A/HRC/40/CRP.1 and shot in the leg, and 51 cows to the family of John Gatluak, who was killed during the attack.1580 The Defence counsel filed an appeal arguing that the defendants could not have been convicted based upon the evidence presented at trial. The counsel for the victims of rape and murder also submitted an appeal against the determination of the compensation awarded. In November 2018, the General Court Martial forwarded the case files to the Supreme Court for review. At the time of writing, there is no indication when the appeal decision will be rendered. The trial, which began at the end of May 2017, nine months after the incident, was widely seen as a test for the South Sudanese justice system and its ability to prosecute its own soldiers, particularly for conflict-related sexual violence. Although the case only prosecuted low level perpetrators and strictly speaking should have proceeded in civil rather than military courts, it can be seen as a success, in particular by setting precedent in relation to protection measures for victim and witnesses. The court was presided over by Military Judge Advocates, a military prosecutor assisted by two privately funded prosecutors (representing the victims and Terrain’s civil claim) led the prosecution and five to eight military lawyers represented the defendants. The court heard evidence from 17 prosecution witnesses and four defence witnesses during the course of 31 hearings. One of the sexual assault victims returned to Juba to testify in person while other witnesses were able to testify via video-link following an application by the Prosecution. Importantly, the Court ensured that protective measures were used throughout the trial to protect the identity of victims and witnesses and to facilitate their testimony this sets precedent for future cases, particularly for sexual assault cases, in South Sudan. Simultaneous translation between Arabic and English was available during most of the trial and for those accused who were unable to testify in Arabic there was simultaneous translation from Juba Arabic to the Dinka language when they were on the stand. There were, however, concerns about the circumstances and conditions of the defendants’ detention. One of the accused, First Lieutenant Luka Akechak, the commander of one of the units that attacked Terrain, died in custody at NSS headquarters in Juba, on 12 October 2017, reportedly of malaria and typhoid. At least one defendant appeared very seriously under-nourished. The other accused were notably thin, three appeared to be limping; one badly enough to use a crutch during part of the case.1581 Furthermore, some of the victims wrote to the Commission expressing their disappointment that no senior commanders had been prosecuted and that the amount of the reparations was inappropriate. Nonetheless, the Terrain case demonstrated the SPLA’s ability to hold its soldiers accountable. What is important now, however, is that this case not to be seen as exceptional, pursued as a result of pressure arising out of the international identity of the victims. The Commission is encouraged that the Court Martial prosecuted and convicted two soldiers for two further rape cases in July 2018,1582 both resulting in sentences of 14 years imprisonment and expulsion from the SPLA. The Commission is seeking further details on other prosecutions at the Court Martial for crimes of sexual violence. In this respect, it is encouraging that following the Terrain trial, the Directorate of Military Justice of the SPLA approached the UNMISS Rule of Law Advisory Section to request assistance in strengthening their ability to investigate and prosecute conflict-related sexual violence. As a result, a multi-part training programme has started to share best practices with military investigators, prosecutors, defence council and judges to try to help ensure that the momentum gained by the Terrain trial is not lost. SPLA General Court Martial, Government of South Sudan/Sudan People’s Liberation Army v. S/M Abraham Agany Tiah Dhuor et al., Case No. 135/2017, 6 September 2018. 1581 There were concerns that the defendant’s detention conditions did not meet the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners which set out minimum requirements for treating detainees in a humane manner, including accommodation, personal hygiene, food and medical services. See also the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners 1990. 1582 SSPDF General Court Martial Case Nos. 125/2018, 126/2018. 1580 201