entitled to immunity and therefore should be repatriated by the Defendant, that the said judgment lacks foundation judging from the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other International instruments upon which the Court relied. 4- That as to the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendant is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular relations, the Defendant concedes to that fact, but argues that consistent with Articles 41(2) (2) and (3), 42 and 43 of the said Convention, Consular Officers are not immune from criminal proceedings except with respect to acts performed in the exercise of their Consular functions. That as a matter of law, only diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State under Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. That the relevant law is Article 41(1), (2), and (3) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which provides as follows: a. Consular Officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial except in case of a grave crime, and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority. b. Except in case specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, Consular Officers shall not be committed to prison or liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect. c. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a Consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and except in the case prescribed in paragraph 1 of this Article, in manner which will not hamper the exercise of Consular functions as little as possible. p. 7