RPA 00201/16/HC/KIG Page |2 [05] The applicant seized the High Court stating that the plaintiff is not the girl's mother, and had given false testimony. He had consensual sex with Nyirandayambaje Rachel, as stated in paragraph 4, no judgment has dismissed this ground. [06] The child's parents brought in the child's birth certificate stating that the child was an adult, requesting that justice be done in the case. [07] The prosecution argued that the document is a forgery, and that Article 194 is not relevant in this case. [08] The Court notes that the applicant's motive is to convince the Court that he was wronged, and he asks for redress, as there was no evidence to support his conviction. [09] Article 194 of Law no Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure provides, in paragraph 6, that the application for review may be filed 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. [10] The Court notes that these provisions contemplate scenarios such as convicting someone for killing a person who is later found alive, or convicting two persons for killing the same person at different times, basing a judgment on unresolved issues, settling a case based on bribe, and so on. [11] The Court also notes that the applicant alleges that there was a document showing that the girl was an adult, at the time of the offence, and he brought the birth certificate. The document was not adduced before court and no reason was given for failure to do so. Therefore, this cannot be a ground for a review of the judgment. [12] The Court further observes that the document relied upon to prove the wrongdoing was already in the file. It is also important to note that the fact that the complainant is not the mother of the child is not a valid ground for a review. [13] The Court therefore finds that this ground of review is not valid as explained in the preceding paragraphs. The case subject of a review is not changed. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [14] Holds that the application for review filed by Ndayishimiye Anaclet is unfounded. [15] The judgment RPA 0411/14 / HC / KIG is unchanged in all its aspects. 2|Page