View this case and other resources at:
Citation. U.K. House of Lords, 2 W.L.R. 827, 38 LLM. 581 (1999)
Brief Fact Summary. Siting his status as a former head of state, Pinochet (D) claimed that he was immune from prosecution.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The provision of the Torture Convention is not consistent with the notion of continued immunity for former head of states.
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently stated: the general conflict-of-laws rule, followed by a vast majority of the States, is to apply the law of the place of injury to the substantive rights of the parties.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Is the provision of the Torture Convention consistent with the notion of continued immunity for former head of states?
Held. Yes. The provision of the Torture Convention is not consistent with the notion of continued immunity for former head of states. Pinochet (D) was not acting in any capacity that gives rise to immunity if as alleged; he masterminded and authorized torture after the 8th of December 1988 because these acts clearly contravene international law. Hence, the torture proceedings brought against the defendant should only continue on the allegation that torture in pursuance of a conspiracy to commit torture was being committed by the defendant after he lost his immunity in December 1988.
Discussion. Under common law, a former head of state enjoys immunity for official acts done while in office, this implies that the court also took cognizance of common law in this case. Ensuring that no safe haven is available to torturers is the primary aim of the Torture Convention.