CASE RPA 0217/15 / HC / MUS Page |2 4. In this case, the issue to be considered is whether the case RPA 0169/14 / HC / MUS can be reviewed because HABUMUREMYI Eric’s case is similar to that of MUHIRE who was acquitted. II. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE Whether the case RPA 0169/14 / HC / MUS can be reopened because HABUMUREMYI Eric’s case is similar to that of MUHIRE who was acquitted 5. HABUMUREMYI Eric appealed case RPA 0169/14 / HC / MUS stating that he pleaded guilty and was punished. A similar case was later filed against MUHIRE Jean d'Amour, who was also accused of sexually abusing a 17-year-old child, but the Musanze High Court acquitted him in case RP 0014/15 / TGI / MUS. 6. The Prosecution argues that the reason for the review is the same as that presented by the appellant during the appeal instance and therefore request to dismiss the case as it is not supported by new grounds. With respect of the jurisprudence, MUHIRE’s crime has to be separated from HABUMUREMYI’s. Article 194 of Law N0 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to Criminal Procedure Code provides that “The application for review may be filed on the following grounds: 1° after the accused is convicted of homicide and subsequently discovered sufficient evidence showing that the person alleged to have been killed is alive; 2° after the accused is convicted of an offence, it is subsequently found that there is a judgment sentencing another person for the same offence, so that the contradiction between both judgments shows that one of the convicted persons is innocent; 3° if the court finds that corruption was involved in the case and had effects on the judgment; 4° if, the judgment is rendered based on documents, testimonies or oaths which later turn out or are subsequently declared by the court to be false; 5° if, after the judgment, conclusive evidence sufficiently showing injustice caused by the judgment subject to review is uncovered; while such evidence was submitted in the case file but was not seen by the court; 6° if the judgment is based on a proceeding taken on behalf of a person who did not explicitly or implicitly grant permission to do so or approve or confirm such a proceeding.” 7. The Court finds that HABUMUREMYI's application for review of judgment RPA 0169/14 / HC / MUS is inadmissible because the grounds provided are not contemplated