Analysis Reports Debate! BookDiscussion Editorials AboutEJIL:Talk!

Search

EJIL:Live!

BlogoftheEuropeanJournal
EJIL:Talk! ofInternationalLaw

Home DiplomaticImmunity JurisdictionalandImmunityIssuesintheStoryofEnricaLexie:ACaseofShoot&

Scootturnsaround!

JurisdictionalandImmunityIssuesintheStoryofEnrica HariSankar
Lexie:ACaseofShoot&Scootturnsaround!
PublishedonMarch25,2013Author:HariSankar

Like 0 Share AssistantProfessorofLawat

NationalLawUniversityJodhpur
Harisankar K S (http://in.linkedin.com/pub/harisankar/48/b/270)
is Assistant Professor of Law, National Law University Jodhpur,
India(http://www.nlujodhpur.ac.in/faculty.php) EJIL:Live!
Newepisodeisnowlive.
The Enrica Lexie incident (discussed by Douglas (http://www.ejil.org/live.php)
Guilfoyle here (http://www.ejiltalk.org/shooting
fishermenmistakenforpiratesjurisdiction
immunityandstateresponsibility/) on EJIL:Talk! SubscribetoEJIL:Talk!for
a year ago) has caused ripples not only in the political and diplomatic emailupdates
circles but also generated debates in the international legal community. Email*

The incident took place in the Arabian Sea on 15 February, 2012, when
two Indian fishermen on board a fishing vessel (the St Antony) were
killedbyshotsfiredbytwoItalianmarinesonboardtheItalianoiltanker, Subscribe!

