Iftikhar A. Khan for Dawn
The Foreign Office’s decision to summon Norwegian Ambassador Per Albert Ilsaas over his “unwanted presence” at a Supreme Court hearing involving rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, has sparked debate over the boundaries of diplomatic engagement in sensitive cases and the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
While the Foreign Office has described the envoy’s presence as interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs and a breach of diplomatic protocol and Article 41 of the Vienna Convention, several diplomats and former envoys argue that observing open court proceedings does not, in itself, amount to meddling.
Former ambassador to India Abdul Basit, when asked whether the move could be construed as interference, said that “in the strict sense of the word”, it could not. He added that there was no provision in the Vienna Convention that bound diplomats to stay away from public court proceedings.
However, he noted that diplomatic practice “would strongly suggest that diplomats in their host countries usually keep themselves away from internal politics”. But this doesn’t mean “they cannot interact with opposition politicians, which they do all the time, including our diplomats around the world”, Mr Basit added.
A senior European diplomat also insisted that mere observation of open court proceedings could not be labelled as interference.
Citing Article 3(d) of the Vienna Convention — which outlines the functions of a diplomatic mission and includes “ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State” — the diplomat said it was not a breach of protocol for an envoy to attend open proceedings in a host country.
Diplomatic immunity protected envoys from the jurisdiction of host-country courts but did not prevent them from observing public proceedings out of professional interest, the diplomat added.
The Vienna Convention also emphasises freedom of movement (Article 26) and does not explicitly prohibit attendance at public events, including court hearings, as long as diplomats do not interfere with proceedings or undertake actions that could be seen as official intervention in domestic affairs.
The diplomat said the Norwegian ambassador attended as a silent observer, sought no meeting with any judge and made no public comment about the case, which could not be viewed as an attempt to influence the judiciary or interfere with the judicial process.
“When foreign observers monitor elections in Pakistan, do they interfere in the electoral process?” he asked, arguing that independent observation strengthened transparency. “Observers should be welcomed if there is nothing to hide and the trials are fair,” he said.
UN expert raises concerns of Imran Khan’s inhumane conditions of confinement in Pakistan
‘Serious error of judgement’
However, former ambassador to the European Union Naghmana Hashmi took a different view, saying Article 41 was explicit in requiring diplomats not to interfere “in any way” in the internal affairs of the host country.
“If I were to analyse the actions of the Norwegian ambassador, I would say that it certainly falls under a violation of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention. He should not have gone there. I think it is a very, very serious error of judgement,” she said.
Ms Hashmi acknowledged that the envoy did not make public statements or speak to the media, but she argued that the diplomat’s presence created an impression that he had been asked to attend by individuals facing accusations in a sensitive case.
She pointed out that no other ambassador was seen attending the hearing, adding that the envoy was also seen on television shaking hands and speaking with the accused within the Supreme Court premises.
“The Norwegian government may not be expressly saying that, but the perception certainly is that Norway is supporting the accused, which in any case is totally unacceptable,” she said. Ms Hashmi maintained that ambassadors generally do not sit in court proceedings in other countries, particularly in cases linked to internal affairs and national security. Diplomatic conduct, she said, was governed by international law and established norms that must be respected.
‘Fair trial is a human right’
A European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the right to a fair trial was a human right and alleged violations could not be termed an internal matter.
The diplomat cautioned against setting new precedents by summoning an ambassador for observing proceedings in open court, and questioned whether the move was intended as a signal to the rest of the diplomatic community in Pakistan.
Former ambassador Muhammad Ayaz Wazir said attending court proceedings was not interference in itself, but added that any public comment on a pending case would be inconsistent with an envoy’s role.
“He is not only an individual but a representative of a government. His words would therefore be attributed to the authority he represents,” he said, adding that much depended on how the host government viewed a particular case. “It is my personal view, as I am not privy to the government’s current policies on various issues,” he said.
Another former ambassador said there was “no issue” with a foreign diplomat attending court or parliamentary proceedings, calling it part of normal diplomatic reporting and observation. He described the summoning as “intimidatory tactics” to discourage outside interest in the human rights situation in the country.
The Vienna Convention and diplomatic conduct
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) is a cornerstone treaty of international law governing diplomatic relations between sovereign states.
It sets out the privileges, immunities and obligations of diplomatic missions, and is intended to ensure diplomats can perform their duties without intimidation or undue hindrance from the host state.
The convention was adopted on April 18, 1961, and entered into force on April 24, 1964. It has achieved near-universal acceptance, with almost 200 states party to it. By codifying long-standing customs and practices, it provides a detailed framework for diplomatic engagement and has been central to maintaining channels of communication even amid serious disagreements between states.
While the purpose of diplomacy is to preserve communication and manage differences, actions perceived as offending the host country can cause tension and lead to a formal protest, including summoning an ambassador to the foreign ministry to convey concern. In rare cases, disputes escalate to the downgrading or suspension of diplomatic representation.
Some of the key provisions of the convention include:
Article 9: The host country can declare a diplomat “persona non grata” and expel them, no reason needed, typically used in serious breaches.
The declaration of persona non grata is a mechanism frequently employed in diplomatic disputes. Specific instances where ambassadors or other diplomatic agents have been declared persona non grata are often the result of bilateral tensions or breaches of the conduct expected under the convention.
High-profile cases often make it to public knowledge, typically in the context of espionage, interference in domestic affairs or other diplomatic indiscretions.
Article 22: Diplomatic missions are inviolable. The host country can’t enter without permission.
Article 26: Diplomats have freedom of movement and travel in the host country, with some security exceptions.
Article 27: Diplomatic missions can communicate freely with their government, using diplomatic bags that aren’t to be opened or detained.
Article 29: Diplomats can’t be arrested or detained. Their private residences are also protected.
Article 30: Diplomatic archives and documents are inviolable, wherever they are.
Article 31: Diplomats have immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the host country. Civil immunity applies except in specific cases (e.g. private property disputes).
Article 41: Diplomats must respect the laws of the host country and not interfere in its internal affairs.
These provisions aim to ensure diplomats can perform their duties without fear or hindrance, promoting smooth international relations.
Iftikhar A. Khan is an Islamabad-based reporter for Dawn with over three decades of experience in journalism. He covers the parliament, the Election Commission of Pakistan, and the Interior Ministry.
