Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda Amnesty Act for denial of amnesty. It was in due recognition of this fact that the JLOs recommended to the Government that the Amnesty Act should be amended so that, among others, ‘high level perpetrators and those responsible for the commission of international crimes, including sexual and gender based violence crimes, are excluded from the award of amnesty’. 182. Now, what remains to be determined is whether the justifications preferred by the Respondent State as justification or explanation for the different treatment is valid. 183. In assessing validity, the prime source to look for is legislation or laws. Is there a law that sanctions the differential treatment? 184. The Respondent State is of the view that the difference in treatment was due to and justified by, inter alia, the Juba Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation and the Annexure thereto signed in 2007 and 2008 respectively between the Government of Uganda and the LRA. The Respondent State avers that in the said Juba Agreement, the parties have agreed to try persons alleged to have committed the most serious crimes before formal courts. According to the State, the Juba Agreement was not applicable to the two Brigadiers because they were granted amnesty before the Juba Agreement, while the Victim’s application for amnesty was tendered after the agreement was signed. 185. The Juba Agreement was indeed signed before the Victim was captured in March 2009. However, more than 5 years after the signing of the Agreement, the Amnesty Act was not amended to reflect the developments to enable the DPP charge those that have been accused of committing serious violations of human rights. In the absence of such amendments, the government cannot justify the rejection of the amnesty application since under the Act the Victim is still eligible for amnesty. The eligibility of the Victim for amnesty despite the signing of the 49 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018