The Court of Appeal further reduced Hategekimana Raphaël’s sentence for child defilement from 25 years to 17 years, finding mitigation still justified a lower term.
The Court of Appeal upheld Sibomana Aimable’s 15-year sentence for defilement of a minor, holding that the evidence was sufficient and the appeal lacked merit.
The appellate court found that the conviction was supported by corroborated evidence: the accused's confession, the child's statements to her father, witness observations of injuries, and the medical report confirming sexual abuse. The court held that the accused failed to prove coercion or contradiction in the evidence, and that indirect testimony is admissible if properly assessed. The court also held that the civil claimant, not having appealed, could not be awarded more compensation than previously granted, except for additional costs incurred due to being summoned to the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence from the accused's confession, the victim's testimony, the mother's account, and the medical report was consistent, corroborative, and established beyond reasonable doubt that Uwizeyimana Mathias committed defilement of his 13-year-old daughter. The court found no merit in the arguments about doubtful evidence or alleged coercion, and upheld the life imprisonment sentence.
The Court of Appeal held that evidence already debated in earlier proceedings is not new evidence, and dismissed Twahirwa Aimable’s review application as inadmissible.
Murindwa Martin intentionally killed Gasake Emmanuel by striking him in the head with a deadly weapon after a period allowing for reflection, thus not acting under legal provocation; however, his emotional state upon finding Gasake with his wife warrants mitigation of sentence.
The statutory minimum sentence for defilement followed by cohabitation with a minor is fifteen years' imprisonment, and the court cannot reduce the sentence below this threshold regardless of mitigating circumstances.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Niyonzima’s criminal appeal, holding that he failed to prove timely filing of appeal grounds and that late grounds were inadmissible.