CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 21 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sDBFC49A { margin-top:23pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s54452357 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s4009AD62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC08D0465 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB95D6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#c00000 } .s9D69DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE3DE6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#404040 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD4EAAB82 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic } .s469162F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE03C66E7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA3F87297 { margin-left:-3.99pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s539148BA { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#000000 } .s5C494981 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sAA677DFC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; padding-left:4.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s805612F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sDFF9B1EC { width:27.55pt; display:inline-block } .s34E0E3DC { width:142.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s5FAFB694 { width:117.02%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s81D4EBD7 { width:6.62%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD43458D { width:59.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26B6884E { width:18.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s36BAEAB0 { width:15.86%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7EF2F19F { width:6.62%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF3C37A40 { width:59.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF769661 { width:18.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFF8F411E { width:15.86%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ABDULAAL NASER AND OTHERS v. DENMARK (Application no. 46571/22)   JUDGMENT   Art 1 • Jurisdiction of States • Art 3 (substantive) • Lack of jurisdiction for alleged ill-treatment of twenty-one Iraqi nationals in 2004 by Danish soldiers who were part of the United Nations authorised multinational military force in Iraq, after its sovereignty was transferred to the interim government, during a search and arrest operation • Applicants not under the respondent State’s control • Domestic courts’ conclusions that the Iraqi forces had full control of the operation and the Danish forces had not participated in the applicants’ detention or subjected them to inhuman treatment based on a detailed and thorough assessment and extensive evidence • Applicants’ failure to substantiate any elements or shortcomings in those findings • Failure to identify specific evidence showing Danish forces exercised public powers of a sovereign government or control over the applicants by using force • Art   3 (procedural) • No indication, even if there existed special features at the time bringing the applicants within the respondent State’s jurisdiction, of a lack of an effective investigation Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Domestic proceedings concerning applicants’ compensation claim for alleged ill-treatment fair • Applicants granted free legal aid and represented by counsel throughout • Access to court at two levels of jurisdiction • Adversarial and equality of arms principles complied with   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 21 October 2025   FINAL   21/01/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Abdulaal Naser and Others v. Denmark, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Faris Vehabović,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Anne Louise Bormann,   András Jakab , judges , and Simon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   46571/22) against the Kingdom of Denmark lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 and 30   September 2022, respectively. The twenty-one applicants are all Iraqi nationals, and their further personal details are set out in the Annex to this judgment; the decision to give notice to the Danish Government (“the Government”) of the application; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Governments of Norway and France, which were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   44 § 3 of the Rules of Court; Having deliberated in private on 1 July and 23 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last-mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns twenty-one Iraqi nationals, who complained that they had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention by Danish soldiers in Iraq around 25   November 2004. They also relied on Articles 1, 6 and 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. They were represented by Mr Tyge Trier, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Vibeke Pasternak Jørgensen, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and their co-Agent, Ms Nina Holst-Christensen, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Basis for the presence of Danish forces in Iraq 5.     