Leading article: Our soldiers must be bound by clear laws

Yesterday's ruling by the law lords that prisoners of British forces abroad enjoy the protection of the UK Human Rights Act, might sound like an obscure piece of legal hair-splitting, yet it is a decision with profound implications not only for our armed forces but also Britain's international reputation. To understand why it is necessary to examine the story of Baha Mousa.

Mr Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel reception clerk in Basra, was taken into custody by British troops in September 2003. Over the next 36 hours he was tortured and, in the end, beaten to death.

Despite a lengthy court martial, no one has yet been held directly accountable by the Army for his death. But in the course of that trial we came to understand a good deal about the military environment in which this killing took place.

In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, there was confusion among British officers about the laws governing the treatment of prisoners. No one seemed to know whether detainees could be hooded, placed in stress positions or deprived of sleep. At surprisingly senior levels, there was a difference of opinion about whether British troops were bound by the Human Rights Act or the Geneva Conventions. This proved deadly.

Regular troops got mixed signals from their superiors. Mr Mousa seems to have paid the price.

Now the law lords' ruling has cut though the confusion. Detainees of British forces anywhere in the world have the same rights as British citizens. They cannot be beaten; they cannot be tortured. And if someone dies in custody, the family have the same right as any British family to a thorough investigation into how the death occurred. In short, they have a right to justice.

This ruling is, of course, a vindication for Mr Mousa's family, who have bravely pursued this case through the UK courts. They now have a good chance of being able to force an independent inquiry into how exactly he was killed. But this ruling is also a vindication of British justice. It shows that we do not discriminate over who is entitled to safe and respectful treatment on the basis of their nationality. It also diminishes the likelihood that Britain could ever establish legal "black holes" abroad in which to hold prisoners. There can be no British Guantanamo.

Many in the Army will instinctively deplore this as a restriction on soldiers' freedom of action. In fact, the ruling is in their interests too.

It will now, for instance, be much harder for the senior ranks, having turned a blind eye to abusive treatment, to make low-ranking soldiers into scapegoats when something goes wrong. The ruling establishes that responsibility rests with senior officers to ensure that their troops know the law.

Moreover, it is hardly in the interests of soldiers to be able to abuse prisoners, even those they believe pose a dangerous threat. An act of brutality, such as the killing of Mr Mousa, is one of the reasons Basra has become such a hostile place for British troops. This ruling will help to save soldiers from their own worst instincts.

Earlier this year, in the wake of the acquittal of the soldiers who had been accused of abusing Mr Mousa, the Conservative defence spokesman, Liam Fox, questioned whether the charges should ever have been brought. One senior officer argued that our soldiers need to be able to operate without being "inhibited by the fear of overzealous and remote officialdom".

These interventions miss the point. Our soldiers need to be accountable and they need to be governed by clear laws. Thanks to yesterday's ruling, those laws are a good deal clearer.

Interesting? Click here to explore further