The curious case of Raymond Davis

The question is whether Davis can be tried or if he is entitled to diplomatic immunity as the American embassy claims.

Najmuddin A Shaikh February 07, 2011

Raymond Davis shot and killed two Pakistani motorcycle riders, who according to Davis, were trying to rob him. Whether this was murder or self-defense; whether Davis used excessive force to defend himself; or whether he was allowed to carry a gun in the first place are all questions that will have to be established by evidence and its presentation in a court of law.

Currently, however, the question is whether Davis can be tried or if he is entitled to diplomatic immunity as the American embassy claims, and therefore, cannot be arrested, arraigned or tried. The Americans base their claim on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which came into force in 1964, and which, if memory serves correctly, formally became part of Pakistan’s domestic law when the necessary legislation was passed in 1972. Article 29 of the Convention states that “the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.”

This claim, has come now, but in the immediate aftermath of the incident both the US State Department and the American embassy had maintained that Mr Davis, or whatever his real name is, was an employee of the US consulate general in Lahore. Spokesman Crowley said, on January 27: “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.”

The question of whether he was on the staff of the consulate or the embassy is critical since the privileges and immunities of consular staff are very different from those of the diplomatic staff. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which came into effect in 1967, states in Article 41(1) that “Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.” This would mean that no immunity from arrest would be available even to the head of the Consular post, or any officer having consular rank, if the crime committed is grave.

Assuming that the American that Davis’ first status was a mistake and that they have the documentation to establish this fact. Even while he was in Lahore, he was part of the staff of the embassy and not that of the consulate. The question that arises is: What are the privileges and immunities to which he is entitled to? and where do these flow from? Normally, every member of the embassy — with the exception of locally recruited staff who carry embassy identification cards — would carry a card issued by the ministry of foreign affairs that gives his designation in the embassy and also spells out the immunities and privileges to which he is entitled to?

From what has been published about a note verbale that the American embassy has sent to the ministry of foreign affairs, it appears that no such card was issued by the ministry to Mr Davis because of a disagreement on how he should be described. The embassy, according to a press report, has said that the absence of this card does not affect the right of Mr Davis to get the immunities and privileges to which he is entitled by virtue of the notification that the embassy had sent in January last year. If the press report is accurate, the embassy had notified Mr Davis as part of the “administrative and technical staff of the embassy”. While the question of whether or not immunities and privileges become available without the issuance of an accreditation card by the ministry of foreign affairs can be, and probably will be, debated between specialist lawyers, I would like to take the view that the privileges become available once the ministry has been notified, unless the ministry states in writing that it is not prepared to issue the accreditation card requested.

The point, however, is that the Vienna Convention is very clear about who is part of the “diplomatic staff”. Article 1 states that “the ‘members of the diplomatic staff’ are the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank”. Nowhere has it been stated that Mr Davis had a diplomatic rank, nor is it usual for “members of the technical and administrative staff” to be granted such diplomatic rank. The reason is obvious. This would require that every staff member of the Pakistan embassy in Washington would also be entitled to diplomatic rank and concomitant immunities and privileges.

During the Cold War, the Americans and Nato allies, to pre-empt any harassment of their embassy-employed personnel, had adopted a practice of giving the rank of ‘attaché’, the lowest diplomatic rank, to all their staff members to ensure that they remained exempt from arrest.

It is, however, correct to say that the administrative and technical staff also enjoy immunities under Article 37(2) of The Vienna Convention. The same facility is also accorded under Article 37(3) to service members sent from the sending state.

Mr Davis could be termed a member of the technical and administrative staff or a member of the service staff, and be entitled to this extent of immunity while performing functions in the course of his duties. To my mind, a simple example of the ‘course of duties’ would be that the ambassador’s secretary is driving to the ambassador’s residence to deliver a communication and meets with an accident. In this case, she would be entitled to claim diplomatic immunity. On the other hand, if she were driving home after her day at the office and met with an accident, she would not have diplomatic immunity. Her boss, a person with diplomatic rank, would have immunity in either case.

The question, therefore, is whether Mr Davis was in Mozang Chowrangi in the ‘course of his duties’? The second question that clearly arises is: Who should determine this? And the answer would seem to be the courts of Pakistan.

What can this mean for the future and how have such matters been handled when larger issues are at stake? That would be the subject of my next article.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 8th, 2011.


Ashfaq Ahmed Nizamani | 10 years ago | Reply This is the testing time for Pakistani Institutions. Wether these institutions support the common sentiment and general opinon of the Pakistani People on the one hand and on the other hand are they capable of being able to stand against the mighty Uncle Sam? Let us all hope that Pakistani Institutions must take this incident as an oppourtunity and bring the Killer into the Pakistani Courts and have Justice with the Innocents.
Aftab A Siddiquie | 10 years ago | Reply No doubt, you are an experienced personality in-connection with this Particular subject and quite capable to discus the matter hours and hours. Raymond Davis has immunity of course and all privileges and so on, being a diplomat if Pakistan’s foreign ministry recognizes him. As a diplomat or technical advisor or otherwise whatever he is. As for as the Vienna convention 1963 is concerned, to which Pakistan is also signatory country, that is applied across the world in which countries embassies or consulates exist. To cut the story I should come to the point US diplomats’list presented by the American embassy to the ministry of foreign affairs on Jan 25. But interestingly, his name figured prominently on another list submitted by the embassy to the ministry on Jan 28, while Raymond Davis had been killed two Pakistani citizens on Jan 27, 2011. As this news of incident occurred on Mozang Chungi (Qartaba) that reached within minutes to the consulate so the American embassy next morning submitted another list in which his Ramond Davis name was surly prominent. What is my opinion is that the Raymond Davis is really not a diplomat He is a former “US Special Forces Solider.” Pentagon records show that the man, Raymond Davis, is a former army Special Forces soldier. Public records show Davis and his wife run a Nevada-registered company called Hyperion Protective Services. “During the course of investigation, police retrieved photographs of some sensitive areas and defence installations from Davis’ camera,” a source told The Express Tribune requesting anonymity. “Photos of the strategic Balahisar Fort, the headquarters of the paramilitary Frontier Corps in Peshawar and of Pakistan Army’s bunkers on the Eastern border with India were found in the camera,” prosecutors have recommended that an espionage case be also registered against him and it is in the process. The police had recovered a digital camera, a Glock pistol and a phone tracker along with a charger from Davis after his arrest. The Punjab government considers Davis a security risk after the recovery of the photos of sensitive installations. Foreign Ministry didn’t make any mistake, while American embassy had dived itself; he must enlist him of Jan 25, 2011 why on Jan 28 after incident. This is not fair. The deceased were not common men, their lives were very precious to the establishment I have more material in my mind if the response comes. With Best Regard
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ


Most Read