Introduction Personal liability for crimes recognized by international law has been a controversial issue throughout many years. It was only after World War II and the Nuremberg trials, that this idea of individual criminal responsibility for severe violations of international law was developed (Byers, 2000). One of the legal consequences of framing an act as an international crime is that it may give rise to universal jurisdiction, which essentially allows any state to try and punish alleged perpetrators of some crimes so heinous that they amount to crimes against humanity, regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of the victim or perpetrator (Khojasteh, 2007).
This case study will examine legal proceedings in the UK, particularly
…show more content…
By comparing and contrasting the decisions made by the House of Lords, we can understand what key concepts and ideas allowed them to come to their final decisions. This case study will first asses the core ideas and important questions highlighted throughout the case, analyze the decision making process for each of the opposing Lords, and finally discuss the significance this case has in regards to international law as a whole.
Context of Pinochet Case In order to fully grasp the legal concepts and issues raised throughout this case, it is important to first examine the relevant facts. Senator Pinochet was accused by the judicial authorities in Spain, of having authorized (or knowingly permit) the torture, disappearance, and taking hostage of thousands of people. His victims consisted of Chilean citizens, and citizens of other countries, including the United Kingdom and Spain. His crimes were
…show more content…
In essence, immunity ratione materiae is immunity only in relation to official acts done while the individual is an office; it is not complete immunity to all activities. However, in contrast, immunity ratione personae is more of a status immunity, where an “individual who enjoys its protection does so because of his official status and ensures him only so long as he holds office.” According to Wilkinson, Senator Pinochet, as a former head of state, enjoys immunity ratione materiae in relation to acts done by him as head of state as part of his official functions as head of state. However, Wilkinson agreed with Sir Arthur Watts that the implementation of torture defined by the Torture Convention could not be a state function due to its nature of being an international crime that ultimately offends the public order of the international community. In essence, he believes that providing immunity to heads of state for this type of crime ultimately defeats the purpose of the Torture Convention, which is to provide a system where there is no hiding place for torturers. He concluded that these factors simply demonstrate inconsistency with the notion of continued immunity for ex-heads of state and the provisions of the Torture Convention. To finalize, Lord Browne Wilkinson concluded that he would allow the appeal to