matter he had no knowledge of, would be unfair and we shall dismiss the Applicant’s complaint in that regard. (E) WHETHER THE 2ND RESPONDENT’S ARREST AND DETENTION OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL NGABO WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF RWANDA 33. It is admitted by the 2nd Respondent that for reasons said to be of “national” security, the agents of the Republic of Rwanda arrested and detained the Subject at a known facility within Rwanda. Were those actions a violation of the Laws of Rwanda? In his Affidavit, Lieutenant Rutayisire deponed partly as follows: “That on 28th January 2011, the Military High Court ruled that the detention of Lieutenant colonel Ngabo from the date he was arrested until the date his case was brought before the Court was irregular and contravened the provisions of Articles 90 to 100 of the Rwandan Code of Criminal Procedure. However, basing on strong reasons to suspect him and the gravity of the crime against him, taking into consideration the fact of preventing him from interfering with the investigation and as insurance against potential evasion of justice, the Military High Court ruled on his preventive detention, applying Article 89 of the Rwandan Code of Criminal REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 23

Select target paragraph3