The Spanish case against Gen Augusto Pinochet concerned crimes which in number alone "would exceed in gravity" any to come before the court in the 128 years since extradition arrangements formally began, the House of Lords was told yesterday.
Mr Alun Jones QC, for the Crown Prosecution Service acting for the Kingdom of Spain, was addressing seven Law Lords on the first day of their rehearing of the case to determine whether the former Chilean dictator, as a onetime head of state, enjoyed sovereign immunity from arrest and legal process in England.
The Law Lords last November had overruled an earlier High Court judgment, and decided that Gen Pinochet was not immune from prosecution. However, that decision was set aside because one of the original panel of five judges, Lord Hoffmann, had links with Amnesty International.
Opening his case at yesterday's new hearing, Mr Jones stressed that the attempt to have Gen Pinochet extradited was "not an isolated exercise" by a single Spanish magistrate. With Judge Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish prosecutor, observing the proceedings, Mr Jones said Spanish jurisdiction in the case was affirmed by the full 11-judge chamber of the National Court of Spain in November, and that the extradition request had been formally approved by the Spanish government.
Spain's interest in bringing proceedings was that more than 50 Spaniards were the victims of torture, disappearance and murder during Gen Pinochet's rule. Mr Jones submitted that the context of the case had changed completely since the first hearing by the Lords in November - in that the Home Secretary had issued an Authority allowing the extradition request to proceed.
There were several issues relating to the case which were not matters for the Law Lords but for the Home Secretary to consider: including the effect of the proceedings in Chile; whether these were matters for Chile; whether they would affect the political balance there; whether they amounted to interference in Chile's internal affairs; whether conflict in international relations would result; or whether there was an effective means of prosecuting the case in Chile itself.
Turning to the case itself, Mr Jones said the general's liability for the offences alleged against him was a personal one and not that of the state of which he was formerly head. Quoting from the Nuremberg tribunal on war crimes, Mr Jones added: "Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such offences can the provisions of international law be enforced."
Mr Jones cited three international conventions, translated into domestic law, which covered the crimes alleged against Gen Pinochet. One of these, the Convention Against Torture, said "no exceptional circumstances" - whether state or threat of war, political instability or other public emergency - "may be invoked as a justification of torture". No one could claim that he had tortured for the general good, said Mr Jones, any more than he could put forward as a defence that he assisted the United Kingdom during the Falklands War.