of these institutions is the Uganda Human Rights Commission (hereafter UHRC), established under Article 51 of the Constitution. 41. The Respondent State submits that Article 52 mandates the UHRC to, inter alia, investigate, at its own initiative or on a complaint made by any person or group of persons against the violation of any human right. Further, under Article 53(1), the Respondent State submits that the UHRC has the powers of a Court to issue summons or other orders requiring attendance of any person before it, and if satisfied that there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom, the UHRC is empowered to order the release of a detained or restricted person, payment of compensation, or any other legal remedy or redress. 42. The Respondent State argues that the UHRC is the proper framework within which the Complainants could and should have had their case properly addressed. In addition, the Respondent State avers that the Constitution guarantees the UHRC’s independence; specifically that the performance of its duties shall not be subject to the direction of any person or authority. The Respondent State notes that in instances where wayward agents were found guilty of violating a human right, the Government of Uganda dutifully complied with the UHRC’s directives, including the compensation of victims. 43. The Respondent State notes that the Complainants have not utilised this forum for addressing human rights grievances in Uganda. The Respondent State further notes that, if the Victims are ultimately found innocent, they would be at liberty to seek remedies and redress from the High Court, which are being sought in the present Communication. 44. The Respondent State concludes that the Government does not object to the decision of the Court, and notes that the Victims were granted bail by the High Court, and will be released when they meet the bail terms imposed by the Court. As such, the Respondent State requests the Commission to decline to entertain the Communication because it violates Article 56(5) of the Charter. 45. Additionally, the Respondent State asserts that the matters raised in the present Communication were considered and definitively ruled on by the East African Court of Justice, in Reference No.1 of 2007 Between James Katabazi and 21 Others (Applicants) vs. Secretary General of the East African Community (1st Respondent) and the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (2nd Respondent) [hereafter the Katabazi case]. The Respondent State notes that the case was filed on behalf of Mr. Katabazi and 21 others, including Mr. Patrick Okiring and Mr. Agupio Samson. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that the matters raised in the Communication are res judicata, and therefore cannot be heard and determined by the Commission again. 46. For the above reasons, the Respondent State requests the Commission to declare the Communication inadmissible. 7