DNA Edit: Dilatory Tactics - Pakistan’s proof against Jadhav looks dubious

The world of spies and spooks are always opaque, or else they would not be snoops in the first place. It is a netherworld where truth and fiction co-exist, often unhappily. Which is why making out a case against an alleged spy in a court of law, where both sides are amply represented by top notch lawyers, is always a tough proposition.

The hearing of Kulbhushan Jadhav at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague is a case in point. There is no reason why Pakistan would want to adjourn the ongoing hearing in the Jadhav case at the ICJ, if it had any credible evidence against the alleged spy.

The reason why solid ‘evidence’ in such cases can never be presented is because it would entail revealing a lot of operational details, which a country would be loath to doing.

In Jadhav’s case, while Pakistan insists that he was picked up in Balochistan on March 3, 2016, India has asserted that the former Navy officer with business links in Iran, was abducted illegally from some place near Chabahar and then, under duress, made to confess being an Indian spy.

Well, if Pakistan’s military court is convinced that they have all the evidence against Jadhav — there is no reason why they should not present it before the ICJ, instead of asking for a deferment on rather specious grounds. In its plea before the ICJ, Pakistan asked for an adjournment, citing the illness of its ad-hoc judge, and requesting the court to swear-in another judge, who would naturally need some time to go through the briefings before hearing could resume.

Expectedly, the ICJ has declined Pakistan’s plea and asked them to continue with their arguments. Islamabad’s reluctance to continue with the arguments is understandable. It is one thing to cook up a case in a kangaroo military court, making all evidence appear incontrovertible, it is quite another to make those facts stand up in an international court under the scrutiny of legal eagles.

Pakistan’s reluctance becomes even more intriguing, given the powers of the ICJ. Its authority in the matter is, strictly speaking, limited. The court can provide limited relief, even if India wins the case. The ICJ, in the best of circumstances, can only ask the offending country to review and reconsider their conviction.

In the normal scheme of things, that should not be a problem. Pakistan can always turn down the ICJ’s appeal, but for reasons unknown, appears not too keen to be doing so. Given that the case is under international glare, Pakistan is willy-nilly obliged to produce ‘credible’ evidence for convicting Jadhav.

India has driven home the point that Pakistan has not allowed consular access to Jadhav, since his detention. That constitutes a gross violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and is prompted by lack of evidence on Pakistan’s part. Either way, therefore, India approaching the ICJ is a good move. The life of the man standing on trial is, of course, another matter.