some default text...
Judgment - Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet
Regina v. Evans and Another and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet (On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)

(back to preceding text)

Therefore for the reasons which I have given I am of opinion that Senator Pinochet is not entitled to claim immunity in the extradition proceedings in respect of conspiracy to torture and acts of torture alleged to have been committed by him after 29 September 1988 and to that extent I would allow the appeal. However I am in agreement with the view of Lord Browne-Wilkinson that the Secretary of State should reconsider his decision under section 7 of the Extradition Act 1989 in the light of the changed circumstances arising from your Lordships' decision.


My Lords,

In this case the Government of Spain seeks the extradition of Senator Pinochet (the former head of state of Chile) to stand trial in Spain for a number of alleged crimes. On this appeal two questions of law arise.

Senator Pinochet can only be extradited for what in the Extradition Act 1989 is called an extradition crime. Thus the first question of law is whether any of the crimes of which he stands accused in Spain is an extradition crime within the meaning of that Act.

As to this, I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson. I am also in agreement with the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead in his speech for concluding that only those few allegations that he identifies amount to extradition crimes.

These extradition crimes all relate to what Senator Pinochet is said to have done while he was head of state of Chile. The second question of law is whether, in respect of these extradition crimes, Senator Pinochet can resist the extradition proceedings brought against him on the grounds that he enjoys immunity from these proceedings.

In general, under customary international law serving heads of state enjoy immunity from criminal proceedings in other countries by virtue of holding that office. This form of immunity is known as immunity ratione personae. It covers all conduct of the head of state while the person concerned holds that office and thus draws no distinction between what the head of state does in his official capacity (i.e. what he does as head of state for state purposes) and what he does in his private capacity.

Former heads of state do not enjoy this form of immunity. However, in general under customary international law a former head of state does enjoy immunity from criminal proceedings in other countries in respect of what he did in his official capacity as head of state. This form of immunity is known as immunity ratione materiae.

These immunities belong not to the individual but to the state in question. They exist in order to protect the sovereignty of that state from interference by other states. They can, of course, be modified or removed by agreement between states or waived by the state in question.

In my judgment the effect of Section 20(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 is to give statutory force to these international law immunities.

The relevant allegations against Senator Pinochet concern not his private activities but what he is said to have done in his official capacity when he was head of state of Chile. It is accepted that the extradition proceedings against him are criminal proceedings. It follows that unless there exists, by agreement or otherwise, any relevant qualification or exception to the general rule of immunity ratione materiae, Senator Pinochet is immune from this extradition process.

The only possible relevant qualification or exception in the circumstances of this case relates to torture.

I am not persuaded that before the Torture Convention there was any such qualification or exception. Although the systematic or widespread use of torture became universally condemned as an international crime, it does not follow that a former head of state, who as head of state used torture for state purposes, could under international law be prosecuted for torture in other countries where previously under that law he would have enjoyed immunity ratione materiae.

The Torture Convention set up a scheme under which each state becoming a party was in effect obliged either to extradite alleged torturers found within its jurisdiction or to refer the case to its appropriate authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Thus as between the states who are parties to the Convention, there is now an agreement that each state party will establish and have this jurisdiction over alleged torturers from other state parties.

This country has established this jurisdiction through a combination of Section 134 of the Administration of Justice Act 1988 and the Extradition Act 1989. It ratified the Torture Convention on 8 December 1988. Chile's ratification of the Convention took effect on 30 October 1988 and that of Spain just over a year earlier.

It is important to bear in mind that the Convention applies (and only applies) to any act of torture "inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." It thus covers what can be described as official torture and must therefore include torture carried out for state purposes. The words used are wide enough to cover not only the public officials or persons acting in an official capacity who themselves inflict torture but also (where torture results) those who order others to torture or who conspire with others to torture.

To my mind it must follow in turn that a head of state, who for state purposes resorts to torture, would be a person acting in an official capacity within the meaning of this Convention. He would indeed to my mind be a prime example of an official torturer.

