Rwanda presents an image of order and progress. Clean streets. Smart conferences. An assertive foreign policy. Yet the most credible monitors describe a different reality inside police stations, prisons, and unofficial detention sites. Recent reporting by Human Rights Watch documents longstanding torture and ill treatment. Amnesty International and the United States Department of State record enforced disappearances, political repression, and failures to investigate abuse. In the courtroom, the United Kingdom Supreme Court concluded in 2023 that Rwanda was not a safe third country for asylum transfers because of a real risk of non-refoulement and systemic defects in the asylum system. In August 2025, Rwanda confirmed receipt of the first seven individuals deported from the United States under a new transfer arrangement, which included promises of housing, training, and healthcare. The legal question for the United States is not whether Kigali is cordial. The question is whether removal to Rwanda would expose CAT recipients to torture or chain refoulement. Today, the weight of law and evidence says yes. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, U.S. Department of State, Supreme Court UK, Reuters
Developments
What the most authoritative sources say about Rwanda
Human Rights Watch reports that detainees in Rwanda have faced beatings, near drowning punishments with water, and coerced confessions in official prisons and in an unofficial site in Kigali known as Kwa Gacinya. A 2024 criminal case against several prison officials in Rubavu resulted in some convictions, but the pattern described by witnesses and former detainees suggests a wider practice that predates any single prosecution and persists despite it. Human Rights Watch
Amnesty International’s Rwanda entry sets out a familiar checklist for illiberal systems. Evidence of torture or other ill treatment in detention. Enforced disappearances. Pressure on opposition figures and journalists. New legal tools that tighten control over civil society. The picture from independent monitors is echoed in State Department reporting for 2024, which identifies credible reports of torture, arbitrary killings, and severe restrictions on fundamental freedoms. Amnesty International+1U.S. Department of State
The United Nations Committee against Torture has long raised concern about the gap between Rwanda’s formal safeguards and actual practice. In its concluding observations on Rwanda’s second periodic report, the Committee highlighted the prolonged police custody, limited access to medical examinations for detainees, and the risk that detention by military or intelligence services is not accurately recorded. Those concerns go to the core of CAT analysis, which evaluates likely official conduct rather than formal promises. Atlas of Torture
Assurances versus reality in a major court record
In November 2023, the United Kingdom Supreme Court decided R on the application of AAA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Court held that the Rwanda transfer policy was unlawful because there were substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent there would face a real risk of being returned to a country where they would face persecution or a risk of torture. The Court reviewed extensive UNHCR evidence about systemic defects in Rwanda’s asylum system and gave it significant weight due to the agency’s expertise. Notably, the justices concluded that monitoring and diplomatic undertakings could not cure defects that occur at the initial decision stage. That conclusion rests on practice, not conjecture. Supreme Court, UK, Supreme Court UK
The UNHCR has continued to advise that the Rwanda transfer approach remains incompatible with established refugee law standards, while recognizing that some treaty language could be helpful in the future if implemented in day-to-day decisions. As of early 2024, UNHCR’s updated analysis still identified deficiencies that pose a concrete risk of non-refoulement. UNHCR, UK Parliament
The United States and Rwanda transfer
On August 28, 2025, Reuters reported that Rwanda had received seven people deported from the United States as part of a new arrangement that could involve up to 250 individuals. Rwanda’s spokesperson stated that the arrivals would have access to housing, training, and healthcare. PBS, ABC, and Al Jazeera reported similar facts in early August and late August, including the government’s promise of support for arrivals. These accounts establish the new policy reality that now frames CAT litigation in the United States. Reuters, PBS, ABC News, Al Jazeera
Legal context for third country removal when a person has CAT protection
The Convention against Torture bars a state from returning a person to any country where there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of torture. United States law implements Article 3 through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, commonly referred to as the FARRA Act. Section 2242 states that it is the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country where torture is likely. The attorney general’s regulations at 8 C F R sections 1208 point 16 through 1208 point 18 set the framework for withholding and deferral of removal and for how diplomatic assurances can be considered. State.goveCFRLegal Information Institute
