RPA 00160/2016/HC/KIG Page |3 BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude caressed her until she consented to sex, he ended up taking off her clothes and raped her. He further explained that the girl lived in her grandmother's house, had asked her grandmother to buy her a pen but she rather beat her for losing her previous pen, that he (BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude) gave it to her, and then raped her; 10. The Court also observes that in the case file, Annex 8, during her questioning KAMIKAZE Raissa explained that BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude had raped her about five times, that he recently raped her on 2/10/2015, which is the only time BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude admitted to the prosecution, that he raped her after giving her a pen, and the child also explained that he raped her in his room, i.e. BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude's room, after taking off her clothes. Her statement is similar to that of BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude mentioned above, except as to the number of times he had raped her, because BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude admitted to having raped her only once; 11. The Court finds therefore, that even though he denied the offence before the Prosecution and before the Court, his denial needs to be analyzed in the light of the writings of legal experts such as Michel FRANCHIMONT in his book Manuel de Procédure Pénale, in which he wrote that the trial judge has the authority to discern and analyze through his conscience, the defendant's statements before the judiciary and in Court, even if he later retracted them before the Court,1 which is also the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in the judgment of 18/07/2008- Prosecution vs Sgt NTAGANIRA Eugene nicknamed BARABAZI and his colleagues2; 12. In the analysis of his confession, the Court observes that BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude explained in detail how the crime was committed and notes that his statement coincides with the description given by the raped child as mentioned above, which is also confirmed by the medical report that the child was raped. This therefore proves that his statement, corroborated by the foregoing evidence, is unequivocal evidence that BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude raped the child, especially that BYIRINGIRO Jean Claude does not prove that his statement to the prosecution was given under coercion nor does he indicate the names of the men who allegedly threatened him. Article 3 of the Law on Evidence in Trial and its administration stipulates that each party must prove the veracity “Le juge du fond apprécie souverainement la sincérité d’un aveu fait par le prévenu au cours de l’instruction préparatoire, même quand cet aveu a été ultérieurement rétracté devant le tribunal…” , Michel FRANCHIMONT, in Manuel de Procédure Pénale, Ed.Collection Scientifique de la Faculté de Droit de Liège,1989, p.772. 2 RPAA 0010/06/CS, Prosecution versus Sgt NTAGANIRA Eugene alias BARABAZI and colleagues. 1 3|Page