Even if he is dementing and now escapes prosecution, the precedent has been created which for ever lifts the international immunity of fascists.
When this story first broke, the nameless moderator of a Marxism Mailing list dismissed my welcome of the developments, essentially for sewing illusions in the process of reforms, and referred to Garzon as a "maverick".
Perhaps Garzon is still a maverick, but he is representative of a much wider social process unfolding globally under our eyes.
Dogmatic forms of marxism are unable to discern such developments, let alone give a lead on them.
Here is Garzon's response to the probability that the British Home Secretary will eventually release Pinochet.
The fight is not yet over. This translation, significantly courtesy of LabourNet (UK), follows -
Chris Burford
London
_____________________________
Garzón to Straw: Let me question Pinochet in London
Garzón reiterates his request to Straw to question Pinochet before the final decision
The judge denounces the "investigative method" of the Home Office and repeats his wish to question the General
Ernesto Ekaizer El Pais 15 Jan 2000
translated by LabourNet UK. The original appears in El Pais at http://www.elpais.es/p/d/20000115/internac/garzon.htm
LONDON – Judge Baltasar Garzón yesterday sent the British Home Secretary Jack Straw a document of allegations in which he asked the United Kingdom to permit him to travel, together with lawyers for the prosecution, in order to take a statement from General Augusto Pinochet before the announced decision is made to free the ex-dictator. The judge requests the medical report which declared Pinochet “incapable of submitting to justice”, proposes carrying out a second examination with the participation of Spanish forensic doctors, and forwards the case papers as investigated in Spain to activate criminal proceedings against the ex-dictator in the UK, with the aim of preventing his return to Chile.
Judge Garzón indicates, in a stiff tone and without softening his views, that the allegations are “influenced by a fundamental negative element: the lack of knowledge of the medical report on which he is asked to give an opinion, which leads to a somewhat absurd situation”. According to the Judge, this is the only conclusion it is possible to reach, “because the decision not to provide the content or the medical reports conducted prevents any concrete response, making illusory the guarantees - as essential elements - which must be present in a criminal procedure: the principle of equality amongst the parties, the principle of defense and the principle of contradiction”.
The magistrate reasons that “in no case” would the norms of Spanish criminal procedure permit “the accused defendant to avoid justice for medical or organic reasons. Only in the case of an unexpected mental derangement could the criminal process be halted until the party recuperated”. The document is supported by a forensic medical report issued yesterday by Dr. Ángel Canelada. This opinion indicates that, “despite the patient’s physical ailments, and given treatment, vigilence and necessary control, nothing prevents the prosecution of an 84 year old. Only after verifying the influence which the hypothetical physical ailments have produced in the mind and the subject’s degree of discernment, could a decision be taken on his submission to justice.”
The judge attacks the secrecy which has surrounded the exit arranged by Straw. “Nothing would have to be said about the decision,” he states, “if the medical examination and its conclusions were shared or discussed through a medical review expert, as is of course the right of the prosecuting parties, or at least, it would have to be explained why the requesting State has not been allowed access to the medical analyses, which therefore act under the control of the accused and also the Home Office”.
Garzón likewise rebuts the concept of confidentiality and privacy brandished by Straw: “A report obtained by an administrative authority, which will have definitive effects or could have them in an extradition process and therefore in the related criminal procedure, is not the same as one conducted for private and personal reasons. In the first case, the report pertains to the judicial process and cannot impose itself on the other parties as an investigative method, in such a way that these parties cannot make allegations with any expectation that their reasoning would be heeded.”
Amongst the measures requested by the Judge is that of taking a statement in London from Pinochet before he is set free. The request is not an entreaty, as Garzón indicates that if the United Kingdom were to have refused the extradition it could have breached judicial cooperation with Spain.
Taking a Statement
“On 19 October 1998 an official request was passed to England asking that a statement be taken from Pinochet with the assistance of the instructing judge. After a year and three months, this request has not been answered, a matter which is understandable by virtue of the processing of the extradition demand, although they are not incompatible”. The Judge indicates that it had not been insisted upon in order not “to interfere with the course of the extradition”. But he underlines: “At present the situation has changed, so authorisation is expressly requested for taking such a statement from the accused, before the announced decision is reached on his eventual release”.
Finally, Garzón reminds the Home Office of the principle of “extradition” or “judgement” which the Law Lords underlined in their ruling of 24 March 1999, to allow the continuation of the extradition process, so that the Spanish evidence could be put at the disposition of a prosecution of Pinochet in the United Kingdom.
Judge Garzón indicates in the allegations that he does not relinquish “employing all necessary procedures to make effective the extradition of Pinochet”, which signifies that he is still considering whether to propose a recourse to judicial review of Straw’s decision, a move which would not paralyze his decision in any way.