Al-Adsani v United Kingdom

Ratio Decidendi

Facts

The applicant, a dual British/Kuwaiti national, alleged that after sex tapes implicating a relative of the Kuwaiti Emir came into his possession and circulated, he was abducted at gunpoint, falsely imprisoned and beaten, and later held under water and set alight with petrol-soaked mattresses, suffering burns to 25% of his body. He brought civil proceedings in England against the individual alleged perpetrator and the State of Kuwait; his claim against the State was struck out on the ground of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, a ruling upheld by the Court of Appeal in 1996.

Judgment Summary

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber, held by nine votes to eight that the grant of state immunity to Kuwait did not violate the applicant's right of access to a court under Article 6(1). The majority found that restrictions reflecting generally recognised rules of international law on state immunity pursue the legitimate aim of promoting comity between states and are not disproportionate, and that there was insufficient acceptance in international law of an exception to civil state immunity for acts of torture, notwithstanding the jus cogens status of the prohibition on torture itself.

Key Quotes

Subsequent Treatment