Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS CONSIDERATION OF INITIAL REPORT OF UGANDA
11 May 2005
Share
Committee against Torture
MORNING
11 May 2005
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the initial report of Uganda on the measures that country has adopted to prevent and punish acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
William G. Naggaga, Deputy Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introduced the members of the delegation of Uganda and told the Committee that the introduction to the report would be in the form of responses by the delegation to issues raised by the Committee.
The Ugandan delegation said that in the absence of a definition of torture in the statutes of Uganda, articles 24 and 44 of the Constitution protected the inherent right to freedom from torture and declared it an absolute right. Most acts of torture could be qualified as assaults on the victims and were covered under Chapter 23 of the Penal Code.
With regard to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, the delegation said it was enacted to suppress acts of terrorism and provide punishment for such acts, among other aims. It established that any authorized officer who engaged in torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal detention or intentionally caused harm or loss to property committed an offence and was liable, on conviction, to imprisonment or a fine.
Andreas Mavrommatis, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur to the report of Uganda, said the Committee was aware of the difficulties and impediments that Uganda had been facing in the full implementation of the provisions of human rights treaties in the past. Currently, the Government of Uganda was faced with the problem of the insurgency in the north. According to the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, the situation in the north was one of the most tragic situations, with 20,000 children abducted to serve as soldiers and sex-slaves by the armed group.
Mr. Mavrommatis recommended that the State party make efforts in defining torture within its domestic legislation in accordance with the definition provided under article 1 of the Convention. Acts of torture should be punished appropriately, he said, adding that an officer who committed torture and was punished only by being demoted had not been properly punished. The perpetrators of torture should be punished in order to ensure that a culture of impunity was not perpetuated.
Guibril Camara, the Committee Expert who served as co-Rapporteur to the report, praised the quality of the report and the high-level Ugandan delegation. He said that the Committee was dealing with a special offence, which was not like any other kind of offence. Torture had been a crime against humanity throughout history, and efforts had been made to eradicate it.
On the issue of extradition, he wanted to know about the compatibility of article 8 of the Convention and legislation on extradition. He asked if the Minister of Justice could refuse to implement the decisions of the courts in matters of extradition.
Other Committee Experts also raised a number of questions pertaining to the conflict in northern Uganda, the creation of local complaints mechanisms, cases of deaths in prisons, protection of internally displaced persons in the north of Uganda against abduction and attacks; prosecution of traffickers; the existence of sexual violence in prisons; and the banning of capital punishment.
The delegation of Uganda will return to the Committee at 4 p.m. on Thursday, 12 May, to give its response to the questions raised this morning.
Also representing Uganda were representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the Ugandan Police, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, and the Prisons Department.
Uganda, as one of the 139 States parties to the Convention, must provide the Committee with periodic reports on efforts to comply with the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
When the Committee reconvenes at 4 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the response of Albania to questions raised on its initial report by the Committee Experts on 10 May.
Report of Uganda
The initial report of Uganda (CAT/C/5/Add.32) notes that Uganda acceded to the Convention against Torture in 1987; however, there is no explicit definition of torture in Ugandan national law; and the lack of definition makes it difficult to prosecute torture as a specific crime. The Bill of Rights in the 1962 and 1967 Constitutions of Uganda prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Articles 12 and 21 of the Constitutions state in almost identical terms that no person should be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or other similar treatment, except for the infliction of any punishment against any person that was lawful in Uganda immediately prior to 9 October 1962. The articles appear to permit only the infliction of pain or suffering from or incidental to punishments that were lawful prior to independence. The 1995 Constitution under articles 24 and 44 respectively prohibits and makes torture non-derogable. The Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, provides that "any authorized officer who engages in torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal detention or intentionally causes harm or loss to property, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine … or both".
According to the report, the standing orders of police prohibit torture and administrative circulars against torture are regularly issued. Courts of judicature, which include the Supreme Court, court of appeal, constitutional court and the high court, can hear all cases on torture. Apart from courts of law, the Constitution mandates the Ugandan Human Rights Commission to investigate and handle cases of torture while sitting as a tribunal. Its judgments and awards have the same value as those given by the high court. The right not to be tortured is non-derogable under article 44 of the 1995 Constitution.
