Newspapers in India pointed out this out, and it is easy enough to verify. As per the United Nations Blue Book "Permanent Missions to the United Nations", No. 303, March 2013 available here:
http://www.un.int/protocol/bluebook/bb303.pdf, Ms Devyani Uttam Khobragade is an accredited member of the Indian Permanent Mission to the UN - well before her arrest - and per Article 4, Section 11 and Section 16 of "Convention of the Immunities and Privileges of the United Nations", adopted in February 1946, seemingly has immunity from arrest. (The Indian officials may have already pointed this out to the American officials in private.)
Section 14 of the Convention says that Member States have the duty to waive immunity when "in the opinion of the Member immunity would impede justice".
Therefore, the proper procedure would have been for the US Departments of Justice and State to take their complaint to the appropriate person (probably either the Indian Ambassador to the UN or to the US) and ask for immunity to be waived. In any case, the normal courtesy to to tell the highest ranking officials of impending action - a courtesy which was not extended in this case.
Whatever the US DOJ may think of the immunity of consular officers, there is no question about the immunity of the aforemention UN delegations.
http://www.un.int/protocol/bluebook/bb303.pdf, Ms Devyani Uttam Khobragade is an accredited member of the Indian Permanent Mission to the UN - well before her arrest - and per Article 4, Section 11 and Section 16 of "Convention of the Immunities and Privileges of the United Nations", adopted in February 1946, seemingly has immunity from arrest. (The Indian officials may have already pointed this out to the American officials in private.)
Section 14 of the Convention says that Member States have the duty to waive immunity when "in the opinion of the Member immunity would impede justice".
Therefore, the proper procedure would have been for the US Departments of Justice and State to take their complaint to the appropriate person (probably either the Indian Ambassador to the UN or to the US) and ask for immunity to be waived. In any case, the normal courtesy to to tell the highest ranking officials of impending action - a courtesy which was not extended in this case.
Whatever the US DOJ may think of the immunity of consular officers, there is no question about the immunity of the aforemention UN delegations.
Logging you in...
barath · 587 weeks ago
1. Immunity/Privileges for accredited members is not automatic. The Indian government has to request it, and the UN has to accept it.
In some situations, the assent of US may also be needed (as the host country) . The specifics are unclear to me.
2. The doc you linked to lists her under permanent members, and is dated Mar 2013. Most cites have her claiming temporary accreditation from Aug 26. One way to resolve conflict would be if accreditation expired
3. Possible expiry of the privileges. After all, immunity is not forever.
http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-immunity-of-represent...
macgupta 81p · 587 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 587 weeks ago