I don't think we can even begin to imagine what kind of damage this does to a child. At school I pretended I had a normal life, but I felt lonely all the time and different from everyone else. I never felt like I fit in….”

Page 462

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

attitudes that diminish the gravity of child defilement and manipulate perceptions of victims. b. Focusing solely on the physical acts constituting the crime may hinder a full understanding of the broader negative consequences of any form of gender-based violence, especially when it involves children. This could lead to a perception that the penalties for such crimes are inadequate. c. The justice system should not limit itself to assessing only the physical consequences of rape. While such consequences—such as disabilities, organ dysfunction, pregnancies, or even deaths due to unsafe abortions—are severe, the psychological effects on victims of rape or defilement are equally significant yet often overlooked. d. The notion that survivors of rape can lead fulfilling lives, work, and establish families, as highlighted in Joyce Meyer’s story, may hold true for some. However, this does not negate the deep trauma many survivors often endure. Joyce Meyer herself never claimed to be unaffected by the abuse she suffered. e. A study conducted between June 2015 and July 2016 at Kenyatta National Hospital and Nairobi Women’s Hospital, involving 40 individuals who had been raped by family members, revealed that child survivors suffered from poor academic performance, low self- esteem, depression, and difficulty maintaining healthy relationships. f. When analysing cases of rape, consideration must also be given to the impact on the survivor’s family. For example, due to the sexual abuse inflicted by their father,

Page 463

29 Re MUNYEMANA

Joyce Meyer’s younger brother developed substance abuse issues and ultimately died by suicide. This highlights how rape can have devastating ripple effects on the survivor’s family. g. When addressing the crime of rape, it is essential not to focus solely on the potential unfairness of punishment for perpetrators, who may argue that sentences are disproportionate. Prioritizing the rights and perspectives of offenders over the well-being of survivors risks fostering a dangerous narrative that places greater emphasis on the accused rather than the harmed individuals. h. in the case of Linda Loaiza v. Venezuela, the inter- American Court of Human Rights ruled that the sexual violence inflicted on Linda Loaiza constituted a violation of her right to sexual autonomy. it deprived her of the freedom to choose her sexual partner and stripped her of the right to make decisions regarding the fundamental functioning of her own body. i. Discussions on serious issues such as child defilement must be conducted with sensitivity, avoiding language that could reinforce harmful perceptions or negatively impact victims' well-being. j. The punishment of offenders serves a necessary retributive purpose, but other forms of justice—such as incapacitation (restricting an offender’s ability to reoffend), deterrence (preventing future crimes), rehabilitation (reintegration into society), and reparation (compensating for harm done)—should also be considered.

Page 464

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

k. Sexual violence against children can take various forms and does not always involve penetration or damage to the hymen. Abuse can also be perpetrated against boys and may include acts beyond vaginal penetration, such as oral sexual assault or other forms of sexual arousal. The Court of Appeal in Uganda has ruled that establishing child sexual abuse does not necessarily require evidence of full penetration. Even partial penetration is sufficient to constitute the offense, and the absence of a hymen should not be used as the sole criterion for determining whether a child has been sexually assaulted.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 29, paragraph one, of the Constitution stipulates that everyone has the right to due process of law, […].

Article 49 of the Law Nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general highlights factors taken into account by a judge in determining a penalty. This article reads that A judge determines a penalty according to the gravity, consequences of, and the motive for committing the offence, the offender’s prior record and personal situation and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. […].

in the case RS/iNCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, decided on 04/12/2019, Kabasinga Florida, the Supreme Court explained that the concept of due process can be interpreted in different ways. There is procedural due process, which refers to a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles, meaning a sequence of steps that must be followed in

Page 465

31 Re MUNYEMANA

the conduct of a case based on the legal principles established by law. There is also substantive due process, which refers to protection against the enactment of arbitrary and unreasonable legislation or other measures that would violate people's rights. This form of due process prevents the adoption of laws or measures that lack reasonableness and infringe on the rights of citizens.

in the case RS/iNCONST/SPEC00005/2020/CS - RS/iNCONST/SPEC00006/2020/CS, decided on 12/02/2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision mandating a life sentence for a person convicted of child defilement, without the possibility of reduction due to mitigating circumstances, is unconstitutional. This means that when mitigating circumstances are present, the life sentence prescribed by that provision can be reduced. Furthermore, in the case RS/iNJUST/RP 00003/2019/SC, decided on 28/01/2022, Niyonsaba Eric v the Prosecution, the Supreme Court reduced the life sentence initially imposed on Niyonsaba Eric by the Court of Appeal for child defilement. Based on mitigating circumstances, the Court sentenced him to fifteen (15) years of imprisonment.

The Court finds that the above discussion demonstrates that a judge is not prohibited from reducing the sentence of a person convicted of child defilement if he finds mitigating circumstances, contrary to the assertions of Counsel Kayitana Evode.

Regarding the gravity of the crime of child defilement as one of the factors considered in determining the appropriate sentence for the accused, in the case of Botha v The State

Page 466

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

(546/2021) [2022] ZASCA 87 (08 June 2022)10, decided by the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, the issue under review was whether the 36-year prison sentence imposed by the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, due to the concurrence of multiple sexual offenses, was excessive or inappropriate, and whether the Supreme Court of Appeal should intervene through other legal mechanisms. in its analysis in paragraph 18, the Court explained that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating circumstances, emphasizing that the gravity of the offense and the stigma associated with child defilement could not be taken lightly, given its profound impact on the structure of the family and society, as well as the well-documented psychological and emotional trauma inflicted on the child […]. The Court acknowledged that a 36- year sentence was severe but not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offenses for which it was imposed. it concluded that the High Court had not exercised its sentencing discretion in an unreasonable manner.

10 Accessible on https://www.supremecourtofappeal.org.za/index.php/component/jdownloads/ summary/38- judgments-2022/3845-botha-v-the-state-546-2021-2022-zasca- 87-08-june-2022, or on https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2022/87.html., paragraph 18. “The aggravating factors far outweigh the mitigating factors in this case. The individual sentences were not severe. The gravity of the offences and the scourge of such offences on helpless and vulnerable children cannot be downplayed and the effect of these crimes cannot be understated. The impact on the family structure and community, as well as the psychological harm and adverse emotional impact on the child, are well known. A concurrence of the sentences was not possible on account of the abominable conduct of the appellant. 13 We accept that a sentence of 36 years’ imprisonment is severe, but the facts of this case are such that a sentence of 36 years’ imprisonment is not shockingly disproportionate to the crime. The high court did not exercise its discretion unreasonably. There is no reason to interfere with the sentences imposed.”

Page 467

33 Re MUNYEMANA

The Court finds that, as demonstrated in the analysis of the first issue examined above, as well as in the assessment of the issue under review in this section, the gravity of the crime of child defilement and its impact on both the victim and society, although the penalties imposed for this crime are severe, they do not outweigh its consequences and seriousness. The Court also notes that the severity of this crime has been highlighted in reports conducted by the Rwanda investigation Bureau (RiB)11 and the National Public Prosecution Authority (NPPA)12, which indicate a significant increase in cases of child defilement.

The Court further finds, as highlighted by the Amicus Curiae, that in addressing the crime of child defilement, the focus should not be solely on the alleged injustice faced by offenders who claim that the punishment is disproportionate to the severity of the crime. Sufficient attention must also be given to the impact on the victims. Otherwise, there is a risk of unintentionally fostering a perception that prioritizes the rights and perspectives of sexual offenders over the well-being of the victims. All these factors must be taken into account when imposing a sentence.

11 Report by Rwanda investigation Bureau (RiB), Statistical Analysis of Child Defilement - From July 2018 to June 2021, at page 4 states that “…. in three fiscal years a total of 12,840 cases were recorded indicating an increase of 1,897 representing the rate of 55%. A total number of 13,646 victims and 13,485 suspects were recorded. The number of victims increased by 2,334 (66%) while suspects increased with margin of 2,096 (59%).” 12 The report on the activities carried out by the National Public Prosecution Authority for the year 2019–2020, on page 25, highlights the increasing trend in casse of sexual violence over the past seven years (July 2013 – June 2020). It shows that the number of child defilement case increased from 1,819 in 2013–2014 to 3,793 in 2019–2020.

Page 468

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Sentencing the crime of child defilement with severe penalties, based on its serious and long-term impact on the victim in particular and on society in general, is not unique to Rwanda, as evidenced by the criminal laws of countries such as Uganda13, Kenya14, and Tanzania15.

13 The Penal Code (amendment) Act, 2007, section 129 states that “(1) Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years, commits a felony known as defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment. (2) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding eighteen years. (3) Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4) commits a felony called aggravated defilement and is, on conviction by the High Court, liable to suffer death.” 14 The Sexual Offences Act, no 3 of 2006 of Kenya, states that “(1) A person who commits an act which causes penetration with a child is guilty of an offence termed defilement. (2) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life. (3) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years. (4) A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of sixteen and eighteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for

a term of not less than fifteen years.” 15 Tanzania: Act No. 4 of 1998, Sexual Offences Special Provisions Act, 1998, section 131, states that “(1) Any person who commits rape is except in the cases provided for in the renumbered subsection (2), liable to be punished with imprisonment for life, and in any case for imprisonment of not less than thirty years with corporal punishment, and with fine, and shall in addition be ordered to pay compensation of an amount determined by the court, to the person in respect of whom the offence was committed for the injuries caused to such person. (2) Notwithstanding the provision of any law, where the offence is committed by a boy who is of the age of eighteen years or less, he shall- (A)if a first offender, be sentenced to corporal punishment only; (B)if a second time offender, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of twelve months with corporal punishment; (C)if a third time and recidivist offender he shall be

Page 469

35 Re MUNYEMANA

The Court finds that Counsel Kayitana Evode, representing Munyemana Dionize, does not demonstrate how Article 14, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, which he is challenging, infringes on the petitioner’s right to due process as provided for in Article 29 of the Constitution.

in the light of the explanations provided, the Court finds that the request by Munyemana Dionize that the penalties provided for in Article 14, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 to be reduced and immediately to him and to all persons convicted of the same offence who have not yet fully served their sentences, does not require any further examination. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the petition lodged by Munyemana Dionize, represented by Counsel Kayitana Evode, to declare that Article 14, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, is inconsistent with Articles 15, 16, and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, is without merit.

Declares that Article 14, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Law No. 059/2023 of 04/12/2023, amending Law No. 68/2018 of

sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to subsection (1). (3) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section whoever commits an offence of rape to a girl under the age of ten years shall on conviction be sentenced to life imprisonment.”

Page 470

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, is not inconsistent with Articles 15, 16, and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

Page 471

37 Re MUNYEMANA

PROCEDURAL CASES

Page 472

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 473

39 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE ET AL.

RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE ET AL. [Rwanda SUPREME COURT RS/REV/RAD 00001/2021/SC (Mukamulisa P.J, Muhumuza and Kazungu, J.) 22 February 2024] Administrative–procedure–Mediation–Mediation report– Closing of a case–Without further procedure, a case is closed in consideration of the content of the mediation agreement which is subject to execution. Facts: Rutazibwa, the son of late Fundi, inventoried all his father’s assets for succession by all Fundi’s heirs and they include some pieces of land located in the Districts of Nyamasheke, Rutsiro and Karongi. After inventorying the assets, Rutazibwa intended to present them to his siblings but they declined, since they did not want him to be the head of the Fundi’s family, they wanted to succeed ½ of the property, another part should be subject to succession, rather it should be given to Mukandutiye, the de cujus’s legitimate surviving spouse. Due to that disagreement, Rutazibwa filed a claim before the intermediate Court of Karongi, requesting to the Court to allow him present the assets he inventoried which belonged to Fundi, to be given his portion, and to be refunded for the expenses he incurred during the inventory of assets subject to the succession. Before the intermediate Court decides on the matter, Mukandutiye had already proceeded to the registration on her names of some of the assets subject to the succession and has already acquired related land ownership titles; but, Rutazibwa 39

Page 474

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

challenged such acquisition, and the Court decided that the registered property should be returned into the patrimony of Fundi’s family. With regard to some pieces of land for which the claimant complained that they are registered under MiNiRENA, as well some other pieces of land that never featured on the list provided by the registrar of land titles, the Court decided that they should remain under the names to which they are registered. The claimant lodged appeal against the decision of the intermediate Court before the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, which rendered the judgment RADA 00001/2016/HC/RSZK, and ruled that appellant’s claim is unfounded. He filed appeal against such decision before the Supreme Court, Mukandutiye lodged a cross-appeal before the same Court, but the Supreme Court held that their appeals are unfounded. Rutazibwa applied for the review of the judgment RADAA 00004/2017/SC before the Supreme Court but his application was not considered, for the second time he applied for review, by stating that such ground is different from the previously examined. in this case, all parties agreed on resolving the dispute through mediation, and they chose Counsel Butare for the mediation; the Court honoured the parties’ choice, and the mediator was granted the time to work on the assignment and provide the mediation report. Following the issues between them on the

disputed property, the Court examined whether the mediation report can be approved because both parties have agreed that State-registered land should be registered under the heirs of Fundi and other pieces of land not registered to the heirs mentioned in the judgment under review, the parties agreed that Fundi’s heirs should submit to the National Land Authority all documents required by the law for land registration under their names as long as such a registration is not

Page 475

41 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE ET AL.

contested. While for some pieces of land that were occupied by some private individuals in Rutsiro District, the litigating parties agreed that such property shall be registered under Fundi’s heirs. The parties therefore request to the Court to approve the above mediation agreement for execution more so that there is no longer dispute between them. Held: Without further procedure, a case is closed in consideration of the content of the mediation agreement which is subject to execution. The application for the case review is adjudicated as per the terms of the parties’ agreement in the mediation report. Statutes referred to: Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 241. No cases were referred to. Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Fundi Project deceased on 23/01/1997, and left Mukandutiye Bellancille, his legally married spouse and their children together with some other children begot to different various women. Rutazibwa Alexandre, one of Fundi Project’s children, argues that he inventoried all his late father’s assets

Page 476

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

subject to succession, which include the pieces of land located in the Districts of Nyamasheke, Rutsiro and Karongi. He argues that after inventorying his father’s assets, he intended to present them to the family but some of his siblings declined, as they did not want him as the head of their father Fundi Project’s family, they wanted that ½ of the property should not be subject to succession, rather it should be given to Mukandutiye Bellancille, the legitimate spouse of Fundi Project.

Due to that disagreement, Rutazibwa Alexandre filed a claim before the intermediate Court of Karongi, requesting to the Court to allow him present the assets he inventoried which belonged to Fundi Project, to be given his portion, and to be refunded for the expenses he incurred during the inventory of assets subject to the succession. The claim was docketed as RC 211/13/ TGi/ KRGi.

However, before the intermediate Court of Karongi decides on the matter, Mukandutiye Bellancille had already proceeded to the registration on her names of some of the assets subject to the succession and has already acquired related land ownership titles. Rutazibwa Alexandre challenged such acquisition before the intermediate Court of Karongi, he requests to the Court that the property registered under the names of Mukandutiye Bellancille should be returned into the patrimony of Fundi Project’s heirs together with the pieces of land that have never featured on the list from the registrar of land titles and the land registered under MiNiRENA. The claim was docketed as RADA 0039/14/TGi/KRGi.

The intermediate Court of Karongi heard the judgment RAD 0039/TGi/KRGi on 14/07/2016, and held that the pieces of land with UPi 03/07/4/5439, 03/07/4/5442, 03/07/4/5452,

Page 477

43 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE ET AL.

03/07/4/5482, 03/07/4/5489, 03/07/4/5490, 03/07/4/5491, 03/07/4/5493, 03/07/4/5501, 03/07/4/5509, 03/07/4/5516, 03/07/4/5534, 03/07/4/5506, should be deregistered from Mukandutiye Bellancille and be returned into the family of Fundi Project, composed by his heirs and registered under their names. The Court also held that the land registered under MiNiRENA should be maintained by it; while the pieces of land for which Rutazibwa Alexandre requested Rwanda Natural Resources Authority (RNRA) to be listed as the property to be returned in the Fundi Project’s family, should remain registered under the names of the current owners.

Rutazibwa Alexandre appealed against the above ruling before the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, sitting in Karongi on 17/03/201, and the Court heard the judgment RADA 00001/2016/HC/RSZK, and held that the claimant’s appeal is unfounded, and the judgment RAD 0039/14/TGi/KGi rendered by the intermediate Court of Karongi, is sustained.

Rutazibwa Alexandre lodged appeal before the Supreme Court, Mukandutiye Bellancille filed a cross-appeal before the same Court. On 02/02/2018, the Supreme Court rendered the judgment RADAA 00004/2017/SC, and held that the appeal filed by Rutazibwa Alexandre and the cross-appeal lodged by Mukandutiye Bellancille are both unfounded. The Court ordered to Rutazibwa Alexandre to pay to MiNiRENA and RNRA, 400,000 Frw as procedural fee for each one.

On 18/04/2018, Rutazibwa Alexandre applied for the review of the judgment RADAA 00004/2017/SC rendered on 02/02/2018, stating there was fraud in the adjudication of the case for which he applied for review; on 27/09/2019, the Supreme

Page 478

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Court rendered the judgment RS/REV/RAD 0001/2018/SC and held that his application is not admitted for examination.

On 27/11/2020, Rutazibwa Alexandre applied again for review of the judgment RADAA 00004/2017/SC, arguing that he relies on a ground different from the one brought forth in the judgment RS/REV/RAD 00001/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/09/2019, the application was docketed on RS/REV/RAD 00001/2021/SC in the Supreme Court register of claims.

The above case should be heard on 09/02/2022, but it was adjourned because Rutazibwa Alexandre and Mukandutiye Bellancille were absent without reasonable ground. The Court charged them with a civil fine of one hundred thousand (100,000 Frw) to each one for deliberately delaying the case.

On 19/04/2022, the case was heard in public, Rutazibwa Alexandre was assisted by Counsel Mutembe Protais, while Mukandutiye Bellancille was represented by Counsel iribagiza Rose, assisted by Counsel Rugemintwaza Jean Marie Vianney, whereas the Government of Rwanda (MiNiRENA) was represented by Counsel Cyubahiro Fiat acting on behalf of State Attorney General; while Rwanda Natural Resources Authority was represented by Counsel Habiyambere Clement.

During the hearing, all parties agreed that their dispute should be settled through the mediation, and they chose Counsel Butare Emmanuel as their Mediator. The Court approved their choice and the mediator was given the time to complete his assignment and submit the mediation report to the Court. On 29/08/2022, the mediator submitted to the Court the mediation report signed by all parties.

Page 479

45 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE ET AL.

The hearing for approving the mediation report was conducted on 10/10/2022, and all parties were present and represented as previously.

The Court first reminded all parties the current state of the case, and informed them that it has already received the mediation report signed by all parties, and they were requested to react about it. Counsel Mutembe Protais submitted that the mediation settled the issue concerning the Fundi Project’s pieces of land registered under the Government of Rwanda as they were allegedly marshlands, unresolved issue was about Fundi Project’s land shared between the children of Fundi Project and some private individuals who admit that they have no dispute with the children of Fundi Project, the remaining issue concerns their signature, he requested to the Court to suspend the hearing so as to end the process of obtaining the signatures of concerned individuals and register those plots under the names of the heirs of Fundi Project.

Counsel Cyubahiro Fiat, representing the Government of Rwanda, states that the mediation conducted about the land- related issue between Rutazibwa Alexandre and the Government of Rwanda, settled that issue, he admits that the concerned property belongs to the heirs of Fundi Project and should be registered under their names. He further argued that there is no reason for postponing the hearing in order to allow the claimant to obtain the signatures of the individuals, as the issue related to those plots is not included in the subject matters of this case.

Counsel Habiyambere Clement, representing Rwanda Natural Resources Authority submitted that the mediation pointed out the formalities to be fulfilled by the heirs of Fundi Project for Rwanda Natural Resources Authority to register their

Page 480

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

plots under their names allegedly possessed by other individuals. He as well notes that there is no reasonable ground for adjourning the hearing, more so that Rutazibwa’s request had already been discussed through the mediation.

After receiving the mediation report indicating that the parties reached the agreement, but the side of Rutazibwa Alexandre needed more time to sort an issue concerning some pieces of land that should be registered under Succession of Fundi Project, the Court adjourned the hearing, and gave him one-month for resolving the issue.

The hearing was resumed on 19/12/2022 and 24/04/2023, by examining whether the request was granted. The Court found that the request was not granted, since the claimant stated that he had any conflict with the individuals; their challenge is still meeting all the involved individuals for affixing their signatures. The Court gave him more two-month time period, afterwards, in case the issue is not settled, the Court shall make a decision.

The hearing was resumed on 13/02/2024, Rutazibwa Alexandre was represented by Counsel Mutembe Protais, while Counsel Cyubahiro Fiat represented the Government of Rwanda on behalf of the State Attorney General. Rwanda Natural Resources Authority was represented by Counsel Habiyambere Clement, while Mukandutiye Bellancille and iribagiza Rose, her legal counsel, were not present.

Having noted that Mukandutiye Bellancille represented by Counsel iribagiza Rose did not appear while she was notified about the hearing date through integrated Electronic Case Management System (iECMS), the Court decided to hear the case in her absence.

Page 481

47 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE ET AL.

Counsel Habiyambere Clement, representing Rwanda Natural Resources Authority was given the floor for providing explanations about the documents he uploaded into the iECMS. He submitted that the institution he represented executed the Court’s order, and all the concerned pieces of land located in the Districts of Karongi and Nyamasheke were all registered under the names of Fundi Project’ heirs, the plots not yet registered, are located in Rutsiro District, all individuals admitted that those plots belong to the heirs of Fundi Project, the remaining process is the land registration under their names.

Counsel Mutembe Protais, representing Rutazibwa Alexandre, submits that Fundi Project’s heirs have already submitted all the required documents for the registration of all the concerned property located in Rutsiro District, he notes that the remaining formalities they have to follow are administrative; he has no further worries more so that the legal counsel of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority has assured that the institution has already received all the required documents for land registration, he concluded by submitting that he endorses the content of the mediation report, and there is no other reasonable ground for not closing the case. He requested to the Court to approve the mediation report.

Counsel Habiyambere Clement and Counsel Cyubahiro Fiat asserted that there is no other issue to examine in this case since all the matters have been sorted out. They requested to the Court to approve the mediation report for allowing Rutazibwa Alexandre to proceed with administrative formalities for the registration of the remaining property located in Rutsiro District.

Page 482

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE

OF THE CASE 1. Whether the mediation agreement should be approved.

As it is indicated in the mediation agreement of 29/08/2022, it is clear that the involved parties agreed that the pieces of land registered under UPi: 3/07/04/02/5447, and UPi: 3/07/02/5448 must be deregistered from the Government of Rwanda and registered under the names of Fundi Project’s heirs, the remaining plots registered under UPi: 3/07/04/02/5449, UPi:3/07/02/5445, and UPi: 3/07/04/02/5444, do not belong to Fundi Project’s heirs, they do not constitute the subject matter. For the rest of other claimed land that has not yet been registered under Fundi Project’s heirs, the involved parties agreed that such property shall as well be registered under Fundi Project’s heirs upon submitting to Rwanda Natural Resources Authority all documents required by the law for the land registration under their names, in case such registration is not challenged. All the involved parties agreed to renounce all case-related damages and counsel fee claimed in this case.

As above mentioned, concerning the pieces of land that are held by private individuals in Rutsiro District for which Rutazibwa Alexandre had requested for the Court’s order for their registration under the names of Fundi Project’s heirs before the mediation report approval, all the involved parties agreed in the hearing of 13/02/2024 that since Rutazibwa Alexandre has already submitted all the required documents, the concerned property shall as well be registered under the names of Fundi Project’s heirs, they request that as there is no any other issue, the case should be executed as asserted by the mediator.

Page 483

49 RUTAZIBWA v MUKANDUTIYE ET AL.

The Court finds that this case should be closed without any further procedure, and the mediation agreement of 29/08/2022 shall be executed as per the provisions of article 241, 70 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which provides that one of the enforcement orders is an agreement contract signed by the parties and dispute mediation concluded out of court. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application filed before the Court by Rutazibwa Alexandre seeking the review of the judgment RADAA 00004/2017/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 02/02/2018 is adjudicated as per the parties’ agreement in the mediation report of 29/08/2022 that is hereinafter attached.

Orders that the mediation agreement shall be executed as it is drafted.

Page 484

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 485

51 PROSECUTION v NYANDWI

PROSECUTION v NYANDWI [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RPAA 00477/2023/CA (Kanyange, P.J.) June 21, 2024] Criminal procedure – Appeal – Time Limits for Appeal - When a judgement is pronounced while the accused is in the police custody, it is clear that s/he cannot file an appeal, because, based on the structure of the system (IECMS), concerning the judgments adjudicated for the suspects who are detained, they are communicated to the correctional facilities where they are detained, the correctional facilities’administration is then responsible for notifying the concerned individuals and assisting them in filing their appeals through this electronic system, this means that the accused cannot be aware of the court's decision in his/her case to enable him/her to file an appeal, rather, upon arrival in the correction facility, s/he can be informed of the judgment ruling, consequently, the time limits for filing an appeal for such individual must be calculated starting from that day. Criminal procedure – Appeal – When an appeal should be admitted by the Court but was dismissed, the decision to reject the appeal is revoked, and the appeal is transferred to the Court so that the case is heard on the merits. Facts: This case started from the intermediate Court of Rusizi, where the defendant was being prosecuted for the crime of child defilement, after the defendant was caught red-handed by the father of the seventeen (17) year old child M.M. he was defiling, for indicting him, the Prosecution relied on the elements of evidence including his confession during his interrogation and the victim accussed him as well as the witnesses who caught him

Page 486

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

red-handed. The defendant pleaded guilty, stating that they had mutually consented because she told him that she was eighteen (18) old. The Court ruled, declared him guilty of the crime of the child defilement, and sentenced him to twenty years (20) of imprisonment. The defendant appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, arguing that he was sentenced to a severe penalty despite he pleaded guilty. The Prosecution raised the objection related to the inadmissibility of the appeal because it was filed after the time limit as prescribed by the law as the appealed case was decided on May 27, 2021, and he prepared the court submissions on July 28, 2021, and submitted them to the Court on August 2, 2021. Therefore, the appeal was late, as he should have filed not later than May 26, 2021. The defendant contested this objection, explaining that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the COViD-19 pandemic and lockdown measures, as he was notified of the case on July 26, 2021, and filed the appeal on July 28, 2021 adding that he was able to file the appeal only after arriving at the correctional facility. The High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, ruled the case and declared the appeal inadmissible as it had been filed after the time limit set by law. The defendant filed a second appeal in the Court of Appeal, arguing that the High Court had dismissed his appeal, disregarding the fact that

the case he had appealed against was decided while he was in police custody due to the Covid-19 situation, and that he could only be able to appeal upon arrival in the correctionl facility; that in case the Court finds his appeal would have been admitted, the case should be transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi for being heard on the merits. The Prosecution also pleaded by stating that Nyandwi's appeal would have been admitted because he was tried being in the

Page 487

53 PROSECUTION v NYANDWI

police custody due to the Covid situation in the Country, so that those who were in custody stayed there for preventing them to be detained in the correctional facility as they would infect others, and they were notified of the decisions of their cases upon arrival in the correctional facility, he would not have had the opportunity to appeal; therefore his case should be transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, for being heard on the merits. Held: 1. When a judgement is pronounced while the accused is in the police custody, it is clear that s/he cannot file an appeal, because, based on the structure of the system (iECMS), concerning the judgments adjudicated for the suspects who are detained, they are communicated to the correctional facilities where they are detained, the correctional facilities’administration is then responsible for notifying the concerned individuals and assisting them in filing their appeals through this electronic system, this means that the accused cannot be aware of the court's decision in his/her case to enable him/her to file an appeal, rather, upon arrival in the correction facility, s/he can be informed of the judgment ruling, consequently, the time limits for filing an appeal for such individual must be calculated starting from that day.

2. When an appeal should be admitted by the Court but was dismissed, the decision to reject the appeal is revoked, and the appeal is transferred to the Court so that the case is heard on the merits. Therefore, Nyandwi's appeal is transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi for being heard on the merits. The appealed judgment is quashed. The case file is transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, for beaing adjudicated.

Page 488

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Statutes and statutory referred to: Law n° 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, article 181 and 193. Case laws referred to: Prosecution vs Bogere Barige, RPA 0022/14/CS decided by the Supreme Cour on 23/03/2018. Prosecution vs Niyinizeye Pacifique, RPAA 00055/2023/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 22/03/2024. Prosecution vs Kabayiza Sylver, RPAA 00020/2022/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 05/01/2023. Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 24/04/2021, Nyandwi innocent was caught red- handed by the father of a seventeen (17) year-old child, identified as M.M. in the appealed judgment, while defiling her. He called neighbors who rushed to the scene and immediately arrested him and handled him to the Rwanda investigation Bureau, where the prosecution against him commenced.

After the investigation, the Prosecution indicted him in the intermediate Court of Rusizi for the crime of child defilement based on the fact that he confessed to the crime during the interrogation, the testimony of the child he defiled as well as the witnesses who caught him red-handed, and also a birth certificate showing that M.M. was 17 years old. The Prosecution requested for him a sentence of 25 years of imprisonment.

Page 489

55 PROSECUTION v NYANDWI

Nyandwi innocent defended himself by stating that he defiled M.M on 30/04/2021 and it was the third time, but they mutually consented to it because she told him that she was eighteen (18) years old.

The Court rendered the judgment RP 00144/2023/TGi/RSZ on 27/05/2021, it found that there are the elements of evidence to convict Nyandwi innocent, which consist of: - his statements, where he confessed to the crime upon his arrest, explaining that he defiled M.M. more than twice; - the statements of M.M., who accused him of defiling her; - the statements of witnesses, including the father of the child who caught him red-handed; - the birth certificate of M.M indicates that she was defiled when she was seventeen (17) years old, therefore the statement of Nyandwi innocent that he defiled after they mutually consented and she was adult, cannot be considered as it contradicts with that certificate. However, it found that the fact that Nyandwi innocent easily pleaded guilty, from the investigation, should be a mitigating circumstance, and it ruled that he is convicted of the crime of child defilement, sentenced him to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.

Page 490

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nyandwi innocent appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, submitting that he was sentenced to severe penalties despite he pleaded guilty.

The Prosecution raised the objection related to the inadmissibility of his appeal because it was filed after the time limit provided for by the Law, due to the fact that the appealed judgment was decided on 27/05/2021, and he prepared the court submissions on July 28, 2021, and he submitted them to the Court on August 2, 2021, he delayed to lodge appeal as he should have filed not later than May 26, 2021.

With regard to this objection, Nyandwi innocent stated that the delay in filing appeal was due to the Covid situation and lockdown as he was notified of the case on 26/07/2021 and appealed on 28/07/2021, upon arrival in the correctional facility, he was able to lodge appeal.

The Court rendered the judgment RPA 00327/2021/HC/RSZ on 09/11/2023, it held that: - the judgment against which Nyandwi innocent appealed was heard in person, he was notified that it would be pronounced on 27/05/2021, he appealed on 28/07/2021, about two (2) months later, that is, after the 30-day period provided for by law, and as provided for by the court legal position set by the Supreme Court1, a party who was present or represented when the case was adjudicated, a person who was notified of the date of the decision and did not appear or send a representative, must appeal

1 it based on the judgment RPA 0022/14/CS decided on 23/03/2018

Page 491

57 PROSECUTION v NYANDWI

within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the date the case was decided; - the statement of Nyandwi innocent that the time limit should be calculated from the date he was notified of the judgment on 26/07/2021 contradicts with the position set in the judgment mentioned above; - his statement that he delayed to file appeal due to being placed in quarantine and lockdown, is not evidenced, and it is evident that during the COViD- 19 pandemic, the job was electronically performed. Therefore, it holds that his appeal is not admitted as it was filed after the time limit provided for by law.

Nyandwi innocent filed a second appeal in the Court of Appeal, the case was registered under no RPAA 00477/2023/CA, the hearing was fixed on 04/06/2024, on that day the hearing was held, he was assisted by Counsel Ntazika Néhémie, the Prosecution was represented by Ninahazwa Roselyne, the National Prosecutor.

in his appeal submissions and pleading, Nyandwi innocent and his counsel argue that the High Court dismissed his appeal, disregarding the fact that the appealed case was decided while he was in the police custody due to the COViD-19 pandemic, and that he was able to appeal upon arrival in the correctional facility; that if the Court finds that his appeal would have been admitted, the case should have been transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, for beaing heard on the merits.

The Prosecutor also argues that the appeal of Nyandwi innocent would have been admitted, because he was tried being

Page 492

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

in the police custody due to the Covid situation in the Country, and he would not have had the opportunity to appeal; therefore, his case should be transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi for beaing heard on the merits.

The debate in this case is based on whether the appeal of Nyandwi innocent should have been admitted by the High Court. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE i. Determine whether the appeal filed by Nyandwi Innocent should have been admitted to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi

Nyandwi innocent and his counsel argue that the High Court dismissed his appeal because he filed it after the time limit for the appeal provided for by law, disregarding the fact that it was due to the unavoidable reason of the COViD-19 pandemic, because at the first instance he was in the police custody while the case was being heard because they refused to let him go to where others were in order to prevent the pandemic, that he was notified of the decision of the judgment on 12/07/2021 and he appealed on 28/07/2021, that therefore his appeal should have been admitted and considered, that since this had not been done, the case should be transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, to be heard.

The Prosecutor states that the case file of Nyandwi innocent indicates that he appeared at the first instance on 26/04/2021 while he was in the police custody, the judgment was pronounced on 27/05/2021 while he was still in the police custody due to the exceptional circumstances caused by COViD-

Page 493

59 PROSECUTION v NYANDWI

19, which delayed the transfer of detainees to correctional facilities to prevent the infection of others, and they learned about the decisions of their cases upon arrival in the correctional facility and the case file indicates that Nyandwi innocent arrived there on 08/07/2021, therefore, due to these exceptional circumstances, the time limits for appeal were calculated from the time he arrived in the correctional facility and therefore, based on the provisions of article 193 of Law n° 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure, the Court should declare that his appeal should have been admitted, dismiss the appealed case and his appeal be transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, for being heard on the merits.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 181 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure provides that: “An appeal must be filed within a period of thirty (30) days from the pronouncement of the judgment with respect to a party that was present or represented at the pronouncement of the judgment. Such time limits also apply to a party duly notified of the date of judgment but fails to appear or to send a representative. An appeal is filed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date the judgment was notified to the party who was not present at the pronouncement’’.

Regarding the time limits for filing an appeal, the Supreme Court set a position in case no RPA 0022/14/CS, decided by the Supreme Court on 23/03/2018 between Prosecution and Bogere Barige, which was upheld by other cases, including the case no RPAA 00055/2023/CA, decided on 22/03/2024 between Prosecution and Niyinizeye Pacifique, which states that a party who was present or represented when

Page 494

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

the judgment was pronounced, and a party who was duly notified of the date of the pronouncement of the judgment but fails to appear or send a representative, must file an appeal within 30 days from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment.

According to the case file, Nyandwi innocent appeared in the intermediate Court of Rusizi on 26/05/2021, and was informed that the judgment would be pronounced on 27/05/2021, and it was pronounced on that day. The case file also indicates that Nyandwi innocent arrived at Rusizi Correctional facility (RCS arriving date) on 08/07/2021, meaning that the judgment against which he appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, was pronounced while he was still in the police custody due to the COViD-19 pandemic, which forced the prisoners to remain in isolation in order to prevent the spread of the pandemic, according to the Prosecution, meaning that the High Court's statement that NYANDWi failed to provide evidence to justify that he was in isolation is contradicted with the contents of the case file, which states that he arrived at the correctional facility on 08/07/2021.

in accordance with the provisions of article 181 of Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 mentioned above and upheld by the position set in the case mentioned above, the time limits for appeal for Nyandwi innocent should have been calculated from 27/05/2021 due to the fact that he was notified of the pronouncement date even though he could not appear on that day, the Court finds that since the case was pronounced while he was in the police custody, it is clear that he could not have appealed, because, based on the structure of the system (iECMS), the judgments concerning detained suspects are communicated to the correctional facilities where they are detained. The correctional

Page 495

61 PROSECUTION v NYANDWI

facilities’administration is then responsible for notifying the concerned individuals and assisting them in filing their appeals through this electronic system, because, although the High Court held that the technology was used at that time, it did not explain how a person who was in the police custody could use this technology to learn about his/her case and appeal.

The Court therefore finds that the fact that the case of Nyandwi innocent was tried at the first instance while he was still in the police custody due to the circumstances faced by the Country caused by the COViD-19 pandemic, means that he could not be aware of the judgment ruling for filing appeal, rather upon his arrival in the correctional facility on 08/07/2021, he could be informed of the judgment decision, meaning that the time limits for filing appeal should be calculated from that day, therefore the fact that he wrote the appeal letter on 28/7/2021, he respected the 30-day period provided for by the law, because even though the correctional facility’s administration did not put a date on which they received his letter while it is within their responsibilities, it must be considered as if they received it on that day, meaning that his appeal should have been admitted and considered.

Regarding the fact that the Court should hear the appeal of Nyandwi innocent, the Court finds that there is no debate because the parties agree that the case should be transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, such is also consistent with the provisions of the paragraph one of article 193 of the Law n° 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure2, and

2 if the appellate court finds that the case was filed through procedures that comply with the law and the court that tried it at first instance declared that the case was not admitted when it was admissible, the appellate court admits the case and indicates that the case would have been admitted at first instance;

Page 496

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

it is also consistent with the decisions taken in other cases involving a similar issue, such as the case n° RPAA 00020/2022/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 05/01/2023 between the Prosecution and Kabayiza Sylver, whereby, after finding that his appeal should have been admitted in the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, it declared that the judgment rendered by the same Court dismissing such appeal was quashed, and that his appeal should be transferred to that Court for being heard on the merits.

Based on the above explanations, the Court finds that the appeal of Nyandwi innocent should have been admitted by the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi, and therefore the appealed case should be quashed, and the claim of appeal he had filed, should be transferred to that Court for hearing on the merits. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal of Nyandwi innocent is founded;

Holds that the appeal filed in the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi should have been admitted;

Holds that the judgment nº RPA 00327/2021/HC/RSZ decided by the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi on 09/11/2023, is quashed;

Holds that the case file shall be transferred to the High Court, Chamber of Rusizi for hearing the appeal that Nyandwi innocent had already filed;

annuls it and transfers it to the court that tried it in order to be heard on merits with no any other payment of court fees”

Page 497

63 PROSECUTION v NYANDWI

Holds that the court fee is borne to the Public Treasury.

Page 498

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 499

65 Re MUNYEMANA

CASES ON MERIT

Page 500

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 501

67 Re MUNYEMANA

CIVIL CASES

Page 502

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 503

69 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL - RS/iNJUST/RC 00024/2022/CA (Munyangeri, P.J., Ngagi, Kamere, J.) November 15, 2024] Civil law – Damages resulting from accidents – Motor vehicle accidents – Accidents resulting in the miscarriage by the victim – Damages resulting from accidents causing the miscarriage by the victim are determined based on ordinary laws or applicable general principles of law. Facts: This case arises from an accident involving a vehicle insured by SANLAM PLc which injured Nyiraneza, who was seven (7) months pregnant, resulting in a miscarriage as indicated by a medical report. Nyiraneza, her husband Hakizimana and their two children, requested the insurer to award to them the damages for the death of the child, but SANLAM refused to pay them as it was not provided for by the law. They filed an appeal before the intermediate Court of Rubavu which ruled that no damages should be awarded because the civil party had no identification and the police report established just after the accident indicates that the victim is Nyiraneza. The claimants appealed against the decision before the High Court seeking damages, it ruled that they should be awarded damages based on the applicable general principles of law. SANLAM PLc was not satisfied and applied for the judgment review on grounds of injustice, and the case was transferred to the Court of Appeal for a retrial. This instant Court examined the 69

Page 504

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

issue of whether the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, should not have applied the general principle of law in determining moral damages. SANLAM AG PLc explains that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, ordered to it to pay the damages amounting to 2,000,000 Frw based on general laws rather than special laws. it further adds that the fact that the special law does not provide for such damages, was sufficient for the Court to order that such damages should not be awarded. The civil parties argue that there was no injustice for SANLAM because the damages awarded arose from the accident that occurred to Nyiraneza and took the life of her unborn child, based on the principle that any act of a person that causes harm to another obliges the author to pay for the damages caused. They further add that a judge is allowed to base his/her decision on general principles of laws on matters not provided for by law. Held: Damages arising from accidents causing the miscarriage to the victim are determined based on ordinary laws or applicable general principles of law. Application for the judgment review the case on grounds of injustice is unfounded. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 9, 111

Page 505

71 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

Case laws referred to: RS/iNJUST/RC 00013/2021/CA decided by this Court on 28/06/2022, MANiRARORA Jean de Dieu v. RWANDA RUDNiKi Ltd and SANLAM AG Plc. Doctrines referred to : Jacques FLOUR et al., “Droit Civil Les Obligations, Le fait juridique”, 12 éd., Dalloz, 2007, P.97. Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE COURT

On 27/07/2018, at around 6:00 p.m., in Nteranya Village, Nyirakigugu Cell, Jenda Sector, Nyabihu District, an accident occurred. A MiTSHUBiSHi FUSO truck with plate n0 RAD 068 C driven by MUKESHiMANA Laurent hit Nyiraneza, who was seven and a half months pregnant, injuring her and causing her to miscarry. The vehicle was insured by SORAS AG Ltd, which later became SANLAM AG Plc. Nyiraneza, her husband Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine requested SORAS AG Ltd to compensate them for the loss of their child, but SORAS AG Ltd responded that the damages for miscarriage are not provided for by law, and therefore should not be paid. This led them to file a lawsuit to the intermediate Court of Rubavu seeking for moral damages resulting from the accident.

SORAS AG Ltd, which later became SANLAM AG Plc, defended that no damages should be awarded in the case because there was no provision of law whcih provides for them, and that

Page 506

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

the accident report did not identify the victim and that the claimants do not identify the name of the victim.

in the case n0 RC 00005/2019/TGi/RBV decided on 11/10/2019, the intermediate Court of Rubavu, based on the provisions of article 10 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles and article 24 of Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles, ruled that no moral damages should be awarded to the claimants, because the person on whom they are based does not have a complete identitification, there is no birth certificate and also, no death certificate attached to the statement of police which does not mention him, rather it mentions a person called Nyiraneza and that she is not the person who is being relied upon by the plaintiffs in their claim for moral damages.

The intermediate Court of Rubavu declared unfounded the claim filed by Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine, seeking the damages for the unborn child of the mother who was still pregnant, and that no damages should be paid by SORAS AG Ltd which later became SANLAM AG Plc, to the plaintiffs as they are not provided for by law. it ordered to Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine to jointly pay to SORAS AG Ltd the counsel’s fee amounting to five hundred thousand (500,000 Frw) and one hundred thousand (100,000 Frw) for procedural fee.

Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine, and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine, represented by Counsel NSABiMANA Jean Damascène, appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, arguing that the intermediate Court of Rubavu disregarded the

Page 507

73 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

police report and the medical report dated 28/07/2018. These documents indicated that Nyiraneza had been involved in an accident while pregnant with a 30-week-old baby boy. The medical report confirmed that the accident led to the death of the baby in the womb, necessitating an operation to remove the baby. The appellants contended that, had the accident not occurred, the baby would not have died. They emphasized that there is no greater pain than the loss of an expected child within a family. Consequently, they requested the High Court to overturn the decision of the lower court and award to the plaintiffs the claimed moral damages.

SANLAM AG Plc defended stating that they should not be entitled to damages because they are not provided for in Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles and that the intermediate Court of Rubavu had carefully analyzed the case and noted that they should not be entitled to any damages, and then requested that the appealed judgment should be sustained.

in the judgment n0 RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, decided on 18/06/2020, the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, based on the accident report prepared by the Police on 27/07/2018, indicating that Nyiraneza was hit by a car and taken to Ruhengeri Hospital, and a medical report indicates that the baby Nyiraneza carried was 30 weeks old and died in the mother's womb due to the accident suffered by her mother, explained that the fact that Nyiraneza was pregnant and miscarried due to the accident, and that she even underwent surgery to have the baby removed from her womb, shows that she suffered grief, notes that however the Presidential Order does not provide for damages in cases where

Page 508

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

a pregnant woman miscarried due to an accident, the damages must be paid in accordance with general principles of law, and in its discretion the Court awarded to Nyiraneza and her husband, Hakizimana, a total of two million Rwandan Francs (2,000,000 Frw) of damages. However, it found that their children were not entitled to damages, as there was no evidence of harm caused to them to justify their claim.

The High Court, Chamber of Musanze, declared founded the appeal filed only for Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana, and unfounded for their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine, that the judgment n0 RCA 00005/2019/TGi/RBV decided by the intermediate Court of Rubavu on 11/10/2019, is overruled. it ordered to SORAS AG Ltd which became SANLAM AG Plc to pay to Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana the damages amounting to two million five hundred eighty thousand eight hundred francs (2,580,800 Frw).

SANLAM AG Plc applied for the review of the judgment n0 RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS on grounds of injustice, and in the decision n0 212/CJ/2022, the President of the Supreme Court confirmed that the case should be reviewed on grounds of injustice, and transferred it to the Court of Appeal for hearing; the case was registered under n0 RS/iNJUST/RC 00024/2022/CA.

The case was heard in public on 06/11/2024, SANLAM AG Plc represented by Counsel Nkiranuye Gratien, while Nyiraneza and Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine were represented by Counsel Ahishakiye Callixte.

in its submissions and pleadings, SANLAM AG Plc avers that it was wronged by the case n0 RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS

Page 509

75 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

because the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, ordered to it to pay to Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana the damages of 2,000,000 Frw for the miscarriage suffered by Nyiraneza as a result of a road accident based on general principles of law, and it should have relied on Law n° 41/2001 of 19/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles, as well as Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles. it further adds that in case the Court found otherwise, it would have calculated the damages based on the method used to calculate the moral damages in case n° RCAA 00049/14/SC, and awarded 3000x30x12x0.75%, equivalent to 810,000 Frw, for a total of 1,620,000 Frw to both. Nyiraneza and Hakizimana as well as their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine contended stating that no injustice was suffered by SANLAM AG Plc, especially because it ignored the fact that if the road accident had not occurred, the child would not have died, and that there is no greater pain than the loss of an expected child within a family, who died suddenly in a road accident, and that the damages awarded were based on the general principles of law which state that any act of a person that causes harm to another obliges the author to pay for the damages caused, and that the law allows the judge to base his decision on the principle of law. They are requesting to be awarded counsel’s and procedural fees1.

1 During the hearing, the legal counsel of Nyiraneza et al., after receiving the explanations about the caselaws and the positions set by the courts, withdrew the objection for inadmissibility of the claim filed by SANLAM AG Plc and the parties agreed with the Court on the the issue of whether the damages awarded should be increased, as well as the issue of procedural fees, should not be examined on the basis of the existing positions set by the courts, and should be respected.

Page 510

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Based on the aforementioned elucidations, the Court finds that the following issues should be analysed: i. determine whether the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, would not have relied on a general principle of law in fixing the moral damages; ii. determine the basis of procedural and counsel's fees claimed in the present case. II.

ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES i. Determine whether the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, would not have relied on a general principle of law in fixing the moral damages

The legal counsel of SANLAM AG Plc states that it was wronged by the case n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS because the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, ordered to it to pay to Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana the damages amounting to 2,000,000 Frw for Nyiraneza's miscarriage as a result of a road accident based on general principles of law, while it should have based its decision on Law n° 41/2001 mentioned above and Presidential Order n°31/01 mentioned above, and found that no damages would have been paid as they are not provided for in those laws.

He explains that in the paragraph 12 of the judgment n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, under review on grounds of injustice, the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, held that the fact that due to the accident Nyiraneza who was 30 weeks pregnant miscarried indicates that there was damage or suffering due to that accident, in paragraphs 16-18 of that judgment the Court finds that the damages should be awarded based on general

Page 511

77 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

principles of law, because Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 does not provide for damages in the event that a pregnant woman has a miscarriage as a result of an accident, and then it finds that it should be determined at the Court’s discretion, and he notes that the Court disregarded the provisions of article 9 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which states that a judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law, therefore the Court should not go into further analysis and much more when there are clear laws relating to compensation for bodily injuries resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles, and therefore those laws should have been applied.

He explains that those laws which would have been applied, are: - Law n° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles; - Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 1 states that this Presidential order provides the procedure in which the Law n° 41/2001 of 19/2001 determining compensation of victims of personal injury caused by accidents, to be used, article 2 explains that a victim of an accident is a person who has suffered a personal injury caused by a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, since the accident occurred on 27/07/2018 was caused by a motor vehicle FUSO MiTSUBiSHi with plate number RAD 068 C, and injured Nyiraneza;

Page 512

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

this confirms that the Court should have applied the laws stated above; however, the Court held that it awards the moral damages based on general principles of law and its discretion.

He also states that there is a general principle that the special law overrides the general law, due to the fact that the special law did not provide for the moral damages for the miscarriage, it was sufficient for the Court to rule that such damages should not be awarded because they are not provided for by the law. Even what the Court called general principles of law, did not mention those laws; it did not mention that the general principle of law on which it was based, which allowed for the payment of damages of 2,000,000 Frw, and it did not indicate how they are calculated; especially since some of the ordinary laws which include Law n° 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 governing persons and family, which states that a conceived child is entitled to civil rights recognized for every person, provided he/she is born alive. it is clear that the laws distinguish beyond reasonable doubt the living child and the one to be born.

He further submits that concerning the fact that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, awarded to Nyiraneza and Hakizimana two million (2,000,000 Frw) for the moral damages, they note that such analogy made by that Court does not guarantee justice to SANLAM AG Plc because it was ordered to pay the damages not provided for in the relevant law despite the existing clear law. He explains that if the Court has applied the provisions of the specific laws relating to the payment of damages for accidents caused by motor vehicles, it would have found that those laws do not provide for the moral damages due to miscarriage resulting from an accident, and therefore they should

Page 513

79 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

not be awarded as they are not provided for in Law n° 41/2001 or in Presidential Order n° 31/01 referred to above; especially since there are the damages that SANLAM AG Plc paid to Nyiraneza and were received through the case n° RC 00009/2020/TGi/RBV which was decided on 11/06/20202; therefore, the moral damages ordered amounting to 2,000,000 Frw should be dismissed because they are not based on a special law relating to the nature of the subject matter.

He also states that, if the Court finds otherwise and determines that the damages should be awarded, they should be calculated based on the Presidential Order mentioned above and in accordance with the position set in the judgment N° RCAA 00049/14/SC, and 3000x30x12x0.75% equivalent to 810,000 Frw should be awarded; thus, Hakizimana and Nyiraneza would be awarded 810,000 Frw each one, both would be awarded 1,620,000 Frw.

The legal counsel of Nyiraneza and Hakizimana as well as their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine contends that no injustice was suffered by SANLAM AG Plc in the judgment n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, because it disregarded that the vehicle TRUCK MiTSUBiSHi FUSO with plate n° RAD 068C, insured by SANLAM AG Plc, hit Nyiraneza, causing serious injuries and even taking the life of her 30-week- old conceived baby as confirmed by the medical doctor, and that it also disregarded that the awarded damages of 2,000,000 Frw in the case under review on grounds of injustice were based on the fault committed by the motor vehicle insured by it and seriously

2 During the hearing, the legal counsel of SANLAM AG Plc explained that the damages awarded have nothing to do with the fact that there has been a miscarriage resulting from an accident.

Page 514

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

harmed Nyiraneza's life, causing her miscarriage, and that the principle is that in case any wrongful act occurs, the responsible party is obliged to fully compensate the injured party for the harm suffered (principle of reparation of damage caused); therefore, if that accident had not occurred, that baby would not have been died, and there is no greater suffering than the loss of a child who was expected in a family, who dies suddenly from an accident.

He further states that the article 9 of Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, allows the judge to base his/her decision on general principles of law, on matters not provided for by the law, such as the fact that Nyiraneza underwent the medical operation and a stillborn baby of 30 weeks was removed from her womb due to the accident she suffered; the Court of Appeal should consider that the damages were awarded in accordance with the law because they were awarded in accordance with the position of legal doctrines of Jean Chevallier and Louis Bach in their book Droit Civil: Introduction à l'étude du droit – les personnes physiques – la famille – les biens – les obligations – les sûretés, where on page 404 they wrote that any act whatsoever by man which causes damage to another, obliges the person through whose fault it occurred to repair it.

He further adds that the police report contains a document called request for an expert conducted by the Police and a statement of a medical doctor of 28/07/2018 indicating that Nyiraneza had an accident while pregnant with a 30-week-old baby boy weighing one and a half kilograms (1,500 Kgs), and due to such accident the baby died in the womb and she underwent the medical operation for removing the baby from the mother's

Page 515

81 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

womb. Therefore, he finds that there is no injustice in the case under review.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 9 of Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides as follow: “A judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law. in the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if he/she had to act as legislator, relying on precedents, customs, general principles of law and doctrine”.

The applicable general principle of law is that any act whatsoever by man which causes damage to another, obliges the person through whose fault it occurred to repair it.3 This principle has been applied in various cases include the judgment no

RCOMAA 00034/2023/CA4, the judgment no

RCAA 00003/2024/CA-RCAA 00004/2024/CA5 and the judgment no RS/iNJUST/RC 00003/2022/CA6.

3 Jacques FLOUR et al., “Droit Civil Les Obligations, Le fait juridique”, 12 éd., Dalloz, 2007, P.97. 4 See paragraph 38 of case n˚ RCOMAA 00034/2023/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 19/04/2024, ANGEL COLLECTiON Co Ltd v. Muhayimana Uziel and BANK OF KiGALi Plc. 5 See case no RCAA 00003/2024/CA-RCAA 00004/2024/CA decided on 26/04/2024, Mudatsikira Valens and Gisanabagabo Félicien v. HABiMANA Jean Marie Vianney and SiNAYOBYE Emmanuel. 6 See paragraph 33 of case RS/iNJUST/RC 00003/2022/CA decided on 25/09/2024, NSANZUBUHORO Justin v. NYAMASWA Rukundo Emmanuel.

Page 516

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Having considered article 9 of the aforementioned Law together with the general principle mentioned above, the Court finds that in case it is clear that an ordinary or special law has not provided for a particular matter that should have been addressed in that law, and the judge is then presented with that matter, there is nothing to prevent him/her from resolving it referring to decisions taken by courts, custom, general principles of law and legal doctrines. Furthermore, in case it is clear that the special law does not provide for anything, but it is clear that an act of a person caused a harm to another person, nothing can prevent the injured person by that act from being compensated based on a general principle. in other words, while the Law n° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles and Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles do not provide for the procedure for determining moral damages in the event of an accident caused by a motor vehicle resulting in miscarriage, nothing can prevent such damages from being paid based on common law or general principles of law. The determination of damages based on common law and general principles of law was established in the judgment n° RS/iNJUST/RC 00013/2021/CA decided by this instant Court on 28/06/2022, MANiRARORA Jean de Dieu v. RWANDA RUDNiKi Ltd and SANLAM AG Plc.

With regard to this case, the case file indicates that the subject matter in the judgment n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, which is under review on grounds of injustice, is the moral damages arising from a road accident caused by a vehicle TRUCK MiTSHUBiSHi FUSO, with plate number RAD 068 C, insured by SORAS AG Ltd, which became SANLAM AG Plc,

Page 517

83 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

which hit Nyiraneza, who was 30 weeks pregnant with a baby boy, causing the baby to die in the womb, and she had to undergo the medical operation for removing the baby. it also shows that Nyiraneza, her husband Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine sued SANLAM AG Plc seeking for the moral damages for the baby who died in the womb as a result of the road accident.

The case file indicates that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, found that since the Presidential Order does not provide for damages in the event of a miscarriage as aresult of an accident, the damages must be paid on basis of the common law, and then in its discretion awarded to Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana the damages amounting to two million (2,000,000 Rwf) for both, it noted that their children did not qualify for the damages as there was no clear harm to them that would justify such an award.

The Court finds that what the parties agree on, is that there was a road accident that resulted in the miscarriage of a 30-week- old baby boy, and that the accident was caused by a vehicle TRUCK MiTSHUBiSHi FUSO, with plate number RAD 068 C, insured by SORAS AG Plc, which later became SANLAM AG Plc, which hit Nyiraneza, and that the damage sought is not provided for by the laws relating to road accidents mentionend above7. What they disagree about is that SANLAM AG Plc argues that since these damages are not provided for by law, there is no reason to award them to Nyiraneza and her husband, and it

7 Law n° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles and Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles.

Page 518

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

also adds that in case the Court finds otherwise that these damages should be awarded, they should be calculated based on the provisions of the laws mentioned above. While on the side of Nyiraneza and others argue that the damages should have been calculated based on general principles of law as they are not provided for in the laws mentioned above.

The Court finds that, since Nyiraneza was undoubtedly 30 weeks pregnant and had a miscarriage as a result of the accident involving a motor vehicle insured by SANLAM AG Plc, and that she underwent a surgery to have the baby removed, this means that she was harmed by the accident because it was the cause of the death of her unborn child, and the death of the unborn child she was expecting was an act that caused her undoubted grief, and that she and her husband should be awarded moral damages for the loss of her unborn child. Since the counsel for SANLAM AG Plc also admits that the miscarriage occured as a result of the accident, it is clear that there is no basis for him to claim that no moral damages should be awarded simply on the grounds that such damages are not provided for by the aforementioned road accident related law as if that were the only way to determine the damages provided for by the law. The Court also finds that SANLAM AG Plc failed to establish any basis for the exemption from liability for the accident caused by the vehicle it insured.

The Court finds that, in case SANLAM AG Plc does not provide the specific legislation governing the moral damages in circumstances similar to those of Nyiraneza, and the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, disregarded the principle that the special law overrides the ordinary law (specialia generalibus derogant), it did not err in relying on the general principle which states that any act whatsoever by man which causes damage to another,

Page 519

85 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

obliges the person through whose fault it occurred to repair it. Therefore, in the absence of special law determining the procedure for calculating such damages, the general principle of law applies, as proceeded the High Court, Chamber of Musanze.

Regarding the submissions of the counsel for SANLAM AG Plc that, in case the Court finds otherwise and finds that the damages should be awarded, they would be calculated based on the Presidential Order mentioned above and following the position set in the judgment n° RCAA 00049/14/SC, and award 3000x30x12x0.75%, which is equivalent to 810,000 Frw, thus Hakizimana and Nyiraneza would each be awarded 810,000 Frw. The Court finds it unfounded, because as mentioned above, such Order never provided for the calculation of the moral damages resulting from the miscarriage due to a motor vehicle accident; therefore, there is no reason to rely on it in calculating such damages which are not provided in the provisions of that Order.

Based on the explanations provided above, the Court finds that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, did not err in awarding to Nyiraneza and Hakizimana the moral damages based on general principles of law, as there was no specifal law disregarded; therefore, there is no injustice in the judgment n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS decided by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, on 18/06/2020. ii. Determine whether the procedural and counsel’s fees claimed in this case are justified

The legal counsel of Nyiraneza and Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine argues that they are requesting the Court of Appeal to order to SANLAM AG Plc to pay to Hakizimana and Nyiraneza six hundred

Page 520

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

thousand francs (600,000 Frw) for procedural fees and two million (2,000,000 Frw) for counsel’s fees.

The legal counsel of SANLAM AG Plc submits that with regard to the procedural fees and counsel’s fees requested by the defendants, the Court should find them unjustified, because the fact that the case is in the Court of Appeal arises from the damages awarded that are not provided for by law.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above provides as follows: " The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. 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, since it has been established that SANLAM AG Plc was not wronged by the judgment nº RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, decided by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, on 18/06/2020, for which it sought the review and given that Nyiraneza and Hakizimana have pursued the case and hired a lawyer to defend them in this present case, it finds that together with their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine they should be awarded the damages for the expenses incurred in the case in the Court’s discretion, because there is no justification of the amount they are claiming are equivalent to what they have spent, and therefore it awards to all of them a total of five hundred thousand (500,000 Frw) for

Page 521

87 SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

counsel's fee and two hundred thousand (200,000 Frw) for the procedural fee, to be paid by SANLAM AG Plc at this instance. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares unfounded the claim filed by SANLAM AG Plc seeking the review on grounds of injustice of the judgment nº RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS decided by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, on 18/06/2020.

Orders to SANLAM AG Plc to pay to Nyiraneza, Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine five hundred thousand francs (500,000 Frw) for counsel’s fee and two hundred thousand (200,000 Frw) for procedural fee at this instance.

Page 522

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 523

89 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT –RS/iNJUST/RC 00006/2022/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J, Muhumuza, Karimunda, J.) 23 June 2023] Civil procedure –Motor vehicle road accident- the prescription- a civil claim by a minor- the claim prescriptive period- the prescription of the victim’s civil claim can only be suspended by the claimant’s impossibility of filing the claim or by the claimant’s lack of civil majority. Civil procedure – delay time limits for filing a claim- illness- time delay limits for filing a claim can be extended due to an illness that might befall on the claimant and deprive him/her the use of certain faculties such as thinking, speaking, hearing or writing, or when so unconscious that he/she cannot even delegate a representation Facts: The case started from the intermediate Court of Nyarugenge with Uwizeyimana who got an accident involving a certain car insured by SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd and she lost an arm. She sued the car’s insurer and she sought a variety of compensations for the accident’s damages. The respondent raised an objection over the claim delay, and argued that the plaintiff delayed to file her claim, arguing that the five (5) year period that is legally provided for filing accidents’ related claims has already elapsed. However, the seized court found the plaintiff’s claim admissible and ordered SONARWA to give Uwizeyimana a variety of compensations that included civil, moral, aesthetic and damages for loss of marriage opportunity.

Page 524

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The court has also allowed her refund for the incurred case- related expenses. The respondent appealed the above ruling before the High Court. However, this court considered a fact that Uwizeyimana had been picked by Nyirasimpunga, a good Samaritan, who raised her and who later died two years following the concerned accident, and who moreover had never adopted her, and therefore could not legally initiate the claim on her behalf. The plaintiff, still a minor, remained with the de cujus’s neighbours and she still could not file her claim since she was still a minor, and she had neither a parent nor a legal guardian to file a claim on her behalf. The court moved that the five (5) year claim-filing prescription period must be ignored. SONARWA applied for case review, and the case was slated to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, whereby the latter was to examine whether the claim to accident-related compensatory damages vanished. SONARWA argued that Uwizemana’s claim is inadmissible since she failed to observe the five (5) year time limit for filing accident- related civil claims, as she brought in her claim eleven (11) years after the accident, yet Government could have represented her since she was a parentless minor. For Uwizeyimana, she argued that her claim was admissible since she was a parentless minor, she had to wait until her civil majority. Held 1. The prescription of the victim’s civil claim can only be suspended by the claimant’s impossibility of filing the claim or by the claimant’s lack of civil majority.

2. Time limits for filing a claim can only be extended due to an illness that might befall the claimant and deprive him/her the use of certain faculties such as thinking, speaking, hearing or writing,

Page 525

91 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

or when so unconscious that he/she cannot even delegate a representation The application for case review has no justification. Statutes referred to: Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 111; Decree-law N0 32/1975 of 7/8/1975 relating to compulsory insurance for road-using motorised vehicles, article 10. Reference cases: RS/REV/RCOM 00001/2022/SC, with Munyaburanga v. ECOBANK plc, rendered by the Supreme Court on 15/07/2022; RS/iNJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC with Mhayimana isaïe v. Rwanda Bar Association, rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/02/2023 Referrence doctrines B. Beigner & Sonia BEN, Droit des assurances, 2021, Paris, LGDJ, Lextenso, Pge 611. Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 2, 21 février 2008, 07- 12.801, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURiTExT00001 8166899.]

Page 526

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Judgment I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On the 27/01/2006, Uwizeyimana Clarisse, then 8-years- old got an accident involving a certain car Toyota Hilux RDF 331 D insured by SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd, and she lost her left arm.

When Uwizeyimana Clarisse turned the age of civil majority, she wrote to SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd on the 25/09/2017 and requested for accident related damage- compensations. And on the 22/08/2018, she wrote a second and last letter but the insurance Company never replied. And, on the 26/09/2018, she filed a claim before the intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, and she prayed the court to order the insurance company for the payment of accident-related damage- compensations.

SONARWA General insurance Company raised an objection of inadmissibility against Uwizemana clarisse’s claim, and argued that the five (5)-year legal period for initiating accident related civil claims has already elapsed. Counsel Gabiro David who represented Uwizeyimana Clarisse argued that the Insurer’s objection is unfounded since the plaintiff could not initiate her civil claim yet she was a parentless minor who had been picked while still a baby and raised by Nyirasimpunga Laurence, a certain non-relative old woman who later died, and left Uwizeyimina Clarisse into the hands of close neighbours. The Counsel argued that the plaintiff had an accident when she was only 8- year-old, and she had no capacity to initiate accident- related compensatory claims.

Page 527

93 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

For case RC 00847/2018/TGi/NYGE, the intermediate Court of Nyarugenge held that the claim by Uwizeyimana Clarisse must be admitted; the court has as well held that she lost an arm due to an accident involving a certain car that was insured by SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd, and moved that the plaintiff deserves the following damage- compensations: - 1, 620, 000 Rwf for aesthetic damages; - 9,765,219 Rwf for civil damages - 1,620,000 Rwf for moral damages - 2,160,000 Rwf for loss of marriage opportunity. - She also requested for a variety of expenses refund that included 6000 Rwf for buying the copy of the court judgement, 1,700 Rwf that she paid for a variety of certificates, 10,000 Rwf that she paid for a medical report, 600,000 Rwf for legal representation fee, and 100,000 Rwf for the incurred case-related follow-up costs.

SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd, appealed the above ruling before the High Court and requested the court to examine about the admissibility of Uwizemana clarisse’s claim, arguing that they don’t understand how her guardian who died two years after the accident did not initiate the plaintiff’s civil claim, and still the Company cannot understand how her guardian neighbours who picked her following the guardian’s death never minded about following-up on her claim yet they all knew about the concerned accident. The insurance Company has as well prayed the court to examine whether Uwizeyimana Clarisse really deserved damage-compensations.

Page 528

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

On the 25/10/2019, the High Court heard case RCA 00289/2019/HC/KiG and held that the appeal by SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd has no justification, the court considered a fact that Nyirasimpunga Laurence, the good Samaritan who picked and raised Uwizeyimana Clarisse has never been the latter’s legitimate guardian to an extent of initiating the child’s civil claims, and this coupled with a fact that Nyirasimpunga Laurence died two years following the accident, whereby the plaintiff was then picked up by Nyirasimpunga’s neighbours. The court moved that the violation of the five (5)- year time period and the prescription of her claim should be ignored since she was a parentless minor with no legitimate guardian.

On the 22/11/2019, SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd petitioned the President of the Court of Appeal and prayed for injustice-related review of case RCA 00289/2019/HC/KiG rendered by the High Court on the 25/10/2019. Upon analysing the application, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to Chief Justice and requested him an order for reviewing the above mentioned case due to injustice grounds. Chief Justice examined a certain report on the concerned case, and on the 22/08/2022, he issued writ n0 131/CJ/2022 and ordered the review of case RCA 00289/2019/HC/KiG, and the case was then docketed as RS/iNJUST/RC 00006/2022/SC.

The case was heard in public on the 25/05/2023 with SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd represented by Counsel Bimenyimana Eric, while Uwizeyimana Clarisse was assisted by Counsel Gabiro David. Parties debated on the issue of whether the plaintiff’s claim has already expired and whether

Page 529

95 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd deserves some damage-compensations. While for the issue of whether the plaintiff’ s physical incapacity originates from the concerned accident, SONARWA’s attorney acknowledged before the court that such an issue has never been debated in the previous instances, it cannot therefore be brought at its’ very first time for injustice-related case review, as it has always been a precedent from a variety of previous litigations.1 The hearing ended and pronouncement on the case was slated on the 23/06/2023. II. ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THEIR

ANALYSIS a. Whether the plaintiff’s claim for road accident-related compensatory damages has already vanished.

Counsel Bimenyimana Eric

who represented SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd argued that the plaintiff’s claim should not be admitted for examination since a related record from the competent authority shows that the accident occurred on 27/01/2006, and Uwizemana Clarisse made her first reporting on the 25/09/2017, and that is after more than eleven (11) years later, and such a report contradicts the provision of article 4 of the Law n0 1/2002 of 17/01/2002 modifying and

1 See case RS/ iNJUST/RC 00004/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on the 28/07/2020 with Mukamana Mamique v. Vérène CANDALi and others; see case RS/iNJUST/RC 00024/2018/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on the 21/02/2020 with Ngizweninshuti Albert v. Muhima Giovanni and case RS/iNJUST/RC 00007/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on the 13/03/2020 with Nditiribambe Samuel, Gatera Jason v. Nyamaswa Faustin.

Page 530

96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

completing the Law n0 20/75 of 20/06/1075 relating to General insurance2 .

He went on and argued that the above mentioned Law n0 01/2002 provides that any road accident must be reported about within the period of five (5) years from the date it occurred, failure to which, such a reporting shall be invalid. Therefore, he argued that the court should not have considered Uwimana Clarisse’s accident reporting, since she violated the reporting time limits, and she thus deserves no damage-compensations.

He also argued that the accident recorded statement indicates that the then plaintiffs were both the Prosecution and Nyirasimpunga Laurence, whereby the grassroots administration confirmed that it is Nyirasimpunga Laurence who picked, raised and provided for Uwizemana Clarisse. He argued that Nyirasimpunga who stood for the plaintiff before the investigation Organs, could as well have represented her for accident reporting and for damage-compensation claims. He also added that in case of Nyirasimpunga’s failure to initiate the plaintiff’s civil claim, the accident’s witnesses or the neighbours who picked her after Nyirasimpunga’s death, all had a right and could have made a follow-up on the plaintiff’s damage claim.

He argued that the intermediate Court should in first place have not admitted the plaintiff’s claim, arguing that the plaintiff should have sought justice through alternative remedial as per the

2 it provides that in the limits of the above Decree-Law, any victim’s claim against the respondent’s Insurer shall extinct within a period of five (5) years, computed from the date of an event that gave rise to such a claim (Decree-Law n0 32/75 of 07 August 1975 relating to compulsory insurance for road-using motorised vehicles)

Page 531

97 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

provision of article 128 of Civil Code book i in force at the time of the accident. He argues that Uwizeyimana Clarisse should have claimed for her rights to compensations through the family council, or she should have sought assistance from the Government since it is the State that has a mandate to stand for needy and helpless children. The Insurer’s attorney argues that the claim prescription period could at least be suspended if only the plaintiff had initiated a procedure for compensation agreement.

Counsel Gabiro David who represented Uwizeyimana Clarisse argued that SONARWA General insurance Company is hereby not differentiating the formality for accident reporting from the procedure for accident damage- compensation claims. He explains that the formality for accident reporting has nothing to do with Uwizeyimana Clarisse since it is the obligation of the vehicle’s owner; arguing that the sole plaintiff’s responsibility was to initiate a claim for compensatory damages from an accident that involved a certain car that was insured by SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd; of which she did not do because she was a parentless minor , just as it has been above explained, she was picked and raised by a good Samaritan while still an infant .

He went on and argued that even Nyirasimpunga Laurence who picked and raised Uwizeyimana Clarisse had no authority to initiate the compensation claim on the plaintiff’s behalf since she has never been her legitimate guardian, and neither was she her lawful adoptive parent. Similarly, all who picked Uwizeyimana Clarisse, after Nyirasimpunga’s death still could not initiate her civil claims since they all have never adopted her in the sense of the existing legal provisions. Those

Page 532

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

are the reasons that made Uwizeyimana Clarisse to wait for the age of her civil majority and then file the compensation claim by herself.

He also added that though SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd asserts that the plaintiff’s claim is inadmissible due to the elapsing of a prescriptive period of five (5) years within the limits of which, any victim of the road accident must have reported about the undergone accident and claimed for related damage-compensations as per the provisions of article 4 of the Law n0 01/2002 of 17/01/2002 modifying and completing the Decree-law n0 20/75 of 20/06/1975 relating to General insurance that provides for a five (5) year time limit for initiating road accidents compensation claims; however, he deliberately discarded a fact that paragraph 2 and 3 of article 10, and article 11 of the Decree-Law n0 32/75 of 07/8/1975 on insurance for road-using motorised vehicles tort liability has provided for an exception for claim prescriptive periods.

He concluded by adding that even the previous courts have substantiated their rulings under paragraph 11 of case RC 00847/2028/TGi/NYGE, and under paragraphs 13, 14, 15, and 16 of case RCA 00289/2019/HC/KiG where the High Court highlighted some legal doctrines on claims prescriptions, and where the Court analysed the content of article 3 of the Decree- Law n0 32/1975 of 07/08/1975 relating to compulsory insurance for motorised vehicles, the plaintiff’s attorney found that the ruling on case RCA 00289/2019/HC/KiG contains no injustice, and argued that the Insurer’ appeal is rather a resistance to the court’s decision.

Page 533

99 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph one of article 10 of the Decree-Law n0 32/1975 of 7/8/1975 relating to compulsory insurance for road-using motorised vehicles provides that the victim’s claim prescriptive period is five years from the time of the accident, while paragraph 2 stipulates that the grounds for the suspension of the prescriptive period for the victim’s claim equally apply for the suspension of the prescription period for the insurer’s claim.

The Law establishing the preface and the Civil code book i that was in force when Uwizeyimana Clarisse had an accident, especially in its article 431, placed the age of civil majority at (21)-years-old. While article 113 of the Law n0 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 governing persons and family placed the age of civil majority at (18)-years-old.

The court found that both litigating parties agree on a fact that Uwizeyimana Clarisse, an 8-years-old parentless child, had a car accident and lost an arm. The only point of disagreement between the parties lies into a fact that the attorney of SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd argued the plaintiff’s claim was inadmissible since she did not observe the five (5) year legal time limit for filing accident’s damage compensation claims; arguing that even if the plaintiff had no parents to follow her case up as she alleges, the Government should have taken up her case, since it is the State’s obligation to cater for defenceless children. While the plaintiff’s attorney argued that the plaintiff’s claim was admissible, since she was a parentless minor, and had no any other choice apart from waiting for her age of civil majority.

Page 534

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

For case RS/iNJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC between Mhayimana isaïe and Rwanda Bar Association, the Supreme Court explained “the prescription” as the extinction of a person’s right due to the person’s inactivity in exercising his/her right in due time. The claim prescriptive period runs from the time the right’s beneficiary knew or ought to know the existence of an event that gave rise to his/her right.3

Looking at the content of paragraph one and two of article 10 of the above mentioned Decree-Law n0 32/1975, and considering all the above explanations on “prescription”, the court found that the victim of road accident has a period of five (5)-years for initiating damage compensation claims against the vehicle’s Insurer, failure of which, his/her right to claims vanishes. However, the law recognizes some grounds for the suspension of the claim prescriptive period, though it never enumerated neither did it explain such grounds.

The case file indicates that the High Court found no prescription into the plaintiff’s claim for damage-compensation since Uwizeyimana Clarisse, the victim, was only 8-years-old, and neither Nyirasimpunga Laurence who picked and raised her nor the neighbours who took care of her after Nyirasimpunga’s death, none was the victim’ legitimate guardian for initiating civil claims on her behalf. The court found that since the plaintiff was still a minor for initiating her civil claim, that would be a valid ground for suspension of the claim prescriptive period.

3 See case RS/iNJUST/RAD 00002/2022/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on the 17/02/2023 with Counsel Mhayimana isaïe v. Rwanda Bar Association, page 8, paragraph 14.

Page 535

101 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

With regard to the computation of claim time limits for a minor or any other helpless person, legal doctrines argue that the claim prescriptive period can only be suspended when the plaintiff is incapable of initiating the claim, or when he /she has not yet turned the age of civil majority4. And that is the stance that was held by the French Court of Cassation.5 Another reference precedent for delay of initiating a claim was highlighted under paragraph 29 along case RS/REV/RCOM 00001/2022/SC with Munyaburanga v. ECOBANK PLc rendered by this very Court on the 15/07/2022, whereby the court held that the time limits for filing a claim can be extended due to an illness that might befall the claimant and deprive him/her the use of certain faculties such as thinking, speaking, hearing or writing, or when so unconscious that he/she cannot even delegate a representation

Considering all the above provided explanations and the fact that when Uwimana Clarisse had an accident was only 8- years-old and she had neither parent nor any legitimate guardian to make a follow-up on her case, the court found that Uwizeyimana Clarisse had no any other person entitled to help

4 B. Beigner & Sonia BEN, Droit des assurances, 2021, Paris, LGDJ, Lextenso, Pge 611. La prescription biennale ne peut être suspendue que par les circonstances mettant la partie dans l’impossibilité d’agir ou durant la minorité de l’assuré. 5 Dans le procès « Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 2, 21 février 2008, 07-12.801 » : ttendu que, selon le premier de ces textes, l'action en garantie de l'assuré à l'encontre de l'assureur est interrompue par une des causes ordinaires d'interruption de la prescription ; que, selon le second, la prescription ne court pas contre les mineurs non émancipés et les majeurs en tutelle sauf ce qui est dit à l'article 2278 et à l'exception des cas déterminés par la loi.̏ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURiTExT000018166899 c

Page 536

102 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

her initiate a claim for accident-related damage compensations against SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd. The Court has therefore found that the claim prescriptive period got suspended because the victim was a parentless minor, and the prescription resumed from the start of her civil majority, that is when she turned 18. The argument made by the Insurer’s attorney, by which the Government, as an Organ that looks after helpless children, should have initiated the civil claim on the behalf of the plaintiff, the court found such an argument irrelevant, since such an arrangement does not supersede the victim’s right of a follow-up on her case at the age of civil majority. Looking at all the above provided grounds, this court, just as the High Court so held, found no prescription into the plaintiff’s claim.

The Court therefore found no needy of examining SONARWA’s compensation refund request neither should the insurance Company claim for related pecuniary interests since the High Court’s ruling that rejected the prescription allegation and subsequently allowing for the plaintiff’s compensations, contained no injustice. b. About the requests for refund on representation fees and the incurred case-related expenses

Counsel Nkurunziza Jean Pierre who represented SONARWA General insurance Company argued that the Court should order Uwizeyimana Clarisse to refund the insurance Company with 3,000,000 Rwf for court representation fees, and for case-related expenses which the Company incurred right away from the start of the case before the intermediate Court up to the Supreme Court level; the above amount includes 2,000,000 Rwf for Counsel fee , and 1,000,000 Rwf for the

Page 537

103 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

incurred case-related follow-up costs since her claim made SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd hire lawyers for court representation .

Counsel Gabiro David argued that SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd deserves no damage-compensations, since they deliberately initiated an injustice-related case review with no relevant justification grounds, they should therefore bear related consequences. He therefore referred to article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure ; together with article 32 of Rwanda Bar Association scale of fees and requested the Court to order SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd to give Uwizeyimana Clarisse 3,000,000 Rwf that include 2,500,000 Rwf for court representation, and 500,000 Rwf for the incurred case-related expenses.

SONARWA’s attorney argued that the Insurance Company should not be responsible for the plaintiff’s expenses for the case review since it is not the Company that called her for the case more so that the plaintiff cannot even account for the sum she is requesting for. He argued that the amount she charged before the lower courts has already been honoured, and lamented that the 3,000,000 Rwf she is requesting before the Supreme Court is exorbitantly enormous.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure “The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal

Page 538

104 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings

The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at thesame time with the principal claim. it can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted.”

The Court found that SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd deserves no court representation fee neither do they deserve refund for the incurred case-related expenses since they won nothing from this case.

With reference to the provision of article 111 of the above mentioned Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2019, the court found that Uwizeyimana Clarisse deserves compensation for the counsel fee and the incurred case-related expenses since she had to hire lawyers for assisting her with the case for which SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd sought a review alleging injustice grounds. However, since she requested for an excessive amount without attaching any justifying evidence, the court has discretionarily allowed her 500,000 Rwf for court representation fee, and 300,000 Rwf for the incurred case-related costs, and it all summed up to 800,000 Rwf. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application by SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd for injustice related review of case RCA 00289/2019/HC/KiG rendered by the High Court on the 25/10/2019, has no justification.

Page 539

105 SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. UWIZEYIMANA

Holds that the ruling on case RCA 00289/2019/HC/KiG rendered by the High Court on the 25/10/2019 stays.

Orders SONARWA General insurance Company Ltd to give Uwizeyimana Clarisse 500,000 Rwf for Counsel fee, and 300,000Rwf for the incurred case-related expenses, and it all comes to a sum of 800,000 Rwf.

Page 540

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 541

107 Re MUNYEMANA

COMMECIAL CASES

Page 542

108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 543

109 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD [Rwanda Supreme Court – RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00007/2022/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Muhumuza and Karimunda, J.) 26 May 2023] Contract – Additional contract – An additional contract is considered as a new contract related to the duration of the new works – Additional works performed after the first contract must be paid for as it is considered as a new contract different from the previous one. Contract – Requesting payment for an additional contract is not considered as a change in the price agreed in the contract – The procuring entity cannot refuse to perform its obligation to pay the invoices issued by the contractor for the additional works performed, alleging that this is considered as an increase in the bidding price presented in the financial submission. Facts: This case originates from the contract V.CO Ltd entered into with Gatsibo District to monitor and supervise the construction works of Kabarore Art and Craft Center (Agakiriro) that should be carried out by a company called ECOTRAP. V.CO Ltd. ECOTRAP. V.CO Ltd claims to have carried out additional works upon the request of the District, but the latter refused to pay for it, which led ECOTRAP. V.CO Ltd to file a claim before the Commercial Court, requesting the payment of 28,068,133 FRW for which the Company alleges to have worked for a period of 15 months and 26 days in addition to the 24 months that were provided for in the contract, and it also requests the payment of various damages. The Commercial Court found that Article 9 of the contract between V.CO Ltd. and the District stipulated that the price 109

Page 544

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

of the contract is known and cannot be increased even if the duration of the contract is extended, so the request for payment related to additional time is not provided for in the contract, and ordered to it to pay to Gatsibo District the damages related to the expenses of proceedings. V.CO Ltd was not satisfied with the judgment and appealed against it before the Commercial High Court requesting to determine whether claiming for the payment for the additional contract is changing the price agreed upon in the contract. The Commercial High Court found that the price mentioned in the contract has not been changed but what has been changed is the duration of the works which were extended and it ordered to Gatsibo District to pay to V.CO Ltd the cost of the works carried out during the additional time. Gatsibo District applied for the review of the judgment on the grounds of injustice, alleging that the injustice is based on the fact that the District was ordered to pay 28,068,133 FRW in addition to the 42,456,000 FRW agreed upon in the contract, yet V.CO Ltd was already paid, that the Commercial High Court disregarded the elements of evidence produced and the relevant legal provisions. V.CO Ltd contends that the contract for the monitoring and supervision of the construction works of Kabarore Art and Craft Center (Agakiriro) would last for 24 months, from 16/02/2015 to 16/02/2017 at the bidding price of 42,456,000 FRW, that it does not provide for the lump sum price, it contends that, after ECOTRAP failed to build, the tender was awarded to the Reserve Force, the works to be done carried out and the construction materials changed, and the duration of the contract was extended, this immediately affected the contract V.CO Ltd entered into with Gatsibo District.

Page 545

111 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

Held: 1. The additional contract is considered as a new contract related to the duration of the new works. Additional works carried out after the first contract must be paid for as they are considered as a new contract different from the previous one.

2. The procuring entity cannot refuse to perform its obligation to pay the invoices issued by the contractor for the additional works carried out, alleging that this is considered as an increase in the bidding price given in the financial submission. The application for review of the judgment on grounds of injustice is unfounded, The court fee is borne to the respondent. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, article 65. No cases were referred to Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE

On 16/02/2015, V.CO Ltd entered into the contract Nᵒ 012/GAT/INFRA/14-15 with Gatsibo District to monitor and supervise the construction works of Kabarore Art and Craft Center that should be carried out by the company called ECOTRAP. The works were mentioned in the contract Nᵒ 009/GAT/INFRA/14-15 of 23/03/2015 that the District had entered into with ECOTRAP.

Page 546

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

V.CO Ltd had to carry out the supervision works for a period of 24 months at a cost of 42,456,000 FRW, they should be completed on 16/02/2017. ECOTRAP started construction works while V.CO Ltd was carrying out the supervision, but ECOTRAP later failed to accomplish the works and it was necessary for the District to change the contractor, and it entered into a new contract with the Reserve Force which continued the construction works of Kabarore Art and Craft Center.

V.CO Ltd filed a claim before the Commercial Court requesting that Gatsibo District should be forced to pay to it 15 months and 26 days in addition to the time stipulated in the contract. it explains that as per the contract the District entered into with Reserve Force, there were changes in terms of materials and the duration of the work, thus affecting the contract V.CO Ltd also had with the Gatsibo District because the supervision scope had changed, both for the quantity and the duration of the works. it alleges that the supervision which should be conducted by V.CO Ltd in 24 months was carried out in 39 months and 26 days due to the change of the contractors who had to be supervised, and in terms of the works that had to be carried out; that at the end of the 24 months of the supervision, the District asked to V.CO Ltd to continue the works and informed it in three different times, that the contract was extended.

V.CO Ltd states that it claimed for the payment of additional works (that is, 15 months and 26 days in addition to the time stipulated in the contract for reasons beyond its control) but the District refused to pay for them. V.CO Ltd requested to the Commercial Court to order to Gatsibo District to pay 28,068,133 FRW for a period of 15 months and 26 days calculated at 1,769,000 FRW per month and to pay various other damages including the incurred loss.

Page 547

113 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

Gatsibo District admitted that on 16/02/2015, it entered into an agreement Nᵒ 012/GAT/INFRA/14-15 with V.CO Ltd. it was about the supervision of construction works of Kabarore Art and Craft Center which was supposed to last for twenty-four (24) months because it was supposed to end on 16/02/2017, both sides agreed on the price of contract amounting to 42,456,000 FRW. it alleges that as the successful bidder did not comply with the schedule in the contract, it was necessary for V.CO Ltd to extend the time to complete the works related to the tender awarded to it, the contract was extended three times and V.CO Ltd was notified through various letters. The District also informed it that, apart from the extension of time, other clauses of the contract did not change. The District alleges that it is was surprised to hear V.CO Ltd requesting the payment of another amount of 28,068,133 FRW alleged to originate from the works done during the additional time, but as per the contract both parties had agreed on the total amount of money that would be paid after the end of the whole contract.

On 30/09/2020, the Commercial Court rendered the judgment RCOM 00648/2020/TC, it held that the claim of V.CO Ltd is groundless. it found that Article 9 of the contract V.CO Ltd entered into with the District stipulated that the price of the contract is known and cannot be increased even if the duration of the contract is extended, that the request of V.CO Ltd for additional payment is not provided for in the contract because both parties agreed that the price of the whole tender should not be changed, whether it ends before or after the scheduled time. it ordered to V.CO Ltd to pay to Gatsibo District 600,000 FRW for the expenses of the proceedings.

V.CO Ltd appealed against that judgment before the Commercial High Court requesting it to determine whether

Page 548

114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

claiming for the payment related to the additional contract is changing the price, its case was registered under Nº RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC.

At the appeal level, Gatsibo District alleged that the grounds of appeal of V.CO Ltd were not relevant because the Commercial Court delivered justice based on the facts and the elements of evidence that had been produced.

On 26/05/2021, the Commercial High Court rendered the judgment RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC, ordered to Gatsibo District to pay to V.CO Ltd 28,068,133 FRW of additional works as provided for in Article 64 of Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, and 1,500,000 FRW for procedural and advocate fees.

The Commercial High Court found that the price mentioned in the contract was not changed, but what was changed is the duration of the works because they were extended, and the price remained the one given in the financial submission and was accepted by Gatsibo District when it was included in the contract showing the amount to be paid for the works that corresponds to that given by the contractor in the financial submission.

The Commercial High Court also found that it would be considered as if the price had been changed in case V.CO Ltd would have been requesting for the payment for additional works to provide a price higher than the 1,769,000 FRW which was provided in its financial submission; therefore, article 9 of the contract between the two parties does not stipulate that the mentioned amount would be paid for all the works to be carried out, but what it precludes is changing the price either during the execution of the works or in case of an additional agreement.

Page 549

115 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

Gatsibo District was dissatisfied with the judgment, thus on 22/06/2021, it wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that the judgment Nº RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court should be reviewed on the grounds of injustice. The President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the case be reviewed on grounds of injustice.

After considering the request, the President of the Supreme Court made the decision 044/CJ/2022, that the judgment RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court be reviewed on the grounds of injustice, and the case was registered under RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00007/ 2022/SC.

The case was heard in public on 18/10/2022, the District was represented by Counsel Rugamba Théoneste and Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grace, V.CO Ltd. was represented by KALiSA Théogène assisted by Counsel Habineza Jean Paul. During the hearing, the Court explained to the parties the importance of mediation, they agreed to resolve their dispute amicably, and chose Counsel Rwabigwi Augustin to be the mediator.

After receiving the mediator's report indicating that the mediation failed, the hearing of this case was set for 21/02/2023, but on that day, the hearing was not held, it was adjourned until 18/04/2023 because Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grace was unable to attend the hearing due to illness.

On 18/04/2023, the case hearing was held, the District was represented by Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grace and Counsel Bunani Bonavanture, V.CO Ltd. was represented by Kalisa Théogène, assisted by Counsel Habineza Jean Paul.

Page 550

116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

During the hearing, the parties argued over the issue of whether Gatsibo District should be ordered to pay to V.CO Ltd for the works carried out during the additional duration of the contract, to refund the procedural and advocate fees claimed at this level. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES

OF THE CASE i. Determining whether Gatsibo District should be ordered to pay to V.CO Ltd for the works carried out during the extension of the contract

Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grace and Counsel Bunani Bonaventure pleading on behalf of Gatsibo District, allege that in this case, the injustice is based on the fact that the District was ordered to pay 28,068,133 FRW in addition to the 42,456,000 FRW agreed upon in the contract, and V.CO Ltd had already been paid, which is evident that the Commercial High Court disregarded the elements of evidence produced and the laws related to the case.

They explain that the Commercial High Court reached that decision by disregarding the following elements of evidence: - -Articles 2 (4), 9 and 1130 of the contract dated 16/02/2015 stipulate that the works will last 24 months at an invariable cost of 42,456,000 FRW even if the duration of the agreement is reduced or extended, therefore, the contract extension letters on which relies V.CO Ltd should not be considered

30 This Article provides that: “This contract is concluded for a period of 24 months starting from the date of signing of this contract by both parties, unless terminated earlier or extended by agreement of the parties in an executed addendum to this contract.”

Page 551

117 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

as a new contract but should be understood as an extension of the contract signed by both parties; - -Article 4, paragraph 2, 31 of the contract lists the hierarchy of elements of evidence as determined by both parties. This hierarchy of elements of evidence is as follows: (a) Contract, (b) Terms of reference (TOR), (c) Minutes of negotiations, (d) Notification, (e) Request for proposal, (f) Financial proposal. - -Terms of Reference on page 43 of the tender document indicate that V.CO Ltd would be paid based on the percentage of the works carried out instead of the number of months in which the works were accomplished, which is also confirmed by the fact that V.CO Ltd has never issued a monthly invoice.

They also allege that in paragraph 20 of the judgment under review on grounds of injustice, the Commercial High Court based its decision on the financial proposal that is in sixth position on the list of elements of evidence, yet it should not outweigh the contract, Terms of Reference and other elements of evidence in the case file are more valuable. They explain that the financial proposal is considered as one of the documents that are part of the contract and V.CO Ltd also claims that it is an offer that can be changed because after it the price is discussed (contract negotiation), the agreement turns into a contract.

They conclude by alleging that another ground of injustice is that the Commercial High Court disregarded

31 That paragraph states: “should there be any conflict or ambiguity any of the above listed documents, priority shall be given in the order as listed above”

Page 552

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

articles 63, 32 64 and 66 of Law No. 45/2011 of 25/11/201 governing contracts because there was no way to find out the agreement and the intention of both parties which had become binding on them except in the Agreement and the Terms of Reference. They note that the Court did not validate the fact that the price was a lump sum and could not be changed, which is contrary to Article 45, the second and third paragraphs of Ministerial Order No. 001/14/10/TC dated 19/ 02/2014 establishing regulations on public procurement, standard bidding documents and standard contracts that provides that no price change is possible after the date set in the contract, except in case of the mutual consent of both parties, after amending the contract.

Kalisa Théogène, representing V.CO Ltd and Counsel Habineza Jean Paul, assisting him, allege that the contract for the construction works of Kabarore Art and Craft Center should last for 24 months, from 16/02/2015 to 16/02/2017 at a price of 42,456,000 FRW, that there is no provision that the price is a lump sum. They explain that after ECOTRAP failed to carry out the construction works, and after the extension of the period of execution, the Reserve Force was awarded the tender, the works to be carried out and the construction materials changed, and the duration of the contract was extended, this immediately affected the contract V.CO Ltd had with Gatsibo District because what had been being supervised had changed both in terms of the quantity and the duration of the execution.

They allege that ECOTRAP had won the tender worth 650,578,520 FRW while the second contractor was supposed to take over ECOTRAP’s works, but it was

32 That article states that “Interpreting a contract or a clause thereof is to give the meaning of the purpose and promise under the contract.”

Page 553

119 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

awarded additional work worth 990,354,430 FRW, which led to the supervision V.CO Ltd had to do in 24 months, was carried out in 39 months and 26 days.

They also state that after 24 months of supervision in the first contract, Gatsibo District wrote to V.CO Ltd on 16/02/2017, the same day the first contract was terminated, requesting it to keep on carrying out the works until the 16 /08/2017, on that date it was sent another letter awarding it an additional contract until 16/12/2017, and on the third time, it received a letter giving it a contract from 19/03/2018 to 15/07/2018. They explain that the fact that V.CO Ltd requested the payment for the additional time after the initial contract was not the change of contract, because the agreed upon work duration was extended.

They also contend that the allegations that the price was a lump sum because the contract had a fixed term, calculated for 24 months at a price of 42,456,000 FRW, which means it was 1,769,000 FRW per month as shown in the financial submission, that up to date Gatsibo District did not prove that this price has ever changed because the payment requested was based on the monthly price based on the duration of the Extension Contracts. They note that the allegations of Gatsibo District that the Commercial High Court disregarded the elements of evidence, the provisions of law or the regulations, which caused injustice that is obvious to everyone, are irrelevant, but that it misinterprets the elements of evidence and the provisions of law because claiming for the payment of additional works does not mean changing prices.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 65 of Law No 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts provides that: " a contract shall not only

Page 554

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cover the subject matter but also the effects that equity, practices or law impute to the obligations according to the nature of the contract". And article 66 of that Law provides that “interpreting a contract or a clause thereof is to give the meaning of the purpose and promise under the contract”.

Article 9 of the contract dated 16/02/2015 signed by both parties signed and upon which they agreed provides that the works will be carried out in 24 months and that its cost is 42,456,000 FRW, and that the price should not change whether the contract ends earlier or later or is extended. 33

The debate between the parties is based on the interpretation of Article 9 of the contract entered into by both parties. The District alleges that the contractor should not request payment for additional works because the agreed upon price is invariable, whether the contract is completed within the agreed time or if the time has changed and extended or shortened. V.CO Ltd found that the period of 24 months which was equivalent to the value of 42,456,000 FRW elapsed, but the works were not completed, because the new contractor changed the responsibilities and the cost changed, Gatsibo District gave it another contract until the works were completed, and would request for the payment for the additional works.