Presentation of Report
WILLIAM G. NAGGAGA, Deputy Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introduced the members of the delegation of Uganda and told the Committee that the introduction of the report would be in the form of responses provided by the delegation to issues raised by the Committee. The members of the Ugandan delegation then presented the initial report by providing responses to a number of issues pertaining to the provisions of the Convention.
The delegation said that in the absence of a definition of torture in the statutes of Uganda, articles 24 and 44 of the Constitution protected the inherent right to freedom from torture and declared it an absolute right. Most acts of torture could be qualified as assaults on the victims and were covered under Chapter 23 of the Penal Code.
With regard to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, the delegation said it was enacted to suppress acts of terrorism and provide for punishment to such acts, among other aims. It established that any authorized officer who engaged in torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal detention or intentionally caused harm or loss to property committed an offence and was liable, on conviction, to imprisonment or a fine.
The Police Act provided that on receipt of a complaint of torture, the suspect should be investigated and the complainant should be examined. A police officer who behaved in a cruel, stressful and indecent or unnatural manner committed an offence and was liable on conviction to reduction in rank or dismissal. The Prison Act had no express provision on prohibition of torture. However, a regulation prohibited oppressive or tyrannical conduct, abusive or insulting language and assault. When a prison officer tortured a prisoner, he was dealt with under the Penal Code provisions concerning assaults.
On the duration of detention in police custody before the arrested person was brought before a judge, the delegation said an arrested person should be brought before a court within 48 hours of his arrest. A Police Human Rights pocket book provided for the manner in which the police should react towards the arrested person. The law also provided for the registration of a person from the time of arrest to the time of his or her imprisonment as a result of a judicial decision. Incommunicado detention was not allowed under any circumstances. The arrested person was entitled to a lawyer for representation and presence during interrogation. In addition, family members were informed of the arrest.
Article 24 of the Constitution guaranteed there was no derogation to the right not to be tortured, the delegation said. In addition, the Police Act prohibited torture and provided for the procedure when a complaint of torture was made.
With regards to extradition under article 3 of the Convention, the delegation said that offences of a political character were not extraditable. The Minister of Justice decided who should be extradited. The law required that the requisition for the surrender of the fugitive criminal of any country suspected to be on Ugandan soil should be made to the Minister by a diplomatic representative officer of the country. The Minister was entitled to refuse to make an order for the surrender of a fugitive if in his opinion the offence was of a political character. The Minster could equally refuse if there was overwhelming evidence that the fugitive would be subjected to torture in his home country. The Minister was also charged with the duty to endorse the warrants of apprehension of fugitive criminals.
Acts of torture were not universal in Ugandan law, the delegation said. The Penal Code provided that the jurisdiction of courts of Uganda for purposes of that Code extended to every place within the country. However, there were offences under the code for which extraterritorial jurisdiction was expressly provided. Those included treason and offences against the State but did not include torture. If the offences were committed outside Uganda by an Ugandan citizen or a person ordinarily resident in the country, they should be dealt with as if committed in Uganda. However, under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, the courts were given extraterritorial jurisdiction to stay offences of terrorism committed beyond Ugandan borders.
There were no special procedures concerning persons suspected of acts of torture, the delegation said. Suspects of torture were treated like any other suspects. The Extradition Act provided for a treaty among and between specific States. Uganda was a member of the Interpol and the Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO). Uganda's membership to those organizations eased mutual cooperation in judicial assistance and matters of criminal procedure.
The Ugandan Human Right Commission was mandated by the Constitution to provide education in human rights, the delegation said. Education and information regarding the prohibition against torture were included in the training of military personnel and a human rights training manual had been developed. Access to prisons and police and military facilities had often been granted to the Commission, the ICRC and Parliamentary Committees whenever they had expressed the willingness to visit. However, no cases of torture had been found during those visits.
