Repatriation
Two weeks later, under pressure from public opinion at home and the French and Swedish governments, the UK decided to buy time by putting Astiz on a boat from Ascension to the UK. While Astiz was in transit the UK announced he would be made available for interview by representatives of the French and Swedish governments. Soon after the Argentine government made veiled threats against the welfare of three UK journalists they had arrested as spies and linked their release to that of Astiz. The questioning went ahead in June but was performed by a Detective Chief Superintendent of the Sussex Constabulary. Both times he was questioned Astiz kept silent. A detailed report was prepared and given to the Swedish and French governments, but was probably not informative, as Astiz said nothing during the questioning. Astiz was repatriated to Argentina on 10 June 1982, just before the start of the battle for Port Stanley and the Argentine capitulation on 14 June.
The UK government had chosen to read the Third Geneva Convention as protecting Astiz from criminal prosecution in the UK or extradition. Meyer argues that this was an incorrect reading but was justified at the time by four points. Astiz was in protective custody because of special circumstances i.e. surrendering during war. The Geneva Conventions exhort custodial powers to leniency. Astiz was accused of crimes—kidnapping, wounding and torture—which were illegal in Argentina and he could, in theory, be prosecuted there. In the end Meyer argues that nothing in the Geneva Conventions themselves expressly prohibited the prosecution or extradition of Astiz. However, the extradition treaties between the UK and both Sweden and France referred only to crimes committed within the territory of the requesting state and crimes against international law. But Astiz was accused of crimes against the citizens of these states in Argentina, which were not, at the time, crimes under international law.
On the other hand, criminal prosecution within the UK was ruled out during his detention because Astiz committed no crimes against British subjects, their possessions or the British State.
Meyer argues that victims of Astiz, or their representatives, might have been successful in securing damages from him if they had brought a civil action while he was in the UK. As with criminal prosecution there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 removing the civil liability of prisoners of war for actions committed prior to capture. A British court has jurisdiction over a foreign tort whenever the defendant is in the UK if the alleged act would have been actionable as a tort if committed in Britain and it was an offence under the laws of the foreign country. Torture and kidnap by government officials is actionable as a tort if committed in England. Proving that it was an offence under the laws of Argentina is more difficult. English courts assume that the authorised actions of officials of a foreign government within its sovereign territory are not actionable within their jurisdiction unless those actions are outside the scope of the powers of the government. Since torture is expressly forbidden in the Argentine constitution there is a good argument that Astiz was acting outside his powers as an agent of the Argentine government in torturing Alice Domon and Léonie Duquet. Although there were witnesses prepared to testify that they had seen Astiz torture Alice Domon and Léonie Duquet this approach did not seem to have been thought of in time and no such case was brought.
Read more about this topic: Alfredo Astiz