Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda several decisions recognized that right. Thus, the Respondent denies that the Supreme Court decision that stayed the execution of the consequential orders of the Constitutional Court was partial. The Respondent notes that the lack of quorum in the Supreme Court was brought on by the passing on of Honourable Mr Justice Amos Twinomujuni JSC. in November 2013, however, the Supreme Court of Uganda is now fully constituted, the parties argued their respective cases on appeal in the Supreme Court in June 2014 and the court is yet to deliver its final decision on the appeal. The Commission’s Analysis on the Merits 134. Having closely studied the submissions of the parties on the Merits of the case, the Commission proceeds to analyse the arguments and evidence furnished by the parties against the relevant provisions of the Charter and other applicable laws to establish whether there has been a violation of the provisions of the Charter as alleged in the submissions of the Complainant. 135. As can be discerned from the summary of the submissions of the Respondent State, the latter disputes the veracity of several of the assertions of the Complainant presented as facts. It is, therefore, imperative that the Commission rules on such disputed facts since many of these contested facts have a bearing, direct or indirect, on the outcome of the case. However, the Commission will not delve into the exercise of fact-checking for each and every disputed fact. That is neither desirable, nor necessary. Instead, a more pragmatic approach is followed by making a determination of facts only as and when the Commission finds it relevant and necessary for the analysis of the merits of the case. Ruling on Some Contested ‘Facts’ and Applicable Law 34 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018