Articles Comments

Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Who is a diplomat? Vienna Convention (Article 1)

Who is a diplomat? Vienna Convention (Article 1)

Following a discussion on Twitter, I asked Lahore based lawyer Asad Jamal to comment on what I understood from the Vienna convention. Asad Jamal was kind enough to send this note which I am posting with his permission here. Readers can see that Vienna Convention[s] are pretty clear on the controversy surrounding the alleged spy Raymond Davis’ case. Raza Rumi

The word diplomatic has been used in the definitions in Article 1 of Vienna Convention. The following table captures the definitions of various categories of diplomatic officers.

Category as in 1961 Convention Relevant article

How described/defined

“Diplomatic agent” Article 1 (e) (a) the head of the mission [such as the ambassador], or (b) a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission
“Member of the diplomatic staff of the mission” 1 (d) member of the staff of the mission
“Member of the staff of the mission” 1 (c) members of (a) the diplomatic staff, or (b) of the administrative, and (c) technical staff or of the service staff of the mission
“Members of the administrative and technical staff” 1 (f) members of the staff of the mission employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission.

And this needs explanation:

Article 1 (e)  describes Diplomatic Agent as     (a) “the head of the mission” [such as the ambassador], or (b)  ”member of the

diplomatic staff of the mission”

Article 1 (d) describes member of the diplomatic staff of the mission as    ”member of the staff of the mission”

Article 1 (c) describes     Member of the staff of the mission as “members of (a) the diplomatic staff, or (b) of the administrative, and (c) technical staff or of the service staff of the mission”

Article 1(f) describes Members of the administrative and technical staff as “members of the staff of the mission employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission”.

So while the Convention differentiates between diplomatic staff and technical staff in Article 1(c), if all the definitions read together in reverse gear it actually also puts them in the same box for the purpose of immunity.

Read in reverse gear and you will see that    a member of the administrative and technical staff may also be  considered as diplomatic agent who clearly enjoys immunity.  Things are made crystal clear if one reads Article 37.

I know this requires some effort but it is not impossible to understand. And it is for this interpretation that you will understand Article 37, which entitles a member of the administrative, and technical staff immunity from criminal jurisdiction

This is what makes Raymond’s case for immunity strong. And that is why FO’s categorisation of members of the administrative and technical staff as ”non-diplomatic staff” unreliable, and even illegal. This view is based on the “fact” that the US Mission says they notified RAD as a ‘member of the administrative and technical staff’ but for FO requirement to declare him as ‘non-diplomatic’ has caused the confusion; because he is not ‘hardcore diplomat’ such as the ambassador, or perhaps political officers).

My reading of the law is that it does not matter whether he possesses a “diplomatic passport” or not, it also seems irrelevant whether his passport bears a visa as that would be for a diplomat. The determining factor is whether he was notified to FO in one of the categories entitled to immunity from criminal jurisdiction or not. If he was so notified as member of technical staff at the mission, then no matter what may be written/printed on his passport, or where ever he was posted at the Mission or Consulate, RAD is entitled to immunity even if he has been spying around.

Written by

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , , , , ,

49 Responses to "Who is a diplomat? Vienna Convention (Article 1)"

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Swat Crisis, Raza Rumi. Raza Rumi said: @zahirriaz thanks for the references. In the meantime, I have posted a legal opinion here http://bit.ly/dJcKvP – pls read @ejazhaider [...]

  2. Hayyer India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    One learns that there is a domestic law in Pakistan that somewhat erodes the provisions of the Vienna convention.
    Pakistani legal minds on PTH may want to comment on that aspect

  3. asad jamal Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    Pakistan’s Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972 substantially incorporates both the conventions, one that of 1961 on diplomatic relations and the other of 1963 on consular relations as domestic law. The 1972 law does not seem erode the international law, at least not so far as the issue of immunities and privileges are concerned. The conventions only prescribe broad fundamental principles on how diplomatic and consular relations are to be conduct by states. The 1972 Act prescribes broad contours on how the conventions will be acted upon in Pakistan. For example, section 2 gives directions how some important aspects such as waiver of immunity will be deemed to granted by the sending state. Section 3 reaffirms the principle of reciprocity which is in line with the international diplomatic practices. section 4 again reaffirms international practice for determining diplomatic status. Unless some one is bent upon misinterpreting the plain intent of the legislation, there does not seem to be any contradiction with the international conventions. And one fears that our courts with the kind inclinations they have at present, may play some mischief.

  4. Anwar United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    A nice article to read…http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/10/balancing-parking-tickets-against-murders.html
    And this from the State Department http://www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/c9118.htm
    Note the lack of absoluteness of immunity and upholding the law…
    Lest we get carried away…

  5. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Raza
    “The determining factor is whether he was notified to FO in one of the categories entitled to immunity from criminal jurisdiction or not.”
    I’m sorry to say that you are wrong. It mutual consent of the parties.
    The FO would issue an ID signifying such consent and not unilateral notification.
    Would you like a review of basics of contracts and treaties?

  6. asad jamal Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Anwar: there is a difference between how one would like things to be and how things are. one may dislike the law in focus but that is the law. I think Murtaza Haider needs to explain why Stephen Solarz failed in his attempt to get diplomatic immunity restricted. It will never be easy to defend a domestic law enacted in violation of international law.

    @Parvez: International law experts are of the view that the general rule is that diplomatic staff are those persons so designated by the sending State: the receiving State simply receives.

  7. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Jamal, You can’t think of implications of what you are saying. For example, I could send a platoon or a brigade thru embassy portal with immunity. You give new meaning to receiving end…

  8. bciv United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    parvez
    the ‘contract’ was made when the two countries signed the treaty, not every time a diplomat is sent over.

    re. platoon/brigade. there is a difference between a persona non grata declaration (whether made before or after arrival in the receiving country) and denying immunity. just like there is a difference between the right to arrest or restrain a diplomatic and claiming jurisdiction under domestic laws. according to the relevant treaty, the only person who cannot even be arrested is the duly designated diplomatic courier.

    btw, good law can neither take into consideration such freak events as your example – the treaty is not about acts of war – nor be based on them.

  9. bciv United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    restrain a diplomatic = restrain a diplomat

  10. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Diplomacy is war by other means, you know who said that.

  11. Anwar United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    AJ, it does not matter what MH says… view these developments in light of the State Department’s directives…

  12. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Talking of freak accidents – America shoved a whole army thru non existent WMD hole.
    Prudent man says watch how international law is actually put in practice.
    My example is not that far fetched, in fact most subversive networks are created by diplomatic illegal activities.

  13. bciv United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    parvez

    are you suggesting pak withdraw from the vienna convention, or openly and shamelessly breach it? somebody also said might is right. what does that make pakistan? right or wrong?

    either you can talk of law, or politics, but not both at the same time unless you just want to confuse both.

  14. KP Canada Google Chrome Windows says:

    Parvez, Iraq invaded Kuwait …. what were they looking for there WMD’s !! So we can open the whole Pandora’s box and analyze it. But for now let us stick with this one ……

    As of now it seems Pakistan has fallen in to a ditch and is try to dig its way out, little realizing it is digging itself deeper.

    It will be interesting when next time a Pakistan embassy staffer is caught red handed in Delhi for spying … i guess it wont be able to scream diplomatic immunity.

  15. bciv United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    @Hayyer

    THE DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PRIVILEGES ACT, 1972

    1. Short title, extent and commencement.-(1) This Act may be called the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972. (2) It extends to the whole of Pakistan. (3) It shall come into force at once.

    2. Provision of Conventions to have force of law. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 set out in the First Schedule and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, set out in the Second Schedule shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, have the force of law in Pakistan. (2) For the purposes of Article 32 of the Convention set out in -the First Schedule, a waiver by the head of the mission of any State or any person for the time being performing his functions shall be deemed to be a waiver by that State. (3) For the purposes of Article 45 of the Convention set out in the Second Schedule and of the Article as applied by Article 58 of that Convention, a waiver shall be deemed to have been expressed by a State if it has been expressed by the head of the diplomatic mission of that State or by any person for the time being performing functions or, if there is no such mission, by the head of the consular post concerned. (4) Articles 35, 36 and 40 of the Convention set out in the First Schedule, and Articles, 50, 51, 52, 54, 62 and 67 of the Convention set out in the Second Schedule, shall be construed as granting any privilege or immunity which they require to be granted.

    3. Restriction of privileges and immunities.-lf it appears to the Federal Government that the privileges and immunities, accorded to the mission or, a consular post of Pakistan in the territory of any State, or to persons connected with that mission or consular post, are less than those conferred by this Act on the mission or a consular post of that State or on persons connected with that mission or consular post, the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, withdraw such of the privileges and immunities so conferred from the mission of that State or as the case may be, from all or any of the consular posts of that State, or from such persons connected therewith as it may deem fit.

    4. Certificate of Federal Government.-If any question arises whether or not any person is entitled to any privilege or immunity under this Act, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Federal Government stating any fact relating to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.

    5. Power to amend Schedules.-The Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, amend either of the schedules in conformity with any amendment duly made in the provisions of the Convention set out therein.

    6. Repeal.-The Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Ordinance, 1972 (XV of 1972), is hereby repealed.

  16. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    bciv, KP
    If you don’t understand simple point and go for mis-direction instead of proper response, I say you have good spin training.
    Now can I send a squad of well trained diplomats to Dilli to cleanup some riff raff? Only diplomats.

  17. bciv United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    @Parvez

    “Now can I send a squad of well trained diplomats to Dilli to cleanup some riff raff? Only diplomats.”

    presuming that by “I” you mean the state of pakistan, yes you can provided you realise that you are talking about possibly starting a war, or at least an end of diplomatic relations, and not just misusing this treaty. the vienna convention was never meant to deal with that eventuality. countries rely on things more substantial than just laws to prepare for (and prevent) wars. in this case, given your view of the vienna convention, you will not be able to invoke anything other than the geneva conventions, at best. go ahead.

    pakistan has not declared war on the US, nor claimed RD’s act an act of war. it has simply failed to meet or come clean about its treaty obligations.

    look up the case of the murder of WPC yvonne fletcher and how it led to uk breaking off all diplomatic relations with libya. but britain allowed all libyan diplomatic staff, including the murderer, to leave the country with immunity intact.

  18. Caroline United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    I am not SURE of what the legal mis-mosh is being said in this Post, but I can tell you right now definitely, if the person in question has been working in, SAID embassy in the employ of the U.S. Government, it WILL be considered that at some time he may have come across some “sensitive” information, if only momentarily, and therefore he will be considered under the umbrella of “diplomatic immunity”!
    That is why the “technical” term is there. It is meant to cover a very broad area. And, you can bet on it! And, that is why you can expect “reciprocity”, to be applied when your guys get caught overseas doing the same things. There is an old saying about that and it is called, “It all depends on just whose Ox is in the ditch!”

  19. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    bciv
    Diplomacy is war by other means – like I said earlier.

  20. bciv United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    “Diplomacy is war by other means”

    well, till the means change, the vienna convention applies. after that, the geneva conventions do.

    “Here is a decent review of the case”

    a legislature’s argument for a bill to be proposed is not enacted law. like i said, if you disagree with the law, withdraw from the treaty. then you can start collecting parking fines and start paying them too.

  21. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    bciv
    I hate to teach you thing, I merely give indications for wise.
    Here is what diplomacy entails: threats, bribes, spin, gun boats, subversion, false promises, sexual blackmail, economic sanctions, nightly death squads, currency and financial manipulation, false documents, false flag operations, claims of victim-hood, hollier than thao etc.
    Just claiming something does not make it so. Any claim is subject to adjudication. There are countries who believe in unilateralism. Those are the countries who are in process of withdrawal from international treaties and norms.

  22. Girish United States Safari iPhone says:

    Parvez,

    There is actually a case of the Government of Pakistan sending a diplomat to clean up riff raff as you put it. After the hijacking of the Indian airlines flight from Kathmandu to Kandahar eventually, the Nepal police caught a staff member of the Pakistan embassy (his last name was Cheema) with RDX on his person and caught evidence of his passing on weapons to the hijackers at Kathmandu’s Tribhvan airport. The offense – terrorism and hijacking – was several orders of magnets more serious than that of Davis. Yet Cheema was merely declared persona non grata and allowed to return to Pakistan. So yes, the Vienna convention is absolute. Short of an offense that results in a declaration of war between the countries and a violent cutting off of diplomatic relations, a diplomat is immune, no exceptions to this rule.

  23. Girish United States Safari iPhone says:

    Magnitude instead of magnets

  24. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Girish,
    There are no such things as “absolute”. If you an international law expert then the discussion can go forward otherwise it is futile.
    I don’t know of examples you cite, at the minimum you should provide solid reference of the incident.
    There is a political angle to such incidents where some sort of balance can be worked out. No Raymond Davis is worth America breaking relations with Pakistan. If you disagree then you should justify it on geopolitical basis.

  25. Hayyer India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Asad Jamal:

    Thank you for your reply (Feb 10, 9:36 pm.) Reproduced below is an extract from an article on the subject. What do you think?

    “…… source said under the DACP Act 1972, which despite having been enacted as a follow-up of the Vienna Convention, makes Davis liable to the double murder and other offences, including possession of illicit arms and ammunition. The source said article 41 of the Act clearly states that a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of grave crime and pursuant to the decision of competent judicial authority. The FO sources said the US authorities are pressing Pakistan to ignore the law of the land and respect the international law. “They tell us that if our law is not in line with the international law, then it is a fault on our part,” a source said, adding that the Americans were asked why any foreign state did not object to the Pakistani law.”

  26. Girish United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Parvez,

    Look up “Mohammad Arshad Cheema” and you will see a variety of news reports about him. Recently, Najam Sethi has also referred to it in his editorial in the Friday Times.

    http://www.thefridaytimes.com/04022011/page1.shtml

    The relevant quote is the following,

    Mohammad Arshad Cheema, Pakistan’s First Secretary in Nepal, also invoked diplomatic immunity after 16kg of high inte4nsity RDX explosives were recovered from his house and he was suspected of being involved in the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC-814.

  27. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Please don’t quote Najam Sethi, he would not say a thing against any American ever. If Cheema was a diplomat how was his house searched?

  28. Parvez United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    The real source is Times of India from Delhi. What would you expect from TOI and Najam Sethi.

  29. Girish United States Safari iPad says:

    This is a matter of fact there – not Najam Sethi’s opinion or anybody else’s. I did not give you a Times of India story so I don’t understand where you get that from. Read up any newspaper from that time, including Pakistani and Nepalese ones. . Google is your friend.

    Diplomatic status gives immunity from being held, not immunity from any police proceedings. Cheema was arrested, and when he revealed his diplomatic status, he was asked t leave the country. That is the maximum the host country can do under the Vienna conventions.

    But then, the very assumption that you are interested in the truth is flawed to begin with. This is the last of my posts to you. Good day.

  30. asad jamal Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    @Hayyer: the section 41 referred to is from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1961, not from Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation of 1961. These are two different conventions with different implications. Consulate offices enjoy immunities and privileges under the 1963 Convention, and Missions/Embassy staff under the 1961 Convention. The Consular staff enjoys lesser privileges compared to the staff of Missions. That is where the controversy lies and that is what people are failing to understand. The US Mission claims Raymond Davis is a ‘member of technical and administrative staff’ at the embassy. They also claim he was so notified to the FO but they have regulations which categorises the staff as ‘diplomatic’ and ‘non-diplomatic’ whereas the relevant convention of 1961 allows staff to be described as ‘member of technical and administrative staff’ who are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the host state under Article 37 of the Convention (whereas the staff at consulate offices are entitled to lesser immunity as described in Article 41 of the 1963 Convention). To me the US Mission stance is understandable and there is no evidence why should one not accept it; howsoever we may dislike it. Now the question is what was he doing in Lahore. The conventions allow posting of Embassy staff at the Consulate offices.
    I hope you find it useful. The rest I have described in my article in TFT today.

  31. KP Canada Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Parvez
    Yes Najam Sethi is a chor and TOI writes lies …. but here is reference to this incident from The News ….

    This was a relatively minor incident compared to the discovery of heroin in 1975 in the possession of Pakistan’s Ambassador in Spain or the recovery of 16 kilograms of high intensity explosives from Mohammad Arshad Cheema, First Secretary at the Pakistan Embassy in Kathmandu. On both occasions, diplomatic immunity was sought and granted.

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=29779&Cat=9

    I don’t know how “Kosher”The News is , but i leave that to you … keep digging !!!!!

    FYI … Your Cheema was “caught” and not “arrested”from a guest house where he had gone to meet his contacts ……. once caught , the diplomatic immunity was not withdrawn and he went back to where he came from.

  32. bciv United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    “If Cheema was a diplomat how was his house searched?”

    in violation of art. 30 of the relevant convention.

    although according to the story the diplomat and his wife were staying at a friend’s house at the time, inviolability could still be claimed. the premises were reported to be shared by his friend’s engineering company too. indeed, he claimed that the RDX was planted.

  33. bciv United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    “Just claiming something does not make it so. Any claim is subject to adjudication”

    who does the adjudicating in case of conflicting claims over jurisdiction? in this case, it’s a recipe for diplomatic disaster. what is your credibility if you take an arbitrary view of int’l treaties that you have put your sovereign signature to (and duly ratified)? it will affect all aspects of sovereign credibility. set the wrong precedent and sooner or later it will come back to haunt you. what if next time nepal hands over your diplomat to india? i guess you will start a war. only if armchair generals like you ran this world.

  34. Ibn-e-Maryam Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    If Raymond Davis’ name is included in the list of diplomats, submitted to the Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry, then the Government of Pakistan has two options: 1) ask the US Government to waive the diplomatic immunity, or 2) declare him persona non grata and order him to leave the country.

    Pakistan should try to get a waiver from US government on this case. However, Pakistan must fulfill her responsibilities as a signatory of the Vienna Convention.

  35. Hayyer India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Asad Jamal:
    Thank you. It is now clear.

  36. MMZ Canada Safari iPhone says:

    Those who are so intent to punish Davis, tell me how many terrorists has police captured and punished. The Pakistani state is there to prosecute only poor hapless “blasphemers” and “infidels”.

  37. Traverse United States Mozilla Firefox Mac OS says:

    Trade this Davis for Asif Siddiqui

  38. YLH Pakistan Internet Explorer Windows says:

    “Charming Betsy” Canon is an acceptable rule for construction of statutes. National laws are to be construed in accordance with the law of nations … therefore the Pakistani statute has to be read in the light of Vienna convention which is quite clear and explicit. RAD mian has diplomatic immunity.

  39. YLH Pakistan Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Traverse,

    Asif Siddiqui is who again ?

  40. sajjad Pakistan Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    What i understand from this article is that Devis has diplomatic immunity but then the bereaved families be compensated by the US, if the deceased were innocent–

  41. Said Ul Zaman United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    The Vienna Convention, including article number 9, 22, 27, 29, 32, 37, and 41, which addressed diplomatic immunity for any diplomatic mission directly. The article 41 clearly stated that a consular officer shall not be liable to arrest except in the case of a grave crime, while under the Article 32, the home country could waive a right of immunity of its diplomat.
    Moreover,quoting from the book ‘Foreign Service Assignment Notebook: What Do I Do Now?’, published by the US Department of State and Foreign Service Institute Transition Center in 2006, they said that the Chapter 21, titled ‘Privileges and Immunities’, states that complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction means that a person may not be detained or prosecuted but immunity from criminal jurisdiction does not mean that the receiving state’s authorities are barred from acting in certain dangerous criminal actions that present an immediate threat to public safety.

  42. Said Ul Zaman United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    The Vienna Convention, including article number 9, 22, 27, 29, 32, 37, and 41, which addressed diplomatic immunity for any diplomatic mission directly. The article 41 clearly stated that a consular officer shall not be liable to arrest except in the case of a grave crime, while under the Article 32, the home country could waive a right of immunity of its diplomat.
    Moreover,quoting from the book ‘Foreign Service Assignment Notebook: What Do I Do Now?’, published by the US Department of State and Foreign Service Institute Transition Center in 2006, they said that the Chapter 21, titled ‘Privileges and Immunities’, states that complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction means that a person may not be detained or prosecuted but immunity from criminal jurisdiction does not mean that the receiving state’s authorities are barred from acting in certain dangerous criminal actions that present an immediate threat to public safety.
    So in my opinion while interpreting the law, Pakistani govt can prosecute them without any hesitation.

  43. KP Canada Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Saud Ul Zaman.

    The issue is not of prosecution … but of “detention”. RD has been arrested by Pakistani authorities which is illegal as per Vienna Convention.

    The important point you are missing in all this is, who decides who is a diplomat. As per Vienna Convention it is, in this case, that will designate RD as being a member of its diplomatic staff. Infact all that is required by US is to inform foreign ministry of Pakistan that the said person is a member of its diplomatic mission and he is entitles to the immunity.

    However Pakistan’s own law on this , while accepting the same, calls for a certificate from foreign ministry to clarify on this. Sadly that has not happened so far. NO such certificate has been issued.

  44. Said Ul Zaman Advocate United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    The Vienna Convention, including article number 9, 22, 27, 29, 32, 37, and 41, which addressed diplomatic immunity for any diplomatic mission directly. The article 41 clearly stated that a consular officer shall not be liable to arrest except in the case of a grave crime, while under the Article 32, the home country could waive a right of immunity of its diplomat.
    Moreover,quoting from the book ‘Foreign Service Assignment Notebook: What Do I Do Now?’, published by the US Department of State and Foreign Service Institute Transition Center in 2006, they said that the Chapter 21, titled ‘Privileges and Immunities’, states that complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction means that a person may not be detained or prosecuted but immunity from criminal jurisdiction does not mean that the receiving state’s authorities are barred from acting in certain dangerous criminal actions that present an immediate threat to public safety.
    So legally, Pakistani govt can prosecute them without any hesitation.

  45. Ali United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    I am agree with Mr Said Ul zaman because if you go through the text of Vienna Convention, including article number 9, 22, 27, 29, 32, 37, and 41, which addressed diplomatic immunity for any diplomatic mission directly. The article 41 clearly stated that a consular officer shall not be liable to arrest except in the case of a grave crime, so murder is a serious offence (grave crime) and can be prosecuted. Moreover he did not shoot down two Pakistani in officially capacity but in private mission without following legal formalities to inform govt of Punjab while committing cognizable offence, So the police can arrest them.
    As for Pakistani constitution is concerned and executory law of 1972 it contradict and whenever any contradiction is come to face the home law will be prevail instead of conventional law.

  46. Ali United Kingdom Google Chrome Windows says:

    @KP
    I am agree with Mr Said Ul zaman because if you go through the text of Vienna Convention, including article number 9, 22, 27, 29, 32, 37, and 41, which addressed diplomatic immunity for any diplomatic mission directly. The article 41 clearly stated that a consular officer shall not be liable to arrest except in the case of a grave crime, so murder is a serious offence (grave crime) and can be prosecuted. Moreover he did not shoot down two Pakistani in officially capacity but in private mission without following legal formalities to inform govt of Punjab while committing cognizable offence, So the police can arrest them.
    As for Pakistani constitution is concerned and executory law of 1972 it contradict and whenever any contradiction is come to face the home law will be prevail instead of conventional law.

  47. KP Canada Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Ali,
    You have to understand there are two conventions …. one for Diplomatic and one Consular. As per Diplomatic convention he cannot be arrested.

    You have to understand ….. it is not for Pakistan to decide who is diplomatic or consular employee. As per Vienna convention article 39 and i quote it here …
    1. Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed

    The moment US informs Pakistan about RD , he is entitled to the immunity.
    For your information this act forms a part of the Pakistan diplomatic and consular act of 1972.

    @ Saud

    Here is what the state department guideline for immunity are

    In actuality, immunity is simply a legal barrier that precludes U .S . courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases against persons who enjoy it and in no way releases such persons from the duty, embodied in international law, to respect the laws and regulations of the United States

    Read the full report and they decide what is possible and what is not
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf

  48. Syed abbas Hassan Pakistan Internet Explorer Unknow Os says:

    At the break of the issue we had seen a statement from the US foreign office or US embassy Islamabad that the person arrested was not Raymond Davis; this gives way to 2 possibilities- the person arrested was imperosnating Raymond Davis who was a diplomat or the name/identity of Raymond Davis is fake.

    Given the above 2 possibilites, we need to know whether Vienna convention provides immunity to a person impersonating a diplomat or to a person deployed in an embassy or couselate with fake identity?

    Can Asad or anyone having knowledge of law comment on this.

Leave a Reply

*


× one = 3

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>