CASE No RPAA 0039/14 / CS Page |3 appeal, and that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 34 of Organic Law No. 03/2012 / OL of 13/06/2012, determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the complaint should not have been enrolled by the Court. The Court’s analysis 10. With regard to the admissibility of the appeal, the Court finds that there is no legal provision that would prevent HABYARIMANA's appeal from being accepted, as he filed it within one month in accordance Article 176 of Law No. 30/2013 of May 24, 2013 relating to the Criminal Procedure Code, and as a detainee he was exonerated from depositing legal costs in accordance with Article 268 of Law N0 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the Criminal Procedure Code; and he complied with other legal requirements on admissibility. 11. As to the jurisdiction of this Court over HABYARIMANA's appeal, it finds that he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, that his appeal was declared inadmissible, that he filed a second appeal to this Court for the purpose of reversing the judgment, which is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as the gravity of the sentence is a sufficient ground for appeal in accordance with Article 28, paragraph 2 of Organic Law No. 03/2012 / OL of 13 / 06/2012 relating to the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which makes his second appeal admissible in this Court, on various grounds including the fact that the judgment under appeal passed “a sentence of life imprisonment”, which applies to HABYARIMANA as mentioned above, in the first paragraph. Regarding to the basis of HABYARIMANA Donatien's appeal 12. HABYARIMANA Donatien and his counsel MUSASANGOHE Illuminée submit that HABYARIMANA was convicted without evidence, that the High Court refused to hear the defense witnesses and paid no heed to the fact that the girl allegedly raped was tested HIV negative whereas the suspect is HIV-positive and did not have a trial. But they do not challenge the judgment of the High Court declaring HABYARIMANA’s appeal inadmissible, let alone that Barrister MUSASANGOHE admits that the decision on the application for review shall not be subject to any procedure of appeal. 13. The Prosecution's Representative argues that HABYARIMANA should not have asked for a review of the merits of the case given that his appeal should not be enrolled.