CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC8702D41 { width:154.61pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8ACF78EF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF JONES AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Applications nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   14 January 2014         FINAL   02/06/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.   In the case of Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ineta Ziemele, President ,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Paul Mahoney, judges , and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 10 December 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in two applications (nos.   34356/06 and 40528/06) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). In the first, the applicant is Mr Ronald Grant Jones, a British national who was born in 1953. His application was lodged on 26 July 2006. In the second, the applicants are Mr Alexander Hutton Johnston Mitchell, Mr William James Sampson and Mr Leslie Walker. They are also British nationals who were born in 1955, 1959 and 1946 respectively. Mr Sampson also has Canadian nationality. Their application was lodged on 22 September 2006. 2.     Mr Jones was represented by Mr G. Cukier, a lawyer practising in London with Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Mitchell, Mr Sampson and Mr   Walker, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Ms   T.   Allen, a lawyer practising in London with Bindmans LLP. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Grainger, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that the grant of immunity in civil proceedings to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the case of Mr Jones and to the individual defendants in both cases amounted to a disproportionate interference with their right of access to a court under Article   6 of the Convention. 4.     On 15 September 2009 the applications were communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29 § 1). 5.     The Redress Trust (REDRESS), Amnesty International, the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights (Interights) and JUSTICE (“the third-party interveners”) were given leave by the President of the Chamber to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 §   2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2). They submitted joint written comments. 6.     The applicants requested an oral hearing but on 29 November 2011 the Chamber decided not to hold a hearing in the case. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Allegations of torture and proceedings brought by Mr Jones 7.     On 15 March 2001, while he was living and working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mr Jones was slightly injured when a bomb exploded outside a bookshop in Riyadh. He alleges that the following day he was taken from hospital by agents of Saudi Arabia and unlawfully detained for sixty-seven days. During that time he was tortured by a Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz. In particular, he alleges he was beaten with a cane on his palms, feet, arms and legs; slapped and punched in the face; suspended for prolonged periods by his arms; shackled at his ankles; subjected to sleep deprivation; and given mind-altering drugs. 8.     Mr Jones returned to the United Kingdom where a medical examination found he had injuries consistent with his account and where he was diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder. 9.     On 27 May 2002 Mr Jones commenced proceedings in the High Court against “the Ministry of Interior the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz, claiming damages, inter alia , for torture. In the particulars of claim he referred to Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz as a servant or agent of Saudi Arabia. Service was effected on Saudi Arabia via its then solicitors, but the solicitors made it clear that they had no authority to accept service of the claim on Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz. 10.     On 12 February 2003 Saudi Arabia applied to have the claim struck out on the grounds that it, and its servants and agents, were entitled to immunity and that the English courts had no jurisdiction. Mr Jones applied for permission to serve the claim on Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz by an alternative method. In his judgment of 30 July 2003, a Master of the High Court held that Saudi Arabia was entitled to immunity under section 1(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (see paragraph 39 below). He also held that Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz was similarly entitled to immunity under that Act and refused permission to allow service by an alternative method. Mr Jones appealed to the Court of Appeal. B.     Allegations of torture and proceedings brought by Mr Mitchell, Mr Sampson and Mr Walker 11.     Mr Mitchell and Mr Sampson were arrested in Riyadh in December 2000; Mr Walker was arrested there in February 2001. All three applicants alleged that, while in custody, they were subjected to sustained and systematic torture, including beatings about the feet, arms, legs and head, and sleep deprivation. Mr Sampson alleged he was anally raped. The applicants were released and returned to the United Kingdom on 8 August 2003. Each obtained medical reports which concluded that their injuries were consistent with their accounts. 12.     