PRESUMED INNOCENT; BEHIND BARS
court on that date and that any adjournments or delays are authorized and recorded. Subsequent court dates must always be scheduled. ¾
Review detention of selected detainees
A systematic review of records of all prison inmates on remand and those who have been detained beyond the constitutional limits should be undertaken in order to determine whether their continued detention is justified by law, whether their cases should be dismissed for want of prosecution, or whether they can be released on suitable bail conditions pending disposition of their cases. ¾
Monitor General Court Martial and associated prisons.
The General Court Martial has disproportionally high average days on remand. In fact, the majority of detainees under the jurisdiction over the Court Martial have been detained over the constitutional limit. There should be increased scrutiny and reform of processes that lead to these delays and rights violations. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Court Martial should be further restricted to individuals actively involved with the military3; this would reduce the backlog of cases and excessively lengthy detentions. Since the GCM is not part of the JLOS Sector, it does not benefit from the programs that have been mentioned in the report. Therefore, different strategies should be considered to alleviate these problems. ¾
Improve effectiveness of legal representation for detainees.
The constitutional right to state-funded legal representation for those accused of offences which carry a sentence of death or life imprisonment should not be limited to the trial process but should also be available at the time of detention. It is important for individuals to be represented by counsel for bail hearings, court date adherence, and other such processes during which their legal interests need to be protected. ¾
Limit the amount of time a person can be detained upon committal.
The current provisions of the Constitution, albeit providing for a maximum period of detention prior to committal, in excess of which an accused person should be released on bail, do not limit the period of detention between committal and trial of a person accused of a capital offence. It is essential that more attention be paid to detainees on committal as these periods tend to be very lengthy. A new provision should be introduced in the Constitution to set out the period which an accused person should spend on remand between his committal date and the date of his trial. Alternatively, in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution, a clear legal precedent should be set to interpret the current provision as inclusive of the time after committal. ¾
Limit the total time a person can remain on remand.
The right to an expeditious trial must be interpreted to include the entire time from arrest or detention to sentencing or acquittal. The right to be tried without undue delay should be interpreted to include the period of time it takes to carry out a trial. ¾
Expand the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.
The data shows that detainees under the jurisdiction of the High Court are likely to be illegally detained for longer periods than those under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. This corroborates the finding by other human rights organizations that the High
3 Human Rights Watch, “State of Pain: Torture in Uganda” March, 2004, Vol. 16, No.4(A), Executive Summary Recommendations. Available at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/03/28/state-pain-0.
5