Re NSABIMANA

# Re NSABIMANA

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2025-10-17 - Case/document no.: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2025/SC - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

Re NSABIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2025/SC (Mukantaganzwa, P.J., Hitiyaremye, Mukamulisa, Kazungu and Kalihangabo J.) October 17, 2025] The Constitution – A legal provision alleged to be unconstitutional – Article 41 of Law nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda because it does not discriminate between litigants. Therefore, any issue regarding that provision would only arise if it failed to treat equally those who were first tried before the Primary Court, allowing some of them second appeal before the High Court while denying the same right to others who belong to the same category, which is not the case. The Constitution – Equality before the Law – Exception – Although article 15 of the Constitution provides for the principle of equality before the law, there are instances in which the State may differentiate between people or classify them into categories without this being considered discrimination, provided that it is based on reasonable justifications and legitimate purpose. Laws governing the jurisdiction of courts – The crime of Genocide – Categories of perpetrators of Genocide crime – Jurisdictional competence to try the crime of Genocide – Individuals who held leadership positions at the national level or at the prefecture level and their accomplices, as well as those who committed acts or offenses that place them among the planners, organizers, inciters, supervisors, and leaders of the Genocide or other crimes against humanity, together with their accomplices, are tried at the first instance by Intermediate Courts. While others are tried at the first instance by Primary Courts

## Page 2

Facts: This case was initiated by Nsabimana, commonly known as Ntabarimfasha, who brought the case before the Supreme Court seeking to declare that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, contradicts article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. Nsabimana and his counsel explain that the provisions of article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 violate his rights and contradict article 15 of the Constitution. They base their argument on the fact that an accused person who is first tried before the Intermediate Court may lodge a second appeal before the Court of Appeal if the sentence imposed is at least 15 years, as provided under article 52 of the aforementioned Law n0 30/2018, while another accused person who is first tried before the Primary Court, even who may have acted under the instructions of someone who is first tried before the Intermediate Court, is not allowed to lodge a second appeal before the High Court, regardless of the sentence imposed, even if it is equal to or exceeds 15 years. They argue that this demonstrates that the two litigants are not equal before the law. They request the Supreme Court to examine article 41 of the above-mentioned Law and declare that it should be repealed or amended by adding a paragraph allowing the High Court to hear a second appeal in cases where a sentence of at least 15 years’ imprisonment has been imposed, as provided under article 52 of law mentioned above. The state attorney of the Government of Rwanda states that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 nowhere contradicts article 15 of the Constitution because it grants all concerned individuals an equal right to a second appeal before the High Court when there has been a procedural error. In case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2025/SC, the Court held that Nsabimana’s claim was unfounded, because the fact that the Primary Court and the Intermediate Court are not at the same level, and the categories of individuals accused of committing the

## Page 3

Genocide against the Tutsi who are tried by these courts differ, consequently, Nsabimana’s claim that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts discriminates between litigants, should not be founded. Held: 1. Article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda because it does not discriminate between litigants. Therefore, any issue regarding that provision would only arise if it failed to treat equally those who were first tried before the Primary Court, allowing some of them second appeal before the High Court while denying the same right to others who belong to the same category, which is not the case. 2. Although article 15 of the Constitution provides for the principle of equality before the law, there are instances in which the State may differentiate between people or classify them into categories without this being considered discrimination, provided that it is based on reasonable justifications and legitimate purpose. Therefore, equality before the law and non- discrimination do not mean that any distinction among individuals is discriminatory but instead, differentiating between people or categories should be necessary depending on the legitimate purpose. 3. Individuals who held leadership positions at the national level or at the prefecture level and their accomplices, as well as those who committed acts or offenses that place them among the planners, organizers, inciters, supervisors, and leaders of the Genocide or other crimes against humanity, together with their accomplices, are tried at the first instance by Intermediate Courts. While others are tried at the first instance by Primary Courts. 4. The legislature established a special category for individuals accused of committing the Genocide against the Tutsi, along with a special procedure compared to the category of individuals prosecuted for ordinary crimes, with the aim of combating the

## Page 4

culture of impunity and expediting Genocide cases which could otherwise take long time if tried under the ordinary procedure. The claim seeking to declare article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 as amended, determining the jurisdiction of courts unconstitutional, lacks merits; Statutes and statutory referred to: Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, article 26 Organic Law n0 08/96 of 30 August 1996 organizing prosecutions for offences constituting the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity committed since October 1, 1990, article 2 Organic Law n0 40/2000 of 26/01/2001 setting up and organizing prosecutions for offences constituting the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, article 51,52 Organic Law n0 16/2004 of 19/6/2004 establishing the organization, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed since October 1, 1990, article 51 Organic Law n0 04/2012/OL of 15/06/2012 terminating the Gacaca Courts and determining mechanisms for resolving issues which were within their jurisdiction Case laws referred to: Case n⁰ RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, decided on 29/11/2019, Murangwa Edward, paragraph 34; and case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, decided by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023, Ngendahayo Kabuye, paragraph 58 Case n⁰ RS/Inconst/SPEC 00002/2022/SC Kamanzi Anaclet decided on 31/03/2023, paragraph 48.

## Page 5

Case n⁰ RS/Inconst/Pen 0001/13/CS, Bimenyimana André decided on 04/10/2013, paragraph 17. Judgment. I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Nsabimana Ildephonse, commonly known as Ntabarimfasha, (“Nsabimana Ildephonse” in this instant case), filed a claim before the Supreme Court, seeking to declare article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts1, as amended, inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda2 (“the Constitution” in this instant case), and the case was registered under RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2025/SC.

Nsabimana Ildephonse and Counsel Me Kwizera Bernard and Counsel Dushimire Jeannette, Counsels for him, explain that the provisions of article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 as previously mentioned, violate his rights and contradict article 15 of the Constitution. They base this on the fact that an accused person who was first tried in the Intermediate Court may lodge a second appeal before the Court of Appeal if the sentence imposed is at least 15 years as provided under article 52 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 as previously mentioned above while, another

1 Provides that“ The High Court hears at the second level of appeal criminal cases heard at the first level of appeal by Intermediate Courts if such cases: 1° are determined based on a non-existing law or rendered by an incompetent court; 2° involve a penalty which is not provided by law; 3° are decided based on evidence, document or submissions presented after the trial without any reopening of proceedings; 4° are rendered by a bench with no required minimum number of judges ; 5° are pronounced by a judge other than the one having heard them; 6° are not tried in public while no in-camera hearing is ordered. ”. 2 That article provides that “ All human beings are equal before the law. They enjoy equal protection of the law”.

## Page 6

accused person who was first tried in the Primary Court, and who may even have acted under the instructions of someone who is first tried before the Intermediate Court, is not allowed to lodge a second appeal before the High Court, regardless of the sentence imposed, even if it is equal to or exceeds 15.

They argue that the aforementioned show that these two accused persons are not equal before the law. For that reason, during the hearing of 10/06/2024 before the High Court, Specialized Chamber for International Crimes and Cross-Border Crimes, they requested and were granted by that Court the adjournment of the hearing be adjourned so that the issue could be submitted to the Supreme Court for examination and guidance, based on article 72, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above3.

Nsabimana Ildephonse and his counsels state that they are requesting the Supreme Court to examine article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above, and declare that it should be repealed or amended by adding a paragraph allowing the High Court to hear second appeal in cases where the sentence imposed is at least 15 years’ imprisonment, as provided under article 52 of the aforementioned law.

State Attorney Cyubahiro Fiat, representing the Government of Rwanda, states that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above, does not in any way contradict article 15 of the Constitution because it grants all concerned individuals equal rights to lodge a second-level appeal before the High Court when there have been procedural errors.

The hearing was held in public on 15/09/2025, Nsabimana Ildephonse was represented by Counsel Kwizera Bernard and Counsel Dushimire Jeannette, while the Government of Rwanda

3 That article provides that “ The Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality over petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a law if they have any interest ”.

## Page 7

was represented by State Attorney Cyubahiro Fiat. The Court first examined the issue of whether Nsabimana Ildephonse has a legal interest in the case. Whether Nsabimana Ildephonse has a legal interest to sue in this instant case

After hearing the representatives of Nsabimana Ildephonse and the representative of the Government, who both agreed that the applicant has an interest in the case, the Court, in its ruling delivered from the bench, held that Nsabimana Ildephonse indeed has a legal interest in the case because the legal provision he is challenging concerns the population in general to the extent it may affect their rights, including him. This is one of the grounds upheld by the Supreme Court4 for determining a legal interest of a person seeking to declare a law unconstitutional.

Regarding the merits of the case, the parties debated on the issue of whether article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, contradicts article 15 of the Constitution. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Whether article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, contradicts article 15 of the Constitution

Counsel Kwizera Bernard and Counsel Dushimire Jeannette, Counsels for Nsabimana Ildephonse, state that the reason he filed the claim alleging that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, contradicts article 15 of the Constitution, is that the Jurisdiction of the High Court at the second level of appeal is based on that article 41 while, it did not provide that persons who

4 Interlocutory judgment n⁰ RS/INCOST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC of 16/12/2022 in which MURANGWA Edouard was a party, p.10, paragraph 10.

## Page 8

were first tried in the Primary Court and received a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment or more, as provided under article 52 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above5.

They further state that article 26 of the aforementioned law provides that “ Primary Courts have jurisdiction over offences punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, except those which are exclusively preserved for other courts,” while it is clear that the legislator overlooked the fact that the jurisdiction of the Primary Court also includes trying genocide crimes committed against the Tutsi which are punishable by five years’ imprisonment and which may also extend to life imprisonment.

They explain that genocide crimes which have been accused by former leaders are similar to those by ordinary citizens, although the charges are similar, the courts before which they are brought, depend on the accused’s position status. As a result, a person accused of genocide crime who is tried in the Primary Court does not have the possibility of lodging a second appeal, while those who were leaders or those accused of ordinary offences who were first tried in the Intermediate Court6 are able to appeal up to the Court of Appeal. They argue that an ordinary

5 That article provides that ’’ The Court of Appeal has also jurisdiction to try at the second level of appeal cases tried by the High Court, the Commercial High Court and Military High Court, if such cases: ... 9° involve a term of imprisonment of at least fifteen (15) years. In criminal cases, reference is only made to the imprisonment sentence given to determine the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal …’’. 6 Article 29 of Law n⁰ 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, as amended, provides that “ Intermediate Courts try at the first instance the following offences: … 2° crimes of genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda between 1st October 1990 and 31st December 1994 by the following persons: a) any person having committed offences or acts of complicity which place him/her in the category of masterminds, planners, instigators, supervisors and leaders of genocide or other crimes against humanity with his/her accomplices; b) any person who was at that time in the administrative organs at the national or prefectural level and his/her accomplices.

## Page 9

citizen convicted of genocide crime appears to be deprived of the opportunity to seek a second appeal, because article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above does not grant equal rights to accused persons placed in different categories, even though in some cases the crimes committed by leaders are the same as those committed by lower-level individuals, and the sentences imposed on them are often the same.

Counsel Kwizera Bernard and Counsel Dushimire Jeannette also state that in the case RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2022/SC, decided on 28/07/2023, in which Ndayisabye Alexis was a party, which was referred to by the State Attorney in his submissions, the State Attorney at that time also acknowledged that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above, contained a problem and even admitted that it could be corrected. However, he also indicated, on the other hand, that based on the claim and the relief sought, repealing that article would not have benefited the claimant, consequently the case that had been filed was not examined. They further add that this case is different from the one mentioned above because, although the subject matter is the same, the means of defense are not the same, due to the fact that the subject matter in this case is that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above, contradicts article 15 of the Constitution, because people who fall within this or that category deserve equal protection, regardless of the court in which each of them is tried.

They conclude by stating that since all people are equal before the law and must be protected equally, as provided under article 15 of the Constitution, they request the Supreme Court to carefully examine the claim submitted by Nsabimana Ildephonse and set position on it, especially since the Court has the power to repeal or amend legal provisions when it finds them inconsistent with the Constitution or other laws.

State Attorney Cyubahiro Fiat, representing the Government of Rwanda, states that it is important to begin by

## Page 10

explaining the difference between ordinary offences (droit commun) and the Crimes of Genocide committed against the Tutsi in 1994, which are considered specific offences. He explains that the history of prosecuting and punishing these crimes shows that from the time they began to be prosecuted and punished, they were always treated as exceptional and have never been prosecuted or punished in the same way as ordinary offences (droit commun), and that this has never posed any problem.

He further states that specific offences are often given particular treatment and are regulated by special laws. He explains that one of the reasons these offences were treated differently is that they need to be tried in the place where they were committed, so that the suspect is brought before the community living in the area where the crime has been committed. In such cases, although the judgment is rendered by a judge, the Rwandan community also has a say regarding the offence committed (justice de proximité), Consequently reduces the judge’s workload because justice has already been carried out in the presence of the community, which has actively participated in the process. He adds that this makes a second level of appeal unnecessary.

State Attorney Cyubahiro Fiat also argues that the fact that a second appeal is not admitted in the High Court for individuals accused of the crimes of Genocide committed against the Tutsi in 1994 who were first tried in the Primary Court should not be considered Unconstitutional based on the comparison between these offences and ordinary offences, explaining that one should not compare offences that fall into different categories and which are tried by courts of different levels, and then conclude that people were not being treated equally before the law.

Based on those explanations, finds that article 15 of the Constitution was not applied by the applicant in a proper context, or was interpretated incorrectly, because nowhere does the law determining the jurisdiction of courts treat people prosecuted for

## Page 11

ordinary offences differently from those prosecuted for the crimes of Genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, because, as explained above, those offences fall into different categories and are tried by courts of different levels.

He adds that those prosecuted for the crimes of Genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 who were tried in the Primary Courts at the first instance were non-leaders, whereas individuals who were leaders were tried at the first instance by the Intermediate Courts.

State Attorney Cyubahiro Fiat also states that the crimes of Genocide were given special treatment, as upheld in case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2022/SC, decided on 31/03/2023, involving Kamanzi Anaclet, who had filed a petition to repeal article 197 of the crimininal procedure code. He states that in that case, the Court found that placing people into different categories for a legitimate purpose should not be considered as treating people unequally before the law. He therefore concludes that the fact that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 as amended, provided that individuals tried in the Primary Courts are not allowed a second appeal should not be considered treating people unequally before the law, nor does it imply any form of discrimination.

He also explains that the issue of whether Article 41 of the Law determining the jurisdiction of courts contradicts article 15 of the Constitution was examined in case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00005/2022/SC, decided on 28/07/2023, involving Ndayisabye Alexis, and the Supreme Court had ruled on it consequently, such issue should not be raised again, especially since in that case, Ndayisabye Alexis admitted that article 41 mentioned above does not contradict the Constitution, and that only a correction of its wording was needed.

He concludes by stating that the legislator did not make a mistake or overlook anything, as the applicant claims but instead, intended to distinguish between categories of individuals who

## Page 12

committed the crimes of Genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 and therefore, article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The issue to be analyzed in this case is whether article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, as amended, contradicts article 15 of the Constitution.

As explained above, the applicant claims that the fact that individuals accused of the crimes of Genocide against the Tutsi are tried at first instance by the Primary Courts, and are not allowed to lodge a second appeal before the High Court when they are sentenced to at least 15 years’ imprisonment as for those tried at first instance by the Intermediate Court are allowed to lodge a second appeal before the Court of Appeal contradicts the principle of equality before the law as provided for in article 15 of the Constitution.

In case RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS decided on 23/09/2016, in which Akagera Business Group Ltd was a party, this Court explained that the provisions of article 15 of the Constitution provides that there must be no discrimination that results in unequal treatment of people or being denied rights where they should be entitled to them. However, the Court pointed out that equality before the law and non-discrimination do not mean that differentiating between people is, in all circumstances, discrimination; but instead, differentiating between individuals or categories of individuals should be necessary for legitimate or rational purpose. The position set in that case was upheld in various subsequent cases of this Court7.

7 Examples : Case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, decided on 29/11/2019, in which Murangwa Edward was a party, paragraph 34; and Case

## Page 13

The decisions rendered by this Court in various cases indicate that, although article 15 of the Constitution establishes the principle of equality before the law, there are circumstances in which the State differentiates between individuals or places them into categories, and this is not considered discrimination where it is done for for legitimate or rational purpose.

Regrading the present case, as explained above, Nsabimana Ildephonse falls within the category of accused persons who are tried at first instance by the Primary Court8. The Prosecution charged him before the Primary Court of Gisenyi with complicity in the Genocide against the Tutsi, which found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed to the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, which upheld the sentence imposed at first instance. He then lodged a second appeal before the High Court, the Specialiazed Chamber for International Crimes and Cross-Border Crimes. While that appeal had not yet been examined, he requested it to stay the proceedings so that he could file a petition before this instant Court, seeking the repeal of article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above on the ground that it contradicts article 15 of the Constitution, or be amended as explained above.

