The British Law Lords have ruled, by a six-one majority, that the former Chilean dictator, Gen Pinochet, enjoys no sovereign immunity from extradition for crimes allegedly committed while he was a head of state. The same ruling, however, greatly restricts the number of charges on which he may be extradited, on the grounds that most of the cases cited by the Spanish courts pre-date September 1988. Rather shockingly, torture only became an "extra-territorial" crime under British law as recently as that.
The decision has had the remarkable effect of apparently pleasing both sides in this bitter controversy. Campaigners for human rights have the satisfaction of having definitively overturned the dubious principle that heads of state enjoy immunity from international prosecution. Pinochet supporters are pleased that the formidable range of accusations against him has been greatly reduced.
This outcome has significantly eased, at least in the short term, the tensions which Pinochet's detention in Britain have exacerbated in his home country. The argument that such tensions were endangering Chile's fragile and flawed transition to democracy was the strongest political case against extraditing the general. It has now probably lost whatever force it had, though elements in the Chilean military will no doubt continue to exploit the situation.
From the prosecution point of view, putting Pinochet in the dock was never going to be easy - not so long ago it was thought well nigh impossible - and yesterday's judgment certainly makes it more difficult. The Law Lords have asked the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, to reconsider his "authority to proceed" with Gen Pinochet's extradition to Spain, given the great reduction in the number of charges.
At the very least, that means a further delay in the process. Mr Straw will be under intense pressure from powerful figures in the British establishment to reverse his original decision, and allow the general to go home. But the case against doing so remains very strong. The charges which still stand are very serious indeed: torture, conspiracy to torture, and conspiracy to murder. Mr Baltasar Garzon, the campaigning Spanish magistrate who has brilliantly prosecuted this most tricky of cases, is already seeking further evidence in this newly narrowed window of opportunity. His reputation for tenacity should make Gen Pinochet's backers keep their very expensive champagne on ice.
Given the gravity of these remaining charges, the moral and political argument for letting the law take its course should carry irresistible weight with any democrat. If New Labour really has an ethical dimension, this is a fine opportunity to display it.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, however, nothing can now rob the Pinochet case of its historic significance. This ruling against immunity sets a splendid precedent which should give all dictators pause for thought. The mantle of "Reasons of State" has been exposed, in a most conservative legal forum, as a threadbare excuse for the vilest of crimes against humanity. The criminals who have flaunted it must now know that they will find fewer respectable refuges in future.