Esheria Rwanda Case Law
Sign in
Rwanda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Rwanda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Rwanda case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Rwanda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law RPA/GEN 00006/2019/CA

UBUSHINJACYAHA v MBARUSHIMANA

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
RPA/GEN 00006/2019/CA

The court held that the defendant was provided legal representation in accordance with the law, was not tried twice for the same offence as the Gacaca judgment was set aside before trial, and that prosecution for international crimes was lawful under both international and domestic law, regardless of the date of enactment. The court found the evidence, including testimony from convicted persons and hearsay, was lawfully admitted and corroborated. Convictions for both genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide, and for genocide and extermination as crimes against humanity, were upheld as the o…

Source excerpt

  • Genocide
  • Crimes against humanity
  • Extradition
  • Right to fair trial
  • Evidence law
  • Non bis in idem
Read case analysis
Criminal law RP/GEN 00011/2021/HC/HCCIC

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs RUTUNGA

Court
High Court
Case number
RP/GEN 00011/2021/HC/HCCIC

Dr. Rutunga Venant was found criminally liable as an accomplice (icyitso) in genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity for knowingly requesting and bringing gendarmes who, together with interahamwe, killed Tutsi refugees and employees at ISAR-Rubona. The court found that his actions—requesting the gendarmes, facilitating their arrival, and failing to oppose or prevent the killings—constituted essential assistance, even though he did not personally kill or directly order the killings. The court rejected defenses based on non-retroactivity, absence from prior cases, and lack of dir…

Source excerpt

  • Genocide
  • Complicity in genocide
  • Crimes against humanity
  • Extradition
  • Evidentiary law
  • Command responsibility
Read case analysis
International criminal law RP/GEN 00001/2018/HC/HCCIC

UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRAMUNGU

Court
High Court
Case number
RP/GEN 00001/2018/HC/HCCIC

Twagiramungu Jean is found guilty of genocide for participating in attacks at Kamondo Juvénal, Bendantunguka Daniel, and Cyanika Parish, acting with genocidal intent as part of a joint criminal enterprise, though no direct evidence of him committing killings was established; liability arises from his active participation and shared intent with others.

Source excerpt

  • Genocide
  • Joint criminal enterprise
  • Extradition
  • Criminal liability
  • Evidentiary standards
Read case analysis
International criminal law RP/GEN 00001/2018/HC/HCCIC

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs. TWAGIRAMUNGU Jean

Court
High Court
Case number
RP/GEN 00001/2018/HC/HCCIC

The court found that Twagiramungu Jean was present and participated in attacks that killed Tutsi civilians at Kamondo Juvénal's and Bendantunguka Daniel's homes and at Cyanika Parish, as established by consistent and corroborated witness testimony. Although there was insufficient evidence to convict him for the Musange attack and the killing of Ruzagiriza Alfred, his participation in the aforementioned attacks, together with others sharing a genocidal plan, constituted criminal liability for genocide under the basic form of joint criminal enterprise. The court concluded that Twagiramungu Jean…

Source excerpt

  • Genocide
  • Joint criminal enterprise
  • Extradition
  • Criminal responsibility
  • Sentencing
Read case analysis
Criminal law RP/GEN 00002/2017/HC/HCCIC

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs. MUGIMBA Jean Baptiste

Court
High Court
Case number
RP/GEN 00002/2017/HC/HCCIC

The court found that Mugimba Jean Baptiste organized a meeting at his home on 08/04/1994 where a plan to kill Tutsi was made, lists of victims were drawn, and weapons were requested and later distributed, which constituted conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide. The court held that credible testimony, especially from DAM and DFM, established these facts beyond reasonable doubt. The court further held that prosecution was not barred by the principle of non-retroactivity due to the jus cogens nature of the crime of genocide and subsequent legislative provisions allowing prosec…

Source excerpt

  • Genocide
  • Conspiracy to commit genocide
  • Complicity in genocide
  • Extradition
  • Criminal procedure
  • Evidence
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Rwanda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.