iv. the Constitution of Uganda in Article 137 allows any person who wants to challenge a violation of their rights in Uganda to petition the Constitutional Court22 . v. there are <;1-lso other avenues available for the Victim to lodge a complaint particularly through the UHRC, whose core function is to investigate any complaint in accordance with Article 53 of the Constitution. vi. the UHRC is independent, fully constituted, hears and grants appropriate remedies such as rehabilitation, ·n:i.edical care and psycho-social remedies. vii. the UHRC has been handling many complai1its of this nature 'since its establishment and accordingly, the Complainants have not bothered to lodge a singl~. complaint in the Respondent State before bringing the Communication to the Commission. viii. the Complainant$ allegation that by b_rihging the case before the Courts in Ugai:t;4ar. the Victim wi11-J?e required to pay for securicy for is baseless as the Courts ~n Uganda have refused to award costs in matters of human rights. · •. ix. Uganda has enacted the Prevention of Torture Act of 2012, which criminalizes torture and affirm_$· its non-derrogable nature including a sentence , of life imprisonm~nt. The Act also provides for strong investigations to be carried out and confers a ducy to anyone who has reasonable grounds to report such acts and provides ·. . remedies/compensation where torture has been properly proved. Ftuthermore, under the Constitution of Uganda, where a person is incapacitated to bring a case, a complaint can be brought anytime within 5 years of the time he is incapacitated and the Victim is still withiptime to bring a case in Uganda, which he has failed to do. x. as such, there is no proof that the Victim filed a case in any Court in Uganda or the UHRC. The Complainants have thus made no attempt to file any case through the above-mentioned avenues and have also failed to proof the Victim's indigence. xi. local remedies have not been exhausted and the Communication should be declared Inadmissible.