Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda to NIAC apply. The ICTR, for example, employed this approach, noting that in making such a determination, ‘it is necessary to evaluate both the 'intensity' and 'organization of the parties' to the conflict.’35 148. Consequently, as a combatant of the LRA who was captured in the battlefield, and rendered hors de combat, the determination of whether violations were perpetrated against the victim has to be based not only on the provisions of the African Charter but also the rules of IHL that govern the detention and treatment in detention of detainees in NIACs and, in this case, the Victim, by reference to Articles 60 and 61 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. As the Commission held in various communications including Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertes v Chad36 and Amnesty International, Comite Loosli Bachelard,Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and Association of Members of Episcopal Conference of East Africa v Sudan37 the application of the provisions of the Charter persists even in times of armed conflict. It is also well established in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice that in cases of armed conflicts human rights law and IHL rules apply complementarily. In its advisory opinions on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapon and the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the ICJ opined that ‘the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, save through the effect of provisions for derogation…’38 149. The foregoing shows that we have a case of concurrent application of both the provisions of the African Charter and the rules of IHL applicable to cases of NIACs. 35 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4·T, judgment, para 620 (Sept. 2, 1998). 36 Communication 74/92, Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertes v Chad, Ninth Annual Activity Report (1995–1996). 37 Communications 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93, Amnesty International, Comite Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and Association of Members of Episcopal Conference of East Africa v Sudan, Thirteenth Annual Activity Report (1999–2000). International Court of Justice (ICJ), Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, (2004), para. 106. 38 39 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018