Using medical evidence: the experience of Uganda 63 Using medical evidence: the experience of Uganda Medical evidence usually falls into the category of expert evidence and while it has been noted that it is not a requirement that every allegation of assault or torture must be proved by medical evidence, its importance is particularly vital in assessing the gravity of the resultant damage, injury or harm. The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) has relied heavily on medical evidence not so much to prove torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as such, but rather to help assess the gravity of the harm so that compensation can be computed accordingly. In a number of cases, the UHRC Tribunal has been faced with complaints of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, but with no medical evidence. The Commission has nevertheless gone ahead to award compensation in some of these cases. Such compensation is mainly awarded where the physical evidence apparent on the victim or where witnesses as well as other circumstantial evidence are sufficient to prove on a balance of probabilities that the person was indeed tortured. This was clearly illustrated in the cases of Twinomugisha Ronald-and-Attorney General and Okot Par-and-Attorney General.1 Where medical evidence has been relied upon, it has in most cases been found to corroborate the direct evidence of the victim or complainant. In most cases where torture is proved, the medical evidence tends to corroborate the complainant’s testimony regarding the location of the injury or damage, the probable cause of the injury, as well as the short- and longterm effects of the torture or treatment suffered. Regarding the effects of the torture, the medical expert evidence is particularly vital in cases of physiological effects of torture, as was illustrated in the case of Iwolit Dismass-and-Attorney General, in which the doctor’s evidence persuaded the tribunal that the complainant was suffering from post-traumatic stress, which was responsible for his impotence or sexual dysfunction. By Caroline Nalule Director of Complaints, Investigations and Legal Services, Uganda Human Rights Commission