Contrast between criminal immunity and state responsibility principels in the context of statute of international criminal court

ICC identifies no immunity for diplomatic officials regarding article 27 of its statute. But according to the article98(1) of the statute, the court may not oblige the state parties to perform actions against the obligations in the context of applying the criminal immunity based on the article31 of the Convention on Diplomatic Relations1961. Hence, the state party would face with two opposing obligations in implementation of the article98(1) of the statute in surrendering the national of non-party state to the court. According to the Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties, the substance of both treaties would be valid based on the principle of relativity of treaties, and the state party would be free in choosing to respect each one. By surrendering the alleged person to the court, the state party would have responsibility to non-party state according to the article27 of the statute, and if the state refuses to surrender the alleged person, would bear responsibility to ICC, according to article31of the Vienna Convention. But considering the hierarchy of the laws, the states parties may not have the right to select and should prefer the obligations caused by the statute to the obligations caused by diplomatic law.