RPA 0325/15/HC/MUS

Page |2

4. In his appeal, UWIMANA David stated that there were no compelling reasons given
by the first sentence decision to remand him in custody, and that the medical certificate
does not show that HAGENIMANA had been raped. The prosecutor argued that
UWIMANA's appeal was unfounded, and that in the first instance, the Court found that
UWIMANA confessed that he planned to rape HAGENIMANA but did not commit it,
that witness NKURUNZIZA testified that HAGENIMANA called for help, and he found
her crying and she told him that she had been raped by David, that the medical report
shows that HAGENIMANA’s sex organ had bruises, and therefore requests the court to
uphold the decision appealed against.
5. The Court finds that the grounds of UWIMANA’s appeal, as explained above, are
unfounded, because during his questioning by the prosecution on 22/ 8/2015, he said he
planned to rape HAGENIMANA but did not commit it, and went on to say that he
wanted to have sex with her, that it was the first time he had tried it. During his
questioning by the Judicial Police on 26/08/2015, UWIMANA said that he and
HAGENIMANA arranged to have sex, which they were prevented to do, that he
persuaded HAGENIMANA to stay behind with him so that they can have sex. Also,
during the questioning by the Prosecution on 31/08/2015, he said that HAGENIMANA
asked him to have sex, which was not possible because a person named BIGIRIMANA
was present.
6. Also, Witness NKURUNZIZA Alfred, interrogated by the judicial police on
22/08/2015, testified that he heard HAGENIMANA crying and calling for help, saying
that she was raped by David from NTAWUZABINO's house, which is what
HAGENIMANA also said when questioned by the judicial police on 23/08/2015.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the reasons given in the first
instance prove sufficiently that UWIMANA is suspected of having committed the offence
under prosecution, as provided for in Article 96 of the Law n◦30 / 2013 of 24/05/2013
relating to Criminal Procedure Code criminal. With respect to UWIMANA's assertion
that the medical report did not show that HAGENIMANA had been raped, the report
does not cancel other sufficient reasons mentioned above. Therefore, UWIMANA David
should remain in custody, on the basis of compelling reasons, as described above, leading
to the suspicion that he has committed child defilement. So that his appeal is unfounded,
and the decision taken in the first instance is unchanged.

Select target paragraph3