British Judges Reject Immunity for Pinochet

In a surprise decision, Britain’s highest court ruled Wednesday that former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet does not have immunity from prosecution for acts of murder, torture and hostage-taking carried out during his 17 years in power.

The House of Lords tribunal split 3 to 2 on the landmark ruling, with the majority stating that such crimes against humanity can never be considered official acts of state and, therefore, cannot be protected by immunity.

The verdict opens the way for Pinochet’s extradition to Spain to face charges of genocide and torture in a Spanish court, but it by no means ensures it. The case now goes to British Home Secretary Jack Straw, who must decide by Wednesday whether to allow the extradition case to go to court or whether to release Pinochet on humanitarian grounds. Straw already faces intense political pressure on both sides.

Outside the House of Lords, the decision was met with cries of jubilation from Chilean exiles, many of whom were victims of Pinochet’s bloody regime. Human rights activists hailed the ruling as a watershed in international law and “a wake-up call to tyrants around the world.”

But Chilean President Eduardo Frei vowed in a live television broadcast to his country to fight the extradition, and the still-powerful Chilean army expressed “profound frustration, indignation and concern” over the ruling, which, it said, “offends in the gravest manner the sovereignty and dignity of our nation.”

Pinochet supporters in the Chilean capital, Santiago, raged against the verdict. Amid scuffles and weeping, Pinochet’s son, Augusto Pinochet Hiriart, gave an outraged speech.

“It is not easy to make a speech when I feel the tremendous impotence of a pained heart,” bellowed the younger Pinochet, quivering and red-faced. “There is something we cannot forget: My father has received this blow on his birthday. There is no doubt that a political, sectarian faction has triumphed. But this was a battle, not the whole war.”

There was jubilation, however, at the headquarters of an organization of relatives of those who died and disappeared during the Pinochet regime.

“This is not just about Chile, this is about all of humanity,” Juan Pablo Letelier, a Socialist Party legislator, said as the crowd cheered. “This is saying to humanity that there are limits when it comes to certain crimes like the ones committed in this case.”

Meanwhile, Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s former Conservative prime minister, appealed to the government to release the “old, frail and sick” former dictator. Thatcher had entertained Pinochet for tea shortly before his Oct. 16 detention at a London clinic, where he was recovering from back surgery. Pinochet has since been transferred to another clinic in north London.

Ex-Tyrant Takes News Calmly, Visitor Says

Pinochet reportedly received the news of his legal setback calmly. “He was composed, ready to go on. He said it is not easy to beat him,” Hernan Larrain, a right-wing member of Chile’s parliament who visited Pinochet after the ruling, told the Reuters news service.

The Spanish arrest warrant accuses Pinochet of involvement in the deaths and disappearances of more than 3,000 people--including many Spanish citizens--from 1973, when he ousted Socialist President Salvador Allende in a coup, until he relinquished power in 1990.

France and Switzerland have also filed requests for his extradition.

The gilded House of Lords was a scene of high drama as the five Law Lords, sitting as Britain’s highest court, gathered for judgment day and stood up one by one to read their opinions to a hushed audience.

The first two, Gordon Slynn and Anthony Lloyd, argued for Pinochet’s immunity, raising the likelihood that the former general would soon be flying home.

But the next two judges, Gordon Nicholls and Johan Van Zyl Steyn, disagreed, arguing that Pinochet’s former status as head of state did not grant him unlimited protection.

With the vote tied 2 to 2, Pinochet’s lawyers, human rights activists and representatives of families of the dead and disappeared under Pinochet’s rule held their collective breath as the fifth and final judge, Leonard Hoffman, rose to issue his decision. His terse statement in favor of the appeal to lift immunity elicited astonished gasps and muffled cries of joy from the public galleries.

Nicholls, of the majority opinion, argued that not even heads of state should be free from prosecution for certain crimes.

“International law has made plain that certain types of conduct, including torture and hostage-taking, are not acceptable conduct on the part of anyone. This applies as much to heads of state, or even more so, as it does to everyone else. The contrary conclusion would make a mockery of international law,” he wrote in his opinion.

He said this was made clear long before Pinochet seized power in 1973, citing the charter of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal in 1945 and the U.N. resolution of the following year reaffirming the principles of the Nuremberg tribunal.

Exiles Break Into Cheers, Embrace

In the street outside the House of Lords, exiles broke into cheers and euphoric embraces. Daniel Diaz, a 70-year-old former miner who was jailed by Pinochet and whose nephew was killed by the regime, burst into tears.

“We never thought we would see this happen,” Diaz said before using a mobile telephone to call his sister in Australia with the news. “The best Christmas present we could have.”

Around him, exiles chanted, “Now is the time to pay for your crimes,” and drivers of passing cars honked their approval while British police tried to contain the crowds.

Legal experts said the Law Lords’ ruling had far-reaching implications for international law. They said that although the British decision is not binding in other countries, it would carry great weight, coming as it does from the normally cautious House of Lords.

“It is a wake-up call to tyrants around the world who think about embarking on mass murder,” said Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch. “This is a great day for Pinochet’s thousands of victims. The wheels of justice are turning at last.”

Human rights lawyers immediately turned their attention to Straw, in whose hands Pinochet’s fate now rests.

A lower court set the Wednesday deadline--which could be extended--for Straw to decide whether the Spanish extradition can go before the courts. Lawyers said that even if Straw does issue the requisite “authority to proceed” under Britain’s 1989 Extradition Act, the case could be tied up in appeals for years.

Sherman Carroll, with the London-based Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, urged Straw to “honor his obligation under international and English law to either prosecute Pinochet in England or extradite him to Spain.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair declined to comment on the ruling, saying he still had to read it. Straw also declined to speak. The government has stressed that Straw’s decision will be made on purely judicial grounds, although hints have been dropped in Parliament that the government might consider returning Pinochet to Chile on humanitarian grounds.

Mary Robinson, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said in a statement issued at United Nations headquarters: “The decision handed down today by the House of Lords on the Pinochet case will hearten human rights defenders around the world. In overturning the ruling of the High Court that Pinochet benefits from sovereign immunity, the Law Lords have raised the hope that he will finally be brought to face allegations before a court and confirmed the emerging international consensus against impunity.”

In New York, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights also applauded the decision.

“This is a groundbreaking judgment with consequences far beyond Chile,” said Michael Posner, the committee’s executive director. “It sets new standards in the application of human rights law by clearly stating that heads of state may be called to account for gross human rights violations.”

In a news conference in London after the decision, human rights activists urged the British government not to be influenced by “economic blackmail.” Right-wing political leaders in Chile have suggested suspending British defense contracts and boycotting British and Spanish products.

Chile Argues Against Spain’s Jurisdiction

Chile maintains that Britain should respect Pinochet’s immunity as a Chilean senator-for-life and has argued that Spain has no jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed in Chile.

“This is not the end of the process,” Frei said. “The government knows that this ruling may bring abrupt reactions from some sectors. But it is necessary to warn that one condition for the success of the government’s efforts is a responsible and serene behavior by our institutions and our citizens.”

Frei apparently was speaking to the military as well as to the deeply divided public. Santiago has witnessed repeated demonstrations by those demanding that Pinochet stand trial and those calling for his release.

Even today, no one inspires more loyalty and loathing in Chile than Pinochet, and his arrest threatens to tear apart the country’s fragile democracy. Lawyers for Pinochet raised this specter in their arguments before the Law Lords, but the issue was dismissed by the judges, as were political considerations.

“Arguments about the effect on this country’s diplomatic relations with Chile if extradition were allowed to proceed, or with Spain if refused, are not matters for the court,” Nicholls wrote.

In Santiago, supporters of the former dictator gathered in the mansion that houses the Pinochet Foundation to hear the decision and turned their rage against Chilean and foreign reporters, punching, kicking and hurling drinks at them. They called the Law Lords “cowards,” the journalists “Communists,” and some shouted for the military to get tough.

“We cannot take this situation any longer,” said Hernan Guiloff, the foundation’s vice president. “This nation will not remain calm.”

Spanish court officials said there was no immediate comment from investigating judge Baltasar Garzon, who is seeking Pinochet’s arrest on charges of genocide, torture and terrorism and who initiated the arrest warrant.

The U.S., which worked to undermine the elected Allende government and backed Pinochet’s coup, said it was reviewing the legal implications of the case.

Meanwhile, even before the ruling, Pinochet’s friends in London revealed in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that they were searching for a country home where he could live comfortably if he were forced to stay in Britain through lengthy extradition hearings. It appeared Wednesday that they might need it.

Miller reported from London and Rotella from Santiago. Times staff writer John J. Goldman at the United Nations contributed to this report.

* CHILEANS ARE DIVIDED: Reaction to the ruling against Augusto Pinochet showed again there are two Chiles. A30

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

What’s Next in Pinochet Case

Next steps in the case of Gen. Augusto Pinochet following a ruling by Britain’s highest court that the former Chilean dictator has no immunity from prosecution:

* Home Secretary Jack Straw has until Wednesday to decide whether Spain may initiate extradition proceedings, although the deadline may be extended. If he says yes, court proceedings will begin. If he says no, Pinochet will be free to leave Britain. Similar warrants by France and Switzerland would be nullified too.

* Pinochet has been ordered to appear at Bow Street Magistrate’s Court in London on Wednesday. The law requires anyone who is the subject of an extradition order to appear in court as soon as possible. Pinochet, 83, has been recuperating from back surgery since he was arrested Oct. 16 in his hospital bed.

* If legal proceedings start, they will take many months. If Pinochet were to eventually lose, the home secretary would again have to decide whether to permit the extradition.

Associated Press