Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda 174. In order to determine whether the Victim was treated differently from other amnesty applicants without any reasonable objective, it is imperative to assess the relevant provisions of the law, the Amnesty Act in this case, and compare their interpretation and application in the case of the Victim with that of the other reporters. 175. Relevant sections of Part two of the Amnesty Act of 2000 which relates to the granting of amnesty provide that: 3.1. An Amnesty is declared in respect of any Ugandan who has at any time since the 26th day of January, 1986 engaged in or is engaging in war or armed rebellion against the government of the Republic of Uganda. 3.2. A person referred to under subsection (1) shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any form of punishment for the participation in the war or rebellion for any crime committed in the course of the war or armed rebellion. 176. The above quoted provisions give general amnesty to rebels whereby no offences are excluded and all forms of insurgency are covered. This assertion/interpretation is also supported by a 2012 paper on the Amnesty Act prepared by the Justice Law and Order Sector for the consideration of the Transitional Justice Working Group, which was annexed by the Respondent State as evidence. The paper expounds that ‘according to the Act, amnesty is granted to anyone who ‘renounces rebellion’, and as such, treats all reporters alike, overlooking the category of crimes allegedly committed (including war crimes, crimes against humanity or gross violations) and failing to require any accounting of the facts/truth in exchange for amnesty. In terms of the pursuit of accountability 47 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018