Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda 94. First of all, the two were arrested in 2005 and 2004 respectively, whereas the Victim was arrested in 2009. By the time of the Victim’s arrest, the Complainant states that the Government of Uganda and the LRA had signed the Juba Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation and the Annexure thereto, in June 2007 and February 2008 respectively. In these documents, they agreed that persons alleged to have committed serious crimes or human rights violations would be prosecuted, and formal courts would exercise jurisdiction over persons alleged to bear particular responsibility for the most serious crimes, especially those amounting to international crimes.19 95. Thus, the Respondent State asserts that by signing the Agreement the Government and LRA impliedly agreed that the Amnesty Act would not benefit any members of LRA suspected of particular responsibility for gross violations of human rights e.g. due to their level of command/control. The Respondent opines that unlike Brigadiers Kenneth Banya, Sam Kolo and Col. Onen Kamdulu, the Victim was arrested after the signing of the Juba Agreement, and was being prosecuted for having particular responsibility for international crimes.20 96. Secondly, according to the Respondent State, at the time of Mr. Kwoyelo’s arrest in 2009, LRA had been driven out of Uganda into Eastern DRC, and relative peace had returned to Northern Uganda, with many people previously living in Internally Displaced Peoples (IDP) Camps having returned to their homes after many years. Accordingly, there were many people confident and willing to testify against the LRA, and many witnesses availed evidence to the police/prosecution as to the many atrocities allegedly committed by the Victim.21 However, the Respondent State contends that it was not possible to use any such witness evidence to prosecute former rebel commanders of similar crimes after they had already been granted amnesty in the past due to a lack of witness evidence. Copies of the Agreements attached to the submissions of the Respondent State. Amended Indictment of 5th July 2011 which refers to his command responsibility in the alleged crimes attached as evidence by the Respondent State. 21 The Respondent refers to a statement from the ICD website attached to its submission. 19 20 23 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018