It does not follow from this that the immunity enjoyed by a serving head of state, which is entirely unrelated to whether or not he was acting in an official capacity, is thereby removed in cases of torture. In my view it is not, since immunity ratione personae attaches to the office and not to any particular conduct of the office holder.

On the other hand, the immunity of a former head of state does attach to his conduct whilst in office and is wholly related to what he did in his official capacity.

So far as the states that are parties to the Convention are concerned, I cannot see how, so far as torture is concerned, this immunity can exist consistently with the terms of that Convention. Each state party has agreed that the other state parties can exercise jurisdiction over alleged official torturers found within their territories, by extraditing them or referring them to their own appropriate authorities for prosecution; and thus to my mind can hardly simultaneously claim an immunity from extradition or prosecution that is necessarily based on the official nature of the alleged torture.

Since 8 December 1988 Chile, Spain and this country have all been parties to the Torture Convention. So far as these countries at least are concerned it seems to me that from that date these state parties are in agreement with each other that the immunity ratione materiae of their former heads of state cannot be claimed in cases of alleged official torture. In other words, so far as the allegations of official torture against Senator Pinochet are concerned, there is now by this agreement an exception or qualification to the general rule of immunity ratione materiae.

I do not reach this conclusion by implying terms into the Torture Convention, but simply by applying its express terms. A former head of state who it is alleged resorted to torture for state purposes falls in my view fairly and squarely within those terms and on the face of it should be dealt with in accordance with them. Indeed it seems to me that it is those who would seek to remove such alleged official torturers from the machinery of the Convention who in truth have to assert that by some process of implication or otherwise the clear words of the Convention should be treated as inapplicable to a former head of state, notwithstanding he is properly described as a person who was "acting in an official capacity".

I can see no valid basis for such an assertion. It is said that if it had been intended to remove immunity for alleged official torture from former heads of state there would inevitably have been some discussion of the point in the negotiations leading to the treaty. I am not persuaded that the apparent absence of any such discussions takes the matter any further. If there were states that wished to preserve such immunity in the face of universal condemnation of official torture, it is perhaps not surprising that they kept quiet about it.

It is also said that any waiver by states of immunities must be express, or at least unequivocal. I would not dissent from this as a general proposition, but it seems to me that the express and unequivocal terms of the Torture Convention fulfil any such requirement. To my mind these terms demonstrate that the states who have become parties have clearly and unambiguously agreed that official torture should now be dealt with in a way which would otherwise amount to an interference in their sovereignty.

For the same reasons it seems to me that the wider arguments based on Act of State or non-justiciability must also fail, since they are equally inconsistent with the terms of the Convention agreed by these state parties.

I would accordingly allow this appeal to the extent necessary to permit the extradition proceedings to continue in respect of the crimes of torture and (where it is alleged that torture resulted) of conspiracy to torture, allegedly committed by Senator Pinochet after 8 December 1988. I would add that I agree with what my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead has said at the end of his speech with regard to the need for the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision and (if renewed authority to proceed is given) the very careful attention the magistrate must pay to the information laid before him.


My Lords,

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. Save in one respect, I agree with his reasoning and conclusions. Since the one respect in which I differ is of profound importance to the outcome of this appeal, I propose to set out my own process of reasoning at rather more length than I might otherwise have done.

State immunity is not a personal right. It is an attribute of the sovereignty of the state. The immunity which is in question in the present case, therefore, belongs to the Republic of Chile, not to Senator Pinochet. It may be asserted or waived by the state, but where it is waived by treaty or convention the waiver must be express. So much is not in dispute.

The doctrine of state immunity is the product of the classical theory of international law. This taught that states were the only actors on the international plane; the rights of individuals were not the subject of international law. States were sovereign and equal: it followed that one state could not be impleaded in the national courts of another; par in parem non habet imperium. States were obliged to abstain from interfering in the internal affairs of one another. International law was not concerned with the way in which a sovereign state treated its own nationals in its own territory. It is a cliche of modern international law that the classical theory no longer prevails in its unadulterated form. The idea that individuals who commit crimes recognised as such by international law may be held internationally accountable for their actions is now an accepted doctrine of international law. The adoption by most major jurisdictions of the restrictive theory of state immunity, enacted into English law by Part I of the State Immunity Act 1978, has made major inroads into the doctrine as a bar to the jurisdiction of national courts to entertain civil proceedings against foreign states. The question before your Lordships is whether a parallel, though in some respects opposite, development has taken place so as to restrict the availability of state immunity as a bar to the criminal jurisdiction of national courts.

Two overlapping immunities are recognised by international law; immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae. They are quite different and have different rationales.

Immunity ratione personae is a status immunity. An individual who enjoys its protection does so because of his official status. It enures for his benefit only so long as he holds office. While he does so he enjoys absolute immunity from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the national courts of foreign states. But it is only narrowly available. It is confined to serving heads of state and heads of diplomatic missions, their families and servants. It is not available to serving heads of government who are not also heads of state, military commanders and those in charge of the security forces, or their subordinates. It would have been available to Hitler but not to Mussolini or Tojo. It is reflected in English law by section 20(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978, enacting customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961).

The immunity of a serving head of state is enjoyed by reason of his special status as the holder of his state's highest office. He is regarded as the personal embodiment of the state itself. It would be an affront to the dignity and sovereignty of the state which he personifies and a denial of the equality of sovereign states to subject him to the jurisdiction of the municipal courts of another state, whether in respect of his public acts or private affairs. His person is inviolable; he is not liable to be arrested or detained on any ground whatever. The head of a diplomatic mission represents his head of state and thus embodies the sending state in the territory of the receiving state. While he remains in office he is entitled to the same absolute immunity as his head of state in relation both to his public and private acts.

This immunity is not in issue in the present case. Senator Pinochet is not a serving head of state. If he were, he could not be extradited. It would be an intolerable affront to the Republic of Chile to arrest him or detain him.

Immunity ratione materiae is very different. This is a subject-matter immunity. It operates to prevent the official and governmental acts of one state from being called into question in proceedings before the courts of another, and only incidentally confers immunity on the individual. It is therefore a narrower immunity but it is more widely available. It is available to former heads of state and heads of diplomatic missions, and any one whose conduct in the exercise of the authority of the state is afterwards called into question, whether he acted as head of government, government minister, military commander or chief of police, or subordinate public official. The immunity is the same whatever the rank of the office-holder. This too is common ground. It is an immunity from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of foreign national courts but only in respect of governmental or official acts. The exercise of authority by the military and security forces of the state is the paradigm example of such conduct. The immunity finds its rationale in the equality of sovereign states and the doctrine of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states: see Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1848) 2 H.L.Cas. 1; Hatch v. Baez (1876) 7 Hun. 596 U.S.; Underhill v. Hernandez (1897) 168 U.S. 456. These hold that the courts of one state cannot sit in judgment on the sovereign acts of another. The immunity is sometimes also justified by the need to prevent the serving head of state or diplomat from being inhibited in the performance of his official duties by fear of the consequences after he has ceased to hold office. This last basis can hardly be prayed in aid to support the availability of the immunity in respect of criminal activities prohibited by international law.

Given its scope and rationale, it is closely similar to and may be indistinguishable from aspects of the Anglo-American Act of State doctrine. As I understand the difference between them, state immunity is a creature of international law and operates as a plea in bar to the jurisdiction of the national court, whereas the Act of State doctrine is a rule of domestic law which holds the national court incompetent to adjudicate upon the lawfulness of the sovereign acts of a foreign state.

