Explain the Following Past Paper's Question
 

[B]2006 - Question:[/B] [I]A Pakistani citizen working in the embassy of a foreign country in Islamabad has committed an offence against another Pakistani citizen. The Pakistani police want to arrest such person. However, the ambassador is refusing to handover the accused to the police with the plea that the accused has a diplomatic immunity. Do you agree with the pleas of the ambassador? Why or why not?[/I]

Kindly elaborate the above statement and provide answer in the light of Int'l Law.:waiting

Servants of diplomatic agents also enjoy some immunities But they are not so vast and elaborate. The servants include officials of the embassy, the personal servants and the messengers. The immunities are enjoyed by those who have some connection with the office of embassy.

The principle of such immunity is reciprocity i.e. the state whose embassy is under observation should also provide such immunities.

Reference: Page 482, Chapter 25, International Law by Tandon & Kapoor

Thanks. After reading your answer, I've come got the point that the accused person will not be handed over to the police on the grounds of the immunity that the embassy servants enjoy. So, we have to write in defence of the above statement of the Q.
Am I right?

Yes, you are on the right track. We have to agree with the pleas of the ambassador.

but according to agarwal book the immunity is not valid in the case if the person holds the nationality of the receiving country. as in this case the employee is pakistani national, pakistan can ask the embassy to hand over the accused to the officials.is not it so?

@ silver heart
You are also correct. I second you. Only a Law graduate or the Senior can guide us to the exact point. I'm also reading H.O. Agarwal. It means that the issue is to be resolved yet.
Another thing that I want to add that India has its own laws regarding the immunity of servants etc. Detail is mentioned in Agarwal's book. But,I want to know the Pakistan's point of view/rules related to the immunity in such matters.

you are right. but i guess this particular clause related to nationality is generally accepted internationally because agarwall did not mentioned it in indian context specifically. hay na??