Onder 6.30.4. Gerechtshof Den Haag 13 maart 2019

(…) In the latter four provisions [Articles 31, 34, 37 and 38; Hof ] (…), all of which relate to individual members of missions, the effect in most States was to decrease the privileges and immunities enjoyed by diplomats, other members of diplomatic missions, and their families. The unifying thread which ran through all these changes was the attempt to ensure, in the words of the Preamble of the Convention, ‘that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States’. The functional approach was not regarded by those who prepared the Convention as merely an academic rationale – it guided them at every crucial point. The general effect was to tighten the protection given to the mission itself – its premises, communications, property, and archives. On the other hand, it reduced the occasions when privilege or immunity could be invoked in regard to essentially private activities of individuals, and it reduced the protection and privileges of junior members of the mission and of those who belonged to the receiving State. In these cases it was decided that possible abuse by mission staff of their privileges and immunities was more likely than their harassment for political motives.”

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/d4ced5ae1599db959b8d10e97c47e9eb4ec4003cd2c6f2aa9072d920f8e8d38d | shasum -a 256