Diplomatic Immunity and Immunity for Soldiers

Judges are human and they can err. Many an innocent has suffered due to mistake in dispensation of justice. I fail to understand how he came to the conclusion that the Marines were mercenaries employed by the shipping company for remuneration? There is no doubt that they are military personnel (or if you want navy) of Italian government. How they came to be on the ship. They were sent there. The question is whether they were on private capacity or sent by government. Had they been in private capacity they would have been termed as Private Armed Security Guard. In that case they will not have any immunity and they will work under the captain of the ship. If they were posted as Vessel Protection Detachment then they are sent by the government and will be directly under the control of government and the captain will not have any authority on them. In this case the marines were not under the captain and it shows clearly they were deployed as VPD and they were protecting the assets of Italy. Then they should have immunity from any action of another country. These things were not seen by the learned judge. The pity is neither SC went to this issue.Guilfoyle, Bellish and others have told that the marines have immunity.

Mr.Padmakumar, the marines are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. The question of immunity was told in the two blogs to which you only gave me guidance. I do not know why Mr.Salve did not raise objection to the question of immunity. I read the blogs DJILP,EJIL and Communis hostis.. It was one of the it was given the immunity case in this case of marines. There it was told that it is long process of argument but finally it will won. Why Harish Salve did not contest it? In all probability he must have been very confident that the case can be won even without resorting to that. That was I understood from the interview of him in 'Devils Advocate' programme. When the boat owner Freddy is put on witness stand, and he is sure to be put as prosecution witness as he was the one who was very much there when it happened, defence can make him tell the truth that the boat was sailing towards the ship without heeding to the warning shot. He told it in private. My interest in this case is purely academic. I am no lawyer but went to the concerned portions of the law and came to my conclusions. I am ready to argue on the aspect of the law and learn. I liked to read those blogs by them who are masters in International law. I read two more blogs one by Anup Surendranth and another by Harish Sankar. They all give excellent analysis of the case. That is why I new that SC erred in its view of diplomatic immunity. The ambassador cannot be restrained whether SC or HM orders. He has immunity.I don't think that courts are always correct. They make mistakes.