Re INGABIRE

# Re INGABIRE

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2012-12-18 - Case/document no.: RS/INCONST/0002/12/CS - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

Re INGABIRE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/0002/12/CS (Kayitesi, P.J., Mutashya, Mukamurisa, Nyirinkwaya, Mukandamage, Kayitesi, Rugabirwa , Hatangimbabazi and Munyangeri, J.) 18 October, 2012] Law determining the jurisdiction of the Court – Petition aiming to repeal the provisions of laws – the court which has the jurisdiction to be filed for –The Supreme hears all action relating to the repeal of an organic law, ordinary law, decree law due to their unconstitutionality, they can repealed in their entirety or some of their provisions which is contrary to the Constitution – the organicl law Nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 relating the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 53. Civil procedure – Petition aiming to repeal the provisions of law – the procedures for the admissibility of these petitions – Deposition of the Court fees – When applicant is under detention had not to pay the court fees and also all required formalities of the action for repeal the provisions of the law are abide when the applicant instituted an action in writing, bearing the date and her signature, showing the subject matter of the action as well as submissions claiming the repeal of articles of laws and he/she must have the interest to file that kind of action – the law nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 361(3) – the organic law Nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 relating the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 53(3), 54. Constitution Law – unconstitution legal provisions – Petition aiming to repeal the provisions of law – the effect for the fact that the law or its provision is not in force while it was filed for being repealed because it is contrary to the constitution – fate of the provisions theirselves are not clear enough or require a further interpretation – In order for the law or an article to be examined for unconstitutionality that law or article has still to be in force therefore the fact that the law or its provision has arleady abrogated renders her action objectless –The fact that these articles are not clear enough or require a further interpretation should not be taken as if they contrary to the constitution as ruled upon by the Supreme Court whereit held that the fact that an article needs an interpretation or further complement should not considered to be unconstitutional, but rather this can be done by the legislator in case they may deem it necessary – Organic law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, article 765. Constitution Law – The freedom of providing the opinions – limitation for The freedom of providing the opinions –The freedom of thought does not allow every person to express what he/she wants but that the right to express one’s opinion can be limited by the laws of each country especially to safeguard the security and sovereignty of the State, public order or good morls – law nº18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology, article 2,3. Fact : Ingabire filed a claim at the Supreme Court arises from the pending case no RP 0110/10/HC instituted by the prosecution against her before the High Court, where she is prosecuted for the crime of minimization of genocide and genocide ideology, therefore she prays that article 2 to article 9 of the law n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology and article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should declared void because they are contrary to article 20, 33, and 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04/06/2003 as amended to date because they are uncertain and confusing to the extent that they prejudice individual rights provided under the constitution to express one’s

## Page 2

opinion especially when talking about the genocide, and these may be subject to different individual interpretations. Held : 1. The Supreme hears all action relating to the repeal of an organic law, ordinary law, decree law due to their unconstitutionality, they can repealed in their entirety or some of their provisions which is contrary to the Constitution. 2. When applicant is under detention had not to pay the court fees and also all required formalities of the action for repeal the provisions of the law are abide when the applicant instituted an action in writing, bearing the date and her signature, showing the subject matter of the action as well as submissions claiming the repeal of articles of laws and he/she must have the interest to file that kind of action. 3. In order for the law or an article to be examined for unconstitutionality that law or article has still to be in force therefore the fact that the law or its provision has arleady abrogated renders her action objectless. 4. The fact that these articles are not clear enough or require a further interpretation should not be taken as if they contrary to the constitution as ruled upon by the Supreme Court whereit held that the fact that an article needs an interpretation or further complement should not considered to be unconstitutional, but rather this can be done by the legislator in case they may deem it necessary 5. The freedom of thought does not allow every person to express what he/she wants but that the right to express one’s opinion can be limited by the laws of each country especially to safeguard the security and sovereignty of the State, public order or good morls therefore the articles which are requested to be repealed do not intended to prevent people from their freedom of thought but rather they intend to limit whoever can use that right granted by the law and incite the perpetration of genocide or minimize the committed one, therefore those articles are not contrary to the constitution. The action aiming at the repeal of article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes is inadmissible, The action aiming at the repeal of article 4-9 of the law n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genoicide ideology has no merit, With the Court fees to public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04/06/2003 as amended to date , article 33,34. law nº18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology, article 2,3 law nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, article 361(3) Organic law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, article 765 organicl law Nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 relating the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 53, 54 Cases referred to: Mugesera Léon, RS/INCONST/PEN 0002/12/CS rendered on 28/09/2012 Ntawuburintimba Alivera, RS/INCONST/0002/10/CS rendered on 27/04/2012

