Here are the answers to the model questions, explained in a

simple, straightforward way, like a law student revising for

exams.

---

Model Questions & Answers: LLB121 General Criminal Law

1. Difference between primary and secondary sources of

Rwandan criminal law?
· Primary Sources: These are the actual laws that create
and define crimes. They have binding legal authority. Think of
them as the "rulebook." In Rwanda, this is mainly the Penal
Code (Law n° 068/2018) and the Constitution.
· Secondary Sources: These are materials that explain or
comment on the law. They are persuasive but not binding.
Examples include textbooks, legal journals, and case law
(court decisions) from higher courts, which help interpret the
primary sources.
2. Principal vs. Accessory sentences (penalties)?
 · Principal Sentences (Main Penalties): These are the
primary punishment for a crime. For natural persons, under
Rwandan law, these are imprisonment and fine. A court will
impose at least one of these.
· Accessory Sentences (Supplementary Penalties): These
are additional punishments that can be added on top of the
main penalty. They restrict specific rights. Examples include a
temporary prohibition from practicing a profession,
confiscation of specific items, or a driving ban.
3. Aggravating vs. Mitigating circumstances?
· Aggravating Circumstances: Factors that make the crime
more serious and lead to a harsher sentence. They are often
part of the crime itself (e.g., theft using a weapon) or related
to the offender (e.g., abusing a position of authority).
· Mitigating Circumstances: Factors that reduce the
offender's blameworthiness, leading to a lighter sentence.
Examples include acting under provocation, being a minor, or
the offender's good conduct after the crime (like confessing
or compensating the victim).
4. Presence of the legal element & the principle of legality
(nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege)?
The legal element of an offense is NOT present if the act
does not correspond to a pre-existing written law. The
principle of legality means "no crime, no penalty without a
pre-existing law." For an act to be a crime in Rwanda:
· There must be a written law that clearly defines the act as
a crime.
· The law must have existed at the time the act was
committed.
· The penalty for the crime must also be clearly stated in
the law.
5. Applying the constitutive elements of an offense?
To determine if an action is a crime, you check for three
elements:
1. Legal Element: Is there a law that prohibits this specific
action? (e.g., Article XXX of the Penal Code says stealing is a
crime).
 2. Material Element: Did the person actually do the
prohibited act? (e.g., Did they physically take the phone?).
3. Moral Element: Did they have the required guilty mind
(mens rea)? (e.g., Did they intend to permanently deprive the
owner of the phone?). If all three are present, it's a crime.
6. Substantive law applies prospectively, procedural law
immediately?
· Substantive Law (defines crimes and punishments) applies
to the date of the offense to protect the principle of legality.
You can only be punished under a law that existed when you
acted.
· Procedural Law (rules on how trials are run) applies
immediately to ongoing cases because it's about the process,
not about creating new crimes or increasing punishments. It's
assumed to be the better, more efficient way to achieve
justice.
7. Principle of non-retroactivity and its exceptions?
The principle of non-retroactivity (a key part of legality)
means a new law cannot be applied to past actions.
· Exceptions: A new law CAN be applied retroactively (to
past actions) if it is more favorable to the accused/offender.
This is called lex mitior. For example, if a new law reduces the
penalty for theft, someone already convicted can request
their sentence be reduced.
8. Discuss the principles:
· a) Not all immoral acts are crimes: The law only prohibits a
subset of immoral conduct. Something can be immoral (like
lying to a friend) but not a crime because it doesn't seriously
harm society or isn't practical for the state to prosecute.
Crime requires a legal prohibition, not just moral disapproval.
· b) "Ne bis in idem" principle: This means "not twice for the
same thing." It's the right not to be tried or punished again
for an offense for which you have already been finally
convicted or acquitted. It prevents the state from harassing a
person with multiple trials for the same conduct.
9. Did the accused possess the moral element (mens rea)?
To have mens rea, the accused must have acted with
willfulness and awareness.
· Willfulness: They made a conscious decision to act.
