International conventions outlawing genocide and other "crimes against humanity" meant that the former Chilean dictator, Gen Augusto Pinochet, should face trial for human rights abuses committed during his rule, the House of Lords has been told.
Lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service, acting for the Spanish authorities, also told the Law Lords that English courts did have jurisdiction to deal with the offences alleged against the general; that there was a "universal jurisdiction" for crimes against humanity; and that the case for holding Gen Pinochet pending extradition to Spain to face charges of genocide, torture and terrorism, was reinforced by the constitution he inherited on seizing power in a 1973 military coup.
Mr Alun Jones QC told the court that Chile's 1925 constitution, which remained in force for seven years after the coup, prohibited a wide range of Gen Pinochet's subsequent actions. And he returned to his argument that Gen Pinochet could not rely on his sometime position as head of state to claim immunity for crimes such as those alleged against him.
Mr Jones continued his submissions on the second day of his appeal, on behalf of the Spanish authorities, against last week's High Court ruling that Gen Pinochet's arrest on October 16th was unlawful because he enjoyed sovereign immunity.
Mr Jones told the court: "It is almost in the nature of genocide that it tends to be committed by people in positions of power and holding offices of state."
Arguing that recent legislation - notably the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, which incorporated the UN Convention on Torture into English law - had extended the jurisdiction of the English courts, Mr Jones said: "It is our submission that these Acts have been almost a revolution in the territorial reach of English criminal law, and that the anomalous concept of head of state immunity does look even more antique when one considers that these Acts are intended to apply internationally."
Mr Christopher Greenwood, prosecuting, told the five Law Lords that the crimes against humanity alleged against Gen Pinochet had been recognised as offences under international law long before he assumed power. He acknowledged there could be no jurisdiction if Gen Pinochet could legitimately claim immunity but insisted there could be no immunity for crimes such as torture.
Mr Greenwood said torture was often committed "under the colour of official authority". Consequently, he argued it was "a contradiction in terms to say such a person (acting in official capacity) had immunity". He added that Gen Pinochet's actions clearly fell outside what could defined as the proper exercise of his authority.