## Page 3

JUDGMENT BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The action of INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire arises from the pending case no RP 0110/10/HC instituted by the prosecution against her before the High Court, where she is prosecuted for the crime of minimization of genocide and genocide ideology. [2] INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire instituted the action before the Supreme Court on 16/05/2012 claiming that article 2 to article 9 of the law n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology and article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should declared void because they are contrary to article 20, 33, and 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04/06/2003 as amended to date, she asserts that they are uncertain and confusing to the extent that they prejudice individual rights provided under the constitution to express one’s opinion especially when talking about the genocide, and these may be subject to different individual interpretations. [3] This case was summoned on 19/07/2012 but it was not heard because due to the fact that Counsel GATERA GASHABANA the counsel for INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire requested the time to respond to the court submission of the State attorney in writing because he alluded that he received it lately, and the hearing was postponed on 03/09/2012, that it was held on public INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire assisted by Counsel GATERA GASHABANA, in presence of the State Attorney MBONERA Théophile. II. JURISICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY THE JURISDICTION [4] Article 53, paragraph 2 of the organicl law Nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 relating the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that the Supreme hears all action relating to the repeal of an organic law, ordinary law, decree law due to their unconstitutionality, they can repealed in their entirety or some pf their provisions. [5] INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire brought the action before the Supreme Court requesting the repeal of article 2 to 9 of the law n° 18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide minimization and genocide ideology and article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide,crimes against humanity and war crimes because they are contrary to article to article 20,33 and 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04/06/2003 as amended to date. [6] Pursuant to the foregoing arguments, the supreme has the jurisdiction to examine the merits of this case. ADMISSIBILITY [7] Pursuant to article 361, 3º of the law nº 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire had not to pay

## Page 4

the court fees because she under detention. The action was instituted in writing, bearing the date and her signature, showing the subject matter of the action as well as submissions claiming the repeal of articles of laws. She enclosed on the annex of the court submission the copies of articles of laws she requests their repeal. It is clear that article 54 of the organic law nº 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 relating to the organization, functioning and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court relating to the admissibility was complied with. [8] Moreover, pursuant to article 53, paragraph 3 of the organic law cited above, INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire has the interest to bring the action relating to the repeal article cited above because she has a criminal case against her before the High Court for the crime of genocide minimization and genocide ideolology. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES [9] The issues to be examined in this case are those relsting to the repeal of article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and the issue to know whether article 2 to 9 of the law n°18 /2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide minimization and genocide ideology are unconstitutional. The repeal of article 4 of the the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes [10] Me GATERA GASHABANA, counsel of INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire asserts that article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes request its repeal because it is provided under the new penal code in its article 116 which has the same provisions as the one they request its repeal, as they are only different with regard to the emprisonment only. He asserts that accordin to their additional submissions filed after the enactment of the new penal code the article that they request its repeal is article 116 of the organic law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code. [11] Me Mbonera Theophile the State attorney argues that article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes has already been abrogated, therefore there is no single reason to request the repeal of this article because one cannot repeal the article of the law that has already been abrogated. [12] With regard to the argument that the provisions of article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are the same provisions under article 116 of the organic law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code in Rwanda, Me Mbonera Theophile asserts that there exist proper ways of instituting and hearing different judicial actions, therefore the action relating to the repeal of article 116 should not be examined because it was never instituted. [13] With regard to the action relating to article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, it obvious that by the time INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire instituted the action that law was still in force, but after the enactment of the organic law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 cited above, the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes which includes this article 4 INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire requested its repeal was no longer in force basing on article 765 of the the organic law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 cited above. Therefore, the

## Page 5

fact that INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire instituted the action requesting the repeal an article of the law aready abrogated renders her action objectless, hence the action relating to the repeal of article of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes is not admitted. [14] The same pace was taken by this Court in the case nº RS/INCONST/PEN 0004/12/CS where it held that in order for the law or an article to be examined for unconstitutionality that law or article has still to be in force1. [15] With regard to the repeal of article 116 of the organic law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 53 of the organic law nº 03/2012 OL of 13/06/2012 relating to organization, functioning and the jurisdiction of the supreme court provides that the Supreme Court is seized in writing, and article 54 of that organic law provides that the action shows the object and the article the applicant bases on in requesting the repeal of the organic law, the ordinary or the decree law. [16] Article stated in the previous paragraph shows how the action is instituted. The fact that INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire instituted the action requesting the repeal of article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as it is contrary to the constitution, the court cannot shift to the examination of the unconstitutionality of articl 116 of the law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code because this is not the action instituted before the court in accordance with the procedures provided for under articles stated in the previous paragraph. To know whether article 2 to 9 of the law n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crimeof genocide minimization and genocide ideology are contrary to the constitution. [17] In the applicant court submission before this court and during the hearing of this case, INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire and Me GATERA GASHABANA her counsel assert that articles 2 to 9 of the n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology are contrary to the constitution in its articles 20, 33 and 34. Me GATERA GASHABANA explains that a criminal law must certainly show the elements of the crime, in backing his argument he put forward the scholarly legal writing and rendered cases. [18] They further asserts that being uncertainly prosecuting for an offense contravenes the principle that no one shall punished their action or omission when they were not criminalized by the law they were committed, and no one shall be subject to the punishment more severe than the one provided by the time they committed that crime as provided under 20 of the constitution because they find that article 2 and 3 do not indicate the elements of the crime. [19] The further argue that articles 2 and 3 stress on speech or acts expressed in the public do not give any explanation to the extent that the person who is going to express their opinion about genocide cannot know the limits in order to exprees their opinion with any fear of being prosecuted, they therefore find that these articles prejudice individual right to expression granted by the constitution, and has to be repealed. 1 Judgment RS/INCONST/PEN 0002/12/CS rendered on 28/09/2012 MUGESERA Léon petitioning the Supreme Court to hold that article 162 par. 2 of the Law Nº 18/2004 The law n° relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure is unconstitutional.

## Page 6

[20] Me MBONERA Theophile the State Attorney, asserts that article 2 and 3 of the law of the law n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology against which the repeal is requested are certain, they do contain unclear or confusing terms that can be subject to various individual interpretation. He further argues that should it be the issue of interpretation, the law is written in thre languages, which means that one may one language or another, but this should not be confused with unconstitutionality. [21] With regard to articles relating to freedom of opinion and expression, the State attorney finds that article 2 and 3 of the law n° 18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology are not contrary to articles 33 and 34 of the constitution since the freedoms provided under these should be exercised not withstanding others’ rights. He adds that set limits but did not prevent any person from speaking what they know about genocide. What the legislator prevented was the expressions aiming at inciting genocide or the minimizing the genocide that was committed. [22] In examining the claim of INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire with regard to articles 3 and 3 of the law n° 18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology, the Court finds that articles 2 and 3 of the law stated above are still in force, therefore the action based on them can be admitted and examined on its merits. However, the action based on article 4 to 9 of that law has no object because those articles relating to penalties provided under the new penal were repealed, therefore it cannot be admitted and examined on its merit. [23] Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provides that the freedom of thought, opinion, conscience, religion, worship and the public manifestation thereof is guaranteed by the State in accordance with conditions determined by law. Propagation of ethnic, regional, racial or discrimination or any other form of division is punishable by law. Whereas its article 34 provide that Freedom of the press and freedom of information are recognized and guaranteed by the State. Freedom of speech and freedom of information shall not prejudice public order and good morals, the right of every citizen to honour, good reputation and the privacy of personal and family life. It is also guaranteed so long as it does not prejudice the protection of the youth and minors. The conditions for exercising such freedoms are determined by law. [24] Article 2 of the law nº18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide ideology defines the genocide ideology in the following manner. The genocide ideology is a body ideas expressed through conduct, speech, writing, and other acts aiming at inciting the people to destroy other groups of people basing ethnicity, orgin, nationality, region, race, sex, language, rekigion or political opinion, committed either during peace time or war. As for article 3 of that law states that the crimesof grnocide ideology can be expressed through the conduct characterized by signs aiming at dehumanizing one individual or a group of individual that a have togetherness like in the following ways: 1° Persecution, intimidation, degaradation in speech, writing or defamatory acts characterized by violence or incinting hatred; 2° Isolating, degrading, profanation, claiming, degrading, defamation, misleading with the intent to minimize the genocide that was committed, opposing people, revenge, distort testimony or evidence of the genocide committed; 3° Killing, conspiring the killing of another person based on the genocide ideology.

