1 Facts Cont. 2 Judgement 3 analysis 4 Principle

1. Immunities and Extradition:
The Curious Case of Khurts Bat.
Taranjot Singh
Group:16
Sr.No:78

2. FACTS
 In 2003 Khurts Bat was given a mission to bring the
Mongolian national Enkhbat Damiran, who lived in
France, back to Mongolia.
 Damiran was suspected of involvement in the assassination
of Zorig Sanjaasuren.
 Damiran was invited to a meeting in Le Havre, France, on 14 May 2003 where he was
attacked, kidnapped, and abducted.
 On 17 March 2010, Khurts Bat, who was the Head of the Office of National Security in
Mongolia, applied for a visa to the UK.
 On 18 March 2010, the Serious and Organized Crime Agency notified the Entry
Clearance Officer’s Support Unit in Beijing His extradition was requested by the
Federal Court of Justice in Germany by virtue of a European Arrest Warrant certified

3. FACTS
 The ECO confirmed the intention to issue the visa and that Khurts Bat would be
travelling on a diplomatic passport and ‘so would have immunity’.
 On 31 August 2010, the Mongolian Desk at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
informed the British Ambassador in Mongolia about the organization of a round table
to be held in the UK. Khurts Bat’s name was not listed as a delegation member.
 On 17 September 2010, Khurts Bat was arrested at Heathrow Airport. He was brought
before the City of Westminster Magistrates Court and remanded in custody until his
extradition.
 On 18 February 2011, the District Court issued the extradition order on the basis of
the EAW certified by the SOCA and the request by the Federal Court of Justice in
Germany.
 The FCO and the Government of Mongolia joined as interveners at the appellate level

4. JUDGEMENT
• That Mr. Khurts Bat enjoys immunity in customary international law because
at the time of his arrest, on 17 September 2010, he was visiting the United
Kingdom on a Special Mission on behalf of the Government of Mongolia, a
mission consented to and encouraged by the United Kingdom;
• The extradition proceedings are an abuse of process;
• At the time of arrest he was representing his Government as a very high-
ranking civil servant;
• The crimes he was alleged to have committed in respect of which his
extradition was sought were official acts committed by him on the orders of
the Government of Mongolia and, accordingly, he is entitled to immunity both
in Germany and in the United Kingdom.

5. ANALYSIS
• The ICJ’s definition in Arrest Warrant as to whom immunity ratione
personae applied was criticized for producing confusion by suggesting that
the list was not exhaustive.
• As to Khurts Bat’s claim that he enjoyed immunity in customary
international law because his visit to the UK was a Special Mission, the
court’s decision was not convincing.
• Justice Foskett’s said that state that consent to a Special Mission may be
‘obtained through the diplomatic or another agreed or mutually acceptable
channel’, the court should have, out of respect for the principle in dubio
pro reo, applied stricter scrutiny over the remaining evidence regarding
the alleged UK consent.

6. PRINCIPLE
IMMUNITY : Immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international
law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences.
Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or
immunity ratione materiae is an immunity granted to people who
perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or
immunity ratione personae is an immunity granted to certain officials
because of the office they hold, rather than in relation to the act they
have committed.
EXTRADITION : Extradition is the process by which one state, upon the
request of another, effects the return of a person for trial for a crime
punishable by the laws of the requesting state and committed outside the