CASE RPAA 0008/10 / HC / MUS Page |2 III. SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES ON THE ISSUE AND THE COURT’S ANALYSIS [3] Bigirimana Jean Claude submits that his appeal’s aim is to plead guilty, explain how the offence was done, and asks the appellate court to consider it as a mitigating circumstance and reduce his sentence. He alleges that he had sex with Mutuyimana twice but did not intend to live with her as husband and wife; the first time he gave her 1000 Frw and the second time a 100 Frw. [4] The Prosecution alleges that Bigirimana Jean Claude was given a reduced sentence because his crime is normally punishable by life imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of article 36 of Law n ° 27/2001 of 28/04/2001 Relating to Rights and Protection of the Child Against Violence, that Jean Claude Bigirimana’s confession of rape is untrue as he admits that he raped Mutuyimana twice while before the prosecution he testified on the 11th Annex that he had sex with the girl once and on the 9th Annex Jean Claude Bigirimana admitted having sex with Mutuyimana every day. The prosecution also alleges that Bigirimana Jean Claude is not telling the truth about how he persuaded the girl to have sex with him, and submits that the accused should not have his sentence reduced because it was shameful for a local Defense officer in charge of the child's safety to derelict from his functions and abuse her regularly with full knowledge of her very young age. The prosecution requests the court to admit the appeal but find it unfounded, confirm judgment under appeal, and order Bigirimana Jean Claude to pay legal costs. [5] Based on the provisions of Articles 34 and 36 of Law nº 27/2001 of 28/04/2001 Relating to Rights and Protection of the Child Against Violence, the High Court finds that the crime committed by Bigirimana Jean Claude is punishable by life imprisonment. But the first trial court sentenced him to thirty years in prison, which proves that his sentence was reduced as his confession was accepted as a mitigating circumstance even though the case under appeal is unclear about it. Although the second part of Article 83 of the Legislative Decree nº 21/77 of 18 August 1977 establishing the Penal Code of Rwanda provides that in the event that a mitigating circumstance is admitted by the Court, life imprisonment can be replaced by an imprisonment of not less than two years, this part of this article does not compel the judge to impose that sentence of two years imprisonment, but gives him the freedom to determine the appropriate sentence, based on a variety of factors including the gravity of the offense and the impact of the offense on the victim. [6] The High Court finds that the age difference between Bigirimana Jean Claude and the victim is so big that planning to have sex with a child of her age more than twice is despicable, which is moreover aggravated by the fact that Bigirimana Jean Claude was