High Court Rules on Human Rights Challenges to Syrian Sanctions Regulations

Introduction

In the High Court of Justice’s King’s Bench Division Administrative Court, a significant case, Dr Imad Nassani & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, was adjudicated. The judgment, delivered by FORDHAM J, revolves around the judicial review proceedings pertaining to the Syria (Sanctions) (Exit) Regulations 2019, examined under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), and international law.

Key Facts

The claimants contend that the 2019 Regulations, which are autonomous sanctions not imposed by the United Nations, contravene various international law principles, including obligations under international human rights law and humanitarian law. The claim specifically challenges the regulations’ impact on the civilian population in Syria and invokes the rights related to transferring money (remittances) and sending correspondence as protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Secretary of State maintains the regulations are compliant with statutory purposes and cannot be viewed as breaching the prescribed international standards. The claim, however, addresses both broader challenges to the sanctions as a whole and particular grievances pertaining to alleged ECHR rights violations.

Legal Principles

Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) Compatibility

The Secretary of State acknowledges that the 2019 Regulations must respect HRA duties. The review scrutinized this compatibility, which is a legal determination for the Court, pivotal to the case. The claimants’ arguments specifically invoke ECHR rights, and the Court had to consider whether the claimants’ activities, such as transferring money to family in Syria, are covered by Articles 8 and Article 1 Protocol 1 rights within UK jurisdiction.

Extra-Territorial Reach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

The claimants asserted that the ICCPR has extra-territorial applicability but the Court disagreed, highlighting that the ICCPR’s jurisdictional reach extends to acts performed by a State within its jurisdiction, not broadly to any state act with effects outside its territory, as demonstrated in The Wall Advisory Opinion.

Designated Purposes under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018

The purposes of the 2019 Regulations are set out in Regulation 4 and must meet the conditions of Section 1(2) of the 2018 Act. Claimants contested the Secretary of State’s evaluation of whether the Regulations are appropriate and can achieve the stated objectives. The Court found that the Minister’s evaluation judgment was not arguable and met statutory duty requirements.

General Prohibitions and Restrictions

The Court had to consider the Regulations concerning general prohibitions, like sectoral financial sanctions prohibiting correspondent banking relations, or targeted financial sanctions disallowing funds to designated persons. The Court had to interpret whether these general restrictions were justified and proportionate as a matter of law.

Outcomes

The Court granted permission for the judicial review on two narrow grounds: the inability to remit money to and receive remittance from family members in Syria, and to send correspondence. It found these to fall within the potential breach of Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 Protocol 1 regarding respect for private and family life and protection of property. Otherwise, the permission to apply for judicial review was refused, and general grounds not accepted.

Conclusion

The Court’s decision to permit the review on the grounds of transferring money and sending correspondence but not on broader sanctions issues underscores the necessity of a direct and specific link between the Regulations and the alleged rights violations for a claim to be tenable. The ruling reiterates the importance of statutory purpose alignment and a selective adjudicatory approach when assessing sanctions under existing human rights frameworks.

Moreover, the judgment confirms the incorporation of international law principles into domestic legal analysis, evidenced by the careful examination of the claimants’ arguments through the lens of the HRA and ICCPR. Lastly, the decision to transfer the arguable grounds to statutory review underlines the procedural flexibility available to address claims involving complex interactions between national regulations and international human rights obligations.