The British Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, knew that when it came to the question of Gen Pinochet, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
For a man who has so far been a "lucky" Home Secretary, the Pinochet case has proved to be the first real taste of why Lord Callaghan described the job as operating "in heavily mined territory with frequent ambushes".
In some ways Mr Straw has made a negative decision. He has, in effect, decided not to get involved.
It was not an easy process. Mr Straw was legally bound to go into a self-imposed period of purdah since the Law Lords' ruling on November 25th. This had to be a "quasi-judicial" and not a political decision which only he alone, as Home Secretary, could make. It is the moment all Home Secretaries dread. Above all it was a decision that had to be taken properly and thoroughly. Those close to Mr Straw insist that the decision to allow the extradition to go ahead was purely on judicial grounds and that the politics follows later. It is true that there was a Home Office meeting on Tuesday to discuss the presentation problems. It is notable he did not announce it in a triumphant Commons statement before cheering Labour MPs.
In any event it was not until Monday afternoon that he finally sat down in the calm of the Home Office to study the detailed file. The papers, prepared by the Home Office's Extradition Unit, contained a clear summary of the hundreds of representations from around the world. That summary set out the arguments on both sides of the case.
Among the papers he read were the gruesome details of how the victims of the Pinochet regime were laid out naked on "the grill" - a metal table - and given electrical shocks. With those papers also were dry Whitehall assessments of the impact of either option on British-Chilean relations.
If he had questions then he summoned his principal private secretary, Mr Ken Sutton, or the leading extradition lawyer, Mr James Turner QC or his own extradition specialists. Political advisers were not directly consulted.
Those close to him insist that he obeyed every letter of the law and he discussed it with none of his political colleagues, not even Mr Peter Mandelson.
"The idea that he has discussed the matter with Robin Cook or any other minister is complete b.....; it is not his style," as one senior Home Office source vehemently put it.
In some ways Mr Straw appears to have turned the biggest decision in his life into quite a mechanical, intellectual, task. He had four precise questions to answer: Had the extradition request been properly made? Were the crimes suitable for extradition? Were the charges purely politically motivated? Were there any compassionate reasons to stop the extradition?
It was the last question that might have caused him the most problems. He had already decided this year to halt the extradition of Ms Roisin McAliskey to Germany on grounds of her health, but in Gen Pinochet's case, Mr Straw appears to have taken the pragmatic route, saying if he is fit enough to leave hospital, he is fit enough to stand trial.