Chimene,
i am not quite sure, if 22 U.S.C § 288d is really the “governing provision” in relation to a functional immunity of DSK. At least its not the first that would have come to my mind, from an international law perspective.
In fact, DSK enjoys functional immunity eo ipso under international law of treaties:
Section 8, Articles of Agreement of the IMF (ratified 1972) is self-executing and therefor directly applicable by the court.
In the for-mentioned “Brzak vs. UN”, the court has suggested hat CPIUN supersedes (being lex specialis) the provisions of 28 U.S.C § 1602-11.
In analogy, the same would apply to AoA IMF in relation to 22 U.S.C § 288d.
Of course this doesn’t change the fact, that his prosecution in the matter – as you demonstrated – falls not within the scope of functional immunity.
Ian
……………………….
Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund Section 8:
“All Governors, Executive Directors, […] and employees of the Fund [...] shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Fund waives this immunity;”
—————————