Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda 112. The JLOS Transitional Justice Working Group accordingly reviewed the Act and made recommendations as to its role and purpose, its effect, its compatibility with national and international laws, and the various options for the future of the Act. According to the Respondent State the review did not refer to the Constitutional Court’s judgment.32 113. The Chief Justice, the Respondent notes, as Chairman of the JLOS Leadership & Steering Committee thereafter convened a meeting where the relevant JLOS member institutions agreed by consensus on which of the options recommended should be implemented by the Minister of Internal Affairs. The discussion also did not refer to the Constitutional Court’s judgment. Whereas the Chief Justice only chaired the meeting, he did not state any personal views on the Group’s Report or the Amnesty Act. 114. In relation to the role of the Chief Justice in the creation of the ICD, the Respondent contends that the ICD was established in July 2008 by the then Principal Judge Hon. Justice James Ogoola pursuant to Article 141 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 under the High Court (International Crimes Division) practice directions, Legal Notice No. 10 of 2011. It is one of the Divisions of the High Court of Uganda and was established just as the Criminal Division, Commercial Division, Land Division, Family Division and AntiCorruption Division, which were established for administrative convenience and efficiency. 115. In light of the above, the Respondent State submits that it has not violated Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.1(a), 7.1(b), 7.1(d), 16 and 26 of the Charter. 32 A copy of the Group’s Review attached to submission. 28 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018