Human Rights Record of Uganda

REPORT ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD OF UGANDA AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DEPORTATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

Date: August 31, 2025

No U.S. official is above the law when it comes to torture. The Convention Against Torture (CAT) is not a diplomatic suggestion. It is codified, enforceable, and criminally backed by federal statute. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 states unequivocally: “It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
(FARRA, Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 2242)

This mandate is operationalized in immigration law through 8 CFR § 208.18, which defines torture as: “Any act by which severe pain or suffering… is intentionally inflicted… by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

Violating this standard is not just a breach of administrative duty—it is a federal crime. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, “Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined or imprisoned… and if death results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the enforceability of CAT protections. In Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), the Court held “CAT orders are distinct from final orders of removal and are subject to judicial review… Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude factual challenges to CAT orders.”(Nasrallah v. Barr – Supreme Court Opinion)

Lower courts have echoed this. In Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, the Fourth Circuit vacated a removal order, holding that: “The agency must consider the aggregate risk of torture from all sources, not just isolated threats.” (Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 17-2211)

The Board of Immigration Appeals reinforced this in Matter of O-F-A-S, stating: “Torture must be inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity.” (Matter of O-F-A-S, 27 I&N Dec. 709)

And in Matter of M-S-I, the BIA clarified: “The CAT standard of ‘acquiescence’ is distinct from the asylum standard of ‘unable or unwilling.’” (Matter of M-S-I, 29 I&N Dec. 61)

This is not optional. It is the law. Any official who facilitates or ignores torture—through removal, rendition, or silence—risks criminal prosecution, civil liability, and constitutional scrutiny. The Supremacy Clause ensures that these obligations are not just binding—they are foundational.

The scope of this report is twofold. First, it will establish an evidentiary foundation of Uganda’s human rights conditions by relying exclusively on highly reputable governmental sources, primarily the U.S. Department of State’s most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. This section will detail a pattern of significant human rights abuses perpetrated by Ugandan state actors, with a focus on torture, extrajudicial killings, and the systemic failure of accountability.

Second, this report will apply this factual evidence to the U.S. legal framework governing CAT protection. It will analyze the profound risks faced by particularly vulnerable immigrant populations if the U.S. were to consider Uganda a viable third country for deportation. Specifically, this analysis will address: 1. The legal and ethical prohibition against deporting Iranian nationals—who have already been granted deferral of removal from the U.S. due to a fear of state-sponsored torture in their home country—to Uganda, a nation where state-sponsored torture is also credibly reported. 2. The unique and severe risks faced by immigrants with serious mental illness, for whom deportation to a country with inadequate mental healthcare infrastructure and harsh detention conditions could foreseeably rise to the level of torture as defined under U.S. and international law.

Ultimately, this report will demonstrate that the documented reality of human rights in Uganda renders it an unsafe and legally impermissible destination for the removal of any individual holding protection under the Convention Against Torture.

2. Uganda’s Human Rights Record: A Pattern of State-Sponsored Abuse

An objective evaluation of human rights conditions in Uganda, based on authoritative government sources, reveals a deeply troubling landscape of abuse, impunity, and violence perpetrated by state security forces. The U.S. Department of State’s 2024 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Uganda (hereinafter “State Department Report”) provides a stark and detailed account of these conditions, serving as the primary source for this section. The report underscores that while the Ugandan government has made some technical efforts to investigate abuses, “impunity was a significant problem.”

Significant Human Rights Issues:

The State Department Report identifies a multitude of credible human rights violations, including: * Extrajudicial killings and credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings. * Forced disappearance by or on behalf of the government. * Torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDTP) by security forces. * Harsh and life-threatening prison and detention center conditions. * Arbitrary detention. * Political prisoners or detainees. * Serious problems with the independence of the judiciary. * Arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy. * Serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media, including violence against journalists and censorship. * Substantial interference with the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association. * Lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence. * Crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.

Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment by Security Forces:

The cornerstone of this analysis is the documented, pervasive use of torture by Ugandan state actors. The State Department Report explicitly states that both the constitution and law prohibit such practices, but “there were credible reports that security forces, including the Uganda Police Force (UPF), Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF), and Uganda Prisons Service, tortured and abused suspects and political activists.”

The methods of torture are brutal and varied. The report notes that non-governmental organizations and media outlets have documented numerous cases where victims reported being subjected to: * Severe beatings with wires and batons. * Electric shocks. * Stress positions. * Rape and other forms of sexual violence. * Submersion in water. * Extraction of fingernails.

These acts are not random but are often systematic, occurring in both official and unofficial detention centers, sometimes referred to as “safe houses.” These facilities operate outside the legal framework, making oversight impossible and detainees exceptionally vulnerable. The State Department Report confirms that security forces “used ‘safe houses’ for illegal, incommunicado detention and torture,” and that victims were often held without charge for extended periods, denied access to legal counsel, and subjected to coercive interrogations.

Perpetrators and Lack of Accountability:

The primary perpetrators identified in the State Department Report are members of the Uganda Police Force (UPF), the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF), and other security organs like the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI). These are not rogue actors but agents of the state, acting under the color of law, even when their actions are illegal.

Crucially, impunity remains the norm. The State Department Report highlights that the government’s efforts to hold perpetrators accountable are minimal and often superficial. While the Professional Standards Unit of the police and the Uganda Human Rights Commission exist, they are largely ineffective. Investigations are frequently stalled, evidence disappears, and security officials implicated in torture are rarely prosecuted. When prosecutions do occur, they are often for lesser offenses, and the penalties are not commensurate with the gravity of the crime. This systemic failure to provide justice creates an environment where security forces can torture with a reasonable expectation of impunity, thereby encouraging and perpetuating the cycle of abuse. This reality is central to assessing whether the Ugandan government can be said to “acquiesce” to torture.

Harsh and Life-Threatening Prison Conditions:

Beyond active torture, the conditions within Uganda’s official detention facilities can themselves amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The State Department Report describes prisons as suffering from “gross overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and poor sanitation.” Overcrowding is severe, with facilities operating at multiples of their intended capacity. This leads to the rapid spread of communicable diseases. Food and water are often insufficient and of poor quality. Access to medical care, particularly for serious physical and mental health conditions, is critically deficient. For detainees with pre-existing vulnerabilities, these conditions can be life-threatening and constitute a form of passive torture through deliberate indifference and neglect.

In summary, the official reports of the U.S. government paint a clear picture of Uganda as a country where torture and other severe human rights abuses are not isolated incidents but rather a systemic problem, carried out by state actors who operate with a high degree of impunity.

3. U.S. Legal Framework: Convention Against Torture (CAT) and Deferral of Removal

The United States’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture are implemented through federal statutes and regulations, which strictly prohibit the removal of a noncitizen to a country where they are more likely than not to be tortured. This protection is absolute and non-derogable.

Legal Basis for CAT Protection:

The regulations implementing CAT are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, primarily at 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16-18 and §§ 1208.16-18. These regulations establish two forms of protection: withholding of removal and deferral of removal.

An individual is eligible for CAT protection if they can establish that it is “more likely than not” that they would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal (8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). This is a forward-looking assessment that considers all relevant evidence, including past torture, the possibility of internal relocation, and country conditions.

Definition of Torture:

Under U.S. law, torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. A critical element is that such pain or suffering must be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” (8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)).

The element of “acquiescence” is crucial. It includes the government’s “willful blindness” to the torturous activities of private individuals or even its own agents (Myrie v. Attorney General, 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017)). A government’s consistent failure to investigate and punish torture, as documented in Uganda, is strong evidence of acquiescence. The requirement that the official is acting in their “official capacity” is also key, as it distinguishes state-sponsored harm from purely private criminal acts (Matter of O-F-A-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 709 (BIA 2020)).

