[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Usually a crime can only be prosecuted if the authorities have jurisdiction. If I murder a guy in Mexico, I’m not going to be prosecuted in Guatemala. If I rob a house in Seattle, I can’t be prosecuted in Portland.
.
[/QUOTE]
In many countries, courts are competent to try crimes that involve one of their citizens (as the victim or as the perpetrator), regardless of where the crime has been committed.
Actually, I believe it’s the case in Mexico, so possibly also in other former Spanish colonies. So, you might be prosecuted in Guatemala for a crime committed in Mexico, if you or the victim is a citizen of Guatemala.
It would apply to Bush too. He could be prosecuted in a foreign country, not because he broke some principle of the international law or another, but just because his actions caused harm to a citizen of said foreign country. That’s what almost happened to Pinochet, when Spain requested his extradition from the UK.
And of course, the immunity a former head of State may benefit from in his own country is irrelevant in a foreign country (a current foreign head of state would benefit from diplomatic immunity, hence couldn’t be prosecuted).
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Well, clearly Bush could be charged with murder if he walked into an army base, pulled out a pistol and shot an active duty soldier in the head. So his immunity as Commander in Chief isn’t absolute.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that, but it really doesn’t answer my question.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
In many countries, courts are competent to try crimes that involve one of their citizens (as the victim or as the perpetrator), regardless of where the crime has been committed.
[/QUOTE]
The Indian Penal Code applies to extra-territorial crimes committed by Nationals: