Tom Tugendhat and James Cleverly have criticised Robert Jenrick over his claim that UK special forces are “killing rather than capturing terrorists” to prevent European judges setting them free.

Mr Jenrick, the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest, caused a stir on Monday by arguing that the British military is taking lethal action against dangerous figures out of concern that they would be released by the European Court of Human Rights.

In a promotional video for his campaign, he claimed that special forces are “killing rather than capturing terrorists because our lawyers tell us that if they are caught the European court will set them free”.

He was echoing comments made by Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, in an interview with The Telegraph last year.

Mr Wallace said Britain was unable to render people across borders, meaning “we are more often than not forced into taking lethal action [rather] than actually raiding and detaining”.

Mr Tugendhat, the former security minister, said he was “extremely concerned” by Mr Jenrick’s remarks, while Mr Cleverly, the former home secretary, urged him to justify his statement in media appearances on Tuesday morning.

Asked whether he agreed with the claim, Mr Tugendhat told Sky News: “No, I don’t. I think what he said is wrong and I’m afraid demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of military operations and the law of armed conflict.

“I’m extremely concerned that such words should not be seen in any way to encourage people to take any action other than surrender to British forces when asked to do so.”

Mr Cleverly said: “You’re going to have to ask Robert to justify that statement. That’s not something which I have heard.

“That’s not something which I’m comfortable kind of repeating. The British military always abide by international humanitarian law, the law of armed conflict.

“We have, I was about to say some of the most… no, we have the most professional military in the world. Our military do not murder people.”

Jenrick stands by comments

Mr Jenrick has refused to back down, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday that “the point I was making was absolutely correct”.

He said: “As Ben Wallace has said in that [Telegraph] interview, decision-makers are being asked to make decisions which they might not ordinarily make – for example, to call in a drone strike and take lethal action in that way.”

When it was put to him that he was unable to back up his claim, he said: “Of course I’m not going to elaborate on particular cases because these things, these cases are not things that any minister or foreign minister can speak about.”

He also suggested that Britain’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is enforced by the court in Strasbourg, could stop it killing the next Osama bin Laden.

He said: “It troubles me that if our special forces, our military were faced with the question of could we take out an individual such as Osama Bin Laden, that has posed such a danger to our people and those of our allies, that we might not be able to do that because of our continued membership of the ECHR.”

“And it demonstrates to me why it’s important to leave the ECHR.”

He likened ECHR membership to Brexit, arguing that there was a clear “leave or remain” choice when it came to the convention.