Silvio Onenchan Manano v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 62 of 2011) [2018] UGHRC 21 (4 April 2018)

Full Case Text

![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA THE UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TRIBUNAL

## **HOLDEN AT KAMPALA**

## **COMPLAINT NO: UHRC /62/2011**

## SILVIO ONENCHAN MANANO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

AND

# ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BEFORE PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DR. KATEBALIRWE AMOOTI WA

### **DECISION**

The Complainant (C) alleges that on 11th March 2011, he was arrested and detained at Kiira Road Police Station while he had gone to follow up on a case that he had opened up against his landlord, one Benjamin Opara. That he was detained there until 15th March, 2011 when he was ordered to enter a salon car Reg. No. UAK 103Q by Crime Intelligence Officer (CID), one Obote of Nitnda Police Station, who told him that they were taking him to the Rapid Response Unit (RRU). That he was taken to an unknown house from where he was beaten with metallic batons on his ribs and shoulders. That syringes were inserted through his arms which were then connected to power sockets. That a pair of pliers was also used to twist the small finger on his left hand. All these were done to him as it was being alleged that he had bought a stolen Television. As a result, C suffered injuries on his ribs and thighs as well as a protruding bone on the right shoulder. C sought for compensation for the violation of his right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Respondent $(R)$ denied the allegations.

#### **Issues:**

$\overline{\mathcal{L}}$

The issues to be determined by Tribunal are:

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

#### **Tribunal hearing sessions:**

Five (5) hearing session were held on this matter. The first session was held on 23rd May, 2014. C was present with two witnesses namely- Odokodit Sala and Manano Margaret. However, R was not represented. Counsel for the Commission (CC) Ms. Dorothy Okwong informed the Tribunal that R's office had informed her that though their office had acknowledged receipt of summons, but they did not have a copy of the relevant complainant file. The matter was therefore adjourned.

The 2nd hearing session was held on 25th August, 2014. C was present with two witnesses namely Odokodit Sala and Manano Margaret. R Counsel was represented by Counsel Kiyingi Josephine. (RC). C and his witnesses adduced evidence and were cross-examined after which the matter was adjourned for further hearing.

During the third hearing session held on $1^{st}$ December 2014, C was present but R was not represented. CC Esther Jiuko informed the Tribunal that C's medical expert witness was absent with apologies. The matter was therefore adjourned as the witness was not available to adduce evidence.

At the 4th hearing session held on 10th March 2015. C was present while R was not represented. The expert witness was again absent on ground that he was attending to emergency surgeries. At his place of work. The matter was again adjourned.

The 5th hearing session was held on 14th June 2017. C and RC were present. C's expert witness testified and was also cross- examined, after which C's case was closed and the matter opened for defense.

However R did not present any witnesses in defence of the matter but only filled a written submission on 26th July, 2017. Nevertheless R's failure to present defence witnesses did not take

away C's duty to prove his allegations to the satisfaction of the Tribunal as required under Sections 101(1) and 102 of the Evidence Act Cap 6, which provide that "whoever desires any court to give judgment as of any legal right or liability dependant on the existence of facts which he or she asserts, must prove that the facts exist"; and further 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."

#### **Resolution of Issues**

#### Whether C's right of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading $$ treatment or punishment was violated by State agents.

C, Silvio Onenchan Manano testified that in 2011, he had a misunderstanding with his landlord, One Opara Benjamin who allegedly threatened to evict C from the rented premises before the expiry of the relevant tenancy agreement. That on 6th or 7th March 2011, C went to Kiira Road Police Station to report the matter and he was asked to take two (2) witnesses. That he took three witnesses namely, Odo Kodit Sala, Manano Sarah and Christopher Denis and thereafter, the CID officer who was handling his file told him to leave, promising to call him later. That on 10th March 2011, the CID Officer called him to go to the Police Station and C promised to report on the following day, which he did on 11th March 2014, at around 9.30 a.m. That while in the CID office at Kiira Road Police Station, a one Obote accused him of stealing a television from one Ounda. That when he denied the allegations Obote beat him on the head and chest for about three (3) minutes. That was taken to the counter, ordered to remove his shoes and belt, and was then detained in a cell and this was on 9th March, 2011.

