SOURCE: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/june/commission-welcomes-supreme-court-ruling-on-armed-forces-and-human-rights-protection/ 19 June 2013 In a landmark judgment today (Wednesday 19 June) the Supreme Court ruled that British soldiers killed while serving in Iraq were still under UK jurisdiction and so were entitled to human rights protection to the extent that is reasonable and does not interfere with the demands of active service. Serving in the armed forces inevitably involves risks and dangers which our servicemen and women take on willingly. This ruling will extend the same protections of their rights to members of the armed forces on operations abroad which already exist when they are in the UK or an overseas base. So for example, if their equipment is proven to be faulty then they should be protected from that at home and abroad. Simply being in active service should not mean our armed forces lose all protections of their rights. It will be for the courts to determine whether there were human rights violations or negligence in particular cases. However, the commission believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling provides a reasonable balance between the operational needs of our armed forces and the rights of those serving in our armed forces to be protected in the same way as we expect them to protect the rights of civilians abroad. The Court unanimously accepted the Equality and Human Rights Commission submission that members of the armed forces are under the authority and control of the state and should be subject to the obligations and benefits imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights wherever they are in the world. The case at the Supreme Court involved the mother of Private Phillip Hewett and other families against the MOD. Their relatives were all soldiers killed in action and are seeking to bring claims of negligence and breaches of the duty to protect life against the Ministry. However, their ability to do this rested on the Court finding that Article 1 of the European Convention, which provides that rights and freedoms should be available to all within the State’s jurisdiction, reasonably applied to the men whilst in Iraq. The Court found that it did meaning that their cases can proceed to trial. Lord Hope, Court Deputy President said: “The extra-territorial obligation of the contracting state is to ensure the observance of the rights and freedoms that are relevant to the individual who is under its agents’ authority and control, and it does not need to be more than that.” This case is one of several the Commission has intervened in as an expert third party to ensure human rights protections cover UK armed forces abroad to the extent that it is reasonable to impose such a duty on the state. The Commission made no submissions in relation to the families’ other claims. Commission deputy director, legal, Wendy Hewitt said: The Supreme Court’s ruling means that human rights protections have been levelled up so that we are no longer expecting our armed forces to fully respect the rights of civilians abroad while not being properly protected themselves. “From this basic principle it is now up to the courts to decide how this should apply in practice. “This is not about interfering with the way military decisions are made in the field but how everyone serving in the armed forces is given the protections they deserve.”