Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:41:34.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity of a Former Head of State General Pinochet and the House of Lords: Part Three

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2004

Jürgen Bröhmer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The third decision of the House of Lords in the Pinochet matter is significant, because the House of Lords upheld the majority view taken in the first decision: heads of state can, under certain circumstances, be held responsible for gross violations of human rights in the criminal courts of a foreign country. The decision is based on three main pillars. The Lords had, first, to clarify what constitutes an extradition crime under the Extradition Act 1989; second, to construct torture as an international crime; and, finally, to reject the plea of immunity of a former head of state in the context of the international crime of torture.

Keywords

diplomatic immunityhead of state immunityhuman rights violationsstate immunityextradition
Type
CURRENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 229 - 237
Copyright
© 2000 Kluwer Law International

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)