Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:58:54.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Daniel Bodansky ,
Elina Steinerte  and
Rebecca M. M. Wallace
Elina Steinerte
Affiliation:
University of Bristol; Robert Gordon University (Aberdeen Business School)
Rebecca M. M. Wallace
Affiliation:
University of Bristol; Robert Gordon University (Aberdeen Business School)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Case No. [2006] UKHL 26. At <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm>.

House of Lords, June 14, 2006.

The House of Lords handed down judgment in Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on June 14, 2006. The case concerns an action in damages brought by Jones and three other applicants, all UK citizens, falsely accused of involvement in bombings in Riyadh in 2001 and 2002. The four allege that they were repeatedly tortured while in prison in Saudi Arabia and that they suffered severe psychological and physical harm as a result. Seeking aggravated and exemplary damages from Saudi Arabia's Ministry of the Interior and the Saudi officials allegedly responsible, the applicants filed claims of, inter alia, torture, assault and battery, trespass to the person, and unlawful imprisonment. In the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, Saudi Arabia claimed immunity on its own behalf and on that of its officials. The Court of Appeal agreed with the former but denied the latter; all the involved parties appealed the decision. The House of Lords agreed with Saudi Arabia by upholding state immunity in civil proceedings brought against a state and its officials in a different country for alleged torture.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 901 - 908
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case No. [2006] UKHL 26 (H.L. June 14, 2006), at <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm.

2 GA Res. 59/38, annex (Dec. 2,2004). The convention opened for signature on January 17,2005, and will close for signature on January 17, 2007. As of October 2006, twenty-three states have signed the convention, and three have ratified it. Thirty ratifications are required for the convention to enter into force.

3 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001).

4 Al-Adsani v. Kuwait, 107 ILR 536 (1996).

5 Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35763/97, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 79; see Marius, Emberland, Case Report: McElhinney v. Ireland, Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, & Fogarty v. United Kingdom, 96 AJIL 699 (2002).Google Scholar

6 Dec. 10,1984, S. TREATY Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 UNTS 112.

7 107ILR536.

8 R v. Bartle, ex parte Pinochet, [1999] 2 All E.R. 97, [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827 (H.L.).

9 See, e.g., Amnesty International, UK: Saudi Torture Rulingh a Sad Day for British Justice (June 14, 2006), at <http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news.asp.Google Scholar

10 See the chairman’s report, UN Doc. A/C.6/54/L.12, para. 47 (1999).

11 See infra notes 18-20 and accompanying text (discussion of Ferrini and Voiotia cases); see, e.g., Lorna, McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens, 55 Int’l Comp. L.Q. 437, 438 (2006)Google Scholar (criticizing the convention for its failure to exclude jus cogens norms from its coverage, and calling for an additional human rights protocol).

12 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (1980).

13 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004); see Brad, R. Roth, Case Report: Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain & United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 98 AJIL 798 (2004).Google Scholar

14 Naomi, Norberg, The US Supreme Court Affirms theFilartigaParadigm, 4 J. Int’l Grim. Just. 387, 390 (2006).Google Scholar

15 Roth, supra note 13, at 803.

16 542 U.S. at 763.

17 Antonio, Cassese, When May Senior State Officials Be Tried for International Crimes? Some Comments on the Congo v. Belgium Case, 13 Eur. J. Int’l L. 853, 859 (2002).Google Scholar

18 Ferrini v. Repubblica Federale di Germania (Cass. Mar. 11, 2004) (Sez. Un.), at 87 Rlvista di Diritto Internazionale 539 (2004).

19 Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 11/2000 (Areios Pagos May 4, 2000); see Maria, Gavouneli & Elias, Bantekas, Case Report: Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, 95 AJIL 198 (2001).Google Scholar

20 McGregor, supra note 11, at 440.

21 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture: Canada, para. 14, CAT/C/CR/34/CAN (2005).

22 Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 71 O.R.3d 675 (2004) (Can.).

23 Committee Against Torture, Summary Record of the Second Part (Public) of the 646th Meeting, para. 67, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.646/Add.l (2005).

24 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ REP. 3 (Feb. 14); see Alexander, Orakhelashvili, Case Report: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), 96 AJIL 677 (2002).Google Scholar

25 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/I-T (Dec. 10, 1998).

26 Cassese, supra note 17, at 864.

27 Id. at 865; Marina, Spinedi, State Responsibility v. Individual Responsibility for International Crimes:Terium Non Datur? 13 Eur. J. Int’l L. 895 (2002).Google Scholar Personal immunity, or immunity rationepersonae, is that which covers any act that some classes of state officials perform while in office, whereas functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae, is that enjoyed by a state official for any official act. The latter is based on the premise that a state official enjoys immunity for acts committed in an official capacity, which are therefore attributed to a state, so that the issue of individual criminal or civil liability does not arise. By contrast, personal immunity is grounded in the notion that any act of a state official must be immune from foreign jurisdictions in order to prevent foreign states from either infringing the sovereign prerogatives of other states or interfering with the official functions of other states’ officials under a pretext of dealing with private acts. This immunity relates to procedural law and applies to state agents only while in office.

28 Cassese, supra note 17, at 867.

29 Id. at 874.

30 Id. at 859.

31 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, para. 58 (Oct. 2, 1995).

32 UN Comm’n H.R., Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2005/35, annex (2005); UN Econ. & Soc. Council, UN Comm’n H.R., Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.l (2005); Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001).

33 McGregor, supra note 11, at 438.