CASE No RPAA 0039/14 / CS Page |2 the law, explains that a decision on the application for review shall not be subject to any procedure of appeal. 4. HABYARIMANA appealed the judgement to the Supreme Court, arguing that he had been convicted for a crime he did not commit because the court did not question witnesses who had factual information, violated the adversarial principle, the principle of equality of arms, fairness and impartiality, and that the child was not tested positive for AIDS which he has. 5. The case was heard in public on 17/07/2017, HABYARIMANA Donatien assisted by Barrister MUSASANGOHE Illuminée, the Prosecution represented by HABINEZA Jean Damascène, the Prosecutor at the National level, who requested a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the complaint because the law prohibits adjudicating an appeal against a decision on the application for review. 6. The Prosecution representative objected to the admissibility of the appeal, explaining that the decision on the application for review shall not be subject to any procedure of appeal, in accordance with Article 195 of Law No. 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to the Code of Criminal Procedure. II. THE ISSUE OF THE CASE AND ANALYSIS THEREOF Whether the application for review filed by HABYARIMANA Donatien is admissible 7. HABYARIMANA Donatien and his counsel Barrister MUSASANGOHE Illuminée say he was convicted without evidence, that the courts ignored his explanation, did not hear defense witnesses who knew the truth, that the judges were emotional, that the fact that the doctor confirmed that the girl is not virgin is not evidence of rape by HABYARIMANA, the latter has AIDS but the girl was not tested positive. 8. According to Barrister MUSASANGOHE, in accordance with the provisions of Article 195 of Law No. 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 on Criminal Procedure, HABYARIMANA's complaint is inadmissible because the article provides the decision on the application for review shall not be subject to any procedure of appeal. the new point is not appealed, but asks the Supreme Court to consider, in its discretion, whether it is admissible, especially since HABYARIMANA was not assisted by a lawyer. 9. The Prosecution representative argues that, as is evident from the objection raised, HABYARIMANA's complaint is inadmissible because Article 195 of Law No. 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the decision on the application for review shall not be subject to any procedure of