UNLAWFUL DETENTION. 39. The Court noted the Respondents’ express admission that the victims are currently before the competent courts of Uganda, having been committed to that Country`s High Court, where judicial procedures are ongoing. Specifically, the Respondents/Applicants in their written submissions of 10th August 2011(at p. 6) lodged before the First Instance Division, stated as follows: 4. That the Uganda Government has already filed charges against the Applicants and intends to try them in Uganda for alleged murder, terrorism and suicide attacks; 5. That although already charged with various offences, the trial of the Applicants in Uganda has not commenced but is expected to commence any time” 40. Notwithstanding the above, the Respondents contend that their current detention in Uganda is unlawful because, it is based on an arrest and a rendition that were unlawful ab initio (from the beginning). They aver, therefore, that the resulting detention is equally unlawful and as such a continuing violation; and that, in these circumstances, computation of the time limit will not be possible, until the cessation of their continuing detention. It is quite evident, therefore, that what is construed as “continuing violations” derives from an interpretation of the first limb of the Article 30 (2) to determine when an act complained of begins and ends. 41. First, this Appellate Division of the Court has a duty to put an end to the confusion surrounding the legal analysis of the detention of the Applicants/Respondents. According to the Constitution of Uganda, as we read it, this kind of detention is “unlawful” when a person arrested is kept in custody beyond the prescribed time of 48 hours, without being produced before a competent court of law and charged with a crime. The continued detention of a suspect who has already been produced before a court and charged with an offence, is quite a different matter altogether. 12