Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda to that of the Victim. According to the Respondent State, the Complainant has not furnished any evidence that those who had been granted amnesty had been criminally charged for gross violations of human rights or war crimes or other international crimes at the time of applying for amnesty, whereas, there is enough evidence that the Victim had participated or was responsible for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, for which he is being prosecuted. 168. What the Respondent State is basically arguing is that the case of the Victim was different from all other applicants who were granted amnesty because he was charged with serious violations of human rights and the others were not. And that is the reason why the DPP blocked his application for amnesty. 169. In this regard, the Complainant opines that even high ranking commanders such as Brigadiers Sam Kolo and Kenneth Banya, who have supposedly committed more heinous crimes, have been granted amnesty as no charges were brought against them. 170. In response, the Respondent State contends that the circumstances of Brigadiers Sam Kolo and Kenneth Banya arrested in 2005 and 2004 respectively were different from those prevailing at the time of the Victim’s arrest in 2009 for the following reasons: i. At the time of the Victim’s arrest the Government of Uganda and the LRA had signed the Juba Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation and the Annexure thereto in June 2007 and February 2008 respectively wherein they agreed that persons alleged to have committed the most serious crimes or human rights violations would be prosecuted before formal courts; ii. At the time of the Victim’s arrest there were many people confident and willing to testify against the LRA since in 2009 the latter had been driven out of Uganda into Eastern DRC, and relative peace had returned to 45 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018