A grant of deferral under 8 C F R section 1208 point 17 is not a license to remove a person anywhere. Instead, the agency may only remove a CAT-protected person to a country where the person is not likely to be tortured. If the government seeks to rely on assurances from a receiving country, 8 C F R section 1208 point 18 requires that the assurances be found sufficiently reliable by the Attorney General after consultation with the Department of State. This is not a superficial standard. It demands a real assessment of reliability in light of practice and track record. eCFR
Federal case law provides guardrails. In Khouzam v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit held that the government may not terminate deferral and remove a person based on confidential assurances without giving notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest the reliability of those assurances. In Nasrallah v Barr, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals may review factual findings in CAT decisions under the substantial evidence standard, which brings the factual question of likely torture in a proposed country of removal within judicial oversight. The attorney general’s decision in Matter of J F F reminds adjudicators that an applicant cannot rely on a speculative chain of events, but it also implies the flip side. When reliable evidence reveals systemic defects that consistently result in refoulement or custodial abuse, risk is not speculative. Digital Commons, Supreme Court, Department of Justice
Two additional points help structure many records. First, the definition of torture in 8 C F R section 1208 point 18 includes acts that cause severe physical or mental pain when committed by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Second, courts have read acquiescence to include willful blindness. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Nuru v Gonzales is often cited for this concept. By contrast, the Third Circuit in Pierre held that poor prison or medical conditions alone, without the intent required by the regulation, are insufficient. The legal line is not between good and bad systems. The line is intent, plus official involvement or at least official tolerance, which amounts to consent through willful blindness. Legal Information Institute, Justia Law, FindLaw Case Law
Conditions in receiving countries
Rwanda
The State Department’s 2024 report on Rwanda lists credible reports of torture or cruel treatment, arbitrary killings, and severe restrictions on expression and association. Amnesty International’s 2024 material describes torture and other ill treatment, enforced disappearances, and further pressure on civil society. Human Rights Watch has documented a practice of torture that spans official prisons and the unofficial Kigali site known as Kwa Gacinya. Its 2024 report discusses a rare prosecution of officials connected to Rubavu prison and observes that accountability remains the exception. U.S. Department of State, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch
The United Nations Committee against Torture has identified structural concerns that undermine basic safeguards, including prolonged custody before judicial review and weak access to medical examinations in law and practice. The Committee also raised concerns about the recording of custody and the status of those held in military or intelligence facilities. Those findings are highly relevant to CAT and any third-country analysis. Atlas of Torture
Rwanda’s regional posture raises further red flags about the rule of law. United Nations Security Council material and related expert reporting describe Rwandan support for the M23 armed group in eastern Congo, paired with patterns of abuse by that group. The details are complex, but a government associated with violations outside its borders will face skepticism when it gives assurances about treatment inside its borders. Digital Library, ReliefWeb
Most directly on the asylum question, the United Kingdom Supreme Court acknowledged UNHCR evidence that Rwanda’s asylum system has led to refoulement and revealed systemic defects in access, decision-making quality, and appeals. The Court recognized the sincerity of Kigali’s undertakings while concluding that intentions and new paper guarantees would require sustained time and proof in practice before the risk would be eliminated. That analysis squarely undermines reliance on assurances as a substitute for present capacity. Supreme Court UK, UNHCR
Uganda and the realities for people with serious mental illness
Uganda’s human rights baseline is poor. The State Department’s 2024 report lists torture or cruel treatment by security forces, arbitrary detentions, and severe restrictions that intensified around the Anti Homosexuality Act. Human Rights Watch and other monitors describe enforced disappearances and the use of unlawful safe houses. For people with serious mental illness, the risk analysis is distinct. Validity, formerly the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre, has documented coercive practices in psychiatric institutions, including isolation, physical restraints, and forced treatment. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that certain coercive medical practices in psychiatric settings can amount to torture or ill treatment and lack therapeutic justification. U.S. Department of State, Validity.ngo, UN Documentation
CAT is not satisfied with the current state of general health systems or the aspirational reforms. It asks whether a person is more likely than not to face severe physical or mental pain from officials or with official acquiescence. Uganda’s record of intentional abuse in custody by police and security services, combined with evidence of coercive institutional practices in mental health care, fits the regulatory definition when officials know about the conduct and fail to prevent it. The legal distinction that mattered in Pierre is intent. In many Ugandan settings, the record supports findings of intentional infliction or, at the very least, official tolerance that rises to acquiescence. FindLaw Case Law
Strategic solutions for counsel and adjudicators
One. Require country-specific CAT analysis for the proposed third country. CAT deferral can be executed only to a place where the person is not likely to be tortured. That requires an individualized finding for Rwanda or any other proposed destination, based on current evidence. Cite 8 C F R section 1208 point 17 and insist on up to date country evidence. eCFR
Two. Demand disclosure and testing of any diplomatic assurances. Khouzam requires a formal process before deferral is terminated or removal is executed based on assurances. That means notice, disclosure sufficient to test reliability, and an evidentiary hearing if material facts are in dispute. Reliability is a fact question under Nasrallah and therefore subject to review. Digital Commons, Supreme Court
Three. Use the United Kingdom Supreme Court record. The AAA judgment and the UNHCR submissions that the Court credited are contemporary, detailed, and focused on the practical operation of Rwanda’s system. File the press summary and the case page alongside UNHCR’s 2024 update. The central point is direct. Monitoring cannot undo the first wrong decision, and the risk of non-refoulement remains real at intake and first instance. Supreme Court UK, Supreme Court UK, UNHCR
Four. Build chain refoulement with evidence of practice, not speculation. Matter of J F F warns against imagined chains. The UK records genuine chains. UNHCR documented incidents of refoulement and discriminatory outcomes for certain nationalities, which reduces speculation and increases the weight of risk for Middle Eastern claimants. UNHCR
Five. For severe mental illness in Uganda, document intent and acquiescence. Pair State Department and NGO reporting on torture by security forces with Validity reports and Special Rapporteur standards on coercive psychiatric practices. Establish the connection to willful blindness under the regulation and to Nuru regarding acquiescence. Distinguish Pierre by demonstrating intentional or knowingly tolerated harm in custodial medical settings, not mere lack of resources. U.S. Department of State, Validity.ngo, UN Documentation, Justia Law
Six. Preserve issues for review. After Nasrallah, factual mistakes about current risk in Rwanda or Uganda are reviewable for substantial evidence. Brief the standard in any petition for review and point the court to the UK Supreme Court’s up to date factual findings and UNHCR’s expert assessments. Supreme Court
Seven. Track the new United States Rwanda transfers. The record of what happens to the first cohorts will matter. Reuters, PBS, ABC, and other major outlets have already documented the basic terms and the initial arrivals. Add those pieces to the record to show that removals are planned or occurring and that promises of services are being used to justify them. Reuters, PBS, ABC News
Why people from Iran with CAT protection should not be deported to Rwanda
For Iranian nationals, the relevant risk is not only whether Rwandan officials will torture them directly. The greater risk is chain refoulement. The United Kingdom Supreme Court accepted UNHCR evidence that Rwanda’s system has treated some non-African and Middle Eastern claimants dismissively and has a documented history of refoulement. The Court gave significant probative weight to UNHCR’s expert view, as it should. Under CAT as implemented by FARRA and 8 C.F.R., removal is unlawful if torture is more likely than not in the proposed country itself or by onward removal that the receiving state permits cannot reliably prevent. On the record, the UK Court assessed that the removal of Iranians to Rwanda fails that test now. The promise that Rwanda will improve in the future does not provide legal cover in the present. Supreme Court, UKUNHCR
Diplomatic assurances do not solve the problem. Khouzam makes clear that reliability must be tested, and the UK record shows precisely why. Past assurances and monitoring provisions did not prevent refoulement. They merely promised to notice it later. A system that does not reliably prevent wrongful returns at the first instance decision stage exposes Iranians to a significant risk of return to persecution or torture. That is a central violation of CAT and of the domestic regulation on assurances. Digital Commonse, CFR
Finally, there is the reality of detention risks within Rwanda for individuals of politically sensitive nationalities. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International record torture and ill treatment in detention. Where a system already tolerates that abuse for its own population, claims that it will insulate foreign transferees from harm require extraordinary proof. It is not present. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International
People with serious mental illness. Why CAT protected individuals should not be deported to Uganda
The legal elements are clear. Torture under 8 C F R section 1208 point 18 requires intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Acquiescence includes willful blindness. Nuru confirms that officials cannot close their eyes to predictable abuse and then deny involvement. Pierre instructs that poor health systems alone are not torture, but it does not cover official tolerance of deliberately cruel restraints, isolation, or violent treatment in custodial settings. Legal Information Institute, Justia Law, FindLaw, Case Law
Uganda’s record meets the legal threshold when the facts are correctly assembled. The State Department documents torture by security services and arbitrary detentions. Validity reports and related investigations describe coercive practices in psychiatric institutions that the Special Rapporteur on Torture has identified as capable of amounting to torture or ill treatment. When those practices are known and unremedied, acquiescence is established. For a person with a serious mental illness, the risk of being arrested for disturbance, taken to a police cell, and subjected to severe restraints or violent treatment is not speculative in light of the country’s record. Removal in those circumstances would violate CAT. U.S. Department of State, Validity.ngo, UN Documentation
Are third-country transfers a way to punish CAT recipients
Motives are hard to prove in court. The Executive has broad discretion in removal policy, and the law generally asks what will happen to the person rather than why the government chose a particular destination. Still, patterns matter. When a government selects destinations with thin capacity and weak safeguards and then leans on diplomatic promises that have failed in a closely analogous program already reviewed by a top court, it invites the inference that the goal is to pressure protected people into silence or disappearance outside of judicial reach. Whether that is punishment is a political question. Whether it is lawful under CAT is a legal question. If the evidence shows a more likely than not risk of torture in Rwanda or Uganda, including by onward removal, CAT forbids the transfer, motives aside. Supreme Court UK
How much reliability can be given to Rwanda’s promises of housing, training, and health care
Promises about reception are not the same as guarantees against torture or onward removal. Rwanda’s public statements to Reuters and others describe housing, training, and access to health care for those transferred. Those commitments do not answer the specific risks that concerned the United Kingdom Supreme Court and UNHCR. The risk that an asylum seeker will be refused access or wrongly rejected at first instance cannot be mitigated by a vocational course or a health clinic. The risk that a person is quietly escorted to an airport and sent onward without effective review is not solved by after-the-fact monitoring. Under United States regulations, assurances must be found sufficiently reliable in light of past practice. On that legal standard, Rwanda’s undertakings remain aspirational. Reuters, PBS, Supreme Court UK
Broader analysis
Law is only as strong as the institutions that carry it. Rwanda’s official institutions include the National Commission for Human Rights, which publishes training and annual activity reports. Those documents affirm constitutional prohibitions on torture. Yet the independent record still shows persistent abuse and rare accountability. This dissonance is precisely why the UK Supreme Court looked to practice on the ground and insisted that intentions be proven in daily decision-making before removal could proceed. The same approach is required in United States CAT cases, mainly when DHS relies on assurances for third-country removals. OHCHR, Supreme Court UK
For Iranians, the intersection of political sensitivity and a documented pattern of refoulement in Rwanda’s system creates a clear chain of refoulement risk. For people with serious mental illness in Uganda, the documented record of coercive custodial practices and police abuse meets CAT’s elements of intent and official acquiescence when properly proved. In both contexts, the law does not permit a gamble. The government must show that the person is not likely to be tortured in the proposed destination. Current evidence does not allow that conclusion for Rwanda or Uganda. UNHCR, U.S. Department of State
Strategic solutions. A concise checklist
Build the factual record. Attach the State Department 2024 reports for Rwanda and Uganda, HRW reports on Rwanda, Amnesty International’s Rwanda materials, UN CAT concluding observations, the UK Supreme Court judgment page and press summary, and UNHCR’s 2024 update. U.S. Department of State, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Atlas of Torture, Supreme Court UK, Supreme Court UK, UNHCR
Demand a country-specific ruling for the proposed destination. The regulation requires it. The immigration judge must make a present-tense finding that the person is not likely to be tortured in Rwanda or Uganda. eCFR
Test assurances with evidence. Khouzam and 8 C F R section 1208 point 18 allow no shortcuts. Get the text of promises, the monitoring plan, and the track record of similar arrangements and put them under cross examination. Use the AAA findings on why monitoring cannot prevent the first wrongful removal. Digital Commons, eCFR, Supreme Court UK
Preserve issues for appeal. After Nasrallah, factual errors about country risk and assurance reliability are reviewable. Supreme Court
Final takeaways
For Iranians, the accepted expert record shows that Rwanda’s current system risks wrongful rejection and onward removal. Under CAT and FARRA, third-country removal is unlawful when the risk is more likely than not to be a threat to national security. For people with serious mental illness facing removal to Uganda, credible evidence ties custodial abuse and coercive psychiatric practices to state actors or to official acquiescence. In both scenarios, the government’s reliance on promises cannot replace proof that torture is not likely. On today’s record, that proof is absent.
