GLASGOW mother Rose Gentle today lost her battle for a public inquiry into the legality of sending British troops to war in Iraq.

Law lords rejected the last ditch attempt by Mrs Gentle, of Pollok, and Beverley Clarke of Stafford, Midlands. Their sons, Fusilier Gordon and Trooper David, both 19, were killed in Iraq.

The case was considered so important that nine law lords headed by Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice and now the country's senior law lord, were drafted in to hear the week long argument in February.

Normally, only five law lords sit on judicial appeals in the House of Lords.

The law lords had been told during the hearing earlier this year the two mothers brought the case with "reluctance" and were "proud of their sons who died with honour serving their country."

But today, the law lords said that while they sympathised with the mothers, they unanimously rejected the call for an inquiry.

They ruled there was nothing in the "right to life" provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights that gave rise to the need for a public inquiry to be held.

Lord Bingham said the obligations of European states under the Convention were "territorial" and the rights and freedoms provided for ordinarily applied to those within the borders of the state, not outside it.

He said the deaths of the two soldiers were "clearly not within the jurisdiction of the UK".

As far as the application of European law to call for an inquiry was concerned, he continued: "I find it impossible to conceive the sovereign states of Europe could ever have contemplated binding themselves legally to establish an independent public inquiry into the process by which a decision might have been made to commit the state's armed forces to war."

Lord Hoffman said in his view the right to life provisions of the Convention did not create a duty not to go to war and in those circumstances he did not consider there should be an inquiry.

"Unless article 2 creates a duty not to go to war contrary to the United Nations Charter, I cannot see how there can be an independent duty to use reasonable care to ascertain whether the war would be contrary to the Charter or not," he said.

"What would be the purpose of such a duty if the Government owed no duty under article 2 to comply with the Charter?"

The two mothers had challenged the Appeal Court's dismissal of their bid in December 2006 to force the Government fully into the open over the legality of the war.

In its decision the Appeal Court had backed an earlier High Court ruling in which the women's challenge was also rejected.

Lawyers for the women had claimed the Government was under a duty to protect the lives of members of its Armed Forces.

They said this had to be done by taking "reasonable steps to ensure it did not send them to take part in unlawful military activities".

They also questioned the legality of the invasion under international law.