Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda Chief Justice expressed that influenced the decision of the Supreme Court in staying the execution of the consequential orders. 263. Does the position expressed in the JLOS paper reflect the views of the Chief justice? Was it biased? Did the Chief Justice have any role in convincing his colleagues at the Supreme Court in taking the decision to stay the execution of the consequential orders? How did the Chief Justice play a pivotal role in the establishment of the ICD? If he had any role at all, how is that important in proving that he was biased against the Victim? 264. All these crucial questions have not been addressed by the Complainant. There are thus more questions than answers and under such circumstances, the Commission does not have enough grounds and information before it to find that the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice was partial. 265. Concerning the right to fair trial, the failure of the Supreme Court to provide reasons for its decision staying the execution of the consequential orders arising from Constitutional Reference no. 36 of 2011 violates Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter. The Commission further rules that the unjustified delay in the hearing of the appeal before the Supreme Court caused by the lack of quorum partially violates Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 266. The Commission finds no violation of: the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty under Article 7(1)(b); the right to legal counsel under Article 7(1)(c); and the right to be tried by an impartial court under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 267. The Commission also finds no violation of Article 26 of the Charter relating to independence of Courts as no arguments or evidence were proffered by the 71 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018