From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 11-Dec-15 09:02, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 10-Dec-15 19:01, Charles Ellson wrote:   
      
   >>>>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.   
   >>> ...   
   >>>Diplomatic immunity never came up because he wasn't a diplomat when   
   >>>he was arrested. . . .   
      
   >>Several points:   
      
   >>1) It's the Law Lords, ...   
      
   >Correction noted, but it's immaterial.   
      
   It's one of those many weirdnesses about UK government in which they   
   don't have separation of powers.   
      
   >>2) The appeal had to be reheard ...   
      
   >Also immaterial.   
      
   I don't think so. Even the very worst shouldn't be denied due process   
   if we really intend to bring them to justice. He was.   
      
   >>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.   
      
   >The UK quashed the warrant with respect to several of the charges on   
   >such grounds, but he wasn't to be tried in a UK court anyway, so it   
   >didn't matter in practice because at least one charge survived.   
      
   >Whether those charges would have survived in a Spanish (or Chilean)   
   >court is an interesting question, but it's moot now.   
      
   The Spanish intended to try him for torture and murder of Spanish citizens,   
   not everything else that he did, nothing to do with the UN convention.   
   They were simply asserting jurisdiction.   
      
   I really don't see that they had any.   
      
   Chile wasn't planning on trying him at all. It was what they agreed to   
   in the first place to get him out.   
      
   >>4) I remember at the time I didn't understand how Spain attempted   
   >>to assert jurisdiction over Pinochet, ...   
      
   >Spain asserted universal jurisdiction, and the UK recognized it, which   
   >is what established the jurisdiction of _all_ courts over _all_ crimes   
   >against humanity under international law.   
      
   From the reading I did, Spain did not, only over crimes committed against   
   Spanish citizens and not the, what, 10s of thousands who suffered.   
      
   >That Pinochet was not actually extradited to Spain is a bizarre twist,   
   >but it doesn't affect the precedent he unwittingly established.   
      
   The precedent being that there can never be a peaceful succession of   
   government anywhere in the world when trying to oust a dictator. From   
   now on, it'll always have to be another civil war.   
      
   Really a terrible terrible precedent to set.   
      
   Spain was, of course, free to truthfully acknowledge its own crimes   
   in that all those Spanish citizens had been exiled to Chile (and other   
   countries) to begin with. Talk about hypocrisy.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)