theEnrikaLexie.TheStAntonywasapproximately20.5nauticalmilesoff
the coast of Kerala, India when the incident occurred. The Italian ship
continued sailing for almost three hours after the incident. The Indian RecentComments
Coast Guard intercepted the Italian ship approximately 59 nautical miles
and ordered it to navigate to the nearby Indian port of Kochi. There, the MuhammadAliNasir Atimely
Italian marines were arrested and charged with murder under Sec.302 of book.Ihopeitisreadwidely,
theIndianPenalCode. whichitdeserves.First,Iwould
liketoknowtheextenttowhich
Thefollowingdiscussionhighlightscertainimportantdevelopmentsinthe complicitybyomission...Apr12
legal arena, both domestic and international, in the context of criminal
jurisdiction on high seas and immunities of state offiials. In addition, I MarkoMilanovic Thanksfor
suggestsomepossibleoutcomesofthecase. thatJakob.Judgingbyhowyou
havebehavedtowardsothersinthe
TheShootingIncident
commentthreadsofthisblog,for
PriortoadiscussionofIndianjurisdictionovertheItalianmarinesforthe whichyouhavebeenrepeatedly...
shooting incident, there is a preliminary question as to whether India Apr12
violatedinternationallawbyengagingintheHotPursuitoftheItalian
Tiskovzprva:Evropskunie
ship?According to Article 111 of the United Nations Convention on the
mzkonnoupovinnostzastavit
Law of the Sea
obchodovnsneleglnmi
(http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm)
izraelskmiosadami,uvd
(UNCLOS),thehotpursuitofaforeignshipmaybeundertakenwhenthe
renomovanevroptprvnci|
competentauthoritiesofthecoastalStatehavegoodreasontobelievethat
ISMCzechRepublic {[]
theshiphasviolatedthelawsandregulationsofthatState.Furthermoreit
nejvznamnjchprvnickch
providesthat,Iftheforeignshipiswithinacontiguouszone,thepursuit
asopis,EuropeanJournalof
mayonlybeundertakeniftherehasbeenaviolationoftherightsforthe
InternationalLaw,zveejnna
protectionofwhichthezonewasestablished.Itisnotdisputedthatthe
zprvapotvrzujczkonnou
Italian ship was within the contiguous Zone when the shooting incident
povinnostEvropskunieajejch
tookplace.However,sincethehotpursuitprincipleinthecontiguouszone
lenskchsttukonitveker
is limited to the prevention of infringement of customs, fiscal,
[]}
immigration or sanitary laws, the legitimacy of the action of the Indian
authoritiesinthecontextofanallegedkillingisquestionable. JakobCornides "WhyonEarth
shouldIassumethatTrumpacted
JurisdictionalClaims:
withgoodintentions,whenallof
The cardinal question on which the whole case is centred relates to the theevidencewehavepointstothe
prescriptive jurisdiction of both India and Italy. It is undisputed that the contrary?"AsI...Apr12
cause of action arose beyond the territory of India and hence in the
Sancho Thankyouforyour
international waters. However, India bases its jurisdictional claims on
post.Ihadonequestion:isaiding
domesticlegislationwhichconferstheIndiancourtswiththejurisdiction
andabettingsynonymouswith
totryaperson(includingaforeigner)inrespectofanoffencecommitted
complicityinyourview?Thereis
on board a ship registered in India (Sections 3
someambiguityonthis...Apr12
(http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S3.htm) and 4
(http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S4.htm) of the ArrestenHvJoverdragen
Indian Penal Code and Sec.188 hoofddoekophetwerk
(http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/CrPc/s188.htm) of the Code of europeesrecht {[]TheRight
CriminalProcedure).Asamatterofinternationallaw,thelegalityofthe toReligiousFreedomandthe
exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction may be justified by a number of ThreattotheEstablishedOrderasa
principles, including: (a) the objective Territoriality principle (b) the RestrictionGround:Some
effects doctrine (c) the protective principle (d) the Nationality ThoughtsonAccountofthe
principle (e) the passive personality principle and (f) Universality AchbitaCase...}
principle. The common element underlying all these theories is the valid
interestoftheStateonthebasisofasufficientconnectiontothepersons,
propertyoractsconcerned.Atleastthreeoftheabovementionedtheories
Archives
support the jurisdictional claims of India. The so called objective
April2017
territorialityprinciple,theprotectiveprincipleandtheeffectsdoctrineas
March2017
enunciated by PCIJ in the Lotus case
February2017
(http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1927.09.07_lotus.htm)
favoursIndianarguments. MoreArchives(#morearchives)
On the other side, Italy relies on various provisions of the UNCLOS Authors
(http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm), SelectAuthor...
1982.First,underArticle97,whichprovidesforthePenaljurisdictionin
matters of collision or any other incident of navigation no penal or
disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such person except Categories
beforethejudicialoradministrativeauthoritieseitheroftheflagstateorof openall|closeall
theStateofwhichsuchpersonisanational.Nevertheless,itsamatterof Afghanistan
commonsensethat,thiscaseisnowayrelatedtocollisionorincidentsof AnnouncementsandEvents
navigation.Secondly,accordingtoArticle92,shipsshallbesubjecttothe ArmedConflict
exclusivejurisdictionofflagstatewhileonthehighseas.Inaddition,the ArmsControl
well established Nationality Principle of International law allows the Conference
state to exercise the jurisdiction with respect to the activities of its Defamation
nationals abroad, including natural persons as well as ships, which are DiplomaticAsylum
considered to be floating territories of the state. Hence, Article 92 read DiplomaticImmunity
withtheNationalityprinciplestrengthenstheJurisdictionalclaimofItaly. DisasterLaw
Editorials
Now, which State has the primary right to exercise its concurrent EJIL
jurisdiction?Here,itmaybepertinenttoundertakeaninterestanalysis.Of EJILAnalysis
course,bothnationshavetheirownlegitimatenationalinterestsoverand EJILArticleDiscussion
abovethefamilyinterestonbothsides.But,consideringthedimensionof EJILBookDiscussion
criminal law as serving the societal disapproval of the alleged act and EJILReports
punishment as an act of retribution, a trial conducted in India and EJILTrivia
punishment meted out in accordance with Indian law would better serve EJIL:Debate!
victimsatisfaction.Thegeneralprincipleofcriminalprocedurethatatrial EJIL:Live!
shall ordinarily be conducted at the place where the offence has been EuropeanUnion
committed,justifiestheIndianposition.Additionally,atrialconductedin Extradition
aforeignlandwoulddeprivethevictimsoftheirrighttoparticipatewhich Featured
isanessentialaspectoffairtrial.Moreover,consideringtheconvenience HumanRights
ofconductinginvestigationthecaseistiltedtowardsIndia. HumanRightsCouncil
TheScootingIncident IndigenousPeoples
InresponsetotheItaliancontentionsagainstthecompetenceoftheCourts InternationalCriminalLaw
in India, the High Court of Kerala had asserted the jurisdiction of the InternationalEconomicLaw
IndianCourtsandlateronallowedthemarinestogohomeforChristmas InternationalEnvironmentalLaw
(http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/italianmarinescango InternationalHumanitarianLaw
homefortwoweekshighcourt/article4221352.ece) under very stringent InternationalLawandDomesticLaw
bail conditions including a hefty amount as guarantee. On an appeal InternationalLawinArt,Literature,Thou
contesting the jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of India in its decision InternationalLegalProfession
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/usindiaitalymarines InternationalOrganisations
idUSBRE90H07E20130118)onJanuary18thisyearreaffirmedtheIndian InternationalTribunals
jurisdiction however declared that the trial should be conducted by a Iran
special court in Delhi, not in the ordinary criminal courts in the state of Iraq
Kerala.Later,on22February,theapexcourtallowedthemarinestotravel Israel
to Italy for casting their votes in the national elections Journals
(http://www.indianexpress.com/assemblyelections/news/supremecourt Jurisdiction
allowsitalianmarinestogotoitalytocastvote/1078114/0),onthebasis Kosovo
of an affidavit undertaking the responsibility of marines safe travel to LawoftheSea
Italy and return to India within a month. After the marines reached their Libya
homesafely,theItalianforeignministrythroughanoteverbaleinformed Migration
the Govt. of India that their nationals would not be coming back MixedArbitration
(http://www.mea.gov.in/pressreleases.htm? NaturalResources
dtl/21341/Press+statement+on+the+Italian+Marines+issue) and called NonStateActors
upon India to resolve the issue through diplomatic means, as provided NuclearWeapons
under UNCLOS. This development really complicated the matter. While Occupation
the internal political pressure was mounting in India, the Supreme Court Palestine
asked the Italian ambassador, on whose personal assurance the marines PeaceKeeping
werepermittedtogohome,nottoleavethecountry.Thedecisionofthe Piracy
apexcourthastriggeredadiplomaticstandoffandthecasewasexpected PreemptiveSelfDefence
to go for an international adjudication. Surprisingly, as India was RefugeeLaw
contemplating contempt proceedings against the Italian ambassador and Rendition
furthertoughmeasuresonbilateralties,theItalianGovt.decidedtosend ReservationstoTreaties
backtheirmarinestoIndia. Rwanda
Sanctions
TheImmunityConundrum
SelfDefence
TheItalianargumentfortheimmunityfromlegalproceedingsistwofold.
SelfDetermination
First, Can the Italian marines claim that they are covered by Sovereign
SourcesofInternationalLaw
functional immunity, as they are naval guards employed on board the
StateImmunity
Italian ship and therefore functioning under the instructions of the
StateResponsibility
sovereign Republic of Italy? The Indian Supreme Court, without any
StateSuccession
deliberation on this issue, rejected this plea in the absence of a status of
StatesandStatehood
force agreement between India and Italy. But, whether functional
StudyofInternationalLaw
sovereign Immunity is available to military personnel involved in a
Syria
criminalproceedingabroadremainsanunsettledquestion.
Terrorism
Secondly, considering a situation where the marines were not sent back TheoryofInternationalLaw
andtheSCdecidestogoaheadwiththecontemptproceedingsagainstthe Torture
ambassador, whether the ambassador could claim diplomatic protection TransitionalJustice
under the Vienna Convention? Article 32 of the convention provides for TreatyLaw
waiverfromthediplomaticimmunitywhichshouldbeexpresslystatedby Unilateraldeclarations
the sending state. India has been considered a follower of the dualist UniversalJurisdiction
approachofInternationallawandtheparliamenthasincorporatedthesaid UseofForce
internationalConventionintomunicipallaw,byenactingTheDiplomatic Wildlife
Relations(ViennaConvention)Act,1972.Thegeneralopiniondoingthe
rounds in Indian legal circles was that, since Italy has invoked the writ
jurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtundertheConstitutionofIndia,itmay
beconsideredasawaiver,thoughnotexpress.Keepinginperspectivethe
power of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution to
punishforcontemptofitself,theapexcourtseemstohavehadthelegal
weapons in its armour. In any case, this has become an issue of
contemplationasthemarinesareback.

HowtheballcamebacktoIndianCourt?
Asastunningreversalofitsearlierposition,Italiangovt.decidedtosend
themarinesbacktoIndiatofacetrial,onanassurancegivenbytheGovt.
ofIndiaregardingtheprotectionoftheirfundamentalrights.Iamcurious
about,whatallbasichumanrightsthatIndiaofferstoprotecttheItalian
nationals in this situation. The Indian authorities have assured inter alia
that the marines would not face death penalty. This offer seems less
significantfirstlybecausethereislittlechanceofthiscasefallingunder
the category of rarest of rare, which is an established criterion for
awarding a death sentence in India. Secondly, the existence of an
agreement between India and Italy (which India ratified soon after the
shootingincident)regardingthetransferofsentencedpersons,willcome
fortherescueoftheItalianmarines.Accordingtothispact,theexecution
ofthesentenceshallbegovernedbytheadministeringstate,whichwillbe
freeunderitslawstoprovidealternativemeasuresandisinspiredbythe
Strasbourg Convention
(http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/112.htm). However,
capital punishment is an exception to the same. Therefore, a sentence of
death,ifatall,givenbytheIndiancourtwouldhavetobecarriedoutin
India itself. Though there is a possibility of an executive pardon, the
undertaking given by the Indian Govt. lifting death penalty, which is the
maximum punishment provided under Sec 302 of IPC
(http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S302.htm), even
before the trial starts is highly questionable. Another important proposal
fromtheIndiansideisontheamenitiestobeofferedtothemarinesduring
the trial. The marines will reside at the Italian embassy in New Delhi
during the pendency of prosecution, which would be an overthetop
concession available to any under trial in India. All the same, this
unexpected development has eased the diplomatic and political tension
andnowitisforIndiatosetupaspecialcourtimmediately,asdirectedby
theSupremeCourtandconductthetrialinajustandspeedymanner.The
international legal community looks up to how the Indian legal system
addressestheissuesofjurisdictionandsovereignfunctionalimmunityin
thisjudicialprocess.

