Ekau v Attorney General (Complaint No. SRT/36/2009) [2017] UGHRC 13 (7 December 2017)

Full Case Text

![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)

*\* •>*

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

## **THE UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (UHRC) TRIBUNAL HOLDEN AT SOROTI**

## **COMPLAINT NO. SRT/36/2009**

**EKAU SAMUEL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: COMPLAINANT** *i; ®* **and**

**« ATTORNEY GENERAL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

# **BEFORE PRESIDING COMMISSIONER HON. DR. KATEBALIRWE** *'V' I -*

# **{ ? AMOOTI WA IRUMBA**

# **H DECISION**

/ 5 The Complainant (C), Ekau Samuel brought this matter against the Respondent (R) seeking 1 compensation for the violation of his rights to protection from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to personal liberty. He alleged that on 20th May, ? r 2009 he was arrested by a UPDF soldier on the allegation of being in illegal possession of firearms, and taken to Amuria Central Police Station. That during detention, he was severely beaten by policemen with a baton around his elbows, hands and legs. That as a result of the beating, he sustained severe injuries. He also stated that he was released on 25th May, 2009 on police bond.

C contended that the actions allegedly committed against him by policemen amounted to a violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to personal liberty. He therefore holds R as being vicariously liable for the same violation. The Respondent (R) through their representative Counsel (RC) Mr. Eric Lumbe denied liability.

#### **ISSUES:**

- (i) Whether C's right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by State agents. - (ii) Whether C's right to personal liberty was violated by State agents. - (iii) Whether R (Attorney General) is liable for the violations. - (iv) Whether C is entitled to any remedies.

Before I resolve the above issues I wish to note from the record of proceedings that RC crossexamined C and his witnesses although he did not call defence witnesses. He also filed a written submission in rebuttal to C's allegations.

I note further that C retained the duty to prove his case against R to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, as required under **Section.101 (1) of the Evidence Act Cap 6,** which provides that:

"Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence offacts which he or she asserts must prove that the facts exist"; as well as **section**

**102 of the** same Act, which states that: 'The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail ifno evidence at all were given on either side.'

**Issue: Whether Ekau Samuel's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or**

**degrading treatment orpunishment was violated by State agents/servants.**

**Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)** gives an internationally agreed legal definition of torture by stating that:

*"Torture means any 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, 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, orfor any reason based on discrimination ofany kind, when such pain or*

*suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation ofor with the consent or acquiescence ofa public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising onlyfrom, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions*

Domestically, **the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012** under section 3 defines 'torture' as:

*"any act or omission, by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence ofany person whether a public official or other person acting in an official or private capacity for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession from the person or any other person, punishing that person for an act he or she or any other person has committed, or is suspected of having committed or of planning to commit; or intimidating or coercing the person or any other person to do, or to refrain from doing, any act ",*

Article 24 of the **Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995** prohibits the violation of an individual's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The same Constitution provides for the same right to be non-derogable.

**The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1996** also totally prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment under Article 7 by stating that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Similarly, **the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948** states under Article 5 that; "no person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The actions committed against C would constitute ''torture" ifthe same were proved taking into account the definition oftorture as provided under Article 1 ofthe CAT. The evidence adduced by C should prove on a balance of probabilities whether the actions of the said police men amounted to the level of severity that constitutes what would be categorized as torture, or whether the effects ofthe same actions amounts to what is categorized as only cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In the same regard,the following important four ingredients of torture as identifiable in the CAT definition and the current international concept of torture should be proved by the evidence adduced:

- a) That the action of the policemen caused the victim severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, - b) That such pain and suffering was intentionally inflicted on the victim, - c) That the purpose of the action was to obtain information or a confession or for punishment, intimidation, coercion or for any reason based on discrimination, - d) That the actions were inflicted by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

#### **Evidence:**

C **Ekau Samuel** testified that on 22nd May, 2009 while he was with his wife in Amuria Town, he was arrested by one Emadu Steven, a Wembley operative who handcuffed him and took him to Amuria Central Police Station. That he was put in the cell where he spent a night still in handcuffs. That the following day, he was taken out of the cell and Emadu Steven got a baton and threatened to beat him if he refused to produce the fire arm he was suspected to be having. That when he told him that he did not have it, he started beating his joints as he kept on asking him to produce the firearm. All these happened while he was still in handcuffs.

#### C added as follows:

"My father called Atongu Daniel came and found me being beaten by Emadu Steven. Emadu chased my father and my father went away because Emadu told him that "I will mix you with your son". Then after beating me to the point of death and kicking me on the ribs, he went and picked two suspects to take me back to the cell *(he showed the Tribunal scars on his forehead).* He beat me for about two hours, while kicking and beating me until I was unable to speak or even turn. He even refused my wife from seeing me on that same day 26,h March, 2009. He told her that "if you don't know, I am a human killer"; so my wife feared and went away. I was hearing him because he was speaking loudly. Enuku saw me immediately after I had been beaten. I stayed in the cell that night. He removed the handcuffs after beating me the second day.

I was not beaten again after that. After being beaten, I started urinating blood for about four days. I had wounds on my forehead and all the joints were very painful and I could not move.

C added that in the evening, his wife brought him food but Emadu Steven refused her to give it to him as if he did not want C to survive. That he was given food on the 27th May, 2009 after the intervention of some police woman. That the police woman also told his wife to try and bring some medicine for C. That C's wife gave medicine to C's father to bring to him but Emadu told him to take it back.

He further testified that on 28thMay 2009, his father went and talked to the GISO called Esalu Shedrack, and told him about C's situation. That Esalu told C's father that he could not manage and advised the father to go to the DPC but the father instead went to the RDC of Soroti, Etonu Ben, who went and talked to Emadu Steven. That they went together with the GISO and talked to the DPC and as a result, C was brought out of the cell and taken to the DPC's Office. That they asked Emadu why he had tortured C like that. That Emadu said that he had received information from people C was drinking with that C had a firearm. That Emadu was asked whether he was willing to treat C and also compensate him, and he accepted before the DPC, RDC, and GISO.

#### C added that:

"He was ordered to release me and treat me. He released me and when we reached on the way he refused to take me for treatment and told me that "if you think I am here illegally, go and ask President Museveni who deployed me here". I got my own treatment. I went to Amuria Elealth Centre IV and got treatment. I have the originals of my medical documents which I shall bring at the next hearing. I still feel pain around the loins and In the waist. When I have sexual intercourse, I get terrible pain. I cannot even work because I feel a lot of pain. It is just my wife and children who do garden work. I only do simple work like sweeping."

During cross- examination by Counsel for the Respondent (RC), C clarified that Emadu Steven who arrested him was working with Wembly, and that he knew him because they used to stay together in the same area. That he was a soldier working with Wembly and the arrest took place

at 4:00p.m. That Emadu used to wear an army uniform and also used to stay with C in the same area but at the time he arrested C, he was in civilian clothes.

C further stated that Emadu arrested him and asked him to give the gun that Emadu alleged C had come back with from service. C clarified that he had worked in the forces but he got an accident and therefore requested for retirement and was accordingly discharged. That after arrest he was beaten the next day after staying in the police cell overnight. That Emadu is the one who beat him from outside under a pawpaw tree. That the beating lasted for about one and half hours. That when Emadu started beating him, C's father was watching but after some time Emadu chased C's father away.

C added that he knew that those who beat him worked for the government. That he got treatment from the hospital which was near the police where he was detained, and he received the rest of the treatment from home. That it was true that he started urinating blood while in the Police cell, and the problem was written in the medical form. He also stated that he was kicked around the bladder, and that is why he urinated blood. However, he added that although he was successfully treated during that time, he was still getting relapses and feeling pain when walking. That there was completely no work he could do, and it was his wife and children who were doing the diging. He clarified that Emadu used a black baton to beat him and it was plastic.

Upon re-examination by Counsel for the Commission (CC), C stated that he used to earn money by growing crops for sell and also making bricks, and this enabled him to sustain his family.

C's first witness **Arengo Rose (CW1),** a wife to Ekau Samuel testified that in 2009, but on a date she could not remember, while she was with C in Amuria, her husband was called by someone and he left her and went. That she later heard from someone that her husband had been arrested and handcuffed. That the next morning, she went to visit him at Amuria Central Police Station but when she reached, he found him being beaten from inside the cell as she heard his cries. That she was not allowed to see him so she went back home with the breakfast she had brought for him. That she went back to the police station the following day and met the same man who chased her again together with the food she was carrying, telling her that her husband was not supposed to eat from there.

cw I added as follows:

"On the third time, they allowed me to see my husband. He was carried out of the cell and I noticed that he had torture marks on his body and his mouth was swollen. He was carried out by two people, one of them called Cucu. They also brought a bottle of Rwenzori water which had a red liquid, and they told me that it was my husband's urine. My husband told me that he was feeling alot of pain around the bladder. He was very weak, had blood stains on most parts ofthe body including his clothes. When I saw that he was very weak, I requested to take him to hospital but I was not allowed. I went back and told his father what I had seen. It was until he was released that he went to hospital. After he was released he came back home and we kept taking him to Amuria Health Centre IV because he was still feeling pain around the areas which were kicked. He has never been able to perform his sexual functions like a man up to today. I am just staying with him because he has married me. He improved outwardly but he normally gets a relapse, especially around the areas which were kicked and I get problems with him whenever that happens. He is not able to support us in any way. The family is no longer stable because I am now both husband and wife."

During cross- examination by RC, the witness remained consistent and stated that she was around when C was arrested at the very time that he was called and he never came back home. That it was true that C urinated blood, because she saw with her own eyes, adding that the urine was really red, and that she took him for medical treatment which helped him to stop urinating blood.

She further stated that it was true that they no longer had sexual intercourse, adding that she did not know whether that condition could be corrected. That before that incident C used to performing well sexually. That their last born was 11 years old, adding that maybe she could have produced two or three more children. That C does not do any work but just sits at home, and there is nobody who takes care ofthe family apart from her and the children.

On re-examination by CC, she stated that she used to go to visit C and come back home because their home was near the health centre. That he was asked to give a urine sample but it had spots of blood. Also that C's medical documents were from Amuria Health Centre IV, and that she used to buy drugs from clinics. That her husband stopped performing sexually ever since he got that sickness arising from the kicking.

**Odongo Simon (CW2)** and a brother to Ekau Samuel, corroborated C's evidence and stated that on 25 May, 2009 while he was in Amuria Town at around 7:00p.m, he was informed that C had been arrested and taken to Amuria Police Station. That in the morning at around 10:00a.m, he together with his wife and father went to Amuria CPS and requested the security people there to allow them see C and talk to him. That C was brought out for them but he was not in good condition as he had been beaten.

#### CW2 added as follows:

"He was brought out for us but he could not move. It is from there where I asked why he was beaten. He had bruises around the waist, face and the wrist. He told me that he was alleged to be in possession of an illegal fire arm but which was not there. He had a fire arm only when he was still working with the government. He used to work with UPDF. When he retired he did not come back home with the fire arm. I was there when he retired. After our visit, we went back home."

CW2 further stated that on 27th May, 2009 in the morning, he went with his father to Soroti to see the RDC to request him to go and help them to bail C out at least for treatment because he had been seriously tortured. That on 29th May, 2009, the RDC for Soroti District went to the police station together with their father and the C was then bailed out on police bond . That they then took C to Amuria Health Centre IV for treatment until he recovered. That C no longer digs, plough or do heavy work like brick laying.

