Four Britons have been told by the European court of human rights they cannot sue Saudi Arabia in the UK courts for compensation over alleged torture.
The majority decision by judges in Strasbourg is a blow to the long-running campaign for justice brought by the four men, who claim they were subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation and rape, and forced to take mind-altering drugs during 2001.
By a majority of six to one, the judges declared: "The court is satisfied that the grant of immunity to the state officials in the present case reflected generally recognised rules of public international law.
" … [Granting] immunity to the state officials in the applicants` civil cases did not therefore amount to an unjustified restriction on the applicant`s access to a court.
There has accordingly been no violation of article 6 of the convention [a right to a fair trial] in this case. However, in light of the developments currently under way in this area of public international law, this is a matter which needs to be kept under review."
The case highlights the distinction between criminal cases of torture, which can be heard in UK courts even if such offences have been committed in other countries, and civil claims about torture committed abroad, which UK courts will not consider.
Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Redress, Justice and Interights, condemned the ruling for sending out a signal "to would-be torturers that international law condemns their behaviour but is not willing to police it effectively".
The men, Ron Jones, Alexander Mitchell, William Sampson and Leslie Walker, had initially brought their claim for compensation before the UK courts in 2002 after being released from Saudi Arabia.
In 2003, the case was halted on the grounds that Saudi Arabia and its officials were entitled to state immunity. A separate claim by Mitchell, Sampson and Walker against four Saudi officials whom they considered to be responsible for the torture was struck out for the same reason in 2004.
The men were detained after an explosion in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, that officials blamed on the Britons.
A Guardian investigation subsequently showed that Jones, who was injured in the attack, could not have carried out the bombing.
The Scottish tax adviser said his hands and feet were caned and beaten with a pickaxe handle. During a 67-day ordeal, he was also subjected to sleep deprivation, beatings and psychological duress, as well as being drugged.
Jones finally signed a statement admitting responsibility for the bombing, saying he had signed of his own free will, but he has always maintained that he was tortured.
He has spent years pursuing his alleged abusers through the courts, along with Mitchell, Sampson and Walker, who were detained and tortured in Saudi Arabia after a separate series of bombings.
In the sole dissenting judgment at the ECHR, a Bulgarian judge, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, said: "I fear that the views expressed by the majority on a question examined by this court for the first time not only extend state immunity to named officials without proper distinction or justification, but give the impression of also being capable of extending impunity for acts of torture globally."
Responding to the decision, Jones said: "I have had little support from the UK government. It has shown itself to be more interested in maintaining good trade relations with Saudi Arabia. I am angry that it has taken such a long time to receive a judgment.
"Only the dissenting judge seems to have understood the moral argument. The court is giving the green light to other countries, saying that it`s OK to commit torture. The whole point of the case was to provide redress through the courts to people who endured torture. That`s been blown away completely.
"I still suffer from flashbacks, panic attacks and memory problems. I can`t function as I used to. I can`t walk far and my hands are weak. I have to be careful handling things like boiling kettles."
Gerard Cukier, of the law firm Kingsley Napley, who represented Jones, said: "The Saudi government has paid a small sum in compensation for his detention but has never given an apology. We are considering whether to appeal against this decision to the upper chamber at Strasbourg."
The court acknowledged that medical examinations carried out after the men returned to Britain concluded that the applicants` injuries were consistent with their allegations.
Tawanda Hondora, deputy director at Amnesty International, said: "This judgment has serious global repercussions. It means victims of torture will be denied access to justice where the torture was committed by a national of, or in a state that permits impunity for torture. This is a significant blow for the victims and for others who face similar ill-treatment.
"The UK should take the lead in the fight against impunity. It should change its laws so that victims of torture have redress."
Carla Ferstman, director of Redress, called on the UK government to take up the men`s case directly with Saudi Arabia.
"The men have no prospects of justice in Saudi Arabia, and the court`s decision leaves them with no legal options outside of it. Their only option is for the UK government to take up the case with Saudi Arabia.
Pursuing this claim on the men`s behalf, if that is what they wish, is now well overdue," she said.
Angela Patrick, director of human rights policy at Justice, said: "By lending support to the UK strike-out the [ECHR] risks sending a misleading message that the universal international prohibition on the most heinous of crimes lacks teeth. The UK government – and the international community – must act. Uncertainty cannot mean impunity."
Vesselina Vandova, legal director at Interights, said: "The UK government proclaims itself to be a leader in the fight against torture. If that is the case, it must ensure that it assists its own nationals to achieve redress when they have been tortured, by pursuing claims on their behalf against the states responsible."
Source: Law@ Guardian