Like 0 Share
Filedunder:DiplomaticImmunity,EJILAnalysis,Jurisdiction,LawoftheSea,StateImmunity

InDefenceofaMoreSophistic... WelcometotheBlogosphere...

12Comments

12Responses
 Luigi
March25,2013at11:46

ThanksHariforyourdescriptionoftheissue.TheItalianconduct
seemedtoomequiteinconsistent,Iagree.
IwouldaddanoteonthetimingoftheIndiancourts:
dontyouthinkthat13monthswithoutadefinitivedecisionon
jurisdictionistoomuch?WhydidtheSupremeCourtaskeda
speedydecisiontothespecialCourtonlyafter13months,and
afterallthesetensionsbetweenthetwocountries?
IthinkthatafasterdecisionfromtheIndianjudiciarywouldhave
avoidedallthisconfusion.

HarisankarKS
March25,2013at15:19

ThanksLuigi,foryourcomment.
Iagree.Butstill,consideringtheordinarycriminaljustice
systeminIndia,thisdelayisreasonable!
Ihopethatthespecialcourtwilldeliveraspeedyjustice.
Regards
Hari

Ms.PriyankaMJawale
March26,2013at5:35

Hello,HariandLuigi

FirstIwouldliketocongratulateMr.Hariforgivingabrief
accountofthecaseandtheIndianLegalsystems.

