CASE RPAA 0034/09 / CS

Page |2

1992. He adds that a letter he and her father Uzayisenga Vénuste filed to the Court
confirms that she was born in 1988. He explains that he was victim of a conspiracy
by a person with whom he has a land dispute who, after hearing the Court’s ruling
to produce the birth certificate, influenced the content of the certificate issued in
the Sector where he is a civil servant.

5. The Prosecution's representative states that the certificate issued by administrative
authorities indicates the age of the girl and overweighs her father's writings.

6. During her interrogation by the Judicial Police, Nyiransabimana testified that she
was born in 1992. During his interrogation on 30/01/2006, his father Uzayisenga
explained that his son Ngabonziza raped her at the age of 14. The court finds that
Ngabonziza's allegation that the certificate issued by the Bushekeri Sector
administration is a result of a conspiracy by a person with whom he has a land
dispute, lacks merits because the certificate’s content was taken from the
administrative records of information provided by the girl’s father, which also
coincides with the statements of the aforesaid deponents. It is clear that
Nyiransabimana who calls herself Ngabonziza's wife as well as Uzayisenga who
calls himself his father-in-law contradict each other in their letters to the Court
aimed at protecting him.
b. Whether the High Court did not reduce Ngabonziza's sentence while he pleaded

7. Ngabonziza alleges that he pleaded guilty and apologized but the Court sentenced
him to a heavy sentence in violation of Article 35 of Law 13/2004 of 17/05/2004
relating to Criminal Procedure Code. When asked to explain his guilt and his
actions, he replied that he had not raped Nyiransabimana because they had
consensual sex, they were in love and were planning to get married. He adds that
while they were preparing to go for a medical examination, they were unable to
control their sexual desire because of their adolescence, thus they had intercourse
(he calls it advance payment). He therefore submits that he should be punished
for an indecent sexual relationship in accordance with Article 359 of the Penal
Code because his sexual intercourse went viral which he is ashamed of and
apologizes for.

8. The Prosecution argues that Ngabonziza's appeal based on Article 35 of Law
13/2004 of 17/05/2004 relating to Criminal Procedure Code is unfounded because
he lied that he did not rape the girl whereas he has freely admitted it during his

Select target paragraph3