[2018] ACHPR 129

[2018] ACHPR 129

The Commission found that the refusal to grant amnesty to the Victim, while granting it to thousands of others under similar circumstances, constituted discriminatory application of the Amnesty Act and violated Article 3(2) of the African Charter. The denial was not objectively justified by the Juba Agreement or the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ACHPR 129
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Kwoyelo; Respondent: Republic of Uganda
Court
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Case Number
Communication 431 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Communication / Merits Decision
Outcome
Partially allowed. The Commission found violations of Articles 3 and 7(1)(a) and partial violation of 7(1)(d), but dismissed other claims.
Legal Topics
Amnesty Act Application, Equal Protection, Fair Trial Rights, Arbitrary Detention, Judicial Delay, International Humanitarian Law
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Amnesty Act Application Equal Protection Fair Trial Rights Arbitrary Detention Judicial Delay +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Kwoyelo

Applicant

Republic of Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Communication / Merits Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant amnesty to the Victim under the Amnesty Act violated his right to equal protection of the law.
  2. 2 Whether the Victim's continued detention without timely judicial review constituted arbitrary detention and violated his right to liberty and fair trial.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court's failure to provide reasons for its stay order and the delay in hearing the appeal violated the right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the African Charter.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that the refusal to grant amnesty to the Victim, while granting it to thousands of others under similar circumstances, constituted discriminatory application of the Amnesty Act and violated Article 3(2) of the African Charter. The denial was not objectively justified by the Juba Agreement or the subsequent ICC Act, as neither amended the Amnesty Act nor provided a legal basis for differential treatment. The Supreme Court's failure to provide reasons for its stay order and the prolonged delay in hearing the appeal, caused by lack of quorum and government inaction, violated the Victim's right to a fair trial under Article 7(1)(a) and partially under Article 7(1)(d). The...

Court Disposition

Partially allowed. The Commission found violations of Articles 3 and 7(1)(a) and partial violation of 7(1)(d), but dismissed other claims.

Orders

  • The Government of Uganda shall pay adequate compensation to the Victim for violations of Articles 3 and 7(1)(a) and (d) of the African Charter.
  • The Government of Uganda shall consult the Victim and his legal representatives on the manner and mode of compensation, guided by international norms.