The applicants decided to commence proceedings in the High Court against the four individuals they considered to be responsible: two policemen, the deputy governor of the prison where they were held, and the Minister of the Interior who was alleged to have sanctioned the torture. They therefore applied for permission to serve their claim on the four individuals out of the jurisdiction. On 18 February 2004 this was refused by the same Master who had heard Mr Jones’s claim, on the basis of his previous ruling in respect of Mr Jones. However, the Master acknowledged that he had enjoyed the benefit of fuller argument than on the applications relating to Mr Jones’s claim, and said: “[H]ad the matter come before me as a free-standing application, without my having decided the Jones case ..., I might have been tempted to give permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on the basis that it seems to me that, having heard the arguments, that there is a case to be answered by these defendants as to whether there is jurisdiction in these courts over them.” 13.     The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Master. C.     The Court of Appeal judgment 14 .     The two cases were joined and on 28 October 2004 the Court of Appeal published its judgment. It unanimously dismissed Mr Jones’s appeal from the decision of the Master to refuse permission to serve Saudi Arabia outside the jurisdiction. However, it allowed the appeals in respect of the refusal of permission in each case to serve the individual defendants. 15 .     As regards the immunity of Saudi Arabia, Lord Justice Mance, with whom Lord Phillips and Lord Justice Neuberger agreed, refused to depart from this Court’s ruling in Al ‑ Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   35763/97, ECHR 2001 ‑ XI. He further found that Article 14 § 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the Convention against Torture” – see paragraph 63 below), which obliges a Contracting State to ensure that a victim of an act of torture obtains redress, could not be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a State to provide redress for acts of torture when those acts were committed by another State in that other State. 16 .     In respect of the immunity of the individual defendants, Mance LJ considered the case-law of the domestic courts and courts of other jurisdictions, which recognised State immunity ratione materiae in respect of acts of agents of the State. However, he noted that none of these cases was concerned with conduct which was to be regarded as outside the scope of any proper exercise of sovereign authority or with international crime, let alone with systematic torture. He did not accept that the definition of torture in Article 1 of the Convention against Torture as an act “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” (see paragraph 59 below) was fatal to the applicants’ claims: “71. ... It seems doubtful that the phrase ‘acting in an official capacity’ qualifies the reference to ‘a public official’. The types of purpose for which any pain or suffering must be inflicted ... would appear to represent a sufficient limitation in the case of a public official. Be that as it may, the requirement that the pain or suffering be inflicted by a public official does no more in my view than identify the author and the public context in which the author must be acting. It does not lend to the acts of torture themselves any official or governmental character or nature, or mean that it can in any way be regarded as an official function to inflict, or that an official can be regarded as representing the state in inflicting, such pain or suffering. Still less does it suggest that the official inflicting such pain or suffering can be afforded the cloak of state immunity ... The whole tenor of the Torture Convention is to underline the individual responsibility of state officials for acts of torture ...” 17 .     Mance LJ did not consider it significant that Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz had been described in Mr Jones’s claim as the “servant or agent” of Saudi Arabia. Nor did he accept that general differences between criminal and civil law justified a distinction in the application of immunity in the two contexts. He noted that the House of Lords in Pinochet (No.   3) (see paragraphs 44-56 below) had considered that there would be no immunity from criminal prosecution in respect of an individual officer who had committed torture abroad in an official context. It was not easy to see why civil proceedings against an alleged torturer could be said to involve a greater interference in the internal affairs of a foreign State than criminal proceedings against the same person. It was also incongruous that if an alleged torturer was within the jurisdiction of the forum State, he would be prosecuted pursuant to Article 5 § 2 of the Convention against Torture (see paragraph 62 below) and no immunity could be claimed, but the victim of the alleged torture would be unable to pursue any civil claim. Furthermore, there was no basis for assuming that, in civil proceedings, a State could be made liable to indemnify or otherwise support one of its officials proved to have committed systematic torture. 18 .     Mance LJ considered that whether any claim in the English courts against individuals could proceed was better determined not by reference to immunity, but by reference to whether it was appropriate for the English courts to exercise jurisdiction. A number of factors were relevant to the assessment of this question, including the sensitivity of the issues involved and the general power of the English courts to decline jurisdiction on the ground that England was an inappropriate forum for the litigation. 