R.M v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 4 others [2010] eKLR be accorded to an individual. Referring to Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it was submitted that the petitioner like all other persons is born free and equal in dignity and rights, and that under Article 2 of the Declaration he is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out therein without discrimination on grounds of birth or other status. It was argued that contrary to these Articles, the petitioner was denied his right to marry because Kenyan law only recognized marriage as a union between a male and a female person, and did not cover intersexuals. 24. It was also submitted that according to the existing Kenya laws, the petitioner had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to section 74 of the Constitution and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as Article 10 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. In this regard it was pointed out that Section 30 of The Prisons Act (Cap. 90) only recognizes prisoners of male and female gender. It was argued that the petitioner was exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment as he was severally bodily searched by people who were not intersexuals. The petitioner was also put in the same accommodation with people who were not the same gender as himself. Further, although the petitioner was put in secluded accommodation pursuant to a court order, there were no trained personnel in the prisons of the same sexual orientation as the petitioner, to deal with petitioner. 25. It was noted that The Prisons Act Cap 90 of the Laws of Kenya does not make provision for intersexuals. The petitioner was therefore unable to enjoy the benefit of the separation order made by the court on 6th November, 2007, since the petitioner has at all times during his incarceration been detained in male cells. Further that the trial court’s order to detain the petitioner in a police station for two years during the pendency of his criminal trial exposed the petitioner to inhuman and degrading treatment. It was contended that the detention in prison has exposed the petitioner to mockery, ridicule and verbal abuse by the male inmates, officers and prison warders, including strip searches on the person of the petitioner by the prison warders, including caressing the petitioner’s breasts at the warders’ pleasure. It was also submitted that at one time in March 2009 during the petitioners’ detention, blood samples were taken from him by the prison doctors without the petitioner’s consent. The petitioner no longer has privacy and/or bodily integrity. The detention has had such a negative psychological impact on the petitioner that the Petitioner feels he does not matter to anyone anymore and has been contemplating suicide. 26. On the issues of locus standi, reliance was placed on the cases of Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua –vs- Attorney-General & another Constitutional Petition No.7 of 2010 wherein the Interim Independent Constitutional Court held inter alia with regard to voting rights for prisoners as follows:That section 43 of the Constitution of Kenya does not in any way exclude inmates who are over 18 of sound mind and who have not committed an electoral offence from voting in the referendum. 27. Reliance was also placed on the case of Busaidy -Vs- Commissioner Of Lands & 2 Others [2002] KLR wherein Onyancha J. held, inter alia, that- “The legal position in England on locus standi has always been the position in Kenya. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 10/45