Withholding of Removal vs. Deferral of Removal:

• Withholding of Removal under CAT (§ 1208.16(c)): This is a mandatory form of protection for individuals who meet the “more likely than not” standard and are not subject to certain statutory bars (e.g., conviction of a “particularly serious crime”).
• Deferral of Removal under CAT (§ 1208.17): This protection is available to individuals who meet the “more likely than not” standard but are ineligible for withholding due to a statutory bar. Deferral is a more tenuous form of protection. While it prevents removal to the country of feared torture, the individual may be detained, and the deferral can be terminated if the threat of torture ceases or if the U.S. government finds a safe third country willing to accept the individual.

Removal to a Third Country:

The possibility of removing an individual with deferral of removal to a third country is contemplated by law (8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)). However, this authority is not a loophole around the United States’ fundamental obligations under CAT. The prohibition on refoulement is not country-specific; it is a prohibition on sending an individual to torture. Therefore, the U.S. government cannot simply find any country willing to accept the individual; it must ensure that the proposed third country is one where the individual is not more likely than not to be tortured.

While the government is not required to conduct a full de novo CAT analysis for every possible third country, recent litigation has affirmed that individuals must be afforded due process. This includes notice of the proposed third country of removal and a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture in that specific country. A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction in D.V.D. v. DHS, requiring ICE to provide such notice and a chance to seek administrative relief before carrying out a third-country removal of someone with a pre-existing fear. Furthermore, if the government relies on “diplomatic assurances” from the receiving country that the person will not be tortured, courts have held that these assurances must be subject to some level of review and cannot completely bypass due process (Khouzam v. Attorney General, 549 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2008)). The credibility of such assurances from a country with a documented record of torture like Uganda would be highly suspect.

4. Analysis: The Impermissibility of Deporting Iranian Nationals to Uganda

Consider the case of an Iranian national who has been granted deferral of removal under CAT. This grant signifies that a U.S. immigration judge has already made a factual finding that it is “more likely than not” this individual will be tortured by state actors if returned to Iran. The basis for this fear often stems from political dissent, religious minority status, or other characteristics viewed as a threat by the Iranian regime. Proposing Uganda as a “safe third country” for this individual is legally and morally untenable.

The core of the CAT analysis is the risk of torture at the hands of, or with the acquiescence of, public officials. The identity of the state is secondary to the nature of the threat. The Iranian national fears a government that uses torture as a tool of political control and suppression. As established by the State Department Report, the Ugandan government, through its security forces, also uses torture as a tool of control—against political opponents, criminal suspects, and others.

Deporting this individual to Uganda would be trading one credible threat of state-sponsored torture for another. The individual would arrive in Uganda without status, likely becoming an immediate target for extortion or suspicion by the very same police and military units known to engage in arbitrary detention and torture. Any interaction with Ugandan law enforcement would place them at profound risk. As a foreigner with no community or legal support, they would be exceptionally vulnerable.

The argument that the reasons for torture might differ between Iran and Uganda is irrelevant to the CAT analysis. The legal question is not whether the individual will be tortured for the same reason as in their home country, but whether they will be tortured at all. Given the credible reports of widespread and systematic torture by Ugandan officials and the pervasive impunity for these acts, the “more likely than not” standard is arguably met for any vulnerable person in the custody of Ugandan security forces. The Ugandan government’s proven “acquiescence” to torture, demonstrated by its failure to punish perpetrators, fulfills a key element of the legal definition of torture under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

Therefore, removing an Iranian national with CAT protection to Uganda would be a direct violation of the United States’ non-refoulement obligations. It would render the initial grant of CAT protection meaningless, creating a revolving door of risk that contravenes the spirit and letter of both international and domestic law.

5. Analysis: Immigrants with Severe Mental Illness and CAT Protection

The deportation of immigrants with severe mental illness who hold CAT protection presents a distinct but equally grave set of legal issues. For this population, the act of removal to a country unable to provide essential medical care, particularly within a punitive and brutal detention system, can itself rise to the level of torture.

Vulnerability and the Legal Standard:

Individuals with conditions like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are uniquely vulnerable. Their illness can manifest in behaviors that are misunderstood by law enforcement, leading to arrest and detention. Once in custody, their inability to conform or comprehend commands can be misinterpreted as defiance, inviting abuse. Furthermore, the denial of necessary psychiatric medication and therapy can trigger a catastrophic mental and physical deterioration, causing profound suffering.

The legal question is whether this suffering constitutes “torture.” U.S. courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have set a high bar, requiring that the pain or suffering be intentionally inflicted. Harm resulting from mere negligence or a general lack of resources is typically insufficient (Matter of R-A-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 778 (A.G. 2020)). The Ninth Circuit held in Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008), that an actor must have the specific intent to inflict the harm.

However, the “specific intent” requirement can be met even without a stated desire to cause pain. It can be inferred from the circumstances. For instance, in Tehram Roye v. Atty Gen USA, 693 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2012), the Third Circuit reviewed the case of a mentally ill man facing deportation to Jamaica. The court acknowledged that deplorable prison conditions and the likely denial of mental health care could, in principle, support a CAT claim, remanding the case for the BIA to properly apply the standard of “acquiescence” and “willful blindness.”

Uganda’s Mental Healthcare and Prison Systems:

Uganda’s mental healthcare system is critically under-resourced. The World Health Organization and other sources have documented a severe shortage of psychiatric facilities, trained professionals, and essential medications. Most care is concentrated in the capital, leaving the rest of the country as a “care desert.”

When a person with severe mental illness is deported to Uganda, they are highly likely to end up incarcerated, either for a minor offense or simply due to their erratic behavior. The State Department Report already describes Ugandan prisons as having “inadequate medical care” and “life-threatening conditions.” For someone in the midst of a psychiatric crisis, these conditions are not merely harsh; they are a crucible of suffering. The denial of antipsychotic medication, the lack of therapeutic intervention, and the constant threat of violence from guards or other inmates would foreseeably lead to a complete psychological collapse. This level of suffering—extreme paranoia, hallucinations, self-harm, and catatonia—is undeniably “severe” as required by the CAT definition.

The intent of the Ugandan prison officials may not be to “torture the mentally ill.” However, their knowing and deliberate indifference to the inevitable and severe suffering that their actions (or inaction) will cause can be construed as willful blindness, which satisfies the “acquiescence” standard. By knowingly placing an individual with a documented, severe illness into a system where their basic human needs for medical care will be completely denied, leading to foreseeable and excruciating mental and physical agony, the government acquiesces to that outcome. The pain is not an accident; it is the natural and known consequence of the state’s actions. This provides a strong legal argument that such a deportation constitutes refoulement to torture, for which deferral of removal under CAT is the mandated legal relief.

6. Conclusion

The evidence presented in this report, drawn exclusively from authoritative U.S. government sources, leads to an unequivocal conclusion: Uganda is not a safe country for the purpose of third-country removal for individuals under the protection of the Convention Against Torture. The Ugandan government’s security forces engage in the systematic use of torture, extrajudicial killing, and arbitrary detention. The state’s persistent failure to hold perpetrators accountable constitutes acquiescence to these abuses, creating a climate of impunity and pervasive risk.

For the United States to deport any individual with a prior grant of CAT protection to Uganda would be a flagrant violation of its binding obligations under international and domestic law. * For an Iranian national who already fears state-sponsored torture, such a removal would substitute one persecutor for another, making a mockery of the principle of non-refoulement. * For an individual suffering from a severe mental illness, deportation to Uganda’s brutal and medically destitute detention system would amount to a sentence of profound and foreseeable suffering that meets the legal definition of torture.

The legal framework of the Convention Against Torture is absolute. It is a promise that the United States will not be complicit in the torture of any human being. Fulfilling this promise requires recognizing dangerous realities for what they are. The reality is that Uganda is a place where torture happens, and the United States is legally forbidden from sending anyone there who falls under CAT’s protection.