The Pinochet Decision: Straw's Statement
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Extracts from the Home Secretary's statement
Extradition crimes
The Secretary of State considers that Senator Pinochet is accused, in Spain, of offences equivalent to UK offences of attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, torture, conspiracy to torture, hostage taking and conspiracy to take hostages. Senator Pinochet is also charged, under Spanish law, with genocide, and the CPS advised, on behalf of the Spanish government, that murder is also disclosed by the request. The Secretary of State does not consider that the contents of the extradition request satisfied the definition of an extradition crime under section two of the Act in respect of these offences, and has therefore not included them in the authority to proceed.
Sovereign or diplomatic immunity
The Secretary of State has also proceeded on the basis that Senator Pinochet does not enjoy any immunity in relation to the offences in question. He has not accepted a representation made on behalf of Senator Pinochet that he should disregard the House of Lords judgment on the grounds of alleged bias on the part of one of the law lords. Nor does it appear to him that Senator Pinochet is entitled to diplomatic immunity or protection as the head of a special mission.
Political offences
Since Spain is a designated country for the purposes of section 24, the Secretary of State considers that all the offences that are to be included in the authority to proceed fall within this provision. In any event, it does not appear to him that the offences charged are of a political character.
The passage of time
The Secretary of State has not been notified by the Spanish government that any of the offences for which extradition is sought are time barred from prosecution. Nor does the Secretary of State consider that the passage of time would render it unjust or oppressive to issue an authority to proceed in case.
Pending proceedings in Chile
The Chilean government argued that Senator Pinochet should be returned to Chile where he could stand trial. However, there is no extradition request from the Chilean government, which the Secretary of State could consider. There is no provision of international law which excludes Spain's jurisdiction. The Secretary of State does not consider the possibility of a trial in Chile to be a factor which outweighs the UK's obligations under the ECE to extradite Senator Pinochet.
Conclusion
In the event that Senator Pinochet is committed to await the Secretary of State's decision on his return, the Secretary of State will consider the extradition request afresh under section 12 of the Act.
At that stage he will be able to take into account any findings in the committal proceedings and any habeas corpus proceedings as well as any further representations which Senator Pinochet may wish to make against return.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments