Points of law

1) Part I of the State Immunity Act was not disproportionate as inconsistent with a peremptory norm of international law, such as the prohibition of torture. There is no evidence that states have recognised or given effect to an international law obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction over claims arising from alleged breaches of peremptory norms of international law.

2) There is symmetry between the rules of liability and the rules of immunity. A state would incur responsibility in international law if one of its officials, under colour of his authority, tortured a national of another state, even though the acts were unlawful and unauthorised. Therefore, it is not possible to sustain an argument that torture or some other contravention of an ius cogens cannot attract immunity ratione materiae because it is not an official act.

Summary of the case

n/a

Sources

[2006] UKHL 26; [2007] 1 A.C. 270

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)

Mr Jones claimed that this decision of the House of Lords in violated his rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation, see Chamber Judgment [2014] ECHR 32 (14 January 2014).