Aids treatment Ugandan woman refused asylum

A Ugandan woman seeking the right to stay in the UK for Aids treatment today lost the final round of a 10-year legal battle to avoid being sent home.

European judges ruled that the woman's human rights would not be breached by the Government's refusal to grant her asylum, even though health care for Aids in Uganda is not as good as in the UK.

The woman, now aged 34 and named in court only as "N", is believed to be still living in Clapham, London, more than 10 years after entering the UK illegally under an assumed name.

She was so ill she was admitted to hospital in March 1998 and within three days solicitors lodged an asylum application, claiming she had been ill-treated and raped by the Ugandan resistance movement and would be in danger if returned home.

Eight months later she was diagnosed with two advanced Aids-related illnesses - and a report put her life expectancy at less than 12 months if forced back to Uganda where there was "no prospect of her getting adequate therapy".

But the Home Secretary rejected the asylum bid as not credible, saying there was no evidence of a risk from the Ugandan authorities. In addition, Aids treatment in Uganda was comparable to any other African country.

An appeal backed the Government on asylum, but said the state of Aids treatment in Uganda meant it risked breaching human rights bans on "inhuman or degrading treatment" if "N" were sent back.

But a counter-appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal delivered a verdict that low-cost Aids treatment was available in Uganda, even if the level of medical care "falls below that of the UK".

"N" then turned to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, losing in both cases.

The last resort - the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - has now ruled by a 14-3 majority that there would be no breach of the Human Rights Convention if "N" were to be sent back to Uganda.