Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda placed 'hors de combat‘ … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,’ including being cared for in case of the wounded and the sick.’ Common Article 3 thus proscribes a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment and c) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees. Protocol II to the Geneva Convention reinforces these guarantees by including to the list of prohibited acts threats to commit the acts in Common Article 3. 219. In relation to the right to liberty, the Complainant alleges that after the Victim was captured in March 2009, he was detained for three months without being allowed to have a legal counsel and without being produced before a court of law, which the Complainant argued constituted arbitrary detention and violation of due process of the law. 220. As a combatant rendered hors de combat, the expectation under both Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Article 4 of Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions is that, as a combatant wounded and captured in combat, the Victim was provided with the necessary medical attention and cared for. As established below in the analysis on Article 16 on the right to health, the Victim was kept in Hospital until his transfer to the First Infantry Division Headquarters in Kikiri, Wakiso District. During this period, the issue of arbitrary detention would therefore have no place. The Victim’s arbitrary detention without charges and being taken to court would be an issue from the time of the Victim’s transfer to First Infantry Division Headquarters in Kikiri. Even here, given that the circumstances of the capture and detention of the Victim was in armed conflict, what is required is to bring criminal charges and produce the detainee before a court in reasonable period of time. 221. Since the Victim was charged with various offenses in June 2009, the time lapsed from the time of his discharge from hospital after his capture in March 2009 could not be deemed unreasonable. The Commission could not thus find that there 60 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018