The British Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, yesterday defended his intention to halt extradition proceedings and send the former dictator, Gen Augusto Pinochet, home to Chile. But the medical evidence on which Mr Straw has based his decision seems set to remain secret.
The senior Labour MP, Ms Ann Clwyd, chairman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, bitterly complained that non-disclosure of the medical evidence would make it impossible for interested parties to make any representations challenging Mr Straw's decision.
In a statement to MPs explaining why he was now "minded" to free the general, Mr Straw said he was "entitled to the usual patient confidentiality and has chosen to exercise that right". Mr Straw said he had no discretion in the matter. While Mr Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, insisted nobody with the general's background deserved confidentiality, Mr Straw's decision was defended by Downing Street. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Gen Pinochet and his defence team were entitled to confidentiality. "The point is people having the right to privacy for their medical records, it's the simple point about medical records."
Mr Straw told MPs it was the "unequivocal and unanimous conclusion" of four eminent and independent clinicians that a deterioration in Gen Pinochet's health late last year had left him unfit to stand trial, and that no change could now be expected in that position. Having earlier ruled that the former dictator was fit to stand trial, Mr Straw said it was the Chilean embassy which prompted the January 5th examination, conducted by the four-strong team of experts in geriatric medicine, neurology and neuropsychology.
Following representations in October by the embassy, Mr Straw said, it was his "clear legal duty" under extradition law to establish the facts. The experts were of "outstanding national and international reputation" and without any "inappropriate personal interest in the case".
The clear implication of Mr Straw's answers to parliamentary questions was that Gen Pinochet was now considered mentally as well as physically incapable of standing trial on torture charges. Mr Straw told Mr Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, that among the criteria he had considered was "whether Gen Pinochet would be in a position to follow the proceedings, whether he could give intelligible instructions to those representing him, and whether he could give a coherent statement". Home Office officials said later that these issues were fundamental to a decision as to whether someone was fit to stand trial.
Mr Straw has given parties until next Tuesday to make representations, and any application to seek a judicial review, whether by the Spanish authorities or campaign groups, can only be lodged after the Home Secretary has confirmed his final decision.
The Shadow Home Secretary, Ms Ann Widdecombe, berated Mr Straw, charging that he had handled the issue from the outset in "a bumbling and incompetent manner", and subjected the country to a long and costly legal argument which could see Gen Pinochet detained further while legal argument continued. But with Lady Thatcher having already congratulated Mr Straw for his "fair-minded" decision, the general relief on the Conservative benches was as palpable as the dismay among those Labour MPs and campaigners who had originally heralded a new era in which former brutal dictators would no longer enjoy immunity on leaving their jurisdictions.
Mr David Winnick MP asked if there was not "a danger that a wrong kind of message will go out to every mass murderer and torturer around the world, including Saddam Hussein, that when the time comes and they have lost power they will not be brought to justice?"
Mr Tony Benn told Mr Straw a decision to release Gen Pinochet in this way would undermine the government's proclaimed "ethical foreign policy". While Mr Straw understood such concerns, he hoped the message going out was "that this is a country which follows the rule of law".