If the diplomat is travelling for personal reasons, third States are not required to provide the privileges and immunities. Thus, the Vienna Convention does not prevent Swiss authorities from inspecting the personal baggage of a diplomatic agent in transit, even if he is returning to his post or his home country.Īlthough Article 40 supports the Swiss action even if the diplomatic agent is returning to his post or home country, cases from several countries clearly support the Swiss inspection and seizure of the ivory if the Turkish Ambassador was travelling on personal business. Thus, a third State is not required to exempt a diplomatic agent from customs and baggage searches under Article 40, but may do so as a courtesy.
#Diplomatic immunity laws can u arrest full
Further, Article 40.3 requires third States to grant the full range of privileges and immunities to official correspondence and communications and diplomatic bags while in transit.” Significantly, Article 40.3 is silent in relation to the personal baggage of diplomatic agents in transit. First, Article 40.1 requires the transit state to accord “him” inviolability, not his baggage.
This article is limited to the diplomatic agent’s personal inviolability. “If a diplomatic agent passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted a diplomatic agent a visa, if such visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or to return to his post, or when returning to his own country, the third State shall accord him inviolability and such other immunities as my be required to ensure his transit or return” (emphasis added). This is true regardless of whether the transit is for official or personal business. The immunity granted to diplomatic agents while in transit is far more limited than the immunity they are afforded in the receiving State. Thus, the Turkish government cannot claim that the Swiss authorities improperly inspected and seized a “diplomatic bag,” under the terms of the Vienna Convention. Further, because the ivory most likely was not an article intended for official use, the contents of the baggage also fail to meet the requirements for a legitimate diplomatic bag. In your message, you said that the “suitcase was not marked as diplomatic baggage.” Because the baggage was not properly marked as a diplomatic bag, the baggage cannot be considered a diplomatic bag. However, Article 27.3 of the Vienna Convention states that the “packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.” To constitute a diplomatic bag, the bag must be visibly marked as a diplomatic bag and contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use. CITES Decision 10.34 supports that conclusion.Īrticle 27.3 of the Vienna Convention, which entered into force on April 24, 1964, states that “the diplomatic bag” shall not be opened or detained. This opinion focuses on the Vienna Convention, rather than CITES Decision 10.34, because the Vienna Convention itself permits the inspection of the personal baggage of a diplomatic agent and the subsequent seizure of goods illegally exported. Under the rules of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention), the inspection of the baggage of the Turkish Ambassador and the subsequent seizure of the ivory by Swiss authorities, was legal. This letter responds to your request for a legal opinion concerning the seizure of baggage carried by the Turkish Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Re: Legal Opinion Concerning the Swiss Inspection of Baggage and Seizure of Ivory of the Turkish Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo