VIOLATION OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY:

The Involvement of Two American Diplomats in the

Circulation of Illegal Drugs in Indonesia.

Novita Putri Samira – B011191216

 CHRONOLOGY
In 1994, it was reported that a person named Aldi was killed at the
home of a famous artist named Ria Irawan. It was revealed that the
cause of Aldi's death was a type of illicit drug called ecstasy that was
consumed by Aldi in excess or unnatural doses. From the results of
further investigations into the Aldi’s case, the authorities managed to
dismantle and find a network of ecstasy circulation in all parts of
Indonesia involving two diplomatic officials from the Foreign
Diplomatic Representative in Jakarta, both of whom were from the
United States.
IN WHAT ARTICLE IN THE 1961
VCDR WAS VIOLATED BY
THESE TWO FOREIGN
DIPLOMATS?
Article 41 Paragraph 1
VCDR 1961 ;
“Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons
enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of
the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of
that State.”
WHAT SANCTIONS OR POLICE
DID THE INDONESIAN
GOVERNMENT IMPOSE ON THE
TWO FOREIGN DIPLOMATS?
According to the Vienna Convention of 1961, these
two U.S. diplomats cannot be subject to any action
by local law enforcement officials, because they
have absolute immunity. Therefore, the Vienna
Convention of 1961 also still provides the
possibility of legal efforts to get a breakthrough
in solving the problem of violations of the law,
namely with persona non grata.

As a result, their diplomatic immunity is not

barrier to expelling them from Indonesia, although
the handling of cases cannot be carried out in
Indonesia.
The persona non grata statement carries consequences
for the two diplomats to leave the country of
Indonesia and return to the United States and
account for despicable acts in their country. This
is because the Vienna Convention of 1961 only grants
diplomatic immunity or freedom from the territorial
jurisdiction of the receiving state, but does not
absolve it of legal liability for its reprehensible
deeds.
THANK
YOU <3