## Facts

- Spain sought the extradition of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, a former head of state of Chile, to face charges including torture and conspiracy to torture, largely arising from conduct in Chile.
- While in London for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested under a provisional warrant executed by United Kingdom authorities under the Extradition Act 1989.
- The Divisional Court initially held Pinochet immune as a former head of state and found UK courts lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the extradition request.
- A first House of Lords decision rejecting immunity was later set aside due to apparent bias stemming from an undisclosed connection between a Law Lord and an intervenor.
- A new seven-member appellate panel reheard the case, addressing immunity, the scope of UK extradition jurisdiction, and timing limits tied to the UK’s creation of an extraterritorial torture offense.

## Issues

1. Whether a former head of state has immunity from criminal process (and thus extradition) for alleged torture and related conduct committed while in office.
2. Whether the Extradition Act 1989 “double criminality” requirement permits extradition where the alleged conduct was not a UK offense at the time it occurred.
3. Whether alleged torture occurring before the commencement of Criminal Justice Act 1988 § 134 (Sept. 29, 1988) can support extradition.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the appeals in part and held extradition proceedings could continue only on a limited set of allegations.
- Pinochet could not rely on former head-of-state immunity to block extradition for torture and conspiracy to torture occurring after the relevant international and domestic legal obligations took effect.
- Because the UK extraterritorial torture offense was created by Criminal Justice Act 1988 § 134 and was not retroactive, only post–Sept. 29, 1988 conduct could qualify as an “extradition crime.”
- Charges based on conduct occurring before Sept. 29, 1988 were excluded from the extradition process for lack of double criminality under UK law.

## Legal Principles

- Former head-of-state immunity for “official acts” does not bar criminal process where the acts alleged constitute torture within the scope of the Convention Against Torture as implemented by domestic law establishing prosecutorial jurisdiction.
- Under the Extradition Act 1989, extradition requires double criminality: the conduct must have been criminal under both the requesting state’s law and UK law at the time of the conduct.
- Criminal Justice Act 1988 § 134 created a UK offense of torture triable in the UK regardless of where committed, but the offense is not retroactive.
- UK courts may treat torture as conduct incapable of being characterized as protected “official acts” for immunity purposes once the relevant international prohibition and domestic implementing jurisdiction are in force.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that a former head of state could not invoke immunity to prevent extradition for alleged torture falling within the post–Sept. 29, 1988 period when UK law provided extraterritorial jurisdiction, but it limited extradition strictly to conduct satisfying double criminality and rejected reliance on any pre-commencement allegations.


Regina v. Bartle (Bow St. Metro. Stipendiary Magistrate) ex rel. Pinochet Ugarte, [2000] 1 A.C. 147 (H.L. 1999)