The end of an era ( Archived) (10)

Pope Benedict XVI's tenure as leader of the world's Catholics will draw to a close later today.
Benedict stands down as Pontiff after nearly eight years and at a time when the Church is mired in controversy.
This morning, more than 100 cardinals will say their farewells to the Pope at a gathering in the Apostolic Palace.
Just before 5pm local time, Benedict will leave his apartments for the last time, give his thanks to the senior staff who have been by his side during his papacy, and then make his way to the Vatican helipad.
From there he will fly to Castel Gandolfo - the Pope's retreat on the outskirts of Rome.
Then, at around 5:30pm, he will make his last brief appearance on a balcony in front of an expected crowd of around 7,000 before withdrawing from public life for good.
At 8pm the doors of the villa will close and the Swiss Guard will stand aside marking the end of Benedict's papacy.
From then on he will be known as Emeritus Pope and devote his days to prayer and meditation.
Once renovations are complete, Benedict will move to a monastery in the grounds of the Vatican.
Edward Pentin, from the Catholic Herald, said Benedict will live a monk's life and not interfere in the work of his successor.
The next Pope will be chosen by secret ballot during the conclave of eligible cardinals who will vote in the Sistine Chapel.

If he lives in the grounds of the Vatican, does that mean he'll have legal immunity?

Yes he will have full immunity, as the outgoing head of state.

I have no axe to grind in this instance, I'm not even a catholic.

But I hate the rule of thumb justice and witch hunts. You are entitled to your opinion Jac, but it is just that, an opinion. I will not join the mob screaming for blood. Justice will prevail in the end. If he has done wrong, and he knows it, he will suffer. But at the moment it is all speculation. You don't KNOW Jac-

How can justice be done if some people have engineered legal immunity?

Jac, I will not argue the case for immunity here, it was not engineered specifically for this case as you imply. It is a law common to every country in the world. Diplomatic immunity is exercised extensively by GB, and every other country.

I take your heuristic point about justice, but one could argue that if this is the law then justice is indeed being done.
But I also understand your implication that this man has broken some laws. As I said he has not been convicted of any such wrong doing. He is innocent until proven guilty.

Personal immunity

See also Diplomatic immunity
This type of immunity arises from customary international law and confers immunity on people holding a particular office from the civil, criminal, and administrative jurisdiction. This immunity is extended to diplomatic agents and their families while posted abroad (and is also valid for their transfer to or from that post, and is only valid for the country to which they are posted). Under personal immunity, private residence, papers, correspondence, and property of an official enjoying personal immunities are inviolable.
According to Cassese (2005), personal immunities are extended to cover personal activities of an official, including immunity from arrest and detention (though the host state may declare the person persona non grata), immunity from criminal jurisdiction, immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the host state. No immunities hold for private immoveable property unless held on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission, issues of succession, professional or commercial activity exercised outside of official functions, or where the official has voluntarily submitted to the proceedings. Personal immunities cease with the cessation of the post.

The same is true of the head of State. His or her immunity is also for the benefit of the State and is in that sense merely a part of the immunity of the State. When Art. 98(1) refers to the obligations of a State with regard to State immunity of a person it must be taken as referring to all those immunities which to individuals as a result of their connection with a State. Thus it not only includes the immunity of all State officials ratione materiae (to the extent that they apply), consular immunity, immunity of special missions and all those immunities which apply ratione persone, including the immunity of the head of State.

If Jens position - that head of State immunity is not part of State immunity – were correct, then we would be in the anomalous position that other State officials with immunity ratione personae could benefit from Article 98 but the Head of State could not. This would be a manifestly absurd result. Though of course if one takes the view of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber in the Bashir Case (see comment here) no one benefits from Art. 98 and the drafters wasted their time in including it in the Statute. Another manifestly absurd position.