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
Muragijimana Eric is not criminally responsible for defilement of a minor because credible medical evidence and corroborating investigation established he suffered from a mental illness depriving him of understanding and self-control at the time of the offense, thus the life imprisonment sentence is set aside and he is to be placed under medical care.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal established binding principles on calculation of appeal deadlines, mandatory payment of withholding tax, distinction between civil and commercial acts, contract classification, recusal standards, sentencing discretion and mitigation, procedural limits on appellate arguments, modification of charges, proportionality in drug sentencing, and retroactive application of interpretive ministerial orders.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal established that procedural fairness requires appeal periods to be calculated from the date judgment reading minutes are entered into the official system if there is a delay, not from the oral pronouncement. Withholding tax obligations apply regardless of explicit mention in judgments. The distinction between commercial and civil acts depends on the nature and purpose of the act, not the status of the actor. Recusal of judges requires objective evidence of bias existing before the case. Sentencing must consider proportionality and mitigating factors, allowing for reduction…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal established that mitigating circumstances can justify reducing sentences below statutory minimums, clarified the distinction between murder and assault causing death, set evidentiary standards for group crime and infanticide, and confirmed the burden of proof in illicit enrichment. The court also affirmed the correction of clerical errors, the limited effect of late admissions of guilt, the need for corroboration of child testimony, and the retroactive application of interpretive ministerial orders.
Source excerpt
Explore more
