The "litmus test" that will be decided in this legal case, very probably in the US Supreme Court Claudio, is whether the function of the Mercedes during its last voyage was a military one or a commercial one. As you have indeed researched this case in great detail you know perfectly well she was carrying "cascarilla" wood, seal oil, copper and tin ingots, unserviceable cannons, private passengers including women and children not to mention over 700,000 pesos (coins) belonging to private merchants. The King was transporting 200,000 pesos. The departure of these ships as a commercial ship was advertised in the Lima paper "for the merchants to be informed". Now what puzzles me Claudio is if the Spanish lawyers believe that just a few months later after the sinking of the Mercedes, when the Santisima Trinidad, the Spanish flag ship was leaving port on its way to Trafalgar, if she was carrying similar cargo or if the captain much preferred to load powder and munition instead of copper and tin bars and soldiers instead of children and women? The legal standard for this case is the Law of the Sea Convention, UNCLOS, that very clearly in states:
Article 96. Immunity of ships used only on government noncommercial service
Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.
The key words here are " non-commercial service" Claudio and this is exactly what this case is about.
