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The Organic Law No 04/2012/OL abolishing Gacaca courts is no longer in force and cannot be challenged for constitutionality. The challenge to Article 197(4) of Law No 027/2019 is admissible because the legal grounds and factual context differ from those in the Kamanzi Anaclet case, so res judicata does not apply.
Source excerpt
Article 129(3) of Law No 22/2018 does not violate the Constitution, as it provides a justified and reasonable distinction between parties whose objections are dismissed and those who pleaded against them, ensuring both retain the right to appeal in a manner appropriate to their procedural posture; the right to a competent court is preserved, and the provision does not create unconstitutional inequality.
Source excerpt
Article 41 of Law n° 30/2018 does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution because it does not discriminate between litigants within the same category. Differentiation between categories of accused persons, based on their roles and the courts of first instance, is justified by legitimate purposes and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Article 41 of Law No 30/2018 does not violate the Constitution, finding the appeal distinction in genocide cases justified.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of internal rules and regulations of the Bar Association. The requirement for an ILPD diploma and Bar admission test for advocates, but not for judges/prosecutors or other professions, does not violate the principle of equality before the law because the legal profession is distinct and requires specialized qualifications. The legislator had discretion to provide transitional exemptions for certain advocates and judicial defenders, and the exclusion of judges/prosecutors from these exemptions does not constitute unconstituti…
Source excerpt
Article 129, paragraph 3 of Law N0 22/2018 does not violate the Constitution because it differentiates between parties based on their procedural posture for justified and reasonable grounds, specifically to avoid unnecessary dilatory proceedings. The party whose objection is dismissed is not in the same situation as the party against whom the objection is admitted, and both retain the right to appeal at appropriate stages. This differentiation does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination or denial of the right to appear before a competent court.
Source excerpt
Article 129(3) of Law No 22/2018 does not violate the constitutional principles of equality before the law or the right to a fair hearing before a competent court, because the distinction it draws between immediate and deferred appeals is based on legitimate and reasonable grounds related to the finality of the decision and the need to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings. Both parties retain the right to appeal, albeit at different procedural stages, and are not in the same legal category when the objection is dismissed versus when it is upheld.
Source excerpt
Article 129, paragraph 3 of Law N0 22/2018 does not violate the Constitution because the differentiation between parties regarding the timing of appeals is based on justified and reasonable grounds, namely the avoidance of unnecessary dilatory proceedings. The parties are not in the same procedural situation, and the law provides adequate appeal rights in both scenarios. Therefore, there is no unconstitutional inequality or deprivation of the right to appear before a competent court.
Source excerpt
Paragraph 4 of Article 161 of Law No 22/2018 does not violate Articles 15, 29(1)(c), or 34 of the Constitution. The limitation on third-party opposition to judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is justified by the need for finality in litigation, applies equally to all, and does not deprive individuals of access to justice or property rights, as alternative remedies exist.
Source excerpt
Article 161, paragraph 4 of Law n0 22/2018 does not contradict articles 15, 29(1)(c), or 34 of the Constitution, as the distinction between courts is based on legitimate jurisdictional grounds and the principle that judicial proceedings must have an end. The provision does not deprive aggrieved parties of remedies, nor does it violate equality, due process, or property rights.
Source excerpt
Explore more
