d. When in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, it has become necessary to detain a Consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with minimum delay. e. Similarly, Article 42; in the event of the arrest or detention of Consular Staff, or if criminal proceedings is being instituted against him, the receiving State shall promptly notify the Head of the Consular post, should the latter be himself the object of any such measure, the receiving State shall notify the sending State through diplomatic channels. f. The Defendant therefore argued that Consular officers are not immune from criminal prosecution for acts or conducts perpetrated by them not in the exercise of their Consular functions. In the instant case, the Plaintiff was prosecuted and convicted on account of sexually related offences which have absolutely no bearing or relation to the exercise of his consular relations. The Defendant further contended that; g. They have no legal obligation to secure the release of the Plaintiff since he was convicted for a crime unrelated to the exercise of his functions as a Consular Officer. The fact that the past Government of the Defendant exhibited benevolence in seeking the release of the Plaintiff as evidenced by the Plaintiffs’ own admission shown by the note verbal attached to his application, places no duty on the Government as a matter of law to secure the Plaintiffs’ release. h. On the issue of the Plaintiff’s entitlement to diplomatic Protection, the Defendant states that while it has duty to protect its diplomatic agents, it is obliged to do so if the conduct or the action for which the officer or agent is held to answer was done in the exercise of his or her official function. In the instant case, the Plaintiff has not shown that he was arbitrarily arrested, nor did he plead that he was deprived his right p. 8