After the World War II, the growth of the command economies and the development of the “human rights” discourse, imposed significant exceptions to the customary principle of the State Immunity. By the recent development, a State would not enjoy from immunity for human rights violations. However, States practice, including the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, limit such exception to the territorial torts. One may argue that at least, in case of the extra-territorial violation of the jus cogens norms of human rights, there might be a conflict between immunity and the jus cogens norms. Current article is seeking to prove this proposition that theoretically speaking due to the substantive character of claimed jus cogens norms, the conflict between the mentioned norms and procedural rule of immunity seems unlikely. In addition, because of the customary character of the cited norms, it can be said that there is not sufficient positive state practice in favor of the conflict between newly emerged customary law (jus cogens norms of human rights) and the former customary principle of State immunity.