Talk:Diplomatic immunity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tarlee, Aralpha19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Miscellaneous topics
In the table, the 'No' in the last column against Family Members, is ambiguous. I think what is meant by a 'No' entry is : No Immunity. However, the ambiguity is that the 'No' entry could also (incorrectly) be taken to mean: No Prosecution.

=
=========== If a person with diplomatic immunity is in the presence of police, who have verified that the person does have immunity, begins shooting people in the head, the police can do nothing to stop the person?

So, if a person who has been granted diplomatic immunity is in fact doing acts of crime that the "avarage American" would be placed into custody for doing, are they immune to arrest?

Yes, that seems to be the case. About the contents of the page itself, can anyone provide a rationale for diplomatic immunity? Perhaps a history of controversial incidents, or a link to a reference covering same?

There should probably be a link/reference to Yvonne Fletcher, the police officer shot by a libyan diplomat. Djbrianuk 14:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another example would be the case of a Russian diplomat in Canada a few years back who killed a woman while driving drunk. I don't remember his name or much about the case but I know he was never convicted due to his status (and presumably was never charged), however he was recalled to Russia where he faced criminal charges.

I believe that this proves bona fide on the Russian part in this case, if the trial was indeed fair. The conditions in Russian penal system are at least as bad as in Canada. I might have chosen to waive my immunity and submit to Canadan jurisdiction. --81.197.79.13 7 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

I have to agree with the request to explain the rationale behing diplomatic immunity. While I am sure there is one (the idea could not have survived otherwise), I'm not sure what it is. And this was the precise reason I came to this article... my first thought after finishing my read was "Wait... but what is the purpose?" MrHumperdink 17:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added the rationale and a few, admittedly somewhat rusty, historic examples of violations of diplomatic immunity. The way I formulated the modern rationale may be seen as a POW, but it should be noted that there is a number of country pairs, the inhabitants of which do not trust the legal systems of the other country. I am quite sure that every reader can find an example concerning his own native land, but I used the US and China as counterparts, as they are superpowers with widely differing political systems. Iran was mentioned to keep the article more evenly-handed: when you mention one rival, it is wise to mention also a second, so the article does not advocate distrust towards any particular country. And yes, there most likely are Chinese and Iranian persons who would not trust the impartiality of an American court, although we would.

There is no actual need to discuss diplomatic immunity in different countries. The main system is a part of international system, codified in Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. Single nations cannot change the rules freely. --81.197.79.13 7 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Not to be completely anal about such a small thing, but that picture of the double-parked car with diplomatic license plates...well, isn't. It has consular plates (note the C prefix and CONSUL top legend), and thus, is subject to consular immunity (which doesn't cover traffic tickets, either). —IW4 U TC 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The table seems in error that top level diplomats of international organizations are not subject to arrest, given the case of Devyani Khobragade? Slipandslide (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Slave maids
I have remembrances of African diplomats being accused of having young girls from their countries working at their homes as almost-slaves. --Error 00:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

hey people there is a mistake. it was not the Athenians who killed the persian diplomats. The Athenians refused the "soil and water" offer and instead killed the translator who was Greek and gave the language to the barbarians. it was the Spartans who killed them in the well. They did so because the well, as they said, had plenty of water and soil since it was muddy. Please change it!

Officers
These immunities also cover some other officers, don't they? I think that senator-for-life Augusto Pinochet visited Britain with a diplomatic passport. --Error 00:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's totally up to the originating country. In that example, if Chile wants to have Pinochet travel with a diplomatic passport they can. As a senator he has parliamentary immunity so maybe he's entitled to an official (or diplomatic) passport when he travels abroad. Technically, a diplomat should be registered in the state in which he/she is accredited but if one only has an diplomatic passport as a means of identification, the police won't check the official status in the "welcoming" country unless they have serious reasons to do it. Also keep in mind that Pinochet is wanted in many countries, so he might have pulled some strings to get a diplomatic passport so he wasn't arrested while on vacation or whatever he was doing. Bobsky 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

United States
What is the significance of diplomatic immunity in the United States? Why does it warrant a whole section (about a third of the entire article) to itself?

Maybe because the UN is located there? Where else is there such a large collection of Diplomats?


 * Geneva. Vienna. London. Paris. Brussels. Washington. Perhaps not the same number, but still relatively large, and all homes to significant UN-system organisations, regional groupings and/or economic/military organisations. Perhaps much higher by percentage of population.--Gregalton 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Talio
If an immune diplomat murders a close relative of mine and he does not face propoportional prosecution neither here, nor in his home country and so I go after him and take blood revenge on him or hire a hitman to kill him, what would happen to me in different countries? If I am an american, briton or frenchman or japanese, would my home country courts acquit me and porotect me or convict me and extradite me?

Since my country did not act to prosecute murder, which is a crime under natural law, not just human law, the rights which me and every other citizen gave to the country under the social contract now fly back to me and thus I have the right to excercise eye for eye, teeth for teeth under natural law, because that form of original justice has been around long ago before any organized human civilization was established. 195.70.32.136 13:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I could feel like that in such a situation. But the argument lacks the principle of proof of guilt. But you exemplify perfectly why immunity might be a bad thing for jurisdiction: the risk for personal vendettas without proper guilt investigation... 83.253.230.181 (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-wording

 * In modern times, the outbreak of nationalism and egalitarianism has made it difficult for the common man to understand, why some persons should be immune to local jurisdiction. If they are enemy, should they not be interned? If they commit crimes, should they not be prosecuted as everyone else? Such ideas, common though they are, disregard cultural differences and deep distrust between some governments. Would any American, for example, think that an American diplomat in PRC China or in Iran (where U.S. does not currently have standing diplomatic representation) would receive a fair trial if they are charged with say, murder? Most likely, neither would a Chinese communist or an Iranian mullah believe that their diplomats would be fairly tried by an American jury, especially if relations between the countries were undergoing a crisis. With such profound mutual distrust, diplomatic immunity provides a means, albeit imperfect, to safeguard diplomatic personnel.

I think this paragraph could do with a re-wording? -- Blorg 10:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Abuses: Brazilean ambassador's son in Helsinki/Russia's illegal prostitution services
Would anyone have any info on this? A couple of years ago the son of the Brazilean ambassador drove around Helsinki, drunk, crashed into cars, etc. He was finally "trapped" by two police cars getting in front and behind him, and later expelled from the country. After some time, he returned (with a false ID?) and made even more of a mess. Would anyone happen to have a news source for this, or have more accurate info? I don't want to put it on myself since I might not remember the facts right.

A good example of diplomatic staff seriously breaking the local law would be the scandal in which some staff of the Russian embassy operated a brothel in Helsinki some years ago. I think some of the diplomatic staff were expelled from the country, and would face trial if they returned. AFAIK they were also fired from their jobs in the Russian administration. Anyone got sources on this?--85.49.234.240 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Conversational addition from 193.216.88.208

 * Moved from article GreenReaper 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have diplomatic immunity, then you shall feel safe in another country. What you say about waiving diplomatic immunity sounds strange and somewhat meaningsless. The strongest reaction according to my understand is the fact that the person in question can be expelled. Of course, diplomatic immunity does not defend planning about terrorism etc. What happens in the daily life of possible criminality I will assume will be under cover of the diplomatic immunity, for instance violating traffic regulation and defending yourself with somewhat unnecessary force. And if the criminality takes place within a diplomatic area then it should be out of question to waive diplomatic immunity. Planned murders are in the grey-zone, but when do such things happen at all ? I have never heard about them. You know, in some countries there are very hard punishment for criminality that are regarded as minor in the Western World. In a way, it should be impossible to waive diplomatic immunity. If a state can do this, then you have no secure immunity and must consider not to be in that state at all.

Besides, ministers and other persons that represent the top state bodies also have diplomatic immunity passports. And this passport is the one to be used when they have their holidays abroad or when they live abroad. Thereby you may say that diplomatic immunity is a matter of fact concerning the private life. Then diplomatic immunity in a broader sense makes it possible for highnesses to live in another country than their own. In this connection there is no other diplomatic mission than the fact that the persons in question are highnesses in their own countries and need diplomatic immunity to live abroad. This can for instance be a matter of fact when a Crown Prince study abroad for some years or settle for some years in another country to get work experience. Another example is when a Princess move to another country to live there for life. Highnesses in a broader sense may be admitted diplomatic immunity, for instance noble men and women and other persons that the state wants to give diplomatic immunity. There may be a problem concerning who shall get diplomatic immunity concerning a diplomatic family abroad. Here it most likely will be considered the people that are connected to a special family and not another family (for instance children of a child to the one that is admitted diplomatic immunity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.88.208 (talk • contribs)

Family Guy and Lethal Weapon II
The "citation needed" tags on these two points in the "In Popular Culture" section are not needed. Either watching the episode/film in question or even just looking on the entry here is enough to verify the facts.


 * Then you could put the episode/movie as the citation. Joeking16 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Still puzzled as to the rationale for diplomatic immunity
Can anybody provide a more explicit explanation of why DI is a good thing? At present the article says

"the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure that they may effectively carry out their duties"

The implication is that diplomats sometimes need to violate the laws of the host country in order to effectively carry out their duties. Otherwise there would be no need for DI.

So some examples of cases where DI was *justifiably* claimed would be really useful.

Macboff 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The implication is not that laws need to be violated, but that the receiving country may be tempted to allege/invent violations and use enforcement powers to intimidate, harass or otherwise threaten representatives of the sending country.

You will, for the most part, rarely hear of the cases where it was justifiably claimed. Immunity protects diplomats in foreign countries from being (unjustifiably) hassled, charged with non-existent crimes, etc. Examples:
 * Diplomat A is based in country B, which has a dispute over expropriation of oil assets from country A. Dip A is charged with theft of (unrelated) property and placed in jail until Country A decides to play along and allow B to "purchase" the assets at a reasonable price and without too much fuss.
 * Diplomat B is based in country C. Country B is at war (sorry, enforcing freedom) in Country D. Individuals in Country C decide to sue (in civil court) all representatives of Country B with genocide, war crimes, organizing rape camps, and flagrant jaywalking. Given the severity of the charges, and the size of potential settlements if the case is successful, a court authorizes the seizure of the diplomats' passports and all personal property as a precautionary measure.
 * Frequent: Dip X is stopped for (allegedly) speeding. Police officer refuses to write a ticket, requesting it be resolved "some other way." Refusal may result in seizure of license, registration, vehicle, etc.

Is this more clear? With immunity, none of these cases should be possible (at least in theory). While drawing the line between "real" crimes/misdemeanours and "political" ones sounds like it's easy, that has not (historically) been the case.

The objection that is frequently heard to this is that "Country Z" would never allow that sort of abuse, the legal/police system would not allow it. Two issues with this: 1) what country will admit that their legal system is the problem? Immunity allows everyone a face-saving solution that they are equally messed up; and 2) Historically, every state has misused its powers when its own interests (or the interests of those in power or wielding the power) are at stake. Feel free to choose which of these explanations you prefer.--Gregalton 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User Gregalton wrote: "Frequent: Dip X is stopped for (allegedly) speeding. Police officer refuses to write a ticket, requesting it be resolved "some other way." Refusal may result in seizure of license, registration, vehicle, etc."
 * Actually, in the above case, does it really matter if X is a diplomat or not? Isn't such a false allegation equally wrong in both cases, and wouldn't it be equally likely to occur (if it wasn't for DI)?

I just wonder... None of the examples made me agree less with user Macboff about the apparent implication of DI in its current form. Rather a more reasonable formulation would include a strict "innocent until rigorously proven", mainly targeting those countries where rigorous proof is not part of common jurisdiction already. The examples did not change my view at all - still puzzled as to why persecution should be totally impossible without the consent of the diplomat's home country. But if no good rationale can be given, I take it's rather a rethoric and political question than a Wikipedia discussion question83.253.230.181 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also the historical reason: diplomats were from the nobility and usually even of royal blood. These were already immune from commoners' laws already, so the immunity was not that much of a stretch it might seem to be today. Instead, they were bound by their honor codes and restricted by real politics. The predecessor of the diplomatic passport, a royal letter, was a royal grant of protection, meaning that interference with the diplomat would be an act of war against the king. It wasn't to protect the individual as is, but his diplomatic mission. Royal grants of protection were more common in the medieval time, since people were not in general allowed to travel freely in foreign countries without specific permissions. These became the modern passport. --vuo (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Case
If a diplomat rapes someone and then kills them, could they get jailed? &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#39;&#39;]] 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, no. What would happen is that the host country (the country the diplomat is in) would request the home country (the country that the diplomat represents) to waive his or her immunity. If the home country agrees to do that, the diplomat would be prosecuted like any normal person. If the home country refuses to do that, the diplomat is still in their jurisdiction and they can choose to prosecute the crime themselves instead, or they can just drop the case. Anyhow, if the immunity of the diplomat was not waived then the diplomat would most likely be declared to be a persona non grata (unwelcome person) by the host country and be expelled, but that is the most that the host country legally can do. --kissekatt 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was taught that it depends on the host country on the way they have agreed to treat DI. Though I could likely be wrong. Joeking16 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed
Yes we need citation on the U.S Marine Incident who killed the Singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.201.17 (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture section is turning into a list
I think most of these cases should go. The only relevant ones are those which have some specific relevance or illustrate a point. As far as I can tell, this applies to perhaps one or two of them.--Gregalton 04:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering...
Why is it that almost every piece of information in this article is followed by [citation needed]? Why are so many people editing without providing citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ervin2 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Clear vandalism in the first line. Just thought someone should know :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.181.187 (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

format question
I think the references should have their dates and years delinked. usually WP doesnt link within references, and WP also avoids linking trivial events to days of the month or years. there are obvious exceptions, but i think most of these should be delinked. of course, since i have said this, i will at some point attempt to do so myself, but in case anyone else cares...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Minor espionages, or gathering information of host countries are conducted in every embassy."
Gathering information is not always espionage. If one collects open information (from news broadcasts) or conducts public opinion polls for example, it is not espionage.--Dojarca (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to say almost every embassy. That way if there is some embassy out ther not conducting espionage, we're covered. Not sure what kind of other citations we can add, as no one is going to outright confirm this, but I think it is obvious to any observer that espionage is conducted to some extend it conducted out of a lot of embassies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettrock (talk • contribs) 10:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Citation needed tag. I think since I qualified it as almost all embassies, and the fact that no one is going to admit it, as well as the obviousness. Vettrock (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree on the 'almost every' and that no one will verify/confirm so no cite needed.

what to do with this conversational "it could be argued" comment, as this is not what wiki is for? It could be argued that immunity from prosecution should not be extended to violent, illegal acts related to espionage or whether any country would or should formally abandon the practice of disabusing the diplomation conventions in relation to such activity. posted by IP 67.193.141.91

It looks like the whole section was removed. While Espionage is probably considered on of the abuses, I guess I can agree that it probably didn't add a whole lot to the article.Vettrock (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Silviu Ionescu
This case is a bit peculiar for a few points, in that the diplomat was subsequently removed from his post, hence has no more immunity protection. He also claimed the embassy car was stolen at teh time of teh accident, although a hearing involving expert witnesses knowledgeable about the anti-theft features of the car said it was highly unlikely based on examination of the car that it had been stolen. Also, the hit-and-run occured while he was still the diplomat. Another complication was that at the time of the accident, the embassy car involved in the accident did not have the country flag attached as it had been removed by the driver, as the car was being used for non diplomatic purposes. Also, the diplomat has since claimed that he was being framed by the government for the accident. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me cut an paste this again to show why it is notable, since its still relevant here. I.e. ''I look at another article I used to touch on [Meredith Kercher]. Both are notable for only one single specific incident (A hit-and-run vs a murder), and both involved a few countries (The hit and run involved a Romanian who hit a Malaysian working in Singapore, the murder case similarly crossed international boundaries due to the nationalities of the victim and prosecuted).

'' Do a search on "Silviu Ionescu" compared to "Meredith Kercher" on Google (web) and Google (news), a comparison of both searches show more results and entries for "Silviu Ionescu" than "Meredith Kercher". It might not have triggeredas much eyeball in the States, but the European and Asian news agencies are covering this quite aggressively.''

 The fact that in the case of Ionescu, it actually triggered diplomatic responses and action from the countries involved is possibly a contributing factor., but that should not take anything away from it.

 So back to the test for Notability:

 From the Google news result, the test for significant coverage is passed. '' Again from the Google news results (which quotes multiple news sources), and also official responses from both foreign offices, the test reliability is passed. Ditto for the test for sources.''

And FINALLY in addition and on top of that, it is significant enough that the matter has required prompt actions taken by the Romanian ambassador's office to reassure both governments that the incident should not affect ties, the Romanian procesutor's office, and ALSO action requested by a Malaysian Agency (Since the deceased was a Malaysian who happened to work in Singapore). That's 3 countries involved. Not mentioning the recently issued Interpol Red Alert for Ionescu's arrest, making him a wanted figure in more than 100+ countries. Even if the individual parts still appear insignificant, the sum of the whole should be more than enough.

If you're just unhappy about the way the part about Ionescu is being written, SOFIXIT. Don't abuse WIKILAWYERING to remove it whooesale.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

extradited -> expelled
This edit caught my eye. On cinsideration, though, it seemed to me that speaking of extradition here didn't make sense. Looking back, I see this June, 2013 edit, where expelled was changed without explanation to extradited. I've changed it back to expelled. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

missing category
it is very disturbing that the issue of rape is nowhere discussed * this is an international amplification of denial * this is the most underreported crime by several orders of magnitude * when the matter is complicated by age it is even worse * I personally knew a high school girl who had been raped and the rapist daily taunted her in school with his father*s immunity *

there must be some wiggle room in wikirules for taboos so strong no citations are possible * this issue should at least be mentioned * 74.78.15.101 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)grumpy

US embassy in Tehran
I was wondering why this article doesn't mention the events of 1979? It's one of the most known violations of diplomatic immunity, to the point where the International Court of Justice, an organization that usually is very careful with what it says declared the following in their decision: "It constituted, the Court finds, a clear and serious violation of Iran's obligations to the United States under Articles 22 (2), 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, of Articles 5 and 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and of Article 11 (4) of the 1955 Treaty."

205.236.3.71 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are "internet children" ?
(See the "Abuse" section.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8400:6510:85A9:B80A:43A3:37D0 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article cites this source in support of the assertion containing that term. That source does not use that specific term, but it begins as follows:


 * It seems to me that the use of the term is OK in view of the supporting source content. Perhaps someone can suggest an appropriate clarification (??). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.rd.com/advice/diplomatic-immunity-going-too-far/#ixzz3QKaIQFA1


 * (The supplied link does not contain the term in question). The reference in the article is to describe an illicit relationship formed with a child by way of the Internet. "Internet children" would be grammatically equivalent to "children of the Internet", as some definitive designation. Is it referring to some child who lives on or was created within the Internet? My own children use the Internet, does this make them "Internet children"?  As I type this, on the Internet, am I an "Internet adult"?  Someone made up a thoughtless term, and doesn't fit the correct meaning within the article. I feel justified in fighting thoughtlessness with pedantry! ;)  Jyg (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The term seems to be something of a WP:Neologism. Its thrust seems clear to me, but perhaps it is not so clear to others. See e.g., search results here and here. Can anyone suggest a better term? A rewording to clarify the intended meaning? A clarifying footnote? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

US Only
Why is this us only --88.104.131.182 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not. A quick look turned up topical content in the article relative to India, ancient Persia, ancient Rome, a Venezuelan General in Aruba, a Ukrainian domestic worker at the residence of the South African ambassador to Ireland, a Philippine maid who escaped from an embassy of an unidentified Asian country in Finland, the UK, a 1967 incident involving the Burmese Ambassador to Sri Lanka, the Libyan embassy in London, the Japanese Consul-General in Vancouver Canada, a Canadian envoy in Tanzania, the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan in Pakistan, a Panamanian diplomat  in the Philippines, the Ecuadorian embassy to the UK, an Italian Ambassador to India, a Russian diplomat arrested in The Hague Netherlands and a Malaysian diplomat in New Zealand. I probably missed some other examples. I did tweak the article here to reduce US-centrism at a couple of points, though. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Gerald Hensley cases
I just deleted the first example under "Other Incidents..." which concerned allegations of diplomatic immunity abuse by the Burmese Ambassador to Sri Lanka (Ceylon) in 1967. The single source is available online but does not verify the allegation. Another source is inferred in the (now deleted) text to a biography by one-time NZ diplomat Hensley but the text states that later Hensley says his version of events was derived from secondary sources. This means Hensley's biography might be an Unreliable Source. The next example of "Other Incidents..." is "a Sudanese delegate to the UN who had been sued for paternity by a night club singer in New York and had had to invoke diplomatic immunity where the reproductive kind had failed." This (humorous?) anecdote is sourced to Hensley's biography but is not supported by the online reference. Given that (a) it's a humorous anecdote (b) it's unverifiable by other than Hensley (c) Hensley's account may be unreliable, I've deleted it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sons of ambassador of Iraq to Portugal assault 15 year old boy, leave him in a coma and needing reconstructive surgery, can't be prosecuted due to diplomatic immunity
This might be relevant to this page:

http://portugalresident.com/twin-sons-of-portugal%E2%80%99s-iraqi-ambassador-arrested-as-15-year-old-fights-for-life-in-coma http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/rapaz-em-estado-grave-apos-agressao-em-ponte-de-sor (in portuguese)

http://www.cmjornal.pt/cm-ao-minuto/detalhe/suspeitos-de-agressao-a-jovem-tem-imunidade-diplomatica (in portuguese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyps (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

extrajudicial action against diplomatic criminals
Are there any recorded cases of a state proceeding extrajudicially against a foreign diplomat that committed some (severely violent) crime, and that could not be legally prosecuted due to the diplomat's home state refusing to revoke his immunity on request from the hosting state? Say, diplomat from state A, while stationed in state B, murders a citizen of state B, totally unrelated to any diplomatic activity. Then, state B, intent on criminally prosecuting this diplomat, requests from state A that his immunity be rescinded. State A refuses. State B then declares the diplomat persona non grata and expels him, which is the most it can do given that the diplomat still retains his immunity from prosecution. However, as the diplomat prepares to leave state B to return home, he never actually makes it back to his home state. He simply 'disappears' somewhere along the way.

Are there any states which appear to have a policy (obviously unofficial) of using their secret services to proceed in such a manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.138.50 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Other Incidents
There has been a rather hasty revert by SRich on grounds of neutral language concerning the case of the death of Vitaly Churkin and the continuity of his diplomatic immunity following his death. Specifically, the supplied RS reference uses the terms to which SRich apparently objects as follows: "The Law Department agreed and issued a gag order" and “As outlined in formal requests from the United States Department of State, Ambassador Churkin's diplomatic immunity survives his death.” In both instances, the terms or ideas used, "gag order" and the notion that his immunity remained posthumously are reflected in the language of the RS referenced article. Therefore, there can be no reasonable basis to find non-neutral use of language in the relevant edit, reverted by SRich. HervéDuchat (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Papal Immunity
I've removed the following snippet from the Ancient times section and moved it here for discussion: "Pope Gelasius I, in office from 492 to 496, was the first pope recorded as enjoying diplomatic immunity, as is noted in his letter Duo sunt to emperor Anastasius."

I'm no expert, and the language of the cited supporting source is a bit obtuse, but I don't read that supporting source as supporting the assertion. Also, I other sources (e.g.,, ) seem to disagree.

As I said, I'm no expert. Please reinsert this removed snippet, with or without changes, or not, as appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Solicitation...
I've edited the "Uses and abuses" section, as the UAE diplomat was not arrested for rape, but for solicitation. No rape (statutory or otherwise) actually occurred in this case. I've also replaced the Reader's Digest citation (an opinion piece) with a Washington Post citation.

Of course there may well have been some other case where someone with diplomatic immunity actually raped a child and was released because of said immunity. If someone can find such a case then "child rape" can be re-added to the list with the appropriate citation. -2003:CA:8732:40DB:B1F9:120D:7E57:48C1 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Banana district of Tanzania
Uses and abuses > Vehicular offences > Canadian driver in Tanzania: Can someone check whether the name "Banana district" is accurate? A cursory search of the districts of Tanzania indicates no such place; possible vandalism. Carno237 (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Anne Sacoolas section
Noticed a problem with the dates in this paragraph:

"Sacoolas told police she had no immediate plans to leave the country. However, on 13 October US authorities notified the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office of plans to send Sacoolas home, unless serious objections were raised: on 16 October, the UK's Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, went to present objections, a day after the family was sent back."

In fact, according to this link: https://news.sky.com/story/case-of-harry-dunns-alleged-killer-anne-sacoolas-to-be-heard-this-week-at-london-court-12705800 Sacoolas was sent back 19 days after the crash. That would make it in September not October; specifically the new date would be September 15, 2019. So the original source, which no longer exists, was completely wrong. This needs correction because the months should be September not October. Stratfordbaby (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)