Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda finality of the matter regarding the release of the Victim from detention pending the appeal which is the same issues the Commission is being invited to consider. 38. The Respondent State argues that in the discharge of its judicial responsibilities regarding appeals from the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court is governed by Article 128 of the Constitution which guarantees the independence of the judiciary in the exercise of judicial power and safeguards against direction or control from any person or authority in Uganda. 39. The Respondent State notes that in the event that the Supreme Court of Uganda confirms and upholds the decision of the Constitutional Court of Uganda in Constitutional Reference No.36 of 2011, the Victim will be released and adequately compensated for any wrong visited upon him. The Respondent State requests the Commission to declare the Communication inadmissible as the Victim could still avail himself of remedies locally. Analysis of the Commission on Admissibility 40. The African Charter in Article 56 sets out seven requirements that a Communication brought under Article 55 of the Charter must satisfy in order to be considered admissible by the Commission. The Commission held in Article 19 v. Eritrea that failure to satisfy any one or more of those requirements render the Communication inadmissible.5 41. The Commission notes that the sole contentious issue between the parties on the admissibility of the communication is with respect to the requirement in Article 56(5) of the Charter. After carefully examining the Communication and the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that Articles 56 (1), (2), 5 ACHPR, Communication 275/03 – Article 19 v. Eritrea (2007), para. 43. 9 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018