8     declared ungoverned or ungovernable; and that the Government machinery never stopped operating in Northern Uganda.4 32. The African Committee closely considered these and other arguments made by the Respondent State challenging the admissibility of the Communication. However, based on the submission of the Complainants, and the Committee’s own information (part of which was further substantiated during the investigative mission), the Committee has not found reason to amend or reverse its decision on admissibility made on 23 March 2011. Decision on the merits A. Some preliminary and cross-cutting considerations 33. Since 2006, the situation of the armed conflict in Northern Uganda, and generally the situation of children’s rights in the area, has significantly improved. For instance, the LRA is no more operating in Uganda. The Government of Uganda has made significant steps in upholding children’s rights in the context of armed conflict, including through its collaboration with the United Nations, and the country’s de-listment from the UN list of countries that have child soldiers in their army are some examples. The Local Defence Units (LDUs) have been disbanded, and the IDP Camps have been dismantled too making way for children and communities to return back to their localities and homes. Accountability mechanisms for alleged violations of human rights, including children’s rights have also been strengthened. For instance, on 11 July 2011, the first war crimes trial of the Ugandan High Court’s new International Crimes Division began operations in Gulu. 34. These developments are welcomed by the African Committee. However, while they may inevitably affect the kind of remedies the African Committee will provide, and may make some of the issues raised in the Communication moot, they do not serve as an obstacle for the Committee to remain seized of the matter, and decide both on the admissibility and merits of the issues raised in this Communication. In fact, the Committee has the obligation under the Charter to pronounce on the matter, because its decision will have implications on the current and future best interests of children in Uganda, and those that are affected by armed conflict. 35. On a different note, while this Complaint is lodged against the Government of Uganda, the Complainants as well as the African Committee rightly acknowledge and                                                                                                                 4 In an effort to substantiate its points, the Respondent State gives examples that the courts of law in Uganda remained operational in the North during the insurgency and more so since the war ended in 2006; Uganda has handled cases involving big numbers of complainants before and its system allows class action suits; and the Uganda Human Rights Commission had offices opened in the North in 1999 and never closed since then and more recently, the War Crimes Division within the High Court of Uganda was set up pursuant to the enactment of the ICC Act (2010).