The British government yesterday was resisting calls from Labour backbenchers for a debate on the Pinochet affair, as Spanish lawyers accused the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, of contravening the 1984 Convention Against Torture.
Mr Joan Garces and Mr Manuel Murillo, who helped prepared the case for the former dictator's extradition to Spain, said they could not evaluate Mr Straw's opinion that Gen Augusto Pinochet was unfit to stand trial if the medical reports on which he based his decision remained secret.
And as lawyers representing human rights groups met in London to consider the legal avenues open to them, some 16 MPs initially signed a Commons motion calling for the release of the medical evidence. Mr Straw told MPs on Wednesday that four independent clinicians had agreed the former dictator was unfit to stand trial and the general had exercised his right to patient confidentiality.
The signatories to the motion - who included Mr Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Alan Simpson, Mr Tony Benn, Ms Ann Clwyd, Ms Joan Ruddock and Ms Diane Abbott - expressed "profound regret" that Gen Pinochet would be unlikely to face trial if returned home to Chile and their dismay on behalf of his victims, who were "not extended the same opportunity of medical advice and support" now given to him.
A spokesman for Amnesty International insisted the organisation was not saying Gen Pinochet should stand trial regardless of his condition. Rather it was concerned "that the process the Home Secretary has adopted is a denial of natural justice". He continued: "We are extremely concerned about the fact that the prosecuting parties have not got access to the detail of the medical reports. Having said that, our concern is with the process."
With representations due to be made to Mr Straw by next Tuesday, lawyers were yesterday exploring all possibilities, including whether his decision constituted a breach of law and if it was open to judicial review. Application for judicial review can be lodged only after Mr Straw confirms his final decision.
Editorial comment: page 15