General Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile, was yesterday forced one step closer to facing trial for the human rights abuses committed under his authority. The law lords overruled, by a 3-2 majority, the High Court's decision that, as a former head of state, Gen Pinochet enjoyed immunity from arrest under British law for crimes committed while he was in power.
One argument which tipped the balance against the general held that he was not a properly constituted head of state when many of the crimes with which he is charged were committed. It was also argued that crimes such as genocide, terrorism and torture should not, under current international law, enjoy immunity under any jurisdiction. It is now up to Mr Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, to decide whether to allow Spain's application for the general's extradition to go before the British courts.
Anyone who believes that human rights are universal and indivisible will instinctively welcome the law lords's ruling, and share a little of the satisfaction of the general's surviving victims and their families and friends. The criminal record of the Pinochet regime is well documented. His rule began with the illegal and violent seizure of state power and the suppression of democratic liberties. There were countless arbitrary arrests, followed by summary executions, and "disappearances". The vilest forms of torture were routinely practised by Gen Pinochet's secret police. Furthermore, they extended their reign of terror far beyond Chile's borders, a point which forms an important part of the Spanish legal argument for his extradition.
The healthy instinct to see that such crimes do not go unpunished must be qualified with caution, however. There are weighty arguments against a rush to justice. The first is that every legitimate legal defence must be afforded to the general. One of democracy's best features is that it affords its enemies those very rights which they, once in power, would deny to democrats. So far, both the Spanish and British proceedings have been impeccable in this regard.
The second is that it is up to Chile alone to judge its own past. Even among Pinochet's victims, opinion is divided on this question, but the international dimension to the charges against him make a compelling case for trying him wherever his victims are to be found. Then there are those who say that, if Gen Pinochet stands trial, a Pandora's box will open. Is immunity too high a price to pay for a democratic settlement? Are we now going to see cases brought against, for example, F.W. de Klerk or Yasser Arafat for crimes allegedly committed under their authority?
The answer must be that each case should be considered on its merits. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights next month we should welcome any serious effort to make the universality of those noble sentiments a reality. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that the Pinochet case has been taken this far may at least give tyrants some small cause to pause before inflicting an inhuman regime on their citizens. It may even give pause to those democratic leaders who have seen fit to give them aid and comfort.