RC cross- examined CW2 and the latter stated that C was currently using other strong people to make bricks and even his children had grown up and could make bricks. That he just sits at home and grazing his goats and inspecting his brick laying site; and his youngest child was about 15 years old. That he complained to him that he had chest and waist problems and that he was also getting leg problems, sometimes. That he never witnessed C's arrest nor saw him being beaten but he only saw bruises on his body. C's **Medical Expert and third Witness, Dr. Epacho Patales (CW3)** testified saying that C went to Amuria HCIV with complaints of pain in the right hip for one month, associated with numbness on the right lower limb. That he had no history oftrauma and when he was examined, he was found to be stable with no fever, no yellowness of the eyes and was not anemic nor dehydrated. That a diagnosis of sciatica (the nerves) indicated that his nerve was affected as his lumber bone had a problem. He clarified that the trauma caused by collapsed vertebral column could cause sciatica like trauma arising from being hit with a blunt object.

He further stated that the Doctor gave C various tablets which included amitripytline, VHB complex, Ibrufen, and also told him to do a lumber sacro x-ray. That the medical form was signed by Stephen Echeru who was a Clinical Officer whom he had worked with before he was transferred to Obalanga. That Echeru wrote the treatment notes on 25th October, 2013. The medical form was admitted as C's first exhibit and marked **CXI.**

CW3 also interpreted another treatment note and stated that C was seen on 26th may, 2009 in Amuria HCIV, and he presented a history of having been beaten by a group of Wembly operatives on the allegation of possessing a gun. That he had been beaten on every moveable part ofthe body on 21slMay, 2009. That when they examined him, C was in pain and was feeling it in the parts that had been beaten i.e. the right elbow joint, the right knee and ankle joint. The diagnosis made was trauma as a result of assault, and treatment was given to him for five days. That he was put on an injection of Procaine Penicillin Fortified (PPF), Ibrufen tablets, Vitamin B complex and diclofenac gel for massaging. He also stated that the medical form was signed and stamped with the stamp ofthe health centre to certify it as a true copy ofthe original. That it was signed by Stephen Echeru, a Clinical Officer. CW3 was classified the injury as grievous harm because C was beaten on every moveable part of his body, adding that although C could recover, he could not recover fully. That the pain could be recurrent because C was using the parts of the body affected all the time. The medical examination and treatment notes were admitted with the consent ofRC and marked as the C's second exhibit **(CX2).**

During cross-examination by RC, the witness stated that Stephen Echeru, the Clinical Officer was the one who made the report. That he indicated his name on it and Ekau Samuel went complaining of pain in the right hip associated with numbness. That there was no history of trauma. That the Clinical Officer wanted to rule out sciatica through an x-ray as Ekau's

condition could have been caused by trauma resulting from being hit with a blunt object but it could also have also been caused by an infection. That the infection could have eaten up the bones because there was no history of trauma. That X-ray was not done because CW3 did not see an x-ray document.

On the second exhibit, CW3 stated that grievous harm meant that the injuries suffered were severe. That under such circumstances, an x-ray should have been done in order to rule out the possibility of fractures but it was not done in this case. That procedurally, an X-ray was necessary but depending on the patient's condition, they first treat the pain before an x-ray can be done.

As was pointed out earlier, RC did not call defence witnesses but only filed a written submission in rebuttal to C's allegations.

In his submission, RC stated that C failed to prove the allegation of torture since the medical report did not prove severe pain and suffering inflicted on him. He also stated that tC's witnesses just stated that C was beaten but they did not state how severe the beating was. He therefore concluded that C was not tortured by the State agents since C failed to prove his allegations on the balance of probabilities.

However, the evaluated evidence clearly indicates that C was arrested by a soldier and taken to the police station from where he was severely beaten. C's witnesses, too correlated this evidence, with some ofthem testifying as eye witnesses who saw C in custody with wounds and they took him to hospital after his release. More so, the expert witness testified to the fact that C complained of having been beaten by Wembley operatives, and the treatment notes interpreted by him bore dates within the period in which the assault was alleged to have taken place.

In his submission, RC largely argued the fact that C was not beaten severely, and that C failed to prove his case.

However, I note that the evidence put before the Tribunal in regard to the assault is sufficient to show that indeed C was beaten, and that he was beaten by State agents.

