Justice Delayed but not Denied: The Prosecution of Thomas Kwoyelo for International Crimes in Uganda

This article investigates the challenges of the application of international law in a domestic setting as depicted in the ongoing trial of Thomas Kwoyelo. Kwoyelo, a former child soldier and commander in the Lord's Resistance Army, is being prosecuted for the commission inter alia of murder, kidnapping with intent to murder, and pillaging, all as war crimes and crimes against humanity under International Humanitarian Law, Customary International Law and the Penal Code Act of Uganda. He is currently standing trial at the International Crimes Division of the High Court of Uganda. This trial is a unique test for the Ugandan judiciary, as it is faced with its first prosecution of an individual charged with crimes under international law. In a bid to apply international law domestically the Court has faced several challenges which have disabled the progress of the trial on many levels, arguably at the expense of the accused and the victims at large. The article primarily seeks to analyse the capability of the court to prosecute Kwoyelo for the commission of international crimes as well as to examine the challenges faced by the Court. The history of the conflict will be examined. This will be followed by an overview of the judicial hurdles faced by the Ugandan State in eventually charging Kwoyelo. The article will then analyse the present challenges faced by the Court. Finally, several recommendations are offered.


Introduction
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is charged with the responsibility of ensuring accountability under international criminal law. 1 However, the ICC shares this role with State Parties under the principle of complementarity. Complementarity is provided for under paragraph 1 of the Preamble 2 and Article 17 3 of the Rome Statute of the ICC (ICC Statute). Complementarity gives States Parties an opportunity to try the cases over which they have jurisdiction. 4 The ICC steps in only where the State with jurisdiction is unwilling or unable to prosecute. 5 This in itself enforces the notion that the State in question will have to apply international criminal law in its domestic setting. Indeed, the ICC is well aware that it is a court of last resort and has stated in Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo that domestic courts enjoy primacy over the ICC. 6 Moreover, Werle and Jessberger provide that "the state parties should incorporate substantive international criminal law into their domestic legal system, so as to enable their courts to prosecute and punish international crimes in the same way as the International Criminal Court." 7 Uganda is one of many ICC States Parties which have domesticated the ICC Statute, which it did when it enacted the International Criminal Court During the conflict, young Acholi boys and girls were abducted and conscripted into the rebel ranks, actively participating in the atrocities against their communities. 14 Among these was Thomas Kwoyelo alias Latoni. Kwoyelo was forcefully abducted by the LRA at the early age of 13 while on his way to school in 1987. 15 Following his abduction, Kwoyelo subsequently grew in the rebel ranks and rose to the level of a commander a colonel, and the officer in charge of several departments. 16 He served as one of Kony's right-hand men. 17 The atrocities committed during the conflict fell within the ambit of International Criminal Law and for that reason 8 Also see South Africa, for example, which domesticated the ICC Statute in the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002. 9 Human Rights Watch 2012 https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ uganda0112ForUpload_0.pdf.   26 McKnight argues that "the conflict in northern Uganda presents a unique study of international criminal law and different responses to prolonged conflict, as seemingly every tactical and ideological method that has been implemented to instil peace and secure justice has failed." 27 These "tactical and ideological methods" include Uganda's Amnesty Act of 2000, the arrest warrants of the ICC for LRA commanders, the Juba peace talks, the establishment of the ICD, and Acholi ritual ceremonies. 28 The entire survivor population is still grappling with the aftermath of the conflict and the prosecution of those responsible. The creation of the ICD was timely and vital.
Despite its creation, the court has not been spared the toils of a domestic court handling crimes of an international nature. This court, one of a kind in the arena of the domestic application of international law, has tested the pitfalls that there are in the field. It is worth mentioning that the court did not foresee the complexities of prosecuting international crimes in a domestic setting, which has been responsible for the delays in the Kwoyelo matter. First, the legal landscape was not fit for the magnitude of the responsibility. The Uganda legislation lacked provisions for the criminalisation and punishment of crimes of international law, war crimes and crimes against humanity, which were the most likely ones the intended defendants would be charged with. During the Kwoyelo trial, the issue of the applicable law was outstanding and the prosecution and defence went back and forth in the pre-trial sessions as to whether customary international law was applicable. The ICD is a new court and also had to appoint judges who were not well versed in the application of International Criminal Law, which has added to the delays. Also, the legal system did not cater for incidental issues like the conduct of the trial in the interest of victims, and witness protection, mainly due to the applicability of the concept of victim participation, which is foreign to common law jurisdictions. This remains a challenge today. 29 The prosecution of crimes against humanity in particular presents its own challenges, such as the complexity of the material elements of the crime. It is very important for the ICD to ensure that justice is served in the Kwoyelo case in support of the principle of complementarity under the ICC Statute. The purpose of this article is to illustrate how Uganda is prosecuting crimes under international law, and in particular in the Kwoyelo case, one of the first cases at the ICD, as well as the challenges that may possibly prevent a fair trial of Kwoyelo in Uganda. It also proposes certain changes to the current legal regime responsible for the prosecution of crimes under international law in Uganda. This is important because currently there is a gap in the literature regarding the prosecution of crimes under international 27 McKnight 2015 JAL 193-194; Also see Oola "In the Shadow of Kwoyelo's Trial" 153.
28 McKnight 2015 JAL 194. 29 International Justice Monitor 2018 https://www.ijmonitor.org/2018/10/thomaskwoyelo-in-uganda-victims-participation-brings-hope-and-challenges/. law by Uganda and more particularly, the case of Thomas Kwoyelo. These cases are complex in nature and require experienced judges knowledgeable in the theory and practical application of international criminal law. This article fills this gap in the literature and makes a valuable contribution to the field of International Criminal Law.
The article begins by exploring the creation of the ICD. It then examines why Kwoyelo is facing charges at the ICD as opposed to at the ICC, since one of Kwoyelo's fellow commanders, Dominic Ongwen, was convicted by the ICC in February 2021. 30 The rest of this article discusses the various delays faced by the ICD and how these challenges may be remedied by the Court.

