judiciary, not only from the executive but also from the legislature, and currently we have a vetting process for judicial officers. Vetting of judges has been finalized. Some judges were found unsuitable to serve on various grounds, including violating human rights in their adjudication. This has paved way for recruitment of new judicial officers in line with the requirements of the new institution. reasonable decision in their favor were not favorable. The East African Court of Justice is a regional court of the East African States. The case was filed in 2010; it took the court about two years to conclude the matter, and in March this year we got our judgment. Obviously the judgment was not in favor of the victims. We felt that the court focused more on technicalities rather than substantive issues of human rights violations. The case was dismissed as the judges held that that the application was out of time and that the argument that violations by the state were “continuous” was not tenable The police reform, which was part of the Concluding Observations in 2008 and constitutional reform, has also just begun. The police are under a new legal framework and there has been established a system of civil oversight for the police in Kenya. The oversight authority will monitor police action and complaints lodged by members of the public concerning any particular human rights violations and whether torture against civilians is being conducted, because the police are among the bodies known to be the highest perpetrators of the crime of torture, particularly in areas of detention, during arrests, and extra-judicial killings. Obviously, this posed a challenge for both ICJ Kenya and IMLU, but we did not give up. We have now submitted a communication before the African Commission. When we looked at the judgment, we concluded that the [East African] Court [of Justice] took a very technical approach, stating that the case was filed outside the restricted timelines established by the East African Treaty, which is normally three months, despite the evidence of gross violations. And the Court, as I said, did not address the substance of the issues that were raised in the application. Despite the outcome of the decision, we were compelled to think about other options. If the national court failed, we would go to the regional court. We started with the East African Court of Justice; we have failed, so now we are going to the African Commission. At the African Commission we are advocating the same—that there has been an attempt, but even going to the local courts the remedy is not sufficient to compensate the victims of torture. So it’s a case-by-case battle and before the Commission we are still advocating our position. We still have a long way to go. We have very specific provisions on access to justice which are contained in the Constitution and a very progressive Bill of Rights, but the key question again remains: implementation. In terms of torture protection specifically, it is provided for in our Constitution as a non-derogable right. But defining torture is still an issue. Whereas torture is prohibited by the Constitution, it is not defined. A draft bill, which has yet to be enacted, was drafted in collaboration with other civil society actors, the ministry of justice, and a national human rights body, actually provides for the definition of torture according to Article 1 of the Convention. Will it be passed? I don’t know, and that is a challenge. Therefore, even bringing cases before the courts, one simply relies on constitutional provision and fundamental rights and freedoms. Conclusion In terms of utilizing the human rights mechanisms, as I said in our communication before the African Commission, we were seeking remedies for the Mount Elgon victims. The main challenge obviously, as you have seen, is implementing the decision after. So what happens when the decision, for example, is given in our favor? As illustrated with the community land case, which is famously referred to as the “Endorois Communication”Case,39 where a decision was made in favor of the community, to date the implementation of the decision has still not been done. The practice of torture continues to be part of the culture of the police. It is still very widespread. Although there has been a reduction in reported incidents, they are not significant, but the reduction can be attributed to some of the rights included in the Constitution. You find reported cases in areas, particularly now new forms of torture emerging in the health care systems, areas of detention, and particularly the prison departments. Be that as it may, we will continue conducting policy meetings, particularly along the Robben Island Guidelines40 that were developed by the African Commission in regards to getting African states to put in place regulations that will prohibit torture in their operations. We still intend on promoting policy dialogues with the government to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Perhaps they will give serious consideration to individual complaints before the Committee against Torture. The most important point, which brings me almost to the close, is the accountability for victims of torture. This has yet to be realized despite the new Constitution. At the moment, there exists a communication pending before the African Commission that ICJ Kenya filed on behalf of victims of Mount Elgon.38 These point to the Concluding Observations of 2008, where the Committee observed that the state had failed to investigate those allegations of human rights violations. As part of its litigation strategy, ICJ Kenya opted to file an amicus curie brief in a case lodged at the East African Court of Justice by the Independent Medico Legal Unit (IMLU). IMLU is ICJ Kenya’s collaborative partner. The idea was to try to expand avenues for justice because at the time our judicial system was very weak, and if you sought redress for victims or communities, the chances of getting a In conclusion, what I might say is that we remain optimistic. We are on the path toward institutional reform and we are transforming the justice system. We have come a long way and are optimistic that the new constitution is a good framework to continue our fight for the redress of victims of human rights violations. 31