That on 11th March, 2011 Obote handcuffed his arms and legs, and told him that he was being taken to RRU. That he was made to board a saloon car registration number UAK 103Q which tinted windows. That he was driven to Ntinda Police Station, where he was kept locked inside the car as Obote and his colleagues went out. That when they came back, he was blindfolded using a black piece of cloth and Obote told him that they wanted to work on him. That one of Obote's colleague's removed the cloth from his eyes and asked him to either give them the Television, set or he dies, since his the operative's work was to kill. That he was beaten with metals and pliers on his elbows, knee joints, stomach and other parts of the body as he was being driven in the car.. That they drove for about 15 minutes, and passed through Nakawa going to a certain house which he could not identify.

That when they reached the house, he was fully unblindfolded, lights were put on and the three (3) men embarked on beating him which they did for about 15 minutes using batons while they also kicked him. That a black and heavy item was tied on his private parts and he was then ordered to get up but he could not manage to do so. That Obote pulled the small figure of his left hand using pliers while asking him to produce the Television set. That he was then moved near to an electric power socket while his arms and legs were still hand cuffed, and again they told him to give them the Television set or else he dies. That on the wire they had, there were things attached looking like syringes, which they inserted into his four fingers under the nails, and the connected the wire to the power socket, after which they switched power on and off three (3) times to shock him.

That one of the two (2) men later removed the handcuffs from his arms and then blindfolded him again. At that time he was very weak and could not stand, at all. That the driver came and held him on the chest, and they took him out, put him in the car and they drove to the opposite side of Ntinda Police Station where he had been brought from. That he did not know the man who drove him to Kira Road Police Station where he narrated his ordeal to the Officer in Charge (OC) of CID, upon whose advice an assault case against Obote was opened up. C stated further that as a result of the beatings, he sustained wounds all over his body but especially on the left leg, the chest, the right arm and the last left finger hand nail. That he was later examined and given the PF3 form to take back to Kira Road Police Station but it was rejected by the Police Officers who were there.

He added that after his release, he also went to Kyebando J. B Clinic for treatment since he was feeling pain and weak all over my body and also was urinating blood. That as he used to get anonymous phone calls from unidentified field people threatening to kill him he left Kampala and went to Masindi.

C further testified that after failing to make progress with the case he has field with the Police, he lodged this complaint with UHRC. He added that UHRC referred him to ACTV for medical examination, which was done and he was given treatment. That his ACTV medical report was given to UHRC.

During cross examination by the Counsel for the Respondent (RC) Ms. Josephine Kivingi, C however stated that he was arrested on 9th March, 2011 and was beaten for hours and not for the

$\overline{4}$

whole day. That he went for medical treatment on the very day he reported the case to police and that he only got one police bond for from Ntinda Police Station.

Upon re-examination by CC Okurut Bosco, C stated that he could not recall the exact date when he was arrested but was only assuming that he went for treatment at Kyebando on 11th March, 2011.

C's first witness CW1, Odokodit Sala Luigi testified that on 11th March, 2011 after learning from Manano Margaret that C, his cousin brother had been arrested; he went to Kira Road Police Station where C had been detained. That upon reaching the Station, he saw C handcuffed and being led into a car by three $(3)$ men dressed in civilian clothes. That C told him that they were taking him to the Rapid Response Unit (RRU). That he saw C being put in a car, Reg. No. UAR 1030, white in colour in which he was driven away. That later on, he was told by Margaret that $C$ told him he had been released on police bond. And further on that the same day, the C also telephoned him (CW 1) and they also met at around Kabira Club, in Bukoto Kampala. That he saw C with bruises, swellings and injuries all over the body. That he helped C report a case at Kiira Road Police Station and also advised him to go for treatment but could not tell when exactly he got the treatment. That he later on learnt that, the C had received assistance from Uganda Human Rights Commission.

During cross examination by RC Josephine Kiyingi, CW1 stated that when he saw C's fingers, he did not bother to inquire what had happened to them, neither did he try to help him while he was at $RRU$ .

CW2, Manano Margaret testified saying that on 11th March, 2011, while she was going to buy food, she met a neighbor who told her that C had been arrested. That when she went to Kira Road Police Station, she was allowed to talk to C who told her that he had had issues with his landlord. That she was referred to one Obote who was handling the case and who told her that C's case was still going on. She added that although C was released him on bond, Obote said they were taking him. Later on in the evening C came back home with wounds on the right rib and finger, and therefore was taken to J. B Clinic in Kyebando for treatment.

During cross examination by RC Josephine Kiyingi, CW2 stated that it was only Obote who was in the car that took C to RRU. However when she was re-examined by CC Okurut Bosco, CW2 stated that she was not sure whether it was only Obote in the car or not because the car had dark window glasses.

CW3. Lubega Ronald testified that he held a Bachelors of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery Degree of Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST), obtained in 2010 and a Diploma in Occupational Safety and Health from Alisson's Institute in Ireland; and was at the time he testified pursuing a Master of Science Degree in Public Health. That he was also and a trainer of trainers in the Istanbul Protocol.

He added that he had five years' experience in dealing with torture cases at the Africa Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Tortured Victims (ACTV). That while at ACTV, his duties included among others, to assess and examine torture victims, treat them and write reports.

He further testified that the document before the Tribunal which he interpreted was an ACTV medical report belonging to (C), who was, client No. 5560/11. That it was dated 15th February 2012, written by Dr. Muwa Paul whom he had personally known for the 5 years while he worked at ACTV. That his signature was familiar to him and he had also stated his names on the report.

CW3 added that the report indicated that on 28th March 2011, C had reported complaints of pain in his chest lower back pain, and right shoulder and the left index figure as well headache and weakness of the right upper limb.

He also stated that upon examination by the doctor, C was found with fresh scars on the left chest wall, two scars on the right thigh and other several scars on both legs. That there was swelling and tenderness with reduced range of motion of the right shoulder and of the index fingure. That there was also tenderness of the chest on deep inspiration as well as bruises on the right thigh. That the diagnosis of soft tissues injury was rated at 15% permanent disability, and the examining doctor's opinion was that C had physical signs and symptoms that had a high degree of consistency with the allegations of torture. Further that C had received treatment for the pain and injuries and he also continued to undergo physical and trauma counseling. That he was still getting anonymous threatening calls, was jobless and would relocate residence monthly due to fear for his life.

CW3 explained that the disability of 15% meant that C could no longer work to his optimum because the pain could re-occur if he carried out heavy duties. That this was because C's back had been damaged and yet, it is the stress bearing part of the body.

C's medical report from African Center for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims was admitted by the Tribunal and marked CX1.

CW3 further added that C's document from JB Clinic Kyebando was a Medical Form 5, dated 11th March 2011. That the form indicated dysfunction of the limbs due to assault. Also that C had been given nerve repairing medicines hand vitamins; and that he was also put under daily physiotherapy together with bed rest for three (3) years while on treatment He confirmed that treatment notes had been signed and stamped C's treatment notes from JB Clinic-Kyebando were admitted as $CX2$ .

**CW3** testified further that C's third medical report was written by the Police Surgeon of Consult Care and Medical on 18th March, 2011. That the police form had requested for an examination of C in an assault case. That the surgeon found the nature of injuries being bruises along the auxiliary line in two 2 places and measuring 2 cm long and I cm wide), the second group bruises were on the right thigh and measuring 2 cm long and 1 cm wide. That the doctor classified the injuries as grievous harm, and also made remarks that C had also sustained injuries on the right clayicle (shoulder bone), that injuries the abdomen, the chest and the right leg that he reported that he was urinating blood. Further that C had bone misplacement (shifted bone from its rightful position) and probably he also had a fracture of the right clavicle (shoulder bone). That the injuries identified on the right thigh and the right chest wall had tenderness on the supra pubic area were about four days old. That the injuries as caused by a blunt toothed object, which was perhaps. That the surgeon had concluded that the injuries fell in the category of grievous harm, and he also stamped the form and signed it.

C's Medical report was admitted as $\overline{CX3}$ .

During cross-examination, CW3 stated that C had bruises along the axilla or arm pit. and that grievous harm can cause permanent disfigurement to internal or external organs and are mostly likely could affect C's health that productivity would be affected for life, as he could not lift heavy objects at all..

As was earlier noted, R never presented defense any witnesses but only filed written submissions in defense of the matter. In her written submission RC Josephine Kiyingi argued that C did not prove that the persons who inflicted pain on him were state agents. She further submitted that if C was tortured by the CID operatives at Kireka, he did not however prove that Obote and the men at Kireka were agents of the respondent and were carrying out duties in their course of employment. She further submitted that C sould have taken extra steps to prove that Obote was indeed a CID Officer stationed at Kireka Police Station at the time the torture took place.

## The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 under Article 5, provides that

"no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

This pledge was fulfilled by Uganda after signing and ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which provides under Article 7 that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Total prohibition of torture is further provided for under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (UNCAT), 1984 which provides under Article 1(2) that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever," whether a state of war, or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked a s a justification of torture."

Furthermore, Article 4 and 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' **Rights** (ACHPR) 1986; provide that "all forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly" slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited."

Article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, also prohibits subjection of persons to torture, and Article 44(a) totally prohibits derogation of the right to freedom from torture.

Article 1 of the UNCAT defines torture to mean:

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

The above definition of Torture provided under UNCAT states four important ingredients on which I shall base my assessment of violation of this right in this decision and these include: Whether severe pain or suffering; physical or mental was inflicted on C.

- Whether the pain or suffering was intentionally inflicted on C. - Whether the pain or suffering was inflicted for the purpose of obtaining from C information, confession or punishing him for the act he committed or intimidating him or coercing him for any reason based on discrimination; and - Whether the pain or suffering inflicted on C was inflicted at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity.

The evidence adduced by C shall be subjected to scrutiny in order to determine whether C's right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was indeed violated by State agents as C alleged.

As already noted C stated that while he was detained at Kiira Road Police Station, a one Obote who had come together with other CID officers beat him using a baton on the head and chest for about three (3) minutes. That he was thereafter put in a car containing three (3) people, was blindfolded and all his four limbs handcuffed; and that while in the car, he was beaten by the said three people using metals and pliers on his elbows, knee joints, stomach and other parts of the body for about 15 minutes. That he was then taken to a certain house and three (3) men beat him using batons and also kicked him for about 15 minutes. That the men also tied his private parts using a wire and also pulled his left last fingure using pliers. That syringes were inserted in his nails and for former connected were to a power socket which they switched on and of three (3) times to shock him. That by the time the torture stopped, he was unable to stand.

C's evidence depicts treatments that caused him severe pain and suffering which was both physical and mental. Moreover, all this was all done so that he could produce the alleged stolen television set.

The requirement under Section 59(a) of the Evidence Act is to the effect that "oral evidence" must in all cases be direct." In other words, if the evidence refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he or she saw it;" and "if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he or she heard." Personally the fact referred to CW1 depend that on the day he saw C at Kabira Club, C had bruises, swellings and injuries all over the body including his finger. CW1 also testified as an eye witness. CW1

reiterated the same evidence during cross examination. He therefore testified as a reliable eye witness.

Furthermore, C's evidence was also reliably corroborated by the evidence that CW2 adduced. who visited C at Kiira Road Police Station, helped him secure a release on bond and was also present when the said Obote was taking C in a car to the 'Rapid Response Unit. CW2 further depended that when C returned home later that evening, he had wounds on the right rib and finger. Cw2 also testified as an eye witness

The evidence that was adduced by CW3 also corroborated further C's case as this medical evidence provided a scientific elucidation on the effect of the beating that C had suffered.

I must however, point out that RC- Josephine Kivingi submitted that there was no way C could have received treatment on the same day when he was arrested. This was in reference to C's medical document from J. B Clinic, which revealed that C visited the Clinic on 11th March, 2011. I agree with RC since C himself had to the contrary stated that he was arrested on 11th March, 2011 and detained until 15th March 2011 as was also confirmed by the release on bond document that was tendered into C's evidence. However, during cross- examination, C stated that he was arrested on 9th March, 2014. On the other hand, during re-examination he said that he could not remember the date on which he was arrested. It is also on record that CW1 testified that C was arrested and also released on that same and very day when CW1 met him at Kabira Club and also he saw him with swellings, bruises and injuries all over the body. CW1 was however, not present at the Police station when C was released. He was only told by CW2 that C had been released on police bond. What is more disturbing is that CW2 also stated that C was released in the evening of the very day he was taken to Kireka, as C went back home that same day with wounds and someone therefore took him to J. B Clinic that same day. It is also doubtful that C would be able to move around and meet people if he was indeed in deep pain move over, if indeed he was detained from 11th to 15th March 2011. C's evidence is therefore contradictory as it states at

the same time that he was arrested on 11th March, 2011 and also released that same day thus, seeking medical on attention that very day, and also that he was detained for more than one day. I therefore note some untruthfulness in the evidence adduced by C and some of his witnesses. This appears to have resulted from the attempt by C's side to exaggerate the beating that C suffered and its effects on him. Accordingly, it is clear that though C was beaten, that it was not to the extent as alleged. In the circumstances, I shall not rely on C's treatment notes from J. B Clinic as they yield,

C's evidence, and relying on them would be fetal to this decision, consideration shall only be put to the medical documents from African Center for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims, and Consult Care and Medical.

In Uganda. Vs. Abdallah Nassur [1982] HCB, it was held that where grave inconsistencies occur, the evidence may be rejected unless satisfactorily explained, while minor inconsistencies may have no adverse effect on the testimony unless it points to deliberate untruthfulness. In addition, in Uganda Vs. ASP Aurien James Peter Criminal, case No. 012 of 2010 (Unreported) reported in Juuko . Vs. Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 058 of 2013[2014], Justice Lawrence Gidudu stated that a witness may be untruthful in certain aspects of his evidence but truthful in the main substance of his evidence. And further that the witness who has been untruthful in some parts and truthful in other parts could be believed in those parts where he has been truthful.

The tribunal therefore notes that the inconsistencies in C's evidence affect, especially the determination of gravity of the beating that C suffered. Accordingly, in determining this case I shall take into account only the truthful parts of C's evidence to enable me reach a just and fair decision regarding the effect of the injuries that C's sustained.

I must also note that RC submitted that C did not prove that the persons who inflicted torture on him were state agents. She argued that if C was tortured by the state agents at Kireka, he did not prove that Obote and the other men were agents of the state and were carrying out duties in their course of employment. She further submitted that C should have taken extra trouble to prove that Obote was indeed a CID Officer based at Kireka Police Station at the time the torture took place.

I note that R's submission in this regard was only rebutting C's evidence as to whether the perpetrators of the alleged torture were state agents, and not whether it is a fact that C actually subjected to torture.

With regard to the allegation of torture meted out of on C, I therefore find that severe pain or suffering (both physical and mental) was indeed intentionally inflicted on C for the purpose of obtaining from him information, and case for also for punishing him so that he could produce the television set he was alleged to have stolen acts were carried out by police officers at Kiira Road Police Station and Kireka Rapid Response Unit, who were, all individually and severally in the course of their employment.

Basing on the forgoing assessment and also on Ireland Vs. United Kingdom (1978) 2 EHRR 25. I find that on a balance of probabilities, that $C'$ is right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was indeed violated by state agents.

## Issue 2: Whether R is liable for the violation.

As has already been noted, RC Josephine Kiyingi submitted that C did not prove that the persons who beat C were state agents. She argued that if C was tortured by the CID officer Obote and other security operatives at Kireka, he did not actually rove that Obote and those other men at Kireka were indeed state agents and were actually carrying out duties in their course of their employment. She further submitted that C failed to prove that Obote was a CID Officer at Kireka Police Station at the time the torture took place.

I do not agree with RC's aforementioned arguments as C credibly stated that he was called to the CID's office at Kiira Road Police Station on 11th March 2011 where he was detained. Furthermore, C did specifically identify one Obote who interrogated him about the whereabouts of the television set. C was detained at the same station on 11th March, 2011 and that he was taken by the same Obote to a house at Kireka where he was further interrogated by three (3) men, including Obote himself. Additionally, CW1 and CW2 adduced corroborative evidence as eye witness stating that they visited C at Ntinda Police Station and they personally saw him torturing C. Therefore whether Obote was a CID officer or not, it is immaterial. What is of paramout importance is the fact that the time C was detained, released on bond and rearrested taken to Kireka, he was under the custody of the Police. Moreover, when he was released from Kireka, he was transferred to Kiira Road Police Station, from where he was finally released for custody. Whether Obote and the other men who tortured C were CID officers or just any other police officers, is immaterial. The fact that they used police facilities to execute their mission commits the Uganda Police Force, an agency of the state, into this act of torture it is also known that it is the Uganda Police Force's practice that some police officers and affiliated security operatives do not use commonly known or established police detention facilities to handle official duties or to interrogate suspects. In this premise therefore, it was the duty of R to prove that the said officers were not state agents and were not acting in the course of state employment. R had the burden to explain clearly to the Tribunal the actual identity of the people who tortured C using state facilities, which burden they did not discharge.

