The seven-man panel of Law Lords yesterday decided 6-1 to turn down Pinochet's attempt to fight off an attempt by the Spanish government to seek his extradition, to the cheers of some 200 Chilean and other human rights campaigners gathered outside the House of Lords in Central London.

But the celebrations were muted when it was revealed the Law Lords had severely curtailed the number of charges lodged by Spain in seeking his extradition -- from 30 to three.

According to the ruling by the House of Lords -- Britain's non-elected upper house of Parliament -- the former dictator can only be tried on offences committed after 1988, when Britain signed the international convention against torture.

However, most of Pinochet's alleged crimes were committed before 1988.

Key campaigners pressing for Pinochet's extradition, whilewelcoming the rejection of immunity, strongly criticised the cut-off date imposed by the judges.

``It is an unwelcome compromise -- an attempt to weaken Britain's human rights obligations under international law,'' said Helen Bamber, director of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.

Geoffrey Bindman, the high-profile lawyer representing campaigning human rights bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch -- who had intervened in the case -- called the decision ``very puzzling and very strange.''

``This is a very narrow interpretation of the law... instead of dealing with the hundreds of cases contained in the Spanish request (for extradition), there will be only a limited number of cases,'' Bindman said.

He listed one case of torture committed in Chile in 1989 and two allegations of conspiracy to commit torture and murder.

Campaigners put on a brave face inspite of the fact that many considered the ruling lukewarm.

``I am optimistic he will be extradited toSpain -- Pinochet has not escaped,'' said Jeremy Corbyn, a member of parliament belonging to the ruling Labour Party and a human rights activist.

``The decision dispels any doubts: not even a self-proclaimed president like General Pinochet can claim immunity for torture, or give himself amnesty for his crimes,'' said Reed Brody, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch.

But Brody added that the ruling by the seven judges -- the so-called Law Lords -- ``does not make sense as a matter of law or public policy.''

``Torture was firmly prohibited in international law, Chilean law, British law and Spanish law well before Pinochet took power, even before the torture convention was adopted, Pinochet knew that torture was a crime,'' he said.

According to Bindman, there were three possibilities still to be explored: Parliament can legislate so that all the other charges can be pursued by the Spanish court.

The British home secretary can unilaterally authorise the Spanish government to proceed on the othercharges.

Or a third country can seek Pinochet's extradition from Spain.

``If another country seeks his extradition from Spain, they could put him on trial on charges in the whole case. It (the British ruling) doesn't apply in other countries,'' Bindman said.

Brody said another option lay in the provisions of the European convention on extradition, under which the receiving country can request a ``wider prosecution'' and the sending country can consent to it.