So could Strauss-Kahn claim immunity or not?

Clearly he hasn’t yet but some sources, including the one below, claim that he could invoke immunity at any time.

If he has immunity then the fact that he seems to have implicitly waived it for the moment does not prevent him from invoking it in the future, perhaps when he sees that the case is hopeless.

So what’s the straight dope on this?

I read somewhere today that he was not on offical business while in the US so that might be why he has not claimed immunity yet. I sure as hell would if I could in this situation. Looks like at least one other female has come out with a past story of assault by this guy.

According to the story on the case on CNN.com:

So,

a) it sounds like any immunity he might have is only with respect to acting in an official capacity as head of the IMF

b) assaulting a maid in a hotel suite doesn’t seem likely to qualify as being an act performed in his official capacity

c) he apparently wasn’t in New York on official business, regardless.

The IMF board, is claiming that he was in New York on personal business and not visiting here in his capacity as the head of the IMF. Otherwise, I’m sure they would want to know why the hell he was staying in s $3,000/a night suite.

Wouldn’t diplomatic immunity have to be established with a host country before the fact? It seems like the host country should have the opportunity to deny entry to someone if they’re entering under diplomatic status (and allowing that person the opportunity to decline to enter the country).

Consider this possibility. One country sends a spy into another country. He gets caught. And then the first country declares that they had secretly appointing the spy as an embassy official so he had diplomatic immunity and has to be released.

For ambassadors and such, that’s the case, but the officers of many international organizations are assumed to have diplomatic immunity in all countries party to its establishing treaty, when traveling on official business. Otherwise every UN or NATO or IMF or OAS flunky would have to request diplomatic recognition every time they take a business trip.

In any case, this guy wasn’t traveling on official business.

Following up, there’s a good article on CNBC about this.

It seems there is a much broader form of immunity for the heads of UN agencies which covers not only acts performed in an official capacity but all prosecutions, lawsuits, etc. However (and here’s the kicker for Kahn) it only applies in those countries signatory to the treaty that created it, the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies. The US is *not * a signatory to that document. “The law that applies to Strauss-Kahn is not a UN Convention but the International Organizations Immunity Act that was originally passed in 1945. It takes a much narrower view of diplomatic immunity.”

Here’s the relevant bit:

In the immortal words of The Godfather, “I don’t want him comin’ outa that bathroom with just his dick in his hand.” Alas, that’s all poor Dominique has to wave at the authorities. :slight_smile:

That seems … poorly planned. Doesn’t that mean that the head of a UN agency can be immune from even the laws of his own country?

France, for example, is a full signatory to the treaty. Does that mean that if Strauss-Kahn had raped a woman in Paris, he’d be immune from arrest?

Yeah, I read on the BBC that Strass-Kahn would be eligible to invoke diplomatic immunity as a head of a UN agency and that UN agency heads have a special type of immunity which makes them immune to all prosecutions regardless of whether the prosecution involves something done during their official actions as head of a UN agency.

I have only seen the one source for that, and it honestly sounds dubious to me for the very reason Little Nemo stated, what country would really get behind the concept of someone who is 100% above the law. It’s always been one thing for a person to have diplomatic immunity in a host country, that even makes sense, but those people have also always been prosecutable for crimes they committed overseas by their parent country. So if I’m an ambassador and commit a crime overseas, I will be kicked out of the country and if my country choose to they can prosecute me when I arrive back home.

Under the strange legal status I saw mentioned on the BBC’s website such persons would be immune to all prosecutions everywhere, regardless of where they acted or how they acted. So an American UN agency head could rape and kill 5 people in Pennsylvania and under UN treaties be immune from prosecution here in the United States?

I’m not surprised if that is really a UN treaty that the U.S. is not signatory to that part of it…