## Page 7

[25] The Supreme Court finds that these articles 2 and 3 are by no means contrary to the constitution under its article 20, since they provided for the constitutive elements of an offense which are based on while taking the decision. These articles provide for the example of how the crime of genocide ideology may be committed, it is up to the judge to examine the acts accused against the alleged offender and applies the law to them. [26] The fact that these articles are not clear enough or require a further interpretation should not be taken as if they contrary to the constitution as ruled upon by the Supreme Court whereit held that the fact that an article needs an interpretation or further complement should not considered to be unconstitutional, but rather this can be done by the legislator in case they may deem it necessary.2 [27] With regard to the argument that these articles are contrary to the provisions of articles 33 and 34 of the constitution because they prejudice the right to freedom of thought and may prevent a person who may need to express his/her opinion about without any fear of being prosecuted, this too is not founded because the freedom of thought does not allow every person whatever pleases them, especially that even international law and the Rwandsan constitution allow some limitations as provided under 34 of that Constitution and article 19 of international covenant on civil and political rights in point 3 b, that the right to express one’s opinion can be limited by the laws of each country when it is necessary to safeguard the security and sovereignty of the State, public order or good morls.3 It is also provide under article 10 of European Convention of human rights which provides for the freedom of expression but under its article 17 it prohibits the abuse of that right. [28] The fact an individual can prosecuted for speech that contain hatred and discrimination is not particular to Rwanda. For instance in Canada, under its penal code, article 319 of that code punishes whoever disseminates hatred or divisionism.4 [29] Moreover in R. v. Keegstra rendered by the Supreme of Canada on 13/12/1990, where James Keegstra, the teacher in secondary school in the province of Alberta was accused of spreading hatred among Jews when he was teaching. By the time no final judgmnent was rendered in the case instituted against him by the prosecution, James Keegstra brought a case before the Supreme Court arguing that the offense he is accused of is provided under article stated in the previous paragraph in point 2 is contrary to the constitution of that country. The court rulrd that it is necessary to protect a given group of people and ensuring the coexistence of individuals with the feeling of equality even if they may have different cultures. It was stated in the following words: ‘……… There is obviously a rational connection between the criminal prohibition of hate propaganda and the objective of protecting target group members and of fostering harmonious social relations in a community dedicated to equality and multiculturalisme.’ 2 Judgment Nº RS/INCONST/0002/10/CS rendered on 27/04/2012, NTAWUBURINTIMBA Alivera petitioning the Court to hold that article 138 and 141 Law Nº 18/2004 The law n° relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure is unconstitutional.. 3 This UN Convention of 16/12/1966 entered into force in Rwanda on 23/03/1976, and was ratified in Rwanda by the decree-law n° 08/75 of 12/02/1975. 4 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liabto imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction”.

