Raymond Davis Case: Arraignment for twin murder tomorrow

[nirreich]

Then you just proved your ignorance on the matter. The Judiciary caused the downfall of the CoAS, and the federal government alike. It will assert its independence and make the call by the book.

The judiciary fought against Musharraf only after it was clear that he does not enjoy any more the support of his Generals and he was looking for a new arrangement before resigning his post as COAS. The same applies for the government.

We know who call the shot in Pakistan - the ISI/intelligence services, always did. If ISI wants Davis to be released, would he not? You questioned that? Did you not just prove your ignorance on the matter?

 

[nirreich]

How soon? We have been hearing this "very soon" for more than a month. Kindly spread some of your pearls of wisdom Bharti.

As I said, Davis is not so important as Pakistani fixation on the case, because he is an American.

 

[Rafael]

As I said, Davis is not so important as Pakistani fixation on the case, because he is an American.

Yes He is there because he is an American and Pakistanis are real bad guys here who have detained an innocent little cookie who didn't had his diplomatic card, had illegal ammunition, had fake number plates on his ride, shot two guys in the back, had sensitive info on Pakistan's security and whom the American media also know as a CIA assasin. May you rot in hell you barbaric Pakistanis!!

 

[nirreich]

Yes He is there because he is an American and Pakistanis are real bad guys here who have detained an innocent little cookie who didn't had his diplomatic card, had illegal ammunition, had fake number plates on his ride, shot two guys in the back, had sensitive info on Pakistan's security and whom the American media also know as a CIA assasin. May you rot in hell you barbaric Pakistanis!!

That is it? In Pakistan's relative terms and comparing to what others did and were never been punished (or lightly punished), Davis is practically a saint.

Davis shot two armed men, probably out of self defence. Yes he is a CIA agent, so what? and if he was a Chinese agent with fake number plates who shot two armed people? Would you be so troubled about his legal procedure and the technicality of his diplomatic immunity?

 

[Solomon2]

LHC avoids ruling on Davis immunity
By Rana Tanveer
Published: March 15, 2011

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) ruled on Monday that the matter of immunity for US citizen Raymond Davis will be decided by the trial court, and disposed of all petitions challenging his diplomatic status in Pakistan.

When the government replied vaguely on the issue, LHC Chief Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry silenced petitioners’ lawyers — who created pandemonium after hearing unclear replies submitted by the foreign ministry, — by observing that since the Davis trial was in progress, the trial court should be allowed to “adjudicate on this matter”.

Questioning the government counsel if his side had submitted any letter establishing his diplomatic status, the chief justice said that if the foreign ministry did not issue any letter for the diplomatic status of the accused, why should the court insist on submitting such a certificate?

The court has already put the accused’s name on exit control list to stop him from going abroad.

As according to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the federal government is supposed to issue a certificate to prove diplomatic immunity of any foreigner.

On Monday, the federal government did not produce any such certificate.

However, in response to court queries, the ministry of foreign affairs wrote back: “Raymond Davis is a US citizen and he was given a visa on the request of the US government. Davis came to Pakistan on official business visa and the US embassy notified his name to the foreign ministry as Raymond Allen Davis. No efforts are being made by the foreign minister to alter the record (to favour the accused). The US embassy had approached the foreign ministry on January 27 with the request to release Mr Davis and hand over him to US consulate-general, Lahore, as he was holding a diplomatic passport. The foreign ministry is not interfering in…any investigation.”

Interestingly, all replies submitted by the foreign ministry were signed by Khalil Ahmed Bajwa, the deputy chief of protocol, ministry of foreign affairs’ camp office in Lahore. None of the replies contain answers to questions raised by the high court:

The foreign ministry, through Deputy Attorney-General Naveed Inayat Malik, simply reproduced the questions asked by the LHC.

Some analysts are of the view that no one, including the federal government and the judiciary, appears to be ready to take the responsibility for making clear decisions on key issues like diplomatic immunity.

The court was hearing identical petitions filed by Asif Hussain Shah, Ahmad Masood Gujar Advocate, Barrister Muhammad Javed Iqbal Jafree, advocate Rana Ilumddin Ghazi, who had challenged the diplomatic immunity status and opposed handing over Raymond Davis to the US.

However, the court issued a notice to the federal government for March 29 in a petition filed by Muhammad Azhar Siddique, a lawyer, who has challenged the Vienna conventions, terming them to be “against the Constitution of Pakistan”.

However, the petitioner’s counsel Barrister Jaffree submitted that it was important to establish “correct identity of the accused” because if he was not who he said he was, then he could be prosecuted under the law.

Commenting upon the decision, Jafree said that the trial court already had declared that accused Davis had no immunity therefore, the same court could not adjudicate on the same point. He said Davis could file an appeal for his immunity before the Lahore High Court.

