Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda for war crimes, crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations, the Amnesty Act is a de jure and de facto blank amnesty’.45 177. Even the 2006 amendment to the Amnesty Act that caters for persons who may be found to be ineligible for amnesty, does not specifically indicate that persons suspected of crimes against humanity, war crimes or gross violations of human rights can be found ineligible for amnesty.46 In effect, this means amnesty can be granted to any and all those who renounce rebellion regardless of the nature of crimes an individual has committed. 178. Amnesty was granted even to those who, like the Victim, had been captured on the battlefield and includes Brigadier Kenneth Banya, who the Respondent State itself concedes was captured on the battlefield in 2004. 179. The Commission is convinced that it is in view of the above understanding that the Amnesty Commission never declared any reporter ineligible for amnesty,47 and accordingly issued more than 24,000 amnesty certificates. 180. In conformity with its previous practice and interpretation of the Act, the Amnesty Commission had also accepted the Victim’s application for amnesty. It was the DPP who decided to block the issuing of amnesty certificate by filing charges against the Victim. 181. In view of the above, it is clear that the Amnesty Act was applied differently to the Victim compared to the case of previous and subsequent applicants for amnesty. The Victim had satisfied all requirements in the Amnesty Act to be granted amnesty: he renounced rebellion and applied for amnesty. The fact that he was charged with grave violations of human rights is not a ground provided in the Justice Law and Order Sector (Uganda), The Amnesty Law (2000) Issues Paper: Review by the Transitional Justice Working Group (2012), p. 6. 46 Ibid. 47 Id., pp. 6 & 13. 45 48 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018