Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda 81. The Respondent State also denies that the Victim was ever abducted from hospital by Ugandan military intelligence, detained in any private residence, or subjected to inhumane treatment and torture, or that he was denied access to his next of kin or legal counsel or court. 82. 7. The Respondent State states that after his capture, he was transferred to Uganda and taken to the general military hospital in Bombo, Kampala, for medical treatment. After recovery, he was taken to the 1st Infantry Division Headquarters in Kakiri, Wakiso District, for full recuperation as a prisoner of war (POW).16 83. The Respondent State further states that while in recuperative custody, he was treated humanely and in accordance with the law, and he was not tortured as alleged. He was informed of his right to receive visitors and his right to engage legal counsel, but did not request to do so. 84. According to the Respondent State, after establishing that the Victim was suspected of having committed criminal offences, the Uganda Police requested the UPDF to hand him over for prosecution, which was done. He was lawfully detained by Police as a criminal suspect and was informed of his right to receive visitors and engage legal counsel, but did not request to do so. 85. The Respondent further submits that under the Ugandan legal system, where a criminal case involving capital offences (e.g. murder) is brought by the State against a person, the suspect or accused is availed State Counsel at the expense of the State if he has no legal representative. However, even after Criminal cases No. AA 118/09 and 119 /09 were cause-listed for court appearance in June 2009, the Victim was offered to be availed State Counsel by the Government of Uganda, but he declined it. 16 Copy of the affidavit of Lawrence Ogen Mungu in Constitutional Reference No. 36 /11 attached as R1. 20 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018