As per the case file, in paragraph 20 of the judgment under review on grounds of injustice, the Commercial High Court found that, based on Article 4 of the contract which

33 The contract prices for the consultancy services is forty-two million, Four Hundred Fifty-Six Thousands Rwandan Francs Only/For all project (42,546,000 FRW) all taxes inclusive, in the period of Twenty-Four (24) months. The contract price is fixed and cannot be revised during the course of the contract, or during an extension of time thereof

Page 555

121 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

stipulates that the document called financial submission proposal is one of the components of the contract, there has been no changing of the prices as alleged by Gatsibo District, because it is obvious that the tender price of 42,456,000 FRW divided by 24 months was in the contract, equals 1,769,000 FRW per month.

The Court finds that Gatsibo District acknowledges the letter dated 31/01/2017, that of 01/08/2017 and that of 18/04/2018 whose subject was the contract extension as follows: i. The first letter extends it from 31/01/2017 to 16/08/2017; ii. The second letter extends it from 16/08/2017 to 16/12/2017; iii. The third letter extends it from 19/03/201834 to 15/07/2018.

The Court finds that the provisions of Article 9, the first and second paragraphs, of the contract dated 16/02/2015 between Gatsibo District and V.CO Ltd that the invariable price of the contract is 42,456,000 FRW within 24 months of the execution of the contract or during an additional period that must be considered within the scope of the contract and what both parties intended, because the contract could have ended in 24 months as planned, or ended earlier because the contractor with the primary tender (ECOTRAP) hastened the work or delayed the completion because the primary contract was suspended for a period of time and later resumed, and V.CO Ltd. which would not pay

34 it is obvious that between the second and third letters, V.CO Ltd had been executing the works for two (02) months and three (03) without an extension contract.

Page 556

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

at that time the initial contract was terminated because it also did not perform any supervision works.

The Court finds that article 45 of the Ministerial Order N° 001/14/10/TC of 19/02/2014, the legal counsel of Gatsibo District allege that the Commercial High Court disregarded it, does not apply to the facts related to the contract between V.CO Ltd and Gatsibo District because the contract was not changed, and the prices were not revised. instead, what happened was that the time of completion of the works was extended and that was foreseen in the contract between the two parties. Also, the amount requested by the respondent in this case is the one contained in the contract based on financial submission proposal which is part of the contract, as explained in other paragraphs of this case.

The Court finds that all additional works carried out by V.CO Ltd after 24 months contained in the provisions of Article 9 of the contract or in the Terms of Reference would be contrary to the agreement of both parties because: i. The duration of the contract cannot not exceed 24 months, yet the price of the contract remains the same, unless there is a suspension of work that causes the time to be extended; otherwise, it would mean that the article is stipulated only in the interest of Gatsibo District, yet it is common to the synallagmatic for valuable consideration contracts; ii. if the contract period is exceeded, the agreed upon price does not correspond to the additional period, which would give rise to illicit enrichment for the party who made the offer;

if the duration of the contract exceeds the agreed upon one, and the price remains as it is, it would mean that the contract signed by Gatsibo District stipulates that the

Page 557

123 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

contractor who was awarded the initial tender would not finish the works within the agreed upon period of time, and that would be contrary to the law because that clause would be tainted with bad faith; however, the parties to the contract have the responsibility to perform it in good faith.

The Court finds that the interpretation of the terms of the contract provided for by Article 71 of Law n°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, which provides that in choosing a reasonable meaning of a promise, a contract or a clause thereof, the meaning which operates against the party who supplied the words or a writing shall generally be preferred. This is what is emphasized by the scholar Philippe Le Tourneau who also explains that doubting about the clauses of the contract should be interpreted against who undertakes an obligation. 35

What is clear to the Court is that the contract dated 16/02/2015 expired after 24 months, Gatsibo District did not make an addendum or a new contract as it was provided for in article 11 of that contract. This means that Gatsibo District does not allege that the same contract went on being executed even though its duration had expired.

The Court finds that, apart from the duration of the contract, Gatsibo District asked to V.CO Ltd at different times to carry out additional works based on the terms agreed upon in the contract dated 16/02/2015, so it should be considered that each document of the extension contract was a new contract as far as the duration of the works is concerned.

The Court therefore finds that the allegations of Gatsibo District that the Commercial High Court

35 See Philippe Le Tourneau, Droit de la responsabilité et des contrats, régime d’indemnisation, Paris, Dalloz, 2014, p. 1156.

Page 558

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

disregarded the provisions of Article 6436 of Law No. 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, or the provisions of Article 45 of Ministerial Order n° 001/14/10/TC of 19/02/2014 because it did not realize that what V.CO Ltd did was to change the agreed upon prices in the contract, are irrelevant, because what happened was to extend the duration of the works and it was done by Gatsibo District, concerning the prices, these were already provided for in the contract as shown and financial submission proposal as one of the documents which is part of the contract.

The Court finds that when V.CO Ltd was requesting for the payment for additional works, Gatsibo District should have been realistic as provided for by Article 65 of Law No. 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 mentioned above, and paid the invoices of the contractor without delay, because that would be performing the obligation to implement the commitments in the contract37. in this context, as per the case file, that after the decision of the Commercial High Court, the District first expressed its willingness to pay to V.CO Ltd, and also indicated when it would be done if funds are available in the 2022-2023 budget, but later on changed its position.

Based on what has just been elucidated above, this Court finds that, regarding the principle that V.CO Ltd should be compensated for the additional works carried out, nothing was disregarded by the Commercial High Court. However, it is clear to the Court finds that V.CO Ltd worked for 37 months and 26 days (24 months in the agreement dated 16/02/2015, 6 months in the letter dated 31/01/2017,

36 This article provides that contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. 37 Article 7.2: The Client shall a.: Pay the invoices submitted by the Consultant within the time limit specified in this contract.

Page 559

125 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

4 months in letter of 16/08/2017 and three months and 26 days in the letter of 19/03/2018), which means that the amount to be paid is 1,769,000 FRW x 13 months and 2638 days equal to 24,530,133 FRW . ii. Determining whether the damages should be granted in this case

Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grace and Counsel Bunani Bonaventure argue that that in paragraph 24 of the judgment under review on the grounds of injustice, the Commercial High Court ordered to Gatsibo District to pay to V.CO Ltd the damages amounting to 1,500,000 FRW for procedural and advocate fees as well as the payment of 60,000 FRW as Gatsibo District dragged it into unnecessary court proceedings by refusing to perform its obligations, causing V.CO Ltd to lose some assets, but it also caused injustice because the Court disregarded the law and the contract between the two parties, which shows that Gatsibo District did not fail to fulfill its obligations, but that it was involved in frivolous cases.

They also allege that in paragraph 25 of that judgment, the Commercial High Court ordered that the damages claimed by Gatsibo District amount to 2,500,000 FRW, including the advocate fee of 2,000,000 FRW and 500,000 FRW for procedural fee are irrelevant as the elements of evidence were disregarded; so they request the Supreme Court to confirm that the damages are relevant.

Kalisa Théogène assisted by Me Habineza Jean Paul allege that no damages should be granted to Gatsibo District because it triggered the lawsuits. They rather request to the Supreme Court to consider the request of V.CO Ltd and consider it because it has been dragged to courts

38 instead of 39 months and 26 days as alleged by V.CO Ltd.

Page 560

126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

continuously, especially since the District had started the payment procedure as evidenced by the documents from its management that showed how it had planned to pay V.CO Ltd using the 2022-2023 budget. They pray the Supreme Court to order to Gatsibo District to pay to V.CO Ltd 3,500,000 FRW for procedural fee and be reimbursed 1,000,000 FRW paid to the advocate who represents it before the Supreme Court.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the various damages claimed by Gatsibo District in this case should not be granted because it has not won the case.

The Court finds that the procedural fee claimed by V.CO Ltd in this case shall be granted because it is obvious that it won the case in the Commercial High Court but Gatsibo District was not satisfied with the decision and continued the case, making it continue following up court proceedings. However, the Court finds that the procedural fee claimed by V.CO Ltd amounting to 3,500,000 FRW is not substantiated by the elements of evidence, so, in its discretion, the Court grants to it 300,000 FRW.

The Court also finds that the advocate fee claimed by V.CO Ltd is relevant because it deemed it necessary to hire an advocate to represent it, so the fact that Gatsibo District loses this case gives rise to its obligation to pay to V.CO Ltd 500,000 FRW at this level, determined in discretion of the Court. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Page 561

127 GATSIBO DISTRICT v. V.CO LTD

Holds that the application filed by Gatsibo District seeking the review on grounds of injustice of the judgment RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 26/05/2021, has no merit;

Holds that the judgment RCOMA 00670/2020/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on 26/05/2021, is overruled only in relation to the amount of money for additional works that Gatsibo District must pay to V .CO Ltd;

Orders to Gatsibo District to pay to V.CO Ltd 24,530,133 FRW;

Orders to Gatsibo District to pay to V.CO Ltd the procedural fee amounting to 300,000 FRW and the advocate fee equivalent to 500,000 FRW, the total is 800,000 FRW.

Page 562

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 563

129 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Cyanzayire, Nyirinkwaya, Hitiyaremye and Muhumuza J.) June 23,2023] Law on the protection of intellectual property – Copyright – The primary moral and economic rights to any literary, artistic, scientific, or audiovisual work belong to its creator or those who collaborated in its creation. Law on the protection of intellectual property – Copyright – Being an actor in a fictional work does not grant a person the rights of the author of that work, as everything they perform is directed and controlled by the director. Law on the protection of intellectual property – Infringment on the copyright – Liability – A person or company that commercially exploits creative works in their own name and for their own benefit without authorization from the rightful owner is liable, as such works are protected by law. Facts: Habyalimana Charles filed a lawsuit against MTN Rwandacell Ltd before the Nyarugenge Commercial Court, alleging that MTN used his fictional characters, Kanyombya and Sekaganda, for its commercial gain without his authorization. He claims that this infringed upon his moral and economic rights as the creator of these works. As a result, he is requesting the court to order MTN to compensate him with various damages. 129

Page 564

130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

MTN raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of Habyalimana Charles’ lawsuit, arguing that he lacked legal standing to file the claim since the certificate of registration indicated that the rights to protect the disputed works belonged to Société de Production Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2a2m. The court ruled that the case was inadmissible due to his lack of legal standing. Habyalimana appealed to the Commercial High Court, which ruled that he had the legal standing to sue over the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda. Consequently, the previous judgment was set aside, and the case was referred to the Commercial Court for a full hearing on the merits. The case was referred to the Commercial Court and Yellow Dot Rwanda Ltd, Netsolutions Ltd, Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien intervened in the case at MTN's request. The court ruled that MTN had used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda for commercial purposes upon the permission of the rightful owners. Habyalimana appealed to the Commercial High Court, which ruled that his appeal was unfounded. He then lodged a second appeal with the Court of Appeal, which determined that the matter was outside its jurisdiction. Subsequently, Habyalimana applied for a review of the Commercial High Court's judgment, claiming it was vitiated by injustice. He argued that the creator of a work holds the primary moral and economic rights to it, and that for someone to be recognized as the rightful owner, it is sufficient for the creator's name to appear on the work in the usual manner, unless evidence suggests otherwise.

Page 565

131 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

MTN submitted that the films featuring the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were not registered under Habyalimana's name, but were instead registered by Société de Production Audio, Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2 à 2m under the name of Marie Goretti Niragire, as reflected on the certificate. Therefore, MTN argued that this company holds the rights to the works as the rightful owner. in its submission, Netsolutions Ltd also stated that it had nothing to say on the issue of whether Habyalimana Charles was the rightful owner of the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, since the contracts between Netsolutions Ltd and Niyitegeka Gratien only concern his personal comedies, which have nothing to do with these fictional works. Niyitegeka Gratien stated that he played the character of Sekaganda in the film Zirara Zishya at the request of Habyalimana Charles. He clarified that the name Sekaganda was not used elsewhere, except when he was called by that name in everyday life. He also argued that there was no reason for him to be involved in the case as his contract with Netsolutions Ltd has nothing to do with the fictional character Sekaganda. in his submission, Kayitankore Ndjoli (Kanyombya) further stated that he was not a fictional character created by Habyalimana Charles, as they never entered into any contract. He explained that the name Kanyombya, which he has portrayed in films since 2002, was his own creation. He added that if Habyalimana Charles registered the name as his own work, it would be an error, as Charles should have first sought his permission to use and register the name.

Page 566

132 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Habyalimana further requested that MTN be ordered to compensate him for using his works for commercial gain without his authorization. He also disputed MTN's claim that the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were not the ones sold on their platform, arguing that what was sold were the comedies of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien, and that this claim had no merit. Habyalimana also demonstrated that MTN operates a business that includes airtime, internet, and other services, and that if someone wants to sell content, MTN provides a platform for distribution, and they agree on a profit-sharing arrangement for the content sold. MTN also argued that works must be registered as private property in order to be considered as used without authorisation. it stated that Habyalimana Charles had not provided evidence that he had registered the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda as his personal property. Furthermore, MTN pointed out that the registration with the RDB relates to the film Zirara Zishya and not to the fictional works in question. Held: 1. The primary moral and economic rights to any literary, artistic, scientific, or audiovisual work belong to its creator or those who collaborated in its creation.

2. Being an actor in a fictional work does not grant a person the rights of the author of that work, as everything they perform is directed and controlled by the director.

3. A person or company that commercially exploits creative works in their own name and for their own benefit without

Page 567

133 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

authorization from the rightful owner is liable, as such works are protected by law.

4. Registering a work with RDB alone is not sufficient to claim moral rights over it unless there is evidence showing that you are the creator of the work. MTN used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda by Habyalimana Charles for commercial gain without authorization; The case will resume with the analysis of the issue regarding compensation on a date to be communicated to the parties by the Court Registry.

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N° 31/2009 of 26/10/2009 on the protection of intellectual property, articles 195 and 222. No cases were referred to Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Habyalimana Charles sued MTN Rwandacell Ltd (referred to in this case as MTN) in the court formerly known as the Nyarugenge Commercial Court, seeking various forms of compensation. His claim is based on MTN's unauthorised use of his fictional characters, Kanyombya and Sekaganda, in

Page 568

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

its business operations, for profit. He argues that by selling these characters, MTN has violated his moral and economic rights as the creator of these characters.

He claims that his fictional characters, Kanyombya and Sekaganda, appear in a book titled BiBLE39, in another called SCENARiO40, and in the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA, which he wrote and directed. He further stated that MTN, capitalizing on their popularity, created what they called the KANYOMBYA COMEDY SERViCE and the SEKAGANDA DRAMA SERViCE, altering their appearances.

MTN objected to the admissibility of Habyalimana Charles' claim, arguing that he lacked the capacity to bring the case. They pointed out that the registration certificate N16/09/RDB indicated that the entity granted the rights to protect these works was the Société de Production Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2a2m. in the RCOM Nyarugenge

39 He explains that BIBLE is a small booklet that contains the names of fictional characters and the detailed characteristics of each one, as well as the relationships between them. This allows anyone who is to portray these characters to fully understand how the fictional character was conceived, including their traits and how they interact with others in the story. 40 He explains that SCENARIO is a book that outlines the dialogue each actor must say, how they should deliver it, the actions they must perform, the manner in which they should perform them, and the timing of those actions. it also includes the emotions the character should express at every moment. it is essentially the document that contains the entire story (plot) as it should be represented by the actors.

Page 569

135 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

judgment, it was ruled that Charles Habyalimana's application was inadmissible because he did not have the legal capacity to file it.

Habyalimana Charles appealed to the Commercial High Court, and in judgment RCOMA 00055/2017/CHC/HCC, rendered on 08/03/2018, the court ruled that he has the legal standing to challenge the use of his fictional characters, Kanyombya and Sekaganda, who appeared in the credits of the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA, used in other activities without permission. The court set aside the previous judgment and ordered that the case be referred back to the Commercial Court for a hearing on its merits. Additionally, the court directed MTN to pay Habyalimana Charles 800,000 Rwandan Francs as counsel's fees.

The case was referred back to the Commercial Court, and at MTN's request, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, Netsolutions Ltd, Kayitankore Ndjoli, and Niyitegeka Gratien intervened in the case. in the judgment RCOM 00731/2019/TC, rendered on 04/10/2019, the court ruled that MTN, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, and Netsolutions Ltd lawfully used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda for commercial purposes that generated revenue. Consequently, the court ordered Habyalimana Charles to pay MTN 700,000 Rwandan Francs as the counsel’s fee.

The court made the following decision, motivated by the following reasoning: - in the credits of the film ZIRARA ZISHYA, a fictional character named Sekaganda is credited,

Page 570

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

whose real name is Niyitegeka Gratien. Similarly, in the films HARANIRA KUBAHO and NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, a fictional character named Kanyombya appears, whose real name is Kayitankore Ndjoli. These pieces of evidence confirm that Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien, together with Habyalimana Charles, collaborated in the creation of the fictional characters and the films in which they appeared. Consequently, they hold equal rights with Habyalimana Charles regarding the intellectual property of the characters they portrayed in these films; - Although Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien were bound by employment contracts with Habyalimana Charles while acting as fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda in ZIRARA ZISHYA and HARANIRA KUBAHO, these contracts do not extinguish their rights to the fictional characters they portrayed unless these contracts explicitly prevent them from using the names of those characters; - Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien retained the right to enter into contracts to sell their private intellectual property related to the comedic characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, as they owned the rights to these fictional creations; - MTN, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, and Netsolutions Ltd did not commit any wrongdoing by distributing works based on the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, as they had obtained permission

Page 571

137 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

from Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien, who, in collaboration with Habyalimana Charles, created those characters.

Habyalimana Charles appealed to the Commercial High Court. in judgment RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC, rendered on 15/01/2021, this court ruled that his appeal lacked merit and ordered him to pay MTN 1,000,000 Rwandan Francs as counsel’s fees and 700,000 Rwandan Francs as procedural fees.

The court explained that Habyalimana Charles himself admitted that he had no claims against Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien and had no objections to the agreements they had entered into with Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd and Netsolutions Ltd, as these agreements related to their own comedy works. He also did not dispute Kayitankore Ndjoli's claim that he personally created the name "Kanyombya" and used it as a character he portrayed in the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO and ZIRARA ZISHYA on which they collaborated. in light of the above, the Tribunal found no basis to conclude that the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, which Habyalimana Charles claimed to be his creations, were the same as those featured in these films and subsequently commercialised on MTN's platform. As a result, there was no basis on which to determine whether MTN, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd and Netsolutions Ltd required authorisation from the rightful owners of these characters.

Habyalimana Charles appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that his second appeal did not fall within its jurisdiction. On 18/11/2021, Counsel Bundogo innocent, representing Habyalimana Charles, filed an application with

Page 572

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

the President of the Court of Appeal for a review of the judgment RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC delivered by the Commercial High Court on 15/01/2021, on the grounds that it was vitiated by an injustice. After considering the application, the President of the Court of Appeal referred the matter to the President of the Supreme Court for further consideration. After considering the report submitted, the President of the Supreme Court granted the petition for review and the case was set for hearing before the Supreme Court on 18/01/2023.

On the scheduled date, the Court called the case, and the parties appeared as follows: Habyalimana Charles, represented by Counsel Bundogo innocent; MTN, represented by Counsel Kabera Jean Claude alongside Counsel Bizimana Emmanuel; Netsolutions Ltd, represented by Counsel Semadwinga Claude; and Niyitegeka Gratien, represented by Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grâce. Kayitankore Ndjoli appeared in person but without legal representation, while Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd failed to appear, having been summoned to an unknown address. Since it is not permissible for a litigant to appear before the Supreme Court without legal assistance, the Court adjourned the hearing to allow Kayitankore Ndjoli time to secure legal counsel. Furthermore, the Court ordered Niyitegeka Gratien to appear in person at the next hearing.

The case was heard in a public on 17/ 04/ 2023, with Habyalimana Charles assisted by Counsel Bundogo innocent; MTN represented by Counsel Kabera Jean Claude alongside Counsel Bizimana Emmanuel; Netsolutions Ltd represented by Counsel Semadwinga Claude; Niyitegeka Gratien was assisted by Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grâce; and Kayitankore Ndjoli assisted by Me Nshimiyimana Moubaraka. However,

Page 573

139 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd failed to appear despite being summoned to an unknown address.

The court first analyzed the objection raised by Counsel Semadwinga Claude, representing Netsolutions Ltd, who argued that, based on Article 55 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018, which determines the jurisdiction of courts, Habyalimana Charles’s claim should not have been admitted since he failed to demonstrate any legal injustice in his case. However, the court informed the parties that it was unnecessary to examine this objection, as it did not concern a matter of public order. Furthermore, in line with several established jurisprudences, once the President of the Supreme Court has authorized the review of a case, it must be heard on its merits, and no objections except those related to public order can prevent it from proceeding.

Having made this ruling, the Court proceeded to hear the case on the merits, addressing the following issues: a. Determining the rightful owner of the rights to the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda; b. Whether MTN had used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda for commercial purposes without authorisation; c. With regard to the damages claimed by Charles Habyalimana based on his allegation that MTN had commercialised the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda by altering their appearance without authorisation, and the damages claimed in this regard, the Court

Page 574

140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

informed the parties that it would first rule on the two above-mentioned issues. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Determining the rightful owner of the rights to the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda

Habyalimana Charles and his legal counsel, Bundogo innocent, argue that in judgment RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC, the Commercial High Court upheld the previous ruling despite the contradictions within it. They pointed out that after reviewing the credits of the films ZIRARA ZISHYA, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, the court acknowledged that Habyalimana Charles was both the writer and director of these films, while Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien were merely actors. However, the court still concluded that they had jointly created the fictional characters, despite the fact that an actor cannot be considered an author. They based their argument on Article 227 of Law No. 31/2009 of 26/10/2009, on intellectual property rights, which stipulates that "the original owners of the moral and economic rights shall be the co-authors of the audiovisual work, namely the director, the author of the scenario, or the composer of the music."

They argue that the creator of a work has the primary rights, both moral and economic, over his or her creation. Furthermore, for a person to be recognised as the author of a work, it is sufficient for his or her name to appear on the work in the usual manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. This argument is based on Articles 222 and 223 of the

Page 575

141 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

aforementioned Law No. 31/2009 on the Protection of intellectual Property Rights.

They explain that several professions are involved in the creation of an audiovisual work such as a film. Experts in film production classify these professions into 57 key roles, divided into two main groups namely creative professions (conception) and technical execution professionals (execution), who implement what has been conceived by the artists. in this classification, the scriptwriter belongs to the creative group, while the actor belongs to the execution group.

They argue that a fictional character is created before the film itself is produced. The character is developed by the film’s writer, known as the scénariste, who first drafts the BiBLE—a document that details the characteristics and attributes of each fictional character. These details are then incorporated into the SCENARiO, the screenplay that guides the entire film production. Therefore, an actor merely portrays a pre-existing fictional character, strictly following the director’s instructions. Since the actor is compensated for their performance, their rights over the work end there, and they do not acquire any further ownership or intellectual property rights over the character they played.

They provide the example of the globally recognized fictional character James Bond, created by ian Fleming in 1953. They noted that the first James Bond film was produced in 1962, nine years after the character's creation, and by 2019, a total of 25 films had been made, featuring nine different actors portraying the role. They argue that the fictional character James Bond belongs to ian Fleming and his heirs until it enters

Page 576

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

the public domain, while the actors merely assume the role temporarily, with one actor replacing another over time.

They further provide the example of the popular fictional character Spider-Man, created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, who has been portrayed by more than eight different actors over time. They emphasized that while different actors come and go, the fictional character itself remains the intellectual property of its original creators (co-authors) and their heirs until it enters the public domain.

Counsel Kabera Jean Claude and Counsel Bizimana Emmanuel, representing MTN, argue that the films featuring the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were registered under Société de Production Audio, Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2 à 2m, which is listed under Marie Goretti Niragire. They contend that since this company appears on the certificate, it holds the copyright ownership of these works.

Counsel Semadwinga Claude, representing Netsolutions Ltd, states that he has no comment on whether Habyalimana Charles is the rightful owner of the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda. He argues that the contracts between Netsolutions Ltd and Niyitegeka Gratien only concern his personal comedy sketches and has no connection to those fictional characters.

Niyitegeka Gratien states that, at the request of Habyalimana Charles, he played the fictional character Sekaganda in the film ZIRARA ZISHYA and has never used that name elsewhere, except in everyday life when people called him by it, to which he responded. His legal representative, Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, adds that there is no reason

Page 577

143 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

for Niyitegeka Gratien to be involved in the case since the contracts he had with Netsolutions Ltd has no connection to the fictional character Sekaganda.

Kayitankore Ndjoli states that he is not a fictional character created by Habyalimana Charles and that the name Kanyombya, which he used in Habyalimana Charles' films, was created by him. He further claims that if Habyalimana Charles registered the name as his creation, it would be a mistake, as he should have sought his permission to use and register his name. When asked when he began using the name Kanyombya, he responded that it began in 2002 when he started working with Habyalimana Charles. His legal representative, Counsel Nshimiyimana Moubaraka, also argues that Kayitankore Ndjoli never had a contract with Habyalimana Charles to be considered his fictional character, and therefore he cannot be deemed to have violated any agreement.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 195, paragraph one (10), of the Law n° 31/2009 of 26/10/2009 on the protection of intellectual property, reads that literary and artistic works that are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain are subject to protection granted by this Law, including, among others, works expressed by writing (books, pamphlets and other writings) as well as audiovisual works.

Article 222 of the very Law further reads that the owner of a copy right shall have priority on moral and economic rights on his/her work, and article 227 states that The original owners of the moral and economic rights shall be the co-authors of the

Page 578

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

audiovisual work, as the director, the author of the scenario or the composer of the music.

Article 6 of the Law on the protection of intellectual property provides definitions for terms related to copyrights. it is stated that : - An “author”means a natural person who created a work (subparagraph 20) ; - A “work” means any literary, artistic or scientific work (subparagraph 170) ; - An “audiovisual work” means a work that consists of a series of related images which impart the impression of motion, with or without accompanying sounds, susceptible of being made visible, and where accompanied by sounds, susceptible of being made audible (subparagraph 190) ; - A “work of joint authorship” means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors (subparagraph 220).

All the aforementioned legal provisions clearly state that the primary moral and economic rights to any literary, artistic, scientific, or audiovisual work belong to its creator or those who collaborated in its creation.

With regard to the requirements for the protection of original intellectual works, Article 197 of the law protecting intellectual property reads that : The protection of an original intellectual creation provided under this law shall not be subject to any prior permission from authorities. However, if that

Page 579

145 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

happens, authors of works under protection of this law may register their works at the empowered authorities (paragraph one), and that Protection of works shall take place at the beginnings of their creation, even if they are not incorporated to a medium. A works shall be deemed to be created, irrespective of its disclosure and shall be protected by the sole fact of their creation, even if it is not fully accomplished and during the time it is designed by its author (paragraph two). The provisions in the aforementioned pargraphs clarify that a work is protected even if it is not registered, and the protection applies as soon as it is created.

Regarding the evidence that demonstrates the ownership of copyrights (the holder of the author's rights), Article 223 of this law, paragraph one, states that : in order for an author of a work to be presumed as the owner of the copyright, in the absence of proof to the contrary, and so as to be entitled to rights of claiming for damages relating to violation of rights of the author, it is sufficient for his/her name to be indicated on the work in the usual manner.

As far as this case is concerned, among the evidence presented by Habyalimana Charles showing that he is the rightful owner of the characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, the following were included: - BiBLES containing the names of the actors in the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA. in the Bible of the film ZIRARA ZISHYA, the fictional character Sekaganda is listed; in the Bible of that film and in the Bibles of the films HARANIRA KUBAHO and NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA

Page 580

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

AGEZE, the fictional character Kanyombya is listed; - The summary of the film ZIRARA ZISHYA mentions that it is the third season of a story that started with NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE as the first season and HARANIRA KUBAHO as the second season. it is also mentioned that the scriptwriter of the play is Habyalimana Charles.

The closing credits of the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA mention that the scriptwriter and director of the plays is Habyalimana Charles, and that Kayitankore Ndjoli played the character Kanyombya. it is also mentioned in the credits of the film ZIRARA ZISHYA that Niyitegeka Gratien played the character Sekaganda.

The court finds that the fact that the opening and closing credits of both the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA each state that Habyalimana Charles is the writer is sufficient on its own to show that he is the sole creator of the characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda mentioned in those films. No evidence has been presented to refute this, and there are no other names listed as the writers of these films that could suggest joint authorship.

The court finds that, in addition to what is stated in the credits of the aforementioned films regarding the writer and director, the documents, including the Bibles of the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA

Page 581

147 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA, as well as the synopsis of ZIRARA ZISHYA, are also included in the list of works protected by the law aimed at protecting intellectual property. Based on what is stated in Article 195 referenced earlier, these documents further confirm that Habyalimana Charles is the one who created the films and the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda mentioned therein.

The court also finds that the fact that the credits of these films mention Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien as actors is sufficient to demonstrate that they did not play a role in the creation of the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, whom they portrayed. This is understood because acting in a fictional work does not grant one the rights of an author. This is clear as their actions were directed and guided by the director of the film.

As for MTN's argument that Société de production Audio, Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2 à 2m holds the copyright over the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda because it registered the films featuring them with RDB, the Court finds this claim unfounded. The presented evidence, including the credits, film bibles, and summaries, clearly indicates that Habyalimana Charles is the creator of these characters. Furthermore, Articles 222 and 227 of the intellectual Property Law establish that the original creators or co-creators of a work hold the primary moral and economic rights over it.

Regarding Kayitankore Ndjoli's claim that he invented the name "Kanyombya," the Court finds this assertion unsubstantiated, as he himself acknowledges that he began using the name in 2002 while working with Habyalimana

Page 582

148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Charles. Furthermore, the credits of the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA indicate that he had no role in their creation other than acting in them.

Based on the law and the evidence outlined above, it is in the finding of the Court that Habyalimana Charles is the rightful holder of the legally protected rights to the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda. b. Whether MTN had used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda for commercial purposes without authorisation

Habyalimana Charles and his legal representative, Me Bundogo innocent, argue that the Commercial Court ruled that MTN, Yellow Dot Rwanda Ltd and Netsolutions Ltd had commercialised comedy sketches attributed to the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, having obtained permission from Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien, who were considered to be co-creators of these characters alongside Habyalimana Charles and co-creators of the films in which they appeared. They further contend that the Commercial High Court, instead of rectifying this decision, found that no evidence had been produced to prove that the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were actually disseminated through MTN's platform, making it unnecessary to assess whether MTN had obtained proper authorisation from their rightful owner. They argue that the court disregarded the evidence in the case file, which showed that MTN had exploited the popularity of these characters to create the so- called "SERIVISI Y'URWENYA YA Kanyombya" and "SERIVISI Y'IKINAMICO SEKAGANDA".

Page 583

149 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

They also argue that MTN dragged Yellow Dot Rwanda Ltd and Netsolutions Ltd into the case by claiming that it had acted with proper authorisation, claiming that these companies had obtained rights from Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien on the basis of agreements they had signed. However, they claim that none of these agreements explicitly granted the right to use the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not suing these actors and these companies, but MTN, because it is obvious that MTN has commercialised their comedy/content by exploiting the popularity of these fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda. They classify this as character merchandising, which refers to the practice of using the fame of a well-known character to attract consumers to a product or service.

They argue that no one other than Habyalimana Charles himself, as the creator of the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, had the authority to grant MTN the right to commercialise these works. Since MTN used these fictional characters for profit-driven business purposes without proper authorisation and even altered their original form, they claim that MTN should be held liable and ordered to pay damages.

Counsel Kabera Jean Claude and Counsel Bizimana Emmanuel, representing MTN, argue that the characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were not the works sold on MTN's platform. instead, they claim that the content sold consisted of jokes created by Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien.

They also argue that MTN is primarily engaged in the business of selling airtime, internet, and other services. When an individual wants to commercialize content, MTN simply provides a platform for distribution, with an agreed-upon

Page 584

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

revenue-sharing model. it is within this framework that MTN entered into agreements with Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd and Netsolutions Ltd.

They further argue that the services available on MTN's platform were not provided directly by MTN itself, but rather by Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd and Netsolutions Ltd, who independently sourced the comedy content from individuals who assured them that they had full rights to it. Therefore, they contend that Habyalimana Charles' claim that his copyrighted characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were used without permission should not be attributed to MTN. They emphasise that MTN had no contractual agreement with Niyitegeka Gratien or Kayitankore Ndjoli and therefore had no obligation to verify the rights they had to the comedy content they provided to Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd and Netsolutions Ltd under their respective agreements.

They further argue that for intellectual property to be considered as used without authorization, it must be officially registered as private property. They claim that Habyalimana Charles has not provided any evidence proving that he registered the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda as his personal intellectual property. They also point out that the only work registered with RDB is the film ZiRARA ZiSHYA, not the fictional characters themselves.

Counsel Semadwinga Claude, representing Netsolutions Ltd, states that there was no specific contract between Netsolutions Ltd and MTN regarding the sale of comedy content, as Netsolutions Ltd already had a platform agreement with MTN for selling its products. He explains that MTN provided the platform, but the content uploaded was

Page 585

151 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

given by the artists themselves in relation to their own works. He further clarifies that the contract between Netsolutions Ltd and Niyitegeka Gratien pertained only to his personal comedy content and had nothing to do with the fictional character Sekaganda. Niyitegeka Gratien also asserts that the works he sold were his original creations and that he never signed any agreement granting Netsolutions Ltd or any other entity the right to use the name Sekaganda for promotional purposes. He emphasizes that, as an artist, he wants his work to be recognized under his own name.

Regarding the fact that his name was followed by A.K.A Sekaganda in the contract with Netsolutions Ltd, he says that this is a matter of writing but does not mean that the comedy sketches he performed should be labelled as Sekaganda's. Counsel Uwamahoro Grace, also representing Niyitegeka Gratien, adds that MTN has not produced any evidence to show that Niyitegeka Gratien authorised the use of his name to promote his comedy content under the name Sekaganda.

Counsel Nshimiyimana Moubaraka, representing Kayitankore Ndjoli, argues that his client's agreements with Yellowdot Ltd have no relevance to the disputed works. He explains that the comedy sketches provided by Kayitankore Ndjoli were based on the agreements with Yellowdot Ltd and that the name Kanyombya was not used in these sketches.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

in order for the Court to assess the issue of whether MTN used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda

Page 586

152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

for commercial purposes without authorization, it is essential to first examine the following questions: - Whether the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were sold on the MTN platform and the role MTN played in that process; - if MTN sold the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, establish whether they were required to obtain authorization from Habyalimana Charles. c. Whether the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were sold on the MTN platform and the role MTN played in that process

in assessing whether the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were sold on MTN's platform, as alleged by Charles Habyalimana, or whether what was sold on their platform were the comedy sketches of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien, as alleged by MTN, there is no other evidence on which the Court can rely other than the evidence in the case file.

Article 12 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides, in its first paragraph, reads that that he claimant must prove a claim, failing which the respondent wins the case. And Article 3 of the Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production in courts reads that Each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges.

The case file contains the following elements of evidence:

Page 587

153 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

a. A short text message encouraging MTN subscribers to access the Kanyombya Comedy Service by calling 765 and an instruction message indicating that when calling that number, subscribers were told: "To listen to today's joke, press 1. To go to your account, press 2. To hear the humorous joke, press 3. Dear esteemed customer, you have selected the minute-long comedy, to subscribe for a monthly subscription for 400 RWF, press 1; weekly subscription for 100 RWF, press 2." By following these instructions, they were provided with what MTN called " URWENYA RWA KANYOMBYA (KANYOMBYA COMEDY)." b. A short text message encouraging MTN subscribers to access the Sekaganda Comedy Service structured as follows: "Sekaganda! Call 1757 to listen to the joke," along with an instruction message indicating that by following the given steps, they were told: "Welcome again to the drama service. To listen to Sekaganda, press 1; to listen to SEBURiKOKO, press 2; to listen to UMUTWARE, press 3. Here, you can listen to various dramas including love, comedy, and others. Subscribe for the weekly drama service to listen to Sekaganda, UMUTWARE, and others for free in the first 20 minutes. To confirm, press 1 for 15 RWF per 5 minutes."

The court found that the fact that MTN subscribers were sent messages encouraging them to call 765, where they were told they would hear jokes from Kanyombya, but when they called, they found jokes from Kayitankore Ndjoli instead; similarly, the fact that subscribers received messages inviting them to call 1757 where they were told they would hear jokes

Page 588

154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

from Sekaganda, but when they called they found jokes from Niyitegeka Gratien instead, is in itself a clear indication that the fictional characters of Kanyombya and Sekaganda were used to promote and commercialise the comedy content of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien.

Furthermore, since Kayitankore Ndjoli played the fictional character Kanyombya in the films Haranira Kubaho, Ntawe Umenya Iyo Bwira Ageze, and Zirara Zishya, and Niyitegeka Gratien played the fictional character Sekaganda in Zirara Zishya, the court finds that linking the fictional characters of Kanyombya and Sekaganda to the comedy content of the actors who portrayed them clearly indicates an intent to leverage the popularity of these characters. This strategy aimed to attract fans of these fictional characters to purchase the comedy content of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien by calling the designated phone numbers. Consequently, the Court concludes that the fictional characters of Kanyombya and Sekaganda were indeed commercialized on MTN’s platform, rendering MTN’s claim that only the personal jokes of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien were sold unsubstantiated. - Regarding MTN’s role in this activity, various pieces of evidence submitted in the case file are examined. Apart from the SMS messages mentioned in paragraph 50 of this case, the following evidence is included:  SMS messages sent to MTN subscribers stating:  "Y'ello, your Kanyombya 1-minute daily subscription has been successfully renewed. You have been granted three days

Page 589

155 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

of free service. Call 765 and enjoy the comedy."  "Y'ello, your Kanyombya 1-minute daily subscription could not be renewed due to insufficient balance. Please top up your account."  "Y'ello, your Kanyombya 1-minute daily service subscription has been deactivated. You can resubscribe by sending STOP 1 to 765."  SMS messages sent to MTN subscribers when they checked their remaining balance, which displayed their account balance followed by the message:  "Sekaganda! Call 1757 to listen to comedy."  The contract between MTN and Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, signed on April 26, 2016, indicating that it was for the commercialization of sports news.  The contract between MTN and Netsolutions Ltd, signed on August 27, 2014, outlining their collaboration.  The contract between Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd and Kayitankore Ndjoli, signed on May 9, 2016, as well as the contract between Netsolutions Ltd and Niyitegeka Gratien, signed on July 28, 2016, stating that they would provide audio content.

Page 590

156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Court finds that upon reviewing the contracts between MTN and Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, as well as MTN and Netsolutions Ltd, along with the agreements these companies signed with Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien—who were all brought into the case by MTN—there is no mention of the use of the fictional characters associated with Kanyombya and Sekaganda. This aligns with the statements of Niyitegeka Gratien and Kayitankore Ndjoli, who assert that they sold their works under their own names and did not use the names Kanyombya or Sekaganda in any way.

The Court finds that even when the messages sent to MTN subscribers are examined, there is no indication that they were issued by Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd or Netsolutions Ltd, as the names of these companies do not appear anywhere in the messages. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that these companies were responsible for adding the wording linking the comedy sketches of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien to the fictional characters associated with Kanyombya and Sekaganda. instead, it is clear that the messages were sent directly by MTN under its own name.

The Court finds that these messages further demonstrate that all commercial activities were conducted solely in MTN’s name. MTN was the entity that advertised the sale of the fictional characters of Kanyombya and Sekaganda, entered into agreements with its subscribers, terminated those agreements when a subscriber lacked sufficient funds on their MTN account, and collected all payments generated from this business.

On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court finds that MTN sold, in its own name and for its own benefit, the

Page 591

157 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

fictional characters of Kanyombya and Sekaganda, created by Charles Habyalimana, and used them to promote the comedy sketches of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien. d. Regarding whether MTN had no right to sell the fictional characters of Kanyombya and Sekaganda without authorization from Habyalimana Charles

Article 228 of the Law N° 31/2009 of 26/10/2009 on the protection of intellectual property stipulates that : The moral rights shall not be transmissible to another when the owner still lives, they shall only be transmissible through testamentary disposition or basing on the Law on succession.

Article 229 of the very Law states that : The economic rights are personal property and are transmissible by testamentary disposition or under the law on succession. During the period of protection, the right owner may assign, by contract arrangement, those rights, in whole or in part, to third person or legal entity (paragraph one). The assignment contract shall be valid only if it is made in writing and signed by parties to the contract (paragraph two).

The foregoing provisions must be considered together with the provisions of Article 199, paragraph 2 of the said Law, which states that : even if such rights are transferred to others, the author of a work shall have the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his/her work[…], and article 200, paragraph one, subparagraph 3 of the same Law provides that the author of the work shall have the exclusive right to carry out or to authorize the adaptation, arrangement or other transformation of the work.

Page 592

158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Regarding this case, it has been established above that Habyalimana Charles is the creator of the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda and that MTN, leveraging their popularity, used them in its business to promote the comedy content of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien. it has also been demonstrated that MTN did not seek prior authorization from Habyalimana Charles for this usage, a fact that MTN does not deny, apart from defending itself by arguing that Habyalimana Charles did not register these creations with RDB as intellectual property, and therefore, he cannot claim that they were used without authorization.

The Court finds that, although MTN does not cite any specific law to support its argument, it is confusing the legal provisions related to trademarks—mentioned in the second paragraph of Law no 31/2009 of October 26, 2009, on the protection of intellectual property, which must be registered to grant exclusive rights to the registrant under Article 14141— with the provisions regarding original works in literature, art, and science. These original works are protected under Article 197 of the same law without requiring prior registration with the authorities. Protection applies from the moment of creation, even if the work has not yet been fixed in a tangible medium.

On the basis of the foregoing legal provisions and the evidence presented, the Court finds that MTN has used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda for its commercial advantage without the necessary authorisation. MTN did not obtain permission from Charles Habyalimana, who holds the legally protected rights to these works.

41 The exclusive right to a mark conferred by this law shall be acquired by means of registration, in accordance with the provisions thereof.

Page 593

159 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (1)

III.

DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that MTN used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, created by Habyalimana Charles, for commercial gain without the necessary authorization.

Decides that the hearing will resume with the analysis of the issue of compensation on a date that will be communicated to the parties by the court registry.

Page 594

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 595

161 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (2)

HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDACELL LTD (2) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00002/2022/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Hitiyaremye, Cyanzayire, Kazungu, Kalihangabo J.) 05 March 2024] Law on the protection of intellectual property – Infringment on the copyright – Liability – Damages – A person or company that commercially exploits creative works in their own name and for their own benefit without authorization from the rightful owner is liable, as such works are protected by law. Procedural laws – Mediation – Mediation brings to end the case under litigation without further formalities, and the terms of the settlement agreement are executed. Facts: Habyalimana Charles filed a lawsuit against MTN Rwandacell Ltd before the Nyarugenge Commercial Court, alleging that MTN used his fictional characters, Kanyombya and Sekaganda, for its commercial gain without his authorization. He claims that this infringed upon his moral and economic rights as the creator of these works. As a result, he is requesting the court to order MTN to compensate him with various damages. MTN raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of Habyalimana Charles’ lawsuit, arguing that he lacked legal standing to file the claim since the certificate of registration indicated that the rights to protect the disputed works belonged to Société de Production Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2a2m.

Page 596

162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The court ruled that the case was inadmissible due to his lack of legal standing. Habyalimana appealed to the Commercial High Court, which ruled that he had the legal standing to sue over the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda. Consequently, the previous judgment was set aside, and the case was referred to the Commercial Court for a full hearing on the merits. The case was referred to the Commercial Court and Yellow Dot Rwanda Ltd, Netsolutions Ltd, Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien intervened in the case at MTN's request. The court ruled that MTN had used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda for commercial purposes upon the permission of the rightful owners. Habyalimana appealed to the Commercial High Court, which ruled that his appeal was unfounded. He then lodged a second appeal with the Court of Appeal, which determined that the matter was outside its jurisdiction. Subsequently, Habyalimana applied for a review of the Commercial High Court's judgment, claiming it was vitiated by injustice. He argued that the creator of a work holds the primary moral and economic rights to it, and that for someone to be recognized as the rightful owner, it is sufficient for the creator's name to appear on the work in the usual manner, unless evidence suggests otherwise. MTN submitted that the films featuring the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were not registered under Habyalimana's name, but were instead registered by Société de Production Audio, Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2 à 2m under the name of Marie Goretti Niragire, as reflected on the

Page 597

163 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (2)

certificate. Therefore, MTN argued that this company holds the rights to the works as the rightful owner. in its submission, Netsolutions Ltd also stated that it had nothing to say on the issue of whether Habyalimana Charles was the rightful owner of the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, since the contracts between Netsolutions Ltd and Niyitegeka Gratien only concern his personal comedies, which have nothing to do with these fictional works. Niyitegeka Gratien stated that he played the character of Sekaganda in the film Zirara Zishya at the request of Habyalimana Charles. He clarified that the name Sekaganda was not used elsewhere, except when he was called by that name in everyday life. He also argued that there was no reason for him to be involved in the case as his contract with Netsolutions Ltd has nothing to do with the fictional character Sekaganda. in his submission, Kayitankore Ndjoli (Kanyombya) further stated that he was not a fictional character created by Habyalimana Charles, as they never entered into any contract. He explained that the name Kanyombya, which he has portrayed in films since 2002, was his own creation. He added that if Habyalimana Charles registered the name as his own work, it would be an error, as Charles should have first sought his permission to use and register the name. Habyalimana further requested that MTN be ordered to compensate him for using his works for commercial gain without his authorization. He also disputed MTN's claim that the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda were not the ones sold on their platform, arguing that what was sold were

Page 598

164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

the comedies of Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien, and that this claim had no merit. Habyalimana also demonstrated that MTN operates a business that includes airtime, internet, and other services, and that if someone wants to sell content, MTN provides a platform for distribution, and they agree on a profit-sharing arrangement for the content sold. MTN also argued that works must be registered as private property in order to be considered as used without authorisation. it stated that Habyalimana Charles had not provided evidence that he had registered the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda as his personal property. Furthermore, MTN pointed out that the registration with the RDB relates to the film Zirara Zishya and not to the fictional works in question. The case was heard in its merits, whereby the court examided the rightful owner of the copyright of the fictional characters of Kanyombya and Sekaganda, and whether MTN used those characters for commercial purposes without outhorization. The court first examined the issue of the owner of the copyright and ruled that Habyarimana Charles is the owner of the fictional character of Kanyombya and Sekaganda works, and also held that MTN used Habyarimana Charles's works for commercial gain without authorization. Consequently, the court again summoned the parties to make their submissions on the remaining issue of compensation. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the court that they have opted for mediation, and they even agreed on the mediator, which the court approved.

Page 599

165 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (2)

The Mediator submitted to the Court a mediation report stating that Habyarimana Charles and MTN were able to reach an agreement on the issue of compensation, and that both parties signed a settlement agreement on the issue of compensation. The Court informed the parties that it had received the mediator's report which indicates that the issue of compensation have been settled. Held:1. A person or company that commercially exploits creative works in their own name and for their own benefit without authorization from the rightful owner is liable, as such works are protected by law. A person or company that uses sells someone else's artwork in their own name and for their own benefit without permission from the owner of the artwork is liable because it is protected by law.

2. Mediation brings to end the case under litigation without further formalities, and the terms of the settlement agreement are executed. Settlement agreement be executed. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure article 241, 7°. Cases referred to:

Page 600

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Busoro Gervais et.al v Busoro Mugunga Desiré, RS/iNJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC rendered by Supreme Court on 28/06/2019; Semapondo Charles na Rwasimpenzi Wellars et.al, RS/iNJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC rendered by Supreme Court on 10/12/2021. Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Habyalimana Charles sued MTN Rwandacell Ltd (referred to in this case as MTN) in the court formerly known as the Nyarugenge Commercial Court, seeking various forms of compensation. His claim is based on MTN's unauthorised use of his fictional characters, Kanyombya and Sekaganda, in its business operations, for profit. He argues that by selling these characters, MTN has violated his moral and economic rights as the creator of these characters.

