Augusto Pinochet: extradition case and outcome

The former Chilean head of state was arrested in London on 16 October 1998 on a Spanish warrant. In March 1999 the House of Lords held that only part of the alleged conduct amounted to extradition crimes, after an earlier Lords ruling was set aside. In March 2000 Home Secretary Jack Straw allowed him to return to Chile on medical grounds, and he was not extradited.

Refused The Home Secretary allowed him to return to Chile in March 2000 on grounds of ill health, and he did not face trial in Spain.^3,2

Decisions

1. 16 October 1998Metropolitan PoliceArrested in London on a Spanish warrant.²
2. 28 October 1998Divisional CourtQuashed the second provisional warrant on state immunity grounds.¹
3. 25 November 1998House of LordsAllowed the appeal by majority, holding that he had no immunity for international crimes.¹
4. 15 January 1999House of LordsSet aside the 25 November 1998 judgment because the committee was not properly constituted, and ordered a rehearing.¹
5. 24 March 1999House of Lords (seven Law Lords, rehearing)Held that torture committed outside the UK before 29 September 1988, when section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 came into force, was not an extradition crime, so only some charges survived. Double criminality was to be judged at the conduct date.¹
6. 2 March 2000Home Secretary Jack StrawDecided to allow him to return to Chile on medical grounds.^2,3

What happened next

Not extradited. On his return he faced 59 criminal complaints in Chile investigated by Judge Juan Guzman Tapia, who had not yet filed formal charges, and his senatorial immunity had first to be lifted, according to Human Rights Watch in March 2000.⁴

Response

His position before the courts was that he was immune from prosecution as a former head of state. The House of Lords noted that any immunity belonged to Chile, not to him personally.¹

Legal points

• Double criminality was judged at the date of the conduct, so torture abroad before 29 September 1988 was not an extradition crime under UK law.¹
• The case tested whether a former head of state has immunity for torture. Human Rights Watch said two House of Lords rulings found he was not immune.^1,3
• The House of Lords said state torture was "an international crime in the highest sense" before the 1984 Torture Convention.¹

Sources

1. House of Lords, Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet (judgment of 24 March 1999) (24 March 1999)
2. Human Rights Watch, The Pinochet Prosecution (campaign page and chronology) (3 March 2000)
3. Human Rights Watch, Pinochet Case a Milestone (2 March 2000)
4. Human Rights Watch, Questions and Answers on the Return of Pinochet to Chile (2 March 2000)