92. The Respondent State submits that the siege of the High Court did not affect the independence of the judiciary. In support of this claim, the Respondent State points out to the grant of bail to the Victims and the declarations made by the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Petitions No. 18 of 2005 and No.12 of 2006. The Respondent State submits that the declarations by the Constitutional Court in those two cases in favour of the Victims show how independent the judiciary is. 93. The Respondent State avers that security was deployed at the High Court following intelligence information that the Victims were to be rescued to escape the course of justice and join an armed rebellion. The Respondent State therefore submits that its actions were necessitated by security reasons. 94. The Respondent State submits that trials by military courts do not per se constitute a violation of the right to be tried by a competent organ. In support of this allegation, the Respondent State refers the decision of the Commission in Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria: The military tribunals are not negated by the mere fact of being presided over by military officers. The critical factor is whether the process is fair, just and impartial. The Respondent submits that the trial of the complainants in the military courts is not a violation of the right to a fair trial since this is provided for in the Ugandan law. The Commission’s Analysis on the Merits (i) Violation of Article 5 95. The Complainants aver that the Victims were beaten, taunted and flogged to induce confession in violation of Article 5 of the Charter. This averment is contested by the Respondent State which avers that the Complainants have not produce any evidence of torture, including medical evidence. 96. Article 5 of the Charter provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.” 97. The Respondent State points out to the lack of evidence by the Complainants to prove the allegation of torture. The Commission notes that specific rules govern the burden of proof in torture cases. When a person is injured in detention or while under the control of security forces, there is a strong presumption that the person was subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The burden then shifts to the Respondent State to convince the Commission that the allegations of torture raised by the Complainants are unfounded.26 26 Communication 334/06: Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interrights v. Egypt (2011) para 168-169 16