He claims that his fictional characters, Kanyombya and Sekaganda, appear in a book titled BiBLE42, in another called SCENARiO43, and in the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO

42 He explains that BIBLE is a small booklet that contains the names of fictional characters and the detailed characteristics of each one, as well as the relationships between them. This allows anyone who is to portray these characters to fully understand how the fictional character was conceived, including their traits and how they interact with others in the story. 43 He explains that SCENARIO is a book that outlines the dialogue each actor must say, how they should deliver it, the actions they must perform,

Page 601

167 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (2)

BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA, which he wrote and directed. He further stated that MTN, capitalizing on their popularity, created what they called the KANYOMBYA COMEDY SERViCE and the SEKAGANDA DRAMA SERViCE, altering their appearances.

MTN objected to the admissibility of Habyalimana Charles' claim, arguing that he lacked the capacity to bring the case. They pointed out that the registration certificate N16/09/RDB indicated that the entity granted the rights to protect these works was the Société de Production Audiovisuelle et Multimédia 2a2m. in the RCOM Nyarugenge judgment, it was ruled that Charles Habyalimana's application was inadmissible because he did not have the legal capacity to file it.

Habyalimana Charles appealed to the Commercial High Court, and in judgment RCOMA 00055/2017/CHC/HCC, rendered on 08/03/2018, the court ruled that he has the legal standing to challenge the use of his fictional characters, Kanyombya and Sekaganda, who appeared in the credits of the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO, and ZIRARA ZISHYA, used in other activities without permission. The court set aside the previous judgment and ordered that the case be referred back to the Commercial Court for a hearing on its merits. Additionally, the court

the manner in which they should perform them, and the timing of those actions. it also includes the emotions the character should express at every moment. it is essentially the document that contains the entire story (plot) as it should be represented by the actors.

Page 602

168 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

directed MTN to pay Habyalimana Charles 800,000 Rwandan Francs as counsel's fees.

The case was referred back to the Commercial Court, and at MTN's request, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, Netsolutions Ltd, Kayitankore Ndjoli, and Niyitegeka Gratien intervened in the case. in the judgment RCOM 00731/2019/TC, rendered on 04/10/2019, the court ruled that MTN, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, and Netsolutions Ltd lawfully used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda for commercial purposes that generated revenue. Consequently, the court ordered Habyalimana Charles to pay MTN 700,000 Rwandan Francs as the counsel’s fee.

The court made the following decision, motivated by the following reasoning: - in the credits of the film ZIRARA ZISHYA, a fictional character named Sekaganda is credited, whose real name is Niyitegeka Gratien. Similarly, in the films HARANIRA KUBAHO and NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, a fictional character named Kanyombya appears, whose real name is Kayitankore Ndjoli. These pieces of evidence confirm that Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien, together with Habyalimana Charles, collaborated in the creation of the fictional characters and the films in which they appeared. Consequently, they hold equal rights with Habyalimana Charles regarding the intellectual property of the characters they portrayed in these films;

Page 603

169 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (2)

- Although Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien were bound by employment contracts with Habyalimana Charles while acting as fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda in ZIRARA ZISHYA and HARANIRA KUBAHO, these contracts do not extinguish their rights to the fictional characters they portrayed unless these contracts explicitly prevent them from using the names of those characters; - Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien retained the right to enter into contracts to sell their private intellectual property related to the comedic characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, as they owned the rights to these fictional creations; - MTN, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd, and Netsolutions Ltd did not commit any wrongdoing by distributing works based on the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, as they had obtained permission from Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien, who, in collaboration with Habyalimana Charles, created those characters.

Habyalimana Charles appealed to the Commercial High Court. in judgment RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC, rendered on 15/01/2021, this court ruled that his appeal lacked merit and ordered him to pay MTN 1,000,000 Rwandan Francs as counsel’s fees and 700,000 Rwandan Francs as procedural fees.

The court explained that Habyalimana Charles himself admitted that he had no claims against Kayitankore Ndjoli and Niyitegeka Gratien and had no objections to the agreements they had entered into with Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd and

Page 604

170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Netsolutions Ltd, as these agreements related to their own comedy works. He also did not dispute Kayitankore Ndjoli's claim that he personally created the name "Kanyombya" and used it as a character he portrayed in the films NTAWE UMENYA AHO BWIRA AGEZE, HARANIRA KUBAHO and ZIRARA ZISHYA on which they collaborated. in light of the above, the Tribunal found no basis to conclude that the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda, which Habyalimana Charles claimed to be his creations, were the same as those featured in these films and subsequently commercialised on MTN's platform. As a result, there was no basis on which to determine whether MTN, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd and Netsolutions Ltd required authorisation from the rightful owners of these characters.

Habyalimana Charles appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that his second appeal did not fall within its jurisdiction. On 18/11/2021, Counsel Bundogo innocent, representing Habyalimana Charles, filed an application with the President of the Court of Appeal for a review of the judgment RCOMA 00876/2019/HCC delivered by the Commercial High Court on 15/01/2021, on the grounds that it was vitiated by an injustice. After considering the application, the President of the Court of Appeal referred the matter to the President of the Supreme Court for further consideration. After considering the report submitted, the President of the Supreme Court granted the petition for review and the case was set for hearing before the Supreme Court on 18/01/2023.

On the scheduled date, the Court called the case, and the parties appeared as follows: Habyalimana Charles, represented by Counsel Bundogo innocent; MTN, represented by Counsel

Page 605

171 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (2)

Kabera Jean Claude alongside Counsel Bizimana Emmanuel; Netsolutions Ltd, represented by Counsel Semadwinga Claude; and Niyitegeka Gratien, represented by Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grâce. Kayitankore Ndjoli appeared in person but without legal representation, while Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd failed to appear, having been summoned to an unknown address. Since it is not permissible for a litigant to appear before the Supreme Court without legal assistance, the Court adjourned the hearing to allow Kayitankore Ndjoli time to secure legal counsel. Furthermore, the Court ordered Niyitegeka Gratien to appear in person at the next hearing.

The case was heard in a public on 17/ 04/ 2023, with Habyalimana Charles assisted by Counsel Bundogo innocent; MTN represented by Counsel Kabera Jean Claude alongside Counsel Bizimana Emmanuel; Netsolutions Ltd represented by Counsel Semadwinga Claude; Niyitegeka Gratien was assisted by Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grâce; and Kayitankore Ndjoli assisted by Me Nshimiyimana Moubaraka. However, Yellowdot Rwanda Ltd failed to appear despite being summoned to an unknown address.

The court first analyzed the objection raised by Counsel Semadwinga Claude, representing Netsolutions Ltd, who argued that, based on Article 55 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018, which determines the jurisdiction of courts, Habyalimana Charles’s claim should not have been admitted since he failed to demonstrate any legal injustice in his case. However, the court informed the parties that it was unnecessary to examine this objection, as it did not concern a matter of public order. Furthermore, in line with several established jurisprudences, once the President of the Supreme Court has

Page 606

172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

authorized the review of a case, it must be heard on its merits, and no objections—except those related to public order—can prevent it from proceeding.

Having made this ruling, the Court proceeded to hear the case on the merits, addressing the following issues: d. Determining the rightful owner of the rights to the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda; e. Whether MTN had used the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda for commercial purposes without authorisation; f. With regard to the damages claimed by Charles Habyalimana based on his allegation that MTN had commercialised the fictional characters Kanyombya and Sekaganda by altering their appearance without authorisation, and the damages claimed in this regard, the Court informed the parties that it would first rule on the two above-mentioned issues.

On 23/06/2023, the Court made the prelinary ruling and held as follows: a. Habyarimana Charles is the owner of the copyright protected by law on the Kanyombya and Sekaganda art works; b. MTN used these works of Habyarimana Charles for commercial purposes without having the rights to them.

Following this decision, the Court again summoned the parties to hear the remaining issue of compensation. On

Page 607

173 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (2)

17/10/2023, all appeared, Habyarimana Charles represented by Counsel Bundogo innocent, MTN represented by Counsel Kabera Jean Claude, NETSOLUTiONS Ltd represented by Counsel Semadwinga Claude, Niyitegeka Gratien represented by Counsel Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, Kayitankore Ndjoli represented by Counsel Karangwa Olivier, while YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd did not appear but was summoned to an unknown location.

At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the Court that they wished to proceed to mediation, and even agreed on the mediator, Prof. Sam Rugege.

After hearing the parties' requests, the Court decided to adjourn the hearing of the case and to allow the parties to proceed to mediation. it also decided that Prof. Sam Rugege was to be the mediator in the case between Habyarimana Charles and MTN, and that he should submit a mediation report no later than 31/12/2023.

On 29/12/2023, Prof. Sam Rugege submitted to the Court a mediation report prepared on that date, stating that Habyarimana Charles and MTN were able to reach an agreement on the issue of compensation, so that on 28/12/2023, they signed a settlement agreement in case RS/iNJUST/RCOM 00002/2022/SC on the issue of compensation.

The hearing to approve the mediation decision was held on 05/03/2024, with all parties present, Habyarimana Charles represented by Me Bundogo innocent, MTN represented by Me Kabera Jean Claude, Niyitegeka Gratien represented by Me Uwamahoro Marie Grâce, Kayitankore Ndjoli represented by Me Kagabo Théoneste, while NETSOLUTiONS Ltd and

Page 608

174 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

YELLOWDOT Rwanda Ltd did not appear but were duly summoned. The court informed the parties that it had received the mediator's report stating that the dispute over compensation had been completely resolved and that nothing remained to be considered. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Determining whether the settlement agreement should be approved 

Hashingiwe kuri raporo y’ubuhuza yo ku wa 29/12/2023 ivuga ko Habyarimana Charles na MTN bumvikanye ku kibazo cy’indishyi cyari gisigaye gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga uru rubanza rugomba gusozwa nta yindi mihango, bityo hakazarangizwa ibikubiye mu masezerano y’ubwumvikane Habyarimana Charles na MTN bagiranye ku wa 28/12/2023, nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 241, 7° 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 inyandiko y’ubwumvikane iriho umukono w’impande zombi n’ubwunzi byakorewe hanze y’urukiko ari inyandikompesha.

Based on the mediation report of 29/12/2023 stating that Habyarimana Charles and MTN have reached an agreement on the issue of compensation which was the only issue pending in this case, the Court finds that this case should be concluded without further formalities, thus giving effect to the terms of the settlement agreement between Habyarimana Charles and MTN on 28/12/2023, as provided for in Article

Page 609

175 HABYARIMANA v MTN RWANDA CELL LTD (2)

241, 7° of Law No. 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative proceedings, which provides that a settlement agreement signed by both parties and a settlement concluded outside of court are enforceable III.DECISION OF THE COURT

it holds that the issue of compensation, which was still pending in case RS/iNJUST/RCOM 000002/2021/SC, was settled as agreed between Habyarimana Charles and MTN Rwandacell Ltd in the agreement they made.

Orders that the a settlement agreement be executed as it is.

Page 610

176 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 611

177 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCOMAA 00090/2022/CA (Rukundakuvuga, P.J., Umugwaneza and Munyangeri, J.) October 14, 2022] Auction – Invalidation of an auction – Writing to the Registrar General – Calculating days for writing to the Registrar General – The days mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General whose calculation formula was not specified, are calculated in the form of consecutive calendar days (jours calendriers consécutifs) – Instructions of the Registrar General Nº 002/2021/ORG of 29/06/2021 modifying the instructions of the Registrar General Nº 001/2020/ORG of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage, article 10 (39 bis).) Laws governing the commercial procedure - Invalidation of an auction – Filing an appeal - Writing to the Registrar General – Instances in which several complementary letters are written - When Registrar General receives several complementary letters, the letter that is relied upon in calculating the time limit in which the Registrar General should have replied to the letter, is the one that was submitted first. Facts: Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd applied for a loan from two banks namely Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc and Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, and mortgaged the immovable property registered under UPi: 1/02/08/01/599; it failed to repay the loan and the property was auctioned by Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel, and it was acquired by Alliance investment Group Ltd and the receiver wrote a

Page 612

178 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

report to the Registrar General, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General requesting him/her to invalidate that auction, besides, it wrote another complementary letter indicating that among the reasons underlying the request for the invalidation of the auction is the amount required for repayment; the Registrar General in replying to both letters, informed Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd that there is no reason to invalidate the auction. Having been dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar General, Kigali Business Center filed a case before the Commercial Court suing Court Bailiff Muhire requesting the court to invalidate the auction conducted on its property because it is illegal. That Court declared that the case was not admissible because the claimant did not respect the time limit to submit its case to the Registrar General and the time limit to appeal to the Court. KBC Ltd appealed against that judgment before the Commercial High Court claiming that the Court disregarded articles 275 and 276 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure that provide for the way the time limits are counted. The Commercial High Court held that KBC Ltd wrote to the Registrar General within the five days mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General. it also declared that the case was filed

within the time limits provided by the law, based on the fact that these time limits must be calculated from the time the Registrar General received the letter, ordered that the appealed case be sent to the Commercial Court to be tried on the merits without any other court fees. Court Bailiff Muhire, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc and Alliance investment Group Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal claiming that the

Page 613

179 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

Commercial High Court misapplied the law governing the calculation of the time limit for requesting he Registrar General to invalidate the auction and the time limit for appealing to the Court, and ruled that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd complied with the time limit while it did not. in their arguments, they allege that the five days provided for in Article 10 (39 bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General should not be calculated in the manner provided for in Articles 275 and 276 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure; which should instead be counted as consecutive calendar days (jours calendriers consécutifs); therefore, the judgment appealed against must be overturned because Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General after the time limit had lapsed. KBC Ltd alleges that in calculating the time limit of 5 days for writing to the Registrar General to point out the flaws in the auction, it should be calculated based on the articles 275 and 276 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and alleges that it was not necessary for the Registrar General to assert that the five days mentioned in Article 10 (39 bis) are working days because that article should be considered as complementing Article 260 of Law No 22/2018

of 29/04/2018 mentioned above, it also alleges that article 274 of the law was disregarded because it provides that except when the law provides otherwise, the time limits must be calculated according to the working days, however the instructions of the Registrar General are not a law. Regarding the issue of determining whether the defendant (KBC) delayed to file the case to the Court, it is worth resolving the dispute on the letter prompting the calculation of the reply time limits when the Registrar General received several letters, the appellants alleged that KBC Ltd wrote to the Registrar General requesting them to invalidate the

Page 614

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

auction, and wrote the second letter which is considered as complementing the first letter and therefore the second letter is different from the first one, they allege that the Commercial High Court should not rely on it in calculating the time limits, it should rather have relied on the first letter. On the side of the defendant (KBC Ltd) it alleges that the letter is not a criterion for calculating the time limits to appeal to the Court but the guideline is the reply of the Registrar General, and he also alleges that the period for the Registrar General to reply should be calculated from the time he/she received the last letter. Held : 1. The days mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General Nº 002/2021/ORG of 29/06/2021 modifying the instructions of the Registrar General Nº 001/2020/ORG of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage whose calculation formula was not specified, are calculated in the form of consecutive calendar days (jours calendriers consécutifs).

2. When the Registrar General received several complementary letters, the letter that is relied upon in calculating the time limit in which the Registrar General should have replied to the letter, is the one that was submitted first. The appeal has merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: instruction of the Registrar General Nº 002/2021/ORG dated 29/06/2021 modifying instructions of the Registrar General Nº 001/2020/0rg dated 12/05/2020/ORG regulating management, leasing, auction sale, article 10 (39 bis).

Page 615

181 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

Cases referred to: Judgment RADA 0001/11/CS; KiST v Hashakimana Anastase rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/04/2012, Judgment RCOMA 00026/2019/HCC; Ngabonziza Joseph v Rugimbana Jean Claude et al. rendered by the Commercial Court on 01/03/2019, Case RCOMA 00546/2022/HCC; UWERA Astrid v MUHAYiMANA Pelagie et al. rendered by the High Commercial Court on 02/09/2022. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE

Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd applied for a loan from two banks, namely Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc and Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, and mortgaged the immovable property registered under UPi: 1/02/08/01/599. Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd failed to repay the loan, thus on 02/08/2022 that property was auctioned by Court bailiff Muhire Samuel, and it was bought by Alliance investment Group Ltd.

On 04/08/2022, Mr. Muhire Samuel wrote the auction report and submitted it to the Registrar General. On 09/08/2022, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General requesting him/her to invalidate the auction, and on 10/08/2022, again it wrote another letter that it alleged to be complementing the first one, indicating that among the reasons why he requested to invalidate the auction was the issue of the amount of loan to be repaid. The Registrar General replied to both letters on 17/08/2022,

Page 616

182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

informing Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd that there is no reason to invalidate the auction.

On 23/08/2022, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd filed a case before the Commercial Court suing Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel, requesting the Court to invalidate the auction of his property because it was carried out in breach of the law. Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc and Alliance investment Group Ltd voluntarily intervened in the case. Equity Bank Rwanda Plc and Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc raised the objection of inadmissibility of the case alleging that the time limit to request the Registrar General to invalidate the auction was lapsed. Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel and all the defendants presented another objection of inadmissibility of the case because the time limit for filing the appeal to the Court was not complied with.

in the judgment RCOM 01314/2022/TC rendered by the Commercial Court on 06/09/2022, the Court held that the claim of Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd was inadmissible because the time limit for submitting it to the Registrar General and for filing a case before the court had expired.

Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd was not satisfied with that decision and appealed against it before the Commercial High Court alleging that Commercial Court disregarded articles 275 and 276 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure that provides for calculating the time limits. it criticizes what the Court established that his case was not admissible because the appeal to the Registrar General was not submitted within 5 consecutive days and exceeded the time limit for appealing to the Court because it filed the case based on when it received the

Page 617

183 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

response from the Registrar General and the latter had delayed to reply.

in the judgment RCOMA 00594/2022/HCC, rendered on 23/09/2022, the Commercial High Court held that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General that the five days mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General had not expired according to articles 275 and 276 of the aforementioned law. it also confirmed that its claim was filed within the time limits provided for by law, based on the fact that these time limits should be calculated from the time when the Registrar General received the letter of Kigali Business Center Ltd complementing the first one. it ordered that the appealed judgment RCOM 01314/2022/TC be transferred to the Commercial Court for hearing on the merits without further court fees granted.

Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel, Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc and Alliance investment Group Ltd appealed against the decision before the Court of Appeal and their appeals were combined into case RCOMAA 00090/2022/CA.

The public hearing was scheduled on 11/10/2022. On that day, Counsel Abasa Fazili representing Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel; Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc represented by Counsel Mubangizi Frank; Alliance investment Group Ltd represented by Counsel Kayigirwa Telesphore; Equity Bank Rwanda Plc was represented by Counsel Karemera Frank and Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd was represented by Mr Karayiga William and Counsel Mudenge Richard.

in their appeal the appellants allege that the Commercial High Court misapplied the laws governing the calculation of the time limits for request the Registrar

Page 618

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

General to invalidate the auction and the time limits to file the case to the court, and confirmed that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd complied with the time limits whereas it did not. Another criticism is that the Commercial High Court relied upon the provisions of the criminal law that are not related to the issue of invalidating the auction, without showing any criticism of the elucidations by the Commercial Court. Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel and Equity Bank Rwanda Plc request reimbursement of the cost of proceedings and the advocate fee, but in particular Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel requests compensation for having been dragged thouth the courts. II. LEGAL ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

THERETO

in this case the Court finds that the legal issues to be determined are as follows: a. Determining whether Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd delayed to write to the Registrar requesting him to invalidate the auction; b. Determining whether Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd filed the case to the court when the time limit had already lapsed; c. Regarding the damages, advocate fee and the cost of proceedings.

Determining whether Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General when the time limits had expired

Equity Bank Rwanda Plc and Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc criticize the way the High Court calculated the time limits for writing to the Registrar General and the way

Page 619

185 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

it analyzed Article 10 (39 bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General amending the instructions of the Registrar General nº 001/2020/ORG of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage.

Regarding the calculation of the time limits, the representative of Equity Bank Rwanda Plc alleges that the Commercial High Court calculated the five days for writing to the Registrar General referred to in Article 10 (39 bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General mentioned above as if they were working days, which is not correct. He alleges that according to those instructions, where the Regitrar General wanted the scheduled days to be calculated as working days, he/she indicated it. He provides examples of articles 8(2), 9, 10, 16, 20 and 21 of the instructions of the Registrar General amending the instructions of the Registrar General nº 001/2020/ORG of 12/05/202044. He explains that this means that in other cases in which they did not mention it, thise days are counted as consecutive calendar days.

The representative of Equity Bank Plc also criticizes the way in analyzing article 10 (39 bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General mentioned above, the Commercial High Court combined it with article 260 of Law No 22/2018

44 Article 8 relating to the ratification of the mortgage management plan states 7 working days; Article 9 relating to the notification of the ratified management plan that states 5 working days; Article 10 relating to the amendment of the ratified mortgage management plan that states 7 working days; Article 16 relating to the ratification of the final report on mortgage management, which states 7 working days; Article 20 relates to mortgage lease agreement is scheduled for 2 working days to submit a copy of the agreement to the Registrar General and Article 21 is about the commencement of mortgage lease agreement and it states 7 working days.

Page 620

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure ignores that these instructions have nothing to do with the law, because they are based on law n° 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages as modified todate.

The representative of Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc also alleges that the Commercial High Court calculated those days in accordance with articles 275 and 276 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above ignoring the fact that that article 10 (39 bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General provides for five (5) days from the day the auction report is issued. He alleges that the way the article is written means that even the day the report is received is calculated.

All the appellants agree that the five days provided for in Article 10 (39 bis) of the instruction of the Registrar General mentioned above should not be counted in the manner provided for in Articles 275 and 276 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. Those days should instead be counted as consecutive calendar days; therefore, the appealed judgment must be overturned because it is obvious that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General that the legal time limit had lapsed.

The representatives of Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd replied that in the calculation of time limit of the five (5) days referred to in Article 10 (39bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General Nº 002/2021/Org of 29/06/2021 mentioned above, it must be based on Articles 275 and 276 and the Commercial High Court elucidated that sufficiently in paragraphs 25 to 35 of the appealed judgment. They explain that it is not necessary for the Registrar General to say that the five days mentioned in Article 10 (39 Bis) are working days because that article

Page 621

187 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

should be considered as complementing Article 260 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018. They also say that article 274 of the law was not ignored because it provides that except when the law provides otherwise, the time limits must be calculated based on the working days, however the instructions of the Registrar are not a law. They add that if the Registrar General found that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd had exceeded the time limits for requesting that the auction be invalidated, he would have replied that it had lapsed; yet he did not reply in this way.

in conclusion, they indicate that the auction report was written on 04/08/2022, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General on 09/08/2022, on 10/08/2022 they wrote a letter complementing the first. Based on the provisions of articles 275 and 276 of Law NO 22/2018 mentioned above, the day of the event, weekends and the holiday that took place on 08/05/2022 Umuganura Day) are not calculated. Therefore, writing to the Registrar General should have calculating on 08/08/2022; it is clear that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General within the time limits provided for by law.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debate on this point is based on determining whether the five days mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General to request in writing for the cancellation of the auction are consecutive days or if they are the days calculated after deducting holidays and weekends. The dispute is also based on determining whether the day on which the auction report was received is included in the five days or not.

Page 622

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Article 10 (39 bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General amending the instructions of the Registrar General nº 001/2020/ORG of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage provides that “ an interested person who is not satisfied with the auction or its proceeding may, within five (5) days from the date of receipt of the auction report, request in writing the Registrar General to examine the alleged flaw and take the appropriate decision. The complainant reserves a copy to the receiver.”

in this article, the Registrar General has set a time limit of five days but did not specify whether they are consecutive days or whether they are working days. So far, there has been no precedent on this matter, either in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. The High Court in resolving this issue in the appealed judgment explained that the days referred to in Article 10 (39bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General must be calculated after subtracting weekends and holidays, because that article was added to the instructions as a complement to the provisions of Article 260 of Law No. 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, so the time limits provided for in that article must be calculated based on the procedure provided for by that law.

indeed, Article 260 referred to in its paragraph 5 provides that the suspension or invalidation of auction conducted based on the decision of the Registrar General is requested from the Registrar General. The Registrar General responds within three (3) working days". Therefore, the fact that the article does not mention the time limit during which the Registrar General is required to do so, it is understood that the instructions of the Registrar General seem to explain the time limit for writing to the Registrar General. However, this Court finds that asserting that these instructions

Page 623

189 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

implement the provisions of Article 260 is not true, because as it appears from its preamble, these istructions stem from Law No. 10/2009 of 14/05/2010 on mortgages as amended todate, especially in its Article 19. it is clear that it is possible to determine the time limits mentioned in these instructions without regard to the provisions of the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure.

This Court finds that, when looking at the cases decided regarding the calculation of other time limits mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General where they did not explain how they are calculated, those cases confirmed that these time limits are counted in the form of consecutive days. An example is the case RCOMA 00546/2022/HCC decided on 02/09/2022, in Uwera Astrid v Muhayimana Pelagie et al.45, in which the High Commercial Court examined whether the time limit of ten (10) days of announcing the auction referred to in Article 29 of the instructions of the Registrar General N° 001/2020/ORG were respected, confirming that it was complied with by calculating 10 days in consecutive days. There is also a case RCOMA 00026/2019/HCC decided by that Court on 01/03/2019, in Ngabonziza Joseph v Rugimbana Jean Claude et al., which examined whether the 7-day time limit referred to in Article 12 of the instructions of the Registrar General N°03/2010/ORG of 16/11/2010 has been complied with, and confirmed that it was observed by calculating consecutive days.46

45 in this judgment, in paragraphs 25-26, the Court analyzed whether the 10-day time limit provided for in Article 29 of the instructions of the Registrar General was respected, and found that the announcements were published on 25/5/2022 for iSANGO STAR, and on 26/5/2022 for Amakuru Media Ltd, the auction started on 06/6/2022 and held that there are ten days, thus, the time limit provided for by the law was respected. 46 in this judgment from paragraph 13 to paragraph 17, the Court analyzed the reason for the 7 days provided for in article 12 of

Page 624

190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

What these cases have in common is that they shed light on the calculation of the time limits mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General in case they do not specify how they are calculated; which was the light that was supposed to illuminate the Commercial High Court in the case under appeal. indeed, as provided for in the instructions of the President of the Supreme Court 47, the court must follow the existing precedent set in cases on issues similar to the ones it examines. Therefore, the fact that the Commercial High Court violated that precedent without basing on any undisputable reason, this Court finds that it is an error that needs to be corrected, and and established that there is no calculation formula of the days mentioned in the instructions of the Registrar General, that they are calculated in the form of consecutive days as the Court usually does it.

And when it comes to determining whether the day of the event is included in the days provided for in article 10 39(bis) of the instructions of the Registrar General, the Court finds that the expression “from” often recurs in the law regarding the calculation of time limits, both in the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative

instructions of the Registrar General n° 001/2020/org of 12/05/2020 regulating modalities of management, lease, auction and acquisition of mortgage, and also examined whether those days were complied with. it found that there are some instances in which they were complied with and others in which there were not. As for the auction that was supposed to be held on 18/08/2017 and its announcement was issued to the sector on 11/08/2017, it confirmed that in this case the time limit was complied with and it is clear that working cnscutive days were calculated. 47 instructions no 001/2021 of 15/03/2021 of the President of the Supreme Court regulating the publication of cases in the law report, in its article 9-paragraph two provides that "Each judge is obliged to respect the existing precedent, whether it is at the level of the Court he/she is in, or higher in accordance with the hierarchy of courts." These instructions can be found at: https://www.judiciary.gov.rw/fileadmin/Publications/Laws/3__Amabw iriza_CJ_-_ibyegeranyo.pdf

Page 625

191 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

procedure (275)48 and in the law relating to the criminal procedure (Article 262)49, those laws provide that the day of the act is not included in the time provided in days. This court therefore finds no special reason to make the expresssion “from” appears in the instruction of the Registrar General mentioned above, which is understood in another way.

in this case, the auction report was submitted on 04/08/2022, Kigali Business Center (KCB) Ltd wrote to the Registrar General for the first time on 09/08/2022, and wrote to him again the complementary letter on 10/08/2022.

Based on the fact that time limits must be calculated in terms of consecutive days as elucidated above, it means that the letter written by Kigali Business Center (KCB) Ltd on 09/08/2022 was written within the time limit provided for by law; while the one written on 10/08/2022 appears to have been written beyond the time limit provided for by law. b) Determining whether Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd filed the case after the time limit had lapsed

The representative of Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel alleges that the Commercial High Court calculated the time limit, from the letter of Kigali Business Center (KBC Ltd) dated 10/08/2022, however that letter was the second one. He alleges that as per the analysis of the provisions of the law, it is obvious that the written request to the Registrar General is done once, but the person who wrote the letter

48 This Article 275 of Law 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure 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. » 49 See paragraph 14 of the judgment RADA 0001/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/04/2012 in KiST v Hashakimana Anastase

Page 626

192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

would find that what he/she wrote earlier was unclear and would write another second letter which is considered as complementing the first one, this is what Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd did. He alleges that even if the letter dated of 10/08/2022 was called the second letter different from the first, the Commercial High Court should not have relied upon it in calculating the time limit to file a case, because the flaw contained in it the amount of loan that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd relied upon as the reason for invalidating the auction, was not submitted to the Court. This means that even Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd. itself flouted it; therefore, it should not be relied upon to calculate the time limits for appeal to the Court, but should have relied upon the letter of 09/08/2022.

He also alleges that the Commercial High Court applied Article 9 of the Law on Civil, Commercial, Labor and Administrative Procedures, providing that that there is no law in force that determines how to calculate the time limits when multiple letters are written, and resorted to Article 7 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure regarding the time to start calculating the prescription of the public action: things that are irrelevant to the debated issues in this case.

Equity Bank Rwanda Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc na Alliance investment Group Ltd allege that the person applying for the invalidation of an auction can write as many times as they want as long as they are within the ambit of time limits provided by the law, but his first letter is the one that is taken into account to calculate the time limit to get a reply, because all the others are complementary. They allege that since the Registrar General did not reply to the first letter on time, the time limits are to be calculated starting from the the last day Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd should have received a response;

Page 627

193 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

therefore, due to the fact that they wrote for the first time on 09/08/2022, the deadline for the response was 12/08/2022. The time to appeal to the court should have been calculated from that date, instead of calculating from the late reply. They explain that, from the date they should have received the answer on 12/08/2022, excluding weekends and official holidays, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd should not have gone beyond the 22/08/2022 before filing the case before the Court; however, it the case was filed late on 23/08/2022.

The representatives of Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd allege that the letter is not the criterion for calculating the time limit for filing a case before the court but the criterion is the reply of the Registrar General pursuant to article 260, the last paragraph of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and especially that the complaint is based on dissatisfaction with the decision of the Registrar General. They explain that the Registrar General replied on 17/08/2022, Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd filed its claim on 23/08/2022, because 20/08/2022 and 21/08/2022 were weekends and are not counted as provided by articles 275 and 276 of Law NO 22/2018 dated 29/04/2018 mentioned above.

The representatives of Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd also allege that apart from that, it should not be considered that the Registrar General delayed replying because as elucidated by the Commercial High Court, the time limits for the Registrar General to reply should be calculated from the time he/she received the last letter, i.e. on 10/08/2022. They allege that the claim by the plaintiffs that the reasons contained in the last letter Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd did not refer to it among the reasons that led it to appeal to the Court, are irrelevant because it can be satisfied with the explanations given on that point and find

Page 628

194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

it unnecessary to submit it to the Court again. Therefore, they find that the Commercial High Court made no error that should be corrected by the Court of Appeal.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue on this point is based on determining the letter triggering the calculation of time limits for reply in case the Registrar received multiple letters. in other words, when does the calculation of the three-day time limit for the Registrar General to respond to the applicant requesting for invalidating the auction sart in case the Registrar General received multiple letters? in case of delayed reply, what is the starting point for the calculation of the time limit? From his/her reply or from the the deadline for reply?

Article 260 paragraph 5 of the Law Nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that the suspension or invalidation of auction conducted basing on the decision of the Registrar General is requested from the Registrar General. The Registrar General responds within three (3) working days. in case there is a party not satisfied by the decision of the Registrar General or who does not get the reply within the time limit provided for by in this paragraph, the party files a claim in the commercial court in accordance with provisions of this Article within five (5) working days starting from the date the party was notified of the decision.

This article means that the Registrar General may or may not reply within the foreseen time limit of three days. in case he/she does not reply within three days, the person who wrote to him/her must immediately file a case before the court within five days. Even in case he/she replies within that time limit, an applicant who is not satisfied with his/her

Page 629

195 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

reply, he/she files a case before a court within five days from the time he/she received the reply. This also means that in case the Registrar General delays to reply to the complaint, this does not allow the complainant to first wait for his/her reply in order to file a case to the court.

Regarding the letter that should be the basis for the calculation of the time limits for the Registrar General to reply when the latter had received the letters complementing one another, this Court finds that a similar issue was examined on the case RADA 0001/11/CS on 27/04/201250 , where the Supreme Court held that when there is repeated appeal to the Registrar General, the first appeal is the starting point for the calculation of the time limit to file a case before a court. That precedent was followed in subsequent cases51 . Therefore, on the issues related to the request submitted to the Registrar General in the complementary letters, this Court finds that the first letter is the one that should be taken into account to start calculate the time limits within which the Registrar General must have replied.

in this case, Kigali Business Center Ltd first wrote to the Registrar General on 09/08/2022, from that date if someone calculates three days, he/she will realize that the Registrar General should have replied no later than 12/08/2022, but he did not reply at that time but instead replied on 17/08/2022. That means that the five-day time limit for filing a case before the court, provided for by the law was to be counted from the date of 12/08/2022, excluding that day. Therefore, the case should have been filed not later than 22/08/2022, has not been filed. However,

50 See paragraph 14 of the judgment RADA 0001/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/04/2012 in KiST v Hashakimana Anastase 51 See judgment RADA 0029/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/05/2014 in Gwakaya Emmanuel v the University of Rwanda

Page 630

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

it is clear that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd filed its case on 23/08/2022.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeal finds that Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd did not comply with the time limits provided for by the law, in filing the case to the court. Thus, the Commercial High Court erred in holding that its complaint should have been admitted to the Commercial Court. c) With regard to damages, advocate fee and the cost of proceedings

The representative of Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel requests the Court to order Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd to pay him 1,000,000 Frw for advocate fee and 500,000 Frw for the cost of proceedings and 2,000,000 Frw for dragging him through the courts.

And Equity Bank Rwanda Plc alleges that in case the Court finds that its appeal has merit, it would order Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd to refund the money it paid in this case from the first instance level to this level amounting to 3,000,000 Frw for advocate fee and 1,000,000 frw for the cost of proceedings.

Kigali Business Center KBC Ltd alleges that the damages requested by Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel should not be granted because he was the one who made the mistake of conducting the auction in an illegal manner. it also alleges that the damages requested by Equity Bank Rwanda Plc are irrelevant because it is the one that brought it voluntarily in this case.

Kigali Business Center KBC Ltd also alleges that since the appellants lost the case for founded reasons but continue to involve it in unnecessary cases, all the appellants

Page 631

197 Me MUHIRE ET. AL v KIGALI BUSINESS CENTER (KBC) LTD

should be ordered to pay it 3,000,000 Frw as advocate fee and 1,000,000 Frw for the cost of proceedings.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provideS that the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings.

The court finds that the advocate fee and the cost of proceedings requested by Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel are appropriate because since the cases started until now, he hired a lawyer to represent him in these cases and follow them up. Therefore, he is granted at the discretion of the Court 700,000 Frw for advocate fee and 300,000 Frw for the cost of proceedings, because he does not provide evidence that he lost the five hundred thousand Rwandan Francs requested for the cost of proceedings.

As for Equity Bank Plc, the Court finds that when the case started in the Commercial Court, Kigali Business Center Ltd did not sue Equity Bank Plc, but it was the latter that voluntarily intervened in these cases. Therefore, nobody is liable for the advocate fee and the cost of proceedings it lost.

Regarding Kigali Business Center Ltd, the Court finds that it should not be granted the advocate fee and for the cost of proceedings because it was the one who sued late, and therefore it should also be responsible for its losses in these cases.

As for the damages requested by Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel for having been involved unnecessarily in

Page 632

198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cases, the Court finds that they are not appropriate because in the appeal to the court there is no evidence that Kigali Business Center was aiming not only at complicating things, but at protecting its rights. III.

DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares that the appeal filed by Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel, Equity Bank Plc, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Plc, Alliance investment Group Ltd has merit;

Declares that the judgment

RCOMA 00594/2022/HCC rendered by the Commercial High on 23/09/2022 is hereby overturned ;

Declares that the case filed by Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd for invalidation of the auction conducted by Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel, on 02/08/2022, on the property registered under UPi 1/02/08/01/599, should not have been admitted by the Commercial Court;

Declares that the damages requested by Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel for having been involved in the cases unnecessarily as well as those requested by Kigali Business Center Ltd. are groundless;

Orders Kigali Business Center to pay Muhire Samuel, one million Rwandan francs (1,000,000 Frw) including the advocate fee and the cost of proceedings ;

Orders Kigali Business Center (KBC) Ltd to refund Court Bailiff Muhire Samuel, the court fees paid at this level.

Page 633

199 Re MUNYEMANA

CRIMINAL CASE

Page 634

200 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 635

201 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA (Rukundakuvuga P.J. Gakwaya and Mukamurenzi J.) July 31, 2024] Evidence – Criminal evidence – Alibi - When the defendant raises the defense of alibi in particular, the Prosecution still has the responsibility to provide undisputed evidence that proves that the accused has committed a crime, whereas the accused who pretends that he was not at the place where the crime was committed at a certain time such that he/she would not be able to commit the crime he/she is accused of, has the responsibility to prove that he/she was not at the place where the crime was committed. Evidence – Criminal evidence – Testimony – Relevance of the testimony –The fact that the witnesses do not state the same thing or may be slightly mistaken, or if the testimony given before the Court does not match what was previously stated, it does not detract the testimony because it may have been caused by a long time elapsed since the time when the crime was committed until the time when the testimony is given before the Court. Criminal procedure – Criminal action – The crime of genocide - The fact that the defendant has not been mentioned in the Gacaca Courts data collection does not mean that he/she cannot be prosecuted for the crime of genocide because the fact that a court does not say anything about a person in the criminal proceedings, does not entail that that he did not participate in the crimes he/she is accused of. Criminal law – Offence – Concurrence of offences – Criminal responsibility – Crime of genocide and crime against humanity – A person may be convicted of the crime of genocide and crime against humanity based on the same 201

Page 636

202 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

acts because the acts of each crime are different, the crime of genocide committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, whether in time of peace or in time of war, because of who they are, and the crime against humanity is committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. Criminal law – Genocide – Sentence – Mitigating and aggravating circumstances – Even if the defendant was convicted of serious crimes, and had gravely affected the Rwandan community; the fact that he/she was convicted of these crimes is not enough to amount to aggravating circumstances to increase the sentence while the Prosecution did not prove that he/she committed them with more hatred and cruelty than other criminals in the area where they were committed. Facts: This case started in the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international crimes and transnational crimes, the Prosecution charged Twagirayezu with murder as the crime of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity, alleging that the accused committed the acts constituting those crimes in Rubavu District, in the former Rwerere Commune, the Prosecution indicted him based on the evidence comprising the statements of various witnesses and Twagirayezu’s statements when he was questioned in Denmark, which shows

that when the crimes he is accused of were committed he was in Rwanda and that he was involved. The defendant contended that he should not be prosecuted for murder as a crime of genocide and the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity because the dates and various areas on which and where the alleged crimes were committed in the former Gisenyi Prefecture, he was not able to be there since he was in the former Zaire, current Democratic Republic of

Page 637

203 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

the Congo (DRC). His alibi defense was based on evidence including witnesses alleged by him to have been with him or met him in the Congo and the document called petition made by people who claim to have been with him at the time, and the document called the acknowledgment receipt of the money in Zaire currency, received while he was in that country. That Court held that the defendant successfully provided evidence consisting of documents and testimonies that cast doubt on the evidence of the Prosecution that he was in Rwanda from 7 to 9/04/1994. The Court also held that the Prosecution failed to present unequivocal evidence that the accused committed the crimes he was accused of on the dates and in the places mentioned above and based on this analysis, concluded that the accused was not found guilty of the crime of genocide and the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity, ordered that he be released immediately after the judgment was pronounced. One (1) of the three (3) members of the bench that heard the case expressed a dissenting opinion. The Prosecution was dissatisfied with the decision and appealed against it before the Court of Appeal, criticizing the fact that the High Court held that Twagirayezu was not in Rwanda when the crimes he is accused of were committed, ignoring the testimonies, evidence and the law it showed, and acquitted him of the crimes he was

prosecuted for. Regarding the defense of alibi, it alleged that the High Court misused the precedent set in the cases decided by the international Criminal Court for Rwanda and in the cases decided in other countries concerning the defense of alibi, which makes it to place on the Prosecution the burden of proof related to an alibi as if it were a standard form of defense, the Prosecution alleges that there was an error in reversing the way the evidence of alibi is provided. it added that it provided evidence that the defendant was in Rwanda

Page 638

204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

when the Tutsis began to be killed on April 6, 1994, including the documents sent by the Danish judicial authorities containing information provided by the defendant himself when he sought asylum in Denmark and the Police of that country. The Prosecution also criticizes the fact that the High Court gave undue value to the plea of alibi based on the document called pétition et témoignages, pour l'innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu and the another referred to as décharge. On this ground of appeal, the defendant contended that no error was made regarding the principles governing evidence production on the defense of alibi because in the analysis of the case, the High Court showed the different cases decided by the Court of Appeal and the international criminal courts established the position that a defendant raising the alibi defense must provide concrete evidence that casts doubt on the Prosecution's allegations. The Prosecution also alleged that Twagirayezu was acquitted despite the evidence and the law showing that he committed the crimes he was charged with, that the High Court held that the witnesses against Twagirayezu did not know him, saying that they seriously contradicted each other about what he did, about the role he played in the activities of the political parties or his reputation in general, even on some features of his body, but what they all have in common is

the most important thing that deserves attention, is that he was a teacher, worked in the field of education and he admitted it. For this ground of appeal, Twagirayezu contended that the issue raised related to the fact that the Prosecution witnesses who were questioned did not know him, since he was in Denmark, because the way they talk about him was based on his work as a teacher and where he worked, some features of his body, the wealth he had and his role in political parties, shows that the person they are talking about is not him or they do not know him, because if they knew him well, they would not have been mistaken that

Page 639

205 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

he taught in a private school at Gacuba ii in Gisenyi from September 1993 to July 1994. He says that he agrees with the findings of the High Court which appear in paragraphs 145 and 146, because the way the witnesses contradict themselves and contradict each other shows that they do not know him. The Prosecution also alleges that the High Court decision is full of contradictions whereby it held that the fact that the accused was not been mentioned in the Gacaca Courts does not prevent him from being prosecuted for the crime of genocide, however concerning Twagirayezu, it alleges that the way witnesses portray him as a person that was popular in the acts and the meetings intended to plan genocide itself, could not have been mentioned in the Gacaca Courts in all the areas where the Prosecution alleges he led the killings. it explained that the analysis is not based on objective criteria, because during the collection of information of the Gacaca Courts, there were many people who participated in the genocide but who were not mentioned because of various reasons. That it is absurd how the High Court found that Twagirayezu was not forgotten in such a way that the person who reveals his role in the genocide against the Tutsis in 1994, this time would not be telling the truth. On this ground of appeal, the defendant contended that as per his arrest warrant, the Prosecution stated

that he was a giant, with wealth and many other things, and considering the statements of some of the witnesses of the Prosecution, there is no way that he could not have been during the collection of information of the Gacaca Courts. Held: 1. When the defendant raises an alibi defense in particular, the Prosecution is still responsible for providing unequivocal evidence that confirms that the person being prosecuted committed a crime, whereas the accused who pretends that he was not at the place where the crime was

Page 640

206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

committed at a certain time such that he/she would not be able to commit the crime he/she is accused of, has the responsibility to prove only that he/she was not at the place where the crime was committed. 2. in order for a document to be considered as proof that a person was in a certain place, it is necessary to show a material proof showing when the document was written and where it was written because in order to defend himself or herself, a person may write a document and lie about where it was written and when it was written. Thus, the document referred to as acknowledgment receipt was not sufficient proof that Twagirayezu was in Congo at the time mentioned because the examination carried out on it did not enable to show when it was written. Regarding the document referred to as petition, written by people who were in Congo who testify that Twagirayezu was with them from April 6 to 9, 1994, the fact that the document contains false kinships, makes it questionable.

3. The fact that the witnesses do not say the same thing or may be slightly mistaken, or if the testimony given before Court does not match what was previously stated, it does not detract the testimony because it may have been caused by a long time elapsed since the time when the crime was committed until the time when the testimony is given before the Court.

4. The fact that the defendant was not mentioned in the Gacaca Courts data collection does not mean that he/she cannot be prosecuted for the crime of genocide because the fact that a court does not say anything about a person in the criminal proceedings, does not entail that that he/she did not participate in the crimes he/she is accused of because what is considered is his/her personal acts and evidence, therefore the High Court contradicted itself because after showing that the fact that a person was not mentioned in the the Gacaca Courts data collection does not mean that he/she was not

Page 641

207 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

involved in the crimes he was accused of, and it did not confirm that Twagirayezu (the defendant) should absolutely have been mentioned in Gacaca Courts. A person may be found guilty of the crime of genocide and crime against humanity based on the same acts because the acts of each crime are different, the crime of genocide committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, whether in time of peace or in time of war, because of who they are, and the crime against humanity is committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. Thus, a person who commits intentional acts of murder, carried out by attacks targeting people who are members of a certain group based on nationality, ethnicity, skin color or religion, with the intent of destroying in whole or in part people because of who they are, is committed against civilian population in normal times or wartime, is considered to have committed in ideal concurrence of genocide and the crime against humanity.

6. Even though the defendant was convicted of serious crimes, and affected gravely the Rwandan community; the fact that he was convicted of these crimes is not enough to amount to aggravating circumstances to increase the sentence while the Prosecution failed to prove that he/she committed them with more hatred and cruelty than other criminals in the area where they were committed, so the fact that Twagirayezu's crimes do not classify him into the category of organizers or those who led the attacks that killed the Tutsis and that it is the first time for him to be found guilty of an offence, he is sentenced to twenty (20) years in prison. Judgment RP/GEN 00003/2019/HC/HCCIC rendered by the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international crimes and

Page 642

208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

transnational crimes on 11/01/2024 is overturned. The defendant is guilty of the crime of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. The Deffendant is sentenced to twenty (20) years in prison Statutes and statutory referred to: Law n° 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence , articles 2.53, 87 Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure, articles 51 and 183. Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general, articles 91,92,94,335. Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda , article 18. Article 2 of the international Convention of December 9, 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ratified by Rwanda through Decree- Law no. 08/75 of February 12, 1975. Organic Law n°04/2012/OL of 15/06/2012 terminating Gacaca Courts and determining mechanisms for solving issues which were under their jurisdiction, article 3. Cases referred to: Prosecution v Sgt. Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste & Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin, RPAA 0117/07/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 17/09/2010, Rwanda Law Reports, vol. ii, 2011. Prosecution v Bandora Charles, RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/03/2019. Prosecution v Ntamaherezo iryamukuru,

RPAA 00141/2022/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 31/05/2023.

Page 643

209 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Prosecution v Sezikeye Franҫois, RPAA 00371/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 15/12/2022. Prosecution v Hategikimana Célestin,

RPAA 00681/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 24/3/2023. Prosecution v Ntaganzwa Ladislas, RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 03/03/2023. Prosecution v Birindabagabo Jean Paul, RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 08/04/2022. Prosecution v Kabilimana Jean Damascène, RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 16/10/2020. Prosecution vs Hategekimana Célestin,

RPAA 00681/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 24/3/2023. Prosecutor v. Gatete Jean Baptiste, Case no iCTR-2000-61- T, para.

