WASHINGTON (AFP) - A federal appeals court has ruled that four British former Guantanamo detainees could not sue US officials for torture and religious discrimination they claim to have suffered at the military prison. In their suit, the Britons claimed they were protected against torture by a US constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. They also argued that their rights to practice their religion under the US Religious Freedom Restoration Act were violated at the Guantanamo naval camp. The defendants however, including former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were found to be entitled to qualified immunity, the court said. There was no authority for and ample authority against plaintiffs asserted rights at the time of the alleged misconduct, the court added. No reasonable government official would have been on notice that plaintiffs had any fifth Amendment or Eighth Amendment rights. The high court said the case should be reconsidered in light of its June 12, 2008 ruling that prisoners held at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba had a constitutional right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith, all British citizens, were imprisoned at Guantanamo between January 2002 and April 2004 before being released without charge and returned to Britain. They claim that during their detention they were beaten, threatened with dogs, shackled in painful positions, deprived of sleep, food and care and subjected to extreme temperatures. They also alleged guards harassed them in their religious practices by playing loud rock music at prayer time and confiscating prayer mats etc.