European Convention on Human Rights applied in Basrah, UK failed duties to Iraqi civilians

7 July 2011 by

Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber (Application no. 55721/07) – Read judgment / press release

Al-Jedda v. the UK (Application No. 27021/08)- Read judgment / press release

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that from 1 May 2003 to 28 June 2004 the UK had jurisdiction under Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of civilians killed during security operations carried out by UK soldiers in Basrah.

The court went on to find in Al-Skeini that there had been a failure to conduct an independent and effective investigation into the deaths of the relatives of five of the six applicants, in violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention. The court awarded 17,000 euros to five of the six applicants, in addition to 50,000 euros in costs jointly.

In Al-Jedda, the court found a violation of Article 5 (1) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention in relation to the internment of an Iraqi for more than three years (2004- 2007) in a detention centre in Basrah.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of these decisions, which establishes that elements of the European Convention on Human Rights applied not just in UK military bases but also the whole of South East Iraq. For more on the potential impact, see this EJIL:Talk! post. The court held at paragraph 149 of Al-Skeini:

Following the removal from power of the Ba’ath regime and until the accession of the Interim Government, the United Kingdom (together with the United States) assumed in Iraq the exercise of some of the public powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign government. In particular, the United Kingdom assumed authority and responsibility for the maintenance of security in South East Iraq.

So, in those “exceptional circumstances”

the Court considers that the United Kingdom, through its soldiers engaged in security operations in Basrah during the period in question, exercised authority and control over individuals killed in the course of such security operations, so as to establish a jurisdictional link between the deceased and the United Kingdom for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention.

The UK therefore had jurisdiction within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of all of the applicants. The next question was whether it had carried out an effective investigation into the deaths as is required under Article 2 of the European Convention.

The court ruled that the UK had failed in its duty in all but one case, that of Baha Mousa since there had been a public inquiry into his death. It made clear that

the fact that the United Kingdom was in occupation also entailed that, if any investigation into acts allegedly committed by British soldiers was to be effective, it was particularly important that the investigating authority was, and was seen to be, operationally independent of the military chain of command.

It was therefore apparent that

the investigations into the shooting of the first, second and third applicants’ relatives fell short of the requirements of Article 2, since the investigation process remained entirely within the military chain of command and was limited to taking statements from the soldiers involved. Moreover, the Government accept this conclusion.

As to the other applicants,

although there was an investigation by the Special Investigation Branch into the death of the fourth applicant’s brother and the fifth applicant’s son, the Court does not consider that this was sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article

As I said in my preview post last week, the 7 applicants in the case were killed, allegedly killed or detained by British forces in Iraq between 2003 and 2007. Both of the claims reached the House of Lords in the UK (now the Supreme Court), and in all but one case, which involved a death in a military detention centre, the court found that the Human Rights Act did not apply in Basra at the time, and therefore the UK military had no obligation to observe the requirements under the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular article 2 (right to life) and article 5 (right to liberty).

The background – Al-Skeini

The following summary is based on the court’s press release. In Al-Skeini, the applicants’ six close relatives were killed in Basra during the period (1 May 2003 to 28 June 2004) when the United Kingdom was an occupying power in Iraq. Three of the victims were shot dead or shot and fatally wounded by British soldiers. The third applicant’s wife was shot and fatally wounded during a firefight between a British patrol and a number of gunmen. The fifth applicant’s son was allegedly beaten and then forced into a river, where he drowned. The sixth applicant’s son, Baha Mousa, was seized by British troops whilst at work in a hotel in Basra and taken to a British military base where he was beaten and died of asphyxiation. Baha Mousa’s death has been the subject of a public inquiry, which is due to report on 8 September 2011.

In March 2004, the Secretary of State for defence decided not to conduct independent inquiries into or accept liability for the deaths of the applicants’ relatives or pay compensation. The applicants applied for judicial review.

On 13 June 2007 the majority of the House of Lords found that the United Kingdom did not have jurisdiction over the victims’ deaths except in relation to Baha Mousa, who was a detainee at a military base when he died.


Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda, travelled from London to Iraq in September 2004. He was arrested there by United States troops, accompanied by Iraqi national guards and British soldiers, on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist group involved in weapons smuggling and explosive attacks in Iraq. He was taken to a detention centre in Basra run by British forces. At each periodic review of his detention it was concluded that he remained a threat and that it was still necessary to intern him. He was released on 30 December 2007.

The applicant denied the allegations against him. No criminal charges were brought against him.

In June 2005 he brought a judicial review claim before the British courts, challenging the lawfulness of his continued detention and the refusal to return him to the United Kingdom. The courts held that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 and successive resolutions authorised British forces within the multi-national force to use internment “where necessary for imperative reasons of security in Iraq” and that such binding Security Council decisions superseded all other treaty commitments. Resolution 1546 therefore overrode Article 5 (right to liberty and security) in relation to the applicant’s detention in Basra. That decision was upheld by the House of Lords.

These are very important decisions indeed, and will probably be very controversial. Arguably, the task which soldiers have when “controlling” a foreign and sometimes hostile area is hard enough without having to worry about their duties under the European Convention. On the other hand, they already have duties under the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war, so the practical effect may not be as onerous as first assumed. We will of course cover the case in more detail in the coming days.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: