110 Kabumba/Application of African Union (human rights) law in Uganda Convention, on the ground that its text was similar to that of article 28 of the Constitution.125 In the event, although the Constitutional Court upheld the applicants’ contention, it did not itself rely upon the European Convention. 4.1.3 The European Court of Human Rights In addition to some references to the European Convention, Ugandan courts have also occasionally referred to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (European Court) in determining matters before them. In Onyango Obbo,126 for instance, Mulenga JSC127 and Odoki CJ128 also referred to the jurisprudence of the European Court on the nature and scope of freedom of expression (in addition to references to the European Convention), in interpreting the scope of the right under article 29 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda. Similarly, in Turyatemba,129 the Constitutional Court referred to the decision of the European Court in the case of Kokkinakis v Greece130 as authority for the proposition that the right to freedom of religion, conscience and belief was not absolute but rather subject to such limitations, in the public interest and based on law, as were necessary and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.131 Later in the judgment, the Court further referred to the European Court decision in Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France132 to support its determination that the term ‘discrimination’ had ‘come to imply a distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms’.133 In addition, in Kigula,134 Egonda-Ntende Ag JSC, in dissenting from the majority decision, placed substantial reliance upon the jurisprudence of the European Court. Having regard to the decision of the European Court in Soering v United Kingdom135 Egonda-Ntende Ag JSC was of the view that the relevant provisions of the Constitution (on the right to life, freedom from torture and the non-derogability of the right to freedom from torture) had to be read together, rather in 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 At 3. n 18. At 11, citing the ECtHR’s decision in the Lingens Case 12/1984/84/131. At 48, citing what he referred to as a ‘celebrated statement’ by the ECtHR in Handyside v The United Kingdom (1979 - 80) 1 EHRR 737 (para 49). n 27. Judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A 260 – A. At 15-16. Judgment of 27 June 2000. At 21. n 31. 
 Application 14038/88 delivered on 7 July 1989.