COURT OF APPEAL, 27 FEBRUARY 1900. MM. Ahmad Afifi Bey (Pres.); Coghlan, Royle (J.J.); El Sayed Muhammad Effendi (State Repr.). STATE REPRESENTATIVE v. ANTONIO MAGRI. (O. D. Art. 15.) I. Jurisdiction—Criminal law—Territoriality.—II. Jurisdiction—Disputed nationality—Diplomatic negociations.—III. Jurisdiction—Protection of Consul withdrawn. I. It is universally recognized that the criminal law of a State is territorial, and is therefore applicable to all offences committed within the State territory, irrespective of the nationality of the offender. In Egypt the only exception to this general principle is found in the immunities and privileges accorded by treaty or custom. However extensive such immunities and privileges may be, there is none the less a general prima-facie presumption of jurisdiction in favour of the Courts of the country, the jurisdiction of the Consular Courts being the exception. II. When the disputed question of a person's nationality already forms the subject of diplomatic negociations, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine such question, but if the objection to the jurisdiction, on the ground of nationality, is taken by the accused person alone, and the Consular authority, to which he claims to be subject, after having been apprised of the question, abstains from any intervention in the course of the proceedings, the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the point is not ousted. III. When a Consular authority withdraws its protection from an individual and hands him over to the Courts of the country to be judged according to their laws, such Courts cannot question the right of the Consular authority to adopt such a course.