About: R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FR_v_Bow_Street_Metropolitan_Stipendiary_Magistrate%2C_ex_parte_Pinochet

R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Caso Pinochet (es) R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (en)
rdfs:comment	El caso Pinochet, oficialmente «Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte 3 WLR 1,456 (H.L. 1998)», fue un polémico caso suscitado ante la Cámara de los Lores, que consistió en decidir si el exdictador chileno Augusto Pinochet podría reclamar la inmunidad de jurisdicción a partir de las denuncias de tortura formuladas por un tribunal español y, por tanto, evadir su extradición a España. (es) R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law. (en)
name	R v Bow St Magistrate (en)
foaf:depiction
dcterms:subject	United Kingdom administrative case law Amnesty International Conflict of interest mitigation Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet 1999 in case law 1998 in British law 1998 in case law House of Lords cases United Kingdom constitutional case law Bias 1999 in British law Extradition case law Sovereign immunity
Wikipage page ID	34998622 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1025784850 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Lord Hoffmann Lord Steyn Brian Hutton, Baron Hutton David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead United Kingdom administrative case law House of Lords Bias Amnesty International Criminal Justice Act 1988 Lord Browne-Wilkinson Conflict of interest mitigation Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet Augusto Pinochet Amnesty International 1999 in case law 1998 in British law 1998 in case law High Court High Court of Justice Interpol House of Lords cases United Kingdom constitutional case law Bias 1999 in British law Extradition case law Sovereign immunity Spain Anthony Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Berwick Lennie Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann State immunity Divisional Court (England and Wales) Universal jurisdiction UK constitutional law Lord Bingham Lord Phillips Lord Millett Lord Slynn Augusto Pinochet's arrest and trial Lord Lloyd Baltazar Garzon Lord Goff Lord Nicholls Lord Saville
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_12/barker_pinochet.html http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/855/Pinochet/ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990324/pino1.htm http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/17.html http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/52.html
sameAs	R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet
subsequent actions	No 2 [1999] UKHL 52, [2000] 1 AC 119. No 3 [1999] UKHL 17, [2000] 1 AC 147. (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:EngvarB dbt:Quote dbt:Reflist dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Infobox_Court_Case dbt:Conflict_of_interest
thumbnail	wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Pinochet_11-09-1982.jpg?width=300
caption	Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (en)
citations	[1998] UKHL 41, [2000] 1 AC 61 (en)
court	House of Lords
full name	R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (en)
judges	Lord Hoffmann Lord Steyn Brian Hutton, Baron Hutton David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead Lord Browne-Wilkinson Anthony Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Berwick Lord Phillips Lord Millett Lord Slynn Lord Goff Lord Nicholls Lord Saville
has abstract	El caso Pinochet, oficialmente «Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte 3 WLR 1,456 (H.L. 1998)», fue un polémico caso suscitado ante la Cámara de los Lores, que consistió en decidir si el exdictador chileno Augusto Pinochet podría reclamar la inmunidad de jurisdicción a partir de las denuncias de tortura formuladas por un tribunal español y, por tanto, evadir su extradición a España. El caso es significativo en una serie de áreas, incluyendo el derecho penal internacional, el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y la relación entre el derecho internacional y el derecho interno. El fallo es también importante por la decisión posterior de la Cámara de los Lores, sin precedentes, de anular el juicio debido a la posibilidad de sesgo en uno de sus jueces. (es) R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law. In the first judgment, a panel of 5 judges ruled that Pinochet, as a former head of state, was not entitled to immunity from prosecution for the crimes of torture and could therefore be extradited to Spain to face charges. However, in a subsequent judgment that was to prove controversial, the ruling was set aside (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) (Pinochet II) following revelations that one of the Law Lords had links to one of the intervenors in the case, Amnesty International, thereby creating an appearance of bias. A new panel of judges (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) (Pinochet III) subsequently affirmed that Pinochet was not entitled to state immunity but that acts committed outside of British territories could only be prosecuted under national law if committed after the passage of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (which gave UK courts universal jurisdiction over crimes of torture). (en)
date decided	1998-11-25 (xsd:date)
prior actions	Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, [1999] 38 ILM 68 (en)

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 60 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software