that any criminal prosecution is now time-barred. There are no apparent legal avenues for victims to challenge the lack of prompt investigations, police inaction and delays in the course of proceedings in Sudan. It is only recently that victims have been able to challenge the immunity legislation itself before the new Constitutional Court. However, as the petition in Professor El Nour’s case shows, proceedings before that Court are also likely to take several years. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ rights, in considering a case brought against Sudan, stressed the importance of “effective remedies under a transparent, independent and effective legal system, and ongoing investigations into allegations of torture.”7 The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of 2007 on Sudan’s state party report under the ICCPR, expressed its concerns over: “…the immunity provided for in Sudanese law and untransparent procedures for waiving immunity in the event of criminal proceedings against state agents.”8 Uganda A student was arrested in Kampala in October 2005 by members of the Presidential Guard Brigade on allegations of treachery and exposure of classified information. He was taken to a ‘safe house’ (secret place of detention where detainees are held incommunicado) where he was held for two weeks during which he was subjected to torture. He continued to be held in other places until March 2006 when he was taken before a military body. He was later transferred to Luzira prison where he has been held ever since. By June 2007, when his lawyers filed a motion for habeas corpus, he had still not been produced before any competent court. This prompted authorities to charge him with another offence. He was released from prison in September 2007 after being granted an amnesty but has refrained from filing a complaint about his torture due to his fear of reprisals. The case illustrates a common practice in Uganda where detainees are deprived from making timely habeas corpus applications. There is particularly poor access to habeas corpus remedies during the critical time immediately after arrest in instances where detainees are held incommunicado in ‘safe houses’, where they are most likely to be tortured. There are also problems during the investigation process resulting in further delays. The Ugandan Police Force has a poor track record with investigations, as a result of staff shortages in several regions, inadequate resources, poor investigation techniques (including the lack of qualified forensic doctors and pathologists to take the required medical evidence) and susceptibility to bribes.9 The police have received training on investigation techniques though this has not been torture specific and does not appear to have impacted on practice.10 In Egypt, the Prosecution service (DPP) has apparently opened investigations into several torture cases. However, in a number of cases it is still unknown what investigatory measures have been conducted, if any, since no information has been publicly released. In most cases, 7 Amnesty International and others vs. Sudan, para. 56 (see table of authorities below for full citation of cases). 8 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: The Sudan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3, 29 August 2007, para.9. 9 REDRESS, Torture in Uganda, A Baseline Study on the Situation of Torture Survivors in Uganda, 2007, p. 30. 10 Ibid., pp.29, 30. 7