After analysing the whole case of Raymond Davis, the direct brutal killer of two innocent Pakistanis, I do not find any way out for him except the powers defined in Article 45 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, be exercised by our President to grant pardon. I have not taken into consideration, another way out for him due to absolute refusal by the aggrieved persons having legal authority to sign an agreement to pardon Raymond Davis, with or without terms and conditions. I appreciate the current role of our judiciary and especially the court, who have taken up the case and trial is being done fairly and justly despite local and foreign efforts to exert pressure to disrupt fair trail. I do not know, how Raymond Davis will claim the diplomatic or Consular Immunity, when Rana Bakhtiyar (Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab) had told media that Raymond Davis is not a diplomat on the basis of available case record? Its needless to mention here that after the media briefing, Deputy Prosecutor General resigned. Now, if we take up the case for the sake of general understanding only and nothing else then there is a need to consider the diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act (1972), which is to give effect in our country to the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and Consular Relations (1963). A question arises that if a person claims a diplomatic or consular immunity under the said act of 1972 then who will decide this question? A simple answer to this very question is that our Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the authority of Federal Government will issue a certificate stating diplomatic or consular immunity to a particular person. If this immunity does not exist then it will also be stated by the concerned ministry. However, the court will finally decide whether there is immunity or not after considering other issues and then having satisfaction over the statement made by the ministry. The 1961 Vienna Convention is mainly concerned with Diplomatic relations and therefore related to Missions/High Commissions/Embassies functions, operations, and their respective staff whereas, 1963 Vienna Convention is mainly concerned with Consulates functions, operations, responsibilities and their respective staff. The purpose of both conventions is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of functions by the positions on behalf of the respective States. It could be easily concluded from the 1961 Vienna Conventions articles 31, 37 and 41 that Administrative and Technical Staff will not have any immunity for acts performed outside the course of their duties and it is the duty of staff to respect the law and regulations of the host state. If we consider now, the 1963 Vienna Convention then from its article 41, we can conclude that Consular Officers do not have immunity in case of a grave crime. I would have supported Raymond Davis had he not committed a heinous crime. I have always respected the Independent Judiciary irrespective of the region or country and have firm believe in the trial court in our country and that the court will be fair and just in its judgement. This verdict will be binding on all of us and the US must also respect the decision. It will be a good information for the readers to know that the US is the country, that is giving us valuable aid to improve our system of justice through the Access to Justice Programme. I also suggest to the President of US to trust our courts and do work for the rule of law and justice and if that is not possible then at least he could fulfil his ethical and moral responsibility by giving up the immunity of Raymond Davis as per Article 32 of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). KHALID MUSTAFA, Islamabad, February 26.