· Awareness: They understood what they were doing and,
generally, that it was wrong or prohibited. Ignorance of the
law is usually not an excuse, but for some crimes, the
prosecution must prove the person intended the specific
harmful result.
10. Apply principles of intention to classify conduct?
· If a person acts with direct intent (dolus directus): They
wanted a specific criminal result (e.g., Person A shoots Person
B, wanting to kill them). This is murder.
· If a person acts with indirect/eventual intent (dolus
eventualis): They foresaw that their actions would likely
cause a criminal result, and they accepted that risk (e.g.,
Person A throws a heavy object from a roof into a crowd, not
wanting to hit anyone, but thinking, "if someone gets hurt, so
be it"). If someone dies, this could also be murder.
11. Premeditation vs. Criminal negligence?
· Premeditation: The offender planned the crime in
advance. There was a "cooling-off" period where they thought
about it and decided to go through with it. This is an
aggravating circumstance (e.g., planning a robbery for a
week).
· Criminal Negligence: The offender did not desire the
result, but caused it by a serious failure to be careful. They
breached a duty of care that a reasonable person would have
followed (e.g., a driver who texts and runs over a pedestrian).
This is typically an unintentional crime (e.g., involuntary
manslaughter).
12. Objective causes of non-responsibility (or justifications)?
These are circumstances that make an act that looks like a
crime actually lawful. They focus on the act itself, not the
person's mind. The most common are:
· Self-defense or defense of another: Using reasonable
force to repel an unlawful attack.
· State of necessity: Committing a crime to avoid a greater,
imminent danger (e.g., breaking into a cabin in a snowstorm
to avoid freezing to death).
· Lawful authority/order of the law: A soldier following a
lawful order, or a prison guard detaining a convicted person.
13. Requirements for self-defense under Rwandan law?
For an act to be legal self-defense, several conditions must
be met:
1. Unlawful aggression: There must be a real, unjustified
attack.
2. Immediacy: The defense must be carried out at the
same time as the attack (or immediately after if the threat is
ongoing).
3. Protection of self or another: You can defend yourself or
someone else.
4. Proportionality: The force used in defense must be
proportional to the seriousness of the attack. You can't use
lethal force to stop someone from slapping you.
5. Necessity: There must be no other reasonable way to
avoid the attack.
14. Constitutional right to due process of law?
Due process means the government must respect all legal
rights owed to a person. It ensures fair treatment through the
normal judicial system. Key elements include:
· The right to be informed of the charges.
· The right to a fair and public hearing by an independent
court.
· The right to legal representation (a lawyer).
· The right to present a defense and call/examine
witnesses.
· The presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
15. Three modes of criminal liability?
1. Principal Offender: The person who actually commits the
criminal act (e.g., Person A stabs Person B).
2. Co-Offender: Two or more people who agree to commit a
crime together and all actively participate in its execution
(e.g., Person A holds the victim while Person B stabs them).
3. Accomplice: A person who does not directly commit the
act but helps or encourages the principal offender. This can
be by aiding (providing a weapon), abetting (encouraging
them before/during the crime), or incitement (persuading
them to commit the crime). An accomplice is punished as if
they were the principal offender.
16. Crime by action vs. crime by omission?
· Crime by Action (Commission): The offender does
something positive that is forbidden by law (e.g., stealing,
hitting someone, shooting a gun).
· Crime by Omission: The offender fails to act when they
have a legal duty to do so. The law requires them to act, and
their failure causes harm (e.g., a parent who intentionally
doesn't feed their child, causing death; a doctor who leaves a
patient without life-saving care).
17. Criminal responsibility of a juristic person (a company)?
Yes, a company (juristic person) can be held criminally
liable in Rwanda. This usually happens when a crime is
committed for the company's benefit by its leaders or
representatives. The company can face penalties like fines,
dissolution, or being banned from certain activities. The
individual leaders within the company can also be punished
personally.
18. Territorial vs. Extra-territorial jurisdiction?
· Territorial Jurisdiction: Rwandan courts have the power to
try any crime committed within the territory of Rwanda. This
is the main rule.
· Extra-territorial Jurisdiction: Rwandan courts can, in
specific cases, try crimes committed outside Rwanda.
Examples include: crimes committed by a Rwandan citizen
abroad; crimes against state security (like treason)
committed abroad; or under universal jurisdiction for very
serious international crimes (like genocide or war crimes),
regardless of where or by whom they were committed.
19. The test of negligence is both objective and subjective.
Explain?
· Objective part: We compare the accused's actions to what
a "reasonable person" would have done in the same
situation. Did their conduct fall far below this standard of
care? This sets a general societal standard.
· Subjective part: The court considers the personal
characteristics of the accused that are relevant to their ability
to be careful. For example, a trained doctor's actions are
judged against a "reasonable doctor," not just a regular
person. We consider what this defendant, with their specific
knowledge and skills, should have foreseen.
20. Definitions of terms:
· a) An offence: An act or omission that is prohibited by
criminal law, with a penalty attached.
· b) Territory of Rwanda: The land, internal waters, and
airspace within Rwanda's borders. Also includes Rwandan
aircraft and ships, wherever they are.
· c) Premeditation: A plan formed before the crime,
showing a deliberate intent.
· d) Negligence: A failure to be careful, causing harm that
was not intended.
· e) Intention: The conscious purpose or desire to bring
about a specific criminal result.
· f) Insanity: A mental disease or defect at the time of the
crime that made the person incapable of understanding their
actions or controlling them. It's a ground for non-
responsibility (they are not convicted, but may be
hospitalized).
21. Aggravating vs. Mitigating circumstances (with
examples)?
· Aggravating: Makes the crime worse. Example: Theft is a
crime. Theft at night or theft using a weapon are aggravating
circumstances, leading to a higher penalty.
· Mitigating: Makes the punishment less severe. Example:
Theft committed by a first-time offender who was in a state of
extreme poverty could be a mitigating circumstance, leading
the judge to impose a lighter sentence than normal.
22. All bad morals are not crimes. Discuss?
This is the same as Q8a. Morality is a broader, personal
code of conduct. Law is a narrower, state-enforced set of
rules. For an act to be a crime, it must violate a specific legal
provision, not just a moral principle. For example, adultery
might be considered immoral by many, but in some legal
systems, it is no longer a criminal offence. The state only
intervenes when the act harms public order or individual
rights in a way that requires legal sanction.
23. Primary vs. secondary sources of Rwandan criminal law?
This is a repeat of Q1.
24. Explain how everyone is entitled to the right to due
process of law?
This is enshrined in the Rwandan Constitution and
international human rights treaties. The right applies to
everyone (citizens and non-citizens) facing any criminal
charge. The state, through its courts and officials, is legally
obligated to follow fair procedures. If these procedures are
not followed, a conviction can be overturned on appeal. It's a
fundamental, non-derogable right in a just society.
25. Three ways of interpreting criminal laws?
1. Literal/Grammatical Interpretation: The judge looks at
the ordinary meaning of the words in the law. If the words are
clear, that's the meaning used.
2. Teleological Interpretation: The judge looks at the
purpose of the law. What problem was the law trying to
solve? They interpret the text in a way that best achieves
that goal.
3. Systematic Interpretation: The judge reads the specific
law in the context of the entire legal code. They ensure the
interpretation is consistent with other related laws and
general principles of the legal system.
26. Three modes of criminal liability (with examples)?
This is a repeat of Q15.
· Principal: The actual killer.
· Co-offender: The person who holds the victim down while
the other kills them.
· Accomplice: The person who drove the getaway car,
knowing a murder was planned.
27. Crime by action vs. omission (with examples)?
This is a repeat of Q16.
 · Action: Stabbing someone (murder by action).
· Omission: A lifeguard watching a child drown and doing
nothing to save them, resulting in death (murder by omission,
because they had a legal duty to act).
28. Two crimes prosecuted under Universal Jurisdiction in
Rwanda?
Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, Rwandan
courts can prosecute certain grave international crimes
regardless of where they were committed. These include:
1. Genocide
2. Crimes against Humanity
3. War Crimes
(These are enshrined in Rwandan law, particularly in the
law relating to the prosecution of these offenses).
