India, Pak face off over Kulbhushan Jadhav; ICJ says no to Pak effort at playing ‘confessional’ video; Ruling timeline not set
India and Pakistan on Monday faced off at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial body of the United Nations (UN), over Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court in Pakistan.
Jadhav, 46, who was arrested on March 3 last year, has been punished on charges of espionage and subversive activities. While India presented its argument over 90 minutes, Pakistan took less than an hour.
India’s counsel Harish Salve demanded the immediate suspension of Jadhav’s death sentence, fearing that Pakistan could execute him even before the ICJ argument was over. Pakistan’s legal representative, Khawar Qureshi, demanded the dismissal of the Indian application on three counts –there is no urgency, the relief is sought is manifestly unavailable, and the ICJ jurisdiction is limited.
The ICJ Bench, comprising 15 judges presided over by Judge Ronny Abraham of France, earlier snubbed the Pakistani delegation, rejecting its insistence to show Jadhav’s video confessional statement in the courtroom. Turn to P4
The Pakistani delegation, however, showed the former Indian Navy officer’s passport bearing a Muslim name to claim that he was a spy.
After hearing both sides, Judge Abraham, while adjourning the proceedings, didn’t gave any timeline on the judgment.
He asked agents (officials who petitioned on behalf of their countries) to remain in touch with the court.
The Pakistani representative said that his country approached India to join investigations by providing details and call details of 13 persons, with whom Jadhav confessed having been in touch. India rejected the confession as it involved some persons at high places.
Experts here believe that it was a big reprieve for India as Pakistan ruled out an immediate execution and admitted that there is at least a 150- day clemency period. KC Singh, former additional secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, described it as an important outcome. He was amazed at the Pakistani argument that India didn’t join investigations by providing proof that Jadhav was its citizen to enable the process of consular process to begin, but repeatedly called him an Indian spy. He appreciated that the ICJ did not allow Pakistan to play Jadhav’s confessional tapes.
Pakistan rested its argument on the 2008 India-Pakistan agreement on consular access that keeps out ‘security prisoners’ from the facility of consular access. Salve argued that the agreement was invalid as it was not registered before the UN.
As per international regulations, bilateral agreements supercede international commitments. In this case, the Vienna Convention is the basis of India’s case.
The rights of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations are sacrosanct, Salve said, citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognises that no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their lives.
Pakistan’s agent Mohammad Faisal blamed India for using the court as a “scene for political theatre”. India had not been able to explain why Jadhav’s passport bore a Muslim name, he said. He maintained that India’s application was “unnecessary and misconceived” and must be dismissed.
Qureshi said that there was a deafening silence from India on Pakistan’s accusations against Jadhav. India accused Pakistan of violating the Vienna convention and conducting a “farcical trial” without a “shred of evidence”. Pakistan had denied India 16 requests for consular access, Salve said.
“Jadhav has not got the right to proper legal assistance and consular access,” Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and India’s agent Deepak Mittal told the court in opening remarks.
Eighteen years after the two neighbours last faced off at the ICJ -- when Islamabad sought its intervention over the shooting down of a naval aircraft -- India said that the execution of death sentence cannot be done while this court is hearing the appeal.
India had not been given the copy of the charges filed against Jadhav. “The need for a wholesome compliance is greater when charges are serious. We want appropriate legal representation for Jadhav. Not just had all requests for consular access fallen on ‘deaf ears’, the trial was conducted without providing Jadhav his rights. Pakistan did not even respond to Jadhav’s mother’s pleas to see her son,” he said. Human rights treated as “basics” all over had been thrown to the wind by Pakistan and the trial had been vitiated, India argued. Though Pakistan says Jadhav has the right to appeal, two-star generals will hear his mercy plea, Salve stressed, questioning the impartiality of the process. India wants ICJ to annul Jadhav’s death sentence and for Pakistan to ensure that no action is taken that may prejudice the rights of India or of Jadhav.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "ICJ")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}