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 dismissed Mushinzimana Daniel’s request for provisional release, finding no exceptional and compelling reasons to justify release pending review.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mutuyeyezu Valens’s request for provisional release pending appeal, holding that he showed no serious and exceptional grounds.
The Court of Appeal held that a convicted person ordered to be retried on grounds of injustice is released pending retrial without a separate application.
The Court of Appeal held that NSABIMANA Marcel could be provisionally released while awaiting retrial on grounds of injustice under Article 64(2).
Given the identical factual and legal circumstances to prior cases, and the clear provision of Article 64(2) of Law No. 30/2018, Hitimana Hubert is entitled to provisional release pending retrial after the President of the Supreme Court authorized the retrial on grounds of injustice.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that it is bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation in RP 00003/2018/SC, which entitles a person granted a retrial on grounds of injustice to provisional release pending the new trial. The facts of Bado Bede's case are materially identical to those in the Supreme Court precedent, and there is no new law overruling that precedent. Therefore, Bado Bede must be released provisionally while awaiting retrial.
Source excerpt
Where the Supreme Court President has ordered a retrial on grounds of injustice and the original judgment is not yet fully executed, execution is suspended by law and the convicted person must be granted provisional release pending the retrial, in accordance with Article 64(2) of Law No. 30/2018 and binding precedent.
Source excerpt
The court found that the appellants' detention conditions, including solitary confinement, did not amount to torture or inhuman treatment as minimum standards of human dignity were met. Medical care was provided adequately, and the inability to use preferred insurance or see specialists at will was not unique to prisoners and did not justify provisional release. The place of detention was a lawful extension of the designated prison. The denial of family visits was not justified and should be remedied. No exceptional circumstances warranted provisional release pending appeal.
Source excerpt
The appellants failed to demonstrate that their health conditions or detention circumstances constitute exceptional grounds for provisional release. The court found that medical care provided is adequate, solitary confinement as practiced does not amount to torture or inhuman treatment, and the place of detention is a lawful extension of the designated prison. However, the right to family visits must be restored in accordance with prison regulations.
Source excerpt
Explore more
