ISLAMABAD: The political leadership, by some accounts, is inclined to end the diplomatic stalemate on the issue of Raymond Davis, accused of killing two people in Lahore last month, but it has come under intense pressure from other state institutions, which are not ready to offer immunity for the accused.

The situation has been complicated by the suicide of Shumaila Kanwal, the widow of Faheem Ahmed, one of the men murdered by Davis. This will not, according to analysts, make it easy for the Gilani administration to take a decision on the matter.

It’s caught in a catch 20: granting immunity would inflame public sentiments, while denying it would hurt ties with the US that has already limited its contacts with the Pakistan government pending resolution of the issue.

Washington is ratcheting up pressure by the day. A number of scheduled visits to Pakistan by American officials and Congressmen have been put off. One recent cancellation was that of US Deputy Secretary for Treasury Neal Wolin. “Unavoidable circumstances” have led to the postponement of the visit, but diplomatic sources insist it is linked to the row over Davis’ immunity.

Oddly enough, senior Foreign Office officials, in their private discussions, hint that they have largely decided to go by the book and not to succumb to any pressure – either from the US or the political leadership.

“We’ll merely state the facts before the courts and will not fudge or fabricate anything,” a senior FO official, who is regularly briefed on the issue, told Dawn on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity involved.

Another official disclosed that FO mandarins were aware that political leadership was not particularly happy with the position taken by the diplomatic service, but emphasised that it was vital for institutional integrity. Although this appears unusual for an office that is headed by a cabinet member who is part of the government, observers are of the opinion that the FO is taking such an inflexible stand because the establishment holds the same view.

And this awareness is allowing the FO to take a stand that appears to be in defiance of the political leadership, isolating the latter.

It is against this backdrop of institutional disunity that a government team of experts taken from FO’s legal division and federal law and justice division has been asked to submit the legal position on Davis’ status by February 17, which would define the direction of the case.

And hence, while political expediencies could ultimately compel the team to agree to immunity for Davis, at the moment the FO is putting on a brave face. A senior official, who has been following the proceedings of the committee, disclosed that at best ‘limited immunity’ would be given to the accused – which of course would not cover grave crimes.

FO’s protocol manual 2010 edition accords ‘non-diplomatic status’ to the ‘administrative and technical staff’ of foreign missions. This designation as ‘non-diplomatic staff’, according to FO officials, qualifies personnel working in this cadre only for limited immunity in respect of acts performed during the course of duties.

Deciding whether or not Davis’ action of fatally shooting two men occurred during the course of his duties could be quite tricky.

Besides, the latest information revealed by the media, which showed Davis could have remained affiliated to the Peshawar Consulate could make the matter more complex as far as which Vienna Convention would be applicable in his case.

In a related development, Islamabad Police have started searching the vehicles of diplomats for weapons. Sources believe the search could have been targeted at the Americans, which could cause more embarrassment to the government.

Meanwhile, US Ambassador Cameron Munter called on President Zardari on Monday afternoon to reiterate his government’s demand for grant of full immunity to Davis.

A source at presidency said that Mr Munter, who had returned in the morning from Washington, carried an important message asking Pakistan to “abide by its international commitments under Vienna Convention”.

Presidency was very careful in its press statement on the meeting. It did not give any reference to the discussion on the issue and sufficed by just saying that “bilateral relations were discussed during the meeting.”