R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.1)
Encyclopedia
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.1) 3 W.L.R. 1456 (H.L. 1998) also known as Pinochet I or the Pinochet case was a controversial House of Lords
judgment on whether former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet
could claim state immunity
from torture allegations made by a Spanish Court and therefore evade extradition to Spain
. The case is significant in a number of areas including international criminal law, human rights law and the relationship between international law and domestic law. The ruling is also significant as the House of Lords later took the unprecedented decision to overturn the judgment because of the possibility of bias in one of its judges.
. The Spanish judge faxed an INTERPOL arrest warrant to London and Pinochet was arrested later that evening. Pinochet's lawyers argued that as Pinochet was head of state at the time of the alleged crimes he was immune from the jurisdiction of British courts. The Divisional Court ruled Pinochet had state immunity.
ruled that Pinochet did not have state immunity.
A key passage of the judgment reads:
This resulted in a third case R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.3)
also known as Pinochet III which confirmed that Pinochet was not entitled to state immunity but that acts committed outside of British territories could only be prosecuted under national law if committed after the passing of section 134 of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act.
House of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
judgment on whether former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet
Augusto Pinochet
Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte, more commonly known as Augusto Pinochet , was a Chilean army general and dictator who assumed power in a coup d'état on 11 September 1973...
could claim state immunity
State immunity
The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts...
from torture allegations made by a Spanish Court and therefore evade extradition to Spain
Spain
Spain , officially the Kingdom of Spain languages]] under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In each of these, Spain's official name is as follows:;;;;;;), is a country and member state of the European Union located in southwestern Europe on the Iberian Peninsula...
. The case is significant in a number of areas including international criminal law, human rights law and the relationship between international law and domestic law. The ruling is also significant as the House of Lords later took the unprecedented decision to overturn the judgment because of the possibility of bias in one of its judges.
Background
Pinochet was accused by a Spanish judge of torture, a crime under international law which can be prosecuted in any country under the doctrine of universal jurisdictionUniversal jurisdiction
Universal jurisdiction or universality principle is a principle in public international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other...
. The Spanish judge faxed an INTERPOL arrest warrant to London and Pinochet was arrested later that evening. Pinochet's lawyers argued that as Pinochet was head of state at the time of the alleged crimes he was immune from the jurisdiction of British courts. The Divisional Court ruled Pinochet had state immunity.
Judgment
By a 3–2 majority the House of LordsHouse of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
ruled that Pinochet did not have state immunity.
A key passage of the judgment reads:
[T]he development of international law since the Second World War justifies the conclusion that by the time of the 1973 coup
d’état, and certainly ever since, international law condemned genocide, torture, hostage taking and crimes against humanity (during
an armed conflict or in peace time) as international crimes deserving of punishment. Given this state of international law, it seems to me difficult to maintain that the commission of such high crimes may amount to acts performed in the exercise of the functions of a Head of State.
Subsequent rulings
The judgment of R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.1) was controversially set aside in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.2) on the grounds that there was the possibility of bias.This resulted in a third case R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.3)
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.3)
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte was a House of Lords judgment on the state immunity of Chilean President Augusto Pinochet...
also known as Pinochet III which confirmed that Pinochet was not entitled to state immunity but that acts committed outside of British territories could only be prosecuted under national law if committed after the passing of section 134 of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act.
Further reading
- Byers, Michael, The Law and Politics of the Pinochet Case, 10 Duke J. of Comp. & Int'l L. 415