Diplomatic immunity in case of sexual harassment Whether diplomatic immunity is considered as a privilege or a right, I am not sure but is there any law by which we can prosecute an individual with diplomatic immunity especially in cases involving sexual harassment. Since the laws defining the nature of harassment are different in east, west and middle east nations, how are these cases resolved assuming that both the states where the case has occurred and that to which the diplomat belongs are not permanent members of Security Council of UN nor any of them have nuclear capability. They also do not share any part of their respective state boundaries.
Diplomatic immunity is a privilege granted by the host or receiving country to an ambassador of another nation recognized diplomatic agents and their families. It exists under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, so there is a set of rules everyone has to play by. The idea is so that host countries do not legally harass people who are representing their country within that nation. Typically Diplomatic immunity comes up most often in traffic enforcement, as cars with Diplomatic plates tend to violate traffic and parking laws regularly. That said, the police of the host nation are allowed to ticket the offender. However, there's little they can do to enforce the fines against the ambassador after the ticket is written. That said, most police will still write them as some nation's foreign services offices do actually make the diplomats pay the tickets (in fact, an unofficial barometer of corruption in a nation's government is how likely diplomats are to pay their tickets.). That said, committing a serious crime while under diplomatic immunity is a major international incident. The receiving country will perceive the crime as an endorsement of the sending nation. The most immediate remedy is the sending nation waives Diplomatic immunity, at which point the receiving nation can prosecute. There are times where this doesn't happen (often the sending nation and recieving nation punish the crime differently) at which point one of three things will happen. Either the sending nation will recall the diplomat (effectively removing them from their job) and punish them based on their own laws, if any exist. If that is not done, the receiving nation can declare the diplomat as Persona non Grata (lit. Unwelcomed Person) which is effectively a person specific ban on entry into the country (the sending nation can send whoever they want to be a diplomat... but that specific person cannot enter the receiving country.). As such, the diplomat who is named PNG is given some amount of time to leave the receiving country or have their diplomatic immunity revoked. It's the international equivalent of &quot;You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.&quot; If neither of those work, than the receiving nation can cut off diplomatic ties, and in some cases has a good cause for war over the matter (A diplomat who Murders the citizen of a host nation and isn't recalled or has their immunity waived has just committed an assassination's sanctioned by the sending nation, which is a justification for war.).
If the FBI has reason to believe they have committed a crime under US law Being an official of a foreign (or domestic) government in a military or civilian capacity does not make a person immune from US law except in the specific case of diplomatic immunity. There are some US laws that apply even if the perpetrator is not and has never been in the US, for example, computer hacking and fraud. So, if the FBI has probable cause they can ask for and get an arrest warrant. If the US were at war with this person’s country then, barring war crimes or crimes against humanity, military action against the US is not a crime. Naturally, exactly the same circumstances apply to US citizens vis-a-vis foreign laws.
Maritime law applies in space which means jurisdiction lies with the country of registration of the vessel. So, if the crime occurs in transit then Russia has jurisdiction since, at present, all transportation is provided by Russian Soyuz capsules. The ISS itself is governed by a number of international treaties, MOU and bi-lateral agreements. In essence: The basic rule is that 'each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals' (Article 5 of the Intergovernmental Agreement).
It is probably illegal under Indonesian law for you to launch a cyber-attack on a website that you believe violates Indonesian law, just as it is illegal for you to shoot a person for fraud. The Indonesian government reserves the right to judge guilt or innocence, and to mete out punishment, within Indonesia. It is definitely illegal under US law, also UK law and so on, to launch a cyber-attack on a website for some reason, so you can be prosecuted under the laws of that nation. You should then be concerned with the Law on Extradition (1979), noting that there might be a treaty but also Indonesian law allows extradition on the basis of the interest of Indonesia (as judged by government officials). Indonesian nationals do not enjoy immunity from extradition (as is the case in some countries). There is no extradition treaty between Indonesia and the US; there was one between the UK and Indonesia but I cannot determine whether it is still in force.
In the US, there are no (and can be no) laws against hate speech. You also cannot sue a person for using an ethnic or similar epithet. A false accusation, however, might be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. Word connotations do not matter, what matters is the denotation, for example calling someone a "rapist" denotes a specific criminal act. Even calling someone a rapist isn't necessarily defamatory, since hyperbole abounds especially on the internet, so in order to actually be defamation, the statement would have to be understood as a particular accusation (a form of unlawful sexual assault). A defamatory statement has to be made with reckless disregard for the truth of a statement, which is not the case in the situation you describe (perhaps the person correctly said that so-and-so is a therapist, but was ineffective in their use of English).
Generally, irrespective of charge, there is no 'shield laws' in the UK legal system. Any such provisions are a matter of discretion for the judge on the same grounds as the admissibility of evidence. Though the following case relates to a murder case rather than rape, it does provide justification for the lack of 'shield laws'. In R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36; [2008] 1 A.C. 1128 (henceforth Davies), as described in para 3, per Lord Bingham, the witnesses were subject to extensive protective measures, as 'they claimed to be in fear forth their lives if it became known that they had given evidence against the defendant'. [Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law (2011 Penguin) 99]. The case addresses issues at the time of the original hearing. However, more recently, there have been statutory provisions for anonymity of witnesses, specifically section 86 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This enables witness anonymity orders to be made, however there are specific requirements that can be found in subsequent provisions of the Act, but there is no common or absolute protection of victims or witnesses. A closing note regarding the 'victim' in the rape case, it should be noted that in the UK legal system, as criminal cases are brought by the CPS on behalf of the Monarch, not the victim and as such the victim is, for all intents and purposes, a witness.
I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this law; rather, I think this question shows a misconception of the way the legal system works in general. Here's the question: do you actually have "legally privileged" material on your phone? If not, what's keeping you from claiming that is that it's not true, and lying to a police officer is a bad idea. And just putting a letter from your lawyer on the phone doesn't mean you've established a legal privilege--attorney-client privilege is not a magic spell, it's a reasonable system of protection that only covers certain communications. The bottom line is: the statute in general, and that clause in particular, were included in the law to protect real, important, and substantial legal right. The courts interpret the law in light of that purpose. If the police officer finds a solution that protects your rights while still carrying out the purpose of the statute, the court will be unlikely to fault him or her. In this case, if you tell the officer that there is a letter from your attorney in a particular folder, the obvious solution is for the officer not to open that folder. Problem solved. In practice, in the United States at least, these cases are dealt with routinely; computers are seized, and attorneys and judges work together to ensure that privilege is protected while still allowing reasonable access to seized materials. I would imagine the same is true in the U.K. The bottom line is: the law is not a game, and technical "gotchas" are rarely effective. Common law systems allow judges enough leeway to avoid this sort of pointless technicality.
Yes, they can be sued civilly Or, for that matter, be prosecuted by another jurisdiction- pardons only work within the jurisdiction that issued them. In a common law jurisdiction, the pardon cannot be used as evidence Nor, for that matter, can a criminal conviction. This is partly because the elements that need to be proved for the civil wrong won’t correspond to the elements of the crime. But mostly, because it just isn’t allowed.