InmyopinionthisisnotthefirstandonlycaseofIndianSupreme
courtinwhichApexcourtestablishedspecialcourt,thisisnot
objectionablealso.Therearesomanyfactorsaffectingfordelayin
theadjudicationofmattershereinIndia,averywellknown
amongstthemisthat,courtsinIndiaalwaysgivesubstantial
requiredtimefortheeachcaseanditsinvestigation.Thereason
behindisthatforthesakeofspeedyjusticedeliverymechanisman
innocentshouldnotbegetpunished.

IdontwanttojustifythedelaybythecourtsinIndiabutinmy
personalopinion,courtsdelayisacceptablewhentheyaredealing
withthematterwhichisathighstakeandmayaffectthe
diplomaticrelationsofboththestates.
Ifbothcountriesrestrainttheirselfbyavoidinginterferencein
judicialmatterthenthatwillfastentheprocedure.Weshouldkeep
ourfullfaithonjudiciaryespeciallywhenthematterisdealtby
theSupremeCourtofIndia.

Regards,

Ms.PriyankaJawale

TeachingAssociate,
DepartmentofLaw,
UniversityofPune,
Pune,India.

GiacomoPailli
March26,2013at7:08

ThanksHariforthisusefulpiece.

IagreewithyouallontheinconsistenciesofthetwopartiesandI
willnotcommentonthat.

Idisagree,though,withyourlastparagraphundertheheading
Jurisdictionalclaim.Yourviewofcriminallawdoesnot
convinceme.
Tomecriminallaw,andparticularlycriminalproceedings,areall
aboutansweringthisquestionshouldIdeprivetheperson
chargedwiththecrimeofherpersonalliberty?
Moreover,youconsiderthatallafairtrialrequiresisthatvictims
areallowedtoparticipate:thispuzzlesme.Iwouldsaythatfair
trialrequires,firstandforemost,thatthepersonchargedis
guaranteedatthehighestdegreefromtheStatesattemptof
deprivingherofliberty(orlife).
Inconclusion,Iwouldcentrethispartoftheanalysisonthe
personchargedwiththecrime,ratherthanonthevictimsor
societyatlarge.

Bestregards,
Giacomo

OliverDaum
March26,2013at9:07

Thankstotheauthorforhiswellfoundedandcomprehensive
analysis.Iwouldliketoaddthreeremarksthough.
First,nowthattheItalianmarinersareonIndiansoil,theexercise
ofjurisdictionoverthembyIndiancriminalauthoritiesismorea
matteroffactratherthanitmaybegroundedonalegalbasisin
internationallaw.

Second,IfullyagreewiththeconclusionthatItalysrightto
exercisejurisdictionconflictswithIndiasrighttoexercise
jurisdiction.However,IhesitatetoconcludethatIndiasrespective
rightprevailsoverItalysrighthere.Oneoftheachievementsof
UNCLOSIIIwastosetinArt.97(1)primaryjurisdictionover
collisionsoranyotherincidentofnavigationinfavourofthe
flagStateortheStateofnationalityoftherelevantallegedperson.
Therefore,thisrulemayfunctionasabarforIndiancriminal
proceedings.

Itisoftentobefoundinliterature,asitispresumedhere,thatthe
wordingotherincidentofnavigationisrestrictedsomehowto
themeaningothernavigationalacts.However,inviewofArt.
87(1)UNCLOS,theexpressionotherincidentofnavigation
deservesabroadersphereofapplication.Thatistoincludeacts
committedonboardavesselwhicharesubjecttopenalor
disciplinaryresponsibilityoftheflagStateortheStateof
nationality,andinrelationtotheexerciseoftherightofnavigation
incontrasttotheotherfreedomsoftheHighSeasaccordingto
Art.87(1)UNCLOS.OtherwisetherightoftheflagStateorof
theStateofnationalitytoexercisejurisdictionoveritsown
subjectsmaybeendangeredbyconcurringjurisdictionalclaimsof
otherStates.

Third,Indiasinternationallegalbasistoexercisejurisdictionis
notinquestion.However,IaminclinedtoconcludethatIndiamay
notcrowdItalyoutofitsprimarypositionastheflagStateto
guaranteetheadherencetointernationallawontheHighSeas.IfI
mightberight,thenthescenarioremindsmeofthecontroversial
malecaptusbenedententussituationsincetheearliestarrestdid
nothappeninconformitywithinternationallaw.TheIndiancourt
mayconsiderthisissueaswell.

HarisankarKS
March26,2013at14:20

ThanksPriyanka,GiacomoandDaumforyourcomments!
ToGiacomo,
True.Frommylimitedknowledgeoncriminallaw,Idobelieve
that,Indianlegalsystemalsoconsiderstheprotectionofpersonal
libertyoftheaccusedandaproofbeyondallreasonabledoubtin
ensuringafairtrial.However,mypointwasifthetrialis
conductedinIndiathereisanaddedadvantageofsecuringthe
victimparticipation.
ToDaum,
SorrytodisagreewithyouonthisbroaderapplicationofArticle
97(1),toincludeakillingincidentunderthecategoryofan
incidentofnavigation.Evenifsuchaninterpretationistobe
considered,theflagstaterule(floatingterritoryprinciple)may
favourtheapplicationofIndianlaw,astheoffencewas
consummatedonboardanIndianvessel.
WarmRegards,
Hari

OliverDaum
March26,2013at15:47

ThanksHariforyouresponse!

Youarecorrectinstatingthatsincetheeffectsoftheacts
committedontheItalianvesselareexperiencedontheIndian
vessel,Indiamayclaimjurisdictionovertheallegedpersons.I
agree!

So,yourexplanationabouttheinternationallegalbasisofIndias
jurisdictionalclaimthoughisjustonelegalissueofthecaseat
hand.Anotherissueisthequestionunderwhichcircumstancesa
jurisdictionalclaimbyoneStatesupersedesanotherStatesclaim.
IstruggletofindareasonwhyIndiasclaimprevailsoverItalys
claimhere.ThereferencetothevictimparticipationunderIndian
penallawisimportant,howeveritmaynotsufficeforthepurpose
toallocatejurisdictionontheinternationallevel.

Bestregards,

Oliver

Dubito
March26,2013at17:30

Whydiscussthelegitimacyofahotpursuitwhichhasnevertaken
placeandnoonenoticedit?

JacquesHartmann
March26,2013at20:15

ThanksHariforaninterestingblog,
IdonotunderstandwhytheIndianSupremeCourtrejectedthe
Italianpleaofimmunitywithoutanydeliberation.AllState
officialsenjoyimmunityrationemateriaefortheirofficialacts.
TherationalwasexplainedbytheAppealsChamberinProsecutor
v.Blaki:

[State]officialsaremereinstrumentsofaStateandtheirofficial
actioncanonlybeattributedtotheState.Theycannotbethe
subjectofsanctionsorpenaltiesforconductthatisnotprivatebut
undertakenonbehalfoftheState.Inotherwords,Stateofficials
cannotsuffertheconsequencesofwrongfulactswhicharenot
attributabletothempersonallybuttotheStateonwhosebehalf
theyact:theyenjoysocalledfunctionalimmunity.Thisisawell
establishedruleofcustomaryinternationallawgoingbacktothe
eighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,restatedmanytimessince1]

Theconditionsfortheapplicationofimmunityrationemateriaeis
thattheactinquestionhasanofficialcharacter.Althoughitisrare
forStatestoinvokeimmunityincriminalcasesitdoeshappen.[2]
In2008theItalianCourtofCassationfoundthatcustomary
internationallawprecludedItaliancourtsfromexercise
jurisdictionoverashootingbyaUSsoldierofanItaliannational
inIraq.[3]Thereisnocustomaryexceptionthatwouldpreclude
ItalyfromraisingitsclaimofimmunityinIndiancourts.Douglas
notedinhisblogthatcomparablecasesareusuallyresolvedin
favourofStateimmunity,butoftennotswiftly.Iguesswehave
towaitandsee.

