Sovereign Immunities

Cases Continuation…
 Ebrahim Case (State Vs. Ebrahim)
-
 Ebrahim Case (State Vs. Ebrahim)

Issue:
Whether Ebrahim was lawfully arrested?

Whether the Trial court has Jurisdiction to try the case?

 Ebrahim Case (State Vs. Ebrahim)
Ruling:

• No. Ebrahim was not lawfully arrested and the trial

court has no jurisdiction to try the case,

• Unlawful removal of a person from one jurisdiction to

another was regarded as an abduction and as a serious
breach of the law in Roman-Dutch common Law, which
embodies fundamental legal principles including the
preservation of human rights, friendly international
relations and sound administration of justice.
 Ebrahim Case (State Vs. Ebrahim)
•The individual must be protected from unlawful arrest and
abduction, jurisdictional boundaries must not be exceeded,
international legal sovereignty must be respected, the legal
process must be fair towards those affected by it, and the misuse
thereof must be avoided in order to protect and promote the
dignity and integrity of the judicial system. This applies equally to
state. When it is part of the dispute it must come to court with
clean hands.

•The abduction was a violation of the applicable rules of

international law which are part of the South African law, and
such violation deprives the trial court competence to hear the
mater.

• In a subsequent proceeding: Ebrahim was awarded

compensation
 UNOCAL Case (Doe Vs. UNOCAL)
-
 UNOCAL Case (Doe Vs. UNOCAL)

Issue:

Whether UNOCAL should be held liable under the Alien Torts Claim
Act?
 UNOCAL Case (Doe Vs. UNOCAL)
Ruling:
•No. UNOCAL should not be held liable

•General Rule: Corporations and their executives could be held

legally responsible under the ATCA for violations of international
human rights norm in foreign countries.
 UNOCAL Case (Doe Vs. UNOCAL)
•Plaintiffs present no evidence Unocal "controlled" the Myanmar
military's decision to the commit the alleged tortious acts.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims that Unocal acted under "color of
law" for purposes of the ATCA fail as a matter of law.

•Unocal did sought to employ forced or slave labor. In fact, they

expressed concern that the Myanmar government was utilizing
forced labor in connection with the Project. In turn, the military
made efforts to conceal its use of forced labor. The evidence
does suggest that Unocal knew that forced labor was being
utilized and that the Joint Venturers benefitted from the
practice. However, because such a showing is insufficient to
establish liability under international law, Plaintiffs' claim against
Unocal for forced labor under the Alien Tort Claims Act fails as a
matter of law
Congo Vs. Belgium
 Congo Vs. Belgium

Issue:

Whether Belgium violated customary International Law

principles concerning the absolute inviolability and immunity
from criminal process of an incumbent Foreign Minister?
 Congo Vs. Belgium
•It is an established principle of international law that Heads
of State and Gov’t, Foreign Ministers and Diplomatic and
Consular agents enjoys immunities from civil and criminal
jurisdiction of other states.

•In the absence of a treaty law, customary international law

determines the immunities of Ministers of Foreign Affairs.
This immunities are not given for their personal benefit but
to ensure the effective performance of their functions on
behalf of the state.

•It did not matter that Yerodia was never arrested

 Congo Vs. Belgium
Ruling:

•Yes. Belgium violated its international obligation towards

Congo.

•Belgium failed to respect and infringed Yerodia’s immunity

and inviolability enjoyed by him under international law.
 US Vs. Purganan
-
 US Vs. Purganan
Issue:

Whether there has been grave abuse of discretion or in excess of

his jurisdiction in adopting a procedure for hearing a potential
extradite before issuing an arrest warrant and the granting of
bail?
 US Vs. Purganan
Ruling:
• Yes. Respondent Judge has exercise grave abuse of discretion
or in excess of his jurisdiction by granting a hearing on the
arrest warrant and allowing Jimenez to post bail

• Potential Extraditees do not have the right to a hearing for the

issuance of a warrant of arrest nor the right to bail as granted
by the RTC on this case.
 US Vs. Purganan
• Extradition process is not equivalent to criminal case in which
guilt or innocence is determined. It is not one where the
constitutional right is necessarily available. It is more akin to a
request of the court to police authorities for the arrest of the
accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped
bail. Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the requesting
state, the prima facie presumption is that the person would
escape again if given the opportunity
• The intention of the proceeding is merely to assist the
requesting state in bringing the accused of the fugitive who
has illegally escaped back to its territory, so that the criminal
process may proceed against him.