## Page 8

[30] Moreover, other countries, predominantly European countries it criminalized to minimize the holocaust. For instance in France, the ‘Cour de Cassation’ and Court of Appeal of Paris held in judgment they rendered relating to freedom of thought that on justified grounds can be subjected to limitations for the protection of public interests of Nazism victims.5 Other examples that show that this crime is punishable are like judgment rendered by European Courts that convicted persons who were accused of this crime and got the due punishment of this crime.6 [31] The Court finds that articles 2 and 3 of the law n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genocide do not intended to to prevent people from their freedom of thought or their expression while talking about genocide perpetrated against Tutsis in 1994, but rather they intend to limit whoever can use that right granted by the law and incite the perpetration of genocide or minimize the committed one, therefore those articles are not contrary to the constitution. 5 En Europe, l’article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme garantit la liberté d’expression, alors que l’article 17 interdit d’abuser du droit. La Cour européenne des Droits de l’homme, s’appuyant sur ces deux articles, a conforté l’utilisation de la loi française du 13 juillet 1990 dite «Loi Gayssot» pour poursuivre et condamner des auteurs de publications négationistes. En France, la Cour de Cassation et la Cour d’Appel de Paris ont jugé que la liberté d’expression pouvait légitimement être restreinte pour des motifs de protection de l’ordre public, de la morale et des intérêts des victimes du nazisme). 6 - Lehideux and Isorni v. France,1998-VII, n . 92; application number 24662/94,case number 55/1997/839/1045 (European Court of Human Rights 23 September 1998). - Faurisson v France, 2 BHRC UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993, Constitutional Court of Spain. November 7, 2007. -Jean-Marie Le Pen, France, Germany fines Feb. 27, 1998. En 1987, il a qualifié à plusieurs reprises les chambres à gaz de « point de détail de l’histoire de la Seconde Guerre mondiale ». -Roger Garaudy, France, imprisonment (suspended), ₣240,000 fine Jul. 21, 1998 (Writer fined for Holocaust writings). -Jürgen Graf, Switzerland, 15 months imprisonment (fled Switzerland to avoid sentence). - Gerhard Förster, Switzerland, 12 months imprisonment, disgorgement, May 27, 1999. - Jean Plantin, France, 6 months imprisonment (suspended), fine, damages Apr. 11, 2000 (Francillon, Claude. "A Lyon, l'éditeur chômeur Jean Plantin jugé pour contestation de crimes contre l'humanité", Disciple de Faurisson, il a été à deux reprises condamné pour contestation de crimes contre l’humanité par le Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon, à 6 mois de prison avec sursis ainsi qu’à des peines d’amende. -Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, Switzerland, 1 year imprisonment, damages Feb. 20, 2006 ("Holocaust revisionist sentenced". -David Irving, Austria, 1 year imprisonment Mar. 15, 2006 (Traynor, Ian. "Irving jailed for denying Holocaust". -Germar Rudolf, Germany, 2½ years imprisonment, Oct. 3, 2006 ("German Holocaust Denier Imprisoned for Inciting Racial Hatred". - Robert Faurisson, France, €7,500 fine, 3 months probation, Feb. 15, 2007. Les thèses revisionnistes héritées de Paul Rassinier, ancien résistant déporté qui contestait la véracité des témoignages d’anciens déportés, a été condamné en 1981 par la 17ème Chambre du Tribunal de grande instance de Paris pour diffamation publique, condamnation confirmée par la Cour d’Appel. - Ernst Zündel, Germany, 5 years imprisonment, Jan. 14, 2008 ("Holocaust denier in Germany sentenced to five years in prison - - --- - Wolfgang Fröhlich, Austria, 6½ years imprisonment, Jan. 15, 2008 ("Austrian Holocaust denier gets six-and-a-half years in prison" -Sylvia Stolz, Germany, 3½ years imprisonment , Mar. 11, 2009 ("German Neo-Nazi Lawyer Sentenced for Denying Holocaust". -Horst Mahler, Germany, 5 years imprisonment, Oct. 23, 2009. -Dirk Zimmerman, Germany, 9 months imprisonment, Oct. 27, 2009. déclaré en 2008 qu’il n’y a pas eu de chambres à gaz, que 200000 à 300000 Juifs ont péri dans les camps de concentration, mais un seul dans les chambres à gaz.

## Page 9

IV. DECISION OF THE COURT [32] It holds to dismiss the action instituted by INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire aiming at the repeal of article 4 of the law nº 33 bis/2003 of 06/09/2003 punishing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes because it lacks the object; [33] It holds to dismiss the action of INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire aiming at the repeal of article 4-9 of the law n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genoicide ideology because it lacks the object; [34] It holds to admit the claim of INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire aiming at the repeal of articles 2 and 3 of the law n°18/2008 of 23/07/2008 punishing the crime of genoicide ideology, because it was instituted in accordance with the law; [35] It however, ordersthat it is not founded; [36] It orders that court fees equal to 11,600 Rwf be borne the public treasury.