Four British men who claim that they were tortured in Saudi Arabian prisons are to take Britain to the European Court of Human Rights after the law lords ruled they could not sue their alleged torturers.

The House of Lords allowed an appeal by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against a Court of Appeal decision in October 2004 allowing the men to sue for damages.

The Saudi Government, backed by the UK Government, had argued that its officials were protected by the 1978 State Immunity Act from proceedings brought in this country.

Sandy Mitchell, Les Walker and Bill Sampson were arrested after a series of terrorist bombings in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, and the eastern city of Khobar six years ago. They claim that they were tortured into admitting responsibility.

The fourth man, Ron Jones, was seized after being injured in a bomb blast outside a bookshop. His treatment by captors, which included being beaten on his hands and feet, being suspended by his arms, deprived of sleep and forcibly fed mind-altering drugs, has been independently confirmed.

All the men were released after an al-Qaeda attack in May 2003 by nine suicide bombers in Riyadh, which disproved official Saudi claims that the attacks had been the result of an alcohol turf war among Westerners.

April's hearing was the first time that the House of Lords had looked at the issue of whether a foreign country could claim state immunity over civil proceedings brought against its officials for damages for personal injuries caused by alleged torture.

The British Government backed the Saudi argument in favour of immunity for alleged foreign torturers, while the four men were backed by a variety of groups including Amnesty International.

Speaking outside the Lords after this morning's ruling, Les Walker said that he was "disgusted" with the way the British Government had acted. "It’s all down to money and oil and planes. Don’t upset the Saudis. That’s the British Goverment’s view," he said.

Another of the alleged torture victims, Bill Sampson, said he was not surprised at the verdict. "The Lords were having to make an adjudication based upon law that should have been changed years ago but for the hypocrisy of the Government - which is quite happy to maintain the state immunity law denying citizens the right to seek redress against states that torture them."

In his judgment Lord Bingham said that the the issue at the heart of the case was the relationship between two principles of international law. One was that a sovereign state will not assert its judicial authority over another; the second, and more recent, principle was one that condemned and criminalised the official practice of torture, required states to suppress the practice and provided for the trial and punishment of officials found guilty of it.

To establish their right to sue, the four claimants had to show that the grant of immunity to the Saudi defendants under the 1978 Act would be disproportionate and inconsistent with normal international law. This they had failed to do.

Another law lord, Lord Hoffmann, showed sympathy for the four men but said that international law was based upon the common consent of nations. "It is not for a national court to develop international law by unilaterally adopting a version of that law which, however desirable, forward-looking and reflective of values it may be, is simply not accepted by other states," he said.

Tamsin Allen, who represents Mr Mitchell, Mr Sampson and Mr Walker, said: "The House of Lords have chosen to support the rights of states, including those who torture, over the rights of torture victims.

"Our clients, who were all so severely tortured in a Saudi Arabian prison that they suffered damage to their hearts and permanent debilitating psychiatric damage, have been told that they are not entitled to bring compensation proceedings in the UK against the men who tortured them.

"This blanket ban is a violation of their right to a fair trial and they intend to take the UK to the European Court of Human Rights in the hope and expectation that they will find support there.

"They are gravely disappointed by the UK Government’s disgraceful decision to intervene in support of arguments put forward by the Saudi government in the House of Lords."

Jill Greenfield, a personal injury partner at the London law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse, described the ruling as "concerning".

"This has to be seen as a worrying precedent and I am sure that consideration is being given to further litigation in the European Court of Human Rights," she said. "The right to sue is a fundamental right incorporated into English law via the Human Rights Act. It seems unfair to deny those involved in this decision the most fundamental of rights."

Ron Jones, another of the four alleged victims, said: "We have come to the highest court in the land and we have not received justice. The case has been looked at from the point of view of the law and not of justice.

"It is now time for the British Government - which intervened to back the law of state immunity - to intervene on our behalf in order to get us some justice."