[2016] UGHRC 15


## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# THE UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (UHRC) TRIBUNAL

## **HOLDEN AT KAMPALA**

## COMPLAINT NO: UHRC/77/2007

## RWAMINI DAVID:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### **AND**

## ATTORNEY GENERAL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### BEFORE PRESIDING COMMISSIONER

## HON. DR. KATEBALIRWE AMOOTI WA IRUMBA

## **DECISION**

The Complainant (C) brought this complaint against the Respondent (R) seeking compensation for alleged violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

C alleged that sometime in April 2007 at around 7.00 p.m. while he was at Kanyagalamire Trading Center on his way from a burial, he was arrested by two people to wit; Rwema Richard, the LC 2 Chairperson of Kayebe Parish and a one Kigambo, a UPDF officer attached to Rwamaboga Army Detach. That he was taken to Rwamaboga Army Detach, detained and

severely beaten by one Kamwine and others who accused him of having stolen cattle belonging to a one Jane Mwebaze of Kayebe Parish. He further alleged that as a result of the beating he lost consciousness and sustained several injuries, as a result of which he was rushed to St. Mary's Clinic in Mityana by his wife and two others namely, Kanana and Tumwine.

R through his representative, Counsel (RC) Ms. Josephine Kiyingi denied the allegations and opted to put up a defence.

## **Issues:**

$\frac{\delta}{\tau}$

The issues to be determined by this Tribunal are:

- 1. Whether C's right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by State agents. - $2.$ Whether R is liable for the violation. - $3.$ Whether C is entitled to any remedy.

### **Tribunal hearing process**

The first hearing was held on 15^th August 2014 with both C and R present. C testified and was cross-examined and the matter was thereafter adjourned for further hearing of C's case.

The second hearing was held on 26^th August, 2014. C was present together with his first witness (CW1), Tumwine Fred. R was represented by Counsel Kivingi Josephine. CW1 testified and was cross-examined and the matter was then adjourned to enable C's expert witness to attend the Tribunal.

The third hearing was held on 1^st December, 2014. C was present together with his second and also expert witness (CW2) from Dr. Ibingira's Hospital in Mityana. R was represented by Counsel Kiyingi Josephine but C's expert witness from Mulago Hospital was absent although he had been duly served with the summons. CW2 testified and was cross-examined.

The fourth hearing was held on 10^th March, 2015 and C was present. The medical doctor from Mulago had informed Counsel for the Commission (CC) about his inability to appear, and so CC The fifth hearing was held on 28^th June, 2016, C and the second expert witness from Mulago Hospital (CW3) were present. R was not represented although they had been duly served with summons. CW3 testified but was not cross-examined.

The sixth and last hearing of this matter was held on 20^th September, 2016, C was present with CW3, Dr. Kamaro Denis but R was not represented despite having been effectively summoned and acknowledgment of receipt of summons approved. The matter was therefore adjourned for R to file their written submission within one month and thereafter a decision of the Tribunal to be delivered.

Since all the parties involved in this matter have been accorded all the opportunities and time they needed to present their case, I now find it safe and fair to resolve the aforementioned three issues.

#### Issue 1: Whether the C's right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by State agents.

C, Rwamini David testified that on one Thursday during April 2007 but the exact date he could not remember, at about 7.00 p.m.as he was in Kanyegalamire Trading Centre coming from a burial, one Richard Rwema, the Chairman LCII Kayebe Parish arrived together with UPDF soldiers including one of them called Kigambo and who was known to him and he was carrying a gun. That they found him sitting on a motorcycle, held him by his trouser and arrested him. That when he inquired the reason for his arrest, he was told that someone had alleged that he had stolen his cattle but he was not told the name of that person who had accused him.

That he was taken to the Army detach at Rwamaboga and on reaching there, his hands were tied on to a tree and the soldiers who were present at the army detach started beating him while his hands were still tied onto the tree.

That the soldiers beat him on the head, buttocks and back over a period of thee (3) days using bicycle lock wires and some sticks. That on the first day, he was beaten throughout the night but at intervals. That the following morning they tied his legs and turned him upside down on the tree with his head facing down. That while he was being beaten, the soldiers asked him to reveal

where he had taken the cows he was alleged to have stolen but he answered that he did not steal any cows. That he knew one of the soldiers who beat him called Kamwine.

C added that he was beaten while tied on the tree for the first and second days and on those days he also spent the night outside. That on the second day, he was beaten for the whole morning until he fainted and was taken for medical attention, though he did not know the clinic where he was taken. That later on he realized that at the clinic he had been treated with injectable medicine after which he was taken back to the army detach.

That on the third day they beat him till 6.00 p.m, after which his wife and a relative took him to Dr. Ibingira Charles's hospital in Mityana, where he was treated with drips, tablets and injections, and he spent a full month admitted in the clinic. That he sustained injuries all over his body, in the kidney, on the head and on his feet, which bled profusely. That he also went to Mulago Hospital to check his kidney which the doctor said had developed some complications. He testified further that he had not fully recovered and he still felt pain in the kidney and also suffered from severe headache.

The medical form from St. Mary's Clinic Mityana which he tendered in was admitted as his first document for identification (C1D1). His seven medical forms numbered 13 (a) to (h) from Mulago Hospital were admitted together as his second set of documents for identification [C2D1] (a) to $(h)$ ].

During cross examination, C reiterated that it was the UDPF soldiers who had arrested him although they did not introduce themselves to him but they were known to him. That he was not told who had ordered them to arrest him, although he was told that someone had alleged that he had stolen his cattle. He clarified that he was beaten all over his body and also kicked, and he was taken to Dr. Ibingira's Hospital for treatment. He confessed that since he was an illiterate man it was hard and not possible for him to read and know the name of the hospital but he knew the doctor who owned the hospital.

CW1, Tumwine Fred testified that one day during 2007 but of which he could not recall the exact date but in the morning at around 9.00 a.m. he found Rwamini David at someone's home lying down on his back in the sitting room after he had been beaten at Kanyegalamire Trading Centre. That he did not know the name of the owner of the house and the person who had beaten

Centre. That he did not know the name of the owner of the house and the person who had beaten C. That him and the owner of the home took C to Dr. Ibingira's hospital in Mityana where he got treatment but he still felt pain.

When CW1 was cross-examined, he clarified that C was his brother-in-law, and also confirmed that he did not personally and directly see him being beaten but was only told that he was beaten. That he knew that those who beat C had used sticks to beat him because he saw the marks on his body. That C did not tell him who had beaten him since at that time he was too weak to talk. That he knew Kanana, and he found him at that home where Rwamini was lying. That they took C to Mityana and when he re-gained consciousness, he told him (CW1) that he had been beaten by soldiers although he did not know the exact face of the person who beat him.

The evidence that CW1 adduced provided only limited corroboration to C's evidence since CW1 could not remember the time he saw C and the exact home where he found him. In addition, while C stated that he was beaten from an army detach, CW1 stated that he was beaten from the Trading Center. The witness did not personally see C being beaten but was only told about the incident and also found C already injured.

CW2, Juma Patrick stated that he was a Clinical Officer holding a Diploma awarded to him from Fort Portal Medical School in 1999. That he had been in practice until 2009 but at the time he testified before the Tribunal he was self-employed as a businessman.

He identified the document he interpreted for the Tribunal as a patient discharge medical form from St. Mary's clinic in Mityana, which he had authored, adding that it was his handwriting and signature that were appearing on it, and that although he wrote the form on 16^th April, 2007 and examined C, he had actually seen C on $7^th$ April 2007. That usually, on admission of a patient, the doctor takes the patient's history and in this case. C stated that he had been beaten by soldiers. That on examination he observed multiple bruises on C's body as well as superficial wounds on the outer skin which had not gone deep into the body.

That he examined C by observing him with his own eyes and also by touching him. That he touched the whole body but especially the buttocks, and saw linear wounds cutting across the buttocks. That he concluded that C had been assaulted and the tools used to injure C could have

He noted that the wounds were not very fresh but he recalled having seen some blood stains on C. That he treated C from $7^{\text{th}}$ until 16^th April, 2007 when he was discharged and given some pain killers, antibiotics and other drugs. That C paid for the treatment as it was the practice for patients to pay after treatment, though it was not common for the clinic to issue receipts.

CW2 added that although he was working under Dr. Ibingira, he himself would admit patients where necessary and on discharge, he would write the summary of the findings during the period of admission and so, he had the ability to classify the extent of C's injuries which he classified as harm, adding that the wounds could however be treated and healed.

The medical form he interpreted was admitted with the consent of RC as C's first exhibit (CX1).

During cross-examination CW2 reiterated that C was under treatment from 7^th to 16^th April, 2007, and that on first examination since C was complaining of general pain and had wounds, it became necessary to admit him in order to make proper assessment and offer him proper and adequate treatment.

He added that they had a patient register in which patients were recorded on admission, and about ten beds, adding that the role of the Clinical Officer was to take the patient's history, examining the patient, making diagnosis, admitting and prescribing treatment. That as a Clinical Officer, he was in position to write the medical report.

CW 3, Dr. Kamaro Denis testified that he held an MBCHB obtained in 1996, and an M-MED in Family Medicine, adding that he had practiced medicine from Mulago National Referral Hospital since 1997 but sometimes he worked at Abby Clinic and Platinum Hospital in Wandegeya.

He identified the document that he interpreted as being Medical Form 5 which he had filled, adding that the form bore his own handwriting and name. That he filled it on 1^st November, 2007 and it was written in respect of Mr. Rwamini David who had come along with a history of backache and sexual dysfunction or erectile incompetence.

CW3 added that given such a complaint, he ordered for the x-ray of the back, specifically the lower back and also did an Ultra Sound examination of the abdomen. That according to the x-ray results all the bones of the lower back were normal apart from Muscle Spasms of the back, which meant that there was loss of the normal curvature of the back. He explained that many times when a person has infections of the kidneys, such a condition can happen. That according to the results of the Ultra Sound of the abdomen, it was found that the right kidney had an infection while the left kidney was not seen by the examination.

That after these findings, CW3 gave Rwamini David anti-biotics and pain killers to clear the infection and pain in the right kidney, and also ordered for a special investigation to locate the left kidney. He added that unfortunately the results of this investigation were not provided.

CW3 also interpreted another medical document which he had not authored although he had requested for it. He said that he knew the author of the document who was a Senior Consultant, Radiologist by the names of Dr. Iga Matovu. That they were workmates at Mulago Hospital and Dr. Iga Matovu had practiced medicine since the 1980s. The document was an x-ray report duly signed by Dr. Matovu on 1^st November, 2007 and in respect of Rwamini David.

CW3 said that the report indicated that the bones of C's back were normal but the spine was found to be strained due to muscles spasms. That the vertebral and posterior elements were normal, and the disks spaces were also normal.

He also interpreted a third document which was an ultra sound report of the abdomen which was done in the paying wing for outpatient services at Mulago Referral Hospital. He also confirmed that the receipts tendered in by C were from Mulago Hospital. That the receipts indicated that the cost of the x-ray done on the lower back was shs. $20,000=$ ; the cost of the ultra sound examination of the abdomen was Shs. 25,000=, and the cost for the doctor's consultation fees was Shs. 10,000=. That all the receipts were issued on the same date, $1^{st}$ November, 2007.

All the medical documents that CW3 interpreted and which were marked 13 (a) to (d) were admitted as C's second exhibit marked CX2.

CW3 pointed out that his experience in handling torture cases ranged from 1997 to 2006 when he worked with the Accident and Emergency Unit of Mulago Hospital. He added that in his daily practice, he encountered with torture victims who came for treatment. That according to the documents he signed, C never complained of any torture or accident or trauma. The conclusion that CW3 made as he summed up his interpretation of the medical forms was that the infection of

$\overline{7}$

the kidney that C had did not relate to the act of torture he had complained about. He also based this conclusion to his own claim that C had no history of torture when he examined him.

I have however, found it unsafe to rely on the conclusions made by CW3 negating the relationship between C's kidney ailment and his allegation of torture.

CW3 examined C in November, 2007 thus, almost seven months after C was assaulted in April, 2007 and first examined by CW2 in that same month shortly after the assault. CW3 therefore examined C after a lengthy time lag. Moreover, it was the responsibility of CW3 to ask C for the history of the ailment that C had complained about, as is usually the normal practice with all doctors in the medical fraternity. It was therefore wrong and improper for CW3 to heap all the blame on C for not providing the history of assault.

The evidence that CW2 adduced is comparatively far more reliable. As CW2 examined C shortly after the assault, he examined injuries that were still fresh and easier to connect to the effects of the assault that C complained about. Moreover, CW2 acted professionally by recording the history of assault that C narrated to him. He also described vividly to the Tribunal the methods of examination that he used on C, including observation with his eyes of the injuries on C's body and the overall condition in which C was, touching various parts of the body where C complained of feeling pain, and also requesting for specialized examination with modern technology. I therefore find the evidence adduced by CW2 corroborating to some extent the evidence that C adduced. Moreover, both CW1 and CW2 saw and assisted C during the same month of April when C was assaulted and when the effects of the assault were still fresh. Although CW1 did not see C being beaten, he personally and directly saw C immediately after the assault and was moreover, directly told by C that he had been beaten by soldiers, and this is the history that $C$ gave to $CW2$ .

I therefore find the evidence adduced by CW2 to be more convincing and dependable as compared to the aforementioned unconvincing conclusions that CW3 made.

Accordingly, I am taking the corroborative evidence adduced by both CW1 and CW2 as the basis for my conclusion regarding C's allegation of assault and its effects as constituting a violation to his right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In any case, even if I had no such evidence as was adduced by CW2, the

$\mathbf{8}$ aforementioned shortcomings in the evidence adduced by CW3 would still not negate C's evidence about the allegation of torture. This is because of the established principle of law that provides for the fact that medical evidence is not a legal requirement to prove torture. In Fred Kainamura & Ors vs Attorney General & Ors 1994 KALR 92, Justice Okello held that, "it was not a requirement of the law that every allegation of assault must be proved by medical evidence. Medical evidence helps to prove the gravity of assault".

Since RC failed to call defence witnesses and also never filed any written submission to rebut C's evidence, the principle of law applicable in this regard is laid down in the case of Edeku vs **Attorney General ('995) V1 KALR 24, stating that whenever contentions issues are raised and** argued before courts of law or tribunals and they are not rebutted by evidence adduced by the defence or respondent's side to successfully discredit and disprove the plaintiff's or complainant's evidence, then such issues are deemed to have been admitted by the defendant or respondent.

In order for me to seek further information to enable me establish more firmly the truth about C's allegation of torture, I decided to evoke **Rule 21 (4) of UHRC (Procedure) Rules 1998,** which allows the UHRC Tribunal the discretion to call for any information or evidence it deems necessary to assist it in determining the complaints brought before it. I therefore looked at the letter dated 15^th April, 2009 which was written by Rwema Richard, the LC2 Chairman of Bushooba LC1, Kayebe Parish in Mubende District. The letter responded to UHRC's letter that communicated to Richard Rwema C's allegation that Richard Rwema had taken part in C's arrest. Richard Rwema pointed out that as a Chairman, it was his duty as a civic leader to identify the person who had been sought for by the arresting officers on allegations of theft of cows. He confirmed that C was indeed arrested and taken by military men, although he did not mention the place where he was taken. He also denied having participated in the beatings that C alleged to have suffered. However, his confirmation of C's arrest by soldiers corroborated further the claim made by C in this regard and also, implicated more convincingly the soldiers who arrested and detained C at Rwamaboga Army detach.

Therefore, as R did not call any defense witnesses to testify and clarify the source of the injuries that C suffered while he was detained at the aforementioned military detach, then they ought to accept the liability for the action of their agents that resulted into all that happened to C while he

was in their custody. This is in line with the legal principle which requires that where an individual is arrested in good health and then taken into custody but is later on found with an injury or injuries, or is found dead while in custody, then it is incumbent upon the particular security agency concerned to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of the injury or injuries on the relevant person, or in the event of death while in custody, to give an explanation as to the cause of death, failing which the relevant security agency must be held responsible. [See Akdemz and Others vs Turkey (23954/94) (2001) ECHR 349 (31^ST May 2001); Akisov vs Turkey, (1995) 21 EA 573; and Velikova vs Bulgaria, Application No. 41488/98 ECHR.

C claimed to have suffered violation of a right that is protected by Uganda's Constitution and other relevant Ugandan laws as well as some of the International and Regional (African) human rights instruments that Uganda has signed and adopted. To this effect, Article 5 of the Universal **Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948** prohibits acts of torture, stating that "no person shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Article 7 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1996 also similarly prohibits torture, while the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading **Treatment or Punishment** (in short known as the CAT) more explicitly and totally prohibits violation of the same right, clarifying that it must never be violated even under exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether it is circumstances of a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), 1981 under Article 5 also totally prohibits the aforementioned infringement, stating that "all forms of exploitations and degradation of man, particularly slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment shall be prohibited".

Article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda also prohibits violation of the same right and Article 44 provides for the said right to be non-derogable.

It is therefore necessary to determine whether the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is so guaranteed by human rights law was indeed violated in this case. I have therefore found it necessary first of all to define the term "torture".

The Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or **Punishment, 1984** (the CAT) defines ''torture'' under Article 1 as:

> An act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession or punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed or intimidating or coercing him or a third person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity.

However, I must evaluate the evidence adduced in this matter with a view of determining whether the treatment that is alleged to have been meted out onto C by the aforementioned State agents actually amounted to the level of severity that constitutes what could be categorized as a violation that fits into the definition of torture as given under Article 1 of the CAT and also, in line with the related internationally acceptable conceptualization of torture.

If not, then I shall determine whether the effects of the same actions amounted to what is categorized as only cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In this connection therefore. I must evaluate the evidence to determine whether the four important ingredients that are identifiable in the CAT definition and the current international concept of torture are proved $\overline{I}$ by the evidence adduced by C. The four ingredients are:

- Whether the alleged actions of assault caused the victim severe pain or suffering, $i.$ whether physical or mental. - Whether such pain and suffering that the acts caused was intentionally inflicted on ii. the victim.

$11$

$\dot{\mathbf{1}}$ . Whether the alleged actions of assault caused the victim severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.

$\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathcal{R}}$

- ii. Whether such pain and suffering that the acts caused was intentionally inflicted on the victim. - iii. Whether the purpose of the actions was to obtain information or a confession or for punishment, intimidation, coercion or for any reason based on discrimination. - iv. Whether the actions were carried out by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in official capacity.

The assault on C by the soldiers attached to Rwamaboga Army Detach involved beating him with bicycle lock wires while his arms were tied on a tree and this was done over three days, with C on the third day being tied by the legs and upside down on the tree and beaten until he lost consciousness.

It is therefore clear that the intense and brutal assault that C was subjected to and the injuries he suffered did seriously affect him both physically and mentally. The severity of these injuries was confirmed by CW2 who admitted C in the hospital for about one week, observed the wounds cutting across C's buttocks and also concluded that the injuries caused harm to C. It is therefore clear that the first ingredient of torture was involved in C's predicament.

At the time C was arrested he was told that he was being arrested because he had stolen someone's cattle and while he was being beaten, he was being asked to disclose where he had hidden the said cows. This clearly indicates that the assault on him was not only intentional but also, purposeful. The soldiers wanted to get a confession from C that he had indeed stolen the cows and when he denied this, he was punished for it by the same soldiers.

Therefore, the afore-mentioned second and third ingredients of torture were also fully involved in the actions of C's assailants.

Since the soldiers from Rwamaboga Army Detach arrested C and took him to their Army detach where they tortured him severely while they were carrying out their official duties, and they also detained him at the same detach, there is no doubt that the fourth ingredient of the definition of torture was also involved in this matter

Articles 24, 44 and 221 of the Constitution of Uganda and the aforementioned International and Regional human rights instruments ratified and signed by Uganda.

Therefore, C's claim regarding the first issue under instant consideration is resolved in the affirmative and the claim succeeds.

## $$ **Whether R (Attorney General) is liable for the violation**

I have already accepted and confirmed fact that the UPDF soldiers who arrested and tortured C were actively in employment of the State, their master at the time they violated C's right.

Article 119 (4) (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and Section 10 of the **Government Proceedings Act** provide for the mandate of the Attorney General (R) to represent Government in any civil proceedings to which Government is a party, as has been the case in this matter.

In Muwonge V Attorney General (1967) E. A 17, Justice Newbold P. agreed with the submission made to the effect that the principle of law governing the liability of the Attorney General in respect of the acts of a member of the Police Force are precisely the same as those relating to the position of a master's liability for the act of his servant. It was therefore held that "...a master is liable for the acts of his servant committed within the course of his employment. The master remains so liable whether the acts of the servant are negligent or deliberate or wanton or criminal."

Furthermore, in the case of Jones V Tower Boots Co. Ltd (1997)2 ALL ER 406, the court held that "an act is within the course of employment if it is either a wrongful act authorized by the employer or a wrongful and unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the employer".

Since the above first issue has been resolved in favour of C, I am therefore holding R vicariously liable for the acts of the soldiers from Rwamaboga Army Detach who violated C's right. Accordingly, C's claim in this respect also succeeds.

## **Issue 3:** Whether $C$ is entitled to any remedy

Article 53(2) (b) of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda empowers the Commission, once satisfied that there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom, to order for redress which may include among other forms, payment of compensation. I now evoke these powers.

Since C has proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that on balance, it is probable that his aforementioned right was violated by the said State agents, he is therefore entitled to receive compensation from R by way of damages.

I shall determine the quantum of the damages taking into account the case of **Matiya Byalema** and Others vs Uganda Transport Company, SSCA No 10 of 1993, where it was stated that "courts ought to assess the amount of damages taking into account the current value of money in terms of what goods and services it can purchase at present."

I am also taking into consideration the legal principle that the basic purpose of damages is to put the victim in the position he would have been had he not suffered the wrong [Dr. Denis Lwamafa -v- Attorney General C/S No.79/1983; George Paul Emenyu& Another -v-Attorney General 109/1994 V KALR].

In the case of John Kashagure -and- Attorney General, UHRC/MBA/81/2004, decided on 23^rd September, 2008, the Complainant sustained injuries due to the beating that was inflicted on him by Local Defence Unit operatives. According to his testimony he was injured on the shoulders, buttocks, the back and legs. He also stated that red pepper was put in his eyes. Former Commissioner J. M Aliro-Omara, held that in considering the amount of compensation to award for acts of torture, the following factors should be considered:

- a. That freedom from torture is a non-derogable freedom, and therefore its violation which is always a deliberate abuse must be considered equally to be a deliberate breach of a fundamental right guaranteed absolutely by the Constitution; and - b. The nature and extent of any injuries sustained by the victim as a consequence of the torture.

$14$

In this complaint the agents of the Respondent deliberately tortured the Complainant and caused severe injuries on him. The Tribunal therefore awarded the Complainant Ug. Shs. 6,000,000= (six million shillings only) as general damages in compensation for the violation of his right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In the case of Olupot Stephen -and-Attorney General, UHRC/591/2003, the Complainant Stephen Olupot proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that was presided over by former Commissioner Veronica Eragu Bitchetero that he had indeed been beaten by the Gombolola Internal Security Officer (GISO) called Atari and Special Police Constable (SPC) called Okideng. The two men beat Olupot with the intention of forcing him to accept that he was the Mr. Okwaling a whom the former two security operatives were seeking to apprehend on the suspicion of having carried out some robberies. The Doctor who examined Olupot, confirmed that he had suffered injuries like cuts over his body as a result of the beating, and that he had also been admitted at Soroti Hospital for five (5) days. The Doctor categorized the injuries as **harm** and clarified that they could not cause permanent disability. The Presiding Commissioner awarded the Complainant a sum of Ug. Shs.5,000,000/= (Five million shillings only) as general damages in compensation for the violation of his right of freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

In the two cases cited above the injuries that the complainants suffered were to a certain extent similar to those that C suffered in the case under instant resolution. However, in the instant case C was tortured with greater brutality, callousness and cruelty as he was made to sleep outside the house for two nights, and also tethered on a tree by the legs with his head facing down as he was beaten to the point of unconsciousness. I must also take into account the lengthy time lag from the time when this complaint was filed in 2007 to this day when it is resolved as well as the value of money as it stands today. Furthermore, C spent Ug. Shs. $55,000$ on medical treatment for which he tendered in receipts, and this expense also needs to be taken into account. I am therefore awarding to C Shs.8,000,000/= (Eight million shillings only) as general damages in compensation for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I am therefore ordering as follows:

## **ORDERS**

- $1.$ The complaint is wholly allowed. - $2.$ R (Attorney General) is ordered to pay to C, Rwamini David a total of Ug. Shs. $8,000,000=$ (Eight million shillings only) for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. - $\mathfrak{F}$ Interest at the current court rate per annum to be paid on the total sum of Ug. Shs. $8,000,000=$ (Eight million shillings only) calculated from the date of this decision until payment in full. - 4. Each party to bear their own costs. - $5.$ Either party may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within thirty (30) days from the date of this decision if not satisfied with the decision of this Tribunal.

So it is ordered.

DATED AT KAMPALA ON THIS....................................

**SIGNED BY**

DR. KATEBALIRWE AMOOTI WA IRUMBA

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER

16