Does Diplomatic Immunity extend to Raymond Davis?

The debate between US state department and Pakistan was regarding the status of diplomatic immunity in Raymond Daviss case. US State department was represented by Dina Arham, Syeda Bint-e-Zahra, Usama Malik and Sajjad Amir. Their stance on the Raymond Daviss diplomatic immunity was, that his professional status fell under the ambit of a diplomat. The US government has claims diplomatic immunity for him on the basis that Mr. Davis has a Diplomatic Passport. His visa application by the US State Department to the Pakistan Embassy in Washington DC of 11 September 2009 lists him as a Diplomat who is on Official Business. This diplomat, assigned to the U.S embassy in Islamabad, has a diplomatic passport and Pakistani Visa valid until June 2012. When detained the U.S. diplomat identified himself to police as a diplomat and repeatedly requested immunity under Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

They further argued, the legal case is clear-cut. Mr. Davis has diplomatic immunity that protects him against prosecution in Pakistan. Pakistan can expel Mr. Davis but it has no right to imprison him and move forward with a murder case. US state department emphasized on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and suggested that if our diplomats are in another country, then they are not subject to that countrys local prosecution. At the core of the debate is the principle that those proclaimed to be diplomats working abroad should be immune to prosecution because they should be beholden only to the legal systems of the countries that sent them, rather than local courts. The usual remedy is expulsion. Mr. Davis was listed as a technical staff member for the embassys diplomatic mission, and then he would be covered by a 1961 treaty that gives diplomats total immunity to criminal prosecution. In that case, Pakistan should be allowed only to expel him. They took support from the Article 29 and 31 of THE DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PRIVILEGES ACT, 1972 to prove their point. They gave pertinent examples to aid their argument and stated that in 1984, for example, someone inside the Libyan Embassy in London fired a gun out of its window and killed a British policewoman. The shooting caused an uproar that tested the limits of diplomatic immunity, but the British government allowed the embassy staff to return to Libya. Diplomatic history is full of incidents in which host countries have accused people working as embassy officials of being spies. But in most cases, the officials have simply been expelled. Perhaps the most notable exception was in 1979, when Iranian militants overran the United States Embassy in Tehran. They claimed their hostages were mercenaries and spies who did not deserve diplomatic respect. The United States sued Iran in the International Court of Justice. In 1980, the court

ruled against Iran saying its only remedy if it thought the embassy officials were spies was to expel them or break off diplomatic relations.