The European Court of Human Rights has
ruled that four British nationals cannot sue Saudi Arabia through British courts
for compensation.
In a majority six to one judgment, the Court
held that it is:
[...] satisfied that the grant of immunity to the state officials in the present case reflected generally recognised rules of public international law.
The Court observed that in 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 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 and civil cases of torture. Criminal cases of torture can be heard in the United Kingdom even if the offences have been committed in another country. But civil cases of torture, where the torture was committed abroad, British courts will not consider.
In the only dissenting opinion, Bulgarian
Judge, Zdravka Kaladjieva expressed his:
[f]ear 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.
The Court acknowledged their medical
examinations carried out after the men returned to the United Kingdom concluded
that the applicant’s injuries were consistent with torture.
