Four men accused of taking part in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 won their battle against extradition yesterday when the High Court ruled that they could not receive a fair trial in their country.

In a landmark decision, two judges ruled that there was “a real risk they would suffer a flagrant denial of justice” if the men were returned to Rwanda to face trial.

The decision makes legal history: it is the first time that an English court has blocked an extradition request from a foreign government on the grounds that it would violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right to a fair trial.

Vincent Bajinya, who had changed his name to Vincent Brown, Celestin Ugirashebuja, Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Charles Munyaneza were arrested in London, Essex, Manchester and Bedford.

They were held under a memorandum of understanding in which Rwanda waived the death penalty.

All four have been accused of killing, or conspiring with or aiding and abetting others, to kill members of the Tutsi ethnic group “with the intent to destroy in whole, or in part, that group”.

Yesterday, however, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Sullivan, sitting at the High Court in London, allowed their appeals against the orders by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, that they should be extradited.

The judges said that there was evidence that defence witnesses would be afraid to give evidence in any trial held in Rwanda.

The judges declared: “We conclude that if [the four] were extradited to face trial in the High Court of Rwanda, the appellants would suffer a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice by reason of their likely inability to adduce the evidence of supporting witnesses.”

The judges also ruled that there was a real risk “of executive [government] interference with the judiciary” in Rwanda.

They refused the Rwandan Government, which was represented by the Crown Prosecution Service, permission to appeal to the House of Lords against their ruling.

The judges ordered that the four men, who have been in custody since December 2006, would have to be set free.

Lord Justice Laws described it as “an important and anxious case”.

Lord Gifford, QC, who had appeared for Mr Munyaneza, said the case had revealed “an emerging international consensus that there is no fair trial in Rwanda”.

Later Frank Brazell, the solicitor representing Vincent Brown, welcomed the judges’ ruling, saying: “We are hugely pleased with the result.

“The central issue they have found is that there is clearly no prospect of these men having a fair trial in Rwanda.

“The primary reason is the likelihood of political interference affecting the approach taken by the judges of Rwanda to a case of this kind.

“Obviously this is linked to interference with witnesses and the inability to call defence witnesses because of government or judicial interference.”

He said that Mr Brown, a British citizen and a doctor who had worked for a charity training nurses, would be released from custody today.

He has been held since December 28, 2006.

Asked if Mr Brown would now seek compensation, Mr Brazell said that the issue would be discussed in due course.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle