The announcement by the British Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, that he is "minded" to block the extradition to Spain of the former dictator, Gen Augusto Pinochet, on medical grounds is the latest twist in a complex legal saga, but it may not be the last. Mr Straw has given interested parties seven days to produce arguments to change his mind. If he remains unpersuaded, it may still be open to these groups to appeal for a judicial review of his final decision. So the general could find himself facing several more months under house arrest in Britain.
Mr Straw's decision is acceptable in strict medical and legal principle but questionable in practice. As Amnesty International has stressed, no-one who supports human rights could demand the trial of anyone, no matter how unacceptable their record, who no longer has the mental or physical capacity to defend themselves. Yet again, Gen Pinochet is the personal beneficiary of those civilised and democratic values which he denied to his own people.
In practice, however, Mr Straw's action is questionable, and probably regrettable. Why did he wait so long to ask for an independent medical assessment of the general's fitness to stand trial? Has he been influenced by the open pressure from the Chilean government, and the more discreet representations from Madrid, to let the general off the hook? If New Labour has allowed opportunist business and political interests to block what Mrs Mary Robinson aptly described earlier this week as a major advance in the defence of human rights, its claim to uphold an "ethical foreign policy" will have been tarnished.
The decision to maintain the secrecy of Gen Pinochet's medical records, again defensible in principle, also raises questions in practice. It will fuel suspicion that Mr Straw's move is a diplomatic subterfuge. If Gen Pinochet miraculously recovers his health in Chile, and returns to politics as a self-appointed "life-long senator", Mr Straw and his government will be shamed and derided. This question is all the more delicate in the context of next Sunday's crucial presidential run-off between the Chilean right and centre-left.
The Chilean authorities themselves have added to confusion on this issue, since they assert that Gen Pinochet can now be tried in Chile. It is hard to see why this should be, since they argued he was unfit to be tried in Spain. Ironically, Chilean law appears less sensitive to the medical condition of defendants than Britain's. Their claim, however, inadvertently reveals how much has been achieved by Judge Baltasar Garzon's extradition petition. Before his arrest in London, the former dictator was untouchable in his own country. Since then, however, some Chilean judges have found new courage to circumvent the immunity provisions so carefully constructed by the military. No matter what happens now, it remains true that this extraordinary case has made the world a less comfortable place for dictators everywhere.