After the war in Iraq had ended in the spring of 2003, the country was occupied by international coalition forces and came under the administration of the Coalition Provisional Authority (hereinafter “the CPA”). Its authority in Iraq was provisionally accepted by United Nations (hereinafter “the UN”) Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), paragraph 4, and Resolution 1511 (2003), adopted under chapter VII of the UN Charter. 6 .     On 15 November 2003 the CPA and the Iraqi Governing Council agreed that full sovereignty over Iraq should be transferred to an interim Iraqi government no later than 30 June 2004. The transfer took place on 28   June 2004, making Iraq a sovereign state again as from that date. 7 .     According to UN Security Council Resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004 (see paragraph 65 below) that the Iraqi Prime Minister had requested the continued presence of the multinational security force in Iraq for the purpose of rebuilding the country. The Resolution laid down a general framework for the continued presence of international coalition forces in Iraq after the planned transfer of power to an interim government and it authorised the multinational military force to take all necessary measures, including the use of armed force, to maintain stability and security in Iraq and to deter and prevent terrorism (paragraphs 8-11 of the Resolution). It further appeared that the Security Council recognised that the multinational force would also assist in building the capacity of the Iraqi security forces through, inter alia , a programme of mentoring and monitoring (paragraph 14 of the Resolution). 8 .     Denmark contributed to the international coalition efforts by deploying Danish forces to Iraq from 2003 to 2007. Following UN Resolution 1546 (see paragraph 65 below) and pursuant to section 19(2) of the Danish Constitution on the use of armed force, the Danish Parliament adopted Parliamentary Resolution B 42 on 25 November 2004. This approved a six-month extension of the deployment of Danish forces. That deployment was made within the scope of UN Resolution 1546 and implemented through Defence Command Denmark’s directive of 1   September 2004 on DANCON/Iraq with schedules, which set out rules for the performance of tasks by the Danish battalion and the Danish forces during their deployment. The directive required Danish forces to be on the alert for any unlawful acts committed by the Iraqi authorities and to report any such acts and, depending on the circumstances, to seek to intervene. At the same time, the directive established that, if the Iraqi authorities were to detain or arrest persons in connection with the performance of tasks in cooperation with Iraqi security forces and police, those arrests should be considered to be independent Iraqi arrests and therefore not a surrender of detainees by the Danish forces to the Iraqi authorities. Operation Green Desert 9.     On 25 November 2004, at the request of the Iraqi authorities, Danish and British military forces participated in an Iraqi search and arrest operation (called Operation Green Desert, hereinafter “the Operation”) in Az Zubayr, outside Basra. 10.     On 31 May 2022 the Danish Supreme Court ( Højesteret ) (see paragraphs 48-51 below) found that the tasks of the Danish forces included forming an outer perimeter around, inter alia , houses where Iraqi military and police (also referred to as the Iraqi National Guard (ING) and the Tactical Support Unit (TSU)) were to detain suspected insurgents, as well as mentoring and monitoring the Iraqi forces. The legal basis for the presence of Danish forces in Iraq did not cover their taking part in detaining Iraqi prisoners or surrendering them to the Iraqi forces. The Supreme Court found: “... As to the operation itself, it appears ( det fremgår ) that Danish forces did not have command of the Iraqi military and police forces, nor did Danish forces participate in the detention of the Iraqi parties [the applicants], and consequently they did not surrender them to the Iraqi forces either. ... In Defence Command Denmark’s directive of 1 September 2004 on DANCON/Iraq, it was decided that detainees were to be surrendered to the British, and not the Iraqi, forces, and that Danish forces should be on the alert for any unlawful acts committed by the Iraqi authorities and report any such acts and, depending on the circumstances, seek to intervene. At the same time, it was provided in the directive that, in connection with the performance of tasks in cooperation with Iraqi security forces and police where the Iraqi authorities were to detain or arrest persons, any such arrest should be considered an independent Iraqi arrest and therefore not a surrender of detainees from Danish forces to Iraqi authorities.” 11.     Reports beginning with one on the implementation of the Operation indicated that the Iraqi security forces arrested and detained a total of 36   persons. The Supreme Court found that the Danish forces had not detained any Iraqi prisoners or surrendered such prisoners to the Iraqi police or to British forces. 12.     