RPA 0155/15/HC/NYA Page |2 3] The Court examined whether KARISA Boniface's allegations that the crime was fabricated by DUSENGIMANA's father Anita were true. Another issue that has been addressed is related to compensation, whether it should be increased as requested. II. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES IN THE CASE Whether KARISA Boniface's allegations that the crime was fabricated by DUSENGIMANA's father Anita are true [4] The main purpose of KARISA Boniface’s appeal was to prove that he had been unjustly convicted of child rape. He submits that he is HIV-positive, that had he have sex with DUSENGIMANA she should have been infected, but the medical doctor who examined her concluded she is not infected. He further submits that the medical document attested that DUSENGIMANA had been having sex for a long time. He submits that the girl’s father fabricated the offence because of a conflict opposing them as he put in prison his family members who killed his relatives during the genocide against the Tutsi. However, he admits that he had taken the girl home to give her accommodation because she had asked for it, and the child's father claimed he had caught them in the act. [5] The Prosecution, represented by PN UWIZEYE Jean Marie, explained that the defendant, despite pleading not guilty, admitted to being caught with the girl at home and at night. That he first denied that the girl was there before she was found under bed. That his denial is only just an attempt to escape the sentence as he does not corroborate it with evidence. According to the prosecution, the decision of the Huye High Court should be upheld. [6] The High Court considered the appeal of KARISA Boniface on the basis of Article 3 of Law n ° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on Evidence in Trial and its Production which states that each party must prove the truth of his/her allegation. [7] The High Court observes that KARISA Boniface appealed seeking redress. First, he claims he did not have sex with DUSENGIMANA because the doctor examined her and found that she had been having sex for a long time. This, however, does not absolve him of the guilt because the fact that the child had lost her virginity in the past does not mean that KARISA did not rape her. He also said that he had AIDS, and that if he had raped her, the child should have been infected. This, too, was found baseless by the Court because KARISA did not prove he is HIV-positive. In addition, rape of a child can be 2|Page