The ICD and the trial of Thomas Kwoyelo
As per Article 17 of the ICC Statute, the ICC operates on the principle of complementarity. 31 This principle encourages states where atrocities were committed to have the first recourse in trying the culprits of such violations. 32 The ICC steps in only where the state is unable or unwilling to try the supposed offenders. This same scenario played out in the Ugandan case. The creation of the ICD arose from the agreements that were arrived at during the Peace Talks between the government of Uganda and the rebels in Juba, the capital of South Sudan. 33 The talks, which were not planned well mainly due to a lack of consensus between the parties, started in 2006 and were dominated by the peace versus justice discourse at a time when the ICC was investigating the Ugandan situation, which move seemed to be at odds with the reconciliation process. 34  amnesty, which they wanted in its blanket form, whilst the government pressed for accountability, as reflected in the Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation (AAR) and its Annexure between the Government of the Republic of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army. 37 This frustrated many pro-peace advocates, who were worrying that the LRA would abandon the talks in fear of prosecution, which would in turn disturb the peace process. 38 Fortunately this was not the case as the final agreement was reached in 2008. The conflict in Uganda ended as the rebels fled to the neighbouring DRC, South Sudan and later to CAR. 39 Although the rebels on their part never signed the final Agreement but only the Annexure, the government remained true to its promise in the Annexure and pursued accountability, which was emphasised in the agreements during the Peace Talks which led to the establishment of the ICD. 40 Finally, there was an agreement in place between the parties.
The ICD was an actualisation of Uganda's complementary role to the ICC, giving Uganda its first recourse to trying the cases from the conflict. 41 The ICD is a domestic court established in the High Court of Uganda, a special division whose jurisdiction consists of international crimes like war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and other transnational crimes like trafficking in persons, terrorism and piracy. 42 Thus, any individual who commits crimes under international law can be prosecuted at the ICD, thereby fulfilling the preamble of the ICC Statute, which advocated for the primacy of domestic prosecutions of international crime. 43 Despite its international law application, the ICD is premised on a common law foundation in the High Court of Uganda. A lot of this deviates from the appearance of international law and how it is applied at the ICC or other International Criminal Tribunals and courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) or the Special Court for Sierra Leone(SCSL), that have in the past been used to apply international law. 44 Yet the ICD was not to remain static in its model, but had to adjust to fit its purpose. This it did by introducing aspects including two chambers -a pre-trial and a trial chamber - participation in the trial with legal representation, and witness protection, aspects that have proved quite difficult to realise for a strictly common law judiciary. 45 The applicable law includes the Penal Code Act of Uganda, 1950, the Geneva Conventions and Common Article Three forming part of customary law. In addition, the International Criminal Court Act gives force to the applicability of the ICC Statute in Uganda but cannot be used as it came in force after the period in which Kwoyelo allegedly committed the crimes of which he stands accused. 46 The stage was set for the domestic prosecution of crimes under international law in Uganda, and Kwoyelo would be one of the Court's first defendants.

The case of Thomas Kwoyelo
Kwoyelo, a former child soldier and victim of the LRA, rose through the ranks of the rebel group that abducted him and became a colonel himself. 47 Despite the offers of amnesty, he remained loyal to the rebel group. 48 He was captured in a fire exchange between the rebels and the UPDF in the operation "Lighting Thunder" that occurred in the Garamba National Park of the DRC in 2009 and was held in custody in several places, including Luzira prison in Kampala. 49 Kwoyelo was an active member of the LRA and was in combat between 1992 and 2005. 50 He allegedly participated in several atrocities including rapes, murders and kidnaps, either directly or through his command. 51 It is also alleged that while active, Kwoyelo occasioned assaults against civilian populations in IDP camps in Kilak, Pabbo subcounty and the present-day Amuru district, while at the same time serving as the commander of operations and the director of military intelligence, and that he was in charge of the sick bay in the rebel ranks. 52 He was arraigned before the ICD in 2010 and is now facing 93 counts of crimes against humanity in violation of Article 3 common to the

Application for amnesty
Uganda's obligation to international law was scrutinised in Kwoyelo's amnesty application, which application postponed the start of the trial. The eventual decision by the Ugandan Supreme Court in terms of granting amnesty to individuals implicated in the commission of mass atrocities is important for the development of international criminal law in Uganda. 54 When the Ugandan government was exploring amnesty there was a level of mistrust of the Government among the rebels. 55 The mistrust was grounded "in the fact that whereas the government of Uganda was pursuing peaceful means to achieve peace and end armed rebellion in the country, it was still showing support to its international obligations under the ICC Statute to surrender senior rebel commanders to face justice at the ICC." 56 Nevertheless, prior to Kwoyelo's application, about 26,000 former soldiers, 57 mostly belonging to the LRA, had benefitted from the Amnesty Act of 2000 (as amended in 2010). 58 Some of these were of a rank higher than Kwoyelo himself and others were in the same position as he wascaptured in the rebel camps. 59 It was in Luzira prison that Kwoyelo denounced the rebellion and applied for amnesty. 60 His declaration was forwarded to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP), who did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the amnesty application, but left it to the courts. The ODPP therefore arraigned him before the Magistrates' Court and he was later committed for trial at the ICD in 2010. 61 It was at the trial that he requested a consideration of his request for amnesty, arguing that the crimes which he was indicted for qualified for amnesty under the Act and that the rejection of this right would be discriminatory and in violation of his constitutional rights. 62 This request was a matter of constitutional interpretation to determine the question of the denial of amnesty and its constitutionality. It was approximately six years from the time of Kwoyelo's application until the time when the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of his amnesty. The Supreme Court found the Act applicable to political crimes, those in furtherance of war or rebellion, but not to grave breaches against individual civilians, under which Kwoyelo's crimes were categorised. 67 In its view, Kwoyelo had engaged in acts that were not justified by military necessityattacks on innocent civilians in their homes, which had nothing to do with the furtherance of war and hence were unlawful. 68 The Supreme Court upheld Uganda's international obligation to peace and security by taming the reach of the Act while adding that the ODPP had not scrutinised the amnesty applications as necessary. Many undeserving applicants benefitted from the law, which became understood as blanket amnesty, but this form of amnesty was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court. 69

Subject matter jurisdiction
In 2018 the ICD confirmed numerous charges against Kwoyelo. The charges include inter alia murder, rape, the recruitment of child soldiers and crimes against humanity, some committed directly while others were committed through his command. humanity is that the attack must be widespread and systematic. 71 Crimes against humanity is one of the core crimes of the ICC Statute and is a crime under customary international law. 72 This in particular lends an international dimension to the offences allegedly committed by Kwoyelo. An in-depth understanding of the subject matter jurisdiction therefore plays a crucial part in the trial. For the matter of Kwoyelo, there was a need for careful consideration of the applicability of the law, the selection of which was complex.
An important subject matter jurisdiction question arises in view of the application of the ICC Statute. Given the fact that Kwoyelo is alleged to have committed some of the offences during the 1990s the ICC Statute, which was ratified in 2002, as well as the Ugandan ICC Act cannot be applicable mainly due to the legality principle, which is well enshrined in international law 73 and the Ugandan Constitution, 74 and purports that there can be no crime without law. The Ugandan penal laws would have been solely applicable at the time, especially for the crimes of murder and rape. Thus, the Prosecutor at the ICD will have to prove subject matter jurisdiction especially for the crimes against humanity and certain violations of international humanitarian law pursuant to customary international law.

Customary international law
The ICD confirmed that Kwoyelo allegedly committed certain crimes in violation of customary international law. Customary international law is "that body of law which derives from the practice of States accompanied by opinio juris." 75 "Legislative measures must be considered, along with decisions of courts and official acts and declarations by state representatives." 76 In certain cases customary law might be the only solution to a legal problem simply because of its familiarity among the legal community. 77 However, the application of customary international law in international criminal law is not without criticism, particularly due to its vagueness and uncodified nature, which makes the establishment of criminal liability on the basis of customary international law troublesome. 78  similar to that of Kwoyelo. 79 Each armed conflict and each case presents its own unique challenges to the interpretation of customary international law and should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Seelinger notes that the direct application of customary international law into domestic legal orders is very much a nuanced and evolving question. There is simply no universal way states have approached the question. As experts in a largely dualist country following the English common law tradition, Ugandan judges can chart their own course with respect to the domestic application of customary international law in civil and criminal cases. 80 One of the questions that the judges will eventually have to determine during the trial is whether the alleged crimes against humanity were part of customary international law at the time of the commission of the offences by Kwoyelo.

Crimes against humanity
The definition of crimes against humanity was first observed in the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868 and has evolved significantly ever since. 81 Simply put, "crimes against humanity are mass crimes committed against a civilian population". 82 The term was particularly coined in Article 6(c) of the Nuremberg Charter in 1945 as well as in Article 5(c) of the Tokyo Charter in 1946. Several high-ranking Nazi officials were prosecuted for crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Tribunal. Furthermore, the Statutes of the ICTY as well as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) included crimes against humanity as a crime. These were included in these Tribunals because the perpetrators implicated in the respective conflicts targeted the fundamental human rights of the victims as part of a widespread and systematic attack on a civilian population. The crime addresses "the perpetrator's conduct not only towards the immediate victim but also towards the whole of humankind." 83 The crimes allegedly committed by Kwoyelo were therefore not committed only against the victims of the conflict in Uganda but also against the international community as a whole. 84 Crimes against humanity also require an individual to commit the crimes against a civilian population, whether in peace time or war time, and excludes isolated attacks such as killing only one person in a village. civilians. These attacks were not isolated and were systematic. 86 It is submitted that these alleged crimes fall under the ambit of crimes against humanity pursuant to customary international law since crimes against humanity have been prosecuted by numerous tribunals in the past and the prosecution of such as allegedly committed by Kwoyelo has been accepted by States to be in accordance with the law.

International humanitarian law
The Confirmation of Charges includes several charges relating to the violation of certain sections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including murder, hostage taking, pillaging, cruel treatment, outrages perpetrated upon personal dignity, and torture. The Geneva Conventions or the Geneva Law(s) are among the most important sources of international humanitarian law. They essentially deal with the protection of civilians and former combatants unwilling to take part in the fighting. 87 In particular, Common Article 3 of the third Geneva Convention of 1949 protects the rights of civilians and prisoners of war in non-international armed conflicts. 88 Kwoyelo's alleged conduct was in direct violation of Common Article 3(1). Not only did he allegedly murder hundreds of civilians in a non-international armed conflict, but also committed various other offences listed under Common Article 3(1), including torture, rape, the destruction of villages and cruel treatment.
The application of crimes against humanity as a crime pursuant to international humanitarian law is well documented. 89 A report of the UN Secretary-General related to the establishment of the ICTY held that the statute should apply international humanitarian law as it is part of customary international law. 90 The report further added that doing so would be necessary for an international tribunal while prosecuting those persons that are responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law. 91 As in the case of Kwoyelo, who allegedly committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, it was important for the ICD to include violations of Common Article 3 as part of their subject matter jurisdiction. Significantly, at pre-trial the ICD rejected the Defence's submission not to apply customary international law and held that the Constitution of Uganda does not prohibit the application of customary international law in Uganda's legal order and that to the contrary, it is open to the application of non-written law. Moreover, the offences charged in the Amended Indictment (crimes against humanity and serious violations of Common Article 3) do not contravene the legality principle, because at the time of their alleged commission, the said crimes were well-established bases for individual criminal liability both under treaty law and customary international law, thus giving the accused reasonable foreseeability. 92 The charges against Kwoyelo are comprehensive and legitimate. The charges in relation to customary international law are very serious and the burden is now on the State to prove that Kwoyelo is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The stage is set for the prosecution of Kwoyelo, but serious concerns have arisen regarding the capacity of the ICD to hear the case.

Challenges confronting the ICD
Despite a rich background in the content, the violent nature of the conflict and the willingness to prosecute, those most responsible for the LRA atrocities were not being prosecuted. That being said, the government of Uganda was firm in its decision to pursue accountability for the atrocities that had been committed in the north by the LRA rebels. 93 The establishment of the ICD was vital to address impunity. However, just like any other new institution, the ICD has faced its share of challenges. Judicial challenges such as the interpretation and application of rules of procedure, unreasonable delays, and victim participation are among a few of the challenges. 94 If these problems are left unresolved the successful completion of the Kwoyelo case might be jeopardised.

Judicial challenges
The crimes in the context of the Kwoyelo trial require the application of law by skilled legal professionals experienced in the delicate nuances of international criminal law and customary international law, none more so than the judges who must interpret the law, convict or acquit the offender and pass a sentence. In addition, all the previous international courts such 92 Uganda The payment of reparations to victims at the ICD is also a complex and challenging matter and will not be dealt with in detail in this article as this article is mainly dealing with the current challenges faced in the early stages of the Kwoyelo trial. For a detailed analysis of reparations at the ICD, see Musila 2016 https://ssrn.com/abstract=2906172. as the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the ICTY and the ICTR, the SCSL and the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in East Timor consisted of judges from various countries. For example, in Sierra Leone the three judges in the Trail Chamber consisted of a Sierra Leonean judge and two international judges. 95 The involvement of international judges in post-conflict prosecutions provides a different perspective to a case and prevents judges from becoming too sentimental and emotional. That being said, it is also an advantage to have solely Ugandan judges on the panel, owing to their acute awareness of the history of the conflict as well as their understanding the local language. We support the fact that all judges at the ICD are currently from Uganda. Ugandan judges understand the impact that the conflict has had on Uganda as a whole.
The general question arises whether the judges at the ICD have enough experience to hear cases involving the prosecution of crimes under international law. All the judges at the ICD and in particular at the Kwoyelo trial are local Ugandan judges. Some of the former and current judges at the ICD have had exposure in hearing cases of crimes under international law by having served either at the ICTR or the SCSL and have experience in domestic criminal law cases concerning the conflict in Northern Uganda. 96 Moreover, there have been various training exercises and capacity building seminars for ICD judicial staff, both locally and abroad. 97 In 2011 the ICC publicly expressed a commitment to assist the ICD. The expert assistance from the ICC provides the ICD judges with additional experience in hearing its cases, which in turn ensures that Kwoyelo's case will be heard by judges well versed in the interpretation and application of international criminal law.
However, it seems that Uganda is struggling to keep hold of her experienced judges. A rotation policy in the Ugandan judiciary provides that judges rotate every three to four years. 98 Some, like Justice Elizabeth Ibanda-Nahamya, reached retirement age and the pleas to have her tenure extended for the course of the trial were granted only in part, her tenure being extended by only a year, which is not adequate. 99 With vast expertise in international criminal law, Justice Nahamya served as a judge at the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. Moreover, the ICD remains under financial strain, which adds to the plight of slow justice. 100 It is recommended that judges at the ICD should be excluded from the Ugandan judiciary's rotation policy and serve out a longer term. The ICC should also be encouraged to assist the ICD financially. The continuous rotation of judges in the Kwoyelo trial could lead to several delays in the trial due to the appointment of new judges and should be avoided.
Also, the judges in the Kwoyelo case could appoint an amicus curiae or an expert witness experienced in the field of crimes under international law to assist the judges and provide a neutral view of the substantial law aspects of the trial, bearing in mind the complex nature of these crimes. A retired judge of the ICTY or a former judge of the ICC could be approached in this regard, a matter in which the ICC should consider assisting the ICD.

Unreasonable delays in the trial
Kwoyelo's experience while at the ICD has been anything but expeditious. He has already been in detention since his arrest in 2008. The right to a speedy and fair trial is a universal human right, also enshrined under Article 28(1) of the Ugandan Constitution, and should be enforced as such by the ICD. 101 Instead, the delays register the violation not only of the accused's rights to justice but also those of his alleged victims, who depend on this trial to have their rights represented and to acquire reparation. In fact, Kwoyelo's legal team approached the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) in 2012. This was after the ICD commenced with Kwoyelo's trial in 2011.
The Ugandan Government refused to release Kwoyelo upon his amnesty application, which led to a complaint to the ACHPR as a measure of last resort. Several issues were raised by the complainants on behalf of Kwoyelo, inter alia allegations that he was tortured after his capture and a plethora of procedural irregularities between 2011 and 2012. 102 In 2018 the ACHPR dismissed most of the complainant's arguments, including the matter related to torture. 103 However, it decided that Uganda had violated several of Kwoyelo's rights in terms of the ACHPR Charter and even ordered Uganda to pay compensation to Kwoyelo as a result of the violations. 104 The violations included the right to be treated equally before 100 Nakandha 2020 https://www.ijmonitor.org/2020/06/complementarity-reality-checkthe-case-of-ugandas-international-crimes-division/. The right to a speedy trial is also regulated under international criminal law. 107 Moreover, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee states that the right to a speedy trial relates not only to the time by which a trial should commence, but also the time by which it should end and judgement be rendered; all stages must take place 'without undue delay'. To make this right effective, a procedure must be available in order to ensure that the trial will proceed 'without undue delay', both in first instance and on appeal. 108 There were many delays in the initial proceedings which led the complainants to argue that Kwoyelo's right to a speedy trial had been violated. The ACHPR held that the Supreme Court should have ensured a speedy trial in 2012. 109 Apart from the ACHPR judgement and the various acts that protect the right to a speedy trial, Rule 55 of the ICD Rules also speaks of limiting delays in trials. Mention is also made of the Court's duty to guarantee expeditious trials. 110 Kwoyelo has been in detention for over 13 years without being convicted by a Ugandan court and the trial is still just under way. This protracted and unreasonable delay is in clear violation of the fundamental human rights of Kwoyelo but also impedes the progress of access to justice and the rights of the victims of the alleged crimes.

