Combatting Child Sacrifice in Uganda by Regent University School of Law

Using the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act to Combat Child Sacrifice in Uganda1 Introduction Child sacrifice is a relatively recent and growing phenomenon in Uganda.2 In 2008 and 2009, for example, the Ugandan Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force reported a total of 49 cases of child sacrifice in Uganda.3 Responding to this heinous crime, the Ugandan Parliament passed the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act of 2009 (PTPA), a statute designed to provide prosecutors with a comprehensive scheme to prosecute human trafficking.4 Importantly, the Act explicitly defines human trafficking to include the crime of child sacrifice.5 Despite the passage of this comprehensive Act, however, only one child sacrifice offender has been charged under the PTPA.6 Moreover, prosecutors and judges seem hesitant to deal directly with cases of child sacrifice, perhaps owing to bribery or the fear of potential repercussions from powerful witch

This Report was completed by the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law Student Staff. Students working on this paper included Heather Pate, Jeremy Ridgeway, Kathryn Heyer, Rebecca Vermette, and Jaclyn Walliser. The Center’s mission is to equip Christian advocates who will promote the rule of law and seek justice for the world’s downtrodden—the poor, the oppressed, and the enslaved—and to serve and support those already engaged in such advocacy. 2 Moses Binoga ‘State of Child Sacrifice in the Country’ (5th November 2009), http://www.scribd.com/doc/22245999/Child-Sacrifice-Uganda-Police-Report-5-November-2009. Even more disturbing, studies suggest most cases of child sacrifice are not reported. “Working to Abolish Child Sacrifice in Uganda - Report by Eaco,” http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org/, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org/partners-in-uganda/eaco/studies.html. While these studies prove that children are being sacrificed, they also demonstrate that many more children are declared “missing” and likely become victims of child sacrifice, though they are not reported. UNICEF Uganda, “Child Sacrifice - Fact Sheet,” http://www.scribd.com/, accessed June 15, 2014, http://www.scribd.com/doc/22142218/Child-Sacrifice-FACTSHEET. 3 Ibid. 4 Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, Act 7. 5 Ibid. 6 “2011 Trafficking in Persons Report - Uganda,” http://www.refworld.org/, June 27, 2011, accessed June 13, 2014, http://www.refworld.org/docid/4e12ee3c8.html.

doctors. Additionally, a review of current and past child sacrifice cases reveals that child sacrifice survivors are not adequately protected during the legal process. The primary purposes of this Paper are to (1) encourage prosecutors to use the PTPA rather than traditional provisions of the Penal Code (e.g., murder or kidnapping) when prosecuting cases of child sacrifice, (2) urge that the International Crimes Division of the High Court take jurisdiction over cases of child sacrifice, and (3) recommend specific measures, beyond use of the PTPA, to ensure that child sacrifice survivors are protected during legal proceedings. What Is Child Sacrifice? Child sacrifice is generally defined as “the act of murdering a child by a witch doctor or their accomplices in order to use the child’s blood, organs, and/or limbs mixed with herbs and other elements in a ritual witchcraft ceremony.”7 According to a report issued by Jubilee Campaign and Kyampisi Childcare Ministries in 2011, witch doctors that practice child sacrifice typically arrange for a payment the abduction and sacrifice at the customer’s request.8 Customers seek the sacrifice believing it will bring them wealth, prosperity, and success, although sometimes their purpose is for healing or protection against enemies or misfortune.9 The actual act of sacrifice may include bloodletting, removing organs, and killing the child.10 Child sacrifice usually involves collaboration between two or more parties. These parties include the person desiring the sacrifice for personal gain, an agent contracted to identify and kidnap or traffic a child, and a ritual facilitator, who in almost all cases claims to be a traditional

Jubilee Campaign &Kyampisi Childcare Ministries, Child Sacrifice in Uganda, JUBILEE CAMPAIGN 4 (2011), http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/child-sacrifice-report. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.

healer—a ‘witch doctor’ or spiritualist with supernatural powers.11 After performing the sacrificial ceremony, the witch doctor will seek to convince their client that ritual murder will make their magical rite more powerful and fulfill the client’s “wish of gaining wealth and prosperity.”12 On some occasions, clients in search of wealth bring organs like hearts, genitals, and blood directly to the witch doctor to appease spirits and obtain blessings from them. One witch doctor even reported clients bringing body parts about three times a week.13 I.