In Lister Vs. Hesley Hall Ltd (2001) UKHL 22, the House of Lords observed that the principle is that the master is liable whether the act is authorized or an unauthorized act done in a wrongful manner. Further, in John Vs. Tower Boots Co. Ltd (1997)2 ALL ER 407, court stated that " an act is within the course of employment if it is either a wrongful act authorized by the employer or a wrongful and unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the employer."

I therefore find that there was a satisfactory connection established by C's evidence between the acts of Obote and the other state agents who tortured C and the duties they were employed and which they were to do and which they inquired into wrongs suspected to have been committed by C. In the case of Iwina Vs. Arua Town Council (1977) HCB 28, it was held that "once it is proved that the servant was an employee of the master, there is a presumption that he was in the course of employment. The burden then lies on the master to prove to the contrary. The latter was not been done by R in this case.

Article 119 (4) (c) of the Constitution provides that the Attorney General shall represent the Government in courts or any other legal proceeding to which the Government is a party. Accordingly, having held that R's agents violated C's right, and having further found that the said agents were rightfully executing the duties they were employed to carry out by the State, R (Attorney General) is therefore held vicariously liable for the acts of the state agents who tortured C.

## $$ Whether C is entitled to any remedies.

The Uganda Human Rights Commission is mandated under Article 53(2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 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 the instant matter, as it has been found on a balance of probabilities that the R's agents violated C's right of freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment then C is entitled to compensation.

I am fully aware of the underlying principle in awarding compensation to victims as to bring the intention to as much as possible restore the victims to positions that they were in before being victimized. The compensation should therefore be adequate, effective and prompt.

In Toyeronga Charles Wisky . Vs. Attorney General, UHRC/G/6/2006, it was established that while soldiers of Lira Kato UPDF Detach were carrying out a security operation, the Complainant was hit by a bullet on the left shoulder which entered the shoulder ball joint where it remained deeply lodged. The bullet caused permanent paralysis and Toyeranga could not therefore use his left arm for any physical productive work. The Tribunal awarded Toyeronga Ug, shs. 10,000,000/= as general damages for the violation of his right of freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and an additional Ug. Shs. $2,000,000/$ = as exemplary damages for the soldiers carelessness and indiscipline. However, the efforts of the violation of Toyeronga's right were much graver and devastating then the effects of the torture that C suffered in the instant matter under resolution in this decision. Accordingly C deserves a lower quantum than what Toyeronga was awarded in the afore cited case. However, the recklessness inhuman and impunity with which the state agents treated C in the instant case must also attached exemplary damages for C as was the case for Toyeronga in the cited precedent case.

However, I am also taking into account the stated in Mativa Byabalema and Others Vs. Uganda Transport Company, SCCA, 10193, where His Lordship Justice Odoki JSC stated that "courts out to assess the amount of damages taking into account the current value of the money" in terms of what goods and services it can purchase out at present."

In this premise, I am therefore awarding Ug. Shs.4, 000, $000/$ = (Four million Uganda shillings) to C as general damages for the violation of his right of freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and an additional Ug. Shs. $2,000,000/$ = (Two million Uganda shillings) as exemplary damages for the police officers' unprofessional, oppressive and violent conduct. Thus a total sum of Ug.sh. $6,000,000/$ = (Six million Uganda shillings) awarded to C in this resolution of this matter.

## **Orders**

- 1. The Complaint is allowed. - 2. R (Attorney General) is ordered to pay to C, Silvio Onenchan Manano a total sum of Ug. Shs. 6,000,000/= (Six Million shillings) broken down as follows :

a) General damages for the violation of his right of freedom from cruel, inhuman or Ug. Shs. $4,000,000/=$ degrading treatment or punishment b) Exemplary damages for the unprofessional, oppressive and violent conduct of the officers of Uganda police force

Ug. Shs. $2,000,000/=$

## **TOTAL** Ug.sh. $6,000,000/=$ 3. Interest at court rate to be paid on the total sum of Ug. Shs. $6,000,000/$ = (Six Million

- Uganda shillings) from the date of this decision until payment in full. - 4. Each party to bear their own costs. - 5. Either party may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of this decision if not satisfied with the decision of this Tribunal.

It is so ordered. $\frac{1}{1}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ ..... 2018 DATED AT KAMPALA ON THIS ...... DR. KATE **WA IRUMBA** PRESIDING COMMISSIONER permed by KIIZa Mosen, Stheo/ Registrem in the presence of the Complament on the CCA April 2008 15