CYIL 2012

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON IMMUNITIES ACCORDED TO HIGHǧRANKING STATE OFFICIALS constitutes an official act of a state so criminal activity carried out in a private capacity still remains subject to prosecution. 20 Personal immunity (or ratione personae) is granted by international customary law or treaty rules to certain classes of individuals (for example heads of state, prime ministers, ministers for foreign affairs or diplomatic agents) on account of their functions. These immunities are intended to protect both their private and public life, or, in other words, to provide them immunity while in office and until the cessation of the agent’s official duties. 21 The purposes of these immunities are to enable officials to discharge their functions abroad free from any impairment or interference by a receiving state. 22 Few people are granted personal immunity and these immunities are temporary in that they last only for as long as the person is representing the foreign sate (serving a representative role on behalf of his/her state). 23 Moreover, as was for example withheld in the Arrest Warrant case , personal immunities are recognized even if the state official is on a private visit in a foreign state. 24 The above distinction between those two classes of immunities is necessary, because these immunities coexist and somewhat overlap as long as the state agent is in office. However one should bear in mind that the purpose for both of these classes of immunities is not to benefit the individual, but to protect official conduct and to facilitate cooperation at the international level. 25 2. IMMUNITY OF HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS FROM PROSECUTION 2.1 Immunity and International Crimes The question of immunities in case of international crimes, which are defined as breaches of international rules imposing personal criminal liability on the individuals concerned, is a very important aspect of the international law on immunities and, furthermore, it brings into discussion a relatively new factor on immunities. States have in recent decades tried harder to deal with and prosecute international criminals, which has brought into discussion many unknown and unresolved questions as to the boundaries between the principles of accountability and immunity, and also as to the principle of universal jurisdiction. 26 It has been assumed by scholars that no immunity of any kind may be raised in response to allegations of heinous crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are considered to be the core international crimes. 27 These international crimes rise to the level of jus cogens meaning that the prohibition against such crimes is binding upon all members of the 20 Robert Cryer, a.o.: An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, p. 533. 21 Antonio Cassese: International Criminal Law , p. 302-303. 22 Antonio Cassese: International Criminal Law , p. 302. 23 Robert Cryer, a.o.: An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, p. 533. 24 Arrest Warrant case , para. 55. 25 Robert Cryer, a.o.: An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, p. 534. 26 Antonio Cassese: International Criminal Law, p. 11. 27 Andrea Bianchi: “Immunity versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case”, p. 237.

177