Source: http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/diplomatic-or-consular-immunity-for-criminal-offenses/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:22:37+00:00

Document:
Whether Raymond Davis was simply a contractor assigned to the US Consulate in Lahore or Embassy in Islamabad?
Whether Raymond Davis was a consular officer or an employee or member of the consular staff?
Whether Raymond Davis was a diplomatic agent or a member of the administrative and technical staff?
What was the applicable law under the circumstances?
diplomatic or consular immunity in case of criminal offences?
Who is empowered to grant immunity under Pakistani law—the executive or the courts?
Does the US have any obligation or liability for the criminal offense committed by its diplomatic and consular officers and employees?
Should the US have waived immunity in view of the seriousness of the offense? Alternatively, should Pakistan have requested such a waiver?
Whether and to what extent is the U.S. Consulate or government responsible or liable for the additional death of the pedestrian who was also allegedly killed by a speeding car from the US consulate which came to help?
Raymond Davis, a United States national, killed two Pakistanis in Lahore on 27 January 2011—albeit allegedly in self-defense. According to BBC news: “An American official in the Pakistani city of Lahore has shot and killed a Pakistani motorcycle rider and his pillion passenger, police say. They say that the consular employee fired his pistol in self defense. US embassy officials confirmed that an American was involved. The men were pursuing the American in his car when the incident happened. A pedestrian was also killed by a speeding car from the US consulate which came to help, police say.”1 The incident sparked anti-American sentiments in Pakistan and become an issue of public interest that was constantly discussed and debated in political circles and the media both in Pakistan and the United States. Raymond Davis was charged with murder by the Pakistani police and was incarcerated in a local jail. A criminal case was instituted against him in a trial court in Pakistan.
What is the necessary and proper legal process for dealing with diplomatic or consular immunity in case of criminal offences?
This article is intended to provide general comments on the issues raised above in light of the information available in the public domain. The first three issues deal with the factual determination of Raymond Davis’ status—necessary for the identification of the applicable legal regime. The next five issues deal with the elucidation of the applicable law and legal process necessary to give effect thereto. The last issue raises problems that have not been dealt with in this article and would need to be considered separately.
On the very day the incident occurred, Mr. Philip J. Crowley, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, in his Daily Press Briefing in Washington, D.C. confirmed that “an employee at the U.S. Consulate in Lahore was involved in an incident today. It is under investigation. We have not released the identity of our employee at this point. And reports of a particular identity that are circulating through the media are incorrect” (emphasis added).7 Mr. Crowley skirted the question as to whether Raymond Davis had diplomatic immunity.
Apparently, the U.S. Government, without establishing factual basis, sought to invoke full diplomatic immunity for its national charged with double murder—considered a serious crime in both jurisdictions. It suggested that the Pakistani courts are not the proper forum for resolving this matter and sought executive action towards the fulfillment of Pakistan’s international obligation to grant diplomatic immunity.
It seems that the Pakistani Government, perhaps mindful of the uncertainty of Raymond Davis’s diplomatic status and the probability of a political backlash if he is granted diplomatic immunity, chose to remain silent on the issue and conveniently left the matter to be resolved by the court. The court was expected to examine the positions of Pakistan and the U.S. in light of applicable laws regarding diplomatic and consular immunities and established policies, practices and procedures of both countries in respect thereof.
Diplomatic and consular immunities are dealt with by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 (Diplomatic Convention) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (Consular Convention) respectively. Pakistan has acceded to both these Conventions and has promulgated the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972 (the DCP Act) to give effect to the same. The immunities granted by the Diplomatic Convention and Consular Convention fall into four categories: personal inviolability (freedom from search and seizure), criminal immunity (exemption from detention and arrest or prosecution for criminal violations of host country law), civil immunity (exemption from being sued), and immunity from being required to testify in a criminal or civil proceeding.
Raymond Davis did not appear, from the publically available facts, to be a consular officer. He would, as a person reportedly employed in the administrative or technical service of the U.S. Consulate in Lahore, have been considered a consular employee. As such, he would have enjoyed immunity in respect of acts performed by him in the exercise of consular functions only.
The Diplomatic Convention deals with immunities from civil and criminal laws. It clearly provides: “A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.”27 It may be noted that this provision only: (i) shields a diplomatic agent from criminal prosecution, and (ii) grants the diplomatic agent jurisdictional immunity in the receiving state. A “diplomatic agent” has been defined by the Diplomatic Convention as “the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission”.28 The “head of the mission” has in turn been defined as “the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity”29 and “members of the diplomatic staff” have been defined as “the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank”.30 From the publically available facts, it appeared that Raymond Davis was neither the head of the mission nor a member of the diplomatic staff.
Raymond Davis was described as a “member of the administrative and technical staff” of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. The “members of the administrative and technical staff” are the members of the staff of the mission employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission”.31 They are extended certain immunities by virtue of Article 37(2) of the Diplomatic Convention, which provides: “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…”. Thus, while limiting the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction, the Diplomatic Convention extends full immunity from criminal jurisdiction to members of the administrative and technical staff. Accordingly, Raymond would have enjoyed full immunity from Pakistan’s criminal jurisdiction if his credentials as a member of the administrative and technical staff of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad had been established by the U.S. Government or certified by the Pakistan Government and accepted by Pakistani courts.
Mindful of the purpose and spirit of the Diplomatic Convention and the grave nature of the offense committed by Raymond Davis, it would have been expedient for the U.S. to have either waived his immunity or offered to try him itself.
Regarding the determination of entitlement of any privilege or immunity, the DCP Act provides: “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” (emphasis added).38 This is merely an enabling provision and not a requirement imposed on the government to issue the certificate of entitlement.
The Pakistani government, perhaps because of political reasons, chose not to issue a certificate in the present case. The U.S. tried continually to pressurize the Pakistani government to issue the necessary certificate on the plea that it was obliged to fulfill its international obligations under the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations and consequently required to facilitate the resolution of any dispute by issuing the conclusive document. However, given the reluctance of the Pakistan Foreign Office to issue a diplomatic certificate in the present case, the court in Pakistan was left to determine Raymond Davis’ consular or diplomatic status based on evidence presented to it by the parties.
However, diplomatic or consular immunity, if any, would not have absolved Raymond Davis of the alleged offense of double murder and the proper course for the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs would have been to approach the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad or the State Department in Washington, D.C. with a request to waive of the applicable immunity in view of the gravity of the alleged offense committed by him. In making such a request, the Pakistan Government would have, in addition to relying on the spirit of the Vienna Conventions, invoked the principle of reciprocity laid down in section 3 of the DCP Act.
Given the elaborate policies and procedures laid down by the U.S. authorities for the determination and grant of diplomatic and consular immunity, it was totally unjustifiable for the U.S. to expect the Pakistan Government to hand over Raymond Davis in a summary fashion without going through the proper legal and judicial process.
The courts in Pakistan are the guardian of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Pakistan Constitution. Raymond Davis should have been comforted by the fact that the Pakistan Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial: “For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.”62 On its part, the U.S. authorities should not have expected a summary trial or speedy executive relief under the prevalent circumstances. A popular issue involving wide spread public sentiments like the Raymond Davis murder case would have attracted the attention of the proactive Supreme Court of Pakistan, which could have taken suo motu notice of any undue external pressure being applied on the trial court.
… The record of the case reveals that there is a certificate to show that Sher Zaman was an employee of the German Embassy for the last nine years since the issue of the certificate. In view of the above clause 577—privilege of family and household— would be attracted in case of the petitioner and he would be in his rights to claim immunity against his trial by the Courts in Pakistan. This, however, would not absolve him of the offence and the proper course for the State would be to approach the Embassy and ask them to waive this privilege in view of the gravity of the alleged offence so committed by the petitioner. This matter could have been resolved soon after the case was admitted but unfortunately the case was put up for the first time after a lapse of ten years. However, the negligence of the office cannot retard the course of justice. However, I accept the revision petition on this point of law and direct the State to seek the remedy [sic] under the law available to it (emphasis added).
This judicial precedent clearly lays down the procedural policy for grant of diplomatic immunity in case of criminal offenses and is consistent with international norms and U.S. practice in this regard.
The legal outcome of the Raymond Davis case depended on the factual determination of his status. The Pakistani government had the option to give the requisite diplomatic certificate but chose not to do so. The Pakistani court had to, therefore, determine Raymond Davis’ diplomatic, consular or contractual status and grant or not grant immunity accordingly. Both the concerned Pakistan and U.S. authorities would have had to submit evidence about Raymond Davis’ appointment and notification under the applicable Vienna Convention on Diplomatic or Consular Relations and the issuance of necessary identification papers, if any, pursuant to national procedure or practice.
The legal principles regarding diplomatic and consular immunities and privileges are legally well established. Under the Consular Convention, consular officers are not accorded absolute immunity from a host country’s criminal jurisdiction and are immune from local jurisdiction only in cases directly relating to consular functions. They may be tried for certain local crimes upon action by a local court.
The Diplomatic Convention provides the terms under which a diplomat may be subject to criminal or civil penalty. Article 31 of the Convention exempts diplomatic agents from the civil and criminal jurisdictions of host states, except for cases in which a diplomatic agent (1) is involved in a dispute over personal real property, (2) has an action involving private estate matters, or (3) is in a dispute arising from commercial or professional business outside the scope of official functions. This article clearly states that while diplomatic immunity privileges may exist in a host state, these privileges do not exempt the diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of local laws and courts. These privileges are not absolute either. For example, Article 32 provides that the sending state may waive all diplomatic immunity privileges enjoyed by the diplomatic agent.
While giving effect to the applicable treaties on diplomatic and consular immunities, the Pakistani law in respect thereof, clearly lays down the principle of reciprocal treatment of diplomatic and consular officers and employees in Pakistan. Pakistan would consequently be well within its rights to rely on U.S. policy and legal practice and procedure regarding the treatment of Pakistani diplomats and consular officers and employees in the U.S. in case of criminal offenses committed by them. The U.S. has elaborate policies and procedures in place in regarding the grant of diplomatic or consular immunity for criminal offenses. These policies and procedures establish a formal legal and judicial process that can be emulated and applied by Pakistan on the basis of the principle of reciprocity laid down in its domestic law.
The U.S. should have shown the requisite patience and respect for Pakistan’s legal and judicial process in determining Raymond Davis’ diplomatic or consular status on the basis of its established legal practice and procedure of granting immunity for criminal offenses. Contrary to the assertion made by the U.S. that this was not a matter for the Pakistani courts to resolve, the courts in Pakistan, like the courts in the U.S., have a constitutional mandate to interpret and apply the law. The filing of the Raymond Davis case in court by the Pakistani authorities was, therefore, not only valid but also in line with the policy of the U.S. Government in dealing with diplomatic immunity cases involving criminal offenses. The U.S. would have established its moral authority by accepting the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts voluntarily and demonstrating to the world that it applies uniform and consistent standards to its diplomats involved in criminal offenses.
Even though the law is quite clear on the subject of diplomatic and consular immunity, the publically known facts regarding Raymond Davis’ alleged diplomatic status remained ambiguous. Mere assertion by the U.S. Government without verification by the Pakistani Government was not enough for the Pakistani courts to accept the plea of diplomatic immunity, particularly in view of the initial conduct of the U.S. spokesperson regarding Raymond Davis’ identity and status.
Left on its own—in the absence of a diplomatic certificate issued by the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs—the Pakistani court would have been inclined to look skeptically at the contention of the U.S. authorities that Raymond Davis had diplomatic status mindful of the ambiguity raised about his identity and status by the initial statement of Mr. Crowley, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, in his Daily Press Briefing in Washington, D.C. on the day of the incident. Mr. Crowley’s continued evasiveness about answering questions regarding the nature of Raymond Davis’ job at the U.S. Embassy and failure to clarify whether he was a contractor or consular employee would have given the court further cause to undertake the factual determination of his status before accepting the U.S. Government’s plea regarding diplomatic immunity.
Mindful of the fact that qatl-i-amd is a compoundable offense under both Islamic and secular laws prevailing in Pakistan, the court acquitted Raymond Davis from the charge of qatl-i-amd against him pursuant to section 345 Cr.P.C read with section 310 PPC, subject to the payment of diyat to the deceased widow of one of the victims.79 The court observed that the legal heirs of both the victims appeared before it and recorded their separate statements, in which they unequivocally confirmed that they had received the amount of badl-e-sulh as per their shares. The legal heirs waived their right of qisas and compounded the offence; they stated that they would have no objection if the accused was acquitted of the charge. The court noted its satisfaction that the legal heirs had made their statements voluntarily and without coercion. It did not apply ta’zir on the principle of fasad-fil-arz since it did not find any evidence on file or the police report regarding the past conduct and previous conviction of Raymond Davis that indicated that he was a potential danger to the community. Consequently, Raymond Davis was set free and left Pakistan instantaneously.
The matter has thus been settled judicially through the application of Islamic law principles without having to deal with politically sensitive and legally contentious issues involved in the determination of diplomatic status and immunity. A diplomatic confrontation has been averted and the delicate relationship between Pakistan and the US has certainly been preserved. Both countries would do well to learn a lesson from this incident and streamline their future diplomatic relationship on the basis of uniform and consistent principles based on the principle of reciprocity—which, inter alia, recognizes the fact that diplomatic status does not give envoys a license to commit criminal offenses.
1 BBC News, 27 January 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12298546 (accessed 19 February 2011).
2011 19.38 GMT (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/us-raymond- davis-lahore-cia) (accessed 27 February 2011).
3 Grant V. McClanahan, DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY—PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, PROBLEMS, 61 (1989). This book deals extensively with current trends and problems with diplomatic immunity, including increasing abuses of immunity such as espionage.
4 According to ABC News on 15 February 2011, President Obama is reported to have stated: “We’ve got a very simple principle here that every country in the world that is party to the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations has upheld in the past and should uphold in the future, and that is, if our diplomats are in another country, then they are not subject to that country’s local prosecution,” Obama said in a press conference today. “We expect Pakistan, that’s a signatory and recognizes Mr. Davis as a diplomat, to abide by the same convention… I’m not going to discuss the specific exchanges that we’ve had [with the Pakistani government], but we’ve been very firm about this being a priority.” http:// abcnews.go.com/Blotter/raymond-davis-case-president-barack-obama-urges- pakistan/story?id=12922282 (accessed 24 March 2011).
5 H. RES. 145 (112th Congress, 1st Session) March 3, 2011.
6 See, e.g., Express Tribune 16 February 2011, http://tribune.com.pk/story/119713/ court-to-decide-raymond-davis-immunity-gilani (accessed 24 March 2011). This appeared to some commentators to be the only amicable way out of the situation. See generally, “Raymond Davis case: Three possible outcomes,” by Reuters, The Express Tribune, February 19, 2011, http://tribune.com.pk/story/120866/ raymond-davis-case-three-possible-outcomes (accessed 19 February 2011); See also, M. K. Hassan, “Davis case confusion” Dawn, February 23, 2011 (editorial page).
7 U.S. Department of State, Daily Press Briefing, January 27, 2011, http://www. state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2011/01/155402.html (accessed 19 February 2011); reproduced in U.S. Department of State, Middle East Digest, January 27, 2011, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/index.html (accessed 19 February 2011).
islamabad.usembassy.gov/pr-11012901.html. (accessed on 19 February 2011).
9 Id.10 U.S. Department of State, Daily Press Briefing, February 9, 2011, http://www. state.gov/r/pa/prs/index.html (accessed on 19 February 2011); reproduced in U.S. Department of State, Middle East Digest, February 9, 2011, http://www. state.gov/r/pa/ei/index.html (accessed 19 February 2011).
11 Id. The relevant part of the interview is noteworthy: QUESTION: So if he has diplomatic immunity that would mean he’s not a contractor, right? Because contractors are not eligible for diplomatic immunity, correct? MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know that that statement is correct. QUESTION: I’m just – the only reason I base that on is Blackwater back in Iraq, they were subject to prosecution — MR. CROWLEY: I understand that. QUESTION: So is that the case — MR. CROWLEY: But again, we notified the Pakistani Government when he arrived in Islamabad, and he has diplomatic immunity. …. QUESTION: P.J., can you just check – the Pakistanis apparently do not accept the fact that he has diplomatic immunity. Are they telling you specifically why? MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure that that is a correct statement. I know there are lots of things that are put out by an unnamed official. The fact is that we did notify Pakistan of this diplomat’s arrival and his status. And we do not believe that there’s any ambiguity about that. QUESTION: P.J., just brief, on that point, is there – can – is that all it takes, you just notify them? Do they not have to affirmatively accept that this person does have diplomatic immunity? Say a diplomat is posted here and Country X tells you, “Okay, this is our guy and he – we want him to have immunity,” does he automatically then get it? Or do you have to say – or does the host country have to say, “Okay, we accept that,” and there’s — MR. CROWLEY: You’re wading into areas that I’m not — QUESTION: All right. Well, is it possible to find that out? MR. CROWLEY: Yes, I’ll see if we can get an explanation on that.
12 U.S. Department of State, Daily Press Briefing, February 16, 2011, http://www. state.gov/r/pa/prs/index.html (accessed 19 February 2011): QUESTION: Yes, I know. He is a U.S. diplomat. But in other paragraphs, we have to say other things. What – how exactly do you describe him? I mean, is he a contractor? Is he a consular employee? What is he? MR. CROWLEY: Well, he is a U.S. diplomat currently incarcerated in Pakistan who has diplomatic immunity and should be released. …. QUESTION: But, no, no, just as a more basic – we talked about it last week as a more basic idea of whether contractors – going back to Blackwater in Iraq, State Department contractors – whether they’re eligible for diplomatic immunity in a case of murder. MR. CROWLEY: Contractors – if you’re talking about a global issue, contractors can be given diplomatic status.
15 See, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan, Record of Press Briefing held on 03 February 2011, http://www.mofa.gov.pk/Spokesperson/2011/ Spokes_03_02_2011.html (accessed 19 February 2011): Q-How many people like Raymond Davis are present in Pakistan? Is there any record of such people with the Foreign Office? Supplementary questions-1) Can the Foreign Office provide names and number of the US employees working in their Consulate in Lahore?
2) Can the Foreign Office educate us by clearly explaining the immunities and the privileges of officials and diplomats working under relevant international conventions? The US Embassy has informed that Raymond was Consular official. Isn’t it that two different sets of rules on consular and diplomatic matters determine the status of a foreign employee in a diplomatic mission? 3) Why the Foreign Office is adding to the confusion by not clarifying its position on the status of Raymond Davis and the category of visa held by him? Isn’t it strange that while the US State Department has issued three statements on this issue, we as the host country have chosen to remain silent on this issue? 4) Has the driver who killed the third person left Pakistan and what has been the response of the Federal Government to the request by the Punjab Government to hand over the vehicle and the driver in question? Has there been contact between the US Embassy and the Foreign Office regarding the whereabouts of the driver? 5) What measures does Foreign Office take while issuing visas to officials like Raymond Davis? 6) Whether Raymond Davis was a diplomat? Is Raymond Davis his real name? If not, were two separate kind of visas namely official and diplomatic issued to the same person? 7) Is it true that other than the known officials in US Consulates in Pakistan, the rest are working under fake identities? Who allowed the two former US Consuls General in Peshawar to work under fake identities? Was Raymond Davis also working under a fake identity? 8) Did Raymond Davis initially inform the Foreign Office about the nature of his status and assignment in Pakistan as under article 41 of Vienna Convention of 1961, every diplomat and non-diplomat has to convey this information to the Foreign Ministry in the host country? 9) Don’t you think that in such cases, it is the responsibility of the Foreign Office to decide and the verdict in such cases should come from the Government officials instead of the court? Don’t you think that it is the prerogative of the Foreign Office to decide in such matters? If affirmative, then why Ministry of Interior is issuing statements on this issue?
18 Media Comments on Question of Immunity, PR. NO.046/2011, Date: 16/02/2011 (Islamabad, 16 February 2011), http://www.mofa.gov.pk/Press_Releases/2011/ Feb/PR_046.html (accessed 19 February 2011).
20 Art. 41(1), Consular Convention.
21 Art. 1(d), Consular Convention.
22 Art. 1(e), Consular Convention.
23 Art. 43(1), Consular Convention.
24 Art. 45(1), Consular Convention.
26 Art. 42, Consular Convention.
27 Art. 31(1), Diplomatic Convention, which further provides: “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 official functions. This provision has been incorporated into Pakistani law. See, Section 86-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 relating to suits against diplomatic agents, which provides (1) No proceeding in any Court shall lie against a diplomatic agent except in a case relating to – (a) any private immovable property situated in Pakistan held by him in his private capacity and not on behalf of the sending State for the purpose of the mission; (b) a 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) any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent to Pakistan outside his official functions.
28 Art. 1(e), Diplomatic Convention.
29 Art. 1(a), Diplomatic Convention.
30 Art. 1(d), Diplomatic Convention.
31 Art. 1(f), Diplomatic Convention. They fall within the general category of the “members of the staff of the mission” comprising members of the diplomatic staff, of the administrative and technical staff and of the service staff of the mission. See Art. 1(c), id.
32 Art. 31(4), Diplomatic Convention.
33 Art. 32, Diplomatic Convention.
34 Preamble, Diplomatic Convention. See also, Preamble, Consular Convention.
35 Art. 41(1), Diplomatic Convention.
Republic and Another, PLD 1981 Karachi 715.
37 Sec. 3, DCP Act.
38 Sec. 4, DCP Act.
39 986 SCMR 907. This judicial precedent was relied on by the Lahore High Court in British High Commission vs. Syed Sajjad Anwar, 2000 YLR 1833 [Lahore].
40 Art. 24, Consular Convention and Art. 10, Diplomatic Convention respectively.
41 Art. 19, Consular Convention and Art. 7, Diplomatic Convention respectively.
42 Art. 23(3), Consular Convention and Art. 9, Diplomatic Convention respectively.
43 See generally, Art. 39, Diplomatic Convention.
44 U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic and Consular Immunity—Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities, at p.13 (Department of State Publication10524, Revised August 2010).
48 See, Expulsion Procedure, id. at p.12.
53 Id. at p. 13.
57 See, R. 56, Rules of Business: “Channels of Communications.–(1) Except as provided in sub-rule (2), all correspondence with the Government of a foreign country or a Pakistan diplomatic mission abroad or a foreign mission in Pakistan or an international organization shall normally be conducted through the Foreign Affairs Division: Provided that by means of general or special orders to be issued by the Foreign Affairs Division, direct correspondence may be allowed under such conditions and circumstances as may be specified.” See also, R. 49(4), id.
58 See, Item 14(1), Schedule II, Rules of Business.
59 See, Item 18(27), Schedule II, Rules of Business.
1973 (as amended up to 2010) (Pakistan Constitution).
61 Art. 184(3), Pakistan Constitution. Art. 199, Pakistan Constitution deals with the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
62 Art. 10A, Pakistan Constitution.
64 Sec. 17(1), State Immunity Ordinance, 1981.
65 According to Article 3(1), Diplomatic Convention: “The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in: (a) Representing the sending State in the receiving State; (b) Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; (c) Negotiating with the Government of the receiving State; (d) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State; (e) Promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.
66 1977 P. Cr. L. J. 686.
67 See generally, Asif Ezdi, “Licensed to Kill?”, The News, 2 February 2011, http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=28893&Cat=6 (accessed 24 March 2011).
68 Quoted in James Gerstenzang, “Diplomatic Immunity Mustn’t Be License to Kill,” Los Angeles Times, 6 June 1986, http://articles.latimes.com/1986-06-06/ news/mn-8921_1_diplomatic-immunity (accessed 24 March 2011).
69 An unofficial copy of the court judgment is reproduced in the news report entitled: “Court releases detailed judgment in Davis case”, Dawn.com, 20 March 2011, http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/20/court-releases-detailed-judgment-in-davis-case.html (accessed 24 March 2011).
304 is not available; or (c) punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five years, where according to the injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the offence of qatl-i-amd if committed in the name or on the pretext of honor and the same shall fall within the ambit of (a) and (b), as the case may be. Sec. 302, PPC.
71 Qatl-i-amd. Whoever, with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing bodily injury to a person, by doing an act which in the ordinary course of nature is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that his act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, causes the death of such person, is said to commit qatl-i-amd. Sec. 300, PPC.
75 See, sec. 309, PPC.
77 See, Explanation in sec. 310, PPC.

References: V. 
 Art. 41
 Art. 1
 Art. 1
 Art. 43
 Art. 45
 Art. 42
 Art. 31
 Art. 1
 Art. 1
 Art. 1
 Art. 1
 Art. 1
 Art. 31
 Art. 32
 Art. 41
 Art. 24
 Art. 10
 Art. 19
 Art. 7
 Art. 23
 Art. 9
 Art. 39
 Art. 184
 Art. 199
 Art. 10