From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 11-Dec-15 14:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >> On 11-Dec-15 09:02, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
      
   It's still immaterial.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   The rehearing didn't change the result, so it's still immaterial.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   They specifically asserted universal jurisdiction.  Doing so only with   
   respect to victims who happened to be Spanish citizens, as a matter of   
   either Spanish law or prosecutorial discretion, is immaterial.   
      
   > Chile wasn't planning on trying him at all. It was what they agreed   
   > to in the first place to get him out.   
      
   They granted him immunity in return for him resigning from their Senate,   
   and then their own courts overturned that immunity.  I'm not sure how   
   legal that was under Chilean law, but that's immaterial to the question   
   of universal jurisdiction.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   See above.  The crimes did not occur in Spain, therefore it was an   
   assertion of universal jurisdiction.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)