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 held that Murangwa Edward had standing to challenge provisions of Rwanda’s investigation and criminal procedure laws, and set the case to continue.
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 upheld Rwanda’s private security law, finding its special licensing, reporting, and police oversight rules were justified and not discriminatory.
The Court held that the applicant had sufficient personal and general interest to bring the petition as a professional journalist affected by the impugned provisions. The Court found that articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No 68/2018, which regulate privacy, editing, false information, and duty to report crimes, are not inconsistent with the Constitution as they pursue legitimate aims and are proportionate limitations on freedom of press and expression. However, article 218, which criminalizes defamation or insult against foreign heads of state and representatives, was found to be inconsi…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Rwanda upheld a rule requiring 48-hour advance authorization for courtroom audio and video recording, finding it compatible with press freedom.
The requirement to seek prior written permission to record audio or video in courtrooms is a justified and proportionate limitation on press freedom, necessary to protect the rights of litigants, witnesses, and the integrity of judicial proceedings. Article 71(5) of Law No. 22/2018 does not violate Article 38 of the Constitution.
Source excerpt
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
Restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors does not violate constitutional rights to life, health, bodily integrity, equality, non-discrimination, or privacy. The restriction is justified by medical safety and does not constitute discrimination or infringement of privacy. The challenged provisions are consistent with the Constitution and international obligations.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors at hospitals does not violate the Constitution or international law. The restriction is justified by the need to ensure safe procedures and protect the health and life of women and girls. The law does not create unconstitutional discrimination or inequality, as the requirements are based on objective medical considerations and apply equally. Privacy and confidentiality are protected by existing laws. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
