It has long been widely believed that the sovereign immunity of states includes the principle of "equals shall not be subject to each other's authority", which is an expression of the principle of non-interference and respect for the sovereignty of other states. In fact, the purpose of establishing this rule is to protect and preserve the state and state officials from being present and heard in the domestic courts of other countries. In contrast, we are faced with peremptory rules and norms that have, over the years, taken a leading position in the hierarchy of international law norms for the international community, and since they cannot be violated in any way, they have placed strong chains on the functioning of the state and state officials; in such a way that today, adherence to their implementation is considered a criterion for measuring an efficient and capable state in the international arena. State officials and bodies, with the support and blessing of state immunity, find the opportunity to benefit from the benefits and immunities defined for them in international documents; However, the Court has not overlooked the fact in its rulings that the immunity of the State and the immunity of government officials are two distinct issues. In the present study, what prompted the author to write is the search and finding of similarities and differences between two rulings that the Court has issued over the course of a decade on almost similar issues, which have indeed left the same results and consequences.