in a position to claim on behalf of the Plaintiff immunity from Prosecution in the circumstances of this case? In other words, is the Defendant under an obligation to take diplomatic or other measures to secure the release of the Plaintiff from prison and repatriate him to the Defendant State? The answer is simply in the negative. First because the offence for which the Plaintiff was charged, prosecuted and convicted has nothing to do with his employment as Consular General of the Defendant. In committing those acts he was on a frolic of his own. We had already noted that the basis underlying the grant of diplomatic immunity under customary law and treaties is to ensure the doctrine of sovereign equality of States and allow representatives of foreign States to carry out their functions in the receiving State without hindrance, usually referred to as the doctrine of functional necessity. It is not meant to benefit individuals directly, but rather a right appurtenant to their State. Accordingly, the Court declares that the Defendant has no legal duty to secure the release of the Plaintiff from Prison in the United States of America. This naturally leads us to the determination of issue No.3 i.e. Whether taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case any known human rights of the Plaintiff has been violated? Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol of this court, 2005 creates the human rights jurisdiction of this Court and allows it to determine cases of human rights violation that occur in any member State. For a claim for violation of human rights to be sustained, the suit in question must be predicted on a claim for human rights recognized by international human rights instrument to which the Member State is a party. Such right must have been violated by an act of the Defendant Member State p. 23