RPA 0480/13/HC/NYA Page |2 II. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE IN THE CASE Whether NDINDIRIYIMANA Damascène who pleaded guilty since the beginning of the prosecution has been given a heavier sentence 6. NDINDIRIYIMANA Damascène submits that the reason for his appeal was that he had been given a severe sentence by the High Court while he had pleaded guilty and apologized since the beginning of the investigation, and he requests that his sentence be reduced again to allow him go to care for the child the raped girl gave birth to. 7. The Prosecutor argues that the ground of appeal of NDINDIRIYIMANA Damascène should not be dismissed because his request has been granted in the first instance, claiming that the sentence imposed on him cannot be reduced as it is the minimum penalty under the law. 8. The Court notes that NDINDIRIYIMANA Damascène appealed saying that he pleaded guilty from the beginning of the proceedings but was given a heavier sentence, which he argues is unfounded because the offense is punishable, as indicated by the first judge, by life imprisonment with special provisions in accordance with Article 191 of Organic Law nº 01/2012 / OL of 02/05/2012 establishing the Penal. The fact that the first Judge sentenced him to only ten (10) years in prison shows that he was given the minimum sentence, and as explained in the judgment, it was reduced on the ground that he had pleaded guilty since the start of the prosecution. 9. NDINDIRIYIMANA Damascène’s request for a reduced sentence to allow him go home to raise the child they gave birth to is unfounded because, as already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the crime he committed is a felony of aggravated cruelty punishable by a heavy sentence that that cannot be reduced below the sentence he was given in accordance with Article 78, 1º of Organic Law nº 01/2012 / OL of 02/05/2012 establishing the Penal Code which provides that "if there are mitigating circumstances, the reduction of life imprisonment or life imprisonment with special provisions is replaced by a penalty of imprisonment of not less than ten (10) years". Therefore, the Court has not legal basis for a lower sentence. 10. The Court concludes that NDINDIRIYIMANA Damascène’s appeal is unfounded for the reasons already explained in the preceding two paragraphs, and therefore the sentence imposed on him in the first instance remains. III. COURT DECISION 11. Holds that the appeal of NDINDIRIYIMANA Damascène is unfounded; 2|Page