(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 97 The Charter was additionally invoked by the Supreme Court in the 2006 case of Attorney General v Susan Kigula & 417 Ors,31 which concerned the constitutionality of the death penalty in Uganda. In finding that the death penalty was not, in itself, unconstitutional, the majority of the Supreme Court referred to the Charter. The majority observed, in particular, that simply because the Charter, among other international instruments, guaranteed the rights to life and to freedom from torture, it did not thereby follow that these rights were inconsistent with the death penalty.32 According to the Court, the insertion of the word ‘arbitrarily’ in article 4 of the African Charter (relating to the right to life), among other similarly worded treaties, constituted a recognition that the death penalty could be applied, in certain instances and with appropriate procedural and substantive guarantees.33 This proved to be an important consideration for the Court, especially since this formulation was similar to that in the Ugandan Constitution.34 More recently, in the 2011 case of Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and Daniel Iga v Attorney General,35 the Constitutional Court also referred to various provisions of the African Charter in finding that a number of Ugandan statutory law provisions violated the constitutional rights of persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. In particular, the Court cited articles 2 (enjoyment of Charter rights without discrimination), 3 (equality before the law and equal protection of the law), 5 (right to dignity) and 6 (right to liberty) of the Charter.36 In another 2011 case, Omar Awadh Omar and 10 Others v Attorney General,37 before the Constitutional Court, the petitioners invoked, among others, article 6 of the African Charter (on the right to personal liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest). The matter had its antecedents in a terror attack at two places in Uganda on 11 July 2010, during the screening of the World Cup finals. The attacks left 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 now be safely asserted that international human rights law prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion’) and at 21 (‘The prohibition against discriminatory conduct is based upon the universal principle of equality before the law. The human race as a family is characterized by the attribute of oneness in dignity and worthiness as human beings. Therefore, there ought not to be one group of human beings entitled to privileged treatment as regards enjoyment of basic rights and freedoms over others, because of perceived superiority. Likewise, no group of human beings should be taken as inferior and not entitled, and be treated with hostility, as regards enjoyment to the full of the fundamental rights and freedoms’). The decision in Caroline Turyatemba, relating to the right to fair trial, including the passage invoking the African Charter in this respect, was cited with approval and relied upon in Nyaketcho Vanessa Leonie (Appealing through her next friend Elizabeth Tuhaise) and 2 Others v Oboth Obuya Gershom Civil Appeal 12 of 2012, at 21-23. Constitutional Appeal 3 of 2006. 
 At 9-11. At 10-14. At 14. Constitutional Petition 64 of 2011. At 8-10, 16, 17, 19, 23 and 26. Consolidated Constitutional Petitions 55 and 56 of 2011.