“He was a Diplomatic Agent at all times material to this suit and therefore inviolable” Accordingly, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant is legally bound to assert his diplomatic Status so that he would not have been tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the Receiving State; in this case, the United States of America. In claiming immunity, the Plaintiff copiously quoted the provision of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. The relevant provision is Article 31(1) which provides; A Diplomatic Agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. However, Article 1 of the same convention is apposite to the determination of the status of the Plaintiff. This is because it provides for the category of persons who qualify as diplomatic agents as envisaged by Article 13(1) (supra). It provides the definitions of officers who are diplomatic officers. Thus: a. The “head of mission” is the person charged by the sending state with the duty of acting in that capacity. b. The “member of the mission” are the head of the mission and members of the Staff of the mission. c. The “members of Staff or Staff of the mission” are members of the diplomatic Staff of the administrative and technical Staff of the service Staff of the mission. d. The members of the “diplomatic Staff” are members of the Staff of the mission having diplomatic rank. e. A “diplomatic agent” is the head of the mission or a member of diplomatic Staff of the mission. p. 18