Esheria Rwanda Case Law
Sign in
Rwanda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Rwanda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Rwanda case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Rwanda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

RLR V. 2 - 2022

Court
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors only does not violate the Constitution or international conventions. The Court found that the right to life and health is protected by ensuring abortion is performed by qualified doctors, and that the restriction is justified by safety concerns. The Court determined there was no evidence of discrimination or violation of privacy, as the law applies equally and confidentiality is protected by other statutes. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Source excerpt

  • Abortion
  • Right to life
  • Right to health
  • Equality before the law
  • Non-discrimination
  • Right to privacy
Read case analysis
Constitutional law RLR V.2 - 2022

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court
Supreme Court
Case number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

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

  • Abortion
  • Right to health
  • Right to life
  • Equality before the law
  • Non-discrimination
  • Privacy
Read case analysis
Constitutional law RLR V.2 - 2022

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court
Supreme Court
Case number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors in hospitals is a measure aimed at protecting the right to life and health, given the risks associated with abortion procedures and the need for specialized skills and equipment. The Court found no evidence that the law violates the rights to equality, non-discrimination, physical and mental integrity, or privacy, as the differentiation is based on objective medical considerations and confidentiality is protected by law. Policy decisions regarding the decentralization of abortion services are within the competence of…

Source excerpt

  • Abortion
  • Right to life
  • Right to health
  • Right to equality
  • Non-discrimination
  • Right to privacy
Read case analysis
Constitutional law RLR V.2-2022

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court
Supreme Court
Case number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors is a legislative policy aimed at protecting the right to life and health, does not violate constitutional rights to life, health, equality, non-discrimination, physical and mental integrity, or privacy, and is not inconsistent with Rwanda's constitutional or international obligations. The Court found no evidence of discrimination or violation of privacy and determined that expanding abortion providers is a policy matter, not a constitutional issue.

Source excerpt

  • Abortion
  • Right to life
  • Right to health
  • Right to equality
  • Non-discrimination
  • Right to privacy
Read case analysis
Constitutional law RLR V.2-2022

Re_GLIHD

Court
Supreme Court
Case number
S/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

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

  • Abortion
  • Right to health
  • Right to life
  • Non-discrimination
  • Privacy
  • Bodily integrity
Read case analysis
Constitutional law RLR V.2-2022

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court
Supreme Court
Case number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

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

  • Abortion
  • Right to health
  • Right to life
  • Equality before the law
  • Non-discrimination
  • Privacy
Read case analysis
Criminal law RPA00001/2019/CA

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. Col.BYABAGAMBA N’ABANDI

Court
Supreme Court
Case number
RPA00001/2019/CA

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

  • Provisional release
  • Prisoners' rights
  • Solitary confinement
  • Right to health
  • Torture and inhuman treatment
  • Appeal procedure
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2019] 4 RLR

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ColBYABAGAMBA N’ABANDI6_kn

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
RPA00001/2019/CA

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

  • Provisional release
  • Prisoners' rights
  • Solitary confinement
  • Right to health
  • Torture and inhuman treatment
  • Access to medical care
Read case analysis
Criminal law RLR V.3-2018

NTIBAJYINAMA v. PROSECUTION

Court
Supreme Court
Case number
RPAA0078/15/CS

The Supreme Court reduced Ntibajyinama Esther’s infanticide sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years, citing mitigating circumstances and lack of counsel.

  • Infanticide
  • Mitigating circumstances
  • Right to legal counsel
  • Right to health
  • Sentencing proportionality
  • Advisory opinion
Read case analysis
Criminal law RLR V.3-2018

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTIBAJYINAMA

Court
Supreme Court
Case number
RPAA0078/15/CS

The Supreme Court reduced an infanticide sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years, citing full admission of guilt, distress, hardship, and lack of counsel.

  • Infanticide
  • Mitigating circumstances
  • Right to counsel
  • Right to health
  • Gender and law
  • Proportionality of sentencing
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Rwanda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.