1 he lock-up register from Amuria Central Police Station which was tendered in as evidence and marked as exhibit **CX3** revealed that C was in detention from Friday 22nd May, 2009 up to Monday 25th May, 2009. Therefore, it was incumbent on the relevant R's clients to explain how C sustained the injuries while he was in their custody.

In **TOMASI VS FRANCE [1992] 15 EHRR 25,** the Appellant was arrested on suspicion of terrorism. Medical evidence was adduced showing that he had received large blows on his body. The Government did not provide an alternative explanation on how the blows had been occasioned on the Appellant. The European Court of Human Rights therefore held that, ''in the absence of any explanation by Government for the marks, which marks he did not have at the time of his arrest, it would be presumed as acts oftorture by the respondents agents for which the respondents would be held vicariously liable."

Therefore, given all the evidence I have assessed in this decision, I have reached the conclusion that the agents State who assaulted C did injured him while he was in their custody, and that they failed to give a plausible explanation to that effect.

Accordingly, I find that on the balance of probabilities, State agents violated the C's right of protection from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that C's claim in the instant complaint therefore succeeded.

## **2. Whether C's right to personal liberty was violated by the State agents.**

The right to personal liberty is protected by Article 23 of the **Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.** It is not an absolute right since it can be derogated from when any of the circumstances listed under Article 23(1) ofthe same Constitution exist. For example, where there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence. Flowever, the law prohibits arbitrary arrests and detention; and the Constitution sets out procedural guarantees to prevent the abuse of persons under arrest and detention. Thus, Article 23(4) (b) requires that anyone arrested upon reasonable suspicion of having committed or is about to commit a criminal offence must if not earlier released be produced in court within 48 hours.

C alleged that he was in police detention from 25th to 29th May, 2009. The lock-up register which was tendered in his evidence and marked as **exhibit CX3** revealed that C was in detention from Friday 22nd May 2009 to Monday 25lh May 2009.

During cross-examination, C remained consistent stating that he spent 4 days in detention and on the fifth day, he was released.

His first witness, **Arengo (CW)** stated that C remained in police detention for two weeks, and that she used to visit him sometimes and on some occasions she feared to go. Upon crossexamination by RC, this witness stated that she went once in a while during the course ofthe two weeks to visit the C. She further insisted that according to her, her husband was detained for two weeks.

During re-examination by CC, she stated that she was sure that C spent two weeks in police detention.

On the other hand,Odongo **Simon (CW2),** stated that he visited the C only once while in detention, adding that C spent about 4 days in detention.

I note that C and CW2 were consistent with each other in regard to the period spent by C in detention, as both of them stated that C was in detention for 4 days before he was released. However, CW1 contradicted both the recording in the lock-up register and the evidence of C and CW2, by insisting that C was in detention for 2 weeks. Therefore I cannot ignore this inconsistency since it is grave in nature.

In the case of **Uganda Vs Abdallah Nasur (1977) HCB** it was held that in assessing evidence of a witness, reliance placed on its consistency is a relevant consideration. That where grave inconsistency may have no adverse effects on the testimony, it may be admissible unless it points to deliberate untruthfulness.

Although it is not in doubt that C was detained as confirmed by the lock-up register and the evidence adduced by C and CW2, the character of CW1 however, is questionable and it leads to the conclusion that her evidence consisted of deliberate untruthfulness. This evidence regarding the duration ofthe C's detention is therefore ignored.

In his submission, RC did not make any mention ofthe issue of personal liberty and this therefore left C's allegation in this regard unchallenged. Accordingly, the evidence adduced by C and CW2 in this regard was not challenged by R's side.

In the case of **GEORGE ASS1MWE VS ATTORNEY GENERAL HCCS NO.481/1997** where the plaintiff closed his case and the defendant offered no evidence, it was held by Justice P. Magamba J. that the plaintiffs evidence was not controverted and had therefore to be accepted as the truth.

Based on the above principle, I find that on the balance of probabilities the aforementioned State agents violated C's right to personal liberty. I therefore fault the State on its failure to produce C in court within 48 hours from the time of his arrest. C was therefore in illegal confinement for a period of 2 days.