The applicants maintained, however, that during their detention and a subsequent screening at a British military base (Shaiba Log Base) they were subjected to torture and other inhuman treatment by, inter alia , Danish forces and that during their subsequent detention at the police station Al Jameat (also referred to as Al Shu’oon) in Basra several of them were subjected to similar treatment by an Iraqi special unit. 13.     On 5 December 2004 a local newspaper ( Al Manarah ) published a news article which included interviews with two of the applicants in which Danish forces were accused of having inflicted torture in concert with the Iraqi security forces or of having witnessed captives being subjected to torture without intervening. The article gave accounts of inhuman treatment during detention. 14 .     On 6 December 2004, the Danish forces notified the Army Operations Command Denmark ( Hærens Operative Kommando ) of the article, labelling it a “special incident”, and submitted a report on the events. The report was forwarded to Defence Command Denmark (FKO) and to, inter alios , the Danish Ministry of Defence ( Forsvarsministeriet ) the same day. The report described how the operation had been carried out and that no Danish personnel had any contact with the Iraqi prisoners during their arrest and subsequent detention. Defence Command Denmark prepared reports on 7 and 8   December 2004 on the alleged violations. According to the report of 8   December 2004 it had not been possible to get information about the detained persons from Iraqi authorities as Iraqi Security Forces maintained that this is an internal Iraqi matter. Moreover, at a meeting with the soldiers, the then Battalion Commander encouraged his soldiers to come forward if they had witnessed Iraqi security forces subjecting civilians to ill-treatment during the Operation. No soldiers came forward with any such information. On 8   December 2004, the then Battalion Commander held a meeting with, inter alia , the commanders of the Iraqi special police force and two Iraqi battalions, who informed him that they were observing Iraqi law. The INvestigations after Operation Green Desert 15 .     On 9 December 2010 the Ministry of Defence asked the Danish Military Prosecution Service ( Forsvarets Auditørkorps ) (hereinafter “the MPS”) to investigate allegations by a Danish television channel that Danish forces had witnessed the ill-treatment of one or more detained persons during the Operation. 16 .     In its investigation report of 28 February 2011 the MPS concluded that the Danish battalion had received no formal reports of the alleged incidents, that it was unlikely that Danish forces had conducted body searches or rectal searches and that there was no presumption that any such searches would independently have constituted criminal offences. 17 .     In October 2012 the MPS initiated a new investigation following the publication of video material which was alleged to be evidence of the incident during the Operation on which the first investigation had been based. Forty-eight persons were interviewed as part of the investigation. 18 .     On 13 January 2014, the investigation was discontinued as all avenues appeared to have been exhausted and it could not reasonably be inferred that a criminal offence liable to prosecution by the MPS had been committed. 19 .     On the basis of a series of articles in a Danish newspaper, the MPS decided in July 2015 to begin another investigation into the conduct of Danish soldiers deployed in Iraq. The issue was whether in handling and recording information about Iraqi prisoners the Danish soldiers had complied with international conventions and obligations as well as domestic directives. The remit of the investigation included assessing whether there should be a criminal investigation. 20 .     On 22 August 2016, the MPS decided to discontinue the investigation as it did not appear that any criminal offences had been committed. The first SET of proceedings (2011-2014) 21 .     In the period between September 2011 and December 2012, the applicants brought five separate actions against the Ministry of Defence in the Copenhagen City Court ( Københavns Byret ). They claimed, inter alia , compensation for injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect caused by alleged offensive and unlawful treatment on 25 November 2004, when they were detained by Danish forces in Iraq and surrendered to the Iraqi police, in whose custody they were allegedly subjected to torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment. 22 .     The cases were referred to the Eastern High Court ( Østre Landsret ) (hereinafter “the High Court”) between 25 October 2011 and 31   January 2013. The cases were later joined by the High Court. On 23   December 2013, the High Court dismissed the proceedings because the applicants and their counsel had failed to attend a preliminary hearing on 20 December 2013. 23.     On 11 April 2014, with leave from the Appeals Permission Board ( Procesbevillingsnævnet ), the applicants appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court. 24 .     On 24 October 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the decision, stating that it appeared clearly from the High Court summons for the court hearing that the High Court could dismiss the proceedings if the parties failed to appear, and that it was clear from the communications between counsel and the High Court prior to the preliminary hearing that counsel was still representing the applicants. Counsel had had no lawful excuse for failing to appear and had not made an innocent mistake but had made a deliberate choice. The second SET of proceedings (2014-2022) 25 .     On 24 October 2014, the applicants brought a new action against the Ministry of Defence in the Copenhagen City Court, claiming compensation for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect. The High Court 26.     On 16 December 2014 the case was referred to the High Court, which decided on 9   November 2015 that the issue of whether the applicants’ claim for compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect was time-barred or should be tried separately. The limitation issue was heard by the High Court on 14, 15, 17 and 22 June 2016. 27.     On 22 August 2016 the High Court delivered its decision that the period of limitation had not expired in respect of the applicants’ claim for compensation for the injury to their dignity, feelings or self-respect suffered when they were detained in November 2004. The decision was not appealed against. 28.     On 6 September 2016 the High Court resumed the pre-trial proceedings in order to examine the issue of compensation for injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect. In addition to the comprehensive case summaries submitted by both parties for the trial hearing in June 2016, the applicants filed a total of 40 pleadings in the pre-trial proceedings. The Ministry of Defence filed 25 pleadings. During the pre-trial proceedings, the High   Court considered a number of procedural issues and applications, including on the use of medical certificates, the production of evidence, the examination of witnesses, the examination of parties via video link, scheduling of the trial, the withdrawal of the applicants’ counsel, free legal aid and the impartiality of judges. 29 .     On 15 June 2018, in a judgment which ran to 818 pages, the High Court found partly in favour of eighteen of the plaintiffs (that is, seventeen of the applicants, namely nos. 1-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16-20 in the table attached to the present judgment) and awarded each of them 30,000 Danish kroner (equivalent to approximately 4,000 euros). The High Court found against five of the plaintiffs (including four of the applicants, that is, nos. 6, 11, 15 and 21 in the table attached to the present judgment) because they had failed to substantiate having been subjected to torture or other inhuman treatment while in Iraqi custody. 30.     Based on the evidence produced, the High Court found that the Danish forces had neither detained, transported, surrendered, screened or ill-treated the applicants, nor had they witnessed any ill ‑ treatment of the applicants that would give rise to liability to pay compensation. The High Court further found that the operation had been led by the Iraqi Government; that the role of the Danish forces had been limited to forming an outer perimeter around Basra in order to prevent escape and that they had complied with this mandate; and that British forces had been responsible for the arrest and detention of the plaintiffs, either at a military base run by the British forces or by transporting the prisoners to a prison in Basra controlled by the Iraqi military or police. The High Court found no basis for criticising the planning and execution of the military operation. 31.     Nevertheless, the High Court found that the said seventeen applicants had been subjected to inhuman treatment either during their detention at or during their transfer to the police station of Al Jameat, which was controlled by the Iraqi Government, and that the Danish forces should have known that there was a general risk that people there might be subjected to inhuman treatment. In that respect, the High Court referred to section 18 of CPA Order No.   17 of 27 June 2004 on the treatment of civilian claims for compensation raised against the coalition forces. It held that this gave it jurisdiction, since it included a provision on governing law and jurisdiction which enabled the applicants to bring their claim before the Danish authorities under Danish law. The High Court further found that that provision would not serve its purpose if the right to compensation were subject to the condition that the incidents had occurred within Danish jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. 32.     In so far as relevant to the applicants’ complaints, the High Court’s findings were as set out below. 33 .     Regarding the applicants’ claim that the Danish forces had command or control over the Iraqi security forces, the High Court found that the Danish soldiers and military police (hereinafter “MP”) had merely monitored and mentored the Iraqis in accordance with the Danish mandate in Iraq and the operation directive. Its finding was as follows: “ 6.2.10 Events during Operation Green Desert on 25 November 2004 6.2.10.1 Initial observations on the evidence A number of [applicants] have stated that they were detained during Operation Green Desert at the target areas Cyan 1 and Cyan 4, Danish soldiers detained them or assisted in their detention, beat them while they were detained or witnessed beatings by the Iraqi security forces and later took part in or witnessed offensive body-searches of an intimate nature at the Shaiba Log Base. On essential points, the statements made by [the applicants] on this subject conflict with the extensive and credible evidence on the planning of the operation and the order given, which is described above, and the actual implementation of the operation, which is described below. The High Court finds that the basis for the command of the Operation laid down in detail the tasks to be performed by the Danish soldiers, including the MPs. It appears from the details above on the findings of fact made on the basis of the evidence that those tasks involved neither the Danish soldiers making arrests nor their taking part in the screening of detainees at the Shaiba Log Base. A very considerable number of soldiers have given evidence to the High Court about the Operation. They have described in detail the tasks performed to form an outer perimeter, which meant that the soldiers had to stay in their places relative to one another to secure the target areas. The six MPs who gave evidence before the High Court have also dismissed [the applicants’] statements and provided further details about their participation in the ‘search and arrest’ tasks being carried out at Cyan 1 and Cyan 4. Moreover, the soldiers and MPs have provided details about the performance of the tasks involved in dealing with detainees. None of them has corroborated [the applicants’] statements and, when asked directly, a significant share of those military witnesses have dismissed [the applicant’s] statements. In addition, [the applicant’s] statements about the course of events up until the conclusion of screenings at the Shaiba Log Base are inconsistent on essential points with the statements reproduced in their ‘medical reports’ prepared for their medical examinations in 2011, 2012 and 2014, in which the events described revolved primarily around British soldiers. In the cases of [applicants nos. 1 and 9 in the table attached to the present judgment], that also applies to the information on the claim form filed against the British Ministry of Defence at the end of 2011. Finally, the statements provided by [some of the applicants] are the result of a process in which [applicant no. 6], who has received payments from one of [the applicants’] two lawyers, has to a great extent handled the coordination of these applications and so on, which may have contributed to distorted and incorrect memories within the group of [applicants], including as a result of the fact that several of [the applicants] have been shown the video recording from Cyan 4. The High Court’s concern in this respect is reinforced by the statement given by [applicant no. 6] to the British newspaper The Sun and to the High Court that he has received considerable sums and has encouraged others to make exaggerated and false accusations against British soldiers in a large number of cases against the British Ministry of Defence. It is further observed in this respect that, on the basis of the evidence given by [the applicants], the High Court finds that many, and possibly all, of [the applicants] have brought cases against the British Ministry of Defence claiming compensation following Operation Green Desert and that multiple [applicants] have refused to provide further details about it. Against that background, no or very little evidential weight is given to the evidence of [the applicants] about events during Operation Green Desert and until the conclusion of the screening at the Shaiba Log Base.” ... “6.2.10.5 Common [finding] on events at Cyan 1 and 4 For both target areas, Cyan 1 and 4, there is - despite the statements of [the applicants] – no basis for concluding that the Danish forces had command or control over the Iraqi security forces, only that the Danish soldiers and MP merely monitored and mentored the Iraqis in accordance with the Danish mandate in Iraq and the operation directive”. ... “6.3.2 Liability for the treatment of [the applicants] by Iraqi forces during the Operation It has not been proved who was headbutted at Cyan 1 or on whom “blows” were inflicted as they entered the white minivan at Cyan 4, and the High Court finds that there is no basis to find the Ministry of Defence responsible for that. The High Court finds with reference to the remarks above, see paragraph 6.2.10 on the events of Operation Green Desert, that it has not been proved that the Danish soldiers witnessed or overheard assaults or violations of the Plaintiffs during the operation. The Ministry of Defence therefore does not bear responsibility for the treatment of [the applicants] by the Iraqi security forces.” 34 .     Video footage of three incidents was presented and examined in the High Court proceedings, and numerous witnesses gave evidence. The High Court stated: “6.2.10.4 The course of events at Cyan 4 Some of the course of events at Cyan 4 is documented in the video footage that the acting commander of the intelligence section [witness 21] recorded. The video footage includes three incidents, which have been brought up during the presentation of evidence. First, shortly after the operation began, a detained Iraqi is shown being led to a waiting minivan by the Iraqi security forces. The detained man is bent forward while being led, possibly with something covering his head and seemingly with something hard gripping his neck. Two Danish MPs, who took part in operations at Cyan 4, a military police commanding officer [witness 54] and [witness 55], have given evidence that in Denmark you would handcuff an arrested person and lead him by the arms. [Witness 54] has further given evidence that if you do not have handcuffs, you would use an arm grip. According to the evidence of [witness 54], the method used in this case is, however, not unusual around the world. Later (at 19:12) in the video footage, which is dark and unclear, [during the second incident] a person from the Iraqi security forces is seen outside the takia, first apparently kicking a detained Iraqi on his behind or stepping on him and afterwards stepping on him again. The recording was made from a distance, and it is uncertain what preceded those events. The Danish soldier [witness 53] who as he recalled was the one closest to them saw the incident itself. He remembered that British soldiers who were next to the detained Iraqi had intervened, but he did not see what gave rise to this. He had perceived it to be the pacification of a detainee, and did not consider that unnecessary force had been used. The other Danish soldiers close to the incident who gave evidence before the High Court had no memory of having seen the incident. On the video footage, a platoon commander [witness 49] is also seen apparently looking towards the wall where the detainees had been put and where the incident took place, but apparently does not react to what is happening. As stated above, the video was taken by [witness 21], and it would have been natural if he – given that he has explained that he was supporting the camera on his shoulder – had himself also looked in the direction of the wall and the detainees. Both have given evidence that they did not take any notice of the incident. The video of that incident has also been shown to several of the military witnesses for their assessment of the events. The third incident is a few minutes later in which you hear the commander of the reconnaissance squadron [witness 47] saying: “have you seen, they are really getting some blows” (“ har du set, de får bare nogle hug ”). It is not apparent from the video footage who [witness 47] is talking to or what he is referring to, but the witness has given evidence that he was talking to [witness 21] and that he was talking about the Iraqis being beaten up while they were being put into a vehicle. The witness elaborated on his remark, saying that he had been referring to the handling of detainees while they were being put into the waiting bus, and that it was more a manner of speaking than a description of actual facts. The High Court finds that the first two incidents are not relevant to this case. In respect of the first incident concerning an Iraqi detainee who was led by a hand grip on his neck, the High Court finds – on the basis of the video footage and the MPs evidence on the issue – that the incident – considering the circumstances – does not show an unnecessary use of force. The same applies to the second incident, in front of the takia, where there is also uncertainty about what is seen on the video footage and what preceded that. Although the third incident is not supported by video footage, the High Court finds – based on what was said by [witness 47] “have you seen, they are really getting some blows” – that it must be concluded that the Iraqi security forces handled at least some of the Iraqi detainees heavy-handedly when they were being led into the Iraqi minivan, and that conclusion is also supported by the evidence of [witness 18]. The way his evidence was presented did not make it clear which detained Iraqis [witness 47] was talking about.” 35 .     Regarding the applicants’ claim that video footage from another camera could have brought forward substantial new evidence, the High Court stated: 6.2.10.4 The course of events at Cyan 4 ... “In [witness 21’s] video-recording one more operating video camera is seen, which appears to be carried by a Danish soldier. The way the evidence was presented to the High Court did not clarify who carried that camera. The video recorded by the soldier was unsuccessfully sought from the archives of the Danish Defence Forces, and so it has not been shown in these proceedings. The High Court has not attributed any significance to that issue in its assessment of the case, as no other circumstances have been raised that would have changed the court’s view of the evidence or would have given any reason to take it that such video footage could have brought forward any substantial new evidence.” The High Court also addressed this issue under the heading “6.5. The applicants’ first claim under Article 6 of the Convention” (see paragraph   40 below). 36 .     More than 50 military witnesses gave evidence in the High Court about the Operation and the role of the Danish forces. This included the Chief of Defence, J.H., (pages 399 to 405 of the High Court judgment); Battalion Commander J.D. (pages 425 to 445); and Tactical Operation Center (TOC) Officer A.S. (pages 467 to 470). A.S. had been in the TOC during the Operation. He was questioned about, among other things, a statement that he had given on 12   August 2013 to the MPS about the use of cameras and the transport of the arrested Iraqis to the Shaiba Log Base. 37 .     A Post Operation Report of 29 November 2004, signed by VK, was filed during the proceedings. It contained a passage stating, “Final preparations ... Due to last minute changes DANBN was forced to become involved in the search and arrest phase itself”. VK gave evidence during the proceedings (pages 524 to 53 of the High Court judgment). He explained that, among other things, the last-minute change referred to the fact that “the battalion had been allocated British search teams and scene of crime officers, who had to enter the target areas. The Iraqis were cross about that because they felt that the Danish did not trust them to do it properly”. 38 .     During the proceedings in the High Court it came to light that the applicants had filed similar claims against the British Ministry of Defence and that in 2018 applicant no. 6 had given an interview to the Sun newspaper about cases brought by Iraqis against the British Ministry of Defence. Extracts from a video-recording of the interview were shown during the High Court proceedings. Moreover, in an article in the Daily Mail newspaper of 14   February 2018 that was put in evidence in the High Court, his statements were reproduced. They included the following: “It was a racket, all of it”: Iraqi refugee admits faking hundreds of compensation claims against British troops – and was paid £1.6 m in commission by shamed law firm for it • Basim Al-Sadoon [cover name for applicant no. 6], 37, said his office aimed at winning payouts from the [Ministry of Defence] • He ran office in Basra, Iraq where he handled accusations against British Army • They exaggerated claims, produced bogus papers and falsely accused soldiers ... An Iraqi refugee has admitted arranging hundreds of fake abuse claims against British soldiers in Iraq. Basim Al-Sadoon, 37, said the racket he was involved in was aimed at winning payouts from the Ministry of Defence. Mr Al-Sadoon ran an office in Basra where he handled accusations made by locals against the British Army. He said clients exaggerated claims, produced bogus paperwork and falsely accused soldiers of wrongdoing. “It was a racket, all of it” he told The Sun. “All these people cared about was money. It was like a claims factory, and it didn’t matter if the claims were true of false.” Mr Al-Sadoon was hired by UK-based Iraqi Y. Mr Y, 59, was paid £1.6 million in 2009 for passing clients to UK law firm .... He also received £500 from disgraced lawyer ... for every claimant he secured. Mr Al-Sadoon said he helped to find more than 300 clients. He said: “It was all about money – people exaggerating sometimes what they see”. He blamed the British legal system “for making it so easy. [the UK law firm] denied wrongdoing and said the firm had no knowledge of the scheme and pledged to take action if claims were found to be without merit. Mr Al-Sadoon said many clients obtained forged documents from Iraqi officials. He said: “People were bringing papers randomly – there were no specific standards to accept cases. You can collect some case elements. “After that you start your story. If you have an old spot on your body from old torture, you can use it as evidence against [the Ministry of Defence]. “If you get a slap in the face, you can say it was stick or a gun. If you have been jailed for 24 hours, you’ll say they put me in a very bad place – I have psychiatric problems. In Iraq it’s easy to get doctors’ papers backing claims. “Doctors for cash can give you many reports. Claims were exaggerated to make money. Mr Al-Sadoon, who lives in Denmark, lodged his own fake claim against British soldiers through [the UK law firm]. He said he would now withdraw the case.” 39.     During the proceedings in the High Court applicant no. 6 gave evidence about this issue and confirmed the statements that had been reproduced in the newspaper in 2018 (the High Court judgment pages 298 to 306). 40 .     In the High Court the applicants also relied on Article 6 of the Convention. Their complaints were dismissed for the following reasons: “6.5 [The applicants’] first claim under Article 6 of the Convention [The applicants’] first claim concerning alleged violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights predominantly relates to the case management of the High Court proceedings. The Ministry of Defence is not the proper defendant in claims for compensation or damages brought on that basis. Moreover, [the applicants] have failed to substantiate their claim that the Ministry of Defence violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by its conduct of those proceedings and its contribution to bringing out the facts of the case. The High Court finds it appropriate to make the following elaborative observations in that respect: The actions of the Ministry of Defence did not result in a failure to process the case within a reasonable time. Regardless of the nature of a case, the procedural requests made by the Ministry of Defence would be within the scope of the framework for sufficiently attending to the interests of a party. It is also observed in this respect that the dismissal of the original proceedings by order of the High Court on 23 December 2013 as upheld by order of the Supreme Court on 24 October 2014 was solely attributable to the actions of [the applicants].As to the Ministry of Defence’s redaction of information in the documentary evidence with reference to national security, relations with foreign states and consideration for the life or health of third parties, the High Court finds that it is not contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to safeguard those interests during court proceedings, the statutory basis of which is section 298(1), read with section 169(1) and section 169(2), of the Administration of Justice Act. The High Court observes in that respect that that redaction did not mean that [the applicants] were unable to set out their claims appropriately, given that they were able to carry out extensive examination and cross-examinations of the military witnesses. As for the information previously stated in one of the Ministry of Defence’s pleadings, namely that no images or sound were recorded during Operation Green Desert, it is observed that the High Court found on the basis of the evidence it heard, see paragraph 6.2.9.2. above, that [J.D.] had not ordered the use of video cameras and that he was not shown the recording from Cyan 4 after Operation Green Desert, see paragraph 6.2.11. It is further observed that according to the information on file, including the evidence given by [L.M.] ..., who was Deputy Head of the Management Secretariat of the Army Operational Command in 2012, a search of the archives of the Danish Defence Forces for video recordings from the Operation had revealed no such recordings. On that basis, the High Court does not find it proved that the Ministry of Defence maliciously provided false information on the subject. As to the information provided by the Ministry of Defence during the proceedings that Frago 284, Amendment 1, is the most recent written order from [J.D.] concerning Operation Green Desert, the court refers to the observations on the findings of fact based on the evidence concerning the basis for command. The High Court therefore finds that the information provided by the Ministry of Defence was not misleading. On that basis, the High Court dismisses in their entirety the elements of [the applicants’] first claim that concern violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 6.6 [The applicants’] second claim [The applicants’] second claim concerns a [request] that the Ministry of Defence be ordered to initiate a new investigation, after the deliberations in the present case, of the circumstances that were subject of the High Court’s examination of the applicant’s first claim relating to torture and other inhuman treatment [committed] in Iraq. [The applicants’] first claim was considered under the civil procedure rules giving the parties a right to seek disclosure of evidence in the form of, inter alia , documentary evidence, to seek expert evidence from the Medico-Legal Council, and to examine the parties and witnesses. All [the applicants] except applicant nos. 1 and 15, who waived their right to free legal assistance during the proceedings, have been granted free legal assistance for the original compensation claim. The proceedings lasted fifty-two court days, and seventy-six persons, including the vast majority of [the applicants], a considerable number of military witnesses as well as the psychologist and three of the four medical doctors who examined [the applicants], gave evidence. Moreover, questions have been put to the Medico-Legal Council. Against that background, and taking into account the High Court’s findings of fact, a new investigation initiated by the Ministry of Defence is not likely to bring out any new information of essential importance to the determination of what happened during and after Operation Green Desert almost 14 years ago or whether the Danish authorities bore any responsibility for those events. The High Court therefore finds that [the applicants] do not have the necessary legal interest in the adjudication of their second claim, and the claim is therefore dismissed.” 41.     In so far as relevant to the applicants’ complaints, it appears from court records that various procedural issues were dealt with by the High Court, including the following. 42 .     The applicants were granted free legal aid for their compensation claim, including coverage of travel expenses limited to five days to give evidence in the domestic courts. The High Court specified that the applicants had the right to be present during the entire trial but that expenses in that connection would not be covered by free legal aid. The decision on the scope of the free legal aid was discussed several times, but upheld by the High Court. 43 .     The oral proceedings before the High Court commenced on 7   November 2017 and ended on 8 May 2018. During this period, fifty-two court days were scheduled for the proceedings, thirty-two of which were reserved for the applicants’ opening statement, the evidence of the parties and witnesses, and the applicants’ closing s