130. Prosecution v. Callixte Kalimanzira, Case No. iCTR-05-88- T, para. 748-752. Prosecution v. Georges Anderson Nderubume Rutaganda, Case no. iCTR-96-3-A, para.

488. Prosecution v. Bilinki Simon, Case no iCTR-01-62 T (2/12/2008), p.12, para.

32. Prosecutor v. Kayishema & Ruzindana, Case, iCTR-95-1- A, para.

106. Prosecution v. Setako Ephrem, Case n° iCTR-04-81-A decided on 28/9/2011. Prosecution v. Musema Alfred, Case n° iCTR-96-13-T decided on 2/25/2014. Simphiwe Raymond Shusha v State (South Africa) rendered by the Supreme Court of South Africa. Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda Jean de Dieu, Case N° iCTR-99- 54 A

Page 644

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Prosecution v. Zigiranyirazo Protais, Case N° iCTR-01-73- A Prosecution v. Nahimana et al. (Media case). Case N° iCTR-99-52-A Prosecution v. Nahimana et al. (Media case), Case No. iCTR-99-52-A, para.

417. Prosecution v. LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ, case no. IT-98-32/1-A, para.

362. Legal writings: Henri Capitant Association, Legal Vocabulary, 6th edition, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1996, p.

612. Judgment I.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE

After Twagirayezu Wenceslas was transferred by Denmark to be tried by the Rwandan Courts for various crimes he was alleged to have committed in 1994, including the killings committed in Rubavu District in the former Rwerere Commune from the 7th to the April 12, 1994, in particular, at Gacamena’s home roadblock, at ISAR- Tamira, at the University of Mudende, at Busasamana Church, at Nyundo, at Saint Fidèle institute and at the place referred to as Commune Rouge. The Prosecution indicted him to the High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international crimes and transnational crimes (in this case, it is referred to as the High Court), the crime of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity.

Page 645

211 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Twagirayezu Wenceslas pleaded not guilty to the charges and alleged that on the 7th, 8th and 9/04/1994 he was in Zaire, currently the Democratic Republic of the Congo (RDC) where he was on Easter holidays since the end of from March 1994 to April 9, 1994, when he arrived home at night. He substantiated his plea based on the defence of alibi by providing that includes witnesses that he pretends to have been with or met in the RDC and the document called petition made by people who state that they were with him at the time, and the document called the acknowledgment receipt of zaire currency he received when he was in the DRC. Concerning this plea, the Prosecution also provided evidence including the statements of witnesses and the statements of Twagirayezu Wenceslas when he was questioned in Denmark, which shows that on those dates when the crimes he is charged with were committed, he was in Rwanda and that he was involved in them.

As per the judgment nº RP/GEN 00003/2019/HC/HCCiC rendered on 11/01/2024, High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international crimes and transnational crimes held that that Twagirayezu Wenceslas managed to provide evidence consisting of the documents and the testimonies that cast doubt on evidence of the Prosecution upon which it relies to allege that he was in Rwanda from 7 to 9/04/1994. The High Court also held that the Prosecution failed to provide unequivocal evidence that Twagirayezu Wenceslas committed the crimes he is accused of on the dates and places mentioned above. Based on this analysis, the High Court held that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is not guilty of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity, ordering that he be released immediately as soon as the judgment is pronounced. One (1) of the three (3) members of the panel that had heard the case expressed a disseting opinion.

Page 646

212 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The Prosecution was dissatisfied with the decision and appealed against it before the Court of Appeal, the case was registered under case file number RPA/GEN 00001/2024/CA, the hearing was scheduled for 13/05/2024, and the hearing was held from that day until 23/05/2024, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was assisted by Counsel BiKOTWA Bruce and Counsel Gashema Félicien, while the Prosecution was represented by Harindintwari Côme and NiYONZiMA Vincent, National Prosecutors.

in short, before the Court of Appeal, the Prosecution criticizes the fact that the High Court held that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not in Rwanda when the crimes he is accused of were committed, ignoring the testimonies, evidence and the law, and acquitting him of the charges. Twagirayezu Wenceslas alleges that the Prosecution’s allegations are irrelevant because the High Court elucidated the reasons, laws and evidence on which it relied to acquit him.

The Court of Appeal finds that the issues to be considered are as follows: A. Determining whether the High Court erred in holding that it was doubtful that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the crimes he is accused of were committed. B. Determining whether Twagirayezu Wenceslas was acquitted despite the evidence and the law proving that he was convicted of the crimes he was accused of. C. Regarding the penalties requested by the Prosecution.

Page 647

213 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

I.

ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. Determining whether the High Court erred in holding that it was doubtful that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the crimes he is accused of were committed. A.1. With regard to the allegations of the Prosecution that in the analysis of the alibi defense, errors were made in imposing on it the responsibility of providing the evidence.

The representatives of the Prosecution allege that while analyzing Twagirayezu’s plea who stated that he was not in Rwanda on the 7th, 8th and 9th of April 1994, starting from paragraph 36 of the appealed judgment, the High Court misused the judicial precedent set in the cases decided by the international Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and in the cases decided in other countries regarding the alibi defense, making it the responsibility of the Prosecution to provide evidence related to that defense as if it were a common way of defense. They added that there was a mistake in reversing the way the evidence is provided in case of alibi defense, because, as this Court elucidated it in the case n° RPAA/GEN 00009/2019/CA rendered on 16/10/2020, involving Kabirima Jean Damascene, it is up to the defendant raising an alibi defense to provide evidence52, that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is the one who must provide concrete evidence proving where he was when the crimes he is charged with were committed. The Prosecution concludes that when there is a discrepancy between the judicial precedent set by the foreign courts and the one established by the Rwandan courts on a certain issue, the judicial precedent set by the Rwandan courts prevails.

52 Paragraph 22 of the judgment

Page 648

214 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that in the appealed judgment, no error was made regarding the principles governing the production of evidence on alibi defense because in the analysis of the case, the High Court specified different cases decided by this Court53 and by the international criminal courts that they all established that the defendant raising the alibi defense must provide concrete evidence that casts doubt on the allegations of the Prosecution. They allege that Twagirayezu Wenceslas as the defendant did his duty because he gave evidence that he was not in Rwanda on the 7th, 8th and 9th of April 1994 because at that time he was on Easter holidays in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is to determine whether the High Court erred in placing the burden of proof on the Prosecution regarding the alibi defense raised by the defendant. in other words, what are the limits of the duty of the defendant to provide evidence, and what are the duties of the Prosecution in case of alibi defense?

Regarding the alibi defense, this Court decided various cases, such as the case n° RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA involving the Prosecution and and Birindabagabo Jean-Paul, in which based on the cases decided by the international Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda54,, elucidated that concerning the person who bers the burden of proof in case the defendant uses an alibi plea in particular, the burden of proof still rests on the

53 Birindabagabo and Hategekimana case and Sergent Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste and Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin 54 Those cases are n° iCTR-99-54 A Kamuhanda Jean de Dieu case; n° iCTR- 01-73-A Zigiranyirazo Protais case and iCTR- 99-52-A Nahimana et al. (Media case).

Page 649

215 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Prosecution to provife undisputed evidence that confirms that the person being prosecuted has committed a crime, whereas the person being prosecuted for a crime who claims that he/she was not in the place where a crime was committed at a certain time in such a way that he would not be able to commit the crimes he is accused of, has the responsibility to prove that he was not at the place where the crime was committed55.

The responsibilities of both parties in a case where the defendant raised an alibi defense were clearly defined by the Appeals Chamber of the international Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia56. indeed, in various cases, the Appeals Chamber in all those courts have faced the problem of defendants who used the alibi defense, in the first instance, the courts showed that the evidence they provided is not enough to justify their alibi, and they appealed alleging that the rules governing the alibi were infringed because they were asked to provide undisputed evidence, and which is otherwise the responsibility of the Prosecution57. The Appeals Chamber often responded that although the Prosecution maintains the responsibility of providing undisputed evidence that the defendant was not in the alleged location, the defendant who raises the alibi defense must also provide evidence that he was not where the crime took place when it was committed to such an extent that the judge admits that he could not have been there58. in short, the judicial precedent set in these

55 This was established in case n° RPAA 00371/2020/CA, Prosecuror v.Sezikeye Franҫois rendered on 15/12/2022 and case n° RPAA 00681/2021/CA, Prosecutor v. Hategikimana Célestin rendered on 24/3/202 56 Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al. (Media case), Case No. iCTR-99-52-A, para. 417. 57 See case decided on appeal Prosecutor v. Lukić & Lukić, case No. IT-98-32/1- A, para. 362. 58 See case decided on appeal Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, Case No. iCTR-96-3-A, Para. 488.

Page 650

216 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cases, is that the defendant raising such an alibi defense, even though he/she is not required to provide undisputed evidence, (beyong reasonable doubt) have reasonable doubt as required from the Prosecution, requiring him for concrete evidence would make the judge question the claims of the Prosecution, not reversing the responsibilities of plaintiff and defendant.

in other words, regarding the case under appeal, the Prosecution had the duty to show beyond reasonable doubt that when the genocide against the Tutsi was carried out in Gisenyi, from April 7 to April 9, 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda, and he had the responsibilities to prove in a way that makes the court agree with him that what the Prosecution says is unfounded because he was abroad as he claims it59. it is also in this context that the court will examine in the following paragraphs whether the High Court misused the responsibilities by reversing the roles of the parties in the presentation of evidence, making it to confirm that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not probably in Rwanda when the genocide was committed against the Tutsis in Gisenyi, on the dates mentioned60.

Before the High Court, the Prosecution clarified that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the said crimes were committed based on his own statement requesting asylum in Denmark, which shows that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994; regarding the fact that there is no official proof that he has ever crossed the border and as to the the flaws in the document called "pétition et témoignage pour l'innocence de Mr. Twagirayezu Wenceslas'' or another called "décharge". Twagirayezu Wenceslas explained the extent to which he said that he

59 See case decided on appeal Prosecutor v. Kayishema & Ruzindana, Case, iCTR-95-1-A, para. 106. 60 See paragraph 53 of the appealed judgment.

Page 651

217 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

never left Rwanda, showing that when he answered the question of knowing where he was between January and July 1994, he replied that he was in Rwanda because he never considered going to Congo as going abroad; that going there did not require a document issued in the official manner, that he used to go there that way, and that there were witnesses from the Congo who showed in their document called petition et témoignage pour innocence de Twagirayezu Wenceslas, and testified before the court that at that time they were with him in the Congo, and there is also the document called "décharge" that was written there in the Congo at that time.

The Court of Appeals finds that as indicated in the appealed judgment from paragraph thirty-six (36) to forty (40), the High Court started by stating the principle that applies to the case of alibi defense in providing the evidence corroborating it; it elucidated that the person being prosecuted has the responsibility to provide evidence that confirms that he/she was not in the place where the crime he/she is accused of was committed, while the Prosecution still has the duty to provide undisputable evidence that confirms that the defendant has committed the crime he is accused of, based on the cases decided by the Courts of Rwanda61, also referring to international law and the decisions of the international Criminal Courts62 and those of other countries63.

61 Case n° RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA involving Birindabagabo Jean-Paul rendered on 8/4/2022 and case n° RPAA 00681/2021/CA involving Hategekimana Célestin rendered on 24/3/2023. 62 See case on appeal Prosecutor v. SETAKO Ephrem, Case n° iCTR-04-81-A rendered on 28/9/2011 and Musema Alfred case, Case n° iCTR-96-13-T rendered on 25/2/2014. 63 Simphiwe Raymond Shusha v. South Africa rendered by the Supreme Court of South Africa

Page 652

218 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Based on that, the High Court, in paragraph 53 of the appealed judgment, elucidated that the evidence provided by the defendant Twagirayezu Wenceslas shows that it is possible that on the 7th, 8th and 9th of April 1994, he was in the DRC, in a place different from where the Prosecution alleges that he committed the crimes he is prosecuted for on these dates; and in paragraph 197 of the appealed judgment, the court held that the defendant was able to provide evidence consisting of the documents and the testimony that cast doubt on what the Prosecution alleges that he was in Rwanda from 7 to 9/4/1994, however the Prosecution failed to provide unequivocal evidence that the evidence that the defendant relies upon alleging that he was in the DRC on these dates are not authentic.

Concerning the allegations by the Prosecution that the Court previously ignored what was explained in the case n° RPAA/GEN 00009/2019/CA decided on 16/10/2020 by this Court, where it elucidated that the defendant raising the alibi defense is the one who must provide evidence which clearly shows where he/she was when the crimes he was prosecuted for were committed, which means that the judicial precedent is different from the one given in various cases decided by international courts and should be followed, the Court of Appeal finds that it is not true, because that case does not contradict the precedents set in other cases decided by the international Criminal Court for Rwanda. What that case elucidated is that the defendant must provide concrete evidence corroborating his/her alibi defense64, which means that he/she must provide evidence that casts doubt on the evidence provided by the Prosecution proving that he/she was at the scene of the crime.

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the High Court upheld the existing precedent in the principles

64See paragraph 22 of the case.

Page 653

219 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

governing the production of evidence regarding the responsibility of each party in a case based on the alibi defense, because it maintained the obligation to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt on the side of the Prosecution while the defendant kept his precedent to provide evidence that shows that he was not present in a way that raises doubt.

The remaining issue to be examined is whether the evidence provided by the Prosecution did not meet the standard of undisputable evidence, or whether the evidence provided by Twagirayezu Wenceslas was enough to make the High Court doubt the allegations by the Prosecution that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the genocide was being committed in Gisenyi from 07 to 09/04/1994. A.2. Regarding the allegations of the Prosecution that the High Court ignored the evidence proving that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the crimes he is prosecuted for were committed 1. The documents sent by the Danish judicial institutions containing the statements of Twagirayezu Wenceslas

The representatives of the Prosecuttion allege that they provided evidence that shows that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the Tutsis began to be killed on April 6, 1994, including documents sent by the Danish judicial authorities containing information provided by Twagirayezu Wenceslas himself when he applied for asylum in Denmark and before the Police of that country65. They explain that in those documents on page p-09-350, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was asked by the Danish Police where he was from January to July 1994, he replied that he was in Gisenyi in Rwanda, on page p-09-351, he stated that

65 From page p-09-310 to page p-09-371.

Page 654

220 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

he supported the activities carried out by interahamwe militia but did not support the acts of murder, when they started committing them, that they found that his statements indicate that interahamwe started to hunt down and kill Tutsis when he was there, because even those who committed the killings against Tutsis stated that they collaborated with him, that what he alleged that he was not there when these killings were done should not be upheld by the Court because he could not say that he supported the Interahamwe’s activities carried out in his absence.

The representatives of the Prosecution criticized the fact that the High Court, in paragraph 48 of the judgment under appeal, held that what Twagirayezu Wenceslas stated when he applied for asylum in Denmark that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994, does not mean that he stated that he never left during that time, that the relevance of what Twagirayezu Wenceslas’s allegations should be analyzed and contrued considering the circumstances and the reasons why it was stated. They alleged that the court relied on it for no reason, that is is obvious that the defendant's plea was cited as a principle.

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that regarding his statement while applying for asylum, the High Court mentioned it in paragraph 48, the first part, of the appealed case, indicated that it does not mean that he never left Rwanda at that time. They added that when he applied for asylum, the Danish immigration authorities asked him where he was between January and July 1994, and he replied that he was in Rwanda, that he had nothing to add because they did not ask him anything else. in respect of what he stated that he supported interahamwe, regarding what happened in 1997, when the infiltrators attacked the prison where he was detained in Rwerere Commune and released them, he managed to escape to Congo; that what he stated

Page 655

221 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

that he was not involved in the killings carried out by interahamwe after the date of 9/4/1994 when he returned to Rwanda because before that, from the 6th to the 9/4/1994 he was not there.

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers also allege that when he applied for asylum it was said that he had committed crimes in Rwanda, he was called upon by Danish immigration authorities and asked him only about applying for asylum, that the fact that in his interview he stated that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994 was not a lie, because what they needed was to know where he was, that it does not mean that he had never been to Congo and that he had never been questioned by the Danish Police regarding the crimes against him, as alleged by the Prosecution, that instead they copied down his statements from Danish immigration and put them into his file.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is to determine whether the High Court wrongly analyzed the weight of the defendant's statements when he applied for asylum in Denmark, confirming that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994, and that even when the crimes he is accused of were committed on Gisenyi in April 1994, he was in Rwanda, and invalidating that evidence without any valid reason.

As stated above, according to the principles governing the production of evidence in case of alibi defense, the Prosecution is required to provide undisputable evidence proving that the defendant was in Rwanda, while the defendant using the alibi defense must provide a valid reason making the judge believe that the defendant’s statements are relevant, such that it casts doubt on the Prosecution’s allegations.

Page 656

222 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

According to the statement by Twagirayezu Wenceslas, dated 28/8/2002 made before the Danish immigration Service in the context of examining his asylum application, after being informed that the purpose of the interview was to scrutinize the relationship between his political activities, including in particular his interaction with Interahamwe and the reason why he is seeking asylum in general, he explained that as a Hutu, he supported Interahamwe, but he never did any work for them, that he never participated in the military activities carried out by interahamwe during wartime or what they were doing at the time of the interview. He also explained that he supported their ideas to return them to Rwanda, live as normal citizens in their native country, and be able to have the right to express their opinions, and that he helped people flee from Rwanda to the DRC.

in his statement, when asked about his whereabouts between January and July 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas explained that he lived in Gisenyi, Rwanda, where he taught Mmathematics at the Gacuba ii Baptist College, from 1994 to in 1996, he lived in the Kibumba refugee camp (UNHCR) in the Kivu region.

in paragraph 48, bullet point 1, of the appealed judgment, the High Court elucidated that what Twagirayezu Wenceslas stated when he applied for asylum in Denmark that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994, does not mean that he never left Rwanda during that period of time, especially because the relevance of his statement when applying for asylum should be analyzed and construed considering the circumstances and reasons for what was stated.

The underlying question is to determine whether this analysis of the High Court gave due value to the explanation he gave regarding his statements:

Page 657

223 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

a. having been in Rwanda from January to July 1994 and b. having supported the activities carried out by interahamwe; was enough to make the judge doubt of the validity of those statements.

Regarding the fact that he stated that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994, the Court of Appeal finds that the discrediting analysis made by the High Court confirms that the statement is not considered as an admission that he was in Rwanda on the 7th, the 8th and that of the 9th of April 1994, because he stated it in response to the questions he was asked in general about his asylum application, it is irrelevant for the following reasons: a. Twagirayezu Wenceslas freely admitted that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994; which means that even when the genocide was committed against the Tutsi, he was there; b. The fact that what he stated it in the context of seeking asylum, would not be a reason to invalidate what he admitted because it shows that when he admitted it, he was not accused of anything, he has no special interest in it, which shows the quality of his statement as a testimony. He further explained before the Court about what made him say that before the Danish immigration, and he only did it in self-defense where he saw that denying that he was in Rwanda would be in his best interest; c. Concerning the fact that he was asked a question in general, and therefore he had to answer it in general, this Court finds that it is also irrelevant, because being asked a question in general would not have

Page 658

224 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

caused him to make a mistake, before an institution in which he was aware that making false statements (as he had another choice) would deprive him of the right to asylum; d. The analysis of the High Court is based on the fact that the defendant was not asked for specific explanations leading to the exact time when the genocide was carried out in Gisenyi, that is what would have made him not say that there was a time when he was not there, this Court also finds it irrelevant, because if this were so done, that would have made his testimony lose the quality of neutrality, as it would make him figure out a way to give a solution that would not

Regarding the fact that he stated that he supported the activities of Interahamwe, the Prosecution alleged that he would not have stated that if he were not with them in Rwanda. This Court finds that the High Court did not specifically determined this issue because it was examined conjunction with the testimony presented in the Danish immigration. But as is construed, this Court finds that the narrative of supporting a person or an action, does not require a person to be with a supporter, or a supporter to be at the place where the action takes place. Therefore, the Prosecution’s allegations about the narrative of supporting Interahamwe are irrelevant.

2. Concerning the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not show any travel document proving that he had crossed into Congo

The representatives of the Prosecution allege that they criticize the High Court's analysis in paragraph 49 because it is arbitrary. For example, the High Court held that the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is unable to show

Page 659

225 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

travel documents proving that he went to Congo does not mean that he did not go there. They say that the fact that he used the student's card was not what was shown in the trial; they pray the court to examine it because in showing that he was in Congo, he only brought his relatives and friends from Congo; which is not clear why no other people from Rwanda knew that he went there and the only people who knew it were from Congo. They found that he had to show evidence that he went there, that the Court would not go by what he just said that he went through illegal routes and did not show the reason why that should be accepted.

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that crossing a border is done in different ways, that there are people who cross without travel documents or even have them. They allege that he crossed without going through the border because their Commune is close to the border, between those two places, there is a plain they cross without having to cross the border at Gisenyi. They also explain that even when they crossed the border they only showed their identity cards; that there is no error in the Court's analysis because even the Prosecution does not point out the law that was infringed. They conclude by stating that going to Congo was part of his privacy, that he had no responsibility to say that he was going there; that there was a problem in returning on the 8th and 9/4/1994 because the genocide had started, and the border was guarded by many soldiers.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

While explaining that Twagirayezu Wenceslas went to Congo without travel documents, it shows that he crossed the border into Congo, rather what is clear is the fact that he stated that he used to cross into Congo without having to pass by the legitimate border post. The question is whether he gave concrete evidence that should trigger the judge’s doubt that made the High Court hold that it is possible that

Page 660

226 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

even though there is no evidence that he crossed the border, he was in Congo when the genocide was committed in Gisenyi between 07 and 09 April 1994.

As seen in paragraph 49 of the appealed judgment, the High Court elucidated that the Prosecution's allegations according to which Twagirayezu Wenceslas does not show any travel documents thanks to which he used to cross the border into and from the DRC, or the person he saw crossing the border are not relevant, because the fact that the defendant fails to exhibit an official travel documents of how he crossed does not necessarily mean that he did not go to the DRC because he can even live there without them, as the defendant admits that he left the DRC and crossed into Rwanda on 9/4/1994 without passing by the border post.

The Court of Appeal finds that the reasoning of the High Court on this point is insufficient because, in general, the only evidence proving that a person has gone to another country is a travel document. The fact that a person does not have it and asserts that he/she has is not a normal situation on which the Court should rely upon to hold easily that it is possible that someone crossed the border. This Court finds that, in the absence of such evidence, the defendant using the alibi defense, must provide evidence whose standard would make the judge doubt of the Prosecution’s claims that he was in Rwanda when examined together with the evidence presented by the Prosecution. The quality of the testimonies given by the witnesses on this point is what is going to be analyzed in the following paragraphs.

Page 661

227 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

3. Regarding the allegations of the Prosecution according to which the High Court did not uphold the statements of the witnesses who testified that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the genocide started.

The representatives of the Prosecution criticize the fact that in paragraph 48 of the appealed judgment, the High Court did not examine together the statements of Pastor Kaberuka Théophile before the Prosecution in 2019 and 2021 and the testimony he gave before the Court, to realize that he contradicts himself and should not be trusted. They allege that Kaberuka Théophile, when questioned by the Prosecution, stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas had never been to Congo, and he had agreed to testify but later came to the court and disculpated him, then he confirmed that he had told him that he would go to Congo during the Easter holidays. They would criticize that the High Court did not say anything about these flaws, but stated on his behalf, that "he was confused about the word abroad"; that he "felt that the RDC was not part of it".

The Prosecution states that if the Court had examined together the statements of Twagirayezu Wenceslas and Kaberuka Théophile during investigation, it would have realized that he had never gone to Congo because as per the defendant’s statements, he confirmed that he left Congo and was received by Kaberuka Théophile, however the concerned person denied having receiving him, that he had not seen him even though Twagirayezu had brought him to the Court to testify that he had gone to Congo, and had accompanied him until he crossed the border. The Prosecution alleges that Kaberuka Théophile when he appeared before the court, stated that they had talked about spending holidays.

Page 662

228 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[The representatives of the Prosecution also allege that the Court's analysis in paragraph 48, regarding the statements of Nkezabera Paulin, is biased because the witness stated that two (2) days before the Genocide against the Tutsi was committed, Twagirayezu Wenceslas had come and borrowed his guitar but when genocide started, he did not see him again, that the Court mixed up those two days with the end of March, which makes it hold that there is doubt, ignoring that those two days are April 4 and 5, 1994, which shows that the genocide started when Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda, not in Congo as he says and that Nkezabera Paulin is a well-informed person who is not likely to confuse a week and two days.

They also allege that witness Nahimana Emmanuel, who was in charge of religion at the school where Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a teacher, who was questioned by the Prosecution, stated that from April 2 to 6, 1994 and before that in March 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there and after that until they fled, that he thought that he lived in the school because he was the Prefect of discipline because they found him and left him there and that he behaved like Nkezabera Paulin’s child. They allege that his statements show that they know each other, but in analyzing them, the High Court held that they are not to be relied upon based on the fact that he was there as he already knew where he lived, instead of showing the specific way he saw him at that time. The representatives of the Prosecution find that the analysis made by the Court is different from what Nahimana Emmanuel had stated. They also allege that they criticize the High Court for holding that his statements cannot be relied upon because there is no other evidence given before the Court corroborating them pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 2 and 3 of Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda , but not because there are witnesses who committed crimes

Page 663

229 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

with Twagirayezu Wenceslas who testified that he was in Rwanda.

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the Prosecution is changing the narrative contained in the interview statements of Kaberuka Théophile because they asked him if Twagirayezu Wenceslas had ever been abroad and he denied it, because in his home village, they don't consider Congo as a foreign country, they believe that if somebody goes abroad, they board a plane. They allege that there is no contradiction in his statements during the investigation and the testimony he gave before the Court, because Kaberuka Théophile stated before the Court that when he was questioned by the Prosecution, he did not understand that Congo was also part of the countries referred to as abroad, that is why he answered that he knew that he had gone abroad in 2000 after insecurity brought about by infiltrators. They add that the fact that he came to the Court as a witness for Twagirayezu is not the reason why he is not trusted or his testimony is doubtful, because when the Prosecution submitted a list of witnesses, Kaberuka Théophile was not on it, that there is no evidence that he had agreed to incriminate him, despite what the Prosecution states that he said that when he returned to Rwanda he did not receive him, they did not know where it came from but that they were neighbors in such a way that that he could not reach their home without dropping by.

Regarding the words of Nkezabera Paulin, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that he did not reveal the date they last met when he had borrowed his guitar, that instead he doubted and stated "like two days before the genocide". The High Court did not only limit itself to showing that he raises doubt, but also based on the provisions of Article 8 of Law No. 47/2013 of 16/6/2013 that determines the transfer of cases in the Republic of

Page 664

230 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Rwanda, demonstrated that his statements cannot be relied upon because he did not testify before the court. They also state that when he was questioned, where he stated that he received him, he meant that he received him at work when he returned to the Parish because they did not close, that he was not an important person such that Nkezabera Paulin who was in Gisenyi and Kaberuka Théophile who was in Rwerere would both come to welcome him back to Rwanda on 04/09/1994. They state that on the 9th he came at night, in the morning there was a congregation on 10/04/1994, at that time he met Kaberuka Théophile because he was the Pastor, it is possible that Nkezabera Paulin did not see him because there were many people.

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers also allege that he collaborated with Nahimana Emmanuel who was an accountant, but the latter did not know his daily activities because he was on vacation at the time, and the dates on which he alleged to have seen him were dubious, he did not say where he saw him, and he was not summoned as a witness to appear before the court to testify. in addition, what Nahimana Emmanuel said that he did not know where he was staying, that instead he assumed that he lived in the school because he was the Prefect in charge of discipline, that they found him in the school and left him, should not be upheld because he already knew for sure that he could not stay in the girls' school, as the boys were day scholars; that what he said shows that he did not know exactly where he lived, that he had no information about what happened at that time.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is to determine whether the statements of these witnesses (Kaberuka Théophile, Nkezabera Paulin and Nahimana Emmanuel) were valid enough to make the High Court doubt of whether

Page 665

231 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the genocide took place in Gisenyi between the 7th and on July 9, 1994.

The Court of Appeals finds that, in light of the statements of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, he admitted that he was in Rwanda from January to July in the Danish immigration Service as elucidated above, and after it was found out that there were no travel documents showing that he had ever crossed border, it is necessary to analyze each statement of these witnesses, to see if there is any quality that would make the High Court doubt of the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas may have been in the DRC, at the time mentioned. a) Concerning the testimony of Kaberuka Théophile

As seen in paragraph forty-eight (48) of the appealed judgment, the High Court elucidated that Kaberuka Théophile's statement in the investigation that the defendant would not go abroad on Easter holidays of 1994 because the school year starts in September and ends in June of the next year, are not considered as evidence that he did not go to DRC, because he explained before the court that the defendant had told him that he would go to spend his holidays in DRC on Easter, this shows that he was confused about the word "abroad", which did not include the DRC.

The case file shows that on 17/12/2018, before the Prosecution, Twagirayezu Wenceslas explained that among the people who know that he arrived in Rwanda on 9/4/1994 there are his mother, Pastor Kaberuka Théophile, his stepmother, Buduye, Niwenshuti Ladislas and Nkezabera Paulin.

Page 666

232 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The statement of Kaberuka Théophile dated 8/7/2019 before the Prosecution shows that he was asked if before the genocide, Twagirayezu Wenceslas had ever gone abroad or not, he replied that he did not go there, that before 1994 he was in Rwanda because at that time the school year started in September and ended in June, and went on summer holidays, that there was no way to go there before the schools closed. He continued to say that Twagirayezu Wenceslas went abroad in 2000 after the war of infiltrators, that he did not see him during the genocide, that zfter the genocide, he learnt that he had gone to Congo. And in his statement dated 23/11/2021, Kaberuka Théophile explained that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was his neighbor because between their houses, it is about ten (10) minutes’ walk, that he had not seen him since the genocide against the Tutsi started on 6/4 /1994 until the people of their area fled, that he saw him again in 2000 and told him that he was about to go abroad. He also explained that he did not receive him from Congo on 9/4/1994, that the last time he received him was in 1993 before the genocide against the Tutsi.

During the hearing of 22/4/2022, when asked by the High Court and the Prosecution about the Easter holidays of 1994 that Twagirayezu Wenceslas alleged to have spent in Congo, KABERUKA Théophile replied that he went to visit him at the end of the year 1993 where he was staying at Kanyarutambi near Gacuba, he told him that he would spend the Easter holidays in Congo, that since he did not see him at home at that time, he learnt that Twagirayezu Wenceslas had gone there.

Apparently, Kaberuka Théophile, in his first interrogation on 8/7/2019 before the Prosecution, confirmed that Twagirayezu Wenceslas never went abroad and began to explain: that Twagirayezu Wenceslas could not go because the school year started in September and ended in

Page 667

233 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

June. However, during his interrogation on 23/11/2021, Kaberuka Théophile stated that he last saw him in 1993; in those two interrogations, he also said that he never saw him during the genocide. And in the hearing of 22/4/2022, Kaberuka Théophile explained that he went to visit him at the end of 1993 where he was staying at Kanyarutambi near Gacuba, and told him that he would spend the Easter holidays in Congo, that since he did not see him at home at that time, he learnt that he had gone there. in addition to what Twagirayezu Wenceslas stated that Kaberuka Théophile is among the persons who know that he returned to Rwanda on 09/04/1994 from Congo, in the statement dated 23/11/2021 Kaberuka Théophile denied it.

This Court finds that Kaberuka Théophile's testimony shows that he did not meet Twagirayezu Wenceslas since a long time and the information he imparted about him as to whether he ever left Rwanda during the genocide, is so arbitrary that it should not trigger the High Court’s doubt of whether Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda compared to the fact that he admitted that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994, and he did not show documents showing that he crossed the border. b) Concerning the testimony of Nkezabera Paulin

Regarding Nkezabera Paulin, in his statement dated 21/6/2020 before the Prosecution, he explained that Twagirayezu Wenceslas borrowed his guitar about two days before the genocide against the Tutsi started, and they never met again. When asked if the defendant was there at the school when the genocide against the Tutsi took place, he replied that before it happened, he used to live there because he used to come to Nkezabera Paulin’s homeplace, that he came to get the guitar just slightly before the genocide started, he was there at the school.

Page 668

234 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The High Court elucidated that this statement of his cannot be relied upon to hold that the defendant was in Rwanda because it is doubtful, especially that two (2) days before the genocide he stated that the defendant came to borrow his guitar, very close to the end of March 1994, the date on which the defendant alleges to have left Rwanda. it also elucidated that apart from the fact that Nkezabera Paulin's statement is irrelevant, and cannot be relied upon as long as it is not corroborated with the testimony given before the court, as provided for by Article 8, Paragraph Two (2) and Three (3), of the Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda66.

This Court finds that, when the High Court found that the statement of Nkezabera Paulin cannot be relied upon as testimony because it was not made before the Court and is not corroborated with other evidence, it is not necessary to analyze its quality to interpret his statement to make it possible that Twagirayezu Wenceslas might have left the country. it also finds that the Prosecution's criticism of the statements analysis of this witness is groundless because that is not an issue. c) In respect of the testimony given by Nahimana Emmanuel

in his statement dated 15/7/2020 before the Prosecution, Nahimana Emmanuel explained that before the genocide against the Tutsis, around the dates 2, 3, 4, 5, 6/4/1994, and before that on Wednesday, before the genocide, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there working at

66 Article 8, Paragraph Two (2) and Three (3), of the Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda provides that the High Court cannot convict a person solely on the basis of written testimony given previously by witnesses who did not testify at the trial. However, the High Court may prosecute an offence based on the value of such written evidence where such evidence is further substantiated.

Page 669

235 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Collège Baptiste Gacuba II, that even during the genocide he was there until people fled, that President Habyarimana Juvénal's plane crashed on 6/4/1994 he was in Gisenyi and Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there at the school because he behaved like Nkezabera Paulin’s son. When asked how he saw him and where he was, Nahimana Emmanuel replied that he was there because he lived at Collège Baptiste Gacuba II.

in paragraph forty-eight (48) of the appealed judgment, the High Court elucidated that what Nahimana Emmanuel stated that around the dates from April 2 to 6, 1994 and before that, March 1994, the defendant was there, that he also looked like a child of Nkezabera Paulin, cannot be relied upon because he only confirmed it based on the fact that he already knew where he lived, instead of showing the specific way he saw him at that time. it also elucidated that apart from the fact that it is unfounded, it cannot be relied upon in this case because it is not corroborated with the testimony given before the Court.

This Court finds, concerning this testimony of Nahimana Emmanuel, when the High Court had already found that his statement cannot be relied upon as testimony because it was stated before the Court and is not corroborated with other evidence as provided for by Article 8, paragraph two (2 ) and the third (3), of the Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda, it was not necessary to analyze its quality in order to interpret his statements to mean that Twagirayezu Wenceslas might have left the country at that time. it also finds that the Prosecution's criticism of the analysis of the statements of this witness is irrelevant because that is not the issue.

in short, this court finds that the High Court did not take notice of the statements of the witnesses who testified

Page 670

236 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

that the genocide started when Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda, because as explained in the previous paragraphs, the testimony of Kaberuka Théophile shows that he did not meet Twagirayezu Wenceslas since a long time such that he would have something that can make the Court doubt of the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not probably in Rwanda when the crimes he is accused of were committed. And the testimony of Nkezabera Paulin and Nahimana Emmanuel should not have any benefit in relation to the debate aimed at finding out whether Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda, because their testimony was not presented before the court or corroborated with any other evidence as the High Court found it. A.3. Regarding the value of the documents presented by the defendant as alibi evidence.

The Prosecution criticizes the fact that the High Court has given undue importance to the alibi defense based on the document called pétition et témoignages, pour l'innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu and another so- called décharge.

1. Concerning the document titled petition

The Prosecution alleges that the document titled pétition et témoignages, pour l’innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu should not be validated as evidence in the trial and what the witnesses stated is contradictory in such a way that it should not be relied upon to conclude that Twagirayezu Wenceslas might not have been in Rwanda when the crimes he is being prosecuted for were committed.

Page 671

237 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

a. The fact that the petition should not have been validated as evidence in the trial

The representatives of the Prosecution allege that in paragraph 50 of the appealed case, the High Court gave value to the document called pétition et témoignages, pour l'innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu, and did not elaborate on the flaws they pointed out that made it not to be relied on as evidence, including the fact that the document is a fictional opinion written by one person, namely Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, signed by others; because there are those who have not signed it and who have attested to what they do not know. This shows that it was only intended to protect him and to pressurize the Danish justice system, so regardless of who did it, where it was made and the information it contains, it should not be accepted.

Regarding the fact that the document was written by the same person, the representatives of the Prosecution allege that it was written by Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, signed by friends of Twagirayezu Wenceslas who live in DRC, the information contained in it has not been written or prepared by those named as they demonstrated it when they appeared before the Court. They also allege that those who signed the petition played no part in its preparation, that they were not present, and that they did not even know what it contained. They allege that they were called upon, asked to sign and some admitted that they signed without reading its content.

The representatives of the Prosecution allege that witnesses such as Madingo Ndabundu ignace and Lukando Manu alias Pasteur Dusabe signed when it was brought by Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas to confirm that Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not commit genocide, they signed without being aware of its contents; that Bakali Murefu innocent

Page 672

238 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

stated that he was called upon by Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze and asked him to sign it and told him that his testimony might be useful, while Maombi Muromba Estella stated that Pastor Manirafasha of CBCA brought her a paper to sign but did not know its content; that is what happened to many others who signed it.

The representatives of the Prosecution also allege that the fact that the document contains the names of thirty- one (31) people, including 5 who have not signed it, and whose identity cards and telephone numbers were not mentioned on that document, shows that even those who prepared it have not been able to reach them to make them sign it.

Regarding the flaws shown by the representatives of the Prosecution, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the petition is an idea of one person who asks others to accept it, that they might have been present or not during its preparation, and were only asked to sign it, that what is important is that they agreed to the idea expressed in it. Regarding this case, they say that it would have been a problem if the witnesses who signed the petition came before the Court and denied that they were the ones who signed it or showed that they did not see him between 6 and 9/4/1994, so they signed it because they had any information about Twagirayezu Wenceslas, they admit that they saw him at least on some of those dates.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is to determine whether the High Court ignored the flaws in the document titled petition, which the Prosecution claims to have shown before the Court, which were likely to invalidate it as evidence, this

Page 673

239 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

error was made by that Court and led to the confirmation of the relevance of the alibi defense.

As per the document dated 5/31/2018, whose subject was: ‘’pétition et témoignage pour l’innocence de Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu’’, was signed by different people, who wrote to the Minister of Justice of the Kingdom of Denmark, those people explain that they are going to give him information about Twagirayezu Wenceslas showing that he has not involved in what he is accused of. They generally describe his life from 1982 to 2000, but they highlight what he did from the end of March 1994 to 9/4/1994, the day on which he is alleged to have returned to Rwanda. According to this document, they request the Minister of Justice of Denmark to come and investigate at their homes where Twagirayezu Wenceslas was, during the Easter holidays of 1994, when the killings started in Rwanda. Attached to that document is a list of thirty-one (31) people who believe that at that time, they saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas at their homes in Congo.

Particularly, regarding this case, as per that document, they allege that Twagirayezu Wenceslas arrived in Congo at the end of March 1994 during the Easter holidays, he arrived at Luhanga and came to the evangelical congregation (campagne d' evangelization), at the end, on 6/4/1994, Nikuze and Maombi Muromba accompanied him to Bweru-Muhongozi where he spent the night at Chapelle CBK Muhongozi. On 7/4/1994, with the help of Bokalos, he found a car, and continued heading to Goma, where he spent the night at CBK Virunga. On 8/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas went to Kibati, where he met Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas who gave him the money to send to Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze and went back to Goma. On 9/4/1994, after realizing that returning to Rwanda through Petite Barrière was tricky, he went to Kibati, in the evening Bahati

Page 674

240 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

and Madingo Ndabundu ignace escorted him to Cyabwato, he continued in Rwanda to Gabiro Village until he arrived at his home Gacurabwenge-Rubikiro.

During hearing of 19/4/2022 before the High Court, regarding the petition, Witness Maombi Nyiraromba Estella, a.k.a Muromba, explained before the Court that Pastor Manirafasha was the one who brought him a list of people who confirmed that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in the Congo on the mentioned dates in the petition, that after being asked if he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas on the dates 3, 4, 5 and 6/4/1994, he confirmed that they were together, signed the list, and agreed that he would testify before the court.

Again during that hearing, the witness Madingo Ndabundu ignace explained that after they heard that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was imprisoned because he was accused of committing genocide, they signed the list because they knew that he had been at their homes, and he had been there for a long time, that he himself signed because he confirmed that at that he had spent at their homes.

During the hearing of 20/4/2022, Witness Lukando Manu explained that the elder Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas was the one who brought him the document, explaining to him the general situation, that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was imprisoned for the genocide against the Tutsi, that because he knew that he last met him on 9/4/1994, he signed the document.

in paragraph fifty (50) of the appealed judgment, the High Court elucidated that the fact that Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze was the one who signed the document called petition, is not a defect that would make it not be considered as evidence in this case because among the

Page 675

241 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

signatories who were questioned before the Court, they all agreed that they signed it knowing that it was intended to disculpate the defendant; as for those who did not sign it, Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze clearly explained that it was not because they did not approve of its content, but because they were not available.

The analysis carried out by the High Court means that the fact that some of the signatories of the document were heard as witnesses before the Court, all of them accepted their signatures, and they also admitted that they knew that it was intended to disculpate the defendant and the fact that others appeared in it were unable to sign it because they were not available, the defects raised by the Prosecution did not detract it as evidence.

The Court of Appeal finds that the Prosecution requests it to invalidate as evidence the petition referred to in this case because it is a document written by one person, asking others to sign it without knowing its content and the fact that some of the persons mentioned in it did not sign it, that is five (5) persons out of thirty-one (31) persons.

The Court of Appeal finds that a document called petition cannot be invalidated as evidence on the grounds that it was written by only one person, asking others to sign it, because by its very nature, it is a document drafted by one or more people, and who go for other persons to sign it because they agree on its content, requesting a certain authority to do or approve something67. What is important is that its content is interpreted before the court by those who wrote as stipulated by Article 8, paragraph two, of Law No

67 More especially, request addressed by an individual or a group of individuals to a public authority, requesting it to exercise his powers in such a way(….), Association Henri Capitant, Vocabulaire juridique, 6e édition, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1996, P. 612.

Page 676

242 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda.

As for the fact that there are those persons mentioned in the document who did not sign it, namely Masika Walire, Kambale Mangolopa, Muhindo Kangero, Rev. Ndakirande Ndayizimye and Kaneza Bitwayiki, the Court of Appeal finds that this is not an issue because the signatories are responsible for its content and are the ones who must confirm it before the Court; and for those who did not sign it, it means that they have nothing to do with the document and they are not libale for it.

Regarding the statement by the Prosecution that the petition is not admissible as evidence because witnesses such as Maombi Nyiraromba Estella, Madingo Ndabundu ignace and Lukando Manu, signed it without knowing its content, the Court of Appeal finds that their allegations are irrelevant, because, as mentioned above, those witnesses clearly explained before the High Court that after explaining to them that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was imprisoned because he was accused of genocide against the Tutsi in April 1994, they signed the document and testified that they were with him at that time, which means that they knew exactly its content. it also finds that the High Court explained it in paragraph fifty (50) of the appealed judgment, but the Prosecution referred back to their previous allegations at the first instance, without showing any error made by that Court in its interpretation.

in summary, the Court of Appeal finds that the document dated 31/5/2018 referred to as petition in this case, itself cannot be considered as reliable evidence in the case confirming that the accused was in Congo when the acts he is accused of were committed, because such a document is admissible as testimony before the court if the owners who wrote it turned up to testify about it before the court.

Page 677

243 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Therefore, the fact that the High Court used it and summoned those who wrote it to explain its content as seen in paragraph fifty (50) of the appealed judgment, is not a mistake in itself, but what needs to be checked is the quality given to the statements of those witnesses. b. The fact that the witnesses mentioned false kinships with Twagirayezu on the document referred to as petition

The representatives of the Prosecution also allege that before the court, the defense witnesses showed that they have no kinships with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, while in the petition they asserted that they have different kinships. They allege that the witnesses Bakari Murefu innocent and Lukando Manu alias Pasteur Dusabe testified that that they have no kinships with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, yet in the petition each of them proved that they are his cousins. They criticize the fact that the High Court, in paragraph fifty-one (51) of the appealed judgment, held that the fact that the witnesses who signed the petition came to the Court and denied the relationship between them and the defendant is not a flaw that would detract the document as evidence in the trial. They find that it is not true, because the petition is an official document that cannot be written with untruths. They argue that the Court should rather have found that this invalidated the document.

Regarding the witnesses Bakari Murefu innocent and Lukando Manu who appeared before the High Court and denied their kinships with the accused and in the petition they had shown that they had kinships, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers alleged that they agree with the interpretation of the High Court that "the fact that the witnesses denied these kinships are not an issue that would detract their testimony", especially since even now, the Prosecution does not reveal the flaw in the law.

Page 678

244 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

in paragraph fifty-one (51) of the appealed judgment, the High Court elucidated that the fact that the signatories of this document heard before the court denied the kinships appearing in this document between themselves and the defendant, should not be considered as a law that would invalidate this document as evidence in this case, because they explained that depending on their culture a person is called a friend or neighbor, father or cousin based on how they interact and respect each other, that is why as per the document referred to as " décharge " that Twagirayezu Wenceslas wrote alleging that that he was sent by his father Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, yet the latter is not his biological father.

The Court of Appeal finds that the fact that the witnesses Bakari Murefu innocent and Lukando Manu told the Court that they have no kinships with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, however in the document dated 31/5/2018 (petition) they wrote to the Ministry of Justice of Denmark, each revealing that he or she is the defendant’s cousin, which make the truth of their testimony questionable. Concerning the holding of the High Court that it is common to use expressions that give people respect based on kinships, this Court finds it irrelevant because the document intended for use by a national institution (official document) cannot contain anything and its author knows exactly who it is intended for and what its purpose is.

Page 679

245 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

c. The fact that the witnesses’ statements before the Court are different from their attestations in the petition  Submissions of the Prosecution

The representatives of the Prosecution criticize the High Court for validating the testimony of the people who signed the "petition" yet it appears that what they stated is contrary to what the signatories believe that they know what Twagirayezu Wenceslas did from the 6th to the 9/4/1994 and they were not they were together. They explain as follows: - Before the the High Court, Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze stated that he had received Twagirayezu Wenceslas on 1/4/1994, they had departed from eacher other on 6/4/1994 when he returned to Rwanda, that since then they met again two (2) years later. That is contrary to what he attested in the petition because he says that the defendant reached him at the end of March 1994, and he knows what he did up to 9/4/1994. - Mvunabandi Kagabo, before the High Court, stated that he had last met Twagirayezu Wenceslas on 7/4/1994 in the morning when they were in Luhanga, and that after he did not get any information about him again. This is different from what is written in the petition that Twagirayezu Wenceslas left Luhanga on 6/4/1994, and he signed that he knew about it until 9/4/1994. - Before the High Court, Maombi Mulomba Estella testified that she had accompanied Twagirayezu Wenceslas when he left Luhanga for a congregation held on 6/4/1994, and brought him to Bweru, that since they departed from each other he has not heard from

Page 680

246 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

him again, but in the petition she signed and attested that on 6, 7 and 8/4/1994, she also saw him in Congo. - For these two witnesses, the representatives of the Prosecution added that the analysis made by the Court in paragraph forty-seven (47) of the appealed judgment is contrary to the reality of the facts, because it showed that what Mvunabandi Kagabo says that he had last met Twagirayezu Wenceslas on date 7/4/1994 when they were at Luhanga should not be relied upon, however, it validates the statements of Maombi Mulomba Estella who testified that she accompanied Twagirayezu Wenceslas on 6/4/1994, without relying upon anything. - Madingo Ndabundu ignace, before the High Court, testified that he had last seen Twagirayezu Wenceslas was on 9/4/1994 in Congo, they went through Kibati, Cyabwato and came to Rwanda, that he did not see him elsewhere except before the court, however as per the petition signed, he confirmed that on 6th, 7th and 8/4/1994, he did not see him in Congo. - Witness Bakali Murefu innocent testifying before the court confirmed that he had seen Twagirayezu Wenceslas coming to collect the money belonging to Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze at Kikwindi Kimende Ladislas’ home on 8/4/1994, but in the petition he signed he confirmed that he had also seen him on the 6th, 7th and 9/4/1994. - Witness Lukando Manu before the court testified that that he had been with Twagirayezu Wenceslas on 9/4/1994, that he reached him where he lived on the border to Rwanda when the defendant was coming to Rwanda, but he also confirmed in the petition that he had seen him on the 6th, 7th and 8/4/1994.

Page 681

247 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

The representatives of the Prosecution also say that their other criticism is that the High Court did not establish anything about the fact that some of the witnesses contradicted what Twagirayezu Wenceslas brought them for before the court and testified as follows: - Twagirayezu Wenceslas wanted Madingo Ndabundu ignatius68 to come before the court to testify that on 8/4/1994 they were with Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas in Congo when he took three hundred (300) zaires. However, Madingo Ndabundu ignace denied it before the court, because he stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas had reached him on 9/4/1994 where he was working at the local administrative entity at Kibati. Another thing he stated before the Court is that after Twagirayezu Wenceslas was imprisoned, it was Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas who showed him the acknolwledgment letter that he had done for him, and it was he who brought him the petition to sign while Twagirayezu Wenceslas wanted to convince the Court that they were together on 8/4/1994 by signing the acknolwledgment letter. - Twagirayezu Wenceslas wanted Witness Bakali Murefu innocent to testify that when he made the acknowledgment letter of 300 zaires destined for Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas, the defendant was with him. Bakali Murefu innocent did not state this when he appeared before the Court, but he stated that on 8/4/1994 he had seen Twagirayezu Wenceslas going to Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas’ home to take money belonging to Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze.

68 Hearing report dated 19/4/2022

Page 682

248 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

The representatives of the Prosecution also allege that they pointed out that the testimony of Lukando Manu alias Pasteur Dusabe, who is one of the signatories of the petition, should not be relied upon, but the High Court ignored it. They explain that what Lukando Manu alias Pasteur Dusabe stated that on 9/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas had reached him around 3:00 or 4:00 where he lived and stated that it was near the border, there were no other houses around him; he accompanied him alone for one hour to the border, while there is another witness named Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline who also testified that she has the last house at the border, saying that on 9/4/1994 she accompanied Twagirayezu Wenceslas alone to Rwanda. They explain that it is not clear how they both accompanied him at the same time to the same place but did not see each other.

The representatives of the Prosecution allege that Twagirayezu Wenceslas brought Musuba'o Mangalopa before the Court to confirm that on 31/3/94 he went to Luhanga and spent the night in Goma with Kanyere, the grandmother of Musuba'o Mangalopa, that on 9/ 4/1994, he returned with the Mangalopa from Kisangani, but the High Court did not examine it to establish that Twagirayezu Wenceslas’ statements are unfounded. They explain that as follows: - Witness Musuba'o Mangalopa states that he knows Twagirayezu Wenceslas well, but he says that, although he does not remember clearly, on 31/3/1994 he was in Goma, that he was staying at his grandmother Kanyere. The representatives of the Prosecution allege that what this witness states shows that what Twagirayezu Wenceslas says is not true because he says that he was received by Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze on 1/4/1994 in Luhanga; which is impossible for him to go from

Page 683

249 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Goma to Luhanga in one day because it is a 3-day journey from Luhanga to Goma. - - Witness Musuba'o Mangalopa also says that on the 5th or 6/4/1994 he left Twagirayezu Wenceslas in Goma on his way to Kisangani, but Twagirayezu Wenceslas in his statement before Rwanda investigation Bureau on 17/12/2018 stated that on 6/4/1994 he was in Luhanga. The representatives of the Prosecution allege that that this is also impossible. - Again, Witness Musuba'o Mangalopa stated that he had been with Twagirayezu Wenceslas on 8 and 9/4/1994 in Goma and he was in Kisangani while there was a 3-day journey from there to Goma. This shows that what he says that they were together in Goma on those dates is impossible, because he could not have left Kisangani and returned to Goma. Defense submissions of Twagirayezu Wenceslas

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that in the testimony of Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze testified that he had welcomed him that he had received him in Luhanga on 1/4/1994, but as per the petition, he arrived at the end of March 1994, which casts no contradiction, because it is the time when he started his holidays, and from Goma to Luhanga it is not a day's journey. They also allege that what the representatives of the Prosecution stated that he had signed a petition confirming that he knows what he did on 7, 8 and 9/4/1994 is not true, because in his testimony, Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze did not confirm that he saw him on those dates, nstead, he signed confirming that he saw him when he arrived at Luhanga and when they departed from each other on 6/4/1994. As to what happened after that date, he was the one who told him when he returned to Congo after two (2) years, and told him all the information

Page 684

250 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

about the trip he made since they separated on 6/4/1994 until he returned to Rwanda.

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers continue stating that Witness Mvunabandi Kagabo also does not contradict himself, because, as he explained in his testimony, on 6/4/1994 at 6:00 p.m. they met at Luhanga, and they met again in Muhongozi in the morning of on 7/4/1994 they learnt that President Habyarimana Juvénal's plane had crashed, that he signed the petition with the intent to confirm that, and the fact that it comprises other dates of 8 and 9/04/1994, was due to the fact that the petition it had to be signed by a group of people who confirmed that they had seen him in Congo from 06 to 09/04/1994.

Regarding Maombi Mulomba Estella's testimony, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that it does not contradict the content of the petition she signed, because, as he explained, after the evangelical congregation was dismissed on 6/4/1994, upon the request of Pastor Senzoga, he accompanied him when they left Luhanga, brought him to Bweru, and she signed based on the information she knew when they left Congo, but what the Prosecution states that she also signed for the events that occurred on the dates of April 7, 8, and 9, 1994, which is not true.

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers explain that the testimony of Mvunabandi Kagabo does not contradict that of Maombi Mulomba Estella, because it is the latter who accompanied him from Luhanga on 6/4/1994 to Bweru, after departing from eacher other, he continued her journey and spent the night at Muhongozi, as a throughfare to Kitchanga, that it is at Muhongozi where in the morning of 7/4/1994 he met Mvunabandi Kagabo who was going to market. They allege that in paragraph 47 of the appealed judgment it is written that Twagirayezu Wenceslas met Mvunabandi

Page 685

251 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Kagabo at Luhanga on the 6th and 7/4/1994 which is a misunderstanding of places and their names but also Muhongozi is located at Luhanga. They add that they find that the Court would not detract the testimony of Mvunabandi Kagabo, because what he says does not change the truth that on 6 and 7/4/1994 he was in Congo.

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that Madingo Ndabundu ignace and Lukando Manu signed the petition to confirm only that on 9/4/1994 they met Twagirayezu Wenceslas when he was in Congo.

Regarding the issue of dates raised by the Prosecution, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers concluded saying that the fact that the witnesses came to the Court and said that they saw him one day between 06 and 9/4/1994, does not show that they contracted the content of the petition, that it would have been a problem if they had appeared before the Court and denied that they signed or showed that they never saw him in Congo at that time. They also explained that the reason why they signed was because they had information about him, and they admitted that one of those dates they saw him. They added that, as seen in the petition, they asked the Danish Administration that if they were not satisfied with the contents of the document, they would conduct an investigation and that they had indeed come to Rwanda to do so. This means that the content of the petition is not fabricated opinions as per the allegations of the representatives of the Prosection.

Regarding the allegations by the representatives of the Prosecution that Madingo Ndabundu ignace and Bakari Murefu innocent did not say what they were brought for before Court; concerning Madingo Ndabundu ignace, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers say that they never said that they brought him to confirm that they were with Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas when he gave him the money

Page 686

252 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

of Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze on 8/4/1994, that instead they wanted him to confirm that on that date he only passed by him and that on 9/4/1994 he accompanied him back to Rwanda. They also allege that there is no statement made by Twagirayezu Wenceslas that he stated that when he wrote an acknowledgment letter, he was with Madingo Ndabundu ignace, but this witness testified that he knew that he did what Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas told him, and he showed it to him. They add that they pointed out to the High Court the errors that appear in minutes of the hearing regarding the testimony of Madingo Ndabundu ignace, and they requested that it be corrected, but the Court tells them that they are minor errors.

Regarding the flaw raised by the Prosecution regarding the testimony of Lukando Manu comparing it with that of Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline regarding the fact of accompanying her to the border, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and her lawyers say that it is baseless, because on 9/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas first arrived at Lukando Manu's house, they talked for about an hour, he escorted him past the gate, he took him near Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline's neighborhood and he was the one who escorted him to Kibaya. They add that Lukando Manu did not say that he brought him to Kibaya, but he prevented him from returning to Rwanda, and when questioned, he showed that he knew him because he used to see him passing through the valley, and said that he agreed to sign the petition because he knew him and knew that wherever he was questioned, he would testify. Regarding the time Lukando Manu and Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline accompanied him, Twagirayezu Wenceslas says that he doesn't remember well but it was in the afternoon, that the hour Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline mentioned was wrong.

Page 687

253 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the fact that the High Court did not rely on the testimony of Musuba'o Mangalopa means that it is not obliged to rely on all the testimony given. They add that the witness was presented as someone who would give information about how they lived at his grandmother's house, but the dates he mentioned were wrong, because he kept doubting that it was evident that he had no knowledge of what he was talking about, especially since it was his grandmother who had told him that he had passed by, except that even while testifying he could not repress his emotions.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The debated issue is to determine whether whether the Supreme Court made an error in not realizing that the signatories of the document dated 31/5/2018, admit that they saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas every day from the end of the third month to 9/4 /1994, however, some of those who testified before the Court changed their minds and stated that they had seen him on a certain day. Another thing is to find out whether the fact that some of the witnesses mentioned false kinships on the document referred to as the petition has any effect on the quality of their testimony and to determine whether the High Court ignored the contradictions and flaws shown in the statements of the witnesses, and between what was stated by the defendant and some of the witnesses, which would have led the High Court to realize that the content of the document dated 31/5/2018 has no quality that would cast doubt on the confirmation that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Congo when the crimes he is prosecuted for were committed.

Page 688

254 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

a. In respect of the fact that the witnesses confirmed certain dates when the document they signed asserts that they knew that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Congo from April 6 to 9, 1994

One of the characteristics of a "petition" document is that it is written by one person or a group of people, with the intent to explain or support a certain idea for a certain institution, and then other people are asked to sign it. it is obvious that not all signatories agree with each of its contents to the same extent as those who write it. in this way, everyone has something that he wants to confirm in particular in that general opinion; This is what he can stand up for and explain when asked why he signed it. That is why the summons to the Court is a way to give him or her the opportunity to clearly explain what he wanted to say in the document he or she signed. This is what allows every person can provide explanations that vary from person to person.

According to the document dated 31/5/2018 called "petition and testimony for the innocence of Mr. Wenceslas Twagirayezu'', signed by different people, writing to the Minister of Justice of the Kingdom of Denmark, it appears that the signatories intended to give testimony (information) they have about Twagirayezu Wenceslas that shows that he is innocent. Regarding the dates on which he is suspected of having committed the crimes he is accused of, it shows that they believe that Twagirayezu Wenceslas arrived in Luhanga in Congo in the end of March, 1994, that on 6/4/1994 he went to Bweru-Muhongozi, on 7/4/1994 he went on to Goma, on 8/4/1994 he went to Kibati, and returned to Goma where he spent the night. it also shows that they confirmed that on 9/4/1994 he returned to Kibati, passed through Cyabwato, and crossed into Rwanda.

Page 689

255 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

in paragraph forty-four (44) and forty-six (46) of the appealed judgment, the High Court explained that some of the petitioners agreed to the Court that they had signed it and confirmed what they knew about Twagirayezu Wenceslas, as they met him. and the day it happened and what they talked about. By explaining it like that, the High Court wanted to clarify that those who signed the document, did so without wanting to say or show that at that time they saw him every day from the end of the third month to 9/4/1994. in these paragraphs, the Court explained that the statements of the witnesses (Pasteur Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, Maombi Malomba Estella, Bakari Murefu innocent, Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline, Madingo Ndabundu ignace, Lukando Manu) which confirm when Twagirayezu Wenceslas was with them in the RDC between the dates 6 and 9 April 1994.

The Court of Appeal finds that the High Court did not err in understanding what each person wanted to explain in the document. in the following paragraphs, the quality of each person's explanation will be examined in order to see if it was at a level that would make the judge doubt of the Prosecution’s allegations that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda when the crimes against him were committed.

2. Regarding the quality of the testimony of those who believe that they were with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in Congo. While analyzing the quality of what the witnesses stated about the movements of Twagirayezu Wenceslas in Congo from the end of March to April 9, 1994, the Court of Appeal takes into account what was stated on each date from when he went to Congo until he returned to Rwanda.

Page 690

256 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

On 31/3/1994, as he told the High Court69, Witness Musuba'o Luc Mangalopa, even though he stated that he does not remember well, on that date Twagirayezu Wenceslas met him in Goma at his grandmother Kanyere’s home, when the defendant had just come from Rwanda. However, Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze and Maombi Mulomba Estella70 stated that from 1/4/1994 to 06/04/1994 they were with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in Luhanga71. But Musuba'o Luc Mangalopa stated that on the 5th or 6th of April 1994, he headed to Kisangani through Butembo and left the defendant in Goma at his grandmother's home, then when he returned, he met him again in Goma on 8/4/1994 at his grandmother's home on his way from Masisi to Rwanda. During the hearing of the case before the High Court, Witness Mvunabandi Kagabo stated that on 6/4/1994 he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in Luhanga at 06:00 P.M, and they met again on 7/4/1994 in the morning at 06:30 A.M, when they learnt from the radio that President Habyarimana Juvénal's plane had crashed. The fact that they were together on those dates was confirmed by the lawyer of Twagirayezu Wenceslas when he explained why he was brought as a witness in the trial72. Witness Maombi Mulomba Estella says that Twagirayezu Wenceslas left Luhanga on 6/4/1994, that she accompanied him along with someone named Nikuze to Bweru where he could get a car to take him to Kitchanga, upon the request of Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze.

69 See the hearing report dated 21/4/2022. 70 MAOMBi MULOMBA Estella stated that they were together on 03/4/1994 after church service. 71 See hearing report dated 19/4/2022. 72 See hearing report dated 19/4/2022.

Page 691

257 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

On 08/04/1994, as he told the High Court, Witness Bakali Mulefu innocent73 restified that on that date around 11:00 A.M, he saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas going to Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas to collect the money for the trees that Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze had sold, and wrote "an acknowledgment letter". This Court reminds that Musuba'o Luc Mangalopa stated that on that date he met him in Goma while the witness was on his way from Kisangani. On 09/04/1994, as he stated it before the High Court, Witness Madingo Ndabundu ignace said that he met Twagirayezu Wenceslas on that date at around 9:00 A.M when he met him at the local administration headquarters referred to as groupement, and told him that he wanted to cross through Kibati, and he directed him to Cyabwato, Twagirayezu Wenceslas continued his journey. Witness Lukando Manu also confirmed that on that date he met Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the evening around 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. from Goma-Cyabwato, that they spent about an hour, and he told him that he was going to Rwanda to see his mother, and crossed Kinyanja. Witness Nirere Ndimukaga Jacqueline also told the High Court that she was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas on 9/4/1994 at Kinyanja, and explained that the defendant reached her at home at around 8:00 A.M from Cyabwato, and talked for about thirty (30) minutes and she accompanied him for about two (2) hours, but she did not reach the farthest border, she did a U-turn, and he continued his journey to Rwanda. As per paragraph 44 of the appealed judgment, the High Court analyzed the testimony of all these witnesses but did not say anything about the testimony of Musuba'o Luc Mangalopa to show why it did not say anything about him, yet as it appears his testimony contradicts others, especially

73 The document titled petition shows that Bakali Murefu lives at Kibati, 8 kms away from Goma.

Page 692

258 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

about where Twagirayezu Wenceslas was when he was in Congo, Goma or Luhanga. What the Prosecution saw as a serious flaw, while Twagirayezu Wenceslas found that the Court did not pay attention to what he stated, that he seemed to have a problem in explaining what he stated, and that the Court is not obliged to rely on the statements of all the witnesses. The Court finds that the Court is not obliged to show every time why it does not rely on a given testimony. But when it appears that a certain testimony clearly contradicts that of others, the Court should have something to say about it. The fact that she did not say anything about it is a serious flaw as it makes her decision seem one-sided. This Court finds, however, that the witnesses disagree on the dates and times is a small flaw that does not make the testimony lose its quality, considering the time elapsed since what they testify about had happened.

3. Regarding the acknowledgment receipt The representatives of the Prosecution criticized the fact that in paragraph fifty-two(52) and fifty-three (53) of the appealed case, the High Court relied on a document called a acknowledgment receipt, confirming that it is a proof showing that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Congo when that document was written. They argue that this is wrong for the following reasons: - it is not clear why Twagirayezu Wenceslas would have given Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas an acknowledgment receipt when he received the money intended for Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, but he did not receive any acknowledgment receipt from Muhindo Kandiro to give the money to Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze;

Page 693

259 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

- the witnesses who spoke about the acknowledgment receipt, the Prosecution had shown that they are not reliable witnesses based on their statements full of contradictions regarding their interpretations of what they wrote in the petition, but the court ignored it and validated it; - the fact that the forensic expertise conducted about the acknowledgment receipt in Denmark showed that there was no indication of when it was carried out. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the Prosecution’s allegations are irrelevant for the following reasons: - concerning the fact that he wrote an acknowledgment receipt for Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas but he did not receive it when he gave Muhindo Kandiro the money to hand over to Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, they allege that is not an issue as Muhindo Kandiro had no responsibility to do it because all he needed to get was the money to be handed over to Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze, although he did it in order to protect himself; - what the representatives of the Prosecution allege by linking the petition to the acknowledgment receipt is trying to confuse the Court; - an expert report was made confirming that the signature belongs to Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that what remains unknown is the time when it was written but the date of writing of 8/4/1994 is obvious, that it is up to the Prosecution that criticizes that date should provide evidence that refutes it.

Page 694

260 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The debated issue is to determine whether the High Court made errors in confirming that the document called the acknowledgment receipt is a proof confirming that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Congo during the period of time when he is alleged to have the crimes he is accused of, ignoring the flaws it showed such that it should not be upheld. For a document to be considered as evidence that a person was in a certain place when the document was made, it is possible to show a physical sign that shows when the document was written and where it was written. This is important because as a defense, a person might write a document and lie about where and when it was written. Giving a document as evidence that you were in a certain place at a certain time, which you rely on, does not in itself prove that it was done at the time or place, when it is not corroborated with physical evidence74. in paragraph forty-five (45) of the appealed judgment, the High Court explained that the the acknowledgment receipt written by Twagirayezu Wenceslas on 8/4/1994 receiving money from Pastor Senzoga Bihuri Patrick Ndeze is confirmed by the testimony of Bakari Murefu innocent who explained that he was at Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas’ home when Twagirayezu Wenceslas wrote it, and the testimony of Madingo Ntabuntu ignace who testified that when they found out that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was imprisoned and accused of committing genocide, Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas showed him the document he signed at his home on 8/4/1994.

74See the appeal judgment, Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, Case no. iCTR-96-3-A, para. 488.

Page 695

261 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

in paragraph 52 of the appealed judgment, the High Court explained that the allegations of the Prosecution that the acknowledgment receipt was forged in order to collect evidence against Twagirayezu Wenceslas are not relevant because there is no flaw based on its form or content, shown by the Prosecution, which would cause its rejection other than simply alleging that it was fabricated. As seen in paragraph 28 of the appealed judgment, the Prosecution criticizes the document called the acknowledgment letter, saying that relying on the document dated 8/4/1994 to hold that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not in Rwanda on this date is arbitrary, because there is nothing that can bar a person from being in Goma on that date and also going back to Rwanda, especially since there is no conclusive evidence proving that the acknowledgment receipt was written, as long as Twagirayezu Wenceslas does not show any document written by the money receiver and the reasons that sparked Kikwindi Kimende Stanislas to accept to give it to him. As also seen in the indictment dated 31/5/2022 on the alibi defense of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, the Prosecution criticized the acknowledgment letter for not being original, that it is rather a copy. As per that indictment, the Prosecution also stated that there is no conclusive evidence that the acknowledgment receipt was written because it is not clear why while

receiving the money, Twagirayezu Wenceslas wrote the acknowledgment receipt, however he was not able to show the acknowledgment receipt he got from the person, namely Muhindo Kangero, who received it. The case file contains a document titled "Transcript from the record of judgments of the Eastern High Court" which refers to the experts from Denmark (The National Forensic Center) who examined the document called the

Page 696

262 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

acknowledgment receipt dated 8/4/1994, to ascertain whether the signature found on the document is really that of Twagirayezu Wenceslas and concluded that the handwriting was really his, and did not manage to find out when the ink of the pen used to sign, was manufactured75. The case file also contains the document from the National Enhed for Saerlig Kriminalitet (Police Special Crimes Unit) dated 21/5/2024 which shows that on 4/6/2018, experts reviewed the original document dated 8/4/1994 (the acknowledgment receipt), they found that the existing signature belongs to Twagirayezu Wenceslas, but it is not possible to know when the ink of the pen was used to sign the document was manufactured76. Regarding the first and second reasons that the Prosecution raises to criticize the appealed judgment in respect of the acknowledgment receipt, the Court of Appeal finds that what the Prosecution relies on to criticize the document called the acknowledgment receipt is not an issue but the issue lies in its quality as evidence that shows the whereabouts of Twagirayezu Wenceslas at that time because, as shown in the previous paragraphs, the expert evidence that was provided cannot make it possible to know the exact time when the document was written and where it was written. Therefore, since there is no physical evidence that shows when the document was made, the Court of

75 The National Forensic Center has conducted an examination of whether the signature on the receipt document produced during the proceedings, which indicates that it was issued in Goma on 8 April 1994, has been subscribed by Wenceslas Twagirayezu. in a statement dated 4 June 2018 it is concluded that "There is a probability bordering on certainty that the contested signature 'Wenceslas Twagirayezu' on KTi was subscribed by Wenceslas Twagirayezu." in addition, it has been stated about the examination that it is not possible to date the ballpoint pen pasta used for the contested signature’’. 76 The 4th of june 2018 NKC stated that appendix x-02-01-001: - The original KT1 was examined.- it was no possible to date the ink used for signature. - There was a probality bordering on certainty that the signature was that of WT (Wenceslas Twagirayezu).

Page 697

263 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Appeal finds that the acknowledgment receipt cannot be reliable evidence proving that it was written on the alleged date. in general, as explained above, this Court finds that that the allegations of the Prosecution that the High Court made an error of rejecting the testimony of Nkezabera Paulin and Nahimana Emmanuel confirming that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Rwanda during the Easter holidays in 1994, are irrelevant because the testimony was not debated before the court; and with regard to Kaberuka Théophile's testimony, this Court finds that the High Court made an error in upholding it, yet he proved that he had not met Twagirayezu Wenceslas recently. The Court of Appeal also found that Twagirayezu Wenceslas admitted that from January to July 1994 he was in Rwanda, there is no travel document showing that he crossed the border, and the document called the acknowledgment receipt is not enough to prove that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Congo at the time mentioned because the examination carried out did not reveal when it was written. Regarding the document called the petition written by the people who were in Congo who testify that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was with them from April 6 to 9, 1994, this Court finds that there are false kinships, such that it becomes questionable. The Court of Appeal also found that the allegations of the Prosecution that the document called the

petition should be rejected, are not relevant because what is important is that its content be debated before the Court. it also found that the fact that the witnesses before the court, because each of them testified the opposite of what they stated in the document they had signed, because everyone confirmed the date on which they saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas at the time mentioned, is also irrelevant because

Page 698

264 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

in such a document, everyone defends what they believe, which is what he/she should explain when interrogated. After examining the quality of what each of them explained about what they had signed in the document, this Court finds that there were witnesses who disagreed on the hours and dates, but finds that these are minor facts that alone do not invalidate their testimony. This in itself is not proof that it is possible that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Congo as the High Court held77, as long as re has been no investigation yet on what he is accused of for his role in the genocide, compared to the other flaws shown in the previous paragraphs. B. Determining whether Twagirayezu Wenceslas was acquitted despite the evidence and the laws demonstrating that he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. B.1 Determining whether there was an error made by the High Court in holding that the Prosecution witnesses did not know Twagirayezu Wenceslas.  Submissions of the Prosecution The representatives of the Prosecution criticize the fact that in paragraph 145 and 146 of the appealed judgment, the High Court held that the witnesses incriminating Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not know him and held that they contradicted each other severely about his career, his position in the activities of political parties or his fame in general, even on some of his body features, yet what they all agree on is the most important thing that deserves attention,

77 See paragraph 53 of the appealed judgment.

Page 699

265 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

is that he was a teacher, working in the education sector, what he admitted. They continue explaining that, as the Prosecution had showed in the defence submissions and as one of the judges emphasized it in his dissenting opinion, the fact that the witnesses do not agree on the place where Twagirayezu Wenceslas worked and the period of time when he worked there, is not a serious flaw that would make it possible to confirm that they did not know him and they showed how they know him, they know his family, where he studied and some of his neighbors. They emphasize the fact that given the time elapsed since the Genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 was perpetrated, and paying attention to the difficult times that the perpetrators of the genocide and its victims were in and the lives they went through until now, the fact that every witness in his/her own way stated what he/she remembers, but they disagreed on small details, should not detract their testimony. The prosecution explained that the witnesses showed that they knew Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the following way: - Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent testified before the court that he knew Twagirayezu Wenceslas because the witness used to graze cows near his (the defendant’s) home, that he used to see him carrying books; - When questioned before the Danish investigation Service, DTC stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is a man with dark brown skin tone, round-headed, and while testifying before the court, he confirmed that he knew him; - Before the Danish investigation Service, Biryamo Joseph stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was the

Page 700

266 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inspector of all schools in Rwerere since 1986, that he knows him but they have never been friends. When question before Rwanda investigation Bureau, he stated that he was a substitute Teacher at Munanira Primary School. Although he was confused about his name, he sometimes stated that his name is Nsengiyumva Wellars, when he was questioned again he said his name was Twagirayezu Wenceslas, he testified before the court that he was a substitute teacher at Munanira school. The representatives of the Prosecution argue that the High Court took Biryamo Joseph's testimony wrongly, holding that before the Danish investigation Service, he stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a school inspector in Rwerere, but he did not confirm it but stated that it was what he thought, that it is clear that Biryamo Joseph wherever he was interrogated, he continued to emphasizing that Twagirayezu Wenceslas worked in the education sector. - Witness Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean, when interrogated by the Danish investigation Service, stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a teacher at Munanira. Before Rwanda investigation Bureau, he stated that the accused was the Head Teacher of Munanira School, while testifying before the court, he stated that he was a substitute teacher at Munanira School. The representatives of the Prosecution argue that although there are some places where he changes the wording, he also shows that he worked in the education sector at Munanira school, that the explanation he gave before the court shows that he already knew him because he stated that he was from Gacurabwenge, that he came to know him because he passed by his home to visit Pastor Munyankindi Seth.

Page 701

267 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

- Witness Shyengo Joseph told the Court that later on he found out that he was a substitute teacher, which shows that he tried to find out some information, which made him impart reliable information. - Witness Munana Tatien, when questioned on 18/12/2013 before Rwanda investigation Bureau, stated: "The conduct before the genocide, what i know of him is that in 1993, i don't remember the exact month but it was between July and August, we went together to the meeting which took place in Ruhengeri at the stadium and was chaired by Bucyana who was the President of CDR at the national level and Barayagwiza, we were invited within the framework of Gisenyi and Ruhengeri political parties (...), (...) what they told us in that political rally, they were mobilizing us to fight any Tutsi, then called a cockroach”.  Concerning the profession of Twagirayezu Wenceslas The representatives of the Prosecution say that the witnesses were not mistaken about Twagirayezu Wenceslas’ profession because in the course of investigation they used to say that he was a teacher, they did not agree upon the school where he taught and the leadership position he had in the education sector, they testified before Court stating that he was a substitute teacher at the primary school of Munanira. They add that, although Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a permanent employee at Collège Baptiste in Gisenyi Town since 1993 when he left school, they do not criticize the statements of the witnesses who confirmed that before

Page 702

268 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

the genocide he was a substitute teacher at Munanira Primary School78. The representatives of the Prosecution criticized the fact that while emphasizing that the Prosecution witnesses did not know Twagirayezu Wenceslas, the High Court relied upon the affidavits before the National Public Prosecution Authority made by Kabera Samuel, Kanyabugoyi Théoneste and Nzabarankize Obed, that although their affidavits are on record, while filing the case, the Prosecution did not include them as its witnesses to be later heard during the trial, yet the Court considers them as if it were the Prosecution which presented them, and their expressions are used in a way that does not match what was being determined. They say that in case the Court felt that it should rely on the statements of people who did not testify before the Court, it should have also referred to the statements of Munana Tatien who asserted that he went with Twagirayezu Wenceslas to the CDR meeting in Ruhengeri, Maniragaba Théodomir, Ntaganda Claude and Gasasira Patrick, the Prosecution had listed the witnesses who would come to the Court but they did not come because they were not in the country, since their statements contain important information that corroborates the testimony given before the Court.  Regarding the physical appearance of Twagirayezu The representatives of the Prosecution allege that the analysis of the testimony of Twagirayezu Wenceslas was biased, because the Court combined the testimonies of the

78 The witnesses who appeared before the court and stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a substitute teacher are: Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean, Shyengo Joseph, Habingoma Théobald, Biryamo Joseph, DTA, DTB. Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, before the court, stated that they used to believe that whoever was carrying books was a teacher.

Page 703

269 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

prosecution witnesses, holding that that they did not know him, but their statements show that even before the genocide, they already knew him, and what they say is consistent with the statements of the witnesses given by Twagirayezu Wenceslas himself. They explain that, for instance, the witness DTA who was questioned by the Danish investigation Service, stated that he had protruding teeth, his arm was crooked because he had fallen from a tree when he was a child, he had a straight head, but relied on the statement of the witness Kaberuka Théophile, who is disculpating him, yet they refer to him in the same way. They continue alleging that the other witnesses who portrayed Twagirayezu Wenceslas include Shyengo Joseph, who said that he knew him as a middle-sized young man, not fat, with a prominent head79, Witness DTC states that he is a 45-year-old man, 1m75 tall, strong, with prominent forehead, round-headed, that he doesn't remember anything else because he last saw him a long time ago80, and before the court, he states that he knows him. They conclude by saying that the Prosecution presented witnesses who know the accused well, that they do not understand how the Court would hold that they do not know him, without showing in detail where what they say differs from others who claim to know him.  In respect of the fame of Twagirayezu Wenceslas The representatives of the Prosecution criticize the fact that in paragraph 146, the High Court validated what Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyer state that he is being accused by witnesses who do not know him, based on the fact that the witnesses of the Prosecution show him as a

79 Statement dated 03/12/2013 before Rwanda investigation Bureau. 80 Witness question by the Danish Police, P-09-217

Page 704

270 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

prominent rich person who was known in his area, who was well paid by the government and had a large land, was often with Bunani Jean who was the inspector of the School Sector, who represented the interahamwe in the meetings that prepared the genocide, or who was the head of the MRND and CDR at the Commune or Sector levels, who traveled with Munyagishari Bernard was the leader of the interahamwe in the former Gisenyi Prefecture and Ntamaherezo who was the leader of the interahamwe in Gacurabwenge, as well as Bikindi Simon who was well- known in the genocide. The representatives of the Prosecution criticize the fact that the High Court held that before July 1991, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a high school student in the DRC and that is where he lived, he sometimes came home during the holidays, and he continued to live in the RDC after he finished his studies until he returned to Rwanda in June 1993. The representatives of the Prosecution also contend that the court's analysis ignored what Twagirayezu Wenceslas stated in the document sent by Denmark, especially regarding the immigration Police on page P-09- 328-P-09-329, where he described the tasks he carried out, that he became a teacher and director of discipline at Gacuba ii Baptist High School, Prefet of discipline from 1993 to 1994, director of Christian youth from 1991 to 1994 in the district branch of AEBR, Gisenyi, a

member of the committee responsible for coordinating the activities of the church and non-governmental organizations fighting for human rights from 1993 to 1994 in Gisenyi. They also contend that Twagirayezu Wenceslas, in his statement dated 17/12/2018 before Rwanda investigation Bureau, stated that from 1991 to 1994 and after that he was not a member of any political party, because he was at the service of God in the Baptist Church of Rwanda in the AEBR Kageshi Parish, Gabiro Sector, Rwerere Commune where he worked as a

Page 705

271 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

church clerk, and also became a youth leader in the AEBR Gisenyi Province. The representatives of the Prosecution contend that these proofs clearly show that the Court misrepresented the facts, considering the defense of Twagirayezu Wenceslas as the the undisputable truth, deliberately ignoring the evidence contradicting his defense and showing that from 1991 to 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was found in Rwanda where he was where he lives, working with the AEBR church, being also in its structures, leading the youth of AEBR in Gisenyi, that is why Twagirayezu Wenceslas was considered a great leader, an opinion leader, because he led the youth, because they called him the leader of interahamwe without realizing any fault in it, and that he admitted that he was supporting interahamwe, and most of the interahamwe were young people who belonged to the political parties that were dominant in that area. They also contend that the fact that there is a witness who states that he was a member of the MRND party, and another who says that he was a member of the CDR, is not a flaw that would allow to conclude that they did not know him. The representatives of the Prosecution conclude that the analysis made by the High Court is not correct, because the fame mentioned is related to who he was after graduating from high secondary school; because at that time, a high school graduate was powerful.  Defense submission of Twagirayezu Wenceslas - Concerning his profession Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the defendant raised the issue related to the fact that the Prosecution witnesses questioned did not know him since he was in Denmark, because the way they talk about him was based on his work as a teacher and where he worked,

Page 706

272 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

his physical appearance, his wealth and his position in the political parties, it shows that the person they talk about is not him or they do not know him, because if they knew him well, they would not have been mistaken that he taught in a private school at Gacuba ii in Gisenyi from September 1993 to July 1994. They allege that they agree with the conclusion of the High Court which appears in paragraphs 145 and 146, because the way the witnesses contradict each other shows that they do not know him. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers continue alleging that the allegations by the Prosecution that the High Court is biased in favour of the statements of the disculpating witnesses, yet they state the same thing as the incriminating witnesse, are unfounded because the statements of the incriminating witnesses are characterized by self-contradictions and intercontradictions. First, when question before the Danish investigation Service and Rwanda investigation Bureau or before the National Public Prosecution Authority, they asserted that they know him well, but when it comes to showing his profession, some stated that he was a teacher at Munanira Primary school, while others stated that he was a teacher at Busasamana or a teacher at CERAi school, there are also those who say that he was the Head Teacher or inspector of Munanira primary school. Second, when they testified before

the Court, all those witnesses changed their narrative agreeing to say that he was a substitute teacher at the Munanira school, which was not the case either. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers also allege that when witness Shyengo Joseph was asked why he changed his narrative, he stated that he later asked and happened to know that he was a substitute teacher, and the fact that witness Habimana Moïse stated that he was a teacher in Gisenyi, this would not benefit the court because

Page 707

273 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

his statements were unclear. They added that the fact that the High Court relied on the statements of the witnesses Mpahatanye Mathieu and Kaberuka Théophile is only because they showed that they know him well; Mpahatanye Mathieu asserted that he was aware that he had been a teacher at Munanira primary school because he became the school head teacher, which he agreed on with Kaberuka Théophile. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers also allege that regarding the witnesses Kabera Samuel, Kanyabugoyi Théoneste and Nzabarankize Obed, the Prosecution alleges that their statements were relied upon even though they were not presented by the Prosecution as its witnesses, and they find that they were in case the file and there is no reason why the High Court would not rely on them while examining them and finding out that there is a connection with the case, especially that in the trial of the case at first instance, the Prosecution did not say that they were proofs that should be relied on, in addition to the fact that it would be a breach of its duties, which include incriminating and disculpating the defendant. They also allege that what the Prosecution alleges that the High Court did not examine the testimony of the witnesses Munana Tatien, Maniragaba Théodomir, Ntaganda Claude and Gasasira Patrick who were on the list of their witnesses who were not present in the Court

because they were abroad, is irrelevant because the Prosecution did not substantiate the fact that they were abroad. They also say that the fact that the High Court has not relied upon their statements means that it did not uphold them, that instead what the Prosecution should have criticized is that they were not relied upon, yet they are in line with the testimony given before the court as provided for by 8 of Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic

Page 708

274 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

of Rwanda, otherwise there is no reason based on the laws they substantiate that would make them be relied upon. - Concerning the physical appearance of Twagirayezu Wenceslas Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers also allege that what the Prosecution states that the High Court ignored that the witnesses know him well because they have shown how they know him because they were neighbors, they know his family and his physical appearance is also irrelevant, because what they stated matches his physical appearance, his posture, his look and his age, shows that he is not who they are talking about. They emphasize that the way the witnesses have been contradicting themselves while showing that they know him is the reason based on by the Danish authorities to grant him citizenship, because if they had found that what they say is true, he would not have been granted citizenship. They explain that, for instance, Witness DTA interrogated by the Danish investigation Service asserted that he knows Twagirayezu Wenceslas very well, but said that he has protruding teeth, the head back is prominent, and his right arm was crooked due to a fall from a tree. What he said was not true because even though his arm was not in good shape, it was not caused by falling from a tree, but it fractured when the defendant was riding a wooden bicycle. They also allege that Witness Shyengo Joseph also testified that he knows the defendant well, that he is a forty-eight (48)-year-old man, he was twenty-one (21) years old in 1994; he also said that he is one meter seventy-five (1.75 M) tall, a man of strength, while he is skinny. Regarding Biryamo Joseph, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that he said that he is a fifty (50) year old man, one meter and fifty (1.50 M) tall,

Page 709

275 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

strong, big, big-bellied, round-deaded, prominent head back, his head was straight, protruding teeth, a crooked hand, and he said that he would know him if he saw him. They say that the witness Maniragaba Théodomir said that he knows him, he is a strong African, one meter seventy-five (1.75 M) tall, with protruding teeth and long-nosed, while the witness Nsabimana Léonidas said that he is a strong man aged forty- five (45), long-faced, but that he does not remember him when he saw him, that he does not recognize him even in the photo. They continue to say that the witness Habinshuti Jean Ruzibiza also stated that he is a black man, African, who is eighty one meters (1.80 M) tall, and testified that he saw him and did not remember him; that the witness DTB said that he was a black African man aged between 27 and 30 years, one seventy one meters (1.70) tall, he said that he saw him and showed him, but they did not use him because it was only done to Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent who stated that he knew him , but they showed him ten (10) photos including Twagirayezu Wenceslas and he chose the wrong one. - In respect of the fame of Twagirayezu Wenceslas Regarding his position in political parties, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the Prosecution witnesses testified that he was the President of CDR or MRND, however, he showed to the Court that he never belonged

to any political party, because he spent his whole life in Congo in High school, that if he had been a leader of a political party, he would have used it as a ground to apply for political asylum. They also allege that what is stated by the Prosecution that he was a powerful person, is irrelevant because they were middle-class people, not rich people who own land, and he did not go to study in Congo because he liked it, that he went there as a person belonging to the low

Page 710

276 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

class (son of a destitute father) because even those who graduated from such schools, it was not easy for him to get a job, that the private Baptist school was the only one that gave him a job.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The debated issue is to determine whether the High Court made an error while holding that the witnesses are contradicting themselves or are contradicting one another about Twagirayezu Wenceslas’ profession before and during the genocide, his position in political parties, wealth and his physicial appearance, which indicates that they do not know him well. Article 18 of Law no 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda provides that both the Prosecution and the accused have the right to appeal against any decision taken by the High Court upon one or all of the following grounds: 1° an error on a question of law invalidating the decision; 2° an error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Article 183, paragraphs 5° and 6° of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure provides that an appeal is filed in the form of a written submission instituting a claim which lists the defects of the case that are requested to be corrected and other issues that must be examined and the explanations for each defect or for each issue that reveals the mistakes made and how they should be corrected based on the law and the evidence and the request of the court.

Page 711

277 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Article 2 of Law n° 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence, in its part (i), (i), provides that " testimonial evidence” is an oral or written statement an individual makes before a competent organ81 regarding what he or she personally saw or heard, that is relevant to the matter in dispute; and Article 53 of that Law 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. Article 87 of Law No. 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 states that " in criminal matters, evidence is established by any means of fact or law, provided that parties are given time for cross- in paragraphs 132 and 136 of the appealed judgment, the High Court recalled the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Prosecution v Ngurinzira case, where it elucidated that while assessing the quality of testimony, the court relies on the knowledge of those who give it and how they interpret what they see or hear, and compare it to other evidence82. The High Court also recalled the precedent arising in Prosecution v Nikomeze Chantal case, where the Supreme Court established that the testimony could not be relied upon when it was characterized by contradictions in the different levels where the person who gave it was questioned83 and the one

81 Article 2 of Law n° 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence explains that a competent organ means a court or any other decision- making body which receive a query which is within the ambit of its jurisdiction or making a decion on it, based on evidence. 82 Judgment no RPAA 0118/11/CS rendered on 13/11/2015, in Prosecution v Ngurinzira 83 Judgment no RPA 0003/15/CS rendered on 29/12/2017 in Prosecution v Nikomeze Chantal

Page 712

278 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

presented in Prosecution v Gatera Célestin case, where the Supreme Court established that the extreme contradictions of the witnesses cast doubt on their testimony84. And in paragraph 134 of the appealed judgment, the High Court pointed out POPOVIĆ et al. case that was decided by the international Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which elucidated that while using its discretion in the analysis of the statements of the witnesses, the Court relies upon different factors considering the specificity of each case, including the behavior of the witness before the court, the role he had in the events about which he is testifying, whether what he says is plausible and clear, whether there are contradictions or distortions in his questioning or between his testimony and other evidence, whether there are reasons why he/she would lie, how he/she answered the questions asked by the defendant's side in court, and the positive or negative effect of relying on these facts on the testimony, varies according to the specific circumstances of each case85. The High Court also referred back to the case of Simba Aloys and the Prosecution decided by the international Criminal Court for Rwanda where in that case it was established that the court has the authority to examine any contradiction of the witness, to examine whether the evidence, as it is, can be trusted and being considered true, it also has the power to accept or reject the main points that make it up86.

84 Judgment no RPA 0084/10/CS rendered on 09/05/2014 in Prosecution v Gatera Céléstin. 85 See appeal judgment, Prosecutor v. POPOVIC Vujadin et al., Case no iT- 05-88-A, iCTY, para.132. 86 See appeal judgment, Prosecutor v. Simba Aloys, Case no iCTR- 01-76 – A (27/11/2007), para. 103.

Page 713

279 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

As seen in paragraphs 145 and 146, the High Court found that Twagirayezu Wenceslas’ allegations that he is incriminated by the people who do not know him well are relevant for the following reasons : - - the fact that the witnesses who incriminate him assert that they know him well, they contradict each other very much about what his profession was because at the investigation level some witnesses state that he was a regular teacher, others say that he was a substitute teacher, others say that he was a leader (head teacher, inspector), others say that he was a teacher at primary school or taught at CERAi, but when they appeared before the court, they stated that they came to know that he was a substitute teacher, contrary to what Gasenge Etienne states that Twagirayezu Wenceslas used to substitute teachers when he was a student in primary schools because he was very smart; - The fact that the witnesses are contradicting one another about the position of the defendant in the activities of political parties, where some state that he was the leader of MRND, CDR and the interahamwe at the sector or commune levels, while others say that he was only a member of MRND; - the fact that they portray him as a powerful and rich person who was known in his area, who was well paid by the government and who had a large land, who was often with Bunani Jean who was the inspector of Schools, Munyagishari Bernard who was the leader of the interahamwe at the level of the former Gisenyi Prefecture and Ntamaherezo who was the leader of the interahamwe at Gacurabwenge, as well as Bikindi Simon who was famous in the genocide, but it is obvios that before July 1991 Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a high school student in the DRC and he was the one who sometimes came to their home on vacation,

Page 714

280 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

and continued to stay in the DRC after he finished his studies until he returned to Rwanda in June 1993. The Court of Appeal finds that about the physical appearance of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, which is not among the reasons that the High Court relied upon to hold that the Prosecution witnesses did not know him well. Therefore, based on the provisions of Article 18 of Law No. 47/2013 of 16/06/2013, which is referred to in Article 183, part 5˚ and Article 6˚ of Law No. 027/ 2019 dated 19/09/2019 referred to above, this Court finds that it should not be analyzed in this case. in the following paragraphs, this Court is going to consider only the reasons relied upon by the High Court which are stated above.

1. Determining whether the High Court ignored the fact that the witnesses were mistaken about the teaching profession of Twagirayezu Wenceslas As seen in paragraph 145 of the appealed judgment, the High Court found that the Prosecution witnesses contradicted one another severely about the professional background of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, because at the investigation level, some state that he was an ordinary teacher, others state that he was a substitute teacher, and others state that that he was a leader (Head Teacher, inspector), others state that he was a teacher at Primary school, others that he taught at CERAi, but when they appeared before the Court, they all agreed that he was a substitute teacher, these statements are contrary to what Gasenge Etienne states that Twagirayezu Wenceslas used to replace teachers when he was a student in Primary school because of his smartness. On this ground related to the professional background of Twagirayezu Wenceslas at the Munanira school and the leadership position he held, the Court of

Page 715

281 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Appeal concurs with the High Court's analysis on the fact that the Prosecution witnesses were contradicting one another about the position he held in the field of education and where he worked, but this Court finds that the fact that the Prosecution witnesses were characterized by inconsistency on that, it would not be a reason why the High Court irrevocably confirms that they do not know him, because the error about the professional background and where he worked is a tiny detail87.

2. Deterining whether the Court ignored the fact that the witnesses stated that hey knew him because they interacted in the activities of political parties. The High Court held that the witnesses incriminating Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not know him based on the fact that they contradict one another about the position he held in the activities of political parties, where some say that he was the leader of MRND, CDR and interahamwe at the sector or commune level, while others state that he was only a member of MRND, the fact that he was portrayed as a powerful and rich person who was known in his area, who used to hang out with with people who were famous for the killings and who were leading the interahamwe in Gisenyi, but before July 1991, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a student in high school in the DRC and that's where he lived, he used to come home sometimes during the holidays, and he continued to be there after he finished his studies and returned to Rwanda in June 199388. Some of the Prosecution witnesses testifying before the High Court revealed that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a

87 See Prosecutor v. BIKINDI Simon, Case no iCTR-01- 62 T (2/12/2008), p.12, para. 32. 88 See paragraph 146.

Page 716

282 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

member of MRND. For instance, While testifying, Gasenge Etienne stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was a member of MRND, that during the multi-party period in 1991 and 1992 they used to meet in political rallies at Mutura and Busasamana, DTC testified that he was a member of CDR and MRND, because it was like there was one political party, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent testified that Twagirayezu Wenceslas and Ntamaherezo were among the people who came to mobilize them in the meeting and gave them MRND cards before the genocide started, Shyengo Joseph stated that he knew Twagirayezu Wenceslas when the was about to beat him when he left the political rally. The High Court found that before the Danish Prosecution, DTC and Shyengo Joseph stated that that he was the leader of interahamwe at Gacurabwenge, and was in charge of all the roadblocks, while Ndagijimana Théoneste stated that the accused was the leader of interahamwe at Rwerere. Before Rwanda investigation Bureau, Habingoma Tonny Théobald stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was the leader of interahamwe at Rwerere, while Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent stated that he represented MRND at the commune level, Shyengo Joseph and Gasenge Etienne stated that he was only a member of MRND, Rwasibo Alphonse stated that Twagirayezu was the leader of the CDR in Gacurabwenge Sector89. The Court of Appeal finds that, even though it is obvious that the Prosecution witnesses are characterized by inconsistency in showing who Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in the activities of political parties, they did not agree on the position he held in the parties, and there was no conclusive evidence PROViNG that he was a member of MRND or

89 See paragraph 141.

Page 717

283 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

CDR, or he was the leader of interahamwe, is not a reason for concluding that the witnesses did not know him. in general, regarding this ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal finds that the High Court made an error in confirming that the Prosecution witnesses did not know Twagirayezu Wenceslas because it confirmed this based on small details and that is not a reason to detract the testimony as elucidated above. B.2. Determining whether there was an error made by the High Court in declaring that Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not commit the crimes he is accused of Submissions of the prosecution The Prosecution alleges that the High Court's analysis in paragraphs 175, 177 and 179 of the appealed judgment contains serious contradictions regarding the statements of the witnesses. They explain that the High Court contradicted itself, because after showing that the contradictions of the witnesses on small details in the case do not invalidate the quality of their testimony, it ignored that precedent, and invalidated the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses based on the fact that there were contradictions on the details and that happened many times, for many witnesses, they are contradicting themselves in the same way and on similar things, as well as the fact that there are extreme contradictions on other parts of their testimony. They say that they find that this is not a reason that should invalidate the testimony given, because the inconsistency on the dates and hours of the attacks, the weapons used or possessed by Twagirayezu Wenceslas and the people who were killed, does not say that these attacks did not happen or that the defendant was not involved.

