Consideration on the Merits The Complainants’ Submissions on Merits Alleged violation of Article 5 77. In the merits submission, the Complainants claim a violation of Article 5 of the Charter. The Complainants submit that while in detention at the Luzira Government Prison and other government security detentions, the Victims were beaten, taunted and flogged in a bid to induce them to confess the crimes for which they were arrested. The Complainants aver that those acts were done by the Respondent State’s servants in the course of their employment. 78. The Complainants further submit that the state has done nothing to apprehend the perpetrators of the violence. Alleged violation of Article 6 79. The Complainants aver a violation of Article 6 of the Charter. The Complainants submit that although the victims were granted bail by the High Court on 16 November 2005, they were kept in detention and charged before the General Court Martial. The situation continued in disregard of the Constitutional Court declaration in petition No.18 of 2005 that the continued detention of the victims and others contravened the right to personal liberty and the principle of independence of the judiciary. 80. The Complainants submit that the acts of the servants or agents of the Respondent State through the continued detention of the Victims, denied the Victims their right to personal liberty and violated the provisions of Article 6 of the Charter. 81. The Complainants aver that the actions of the Respondent State in which its servants or agents disregarded the orders of the Constitutional Court directing the release of the Victims militate against the judiciary and the spirit and provisions of Article 6 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 7 82. The Complainants submit that the actions of the armed men at the premises of the High Court violated the principle of judicial independence and is therefore a violation of the right to a fair trial as provided in Article 7 of the Charter. 83. The Complainants aver that the storming of armed men and security agents at the High Court and their interference with the activities of the Court interfered with the independence of the judiciary in so far as their actions were calculated to instil fear in the judge and other judicial officers. In support of their claim, the Complainants 14