Rwanda Case Law

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Supreme Court held that restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors at hospitals does not violate the Constitution or international human rights obligations. The limitation is justified by the need to ensure patient safety and quality of care. There is no unlawful discrimination or violation of equality, as the law applies equally and is based on objective medical criteria. The right to privacy is not infringed, as confidentiality is protected by law. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Source excerpt

• Abortion
• Right to health
• Right to life
• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Privacy

Read case analysis

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors in hospitals is a measure aimed at protecting the right to life and health, given the risks associated with abortion procedures and the need for specialized skills and equipment. The Court found no evidence that the law violates the rights to equality, non-discrimination, physical and mental integrity, or privacy, as the differentiation is based on objective medical considerations and confidentiality is protected by law. Policy decisions regarding the decentralization of abortion services are within the competence of…

Source excerpt

• Abortion
• Right to life
• Right to health
• Right to equality
• Non-discrimination
• Right to privacy

Read case analysis

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors is a legislative policy aimed at protecting the right to life and health, does not violate constitutional rights to life, health, equality, non-discrimination, physical and mental integrity, or privacy, and is not inconsistent with Rwanda's constitutional or international obligations. The Court found no evidence of discrimination or violation of privacy and determined that expanding abortion providers is a policy matter, not a constitutional issue.

Source excerpt

• Abortion
• Right to life
• Right to health
• Right to equality
• Non-discrimination
• Right to privacy

Read case analysis

Re KABASINGA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2020/SC

The Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Article 108 on infanticide, holding it was not discriminatory and did not violate fair trial rights.

• Equality before the law
• Gender discrimination
• Infanticide
• Due process
• Reproductive rights
• Constitutional-law

Read case analysis

RE N.J

Court

High Court

Case number

RPA0787/15/HC/KIG

The High Court held that child defilement counts as rape for abortion law purposes, and granted a 13-year-old girl the right to abort.

• Child defilement
• Abortion rights
• Interpretation of penal code
• Reproductive rights
• Consent and capacity
• International human rights instruments

Read case analysis