<![CDATA[ Aji Cahyo Nugroho, Setyo Widagdo, S.H, M.H., Dr. Hanif Nur W., SH., M.HumFakultas Hukum Universitas BrawijayaEmail : Ajiinugroho@yahoo.comAbstrakPenulisan artikel ini membahas tentang hak kekebalan pejabat diplomatik diplomat Malaysia yang melakukan tindak pidana percobaan perkosaan di Selandia Baru. Hal inidilatarbelakangi oleh Rizalman yang selaku wakil diplomat Malaysia yang melakukan tindakpidana percobaan perkosaan kepada warga sipil di Selandia Baru. Rizalman masuk ke dalamrumah korbannya tanpa izin dan berjalan hingga ke kamar tidur dalam keadaan telanjang daripinggang ke bawah. Rizalman telah menggunakan kekebalan diplomatik dan meninggalkanSelandia Baru setelah dijerat tuduhan upaya pemerkosaan. Hengkangnya sang diplomatmemicu kemarahan publik di Selandia Baru. Sebenarnya pada pasal 31 Konvensi Wina 1961telah mengatur bahwa pejabat diplomatik mendapatkan hak kekebalan dari yurisdiksi kriminalnegara penerima, namun apa yang dilakukan oleh wakil diplomat Malaysia tersebutbertentangan dengan pasal 31 Konvensi Wina 1961 tersebut. Karena meskipun wakil diplomatmendapatkan hak kekebalan di negara penerima tapi tetap harus menghormati hukum di negarapenerima. Jadi sudah seharusnya jika wakil diplomat Malaysia tersebut ditanggalkankekebalannya dan demi menjaga hubungan baik antara kedua negara, maka Malaysia mengirimkembali wakil diplomat tersebut ke Selandia Baru untuk menjalani proses hukum disana.Kata Kunci : Diplomatik, Hak Kekebalan.AbstractThis article discusses the diplomatic immunity of Malaysian diplomat who committed thecrime of attempted rape in New Zealand. This is motivated by Rizalman as a Malaysiandiplomat who committed the crime of attempted rape to a civilian in New Zealand. Rizalmanwent into the victim’s house without permission and walked into the bedroom naked from thewaist down. Rizalman has used diplomatic immunity and left New Zealand after charged rapeattempt. The departure of the diplomat sparked public outrage in New Zealand. Actually, thearticle 31 of the Vienna Convention 1961 regulates that diplomatic officials receive diplomaticimmunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving country, but what has been done bythe Malaysian diplomat is contrary to Article 31 of the 1961 Vienna Convention. Becausealthough representatives diplomats get immunity in the recipient country, they still have torespect the law in the recipient country. Therefore, the Malaysian diplomat is supposed to bestripped from his immunity as the consequence in order to maintain good relations between thetwo countries. As the result, the Malaysian diplomat was  sent back to New Zealand to undergothe legal process there.Keywords: Diplomatic, Immunity Rights.]]>
