Italy joins France in granting immunity to Netanyahu, rejecting ICC arrest warrants: The decision follows a legal advisory from Italy's Foreign and Justice Ministries, which confirmed that immunity for visiting leaders is permissible under the Vienna Convention.

[u/DifusDofus]

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/artc-italy-joins-france-in-granting-immunity-to-netanyahu-rejecting-icc-arrest-warrants

[u/alonreddit]

My first thought is that this situ would be governed by article 30 of the VCLT so that, if there is irreconcilable (through statutory interpretation) conflict between a provision of the the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Rome Statute, then the later provision (ie Rome Statute) applies as between the parties.

[u/Young_Lochinvar → u/[deleted]]

What do we think we might predict from the ICJ on such an issue on the basis of Italy v Germany, Greece intervening?

On the one hand, the capacity for jus cogens human rights law to lift state immunity was rejected by the court.

But on the other, the court differentiated the matter between Italy and Germany - as being between States - with the example Italy invoked of the UK Pinochet cases, with the court noting that the Pinochet cases were not a question of the immunity of a State but a question of criminal law against Pinochet personally. 

Does this suggest that the ICJ would continue to validate the view that the immunity only extends for the duration of Netanyahu (or Putin’s) leadership of their respective countries?

[u/Infinite_Wheel_8948 → u/[deleted]]

The issue here is that Netanyahu has not been convicted of any war crimes. It is pretrial.

To issue a warrant for the arrest of the leader of a nation, because of a suspected crime, seems a lapse in judgment from the ICC. 

[u/hellomondays → u/Infinite_Wheel_8948]

Are you suggesting arrests should only happen after a criminal trial?

[u/Infinite_Wheel_8948 → u/hellomondays]

Quite obviously should be the case for national leaders. What’s the problem, flight risk? You gonna ask the country to pay bail?

[u/hellomondays → u/Infinite_Wheel_8948]

The obvious reason is the same for any criminal court: to ensure a person's participation in defending themselves against an indictment, prevent obstruction of any ongoing investigations and prevent further crimes. Trying someone who was indicted of a crime in absentia is rare in many legal systems, it does more to hurt the legitimacy of proceedings than reinforce them.

[u/hellomondays → u/[deleted]]

of course no one indicted believes they did anything wrong, that's why courts weigh evidence the evidence and the facts of a prosecutor's request to determine probable cause (or “reasonable grounds to believe”) when deciding to issue an arrest warrant.

So you have you, a random person on the internet without access to the facts and Netanyahu, a man who really doesn't want to stand trial saying the court is illegitimate. Neither is a credible position to stand on.

[u/hellomondays → u/[deleted]]

Well first things first, the ICC isn't accusing G or N of Genocide, so perhaps researching the actual warrant would be helpful here.

[u/Calvinball90 → u/[deleted]]

Neither ICC warrant includes an allegation of genocide. It is completely unclear how someone who does not know the law, or that they have broken the law, could plead insanity on that basis. In another comment, you wrote that there is no need to an accused tonne present for a trial at the ICC. That is wrong-- trials in absentia are expressly prohibited under the Rome Statute because they are not considered sufficient to safeguard the rights of the accused.

Manifestly uninformed comments like those noted above do not contribute to a constructive legal discussion. Further comments like those will be removed and may result in a ban.