Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by three appellants and upheld genocide convictions, holding that corroborated testimony was reliable despite minor inconsistencies and absent Gacaca mention.
MRCD-FLN leaders are criminally liable for preparatory acts that enabled subsequent terrorist acts, not for all acts committed by subordinates; sentence reductions for guilty pleas require unequivocal admission and remorse; first-instance court erred in reducing sentences below statutory minimum without legal basis; damages may be awarded jointly to all convicted for the same crime; no incidental appeals are allowed in criminal cases.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Article 84(4), Article 92 (insofar as it prohibits reduction of sentence for mitigating circumstances), and Article 133(3) of Law No 68/2018 are unconstitutional as they violate the principles of legality, fair trial, and judicial independence by being vague or unduly restricting judicial discretion. Articles 256 and 271 do not violate the Constitution as their limitations on expression and criminalization of counterfeit currency are justified and proportionate to legitimate aims.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Article 84(4) of Law No 68/2018 is unconstitutional for lack of clarity regarding when accessories who are close relatives may be exempted from punishment, violating the principle of legality and the right to a fair trial. The Court also found that the mandatory minimum sentences in Articles 92 and 133(3), which prohibit mitigation for extenuating circumstances, violate the right to a fair trial and judicial independence. However, the Court held that Articles 271 and 256 do not violate the Constitution, as their restrictions are justified, proportionate, and suffic…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a judge may recharacterize charges, but the accused must be allowed to respond. Mukaruyange was acquitted of accessory theft, but her concealment convictions were upheld.
The High Court partially allowed Habyarimana Jean’s appeal, upholding convictions for conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement, and accessory liability.
The Supreme Court upheld Habyarabatuma Cyriaque’s conviction for superior responsibility, holding he knew or should have known of the risk to refugees and failed to act.
Explore more