19 .     In considering the impact of Article 6, Mance LJ found important distinctions between a State’s claim to immunity ratione personae , in issue in Al ‑ Adsani (cited above), and a State’s claim to immunity ratione materiae in respect of its officials, in issue in the present cases. Firstly, he considered it impossible to identify any settled international principle affording the State the right to claim immunity in respect of claims directed against an official, rather than against the State, its Head of State or diplomats. He was of the view that the legislation and case-law of the United States of America (see paragraphs 112-25 below) militated strongly against any such settled principle and supported a contrary view. In so far as counsel for the Government purported to refer to evidence of settled practice, Mance LJ noted that the case-law to which he had referred related either to the immunity of the State itself or to the immunity of individual officials for alleged misconduct that bore no relationship in nature or gravity to the international crime of systematic torture. He considered the dicta in the separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal to the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the “ Arrest Warrant ” case (see paragraphs 84-85 below) to provide further confirmation that there was no settled international practice in this area. 20 .     Mance LJ explained that where, under Article 14 of the Convention against Torture, a State had created a domestic remedy for torture in the State where that torture was committed, other national courts could be expected to refuse to exercise jurisdiction. However, where there was no adequate remedy in the State where the systematic torture occurred, it might be regarded as disproportionate to maintain a blanket refusal of recourse to the civil courts of another jurisdiction. He acknowledged that the courts of one State were not to adjudicate lightly upon the internal affairs of another State, but considered that there were many circumstances, particularly in the context of human rights, where national courts did have to consider and form a view on the position in, or conduct of, foreign States. 21 .     Mance LJ concluded that giving blanket effect to a foreign State’s claim to State immunity ratione materiae in respect of a State official alleged to have committed acts of systematic torture could deprive the right of access to a court under Article 6 of real meaning in a case where the victim of torture had no prospect of recourse in the State whose officials had committed the torture. He therefore allowed the applicants’ appeals in respect of the individual defendants and remitted them for further argument, concluding: “96. ... [I]t seems to me that any absolute view of immunity must at the very least yield in the face of assertions of systematic torture to a more nuanced or proportionate approach. As it is, having regard to the [European Convention on Human Rights], it is sufficient to decide this appeal that, whether issues of state immunity are or are not treated as theoretically separate from issues of jurisdiction in English law, the permissibility, appropriateness and proportionality of exercising jurisdiction ought to be determined at one and the same time. Such a conclusion reflects the importance attaching in today’s world and in current international thinking and jurisprudence to the recognition and effective enforcement of individual human rights. It fits harmoniously with the position already achieved in relation to criminal proceedings. It caters for our obligation under article 6 of the [Convention] not to deny access to our courts, in circumstances where it would otherwise be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction applying domestic jurisdictional principles, unless to do so would be in pursuit of a legitimate aim and proportionate. ...” 22 .     In his concurring judgment, Lord Phillips agreed with the conclusions of Mance LJ as regards both the claim against Saudi Arabia and the claims against the individual officials. In particular, he considered that the judgment in Pinochet (No.   3) (see paragraphs 44-56 below) had shown that torture could no longer fall within the scope of the official duties of a State official. It therefore followed that if civil proceedings were brought against individuals for acts of torture in circumstances where the State was immune from suit, there could be no suggestion that the State would be vicariously liable: it was the personal responsibility of the individuals, not that of the State, which was in issue. 23 .     On the approach of this Court, he commented: “134.     Had the Grand Chamber been considering a claim for state immunity in relation to claims brought against individuals, I do not believe that there would have been a majority in favour of the view that this represented a legitimate limitation on the right to access to a court under Article 6(1). Had the Court shared the conclusions that we have reached on this appeal, it would have held that there was no recognised rule of public international law that conferred such immunity. Had it concluded that there was such a rule, I consider that it would have been likely to have held that it would not be proportionate to apply the rule so as to preclude civil remedies sought against individuals.” D.     The House of Lords judgment 24 .     Saudi Arabia appealed to the House of Lords against the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of the individual defendants and Mr   Jones appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of his claim against Saudi Arabia itself. On 14 June 2006, the House of Lords unanimously allowed Saudi Arabia’s appeal and dismissed the appeal by Mr   Jones. 25 .     Lord Bingham considered that there was a “wealth of authority” in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to show that a State was entitled to claim immunity for its servants or agents and that the State’s right to immunity could not be circumvented by suing them instead. In some borderline cases there could be doubt whether the conduct of an individual, although a servant or agent, had a sufficient connection with a State to entitle it to claim immunity for his conduct. However, in his view, these were not borderline cases. Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz was sued as a servant or agent of Saudi Arabia and there was no suggestion that his conduct was not in discharge or purported discharge of his duties. The four defendants in the second case were public officials and the alleged conduct took place in public premises during a process of interrogation. 26 .     Further, referring to the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (see paragraphs 107-09 below), Lord Bingham said that “international law does not require, as a condition of a State’s entitlement to claim immunity for the conduct of its servant or agent, that the latter should have been acting in accordance with his instructions or authority”. The fact that conduct was unlawful or objectionable was not, of itself, a ground for refusing immunity. 27.     In order to succeed in their Convention claim, Lord Bingham explained that the applicants had to establish three propositions. Firstly, they had to show that Article 6 of the Convention was engaged by the grant of immunity; Lord Bingham was prepared to assume, based on this Court’s judgment in Al ‑ Adsani , cited above, that it was. Secondly, they had to show that the grant of immunity denied them access to a court; Lord Bingham was satisfied that it plainly would. Thirdly, the applicants had to show that the restriction was not directed to a legitimate objective and was disproportionate. 28 .     Lord Bingham disagreed with the applicants’ submission that torture could not be a governmental or official act since, under Article 1 of the Convention against Torture, torture had to be inflicted by or with the connivance of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (see paragraph   59 below). Although the applicants referred to a substantial body of authority showing that the courts of the United States would not recognise acts performed by individual officials as being carried out in an official capacity for the purposes of immunity if those acts were contrary to a jus cogens prohibition, Lord Bingham found it unnecessary to examine those authorities since they were only important to the extent that they expressed principles widely shared and observed among other nations. However, as Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal had stated in their concurring opinion in the “ Arrest Warrant ” case, the “unilateral” US   approach had not attracted the “approbation of States generally” (see paragraph 84 below). 29 .     Concerning the applicants’ reliance on the recommendation of the United Nations Committee Against Torture of 7 July 2005 in respect of Canada, comments made in the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Furundžija , and the judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation in Ferrini v. Germany (see, respectively, paragraphs 66, 82 and 140 below), Lord Bingham considered the first to be of slight legal authority, the second to be an obiter dictum and the third not to be an accurate statement of international law. 30 .     Lord Bingham identified four arguments advanced by Saudi Arabia which he said were “cumulatively irresistible”. Firstly, given the conclusion of the International Court of Justice in the “ Arrest Warrant ” case, the applicants had to accept that State immunity ratione personae could be claimed for a serving foreign minister accused of crimes against humanity. It followed that the prohibition of torture did not automatically override all other rules of international law. Secondly, Article 14 of the Convention against Torture did not provide for universal civil jurisdiction. Thirdly, the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (see paragraphs   75-80 below) did not provide any exception from immunity for civil claims based on acts of torture; although such an exception was considered by a working group of the ILC, it was not agreed (see paragraph 79 below). Lord Bingham noted in this respect that although some commentators had criticised the United Nations Convention because it did not include a torture exception, they nonetheless accepted that this area of international law was “in a state of flux” and did not suggest that there was an international consensus in favour of such an exception. Finally, there was no evidence that States had recognised or given effect to any international-law obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction over claims arising from alleged breaches of peremptory norms of international law, nor was there any consensus of judicial or learned opinion that they should. For these reasons, Lord Bingham agreed with the Court of Appeal that the claim brought by Mr Jones against Saudi Arabia was to be dismissed. 31 .     In respect of the individual defendants, he found that the conclusion of the Court of Appeal on the torture claims could not be sustained. He considered that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly departed from the position in its previous ruling in Propend that the acts of State officials were to be considered the acts of the State itself (see paragraphs 42-43 below). He explained: “30.     ... [T]here was no principled reason for this departure. A state can only act through servants and agents; their official acts are the acts of the state; and the state’s immunity in respect of them is fundamental to the principle of state immunity. This error had the effect that while the Kingdom was held to be immune, and the Ministry of Interior, as a department of the government, was held to be immune, the Minister of Interior (the fourth defendant in the second action) was not, a very striking anomaly.” 32 .     Lord Bingham explained that this first error had led the court into a second: its conclusion that a civil claim against an individual torturer did not indirectly implead the State in any more objectionable respect than a criminal prosecution. He observed: “31.     ... A state is not criminally responsible in international or English law, and therefore cannot be directly impleaded in criminal proceedings. The prosecution of a servant or agent for an act of torture within article 1 of the Torture Convention is founded on an express exception from the general rule of immunity. It is, however, clear that a civil action against individual torturers based on acts of official torture does indirectly implead the state since their acts are attributable to it. Were these claims against the individual defendants to proceed and be upheld, the interests of the Kingdom would be obviously affected, even though it is not a named party.” 33 .     In Lord Bingham’s view both errors resulted from a misreading of Pinochet (No.   3) (see paragraph 44-56 below), which concerned criminal proceedings only. The distinction between criminal proceedings (which were the subject of universal jurisdiction) and civil proceedings (which were not) was, he said, “fundamental” and one that could not be “wished away”. 34 .     Finally, Lord Bingham noted that the Court of Appeal had found that jurisdiction should be governed by “appropriate use or development of discretionary principles”. He considered that this was to mistake the nature of State immunity. Where applicable, State immunity was an absolute preliminary bar and a State was either immune from the jurisdiction of a foreign court or it was not, so there was no scope for the exercise of discretion. 35 .     Lord Hoffmann, concurring in the judgment, considered that there was no automatic conflict between the jus cogens prohibition on torture and the law of State immunity: State immunity was a procedural rule and Saudi Arabia, in claiming immunity, was not justifying torture but merely objecting to the jurisdiction of the English courts in deciding whether it had used torture or not. He quoted with approval the observation of Hazel Fox   QC ( The Law of State Immunity (Oxford University Press, 2004), p.   525) that State immunity did not “contradict a prohibition contained in a jus cogens norm but merely divert[ed] any breach of it to a different method of settlement”. For Lord Hoffmann, a conflict could only arise if the prohibition on torture had generated an ancillary procedural rule which, by way of exception to State immunity, entitled a State to assume civil jurisdiction over other States. Like Lord Bingham, he found that the authorities cited showed no support in international law for such a rule. 36 .     As regards the application of State immunity to individual defendants, Lord Hoffmann indicated that in order to establish that the grant of immunity to an official would infringe the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, it was necessary, as in the case of the immunity of the State itself, to show that international law did not require immunity against civil suit to be accorded to officials who were alleged to have committed torture. He considered that, once again, it was impossible to find any such exception in a treaty. He reviewed in some detail the circumstances in which a State would be liable for the act of an official in international law and found it clear that 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. He said: “78.     ... To hold that for the purposes of state immunity [the official] was not acting in an official capacity would produce an asymmetry between the rules of liability and immunity. 79.     Furthermore, in the case of torture, there would be an even more striking asymmetry between the Torture Convention and the rules of immunity if it were to be held that the same act was official for the purposes of the definition of torture but not for the purposes of immunity ...” 37 .     Lord Hoffmann found Lord Justice Mance’s conclusion that the Convention against Torture’s definition of torture did not lend acts of torture any official character to be unsatisfactory, explaining: “83.     ... The acts of torture are either official acts or they are not. The Torture Convention does not ‘lend’ them an official character; they must be official to come within the Convention in the first place. And if they are official enough to come within the Convention, I cannot see why they are not official enough to attract immunity.” 38 .     He also considered inappropriate the Court of Appeal’s proposed approach to the exercise of jurisdiction, on the ground that State immunity was not a self-imposed restriction but was “imposed by international law without any discrimination between one State and another.” He concluded that it would be “invidious in the extreme for the judicial branch of government to have the power to decide that it will allow the investigation of allegations of torture against the officials of one foreign state but not against those of another”. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The State Immunity Act 1978 39 .     Part I of the State Immunity Act 1978 deals with the extent of State immunity in civil proceedings. Section 1 provides: “(1)     A State is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom except as provided in the following provisions of this Part of the Act. (2)     A court shall give effect to the immunity conferred by this section even though the State does not appear in the proceedings in question.” 40 .     The remainder of Part I of the Act identifies exceptions from immunity including: submission to the jurisdiction (section 2); commercial transactions and contracts to be performed in the United Kingdom (section   3); contracts of employment (section 4); personal injuries and damage to property “caused by an act or omission in the United Kingdom” (section 5); ownership, possession and use of property (section 6); patents and trade marks (section 7); membership of bodies corporate (section 8); arbitrations (section 9); ships used for commercial purposes (section 10); and value-added tax and customs duties (section 11). 41 .     Section 14 provides: “(1)     The immunities and privileges conferred by this Part of this Act apply to any foreign or commonwealth State other than the United Kingdom; and references to a State include references to– (a)     the sovereign or other head of that State in his public capacity; (b)     the government of that State; and (c)     any department of that government, but not to any entity (hereafter referred to as a ‘separate entity’) which is distinct from the executive organs of the government of the State and capable of suing or being sued. (2)     A separate entity is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom if, and only if– (a)     the proceedings relate to anything done by it in the exercise of sovereign authority; and (b)     the circumstances are such that a State ... would have been so immune.” B.     Propend Finance Pty Ltd v. Sing and another (1997) 111 ILR 611 (“ Propend ”) 42 .     In Propend , the Court of Appeal of England and Wales considered the application of the State Immunity Act 1978 to the Head of the Australian Federal Police. The court considered that the defendant benefited from State immunity, explaining: “The protection afforded by the Act of 1978 to States would be undermined if employees [or] officers ... could be sued as individuals for matters of State conduct in respect of which the State they were serving had immunity. Section 14(1) must be read as affording to individual employees or officers of the foreign State protection under the same cloak as protects the State itself.” 43 .     The court observed that this proposition had wide support in Commonwealth and foreign jurisdictions, citing German, Canadian and US cases. C.     Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147 (“ Pinochet (No.   3) ”) 44 .     Pinochet (No.   3) concerned a request by Spain for the extradition of Senator Augusto Pinochet from the United Kingdom to stand trial for crimes, including torture, committed primarily in Chile while he was Head of State there. Senator Pinochet and the government of Chile argued that the Senator enjoyed immunity ratione materiae in respect of the alleged offences. The House of Lords handed down its judgment in March 1999 and held unanimously that the respondent did not benefit from immunity from prosecution in respect of the torture charges. 45 .     Lord Browne-Wilkinson observed that if the respondent was not entitled to immunity in relation to the acts of torture, it would be the first time that a local domestic court had refused to afford immunity to a former Head of State on the grounds that there could be no immunity against prosecution for certain international crimes. He explained that the adoption of the Convention against Torture was intended to provide for an international system under which the torturer could find no safe haven. He noted the following points of importance: (1) “torture” in this context could only be committed by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, which included a Head of State; (2) superior orders provided no defence; (3)   there was universal criminal jurisdiction; (4) there was no express provision dealing with State immunity; and (5) Chile, Spain and the United Kingdom were all parties to the Convention and were therefore bound by its provisions. 46 .     Turning to the facts of the case, he said: “The question then which has to be answered is whether the alleged organisation of state torture by Senator Pinochet (if proved) would constitute an act committed by Senator Pinochet as part of his official functions as head of state. It is not enough to say that it cannot be part of the functions of the head of state to commit a crime. Actions which are criminal under the local law can still have been done officially and therefore give rise to immunity ratione materiae . The case needs to be analysed more closely.” 47 .     He was of the view that there was strong ground for saying that the implementation of torture as defined in the Convention against Torture could not be a State function, although he had doubts whether, before the entry into force of the Convention against Torture, the existence of the international crime of torture as jus cogens was enough to justify the conclusion that the organisation of State torture could not constitute the performance of an official function for immunity purposes. He continued: “... Not until there was some form of universal jurisdiction for the punishment of the crime of torture could it really be talked about as a fully constituted international crime. But in my judgment the Torture Convention did provide what was missing: a worldwide universal jurisdiction. Further, it required all member states to ban and outlaw torture: Article 2. How can it be for international law purposes an official function to do something which international law itself prohibits and criminalises?” 48 .     Lord Browne-Wilkinson considered that if the implementation of a torture regime was a public function giving rise to immunity ratione materiae , this produced bizarre results. Since such immunity extended to all State officials involved in carrying out the functions of the State, and since the international crime of torture under the Convention against Torture can only be committed by an official or someone in an official capacity, all perpetrators of torture would be entitled to immunity. It would follow that there could be no case outside Chile in which a successful prosecution against the respondent for torture could be brought unless Chile were prepared to waive immunity. He concluded: “... Therefore the whole elaborate structure of universal jurisdiction over torture committed by officials is rendered abortive and one of the main objectives of the Torture Convention – to provide a system under which there is no safe haven for torturers – will have been frustrated. In my judgment all these factors together demonstrate that the notion of continued immunity for ex-heads of state is inconsistent with the provisions of the Torture Convention.” 49 .     Lord Hope of Craighead addressed the question whether the concept of official functions included acts of the kind alleged in the case, which were not private acts but acts done in the exercise of State authority. He said: “... I consider that the answer to it is well settled in customary international law. The test is whether they were private acts on the one hand or governmental acts done in the exercise of his authority as head of state on the other. It is whether the act was done to promote the state’s interests – whether it was done for his own benefit or gratification or was done for the state ... The fact that acts done for the state have involved conduct which is criminal does not remove the immunity ... It may be said that it is not one of the functions of a head of state to commit acts which are criminal according to the laws and constitution of his own state or which customary international law regards as criminal. But I consider that this approach to the question is unsound in principle. The principle of immunity ratione materiae protects all acts which the head of state has performed in the exercise of the functions of government. The purpose for which they were performed protects these acts from any further analysis. There are only two exceptions to this approach which customary international law has recognised. The first relates to criminal acts which the head of state did under the colour of his authority as head of state but which were in reality for his own pleasure or benefit ... The second relates to acts the prohibition of which has acquired the status under international law of jus cogens ...” 50 .     Lord Hope concluded that following the adoption of the Convention against Torture, it was no longer open to any State that was a signatory to it to invoke immunity ratione materiae in the event of allegations of systemic or widespread torture, which amounted to an international crime, committed after that date. He explained: “I would not regard this as a case of waiver. Nor would I accept that it was an implied term of the Torture Convention that former heads of State were to be deprived of their immunity ratione materiae with respect to all acts of official torture as defined in article 1. It is just that the obligations which were recognised by customary international law in the case of such serious international crimes by the date when Chile ratified the Convention are so strong as to override any objection by it on the ground of immunity ratione materiae to the exercise of the jurisdiction over crimes committed after that date which the United Kingdom had made available.” 51 .     Lord Hutton concluded that the clear intent of the Convention against Torture was that an official of one State who had committed torture should be prosecuted if present in another State. He therefore considered that the respondent could not claim that the commission of acts of torture after the Convention’s entry into force were functions of the Head of State. While the alleged acts of torture by the respondent were carried out under the colour of his position as Head of State, they could not be regarded as functions of a Head of State under international law when international law expressly prohibited torture as a measure which a State could employ in any circumstances whatsoever and had made it an international crime. 52 .     Lord Saville of Newdigate agreed that, after the entry into force of the Convention against Torture, State immunity ratione materiae for acts of torture could not exist consistently with its terms. It therefore followed that an agreement to an exception to the general rule of State immunity ratione materiae existed between Spain, Chile and the United Kingdom from the date on which the three States became party to that Convention. 53 .     Lord Millett held that the definition of torture in the Convention against Torture was entirely inconsistent with the existence of a plea of immunity ratione materiae . He concluded: “... [T]he Republic of Chile was a party to the Torture Convention, and must be taken to have assented to the imposition of an obligation on foreign national courts to take and exercise criminal jurisdiction in respect of the official use of torture. I do not regard it as having thereby waived its immunity. In my opinion there was no immunity to be waived. The offence is one which could only be committed in circumstances which would normally give rise to the immunity. The international community had created an offence for which immunity ratione materiae could not possibly be available. International law cannot be supposed to have established a crime having the character of a jus cogens and at the same time to have provided an immunity which is co-extensive with the obligation it seeks to impose.” 54 .     He saw a difference between civil and criminal proceedings, explaining: “... I see nothing illogical or contrary to public policy in denying the victims of state sponsored torture the right to sue the offending state in a foreign court while at the same time permitting (and indeed requiring) other states to convict and punish the individuals responsible if the offending state declines to take action. This was the very object of the Torture Convention. It is important to emphasise that Senator Pinochet is not alleged to be criminally liable because he was head of state when other responsible officials employed torture to maintain him in power. He is not alleged to be vicariously liable for the wrongdoing of his subordinates. He is alleged to have incurred direct criminal responsibility for his own acts in ordering and directing a campaign of terror involving the use of torture ...” 55 .     Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers also commented that the principles of the law of immunity that applied to civil litigation would not necessarily apply to a criminal prosecution. He said that had the Pinochet proceedings been civil in nature, Chile could have argued that it was indirectly impleaded; but that argument did not run where the proceedings were criminal and where the issue was the respondent’s personal responsibility, not that of Chile. On the question posed in this case, Lord Phillips, like Lord Saville, considered that State immunity ratione materiae could not coexist with the notion of international crimes. Since, in the case of torture, the only conduct covered by the Convention against Torture was conduct which would be subject to immunity ratione materiae if it applied, the Convention was incompatible with the applicability of such immunity. 56 .     Lord Goff of Chieveley, dissenting, considered it clear that if State immunity in respect of torture was excluded in the case, then it could only have been done by the Convention against Torture itself. He did not consider that the well-established principle that a State’s waiver of immunity had to be express could be circumvented by finding that torture did not form part of the functions of a State and that no immunity ratione materiae therefore applied to such acts. He highlighted that there was no evidence of any consideration being given to a waiver of State immunity in the negotiations leading to the Convention against Torture. He further pointed out that if immunity ratione materiae were excluded, former heads of State and senior public officials would have to think twice about travelling abroad, for fear of being the subject of unfounded allegations emanating from States of a different political persuasion. He therefore concluded that State immunity applied. D.     Service of claims outside the jurisdiction 57.     Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for England and Wales regulates service of claims outside the jurisdiction. At the material time, under Rules   6.20 and 6.21, to obtain permission to serve out of the jurisdiction a claimant was required to show that there was a reasonable prospect of success in the claim, to satisfy the court that it was an appropriate case in which discretion should be exercised to permit service, and to demonstrate that England and Wales was the appropriate jurisdiction in which to bring the claim. E.     Compensation in criminal proceedings 58.     Pursuant to section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Sentencing Act 2000, a criminal court has the power to make a compensation order for personal injury, loss or damage resulting from a criminal offence. The order is designed for simple and straightforward cases where the amount of compensation can be readily and easily ascertained and where the judge has the necessary evidence before him. It is not designed to replicate civil damages, where quantification of loss may be difficult. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW MATERIALS A.     Prohibition of torture 59 .     The United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and 151 other States are parties to the 1984 United Nations Conventio