The case of Inga Vire Victoire Umujosa vs. Republic of Rwanda was decided by the African

Court of Human and People's Rights on 24 November 2017.

Why is the case important?

The Court delivers an in-depth ruling on the context of freedom of speech in a political

and public context.

It also defines the right of freedom of expression as a pillar for free development and the creation

of democratic societies.

Nevertheless, the Court specifies that it is not an absolute right and, in therein,

it concretizes the criteria a State has to consider in order to limit freedom of speech

without interfering with its responsibilities to respect and protect.

Principle facts of the case.

The applicant, Inga Vire Victoria Umujosa, is the leader of a political party called

Forces Democratiques Unifies, FDU in Kigui.

Inga Vire was apprehended and charged, in April 2010, with propagation of the ideology

of genocide amongst other crimes because of a speech she gave at the Kigali Genocide Memorial.

In said speech, she allegedly remarked that the social group of the Hutu, who are internationally

seen as the mainly responsible for atrocities, also suffered, which she implied was not acknowledged.

In October 2012, the High Court of Rwanda found Inga Vire Victoria guilty of minimization

of genocide and other crimes and condemned her to 8 years in prison with hard labor,

which was raised to 15 years in jail by the Court of Appeal.

The applicant alleged a violation of her right to free speech by a conviction on the grounds

of the crime of minimization of genocide, amongst other crimes.

Interestingly, the African Court decided the case only after the State of Rwanda had attempted

to withdraw from the Court's jurisdiction.

Prior to the final decision, the Court ruled that this attempt of withdrawal did not have

effects on the application of Inga Vire.

To this day, Rwanda is still part of the Convention and is subjected to the Court's jurisdiction.

What did the Court decide?

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 9, No. 2 of the

African Charter.

The decision starts with the recognition of the fundamental value of freedom of speech

and expression, finding a violation to the responsibility to protect.

Nevertheless, there is an acknowledgement of the limits to free speech that a State

can impose in a democratic society, Article 9, No. 2 of the African Charter.

Such restrictions must serve a legitimate purpose, be necessary and proportional, and

they must be contained in the law, be foreseeable, clear and of general application.

While making the analysis in the instant case, the Court found that, first, the limitation

was established by law and, although it was recognized that it could lead to various interpretations,

due to its vagueness, the Court considered that having this limitation in the law was

sufficient for individuals to adequate their behavior to the legal restrictions.

Second, due to the reasons of national security and public order, the limitation followed

a legitimate purpose.

Third, the limitation has to respond to necessity and proportionality.

In this regard, the Court makes a valuable distinction between political speech, which,

specifically when it is directed towards the government, deserves a higher degree of tolerance

than others in a democratic society.

Regarding the declarations of the applicant at Kigali Genocide Memorial, the Court ruled

that this duty of the State to prevent episodes as the Rwandan Genocide cannot be used as a

tool to violate individual rights of citizens.

Even if societies such as the Rwandan one, which suffered one of the most tragic modern