ABSTRACT
With regard to criminal proceedings in a foreign court, a serving head o f state’s immunity is generally accepted as absolute.1 Diplomats are also afforded absolute immunity from criminal jurisdictions under the Vienna Diplomatic Convention in their receiving states.2 For both heads o f state and diplomats there are two branches (for want o f a better word) o f immunities: immunity ratione personae and ratione materiae. Immunity ratione personae relates to the individual and materiae to the acts. Lord Millett in Pinochet (No. 3) appeared to make the distinction between individual immunity as being immunity ratione personae and state immunity for civil jurisdiction as immunity ratione materiae. In reliance on this distinction the ECHR in Al Adsani noted that:
The House of Lords (and in particular Lord Millett at p. 178) made clear that their findings as to immunity ratione materiae from criminal jurisdiction did not affect the immunity ratione personae of foreign sovereign States from civil jurisdiction in respect of acts of torture.4
