From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 10-Dec-15 19:01, Charles Ellson wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
      
   >>>Going after a sitting head of state--or anyone else with   
   >>>diplomatic immunity--would be an act of war, and you can see how   
   >>>well that worked out in the case of Saddam Hussein, for us and for   
   >>>the Iraqi people.   
      
   >>>OTOH, if/when they are deposed, however, they lose diplomatic   
   >>>immunity and we will happily prosecute--and execute--them.   
      
   >>As applied to General Pinochet when there was an attempt to deal   
   >>with him in the UK some years ago, that's sovereign immunity not   
   >>diplomatic immunity (which most "sovereigns" be they monarchs or   
   >>presidents don't have).   
      
   >It was a UK law, not international law, that extended state immunity in   
   >UK courts to former heads of state; the House of Lords ruled that didn't   
   >protect crimes against humanity or thus Pinochet.  However, extradition   
   >to Spain was denied on medical grounds, and he was sent home to Chile.   
      
   >Chile granted him sovereign immunity in return for resigning from their   
   >Senate, but their courts overturned that deal, again charging him with   
   >crimes against humanity.  He died of natural causes before trial.   
      
   >Diplomatic immunity never came up because he wasn't a diplomat when he   
   >was arrested. . . .   
      
   Several points:   
      
   1) It's the Law Lords, their appellate committee upon which only qualified   
   members may sit. The appellate jurisdiction doesn't extend to the entire   
   House, although as a matter of parliamentary rule the whole House had to   
   agree to the report (in a session not called during House business).   
      
   2) The appeal had to be reheard as one of the Law Lords had a conflict of   
   interest as a board member of a charity related to Amnesty International   
   and failed to recuse himself, a great embarassement. AI was a party to   
   the case.   
      
   3) The big big point: Most of the charges were dropped because Pinochet   
   was being prosecuted ex post facto; the UK didn't adopt legislation   
   implementing the UN Convention Against Torture until 1988, and Pinochet   
   could not be tried on charges from alleged crimes before the legislation   
   came into effect. I don't know what crimes Pinochet could have been   
   charged with that late in his rule as the really awful stuff took place   
   within a few years of the coup.   
      
   4) I remember at the time I didn't understand how Spain attempted to assert   
   jurisdiction over Pinochet, but they had charged him numerous counts of   
   torture against Spanish citizens and the assasination of Carmelo Soria,   
   a UN staffer with diplomatic status, in self exile in Chile to escape   
   Franco and who also obtained Chilean citizenship. He tried to hide   
   Chileans sought by Pinochet under protection of his own diplomatic immunity.   
   I'll assume that many of the Spanish citizens in question had also come   
   to Chile in self exile. Soria was a Communist.   
      
   In the 1870s, a liberal government attempted to abolish the Law Lords,   
   but the government fell before the legislation took effect. The conservative   
   government that followed retained them with several appellate reforms.   
   They were finally abolished in the 2000s, with an act that took effect   
   in 2009, although all 10 sitting Law Lords were appointed to the new   
   Supreme Court and the 11th was a Lord with previous judicial experience;   
   the initial 12th seat was left vacant. England being England, the retained   
   the My Lord/My Lady form of address even though future appointees won't   
   be Lords.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)