Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda Northern Uganda with many people previously in IDP camps having returned to their homes after many years. And it was not possible to use such witness evidence to prosecute those that have already been granted amnesty in the past owing to lack of witness evidence; and iii. In 2010, Uganda enacted the International Criminal Court Act whose purpose was, among others, to give the 2002 Rome Statute force of law, to implement Uganda’s obligations under the Rome Statute, to make further provisions in Uganda’s law for the punishment of international crimes and to enable Ugandan courts to try, convict and sentence persons who commit such crimes. 171. The Respondent State further argues that under Article 120 of the Constitution, the DPP is mandated to control investigations and prosecutions, and accordingly advised the Amnesty Commission that the Victim was charged with grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for which amnesty cannot be granted. 172. It can, therefore, be deduced that the rejection of the amnesty application of the Victim is a fact and that until the time when the Complaint was filed before the Commission, he was the only person whose application was rejected. It is also confirmed that the Amnesty Commission had issued amnesty certificates to more than 24,000 applicants before him and to 274 after him including to higher ranking members of the LRA. 173. Therefore, there is a prima facie case for difference in treatment. However, to find a violation, it has to be shown that the way the relevant provisions of the Amnesty Act have been interpreted and applied in the case of the Victim was materially different from that of other similar cases and that there was no reasonable justification for it. Particularly, the Commission will assess if being charged with serious violations of human rights disqualifies an applicant from being granted amnesty pursuant to the Amnesty Act of 2000. 46 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018