29. Criminal responsibility for crimes committed by a juristic
person?
This is a repeat of Q17.
30. Meaning of "Ne bis in idem" principle?
This is a repeat of Q8b.
31. Territorial vs. Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (with example)?
This is a repeat of Q18.
· Territorial: A theft committed in a shop in Kigali is tried in
Rwanda.
· Extra-territorial: A Rwandan citizen commits fraud in
Kenya. Rwanda may have jurisdiction to try them under the
principle of active personality (crime committed by a national
abroad).
32. Three theories of punishment (purpose of Criminal Law)?
1. Deterrence: To discourage the offender (individual
deterrence) and others in society (general deterrence) from
committing crimes by making the punishment undesirable.
2. Retribution: Punishment as just deserts. The offender
has harmed society, so society has the right to punish them
in proportion to the harm caused.
3. Rehabilitation: To reform the offender so they can
become a law-abiding member of society. This focuses on
education, treatment, and skills training.
 (Other theories include Incapacitation - locking them up
to protect society).
33. Four accessory penalties for natural persons (with
examples)?
These are supplementary penalties from the Rwandan
Penal Code:
1. Prohibition of certain civil rights: e.g., A person
convicted of election fraud is banned from voting or holding
public office.
2. Prohibition to practice a profession: e.g., A doctor
convicted of gross negligence is banned from practicing
medicine.
3. Confiscation of specific property: e.g., Confiscating the
weapon used in a crime or the money gained from it.
4. Driving ban: e.g., A person convicted of drunk driving is
banned from driving for a period of time.
34. Explain how retaining the death penalty can mitigate
crime rates?
The statement implies a belief that the ultimate
punishment will deter people from committing serious crimes
out of fear of being executed. The argument is that the fear
of death is a stronger deterrent than imprisonment. However,
this is a highly debated and controversial claim, with many
studies showing no evidence that the death penalty deters
crime more effectively than life imprisonment.
35. Explain how retaining the death penalty was a violation of
the fundamental right to life?
The fundamental right to life is considered inalienable.
Abolitionists argue that the state should not have the power
to take a human life, even as punishment. By executing a
person, the state is permanently and irrevocably denying
them their most basic right. This perspective views the death
penalty as the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman, and
degrading punishment, incompatible with the right to life.
(This is why Rwanda, like many nations, has abolished it).
36. Differences between main penalties and additional
penalties (with examples)?
 This is essentially the same as Q2.
· Main: The core punishment (e.g., 5 years in prison).
· Additional: An extra punishment on top of the main one
(e.g., 5 years in prison and a fine of 1 million RWF, or 5 years
in prison and a ban from public office).
37. Special confiscation vs. General confiscation?
· Special Confiscation (Specific confiscation): This is
allowed. It targets only property that is connected to the
crime. This includes the instrument used to commit the crime
(e.g., the knife) and the proceeds or product of the crime
(e.g., the stolen money).
· General Confiscation: This is prohibited by the Rwandan
Constitution and many human rights laws. It means
confiscating all of a person's property, regardless of its
connection to the crime. It is seen as a disproportionate and
cruel punishment.
38. The test of negligence is both objective and subjective.
Explain?
This is a repeat of Q19.
39. Difference between dolus eventualis and conscious
negligence?
· Dolus Eventualis (Indirect Intent): The accused foresees
the harmful result as a probable or possible consequence of
their action, and they reconcile themselves to it or accept it.
("It might happen, but I don't care.") This is a form of
intention.
· Conscious Negligence (Advertent Negligence): The
accused foresees the harmful result as a possible
consequence, but recklessly assumes it will not happen or
hopes to avoid it through their own skill or luck. ("It might
happen, but I'm sure I can avoid it.") This is a form of
negligence, not intention. The key difference is the attitude
towards the result: acceptance vs. a reckless hope to avoid it.
40. Principle of "The actio libera in causa" in criminal
responsibility?
