?
Почему французский суд не может присудить компенсацию за пытки в Гуантанамо
The article provides an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter — ECtHR) decision of 15 October 2024 in the case of Nizar Sassi v. France and Mourad Benchellali v. France, where the Court declared inadmissible the applicants' complaints concerning the refusal of French courts to examine their civil claims against US officials for torture and unlawful detention at Guantanamo Bay. The authors examine the ECtHR's reasoning on key legal issues related to jurisdictional immunities of states and situate this decision within the broader context of contemporary debates on the limits of state immunity in international law. The analysis focuses on three principal aspects. First, the article discusses the relationship between immunities from criminal and civil jurisdiction. The ECtHR affirmed that immunity applies equally in both contexts, notwithstanding doctrinal disputes about potential distinctions. Second, the article addresses whether acts of torture can be considered as conduct performed in an official capacity. The Court upheld the position of French courts, recognis ing that the actions of US officials at Guantanamo formed part of state policy and thus fell within the scope of functional immunity (ratione materiae). Third, the article explores the complex interplay between peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) and jurisdictional immunity. The authors emphasis e that the ECtHR, following its precedents (Al- Adsani v. the United Kingdom, Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom), maintained a conservative stance by refusing to recognis e exceptions to immunity even for gross human rights violations.