==========================================================================
Citations with live links and pinpoint context
Rwanda human rights and torture reporting
United States Department of State. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Rwanda 2024. Significant issues include torture or cruel treatment and arbitrary killings. U.S. Department of State
Human Rights Watch. Rwanda. Torture and ill treatment in detention. Report and related news release, October 2024. Includes accounts regarding Kwa Gacinya and Rubavu prison. Human Rights Watch
Amnesty International. Rwanda country material and briefing in 2024. Evidence of torture, enforced disappearances, and restrictions on association. Amnesty International
Committee against Torture. Concluding observations on Rwanda. Concerns regarding custody safeguards and recording of detention, including in military facilities. Atlas of Torture
UK Supreme Court and UNHCR on Rwanda as a destination for transfers
United Kingdom Supreme Court. R on the application of AAA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Judgment page and press summary, November 2023. Unlawful due to a real risk of non-refoulement and systemic defects. Supreme Court UK Supreme Court UK
UNHCR. Updated analysis of the legality and appropriateness of the UK Rwanda arrangement, January 2024, and overview page. Persistent concerns about safety and law compatibility. UNHCR
UK parliamentary and independent summaries reflecting the Court’s reasoning about refoulement and practical capacity. UK Parliament
United States Rwanda transfer reporting in August 2025
Reuters. Rwanda received seven migrants deported from the United States. Rwanda promises housing, training, and health care. Reuters
Reuters provides background on the agreement for up to 250 people. Reuters
PBS NewsHour coverage on the agreement and government statements. PBS
ABC News wire explainer on transfers to Rwanda and other states. ABC News
Al Jazeera news item confirming the same core facts. Al Jazeera
Regional context and rule of law concerns
United Nations materials on the DRC and M23, showing Rwandan involvement and raising concerns about the rule of law that bear on assurances. Digital Library, ReliefWeb
Uganda conditions and mental health evidence
United States Department of State. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Uganda 2024. Torture by security forces and arbitrary detentions. U.S. Department of State
Validity. Faces of Mental Health in Uganda and related submissions on torture risks in disability contexts. Validity.ngo+1
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. Report addressing coercive practices in health care settings and their qualification as torture or ill treatment. UN Documentation
United States statutes, regulations, and cases
FARRA section 2242, implemented at 8 U S C section 1231 note. Policy against returning anyone to likely torture and review structure. State.gov
Regulations at 8 C F R sections 1208 point 16 through 1208 point 18 including definition of torture and treatment of diplomatic assurances. eCFRLegal Information Institute
Khouzam v Attorney General. Due process must be followed before relying on assurances to terminate the CAT deferral. Digital Commons
Nasrallah v Barr. Courts may review factual findings in CAT orders. Supreme Court
Matter of J F F. No speculative chains. Risk must be grounded in evidence. Department of Justice
Nuru v Gonzales on willful blindness and acquiescence under CAT. Justia Law
Pierre v Attorney General on medical neglect versus intentional infliction under CAT. FindLaw Case Law
Legal note: This is for information, not individual legal advice. If detention or notice of third‑country removal is imminent, treat it as an emergency: call counsel, assert fear in writing for the named country, and move for immediate judicial relief.
Discover more from CandidViews
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.