Saudi officials
had imprisoned four British men during 2001 who were subjected to torture and
male rape, according to their claims. I’ve read substantial evidence about one
of the men being incapable of committing the crime because of his injuries
during the bombing in Riyadh, Saudi’s capital. The four men claimed that they
signed admittance to the bombing because of the torture, yet the European Court
on Human Rights had ruled against it.
The judges
declared that the immunity of the Saudi state officials involved in the case does
not allow them to convict the officials. However the judgment, which expresses
that civil claims of torture committed on foreign soil UK courts do not have
jurisdiction.
The four men
only want claim for their torture, expressing physical and emotional pain they
received during their imprisonment in Saudi Arabia. However, the immunity
clause just makes it worse for people, who are underpowered in their legal
position, to have their own right to claim justice.
It is sad
that indeed, the judgment promotes the condemnation of torture in
interrogations, but the slow movement of actual justice to ensure its
effectiveness. This particular paradox, and the immunities that place certain
people of power above the law, shows the horrid reality of international
justice even here in the western hemisphere.
