CASE RPA 0224/11 / HC / MUS Page |2 III. SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH PARTIES ON THESE ISSUES AND THE COURT ANALYSIS [3] Explaining the first ground of his appeal, Gashugi Christian and his counsel Nsengiyumva Straton submit that the statements of Uwineza Florence and Ukundimana Régine should not be relied upon as Uwineza Florence is the plaintiff and that Uwineza Régine recounts what Uwineza Florence told her. Gashugi Christian and his lawyer also submit that the statements made by Ndayambaje Antoine nicknamed Gasaza and Iyamuremye Amisadab should also not be relied upon because they first had a dispute with the suspect Gashugi Christian because they arrested him as "home guards" in their work and stripped him of his phone and money, and when he argued with them they persuaded a girl who was walking behind them to accuse Gashugi Christian of raping her in order to succeed their plot. On these allegations made by the suspect and his lawyer, the prosecution argues that there not reason why the statements of the deponents should not be considered to assess Gashugi Christian’s involvement in the commission of the crime he is suspect of, that the victim’s explanation to Ukundimana Régine, her statements to the prosecution, and the testimony of those who caught Gashugi Christian into the act of rape of the girl, clearly show that the allegations against Gashugi Christian are true, especially that he does not prove that he had a dispute with the accusers. [4] The Court notes that in his statement Gashugi Christian indicates that he did not know Uwineza Florence, and that he does not prove any dispute between him and Ndayambaje Antoine nicknamed Gasaza and Iyamuremye Aminadab who only met him during patrol and caught him during work. The Court also notes Uwineza Florence was not a close friend with Ukundimana Régine because she recently gave her a domestic job, the offence Gashugi Christian is accused of happened when this girl was returning from taking her clothes where she had left them to start her new job. [5] With regard to the strong reasons to suspect that the alleged perpetrator did indeed commit rape, Article 95 of Law n ° 13/2004 of 17/05/2004 relating to Criminal Procedure Code as amended and supplemented by Law n ° 20/2006 of 22/04/2006, provides that strong reasons to suspect that a person has committed an offence are the totality of evidence which can lead to the suspicion that a person might have committed an offence. The High Court finds that at this stage of the proceedings any evidence tending to prove the suspicion has to be duly analyzed, including the statements of various people even if having a dispute with the suspect, the goal being to know the truth about the persons suspected of involvement in the offence.