the Victim would have to meet all the costs involved, which would be very considerable and beyond his means. If a commission was not ordered, the Victim would only be able to submit evidence by deposition before a notary public in Rwanda under Order 28, Rule 4 of the Ugandan Civil Procedure Rules. It is further argued that, such evidence would have little probative value as it would not be tested by cross-examination and would therefore greatly prejudice the Victim's case. Accordingly, the Complainants submit that in these circumstances, the Ugandan High Court would not constitute an available and effective remedy for the Victim to pursue. 76. The Complainants also argue that, while the Victim could theoretically make a complaint to the UHRC, without his presence in Uganda, the UHRC would not constitute an effective temedy. According to the Complainants, the UHRC would qe unable t9 ~arry out its investigations into the Complaint unless it traveled' to Rwanda, mosf probably on a number of occasions, to interv,:ie'vV the Victim.and other potential witnesses. The Complainants state that in light of the UHRC' s limited resources, this is unlikely to be a possi?ility. 8 to 77. The Complainants aver that according the norms set forth under the Ugandan Constitution (Uganda Human :Rights Commission Procedure Rules) S.I. Constitution 8, Rule 17, a Complainant is requested to be present, once the case reaches the Tribunal stage, otherwise the hearing may proceed in his or her absence. ,Taking into consideration the abovementioned provisions, the Complainants state that the Victim would not be able to be present in Uganda. Accordingly, the Victim could therefore only provide evi4ence by deposition which would greatly prejudice his case as no opportunity for cross-examination would exist and he would be unable to app~ar in ·person to demonstrate to the Tribunal Commissioners the treatment receiy,ed and the consequences thereof. In addition, the Complainants note that at the time, the UHRC was not fully functional from 21 Noyernber 2008, when the term of office of its Commissioners expired and therefore was not, until an undetermined date, in a position to hold Tribunal hearings. 9 he See, Uganda Human Rights Commission, supra note 2, Annex 3 at 124 (setting out the "inadequate funding. The Commission is not facilitated sufficiently to carry out its constitutional mandate"). 9 See Uganda Human Rights Commission, Press Release, Public http:/ /www. uhrc.u g/press release.php?item 9. 8