1

Ichikawa, Wakana Jane

Regina vs Bartle and the Commissioner of Police On 24 March 1999 House of Lords

Doctrine. The provision of the Torture Convention is not consistent with the notion of continued immunity for former head of
states.

Facts.

Lord Browne Wilkins judgement on matter during Senator Pinochet regime several allegations on acts of barbarism,
torture, murder, and unexplained disappearance of individuals were committed in Chile. Two questions of law: are there any
extradition crimes, Senator Pinochet immune from trial for committing those crimes. He was entitled to immunity in relation
whether the alleged organization of state torture by Senator Pinochet would constitute an act committed, and his status as a
former head of state, Pinochet claimed that he was immune from prosecution under the principle of international law. As the
House of Lords to have contravened the provisions of the Torture Convention became law on the 8th of December 1988 and
Chile, Spain and the United Kingdom were all parties to it.

Issue. Whether or not the provision of the Torture Convention is consistent with the notion of continued immunity for former
head of states

Ruling. Yes. The provision of the Torture Convention is not consistent with the notion of continued immunity for former head of
states. Pinochet was not acting in any capacity that gives rise to immunity. He masterminded and authorized torture after the 8th
of December 1988 because these acts clearly contravene international law. In the present case and the implementation of the
torture regime is to be treated as official business sufficient to found an immunity for the former head of state . It must also be
official business sufficient to justify immunity for his inferiors who actually did the torturing. Under the Torture Convention the
international crime of torture can only be committed by an official or someone in an official capacity. They would be entitled to
immunity. Hence the whole elaborate structure of universal jurisdiction over torture committed by official is rendered abortive
and one of the main objectives of the Torture Convention to provide a system under which there is no safe haven for torturers will
have been frustrated.
 2

Sambiaggo Case, (Italy v Venezuela) Venezuela Arbitration of 1903, p 666

Doctrine: Doctrine of State Responsibility on the protection of aliens should be seen in relation to the doctrine. It provides that
whenever one state commits an internationally unlawful act against another state, international responsibility is established
between the two. When an injury has been inflicted, there is need to determine whether the state can be held responsible for it.

Facts: Salvatore Sambiaggio, Italian resident of the parish of San Joaquin, who demand and claim the sum 5,135.50 bolivars on
account for forced advances made to property taken by requisitions and forced loans exacted of him by revolutionary troops plus
damages with additional amount of 171. 63 bolivars for cost and interest. Other Italians established in Venezuela, on account of
damages inflicted. Venezuela holds that the nation cannot be considered responsible for damages, injuries, or expropriations not
committed by the constituted authorities operating in a public capacity. The responsibility of the Government was therefore
limited by and dependent on proof that the acts for which indemnity was claimed had been committed by the authorities while in
the discharge of their public functions. The protocol seems to have desired to avoid these discussions, and the Government
admits, in principle, its responsibility but only in so far as its agents are concerned not for the acts of individuals. In accordance
with this theory the government is not responsible for lack of protection not resulting from a culpable neglect so great as to equal
an act of its own against private property.

Issue: Whether or not the Venezuela Government is materially responsible to the claimant Sambiaggio under the doctrine of state
responsibility

Ruling: No, Venezuela Government, it cannot be determined generally that there was such neglect on the part of the Government
as to charge it with the offenses of the revolutionists whose acts were now in question. The " most-favored-nation " clause
contained in the Italian treaty does not obliged this Commission to follow, in favor of Italian subjects, the interpretation made by
other Commissions of their protocols. The ordinary rule was that a government, like an individual, was only to be held
responsible for the acts of its agents or for acts the responsibility for which is expressly assumed by it. In this case, principle of
state responsibility is not applicable were beyond governmental control and the government cannot be held responsible for
injuries committed by those who have escaped its restraint.. The word " injury " occurring in the protocol imports legal injury.
It was a generally accepted principle of international law that strangers cannot expect, in any country, better treatment than was
accorded the nationals. Otherwise foreign immigration.