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 Court of Appeal upheld Harerimana’s conviction for drug possession with intent to distribute, but reduced his sentence from 25 years and 20 million RWF to 16 years and 5 million RWF.
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 Court of Appeal reduced Manirafasha Emmanuel’s sentence for cultivating cannabis, finding 25 years and a RWF 20 million fine disproportionate to seven plants.
Article 133, paragraph five of Law No. 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, is inconsistent with Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution of Rwanda because it deprives the accused of the right to a fair trial and undermines judicial independence by removing judicial discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.
Source excerpt
Explore more
