Times of India article on choice for Italy

"Italian Ambassador to India, DanieleMancini, risks becoming the first-ever foreign diplomat to be hauled up for contempt of court". So says a report in the Times of India. And simultaneously India can enter into Guinness Book for being the  first country to haul up an accredited diplomat, an ambassador to the court for the reason that he stood surety to two of his military personnel who were supposed to have murdered two Indian citizens while discharging their duty to protect the ship in which they were sailing. All are hazarding guesses to what will happen tomorrow 18th March 2013 at the Supreme Court. Every Tom, Dick and Harry or rather Amar, Akbar and Anthony is full of expectation that Supreme Court will punish him for breach of promise. All expect Supreme Court to behave like Queen of Hearts in Alice In Wonderland. What Supreme Court has done in this matter  so far is, on the basis of the communication from the Government of India that Italy has informed that it is not going to send back the two marines for whom the ambassador has stood guarantee when they went to Italy to ask  the ambassador not to leave India till Monday. It has not instructed the government to seal all the airports against his departure. It was the Home Ministry's overdrive which sent instructions to airports and immigration authorities to see that the ambassador do not tries to escape. Neither the ambassador has shown any tendency to leave India. On the contrary he has told unless he is declared persona non grata he intends to remain here in India. Government is behaving like the Chaupat Raja of Andher Nagari. The issue is of punishing the marines for the alleged crime. Will it be deemed that they have been punished only if they face trial in person and answer all the question put by the court and finally the court sentence them? Is it very much necessary that they are hanged for the murder or put in prison for many years? Will it not do if they are tried in absentia and if found guilty sentenced? I think there are instances where perpetrators of crime have been punished in absentia. The public and government want to see them actually punished. To be put in jail uniform and breaking stones or whatever they do if punished for hard labour. That is if the judge do not feel that their crime is one of the rarest of rare. Why can't this case be tried in an international court as the argument that whether the shooting happened in Indian waters is not a clearly established fact as it happened in contiguous zone. It is only India's contention. Let an international court decide it. Next time if anything like this happen beyond contiguous zone then also it could be argued that it is within the 200 nm limit of economic zone and the country has right to try any cases of happenings there. India is not aware that there can be a same situation where the roles are reversed. Before that it will be good if the thing is settled in International court so that it will create a precedence.