Page 718

284 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- The inconsistence of the witnesses on the dates and hours of the attacks The representatives of the Prosecution criticized the fact that in analyzing the testimony given, the High Court focused on showing that the incriminating witnesses do not agree on the dates of the attacks in different areas, ignoring the fact that they agree with the defense witnesses on the mentioned dates they state, and did not examine in the same way the testimony given by the witnesses of both parties, because it did not hold anything about the inconsistencies seen in the testimony of the witnesses presented by the defendant. Regarding the dates of the killings, the representatives of the Prosecution say that the witness Bufono Silas who was a security guard at the University of Mudende presented by Twagirayezu Wencenslas testified before the High Court that the attack on the University of Mudende took place on 06/04/1994 around midnight, that on 04/07/1994, many interahamwe militiamen came, the white people who were there, gathered in one house, they stayed there for about two weeks, and he could see what was going on. As for the witness Ugwaneza Christophe who was also presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas, he says that the killings took place from 07 to 12/04/1994. The representatives of the Prosecution say that their testimony is in the same line as that of Habingoma Théobald and Biryamo Joseph

and they also state that the killings at the University of Mudende as well as at Busasamana did not happen in one day, that it started on 04/07/1994 and continued on 8 , 10 and 12/04/1994, that they do not see what the High Court relied upon to hold that the Prosecution witnesses contradict each other, that they find that the High Court focused only on the defendant's allegations, ignoring those of the Prosecution. The fact that the Prosecution

Page 719

285 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

witnesses appeared before the Court and agreed that the killings started on 08/04/1994, should not invalidate their testimony, because the difference in dates does not eliminate the killings committed there. The representatives of the Prosecution also criticized the analysis of the High Court about the time when Twagirayezu Wenceslas appeared in the killings of Busasamana, where it showed that the DTC before the Danish Prosecution stated that on 04/07/1994 in the morning, after that at Gacamena’s home roadblock, where 2 Tutsi women and one man were killed, and they continued heading to Busasamana; and states that he saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas at 13:00 at the roadblock, but before the Court he states that the killings at Busasamana Church took place on 08/04/1994 at 4:00 in the morning (10:00). They allege that the reality is that there is no doubt that there were killings at the Gacamena’s home roadblock and Busasamana Church Building and that it happened before noon, but the fact that the witness was confused about the days or hours, is not a defect that should make the Court invalidate his/her testimony if he/she did not change anything or distort the truth of the killings that took place. - Regarding the persons who were killed and where they were killed The representatives of the Prosecution alege that they see an error in the analysis of the case in paragraph 174 of the

appealed case, where among the reasons it relied upon to invalidate the testimony given, which was also based on the fact that the witnesses contradicted themselves about the people who were killed and where they were killed; that they do not see what the persons killed do in that analysis. They explain that during the Genocide against the Tutsi there were attacks on Tutsis in different places that killed almost all of them, that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is accused of being

Page 720

286 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

involved in various attacks on the University of Mudende, Busasamana Catholic Church, Commune Rouge and Nyundo, as well as the fact that he manned the roadblock and elsewhere, that they find that the most important thing is to demonstrate that he was he was involved in the attacks and that people were killed, and to show that some of the victims succumbed to them and for whom he should liable together with other They continue alleging that the Prosecution revealed some of the names of the Tutsis who were killed in those attacks in which Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved. They showed that at the University of Mudende, the family of Mucyahangungu and his three children, the family of Segafura consisting of more than twenty (20) persons, the family of Barinda, Ngarara and his wife, Munyakabara, Mukamurenzi, Kabogi, Hanyurwimfura Emmanuel and many others who remain unkown; At Busasamana Church Building, the Tutsis including the family of Abakwejo, the family of Mazeze, Rwamidende, Kanyarutoki Mathias, Mudahuga, Buyayiya, Agnès, and Rupiya were also killed in the attack in which Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved. The representatives of the Prosecution allege that Twagirayezu Wenceslas' involvement in the crime of genocide is based on the fact that he was part of a joint criminal enterprise with his co-offenders(joint criminal entreprise), which means that even if it is not proven

that he himself killed someone, it does not exempt him from criminal responsibility because each of those involved in the criminal entreprise, is considered to have collaborated with others to commit the crime even if the actual actions to commit it were only done by some of them; that this has been elucidated in various cases decided by the international Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and and the international

Page 721

287 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Ctiminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia90 even by legal experts. - Regarding the weapons used by Twagirayezu Wenceslas The representatives of the Prosecution allege that in paragraphs 165 and 166 of the appealed judgment, the High Court invalidated the testimony given based on the fact that the witnesses did not agree on the weapons that Twagirayezu Wenceslas had and those used to kill the Tutsis at the roadblock, it refers back to witness DTC, who said that on 04/07/1994, at Gacamena’s home roadblock where 2 women and one man were killed, that Twagirayezu did nothing, that at that roadblock, he was with 5 young men with a kalachinikov, and elsewhere he mentioned an R4 rifle, that they find that the fact on one hand DTC mentions the Kalachinikov rifle, and elsewhere mention the R4 rifle is not the problem, as while testifiying before the court91 he explained that he erred, remembering that R4 guns were issued in the communes, so the High Court had to find that the mistake about the type of gun, which is understandable because because he was not a weapons expert. - Defence submission of Twagirayezu Wenceslas Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the statement by the representatives of the Prosecution that the analysis of the case contained contradictions, which made the High Court invalidate the statements of the witnesses based on the fact that they contradict themselves on small details is irrelevant, that instead they misinterpreted the decision of the Court. They explain that in paragraphs

90 See judgment in Prosecution v Nizeyimana ildephonse, Case no iCTR-2000- 55C-T, iCTR, p. 406, para. 1455. 91 Hearing report dated 18/04/2022 before the High Court.

Page 722

288 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

175 and 177 of the appealed case, the High Court pointed out that contradictions on small details do not invalidate the quality of the testimony, but it says that the prosecution witnesses have been contradicting themselves on small details and often, linking it to the fact that they have been contradicting themselves on serious things, which made their testimony worthless. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers also allege that the allegations of representatives of the Prosecution that the High Court did not differentiate between minor and major issues that the witnesses have been arguing about is not true, but what is evident is that they show some things and leave out others. They allege that in paragraph 165 and 166 of the appealed judgment, the High Court showed the instances where the witnesses contradicted themselves on major issues, such as Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, Gasenge Etienne, DTB, DTA and DTC, finding their testimonies are full of contradictions on major issues as follows: - Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent stated that at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, two men and a girl were killed, when questioned again he testified that Twagirayezu Wenceslas dislodged the Tutsis and killed them with guns; - When questioned for the first time, Gasenge Etienne stated that he did not learn that any Tutsis were killed at the Gacamena’s roadblock, elsewhere he states that a woman and a child were killed by Bunani Jean, and Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there; - DTC stated that he did not join Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attacks, but later stated that he killed 16 persons.

Page 723

289 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

They allege that this all appears in the reasoning of the High Court and it is not about contradictions on small details, that the court invalidated their testimonies after realizing these witnesses contradicted one another in a serious way on small details and on major issues many times. - The divergence of witnesses on the dates and hours when the attacks were launched Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers also allege that the testimony given about the attacks on the University of Mudende, at Busasamana Church Building, Commune rouge and the Gacamena’s home roadblock, shows that the Prosecution witnesses diverge on the dates of the attacks and the actions carried out, that a person who was there was interrogated and stated that on 7/04/1994, the killings of the Tutsis were perpetrated from the University of Mudende and continued to the Busasamana Church Building, but on that day some witnesses state that he was at the University of Mudende, others state that he was at Busasamana Church Building. They also say that the allegations of the representatives of the Prosecution that there was a lack of equal treatment of the Prosecution and defense witnesses, are also irrelevant, because the witnesses Ugwaneza Christophe and Bufono Silas disculpating him, they unanimously testified that the killings started on 07/04/1994, while The High Court pointed out that the Prosecution

witnesses contradict one another because, for instance BIRYAMO Joseph’s statement does not converge with those of others. They add that after the genocide there was an information gathering session, which was an opportunity to recal the dates of the attacks, the killings that took place and those who participated in them, so it would be incomprehensible how the Prosecution would state that forgetting the dates of the attacks is a normal thing.

Page 724

290 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The debated issue is to determine whether the High Court ignored the witnesses' inter contradictions regarding the dates of the attacks, the weapons that Twagirayezu Wenceslas had and the ones he used to kill people and the people who were killed in the attacks are small details that should not invalidate the testimony they gave about the acts constituting the crimes Twagirayezu Wenceslas is accused of. Article 2 of Law n° 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence, in its part (i), (i), provides that “testimonial evidence” is an oral or written statement an individual makes before a competent organ92 regarding what he or she personally saw or heard, that is relevant to the matter in dispute; and Article 53 of that Law 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. Article 87 of Law No. 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 above mentioned provides that " in criminal matters, evidence is established by any means of fact or law, provided that parties are given time for cross-examination ". The Court of Appeal finds that in paragraph 176 of the appealed case, the Supreme Court recalled the precedent set in the cases decided by the Courts of Rwanda and in the cases decided by the international Criminal Courts which are consistent with the fact that self-contradictions on small

92 Article 2 of Law n° 062/2024 of 20/06/2024 governing evidence explains that a “competent organ” means a court or or an organ which addresses a query that is within its jurisdiction or makes a decision, based on evidence.

Page 725

291 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

details do not invalidate the quality of the testimony. in the case of the Prosecution v Sgt. Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste and Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin, the Supreme Court found that in relation to the testimony given, the contradiction is not only based on the words the witness uses, or the lack of proper language in explaining the course of what he/she testifies about, that what is important is that the quality (substance) of what he/she states does not change93. in the case of the Prosecution v Ntamaherezo Iryamukuru, the Court of Appeal elucidated that the contradictions of the witnesses on minor issues in the case do not invalidate the quality of their testimony94. Although the precedent was respected in various cases decided by the international Criminal Court for Rwanda, such as in the case of Bikindi Simon, the Court found that due to a long time elapsed between the time when the witness started testifying and the time when the facts testified about were committed, self-contradictions on small details and inter contradictions among the witnesses cannot invalidate the testimony95. The Court of Appeal reminds that this precedent which was set in the cases decided by the international Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda which was followed by this Court in the case of the Prosecution v. Ntaganzwa Ladislas96, the Prosecution v Birindabagabo Jean-Paul97

93 Judgment no RPAA 0117/07/CS rendere by the Supreme Court on 17/09/2010, Prosecution v Sgt. Biziyaremye Jean Baptiste and Cpl. Ngabonziza Faustin, Rwanda Law Report, vol. ii, 2011, n0 9, Page 60, Paragraph 14 94 Judgment no RPAA 00141/2022/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 31/05/2023, Prosecution v Ntamaherezo iryamukuru, Paragraph 33. 95 Prosecutor v. Bikindi Simon, Case no iCTR-01- 62 T, (2/12/2008), p.12, para 32. 96 See paragraph 27 of judgment Nº RPA/GEN 00001/2021/CA rendered on 03/03/2023, Prosecutor v. Ntaganzwa Ladislas 97 See paragraph 125 of judgment Nº RPAA/GEN 00004/2020/CA rendered on 08/04/2022, Prosecution v Birindabagabo Jean Paul.

Page 726

292 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

and that of the Prosecution v Kabilima Jean Damascène98. in these cases, the Court of Appeal also found that the selfcontradictions or inter contradictions of the witnesses regarding the dates, hours, clothing, where the person was standing or if the testimony the witness gave before the Court is not consistent with what he/she stated before should, not be considered as a serious flaw that would invalidate the testimony, that instead, given the long time that elapsed between the time of the killings and the time the testimony was given, these are minor flaws that do not invalidate its quality because it is possible that the witness does not remember exactly what he/she testifies about. As seen in paragraph 175 of the appealed case, the High Court found that, apart from the gross contradictions that appeared in the statements of the Prosecution witnesses, there were also contradictions that appeared on small details such as mistakes on the date or time, on the weapons used or were owned by Twagirayezu Wenceslas, where some witnesses state that the gun he used is a Kalachinikov, while others state others state it is an R4, or say that he had a gun and a club, others say that he had a gun only, or a gun and grenades, or mistakenly stating that the person killed was a woman or a man. And in paragraph 177 of the appealed case, the High Court found that, given the particularity of

this case, the way in which the contradictions about small details happened many times, for many witnesses, and they are contradicting in the same way and on similar things, and are connected with gross contradictions seen on other parts of the testimony, undermines the quality of the testimony and their statements. This was seen by the High Court in the statements and testimony of some of the witnesses such as

98 See paragraph 71 of judgment No RPAA/GEN00009/2019/CA rendered on 16/10/2020, Prosecution v Kabilimana Jean Damascène.

Page 727

293 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Habingoma Théobald who stated before the Danish investigation Service that the killings of Busasamana and Mudende took place between 8 and 12 April 1994, before Danish Prosecution and the National Public Prosecution Authority Biryamo Joseph stated that it took place on 7/4/1994; DTC stated that it happened on 7/04/1994, but everyone who came to the Court stated that these killings were perpetrated on 8/4/1994. While verifying whether the High Court contradicted itself as it held that the Prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves on minor details, but then relied upon them to invalidate the testimony saying that they had contradicted themselves on small details many times and in an extreme manner. The Court of Appeals is to examine the testimony given regarding the alleged a. The attack on the University of Mudende and Busasamana Church As seen in paragraphs 153 and 154 of the appealed case, the High Court decided that the selfcontradictions and extreme inter contradictions in the testimony of Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, Habingoma Théobald, Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean, Biryamo Joseph, undermine its quality because it cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence proving the involvement of Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the killings that assailed the University of Mudende for the following reasons: - the statements and testimony starts from confirming that Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not play any part in the acts he is accused of, goes on suspecting that it did exist, and ends with the witness asserting that he witnessed the accused committing a serious crime based on changing the narrative and self-

Page 728

294 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

contradictions that make it unreliable as evidence of the reality of facts; - testimony fluctuating on the important point that the attacks that the witness states that he was involved in with the accused, considering how he is contradicting himself about where it started, where it continued and where it ended and where they have been meeting each other, make these statements and testimony not reveal the reality of facts. As also seen in paragraphs 159 and 160 of the appealed judgment, the High Court confirmed that the self- contradictions in the statements and testimonies of Shyengo Joseph, Habingoma Théobald, DTC and Biryamo Joseph, both for each individual witness and between them are contradictory regarding the way and time the defendant was spotted in the activities of the crimes he is being prosecuted for that were committed in the Parish of Busasamana in such a way as to undermine its quality; therefore, their statements and testimony cannot be relied upon to declare that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved in the killings that took place at Busasamana Church.

1. Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent Regarding the testimony given by Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, the analysis of the High Court showed that he first stated that he did not know Twagirayezu Wenceslas in killings, but when he was questioned again he changed and said that they were together in the killings. Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, when questioned by the Danish Police, stated in one instance that he did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas on the University of Mudende, at another he statess that he may have been

Page 729

295 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

there, he also stated that he did not know if he participated in the genocide, but after further interrogation, he changed his statement and states that he knows Twagirayezu Wenceslas that he was the leader of Gacurabwenge roadblock, that he was also involved in the killing of Tutsis at the Busasamana and at the University of Mudende, he also stated that he did not want to say it because he is his wife's uncle99. When questioned by Rwanda investigation Bureau, he stated that he participated in the attacks together with Ntamaherezo, and both of them were always at the forefront carrying guns and others armed with clubs100. While testifying before the court, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent stated that during the killings at the University of Mudende, he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas who brought Ntamaherezo and many others, those two were at the forefront and many people were killed, that Twagirayezu Wenceslas shot and threw a grenade, that these killings happened before those at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, that these two attacks were the only ones in which they collaborated101. The Court of Appeal finds that the High Court made an error in confirming that the testimony of Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent is grossly contradictory, confirming it after examining together what he stated during the investigation conducted by the Danish Police and what he stated before Rwanda investigation Bureau and before the Court where he testified. However, the High Court did not have to rely on what he told the Danish Police because he stated it without taking an oath, and the person who was

99 P-09-263. 100 interrogation statement dated 11/12/2013. 101 Paragraph 89 of the appealed judgment.

Page 730

296 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

interpreting for him had not taken an oath before starting his work, and the witness was not asked to sign the document. Therefore, the document containing his statements before the Danish Police does not meet the requirements to be valid as admissible evidence in Court102; and should not have been relied upon103. The Court of Appeal, looking at the statement made on 11/12/2013 before the Prosecution and his statement before the court, finds no self-contradiction in the statements of Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent because he stated before Rwanda investigation Bureau that he had a gun when he accompanied Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attack, the fact that before the court, he added that in the attack on the University of Mudende, Twagirayezu Wenceslas shot and threw a grenade, but he was asked specifically what weapon Twagirayezu Wenceslas used in that attack.

2. Habingoma Théobald alias Simpamanuka As seen in paragraph 153 and 159 of the appealed judgment, the High Court invalidated Habingoma Théobald's testimony saying that he was confused in recounting how the killings were perpetrated, because he once stated that the in which the defendant was spotted started at Busasamana and continued at Mudende, and when questioned again, he changed his statement and said that they started at Mudende and continued at Busasamana, that in one instance he says that when they were in the attack on Busasamana Church, Twagirayezu Wenceslas joined them while in other places he states that he left the attack on

102 Article 51 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure 103 Despite the fact that this statement was not signed by the interrogated person, he/she was not given an opportunity to explain what he/she stated about them.

Page 731

297 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

the University of Mudende with Twagirayezu Wenceslas and headed to the attack on the Busasamana Parish. Witness Habingoma Theobald, who was interviewed by the Danish Police then called Simpamanuka Théobald, stated that the genocide started between 07-12/04/1994, he was sent with other soldiers to Busasamana in Rwerere Commune, where he met Twagirayezu Wenceslas and many interahamwe, that when they went they had orders to kill about a thousand (1,000) Tutsis who had fled, that at about two o'clock, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was the one who led the group of interahamwe at the Sector level, consisting of about 600 men, most of them had traditional weapons, few have guns, Twagirayezu Wenceslas has three grenades and a gun, that they talked because they already knew each other, they entered the church building together that they were still there and received information from other soldiers that there were still Tutsi refugees who were hiding at the University of Mudende , they immediately went there with Twagirayezu Wenceslas104. When he was questioned by Rwanda investigation Bureau on 13/12/2013, Habingoma Théobald said that between 8 and 12/04/1994, he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attack that killed Tutsis who had fled to the Busasamana Church, and he was the leader of interahamwe in Rwerere Commune had also has a R4 rifle and a grenade, that the other attack that both were involved was the one that took place at the University of Mudende, that that day they left the Busasamana Church and went to kill the Tutsis who had fled to the Mudende dispensary when they arrived at half past one( 1:30 p.m.). Witness Habingoma Théobald testifying before the High Court stated that he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas

104 Page P-09-160-164.

Page 732

298 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

in the attacks with a R4 gun, that on 08/04/1994 the attack started at the University of Mudende where he attackers killed the Tutsis who had taken refuge there, and then they went to kill those who fled to the Busasamana Parish. The Court of Appeal finds, for the reasons stated above, that the High Court should not have relied upon Habingoma Théobald's statements before the Danish Police. The Court of Appeal also finds that the fact that the witness had stated that between 8 and 12/04/1994 he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attack that started at Busasamana Church which later went to the University of Mudende, and before the Court, the witness stated that on 08/04/1994 he accompanied Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attack that started at the University of Mudende and continued at the Busasamana church, these are small details and considering how long ago the witnessed actions took place, it is not surprising that the witness does not remember the exact date and place the attack began.

3. Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean As seen in paragraph 153 of the appealed judgment, the High Court rejected the testimony of Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean, who states that at the University of Mudende, when it was attacked on 08/04/1994, he concealed himself and left a few days later to Busasamana Church, where he met interahamwe comprising among other members Twagirayezu Wenceslas, however, when questioned again, he stated that he had seen him on 04/08/1994, the day on which the University of Mudende was attacked. Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean, interrogated by the Danish Police, stated that amongst the attackers who assailed the University of Mudende on 8/04/1994, he recognized Twagirayezu Wenceslas, he also stated that on Rwagare Hill, he met 30 interahamwe, and saw

Page 733

299 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Twagirayezu Wenceslas carrying a gun and a grenade, that he also saw him shooting down a girl. He even stated that he had left the University of Mudende and fled to Busasamana church after changing his narrative because the investigator had told him that others said that in the morning of April 8, 1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas might have been at Busasamana Church, and he immediately said that it is possible that he was not involved in the second attack on the University of Mudende, he also stated that he had tried to run from Mudende University to Busasamana Church and wanted to go to Congo, that on the way, he met about thirty (30) interahamwe militiamen on a hill called Rwagare105. When questioned by Rwanda investigation Bureau, he stated he saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas on 8/4/1994 during the attack on the University of Mudende that when he fled he also saw him at Gacurabwenge roadblock where he was used to carrying a gun. Witness Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean testifying before the High Court, stated that on 7/4/1994, they fled to the University of Mudende, on 8/4/1994, they came an attack from Rwagare at Rwerere, TWAGiRAYEZU Wenceslas was part of it with a gun and a studded club called nta mponano y’umwanzi. He stated that they had arrived in the Congo, Shyengo Joseph told him that even at Busasamana Church, Wenceslas had set foot. The Court of Appeal finds, for the reasons

stated above, that the High Court should not have relied upon Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean's statement before the Danish Police and compare it with his statement before the investigative authorities and the High Court. The Court of Appeal also finds that there is no contradiction in what Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean stated before Rwanda investigation Bureau and the High Court because he confirmed that the Mudende University was attacked on

105 P- 09-222

Page 734

300 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

8/4/1994 and that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved in the attack with a gun. Therefore, the High Court erred in confirming that Habinshuti Ruzibiza Jean had contradicted himself in a radical manner.

4. Biryamo Joseph As seen again in paragraph 153 and 159 of the appealed judgment, Biryamo Joseph's testimony was discredited because he stated that after the attacks on the University of Mudende and Busasamana Church on 8/4/1994, they went to Rwerere Commune with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, while Habingoma Théobald states that after the Mudende and Busasamana killings, they went to Saint Fidèle School, "Commune rouge" and Nyundo with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, although DTC states that the killings of Busasamana took place on 8/4/1994, which continued at Duwani Kabuhanga instead of Kinyogo. it was discredited because somewhere he stated that in the attack in Busasamana on 7/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas, who was carrying a machete, killed three (3) women and two (2) children and beheaded them while his DTC stated that in the attack of Busasamana on 7/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas used a gun to kill those inside the Busasamana church. Biryamo Joseph, interrogated by the Danish Police, stated that on 7/4/1994, he saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attack on Busasamana church, leading a mob of interahamwe militiamen that included Bikindi Simon and DTC with pistols and other guns, but Twagirayezu Wenceslas carrying a machete he also used it to butcher three (3) women and (2) children. When questioned by Rwanda investigation Bureau, Biryamo Joseph stated that the attack on the University of Mudende took place on 12/4/1994 after which, they went to

Page 735

301 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

the Busasamana school where they found Twagirayezu Wenceslas. While testifying before the High Court, Biryamo Joseph stated that on 8/4/1994 at eight o'clock they were with the interahamwe, the Bourgmestre and the soldiers led by Nguyeneza who went to kill at Mudende when they arrived there, they found inspector Bunani Jean and Twagirayezu Wenceslas who had a gun, there was a group of many people including the Conseiller, leaders at cell level, the soldiers and the police, that they finished killing at noon (12:00) and headed to Busasamana, and that in all those places, Twagirayezu Wenceslas had a gun which he used in killing Gasanduku and Kanyarutoki who were among the refugees who were at Busasamana Church Building. The Court of Appeals finds, for the reasons stated above106, the High Court should not have relied upon Biryamo Joseph's statement made before the Danish Police and compare it with his statement before the investigative organs and before the High Court, and that it should not have compared it with what DTC also stated in that context. Regarding his testimony whereby Biryamo Joseph states that on 8/4/1994, after the attacks on the University of Mudende and Busasamana Church Building, they went to Rwerere Commune, accompagnied by Twagirayezu Wenceslas to quench their thirst and eat, while Habingoma Théobald stated that that on 8/4/1994 after the killings they continued to the school of Saint Fidèle, "Commune rouge" and Nyundo with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, while DTC stated that after the killings at Busasamana church on 8/4/1994, they went to the customs office of Kabuhanga, the place called Kinyogo, the Court of Appeal finds that they

106 See paragraph 184 of this judgment.

Page 736

302 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

did not agree on what they did after the attacks, which is not surprising considering the time elapsed as elucidated in the case of Bikindi Simon, decided by the international Criminal Court for Rwanda and in the cases decided by this Court mentioned above, because the most important thing is that all the witnesses agree that they were with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attacks on the University of Mudende and those on the Busasamana church.

5. Shyengo Joseph As seen in paragraph 159 of the appealed judgment, the High Court invalidated Shyengo Joseph's testimony because in some instances, he states that he was told about the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the Busasamana killings by DTC, yet he was questioned again and stated that he had witnessed it himself in the attack. When questioned by the Danish police, Witness Shyengo Joseph stated that the DTC told him that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved in the murder that took place at the Busasamana church, and that he himself had never heard of him being mentioned in any other killings. When questioned by Rwanda investigation Bureau, Shyengo Joseph stated that on 8/4/1994 in the morning at around (9:00), when he had fled to Busasamana Church, he saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas in an attack with a gun, the interahamwe were borrowing his gun to shoot. They shot him, calling him a teacher, but he did not know the persons he personally killed. Witness Shyengo Joseph testifying before the court, stated that on 8/4/1994 he had fled to Busasamana Parish, that he saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas with a gun but did not see him shooting, he also stated that he first fled to the

Page 737

303 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

University of Mudende, the attack came as four o’clock in the morning, he ran away and fled to Busasamana Church, where he arrived at around forty past eight. The Court of Appeal finds that, for the reasons stated above107, the High Court should not have relied on Shyengo Joseph's statement made before the Danish Police and compare it with what he stated before Rwanda investigation Bureau and before the Court. The Court of Appeal, having considered is testimony before the Court, finds that it is consistent with his statements before the Prosecution because he confirmed that on 8/4/1994 he witnessed Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attack on Busasamana church with a gun. Thus, the High Court erred in finding that his statements were grossly contradictory.

6. Witness DTC As seen again in paragraph 159 of the appealed judgment, the High Court rejected the testimony of DTC because he stated that on 7/4/1994 between (9:00) and (2:00), he got involved in the attack on Busasamana when he was driving a car transporting Twagirayezu Wenceslas; elsewhere, he stated that on this date around 1:00 p.m., he was at the roadblock and saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas coming to attack Busasamana on an ONATRACOM bus. Another reason was that he stated that the killings in Busasamana took place on 8/4/1994, which continued to Kabuhanga customs house called Kinyogo; while Biryamo Joseph says that after the attack on 8/4/1994 in Busasamana and Mudende they continued to Rwerere Commune to reward themselves, while Habingoma Théobald states that on 8/4/1994 after the attacks of Mudende and Busasamana,

107 See paragraph 184 of this judgment.

Page 738

304 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

they went to Saint Fidèle, to Nyundo and to the "Commune rouge" with Twagirayezu Wenceslas. When questioned by the Danish Police, Witness DTC stated that on 7/4/1994 they went to Busasamana church and he was driving a car transporting Twagirayezu Wenceslas, on the way they met 10 soldiers and more than 100 interahamwe, the interahamwe broke into the church Building and killed between 200 ans 300 persons who were inside, that in the killings at the church, Twagorayezu Wenceslas participated with his gun. When questioned before Rwanda investigation Bureau, he/she stated that The interrogators in the Police said on 7/4/1994, at noon or around two o’clock, he saw him on the ONATRACOM bus from Gacurabwenge with many people from different sectors, they met him at the existing roadblock with others, they came for the attack on Busasamana where they killed more than 200 Tutsis, Twagirayezu Wenceslas had a gun. While testifying before the High Court, he stated that on 8/4/1994 at ten o'clock (10:00) during the killings in Busasamana, he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, who had a R4 gun, and then they continued to Kabuhanga Customs Office at a place called Kinyogo at around two o’clock, and on 9/4/1994 they went to the Mudende killings and Twagirayezu Wenceslas was carrying a gun. The Court of Appeal finds that, for the reasons stated above, the High Court should not have relied on the statements made by DTC before the Danish Police and compare them to those he made before Rwanda investigation Bureau and before the court. The Court of Appeal finds that, apart from the discrepancy in the dates of the attack on Busasamana Church, because before the Prosecution he had stated that on

Page 739

305 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

7/4/1994, and before the Court he stated that it happened on 8/4/1994, this should invalidate his testimony for the reason that there are contradictions regarding the dates of the attacks because, as explained, they are small details considering how long ago what he is testifying about happened. The Court of Appeal finds that, as explained above, the fact that he stated that on 8/4/1994 they had left Busasamana and continued to Kabuhanga customs office at Kinyogo, unlike where Biryamo Joseph states that after the attack on Busasamana and that on the University of Mudende, they continued to Rwerere Commune to reward themselves, while Habingoma Théobald stated that they continued to Saint Fidèle School, Nyundo and the "Commune Rouge", where they were with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, is not a sufficient reason to invalidate his testimony, because the most important thing they all have in common is that they were together in the attack on the Busasamana church and the one on the University of Mudende. The Court of Appeal, having considered that the actions they are testifying about took place in April 1994, and they testified about them before the Court in April 2022, 28 years after it happened, it is clear that there are things that they may not remember exactly when it happened, how it followed or they forget or do not say the same how things went. The most important thing, as explained in the previous paragraphs, is that the Prosecution witnesses agree that they were with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attacks on the University of Mudende and on Busasamana Church that killed the Tutsis who had fled, and there is no contradiction there. The Court finds that the High Court erred in confirming that Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not participate

Page 740

306 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

in the attack on the University of Mudende and the one on Busasamana Church based on the fact that the testimony against him is contradictory, because this Court found that what they do not agree on are small details that should not undermine the relevance of their testimony. b. Gacamena’s home roadblock [215] As seen in paragraph 166 of the appealed judgment, the High Court pointed out that the analysis of the statements made about the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas at roadblock referred to as Gacamena’s home roadblock shows self contradictions and inter contradictions as follows: - Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, first stated that on 9/4/1994 he found two (2) men and one (1) girl killed at the Gacamena’ home roadblock, but he did not know who killed them, however, when questioned again, he stated that on this date, Twagirayezu Wenceslas dislodged the Tutsis and shot them dead; - - Gasenge Etienne, on one hand hand states that he never learnt that there were the Tutsis who were killed at Gacamena’s home roadblock, on the other hand when questioned again, he states that there was a woman carrying a child on her back who was killed at this roadblock by Bunani Jean, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was also there; - DTB first stated that he could not say that Twagirayezu Wenceslas killed a given person because he was not involved in any attack, elsewhere he stated that he participated in the attacks in various places,

Page 741

307 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

that on 8/4/1994, at Gacamena’s home roadblock, sixteen (16) persons were killed, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there, with a traditional weapon called no concession to the enemy; - Regarding the three (3) Tutsis killed at the roadblock, Kanyamishoro Nsengiyumva innocent says that they are two (2) men and one (1) woman; DTA states that they are two (2) women and a young man, and elsewhere he/she states that it is a woman, a man and a child; DTC states that he is two (2) women and one (1) man; - Regarding how the three (3) Tutsis were killed, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent states that he does not know who killed them, and elsewhere he states that they were shot dead; DTA and DTC state that they were clubbed to death; The Court of Appeal finds that while invalidating the testimony given about the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, the High Court compared the testimony given before the Court, the statements of the witnesses before the Prosecution, before Rwanda investigation Bureau and what they stated when they were interrogated by the Danish Police, what they state about the people killed, their number, whether they were women or men or children, the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the killings against them, the weapons used, and the dates of the events. in the following paragraphs, the Court of Appeal examines the statements of the Prosecution witnesses about what happened at Gacamanena’s home roadblock.

Page 742

308 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

1. Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent The High Court invalidated the testimony of Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, holding that when he was questioned by the Danish Police, he first stated that on 9/4/1994 he found two (2) men and one (1) girl killed at the Gacamena’s home roadblock but did not know who killed them, but when testifying before the High Court, he states that on that date Twagirayezu Wenceslas dislodged the Tutsis and shot them dead. The case file shows that Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, when questioned by the Danish Police, initially stated that he did not know the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, but later he changed his mind and said that he committed crimes in the genocide but he did not want to say it because Twagirayezu Wenceslas is his wife's uncle. He went on to state that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was the leader at Gacurabwenge roadblock, and he also stated that he had gone to the roadblock several times to the house of a businessman named Gacamena on 9/4/1994, which was manned by a number of persons ranging from 20 and 30 with machetes, clubs and other traditional weapons, he had his gun. He also said that he recognized Twagirayezu Wenceslas, because he was leader at that roadblock; that he arrived around noon and saw three bodies of two men and one 18-year-old girl lying on the ground about 20 meters from the roadblock, that he did not know who killed them, but he heard that they were killed by people who were manning the roadblock. This witness who was interrogated Rwanda investigation Bureau stated that he accompanied Twagirayezu Wenceslas to kill, that in April 1994 on Thursday, there were three (3) people including one girl and two men who were shot dead at the Gacurabwenge roadblock.

Page 743

309 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Witness Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent, while testifying before the court, stated that on 9/4/1994 at two o'clock (2:00 p.m.), Twagirayezu Wenceslas "dislodged" the Tutsis, the other place where they “dislodged” the Tutsis at Rwagare also called at Gacamena’s home and chased them, Twagirayezu Wenceslas shot them down with a black gun whose brand remains unknown to him, that a large number of Tutsis succumbed at that roadblock. Regarding the information he imparted before the Danish Police where he stated that he saw the bodies of three (3) persons, but that he did not know who killed them, the Court of Appeal finds that the information should not be relied upon because it is flawed as it has been repeated in relation to the fact that the documents contained in it were not signed by the witness, even the witness and interpreters were not sworn. Therefore, the High Court should not have relied on it in invalidating the testimony that he gave, and even explained it before the Court. The Court of Appeal finds that, in his testimony before the Court and Rwanda investigation Bureau, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent revealed that there were persons that Twagirayezu Wenceslas shot dwn at Gacamena’s home roadblock, which should have been valued even though he said that he was at the Gacamena’s home roadblock on 9/4/1994, elsewhere he mentions Gacurabwenge roadblock in April 1994, but he does not remember the date. As explained for other witnesses, not remembering the dates or speaking in different ways where actions were carried out is not a serious flaw that would make the testimony lose its quality, because the most important thing is that Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent confirmed that there were persons that Twagirayezu Wenceslas killed at Gacamena’s home

Page 744

310 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

roadblock at Gacurabwenge, and even before the High Court, he clearly explained the date of occurrence108.

2. Gasenge Etienne The High Court found that Gasenge Etienne, in some instances stated that he had never learnt that any Tutsis were killed at Gacamena’s home roadblock, when questioned again, he stated that there was a woman carrying a baby on her back who was killed at this roadblock by Bunani Jean, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was also there. Gasenge Etienne, when questioned before the Danish Police, stated that he knew that there was a roadblock at Gacurabwenge, but that he had never heard of the killings against the Tutsis at that roadblock; questioned by the Prosecution on 22/5/2020, he stated that he did not know the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas after the death of President Habyarimana in 1994, that at Gacamena’s home roadblock, Bunani Jean had a dog that hunted down Tutsis, that he did not know if Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there, but he was questioned again before the Prosecution on 23/11/2021, and stated that at Gacamena’s home roadblock, Bunani Jean shot down a woman and cut off her breast and gave it to a dog, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there. While testifying before the High Court, Gasenge Etienne stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas and the inspector of Schools called Bunani Jean lived at Gacamena’s home roadblock, that on 8/4/1994 he saw him standing as a leader talking to Bunani Jean, but he did not hear what they were talking about, he also stated that among the killers he remembers who were at that roadblock were Bunani Jean who used a dog to hunt down people, Munyarwerere and Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that even

108 See hearing report dated 18/04/2022.

Page 745

311 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Bunani Jean killed a woman, cut off her breast and gave it to a dog. As can be seen in his statements, Gasenge Etienne, when questioned by the Prosecution, stated that he did not know the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, when questioned again, he stated that at Gacamena’s home roadblock, Bunani Jean shot down a woman and cut off her breast and gave it to a dog, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there, although he testified before the court stating that among the killers he remembers who were at Gacamena’s home roadblock were Bunani Jean who used dogs to hunt down people, Munyarwerere and Twagirayezu Wenceslas. When questioned by the Prosecution, Witness Gasenge Etienne did not say anything about work, but he stated that he knows Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that he is the son of Semugeshi Naason and his mother's name is Ntawukazi Rose, his parents lived in Rwerere Commune109. To the question of whether he knows Twagirayezu Wenceslas, he replied that he knows him because he was a teacher at Munanira and he also went to study in Zaire, after which he went to teach at the Baptist College at Gacuba ii, stated that they knew each other, and as way of evidence, he showed the Prosecution or justice Twagirayezu Wenceslas’ photo110. During his interrogation, he showed Twagirayezu Wenceslas’ photo stating that it was given to him by their son who lived with his mother in Congo, when they were inducing him to discupalte the defendant, he asked them for a photo lying them that he no longer remembers him and they gave it to him, but that he asked for it so that he could show it to justice as someone he already knew.

109 interrogation statement of Gasenge Etienne before National Public Prosecution Authority dated 23/11/2021. 110 See statement dated 22/05/2020, question number 13.

Page 746

312 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

This Court finds that Witness Gasenge Etienne should not be trusted because both before the High Court and before the Prosecution, he was questioned with a photo of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, stating that it is a sign that he knows him and that it was given to him by his family members to disculpate him. This Court finds that the fact of holding of the accused’s photo shows that he does not know him well because he used it to remind him of the person he is talking about and to convince his audience that he knows him.

3. DTA When questioned before the Danish Police, this witness stated that between 10 and 12/4/1994, at the roadblock located opposite Gacamena’s shop, there were many people with traditional weapons, he managed to identify Twagirayezu Wenceslas, Rukara and Claver, they arrested a man, a woman and a child, Twagirayezu Wenceslas asked them for their identity cards, and approached Bunani Jean who was the leader of the roadblock and told him that those people were Tutsis, Bunani Jean immediately gave orders to kill them all three, they took them away from the roadblock under a tree and they clubbed them to death. When asked by Rwanda investigation Bureau, DTA stated that between 9 and 15/4/1994, around 10:00 or 1:00, he saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas at the Gacamena’s home roadblock with Bunani Jean, Ntamfura and Claver arresting two Tutsi women and a young man aged between 14 and 17, they took them to Munyazogeye Alphonse who was a journalist about 60 meters away from the roadblock, clubbed them to death and buried them under an avocado tree. While testifying before the court, Witness DTA stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved in the

Page 747

313 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

killing of two Tutsis women and a young man when they arrived at Gacamena’s home roadblock with the intent to cross the border into the DRC, he stopped them and asked them for their identification documents, they did not show them and started beating them, he joined others in killing them and buried them under Munyazogeye's avocado tree, that he hardly remembers that these killings were perpetrated on 10/4/1994. He also explained that they were beaten to death, and that they join efforts to kill them, that they shot down the one who was running away; he added that Twagirayezu did not use the R4 gun he had, that he used clubs. The Court of Appeal finds that, as stated for other witnesses, that DTA's statements before the Danish Police should not have been relied upon to invalidate DTA's testimony before the court and before Rwanda investigation Bureau due to the flaws mentioned. Although what he or she stated before Rwanda investigation Bureau and before the Court, it obvious that there is no contradiction because both before Court and Rwanda investigation Bureau, he/she testified that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved in the killings against two Tutsi women and one young man at the Gacamena’s home roadblock using a club between the date of 9 and 15/04/1994.

4. DTB The High Court rejected DTB's testimony based on the fact that he/she first stated that he could not assert that Twagirayezu Wenceslas killed a given person because he never accompagnied him in any attack, elsewhere he/she stated that he/she participated in various attacks, and that on 8/4/1994, at Gacamena’s home roadblock, (16) persons were killed, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there, with a traditional weapon called no concession to the enemy.

Page 748

314 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

When questioned before the Danish Police, DTB stated that that during the genocide there was a roadblock near Gacamena’s home, that he/she visited it three (3) times, and that in all those times he/she saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that one day he saw ten (10) or twelve (12) corpses near that roadblock there were several young men including Twagirayezu Wenceslas. This witness, when questioned by Rwanda investigation Bureau stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was manning the roadblock which was set opposite Gacamena's house, near his sister's house called Ukwitegetes Léoncie where he/she went for an overnight stay, that he/she usually carried a club, a traditional weapon referred to as no concession to the enemy, that the roadblock was established from 1992 to 1994 by the leadership of Gacurabwenge Sector in order to hunt down the Tutsis and their accomplices, that he/she could not say that Twagirayezu Wenceslas killed a given person because they were never involved together in an attack, that all he knows is that he was manning that roadblock. When testifying before the court, witness DTB stated that Gacamena’s home roadblock was established in 1992 during the saga of accomplices, that in 1994 there was an old man named Rusesa who was beaten there and Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there, he was spared by the local residents but brought him to the former commune to detain him, that Twagirayezu Wenceslas manned the roadblock until the time of the genocide where he got involved in the killings like others, because he/she saw him on 8/4/1994, and that that day in the morning he participated in the killings against sixteen (16) persons who were killed, that while there were two (2) guns at that barrier, Twagirayezu Wenceslas had a traditional weapon called no concession to the enemy.

Page 749

315 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

The Court of Appeal finds that, as was mentioned for other witnesses, the statements made by DTB before the Danish Police should not have been relied upon to invalidate the testimony given before the Court and Rwanda investigation Bureau due to the flaws mentioned. The Court of Appeal finds that the testimony DTB gave before the Court and his/her statements before Rwanda investigation Bureau are consistent with the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas manned Gacamena’s home roadblock, having a club, and before the court he/she clearly explained that on 8/4/1994, sixteen (16) persons were killed in the presence of Twagirayezu Wenceslas. The Court of Appeal finds that this witness does not contradict him/herself, because, although when questioned before Rwanda investigation Bureau, he/she stated that he/she did not testify that Twagirayezu Wenceslas killed a given person because there was no attack, he emphasized that he manned the Gacamena’s home roadblock with a traditional weapon. This does not contradict what he confirmed before the Court that on 8/4/1994 in the morning at Gacamena’s home roadblocks, sixteen (16 people) were killed, because the most important thing is that he/she showed that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was manning that roadblock where a number of persons were killed.

5. DTC As seen in paragraph 166 of the appealed judgment, DTC's testimony about the Gacamena’s home roadblock was invalidated due to its comparison with Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro Innocent’s and DTA's testimony contradicting each other regarding the gender of the persons killed and the weapons used.

Page 750

316 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

When questioned by the Danish Police, this witness stated that on 7/4/1994, they killed 3 women and one man following orders of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, but he did not kill anyone, that after killing those persons, the witness dropped off Twagirayezu Wenceslas at Busasamana church. He also stated that he was the leader of all the roadblocks in the Gacurabwenge Sector. When questioned by Rwanda investigation Bureau, DTC stated that between 7 and 9/4/1994 at four o'clock, when he was going to load vegetables in Kinogo, he saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas at Gacamena’s home roadblock with a Kalashnikov, along with about five young men including KAMERE, son of Gacamena, he saw at that roadblock that they had killed 3 persons including 2 women and one man. While testifying before the court, witness DTC confirmed that he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the killings that were perpetrated with a R4 gun at Gacamena’s home roadblock in the early morning. This Court finds that his testimony is consistent with the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was manning Gacamena’s home roadblock with a gun, and people were killed. Although the fact that when he was questioned by the Prosecution stated that people were killed at that roadblock between 7 and 9/4/1994, before the High Court he testified that it happened on 8/4/1994, it would not invalidate his testimony considering what was explained above and

that considering the time that has elapsed, it is easy to err on the date, apart from the fact that the date of 8/4/1994 he mentioned is in the middle of the dates he mentioned. Even if he stated that he had a Kalashnikov rifle elsewhere and stated R4 rifle elsewhere, that would not invalidate his testimony invalid, because apart from the fact that he explained to the High Court what he meant, it is not

Page 751

317 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

surprising to confuse the two types of these guns for a special citizen who normally does not use them. in general, regarding the killings that took palce at Gacamena’s home roadblock, this Court finds that, apart from what was stated by Gasenge Etienne, the Court found that it should not be taken into account, other witnesses presented by the Prosecution agree that Twagirayezu Wenceslas manned Gacamena’s home roadblock; that a number of persons were killed at that roadblock and that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was armed. What they do not agree on is the dates of the killings, their number and gender, their age and the weapons used. However, the court finds, as explained in the preceding paragraphs, that these are minor details that would not invalidate their testimony. indeed, considering the last time when the killings were perpetrated at Gacamena’s home roadblock, it is not surprising that they do not agree on the persons killed considering their sex, the dates on which they were killed, the fact that they can get mistaken about the weapons used, especially since there are those who say that at that roadblock, there were people with guns, others with traditional weapons. This Court therefore finds that the High Court erred in confirming that no killings were perpetrated at Gacamena’s home roadblock, and that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not involved in them. c. Concerning the

ISAR-Tamira killings Article 183, paragraphs 5° and 6°, of the Law relating to the criminal procedure and Article 18 of Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda mean that an appeal is filed in the form of submissions lodging a complaint, which shows a list of flaws in the case that are requested to be corrected and other issues that must be examined and explanations for each

Page 752

318 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

defect or for each issue that shows the mistakes made and the way that they must be corrected based on on the law and the evidence and the request of the court. in other words, the person who criticizes the decision of the appealed judgment must point out its flaws, and show how he would like it to be corrected. According to paragraph 168 of the appealed judgment, the High Court found that concerning the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the iSAR-TAMiRA attack was stated by the witness Rwasibo Alphonse who was questioned by Rwanda investigation Bureau. Rwasibo Alphonse stated that on 7/4/1994, Twagirayezu Wenceslas had visited him after his wife had given birth, and at ten o’clock A.M, two soldiers arrived, including Lieutenant Nguyeneza Evariste, together with the military commander of iSAR-TAMiRA military camp, checking the whereabouts of the Tutsis, they were directed to Nyirinkwaya Alfred who lived near the hospital. He stated that those soldiers asked them to arrest Nyirinkwaya Alfred and his wife who was carrying a child on her back, and take them to the military position of iSAR-TAMiRA. He stated that on ther way, they came across an old woman named Barinkumi, who refused to be arrested and the soldiers ordered them to kill her. Twagirayezu Wenceslas snatched Mababariye’s club and clubbed her on the head to death, they moved ahead and killed Nyirinkwaya Alfred and

his wife, and finally went back home together to drink alcohol. And in paragraph 169 of the appealed judgment, the High Court finds that regarding iSAR-TAMiRA attack, Twagirayezu Wenceslas is incriminated by Rwasibo Alphonse who was not questioned by the Court, and based on the provisions of article 8, paragraphs 2 and 3 , of Law No 47/2013 of 16 June 2013 Relating to transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda prohibiting relying on written

Page 753

319 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

testimony which is not corroborated by any other testimony given before the court, held that the statements of RWASiBO Alphonse cannot be relied upon because they are not corroborated by any other evidence. Since the Prosecution did not point out the errors made in the reasoning of the High Court for not relying on the statements of Rwasibo Alphonse because his testimony was not explained before the High Court, the Court of Appeal finds that the allegations of the Prosecution are irrelevant. d. Regarding the killings that took place at Commune Rouge, at Saint Fidèle School and at Nyundo Paragraph 174 of the appealed judgment shows that the High Court found serious contradictions especially regarding how the attacks were waged at "Commune rouge" and its suburbs, as well as Nyundo where they were carried out, both in terms of where they came from, both in terms of how they were carried out, and in terms of those who were killed and where they were killed, invalidating this testimony, in such a way that it cannot be relied upon to confirm that Twagirayezu Wenceslas participated in the acts constituting the crimes he is accused of, alleged to have been committed at Commune Rouge and its suburbs , and at Nyundo. As seen in paragraph 173 of the appealed judgment, as per the analysis of these attacks, the High Court compared the testimony of Habingomba Théobald, of DTC and that of Biryamo Joseph, and found that it contains serious contradictions. Regarding Habingoma Théobald's testimony, the High Court found that it is flawed such that in all the institutions before which he testified, he kept

Page 754

320 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

contradicting himself about where the attacks started and where they were carried on. The case file shows that Habingoma Théobald, who was questioned by the Danish Police, stated that between April 7 and 12, 1994, he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas, after the killings at Busasamana Church and continued at the University of Mudende until seven o'clock P.M, they went to attack "Petite barrière" where they met the interahamwe who captured about two hundred (200) Tutsis, they went to kill them at "Commune rouge", they continued to Nyundo Church where they loaded about five hundred (500) Tutsis into trucks and went to kill them at "Commune rouge". Before Rwanda investigation Bureau, Habingoma Théobald states that between 8 and 12/4/1994, after Mudende killings, they continued to the “Institut Saint Fidèle. He says that they arrived at about 4:00 p.m, they took the students and their workers into two (2) minibuses and took them to Nyundo at about 8:00 pm and killed them, the soldiers who were part of the attack went to spend the night at Gisenyi Military Camp. Before the court, Habingoma Théobald stated tha the killings took place on 8/4/1994, where they started killing at the University of Mudende, continued to Busasamana Parish, from there they went to the "Institut Saint Fidèle", when they arrived there, they arrested people and told them that they would take them to Nyundo for

rescue, when they got there, they took some of them and went to kill them at "Commune Rouge", and he stated that in all those places, Twagirayezu Wenceslas was there, he saw him. This witness was asked why he had previously stated that they had left Nyundo and returned to Gisenyi Military Camp and now he changed it, he replied that they went to the camp after finishing everything, after shooting at Commune Rouge.

Page 755

321 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

As per DTC's testimony, he/she stated that the killings that took place near the Baptists at Commune Rouge took place on 11 or 12/4/1994 because they heard about them when they had just left Goma to onload guns. He also stated that when they arrived at Pentecostal Centre, they heard a noise and told them that it was Twagirayezu Wenceslas who threw the grenade. He states that this story was told by a Pastor named Rukara. The Court of Appeals finds that, as explained above, concerning the next targets of the attacks, the dates of their occurrence, the number of people killed, their gender, the weapons used are minor details that do not invalidate the testimony given by the Prosecution witnesses regarding what happened at Commune rouge, at the school of Saint Fidèle and at Nyundo. This Court also declared that the testimony given before the Danish Police should not be relied upon to invalidated the other testimony given before the Court on similar issues because the testimony given before the Danish Police does not show that the witness and their interpreters signed it as explained above. Therefore, the Court of Appeal finds that the High Court erred in finding that the testimony of Habingoma Théobald and that of the DTC were so contradictory that it could not be relied upon. B.3 Regarding the allegations of the Prosecution that the High Court contradicted itself by acquitting Twagirayezu based on the fact that he was not mentioned in Gacaca Courts  Submissions of the Prosecution The representatives of the Prosecution allege that in paragraph 195 of the appealed judgment, the High Court contradicted itself and confirmed that the fact that the accused was not mentioned in the Gacaca Courts does not prevent him from being prosecuted for the crime of

Page 756

322 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

genocide, however in respect of Twagirayezu Wenceslas, it held that the way the Prosecution witnesses portray him as somebody who was famous for the activities and the meetings for genocide preparation, as well as the actual genocidal activities, there is no way that he could not have been mentioned in all the areas where the Prosecution alleges that he led the killings. They explain that the analysis is not based on objective criteria, because during the collection of information of the Gacaca Courts there were many people who participated in the genocide who were not mentioned because of various reasons. They allege that it is not clear how the High Court found how Twagirayezu Wenceslas could not be forgotten in such a way that someone who revealed his role in the genocide against the Tutsis in 1994, this time would not be telling the truth; apart from the fact that there is no evidence to show that all the information related to the genocide was mentioned or given in the Gacaca information collection.  The defense of Twagirayezu Wenceslas Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers contend that as per the arrest warrant, the Prosecution alleged that the accused was a famous person, wealthy and well off, which affected him when he was detained in Denmark because they considered him to be an army general based on what was aired on radios and published in the documents they received

from the Prosecution. They explain that an important person in the church because the one he was part of was among referred to as revival churches in rural areas; and he was an unpaid volunteer, that they should not take church affairs to connect them with politics, as they were asked to provide evidence showing that he was the president of CDR and they failed to do so. They add that considering what was stated by Witness Gasenge Etienne who stated that he had seen him

Page 757

323 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

as a leader at the roadblock, Nsengiyumva Kanyamishoro innocent stated that he was the leader of the roadblocks or the leader of the attacks, and they say that he had moral authority(autorité morale), there is no way that he shoukd not have been mentioned in the information collection of Gacaca, and the fact that he often accompanied Bunani Jean is the main reason for mentioning him, that the manner in which he was referred should have made him be mentioned in Gacaca Courts.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT in paragraph 195 of the appealed judgment, the High Court found that the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not mentioned in the Gacaca Court information collection does not mean that he is not to be prosecuted for the crime of genocide, as the international Criminal Court for Rwanda confirmed in the case of Gatete Jean-Baptiste, whereby it held that the fact that Gatete Jean-Baptiste is not mentioned in the cases decided by the Gacaca Courts does not benefit the Court, because the fact that one Court does not mention a person in the cases tried by it does not mean that he was not involved in the crimes he is accused of, for what is being considered is his personal actions and evidence111. The High Court found that Twagirayezu Wenceslas, whom the Prosecution witnesses portray as a prominent figure in the activities and meetings of the genocide preparation and actual genocide, could not have been mentioned in Gacaca Courts in all the areas alleged by the Prosecution that Twagirayezu Wenceslas committed or led the killings. The Court of Appeal finds that the High Court contradicted itself because after showing that the fact that a person has not been mentioned in the Gacaca information

111 See Prosecutor v. Gatete Jean-Baptiste, Case no iCTR-2000-61-T, para. 130.

Page 758

324 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

collection does not mean that he had no role in the crimes he is accused of, and it should not have confirmed that Twagirayezu Wenceslas should definitely be mentioned in the Gacaca because the Prosecution identified him as a famous person in the activities of genocide planning meetings because the precedent set in the case of Gatete Jean-Baptiste case emphasizes that what is considered is his personal actions and evidence. B.4 Regarding the allegations of the Prosecution that the defense witnesses presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas do not disculpate him The representatives of the Prosecution say that from paragraph 182 to 192 of the appealed judgment, the High Court analyzed the statements of the witnesses presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas, and while making a decision, it confirmed that the witnesses of the Prosecution did not know him, but that what the defense witness stated is true, yet what they state confirms what the Prosecution witness state to incriminate him. They keep on explaining that that the defence witnesses presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas state that he was not involved in the crimes he is accused of, and are divided into four categories: - those who believe that they did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the killings because they were not there, such as Bazege Ntahondi Léa, Mpahatanye Mathieu, Nyirabariyanga Ancille, Kaberuka Théophile and Akimanimpaye Théoneste; - those who believe that they did not know him, for example, Ugwaneza Christophe; - those who state that they did not see him due to their location, the distance that separated them from the

Page 759

325 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

crime scene such as Bufono Silas and Nyiramizi immaculée; - and those who state that when genocide started, they were not present for instance Serukiko Théoneste. The representatives of the Prosecution explain that the testimony they gave should not have been relied on for the following reasons: - Witness Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, mentioned in paragraph 182 of the appealed judgment, the High Court validated his testimony according to which at Gacamena’s home roadblock, no one was arrested, no one was killed and no one was injured and he never saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas. They allege that they find that the High Court ignored the fact that Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, who confirmed that he went to the roadblock once, so he did not confirm and did not know exactly what was done there, and those who went to the roadblock all the time he did not know and when there are other witnesses who testify that there were people killed at the roadblock people, namely Bazege Ntahondi Léa, DTC and DTB. - Witness Nyirabariyanga Ancille, whose home was located near Gacamena’s home roadblock, mentioned in paragraph 183 of the appealed judgment, the High Court validated his testimony because he said that he did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas at that roadblock and what he said that no people were killed there. They allege that the flaw is that the High Court ignored that he was being hunted down, that he stated that since President Habyarimana's plane crashed on 06/04/1994, he started hiding in the mountains and caves, that this shows that he could not go on the road, because he also stated that she knew those who ware

Page 760

326 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

manning the roadblock they were chanting slogans and proclaiming their names. - in paragraph 184 of the appealed judgment, the High Court validated the testimony of Serukiko Théoneste who stated that he stood trial at the site of Gacurabwenge and was sentenced by the Gacaca Court, that he had never heard of Twagirayezu Wenceslas being mentioned in the acts of genocide. The representatives of the Prosecution allege that they find that the fact that he did not hear of him does not mean that he did not commit genocide, especially since the genocide started when he was not there, because he told the Court that he was at Nyamirambo, that he arrived at Rwerere two weeks after the killings had ended. - in paragraph 185 of the appealed judgment, the High Court validated the testimony of the witness Bufono Silas where he testifies that in the attack on Mudende on 04/07/1994 he did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that thse he recognized were Sisiro and three other young men. The representatives of the Prosecution say that even though he was there, he could not identify all the killers who came, because the witness Bufono Silas confirms that he spent the night in the wheat field on the night of 04/06/1994 and left on the morning of 04/07/1994, they locked them in the house for two weeks. The witness also said that there were many killers, but he said that he recognized SiSiRO and three other young men, which shows that he could not recognize all the killers who came. - in paragraph 187 of the appealed judgment, the High Court also validated the testimony of Akimanimpaye Théoneste where he stated that he did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas again until the month of

Page 761

327 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

03/1994 because the students did not study and that he never heard of him in the Gacaca Courts. They allege that the fact that he did not hear his name in the Gacaca information collection of Rouge commune and in the suburbs of the Baptist College is not enough to explain that he did not commit a crime, because there is no principle that sets out that a person is prosecuted for genocide only if he/she was mentioned in the Gacaca information collection especially since Twagirayezu Wenceslas went to the attack but was not a local resident. - in paragraph 188 of the appealed judgment, the High Court relied on the testimony of Mpahatanye Mathieu who testifies that he last met Twagirayezu Wenceslas in 1990 when he was a student in DRC, and stated that during Gacaca information collection, the leaders of the killing against the Tutsis were mentioned, including Karema Faustin and Karimunda. The representatives of the Prosecution allege that the flaw they see is that he was presented to disculpate Twagirayezu Wenceslas for the genocide committed at Busasamana Church; but while testifying before the High Court, he stated that on 8/04/1994 he did not arrive at Busasamana Parish, that he learned about the killings that happened there and heard it from conversations with others. They also allege that the fact that he had last seen in 1990 shows that he could not know what he did and that he spoke about those who led the killings, which does not exclude the role of others. - in paragraph 189 of the appealed judgment, the High Court relied on the testimony of Sindambiwe Emmanuel who states that he has been in the Gacaca Courts information collection for a long time, that he never heard of the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas,

Page 762

328 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

that he does not know anyone who was killed at Gacamena’s home roadblock. The representatives of the Prosecution allege that the fact that he knows no one who was killed at Gacamena’s home roadblock does not mean that no one was killed, because there are witnesses DTC and DTB who confirm that some people were killed there. They also allege that even what he says that about three hundred meters (300m) from the roadblock, there were people who were killed by Bunani Jean, which matches the statement of the witness Kaberuka Théophile who was also presented by the defendant. Although he testified that he did not go to that roadblock, he confirmed that at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, he heard that people were shot down by inspector Bunani Jean. They also allege that the witness did not know about what happened at Busasamana Parish because he did not arrive there, that it is clear that he had no information about Twagirayezu Wenceslas because he last saw him in 1990, which means that he did not know that while he was studying in Congo he did not stop coming back on holidays, even that he was in charge of AEBR church services in Kageshi Parish, and he is in charge of AEBR youth in Gisenyi District, and that during the genocide he was home but he testifies that they live in the same cell. - in paragraph 190 of the appealed judgment, the High Court validated the testimony of Ugwaneza Christophe who states that he never heard of the name of Twagirayezu Wenceslas among those who participated in the killings at the University of Mudende, that those he remembers who were involved in them were Biryamo, BiGARE and David. The representatives of the Prosecution say that Ugwaneza Christophe was brought to court by Twagirayezu Wenceslas who stated that he has

Page 763

329 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

enough information about the perpetrators of the genocide at the University of Mudende, but he says that he only remembers three persons including Biryamo Joseph and he testifies without doubt that he was with Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the killings at the University of Mudende. They also allege that another proof that what he states is baseless is that he states that among the killers there were soldiers, but he has not been able to mention any of them, so his testimony cannot show the truth of what happened. Moreover, he assured me that he did not know Twagirayezu Wenceslas before, that he saw him for the first time in the courtroom. - in paragraph 191 of the appealed judgment, the High Court relied on the testimony of Sebudahe xavier where he testifies that he participated in the genocide against the Tutsis at Gacurabwenge, but that at that time he did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that if ever he had participated in the genocide, he would probably have been used to committing it in other areas. They allege that this witness was not questioned by the Court even though his statementis in the file of the Prosecution, that the error made by the High Court was that it considered one part of his testimony, because he also stated that he did not go to the attacks. They allege that the High Court should not have found he did not shout without participating in the attacks, that it is

not clear how he took part in the attacks and did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas proven to have been involved in various attacks. Another thing they allege is that if Sebudahe xavier had not gone to the attacks, he would not have known the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas in them; except that the Court misinterpreted his statements as he stated that the place where he did not see him was where he committed the crimes.

Page 764

330 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Witness Bazege Ntahondi Léa testifies that she last met Twagirayezu Wenceslas in 1992, that he did not reach Busasamana when the killings were committed because he went there on 04/09/1994 to work at Busasamana Parish, and realized that atrocities were committed at Gacamena’s home roadblock. The representatives of the Prosecution allege that these are the defense witnesses, on which the High Court relied, holding that they are the ones who have reliable information about Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that there are others who were heard but did not say anything about it. They allege that if the Court had examined their statements, it would have found that their testimony was not reliable and therefore, would have changed its decision. They conclude on this point alleging that the decision of the High Court found in paragraphs 192 and 193 of the appealed judgment, has nothing to do with what the Prosecution pointed out about the statements of the defense witnesses that match the statements of the incriminating witnesses. They allege that the High Court should not have invalidated the testimony they gave about his participation in the crimes he is accused of.  The defense of Twagirayezu Wenceslas Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers explain that what the Prosecution criticizes about the testimony of Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, who stated that at Gacamena’s home roadblock no one was arrested, no one was killed, and no one was injured, and that he never saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas pretending to have said that he went to that roadblock once, is unfounded. They rely in this based on the fact that the High Court did not rely only on the fact that he spent the night at the roadblock set up at Gacamena’s home, but also based on the fact that the witness testified that he

Page 765

331 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

knew the accused, where he said that he was an acolyte at the Parish, studied primary school at Munanira primary school, and went to study in DRC. They also allege that the Court validated his testimony based on the fact that he was the leader of Kanyabijumba where the Gacamena’s home roadblock was located since 1990 until they fled the country; that he also explained that he and Mbonyubwabo were the ones who were responsible for arranging the persons to man the roadblock overnight and were also given a report every morning112, that this shows that he knew what was happening at that roadblock. Regarding the witness Bazege Ntahondi Léa who was brought by Twagirayezu Wenceslas to show the Court that she knew him and to impart the information she has about the perpetrators of the crimes of killing the Tutsis at Busasamana, the Prosecution alleges that he did not disculpate him because it found that she could not tell about what happened because she said that she arrived at Busasamana Parish on 9/04/1994, there were no killings taking place, but when she went there, she arrived at the Gacamena’s home roadblock and realized that the atrocities were being committed. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers say that the Prosecution's claim that she did not disculpate him from the attacks on Busasamana, is irrelevant, because apart from the fact that he was not mentioned among those who

participated in the attacks on Busasamana, they did not even hear him among those who participated in the killings that took place there and which were mentioned during Gacaca data collection. They contend that those she mentioned as having committed the killings in this area were interahamwe militiamen namely Twagirayezu Mabuye, Suwedi, Benoît and Bunani Jean, and that the place he said he did not reach was at Gacamena’s

112 Hearing report dated 22/04/2022, pp. 7-9.

Page 766

332 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

home roadblock. They contend hat the reason why Bazege Ntahondi Léa sated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not arrive at Gacamena’s home roadblock is that he had not been to Busasamana recently, that she last met him in Sepetember 1993 when he came to teach at Gacuba. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the Prosecution’s allegations that the High Court should not have relied upon the testimony of Mpahatanye Mathieu because he never reached Busasamana Church are irrelevant. They allege that he was brought to the Court to testify that he knows the accused well, where he comes from, that he last saw him in 1990 and that he was a teacher at the Munanira school, that he had to say whether he participated in the genocide against the Tutsi at Busasamana. They explain that before the High Court he showed that he knew him, they were neighbors, he showed that he had never been a teacher at the Munanira school, and explained that he should not have ignored him because he was a Headteacher at Munanira school, that this shows that those who stated that he was a teacher at Munanira had told lies. They also allege that the witness Mpahatanye Mathieu also mentioned the names of those who led the killings against the Tutsis in Busasamana, and emphasized that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not among them, because he knew that he had gone to study in Congo, and he did not say anything to

incriminate him. They also allege that what the Prosecution states that the High Court relied on the testimony of Nyirabariyanga Ancille and ignored that she could not know what was happening at the Gacamena’s home roadblock that was placed at the gate of her house, because the cave she was hiding in was far away from the roadblock is irrelevant, because Nyirabariyanga Ancille showed the Court that no one was killed at that roadblock due to the fact that she knew

Page 767

333 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

all what was happening there at four hundred meters (400m) away from it, that those she knew were those who were killed above it in the former Mutura Commune. They also allege that his statement shows that if there were people who were killed at the roadblock, she would have known about it as long as she revealed that she happened to know the people from Mutura far away from where he lives. They add that the statements made by the Prosecution witnesses regarding his role at the roadblock are full of serious self contradictions and inter contradictions such that they cannot contradict the statements of Nyirabariyanga Ancille, since no name of the killed person was disclosed by the Prosecution. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that what the representatives of the Prosecution state that the witness is not trustworthy because the cave she was hiding in was four hundred meters (400m) away from the crime scene is not true, because what she showed was that no one was killed at Gacamena’s home roadblock, her statements were also corroborated by other witnesses, so what the Prosecution allege that there is a so long distance that she did not see what happened, is arbitrary, besides, she can also say what she heard. They add that Nyirabariyanga Ancille survived the Genocide against the Tutsi, she had no interest in covering him as long as there are others that she

revealed for having participated in the Genocide against the Tutsi in this area. They keep on alleging that the other witnesses who testified that at Gacamena’s home roadblock, no Tutsis were killed there, those witnesses are Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, Sindambiwe Emmanuel who was the cell leader who stated that he received reports, and Kaberuka Théophile. They also allege that what the representatives of the Prosecution state that Kaberuka Théophile also said that

Page 768

334 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

he once heard that there were people killed at the Gacamena’s home roadblock is not true, because it does not indicate where he stated it, but what appears in his statement of 22/04/2022, is that he heard them saying that no one was killed at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, that allegations according to which he heard that Bunani Jean was shooting down is due to the fact that kept questioning him, but both statements are confusing. They also allege that what they wanted Théophile to testify about before the court is that he knows the defendant, and to confirm that they were neighbors, that he was not in Gisenyi, Gacuba ii during the Easter holidays. in his testimony, he stated that he knew him and that he had told him that he would go to Congo during the Easter holidays, and he testified that he had not seen him again. He also stated that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was never mentioned during Gacaca information collection. Among other things he had to talk about, there is the person called Pastor Rukara who was said to be from AEBR and who did not exist, because the Prosecution witnesses stated that he was the one who confirmed what he did in Gacuba. They also allege that the Prosecution's criticism according to which he was firt the Prosecution witness and later become a defense witness is not a flaw because the High Court relied on his testimony and acquitted him, which is not an

error. Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers also allege that the statement by the representative sof the Prosecution that witness Sindambiwe Emmanuel is disculpating him instead of incriminating him, is irrelevant because they presented him in the context of the allegations of the Prosecution about what happened at Gacamena’s home roadblock to prove that he knows him. in his testimony, he stated that he lives in Nyarusozi, that he led Rubikiro, and said that he never saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas at

Page 769

335 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Gacamena’s home roadblock and that he received reports of what was happening at that roadblock, but his testimony shows that he is innocent. Regarding the Prosecution’s allegations that witness Bufono Silas’ statements incriminate Twagirayezu Wenceslas, yet the High Court based on it to acquit the accused, is irrelevant, because this witness was brought to the Court to testify if he saw him among the people who attacked the University of Mudende during the night from 06 to 07/04/1994. in his testimony, he stated that he did not see him, that even though he went to hide, the attackers came to see him, that as a person who already knew well, he was not surprised that they said that he was the one who led the attack, so what the prosecution alleges that that he could not see all the people, is unfounded. The fact that the High Court also relied on that witness to acquit him from charges related to what happened at the University of Mudende is not an error at all because in his testimony he stated that he knew him well because they were neighbors, that he saw the attackers coming, he recognized a man called SiSiRO who lived in Mutura and other young men that if Twagirayezu Wenceslas had been involved in the attack, he would have recognized him. They also allege that the testimony of Ugwaneza Christophe does not incriminate him as the Prosecution so alleges, the High Court did not

make any error in relying on it, because the fact that he did not already know him is not a flaw that would prevent him from giving thet testimony disculpating him, because the fact that he was born and raised in the area where the crimes he is accused of were committed, he was also part of Inyangamugayo of the Gacaca Courts and a Protector of friendship pact who rescued some persons who were hunted down during the genocide should have known or heard that Twagirayezu

Page 770

336 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Wenceslas as the person who is alleged by the Prosecution to have led the attacks was involved in the killings that took place there, even he himself said that he should have learnt it. They allege that they presented him as someone who has enough information about the killings that took place at the University of Mudende and in the area, and the fact that he incriminates Biryamo Joseph, who also incriminates the accused, does not mean that what Biryamo Joseph states is true, because as established by the the High Court, he keeps contradicting himself in his statements. They also allege that the testimony of Akimanimpaye Théoneste has nothing to do with that of the prosecution witnesses, and there is no reason they show to make it unreliable. They explain that this witness was brought to the Court to prove that when the crimes Twagirayezu Wenceslas is accused of were committed, there were no students at the Baptist college, and to prove whether he actually went to that school at that time. He pointed out that no student was killed at that school, that he had not seen Twagirayezu Wenceslas; which shows that he had gone to Congo, because if he was there he would have seen him. They add that Akimanimpaye Théoneste was an accountant, who later was dismissed, and the accused replaced him, that if he was involved in the genocide, the witness would have incriminated him as the person

who had replaced him. Regarding the allegations by the Prosecution that he does not provide complete information because there is a child that Nkezabera Paulin says that he had hidden and who was killed later in the Baptist College, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that it should be explained if the child was killed at the school because it was not a place where he lived. They also allege that for the witness Serukiko Théoneste, the Prosecution alleges that he did not know

Page 771

337 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

what the accused did because he said that when President Habyarimana's plane crashed, he was in Kigali, that he came after 2 weeks and found that there were no longer killings is irrelevant, because what this witness testifies about is that he was accused of the Gacurabwenge killings, and was sentenced by the Gacaca Court, but that he had never heard of Twagirayezu Wenceslas being mentioned in the acts of genocide. They say that what this witness stated is what he heard and it is his truth; and he has information about what he says, thus the High Court did not make any error by relying oh his testimony. Regarding Witness Sebudahe xavier, Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that they were not the ones who presented him, that he gave the testimony before Rwanda investigation Bureau, that what the Prosecution alleges that the High Court did not consider all the testimony is not true, but what is obvious is that the analysis concluded that he is disculpating him. They add that Sebudahe xavier stated that he knows Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that he had never seen him in the Gacurabwenge killings, that if he had been there he would have recognized him. They conclude that his testimony should have been used by the Prosecution to accuse him because it is also its responsibility.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT The debated issue is to determine whether the High Court erred in validating the testimony of the defense witnesses even though they do not actually disculpate him, but instead showed that they have no knowledge of the facts he is accused of, and what they state confirms the prosecution witnesses. The court finds that in paragraph 193 of the appealed case, the High Court confirmed that the testimony of the

Page 772

338 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

defense witnesses is valid and should be accepted because it was given by people who were neighbors with Twagirayezu Wenceslas' family since his childhood, his former classmates in primary schools, teachers from their home area, leaders at the local levels of Nyumbakumi and cells and some of those who participated in the genocide in this area, the court finds that they have sufficient knowledge about what they testify about. a. Regarding the attack on the University of Mudende and on Busasamana Church The Court of Appeal finds that what the witnesses presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas have in common that they had not seen him since a long timetime, that they did not hear him being mentioned in Gacaca Courts. Those who were at the scene of the attack, such as Bufono Silas, who was at the University of Mudende when the attack took place, claimed that he did not see him, he said that the attack came and he went to hide. The fact that Bufono Silas did not find him in a mass attack that killed people with weapons that included bullets, which he says, is not reliable evidence that Twagirayezu Wenceslas did not reach the University of Mudende. Another person who was at the scene of the attacks was Umugwaneza Christophe, whose testimony cannot be a disculpating evidence because he could not know if he was there or not because he did not already know him. Therefore, as seen in paragraph 185 and 190 of the appealed judgment, the High Court made a mistake in relying on them, confirming that their testimony is valid for the lack of involvement of Twagirayezu Wenceslas in the attack on the University of Mudende113. The Court of Appeal finds that concerning the testimony of Bazege Ntahondi Léa, Banangira Tharcisse,

113 See paragraph 185 and 190 of the appealed judgment.

Page 773

339 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

Serukiko Théoneste and Mpahatanye Mathieu, although the High Court did not rely on them regarding the role of Twagirayezu Wenceslas in what happened at the University of Mudende and Busasamana Church, is also not proof that he was not involved in those attacks, because Bazege Ntahondi Léa arrived at the parish after the attack had happened in the night, others stated that they do not know anything about what happened at the Busasamana Church Building because they did not arrive there. The Court of Appeal finds that these witnesses agree that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not mentioned among the infamous killers of this area, he was not mentioned in the Gacaca Courts information collection, which is also not a proof that he did not reach the University of Mudende and Busasamana Church because there is no evidence that during the data collection, all those involved in the attacks were mentioned because there were various reasons that could have prevented them from being mentioned or went forgotten. This Court therefore finds that the testimony of the defense witnesses does not contradict the testimony given by the witnesses who assert that they were together in the attacks of Mudende and Busasamana. The Court of Appeal analyzed the testimony of both sides regarding the attacks on Mudende University and Busasamana Parish, and found that the Prosecution witnesses agreed that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in those attacks with a gun, and that people were killed. What they don't agree on or contradict when comparing their first statements is the testimony they gave before the court about the date of the attacks, the hours at which they were launched, where the killers continued the attacks and whether Twagirayezu used the gun he had during the attacks.

Page 774

340 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

b. The roadblock at Gacamena’s home in general, the witnesses presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas showed that there were no killings at Gacamena’s home roadblock, and that they had never heard his name being mentioned in the Gacaca Courts. They explain as follows: - Witness Bazege Ntahondi Léa while testifying before the High Court, stated that during the genocide, when they were working in the Parish at night, they saw atrocities at many roadblocks like the one at Gacamena’s home roadblock. She also stated that he never saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas, that instead there was a strong militiaman called Twagirayezu Mabuye and other interahamwe. - - Witness Barangirana Tharcisse stated that he saw the Gacamena’s home roadblock being manned by the persons to whon the Sector leader had given guns to protect the roadblocks called guards, that those he remembers were the cell leader Mbonyubwabo and Nyumbakumi, who was called Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, but no persons he knows were killed. - Nyumbakumi at Kanyabijumba where the Gacamena’s home roadblock was located, that although he does not remember when the roadblock was established, it was set up by the Sector leaders, the cell leaders and the Bourgmestres and it was removed after they had fled to the DRC. He explained that it was managed by anybody, that cell leader was the one who ordered those who went there, that he himself had manned it overnight once, that no one was arrested, no one was killed, and no one was injured, that he had never seen Twagirayezu Wenceslas.

Page 775

341 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

- Nyirabarianga Ancille who says she was Gacamena's wife. She confirms that there was a roadblock at Gacamena's place since President Habyarimana's plane crashed, but that she never saw Twagirayezu Wenceslas, because even though she could not go to the street, she knew the people who were there because they could chant their slogans and proclaim their names, that no persons were killed, that the people she knows who were killed were those who were killed above her home at Mutura. - Serukiko Théoneste stated that he was tried before Gacaca Court at the site of Gacurabwenge and was sentenced to a penalty, but that he had never heard of Twagirayezu Wenceslas. in short, he testifies that he never heard of Twagirayezu Wenceslas among those who participated in the killings at Gacamena’s home roadblock. - - Pastor Kaberuka Théophile stated that when President Habyarimana's plane crashed, he was at Gacurabwenge, the genocide started when he was at home, that he did not know those who led the interahamwe at Gacurabwenge, that he heard that the Gacamena’s home roadblock was there but he did not reach it, he said that no people were killed there, elsewhere he said that he heard that Bunani Jean shot down people at that roadblock. He also said that during information collection, he was there and he had not heard the name of Twagirayezu Wenceslas being mentioned, that those he remembered were Bunani Jean, Kanyamihanda and Barangirana and the prisoners such as Sebudari, Obed and Karema. - Mpahatanye Mathieu stated that during information collection session, those detained such as Karema

Page 776

342 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Faustin and Karimunda, who were found to be leading the killings against the Tutsis that he even heard of Gacamena’s home roadblock but did not see it and that no one he knew was killed at it. - - Sindambiwe Emmanuel stated that he was the cell leader and had been Twagirayezu Wenceslas’s former classmate, he stated that Gacamena’s home roadblock was established shortly before the genocide, and was removed when the RPF took over the country. He also stated that he did not know anyone who was killed because the person in charge was Bunani Jean, who was the inspector of schools, who was very infamous during the genocide. He also stated that the information collection session took a long time, but he did not hear that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved in the genocide, that there was another person named Twagirayezu alias Ndabanyurahe Mabuye who lived near Bourgmestre Butsingiri Kantwari’home at Gasiza who died in the DRC in 1995. he was an uneducated lay person. He added that people were killed by Bunani Jean and Nkunduwenda near Gacamena’s home roadblock about three hundred (300) meters away and that those people were not identified because they had come from Mudende. The Court of Appeal finds that among the defense witnesses, there are those who state that people were killed at the Gacamena’s home roadblock. They are Sindambiwe Emmanuel, Bazege Ntahondi Léa and Kaberuka Théophile. There are others who state that nobody was killed there, such as Nyirabariyanga Ancille, Sebasitani Appolinaire, Mpahatanye Mathieu and Barangirana Tharcisse. Those who claim that there are those who were killed agree with the Prosecution witnesses; which shows that the witnesses stating that there were no killings are not telling the truth.

Page 777

343 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

The witnesses who state that there had been killings, they confirm that they did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas. But that does not contradict the witnesses who saw him. Among those who state that there were killings and did not see TWAGiRAYEZU Wenceslas, are Kaberuka Théophile who says that he did not reach the roadblock, that he was told about the killings; which is obvious that he could not identify all those involved. The witness like Bazege Ntahondi Léa who states that she witnessed it, she says that she saw the crimes being committed overnight, which is understandable that she could not know all those involved. Even though Sindambiwe Emmanuel testifies that he saw people being killed but that he did not see Twagirayezu Wenceslas, the relevance of his testimony is still disputed as will be explained in the following paragraphs. The Court of Appeal finds that the witnesses of both sides agree that at Gacurabwenge, there was a roadblock at Gacamena’s home that was established before April 1994, because for instance DTB states that the barrier was established from 1992-1994 by the administration of the Gacurabwenge Sector in order for them to go hunting down the Tutsis and those who were called their accomplices, his statement is confirmed by Sindambiwe Emmanuel who was the cell leader, who states that it was set up shortly before the genocide and Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, who

was the leader of ten households’ entity where the roadblock was located, and Barangirana Tharcisse, while testifying, stated that he saw Gacamena’s home roadblock manned by the persons designated by the Sector, to who he had given guns to protect that roadblock.This suggests that the roadblock was there and that the people there had guns. in paragraph 192 of the appealed judgment, the High Court held that no one was killed at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, based on the testimonies of witnesses such as

Page 778

344 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Sebashyitsi Appolinaire, Nyirabariyanga Ancille, Sindambiwe Emmanuel. However, the surprising thing is that Sebashyitsi Appolinaire testifies that no one was arrested at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, no one was killed, and no one was injured, while other witnesses, apart from those presented by the Prosecution above, there are also witnesses presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas who testify that there were the people who were killed at that roadblock, the High Court did not say anything about their testimonies. Those are among others Bazage Ntahondi Léa who confirmed that atrocities were committed; Kabera Théophile who stated that he heard that Bunani Jean shot people dead and Sindambiwe Emmanuel who stated that there were people Bunani Jean shot down three hundred meters (300m) away from the roadblock. What the witnesses state is in line with what was stated by the Prosecution's witnesses who state that there were people at the roadblock, as well as the DTA interviewed by the Police who stated that two women and a young man were arrested and went to kill them about sixty meters (60m) away from the roadblock, and before the High Court, he states that they first deprived them of their identity documents. Another thing that shows that Sebashyitsi Appolinaire could not be a reliable witness is that he states that he spent the night at the roadblock for one day, however the witness

Barangirana Tharcisse who was also presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas confirms that Sebashyitsi Appolinaire was among the people guarding the roadblock and was given a gun by the Sector leader. The Court of Appeal finds that Twagirayezu Wenceslas' statement that the proof that Sebashyitsii Appolinaire has reliable information is that he and Mbonyubwabo, the cell leader were responsible for arranging the guards at the roadblock and they were also given a report every morning, is irrelevant, because his testimony was characterized with inconstistency as on ,

Page 779

345 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

states that it was up to the cell leader to arrange the guards, that it was manned by anybody, and elsewhere he said that he spent one night there, that at other times he would go to see the young men he had arranged. His statements according to which there was no one in charge of the roadblock is also different from Sindambiwe Emmanuel’s statements that the roadblock was manned by Bunani Jean who was an inspector of schools who was very famous during the genocide, and that he was also given a report. The Court of Appeal finds that the testimony of Nyirabariyanga Ancille and that of Sindambiwe Emmanuel also has a serious flaw in such a way that it could not be relied upon. For instance, according to her testimony, Nyirabariyanga Ancille, states that no people were killed at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, but the roadblock was located opposite her house, and there are other witnesses who state that people were killed, including those presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas himself, such as Bazege Ntahondi Léa, Kaberuka Théophile and Sindambiwe Emmanuel. This Sindambiwe Emmanuel's testimony should not be reliable because it also has the flaw in the sense thag the cell leader confirms that there was no killing at that roadblock while, as mentioned, there are others who confirm that there had been killings. Also in his testimony, he states that some people were killed at three hundred

meters (300 m), this Court found that they were killed at the roadblock because they were killed by Bunani Jean who was in charge of it. This Court finds the statements of Twagirayezu Wenceslas that if there were people killed at that roadblock, Nyirabariyanga Ancille would not have failed to know about it because she knew everything that happened, and that as a survivor she had no interest in covering him, is also irrelevant, because the witness states that she could not go

Page 780

346 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

to the streets , that since President Habyarimana's plane crashed, the situation got worse and she and her children went to hide in a cave some distance away from their home, elsewhere she states that the reason why she could not ignore it, the wrongdoers used to reveal it bacuse they believd that they were committing no crime, and she said that they might have mentioned it elsewhere. This shows that he did not have enough information about what was happening at the Gacamena’s home roadblock. The Court of Appeal also finds that in confirming that there was no killings at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, the High Court did not say anything about the testimony of Bazege Ntahondi Léa who confirmed that she saw the atrocities being committed at the roadblock and what Pastor Kaberuka Théophile stated when he testified that he heard that Bunani was shooting down people. This is consistent with Sindambiwe Emmanuel’s statements according to which there were the people that Bunani Jean killed about three hundred meters (300m) away from that roasblock. The court finds that among the witnesses that Twagirayezu Wenceslas presented, there are many who have given testimony that contains serious flaws that should make it unreliable because what they stated is in fact impossible. Apart from those mentioned in the previous paragraphs, there is also Barangirana Tharcisse who stated that no people

were killed at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, yet he lived there, he knew the people in charge of the roadblock, while as explained there were other witnesses presented by both sides in this case who state that people were killed there. This also applies to Mpahatanye Mathieu who stated that he only heard about Gacamena’s home roadblock and yet he was a resident because he lived at Gacurabwenge where the barrier was located, and

Page 781

347 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

according to many people, it had been there for a long time114. This Court finds, therefore, that the High Court erred in confirming that there were no killings at the Gacamena’s home roadblock, that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was not involved in them.

GENERAL CONCLUSION Article 2 of the international Convention of December 9, 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ratified by Rwanda through Decree- Law No. 08/75 of February 12, 1975[64], as well as article 91, bullet point 1˚ of Nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general, provide that the crime of genocide is one of the following acts, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, whether in time of peace or in time of war: 1º killing members of the group; (…). Article 94 of that Law provides that a crime against humanity is any of the following acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population: 1º murder; 2º extermination(..). in Nahimana Ferdinand et al. case, the international Criminal Court for Rwanda established that a person may be convicted of the crime of genocide and the crime against humanity based on the same acts because the acts that make up each crime are different, the crime of genocide is committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, because of who they are while the crime against humanity is committed

114 DTB states that the roadblock was set up since 1992-1994.

Page 782

348 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

in general or indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population115. in other words, a person who is among those who committed acts of murder, committed by attacks against a given group of people who are members of a certain group based on nationality, race, skin color or religion, with the intent to destroy in whole or in part because of who they are, committed against civilian population, in time of peace or in time of war, is considered to be a perpetrator of both the crime of genocide and a crime against humanity at the same time. As elucidated in the previous paragraphs, this Court finds that the High Court erred in the analysis of the statements of the witnesses, which led to the acquittal of Twagirayezu Wenceslas based on the fact that the Prosecution witnesses extremely contradicted themselves. However, as elucidated, what they do not have in common in their testimonies are small details that should not detract the quality of their testimonies. This Court also finds that the testimony of the witnesses presented by Twagirayezu Wenceslas does not disculpate him from the acts constituting the crimes he is accused of because it has been shown that they do not have enough knowledge about what he is accused of, and they should not be trusted because they indulge in the false statements in a way that is evident to anyone who would analyze their statements and to coordinate their statements, where they were and when it was done. However, as it was also seen, the analysis of the statements of all the witnesses does not show without doubt that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is one of the leaders of the said attacks as the Prosecution wants to make it clear.

115 See appeal case Prosecutor v. Nahimana Ferdinand et al. (Media Case), Case no iCTR -99-52-A, para. 1029.

Page 783

349 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

After examining the evidence presented by the Prosecution consisting of the testimony of Prosecution witnesses and finding that the testimony of the accused is irrelevant, the Court of Appeal finds that Twagirayezu Wenceslas participated in the attacks that killed Tutsis at the University of Mudende, Busasamana Church, Saint Fidèle School, at Nyundo, at the Commune rouge and at Gacamena’s home roadblock because it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that he was there. The Court of Appeal, based on that, and the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas admitted that he was in Rwanda from January to July 1994, that there was no document showing that he crossed the border, and that the document called “décharge” is flawed in that it is not confirmed that it was made on the attributed date of 08/04/1994, finding that the High Court erred in confirming that he was not in Rwanda from the 7th to the 09/04/1994 when the acts constituting the crimes he is accused of were carried out. in other words, the testimony given by the witnesses who wrote a the document confirming that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was in Congo when the crimes alleged against him were committed should not be accepted as being true. Based on what has already been explained, the Court of Appeal finds that the fact that Twagirayezu Wenceslas was involved in the attacks that killed many Tutsis who had taken refuge at the

University of Mudende and Busasamana Church, and was also involved in the attack that took Tutsis including students and staff from the Saint Fidèle school to Nyundo, after they were told that it was a way of rescuing them, and somme of them were killed there upon their arrival, others were taken to Commune Rouge to be killed there, and the fact that when he was with others at Gacamena’s home roadblock, he barricaded the Tutsis who were trying to flee to the DRC, and killed them, which shows undoubtedly that they had no other intention than to

Page 784

350 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

destroy the Tutsis, and thus he is convicted of the crime of genocide. This Court also finds that as he committed these crimes in attacks aimed at systematically destroying civilians, he also committed the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity. C. Regarding the penalties requested by the Prosecution  Submissions of the prosecution The representatives of the Prosecution pray the Court of Appeals to declare admissible the appeal of the Prosecution and to declare that it has merit, to overturn the appealed judgment and to declare that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is convicted of the crime of killing as a crime of genocide and the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity. They explain that due to the seriousness of the crimes he committed and the serious consequences these crimes entailed including a large number of Tutsis killed, thse who were physically and mentally impaired and countless orphans, the (Court of Appeal) finds that he should be sentenced to life imprisonment. They also say that he should not be sentenced to a reduced sentence because of the seriousness of the crime of genocide he committed and the role he played in the attacks in his home area as a learned person because he was a teacher. They also say that the seriousness of the crime that does not allows the convict to be sentenced to a reduced sentence is elucidated in various cases decided by this Court, such as in the case RPAA/GEN 00009/2019/CA involving the Prosecution and Kabilima Jean Damascène decided on 16/10/2020 in paragraph 109 and 110, as well as in paragraph 125 of the Kambanda Jean case decided by the international Criminal Court for Rwanda, therefore Twagirayezu Wenceslas should not be sentenced to a reduced sentence.

Page 785

351 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

 The allegations of Twagirayezu Wenceslas Twagirayezu Wenceslas and his lawyers allege that the prayer of the Prosecution to overturn the decision rendered by the High Court is groundless, because he provided evidence that he was not in Rwanda from 6 to 9/04/1994 when the acts of the alleged crimes were carried out, the Prosecution failed to show contradictory evidence and conclusive evidence that he committed the alleged crimes. They say that as the High Court has established, the Prosecution witnesses are characterized by contradictions on small details and important things, which shows that they have no knowledge of the crimes he is being prosecuted for, because they say what they did not witness and what they did not hear. They conclude by asking the Court to rely on Articles 107 and 111 of the Law relating to the Criminal Procedures, and declare that the appel lodged by the Prosecution has no merit and to declare that the appealed judgment remains unchanged.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Article 3 of the Organic Law n°04/2012/OL of 15/06/2012 terminating Gacaca Courts and determining mechanisms for solving issues which were under their jurisdiction provides the following: “The prosecution and punishment of acts constituting the crime of genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity which were committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994 in the jurisdiction of Gacaca Courts shall be exercised by competent organs according to laws in force applicable in these matters”. Article 335 of Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 Law determining offences and penalties in general provides for the following: " This Law comes into force on the date of its

Page 786

352 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda. However, the genocide crimes and other crimes against humanity committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994 is punishable in accordance with penalties provided for under this Law unless legal provisions otherwise provide”. As elucidated above, the Court of Appeal found TWAGiRAYEZU Wenceslas guilty of the crime of genocide and the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity, for his role in the attacks on the University of Mudende, at Busasamana Church and killed the Tutsis who had taken refuge there and who was also involved in the killing of Tutsis who were trying to flee to the DRC, they were killed at Gacamena’s home roadblock at Gacurabwenge, which he was also guarding and at Commune Rouge, Saint Fidèle school and Nyundo. Article 92 of Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as amended to date116 provides the following: " Any person who commits any of the acts referred to under Article 91 of this Law commits an offense. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to the penalty of life imprisonment. if he is convicted by the court, he will be sentenced to life imprisonment. Article 95 of Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 mentioned above provides that any person convicted of one of the acts referred to in items 1°, 2°, 3°, 6°, 7°, 9° and 11° of Article 94 of this Law is liable to the penalty of life imprisonment. While Article 60 of that Law as amended to date117 provides that if the judge approves the mitigating circumstances, he can reduce the sentence, life imprisonment will be reduced to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment.

116 Article 5 of Law no 059/23 of 04/12/2023. 117 Article 2 of Law no 059/23 of 04/12/2023.

Page 787

353 PROSECUTION v TWAGIRAYEZU

in the case RPA/GEN 0001/15/CS involving the Prosecution and Bandora Charles decided by the Supreme Court on 22/03/2019, it (the Court) explained the issue of sentencing in the case of mitigating circumstancess and aggravating circumstances. in that case, the Supreme Court confirmed that the mitigating circumstances are determined by the Court in its discretion, but the aggravating circumstances are determined by the law, or the Prosecution provides evidence that proves beyond doubt why the person convicted of the crime should receive a greater punishment. in that case, the Supreme Court held that although Bandora Charles was convicted of serious crimes, which had affected the Rwandan community ; the fact that he was convicted of these crimes is not enough to be a reason to increase the punishment while the Prosecution did not provide evidence that he acted with more hatred and cruelty than other criminals in the area where they were committed. What the Supreme Court established was also confirmed by the international Criminal Court for Rwanda in Kalimanzira Callixte case. 118 The Court of Appeal, having considered the crimes that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is convicted of, their impact on the Rwandan community, how they were committed, where the attacks found the Tutsis where they fled hoping to survive ; in the killings against them, according to the witnesses, bullets and traditional weapons were used, finds that the crimes he committed very serious. This Court, however, based on the fact that the crimes he committed did not place him in the category of those who planned or led the attacks that killed Tutsis in the aforementioned areasnand that he was convicted for the first time, finds that he should be sentenced to twenty (20) years in prison.

118 See Prosecutor v. Callixte Kalimanzira, Case No. iCTR-05-88-T, para. 748-752.

Page 788

354 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II.

DECISION OF THE COURT Declares that the appeal lodged by the Prosecution has merit; Declares that the judgment no.RP/GEN 00003/2019/HC/HCCiC rendered on 11/01/2024 by High Court, Specialized Chamber with jurisdiction over international crimes and transnational crimes is hereby overturned ; Declares that Twagirayezu Wenceslas is convicted of the crime of genocide and the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity ; Sentences Twagirayezu Wenceslas to twenty (20) years in prison ; Declares that the the court fees are borne by the Public Treasury.