PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA ET.AL_en

PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA ET.AL_en

The accused were found guilty of both violation of domicile and murder because the offences were interrelated and the murder was a direct consequence of the unlawful entry. The law holds all participants criminally liable for both offences, regardless of whether all were aware of the murder in advance. Claims of self-defense and provocation were rejected due to lack of credible evidence. Damages awarded at first instance were upheld as appropriate.

Citation
RLR V.3-2018
Parties
Applicant: Prosecution; Respondent: Habyarimana Festus; Respondent: Uwiragiye Fabiola; Respondent: Rugamba Frank; Respondent: Karemera Steven alias Maridadi; Civil Claimant: Mukambanda Dorothée
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
8 December 2017
Case Number
RPA0154/13/CS
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Concurrence of Offences, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Derivative Criminal Liability, Violation of Domicile, Murder, Sentencing, Damages
Source Language
en, rw
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Concurrence of Offences Joint Criminal Enterprise Derivative Criminal Liability Violation of Domicile Murder Sentencing +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosecution

Applicant

Habyarimana Festus

Respondent

Uwiragiye Fabiola

Respondent

Rugamba Frank

Respondent

Karemera Steven alias Maridadi

Respondent

Mukambanda Dorothée

Civil Claimant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution for violation of domicile required prior victim complaint
  2. 2 Whether evidence supported conviction for violation of domicile and murder
  3. 3 Whether murder was committed in self-defense or under provocation

Ratio Decidendi

The accused were found guilty of both violation of domicile and murder because the offences were interrelated and the murder was a direct consequence of the unlawful entry. The law holds all participants criminally liable for both offences, regardless of whether all were aware of the murder in advance. Claims of self-defense and provocation were rejected due to lack of credible evidence. Damages awarded at first instance were upheld as appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Accused found guilty of violation of domicile and murder without premeditation in ideal concurrence.
  • Each sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.