To the contrary, the Second Circuit's decision in Tachiona is inconsistent with Plaintiffs' interpretation: the court upheld the assertion of diplomatic immunity for Mugabe even though the lawsuit (1) “relate[d] to his activities in Zimbabwe” before the diplomatic mission, 386 F.3d at 220, and (2) included allegations of torture and execution, id. at 209. Similarly, in Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F.Supp. 516 (D.D.C.1987), the plaintiffs sought to bring suit against an Israeli diplomat stationed in the United States who was alleged to have participated in massacres at refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon. The court held that he was entitled to immunity under the Vienna Convention, notwithstanding the severity of the allegations.

To the contrary, the Second Circuit's decision in Tachiona is inconsistent with Plaintiffs' interpretation: the court upheld the assertion of diplomatic immunity for Mugabe even though the lawsuit (1) "relate[d] to his activities in Zimbabwe" before the diplomatic mission, 386 F.3d at 220, and (2) included allegations of torture and execution, id. at 209. Similarly, in Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F. Supp. 516 (D.D.C. 1987), the plaintiffs sought to bring suit against an Israeli diplomat stationed in the United States who was alleged to have participated in massacres at refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon. The court held that he was entitled to immunity under the Vienna Convention, notwithstanding the severity of the allegations.

These “principles of . . . immunity apply with equal force to attachments and garnishments.” Peterson v. Republic of Iran, 563 F.Supp.2d 268, 272 (D.D.C. 2008); see also Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F.Supp. 516, 517 (D.D.C. 1987) (“It is axiomatic that if jurisdiction is not available, then service of process is void, making a motion to quash service of process a valid remedy.”).

The Court further grants Defendant's Motion to Quash, based on the “rather obvious point that if a diplomat is immune from suit, he or she is equally immune from service of process.” Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F.Supp. 516, 518 (D.D.C. 1987); see also Gonzalez Paredes, 479 F.Supp.2d at 195 (granting motions to quash service of process and to dismiss action against defendants entitled to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention). Accordingly, Defendant's motions to quash service of process and to dismiss the Complaint shall be granted.

Id . Under the VCDR, in turn, "a diplomat enjoys immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country," subject to certain restrictions. Aidi v. Yaron , 672 F. Supp. 516, 518 (D.D.C.1987). When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, "a court assumes the truth of th[e] factual allegations" contained in the criminal complaint.

However nothing in the text of either the Vienna Convention, the General Convention, or 22 U.S.C. § 254(d) implies an exception to immunity for those violations. See, e.g.,Devi, 861 F.Supp.2d at 141–42 ; Sabbithi, 605 F.Supp.2d at 129 ; Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F.Supp. 516, 518 (D.D.C.1987) (Israeli attaché accused of massacres in Lebanese refugee camps was immune from a wrongful death suit); see alsoPrincz, 26 F.3d at 1174 (citing Siderman de Blake v. Rep. of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 719 (9th Cir.1992) ). As the Swarna court noted, the question is not "whether the underlying conduct actually occurred, or whether it was wrongful," but is instead a "functional" and "objective" test, looking to the acts in question. 622 F.3d at 137 (citing Brzak, 597 F.3d at 113 ).

Such violations of jus cogens are not at issue in this civil action and the Court is not opining thereon. See Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F. Supp. 516, 518 (D.D.C. 1987). In upholding defendants' claim of diplomatic immunity from suit, the Court recognizes that it is leaving plaintiff without recourse — at least within the United States and at this time.

This Court is not aware of any cases that have granted diplomatic immunity to local officials from foreign governments that are not in the United States on diplomatic missions. See United States v. Enger, 472 F.Supp. 490, 506 (D.N.J. 1978) ("full privileges and immunities of diplomatic status have traditionally been reserved to those of acknowledged diplomatic rank, performing diplomatic functions"); see also Tabion v. Faris Mufti, 73 F.3d 535, 536 (4th Cir. 1996) (diplomatic immunity given to First Secretary and later Counselor of the Jordanian Embassy); Logan v. Dupuis, 990 F.Supp. 26, 26 (D.D.C. 1997) (diplomatic immunity given to the Alternative Representative of Canada at the Permanent Mission of Canada to the Organization of American States); Fatimeh Ali Aidi v. Amos Yaron, 672 F.Supp. 516, 516 (D.D.C. 1987) (diplomatic immunity given to military attache of the Israeli Embassy). A. Application of FSIA to Individual Officials

This Court is not aware of any cases that have granted diplomatic immunity to local officials from foreign governments that are not in the United States on diplomatic missions. See United States v. Enger, 472 F. Supp. 490, 506 (D.N.J. 1978) ("full privileges and immunities of diplomatic status have traditionally been reserved to those of acknowledged diplomatic rank, performing diplomatic functions"); see also Tabion v. Faris Mufti, 73 F.3d 535, 536 (4th Cir. 1996) (diplomatic immunity given to First Secretary and later Counselor of the Jordanian Embassy); Logan v. Dupuis, 990 F. Supp. 26, 26 (D.D.C. 1997) (diplomatic immunity given to the Alternative Representative of Canada at the Permanent Mission of Canada to the Organization of American States); Fatimeh Ali Aidi v. Amos Yaron, 672 F. Supp. 516, 516 (D.D.C. 1987) (diplomatic immunity given to military attache of the Israeli Embassy). The FSIA confers immunity upon foreign states.

Consequently, while the State Department's Suggestion of Immunity does not purport to assert immunity on behalf of ZANU-PF, and the Government has not maintained in this proceeding that ZANU-PF is entitled to invoke any form of immunity from the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction, the Government's inviolability theory effectively would achieve the same result by indirectly shielding ZANU-PF, under the cover of Mugabe's head-of-state immunity, from the reach of territorial jurisdiction. See Aidi v. Yaron, 672 F. Supp. 516, 517 (D.D.C. 1987); see also Aristede, 844 F. Supp. at 130. Gov't Reply, at 34.