Conservative former ministers, advocacy groups and opposition politicians have lined up to attack the government after it was announced there would be no new judge-led inquiry into allegations UK agencies were complicit in the extraordinary rendition of terror suspects after 9/11.

The former Brexit secretary, David Davis, was among those to offer strident criticism of the decisions, saying the government had failed to outlaw torture as it published fresh guidance on the treatment of detainees abroad.

He was joined by the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, who said the move represented a “fundamental error of judgment” and accused the prime minister, Theresa May, of reneging on promises made by her predecessor.

Almost a year after parliament was told there would be a response to calls for an inquiry within 60 days, the Cabinet Office secretary, David Lidington, said it was not necessary to carry out any further investigations and that the government was under no legal obligation to do so.

Lidington’s statement was condemned in the Commons by former Tory ministers, including Davis, who said the decision would be subject to legal challenge.

Dan Dolan, a deputy director of the civil liberties organisation Reprieve, accused the government of breaking its promise to parliament, the public and those who had been tortured during the so-called war on terror.

He said: “Tweaked Whitehall guidance doesn’t provide redress for victims, most of whom remain in the dark as to the government’s role in their mistreatment.

“By refusing to deliver on its commitment to hold a fully independent inquiry, the government has failed to fulfil its legal responsibility to independently investigate allegations of torture and hold those responsible to account.

“Reprieve is exploring legal action to challenge this decision.”

Thornberry said: “If the government is so confident that all of the lessons of the past have been learned, that all of the abuses of the past cannot be repeated, and that the new procedures and rules announced today prohibit any breach of UK and international law, then what exactly do they have to fear by allowing a judge to look into this issue, to examine all the evidence, interview all the witnesses and look at those new procedures and rules?”

Moazzam Begg, the outreach director at the campaign group Cage, said: “Cage and former prisoners have participated in multiple processes – through the courts, the police, judges who have led government-appointed inquiries, and even the parliamentary intelligence and security committee.

“All of them have confirmed and accepted that UK officials have been both complicit in, and turned a blind eye to, torture.

“Despite survivors of torture seeking justice and accountability for almost two decades, the government has shown repeatedly, and today confirmed, that it simply does not hold itself to the values it claims to promote.”

Last year, parliament’s intelligence and security committee found that the UK had planned, agreed or financed 31 rendition operations. In addition there were 15 occasions when British intelligence officers consented to or witnessed the use of torture, and 232 occasions when the intelligence agencies supplied questions to be put to detainees whom they knew or suspected were being mistreated.

On Thursday Lidington told MPs: “The government has decided that it is not necessary to establish a further inquiry. There is no policy reason to do so, given the extensive work already undertaken to improve policies and practices in this area.

“The government’s position is also that there is no legal obligation. These matters have been subject to a number of police investigations over the years, including Operations Hinton, Iden and Lydd … none of these police investigations has resulted in further action being taken, although some inquiries are continuing.”

Davis, the former Brexit secretary, said in the Commons: “It’s quite plain that this decision will face judicial review, and that will take even more time and less closure. The government’s asking us to allow it to mark its own homework … it simply should not be allowed to do so.

“To the point that the government has solved the problems, I’m afraid that is plainly and demonstrably not true … there is not a prohibition on ministers approving torture.

“Plainly, the government has not learned its lesson yet. There are a number of reasons for having an inquiry: legal, reputational, operational, closure, and the simple one of keeping the promise we gave. And I’m afraid, eventually, the government will be forced to that position.”