A: Dear Paul,
It was certainly dramatic for those of us following the ruling live. The Law Lords always give judgement in order of seniority. The three judges in the majority decided that General Pinochet did not have immunity because crimes such as torture and genocide could not be considered part of his official duties as a head of state. However, the other two judges did not accept that some crimes were so horrific that an exception should be made to the normal rule that one state does not interfere with the actions of the head of another state. International law is constantly under development by the judges and there can be disagreements, as we have seen, on the current state of the law.

Q: Will this case result in a change in British law which, according to Pinochet's attorney, as it now stands would even have protected Hitler? Clearly, Pinochet was responsible for the murder, torture and suffering of thousands, including the relatives of his victims. Does overthrowing a democratically elected socialist government make this permissible because there are some who still think "the best commie is a dead commie"? Does staging a coup d'etat make one a head of state who is entitled by international law to savage human rights as one pleases? There is only one decision Jack Straw can make, despite all the political pressure being brought to bear.
Sabrina Gledhill

A: Dear Sabrina,
The case has already produced a change in the law. The decision of the Law Lords is binding on all other courts.

Q: Jack Straw has the final say on whether Pinochet gets to face extradition or not. Can he change the ruling of the highest court in Britain and send him back to Chile on "compassionate" grounds and still retain credibility? After all, the Labour Government made a lot of noise about their focus on human rights in foreign policy. I understand that even if he lets the case go forward and Pinochet loses he could still prevent him from being sent to Spain for trial. Is this at all likely?
Gonzalo San Martin, UK

A: Dear Gonzalo,
Jack Straw has just been given more time to decide whether the extradition proceedings should go ahead. He must now decide by Friday 11 December. General Pinochet's first appearance before a magistrate has been put off until that day as well. Of course, if Mr Straw decides not to let the case go any further, General Pinochet will not have to appear in court.

The home secretary has a very wide discretion in deciding whether to give what is called his "authority to proceed". There is nothing to stop him taking account of any compassionate circumstances, provided he considers all the representations he receives fairly.

Q: Assuming that the home secretary decides to allow the case to be heard by the magistrate on 2 December, will General Pinochet be able to appeal against a magistrate's decision to extradite him to Spain?
Chris Sharkey

A: Dear Chris
Certainly. If the magistrate eventually decides that General Pinochet should be sent to Spain, he will be told he has the right to challenge that decision in the courts. The law says he cannot be sent to Spain for at least two weeks after such a ruling, in order to give him time to go to a higher court. Even if all his legal challenges fail, the home secretary could still decide not to send him for trial in Spain.

Q: Will it be possible for the Spanish judge to take his appeal to the European Court and thereby retain the opportunity to force Britain to extradite Pinochet?
Raymond Greene

A: Dear Raymond,
No. I think you are referring to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That court deals with breaches of human rights by European states.

Q: My question is: as home secretary (assuming he is making his decision as such), should Jack Straw prioritise domestic interests over international human rights? I would have thought that this would be an ideal opportunity for him, the government and the UK, to go down in history as the leaders of a movement in international law which is hopefully going to see more such cases being addressed. Through Britain's past relationship with Chile, it is no surprise that Jack Straw now faces this choice. My opinion is that he cannot set Pinochet free, and will not do so, at least initially. The longer he takes to make the decision, the stronger his message is: that this government is waiting for the right time to release him. If this is not the case, why prolong the legal process?
Carlos Pi

A: Dear Carlos,
Jack Straw has a very broad discretion. The Extradition Act gives him very little guidance on what issues to take into account. However, one of the Law Lords, Lord Nicholls, said arguments about the effect of extradition on relations with Chile or Spain were matters for consideration by Jack Straw in deciding whether to return General Pinochet to Spain and the end of the legal process. And Lord Slynn agreed that issues such as the effect of extradition on Chile's democracy were matters for the Home Secretary to consider.

Q: Could maverick extradition unpick the Northern Ireland agreement e.g. by prosecuting a terrorist turned politician? Or Margaret Thatcher for sinking the Belgrano? Or Tony Blair for some mid-east adventure? I have NO sympathy with violence or repression but wonder where all this might lead - ex-President Clinton in the dock in the Sudan?
Keith Watkins

A: Dear Keith,
The Law Lords ruling applies only to a former head of state who may find himself in the United Kingdom and whose extradition is requested by another country. Even if General Pinochet is not extradited to Spain it is likely that he or anybody else facing such serious charges will think twice before visiting London in future.

Q: Sri Lanka armed services have tortured and killed many innocent Tamils in their custody with impunity. Many independent reports have confirmed it. Can the head of state, the secretary of defence, the deputy minister of defence, the commanders of the army, air force, the navy and the head of the police in Sri Lanka be charged in the courts of England and other countries for their crime against humanity?

Who can bring the charges? That is, can an individual or group of individuals file the case/charges or would a government have to? Can charges be filed against a current head of state or serving generals or only against former holders of power? Can charges be filed in absentia?
Nagalingam E

A: Dear Nagalingam,
The English courts do not normally try people in their absence. There would be little point. And as I just said, the Law Lords' decision may deter some of those who may have been planning to visit the United Kingdom.

Q: If Chile objects to General Pinochet being tried in the national courts of some other country, such as Spain, why doesn't someone hurry up and bring charges against him in an international court, such as the one in the Hague? Also, it would seem that a graceful way to harmonize the compassionate concerns of not wanting to imprison a frail old man, with the need to fully investigate the crimes of the Pinochet regime, would be to make a South African style plea bargain, whereby Pinochet would give full and truthful testimony on his crimes in exchange for the promise of a suspended sentence if found guilty.
Charles H Bennett, Croton-on-Hudson, USA

A: Dear Charles,
The International Court of Justice in the Hague deals only with disputes between countries. It does not have criminal jurisdiction. At a conference in Rome earlier this year, most nations in the world agreed to set up a new international criminal court in the Netherlands. It will be some years before this court is up and running. In answer to the second part of your question, if General Pinochet is sent to Spain to face trial his lawyers would advise him on the best way of answering the charges against him there.

Q: General Pinochet was arrested more than a month ago. Do you think he will ever appear in court?
Douglas Greene, London, UK

Dear Douglas,
The magistrate ruled this afternoon that General Pinochet should come to court on 11 December unless there was medical evidence to suggest that this was inappropriate. A report in a London newspaper suggested that General Pinochet was suffering from stress and had been visited by a psychiatrist. His solicitor said in court today that some press reports about General Pinochet's health had been "inaccurate". So it looks as if we shall see General Pinochet in court in two weeks time unless the home secretary decides before then not to allow the case to proceed.

Q: The Law Lords decided that General Pinochet has no immunity to extradition/prosecution. what bothers me is that this decision can be reversed by the home secretary. Doesn't this amount to government interference in the judiciary? Just how independent is the the British judiciary in general and on this issue in particular?
Watiti J M, Ugandan in Norway

A: Dear Watiti,
The judiciary is certainly independent. This was not the result the British Government expected or wanted. However, extradition always involves both governments and courts. If a court refuses to allow extradition the government cannot go ahead with it. However, if a court says an extradition application is lawful, the Home Secretary can still refuse to let the case go any further.

Q: Is there any British precedent for non-compliance with an extradition order on compassionate grounds? Is this not more properly a matter for the country of destination? I suspect that many of the victims care less about punishing General Pinochet than about bringing him to stand trial for his alleged crimes. If he were tried and convicted, compassion could then be exercised in respect of his sentence, if it were felt appropriate.
Craig McFarlan, UK