Raul Ronald M.

Husmillo
2009 12158

Law 111
09/30/15

1.
India and US
Under the facts of the case, India and the United States are similarly (if not exactly) situated: they are the States
whose citizen has committed an offence is a foreign territory. For any of them to be able to make a claim as to
jurisdiction over Kumar, they must be able to point to legislation providing the State (in this case, India or the
US) with jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the act was committed outside its territory. Such legislation
finds its basis in the nationality principle, which refers to the right to extend the application of their laws to
their citizens wherever they may be. (Lowe in Evans, 345)1 In pursuing this method, a determination must also
be made as to whether Kumar was a national of the US or India, in order for the claimed nationality jurisdiction
to be valid. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the legal principle of nullem crimen sine lege (Crawford, 460).2
Philippines
For the Philippines to be able to claim jurisdiction, it would have to rely on one variant of territorial jurisdiction:
subjective territorial jurisdiction. The principle allows for a State to exercise its law to an incident initiated
within its territory but completed outside its territory (Lowe in Evans, 343).3 The Philippines may acquire
jurisdiction by pointing to the act Kumar within its territory, which in this case is the creation of the bomb.
East Timor
East Timor may exercise jurisdiction over Kumar, upon several of the bases identified in the literature:
- Objective Territorial Jurisdiction the principle allows the State to exercise its law to an incident that is
completed within its territory, even though it was initiated outside its territory (Lowe in Evans, 343-344).4
East Timor may be able to point to the fact that the bomb was finally detonated within its territory as basis
for the application of its jurisdiction over Kumar.
- Territorial Jurisdiction If the creation of the bomb is disregarded, and focus is given alone to the
detonation of the bomb, then East Timor may claim jurisdiction based on the plain principle of territoriality,
as all the elements of the criminal offense was committed within its territory.
- Passive Personality Principle according to this principle, aliens may be punished for acts that are harmful
to the nationals of the invoking State (Crawford, 461). 5 While recognized as a controversial base for
jurisdiction, there has been a trend in favor of accepting claims of jurisdiction based upon this principle,
especially for a particular category of offenses. Lowe, for example, states that this would be likely tolerated
in the case of prosecuting terrorists (Lowe in Evans, 351-352).6 East Timor could point to the Kumars acts
which started with the creation of the bomb in the Philippines, and culminated in its detonation in its
territory, which resulted in the deaths of its nationals as the basis for its claim for jurisdiction.
2.
According to Art. 29 of the VCDR, Kumar enjoys diplomatic immunity as a Russian diplomat, and is free from
arrest or detention. Art. 31 of the VCDR further provides that he shall be immune from the criminal jurisdiction
of the receiving State.
However, Art. 31 also provides that while Kumar enjoys freedom from criminal prosecution by the receiving
State, he does not enjoy the same immunity from the sending State (Russia). Also, as provided for in Art. 32 of
the VCDR, the sending State may eventually choose to waive the said immunity of the diplomatic agent, by an
express waiver.
It must also be remembered that personal immunities are forfeited upon the termination of office of the
diplomatic agent.

Lowe in Evans, Jurisdiction, pp. 335-358
Crawford, pp. 453-471
3
Lowe in Evans, Jurisdiction, pp. 335-358
4
Ibid.
5
Crawford, pp. 453-471
6
Lowe in Evans, Jurisdiction, pp. 335-358
1
2