The ICJ held that there is no conflict between jus cogens rules and the principle of sovereign immunity. The latter is a procedural rule which does not extinguish the peremptory nature of the violated entitlement (ie the fact that immunity from civil suit persists does not mean that the underlying offences are extinguished). States enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of other nations even in respect of serious offences. Moreover, immunity from enforcement against their assets is much broader because even if a State waives its immunity from jurisdiction it does not also waive its immunity from enforcement. Italian courts were wrong to enforce Greek judgments against German assets in Italy.

Several British nationals working in Saudi Arabia were tortured by the Saudi police, which believed they were involved in a bombing incident. The plaintiff, Jones, undertook legal action in the UK against both the Saudi Interior Ministry and the officer responsible for his torture. The action was civil in nature and no criminal prosecution was pursued.

The judgment by the House of Lords has been criticized as being very conservative. It held that, as regrettable as the conduct of the Saudi agents was, both the State and its agents continued to enjoy immunity in the UK, particularly since said conduct did not trigger any of the exceptions to immunity found in the UK’s Sovereign Immunities Act. In line with the Al-Adsani judgment, the conferral of immunity under international law was found not to be disproportionate with the denial of the right to legal remedies which the accused would have otherwise enjoyed.