Child Sacrifice Crimes Ugandan prosecutors generally prosecute cases of child sacrifice under traditional

murder, kidnapping, and mutilation statutes. These statutes, however, fail to address the gravity of the crime. Unlike traditional statutes, the PTPA directly confronts the full nature of the offense. The unique aspects of child sacrifice demand that such cases are prosecuted under the PTPA, a measure that directly addresses all parties involved and the specific purposes and consequences of child sacrifice. The Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act of 2009 The PTPA defines “human sacrifice” as the “killing, mutilation, removal of organs or body parts of a person for sale or for purposes of witchcraft, rituals or any harmful human practices.”14 Under the PTPA, “A person who removes any part, organ, or tissue from the body of a child for purposes of human sacrifice commits an offence of aggravated trafficking in children.”15 Individuals may also be charged with aggravated trafficking in children when the

“Working to Abolish Child Sacrifice in Uganda - Report by Eaco,” http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org/, accessed May 13, 2014, http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org/partners-in-uganda/eaco/studies.html. 12 Jubilee Campaign &Kyampisi Childcare Ministries, Child Sacrifice in Uganda, JUBILEE CAMPAIGN 4 (2011), http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/child-sacrifice-report. 13 Tim Whewell, Witch-Doctors Reveal Extent of Child Sacrifice in Uganda, BBC (Jan. 7, 2010), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8441813.stm. 14 Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, Act 7, Title 2(g). 15 Id. at Act 7, Title 5(c). 11

person “uses a child or any body part of a child in witchcraft, rituals and related practices.” 16 Importantly, the PTPA defines a “child” as a person below the age of 18 years17 and permits the death penalty for the offense of aggravated trafficking in children.18 Thus, the PTPA directly prescribes penalties for those who engage in the actual act of child sacrifice and provides the steepest penalty for offenders—the death penalty. Beyond punishing the actual perpetrator, the PTPA also prescribes penalties for “facilitators” and “promoters” of child sacrifice. As discussed above, child sacrifice often involves several parties, including the witch doctor, the kidnapper (facilitator), and perhaps other middlemen (promoters).19 Facilitators who assist in child sacrifice can be charged with the offense of aggravated trafficking in persons where the person organizes, facilitates or makes preparations for the kidnapping, abduction, buying, selling, vending, bringing from or sending to, receiving, detaining, or confining of a person for purposes of harmful rituals or practices, human sacrifice, removal of any body part or organ, or any other act related to witchcraft.20 Facilitators may be imprisoned for life.21 “Promoters” of child sacrifice can be charged with the offense of “promoting trafficking in persons” when the person “recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives a child for any purpose without authority of the parent or guardian of such a child; except that this provision shall not apply where the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt is done lawfully, in good faith and in the best interests of the child.”22 Accordingly, this provision allows prosecutors to charge those who assist in child sacrifice when the assistance does not rise to the level of facilitation. Promoting trafficking in persons

Id. at Act 7, title 5(f). Id. at Act 7, Title 2(a). 18 Id. at Act 7, title 5. 19 Id. at Act 7, title 4. 20 Id. at Act 7, title 4(i). 21 Id. at Act 7, title 4. 22 Id. at Act 7, title 7(h). 17

may be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred and twenty currency points or imprisonment for five years or both.23 Furthermore, the PTPA imposes an affirmative reporting obligation on individuals who have knowledge of an offence of trafficking in persons. Title 10, § 2 of the PTPA states that “any member of the community, who knows that any person has committed or intends to commit an offence under this part of the Act, shall report the matter to police or other authority for appropriate action.”24 Section 2 even imposes punishment of a fine of five thousand currency points or imprisonment for six months on “any person who knowing or having reason to believe that person has committed or intends to commit an offence and does not report to police or other relevant authority.”25 Beyond punishing those involved in the crime of child sacrifice, the Act importantly provides means for restitution, consequential damages, and care for the victim.26 When a person is convicted of trafficking in children (child sacrifice) the court “shall in addition to any other punishment, order that person to pay restitution to the victim or other person or organization which may have incurred expenses on the victim’s behalf for (a) costs of medical and psychological treatment; (b) costs of physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation; (c) costs of necessary transportation, temporary housing and child care; (d) costs of re-integration in society; and (d) any other cost that the court may deem fit.”27 The court may also order the offender to pay compensation to the victim for physical damage, emotional distress, pain and suffering, loss or damage, and any other damages that the court may find necessary. 28 These

