Following the initial extradition request, several complaints were filed by groups in other European nations and within Chile seeking to open new human rights cases against Pinochet, including: genocide, kidnapping, and illegal exhumation. However, Pinochet was protected from domestic prosecution, due to constitutional changes made in 1980, which made him "senator life." This controversial case brought about many international legal issues, whether his diplomatic immunity could be applied and protect him from prosecution of his human rights violations and the validity of Spain's extradition request. .
The cases in Britain were brought to the nation's highest court of appeals (The House of Lords) and were separated into two separate hearings, twelve appointed lords, with a first panel of five and a second panel of seven. After extensive deliberations and speculation into international law, the majority (nine of twelve) ruled that Pinochet was not protected by diplomatic immunity and could be extradited to Spain to stand trial for crimes committed against humanity. However in March 2000, Home Secretary Jack Straw decided that General Pinochet was unfit to stand trial due to medical reasons.
Pinochet's case put to the test the stability and structure of our International Law system in many ways: it questioned the 1984 Torture convention on extradition provisions, claims to universal jurisdiction, diplomatic immunity, and the link between international humanitarian law and human rights law. .
In the 1984 International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment tightened the machinery of enforcement for violators. The lords unanimously agreed that there was a strict prohibition of torture in international law. The issue at hand was not whether there was a prohibition but whether provisions of immunity by the head of state might override this doctrine and punishments set by the Torture convention.
