Previous 7 / 47 Next

37. By letter dated 28 July 2011, the Complainants requested for provisional measures pursuant to Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. 38. By letter dated 24 August 2011, the Complainants informed the Secretariat and that the Victim was under duress at the time he wrote withdrawing the Complainants representation and that they were still representing the Victim. 39. By letter dated 29 September 2011, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainants letter of 24 August 2011, infon:11ing them that the request for provisional measures has been forwarded to the Bureau of the Commission and would inform them of th.e outcome. In · the same letter, the Secretariat sought some clarity on the alleged facts of the Communication. ,· 40. By letter and Note Verbale dated 9 Nove:rribf r4011, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainants and the Respondent State informing both parties that at its 50th Ordinary Session, which tookplace in Bamjul;>The Gambia, from 24 October to 7 November 2011,the Commission deferred consideration on Admissibility of the Communication due to the pending request by the Respondent State for an oral hearing before the Commission. 41. By letter dat~d 29 Novembef 2011, the Complainants wrote to the Secretariat with,d rawing their representation in the Communication with immediate effect: · 42. By e:mq.il dated. 20 February 2012, the Victim wrote to the Secretariat introducing himself and inquiring about the Communication and whether it is possible for hirn to represent himself or whether there are any other provisionsJ rom the Commission. 43. By letter and Note Verbale dated 6 March 2012, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the letter from REDRESS dated 29 November 2011, received at the Secretariat on 17 February 2012, and wrote to IRCT and OMCT informing them about the letter from REDRESS. In the same letter, the Secretariat enquired about the Victim's correct contact details and informed both Parties about the date set by the Commission for the oral hearing requested by the Respondent State. 44. By letter dated 17 April 2012, REDRESS informed the Secretariat do not have the contact details of the Victim and that they h .l Ii :, 0 V .z \ ') ., - \ . 0 0 .

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