Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 143
July 2011
Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 55721/07
Judgment 7.7.2011 [GC]
Article 1
Jurisdiction of states
Territorial jurisdiction in relation to the alleged killing of Iraqi nationals by members of the British Armed Forces in Iraq
Article 2
Article 2-1
Effective investigation
Failure to hold fully independent and effective investigation into deaths of Iraqi nationals during occupation of southern Iraq by British Armed Forces: violation
Facts – On 20 March 2003 armed forces of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and their coalition partners entered Iraq with the aim of displacing the Ba’ath regime then in power. On 1 May 2003 major combat operations were declared to be complete and the United States and the United Kingdom became occupying powers. They created the Coalition Provisional Authority “to exercise powers of government temporarily”. These powers included the provision of security in Iraq. The security role assumed by the occupying powers was recognised by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 1483, adopted on 22 May 2003. The occupation came to an end on 28 June 2004, when full authority for governing Iraq passed to the Interim Iraqi Government and the Coalition Provisional Authority ceased to exist.
During the occupation, the United Kingdom had command of the military division – Multinational Division (South East) – which included the province of Al-Basra. From 1 May 2003 onwards the British forces in Al-Basra province took responsibility for maintaining security and supporting the civil administration. The applicants were close relatives of six Iraqi nationals who were killed in Basra 2003 during this period of occupation.
The first, second and fourth applicants’ relatives received fatal gunshot wounds when British soldiers opened fire allegedly believing themselves to be under attack or at immediate risk. The third applicant’s wife was killed after allegedly being caught in crossfire during a firefight between a British patrol and unknown gunmen. In each of these four cases, it was decided – in the first three instances by the soldiers’ commanding officers and, in the case of the fourth applicant, by the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (SIB) – that the incident fell within the British forces Rules of Engagement* and that no further investigation was required.
The fifth applicant’s son was beaten by British soldiers who suspected him of looting and was forced into a river, where he drowned. Although the SIB opened an investigation and four soldiers were tried at a court martial for manslaughter, they were acquitted when the key prosecution witness was unable to identify them.
The sixth applicant’s son, Baha Mousa, died of asphyxiation at a British military base, with multiple injuries on his body. The SIB was immediately called in to investigate. The sixth applicant brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Defence, which ended in July 2008 with a formal and public acknowledgement of liability and the payment of GBP 575,000 in compensation. The minister announced that there would be a public inquiry into Baha Mousa’s death.
In 2004 the Secretary of State for Defence decided not to conduct independent inquiries into the six deaths, and not to accept liability or pay compensation. The applicants sought judicial review of that decision. The case ultimately came before the House of Lords, which accepted that Baha Mousa’s case fell within the UK’s jurisdiction as the ill-treatment had occurred within a British military base. That case was therefore remitted to a first-instance court for reconsideration of the question whether there had been an adequate investigation into his death. As regards the other deaths, the House of Lords considered itself bound by the European Court’s decision in Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others ((dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, 12 December 2001) to find that the UK did not have jurisdiction.
Law – Article 1 (territorial jurisdiction): A Contracting State’s obl
