Previous 15 / 47 Next

still pursue his Compliant and have his cause heard. The Respondent State went further to cite the Commission's decision in Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Jean Simbarikiye) v. DRC 10, where the Commission held that a Complainant must prove that attempts were made to exhaust local remedies and provide evidence that he or she is undergoing physical and financial constraints that prevent him or her from exhausting local remedies. The Respondent State argues there is no proof that the Victim has made any attempt to exhaust local remedies and furthermore he does not provide evidence proving that he is undergoing physical and financial constraints that prevent him from exhausting local remedies. 83. The Respondent Statedted Ugandan human rights legislation, specifically the Ugandan Human Rights Act Cap.24 in Section 25 which provides that 'where a person entitled to bring a complaint before the Commission against any violation of a human right is incapacitated from doing so by reason of age, infirmity of body or mind, detention or just c;ause, whether similar to the foregoing or not, then the Complaint .may be brought at any time within five(S) years after the incapacity ceased or the person entitled to bring the complaint dies whichever event first occurs'. The Respondent State argues that the Victim still has the opportunity to lodge his complaint with the UHRC after he has recovered physically and financially. 84. The Respondent State contends the Complainants argument that the Victim fears for his safety and security given the way he left Uganda and that this fear is reinforced by the absence of a law or specific programme in place in Uganda .providing protection for victims and witnesses and reports of harassment of comp faints of torture and other ill-treatment. 85. According to the Respondent State, the Victim's safety is guaranteed because Uganda is a party to all relevant international conventions against torture and the Robben Island Guidelines for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, . Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment. Furthermore, the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 under Article 24, guarantees protection from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Accordingly, the enactment of a Bill on the prohibition and prevention of torture is also in its advanced stage. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that all these laws and efforts demonstrate that the Victim's safety is guaranteed once he enters into Ugandan territory to institute his suit. 10 Communication 247 /02 - Jnstitute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of JeanSimbarikiye) v. DRC. r/ f! 1/ o;-.:;u- ~c.,"","'<,'-c,fhc1 r V ~ f I-~ 1-t 'J (') ~~ ~~ ~ i >. ,qmic, .... ~~1ll/c,En

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 376/09 – Acleo Kalinga (represented by Rhys Davies & Ben Keith International Human Rights Advisors) v. Uganda

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Detention Facilities/Conditions
Personal Liberty
Police Brutality and Offences
Right to Fair Trial
Torture and Ill Treatment

Case Head Notes: The Victim is a Rwandese citizen, who according to the Complainants, was arbitrarily detained and subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in Uganda between 2005 and 2007. In June 2005 the Victim stopped at a hotel in Uganda to eat lunch and, upon returning to his car, the Victim was forced into a car by individuals he belives to be members of the Ugandan Security Services. From June 2005 to May 2007, the Victim was never charged with any offence and was held incommunicado in various detention centres. During his detention the Victim was repeatedly interrogated about his reasons for travelling to Uganda, accused of being a member of the Rwanda Defence Forces involved in espionage, and of planning to shoot senior Ugandan officials. The Victim was subjected to various forms of ill-treatment including months of solitary confinement, prolonged application of extreme heat, electrocution, repeated beatings, starvation, denial of medical attention and being subjected to death threats while a gun was shoved in his mouth. The Complainants state that, because of the political pressure and the media publicity about the Victim's detention, the Victim was released in 2007. The Complainants state that, as a consequence of his detention, the Victim now suffers from serious and lifelong physical and psychological health problems. Consequently, the Victim is unable to gain employment and is unable to support himself or his children. Subsequent to the initial communication in 2009, the Commission also received additional information from the Complainants that, in June 2009, the Victim was transferred, without due process, by Rwandan Security Agents, from Rwanda to a secret detention facility in Uganda. The Complainants state that the Victim escaped the facility and fled to Tanzania where he contacted the UNHCR. In September 2010, Ugandan security operatives abducted the Victim in Tanzania and, allegedly, tortured him again. In July 2011 the Victim was forcibly removed from Nairobi, Kenya, to Uganda where he was again tortured. The Complainants also state that, in July 2011, the Victim was asked by officials of the Uganda Police Defence Forces to withdraw REDRESS's mandate to represent him before the Commission and was then released. The Commission found a violation of Article 5 noting that it is established caselaw that, during detention, beatings, solitary confinement, extremely poor quality food, shackling within a cell, and denial of access to medical care all amount to a violation of Article 5. The Commission also stated that based on the sworn testimony of the Victim and the medical report, which supported the Victim's testimony, the Commission affirmed that torture had occurred. Additionally, the Commission stated that the incommunicado detention of the Victim further violated Article 5. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that arresting the Victim, without giving him any reasons for his arrest, and detaining him for a period of 23 months without charge, constituted arbitrary arrest and detention. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because they stated that a 23 month detention, without charges being filed, and without being brought before a judicial authority, constituted an undue delay, and denied the Victim the opportunity to challenge his detention, and additionally because the Victim was denied access to a lawyer. The Commission found a violation of Article 1 noting that a violation of any provision of the Charter constitues a violation of Article 1. The Commission requested the Respondent State to conduct prompt, impartial investigations into the allegations and to prosecute and punish all perpetrators, to pay adequate compensation to the Victim in acordance with the domestic law of the Respondent State, including loss of earnings, medical expenses and suffering related to physical and psychological torture, to apologize to the Victim, to adopt and implement safeguards for the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, to train security officers on adherence to custodial safeguards and prohibition of torture, and to report on the measures taken to implement the decision.

Country

Uganda

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 8, 2024

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Duration of Procedure

May 20, 2009 ~ Mar 8, 2024

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 1.373333

Longitude: 32.290275

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Uganda

Primary Documents

Acleo Kalinga (represented by Rhys Davies & Ben Keith International Human Rights Advisors) v Uganda.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 376/09 – Acleo Kalinga (represented by Rhys Davies & Ben Keith International Human Rights Advisors) v. Uganda

Primary Documents

Notifications