Jones v United Kingdom: The European Court of Human Rights Restricts Individual Accountability for Torture

• Author: Cedric Ryngaert
• Position: Utrecht University, the Netherlands
• Pages: 47-50

C Ryngaert, ‘Jones v United Kingdom: The European Court of Human

Rights Restricts Individual Accountability for Torture’ (2014) 30(79)

Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 47, DOI: http://

dx.doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.cn

On 14 January 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its judgment in the case of

Jones and others v United Kingdom.1 This judgment was widely anticipated as the Court was called on, inter

alia, to rule on whether State officials were entitled to immunity from jurisdiction in civil proceedings with

respect to torture, and could thus escape accountability in foreign courts.

In Jones, UK nationals were allegedly tortured by Saudi Arabian agents in a Saudi Arabian prison. Upon

their return to the UK, they brought a civil suit in UK courts against both the State of Saudi Arabia and

the Saudi Arabian agents. However, UK courts as well as the Supreme Court in the last instance, dismissed

the case on the ground that both a foreign State and its officials enjoy immunity from jurisdiction before

domestic courts, even in respect of torture. The claimants subsequently filed an application with the ECtHR,

arguing that the United Kingdom, by upholding immunity, had unjustifiably restricted the right of access to

a court laid down in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The ECtHR had earlier decided in the case of Al Adsani2 that ‘measures taken by a State which reflect

generally recognised rules of public international law on State immunity cannot in principle be regarded as

imposing a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court as embodied in Article 6 § 1 ECHR’,

even in respect of claims alleging violations of peremptory norms such as torture. The International Court of

Justice (ICJ), for its part, similarly decided in the Jurisdictional Immunities Case3 that there is no international

crimes exception to State immunity. This principle is regrettable and somewhat counter-intuitive, as the law

of State immunity allows for exceptions for commercial or management acts performed by States, but not

for international crimes or gross human rights violations. But as it had earlier been confirmed by both the

ECtHR and the ICJ, the ECtHR may be forgiven for not departing from its previous jurisprudence in Jones,

and for thus holding that UK courts could legitimately confer State immunity on Saudi Arabia.

1 Case of Jones and Others v The United Kingdom App nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06 (ECtHR, 14 January 2014).

2 Case of Al-Adsani v The United Kingdom App no 35763/97 (ECtHR, 21 November 2001).

3 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening) (Judgment) [2012] ICJ Rep 99.

CASE NOTE

Jones v United Kingdom: The European Court of

Human Rights Restricts Individual Accountability

for Torture

C Ryngaert1

1 Utrecht University, the Netherlands

c.m.j.ryngaert@uu.nl

UTRECHT JOURNAL OF

INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAW

Keywords: immunity; jurisdiction; European Court of Human Rights; torture; accountability

In

Jones and others v United Kingdom

(2014), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

ruled that granting immunity from jurisdiction to State ocials in civil proceedings with respect

to torture was not a violation of Article 6 ECHR. This is an unfortunate decision, as its applica-

tion will often result in an accountability vacuum, as victims of torture may not have reasonable

access to remedies in the State where they were tortured. Only bystander States, or their State

of nationality could then oer relief by oering a forum. A proper avenue for such States is to

make the exercise of jurisdiction and the conferral of immunity dependent on whether or not

the territorial State oers an adequate forum for dispute-settlement. By further developing

these principles, the notion that, under international law, persons are

individually

accountable

for international crimes and should not be allowed to hide behind the State on whose behalf

they act, could be nally realised.