Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda about the implications of the Constitutional Court’s decision did not amount to a ‘severe criticism’ of the decision. 108. The Respondent further maintains that the JLOS is a multi-sector organization comprised of various member institutions. According to the Respondent State the Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary, which is a member institution of the JLOS. The Chief Justice also heads the JLOS Leadership & Steering Committee, which is composed of different heads of JLOS member institutions. Thus Justice Benjamin Odoki, who was the (then) Chief Justice was the head of the Steering Committee. 109. However, the Respondent State indicates that the paper cited in the Complaint was authored by the Transitional Justice Working Group, of which the Chief Justice is not and has never been a member, nor did he ever endorse the views in the said paper. 110. The Respondent further states that the paper did not ‘severely criticize’ the judgment of the Constitutional Court as alleged. It presented the Group’s views on the Amnesty Act and its impact on Uganda’s national and international obligations and outlined the challenges presented by the Act to the State’s ability to fulfil its duty to ensure justice and accountability for serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Uganda. 111. The Respondent also submits that after the judgment had been delivered, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs wrote to the Chairman of the JLOS Transitional Justice Working Group, requesting the Chairman to advise the Minister on whether he should sign a Statutory Instrument extending the Amnesty Act which was due to expire in May 2012.31 31 A copy of the letter dated 26 March 2012 attached to submission. 27 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018