(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 111 isolation. In addition, he made reference to the European Court’s decision in Ireland v United Kingdom136 as a guide to the definition of ‘inhuman treatment’ as used in article 24 of the Constitution. In so doing he made a case for the relevance of the European Court’s case law, in the following terms: Article 2(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights is in pari materia with article 22(1) of our Constitution. So is article 3 with article 24 of our Constitution. The approach by the European Court to read the said provisions in harmony is in line with the established approach to constitutional interpretation here in Uganda. Reading the provisions together is essential in order to grasp the full meaning of the provisions bearing upon the same subject. The reasoning of the European Court is very persuasive. The European Convention on Human Rights is the forerunner of the bill of rights found in many independence constitutions, and post independence constitutions. The jurisprudence of the European Court is therefore quite persuasive.137 The Constitutional Court was more reticent regarding European Court jurisprudence in the consolidated case of Mwenda and EAMI.138 Counsel for the first petitioner cited the cases of Surek and Ozdemir v Turkey139 and Lingens v Austria140 to emphasise the importance of a free press in a democratic society, which would allow it to inform public debate and discussion. Ultimately, however, the Constitutional Court determined the matter without itself engaging with, or relying upon, these authorities. A more emphatic repudiation of the legitimacy of references to European Court jurisprudence was evidenced in Kasha.141 In that case, High Court Judge Musota rejected the invitation to consider jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights in the interpretation of the African Charter and, ultimately, of article 29 of the Uganda Constitution. In the first place, according to him, the jurisprudence of the European Court had to be ‘viewed in the context that there is no member country of the European community which prohibits homosexual acts which reflects the moral standards of Europe’.142 In Uganda, on other hand, homosexual acts were prohibited by law on moral and cultural grounds.143 Secondly, in his view, as Uganda was not a signatory to the European Convention, decisions of the European Court were not binding on Ugandan courts.144 Finally, according to him, it was not open to use the decisions of the European Court to interpret the African Charter since this would be inconsistent with the Charter itself.145 To him, article 61 of the Charter required the African Commission to consider international treaties stipulating rules expressly recognised by member states of the 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 Application 531 of 1971. At 51. n 122. Applications 23927/94 and 24277/94. Application 9815/82. n 41. At 14-15. At 15. As above. As above.