immunity only in connection with one’s consular functions, as Consul, which is not the case with regard to the charges against the Plaintiff in the instant case, but the charges were for sexual offences and racketeering and we consider these offences grave crimes covered by Article 41 of the Convention on Consular Relations. With regard to issue N0 3, whether there has been a violation of the human rights of the Plaintiff as provided for by international human rights instruments to which the Defendant is a party. As earlier noted the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the alleged failure of the Defendant to honour its obligation towards him under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by her failure to stop the arrest, prosecution, conviction and incarceration of the Plaintiff as well as failure to secure his release thereafter. His Contention is that being a Consul General of the Defendant, he is immune from criminal prosecution by the host State by virtue of his diplomatic status. In the same vein, he alleged that the Defendant’s failure to intervene and stop his prosecution and conviction and secure his release from prison is a violation of his rights under Articles 2 to 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ rights. His Contention is predicated on the alleged inaction of the Defendant to call to play in his favour the relevant provisions of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to secure his release. The question to be asked in practical terms is whether there is a legal obligation on the Defendant to intervene on behalf of the Plaintiff to secure his release. We have already stated above that the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations which guides the operation of Consular officials, grants very limited privileges and immunities in that it limits their inviolability to acts done in performance of their Consular duties. Accordingly, since the protection accorded Consular officers is not absolute but limited to acts in performance of their official functions, Is the Defendant p. 22