HL Deb 02 March 2000 vol 610 cc663-77

3.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place.

"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the case of Senator Pinochet, former Head of State of Chile.

"This morning I informed the House by Written Answer that I had discharged Senator Pinochet from the Spanish extradition request, on the grounds that he was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvement in his condition could be expected. I also reported my decision not to issue an Authority to Proceed in the competing extradition requests from Belgium, France and Switzerland because none of these disclosed an extradition crime. A detailed explanation of my reasons is included in my Answer.

"The House will also now be aware, from the Written Answer given earlier today by my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General that the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that, on the material available to him, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction in this jurisdiction and, in any event, in the light of the medical condition of Senator Pinochet, no court here would allow a trial to take place. My right honourable and learned friend will be making a Statement to the House immediately after mine.

"This morning, Senator Pinochet departed from his bail address at Wentworth and was driven under police escort to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire. He left the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at 1.10 p.m.

"Let me now give the House a full account of what happened in this case as I said I would once the proceedings were concluded. I begin by making some general observations. My role under the Extradition Act 1989 is a quasi-judicial one. Although neither is generally incorporated into our domestic law, both the European Extradition Convention and the United Nations Torture Convention place important obligations on the UK, but I have to discharge those obligations within the powers and responsibilities placed on me by UK law.

"All the decisions which I have taken have been mine alone, and have not been decisions of Her Majesty's Government. Throughout, I have been keenly aware of the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed by Senator Pinochet, and of the desire for justice by those who suffered at the hands of the former Chilean regime. This has been an unprecedented case. Both I and the courts have had to navigate in uncharted territory. Two Judicial Committees of the House of Lords took different views about what offences constituted extradition crimes. More recently, Mr Justice Maurice Kay ruled that my refusal of Belgium's request for disclosure of the medical report which I had commissioned was correct: shortly afterwards a full Divisional Court, while acknowledging strong arguments on both sides, came to the opposite view.

"The following is the chronology of the significant events. Senator Pinochet landed at Heathrow Airport on 22nd September 1998, for a private visit to the United Kingdom. On 16th October the Metropolitan Police received an extradition request from a Madrid court for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet for serious offences including the murder of Spanish citizens. The police were advised by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials that Senator Pinochet did not enjoy diplomatic immunity from arrest. The Bow Street Magistrates' Court then issued a provisional arrest warrant and Senator Pinochet was arrested that evening.

"Senator Pinochet's solicitors made representations to me on 21st October 1998, asking me to cancel this provisional arrest warrant. I declined to do so on the basis that the issues raised at this stage were a matter for the court. They challenged my decision. A Divisional Court, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, rejected that challenge and awarded me my costs. The court nevertheless quashed the warrant on the grounds that Senator Pinochet had sovereign immunity as a former head of state and that the warrant did not disclose an extradition crime. The Crown Prosecution service, acting on behalf of Spain, then entered an appeal to the House of Lords. In a unique feature of this case, the issue was considered twice by the House of Lords, first in November 1998 and then, after the first judgment was vacated, in March 1999. The key majority finding of the second court was that torture was an international crime over which the parties to the Torture Convention had universal jurisdiction and that a former head of state did not have immunity from such crimes. This ruling was a landmark judgment in human rights law, whose impact has been felt far beyond our shores. It will be a permanent legacy of the Pinochet case.

"The second House of Lords judgment restricted the scope and number of the alleged crimes in respect of which Senator Pinochet could be extradited to torture and conspiracy to torture committed in Chile after the UK's ratification of the Torture Convention in December 1988. These charges were of course still extremely serious. I issued a second Authority to Proceed on 14th April 1999, giving my reasons. A second judicial challenge by Senator Pinochet's representatives was again rejected by the Divisional Court. On 8th October 1999 Senator Pinochet was committed by the Bow Street Magistrates' Court to await my decision whether or not to extradite him to Spain. Senator Pinochet's solicitors applied for habeas corpus and a hearing date was set for 20th March this year.

"On 14th October 1999, I received representations from the Chilean Embassy, supported by medical reports, which suggested that there had been a recent and significant deterioration in Senator Pinochet's health. I commissioned a medical examination of Senator Pinochet by a team of independent practitioners of outstanding national and international reputation in their fields. The team consisted of Professor Sir John Grimley Evans, Professor Andrew Lees, and Dr Michael Denham. On the teams advice, Dr Maria Wyke, a consultant neuropsychologist, was brought in.

"I should like to put on record my gratitude to Sir John Grimley Evans and his expert medical team for their assistance. They have performed a very significant public service. They have not been able to speak freely in explaining and, where necessary, defending their findings, despite widespread public scrutiny.

"The clinicians were instructed to undertake the examination to provide me with a fully comprehensive report on the state of Senator Pinochet's health. In particular, they were asked to advise whether there were any aspects of Senator Pinochet's health which suggested that he was not then fit, or was likely to become unfit, to stand trial in Spain. They were told that I was particularly interested in Senator Pinochet's ability to follow a line of questioning, to recall events, some of which took place as long ago as the 1970s, and to give coherent evidence. They were asked to advise me on whether Senator Pinochet could be feigning any of his symptoms.

"As I disclosed in my Statement on 12th January, the conclusions of the medical report, applying the tests I had outlined to them, indicated that Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial and that no significant improvement in that position could be expected. The Government's Chief Medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, confirmed the quality and thoroughness of the report. I am placing the report in the Library.

"I informed the interested parties on 11th January that in the light of this medical evidence and subject to any representations received by 18th January, I was minded to conclude that no purpose would be served by continuing the Spanish extradition request.

"On 25th January a judicial review application was made by Belgium and Amnesty International for disclosure of the medical report. In inviting Senator Pinochet to undertake the medical examination, officials on my behalf had given an undertaking of confidentiality. I indicated to the Divisional Court that, while I would have preferred to disclose the medical report to the requesting states, I considered myself bound by the undertaking I had given, subject to any overriding public interest. Mr Justice Maurice Kay held that the report should not be disclosed, but a full Divisional Court, in a judgment of 15th February, said that whilst the issue had been a very difficult one, the need for transparency to the requesting states in this exceptional case outweighed any duty of confidentiality. It however said that I should disclose the report to Spain, Belgium, France and Switzerland only in terms of strict confidence. I complied with that judgment. I regret to say that the content of this report was almost immediately leaked to the press.

"Requesting states were invited to make any representation on the medical report by Tuesday 22nd February 2000. The representations included opinions from medical practitioners questioning the conclusions of the report.

"I asked Professor Sir John Grimley Evans and his team to review these medical opinions, and received their advice on 27th February.

"The team's advice was also reviewed on 28th February by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson. He commented as follows: 'I was very impressed with the care with which Sir John (and his team) has responded to each oldie points of criticism of their report. This is not a crude rebuttal—it is a sound and logical reply supported by clinical evidence. I believe it is a further reflection of the skill, integrity and independence with which this task has been carried out by the clinicians'. "I considered the matter afresh in the light of all this material. Having done so, I was satisfied that the conclusion of the original report was correct. I intend to place the medical representations and the team's response in the Library when I have secured the agreement of the requesting states.

"The principle that an accused person should be mentally capable of following the proceedings, instructing lawyers and giving coherent evidence is fundamental to the idea of a fair trial. The trial of an accused in the condition diagnosed in Senator Pinochet, on the charges which have been made against him in this case, could not be fair in any country, and would violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in those countries which are party to it.

"A number of the representations which I received argued that even if there were questions about Senator Pinochet's fitness for trial, these should be determined in Spain and not here. I looked at this question with great care. However, I was advised and I concluded that on the basis of English law I was bound to form a view of my own on Senator Pinochet's fitness to stand trial and that I could not refrain from reaching such a view on the basis that the question could be determined in Spain.

"In any event, I established with the assistance of the Spanish authorities that their principles for determining the fitness of an accused to stand trial were similar to ours. I therefore concluded that given the advice that no improvement in Senator Pinochet's condition could be expected, no judicial purpose would have been served by the continuation of extradition proceedings for the objective of a trial in Spain which could not result in any verdict on the charges against him.

"Of the 70,000 letters and e-mails from the public which I have received from all over the world, and many letters from Members of Parliament and organisations, almost all have urged me to allow the extradition proceedings to take their course, so that the allegations made against Senator Pinochet could be tried. I attach great importance to the principle that universal jurisdiction against persons charged with international crimes should be effective. I am all too well aware that the practical consequence of refusing to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain is that he will probably not be tried anywhere. I am very conscious of the sense of injury which will be felt by those who suffered from breaches of human rights in Chile in the past, as well as their relatives. All of these are matters of great concern, and I had them very much in mind when considering the evidence about Senator Pinochet's state of health. They are among the reasons why I required the evidence of Senator Pinochet's condition to satisfy a high standard of expertise, thoroughness, objectivity and cogency before I was prepared to act on it. Ultimately, however, I was driven to the conclusion that a trial of the charges against Senator Pinochet, however desirable, was simply no longer possible.

"The case has taken 17 months, much in court proceedings. While the House of Lords hearings on state immunity were an exceptional feature, this is not an unusual period of time in a complex contested extradition case. The Extradition Act is now over a decade old and I believe the time has come to review it. Work on this was, in fact, already under way before the Pinochet case began, and I intend to publish a consultation paper in due course on options for streamlining our extradition procedures.

"As I have already made clear, this case has been an unprecedented one. Throughout the process, I have sought to exercise my responsibilities in a fair and rational way in accordance with the law.

"It has understandably aroused great debate and feeling, and its impact has been felt world-wide. It has established, beyond question, the principle that those who commit human rights abuses in one country cannot assume that they are safe elsewhere. That will be its lasting legacy'.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.58 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating in this House this long and important Statement. I think that the main reaction of many of us to the events of today is one of relief that the matter has finally been decided and that our diplomatic and trade relations with Chile and, more widely, South America, can start to be rebuilt.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Foreign Office or any other part of the Government—the noble Lord answers for the whole Government—had any indication of the likelihood of the Spanish extradition request before they welcomed Senator Pinochet to Britain? Can the Minister confirm that on two occasions, before the visit of Senator Pinochet in 1998 which led to all these proceedings, Senator Pinochet had been welcomed as a VIP by this Government?

I turn to the later events. Can the Minister confirm that the idea that an attempt should be made to keep the medical report confidential, which ultimately failed, was the suggestion of the Home Secretary and not of Senator Pinochet or his advisers? The Statement says that the Chilean Government raised the medical questions and gave the medical report to the Home Secretary in October 1999. But when did Senator Pinochet's lawyers raise such medical doubts with the Home Secretary?

It is right that extradition law should be reconsidered in the light of this case. But will that consideration include the involvement of political figures, such as the Home Secretary of the day, in such difficult decisions as the present Home Secretary has had to face, particularly in view of the possibility that that Home Secretary may be influenced by political considerations or, for that matter, by his political background? After all, the present Home Secretary was involved in Chilean matters many years ago. Secondly, is it intended that the review should include our extradition arrangements with the Republic of Ireland?

In reflecting on everything that has happened and considering possible questions for the extradition review, I conclude that it is undesirable that where a country is trying to go through a period of reconciliation—as are Chile, South Africa and various other countries, including ourselves in the Irish context—the government and law of other countries should interfere with that reconciliation and make it more difficult.

4.2 p.m.

Lord McNally

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches believe that the Home Secretary has had a difficult decision to make but that he carried out his responsibilities with scrupulous fairness and great compassion?

It is regrettable that General Pinochet will escape standing trial in Spain. The Home Secretary made two points which should be underlined. First, the crimes of which Pinochet was accused were serious, and in normal circumstances he deserved to face justice for them. Secondly, the Home Secretary is right to express concern for those who suffered under the Pinochet regime or lost loved ones at the hands of his torturers. They will have a real sense of justice denied today and have our sympathy.

I welcome what the Home Secretary said about speeding up the extradition process. In relation to the medical evidence which clearly swayed the Home Secretary's judgment, and without trying to counter the expertise that was brought to bear, much of the evidence of disability was circumstantial rather than clinical. I understand that General Pinochet refused to co-operate with a Belgian request for a second opinion. Should an accused in such circumstances have the right to resist such a request? In any event, let us hope that General Pinochet does not experience a miracle cure of his disabilities as his plane crosses the Andes.

The Home Secretary chose to ignore the European convention on extradition in these exceptional circumstances. Can the Minister confirm that that in no way weakens the Government's commitment to see established an international criminal court to try such cases? When will they ratify the ICC treaty? The Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, in July 1998 stated in Parliament that it was the Government's intention to be among the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty. We hope that that momentum is not lost.

In the meantime, while we understand why the Home Secretary made his judgment under English law, it is strange that he should second-guess Spanish law. Is it not normal to let all legal processes go forward and allow the Spanish courts to make their judgment on whether or not the general should face trial?

We acknowledge that this was not an easy decision. But the Minister should be aware that General Pinochet leaves our shores because of the Home Secretary's sense of compassion, a compassion the general did not show to the people of Chile during his years of repression and torture. He may be too mentally impaired to stand trial, but he knows that we abhor what he did and what he stands for. We send to the people of Chile our good wishes that democracy and human rights will continue to flourish there, and trust that they take the appropriate decisions now that the general is returning to Chile to defend those rights in the future. For Pinochet and today's generation of murderers and torturers, we should strengthen the message that we intend to create a system of international justice which, for them, will provide no hiding place.

4.7 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I shall try to deal with some of the questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that there may have been some collusion between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Spanish authorities. There was no such collusion. There was no connection between the two bodies. The arrest was a matter for the police acting on information provided to them through Interpol.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked when Senator Pinochet's advisers first raised the issue of his ill health and expressed some doubts over his medical condition. The Statement made clear that that was primarily in October last year.

In relation to the review of extradition, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary reasonably concluded that, as a result of this case, which perhaps because of its complexities took as long as it did, there is a case for reviewing the procedures. Quite rightly, he wants to see what can be undertaken to speed them up. That is an important development.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised the question of bias in the Home Secretary's mode of consideration. My right honourable friend had an almost impossible job in this particularly difficult and complex case. He exercised his powers and duties to the highest level. He performed magnificently and acted in his quasi-judicial role in a way which is a good example to the rest of the world. He is to be congratulated and commended on his objectivity and on the dispassionate way in which he exercised his duties.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised the issue of reconciliation and drew comparisons with Northern Ireland. But each case Northern Ireland, South Africa, Chile—involves different political circumstances. The process of reconciliation in Chile has not been damaged by the consideration of Senator Pinochet's case. It is clearly a matter for the Chileans to resolve. We acted quite properly in regard to the issues facing our Government. That will be respected and acknowledged not only in this country, but also internationally.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised a number of points and I suspect that there will be great sympathy for those points. He mentioned specifically the Spanish courts and said that they were perhaps best placed to consider matters relating to Senator Pinochet. We did not take that view. The Home Secretary took the view that he had to exercise his duties. I believe he did so very fairly indeed, with the Crown Prosecution Service effectively acting as an agency of the Spanish authorities. The Home Secretary was properly advised in the way in which he conducted himself. He felt it right that he should personally take such decisions rather than off-loading them somewhere else. Again, that is a reflection of the integrity of the Home Secretary and of the very careful way in which he has handled and managed this most difficult affair.

I am most grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions. If I have missed particular points, we can no doubt return to them. We obviously await with interest further developments and comments.

4.10 p.m.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that many of us are concerned not only about the legal developments in this case but also about the long-term political consequences of such developments, which we simply cannot ignore? It is acknowledged that General Pinochet was welcomed to this country. I have to ask—I use this as just one example—what sort of welcome do the Government plan for President Mugabe when he next comes to this country, after the slaughter, torture and rape of thousands of civilians in Matabeleland in the 1980s, which has now been revealed? Is he not just one of many from all over the world? Indeed, there are people in China and Russia who have committed the most ghastly crimes and who, from now on, will be at risk if they travel outside their own countries and come here.

What is the Government's answer to this question? What will happen when the next person comes to represent Russia and people raise questions about murder and pillage in Chechnya? What will happen when someone comes from China a country with which we want good relations and allegations are made about the appalling human rights abuses in that country? We simply cannot look at this as being a purely legal question. Surely we must now hear from the Government how they view the political fallout and how they propose to address it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for his contribution. He has occupied the important office of state of Home Secretary and will no doubt appreciate the complexities of the issues that have arisen in this case. Indeed, he made a very fair and reasonable point. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a very important observation in that regard in his Statement. He acknowledged that the issue has aroused great debate and feeling and that the impact of the case has been felt worldwide—I repeat: worldwide. It has established beyond question the principle that those who commit human rights abuses in one country cannot assume that they are safe elsewhere.

Clearly that important statement and observation will have worldwide ramifications and implications. I suspect and hope that it will lead to an improvement in human rights across the world. That is something of which we in this country should be rightly proud. If our position in this matter is understood worldwide, I think that that will do a great deal to improve the observance of human rights, as well as the rights, of people who perhaps suffer from unfortunate, oppressive and unwelcome regimes across the world.

Lord Richard

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, speaking for myself, I believe that the Home Secretary has got it absolutely right? When General Pinochet arrived in this country and a request for extradition was made, the Home Secretary and the Government were absolutely right to see that as a judicial and not a political matter. It was right that it should be dealt with through the courts. Indeed, it was dealt with twice through the courts, right up to the highest court in the land. If no issue had been raised as to General Pinochet's state of health, no doubt it would have continued to be determined as a judicial matter, as should be the case.

Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, says, matters of extradition are primarily for judicial and not political determination. Once the issue of Senator Pinochet's health was raised, it was right for the Home Secretary to ask that he should be properly examined; and, indeed, he was. We have all had the opportunity to read the report that has been produced, as someone leaked it during the course of the proceedings. It was firm, very clear and quite conclusive that the man could not stand trial; that he could not understand; and that he might well not be able to follow the charges that he would face. In those circumstances, if Senator Pinochet was unfit to stand trial, the Home Secretary was absolutely right to take the decision that the trial should not take place.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his contribution. He put his finger very expertly on all of the issues raised by this case. The Home Secretary, quite properly, dealt with this as a judicial matter. He considered the case on its merits at every stage; indeed, he was very mindful to do so and took careful cognisance of all the legal advice that he received. Yes, when confronted with the medical facts regarding Senator Pinochet's condition, the Home Secretary, again, considered them most properly and thoroughly. When someone is unfit to stand trial medically, physically and intellectually, such considerations must, quite rightly, be taken into account. I believe that the Home Secretary acted entirely properly in taking his decision today.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

My Lords, as someone who has been critical of the Government on this matter, perhaps I may acknowledge that there were very serious abuses of human rights under the military government, as, indeed, I have always acknowledged. However, would not today's Statement have been more honest if it had acknowledged that the proceedings in this country have been strongly opposed from the very beginning by the democratically-elected government of Chile, consisting of General Pinochet's opponents?

How can it be that the Spanish Government—of all governments—who have never put a single person on trial after the abuses of the Franco years, think that they can sit in judgment on the internal political settlement in Chile? How can a British Government, who have let out of gaol hundreds of torturers, bombers and murderers (people who belong to an organisation that has killed a higher proportion of the population of Ulster than has ever been alleged against the army of Chile) and allowed a former terrorist into the government of Northern Ireland, assume the right to interfere and over-rule the judgment of the elected government of Chile? Was not the interference simply what President Frei of Chile called it; namely, "judicial colonialism"?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I totally reject the noble Lord's last comment and observation. Frankly, I believe that to be utter nonsense. We have to abide by the processes of international law when considering extradition cases. That is only right and proper. The rule of law is the rule of law, and we should stick by it. I believe that to be a fundamental and important building block of our British constitution. I am sure that all other Members of your Lordships' House share that view.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support what the Minister has just said. The Home Secretary is endeavouring to uphold a system of international law, which is under constant attack. We have made it plain from all sides of the House that his behaviour was both courageous and steadfast. However, Chile will now be receiving not a returned hero but a dictator whose poor health has meant that he has escaped the proper processes of justice.

Can the Minister tell us whether we can expect a reasonably early ratification of the International Criminal Court, to which my noble friend referred? In the desperate attempt by the world to establish a legal system that will be recognised beyond borders, the ICC is the long step towards establishing such a system of law. By ratification, this Government's support for it at this stage would be an extremely important step to take.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, the noble Baroness always speaks with great wisdom on these matters. It is worth reminding ourselves that the United Kingdom Government have fully supported the establishment of an international criminal court. The publication of a Bill in this Session to implement the Rome statute was announced in the Queen's Speech. The Foreign Secretary is deeply committed to continuing to push for an effective international criminal court. We see the establishment of that court and conforming with the practices, processes and procedures of international law and the requirements that it places upon us as an important part of our international obligations. I am happy to confirm our position on that matter. I very much welcome the noble Baroness's other comments.

Lord Borrie

My Lords, I wish to take a stage further the question that was first put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. After the Home Secretary made the decision that Pinochet should be extradited, why did he keep to himself—he will, of course, have received medical advice on the matter—the issue of whether or not he was fit to stand trial? Procedures, trials and forms of trial arc different in different countries. I do not claim to be an expert on Spanish criminal procedures. In Spain counsel may take a prominent part in the procedures, but the accused may take part to a far lesser extent than is the case in this country. A great deal of the defence may be conducted by defence counsel, although the accused will, of course, discuss matters with them in private. Surely one may be considered fit to stand trial in Spain, whereas one may not necessarily be considered fit to stand trial in the UK. Did the Home Secretary take adequate advice from Spanish lawyers and others as to whether fitness to stand trial in Spain was considered, rather than just general advice as though trials and procedures are the same everywhere?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's question. The Home Secretary has to make a judgment based on the medical evidence in front of him. He quite properly took the view that the mode of trial in Spain that was proposed was similar to our procedure. The medical evidence was an important consideration. There had to be an equality of understanding in both jurisdictions. Given the medical condition of Senator Pinochet, he was no better qualified to stand trial in Spain than in our own jurisdiction. Having taken those considerations into account, the Home Secretary reached his conclusion. If Senator Pinochet could not achieve a coherent understanding of the legal procedures and processes in Spain, he could not achieve such a coherent understanding in this country where the same requirement applies. The important considerations are his fitness to stand trial, his ability to follow and understand proceedings, to reflect on them, and to give instructions to lawyers in any jurisdiction.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord can help me. Am I right in understanding from the Home Secretary's Statement, which the noble Lord so kindly repeated, that the application of the universal principle that no transgressor of human rights would be safe if he or she travelled to this country goes a little wider than someone merely being trapped by an extradition order? If I am right in understanding that to be the burden of what was implied by the noble Lord's right honourable friend, would it not be helpful—perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General might be able to assist us here—for the Government to make some kind of statement in this House in order that we should understand how the Government will apply this fine-sounding new principle? Do they intend to be selective in applying it and, if so, what rules will they apply if the matter goes wider than merely extradition? If the Government do not intend to be selective in applying the principle, how will they deal with the political consequences of not being selective?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, the noble Viscount asks some interesting questions that require deeper consideration than we can give to them this afternoon. The question of how one addresses human rights abuses committed by heads of state in other jurisdictions who subsequently visit this country is an interesting one. Obviously, it is a matter to which we shall have to give further and clearer thought. I am sure that we would have to consider individual cases on a case-by-case basis and consider whether or not the individuals concerned have immunity. Those are important considerations. As regards the establishment of general rules in these matters, we shall have to give further thought to that. I have already made it clear that the Home Secretary will undertake a review of the Extradiction Act. That may have some bearing on these matters.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the decision—correct though it may have been in the end—will be a great disappointment to all those victims of the regime of General Pinochet, particularly those victims in this country who have suffered, such as Dr Sheila Cassidy, a victim of torture under Pinochet, and the relatives of Fr Michael Woodward, who died as a result of being tortured on board a naval vessel in Valparaiso harbour after Pinochet came into office? Those relatives have recently supplied the Home Secretary with important new testimony regarding that case which was under consideration at the time the decision was made. Is not the assurance to those people that in future no one will be immune from prosecution for such crimes the best way to assuage their grief?

In answer to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will the Minister confirm that since we enacted Section 132 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 a person who commits an act of torture in a foreign country, whether against a British citizen or against a citizen of any other country, is liable to the jurisdiction of our courts and will be dealt with in the future under a provision which has been made by the Home Secretary establishing a special unit in the Metropolitan Police to examine evidence which may be presented in cases of torture and which may result in prosecutions in our own courts as a result of decisions made by the CPS?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's questions. The noble Lord's summary of the situation is correct vis-á-vis our jurisdiction and abuses of UK nationals. The noble Lord mentioned a special unit to deal with this matter. We must take those issues carefully into consideration. I believe I have made plain that we have universal jurisdiction as regards torture. I refer to the important issue of the disappointment that some people will feel at the decision that has been announced. I fully understand and sympathise with the disappointment that many will experience as a consequence of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's decision. However, important long-term gains have resulted from the way in which this case has unfolded and from the stand that my right honourable friend has taken. I believe that most people will welcome that in the future.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I too express my relief that Senator Pinochet has at last been returned to Chile. It is—and always has been, in my view—for the people of Chile to decide what should be done with him. However, looking to the future, and in view of the excellent relations we have always enjoyed with Chile, what have the Government in mind in terms of building bridges after this unfortunate incident, particularly as a new government are about to take office in Chile?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. We have always tried to ensure that we have the best possible relations with the Chilean Government. That has been the case in the past and no doubt it will continue to be the case in the future. With the change in the political administration of that country we shall no doubt renew our efforts to continue those good relations, particularly in business, trade and commerce. I believe that it is important to do so. As the noble Baroness wisely said, some relief will be felt at the return of Senator Pinochet to Chile, but there will also be divided opinions, which we must recognise.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, should it turn out eventually that human rights abuses have occurred in Chechnya, would that mean that the president or prime minister of Russia would not be welcome in this country or, if they arrived in this country, would be subject to arrest?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. The answer to her last point probably is that it would depend on whether they have immunity. As to whether they would face prosecution, that would be, of course, a matter for the police to consider, acting on information.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, in repeating the Statement the Minister said that sovereign heads of state do not have immunity.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, that is not my understanding of the Statement.