Another lawyer, Muhammad Azhar Siddique, contended that the government was obliged to submit a certificate under Section 4 of Privileges Act of 1972 to ascertain whether Davis was a diplomat or not. He alleged that the government was just “wasting the court’s time by filing incomplete replies”.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 15th, 2011

 

[Awesome]

The judiciary fought against Musharraf only after it was clear that he does not enjoy any more the support of his Generals and he was looking for a new arrangement before resigning his post as COAS. The same applies for the government.

We know who call the shot in Pakistan - the ISI/intelligence services, always did. If ISI wants Davis to be released, would he not? You questioned that? Did you not just prove your ignorance on the matter?

Ok if your argument is "you know" then I'll let it be. Not a single knowledgeable commentator on Pakistani affairs believes Pakistani judiciary is subverting the law in favor of army or government.

 

[Leviza]

LHC avoids ruling on Davis immunity
By Rana Tanveer
Published: March 15, 2011

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) ruled on Monday that the matter of immunity for US citizen Raymond Davis will be decided by the trial court, and disposed of all petitions challenging his diplomatic status in Pakistan.

When the government replied vaguely on the issue, LHC Chief Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry silenced petitioners’ lawyers — who created pandemonium after hearing unclear replies submitted by the foreign ministry, — by observing that since the Davis trial was in progress, the trial court should be allowed to “adjudicate on this matter”.

Questioning the government counsel if his side had submitted any letter establishing his diplomatic status, the chief justice said that if the foreign ministry did not issue any letter for the diplomatic status of the accused, why should the court insist on submitting such a certificate?

The court has already put the accused’s name on exit control list to stop him from going abroad.

As according to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the federal government is supposed to issue a certificate to prove diplomatic immunity of any foreigner.

On Monday, the federal government did not produce any such certificate.

However, in response to court queries, the ministry of foreign affairs wrote back: “Raymond Davis is a US citizen and he was given a visa on the request of the US government. Davis came to Pakistan on official business visa and the US embassy notified his name to the foreign ministry as Raymond Allen Davis. No efforts are being made by the foreign minister to alter the record (to favour the accused). The US embassy had approached the foreign ministry on January 27 with the request to release Mr Davis and hand over him to US consulate-general, Lahore, as he was holding a diplomatic passport. The foreign ministry is not interfering in…any investigation.”

Interestingly, all replies submitted by the foreign ministry were signed by Khalil Ahmed Bajwa, the deputy chief of protocol, ministry of foreign affairs’ camp office in Lahore. None of the replies contain answers to questions raised by the high court:

The foreign ministry, through Deputy Attorney-General Naveed Inayat Malik, simply reproduced the questions asked by the LHC.

Some analysts are of the view that no one, including the federal government and the judiciary, appears to be ready to take the responsibility for making clear decisions on key issues like diplomatic immunity.

The court was hearing identical petitions filed by Asif Hussain Shah, Ahmad Masood Gujar Advocate, Barrister Muhammad Javed Iqbal Jafree, advocate Rana Ilumddin Ghazi, who had challenged the diplomatic immunity status and opposed handing over Raymond Davis to the US.

However, the court issued a notice to the federal government for March 29 in a petition filed by Muhammad Azhar Siddique, a lawyer, who has challenged the Vienna conventions, terming them to be “against the Constitution of Pakistan”.

However, the petitioner’s counsel Barrister Jaffree submitted that it was important to establish “correct identity of the accused” because if he was not who he said he was, then he could be prosecuted under the law.

Commenting upon the decision, Jafree said that the trial court already had declared that accused Davis had no immunity therefore, the same court could not adjudicate on the same point. He said Davis could file an appeal for his immunity before the Lahore High Court.

Another lawyer, Muhammad Azhar Siddique, contended that the government was obliged to submit a certificate under Section 4 of Privileges Act of 1972 to ascertain whether Davis was a diplomat or not. He alleged that the government was just “wasting the court’s time by filing incomplete replies”.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 15th, 2011

Why dont you say USA embassy didnt have any sort of documents that this killer was working as admin staff also Pakistani FO said there are no documents given to this killer for as a worker in USA embassy/Consulate he came on business visa....

Now as USA people thinks that they are champs of humanity should focus on court and also they need to work the Pakistani people to stay safe....... otherwise more people will get caught if they thing Pakistan is like afghanistan and they can kill anyone they want.....

 

[Solomon2]

Why dont you say USA embassy didnt have any sort of documents that this killer was working as admin staff also Pakistani FO said there are no documents given to this killer for as a worker in USA embassy/Consulate he came on business visa...

According to treaty it's the US embassy's responsibility to notify the Pakistani F.O. of a diplomat's status, not any court, and no further documentary proof is needed to establish such. That's all the U.S. needs to do. The whole idea of diplomatic immunity isn't to provide a diplomat with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts but immunity from a host country's jurisdiction. Davis can be pursued via a civil or criminal trial in U.S. courts - if the GoP makes the effort to do so.

"Raymond Davis is a US citizen and he was given a visa on the request of the US government" is what the F.O. confesses. The US government would not request that Davis be given a business or personal visa; it had to have been a request for a diplomatic or consular one. Under diplomatic immunity by treaty Davis, as an admin/technical officer, is immune from all Pakistani criminal jurisdiction, despite what the F.O. manual may say. Under the weaker consular immunity Davis can be held in prison under a murder charge - but the U.S. claims Davis has diplomatic immunity, not consular.

The LHC noted that the F.O. refuses to answer its questions. Why, then, aren't the relevant F.O. officials being held in contempt of court?

 

[nirreich]

Ok if your argument is "you know" then I'll let it be. Not a single knowledgeable commentator on Pakistani affairs believes Pakistani judiciary is subverting the law in favor of army or government.

This is not the issue of this thread, but Pakistan's judicial always approved military coups and the suspension of the constitution.

 

[Leviza]

According to treaty it's the US embassy's responsibility to notify the Pakistani F.O. of a diplomat's status, not any court, and no further documentary proof is needed to establish such. That's all the U.S. needs to do. The whole idea of diplomatic immunity isn't to provide a diplomat with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts but immunity from a host country's jurisdiction. Davis can be pursued via a civil or criminal trial in U.S. courts - if the GoP makes the effort to do so.

"Raymond Davis is a US citizen and he was given a visa on the request of the US government" is what the F.O. confesses. The US government would not request that Davis be given a business or personal visa; it had to have been a request for a diplomatic or consular one. Under diplomatic immunity by treaty Davis, as an admin/technical officer, is immune from all Pakistani criminal jurisdiction, despite what the F.O. manual may say. Under the weaker consular immunity Davis can be held in prison under a murder charge - but the U.S. claims Davis has diplomatic immunity, not consular.

The LHC noted that the F.O. refuses to answer its questions. Why, then, aren't the relevant F.O. officials being held in contempt of court?

Please correct your self,

ccording to treaty it's the US embassy's responsibility to notify the Pakistani F.O. of a diplomat's status

US embassy notify the Pakistani FO for Diplomatic status and FO needs to agree with that and issue that person with a Diplomatic cards, only then US can claim immunity. where as in this case he came on business visa and then started working as security staff in US Lahore Consulate (Thats is what US Lahore consulate initially said and killer himself said ) after some days US embassy in ISB took U-turn sand said he is working in ISB embassy.(Maybe when they realize the mistake already committed by him and US Lahore Consulate)

You have just one thing to say that He is a USA citizen.... but the reality is that he was a CIA agent working against Pakistan ...
Gov just want to safe its image in front of people just like USA Gov wants to safe image by not saying he is CIA agent working in Pakistan.....

 

[Leviza]

This is not the issue of this thread, but Pakistan's judicial always approved military coups and the suspension of the constitution.

That was the past and now Pakistani Judicial system after Musharaf is free, even its giving things against current gov.
Where as b4 hitting Pakistani Judicial System beware that USA, Israel and other Judicial System had also given very wrong decisions .......

 

[Hulk]

That is it? In Pakistan's relative terms and comparing to what others did and were never been punished (or lightly punished), Davis is practically a saint.

Davis shot two armed men, probably out of self defence. Yes he is a CIA agent, so what? and if he was a Chinese agent with fake number plates who shot two armed people? Would you be so troubled about his legal procedure and the technicality of his diplomatic immunity?

I agree if he was Chinese agent and killed 10, he would have been drinking wine with Kayani.

 

[Leviza]

I agree if he was Chinese agent and killed 10, he would have been drinking wine with Kayani.

Chinese dont play this sort of dirty games in Pakistan like CIA....

 

[Solomon2]

US embassy notify the Pakistani FO for Diplomatic status and FO needs to agree with that and issue that person with a Diplomatic cards, only then US can claim immunity.

Nothing about that in the 1961 treaty. The sending country (even if the person arrived in the host country on another visa) just notifies the F.O. (Article 39). If the sending country claims immunity it isn't up to the sending country to provide proof of Davis' status, by treaty the burden of proof is upon the F.O. to show they notified the U.S. they objected to it (Articles 9 and 39), in which case Davis retains immunity until departing Pakistan. Any further documentation issues are an internal Pakistani affair and do not affect Davis' status.

 

[nirreich]

Chinese dont play this sort of dirty games in Pakistan like CIA....

So you admit that this commotion is because he is an American.

China does the same in Pakistan, but the public do not really care.