& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Britain Frees ^Unfit" General Pinochet . . .

What Impact did it Leave on the International Scene?

by Harun ur Rashid
***Under the procedural laws, a person medically unfit can not be put on trial in both Britain and Spain (in Bangladesh as well) and therefore it does not make any sense to extradite General Pinochet to Spain to face trial for his alleged crimes.***
BRITAIN freed former Chilean President General Augusto Pinochet (84) on 2nd March on medical grounds and he had lelt Britain lor Chile within a lew hours alter the decision by the British Home Secretary (Home Minister) Jack Straw. A medically-equipped chile.in airforce plane was waiting tor some days in England (Lincolnshire) to take him back to his country. Spain is reported to have respected the British decision
The decision was not a surprise l>ecause a few weeks earlier the Home Secretary said in the Parliament that he was 'minded" to free General Pinochet on medical grounds.
Let us first lx? clear on what was the case before the Home Secretary. Simply pul. the whole story revolved on whether Britain should accede to the request of extradition ol General Pinochet from Spam for the alleged crimes of torture, murder and other crimes during his rule in Chile from 1973-90. Britain did not require to put General Pinochet on trial in Britain. 11 was purely an extradition matter for Britain.
. On receipt of the request from Spain. Britain arrested General Pinochet in October. 1998. The pro and anti -Pinochet groups fought legal battles in almost all levels of courts in Britain for the last 16 months on whether the dictator should be extradited to Spain.
hi the matter of extradition, the relations between Britain and Chile were strained. In Britain, the political parties were divided on the issue. A few political stalwarts of the opposition conservative party did not approve the arrest of General Pinochet The former conservative Prime Minister. Baroness Thatcher, severely criticised the Blair Labour government lor the arrest. She de-lended forcefully that General Pinochet was a friend of Britain and he helped Britain to win the Falkland s war in 1982 against Argentina. Chiles neighbour. Baroness Thatcher described General Pinochet as Britain's sole political prisoner at the last Torv Conierence in Octo-ber. 1999
The circumstances around the extradition of General Pinochet had not been comfortable to the government in Britain. Although the Home Secretary' would decide the matter in his quasi-judicial power, it is believed that the Labour ■ government wanted to get out ’ tliis mess without damaging to its declared 'ethical foreign policy".
It is believed that the route to freedom for General Pinochet started in a tiny room at the United Nations last September. Over a cup of tea. looking out on to New York’s East River. Chile s Foreign Minister Juan Gabriel Valdes outlined to his British counterpart Robin Cook, a new approach to the matter. Until that point, the emphasis of the Chilean argument for the return of General Pinochet had been on the damage the case was causing to bilateral relations and that it was an infringement of Chilean sovereignty. Far down the list of arguments had been that the former dictator was an old man with tailing health.
To the surprise of the British government. Mr. Valdes turned the list of arguments around and for the first time made his appeal on humanitarian ground. He promised to submit evidence ol the dictator s ill health to the British government. It is believed that this medical argument has provided the way out of the dilemma faced by the British government.
What Britain did was to get General Pinochet medically amined with his consent on 3 January. 2000 by British medi cal specialists who advised that General Pinochet was not medically fit for trial because of his irreparable brain damage due to a series of minor strokes. In Ie gal terms it means that he would not be able to compre-
hend the charges of the prosecution and thereby unable to defend himself in a court of law. Under the procedural laws, a Earsoil medically unfit can not e put on trial in both Britain and Spain ( in Bangladesh as well) and therefore it does not make any sense to extradite General Pinochet to Spain to face trial for his alleged crimes.
However. Home Secretary Jack Straw ( a Barrister) has presented himsell as a prisoner of the law and taken scrupulously all decisions in his quasi-judicial capacity. He claimed to have ignored political views in this matter. The Home Secretary’s aides were adamant that Mr. Straw, despite his background as a student Teftie* at the time of coup in Chile in 1973 by General Pinochet, he had stood above it all and had looked at the legal arguments. He did not even consult his cabinet colleagues in the matter.
Finally Mr. Straw decided to let the dictator return to his country instead of extraditing him to Spain. There were fur ther requests to Britain from France. Belgium and Switzer land to extradite him for his
alleged crimes but Mr. Straw ruled that they would not be granted to bring similar cases to Britain.
General Pinochet ousted the government of Salvador Allende of Socialist Party in 1973 by a military coup where Allende died. On return General Pinochet faces a government in-Chile which will be run from 11 • March by the new President of the Socialist party Ricardo Lagos who was forced into exile during Pinochet's rule.. It is ironic that the dictator has returned to his country at a time when it will be governed by his political opponents. Mr. Lagos lias said that it is up to Chilean courts to decide what is to be done with the dictator. The Pinochet saga is not going away from us and is expected to continue with only the venue changed—from Britain to Chile.
The question that arises: whal implications did the Pinochet's case leave on the international scene ?
The answer to the question brings another question of what is to be done with a dictator who strikes a bargain with (he democratic opposition for the rule ol law in return for the
dictator's Immunity. Is the dictator Immune from prosecution for human rights abuses In a foreign country when that person enjoys Immunity In his/her own country as a political bargain ? These are some ol the most difficult ethical Issues raised in General Pinochet s case.
The I louse of Lords ( highest judicial body in Britain) decided that General Pinochet did not enjoy Immunity from prosecution. Human rights activists called the case the most important test In International law since the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders. The precedent has now been set that Immunity does not attach to outrageous violations ol the international laws by the I ormer dictators.
Tliis sends a drar message to the lormer dictators who now are not likely to plan a carefree foreign holiday or medical treatment in a foreign country (General Pinochet came to Britain lor the treatment of his backpain). It establishes a vital principle that the dictators cannot commit crimes and enjoy cosy retirement with VIP treatment in a foreign country.
The impact of the decision is taking Its effect around the globe. It is reported in the media that Mr. Izzat Ibrahim, an Iraqi Vice President (no.2 in the country) lied Austria last autumn after hearing that he could face arrest Mr. Tariq Aziz, the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, is reported to have cancelled a visit to Italy for the same reason.
However, the question remains whether such principle can be universally applicable to all persons who are alleged to have committed gross human rights abuses in the country. Can any Chinese leader be arrested abroad because of the alleged commission of crimes against pro-democracy demon-. strators in Tiananmen Square in 1989 ? Or for that matter any Russian leader lor what occurred during the armed conflicts in Chechnya ? Or can any US leader be arrested in a foreign soil for bombing Libya in 1986 where an innocent child died or commission of gross human rights abuses in Vietnam in 70s?
These are the questions which agitate the minds of the people around the globe, it ap-pears that the rule of the strong prevails in the present day world and the application of the "Pinochet" principle appears to be highly selective. Plato and Aristotle define justice as the virtue which gives every one his/her due. It appears that the leaders of a powerful country can not be touched while those of the weaker countries are easily vulnerable. No wonder that we live in an unfair and unequal world.
The author, a barrister, is Former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN in Geneva.