On the issue of the procedure to bring complaints against torture to the attention of the competent authorities, the delegation said torture was like any other offence and was handled like any other criminal matter. Where it occurred within an institution like the army, police or prisons, the matter was handled within that department. Traditionally, citizens whose rights had been violated could claim redress through courts of law.
Discussion
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur to the report of Uganda, said the Committee was aware of the difficulties and impediments that Uganda had been facing in the full implementation of the human rights treaties in the past. The dark days under Idi Amin were also recalled. Currently, the Government of Uganda was faced with the problem of the insurgency in the north. According to the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, the situation in the north was one of the most tragic situations, with 20,000 children abducted to serve as soldiers and sex-slaves for the armed group.
Uganda had to be praised for its efforts in hosting many refugees in its territory, Mr. Mavrommatis said. There had not been any incident of extradition or expulsion of refugees to their respective countries of origin.
Uganda had ratified almost all the United Nations human rights treaties and had continued to implement them, Mr. Mavrommatis said. The participation of non-governmental organizations was indispensable in the task of promoting and protecting human rights. He said visits to places of detention should be carried out without any obstacle. Any organization, including the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, should be able to carry out unannounced visits to prisons and other detention centres.
Mr. Mavrommatis recommended that the State party should make efforts in defining torture within its domestic legislation in accordance with the definition provided under article 1 of the Convention.
Acts of torture should be punished appropriately, the Rapporteur said, adding that an officer who committed torture and was punished by being demoted was not being properly punished. The perpetrators of torture should be punished in order to ensure that a culture of impunity was not perpetuated.
Mr. Mavrommatis, citing names of individuals who were reported to have been tortured, asked the delegation to react to the allegation that prisoners were tortured in the central prison of Uganda.
How accessible was the use of habeas corpus to arrested persons, the Rapporteur asked. The use of such a legal procedure would prevent the occurrence of torture in both civil or military detention centres.
The delegation was also asked about the intentions of the State party with regards to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
GUIBRIL CAMARA, the Committee Expert who served as co-Rapporteur to the report, praised the quality of the report and the high-level of the Ugandan delegation. He said that the Committee was dealing with a special offence, which was not like any other kind of offence. Torture was a crime against humanity and throughout history, efforts had been made to eradicate it.
On the issue of extradition, he wanted to know about the compatibility of article 8 of the Convention and legislation on extradition. He asked if the Minister of Justice could refuse to implement the decisions of the courts in matters of extradition.
According to article 11 of the Convention, each State party should keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices, as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest. Were the rules put in place by the State party strictly respected?
Mr. Camara asked about the legitimacy of keeping a person in prison after having served his or her sentence.
If a public agent committed torture, Mr. Camara said, could both the State and the official be accountable for the damage. Was the State obliged to pay compensation to the victim on behalf of the official?
Mr. Camara recalled that any confession obtained under any circumstances where torture, physical or psychological, existed, even in the presence of a magistrate, was not valid. He stressed that the State party should take note of such acts.
With regards to sanctioning of a public officer who committed torture, courts should pass judgement and the Ugandan Human Rights Commission should also do the same. What was the procedure to be followed in sanctioning the individual? What were the criteria of membership of the Commission?
Other Committee Experts also raised a number of questions. Referring to the conflict in northern Uganda, an Expert recalled that an investigation was going on at present by the International Criminal Court with regard to the conflict and crimes committed in the region. She asked the opinion of the delegation on whether the work of the Court should continue or should be discontinued. She also asked if the State party was envisaging the creation of local complaints mechanisms. She asked about the reasons of death in prisons; the provision of protection to internally displaced persons in the north of Uganda against abduction and attacks; prosecution of traffickers; and the existence of sexual violence in prisons.
Other Experts also asked if there was a legal initiative going on with respect to the definition of torture; if the State respected the provision of the 48-hour detention of a suspect before he or she was brought before a court; and if the State was envisaging to do away with capital punishment.
* *** *
This press release is not an official record and is provided for public information only.
MORNING
11 May 2005
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the initial report of Uganda on the measures that country has adopted to prevent and punish acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
William G. Naggaga, Deputy Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introduced the members of the delegation of Uganda and told the Committee that the introduction to the report would be in the form of responses by the delegation to issues raised by the Committee.
The Ugandan delegation said that in the absence of a definition of torture in the statutes of Uganda, articles 24 and 44 of the Constitution protected the inherent right to freedom from torture and declared it an absolute right. Most acts of torture could be qualified as assaults on the victims and were covered under Chapter 23 of the Penal Code.
With regard to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, the delegation said it was enacted to suppress acts of terrorism and provide punishment for such acts, among other aims. It established that any authorized officer who engaged in torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal detention or intentionally caused harm or loss to property committed an offence and was liable, on conviction, to imprisonment or a fine.
Andreas Mavrommatis, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur to the report of Uganda, said the Committee was aware of the difficulties and impediments that Uganda had been facing in the full implementation of the provisions of human rights treaties in the past. Currently, the Government of Uganda was faced with the problem of the insurgency in the north. According to the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, the situation in the north was one of the most tragic situations, with 20,000 children abducted to serve as soldiers and sex-slaves by the armed group.
Mr. Mavrommatis recommended that the State party make efforts in defining torture within its domestic legislation in accordance with the definition provided under article 1 of the Convention. Acts of torture should be punished appropriately, he said, adding that an officer who committed torture and was punished only by being demoted had not been properly punished. The perpetrators of torture should be punished in order to ensure that a culture of impunity was not perpetuated.
Guibril Camara, the Committee Expert who served as co-Rapporteur to the report, praised the quality of the report and the high-level Ugandan delegation. He said that the Committee was dealing with a special offence, which was not like any other kind of offence. Torture had been a crime against humanity throughout history, and efforts had been made to eradicate it.
On the issue of extradition, he wanted to know about the compatibility of article 8 of the Convention and legislation on extradition. He asked if the Minister of Justice could refuse to implement the decisions of the courts in matters of extradition.
Other Committee Experts also raised a number of questions pertaining to the conflict in northern Uganda, the creation of local complaints mechanisms, cases of deaths in prisons, protection of internally displaced persons in the north of Uganda against abduction and attacks; prosecution of traffickers; the existence of sexual violence in prisons; and the banning of capital punishment.
The delegation of Uganda will return to the Committee at 4 p.m. on Thursday, 12 May, to give its response to the questions raised this morning.
Also representing Uganda were representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the Ugandan Police, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, and the Prisons Department.
Uganda, as one of the 139 States parties to the Convention, must provide the Committee with periodic reports on efforts to comply with the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
When the Committee reconvenes at 4 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the response of Albania to questions raised on its initial report by the Committee Experts on 10 May.
Report of Uganda
The initial report of Uganda (CAT/C/5/Add.32) notes that Uganda acceded to the Convention against Torture in 1987; however, there is no explicit definition of torture in Ugandan national law; and the lack of definition makes it difficult to prosecute torture as a specific crime. The Bill of Rights in the 1962 and 1967 Constitutions of Uganda prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Articles 12 and 21 of the Constitutions state in almost identical terms that no person should be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or other similar treatment, except for the infliction of any punishment against any person that was lawful in Uganda immediately prior to 9 October 1962. The articles appear to permit only the infliction of pain or suffering from or incidental to punishments that were lawful prior to independence. The 1995 Constitution under articles 24 and 44 respectively prohibits and makes torture non-derogable. The Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, provides that "any authorized officer who engages in torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal detention or intentionally causes harm or loss to property, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine … or both".
According to the report, the standing orders of police prohibit torture and administrative circulars against torture are regularly issued. Courts of judicature, which include the Supreme Court, court of appeal, constitutional court and the high court, can hear all cases on torture. Apart from courts of law, the Constitution mandates the Ugandan Human Rights Commission to investigate and handle cases of torture while sitting as a tribunal. Its judgments and awards have the same value as those given by the high court. The right not to be tortured is non-derogable under article 44 of the 1995 Constitution.
