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 Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to search and seizure rules, holding that warrantless searches and prosecutorial warrants with safeguards were constitutional.
The Supreme Court upheld Rwanda’s search-and-seizure framework, finding that prosecution-issued warrants and certain warrantless searches were constitutional.
The Supreme Court upheld Rwanda’s private security law, finding its special licensing, reporting, and police oversight rules were justified and not discriminatory.
The Supreme Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors only does not violate the Constitution or international conventions. The Court found that the right to life and health is protected by ensuring abortion is performed by qualified doctors, and that the restriction is justified by safety concerns. The Court determined there was no evidence of discrimination or violation of privacy, as the law applies equally and confidentiality is protected by other statutes. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Source excerpt
Articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 do not contravene Articles 15 or 38 of the Constitution, as their restrictions on journalistic activity are justified, proportionate, and consistent with the protection of privacy, dignity, public order, and justice. Article 218, which criminalizes defamation or insult against foreign dignitaries, creates unjustified privilege and is inconsistent with equality before the law and freedom of expression, and is therefore unconstitutional and void.
Source excerpt
The Court held that Articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 do not violate the Constitution, as they establish necessary and proportionate limitations on freedom of expression and the press to protect privacy, dignity, public order, and justice. However, Article 218, which criminalizes defamation or insult against foreign heads of state and diplomats, creates unjustified privilege and is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of expression, and is therefore void.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court upheld most challenged media and criminal provisions, but struck down article 218 for giving unjustified special protection to foreign dignitaries.
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
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
Explore more