Immunity ratione materiae is given statutory form in English law by the combined effect of section 20(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and Article 39.2 of the Vienna Convention. The Act of 1978 is not without its difficulties. The former head of state is given the same immunity "subject to all necessary modifications" as a former diplomat, who continues to enjoy immunity in respect of acts committed by him "in the exercise of his functions." The functions of a diplomat are limited to diplomatic activities, ie. acts performed in his representative role in the receiving state. He has no broader immunity in respect of official or governmental acts not performed in exercise of his diplomatic functions: see Dinstein on Diplomatic Immunity from Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae (1966) 15 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 76 at 82. There is therefore a powerful argument for holding that, by a parity of reasoning, the statutory immunity conferred on a former head of state by the Act of 1978 is confined to acts performed in his capacity as head of state, ie. in his representative role. If so, the statutory immunity would not protect him in respect of official or governmental acts which are not distinctive of a head of state, but which he performed in some other official capacity, whether as head of government, commander-in-chief or party leader. It is, however, not necessary to decide whether this is the case, for any narrow statutory immunity is subsumed in the wider immunity in respect of other official or governmental acts under customary international law.

The charges brought against Senator Pinochet are concerned with his public and official acts, first as Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army and later as head of state. He is accused of having embarked on a widespread and systematic reign of terror in order to obtain power and then to maintain it. If the allegations against him are true, he deliberately employed torture as an instrument of state policy. As international law stood on the eve of the Second World War, his conduct as head of state after he seized power would probably have attracted immunity ratione materiae. If so, I am of opinion that it would have been equally true of his conduct during the period before the coup was successful. He was not then, of course, head of state. But he took advantage of his position as Commander-in-Chief of the army and made use of the existing military chain of command to deploy the armed forces of the state against its constitutional government. These were not private acts. They were official and governmental or sovereign acts by any standard.

The immunity is available whether the acts in question are illegal or unconstitutional or otherwise unauthorised under the internal law of the state, since the whole purpose of state immunity is to prevent the legality of such acts from being adjudicated upon in the municipal courts of a foreign state. A sovereign state has the exclusive right to determine what is and is not illegal or unconstitutional under its own domestic law. Even before the end of the Second World War, however, it was questionable whether the doctrine of state immunity accorded protection in respect of conduct which was prohibited by international law. As early as 1841, according to Quincy Wright (see (1947) 41 A.J.I.L at p. 71), many commentators held the view that:

     "the Government's authority could not confer immunity upon its agents for acts beyond its powers under international law."

Thus state immunity did not provide a defence to a crime against the rules of war: see Sir Hirsch Lauterpacht (1947) 63 L.Q.R. pp. 442-3. Writing in (1946) 59 Harvard Law Journal 396 before the Nuremberg Tribunal delivered its judgment and commenting on the seminal judgment of Chief Justice Marshall in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812) 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, Sheldon Glueck observed at p. 426:

     "As Marshall implied, even in an age when the doctrine of sovereignty had a strong hold, the non-liability of agents of a state for 'acts of state' must rationally be based on the assumption that no member of the Family of Nations will order its agents to commit flagrant violations of international and criminal law."

Glueck added (at p. 427) that:

     "In modern times a state is--ex hypothesi- incapable of ordering or ratifying acts which are not only criminal according to generally accepted principles of domestic penal law but also contrary to that international law to which all states are perforce subject. Its agents, in performing such acts, are therefore acting outside their legitimate scope; and must, in consequence be held personally liable for their wrongful conduct."

It seems likely that Glueck was contemplating trial before municipal courts, for more than half a century was to pass before the establishment of a truly international criminal tribunal. This would also be consistent with the tenor of his argument that the concept of sovereignty was of relatively recent origin and had been mistakenly raised to what he described as the "status of some holy fetish."

Whether conduct contrary to the peremptory norms of international law attracted state immunity from the jurisdiction of national courts, however, was largely academic in 1946, since the criminal jurisdiction of such courts was generally restricted to offences committed within the territory of the forum state or elsewhere by the nationals of that state. In this connection it is important to appreciate that the International Military Tribunal (the Nuremberg Tribunal) which was established by the four Allied Powers at the conclusion of the Second World War to try the major war criminals was not, strictly speaking, an international court or tribunal. As Sir Hersch Lauterpacht explained in Oppenheim's International Law vol. II 7th ed. (1952) pp. 580-1, the Tribunal was:

     ". . . the joint exercise by the four states which established the Tribunal, of a right which each of them was entitled to exercise separately on its own responsibility in accordance with international law."

In its judgment the Tribunal described the making of the Charter as an exercise of sovereign legislative power by the countries to which the German Reich had unconditionally surrendered, and of the undoubted right of those countries to legislate for the occupied territories which had been recognised by the whole civilised world.

    Article 7 of the Charter of the Tribunal provided:
     "The official position of defendants, whether as heads of state or responsible officials in government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment." (my emphasis)

In its judgment the Tribunal ruled that:

     ". . . the very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state. He who violates the rules of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the state if the state in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law . . . The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances protects the representatives of a state, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law" (my emphasis).

The great majority of war criminals were tried in the territories where the crimes were committed. As in the case of the major war criminals tried at Nuremberg, they were generally (though not always) tried by national courts or by courts established by the occupying powers. The jurisdiction of these courts has never been questioned and could be said to be territorial. But everywhere the plea of state immunity was rejected in respect of atrocities committed in the furtherance of state policy in the course of the Second World War; and nowhere was this justified on the narrow (though available) ground that there is no immunity in respect of crimes committed in the territory of the forum state.

The principles of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and the Judgment of the Tribunal were unanimously affirmed by Resolution 95 of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1946. Thereafter it was no longer possible to deny that individuals could be held criminally responsibility for war crimes and crimes against peace and were not protected by state immunity from the jurisdiction of national courts. Moreover, while it was assumed that the trial would normally take place in the territory where the crimes were committed, it was not suggested that this was the only place where the trial could take place.

The Nuremberg Tribunal ruled that crimes against humanity fell within its jurisdiction only if they were committed in the execution of or in connection with war crimes or crimes against peace. But this appears to have been a jurisdictional restriction based on the language of the Charter. There is no reason to suppose that it was considered to be a substantive requirement of international law. The need to establish such a connection was natural in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. As memory of the war receded, it was abandoned.

In 1946 the General Assembly had entrusted the formulation of the principles of international law recognised in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Judgment of the Tribunal to the International Law Commission. It reported in 1954. It rejected the principle that international criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity should be limited to crimes committed in connection with war crimes or crimes against peace. It was, however, necessary to distinguish international crimes from ordinary domestic offences. For this purpose, the Commission proposed that acts would constitute international crimes only if they were committed at the instigation or the toleration of state authorities. This is the distinction which was later adopted in the Convention against Torture (1984). In my judgment it is of critical importance in relation to the concept of immunity ratione materiae. The very official or governmental character of the acts which is necessary to found a claim to immunity ratione materiae, and which still operates as a bar to the civil jurisdiction of national courts, was now to be the essential element which made the acts an international crime. It was, no doubt, for this reason that the Commission's draft code provided that: "The fact that a person acted as head of state or as a responsible Government official does not relieve him of responsibility for committing any of the offences defined in the code."

The landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Israel in Attorney-General of Israel v. Eichmann (1962) 36 I.L.R. 5 is also of great significance. Eichmann had been a very senior official of the Third Reich. He was in charge of Department IV D-4 of the Reich Main Security Office, the Department charged with the implementation of the Final Solution, and subordinate only to Heydrich and Himmler. He was abducted from Argentina and brought to Israel, where he was tried in the District Court for Tel Aviv. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The means by which he was brought to Israel to face trial has been criticised by academic writers, but Israel's right to assert jurisdiction over the offences has never been questioned.

The court dealt separately with the questions of jurisdiction and Act of State. Israel was not a belligerent in the Second World War, which ended three years before the state was founded. Nor were the offences committed within its territory. The District Court found support for its jurisdiction in the historic link between the State of Israel and the Jewish people. The Supreme Court preferred to concentrate on the international and universal character of the crimes of which the accused had been convicted, not least because some of them were directed against non-Jewish groups (Poles, Slovenes, Czechs and gipsies).

As a matter of domestic Israeli law, the jurisdiction of the court was derived from an Act of 1950. Following the English doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, the court held that it was bound to give effect to a law of the Knesset even if it conflicted with the principles of international law. But it went on to hold that the law did not conflict with any principle of international law. Following a detailed examination of the authorities, including the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Lotus case, 7 September 1927, it concluded that there was no rule of international law which prohibited a state from trying a foreign national for an act committed outside its borders. There seems no reason to doubt this conclusion. The limiting factor that prevents the exercise of extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction from amounting to an unwarranted interference with the internal affairs of another state is that, for the trial to be fully effective, the accused must be present in the forum state.

Significantly, however, the court also held that the scale and international character of the atrocities of which the accused had been convicted fully justified the application of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. It approved the general consensus of jurists that war crimes attracted universal jurisdiction: see, for example, Greenspan's The Modern Law of Land Warfare (1959) where he writes at p. 420 that:

     "Since each sovereign power stands in the position of a guardian of international law, and is equally interested in upholding it, any state has the legal right to try war crimes, even though the crimes have been committed against the nationals of another power and in a conflict to which that state is not a party."

This seems to have been an independent source of jurisdiction derived from customary international law, which formed part of the unwritten law of Israel, and which did not depend on the statute. The court explained that the limitation often imposed on the exercise of universal jurisdiction, that the state which apprehended the offender must first offer to extradite him to the state in which the offence was committed, was not intended to prevent the violation of the latter's territorial sovereignty. Its basis was purely practical. The great majority of the witnesses and the greater part of the evidence would normally be concentrated in that state, and it was therefore the most convenient forum for the trial.

Having disposed of the objections to its jurisdiction, the court rejected the defence of Act of State. As formulated, this did not differ in any material respect from a plea of immunity ratione materiae. It was based on the fact that in committing the offences of which he had been convicted the accused had acted as an organ of the state, "whether as head of the state or a responsible official acting on the government's orders." The court applied Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter (which it will be remembered expressly referred to the head of state) and which it regarded as having become part of the law of nations.

The case is authority for three propositions:

 (1) There is no rule of international law which prohibits a state from exercising extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in respect of crimes committed by foreign nationals abroad.

 (2) War crimes and atrocities of the scale and international character of the Holocaust are crimes of universal jurisdiction under customary international law.

 (3) The fact that the accused committed the crimes in question in the course of his official duties as a responsible officer of the state and in the exercise of his authority as an organ of the state is no bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction of a national court.

The case was followed in the United States in Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky (1985) 603 F. Supp. 1468 aff'd. 776 F. 2d. 571. In the context of an extradition request by the State of Israel the court accepted Israel's right to try a person charged with murder in the concentration camps of Eastern Europe. It held that the crimes were crimes of universal jurisdiction, observing:

     "International law provides that certain offences may be punished by any state because the offenders are enemies of all mankind and all nations have an equal interest in their apprehension and punishment."

The difficulty is to know precisely what is the ambit of the expression "certain offences".

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 both provided that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A resolution of the General Assembly in 1973 proclaimed the need for international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. A further resolution of the General Assembly in 1975 proclaimed the desire to make the struggle against torture more effective throughout the world. The fundamental human rights of individuals, deriving from the inherent dignity of the human person, had become a commonplace of international law. Article 55 of the Charter of the United Nations was taken to impose an obligation on all states to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The trend was clear. War crimes had been replaced by crimes against humanity. The way in which a state treated its own citizens within its own borders had become a matter of legitimate concern to the international community. The most serious crimes against humanity were genocide and torture. Large scale and systematic use of torture and murder by state authorities for political ends had come to be regarded as an attack upon the international order. Genocide was made an international crime by the Genocide Convention in 1948. By the time Senator Pinochet seized power, the international community had renounced the use of torture as an instrument of state policy. The Republic of Chile accepts that by 1973 the use of torture by state authorities was prohibited by international law, and that the prohibition had the character of jus cogens or obligation erga omnes. But it insists that this does not confer universal jurisdiction or affect the immunity of a former head of state ratione materiae from the jurisdiction of foreign national courts.