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC, decided by the Supreme Court on 10/02/2023, in which NGENDAHAYO Kabuye was a party, paragraph 58. 8 Article 26 of Law n⁰ 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, as amended, provides that Primary Courts have jurisdiction over the 2° crimes of genocide against Tutsi and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda between 1st October 1990 and 31st December 1994 listed below: a) acts of torture; b) homicide; c) acts of rape or genital mutilation; d) degrading acts on a dead body; e) serious harms to persons having resulted in death; f) acts that cause injuries or a serious harm to persons, with intent to inflict death, even if the purpose of inflicting death is not accomplished; g) any other criminal acts against persons without any intent to inflict death; h) other crimes committed by any person who was in the administrative organs at the sub- prefecture or commune level, in political organizations, in the communal police or in any militia and who committed or incited other people to commit such crimes with his/her accomplices.

## Page 14

Regrading the categorization of individuals accused of crimes of the Genocide against the Tutsi committed in 1994, Organic Law n0 08/96 of 30 August 1996 organizing prosecutions for offences constituting the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity committed since October 1, 1990 placed the accused into four categories9. Subsequently, Organic Law n0 40/2000 of 26/01/2001 setting up and organizing prosecutions for offences constituting the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994 was established, the four categories of the accused were mentained10, but revised them11. This was followed by Organic Law n0 16/2004 of 19/6/2004 establishing the organization, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed since October 1, 1990, which also categorized the accused, though revised them12.

Specifically, regarding the Gacaca Courts, in the case of KAMANZI Anaclet13, which upheld the ruling made in the other case of BIMENYIMANA André14, this instant Court explained that by the time the Legislator established a special category of individuals accused of the crimes of Genocide against the Tutsi and a special procedure for their trial compared to the category of

9 Article 2 of that Organic Law. 10 Article 51 and 52 of that Organic Law 11 The Gacaca Courts’ activities Report in https://justice-survivors.com, 2012, p.42: “ Regarding the categories of the accused, this Law maintained the categories of accused as they previously existed, but placed three categories under the jurisdiction of the Gacaca Courts, since the first category remained under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. For the accused individuals of the first category, leaders at the Cell and Sector levels, this Law provided that they would be classified based on the offences with which they were charged, instead of leadership positions they held. It also introduced the offence of rape, which had not been provided for in the Law of 1996 …”. 12 Article 51: Levels of the accused has become three. 13 Case n⁰ RS/Inconst/SPEC 00002/2022/SC decided on 31/03/2023, paragraph 48. 14 Case n⁰ RS/Inconst/Pen 0001/13/CS decided on 04/10/2013, paragraph 17.

## Page 15

individuals prosecuted for ordinary offences, one of the objectives pursued was the eradication of the culture of impunity and to expedite the adjudication of genocide cases, which would take an excessive long time once they were tried under ordinary procedure.

As explained above, in order for the Legislator to achieve the objective pursued, within that category of individualsa accused of the crimes of genocide, they created categories or levels based on the role played by the accused and the positional leadership held at the time the crime was committed.

From the cessation of function of Gacaca Courts15, all cases involving perpetrators of the crimes of Genocide against the Tutsi were transferred to the ordinary courts. In this context, those who held positional leadership at the national or prefectural level and their accomplices, as well as those who committed crimes or acts of complicity that placed them in the roles of planners, organizers, instigators, supervisors and leaders of the genocide or other crimes against humanity, together with their accomplices, are tried by the Intermediate Courts as provided in article 29 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above. All remaining accused individuals are tried by the Primary Courts in accordance with article 26 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above.

The Court finds, the fact that the courtsmentioned above are not of the same level, and that the levels or categories of the accused of the crimes of Genocide against the Tutsi are tried differently, does not justify the claims made by Nsabimana Ildephonse and his counsels that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 mentioned above discriminates against the accused. Any issue with that provision would arise only if it treated differently persons who were tried at first instance by the Primary

15 Were repealed by Organic Law n⁰ 04/2012/OL of 15/06/2012 terminating the Gacaca Courts and determining mechanisms for resolving issues which were within their jurisdiction.

## Page 16

Court, allowing some to lodge a second appeal before the High Court while denying others the same right, even though they belong to the same category but this is not the case in the present case.

Based on all the explanations provided above, the Court finds that article 41 of Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares the claim filed by Nsabimana Ildephonse, also known as Ntabarimfasha, seeking to declare article 41 of n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, unconstitutional, unfounded ;

Declares that article 41 of n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts as amended, does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.