Mwasa Steven v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 44 of 2006) [2019] UGHRC 13 (14 May 2019)


# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA THE UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION **AT KAMPALA**

# **COMPLAINANT NO. UHRC 44/2006**

**MWASA STEVEN COMPLAINANT**

### $AND$

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

### **DECISION**

The Complainant Mwasa Steven brought this matter against the Respondent seeking compensation for the violation of his rights to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to Personal liberty. He told the tribunal that on 24<sup>th</sup> June 2003, he was arrested on allegations of murder of a one Nasaka. He stated that he was arrested from his place of work in Owino Market and taken to Rapid Response Unit (RRU) Kireka from where he was undressed and beaten severely using batons and magazines of guns. That as a result of the beatings, he sustained injuries on the head and legs. He further stated that he was detained at VCCU for 3 weeks and later taken to Mbuya Military Hospital when the wound had become septic and then to Old Kampala Police Station where he was detained for a month.

The Complainant contended that the actions allegedly committed against him by the police officers and UPDF soldiers amounted to violation of his rights to

freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and right to personal liberty and he holds the respondent vicariously liable.

The Respondent through his representative, Ms. Adong Imelda denied liability.

#### **ISSUES**

- Whether the respondent's agents/servants violated the complainant's $(i)$ right to protection from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. - Whether the Complainant's right to personal liberty was violated by the $(ii)$ respondent. - Whether the Respondent Attorney General is liable for the violations. (iii) - Whether the Complainant is entitled to any remedies. $(iv)$

I take note that this matter was heard by two Commissioners; former Hon. Commissioner Agaba Maguru and Hon. Rtd Justice Gideon Tinyinondi (late). This is decision is therefore based on the proceedings of the two Commissioners.

I also take note that the complainant was represented by Sabitti & Co. Advocates while the respondent was represented by Ms. Adong Imelda.

#### The tribunal hearings

Six (6) hearings were held, with the $1<sup>st</sup>$ hearing having taken place on $7<sup>th</sup>$ August, 2014 with the complainant present and respondent absent. The matter was heard and the complainant and his two witnesses testified.

The 2<sup>nd</sup> hearing was held on 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2014 with both parties present. The complainant and his witnesses were cross examined by counsel for the respondent.

During the 3<sup>rd</sup> hearing held on 3<sup>rd</sup> September, 2014, both parties were present. The expert witness was cross examined by counsel for the respondent.

Further, during the 4<sup>th</sup>, 5th and 6<sup>th</sup> hearings, the matter came up for defence but counsel for the respondent never brought any witnesses in defence of the matter. At the last hearing, the matter was adjourned for submissions within two weeks but the respondent never filed the same.

Although Counsel for the Respondent never called witnesses nor filed submissions in defence of the matter, this exonerate the duty of the Complainant to prove his case. According to the provisions of the Evidence Act Cap 6, whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependant on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that the facts exist and that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. (Sections $101(1)$ and $102$ ).

I now turn to the resolution of issues:

# 1. Whether Mwasa's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's 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, or 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 other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions".

Considering National Instruments, 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 of any 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".

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda under Article 24 clearly prohibits the violation of an individual's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1996, which prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment under Article 7, which states; "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 the Complainant would constitute "torture" if the same were proved taking into account the definition of torture as provided under Article 1 of the CAT. I shall evaluate the evidence adduced in order to determine whether the allegations by the Complainant amounted to the level of severity that constitutes what would be categorized as torture or whether the effects of the same actions amount to what is categorized as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

$\overline{4}$

In addition to that, I shall evaluate the evidence to determine whether the important four ingredients of torture as identifiable in the CAT definition and the current international concept of torture are proved by the evidence adduced. These four ingredients are;

- a. That the action has 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 acquiesce of a public official or other person acting in official capacity.

Once the above ingredients are proved against the Respondent's agents, then it can be established that the Complainant was indeed subjected to torture contrary to the laws of Uganda.

#### **Evidence**

The complainant testified that on 24<sup>th</sup> June, 2003 at midday, while at the gate of Owino Market, he was arrested by four armed men. That 2 were uniformed in the military uniform while the 2 were in plain clothes. That he was taken to a waiting double cabin pickup and moved around while arresting other people on allegations of murder. That they were taken to Kireka VCCU Unit, undressed and beaten.

