Sir, - The thrust of Kevin Myers's Irishman's Diary about General Pinochet (October 24th) is that the rule of law should be respected, even when one is dealing with dictators, as otherwise there will be little to separate the illegal practices of such people from those of democratic states. He says that "General Pinochet arrived in Britain for medical treatment on a diplomatic passport granted to him by the democratically elected Chilean government. If that passport has no diplomatic validity, then it should not have been accepted by the British authorities. It was accepted, and therefore he should continue to enjoy diplomatic protection."
Mr Myers is right about the rule of law and he clearly does not approve of Pinochet and his deeds. However, he is quite mistaken in his interpretation of the concept of diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are the messengers of states. Their primary tasks are to convey the views of their own governments to those states to which to they are accredited and to report to their own governments about the policies of those states. Since time immemorial, it has been recognised that without some system of safe conduct to protect such messengers, relations between states would be very difficult to conduct, especially in times of tension. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocols codifies these historical practices. Without going into excessive detail, only diplomatic and consular officials accredited to the Court of St James, or officials accredited to other countries who are passing through Britain to reach those countries, or officials on certain other missions (such as UN or similar), are entitled to immunity in Britain. A visiting former head of state who happens to be carrying a diplomatic passport has no such entitlement.
Mr Myers has made a common mistake in confusing the concept of diplomatic immunity, which is quite strictly and narrowly defined, with certain courtesies extended by convention to heads of state, former heads of state and other such personages. The possession of a diplomatic passport does not of itself convey any automatic right to "diplomatic protection".
Unfortunately, much of the reporting on this point concerning General Pinochet's detention has been inaccurate.
May I add that I find the decision of the British courts last week, whereby any genocidal dictator may apparently visit Britain with impunity provided he/she was or is a head of state, both bizarre and shocking. There is always going to be some risk of politicisation attached to the internationalisation of human rights issues, and there have been abuses of the concept of extra-territorality in recent years, notably by the US; but we cannot simply refuse to address the problem. Moreover, the point at issue here is the murder of Spanish citizens in Chile. The Spanish authorities have a right and a duty to protect their own citizens. - Yours, etc., Piaras Mac Einri,
University College, Cork.