Previous 8 / 47 Next

informed by OMCT and IRCT that they have equally terminated their representation of the Victim in the Communication. 45. By Note Verbale dated 25 May 2012, the Secretariat informed the Respondent State that at its 51 st Ordinary Session which took place in Banjul, The Gambia, from 18 April to 2 May 2012, the Commission decided to defer consideration of the Communication pending the oral hearing requested for by the Respondent State. 46. By email dated 17 July 2012, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Victim's email of 20 February 2012, and informed him about the status of his Communication and possibilities of,. representing himself in the Communication. 47. By email dated 26 July 2012, the Complainants (I~CT and OMCT) confirmed the termination of their representation of the V,jctim in the Communication. 48. By letter dated 13 Augt,1St 2012, the Victim also confirmed termination of the Complainants representation in the ·communication and enquired as to whether the Commission can assist him to contact NGOs or Associations to represent him in the Communication. 49. By letter dated 16 August 2012, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Victim's letter of 13 August 2012, m;d informed him that the Secretariat does not contact NGOs on behalf of Complainants. The Secretariat referred the Victim to the website of the Commission where he can access a list of NGOs with observer Status with the Commission to contact any of them for assistance. The Commission has since not heard from the Victim. 50. By letter dated 4 ~ar~h 2015, the Secretariat informed the Respondent State thaf'further its Note Verbale of 28 October 2010, requesting for an oral hearing a.pd the Commissions subsequent Note Verbale of March 2012, the Cqmmission during its 17th Extra-Ordinary Session which took place from 19 to 28 February 2015, in Banjul, The Gambia, considered the Communication and decided to invite the Respondent State for the requested oral hearing during the 56th Ordinary Session of the Commission, which took place from 21 April to 7 May 2015 in Banjul, The Gambia. to

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