'Justice must be seen to be done' | The Pinochet Case and Impartial Courts | Legal Landmarks

In this video Dr David Yuratich and Katie Broomfield explore the Pinochet case (No. 2) and its historical and legal significance in reasserting the importance of justice being seen to be done and the impartiality of courts.
Legal Landmarks is a series produced with and for the UK Supreme Court.
MB01U72ID9P1KWV

[@peek-a-boo-101]

Thanku it was well explained by both. 💪🏼🌸 now i don't have to go through the lengthy trial notes thanks

[@solgato5186]

justice took far too long

[@HistoryHub]

Agreed

[@lukealadeen7836]

Katie is cute in a sweet kinda way

[@ahmadomar1650]

What was the final decision in the case?

[@victorkiptum-qh1np]

I have seen the video today and I am asking the same question.

[@llainc259]

On the 24th of March 1999 the Law Lords ruled that Pinochet could be legally extradited and was not immune from the UN Convention against Torture. On the 14th of April Home Secretary Jack Straw signed an Authority to Proceed. Pinochet's legal council however filed an application using medical evidence from Chile to argue that Pinochet was too ill to stand trial. Home Secretary Straw then consulted with his aides / lawyers and requested a second medical report to be filed by 4 reputable British doctors. The report came back on the 2 May 2000 and on the same day Straw stated to parliament that he was "minded" to block the extradition as proceeding would be in contravention of Article 6 of the ECHR (Right to fair trial). So Pinochet went home. He did an interview in 2002 where he looked well and coherent, and again in 2004 which has caused for many to scrutinise the British medical report. Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, and France all requesting the report and stated that it was lacking in detail.