## **3. Whether R ( Attorney) General is liable for the violations.**

**Section 3 of the Government Proceedings Act Cap** 77 provides that the Government is liable for all toils committed by its servants or agents. Section 10 ofthe same Act further provides that all civil actions against the Government should be instituted against the Attorney General, just as it is provided for under Article 119 A (4) ofthe 1995 Constitution ofthe Republic ofUganda.

In *Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001) UKHL 22,* the House of Lords also articulated the principle that the master is liable whether the act of his servant is authorized or an unauthorized act done in a wrongful manner.

Accordingly, R in the instant case is vicariously liable since the soldier and police officers who violated C's rights were State servants and thus, it is deemed that they were acting in the course oftheir official duties.

## 4. **Whether C is entitled to compensation.**

Article 50 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, states that 'any person who claims that a fundamental or other right or freedom guaranteed under this Constitution has been infringed or threatened is entitled to apply to a competent court for redress which may include compensation."

Article 53(2) of the same Constitution gives the Uganda Human Rights Commission powers to order payment of compensation or any other legal remedy or redress if satisfied that there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom.

In this case, it has already been proved that the aforementioned State agents violated C's right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to personal liberty. Therefore, it follows that C is entitled to compensation by R.

In the case of **Agaba Bernard Vs. Attorney General UHRR(2008-2011),** former Commissioner Fauzat Mariam Wangadya held that the Complainant was entitled to compensation for violation of his right to personal liberty, and that it was the practice of the Tribunal to award Ug. Shs 2,000,000=(Uganda Shillings two Million) for every seven (7) days of unlawful confinement.

In the instant case, C was in detention for 4 days. The first 2 days were lawful but the subsequent 2 days were illegal. Therefore, following the above criteria, C is to be awarded compensation for two days. With Ug. Shs. 2,000,00= considered for every seven days, and taking into consideration the current economic situation and the prevailing inflation in the country, I therefore awarded C a rounded up amount of Ug.shs.600,000/=.

With regard to the violation ofthe Complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the compensation is based on the degree and severity of the cruelty and inhuman treatment that C suffered as well as the fact that this right is an absolute right.

In *Kisembo Milton Vs Attorney General FP/005/2004,* the complainant was beaten all over the body, pushed against the wall and punched heavily by policemen. The Presiding Commissioner,

C. K. Karusoke awarded the complainant UGX 3,000,000/= (Three Million Uganda Shillings) as compensation for the Violation of his right to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading acts.

In the instant matter, C was kicked on the ribs and beaten with batons on all his joints. The testimony of the medical expert witness revealed that C was beaten all over the body and that although he could recover, recovery could not be fully assured. The evidence also confirmed that C's pain could be recurrent because C was using the parts of the body affected all the time; and C's injuries were classified as grievous bodily harm.

I am also taking into consideration the fact that torture is a non- derogable right under Article 44 ofthe Constitution.

I accordingly award **Ug. Sh 10,000,000/= (Ten million Uganda shillings)** as adequate compensation for the violation of C's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I therefore order as follows:

## **ORDERS:**

- 1. The complaint is allowed. - 2. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Complainant, Ekau Samuel a sum of **Ug. Shs. 10,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings ten million only)** as compensation for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment or treatment. - 3. The Respondent is further ordered to pay to the Complainant a sum of **Ug. Shs. 600,000/= (Uganda Shillings six hundred thousand only)** as compensation for the violation of his right to personal liberty. - 4. The sum of **Ug. Shs.10, 600,000/= (Uganda Shillings ten million, six hundred thousand only)** to carry interest at 10% per annum from the date of this decision until payment in full. - 5. Each party to bear their own costs.

6. Either parly dissatisfied with this decision or any part thereof may appeal to the High Court within 30 (thirty) days from the date ofthis decision. So it is ordered.

- I-ION. DR. KATEBALIRWE AMOOTI WA IRUMBA

**PRESIDING COMMISSIONER**