Judge refuses Iraq war 'torture death' probe

An Iraqi who claims his brother was arrested by British forces and tortured and killed during the Iraq war has failed in a High Court bid to win an inquiry into the death under human rights laws.

Kahdhim Resaan Hassan claims his brother, Tarek, was detained at a coalition military camp in Iraq where he was tortured and executed, before his body was dumped 400 miles away.

Lawyers for Mr Hassan argued in court that his family was entitled to an inquiry under the European Convention on Human Rights.

But today Mr Justice Walker, sitting in London, upheld Ministry of Defence arguments that the case was "outside the geographical scope" of the European convention.

Mr Hassan, 38, from Basra in southern Iraq, claims that he was the intended target of the raid by British troops in April 2003 during the height of the war in Iraq, but that his brother, who was 22 at the time, was arrested in a case of mistaken identity.

The judge said it was common ground that during the main hostilities phase of military action, Tarek was captured by UK forces and taken to Camp Bucca.

"However, the claimant, who is Tarek's brother, has described how in early September 2003 his family learnt that Tarek's dead body had been found in the countryside.

"The claimant and another brother went to the morgue and viewed the body. Tarek's hands were tied with plastic wire.

"His body had many bruises. In his chest there were eight bullet wounds, along with Kalashnikov bullets."

The judge said lawyers for Mr Hassan, who was legally-aided, had acknowledged that other legal remedies not based on the human rights convention might be available to Tarek's family.

However, given the present state of the evidence, it was only under the convention that they could seek the remedies they wanted.

The judge said Iraq was not a signatory to the convention, and the Defence Secretary argued he was only responsible for events within the UK's territorial jurisdiction.

Mr Hassan said his brother had been guarded at Camp Bucca by US forces acting as agents for the UK.

Rejecting his application for a judicial review of the MoD's refusal to hold an inquiry, the judge ruled: "Even if while Tarek was at Camp Bucca the UK had there an Officer in Command, a Commanding Officer and a senior team, that would not persuade me that Camp Bucca was a UK military establishment."

Under a "memorandum of understanding" it remained a US military establishment "and the presence or absence of UK personnel did not affect this".

The "defining feature" of the case was that the UK was not able to impose its own law at the camp, and thus insist on compliance with the European convention, said the judge.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in