RPA 0416/15/HC/NYA Page |2 II. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE CASE Whether HABINSHUTI Jean Claude's allegations of being wrongly convicted are true [4] The purpose of HABINSHUTI Jean Claude's appeal was to prove that he had been convicted of a crime he did not commit, that MUKESHIMANA Laetitia 's mother is his sister, and that they already had land disputes, which he suspects is the real reason of the accusation. He also said that he had recently beaten MUKESHIMANA Laetitia for her refusal to work in a field of beans. He admits that he went with MUKESHIMANA to the well, but he denies raping her, and he says that those at the well can confirm it. 5] The Prosecution, represented by PN UWIZEYE Jean Marie, explained that there was various evidence against HABINSHUTI Jean Claude. The first is that his sister, who is also the mother of the victim, is accusing him. Various witnesses testified against him and the medical report confirmed it. He added that HABINSHUTI Jean Claude should have been given a heavy sentence for committing an abhorrent act of raping his nephew. The Prosecution submits that the decision of the Muhanga High Court should be upheld because his appeal case does not raise any new argument. [6] The High Court considered the appeal of HABINSHUTI Jean Claude based on Article 3 of Law n ° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on Evidence in Trial and its Production which states that each party must prove the truth of his/her allegation. [7] The High Court notes that the main purpose of HABINSHUTI Jean Claude's appeal was to try to prove that he had been convicted for a crime he did not commit. His submissions include that he has land disputes with the child's mother, who is also his sister. He also said that he had recently beaten MUKESHIMANA Laetitia for her refusal to work in a field of beans, which he suspects to be the real reason behind her accusation against him. His allegations must be supported by evidence to be considered as facts, because it is not enough to just utter them. Because he has not corroborated them with evidence, his statements cannot be taken as true. [8] The Court also notes that statements of witnesses GASANA Jean, MUKANYONGA Drocela and NYIRIMANA Emmanuel, the report of the Zivu Cell administration and the report of the doctor who examined MUKESHIMANA Laetitia, all concur that MUHESHIMANA was raped by HABINSHUTI Jean Claude. None of these proofs was challenged by the defendant, nor did he prove that their content is untrue. The content of these evidence should therefore continue to be relied upon because it has not been challenged. 2|Page