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 applicants failed to provide concrete evidence of bias or any of the statutory grounds for recusal under Article 103 of Law No. 22/2018; mere dissatisfaction with the judge's conduct or prior involvement in a related case does not suffice for recusal.
Source excerpt
Paragraph 4 of Article 197 of Law no 027/2019 is not inconsistent with Articles 15, 16, and 29 of the Constitution. The limitation of grounds for review for Gacaca court convicts is justified by the special nature of Gacaca courts, the crimes they tried, and the legitimate purpose of national reconciliation and justice. The differentiation does not amount to discrimination, and all rights to fair justice were respected.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that while the right to a first appeal is fundamental and cannot be unduly restricted, the legislature may impose reasonable limitations on second appeals for legitimate purposes. However, denying second appeals solely on the basis that the appellant pleaded guilty, while allowing them for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unjustified discrimination and violates the principle of equality before the law under Article 15 of the Constitution. The relevant parts of Articles 46(2) and 52(3) of Law No. 30/2018 are therefore unconstitutional to the extent that they den…
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
Paragraph 4 of Article 84 of Law no 68/2018 is unconstitutional for being vague and granting judges excessive discretion, violating the principle that offences and penalties must be determined by law. The prohibition of penalty reduction in Articles 92 and 133(3) is unconstitutional as it denies due process and judicial independence in sentencing. Article 271 is not unconstitutional but should be clarified. Article 256 is a permissible restriction on freedom of expression, necessary for the administration of justice and fair trial, and is not unconstitutional.
Source excerpt
The Rwanda Supreme Court struck down parts of Law No. 68/2018 on accomplice liability and mandatory sentencing, but upheld provisions on negotiable instruments and pending-case speech.
Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018, by mandating a life sentence for child defilement followed by cohabitation and prohibiting consideration of mitigating circumstances, violates the right to due process and judicial independence as guaranteed by articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution. The provision is therefore unconstitutional and without effect.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, violates Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution. The provision deprives judges of the discretion necessary to ensure individualized and proportionate sentencing, undermines the right to a fair trial, and infringes on judicial independence. Therefore, the impugned provision is unconstitutional and void.
Source excerpt
An indigent defendant does not have an absolute right to choose counsel; the competent authority may appoint counsel in the interest of justice, and this process was lawfully followed in this case. The appeal was properly admitted, but the substantive claim lacks merit.
Source excerpt
Ingabire is guilty of conspiracy against established government, attempt against the Constitution through terrorism and war, genocide minimization, and knowingly spreading rumours to incite the population against government. The Supreme Court found evidence from Holland (A, D, E) inadmissible for conspiracy charges, but sufficient other evidence established guilt. The Court confirmed the right and duty of judges to reclassify crimes, found no violation of fair trial principles, and held that limitations on freedom of expression regarding genocide minimization are lawful and necessary. Mitigat…
Source excerpt
Explore more
