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
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 Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate the Constitution. It found that the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination does not require identical penalties for different offences, especially when the nature and impact of the offences differ. The Court determined that the gravity of child defilement and its profound impact on victims and society justify severe penalties, and that such penalties are proportionate and consistent with international standards. The Court further held that due process is not violated, as the law allows for judicial discretion in…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Article 143 of Law N° 68/2018, as written, does not violate Articles 13, 15, or 16 of the Constitution because it applies to 'any person' and does not contain language that discriminates based on gender. The Court found that FADA failed to demonstrate a direct causal link between the law and any violation of the right to bodily integrity or equality before the law. Alleged discriminatory enforcement or lack of clarity in application does not suffice to declare the law unconstitutional when the statutory language itself is neutral.
Source excerpt
The Court held that Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 is not contrary to Articles 13, 15, or 16 of the Constitution. The law is neutral in its wording, applies equally to all persons, and does not, on its face, discriminate on the basis of gender. Alleged discriminatory enforcement does not render the law itself unconstitutional. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a causal link between the law and any violation of the right to physical and mental integrity or to prove that the law is vague to the extent of violating constitutional rights.
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 Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate the principles of equality, non-discrimination, or due process because child defilement is a distinct and particularly serious crime with profound and lasting consequences for victims and society. The differentiation in penalties is justified by the nature and impact of the offense. The penalties, though severe, are proportionate to the gravity of the crime and consistent with international standards. Judicial discretion for sentence reduction exists in the presence of mitigating circumstances. The petitioner's arguments failed to d…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, or due process. The gravity and societal impact of child defilement justify harsher penalties compared to other offences. The applicant failed to demonstrate any arbitrary or unjustified discrimination or disproportionality. The law provides for judicial discretion in sentencing, including mitigation for extenuating circumstances. Comparative and international law support the approach taken. Therefore, the petition lacked merit.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, or due process. The differentiation in penalties for child sexual abuse is justified by the unique gravity and societal impact of the offence. The applicant failed to demonstrate any unconstitutional discrimination or disproportionality. The penalties are consistent with international and comparative standards, and the law allows for mitigation in sentencing where appropriate.
Source excerpt
The requirements imposed on private security companies by Law Nº 016 bis/2020 are not discriminatory because private security is a distinct business category with unique public safety implications, justifying differentiated regulation. The police's oversight role is constitutionally and statutorily grounded. Administrative appeal to the Minister does not violate the right to a fair hearing, as judicial recourse remains available. Regulatory requirements regarding reporting, technology, and internal rules do not infringe privacy or freedom of thought, as they are reasonable, lawful, and serve…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had standing and upheld the challenged succession provisions as constitutional.
Explore more
