Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda thus the Respondent has not acted in breach of Article 6 of the African Charter in that regard. Alleged Violation of Articles 4, 5 and 16 (1) and (2) Article 5 127. The Respondent submits that the circumstances pertaining in Nigeria during March 1995, leading to the decision in Civil Liberties Organization v. Nigeria must be distinguished from the current case. In that case, civilians were tried by the Military Tribunal headed by General Aziza and were convicted for being accessories to treason and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trials were conducted in secrecy and suspects were not given an opportunity to state their defence or to have access to their lawyers or families. They were not made aware of the charges against them until their trial. 128. According to the Respondent State, it is trite that each case ought to be decided on a case by-case-basis. In the instant case, the Respondent claims, the Complainant was availed Legal Counsel at the Respondent’s expense and even allowed frequent visits from his Mother. The Respondent further submits that it is a general rule that it is for the party, which alleges a fact to support its claims with proof of the existence of that fact. It goes against this rule for the Complainant to allege torture without producing medical evidence of the same. 129. The Respondent submits that the Complainant has not availed the Commission with forensic documentation in proof of torture and other forms of physical and psychological abuse, as required by the Istanbul Protocol, to justify a finding of violation of Articles, 4, 5 and 16 of the Charter. 130. The Respondent denies that the Victim, a former LRA Commanding officer, was ‘forced to sleep on the floor, without any bedding and was afforded no toilet 32 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018