NTABWOBA (IKIREGO KIGAMIJE KUVANAHO INGINGO Y’ITEGEKO INYURANYIJE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA)

NTABWOBA (IKIREGO KIGAMIJE KUVANAHO INGINGO Y’ITEGEKO INYURANYIJE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA)

The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'cyonyine gusa' in Article 10(2) of Organic Law No. 04/2012/OL is a drafting error that can be corrected and does not amount to a constitutional violation. The provision should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principle of individual criminal responsibility as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RLR V.4 - 2015
Parties
Applicant: Ntabwoba Amiru bita Cyuma; Respondent: Minisiteri y’Ubutabera
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Case Number
RS/INCONST/GEN 0001/14/CS
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutionality of Statutes, Principle of Individual Criminal Responsibility, Post Gacaca Remedies
Source Language
rw
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Constitutionality of Statutes Principle of Individual Criminal Responsibility Post Gacaca Remedies

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntabwoba Amiru bita Cyuma

Applicant

Minisiteri y’Ubutabera

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Article 10, paragraph 2 of Organic Law No. 04/2012/OL of 15/06/2012 is unconstitutional for violating the principle of individual criminal responsibility under Article 17 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'cyonyine gusa' in Article 10(2) of Organic Law No. 04/2012/OL is a drafting error that can be corrected and does not amount to a constitutional violation. The provision should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principle of individual criminal responsibility as enshrined in Article 17 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The challenged provision is not unconstitutional.
  • Court fees to be borne by the State.