SUDDENLY, everybody's an expert on the Vienna Convention that governs diplomatic relations between states.

But as lynch mobs and hysterical media pundits call for Davis to be hanged (before or after a trial is not always clear), a little quiet reflection may be in order, even though such a thing is clearly counter-cultural in today's emotionally charged atmosphere. C.P. Scott, the long-serving editor of the old (now renamed the ), wrote an essay in 1921 in which he argued: “Comments are free but facts are sacred.”

This basic philosophy appears to have escaped many in the media today. So what are the facts in the Raymond Davis case? Thus far, few have questioned the following:

— Davis was driving alone in Lahore in broad daylight on Jan 27 when he shot dead two young men on a motorcycle he said were attempting to hold him up at gunpoint.

— Both men were indeed armed, and in possession of stolen cellphones.

— Davis has a valid US diplomatic passport duly stamped with a Pakistani visa.

— A car dispatched from the US consulate to help Davis accidentally killed a man on a bicycle.

— Davis is in the custody of the police in apparent violation of the Vienna Convention.

— He has been presented before the Lahore High Court, and the Foreign Office has asked for time to present its brief on the case.

— The US government is insisting that Davis enjoys diplomatic immunity, while our government has sought refuge behind the legal process.

A reader asked me what would have happened if a Saudi princeling without diplomatic immunity had shot dead two Pakistanis in similar circumstances. Answering his own question, he wrote that probably, brotherly Islamic ties would have been invoked, the families of the victims paid off and the Saudi put on the first flight back to Jeddah. I have no reason to doubt this probable sequence of events.

The entire episode underlines the depths to which relations between the US and Pakistan have sunk. Marked with intense suspicion, each constantly doubts the other's motive in an uneasy alliance. An increasingly prickly Pakistani public, goaded by ill-informed and venomous media coverage and comment, has reacted predictably in its collective knee-jerk response. Pakistani sovereignty and dignity have been put on the line as the issue has escalated into a full-blown crisis. Stratfor

However, the case is not as clear-cut as the American government makes out. Scott Stewart, writing on the website ('The Threat of Civil Unrest in Pakistan and the Davis Case'), argues:

“As a contract employee assigned to the US Consulate in Lahore, Davis was likely not on the diplomatic list and probably did not enjoy full diplomatic immunity. He was probably considered a member of the administrative or technical staff. Protecting himself during a robbery attempt would not be considered part of his function in the country, and therefore his actions that day would not be covered under functional immunity. So determining exactly what level of immunity Davis was provided will be critical in this case…

“In all likelihood, Davis was briefed regarding his legal status by his company and by the CIA prior to being assigned to post. He also would have been told that, while he had limited immunity, the US government would do its best to take care of him if some incident occurred. However, it would have been made clear to him that in working as a protective contractor he was running a risk and if there was an incident on or off duty, he could wind up in trouble. All security contractors working overseas know this and accept the risk as part of the job.”

In similar cases involving diplomats who have broken local laws, the sending government can waive immunity, and let the legal process take its course. Or it can insist on diplomatic immunity, as our government has done in at least two cases where our diplomats had allegedly committed criminal acts. The third option — the one announced recently by the US government — is to subject the diplomat to an official enquiry in his own country. For most Pakistanis now baying for Davis's blood, this smells suspiciously of a backroom deal. Stratfor

As the article noted, the case now hinges on the position our Foreign Office takes while advising the Lahore High Court. With some embarrassment over my newly acquired knowledge, let me quote clause (1) of article 41 of the Vienna Convention:

“Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.”

Clearly, Davis did not respect our laws by carrying a gun, something diplomats claiming immunity are not supposed to do. Much suspicion has focused on the fact that he had multiple ID cards, and his camera contained photographs of public buildings. But these details need not distract us from the central point: should he be tried in Pakistan, or released into American custody to face an enquiry and possible trial in his own country?

Whatever my overwrought colleagues might say, there is a huge difference between self-defence and cold-blooded murder, the crime Davis has already been found guilty of in the media. Much is being made of his accurate shooting, but that's still not an offence in Pakistan. Frankly, if I was armed, and two men on a motorcycle brandished pistols at me, I would have defended myself. The law governing self-defence allows the use of 'proportionate force'; in this case, the use of a firearm would appear to be warranted.

Given the overheated media coverage, and the pressure witnesses will be under, it is extremely doubtful that Davis could receive a fair trial anywhere in Pakistan. Somehow, Asif Zardari and his government need to find the spine to stand up to the mobs in the streets and the TV studios, and do the right thing. The Foreign Office should defuse the case. We cannot allow this sorry saga to perpetually sour relations between the US and Pakistan. irfan.husain@gmail.com