CASE No RPAA0127 / 08 / CS

Page |2

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The reasons given by Tuyisenge Emmanuel's
appeal are twofold. First he submits that he was punished while the charges
against him were not proven beyond doubt; second he submits that he was
punished as an adult whereas he was a child at time of the crime. The hearing in
the Supreme Court took place on 17/02/2011, with the appellant defending
himself and the Prosecution represented by Prosecutor Bunyoye Grace. After the
hearing, the Court announced that the judgment will be read on 18/02/2011.


A. Whether the Tuyisenge Emmanuel’s guilt was not sufficiently proven
3. In his appeal, Tuyisenge Emmanuel submits that his guilt was not proved beyond
doubt. The doubt results from a medical report stating that Niyonsaba Mutoni's
virginity was still intact. In this regard, the prosecutor argued that sexual
penetration is not required for the crime of rape to occur. A medical report dated
19/01/2004 shows that the child Niyonsaba Mutoni was sexually abused, and that
there was sexual contact without vaginal penetration. As provided in Article 33 of
Law No. 27/2001 of 2001 Relating to Rights and Protection of the Child Against
Violence, any sexual relations with an under 18 - year - child, whatever the means
or methods used, are considered as rape, meaning that any sexual intercourse with
a child, with penetration or nor, amounts to rape.

4. Tuyisenge Emmanuel alleges that he is accused by Niyonsenga Mutoni's parents
because of a property dispute. The Court finds that the reason given by Tuyisenge
Emmanuel is not convincing as he does not substantiate his claim of animosity
between him and Mutoni Niyonsaba's parents. In addition, when asked by the
police if he had conflict with Niyonsaba Mutoni's parents, he replied that he does
not. Another indication that there is no animosity between Tuyisenge Emmanuel
and Niyonsaba Mutoni's parents is that on 30/01/2004 the parents signed an
agreement with Tuyisenge Emmanuel's mother, which was intended to allow
Tuyisenge Emmanuel to be prosecuted while staying home because he could be
subject to harm by people responsible for Tuyisenge's father death who were in
jail in the Gisenyi Prison. So the parents of the raped child would not have made
such a bargain if they had animosity with the defendant.

B. Whether Tuyisenge Emmanuel was indeed punished as an adult for an offence
he committed before the age of 18 years.

Select target paragraph3