Victim participation
Another major challenge faced by the ICD is victim participation. trial." 111 Importantly, the ICC Statute regulates the involvement of victims in trials. 112 The ICC created a unique avenue for the involvement of victims in trials. 113 This is commonly known as victim participation. It is born of a concept that victims, like the rest of the international community, should take part in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. 114 This participation is embedded in the initial rights of the victim to participation and protection throughout the trial and then in reparations after trial. 115 It is believed that their participation either by testifying or by witnessing the prosecution of their persecutors will yield closure. 116  Victim participation was developed to address issues that might affect the victim's personal interests, whenever they arise during trial. 123 It was tested in the Lubanga trial at the pre-trial and trial stages, and many issues were left unresolved. There were dissenting decisions and appeals on the issue of the "causal link" which was deemed unnecessary to be proved by the victim in the lower chambers. 124 However, the Appeals Chamber reversed this and established that a causal link between the harm suffered and a specific crime for one to qualify as a victim was necessary. 125 The term victim is wide enough to cover both natural and legal persons to link the harm that occasioned from the crime which falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC and although narrowly construed, a relationship should be drawn between the harm suffered and the specific crime that is being charged against the accused. 126 In Bemba, 127 5 200 victims were given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. 128 The inclusion of victims affords them an opportunity to obtain justice for the wrongs that they suffered in the past. 129 However, victim participation remains complex in the case of Uganda. It is the duty of the state to enable the realisation of victim participation, their protection, and reparation. Of all these, reparations come at the end of trial, as they are among a litany of penalties to be handed down to the party found guilty of such crimes as charged. For the purpose of this article, despite the existence of different types of reparation, compensation which serves the victim with a satisfaction of acceptance by the culprit and a sense of justice being served is preferred. 130  stress that Kwoyelo's victims are different from the LRA victims. Kwoyelo himself is a victim of the latter and all those falling in that category are not entitled to claim for reparations at the end of the Kwoyelo trial. The victims must apply for reparations at the ICC, although in rare cases the Court can act on its own motion. 134 In the Ugandan case, the process to attain reparations is not well stipulated except that they are to be paid by the guilty party to the victims, or the money may be derived from any identified source. 135 The hope for the victims then lies in the hands of their legal representatives to push for reparations.
Although the victims are well represented by two committed attorneys, victim participation has been lagging in the Kwoyelo trial. 136 All parties involved are in the dark as to when the victims themselves will be participating. 137 As is the practice before the ICC, for victims to participate they should establish causality, but the judges on trial should also ascertain sufficient personal interest of the victim, the appropriateness in the participation at the proceedings, and the fact that the victims' participation will be consistent with the rights of the accused. 138 On the whole, it is this participation that allows the victims to have a voice in the trial whenever their interests are affected, as was evidenced in the Lubanga case at the ICC. 139 The nature of this participation and the mode of procedure are yet to be clarified in the Ugandan case. All this is dependent on the availability of their protection to enable them to participate. Victim protection is a cause for concern. Their direct participation is impeded by the lack of adequate witness and victim protection. Laws that regulate victim participation needs to be passed. They cannot for instance participate in an open court to give an account of how they are affected by the trial or how to claim for reparations.
The protection measures were reviewed at the trial conference by the parties in the matter. They range from their accommodation, transportation, and psychosocial support to the security of individual victims and their families, among other measures. 140 The measures required are very like those under the ICC, except that the law in Uganda to operate these measures is not in place. Registry. 141 There is neither law nor the funds to enforce this kind of protection and therefore rudimentary approaches have been applied. There have been scenarios where the court has been closed off to the public to enable a victim to give testimony. 142 Although this is a protective strategy, it is not enough. With the trial being held in Gulu, the complexities of smalltown relations come into playthus, common nosiness may result in the identity of the victims being disclosed. In addition to that, closing off a court room surely blocks the flow of information to the public, and it is unknown for how long this will persist. The law needs to be availed speedily to address such concerns. At the ICC the law on victim protection takes a preventative approach and a standard procedure is followed in all cases. 143 The ICC employs various measures like the use of pseudonyms, video conferencing, voice distortion and the reduction of important information from documents. 144 These measures are absent at the ICD, making it hard for the victims to have their voices heard, or to have justice. It is hoped that the ICD will incorporate some of the victim participation measures applied by the ICC.

Conclusions and recommendations
This article has looked at the trajectory of the domestic application of international law in Uganda, right from the inception of the ICD, and the case of Thomas Kwoyelo, which has served as its test trial. Although international law offers dimensions that do not fit within Uganda's legal systemlike having different stages of trialthe pre-trial and trial phases, having a panel of judges at the trial phase, and the inclusion of victims in the trial among others -Uganda has laboured to accommodate all this in its processes and it should be commended for the efforts. Uganda should be praised for its willingness to prosecute these crimes pursuant to its obligations under the ICC Statute. However, this has not been a small adjustment and there is yet much to be desired. The delays in the Kwoyelo trial serve as testimony to such difficulties. The case has stalled for over a decade from Kwoyelo's arraignment before the Magistrate's Court to its current stage.