Id. at Act 7, title 7. Id. at Act 7, Title 10, sec. 1. 25 Id. at Act 7, Title 10, sec.2. 26 Id. at Act 7, Titles 15, 16. 27 Id. at Act 7, Titles 15. 28 Id. at Act 7, Title 16. 24

provisions are absolutely crucial to combatting child sacrifice comprehensively. Survivors suffer grave consequences and require serious medical and psychological treatment, both expensive.29 Civil suits themselves are expensive and are not practicable options for many victims. Because the PTPA permits restitution and consequential damages through the criminal process, prosecutors should use this statute when prosecuting child sacrifice. In summary, the PTPA comprehensively addresses every offender involved in child sacrifice cases and provides remedies for victims of child sacrifice. Rather than addressing child sacrifice offenders through piecemeal legislation, the PTPA ensures children are protected and all guilty parties involved are punished. Ugandan prosecutors must start using the PTPA when prosecuting cases of child sacrifice. Related crimes under the Penal Code Cases of child sacrifice are generally being tried as various offenses under the Penal Code Act, including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, acts intended to cause grievous harm or prevent arrest, disabling in order to commit a felony or misdemeanor, kidnapping, abduction, and kidnapping or detaining with intent to murder.30 A brief survey of a few of these crimes reveals that none of them comprehensively addresses child sacrifice as does the PTPA. For example, the crime of murder may address the result of the sacrifice—death; but murder statutes do not address the actual intent behind the sacrifice—financial prosperity, success, or avoiding misfortune.31 Moreover, the PTPA prescribes the death penalty for child sacrifice even when the child is not killed. Thus, murder statutes fail to account for the gravity of child sacrifice when a child victim survives. Another shortcoming of the traditional statutes is that they often Chris Rogers, “Where Child Sacrifice Is a Business,” www.cnn.com, October 1, 2011, accessed May 16, 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15255357. 30 Jubilee Campaign &Kyampisi Childcare Ministries, Child Sacrifice in Uganda, JUBILEE CAMPAIGN 4 (2011), http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/child-sacrifice-report. 31 Ibid. 29

fail to provide restitution and damages for the victim through the criminal process. Traditional statutes also fail to punish with sufficient penalties all parties involved in the sacrifice— including the perpetrator, facilitator, promoter, and client. II.

Jurisdiction: The International Crimes Division Child sacrifice is a heinous crime that often involves particularly powerful and evil

defendants. Accordingly, beyond simply using the PTPA, it is vital for the successful prosecution of these cases that the courts where child sacrifice cases are tried have some measure of independence, insulation, and protection. The PTPA grants jurisdiction to the court where the offence was committed, where any of its components occurred, or where the trafficked, or “sacrificed,” person resided at the time of the act.32 If child sacrifice cases are tried under the PTPA, the International Crimes Division of the High Court, (the “ICD”) also has jurisdiction. The ICD’s self-stated mission and vision is to “fight impunity and promote Human Rights, Peace and justice” and “to have a strong and independent Judiciary that delivers and is seen by the people to deliver justice and contribute to the Economic, social and political transformation of society based on Rule of Law.” [Capitalization in quotations correct?] The jurisdiction of the ICD is set forth in section 6 of the High Court Practice Directions, Legal Notice No. 10 of 2011, stating that the ICD should try any offense relating to genocide, crimes against humanity, terrorism, war crimes, human trafficking, piracy, and any other international crime.33 Because the ICD has jurisdiction to hear cases of human trafficking and the PTPA defines child sacrifice as a form of human trafficking, the ICD has jurisdiction to prosecute cases of child sacrifice.

Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, Act 7, Part IV, §18 “International Crimes Division,” http://www.judicature.go.ug/, accessed Jun 1, 2014, http://www.judicature.go.ug/data/smenu/18/International_Crimes_Division.html (emphasis added). 33