Presentation of Report
WILLIAM G. NAGGAGA, Deputy Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introduced the members of the delegation of Uganda and told the Committee that the introduction of the report would be in the form of responses provided by the delegation to issues raised by the Committee. The members of the Ugandan delegation then presented the initial report by providing responses to a number of issues pertaining to the provisions of the Convention.
The delegation said that in the absence of a definition of torture in the statutes of Uganda, articles 24 and 44 of the Constitution protected the inherent right to freedom from torture and declared it an absolute right. Most acts of torture could be qualified as assaults on the victims and were covered under Chapter 23 of the Penal Code.
With regard to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, the delegation said it was enacted to suppress acts of terrorism and provide for punishment to such acts, among other aims. It established that any authorized officer who engaged in torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, illegal detention or intentionally caused harm or loss to property committed an offence and was liable, on conviction, to imprisonment or a fine.
The Police Act provided that on receipt of a complaint of torture, the suspect should be investigated and the complainant should be examined. A police officer who behaved in a cruel, stressful and indecent or unnatural manner committed an offence and was liable on conviction to reduction in rank or dismissal. The Prison Act had no express provision on prohibition of torture. However, a regulation prohibited oppressive or tyrannical conduct, abusive or insulting language and assault. When a prison officer tortured a prisoner, he was dealt with under the Penal Code provisions concerning assaults.
On the duration of detention in police custody before the arrested person was brought before a judge, the delegation said an arrested person should be brought before a court within 48 hours of his arrest. A Police Human Rights pocket book provided for the manner in which the police should react towards the arrested person. The law also provided for the registration of a person from the time of arrest to the time of his or her imprisonment as a result of a judicial decision. Incommunicado detention was not allowed under any circumstances. The arrested person was entitled to a lawyer for representation and presence during interrogation. In addition, family members were informed of the arrest.
Article 24 of the Constitution guaranteed there was no derogation to the right not to be tortured, the delegation said. In addition, the Police Act prohibited torture and provided for the procedure when a complaint of torture was made.
With regards to extradition under article 3 of the Convention, the delegation said that offences of a political character were not extraditable. The Minister of Justice decided who should be extradited. The law required that the requisition for the surrender of the fugitive criminal of any country suspected to be on Ugandan soil should be made to the Minister by a diplomatic representative officer of the country. The Minister was entitled to refuse to make an order for the surrender of a fugitive if in his opinion the offence was of a political character. The Minster could equally refuse if there was overwhelming evidence that the fugitive would be subjected to torture in his home country. The Minister was also charged with the duty to endorse the warrants of apprehension of fugitive criminals.
Acts of torture were not universal in Ugandan law, the delegation said. The Penal Code provided that the jurisdiction of courts of Uganda for purposes of that Code extended to every place within the country. However, there were offences under the code for which extraterritorial jurisdiction was expressly provided. Those included treason and offences against the State but did not include torture. If the offences were committed outside Uganda by an Ugandan citizen or a person ordinarily resident in the country, they should be dealt with as if committed in Uganda. However, under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002, the courts were given extraterritorial jurisdiction to stay offences of terrorism committed beyond Ugandan borders.
There were no special procedures concerning persons suspected of acts of torture, the delegation said. Suspects of torture were treated like any other suspects. The Extradition Act provided for a treaty among and between specific States. Uganda was a member of the Interpol and the Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO). Uganda's membership to those organizations eased mutual cooperation in judicial assistance and matters of criminal procedure.
The Ugandan Human Right Commission was mandated by the Constitution to provide education in human rights, the delegation said. Education and information regarding the prohibition against torture were included in the training of military personnel and a human rights training manual had been developed. Access to prisons and police and military facilities had often been granted to the Commission, the ICRC and Parliamentary Committees whenever they had expressed the willingness to visit. However, no cases of torture had been found during those visits.
