The British Government has proffered to former Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet something he and his regime did not proffer their victims in the 1970s and 1980s — the fair application of the rule of law.
Home Secretary Jack Straw appears to have acted fairly every step of the way. True, Britain would have preferred that Pinochet had never set foot in the country in the first place and this his presence was an embarrassment that could cause a rift in Chilean-British relations. However, it appears that politics did not enter into the decision to determine that Pinochet should not be extradited to Spain to face charges of torture and murder of Spanish citizens who were victims of the Pinochet regime. Pinochet has escaped charges in his native Chile as successive Governments, even democratic ones, have allowed him a form of immunity by granting him a life senatorship and allowing him to continue holding it.
In Chile some regard Pinochet as the saviour of the nation by overthrowing the socialist Allende Government. Others regard him as a murderer and torturer, or at least as a man who encouraged murder and torture.
Spanish courts issued warrants for his arrest. When he came to Britain 15 months ago for medical treatment, Spanish authorities asked for his extradition and he was arrested. Pinochet presumably thought it was safe to go to Britain. He had supported then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands conflict. But with Mrs Thatcher gone and Labour in power things were different. Mr Straw could have deported him back to Chile, but instead let the law takes its course. And it did, with two House of Lords rulings.
Now there has been an application for Pinochet to go home on medical grounds. Independent doctors have certified that Pinochet is in no condition to stand trial. He is senile and suffers from diabetes, among other illnesses. He would not be in a position to plead or mount a defence.
Countries like Britain and Australia that apply the rule of law require that trials be fair and it is impossible for a trial to be fair if the defendant is too ill to plead or defend or is medically unfit to understand the proceedings.
However, in this case there is a possible logical flaw to Mr Straw’s action. Presumably Pinochet will now go back to Chile and is at least well enough to do that. If so he is well enough to travel to Spain. And it is in Spain where Pinochet faces trial. Perhaps it should have been for the Spanish courts to decide whether Pinochet was fit enough to stand trial.
The only answer to that flaw is that Britain might say it would not entertain extradition proceedings against people medically unfit to defend them. If that is the case, Britain has bent over backwards to be fair to Pinochet.
The important thing is that even if Pinochet does return to Chile he has not been able to cross the world without risk. The world is become a smaller place for people like Pinochet. The writ of law is running in more countries. It is slowly replacing vengeance and unjustified sanctuary.
The fact that Pinochet got to old and unfit to stand trial stresses the importance of ensuring that those who are alleged to have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity are caught a tried speedily — people of accused of crimes in the former Yugoslavia are cases in point.