International human rights law is still an infant discipline
““ and with President George W. Bush’s refusal to
support the International Criminal Court ““ the idea that an
international court can try a head of state is controversial.
On Friday, this controversy drew students, faculty and many
others to Moore 100 for a panel discussion titled “In the
Aftermath of a Dictator: Pinochet and Beyond,” which focussed
on the landmark case involving former Chilean dictator Augusto
Pinochet.
The event was presented by the UCLA School of Law’s
International Law Society and the British-American Bar
Association.
The panelists, Barristers Frances Webber, Amnesty
International’s representative in the Pinochet case, and
Michael Shrimpton, who represented Pinochet, debated the Pinochet
decision’s validity and its ramifications. Reed Brody, the
Special Council for Prosecutions for Human Rights Watch, gave a
historical and legal context for the decision.
In November 1998, General Augusto Pinochet ““ Chile’s
military dictator from 1973 to 1990, during whose dictatorship
thousands were kidnapped, tortured and murdered ““ was
arrested while in England for medical treatment. There, claiming
sovereign immunity, he appealed to the British court to drop his
arrest.
Though 82-year-old Pinochet was not tried abroad because of his
weak physical condition, the court’s decision that he could
be tried outside of Chile set a precedent that a past head of state
can be tried for public acts committed while in office.
Pinochet was later indicted in Chile.
Much of the debate Friday focused on the concept of sovereign
immunity. Described by Webber as a remnant in a “medieval
time warp” from the era of absolute monarchy, it is the idea
that a head of a state cannot be tried internationally because he
represents a state, and an international trial would therefore
constitute an attack on that state’s dignity and
independence.
“You can’t focus on the individual head of state.
The rights and wrongs don’t matter, the individual
doesn’t matter, (the attempt to extradite Pinochet) was a
direct affront to Chile,” Shrimpton said. He described the
Pinochet precedent as a very dangerous development.
Webber maintained that the Pinochet discussion was a
breakthrough because it gave some teeth to the international human
rights law.
She disputed Shrimpton’s claim that international law
would mean international tyranny, saying that the objective was not
to jail the aging Pinochet, but to hold him accountable for his
thousands of faceless victims.
“The hope is that by attaching personal accountability,
some of the cyclical violence could be relieved,” said Terry
Bowers, chief deputy city attorney of Los Angeles, who moderated
the panel.
Shrimpton said torturers should be dealt with in their own
countries. Webber responded by quoting Lord Millet’s
statement from the second Pinochet trial that “no rational
system of criminal justice can allow an immunity which is
co-extensive with the offense.”
After the discussion, audience members addressed questions to
the panelists, and Shrimpton turned the discussion to Iraq. He said
only independent democratic nations can protect human rights
internationally, and used Iraq as an example, saying the United
States and Britain should take out Saddam Hussein.
“Saddam should be in front of an international
tribunal,” Webber said. “He has slaughtered his own
people, and it is exactly these circumstances that cry out for
international law to be used.”
“This was an amazing opportunity for students to see how
barristers communicate, and how they feel about a contentious
issue,” said Golzar Kheiltash, a third-year law student who
spent 10 months organizing the event.
The British-American Bar Association sought out UCLA as a
discussion venue because it could give the event the attention and
high profile it needed, Kheiltash said.