![\"\"](\"https:\/\/pakistanintheworld.pk\/live\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/69465-e1765705947162.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Iftikhar A. Khan for Dawn\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The Foreign Office\u2019s decision to\u00a0summon\u00a0Norwegian Ambassador Per Albert Ilsaas over his \u201cunwanted presence\u201d at a Supreme Court\u00a0hearing 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.<\/p>\n While the Foreign Office has described the envoy\u2019s presence as interference in Pakistan\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Former ambassador to India Abdul Basit, when asked whether the move could be construed as interference, said that \u201cin the strict sense of the word\u201d, it could not. He added that there was no provision in the Vienna Convention that bound diplomats to stay away from public court proceedings.<\/strong><\/p>\n However, he noted that diplomatic practice \u201cwould strongly suggest that diplomats in their host countries usually keep themselves away from internal politics\u201d. But this doesn\u2019t mean \u201cthey cannot interact with opposition politicians, which they do all the time, including our diplomats around the world\u201d, Mr Basit added.<\/p>\n A senior European diplomat also insisted that mere observation of open court proceedings could not be labelled as interference.<\/strong><\/p>\n Citing Article 3(d) of the Vienna Convention \u2014 which outlines the functions of a diplomatic mission and includes \u201cascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State\u201d \u2014 the diplomat said it was not a breach of protocol for an envoy to attend open proceedings in a host country.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen foreign observers monitor elections in Pakistan, do they interfere in the electoral process?\u201d he asked, arguing that independent observation strengthened transparency. \u201cObservers should be welcomed if there is nothing to hide and the trials are fair,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n