From:	Oxford	Public	International	Law	(http://opil.ouplaw.com).	(c)	Oxford	University	Press,	2015.	All	Rights	Reserved.	Subscriber:	Masaryk	University;	date:
06	November	2018
Content	type: Encyclopedia	entries
Product: Max	Planck	Encyclopedia	of	Public
International	Law	[MPEPIL]
Article	last	updated: June	2007
Pinochet	Cases
Andrea	Gattini
Subject(s):
Hostage	taking	—	Torture	—	Heads	of	state	and	other	senior	officials	—	Diplomatic	immunity	—
Jurisdiction	of	states,	extra-territorial
Published	under	the	auspices	of	the	Max	Planck	Foundation	for	International	Peace	and	the	Rule	of
Law	under	the	direction	of	Rüdiger	Wolfrum.
From:	Oxford	Public	International	Law	(http://opil.ouplaw.com).	(c)	Oxford	University	Press,	2015.	All	Rights	Reserved.	Subscriber:	Masaryk	University;	date:
06	November	2018
A.		The	Extradition	Proceedings	and	Their	Aftermath
1.		The	Extradition	Proceedings	in	the	United	Kingdom
1		During	a	private	visit	for	medical	treatment	to	the	United	Kingdom	(‘UK’)	on	17	October	1998
General	Augusto	Pinochet	Ugarte,	former	Head	of	State	and	dictator	of	Chile	(see	also	→	Heads
of	State),	was	arrested	by	the	London	Metropolitan	Police	on	an	international	warrant	issued	by
the	Spanish	examining	magistrate	Judge	Baltasar	Garzon	(see	also	→	European	Arrest	Warrant).
The	arrest	warrant	alleged	the	murder	of	Spanish	citizens	in	Chile	during	the	military	regime
established	after	the	coup	of	11	September	1973	and	charged	Pinochet	with	the	crimes	of
→	genocide	and	→	terrorism.	The	Crown	Prosecution	Service,	acting	on	behalf	of	the	Kingdom	of
Spain,	applied	for	General	Pinochet’s	→	extradition	to	Spain.	The	basis	for	extradition	was	the
European	Convention	on	Extradition,	which	was	given	effect	in	the	UK	by	the	Extradition	Act
1989	(UK).	Being	made	aware	of	the	difficulties	that	his	first	arrest	warrant	would	encounter	in
UK	extradition	proceedings,	on	22	October	Judge	Garzon	issued	a	more	detailed	second	arrest
warrant,	charging	Pinochet	with	torture	and	conspiracy	to	torture	(see	also	→	Torture,
Prohibition	of),	hostage-taking	and	conspiracy	to	hostage-taking	(see	also	→	Hostages),	murder
and	conspiracy	to	murder.	On	28	October	1998	a	panel	of	three	judges	headed	by	Lord	Chief
Justice	Bingham	of	Cornhill	of	the	Divisional	Court	of	England	and	Wales	upheld	Pinochet’s	claim
to	→	State	immunity	(Re	Augusto	Pinochet	Ugarte).	In	the	meantime	arrest	warrants	had	also
been	issued	by	Belgian,	French,	and	Swiss	magistrates.
2		On	the	Crown’s	appeal	to	the	House	of	Lords,	a	panel	formed	by	five	Law	Lords	decided	on	25
November	1998	(R	v	Bow	Street	Metropolitan	Stipendiary	Magistrate,	ex	p	Pinochet	Ugarte	(No
1);	‘Pinochet	No	1’),	by	a	majority	of	three	(Lord	Nicholls	of	Birkenhead,	Lord	Steyn,	and	Lord
Hoffmann	concurring,	Lord	Slynn	of	Hadley	and	Lord	Lloyd	of	Berwick	dissenting)	that	the
immunity	ratione	materiae	of	a	former	Head	of	State	was	confined	to	acts	performed	in	the
legitimate	exercise	of	his	official	functions,	and	that	these	did	not	include	torturing	political
opponents.	However,	the	decision	was	set	aside	by	a	House	of	Lords	Committee	on	17	December
1998	(R	v	Bow	Street	Metropolitan	Stipendiary	Magistrate,	ex	p	Pinochet	Ugarte	(No	2);
‘Pinochet	No	2’)	because	of	the	disqualification	of	one	of	the	majority	judges,	Lord	Hoffmann,
who	had	failed	to	disclose	the	fact	that	he	had	served	as	a	director	of	Amnesty	International
Charity	Ltd,	the	research	and	educational	branch	of	→	Amnesty	International	(AI),	an	intervener
in	the	case.
3		On	24	March	1999	a	new	panel	composed	of	the	seven	most	senior	Law	Lords	again	rejected
Pinochet’s	claim	to	immunity	in	respect	of	charges	of	torture	by	a	majority	of	six	to	one	(Lord
Browne-Wilkinson,	Lord	Hope	of	Craighead,	Lord	Hutton,	Lord	Saville	of	Newdigate,	Lord
Millett,	Lord	Phillips	of	Worth	Matravers,	with	Lord	Goff	of	Chieveley	dissenting;	R	v	Bow	Street
Metropolitan	Stipendiary	Magistrate,	ex	p	Pinochet	Ugarte	(No	3);	‘Pinochet	No	3’).	However,	a
majority	of	five	Law	Lords	found	that	English	courts	had	no	jurisdiction	over	torture	offences
committed	by	foreigners	abroad	before	the	enactment	of	Sec.	134	Criminal	Justice	Act	1988	(UK)
(‘CJA’),	by	which	the	UK	had	implemented	the	Convention	against	Torture	and	Other	Cruel,
Inhuman	or	Degrading	Treatment	or	Punishment	(‘CAT’;	see	also	→	Jurisdiction	of	States).	By	a
majority	of	five	to	two	(Lords	Millet	and	Phillips	dissenting),	the	Law	Lords	found	that	Pinochet
was	entitled	to	immunity	in	respect	of	the	charges	of	murder	and	conspiracy	to	murder,	partly
because	they	were	not	extradition	crimes	and	partly	because	it	had	not	been	proved	that	States
had	agreed	to	remove	immunity	for	those	charges.	In	view	of	the	substantial	reduction	of	the
extradition	crimes,	all	the	Law	Lords	made	a	plea	to	the	Home	Secretary	to	reconsider	the
exercise	of	his	discretion	in	allowing	extradition	proceedings	to	continue.	Nevertheless	on	14	April
1999	the	Home	Secretary	granted	authority	for	the	extradition	to	proceed.
4		On	8	October	1999	the	Deputy	Chief	Metropolitan	Stipendiary	Magistrate	ruled	in	Kingdom	of
Spain	v	Augusto	Pinochet	Ugarte	that	Pinochet	could	be	extradited	to	Spain	with	regard	to	34
From:	Oxford	Public	International	Law	(http://opil.ouplaw.com).	(c)	Oxford	University	Press,	2015.	All	Rights	Reserved.	Subscriber:	Masaryk	University;	date:
06	November	2018
charges	of	torture	and	one	charge	of	conspiracy	to	commit	torture.	Thereupon	the	Chilean
government,	which	had	already	intervened	in	the	rehearing	before	the	House	of	Lords	in	order	to
assert	immunity	on	behalf	of	General	Pinochet,	requested	on	14	October	1999	that	the	Home
Secretary,	Jack	Straw,	consider	releasing	Pinochet	on	medical	grounds.	The	medical	examination
took	place	on	January	2000	and	established	that	Pinochet	was	unfit	to	stand	trial	(see	also	→	Fair
Trial,	Right	to,	International	Protection).	Human	rights	organizations	(see	also	→	Human	Rights,
Role	of	Non-Governmental	Organizations)	and	the	Belgian	government	challenged	Straw’s
decision	not	to	make	public	the	report.	On	15	February	2000	the	Divisional	Court	ruled	in	R	v
Secretary	of	State	for	the	Home	Department,	ex	p	the	Kingdom	of	Belgium	that	the	report	had	to
be	shared,	in	confidence,	with	the	judicial	authorities	in	each	of	the	requesting	States.	Thereupon,
on	2	March	2000	the	Home	Secretary	ordered	the	release	of	Pinochet.	The	reasons	were	set	out	in
the	letters	which	the	Secretary	of	State	sent	to	the	four	requesting	States	(reproduced	in	119	ILR
317).	Senator	Pinochet	immediately	returned	to	Chile,	apparently	in	good	health.
2.		The	Proceedings	in	Chile
5		By	the	time	of	his	return,	dozens	of	cases	had	been	lodged	against	Pinochet	in	Chilean	courts.
In	February	1991	the	Chilean	National	Commission	for	Truth	and	Reconciliation	established	by
President	Aylwin	had	released	a	report	(‘Rettig	Report’),	in	which	it	was	stated	that	2279	of	the
circa	3000	persons	who	had	disappeared	during	the	regime	had	been	killed	by	the	police	or	the
military	(→	Disappearances;	→	Truth	and	Reconciliation	Commissions).	In	July	1999	the	Chilean
Supreme	Court	had	taken	the	unprecedented	step	of	confirming	a	lower	court	decision	that	the
1978	Decree	Law	No	2191	(‘Chilean	Amnesty	Law’)	was	not	applicable	in	cases	of	enforced
disappearances,	on	the	ground	that	such	crimes	must	be	considered	‘continuous	crimes’	as	long	as
the	fate	or	whereabouts	of	the	victim	has	not	been	determined,	as	stated	in	Art.	3	Inter-American
Convention	on	Forced	Disappearance	of	Persons.
6		In	August	2000	the	Chilean	Supreme	Court	decided	to	lift	Senator	Pinochet’s	parliamentary
immunity	and	allow	prosecution	for	his	direct	involvement	in	the	Caravan	of	Death	Case,	in	which
military	officers	had	travelled	to	various	locations	in	the	country,	tortured	political	opponents	in
jail,	and	killed	at	least	70	persons	after	mock	processes.	Pinochet	escaped	arrest	in	July	2002	only
after	having	convinced	the	Supreme	Court	that	his	senile	dementia	made	him	unable	to	defend
himself	at	trial.	However,	in	May	2004	the	Supreme	Court	reversed	its	prior	finding	and	in	August
2004	again	denied	Pinochet’s	parliamentary	immunity,	which	he	had	retained	even	after	having
resigned	from	Senate	in	2002,	in	the	case	of	‘Operation	Condor’.	This	case	concerned	a	covert
international	programme	of	kidnapping,	murder,	and	disappearances	of	political	activists	co-
ordinated	in	the	1970s	by	the	military	regimes	of	Argentina,	Brazil,	Bolivia,	Chile,	Paraguay,	and
Uruguay.	In	November	2004	and	June	2005	the	National	Commission	on	Political	Imprisonment
and	Torture	established	by	President	Lagos	released	its	report	(‘Valech	Report’),	which
documented	30,000	cases	of	torture	and	human	rights	abuses.
7		In	November	2005	Pinochet	was	indicted	on	tax	evasion	charges	and	placed	under	house	arrest
for	allegedly	having	held	27	million	US	dollars	in	secret	accounts	at	the	Riggs	Bank	and	other	US
financial	institutions.	On	27	November	2006	a	house	arrest	was	again	issued	against	Pinochet	for
the	kidnapping	and	murder	in	1973	of	two	bodyguards	of	former	President	Allende.	Pinochet	died
of	a	heart	attack	on	10	December	2006	without	ever	having	faced	trial	for	his	crimes.
B.		Legal	Appraisal
8		The	Pinochet	extradition	proceedings	in	the	UK	have	been	welcomed	as	a	major	step	for
international	human	rights	and	→	international	criminal	law.	Their	legacy	is	that	for	the	first	time
the	impunity	of	a	former	dictator	was	successfully	challenged	on	grounds	of	→	international	law
before	the	supreme	court	of	a	foreign	State	committed	to	the	→	rule	of	law.	However,	on	a	closer
From:	Oxford	Public	International	Law	(http://opil.ouplaw.com).	(c)	Oxford	University	Press,	2015.	All	Rights	Reserved.	Subscriber:	Masaryk	University;	date:
06	November	2018
look	the	case	might	be	less	significant	than	it	first	appears,	and	not	only	for	the	fact	that	in	the
end	Pinochet	was	not	extradited	and	did	not	stand	a	criminal	trial	in	Spain	or	elsewhere.	In	fact
the	answers	finally	given	by	the	House	of	Lords	to	the	three	main	issues,	namely	double
criminality	as	a	condition	for	extradition,	exercise	of	extraterritorial	jurisdiction,	and	personal
immunity	of	former	Heads	of	State,	are	on	the	whole	quite	prudent	and	mainly	based	on	the	CAT.
9		With	regard	to	the	first	aspect	of	double	criminality,	contrary	to	what	the	Divisional	Court	had
held	in	Re	Augusto	Pinochet	Ugarte	(at	41),	and	the	opinion	of	Lord	Lloyd	of	Berwick,	who	had
been	the	only	one	to	consider	this	issue	in	Pinochet	No	1	(para.	88),	the	Law	Lords	in	Pinochet	No
3	unanimously	held	that	for	an	act	to	qualify	as	an	‘extradition	crime’	within	the	meaning	of	Sec.
2	(1)	(b)	Extradition	Act	1989	(UK)	it	is	necessary	that	it	constituted	a	crime	under	UK	law	at	the
time	it	was	committed,	and	not	merely	at	the	time	of	the	extradition	request	(Pinochet	No	3	para.
195).	The	majority	(with	only	Lord	Millett	taking	a	different	view,	Pinochet	No	3	para.	276)
subsequently	concluded	that	prior	to	the	implementation	of	the	CAT	through	the	CJA,	torture
committed	outside	UK	territory	was	not	a	crime	punishable	under	UK	law,	in	the	absence	of
statutory	rules	conferring	jurisdiction	on	English	criminal	courts.
10		This	leads	to	the	second	and	correlated	aspect	of	the	jurisdictional	basis	of	the	criminal
proceedings.	The	issue	of	the	admissibility	of	universal	jurisdiction	is	far	from	being	settled	in
international	law	(cf	the	resolution	of	the	Institut	de	Droit	International	Universal	criminal
jurisdiction	with	regard	to	the	crime	of	genocide,	crimes	against	humanity	and	war	crimes;	see
also	→	Crimes	against	Humanity	;	→	War	Crimes).	Furthermore,	it	has	been	noted	in	legal
literature	that	it	is	not	unusual	for	domestic	courts,	pursuant	to	the	legality	principle,	to	abstain
from	exercising	universal	jurisdiction	over	crimes	against	international	law	without	national
legislation	to	that	effect.	Therefore,	Lord	Millet’s	opinion,	based	on	the	incorporation	of
→	customary	international	law	in	domestic	common	law,	is	not	unobjectionable.	The	fact	that
torture	is	now	prohibited	in	international	law	by	a	→	ius	cogens	norm	does	not	necessarily	imply
that	a	criminal	or	civil	action	shall	always	be	possible	before	a	domestic	court,	contrary	to	a
dictum	of	the	→	International	Criminal	Tribunal	for	the	Former	Yugoslavia	(ICTY)	in	Prosecutor	v
Furundžija	(Judgment)	at	para.	155;	but	see	the	judgment	of	the	→	European	Court	of	Human
Rights	(ECtHR)	in	the	case	of	Al-Adsani	v	United	Kingdom.
11		With	regard	to	the	third	aspect,	immunity	of	former	heads	of	State,	in	order	to	understand
better	some	of	the	key	passages	in	the	judgments	of	the	Law	Lords,	it	must	be	recalled	that	the
issue	of	the	immunities	of	a	head	of	State	in	international	law	is	to	some	extent	still	unsettled.	If	it
is	true	that	historically	in	international	law	the	immunity	of	the	State	and	that	of	the	Head	of
State	were	considered	indistinguishable	and	both	absolute,	subsequent	developments	in	the	20th
century	led	to	the	theory	of	restrictive	immunity	for	the	State	and	to	the	recognition	of	a	form	of
diplomatic	immunity	ratione	personae	for	the	Head	of	State	(→	Immunity,	Diplomatic),	in	addition
to	that	one	ratione	materiae	applying	to	all	public	officials	(see	also	→	Heads	of	Governments	and
Other	Senior	Officials).
12		It	is	important	to	bear	in	mind	that	the	first	panel	of	the	House	of	Lords	focused	its	attention
almost	entirely	on	Sec.	20	(1)	State	Immunity	Act	1978	(UK),	which	provides	that	the	Diplomatic
Privileges	Act	1964	(UK),	which	gave	effect	to	the	Vienna	Convention	on	Diplomatic	Relations
(→	Vienna	Convention	on	Diplomatic	Relations	[1961]),	applies	also	to	a	sovereign	or	other	Head
of	State.	Art.	39	(2)	Vienna	Convention	on	Diplomatic	Relations	provides	for	the	maintenance	of
immunity	ratione	materiae	when	the	functions	of	a	person	enjoying	privileges	and	immunities
have	come	to	an	end.	The	question	turned	on	the	point	whether	the	acts	of	torture	specified	in	the
first	four	counts	of	the	second	Spanish	warrant	of	arrest	against	Pinochet	would	qualify	as	‘acts
performed	in	the	exercise	of	the	functions’	of	a	Head	of	State.
13		It	is	remarkable	that	the	two	majority	Lords	in	Pinochet	No	1,	who	had	expounded	their
arguments,	had	developed	two	partially	different	lines	of	reasoning.	Lord	Steyn	had	forcefully
From:	Oxford	Public	International	Law	(http://opil.ouplaw.com).	(c)	Oxford	University	Press,	2015.	All	Rights	Reserved.	Subscriber:	Masaryk	University;	date:
06	November	2018
made	the	argument	that	acts	of	torture	along	with	other	‘high	crimes’	such	as	genocide,	hostage-
taking,	and	crimes	against	humanity	could	never	be	regarded	by	international	law	as	acts
performed	in	the	exercise	of	the	function	of	a	Head	of	State	(Pinochet	No	1	para.	115).	Lord
Nicholls	had	nuanced	his	position,	because	he	not	only	referred	to	the	development	of
international	law	regarding	international	crimes,	but	also	made	the	point	that	the	retention	of
immunity	under	customary	international	law	would	be	inconsistent	with	parliamentary	intent	in
enacting	Sec.	134	CJA	(Pinochet	No	1	para.	110).	Lord	Steyn’s	opinion	is	not	entirely	persuasive.
The	fact	that	acts	of	torture	cannot	in	any	event	be	regarded	by	international	law	as	belonging	to
the	‘functions’	of	a	Head	of	State	does	not	mean	that	those	same	acts	could	not	be	‘official	acts’.
Indeed,	the	CAT	itself	takes	into	account	only	‘official’	torture,	as	is	made	clear	by	Art.	1	CAT,	for
which	torture	means	‘any	act	by	which	severe	pain	or	suffering…is	intentionally	inflicted	on	a
person…,	when	such	pain	or	suffering	is	inflicted	by	or	at	the	instigation	of	or	with	the	consent	or
acquiescence	of	a	public	official	or	other	person	acting	in	an	official	capacity’.
14		As	for	the	majority	in	Pinochet	No	3,	each	member	of	the	panel	delivered	an	individual
opinion,	and	it	is	difficult,	if	not	impossible,	to	detect	common	ground	in	the	majority	for	the
dismissal	of	immunity.	The	disparity,	and	in	some	cases	the	opacity	of	the	arguments	inevitably
reduce	to	some	extent	the	persuasiveness	of	this	part	of	the	judgment	and	its	significance	for	the
development	of	customary	international	law.	Only	two	of	their	Lordships	(Lord	Hutton	para.	262,
and	Lord	Phillips	in	a	dictum	at	para.	290)	seemed	to	endorse	Lord	Steyn’s	argument.	The	other
four	Lords	of	the	majority	gave	decisive	weight	to	Sec.	134	CJA	or	alternatively	to	the	terms	of	the
CAT,	holding	that	it	would	be	unreasonable	that	one	and	the	same	convention	could
simultaneously	foresee	extraterritorial	jurisdiction	over	official	torturers	and	maintain	immunity
from	extradition	or	prosecution	based	on	the	official	nature	of	that	alleged	crime	(Lord	Browne-
Wilkinson	para.	205;	Lord	Hope	para.	247;	Lord	Saville	para.	267;	Lord	Millet	para.	277:	‘no
rational	system	of	criminal	justice	can	allow	an	immunity	which	is	coextensive	with	the	offence’).
15		This	argument,	however,	could	prove	too	much,	because,	as	was	sharply	remarked	by	the
dissenting	Lord	Goff	(Pinochet	No	3	para.	219),	given	the	silence	of	the	CAT	on	the	matter	of
immunity,	and	by	following	the	same	logic	of	the	majority,	immunity	ratione	personae,	such	as
that	in	favour	of	a	serving	Head	of	State,	could	also	be	held	inconsistent	with	the	CAT,	a	solution
that	all	the	Lords	of	the	majority	expressly	excluded	(Lord	Browne-Wilkinson	para.	201;	Lord
Hope	para.	248;	Lord	Hutton	para.	261;	Lord	Saville	para.	266;	Lord	Millet	para.	277;	Lord
Phillips	para.	280).	A	possible,	but	admittedly	not	a	conclusive	answer	to	this	criticism	would	be
that	the	drafters	of	the	CAT	pursued	the	goal	to	provide	for	effective	→	remedies	for	victims	of
acts	of	torture	committed	at	home	and	abroad	by	public	officials	by	excluding	that	the	latter
could	escape	their	criminal	liability	under	the	cloak	of	State	function,	but	that	they	did	not	intend
to	encroach	on	the	customary	international	law	rules	on	immunity	ratione	personae	specifically
belonging	to	some	senior	State	officials	(see	also	→	Individual	Criminal	Responsibility;	→	Victims’
Rights).	Any	possible	doubt	about	the	persisting	validity	of	such	rules	on	personal	immunity	were
dispelled	some	years	later	by	the	→	International	Court	of	Justice	(ICJ)	in	the	→	Arrest	Warrant
Case	(Democratic	Republic	of	the	Congo	v	Belgium)	(para.	58),	in	which	it	confirmed	the
unquestionable	prevalence	of	the	rule	of	immunity	ratione	personae	of	incumbent	ministers	of
foreign	affairs	in	foreign	domestic	criminal	proceedings.
16		Finally,	the	decisive	reliance	of	the	majority	in	Pinochet	No	3	on	the	terms	of	the	CAT	was
also	the	cause	of	some	uncertainty	among	the	Law	Lords	as	to	the	date	from	which	the	removal
of	immunity	took	effect.	Whereas	three	judges	of	the	majority	indicated	8	December	1998,	being
the	date	of	the	UK	ratification	of	the	CAT	(Lord	Browne-Wilkinson	para.	206;	Lord	Saville	para.
267),	another	chose	29	September	1988,	being	the	date	on	which	the	CJA	entered	into	force	(Lord
Hutton	para.	265),	and	Lord	Hope	chose	30	October	1988,	being	the	date	when	Chile’s
ratification	of	the	CAT	took	effect,	albeit	not	going	so	far	as	to	couch	the	latter	in	terms	of	an
implied	waiver	(Lord	Hope	para.	248).
From:	Oxford	Public	International	Law	(http://opil.ouplaw.com).	(c)	Oxford	University	Press,	2015.	All	Rights	Reserved.	Subscriber:	Masaryk	University;	date:
06	November	2018
17		The	majority	of	the	Law	Lords	in	Pinochet	No	3	have	sometimes	been	criticized	for	having
relied	too	much	on	Sec.	20	State	Immunity	Act	1978	(UK),	equating	the	immunities	of	a	Head	of
State	with	those	enjoyed	by	the	→	heads	of	diplomatic	missions,	without	taking	into	account	the
‘necessary	modifications’	mentioned	in	that	section,	and	for	having	assimilated	a	former	Head	of
State	with	the	general	category	of	‘public	officials’	for	the	purpose	of	the	CAT,	without	taking
into	account	the	peculiar	role	of	a	Head	of	State	as	the	representative	of	that	State.	The	criticism
is	unfounded	to	the	extent	that	their	Lordships	made	clear	that	in	their	opinion	customary
international	law	did	not	substantially	differ	from	UK	law	and	furthermore	in	view	of	the	fact	that
it	had	been	conceded	in	the	course	of	the	proceedings	by	the	counsels	for	the	government	of	Chile
that	the	words	‘public	officials	or	other	person	acting	in	an	official	capacity’	may	include	a	Head
of	State.
18		Besides	making	safe	the	immunities	ratione	personae	of	serving	Heads	of	State,	some
Lordships	of	the	majority	(Lord	Hutton	para.	264;	Lord	Millett	para.	278;	Lord	Phillips	para.	287)
also	expressly	held	that	the	grant	of	immunity	in	civil	proceedings	to	the	individual	agent	or	to	the
State	remained	unaffected	by	their	decisions.	More	recently,	the	same	House	of	Lords	had
occasion	to	restate	the	principle	of	State	and	agent	functional	immunity	from	civil	proceedings	for
torture	in	Jones	v	Ministry	of	Interior	Al-Mamlaka	Al-Arabiya	AS	Saudiya	(the	Kingdom	of	Saudi
Arabia),	clearly	distinguishing	the	precedent	of	Pinochet	No	3,	‘since	it	concerned	criminal
proceedings	falling	squarely	within	the	universal	criminal	jurisdiction	mandated	by	the	Torture
Convention’	(per	Lord	Bingham	of	Cornhill	para.	19)	and	did	not	fall	within	Part	I	State	Immunity
Act	1978	(UK)	dealing	with	State	immunity	from	jurisdiction	in	civil	matters.
C.		Conclusion
19		In	conclusion,	if	it	is	still	to	some	extent	difficult	to	assess	fully	the	impact	that	the	complex
dimensions	of	the	Pinochet	extradition	case	have	had	and	still	may	have	on	the	development	of
customary	international	(criminal)	law,	its	concededly	modest	but	firm	contribution	seems	to
reside	in	the	denial	of	immunity	from	criminal	prosecutions	of	former	Heads	of	State	and	other
former	senior	officials	for	egregious	violations	of	the	prohibition	of	torture	at	least	by	States
Parties	to	the	CAT.
Select	Bibliography
A	Watts	‘The	Legal	Position	in	International	Law	of	Heads	of	States,	Heads	of	Governments
and	Foreign	Ministers’	(1994)	247	RdC	9–130.
R	Bank	‘Der	Fall	Pinochet:	Aufbruch	zu	neuen	Ufern	bei	der	Verfolgung	von
Menschenrechtsverletzungen?’	(1999)	59	ZaöRV	677–708.
A	Bianchi	‘Immunity	Versus	Human	Rights:	The	Pinochet	Case’	(1999)	10	EJIL	237–77.
M	Cosnard	‘Quelques	observations	sur	les	décisions	de	la	Chambre	des	Lords	du	25
novembre	1998	et	du	24	mars	1999	dans	l’affaire	Pinochet’	(1999)	103	RGDIP	309–28.
H	Fox	‘The	Pinochet	Case	No.	3’	(1999)	48	ICLQ	687–702.
J	Klabbers	‘The	General,	the	Lords,	and	the	Possible	End	of	State	Immunity’	(1999)	68
ActScandJurisGent	85–95.
JM	Sears	‘Confronting	the	“Culture	of	Impunity”:	Immunity	of	Heads	of	State	from
Nuremberg	to	ex	parte	Pinochet’	(1999)	42	GYIL	125–46.
C	Warbrick	‘Extradition	Law	Aspects	of	Pinochet	3’	(1999)	48	ICLQ	958–65.
W	Aceves	‘Liberalism	and	International	Legal	Scholarship:	The	Pinochet	Case	and	the	Move
toward	a	Universal	System	of	Transnational	Law	Litigation’	(2000)	41	HarvIntlLJ	129–84.
R	Van	Alebeek	‘The	Pinochet	Case:	International	Human	Rights	Law	on	Trial’	(2000)	71
BYIL	29–70.
J	Bröhmer	‘Immunity	of	a	Former	Head	of	State	General	Pinochet	and	the	House	of	Lords:
Part	Three’	(2000)	13	LJIL	229–37.
From:	Oxford	Public	International	Law	(http://opil.ouplaw.com).	(c)	Oxford	University	Press,	2015.	All	Rights	Reserved.	Subscriber:	Masaryk	University;	date:
06	November	2018
M	Byers	‘The	Law	and	Politics	of	the	Pinochet	Case’	(2000)	10	DukeJComp&IntlL	415–41.
M	García	Arán	(ed)	Crimen	internacional	y	jurisdicción	universal	(Tirant	lo	Blanch	Valencia
2000).
C	Nicholls	‘Reflections	on	Pinochet’	(2000)	41	VaJIntlL	140–51.
NS	Rodley	‘Breaking	the	Cycle	of	Impunity	for	Gross	Violations	of	Human	Rights:	The
Pinochet	Case	in	Perspective’	(2000)	69	ActScandJurisGent	11–26.
S	Villalpando	‘L’affaire	Pinochet:	beaucoup	de	bruit	pour	rien?	L’apport	au	droit
international	de	la	décision	de	la	Chambre	des	Lords	du	24	mars	1999’	(2000)	104	RGDIP
394–427.
R	Wedgwood	‘International	Criminal	Law	and	Augusto	Pinochet’	(2000)	40	VaJIntlL	829–
47.
R	Jennings	‘The	Pinochet	Extradition	Case	in	the	English	Courts’	in	L	Boisson	de
Chazournes	and	V	Gowlland-Debbas	(eds)	The	International	Legal	System	in	Quest	of
Equity	and	Universality:	Liber	Amicorum	Georges	Abi-Saab	(Nijhoff	The	Hague	2001)	677–
98.
M	Ruffert	‘Pinochet	Follow	up:	The	End	of	Sovereign	Immunity?’	(2001)	48	NILR	171–95.
PJ	Sands	‘Turtles	and	Torturers:	The	Transformation	of	International	Law’	(2001)	33
NYUJIntlL&Pol	527–59.
M	Davis	(ed)	The	Pinochet	Case:	Origins,	Progress	and	Implications	(Institute	of	Latin
American	Studies	London	2003).
B	Zehnder,	Immunität	von	Staatsoberhäuptern	und	der	Schutz	elementarer
Menschenrechte—der	Fall	Pinochet	(Nomos	Baden-Baden	2003).
N	Roth-Arriaza,	The	Pinochet	Effect:	Transnational	Justice	in	the	Age	of	Human	Rights
(University	of	Pennsylvania	Press	Philadelphia	2005).
R	Evans	‘Pinochet	in	London—Pinochet	in	Chile:	International	and	Domestic	Politics	in
Human	Rights	Policy’	(2006)	28	HumRtsQ	207–44.
RC	Power	‘Pinochet	and	the	Uncertain	Globalization	of	Criminal	Law’	(2007)	39
GWashIntlLRev	89–147.
Select	Documents
Al-Adsani	v	United	Kingdom	(ECtHR)	Reports	2001-XI	79.
Case	concerning	the	Arrest	Warrant	of	11	April	2000	(Democratic	Republic	of	the	Congo	v
Belgium)	[2002]	ICJ	Rep	3.
Chilean	National	Commission	on	Truth	and	Reconciliation	Report	of	the	Chilean	National
Commission	on	Truth	and	Reconciliation	(Notre	Dame	University	of	Notre	Dame	Press
1993)	(Rettig	Report).
Comisión	Nacional	sobre	Prisión	Política	y	Tortura	Informe	de	la	Comisión	Nacional	sobre
Prisión	Política	y	Tortura	(Valech	Report).
Convention	against	Torture	and	Other	Cruel,	Inhuman	or	Degrading	Treatment	or
Punishment	(adopted	on	10	December	1984,	entered	into	force	26	June	1987)	1465	UNTS
85.
Decree	Law	No	2191	(19	April	1978)	Diario	Oficial	de	la	República	de	Chile	No	30,042
(Chilean	Amnesty	Law).
European	Convention	on	Extradition	(done	13	December	1957,	entered	into	force	18	April
1960)	359	UNTS	273.
Institut	de	Droit	International	‘Universal	Criminal	Jurisdiction	With	Respect	to	the	Crime	of
Genocide,	Crimes	against	Humanity	and	War	Crimes’	(adopted	26	August	2005)	(2006)
71(2)	AnnIDI	297.
Inter-American	Convention	on	Forced	Disappearance	of	Persons	(done	9	June	1994,	entered
into	force	28	March	1996)	(1994)	33	ILM	1529.
Jones	v	Ministry	of	Interior	Al-Mamlaka	Al-Arabiya	AS	Saudiya	(the	Kingdom	of	Saudi
Arabia	[2006]	UKHL	26.
From:	Oxford	Public	International	Law	(http://opil.ouplaw.com).	(c)	Oxford	University	Press,	2015.	All	Rights	Reserved.	Subscriber:	Masaryk	University;	date:
06	November	2018
Kingdom	of	Spain	v	Augusto	Pinochet	Ugarte	119	ILR	253.
Prosecutor	v	Furundžija	(Judgment)	ICTY-95-17	(10	December	1998).
Re	Augusto	Pinochet	Ugarte	119	ILR	27.
R	v	Bow	Street	Metropolitan	Stipendiary	Magistrate,	ex	p	Pinochet	Ugarte	(No	1)	United
Kingdom	House	of	Lords	(25	November	1998)	119	ILR	51.
R	v	Bow	Street	Metropolitan	Stipendiary	Magistrate,	ex	p	Pinochet	Ugarte	(No	2)	United
Kingdom	House	of	Lords	(15	January	1999)	119	ILR	112.
R	v	Bow	Street	Metropolitan	Stipendiary	Magistrate,	ex	p	Pinochet	Ugarte	(No	3)	United
Kingdom	House	of	Lords	(24	March	1999)	119	ILR	137.
R	v	Secretary	of	State	for	the	Home	Department,	ex	p	the	Kingdom	of	Belgium	England
High	Court	Queen’s	Bench	Division	(15	February	2000)	119	ILR	261.
Vienna	Convention	on	Diplomatic	Relations	(done	18	April	1961,	entered	into	force	24	April
1961)	500	UNTS	95.