On the issue of the procedure to bring complaints against torture to the attention of the competent authorities, the delegation said torture was like any other offence and was handled like any other criminal matter. Where it occurred within an institution like the army, police or prisons, the matter was handled within that department. Traditionally, citizens whose rights had been violated could claim redress through courts of law.
Discussion
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, the Committee Expert who served as Rapporteur to the report of Uganda, said the Committee was aware of the difficulties and impediments that Uganda had been facing in the full implementation of the human rights treaties in the past. The dark days under Idi Amin were also recalled. Currently, the Government of Uganda was faced with the problem of the insurgency in the north. According to the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, the situation in the north was one of the most tragic situations, with 20,000 children abducted to serve as soldiers and sex-slaves for the armed group.
Uganda had to be praised for its efforts in hosting many refugees in its territory, Mr. Mavrommatis said. There had not been any incident of extradition or expulsion of refugees to their respective countries of origin.
Uganda had ratified almost all the United Nations human rights treaties and had continued to implement them, Mr. Mavrommatis said. The participation of non-governmental organizations was indispensable in the task of promoting and protecting human rights. He said visits to places of detention should be carried out without any obstacle. Any organization, including the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, should be able to carry out unannounced visits to prisons and other detention centres.
Mr. Mavrommatis recommended that the State party should make efforts in defining torture within its domestic legislation in accordance with the definition provided under article 1 of the Convention.
Acts of torture should be punished appropriately, the Rapporteur said, adding that an officer who committed torture and was punished by being demoted was not being properly punished. The perpetrators of torture should be punished in order to ensure that a culture of impunity was not perpetuated.
Mr. Mavrommatis, citing names of individuals who were reported to have been tortured, asked the delegation to react to the allegation that prisoners were tortured in the central prison of Uganda.
How accessible was the use of habeas corpus to arrested persons, the Rapporteur asked. The use of such a legal procedure would prevent the occurrence of torture in both civil or military detention centres.
The delegation was also asked about the intentions of the State party with regards to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
GUIBRIL CAMARA, the Committee Expert who served as co-Rapporteur to the report, praised the quality of the report and the high-level of the Ugandan delegation. He said that the Committee was dealing with a special offence, which was not like any other kind of offence. Torture was a crime against humanity and throughout history, efforts had been made to eradicate it.
On the issue of extradition, he wanted to know about the compatibility of article 8 of the Convention and legislation on extradition. He asked if the Minister of Justice could refuse to implement the decisions of the courts in matters of extradition.
According to article 11 of the Convention, each State party should keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices, as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest. Were the rules put in place by the State party strictly respected?
Mr. Camara asked about the legitimacy of keeping a person in prison after having served his or her sentence.
If a public agent committed torture, Mr. Camara said, could both the State and the official be accountable for the damage. Was the State obliged to pay compensation to the victim on behalf of the official?
Mr. Camara recalled that any confession obtained under any circumstances where torture, physical or psychological, existed, even in the presence of a magistrate, was not valid. He stressed that the State party should take note of such acts.
With regards to sanctioning of a public officer who committed torture, courts should pass judgement and the Ugandan Human Rights Commission should also do the same. What was the procedure to be followed in sanctioning the individual? What were the criteria of membership of the Commission?
Other Committee Experts also raised a number of questions. Referring to the conflict in northern Uganda, an Expert recalled that an investigation was going on at present by the International Criminal Court with regard to the conflict and crimes committed in the region. She asked the opinion of the delegation on whether the work of the Court should continue or should be discontinued. She also asked if the State party was envisaging the creation of local complaints mechanisms. She asked about the reasons of death in prisons; the provision of protection to internally displaced persons in the north of Uganda against abduction and attacks; prosecution of traffickers; and the existence of sexual violence in prisons.
Other Experts also asked if there was a legal initiative going on with respect to the definition of torture; if the State respected the provision of the 48-hour detention of a suspect before he or she was brought before a court; and if the State was envisaging to do away with capital punishment.
* *** *
This press release is not an official record and is provided for public information only.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: