Chapter 1 • International Human Rights Law and the Role of the Legal Professions: A General Introduction of religion had been violated by the written reply from the Ministries. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal concluded that the protection afforded by article 9 of the European Convention and article 18 of the International Covenant had not been infringed. As to the alleged violation of article 26 of the International Covenant, the Court likewise found that it had not been violated, since the ministerial reply did not result in discriminatory treatment of the pianist on the basis of his beliefs or religious convictions, the reply being limited to the announcement of a specific procedure to be followed in the future with regard to the allocation of grants made available for the organization of events by third persons/agents. For this reason, and considering that the plaintiff in this case was not himself a recipient of any grant, it was not necessary to clarify whether he could base himself inter alia on the protection afforded by article 26 of the International Covenant, were an application for a grant to be rejected on the abovementioned ground.55 New Zealand: The 1994 Simpson v. Attorney General case, one of the most famous human rights cases in New Zealand, originated in an allegedly unreasonable search of the plaintiff’s home which, it was claimed, violated the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In its decision, the Court of Appeal emphasized that the purposes of the Bill of Rights were to “affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand and to affirm New Zealand’s commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. From these purposes, it was implicit that effective remedies should be available to any person whose Bill of Rights guarantees were alleged to have been violated”.56 When there had “been an infringement of the rights of an innocent person”, “monetary compensation was”, in the view of the Court, “an appropriate and proper, indeed the only effective, remedy”.57 As observed by the Court, that “was consistent with a rights-centred approach to the Bill of Rights and international jurisprudence on remedies for human rights violations”, and reference was in this respect, inter alia, made to the jurisprudence on remedies of both the Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.58 United Kingdom: The most prominent case decided in recent years in which international human rights law played an important role is the case of Pinochet, which was decided by the House of Lords on 24 March 1999, and which originated in a request that the Chilean Senator – and former Head of the Chilean State – be extradited from the United Kingdom to Spain to be tried for crimes of torture and conspiracy to torture, hostage-taking and conspiracy to take hostages, as well as conspiracy to commit murder – acts committed whilst he was still in power. The obligations to which the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment gave rise, were incorporated into United Kingdom law by Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which entered into force on 29 September 1988. The 55 Urteil vom 15. Oktober 1996, Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, 10 S 1765/96, in particular, pp. 11-16: as to article 26 of the International Covenant, see p. 16. 56 Simpson v. Attorney General (1994) 1 HRNZ at 42-43. 57 Ibid., at 43. 58 Ibid., loc. cit. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 23