Judicial immunity exempts the diplomatic envoy from being subject to the judiciary of the receiving state throughout the duration of his work there, in order to guarantee his independence and to enable him to carry out his duties and job burdens, away from the judicial authority of the receiving state. This is because the diplomat remains subject to the law of his state and its jurisdiction, and he can be questioned before its courts regarding what he refrains from doing. From the judiciary of the receiving State to consider it as a result of judicial immunity, The Vienna Convention stipulates criminal judicial immunity, and the criminal judicial immunity enjoyed by the diplomatic envoy does not exempt him from the possibility of being tried before the International Criminal Court. However, immunity against extradition to the International Criminal Court, granted to the diplomatic envoy, may prevent the court from carrying out its role, in the event of a refusal. The state of the diplomatic envoy waives this immunity. The diplomatic envoy is originally subject to the jurisdiction of his state However, an exception may be made for him to be subject to the judiciary of the state to which he is accredited, after his state agrees to waive his criminal judicial immunity. His state has the inherent right to waive the immunity of its diplomatic envoy, and the head of the diplomatic mission or the diplomatic member may not waive on his own initiative his criminal judicial immunity.
Haitham Al-Shujairi (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: