Whatever the decision in the House of Lords, the UK has a duty to

ensure Pinochet's guilt or innocence is determined by a court of law

Whatever the outcome of the House of Lords' ruling, the United Kingdom (UK) must not take any steps that could prevent other courts from

rendering a decision on Augusto Pinochet's case, Amnesty International said in a letter sent today to the UK Home Secretary, Jack Straw.

In its letter, the human rights organization recalls the commitment expressed only four months ago when, as a leading representative of the 120

countries that voted in Rome for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court, the UK declared that crimes against humanity, war

crimes and genocide "must not go unpunished."

The representatives of those 120 countries also stressed that effective prosecution of these crimes "must be ensured by taking measures at the national

level and by enhancing international cooperation", and accepted "the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for

international crimes" and the need to "put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes".

"The UK must now fulfill that commitment," Amnesty International stressed. "We urge Mr Straw to ensure that -- should the House of Lords reverse

the High Court judgment -- any decision by the magistrate to issue an extradition warrant be respected by the executive, so that the guilt or innocence

of General Pinochet can be determined by a court of law."

If the House of Lords were to affirm the judgment of the High Court, the victims who have made an application to the European Court of Human

Rights -- in the case of Jaccard-Veloso v. the United Kingdom and Aguilar Diaz v. The United Kingdom -- plan to renew their application.

"Amnesty International urges the UK to give an undertaking not to take any step which could defeat the ability of the European Court of Human

Rights to render a prompt a meaningful decision," the organization said.

"In addition, if the House of Lords were to affirm the High Court judgment, the UK government should amend or repeal any legislation which could

be interpreted as a bar to fulfilling its obligations under international law to try any person -- regardless of rank and official position -- suspected of

crimes against humanity."

The systematic nature, scale, and gravity of human rights violations -- disappearances, killings, torture, arbitrary detentions -- committed under the

military government of Augusto Pinochet constitute crimes against humanity under international law. Any state can exercise jurisdiction over them.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment -- as well as customary international law --

dictate that those suspected of such crimes should either be tried, extradited to another state for trial, or surrendered to an international criminal court.

Representatives of the Associations of Families of the Detained-Disappeared and of the Detained and Politically Executed in Chile have also written to

Mr Straw expressing dismay at the idea that Augusto Pinochet could enjoy sovereign immunity, which they describe as "an affront not only to the

Chilean people but also to humanity as a whole".

The Associations stressed that accepting that torture and other violations of fundamental human rights are legitimate acts of the State, "constitutes a

judicial aberration and is morally unacceptable".

For a quarter of a century relatives of the victims of human rights violations in Chile have been campaigning for full truth and justice, which have so

far been denied to them. Amnesty International fully supports their endeavours.

"Only the uncovering of the truth and the recognition of the atrocities committed and their perpetrators can heal the wounds of the past and allow the

Chilean society to look forward to a stable future," Amnesty International said.

"If General Pinochet is returned to Chile, there will be no determination of his guilt or innocence with respect to any of the charges listed in the

extradition requests of Spain, France or Switzerland or in any of the legal proceedings in Chile," the organization stressed. "He has sought protection

from any Chilean criminal or civil proceedings through the amnesty law and constitutional provisions passed during his time in power."

The letter sent by AI to the UK Home Secretary Jack Straw

Ref.:EUR 45/21/98

The Rt Hon. Jack Straw, M.P.

Home Office

50 Queen Anne's Gate

London SW 1H 9AT

18 November 1998

Dear Mr Straw,

Four months ago, representatives of 120 countries, led by the United Kingdom, voted at the diplomatic conference in Rome to establish a permanent

international criminal court to complement the efforts of national courts in punishing those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war

crimes. They declared that "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their

effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation", that they were

"Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes" and that it was "the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction

over those responsible for international crimes".

I am writing to you to urge that you fulfill that commitment by ensuring that if the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords decides to reverse the

judgment of the High Court on 28 October 1998 in Matter of Pinochet, any decision by the magistrate to issue an extradition warrant be respected by

the executive so that the guilt or innocence of General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte of the charges listed in an extradition warrant can be determined by a

court of law.

The judgment of the High Court held that General Pinochet was immune as a former head of state from extradition and prosecution for systematic

murder, torture, "disappearance", illegal detention and forcible transfers. As Amnesty International has explained in its recent publication, The Case of

General Pinochet: Universal jurisdiction and the absence of immunity for crimes against humanity, October 1998 (AI Index: EUR 45/21/98), a

copy of which is being forwarded to you together with the original of this letter, such acts fall within the definition of crimes against humanity over

which all states have universal jurisdiction. Indeed, states have a duty to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice in their own courts, to

extradite the suspects to a state willing and able to do so in a fair trial or to surrender the suspects to an international criminal court with jurisdiction

over the crimes and suspects. It is indisputable that heads of state and former heads of state are not immune from criminal responsibility under

international law in either international courts or in national courts for acts of torture, genocide or crimes against humanity.

A quarter century ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Principles of International Co-operation in the Detection, Arrest, Extradition

and Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity in Resolution 3074 (XXVIII) of 3 December 1973. This resolution

declares that all states have extensive obligations to cooperate with each other in bringing to justice those responsible for crimes against humanity

wherever these crimes occurred and must not take any measures which would be prejudicial to these obligations. In particular, "States shall assist each

other in detecting, arresting and bringing to trial persons suspected of having committed such crimes" and they "shall not take any legislative or other

measures which may be prejudicial to the international obligations they have assumed in regard to the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of

persons guilty of . . . crimes against humanity".

There are no grounds under the European Convention on Extradition or its Protocols or customary international law which would permit a state to

deny extradition of a person suspected of torture, genocide or crimes against humanity, unless that state were prosecuting the suspect for these crimes.

We note that the family of William Beausire, a United Kingdom citizen, who was tortured and "disappeared" in Chile in 1975 have asked the Attorney

General to begin an investigation. Although he declined at the time on the ground that the family had supplied "insufficient admissible evidence under

English law", he said that he would consider the request again if the family provided "additional material", and the family has done so. Moreover, any

decision concerning whether a person suspected of such crimes is competent to stand trial should be decided by a court with jurisdiction to try the

suspect - not an executive official - in an open and transparent process in which the evidence on the question of fitness to stand trial can be tested by

the prosecutor and, where this is permitted, by victims participating as parties civiles.

The Chilean intelligence services, formed during the government of General Augusto Pinochet, were instrumental in carrying out a policy of

systematic and gross human rights violations. Thousands of people were subjected to systematic torture, forced "disappearances", arbitrary detention

and exile. The reports of two commissions formed when the civilian government was re-instated in 1990 have recorded 3,197 victims of forced

"disappearance", killings and death under torture. However, the restrictions imposed in the mandate of the commissions did not allow for individuals

responsible for human rights violations to be named and did not include the cases of tens of thousands of people who were subjected to torture and

who survived, or those arbitrarily detained or exiled. Most of those responsible for human rights violations remain unpunished. The military has

refused to disclose the whereabouts of most victims of forced "disappearances".

For a quarter of a century, relatives of the victims of human rights violations have campaigned for justice and truth. During all these years Chilean

society has been divided over the human rights violations committed during the period of military government. However, the wounds of the past can

only be healed through uncovering the truth and the full recognition of the atrocities committed. Only then can a society look forward to a stable

future. In Chile full truth and justice have been denied to victims and relatives through several mechanisms which guarantee impunity and block

effective judicial investigations within the country.

If the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords were to affirm the judgment of the High Court, the victims who have made applications to European

Court of Human Rights in the cases of Jaccard-Veloso v. United Kingdom and Aguilar Diaz v. United Kingdom plan to renew or to continue to

proceed with their applications. Amnesty International urges that the United Kingdom give an undertaking not to take any step which would defeat the

ability of the European Court of Human Rights to render a prompt and meaningful decision.

In addition, if the Judicial Committee were to affirm the High Court judgment, Amnesty International would urge that the government amend or

repeal any legislation which could be interpreted as a bar to fulfilling its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment or customary international law to try any person, regardless of official position, suspected of torture, genocide or

other crimes against humanity, in its own courts, to extradite the suspect to another state or to surrender that person to an international criminal court.

If General Pinochet is returned to Chile, there will be no determination of his guilt or innocence with respect to any of the charges listed in the

extradition requests of Spain, France or Switzerland or in any of the legal proceedings in Chile. During his government General Pinochet passed an

amnesty law and introduced constitutional provisions to ensure that he would not be brought to justice in Chile. The record of the Chilean Supreme

Court since 1973 to date has been one of a systematic endorsement of impunity.

Amnesty International would appreciate the opportunity to present its concerns and hear your views during a meeting with you at your earliest

convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Evans

On behalf of the Secretary General