he will be free
Article 31(4) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic RelationsA31.4 states: "The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State."... ...
Thus if what Ionescu did, if under Romanian law is considered a crime, den he should be penalized under the Romanian Justice system for that crime, dat is why I've been saying tt SG must cooperate with Romanian efforts to persecute ionescu and not practice brinkmanship, nit-pick VCDR and try to "do it ourselves". That just cannot be.
Interpol notice gives Romania no choice but to 'protect' Ionescu because by the VCDR 'contract', Ionescu is first and foremost their diplomat and by A31.1: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ..."
The management of the Ionescu offense is based upon the VCDR which bestows upon Romania the responsibility of persecution, so long as Ionescu committed the crimes whilst under 'diplomatic status'; thus Singapore's utilization of utilization of Article 39.2 is premature to say the least, and this has caused unnecessary offense at this early point of time in the mutual effort of resolving the Ionescu problem.
This is because whilst A39.2 might seem applicable, it remains subservient to A31.1. Both are appended for convenience as follows:
- Article31.1 states: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ..."
- Article 39.2: "When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country..."
I believe it to be the case that A31.1 takes precedence over A39.2. I.e. A39.2 being only as a recourse to the failure of A31.4, itself being recourse to A31.1. The simple reason, one must appreciate the spirit of the VCDR in essence contained within the 'preamble' (first paragraph) and for the simple reason that A31.1 precedes A31.4 and then A39.2- sequentially.
Common sense dictates that one reads any document front to back and not vice versa.
So really, the premature use of A39.2 is an insult to the intelligence of the Romanian govt, insinuating their incompetence, its application clearly implying Singapore's distrust in the Romanian effort at upholding Justice- that Romania would not persecute Ionescu despite Romania's clear statements thus far that they DO wish to pursue the Ionescu case. So Romania will of course vehemently defend itself against Singapore's brinkmanship maneuvers and, for better or worse, show that they too CAN and will handle case- so Interpol notice has since been suspended- more time wasted, not to mention Singapore being 'pwned' in this process.
Worse still is SG still trying desperately trying to 'prove its point' with insulting and stupid 'trick' qns to Romanian ambassador, like [see ref: CNA29April2010] "... He was asked three times by Singapore if he or the Romanian government would consider attending the birthday party of a hostess in a karaoke lounge as being part of official diplomatic functions."
I say, they should just mutually cooperate and bring Ionescu to justice in a quick, fast, efficient and transparent manner, but to invoke A39.2 now is to put the 'cart before the horse' an unwise action that is ought to rouse suspicion and refute, delaying the entire judicial process not to mention derailing the entire resolution process into no more then a mutual circus act, much to gee of Ionescu but the detriment of Sovereign reputations with Ionescu possibly getting away scot free in this instance.
Right now all I see is just obviously egoistical political posturing, Singapore being the aggressor, with both sides now just wasting time and resource on ceremonies like 'summons' and plane rides when in this day and age of hand phones, emails and video conferencing, diplomats and the MFAs should have been working together efficiently, quietly achieving much progress behind the scenes.
The only benefactor thus far seems to be Ionescu, his evil ideals and SPH et al which profits from the selling of newspapers reporting scandalous news.
About Ionescu's blabbering mouth,
SG papers should just STOP interviewing him ASAP, Romanian govt has already 'dissociated' itself from Ionescu's comments after clarification and Singapore newspapers should be supportive of Singapore's diplomatic efforts in this respect.
Indeed Singapore might be well placed to advise Romania given its expertise I'm sure- on the 'Laws on sedition', which Romania might have overlooked, that it would be in Romania's (not to forget mutual) benefit that Romania silence that weasel diplomat of theirs that so long as he holds 'diplomatic position', then he ought to behave the part and obey Romanian MFA instructions not to make any further unofficial comments/ press interviews related to the accident, his work as a diplomat or any other matter that might impede SG-Romanian discussions and relations. Should Ionescu fail to comply, Romania can then consider its anti-sedition laws to further prosecute Ionescu for his blatant dereliction of his commitment to uphold mutual good relations between the sovereigns as a serving Romanian Diplomat, via contravening of instruction not to rouse animosities between Romania and its relations through unsanctioned interviews with newspapers, notwithstanding the fact that Ionescu would have been offered ample opportunity to state his case/ defend himself in both the SG Coroners court as well as the Romanian criminal courts respectively- the authorized forums on occasion.
Worse come worse, Romania can prosecute Ionescu under "internal security act", and hold him without trial 'indefinitely' for blatantly subverting the interest of his Country and Government.
Only with proof of blatant Romanian Govt subversion of Justice can Singapore invoke Article 39.2 and as such, only with proof that 1) Ionescu is no longer a diplomat by either Romanian MFA assent, or 2) Singapore has informed Romania that Ionescu is a ' persona non grata' (in accordance with Article 9.1) and that the outcome of negotiations between Romania and SG have met abject and total failure, should Interpol reconsider publishing Singapore's notice of arrest for Ionescu.
In this regard, with the close cooperation between Singapore and Romania, as is the expected outcome of our mutually close relations after almost 43years of diplomacy, Ionescu would indeed be brought to Justice.
With our commitment, shall the VCDR be invoked 'to the t'; may we not fail in our relations as we await Romania's honorable response.
May God help us both.
Just my 2c, thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Quotes and References:
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- INTERPOL Notices & Diffusions
- [13Jan2010] Quiet diplomacy not a sign of weakness
- [MyPaper 23Feb2010] Let Romania deal with diplomat
- "România and Singapore established on 30 May 1967, diplomatic relations between the embassies... ."(8April2010: Bucharestherald.ro) International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu
- ST,Apr 27, 2010: "Yesterday, Ionescu told The Straits Times he had gone to a Romanian court last Friday to seek ..."- ''Immunity' for Ionescu to be clarified'
- CNA29April2010: "(Romanian Ambassador Neagu)... was asked three times by Singapore if he or the Romanian government would consider attending the birthday party of a hostess in a karaoke lounge as being part of official diplomatic functions."- 'Romanian ambassador says full legal action will be taken against Ionescu if needed'