[1]ICTY,Prosecutorv.Blaki(ObjectiontotheIssueof
SubpoenaducesTecum)IT9514AR108(1997),110ILR(1997)
607,at707,para.38.
[2]Onthisissue,seeDAkandeandSShah,ImmunitiesofState
Officials,InternationalCrimes,andForeignDomesticCourts,
EJIL(2011).
[3]LozanovItaly,AppealJudgment,CaseNo31171/2008(24
July2008)ILDC1085(IT2008).

HarisankarKS
March27,2013at7:39

DearJacques,Thankyouforyourcommentandanalysison
Sovereignimmunity.
Here,Iwouldliketopointoutcoupleofargumentsmadeon
behalfoftheUnionofIndia.
First,itseemsthattheSupremeCourthasacceptedthepolicyof
theIndianGovt,ofnotenteringintoanyStatusofForce
Agreements(SOFA).Hence,asperthispolicyandintheabsence
ofSOFAs,nofunctionalimmunitycanbeextendedtoforeign
militarypersonnel.
Second,astheItalianmarineswereengagedinactajuregestionis,
butnotactajureimperii,theyarenotentitledtosovereign
functionalimmunity,accordingtotherestrictivetheoryof
sovereignimmunity.Now,itisfortheItalianlawyerstoestablish
thegovernmentalcharacterofmarinesactionbysubmittingthe
relevantagreementbetweentheNavyandthePrivateoiltanker
EnricaLexie,ifany.
Yes.Wellhavetowaitandsee!
Regards
Hari

riccardopavoni
March30,2013at17:04

DearJacques,
thankyouforquotingthiscaseoftheItalianSupCt:
In2008theItalianCourtofCassationfoundthatcustomary
internationallawprecludedItaliancourtsfromexercise
jurisdictionoverashootingbyaUSsoldierofanItaliannational
inIraq.[3]

However,itismostinterestingtoconsiderthatthesameItalian
SupCthaslatelychangeditsmindinthefamousextraordinary
renditioncaseofAbuOmar(notaffordingimmunitytoseveral
CIAagents,includingformerconsulerofficers).Sinceyouquote
fromILDC,pleaselookupforthisforthcomingcase:

CriminalProceedingsvAdlerandors(AbuOmarcase),Final
AppealJudgment,No46340/2012ILDC1960(IT2012)29
November2012,CourtofCassation,FifthCriminalSection

IquotefromtheHeldfieldoftheforthcomingreportbyAndrea
Caligiuri:
SofarItaliancourtshaverecognizedimmunityonlytodiplomatic
orconsularagents,HeadsofState,HeadsofGovernmentand
MinistriesofForeignAffairs.Asaresult,contrarytowhathad
beenstatedbytheCourtofCassationinitsjudgmentinthe
Lozanocase,Italiancourtsareentitledtoexercisetheircriminal
jurisdictionoverforeignStateofficialsintheabsenceofspecific
internationalrulesprovidingforimmunity,suchasthoserelating
todiplomaticorconsularofficials,orintheabsenceofrulesonthe
allocationofjurisdictionbetweensendingandreceivingStatesin
casesofmilitaryofficialsdeployedabroad
and

Theexistenceofacustomaryrulegrantingfunctionalimmunity
hasnotbeenprovedbecauseofalackofwellestablishedcase
law,concordantstatementsoftheStatesandunivocalviewsof
scholars.Theuncertaintythataffectsthissensitiveaspectof
internationalrelationsexplainswhyStatesconcludespecific
treaties,suchasthe1951LondonConvention,regulatingthe
exerciseofjurisdictionoverStateofficials

Isntthisamazing???ExactlyonetheIndianargumentsaspointed
outbyHari!(First,itseemsthattheSupremeCourthasaccepted
thepolicyoftheIndianGovt,ofnotenteringintoanyStatusof
ForceAgreements(SOFA).Hence,asperthispolicyandinthe
absenceofSOFAs,nofunctionalimmunitycanbeextendedto
foreignmilitarypersonnel)

SometimesIthinkthesethingsonlyhappeninmycountry!The
wholeEnricaLexiestoryisjustanothersignofItalys
decadence

bestregards

GuptanVeemboor
April2,2013at3:52

AnEXCELLENTanalysisofthewholeissue.