Lieutenant Commander Astiz (Hansard, 18 June 1982)

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, Lieutenant Commander Astiz left this country for Rio de Janeiro on 10th June. Her Majesty's Government decided to repatriate him because no useful purpose would have been served by keeping him further in this country. The United Kingdom had no jurisdiction to try him for any of his alleged offences, which were not committed on British territory. Nor could Astiz have been extradited under the United Kingdom's bilateral agreements with France and Sweden. He was treated fully in accordance with the provisions of the third Geneva Convention.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, does not the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 apply equally in this case? Was there not a clear prima facie case against Lieutenant Commander Astiz under Articles 3, 146 and 147 of the 1949 convention? Does not Article 148 of that convention make it mandatory on Her Majesty's Government to bring a person like Lieutenant Commander Astiz to trial in the circumstances in which he came to this country? The question is, why did Her Majesty's Government let him go before all these matters could be tested in the courts?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I shall certainly look up the different articles to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred, but I am advised that we have no jurisdiction to try Astiz in the United Kingdom for any of the offences which he is alleged to have committed in Argentina. Even if a crime had been committed against a British subject, this would not in itself have provided our courts with jurisdiction.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, quite apart from the overwhelming fact that there was no jurisdiction—which, if I may say so, does create difficulties—is it not also the case that we respected the right to silence of prisoners of war, as I suppose he might be described? I do not know whether the Minister can help over this, but I understand that he maintained silence and that we honoured our obligations under the Geneva Convention as, if I may say so, this country always endeavours to do.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that question, because I think it helps to clarify the matter. Questions which had been received from the French and the Swedish Governments were put to Astiz on 8th June by a senior officer of the Sussex Constabulary, and a detailed report will be given to the French and Swedish Governments as soon as possible.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether those Argentinian prisoners of war who are still on the Falklands are being made, first, to clear minefields and, secondly, to clean up the houses of those islanders which they have looted and vandalised, often in the most disgusting fashion?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, that is another question.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why this man was returned by air in the luxury of a first-class compartment to the Argentine?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the apportionment of the cost involved in repatriation is a matter for discussion between Her Majesty's Government and Argentina through their protecting power, Brazil.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question? Why was he returned first-class?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that particular question, except that so far as I am aware the most sensible and rapid means of returning Astiz where he ought to go were used.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, can my noble friend clarify the answer he gave just now when he said that a report was being prepared on the interrogation—if that is the word—of Commander Astiz? Can he say whether the French and the Swedes have been given whatever answers he gave, and have been given the opportunity to put further questions if they arise?

§ Lord Belstead
No, my Lords, I cannot add to what I have said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. We did what we felt we were required to do in acting properly under the Geneva conventions. Astiz is now repatriated.

Lord Morris
My Lords, bearing in mind my noble friend's original Answer when he said that: no useful purpose would have been served ", if Commander Astiz had been treated in any other way, would my noble friend agree that to bring an evil man to justice is nothing if not useful?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, that would be a matter for the courts. For our courts there was no jurisdiction.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, despiteall the noble Lord has said about the third convention, would he not agree that the fourth convention makes torture committed in the course of an armed conflict—and the so-called dirty war in Argentina was an armed conflict (they used 767 Pucara aircraft in it)—justiciable in any country which happens to be able to lay hands on the accused person Would he not also agree that the fourth convention makes the prosecution of such persons mandatory on all signatories?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I think that I have made the position clear. There were only two ways in which to go about this. One was for there to be jurisdiction for the courts, and for our courts there was no jurisdiction. The other way was to question Astiz as a prisoner of war. Under the third Geneva Convention Astiz was treated fully in accordance with the provisions. These require us not to put any pressure on him to obtain information of any kind. All that prisoners of war are required to provide is their name, rank and number. That is what happened. Astiz was then repatriated.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, is it not also the case that the third convention does not require the Government to return any prisoner of war until the cessation of hostilities, but that Astiz was returned before the cessation of hostilities?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble Lord is in effect—and I am not unsympathetic to the concern he is showing—starting to say that Astiz should have been treated as a hostage. That would have been quite inconsistent with the provisions of the third Geneva Convention.