R.M v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 4 others [2010] eKLR special accommodation cannot therefore be a violation of his fundamental rights. Freedom of movement and association, and right to privacy. 158. The petitioner also complained that he had been denied his fundamental freedom with regard to movement and association as enshrined in Sections 80 and 81 of the Constitution. We find that the petitioner has not demonstrated any violation of such rights. The petitioner’s freedom of movement and association is currently curtailed pursuant to a lawful court order. The petitioner cannot complain about his inability to move freely prior to his arrest. This is because the petitioner’s inability to obtain a national identity card and a passport is caused by the petitioner’s deliberate action of failing to register his birth (even as a late registration), to enable him qualify to obtain a national identity card or passport. 159. With regard to the petitioner’s right to privacy, Section 70(c) of the Constitution provides a general right for protection for the privacy of one’s home and other property, and from deprivation of property without compensation, whilst Sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution provide for specific rights to protection from deprivation of property and protection against arbitrary search or entry. The petitioner has not laid any evidence before this court to demonstrate any interference with any of these rights. Of course, being a convict, the petitioner is not able to enjoy the comfort of his home and the privacy that goes with it. That right has however been taken away legally following the petitioner’s conviction and sentence for the criminal offence. Protection against inhuman and degrading treatment. 160. Section 74 of the Constitution states as follows: “(1) No person shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment. (2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question authorizes the infliction of any description of punishment that was lawful in Kenya on 11th December, 1963”. 161. The petitioner has complained that he has been subjected to torture, degrading and inhuman treatment contrary to Section 74(1) of the Constitution and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The petitioner has identified his being confined in a male institution and exposure to male inmates and male prison warders as an act of torture which has converted him into a withdrawn and embarrassed person. He explains that he has been a subject of curiosity and ridicule. He has identified specific incidents, one in which an officer at Kamiti prison trespassed on his person on the 29th October, 2009, and two other incidents in which prison officials knowing that he is an intersexual asked him to spread his legs and expose his private parts during searches. This was done in the open and in front of all inmates who laughed and humiliated the petitioner. The petitioner also complained about some blood having been drawn from him by a doctor sent by the respondents without the petitioner’s consent, or information as to the purpose for which the blood was drawn. 162. The petitioner’s allegations in this regard were supported by Jedidah Wakonyo Waruhiu, the http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 41/45