The verdict in the High Court in London will have given great cheer to the family and followers of General Pinochet and brought disappointment and despair to his many foes. It should raise also some considerable discussion within England's legal and human rights circles. The High Court judges found that General Pinochet is "entitled to immunity as former sovereign from the criminal and civil process of the English courts".
Are all past and present foreign sovereigns entitled to such immunity, regardless of what crimes it is alleged they committed? Can Mr Slobodan Milosevic plan some Christmas shopping in London confident that, whatever crimes he might be accused of - even perhaps against British citizens - he will not have to face any consequences in the English courts? The Attorney-General stated yesterday that General Pinochet cannot be prosecuted in an English court because there is "insufficient admissible evidence under English law of an offence". That is a position which holds clear logic but the High Court decision is more difficult to comprehend. The appeal to the House of Lords against the decision will be keenly awaited.
The British government would have us believe that the Pinochet extradition warrant is strictly one for the courts alone to decide on. This is palpable nonsense. Hardly had the warrant been served against General Pinochet but Mr Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister's closest Cabinet colleague, expressed the opinion "that a brutal dictator such as Pinochet should be claiming diplomatic immunity is pretty gut-wrenching stuff". Mr Mandelson is Secretary of State for Trade so the issue, to put it mildly, is not part of his brief. Moreover, he has an impeccable record of loyal service as his master's voice and he would not have uttered what Mr Blair did not want uttered. Also, last week the Home Office was as discourteous as it is possible to be to a deputation of senior Chilean politicians. Clearly, the government felt that political capital could be gained and has not been slow to seize what it can.
What Mr Blair did not think of at the time was the possible consequences of extradition. In the first place, there is the near certainty that it could lead to other cases. Mr Gorbachev is a regular visitor to London. He is also a wanted man in Lithuania for the deaths of protestors at the hands of Soviet troops. President Castro, were he to set foot in the United States, would be prosecuted by Cuban exiles for the 550 executions which followed his assumption of power. The extradition from England of both could be sought. Would England become a complete no-go area for rulers and former rulers with questionable records?
There is also the difficulty that extradition would pose for Chile's extremely-delicate democracy. The rioting on Santiago's streets will tempt many Chilean generals to stir out of the barracks. General Pinochet's extradition might tempt the rest. The Pinochet rule of Chile was an appalling era of torture and murder by a military untroubled by concepts of human rights. Natural justice may be served well by sending him for trial but it is hardly worth the risk of bringing down Chile's hard-won democracy, however imperfect it may be.