Previous 38 / 47 Next

159. It is also the practice of the Commission to rely on sworn testimonies and a medical certificate as proof of torture 62 . In the present Communication, the Complainants submit sworn testimony of the Victim and medical report provided by Medical Experts and Forensic Physician in 2007 following the Victim's release 63 .The Medical Report also containing pictorial evidence found that "the Victim's mental symptomatology and the clinical evaluation indicates that he has been massively traumatised and the physical marks on his body are highly consistent with the allegation of torture during his detention period" 64 . The Commission in relying on the sworn testimony of the Victim, backed by the medical report, satisfies itself that torture occurred. 160. On the issue of the Complainants allegations that the Victim was held incommunicado for over 23 months, during which period he was denied contact with a legal representative and with . his family members, the Commission in its Principles and Guidelines on Fair Trial provide States an obligation "to ensure that any arrested or detained person is provided with the necessary facilities to communicate with his lawyer, doctor, family and friends" 65 • The Luanda Guidelines also provides for "the right of all persons arrested to contact and access a family member or another person of their choice, and if relevant consular authorities or embassy" 66 . 161.Moreover, the Commission recalls its decision in Amnesty International, Comite Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights and the Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East African Bishops' Conference v. Sudajz and Law Offi{:e of Ghazi Suleiman V: Sudan, where it held that detaining persons without allowing them any contact with their families and refusing to inform the families of the fact and place of their detention, constitutes inhuman treatment of both the detainees and their families . Communication 379/09, Monim Elgak. Osman Hummeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and OMCT) v Sudanpara 100 62 63 See Annex 2- containing the affidavit of the Victim (describing the places in which he was held). This affidavit also sets out in detail the torture and other ill treatment inflicted. See Annex 3- 9th Annual Report to the Parliament of the Uganda Human Rights Commission (page 31-32) containing a scanned copy of the Makindye Military Barracks 'violent Crime Unit Register containing the Victim 's name, date of an-est but no charge against him. See Annex 4-Medical/psychiatiic Report of Danish Medical Group, Amnesty International and International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims in Denmark. 64 See Annex 4 containing the Expert Medical Report by Drs. Mortem Ekstrom and Onder Ozkalipci together with enclosures. ;;.;:; 0N-;;t;;;,-.... 65 Ibid Principle M (2) (e) . -1 sf..CR!:T 4;"' ..,,,, 0 66 Principle 4(d), (£)of the Guidelines on Arrest, Policy Custody and Pre-Trial ~ 'enlio ..,~ ~ ,f'\) · I/{ J .I . @ '~it.' -•y,.. I r, ! i.4 ~;; ti• I AU-UA I ,_ 1 ~.I. ~- 1 ,. :i u}o -...--- ~o ~ ( . 'I,.., <:,<::! ">-(.~i. "R1cA1NE. o<c: "-"' ·il?c er OES pi)SVV

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 376/09 – Acleo Kalinga (represented by Rhys Davies & Ben Keith International Human Rights Advisors) v. Uganda

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Detention Facilities/Conditions
Personal Liberty
Police Brutality and Offences
Right to Fair Trial
Torture and Ill Treatment

Case Head Notes: The Victim is a Rwandese citizen, who according to the Complainants, was arbitrarily detained and subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in Uganda between 2005 and 2007. In June 2005 the Victim stopped at a hotel in Uganda to eat lunch and, upon returning to his car, the Victim was forced into a car by individuals he belives to be members of the Ugandan Security Services. From June 2005 to May 2007, the Victim was never charged with any offence and was held incommunicado in various detention centres. During his detention the Victim was repeatedly interrogated about his reasons for travelling to Uganda, accused of being a member of the Rwanda Defence Forces involved in espionage, and of planning to shoot senior Ugandan officials. The Victim was subjected to various forms of ill-treatment including months of solitary confinement, prolonged application of extreme heat, electrocution, repeated beatings, starvation, denial of medical attention and being subjected to death threats while a gun was shoved in his mouth. The Complainants state that, because of the political pressure and the media publicity about the Victim's detention, the Victim was released in 2007. The Complainants state that, as a consequence of his detention, the Victim now suffers from serious and lifelong physical and psychological health problems. Consequently, the Victim is unable to gain employment and is unable to support himself or his children. Subsequent to the initial communication in 2009, the Commission also received additional information from the Complainants that, in June 2009, the Victim was transferred, without due process, by Rwandan Security Agents, from Rwanda to a secret detention facility in Uganda. The Complainants state that the Victim escaped the facility and fled to Tanzania where he contacted the UNHCR. In September 2010, Ugandan security operatives abducted the Victim in Tanzania and, allegedly, tortured him again. In July 2011 the Victim was forcibly removed from Nairobi, Kenya, to Uganda where he was again tortured. The Complainants also state that, in July 2011, the Victim was asked by officials of the Uganda Police Defence Forces to withdraw REDRESS's mandate to represent him before the Commission and was then released. The Commission found a violation of Article 5 noting that it is established caselaw that, during detention, beatings, solitary confinement, extremely poor quality food, shackling within a cell, and denial of access to medical care all amount to a violation of Article 5. The Commission also stated that based on the sworn testimony of the Victim and the medical report, which supported the Victim's testimony, the Commission affirmed that torture had occurred. Additionally, the Commission stated that the incommunicado detention of the Victim further violated Article 5. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that arresting the Victim, without giving him any reasons for his arrest, and detaining him for a period of 23 months without charge, constituted arbitrary arrest and detention. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because they stated that a 23 month detention, without charges being filed, and without being brought before a judicial authority, constituted an undue delay, and denied the Victim the opportunity to challenge his detention, and additionally because the Victim was denied access to a lawyer. The Commission found a violation of Article 1 noting that a violation of any provision of the Charter constitues a violation of Article 1. The Commission requested the Respondent State to conduct prompt, impartial investigations into the allegations and to prosecute and punish all perpetrators, to pay adequate compensation to the Victim in acordance with the domestic law of the Respondent State, including loss of earnings, medical expenses and suffering related to physical and psychological torture, to apologize to the Victim, to adopt and implement safeguards for the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, to train security officers on adherence to custodial safeguards and prohibition of torture, and to report on the measures taken to implement the decision.

Country

Uganda

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 8, 2024

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Duration of Procedure

May 20, 2009 ~ Mar 8, 2024

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 1.373333

Longitude: 32.290275

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Uganda

Primary Documents

Acleo Kalinga (represented by Rhys Davies & Ben Keith International Human Rights Advisors) v Uganda.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 376/09 – Acleo Kalinga (represented by Rhys Davies & Ben Keith International Human Rights Advisors) v. Uganda

Primary Documents

Notifications