The former Chilean dictator, Gen Augusto Pinochet, is facing "some of the most serious allegations of crime ever to come before English criminal courts", Bow Street Magistrates' Court in London was told yesterday as protesters mounted loud demonstrations in the street outside.
On the first day of formal committal proceedings, lawyers representing the Spanish government outlined 35 separate charges of alleged torture, including one of conspiracy to torture, against Gen Pinochet. Such was the length and detail of the charges it took the court clerk 15 minutes to read out the text before a packed courtroom.
In his opening comments, Mr Alun Jones QC, for the Spanish government, told the court that the 1984 Convention Against Torture had been ratified by Spain, Chile and the UK and was incorporated into British law through domestic legislation. The court was therefore not being asked to consider "broad, sweeping rhetorical declarations of international intent" but "blacklettered UK law".
The law lords ruled earlier this year that Gen Pinochet could not be extradited for offences of torture, hostage-taking and conspiracy to murder predating the ratification of the Convention Against Torture on December 8th 1988.
But Mr Jones argued the court could consider events in Chile before that date since the impact on victims' families and the 1,100 "disappeared" of the Pinochet regime continued long after the convention and could itself amount to a form of torture.
Detailing alleged torture techniques used by the Chilean authorities between December 7th, 1988, and March 12th, 1990, Mr Jones said these included cases of victims being held naked and hooded and confined in narrow cubicles with their arms suspended so that they could not move.
Mr Clive Nicholls QC, for Gen Pinochet, told the court that in his opening remarks today he would make it clear that his client was not responsible for the criminal conduct which he was accused of. He would also argue that there was no real evidence to implicate him in the crimes, that Spain had no jurisdiction in the case.