India orders Italy ambassador Mancini not to leave

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

India's Supreme Court has ordered the Italian ambassador not to leave the country after Rome's refusal to return two marines charged with the murder of two fishermen in Kerala last year.

The court had allowed the marines to go home to vote in last month's elections.

Ambassador Daniele Mancini had personally assured the court the marines would return by 22 March.

On Wednesday, PM Manmohan Singh warned that "there will be consequences" unless Italy returned the marines.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-21781993

[melm00se]

1. messing with an accreditted ambassador's diplomatic immunity

regardless for what cause is a slippery slope.

[jsr]

2. Diplomats may not be detained

International law 101

[cosmicone]

3. She is not jailed or in custody.

She promised the return of the marines. India was gracious enough to let them go with the promise that they will return. Italy (like most first world countries do), thumbed its nose at India and refused to return the marines.

What is India supposed to do? Grab a couple of Italian tourists from the streets and hold them till Italy returns the marines?

Not allowing an ambassador to leave is standard procedure in extreme circumstances when an embassy doesn't fulfill a promise.

[melm00se]

5. Article 29 of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says, in part,

that "Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention."

Source

When a government says "you can't leave" that would certainly fall under the heading of "any form of arrest or detention".

[cosmicone]

9. Here is the legal justification

http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-sc-can-try-italy-envoy-for-contempt-despite-immunity-660715.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. The article is nonsense

Indian law does not conform with international law here and is scarcely international SOP. The ambassador should be declared PNG and an international warrant issued for the fugitives. That is SOP.

Still waiting for you to backup you claim.

[OrwellwasRight]

16. US law does not conform to international law in many instances.

No country has to conform their law to international law if they do not want to.

They always have the option to, say, detain "non-combatants" in offshore prisons, fund secret wars, assassinate some foreign heads of state and depose others, or join international conventions and then blatantly violate them.

[cosmicone]

18. It is plain and simple.

Italy has to cough up the marines and send them to India or big goodbye to Mr. Mancini who guaranteed their return.

The colonial days when Europeans could get away with murder in the third world are over. Period.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. No it is not standard procedure...

Its a very provocative act and one which could backfire. It is hostage taking and I would like to see some citations as to why you think it is SOP.

[cosmicone]

8. Are you on the side of the murderer marines? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Not at all. Now answer the question...why do you think its SOP

India can and most likely will declare the ambassador PNG for not living up to what was promised. Under the circumstances, Italy should not retaliate. Italy should also return the pair for trial after a proper extradition notice is received. Diplomatic hostage taking, as the article claimed, is unacceptable.

[cosmicone]

11. See post No. 9 n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

12. Not sure if that's SOP, but I do approve of their actions

this Ambassador personally vouched for the return of the killers--their apparent cowardice breaks that agreement, which in any decently run universe should expose the ambassador to whatever charges they might be held under. I wouldn't necessarily hope that the ambassador may actually be charged (a spikey subject if there ever was one), but it should provide sufficient motivation for Italy to properly carry out its end of the agreement. The NATO regimes carry about their business in the rest of the world with arrogance and contempt, examples must be made to indicate that this tendency is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

[cosmicone]

13. I'm with you on that assessment. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

19. I have NO idea whatsoever

1. Why India allowed the killers to go home and "vote" in the first place...

2. Why India would believe the ambassador for even 10 seconds when 95% of the Italian public believes these men are heroes who did nothing wrong and are being scapegoated in a kangaroo court...

So now they'll get tried in Italy and get the proverbial light slap on the wrist while being absolved of any wrongdoing....

[grantcart]

17. Diplomats may not get involved in individual criminal cases in a host country.

It is absolutely against all of the rules for an ambassador to vouch for the appearance of nationals in court. An embassy has a very limited role in securing legal council and that is it, Diplomacy 201.

In the end the Ambassador will be able to leave but if Italy doesn't produce those two for trial they will pay a very heavy diplomatic price for it including a lack of cooperation in extraditions back to Italy.

Can you imagine what the Italians would have done if the US ambassador guaranteed Knox would come back and then said they wouldn't return her to face Italian justice?

[marble falls]

4. Who does Italy think it is, the United States?

[geek tragedy]

6. Both sides covering themselves in shame here.

Violating a diplomatic assurance on one side and hostage taking on the other.

[Posteritatis]

14. Not an order they have any legal right to make. (nt)

[dipsydoodle]

20. India-Italy marines row: 'No legal immunity' for envoy Daniele Mancini

ndia's Supreme Court has said Italy's envoy does not have legal immunity, in an escalating row over Rome's refusal to return two marines charged with murdering two Indian fishermen.

India's Chief Justice Altamas Kabir said the court had "lost trust" in Italy's ambassador Daniele Mancini.

The court reiterated last week's order for him not to leave the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21826651