CASE Nº RPAA 0069/2017/CS Page |3 9. He further contends that waiting that long shows that NAHAYO Jean-Pierre does not plead guilty because he feels sorry for the girl but only for the purpose of reducing his sentence. The Prosecution submits that the appellant does not deserve a reduced sentence and his sentence appealed against should be confirmed in order to give a lesson to other child abusers, especially given the large age difference between the girl and NAHAYO Jean-Pierre (22 years) at the time of the offence, and the fact that he could not have been mistaken about the girl’s age as he explains that he had taken her out of other children, meaning he knew she was a child. THE COURT’S ANALYSIS 10. With regard to mitigating circumstances, Article 82 of Legislative-Decree nº 21/77 of 18/08/1977 establishing the Penal Code in force at the time of the commission of the offense, provides that the judge may consider the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances which preceded, accompanied or followed an offence, and Article 83 provides for the reduction of punishment if there are mitigating circumstances. 11. This Court observes that NAHAYO Jean-Pierre pleaded guilty to having sex in the Court of First Instance of Butare and in the High Court, Nyanza Chamber, but alleged that he had sex with a mature consenting girl, which prevented the High Court from reducing his sentence because the plea of guilt relates to an offence he was not charged with. 12. It is clear, however, that when he appeared before this Court, NAHAYO JeanPierre admitted that he had not raped an 18-year-old girl as he had previously pleaded, that instead he raped a 13 years old girl, which was the age given by the child to the Judicial Police where she said she was born in 1989. 13. Although the girl claimed to have been born in 1989, which formed the basis of NAHAYO Jean-Pierre’s admission to this Court that he had raped a 13-year-old girl, a document from the National Institute of Identity shows that she was born in 1986, which means that when the crime was committed in 2001, she was 15 years old instead of 13 as held by the Court of First Instance and the High Court. 14. This Court finds, therefore, that as the girl was 15 years of age at the time of the crime, the Court of First Instance and the High Court should not have punished