Regina v. Bartle and Commissioner of Police, Ex parte Pinochet
Procedural History:
Appeal from extradition proceedings.
Overview:
Pinochet (D) claimed that he was immune from prosecution as a former head of state. The House of Lords (P) considered charges that Pinochet (D), the former head of state of Chile, had violated the Torture Convention. Chile, Spain, and the United Kingdom were all parties to the Torture Convention, which became law on December 8, 1988. Pinochet (D) claimed he was immune as a former head of state under principle of international law.
Issue:
Is the notion of continued immunity for former heads of state inconsistent with the provisions of the Torture Convention?
Rule:
the notion of a continued immunity for former head of states is inconsistent with the provisions of the torture conventions.
Analysis:
The court discussed the common law as well. Under common law, a former head of state enjoys immunity for official acts done while in office. The purpose of the Torture Convention was to provide that there is no safe haven for torturers.
Outcome:
-The notion of continued immunity for former heads of state is inconsistent with the provisions of the Torture Convention. If, as alleged, Pinochet (D) organized and authorized torture after December 8, 1988, he was not acting in any capacity that gives rise to immunity because such conduct was contrary to international law. The torture proceedings should proceed on the allegation that torture in pursuance of a conspiracy to commit torture was being committed by Pinochet (D) after December 1988 when he lost his immunity.
Procedural History:
Appeal from extradition proceedings.
Overview:
Pinochet (D) claimed that he was immune from prosecution as a former head of state. The House of Lords (P) considered charges that Pinochet (D), the former head of state of Chile, had violated the Torture Convention. Chile, Spain, and the United Kingdom were all parties to the Torture Convention, which became law on December 8, 1988. Pinochet (D) claimed he was immune as a former head of state under principle of international law.
Issue:
Is the notion of continued immunity for former heads of state inconsistent with the provisions of the Torture Convention?
Rule:
the notion of a continued immunity for former head of states is inconsistent with the provisions of the torture conventions.
Analysis:
The court discussed the common law as well. Under common law, a former head of state enjoys immunity for official acts done while in office. The purpose of the Torture Convention was to provide that there is no safe haven for torturers.
Outcome:
-The notion of continued immunity for former heads of state is inconsistent with the provisions of the Torture Convention. If, as alleged, Pinochet (D) organized and authorized torture after December 8, 1988, he was not acting in any capacity that gives rise to immunity because such conduct was contrary to international law. The torture proceedings should proceed on the allegation that torture in pursuance of a conspiracy to commit torture was being committed by Pinochet (D) after December 1988 when he lost his immunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment