CASE RPA 0224/11 / HC / MUS

Page |2

[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.

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3