{
  "id": "RL30117",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30117",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101822,
      "date": "2000-03-03",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:38:28.424941",
      "title": "Pinochet Extradition Case: Selected Legal Issues",
      "summary": "On March 2, 2000, Britain's Home Secretary Jack Straw terminated the unprecedented\nproceeding\nto extradite General Pinochet of Chile to Spain for trial on alleged human rights violations\ncommitted while he was in power in Chile and allowed him to return home. The reason cited by the\nHome Secretary was that several strokes suffered by Pinochet in the fall of 1999 had rendered him\n\"mentally [in]capable of meaningful participation in a trial.\"\n  The proceeding stemmed from two requests for Pinochet's extradition made by Spanish\nauthorities in mid-October, 1998, when they discovered Pinochet was in England for back surgery\nand other purposes. Both requests alleged Pinochet's culpability for numerous human rights\nviolations committed during his time in power. A trial court initially held him to be absolutely\nimmune as a former head of state from arrest and extradition. But in a seminal decision on\nNovember 25, 1998, a panel of the Lords of Appeal of the House of Lords held, 3-2, that the\ninternational law of human rights has evolved to the point that it overrides the long-standing doctrine\nof immunity. On December 17, 1998, however, that decision was set aside on the grounds one of\nthe judges in the majority had failed to disclose that he had a continuing association with Amnesty\nInternational, a private organization which had been permitted to intervene in the case.\n  As a consequence, a differently constituted panel of Law Lords, after twelve days of oral\nargument, issued a new decision on March 24, 1999. That decision substantially narrowed the\ncharges against Pinochet to just a few instances of torture allegedly committed after September 29,\n1988, because prior to that time neither England nor Chile had ratified the Torture Convention. But\nthe court again held that Pinochet possessed no immunity as a former head of state from the charges\nof torture. Because its limitation of the charges for which Pinochet might be extradited and its ruling\non immunity constituted a \"substantial change in circumstances,\" however, the court in that decision\ninvited the Home Secretary to exercise the statutory power he has over extradition requests and to\nreconsider whether Spain's extradition request ought to move forward.\n  The Home Secretary did so; and on April 15, 1999, he concluded that the extradition\nproceedings ought to be allowed to continue. On October 8, 1999, a British magistrate ruled that\nSpain's extradition request met the standard of dual criminality set forth in the European Convention\non Extradition and England's implementing statute and that, therefore, Pinochet should be extradited\nto Spain. In early January 2000, however, the Home Secretary reported that he was \"minded\" to\nterminate the extradition proceeding because of recent deterioration in Pinochet's mental health. \nSpain, Belgium, France, Switzerland and several human rights organizations protested. But on\nMarch 2 the Home Secretary issued a statement detailing his reasons and terminated the proceeding. \nGeneral Pinochet immediately boarded a Chilean plane and returned to Chile.\n  This report summarizes these complex and precedent-setting proceedings. It will not be\nupdated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30117",
          "sha1": "2041059f113f8448d2a8278cdd1290ee1ff0fd4a",
          "filename": "files/20000303_RL30117_2041059f113f8448d2a8278cdd1290ee1ff0fd4a.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000303_RL30117_2041059f113f8448d2a8278cdd1290ee1ff0fd4a.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}