RPA 0462/15/HC/NYA Page |2 [4] In his application for review of case RPA 0410/14 / HC / NYA, NSEKANABO Anselme explained that his co-workers who knew he was falsely accused gathered their testimony in writing, and put it in a report. And he relies of this report to apply for a review. He urged the Court to hear these witnesses so that they can reveal the information. [5] The prosecution's representative replied that a document can only be a ground for review if it was in the case file but was not seen by the court. He adds that the document SEKANABO Anselme brought was not in the case file, but was produced after the judgement, so it should not be taken as a ground for review because it is contrary to the provisions of Article 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code. [6] The Court notes that in order to admit an application for a review, there must be at least one of the grounds provided for in Article 194 of Law nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These grounds are: 1° after the accused is convicted of homicide and subsequently discovered sufficient evidence showing that the person alleged to have been killed is alive; 2° after the accused is convicted of an offence, it is subsequently found that there is a judgment sentencing another person for the same offence, so that the contradiction between both judgments shows that one of the convicted persons is innocent; 3° if the court finds that corruption was involved in the case and had effects on the judgment; 4° if, the judgment is rendered based on documents, testimonies or oaths which later turn out or are subsequently declared by the court to be false; 5° if, after the judgment, conclusive evidence sufficiently showing injustice caused by the judgment subject to review is uncovered; while such evidence was submitted in the case file but was not seen by the court; 6° if the judgment is based on a proceeding taken on behalf of a person who did not explicitly or implicitly grant permission to do so or approve or confirm such a proceeding. [7] The Court observes that NSABIMANA Anselme and his lawyer relied on the fifth clause of the above provision to request a review. This clause, however, makes it clear that the evidence that can be taken as a new ground is that submitted in the case file but 2|Page