Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » The question of immunity
The question of immunity
By Asad Jamal
In a rush to comment and pronounce judgment in the case of deaths of two Pakistani nationals at the hands of a US national, Raymond Allen Davis, commentators have ignored some important aspects of relevant international law and practice, and Pakistan’s obligations. To make Raymond Davis’ case appear weak regarding his entitlement to diplomatic immunity, questions have been raised, among others, as to his ‘true’ status and ‘real’ identity. The US State Department’s earlier refusal to identify the man soon after the incident has been cited in support of such questions.
Further, issues have also been raised as to the ‘real’ reasons for Raymond Davis’ presence in a congested area of Mozang in Lahore with ‘sophisticated equipment’ and an ‘illegal’ high tech gun used in the incident from a car which bore a ‘fake number plate’.
A bare reading of diplomatic law suggests that the central question in this case concerns the diplomatic status of the man; all other questions fall outside the domain of the law. An ancillary question could be: who will decide whether Raymond Davis is entitled to immunity or not. And it is precisely these questions that have not been answered satisfactorily; neither by the federal government nor by commentators who seemed in a hurry to pronounce life for life.
It may be stated here that though Raymond Davis has reportedly said to have acted in self-defence; however, the question of immunity has to be addressed regardless of his assertion, or issues raised as to the ‘real’ motive and his ‘real’ identity. Reportedly, the name of Raymond Davis has been mentioned in the category of ‘non-diplomatic staff’ in the record of the Foreign Office. Further, the ‘fact’ that he was performing some tasks at the US Consulate General in Lahore at the time of occurrence of the incident has also been mentioned in support of the contention that he is a member of the consular staff rather than member of staff at the US Mission in Islamabad. Both these ‘facts’, it is being contended, disentitle Raymond Davis of immunity from criminal jurisdiction in Pakistan.
This assertion is based on the fact that the consular officers are granted lesser immunity under the relevant law compared to the staff at the Diplomatic Mission.
On the other hand, a diplomatic note handed out by the US Embassy in Islamabad on Feb 2 said Davis was mentioned in the request for registration with Foreign Office as a member of ‘non-diplomatic staff’ only to comply with its regulations which reportedly do not accept ‘members of administrative and technical staff’ of foreign missions as diplomatic staff entitled to immunity at the time of issuance of accreditation cards.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is not possible to disregard this assertion by the US Mission. The reports that the Foreign Office’s protocol manual (page 18) requires all foreign missions to designate ‘members of administrative and technical staff’ as ‘non-diplomatic staff’ strengthens the view. This requirement by the Foreign Office, as shown below, is a violation of the international law on diplomatic relations if it should lead to disentitling of such staff of diplomatic immunity.
The terms ‘diplomatic staff’ and ‘immunity’ have been mentioned in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 (the 1961 Convention) with reference to the term ‘diplomatic agent’. Article 29 of the 1961 Convention read with its Article 31 provides that diplomatic agents are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution and the person of the diplomatic agents is inviolable and he is not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. In order to fully comprehend what exactly does immunity of a diplomatic agent (“diplomatic immunity”) mean, and whether Raymond Davis is entitled to immunity from being tried in Pakistan or not, it is crucial to understand who is a diplomatic agent and how does the 1961 Convention confer diplomatic immunity on the staff members of diplomatic missions.
The definitions provided in sub-articles (c), (d) and (e) under Article 1 of the 1961 Convention, describe a “diplomatic agent” [Article 1 (e) of the 1961 Convention] as “the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission” . A ‘member of the diplomatic staff of the mission’ is described [(1(d)] as a ‘member of the staff of the mission’ having diplomatic rank. And a ‘ member of the staff of the mission’ [1(c)] may be a member of the diplomatic staff, or of the administrative and technical staff or of the service staff of the mission. It may also be noted that sub-article (f ) defines the “members of the administrative and technical staff” as themembers of the staff of the mission employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission. [all emphases provided]. These definitions when read with Articles 29 and 31 do not still make it clear what kind of staff at the foreign state’s missions qualify for immunity.
Jonathan Brown, a former director in Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has addressed some of the ambiguities in the conventions (The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 Jan., 1988, pp. 53-88). According to Brown, resolving the question of ambiguity is “vital to the authorities of a receiving State”, and to the aggrieved citizens, “if claims to immunity are to be properly administered and dealt with”. He is of the view that the general rule is that “diplomatic agents are those persons so designated by the sending State: the receiving State simply receives”.
In support of his assertion, he cites evidence recorded in House of Commons as follows: “When asked in 1984 whether it was the policy of the UK government to accord diplomatic status to any individual so nominated by a sending State, unless there were positive reasons for declaring an individual persona non grata”, the answer given by UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office was: “HMG [Her Majesty’ Government] do not accord diplomatic status. This is done by the sending State pursuant to its right under Article 7 of the Convention freely to appoint the members of the staff of the mission.”
This freedom granted to the sending States under Article 7 is subject to few formal limitations. Diplomatic agents should in principle be of the nationality of the sending State (Article 8); the receiving State may declare a member of the diplomatic staff persona non grata (Article 9); and the receiving State may require the size of a mission to be kept within limits, and may refuse to accept officials of a particular category (Article 11) etc.
Article 10 of the 1961 Convention requires the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State to be notified of the appointment of members of the mission, their arrival and their final departure or the termination of their functions with the mission. But the receiving state’s freedom to impose limitation is also not unlimited. In fact, the view that the receiving state has limited discretion to accept or deny notification of members of staff of diplomatic missions has found universal acceptance. For example, in a case from the US the court held that “the State Department’s discretion to accept or deny notification is not unlimited” ( Vulcan Iron Works Inc. v. Polish American Machinery Corporation 479 F. Supp. 1060 (1979), 1067 (US District Court, S.D. N.Y.).
Thus the international law and customary practices prescribe that the receiving state cannot on its own disentitle any one assigned a particular diplomatic status by the sending state whether as member of the diplomatic staff, or of the administrative and technical staff or of the service staff of the mission. Further, article 37 of the 1961 Convention clearly states that members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission… “shall enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35”, which include immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
Besides, the Foreign Office’s self-coined term ‘non-diplomatic’ staff finds no mention in the Convention. This makes it sufficiently clear that the description/category assigned to Raymond Davis by the Foreign Office as non-diplomatic staff is in deviation from Article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, and he may not be disqualified to enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution in Pakistan.
So far as the issue raised as to Raymond Davis’ posting in the US Consulate post in Lahore, attention may be drawn to Article 3 (2) of the 1961 Convention which reads:
Nothing in the present Convention shall be construed as preventing the performance of consular functions by a diplomatic mission.
By implication, it may be argued; this provision allows the diplomatic missions to assign its members of staff to perform tasks at the consular posts in the receiving states. In fact, this is a practice which has been carried on in Pakistan as well as in many other countries of the world.
Further, article 2 paragraph 2 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 further clarifies by providing that consent to the establishment of diplomatic relations implies consent to the establishment of consular relations also. Diplomatic law expert Michael Hardy while discussing diplomatic practices with reference to this provision has said:
“In view of the difficulty of distinguishing many diplomatic tasks – for example the protection of nationals and the promotion of trade – from those performed by consuls and the tendency in many countries to merge diplomatic and consular staff into a single foreign service, this clarification is to be welcomed.” (Modern Diplomatic Law, page 17)
Now the question is how will the status of Raymond Davis be decided? Section 4 of Pakistan’s Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972 clearly states that if anyquestionarises as to the entitlementtoimmunityunderthis Act, a certificate issued by the Federal Government shall be considered conclusive evidence. The court in such a case is bound by the certification or declaration in this regard. The courts of other countries defer to the views of their governments on the determination of status, and regard letters from foreign ministries, as conclusive. According to Jonathan Brown, the courts do not look behind such certifications, or seek alternative sources of evidence. By implication, it becomes immaterial if the certificate is issued or immunity is confirmed after or before the question of immunity arises.
Let us now assume that Raymond Davis’ plea of self-defence is without basis and he acted recklessly or even with criminal intent, and that he is theoretically liable to be penalised under the Pakistani law. The Vienna Convention would come in the way and Raymond will have to be freed for reasons mentioned above.
The best Pakistan can do is to ask the US to waive his immunity. But as is clear from the stance adopted by the US Mission in Islamabad, this is unlikely to happen. The next best thing Pakistan can do is to declare Raymond Davis ‘persona non grata’ and ask the US to recall him, which is something inevitable in any case. There is another possibility. Article 31 (4) provides that “The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State”. Raymond Davis could therefore be prosecuted in his own country, if Pakistan requests the US and the request is granted. And the issues raised regarding his true identity and his suspicious acts, even if criminal, would attract the same possibilities, howsoever we may dislike them. The rest of the possible actions on part of Pakistan lie in the political domain.
| Lahore High Court’s order to put Raymond Davis’ name on ECL
In a separate development the Lahore High Court on 31 January directed the Ministry of Interior to place the name of Raymond Davis on the Exit Control List. It appears to be arbitrary in view of the fact that Raymond Davis was already under arrest and remanded to the police by a local magistrate for investigation. There was no possibility of his running away. The high court seems to have exceeded its jurisdiction because the Exit Control List is maintained under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, a bad law in any case, which allows the federal government alone to prohibit any person from proceeding from Pakistan to a destination outside. The high court order was made in a questionable public interest litigation case brought before it while the matter was pending before criminal court below. The order seems all the more questionable as it affects liberty of a staff member of a foreign mission covered under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 which clearly prohibits detention or arrest of members of foreign missions enjoying immunity. In any case appropriate forum of first instance to seek restraint against his feared departure from Pakistan was the court where the matter was already pending. |
| Relevant international law: summary
Diplomatic and consular relations between the states are governed by international law. The international conventions that deal with the diplomatic relations and relevant to the case are Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 (the 1961 Convention), and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (the 1963 Convention). Pakistan is party to both the conventions. In fact, Pakistan’s Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972 substantially incorporates both the conventions as domestic law. Let’s try to see why this is so. The 1961 Convention relates to privileges and immunities assigned to the ‘diplomatic staff posted at the diplomatic missions “to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States”, whereas the 1963 Convention relates to the privileges enjoyed by consular staff to “ensure the efficient performance of functions by consular posts on behalf of their respective States”. The fundamental functional difference between consular and diplomatic offices is that while the latter can negotiate as representing States with the Government of the host/receiving States, the former cannot. Consequently, the diplomatic missions assume greater significance and powers whereas the consular offices are less significant with fewer powers to exercise on behalf of the sending state. Correspondingly, the two conventions and the rules of international customary law assign lesser privileges and immunities to consular offices as compared to the diplomatic missions. The Consulate staff, including its head, enjoys a lesser degree of immunity than the diplomatic agents associated with the mission. Article 41 to 43 of the 1963 Convention and the sub-clauses make clear rules binding on the receiving (host) state and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Article 41 titled Personal inviolability of consular officers provides that in ordinary civil or criminal offences a consular officer may be detained or placed under any form of restriction only ‘in execution of a judicial decision of final effect’. However, a consular officer accused of engaging in a grave crime may be arrested or detained but only upon a decision by competent judicial forum. The corresponding provision for the diplomatic staff or agent in the 1961 Convention is Article 29 which provides that the person of a diplomatic agent is inviolable. It is further clarified that a diplomatic not be liable to arrest or detention. The receiving State is obliged to treat him with due respect while taking all appropriate steps to prevent, inter alia, any restriction on his freedom. Further, Article 31 prescribes the parameters within which the diplomatic agent may enjoy inviolability of person. A diplomatic agent is granted immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He also enjoys immunity from the host state’s civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in certain cases e.g. transactions of private nature in immovable property or an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions etc. Also, a diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness. It is clear from the sub-clause 2 under Article 31 of the 1961 Convention that the ‘diplomatic agents’ associated with the diplomatic missions enjoy much wider privileges, and blanket immunity from criminal prosecution as compared to the consulate staff. Article 31 (4) of the 1961 Convention, however, makes clear that in case a diplomatic agent is accused of any criminal offence, he could be tried in the sending state. |
| Important articles of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 Article 41 Personal inviolability of consular officers
|
The writer is a Lahore based lawyer who may be reached
at asadjamal2006@gmail.com
Source: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/11022011/page2a.shtml
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: diplomatic, Lahore, lawyer, Raymond Davis
22 Responses to "The question of immunity"
Leave a Reply
PTH biweekly Cartoon
Picture of the Week
-
Sunrise at the Arabian Sea, Charna Island
24 Dec 2011
(4 Comments)
Recent Comments
- Sachbol
said Kalchakra .
Good one , Did you notice how he inse... - kaalchakra
said rex, no problem, my friend. You are a nice fellow.... - kaalchakra said Bin Ismail
Thanks for the response. Fortunately...
- YesSar
said Most of Germanic, Celtic and Slavic are returning... - Raj TOO
said Arab Ki Bund wrote:
- AKB
said @ rajmoot and his like
.
Ugly Dravidians in... - Sachbol said YesSar
The solution is complete separation betwee...
- rex minor said And what a simple but provocative word the anglosa...
- Sachbol said AKB
Has been always right on Qadianis. They are t...
- Raj TOO said Arab Ki Bund:
Muhajirs are t...
PTH on facebook
This issue would have been long settled if the government and the institutions in Pakistan had stuck to the law – not only the Vienna convention but their own law.
All that is required is a clarification from the foreign office as to the kind of immunity enjoyed by RD. This is to be in form of a certificate that is issued by the foreign ministry in case there is any ambiguity about RD’s status. But from day one this has been made into a pissing match between various forces within Pakistani establishment.
Today S M Quershi fired another salvo saying RD did not enjoy “blanket”immunity. Now if that were the case, he should have issued the certificate the very day this incident took place. After all no one stopped him from doing it, he was the foreign minister for quite a while after this incident.
Same goes for the Lahore high court ….. if the person involved has invoked diplomatic immunity, they should have called for the “certificate” to clarify this.
In the end this is how it is going to play out …. RD will get the said certificate, which will be presented in court. All the court can do is follow the law so they will release him. Everyone will go home saying that the due process of law was followed and they will live happily every after !!!!! Of course there is also a possibility that Pakistan can get a concession that RD will be tried in a US court and this will be an icing on the cake.
Unfortunately all this will be forgotten in a few days when a new “issue”will grip the nation.
@KP
“After all no one stopped him from doing it, he was the foreign minister for quite a while after this incident.”
actually, the law required him to do it.
“Same goes for the Lahore high court ….. if the person involved has invoked diplomatic immunity, they should have called for the “certificate” to clarify this.”
actually, this is exactly what the court has done, except the media grossly misreported it and came out with all kinds of lies to create total confusion. all the court has done so far is ask the FO to provide the certificate under s.4 DACP 1972 and gave the executive 15 days when it requested more time. the court has allowed RD’s administrative custody and instructed that his name be put on ECL while it waits.
@bciv
You have just turned the whole issue of immunity on its head ……. immunity means and i quote from US state department guidelines here ….
” 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”
The whole issue of immunity is that a person having this cannot be arrested. It does not mean Pakistan cannot continue legal proceeding against him, all it says is that he cannot be detained once he identifies himself. The only thing that the law enforcement can do is to verify the credentials from FO as is the case in US where law enforcement has to check with State Department.
Now let me make a hypothetical situation here … India and Pakistan regularly catch members of diplomatic mission for spying. What happens, once they identify themselves, they are released and maybe declared person non grata and sent back to their countries. You know what will happens if courts are to decide who has immunity and who hasn’t. These characters will be held in prisons till it is decided and that is the whole issue of diplomatic immunity.
KP
lets ignore the US embassy’s first statement, still on its website, that he was a member of staff and the american consulate in lahore (which would preclude diplomatic immunity and only consular immunity would apply). lets also assume that the letter/document of 20th january, being shown on pakistani media, that the embassy sent to the FO is authentic. this document states that he is a member of the “administrative and technical staff”. that would still keep intact his immunity to the jurisdiction of pakistani criminal law but subject him to pakistani adminstrative and civil jurisdiction. hence, the administrative custody is not unlawful.
the onlydiplomat immune to even arrest is the duly designated courier of the diplomatic bag.
the question is why has the FO asked the court for time to produce the certificate it is required to under pakistani law. will the FO be able to show any justification for the delay? i would have thought it would be pretty straightforward for a receiving country to check and show whether it has received written communication from the sending country about the individual and whether the sending country – as per its prerogative – describes her/him as a consular or diplomat as per the two relevant conventions.
Jamal, would you write two words about rights of victims.
@bciv
his immunity to the jurisdiction of pakistani criminal law but subject him to pakistani adminstrative and civil jurisdiction. hence, the administrative custody is not unlawful
Again that is partly correct … the full section reads ….
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
(a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
(b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;
(c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his offical functions.
And as you can see he can be prosecuted in administrative or civil jurisdiction for only these three things.
The moot point is …… you normally don’t get arrested in administrative and civil jurisdiction while the trial is on. He has been arrested and that is a no no in any situation, if and only if he has immunity under Vienna Convention of 1961. Which can only be clarified by FO and not by the courts. You see courts have no authority to decide who has immunity, this is Pakistan’s own law.
Constitution is the supreme law of the country for Pakistan and any law in contravention is invalid. Shoot this one down legal experts.
@ Parvez,
All that has been mentioned is part of law of Pakistan ….. read Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972 for more insight.
no KP, you are quoting the wrong section. again, keeping the assumptions as before, the US embassy describes him as “administrative and technical staff” in that communication of 20th jan. so article 37(2) of VCoDR 1961 is what applies to him. unlike other diplomats, this class of staff is subject to the whole civil and administrative jurisdiction except for activities directly in the course of his duties. an adminstrative and technical staff member employed by the embassy in islamabad would find it hard to prove that he was on lahore’s mazang road on a locally hired car, with a loaded gun, directly involved in the normal course of his duties. but he is still immune to the jurisdiction of pakistani criminal law.
(art. 37(2)”Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. They shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36, paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.”)
@bciv
Yes you are correct …… he can be tried under the civil and administrative jurisdiction. But then surely you don’t expect him to be arrested under this !!! And that is the whole point of the immunity debate.
KP
administrative control includes detainment only in the rare circumstance where it may be justified, for only as long a period as can reasonably be justified. he has not been charged with any criminal offence and won’t be before the FO has given its determination.
that brings us to the little anomaly in the communication of 20 th jan (since that is the only document in the public domain that i know of, assuming it is authentic). even though the document states his employment status and role as we have discussed, it requests the FO to issue him with a “non-diplomat card”.
now, in my non-expert view, the card, whether “diplomat” or “non-diplomat”, has no real relevance to VCODR 1961. his status under that is set by his job role, duly communicated to the receiving state, but it does mean that other officials and functionaries of the receiving state have no way of establishing his immunity without actual reference to the FO.
his diplomatic passport (it does not fulfill the requirements of VCODR on its own) or the “official” visa therein is as irrelevant to the VCODR as the FO’s “diplomat card” or “non-diplomat card”, since DACP 1972 has chosen to make the FO responsible in this matter using the option the convention clearly gives the receiving state. the home ministry has no say in this matter.
given the circumstances there was ample justification to restrain and detain him. the police were fully entitled to ask him to produce a FO-issued “diplomat card”. the only documentary evidence he was able to produce of his status was his passport. under s4. DACP 1972 the FO was required to verify the guy’s verbal claim to full immunity.
there was no justification to set him free before the FO had given a response. if the FO confirmed diplomatic, rather than consular, immunity but, say, also declared him persona non grata, then the guy would have to be handed over to the american mission to be duly removed instead of just setting him free where even the americans could not get hold of him in order to send him back. he would have had to be handed back, and not simply set free, also in case pakistan decided to ask the US to waive immunity, for the sending country to consider the request and hand him back in case it accepted.
but the important thing is, what was/is the justification for the FO taking so long?
parvez
challenge the constitutionality of DACP 1972 in the SC if that is what you wish to do. and see if you can obtain a stay order. but do enlighten us and tell us on what grounds so that we know what it is the you wish us to shoot down. there is no point us shooting in the dark just because you are.
“But then surely you don’t expect him to be arrested under this !!! And that is the whole point of the immunity debate.”
it would be preposterous to claim that the convention implies such a thing even if he did have the requisite paperwork and full immunity. even if he had been able to produce the duly issued “diplomatic card” he would be ‘arrested’ and returned to his embassy after a reasonable period. the authorities would have been within their rights to verify that the card was neither a forgery nor stolen. his gun and the camera with the photos could also have been legitimately confiscated.
the same would apply to even the designated courier of the diplomatic bag. in his case the convention explicitly states that he may not be arrested while making the delivery. the convention could not have intended that to mean that security personnel should look the other way even when there is clear and present threat to one or more members of the public just because the convention doesn’t actually mention all these common sense exceptions.
you may be giving the legal issues more importance than they command. the deciding factor, beyond the law, will be the two countries interest or lack of it in not letting this affair harm their bilateral relations any more than they already have been. realpolitik is of course always a factor, esp, in global politics, as one of the authors explained here on PTH.
i do find the legal debate interesting but what i really want to know is why the FO couldn’t give an opinion there and then.
Citizens of Pakistan have rights which can’t be taken away by any other laws and my reference in this case is victims. Do they have any right left after you enforce 1972 law. A very simple question from a layman to a legal expert.
parvez
ask the supreme court, by all means.
a rebuttal would be that by agreeing a reciprocal arrangement with treaty countries, , for these rare circumstances, that justice to pakistani citizens will be provided under their jurisdiction instead of pakistan’s (and vice versa), DACP 1972 does not take away any fundamental/constitutional right of the citizens of pakistan. note: the treaty is emphatically not about any one being above the law. it’s about jurisdiction.
in case a treaty country fails to fully implement treaty provisions in relation to pakistani diplomats, DACP 1972 gives the executive the legal option to reciprocate.
of course, the treaty also allows for a waiver to immunity from jurisdiction to be requested.
now you need to quote me the constitution where it says that such a reciprocal arrangement to ensure pakistani citizens’ fundamental rights is unlawful.
“Citizens of Pakistan have rights which can’t be taken away by any other laws and my reference in this case is victims.”
here’s an example from the constitution of pakistan itself, article 248:
“(1) The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a Province.
(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.
(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any court during his term of office.
(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of anything done by or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office unless, at least sixty days before the proceedings are instituted, notice in writing has been delivered to him, or sent to him in the manner prescribed by law, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom the proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which the party claims.”
Some years ago a pakistani killed two CIA agents in washington dc although the CIA had helped Pakistan strengthen its primitive arab-god-centred ideology (which the pakistanis are so infatutated with) by helping in defeating godless commies.
bciv
Your legal quotes still does not give a clear answer to my question. What happens to victim rights in this criminal case?
Let’s wait for court to decide.
parvez
the quote shows that if the constitution lets some officials be above the law in certain matters while in office, then it is unlikely to be able to object to merely fixing jurisdiction on grounds other than geography for another special class of officials. read the preamble to the vienna convention to see why it is necessary.
“Let’s wait for court to decide.”
without your successful constitutional challenge to DACP 1972, the FO has the final authority to determine immunity. the courts have no jurisdiction until the FO decides there is no immunity.
Talking on this case is simply waste of time. Better to follow simple way such as compensating the victim’s family financially (with respectable sum).
Victim’s background and their connection to ISI to be clarified too.
Raymond Davis, or whatever his REAL NAME is….is NO diplomat…. [Diplomats are not armed to the teeth with guns and syringes full of ???] He is an assassin….. [We still do not know not only his real name, we don't know his real job either] Why not forget all the BS and trade him for Afia Siddiqui…….
Aren’t the DRONE assassinations BAD ENOUGH…….Now the NeoCon’s killers are driving around Lahore murdering random motorists and expecting to just walk away..?? Or having it treated like a parking ticket……….. IS life really so cheap in Pakistan that the people of Pakistan don’t care when the citizens are murdered by foreign agents of the U.S. and their proxy [neocon] Israeli “frtiends” by drones… and RAMOZZOS of “Special Farces” I think this is one farce too far…!!!