A/HRC/19/16 66. While Uganda had signed the Optional Protocol to CAT, consultations were still ongoing with various stakeholders on its ratification. The Anti-Torture Bill was before Parliament. 67. On illegal detention, Uganda had experienced an unprecedented wave of terrorism around 1998 and 2000. All detention centres were gazetted and accessible to the general public. Article 23, paragraph 4, of the Constitution provided for a maximum period of 48 hours within which a suspect must be produced in court where he or she can apply for a writ of habeas corpus. A law enforcement actor acting outside these provisions would be personally liable for his actions. The police had measures in place to ensure that preliminary investigations were undertaken prior to the arrest of a suspect to comply with that Constitutional requirement. 68. Regarding the non-prosecution of officers, the delegation stated that that was a baseless assertion when considering that 36 police officers of the Rapid Response Unit had been charged in court for various torture-related offences. 69. As compensation claims were not predictable, they could not be fully budgeted for. In most cases, they were beyond the resources provided for in the budgets during a specific year, warranting them to be carried forward. Where resources were available claims were paid on a first-in, first-out basis, and a Compensation Committee had been established to handle the awards. 70. On health, the delegation reported that the Government had proposed the National Health Insurance Scheme in order to improve the internal mobilization of resources with formal and private sector contributions. 71. With regard to dilapidated health facilities and Regional Referral Hospitals, a capital development fund averaging 1.5 billion Ugandan shillings annually since the 2008/9 fiscal year was provided for construction, equipment, and staff transport. 72. On LGBTI persons, any individual who felt his or her rights had been infringed by the provisions of the law was free to go to court for redress or to initiate a process for the amendment of specific provisions of the law. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was before Parliament. As for the plight of human rights defenders, the delegation stated that the Government did not condone violence against anyone. There was no evidence to corroborate the assertion that those who had left were being targeted. Regarding LGBTI organizations, Uganda laws did not discriminate against any organization wishing to register. What was important was that such an organization must meet the criteria as provided for in the NGO Registration (Amendment) Act 2009. 73. Regarding health-related discrimination, the delegation indicated that the HIV policy of Uganda was not discriminatory. According to laws and medical ethics, medical practitioners were under obligation not to discriminate and/or disclose personal medical records to third parties. 74. Rwanda noted with satisfaction the efforts in areas such as education, the rights of the child, women‟s rights, and the right to health. It noted the ratification by Uganda of many international and regional instruments. It also acknowledged the State‟s efforts in facing identified challenges and constraints in the promotion, protection and realization of human rights. Rwanda made recommendations. 75. Slovenia asked Uganda what measures had been taken: (a) to prevent malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS; (b) to stop the widespread discrimination against persons with disabilities and to provide them with equal opportunities; and (c) to prevent child abuse and rehabilitate children who had been used in hostilities. Slovenia expressed concern at gender inequality and harmful traditional practices. Slovenia made recommendations. 10