#### He added as follows;

"I was taken to the office of Magara who asked me who had killed the lady but I answered him that I did not know. He ordered two officers to take me back and when we reached outside, one officer put me at gun point and told me that I must talk. They both started beating me using a gun magazine and slapped me for about an hour. I was forced to swallow a basin full of water as I lay down. Then I was

taken into detention. After three days, I was taken to Mbuya Military Hospital *where my rotting foot was operated upon.*"

He further stated that after his release, he went to Mulago Hospital where his foot was operated again. That he did not recover and went to ACTV from where he was examined and referred to Kadic Hospital. He testified that he still never recovered and to date he has the wound on the foot.

Upon cross examination by Respondent's Counsel, the witness confirmed that he was arrested and beaten all over the body especially the left foot using the magazine of the gun. That he was taken to Mbuya Military Hospital and operated upon but the wound never healed and upon his release, he was taken to Mulago Hospital.

He further confirmed that he went to ACTV from where he was referred to Kadic Hospital.

**CW2 Badru Nanjwenge** testified that on 25<sup>th</sup> June of the year he could not recall, while in Owino Market at his butchery, police officers and soldiers arrested him. That he was taken outside where the complainant was also arrested and they were taken to Kireka. He stated that while at Kireka, the complainant was beaten by the soldiers until a patrol vehicle arrived.

He further stated that at that point, he was taken to Old Kampala Police Station but the complainant remained at Kireka. That the complainant had been badly beaten and the police officers did not want him to die in their custody.

During cross examination by counsel for the respondent, the witness stated that it is true he was arrested with the complainant and he saw the complainant being beaten by the soldiers while bare chest.

Furthermore, CW3, Dr. Muwa Paul the expert witness, a medical doctor from African Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims interpreted the medical report from ACTV dated 21<sup>st</sup> November, 2006. He stated that the complainant Mwasa Steven first went to ACTV on 8<sup>th</sup> May, 2006.

He testified as follows;

"Mwasa's complaint was just pain. He had an ulcer on his left foot. We examined him and found an ulcer measuring 7cm\*10cm on the left extending up to the leg. The wound had some scars. That was the only physical finding. Psychologically he had nightmares and fear. We concluded from our findings that the history, diagnostic test results, the physical and psychological findings had a high degree of support consistent with the allegations of torture."

He further stated that they went ahead and administered treatment but at the time of examination, the wound was not yet healed but was in the process of healing.

The medical report was tendered in as an exhibit and marked "Exhibit C2"

During cross examination by counsel for the respondent, the witness stated that he was the one who examined the complainant and filled the medical form. He was consistent and stated that he was the one who signed the medical report and stated that he was up for all the errors in the report since the complainant was admitted on 8<sup>th</sup> May 2006 yet the initial date of arrest was 24<sup>th</sup> June 2003 and date of torture was $22^{nd}$ June 2003. Further the report is dated $21^{st}$ November 2006. This means that the complainant obtained the medical report after 3 years from the time he was tortured.

He clarified that the reports are usually made after administering treatment to the patients. At this stage, what lingers in my mind is whether this testimony of the expert witness can be relied on with the above inconsistencies.

Reference is made to the case of Serapio Tinkamalirwe Vs. Uganda, SCCA 27/89, in which it was held that it is not every inconsistency that will result in a witness's testimony being rejected. It is only grave inconsistencies unless

$\mathcal{T}$

explained satisfactorily which will usually but not necessarily result into the evidence of a witness being rejected. Minor inconsistencies will not usually have the effect unless Court thinks the point to be deliberate untruthfulness.

I therefore note that the inconsistency in the medical report does not avert the fact that the complainant was severely beaten. It is therefore a minor inconsistency and doesn't lead to deliberate untruthfulness of the witness

The complainant's evidence was also corroborated by the testimony of CW4 Hamisi Nsereko who testified that on 24<sup>th</sup> June, 2003 he was arrested together by with the complainant by uniformed and non-uniformed soldiers. That they were taken to Kireka Rapid Response Unit and when they reached there, the complainant was taken behind the house.

He added as follows:

"Later I was also taken behind the house and I found when Mwasa had been beaten. They told me to reveal how I had killed the woman or else they would also beat me the way they had beaten Mwasa. Mwasa was seriously beaten and stripped naked completely without even underwear. They poured water on him using a water pipe while they beat him using a gun butt. He was beaten and stopped talking while denying he had killed the woman."

He further stated that Mwasa was taken to a room that looked like a toilet where they continued beating him. That he was transferred to Old Kampala Police Station and left the complainant behind.

Counsel for the respondent opted not to cross examine this witness.

Furthermore, counsel for the respondent never called witnesses to rebut the complainant's allegations nor file written submissions despite the fact that the matter had been adjourned for the same.

The complainant through his legal representative Sabiiti & Co. Advocates filed written submission and stated that the complainant had been unsystematically beaten with batons and magazines and this was confirmed by the doctor from ACTV.

He stated that these allegations were corroborated by the testimonies of CW2 & 4 who were arrested together with the complainant. He relied on the case of Victor Mukasa & Anor Vs. Attorney General HCMA No.24/06 (Unreported) where the trial judge was of the view that the acts of the respondent towards two ladies amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The ladies had suffered humiliation at the hand of the Local Council and Police. Each case must of course be decided on the basis of its unique facts and circumstances..... A person's dignity is guaranteed by the constitution and should not be injured by anyone. Any injury to a person's dignity should therefore be condemned by courts. The injured person should be compensated in damages.

He further relied on the case of Tomasi Vs. France (1992)15 EHRR 24 where the appellant was arrested on suspicion of terrorism, it was held that where the Government did not provide an alternative explanation on how blows had been occasioned on the appellant, it was presumed that the marks had been caused by the agents of Government.

As noted earlier, the Respondent neither produced defence witnesses nor filed submissions in defence despite the several adjournments granted for the same. More so, he did not reply to the complainant's written submissions.

According to the evidence adduced by the Complainant and his witnesses, it is undoubtable that the complainant was arrested and beaten by the soldiers. The Tribunal totally agrees with the argument of counsel for the complainant in the case of Tomasi Vs. France (1992)15 EHRR 24

The Complainant submits that he sustained beatings, whippings, and the other forms of ill-treatment which constituted torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of Article 24 of the Constitution. He avers that the officers at the VCCU in Kireka police deliberately used a range of methods to inflict severe pain or suffering.

The methods of torture used and inflicted on the complainant resulted in physical injuries and psychological trauma as set out in his testimony submitted to the Commission. The Complainant points out that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to illtreatment and is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused.

#### The Tribunal's decision on the Merits

The Tribunal is called upon to determine whether the actions of the Respondents as described above constitute a violation of Articles 24 & 44 of the Constitution as alleged by the Complainant. The Tribunal observes that the Respondent has not made submissions on the Merits despite having been requested to do so on a number of occasions. The Tribunal will therefore examine the Complaint on the basis of the information at its disposal and must give due weight to the Complainant's allegations in so far as these have been adequately substantiated before this Tribunal.

Article 24 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"No person shall be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment."

Every individual therefore has the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in the human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is prohibited.

Torture is considered as one of the most egregious and morally reprehensible human rights abuses and its prohibition is one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. The prohibition is absolute and non-derogable and applies even in the most difficult of circumstances including public emergencies.

In interpreting Article 24 of the Constitution in respect of torture, the Tribunal has adopted the definition of torture contained in Article 1 of the Convention against Torture. The Tribunal has set out the elements that constitutes torture, namely, that severe pain or suffering has to have been inflicted; for a specific purpose, such as to obtain information, as punishment or to intimidate, or for any reason based on discrimination; by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of state authorities.

The Complainant has submitted that he went through various forms of physical torture during detention ranging from severe beating with whips and sticks, heavy beating with canes on all parts of his body, death threats, as well as other forms of ill-treatment. These facts have not been contested.

The medical evidence submitted by the Witness (Exhibit C2), CW3, Dr. Muwa Paul point to the fact that the treatment of the victim while in detention resulted to serious physical injuries and psychological trauma. The course of events as described by the Complainant also shows that the treatment was inflicted by security forces acting in their official capacity with the aim of extracting confessions from the victim and as punishment for the murder of a one Nasaka.

The Tribunal considers that this treatment and the surrounding circumstances were of such a serious and cruel nature that it attained the threshold of severity as to amount to torture.

Regarding the incommunicado detention, death threats, denial of access to medical care and adequate toilet facilities, the Tribunal observes that holding a person in detention under conditions that are not in keeping with his dignity and pose a threat to his health amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

The Tribunal considers that the term 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' is to be interpreted so as to extend to the widest possible protection against abuse, whether physical or mental. As provided for in Article 24 of the Constitution in order to prevent detainees from being subjected to abuse.

Where abuse does occur, State Parties are also under an obligation to initiate a prompt, impartial and effective investigation in order to bring the perpetrators to justice as well as to afford redress to the victims.

From all indications, the Respondent failed to uphold these standards and the Tribunal finds as a consequence that there was a violation of Article 24 of the Constitution.

Based on the Complainant's testimony and the consistency of his witnesses' evidence, all the ingredients required to prove whether the Complainant's freedom from torture, or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was violated by the Respondent's agents/servants are satisfactorily proved in this case.

I therefore find on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent's agents violated the Complainant's right to protection from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This issue is therefore resolved in the affirmative.

# Whether the Complainant's right to personal liberty was violated by the **Respondent's Agents.**

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

The Complainant testified that he was arrested on 24th June 2003, taken to VCCU Kireka, where he was detained for some time and then transferred to Old Kampala Police Station where he was detained in the cells for about one month. He further stated that he was released on bond on 25<sup>th</sup> August, 2003.

The lock up register from VCCU was tendered in as Exhibit C2 and reveals that the complainant was booked in on 24<sup>th</sup> June, 2003 and released on 29<sup>th</sup> June, 2003.

The release on bond was tendered in for identification purposes and marked ID1. It reveals that the complainant Mwasa Stephen was released on 25<sup>th</sup> August, 2003.

During cross examination, the complainant stated that he could not remember the date he was taken to Old Kampala Police Station but he was released on police bond on 25<sup>th</sup> August, 2003. That it's not true that he was released on the same day he was arrested and detained at Old Kampala Police Station.

When re-examined by Commission Counsel, he confirmed that he indeed did not remember when he was taken to Old Kampala Police Station.

CW2 Badru Nanjwenge, the complainant's witness stated that the complainant was taken to Old Kampala Police Station after two weeks when he had left Kireka VCCU. That they were released in groups and the complainant was released before them.

As stated earlier, counsel for the respondent never called witnesses to rebut the complainant's allegations nor file written submissions despite the fact that the matter had been adjourned for that.

$13$

In his written submissions, counsel for the complainant stated that according to the complainant and his witnesses' evidence, he was in detention from 24<sup>th</sup> June 2003 to 25<sup>th</sup> August, 2003. He further stated that this meant that the complainant was in detention for a period of 2 months without being charged with any offence.

He relied on the case of **Behangana & Anor Vs. Attorney General** (Constitutional Petition No. 53/2010) where Justice Nsimye Augustine pronounced himself that the arrest and detention of petitioners without any charge being preferred against them within 48 hours of arrest or even beyond the 48 hour constitutional standard before any court or a court of competent jurisdiction was an unconstitutional infringement of the fundamental right to liberty which is protected by Article 23 of the constitution.

## The Tribunal's decision on the Merits

The law is that once a Complainant proves to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he was arrested by the Respondents' agents, the burden shifts to the latter to prove that the arrest and detention was justifiable and this was asserted in the case of Sekaddu Vs. Ssebadduka (1968 E. A 212).

Article 23 of the Constitution of Uganda provides for the right to personal liberty and enumerates circumstances under which this right may be restricted. Specifically, Article 23(3) (b) provides that "A person may be arrested and detained upon reasonable suspicion of his or her having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence..."

Every individual therefore has the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained.

The Tribunal observes that the right to liberty as enshrined in the Constitution does not grant complete freedom from arrest or detention, given that deprivation of liberty is one of the legitimate forms of state control over persons within its jurisdiction. However, any arrest or detention must be carried out in accordance with the procedure established by the law otherwise; such arrest would be considered to be arbitrary. The Tribunal observes also that any such domestic law or procedure must meet the requisite international standards in order for it to be considered valid.

The facts as outlined above reveal that the arrest of the victims had no basis in the Constitution which requires that a person must have been suspected or accused of committing an offence before a warrant of arrest may be issued. The victims were indiscriminately arrested and without any measures taken to ascertain the likelihood that they had individually been involved in the commission of an offence. The Tribunal considers that arresting more than one individual was the case in the present complaint, in disregard of the Constitution and without taking any measures to ascertain the likelihood of individual wrong doing amounts to arbitrary arrest in contravention of the Constitution.

It follows that the deprivation of the victim's liberty and their subsequent detention without charge for two months was unlawful and arbitrary and the Tribunal considers as a consequence that there was a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution.

Therefore, according to the testimonies of the complainant, his witnesses, the VCCU lockup register and release on bond from Police tendered in, the Tribunal is convinced to believe that the complainant was detained for 2 months without being taken to court.

Therefore, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Complainant's right to personal liberty was violated by the Respondent's agents. This issue is also resolved in affirmative,

# Whether the Attorney General liable for the violations.

Section 3 of the Government proceedings Act cap 77 provides that the government is liable for all torts committed by its servants or agents. Section 10 of the same Act further provides that all civil action against the government should be instituted against the attorney general and this is re-affirmed under Article 119 A (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

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

Following the above articulation, the respondent in the present case is vicariously liable since the VCCU operatives and police officers who violated the complainant's rights are public officers and thus, it is deemed that they were acting in the course of their duty.

## Decision of the Tribunal on the Merits

Based on the above, the Tribunal:

- Finds that the Respondent has violated Articles 23 and 24 of the 1995 $i.$ Constitution of the Republic of Uganda; - Requests the Republic of Uganda to: ii. - a) Pay adequate compensation to the victim named in the present Complaint in accordance with the Constitution for the rights violated; - b) Initiate an effective and impartial investigation into the circumstances of arrest and detention and the subsequent treatment of the Complainant. - c) Train security officers on relevant standards concerning adherence to custodial safeguards and the prohibition of torture.

# Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation.

Under Article 50 (1) of the constitution of the republic of Uganda 1995,

"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 Commission power 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 respondent's servants/agents violated the complainant's rights to protection from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to personal liberty and it follows that he is entitled to compensation by the respondent.

In the case of Agaba Bernard Vs. Attorney General UHRC (2008-2011) 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, the complainant was detained for two (2) months without being produced before Court. However, I will consider the current roaming economic situation and award U. Shs 2,500,000/= (Uganda Shillings Two **Million)** for every seven (7) days of unlawful confinement.

#### Therefore; $2,500,000*8$ weeks = $20.000,000/$ =

Wherefore, I deem a figure of Ug Shs.20, 000,000(Uganda Shillings Twenty **Million)** as adequate compensation to the complainant for violation of his right to personal liberty. I so award.

With regard to violation of the 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 and the fact that this freedom 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 and the Presiding Commissioner C. K. Karusoke awarded the complainant UGX 3,000,000/ $=$ (Three Million Uganda Shillings) as compensation for Violation of his right to Protection from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading acts.

Considering the matter before this tribunal, the complainant was undressed and beaten using a gun magazine, slapped for about an hour and forced to swallow a basin full of water. The acts committed were torturous, inhuman, and cruel in nature. I won't also lose sight of the current economic situation.

I accordingly award UGX 10,000,000/= (Ten Million Uganda Shillings) as compensation for the violation of the complainant's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

#### **ORDER**

- 1. The complaint is allowed. - 2. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Complainant, sum of **UG Shs.20**, 000,000/-(Uganda Shillings Twenty Million) as compensation for the violation of his right of Personal Liberty. - 3. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Complainant a sum of **UG Shs.10**, 000,000/- (Uganda Shillings Ten Million) as compensation for the violation of his right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. - 4. The sum of UG Shs.30, 000,000/= (Uganda Shillings Thirty Million) will carry interest at court rate from the date hereof until payment in full. - 5. Each party to bear its own costs.

Any party dissatisfied with this decision or any part thereof may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date hereof.

$\mu$ Dated at Kampala this .................................... $\ldots 2019$

Achiner . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dr. Patricia Achan Okiria (Mrs.) PRESIDING COMMISSIONER

DELIVERED at **Kampala** on this $\mu$ May $\mu$ May ...................................