Several reasons support ICD jurisdiction over cases of child sacrifice. First, the act of child sacrifice is a unique crime with a specific context. The crime often involves multiple parties pursuing different interests. The subjects of these sacrifices are often children because they are believed to be pure, innocent, spiritually clean, and virgin. 34 As such, children have become a “commodity of exchange.”35 Accordingly, it is vital that judges and prosecuting attorneys understand this context and the relevant players involved in each crime in order successfully to prosecute cases of child sacrifice. Having a single court that develops jurisprudence, methods for reviewing evidence, and a comprehensive understanding of child sacrifice could greatly assist in combatting it. Second, a powerful, independent court will reduce the instances of bribery and intimidation that are often associated with witch doctors. Witch doctors often have the same stigma attached to them as powerful pimps, who traffick women and children. Like pimps who evade prosecution through bribes and police corruption, witch doctors evade prosecution through similar means. Moreover, individuals—including law enforcement, witnesses, prosecutors, and judges—often fear the witch doctors—and rightfully so.36 Thus, law enforcement officials are often either slow to report such cases or often do not report them at all.37 Even when an incident of child sacrifice is investigated, the arrest is often not made, and if an arrest is made, the accused is often not tried. For example, Musika, a child sacrifice victim, was found lying in a pool of his own blood with his genitals cut off, prepared for ritual sacrifice. Mukisa was found before he lost too much

Jubilee Campaign &Kyampisi Childcare Ministries, Child Sacrifice in Uganda, JUBILEE CAMPAIGN 4 (2011), http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/child-sacrifice-report. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Moses Binoga ‘State of Child Sacrifice in the Country’ (5th November 2009), http://www.scribd.com/doc/22245999/Child-Sacrifice-Uganda-Police-Report-5-November-2009.

blood and his life was saved. When Mukisa’s father was asked about what happened to the accused, he stated: “‘When Mukisa was found in the bush, the police came; they found the genitals in the courtyard of my neighbor, a traditional healer, but someone from his family sold his land and went to the police with the money. Then he was released.’” Mukisa suffers every day from the wounds inflicted upon him; yet the witch doctor that inflicted the wounds on Mukisa walks free, unpunished. This is unfortunately one of many stories of corruption resulting in failure to investigate and prosecute. Accordingly, it is necessary for an independent court like the ICD to exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The ICD is more insulated from bribery and witnesses, and law enforcement will likely feel more comfortable testifying and investigating these cases if they know that there is a well-staffed court with attorneys that are going to prosecute these cases to the full extent of the law. This court should be the ICD. If the ICD does exercise jurisdiction over such cases, two challenges must be addressed: ensuring that (1) adequate penalties, including the death penalty, are imposed on convicted offenders and (2) the local police stay committed and heavily involved in investigations. With respect to adequate penalties, the ICD has a practice not to impose the death penalty, even when Uganda law would permit the sentence. This is likely because the ICD is Uganda’s domestic substitute for the International Criminal Court, which does not permit the death penalty.38 Indeed, international law seriously disfavors, if not outright forbids, the death penalty. Thus, the ICD has not used the death penalty in its cases, seemingly for political reasons. This presents a problem in cases of child sacrifice. If the ICD convicts a witch doctor of child sacrifice but does not impose a death sentence, the community at large may still feel the need to take matters into its own hands and seek mob justice, undermining the rule of law. Accordingly, this issue must be

Rome Statute, art. 77, A/CONF.183/9 (entered into force 1 July 2002) (allowing a life sentence as the maximum penalty for crimes committed under the Rome Statute).

considered if the ICD does take the lead in prosecuting cases of child sacrifice. Second, if the ICD takes the lead in prosecuting child sacrifice cases, local police may feel disconnected from the court and not responsible for investigating these cases. Local officials, however, are absolutely crucial to the successful prosecution of these cases. Local police investigate, gather evidence, make arrests, and provide testimony, among other things, all crucial to building a successful case against offenders. Thus, if the ICD does exercise jurisdiction over child sacrifice cases, it should seek to collaborate with local officials as much as possible. In sum, the ICD has statutory jurisdiction to hear cases of child sacrifice through the PTPA, which defines child sacrifice as human trafficking. The ICD should exercise jurisdiction over these cases because child sacrifice is a unique crime with unique contexts and consequences, involving a ritual purpose, transporting organs, and exploiting a child’s body. Arrests and prosecution of persons who perform or participate in child sacrifice are rare, owing to police corruption and superstitions, among other factors. If an independent and powerful court like the ICD were to begin exercising jurisdiction over these cases, witch doctors and others who sacrifice children would be seriously deterred from engaging in such acts. The ICD must consider ways to overcome challenges by including the death penalty in cases of child sacrifice, in accordance with the PTPA, and establishing a close working relationship with local officials. III.

Protecting the Child Survivor During Legal Proceedings

General Welfare of the Child When the victim survives the act of child sacrifice, the Ugandan government must ensure the victim is protected throughout the legal process. Under Article 4(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (“African Charter”)39 and under Article 3, Section 1 of the

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/249.9/49 (1990), entered into force29 November 1999.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”)40 the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration in all actions concerning the child. The Uganda Parliament ratified both treaties; therefore, Uganda is legally bound to recognize and promote the best interests of the child in all actions concerning the child, including legal cases involving child victims. Under the African Charter, “a child’s physical and mental development require particular care with regard to the health, physical, mental, moral, and social development, and requires legal protection in conditions of freedom, dignity, and security.”41 Most importantly, the CRC states that signatories must take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of any form of exploitation or abuse, torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.42 Children who survive or witness child sacrifice typically suffer physical, psychological, mental, and emotional distress that may plague them the rest of their lives if not properly treated. As a result, children have a difficult time coping and are unable to maintain or establish healthy relationships because they mistrust others.43 The trauma of child sacrifice also negatively affects the child’s ability to learn and work.44 Thus, with the best interests of the child of paramount concern, it is vital that prosecutors protect the welfare of children throughout the legal process. This can be done through several means, including ensuring that trial moves quickly, that children are permitted to testify outside the presence of the accused, that prosecutors inform children and their families of all stages of the legal process, and that the government establishes relationships with NGOs that can provide the necessary support to children. 40

Convention on the Rights of the Child, entry into force 2 September 1990. African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/249.9/49 (1990), entered into force29 November 1999. 42 Convention on the Rights of the Child, entry into force 2 September 1990. 43 “Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers On Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime” (handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, New York City, NY, June 13, 2014), 50. 44 Ibid. 41

Efficiency of the legal process The Uganda Children’s Act states in the First Schedule, Section 2: “[I]n all matters relating to a child, whether before a court of law or any other person, regard shall be had to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to be prejudicial to the welfare of the child.”45 Similarly, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, through its Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, suggests that “investigations, trials and cases involving child victims and witnesses should be expedited.”46 Delayed justice prolongs and exacerbates the psychological harm inflicted upon victims of child sacrifice, particularly when the perpetrator is not in custody of the police.47 If the case is not completed in a timely fashion, there is a grave risk that victims will become subject to secondary victimization. Secondary victimization occurs when children are harmed by the institutions and individuals helping them.48 This type of victimization can occur (1) if the child is ignored during the legal proceedings, (2) if prosecutors fail to acknowledge a child’s testimony and emotional wellbeing, (3) if the child is not supported emotionally during the trial, (4) if the child has direct contact with the accused without the protection of his guardians, or (5) if the case is delayed in disregard of the child’s wellbeing.49

Children’s Act, First Schedule, Section 2. Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime at 65, 68. See also, Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, Chapter XI, The right to be protected from hardship during the justice process, par. 30, 31. 47 Danieli, Y. (2009). Massive trauma and healing role of reparative justice. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(5), 351357. 48 United Nations, Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, Handbook on Justice for Victims: on the Use and Application of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (New York, 1999), at 2. 49 Ibid. Secondary victimization can also occur when the child or family member reports the crime to the police, when the child testifies in court, or while the child is waiting for the trial to conclude. “Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers On Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime” (handbook for 45 46

The Ugandan court system currently harbors a backlog of cases involving child sacrifice that results in serious delay in the resolution of these cases. Many victims and their families are completely unaware of the status of their cases and are left without any resolution. This situation causes secondary victimization. According to Kyampisi Childcare Ministries (“KCM”), an organization working with families of child sacrifice victims, there are over forty pending cases of child sacrifice where the family has not received any notice regarding the status of the case. In one case in which KCM was involved, the victim was castrated and suffered a severe six-inch cut to the skull. After recovering from a coma, the victim identified the man who cut him, who happened to be his grandmother’s neighbor. The victim reported the accused to the police, who then arrested the accused. After the arrest, however, the police released the accused back to his village where members of the village set the accused’s home on fire. The victim and his father again identified the accused in a parade line-up and testified against him in court. After this, the case went dark. Over the next five years, the child’s father spoke with six or seven attorneys, all of whom were unable to give him information regarding the status of the case. It was not until June 2013 that the father was made aware that the case was dismissed the previous year. Accordingly, to prevent further harm to child sacrifice survivors, prosecutors and courts must prioritize all cases involving child sacrifice, ensuring that they are resolved in a timely fashion. Child Victim as a Witness Throughout the judicial process, prosecutors should consider the child’s personal situation, immediate needs, age, gender, disabilities, and level of maturity.50 One way of doing

Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, New York City, NY, June 13, 2014), 66. 50 Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of

this is to provide access to professionals who are trained to work with young traumatized victims when pursuing testimony from children.51 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that child abuse cases are difficult to investigate and prosecute because the victim is often the only witness.52 In these cases, the child’s testimony is crucial and ought to be promoted in the mostchild friendly manner.53 Children who testify under high emotional distress have difficulty remembering exactly what occurred, may be unable to verbalize what happened, and sometimes refuse to speak. 54 For example, in the case of the child sacrifice victim mentioned above, the child gave an in-court testimony during the early stages of the trial and also physically touched the accused to identify him in a line-up parade; nevertheless, the child refused to retell these events in an interview five years after they occurred even though the child was relocated to a different home and school. Heightened emotions often occur in a child as a result of being in the presence of the accused.55 To obtain the most accurate testimony and prevent revictimization of the child, victims of child sacrifice should be permitted to testify outside the presence of the accused. In Maryland v. Craig, the United States Supreme Court held that “a State’s interest in the physical and psychological well-being of child abuse victims may be sufficiently important to outweigh, at least in some cases, a defendant’s right to face his or her accusers in court.”56 In Craig, a sixyear old child abuse victim was permitted to give testimony in a one-way closed circuit

Crime, at 13. See also, Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, Chapter V, The right to be treated with dignity and compassion, par. 10. 51 Ibid. 52 United States Supreme Court. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987). 53 Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, at 15. 54 Goodman, Levine, Melton, and Ogden. Child Witnesses and the Confrontation Clause: The American Psychological Association Brief in Maryland v. Craig. Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Feb., 1991), p.26. 55 Goodman, et. al., at 27. 56 United States, Supreme Court, Maryland v. Craig (89-478), 407 U.S. 836 (1990), also found in Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, at 17.

television room because an in-court testimony would likely have resulted in serious emotional distress for the child. When this happens, the prosecutors and defense attorney have the right to examine and cross-examine the child in a separate room during the court proceedings, while the jury and judge watch the video recording.57 This allows the case to proceed while protecting the child from serious emotional distress. Importantly, the Court held that the procedure did not violate the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right to confront his accuser under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because defense counsel retained the ability to cross-examine the child.58 The same procedure should be employed in cases when the victim of child sacrifice survives. Informing the Child and Family of the Legal Process Prosecutors and other government officials must notify child victims and their families of the status of the case at various points during the legal proceedings. 59 Most children do not understand the legal system, how it works, or why it is important, adding fear and anxiety to testifying and talking to attorneys in general.60 To make the child feel more comfortable when retelling his testimony, the parents or psychologist should be allowed to accompany the child during this process.61 The childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s testimony is also more accurate when a friend or supportive individual is physically present with him or her.62 The victims should receive notice of all hearings, protective measures taken, judicial methods, and available restitutionary remedies.63 Families should also be informed at the outset of the case that they and community members

Id. at 497 U.S. 836, 836, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 3159 (1990). Id. 59 Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, at 32. 60 Goodman, et. al., at 20. 61 Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, at 17. 62 Goodman, et al., at 28. 63 Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, at 31-34. See also, Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, Chapter VII, The right to be informed, par. 19. 58

may provide Victim Impact Statements to the court.64 Victim and community involvement in the criminal prosecution can help provide restoration to the entire community and decrease the likelihood for mob justice. Collaborative Efforts Against Child Sacrifice A final way to ensure that child sacrifice survivors are protected during the legal process is to promote relationships between the Uganda government and successful NGOs. Children greatly benefit from relationships between prosecutors and nongovernmental organizations, which can ensure that the welfare of the child is the highest consideration. By creating partnerships between government organizations and local non-governmental organizations, children receive all of the services needed to keep them safe. Such partnerships enable prosecutors to have direct access to witnesses and evidence located at the scene of the crime. The child will also receive support to meet his physical and psychological needs during the trial and beyond. Further, prosecutors can refer child victims to nongovernmental organizations to care for the child after the trial.65 Conclusion To combat child sacrifice more effectively and to ensure that child sacrifice victims are better protected during the legal process, Uganda should (1) use the PTPA to prosecute cases of child sacrifice, (2) allow the ICD to hear these cases, (3) and adopt a number of child-friendly procedures, including allowing children to testify outside of the presence of the accused.

Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, at 45. 65 Handbook for Professionals and Policymakers on Justice Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, at 110.