Torture claim men’s rights ‘not breached’

Alexander Mitchell, from Halifax, along with Roland Jones, 
William Sampson and Leslie Walker claim they were subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation and rape as well as being given mind-altering drugs following their arrest in 2000 in Saudi Arabia’s capital city, Riyadh.

Mr Mitchell, Mr Walker and Mr Sampson were arrested after a series of terrorist bombings in Riyadh and Khobar, eastern Saudi Arabia, and claimed they were tortured into admitting responsibility.

Mr Jones was seized after being injured in a bomb blast outside a bookshop.

A panel of seven judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled a refusal by British courts to allow the men to sue Saudi Arabia for compensation did not amount to a breach of article six of the European Convention on Human Rights – access to court.

In 2002, Mr Jones brought proceedings against Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior and the man who he alleges tortured him, claiming damages for torture.

Independent analysis of his wounds and injuries carried out by experts in Denmark established that they were consistent with his allegations of maltreatment.

His application was struck out in February 2003 on the grounds that Saudi Arabia and its officials were entitled to state immunity.

A claim by Mr Mitchell, Mr Sampson and Mr Walker against the four individuals that they considered to be responsible for their torture was struck out for 
the same reason in February 
2004.

The applicants appealed against the decisions, and their cases were joined.

In October 2004 the Court of Appeal unanimously found that, though Mr Jones could not sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself, the applicants could pursue their cases against the individual named defendants.

However, this decision was overturned in June 2006 by the House of Lords, which held that the applicants could not pursue any of their claims on the 
ground that all the defendants were also entitled to state immunity.

The British men were all released after an al Qaida attack in May 2003 by nine suicide bombers in Riyadh, which disproved official Saudi claims that the attacks were the result of an alcohol turf war among Westerners.

The Law Lords were told in 2006 that it was the first time the House of Lords had looked at the issue of whether a foreign country could claim state immunity over civil proceedings brought against its officials for damages for personal injuries caused by alleged torture.

Voting six to one that there had been no violation of article six, the judgment said: “In these circumstances, 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.

“The application of the provisions of the 1978 Act to grant 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.”

The one dissenting judge, however, said that she found the majority decision “regrettable and contrary to the essential principles of international law concerning the personal accountability of torturers”.

The Saudi embassy in London declined to comment.

The judgment comes after the US Supreme Court last year ruled in a case known as Kiobel, which stated that victims of human rights abuses in foreign countries should not be able to bring suits against companies in American courts.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Alex Bailan QC, a barrister at Matrix Chambers in London, said: “The result is disappointing because public international law is generally evolving so as gradually to whittle down state immunity, and this goes somewhat against that trend.”

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, 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”.