UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TURATSINZE

The Supreme Court found that Turatsinze Pierre did utter the words in question, which, in context, amounted to genocide denial as defined by law. The evidence from the victim and witness was consistent and credible, and the accused's shifting explanations undermined his credibility. The sentence was reduced to nine years' imprisonment, the maximum under the current law, because the prosecution did not appeal for a harsher sentence and the lower courts had not based their sentence on recidivism.

Citation
[2016] 4 RLR
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Defendant: Turatsinze Pierre
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Case Number
RPAA 0021/12/CS
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence varied
Legal Topics
Genocide Denial, Evidentiary Law, Appeals, Sentencing
Source Language
en, rw
Criminal Law Genocide Denial Evidentiary Law Appeals Sentencing

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Turatsinze Pierre

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Turatsinze Pierre is guilty of genocide denial under Rwandan law
  2. 2 Whether the evidence was sufficient and properly evaluated
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that Turatsinze Pierre did utter the words in question, which, in context, amounted to genocide denial as defined by law. The evidence from the victim and witness was consistent and credible, and the accused's shifting explanations undermined his credibility. The sentence was reduced to nine years' imprisonment, the maximum under the current law, because the prosecution did not appeal for a harsher sentence and the lower courts had not based their sentence on recidivism.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence varied

Orders

  • Conviction for genocide denial affirmed
  • Sentence reduced to nine years' imprisonment