This Latin phrase means "an action free in its cause." It
applies when a person voluntarily puts themselves in a state
of irresponsibility (e.g., by getting extremely drunk or taking
drugs) with the intention of committing a crime in that state,
or where they should have known they might commit a
crime. They cannot use their intoxicated state as a defense,
because the cause of their irresponsible state was their own
free action. They are held responsible for the crimes
committed in that state.
41. Differentiate types of complicity?
· Aiding and Abetting: Helping the main offender. Aiding is
providing practical help (e.g., giving them a key). Abetting is
encouraging them psychologically (e.g., shouting
encouragement during a fight).
· Incitement: Persuading or provoking someone who was
not previously thinking of it to commit a crime (e.g., offering
money to someone to burn down a shop).
· Harbouring the Offender: Hiding a person who has
committed a crime to help them escape justice (e.g., letting
them stay in your house when you know the police are
looking for them).
· Aiding in Concealing Objects: Helping the offender hide or
dispose of things used in or gained from the crime (e.g.,
helping to hide the murder weapon or sell stolen goods).
42. Sentences for offenders, co-offenders, and accomplices?
· Principal Offender: Receives the full penalty prescribed by
law for the crime committed.
· Co-Offender: Also receives the full penalty prescribed by
law. Each is treated as a principal, as they all participated.
· Accomplice: Under Rwandan law, an accomplice is
generally punished as if they were the principal offender. So,
if the principal gets 10 years for robbery, the accomplice who
drove the car can also get 10 years.
43. Effect of criminal sanctions with respect to categories of
offences?
Rwandan law categorizes offences by their severity, which
determines the applicable sanctions:
· Violations (Minor Offences): Punished mainly by fines.
· Délits (Middling/Correctional Offences): Punished by
corrective imprisonment (up to 5 years) and/or fines.
· Crimes (Serious Offences): Punished by criminal
imprisonment (over 5 years, up to life imprisonment).
44. Factors taken into account in the determination of the
sentence?
Judges consider many factors to individualize the
punishment:
· Circumstances of the offence: Was it premeditated? Was a
weapon used?
· Circumstances of the offender: Are there mitigating
factors (first-time offender, young age, confessed)? Or
aggravating factors (prior record, position of trust)?
· The harm caused: How much damage or suffering did the
victim endure?
· The offender's conduct after the crime: Did they
compensate the victim? Show remorse?
· The purpose of punishment: What sentence best achieves
deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.?
45. Prescription of penalties under Rwandan criminal law?
Prescription (statute of limitations) means that after a
certain time, a penalty can no longer be enforced. The time
limit depends on the type of offence:
· For Crimes (serious offences): The penalty prescribes
after 20 years.
· For Délits (middling offences): The penalty prescribes
after 5 years.
· For Violations (minor offences): The penalty prescribes
after 1 year.
(The time usually starts from the date the final conviction
is issued).
46. Difference between dolus eventualis and conscious
negligence?
This is a repeat of Q39.
47. Principle of "The actio libera in causa"?
This is a repeat of Q40.
48. Differences/similarities: Joint Enterprise, Command
Liability, Indirect Perpetration?
 · Joint Criminal Enterprise: All parties act together with a
common purpose to commit a crime. Each is liable for the
crimes of the others that were part of that common plan.
Similarity to Co-perpetration where all share intent.
· Command/Superior Liability: A military commander or
civilian superior is liable for crimes committed by their
subordinates if they knew or should have known about the
crimes and failed to prevent or punish them. It's based on a
duty to control.
· Indirect Perpetration (Perpetrator-by-means): The accused
uses another person as a "tool" to commit the crime. The tool
may be innocent or not fully responsible (e.g., a mastermind
uses a child or an insane person to carry out a murder). The
mastermind is the principal, not just an accomplice.
49. Special confiscation (Art 37) vs. General confiscation?
This is a repeat of Q37. The key point is that special
confiscation (of crime-linked property) is allowed, while
general confiscation (of all property) is prohibited. Article 37
of the Penal Code would list the rules for applying special
confiscation as an additional penalty.