Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda 123. Regarding equal protection under the law, the Respondent avers that the Complainant was successful in the Constitutional Court and in the mandamus application in the High Court of Uganda. However, the Respondent avers that it is not in doubt that there were several cases filed against the Victim and the Decision of the Constitutional Court ordering cessation of the trail was in respect of one case. The State being dissatisfied with the decision of the Constitutional Court applied successfully to the Supreme Court for stay of execution of its orders pending the appeal filed before it. Further, the execution of the mandamus orders granted in High Court were also stayed by the High Court pending the determination of the appeal before the Supreme Court as not doing so would render the appeal nugatory. 124. It is thus the Respondent’s argument that the Complainant has not demonstrated that he has been treated selectively and thus his case does not warrant a declaration that the Respondent State has violated Article 3 of the African Charter. Alleged Violation of Article 6 125. The Respondent submits that in 2007 the Government of Uganda encouraged the leaders and ranks of LRA to embrace the Juba Agreement, however, the rebel outfit opted otherwise. In March 2009 the Victim was captured on the battlefield in the jungles of Garamba Forest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and transported to Uganda to undergo recuperation and face trial. He was accorded Legal Counsel by the State but he opted to hire private lawyers. 126. The Respondent avers that despite the orders of the Constitutional Court, no Release Warrants were ever sought by the Victim or his lawyers and none were issued by the Court in order to effect his release from lawful custody. Further, the Supreme Court issued orders staying execution of the Constitutional Court Orders pending disposal of the appeal. The Complainant is thus in lawful custody and 31 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018