Previous 23 / 47 Next

critical analysis of the circumstances of the case is helpful to determine whether the Complainants have fulfilled the requirements under Article 56(5). 109.In Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia, 25 the Commission held that, 'in evaluating the rule of exhaustion of local remedies, three major criteria shall be taken into consideration, namely the remedy must be available, effective and sufficient. The Commission's approach to such criteria involves three basic enquiries: first, whether the petitioner can pursue the existing local remedies without impediment (the rule of availability of local remedies). If the remedies are found to be available, whether it offers a prospect of success (the effectiveness of/ loca! remedies), and finally whether it is capable of redressing the complairit'{the ,Bufficiency of local remedies). However, if the petitioner cannot pm.:.s he lhe ~existing local remedies without impediment, i.e., if the remedies are not available, the enquiry ends there as it would not be logical to analyse the eff~ctiveness of remedies that are deemed unavaHable to address a complaint 110.In the present Communication, the Victim was allegedly never charged with any offence from,, 7 Ju11e 2005 to 3 M~y 2007. Although never charged, he was held incommunzcado in various ·detentions centres including a number of safe houses .and secret prisons; denie·d access to his family, legal representation, medical treatment, consular assistance, and the possibility to challenge his detention by way • of habeas corpus. Hence, the Complainants claim that the Victim could not pursue the existing local remedies due to his financial inability to travel consecutively to Uganda, his health problems as consequence of the alleged torture suffered, and his fear for his life, safety and security. 111. The Respondent State on the other hand, contests the Complainants arguments and argues that there are sufficient and effective legal and institutional mechanisms (the UHRC, the Constitutional Court and the Ugandan High Court) where the Victim could have pursued and can still pursue his complaint and have his cause heard. The Respondent State further argues that there is no proof that the Victim has made any attempt to exhaust local remedies and the Complainants did not provide evidence proving that the Victim is undergoing physical and financial constraints that prevent him from exhausting local remedies. According to the Respondent State, in as far as safety is concerned, the Victim's safety is guaranteed because Uganda is a party to all relevant international conventions against torture and the Robben Island Guidelines fo e ,"':- , :;..- ·---.....; ::;;-:,, .. ON f;lJ/\.,4,.,, <:,tCRET4-9 # ®~·, ~ 25 Communication 147 /95 -149/96 Sir Dawda K. Jawara vs. The Gambia, para. 1,~.· ',q,. () ' I . ~ @. ~ •1 .i: . <! l in \ , ) ~1; ~ ~·, Au~ 3 '3_ \ , ,~ti!I£. ~ ~;;~ ~~P,j {1 ~.j'? l<tclFlt"cme,1~"<"... .f ti.

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