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 a criminal review application, holding that a later paternity judgment was not new evidence capable of overturning a defilement conviction.
The application for review is inadmissible because the judgment sought to be reviewed (RPAA 00110/2018/CA) was not decided on the merits by the Court of Appeal, but dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; only the High Court judgment (RPA 00519/2017/HC/NYZ) was decided on the merits and could be subject to review.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to review a criminal judgment for new evidence, holding that a character certificate was not decisive new evidence under the Criminal Procedure Law.
Paragraph 4 of Article 197 of Law no 027/2019 is not inconsistent with Articles 15, 16, and 29 of the Constitution. The limitation of grounds for review for Gacaca court convicts is justified by the special nature of Gacaca courts, the crimes they tried, and the legitimate purpose of national reconciliation and justice. The differentiation does not amount to discrimination, and all rights to fair justice were respected.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the differentiation in grounds for review between persons convicted by Gacaca courts and those convicted by ordinary courts is based on objective and reasonable criteria, justified by the special context, objectives, and procedures of Gacaca courts. This does not amount to prohibited discrimination or denial of fair justice under Articles 15, 16, or 29 of the Constitution.
Source excerpt
RE NTABWOBA (PETITION FOR THE REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL PROVISION)
The Supreme Court held that the phrase “the only” in article 10(2) of the Organic Law on Gacaca Courts was a drafting error, not an unconstitutional restriction.
The Supreme Court held that an invoice known to the accused during trial, but not produced or duly explained, is not new evidence for review.
The Supreme Court of Rwanda held that an invoice known to the accused during trial but not produced, nor reported to the court, was not new evidence for review.
Explore more
