Share this:

" />
Published On: Mon, Feb 18th, 2019

Kulbhushan Jadhav case: India accuses Pak of misusing ICJ

Share This

indexNEW DELHI/ HAGUE  :  : The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Monday adjourned hearing of a case pertaining to Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, after the Indian side presented its arguments in the case.Jadhav, an on-duty Indian navy officer working for the Indian covert agency Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), was captured from Balochistan in March 2016. He later confessed to his association with RAW, and involvement in espionage and fomenting terrorism in Pakistan.
The Indian spy was tried in a Pakistani military court, which sentenced him to death in April 2017 for espionage and subversive activities.The hearing in the ICJ will continue until Feb 21. Pakistan will present evidence pertaining to Jadhav’s involvement in subversive activities on Tuesday.New Delhi will again be given a chance to present its stance on Feb 20, while Pakistan will give final arguments in the case on Feb 21.
According to diplomatic sources, India has not provided evidence regarding Jadhav’s retirement.
“India did not give a satisfactory response to a question on the passport issued in Hussain Mubarak Patel’s name,” the sources added. “Jadhav had used the passport in the name of Hussain Mubarak Patel to visit India 17 times,” they added.Pakistan’s delegation led by Attorney General Anwar Mansoor will present its arguments tomorrow and will make its closing submissions on Thursday. It is expected that the ICJ decision will be delivered by summer this year.
The Foreign Office in its fact sheet stated, “India argues that Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav is an innocent businessman who was kidnapped from Iran, brought to Pakistan, and tortured to confess that he was a Commander in the Indian Navy working with India’s Research & Analysis Wing (RAW). India argues that it was entitled to obtain consular access to Commander Jadhav as soon as his detention was made public by Pakistan on March 25, 2016. India argues that the trial and conviction of Commander Jadhav for espionage and terrorism offences by a Military Court on 10 April 2017 was “a farce”. India contends that the denial of consular access requires the ICJ to “at least” order the acquittal, release and return to India of Commander Jadhav.”
“Rejecting all of India’s assertions”, it added, “Pakistan points to evience obtained from Commander Jadhav after his arrest, and during the criminal process leading to his conviction as amply demonstrating his activities in fomenting terrorism and engaging in espionage within Pakistan. Pakistan maintains that it would be incompatible with international law for someone sent as a spy/terrorist by a State to be afforded access to officials of that State, as India asserts.
Pakistan also points to an express Agreement on Consular Access dated May 21, 2008 between India and Pakistan, which allows each State to consider a request for consular access “on its merits” in a case involving national security. Furthermore, Pakistan points to the uncontradicted evidence that Commander Jadhav was provided with an authentic Indian passport in a ‘cover’ Muslim name by the Indian authorities, as a clear and obvious link between his conduct and the Government of India. Such conduct being a blatant violation of international law should bar any claim for relief from a court. India refuses to reply on this issue and (unconvincingly) describes it as “mischievous propaganda”.

”The fact sheet also gave “six key points which India needs to answer”. (With Agency Inputs ). Amid the huge face-off with Islamabad over the deadly terror strike at Pulwama, India is presenting its case at the International Court of Justice, seeking cancellation of Pakistan’s death sentence on Kulbhushan Jadhav – an Indian national.   Mr Jadhav was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court in April 2017 on charges of espionage and terrorism. The International Court of Justice in The Hague has asked Pakistan to hold off the execution till it reaches its final verdict in the case. That verdict, India told the court today, has brought hope of justice to its 1.3 billion citizens.

Representing India before the International Court, senior advocate Harish Salve said the case rests mainly on two points – the breach of Vienna Convention by Pakistan, and “with regard to the relief to be granted”.Accusing Pakistan of using the court to spread “propaganda” against India, Mr Salve said Pakistan is “embarrassed” to disclose its judgment in the case.”Pakistan’s story has always been strong on rhetoric and blurred on facts. India seeks relief that trial by military court in Pakistan fails to satisfy due processes. Jadhav’s continued custody without consular custody should be declared unlawful,” Mr Salve said.
Pakistan, the former Solicitor General of India said, has steadfastly refused to disclose “specific events” in relations to which Mr Jadhav was convicted – even when it offered to extradite him to India on October 26, 2017. “India replied that it was not possessed of any material that Jadhav had committed any crime for which he could tried in India”.Pakistan, he said, had also contended that India has not “established” Mr Jadhav’s nationality. Still, it has disregarded 13 applications from India to grant consular access to him. Consular access is a must under the Vienna Convention and Pakistan, he said, is in breach if it.
“Can courts that do not rise to due standards be repository of faith?” questioned Mr Salve. Mr Jadhav, he said, was detained, confession extracted and then he was tried and awarded death sentence.”Fundamental principles require that more serious the charge, greater are the need for safeguards. “Rubbishing Pakistan’s claims that Mr Jadhav was arrested on March 3, 2016, from the restive Balochistan province, India said the retired Naval officer was kidnapped from Iran, where he was running a business. Pakistan has also contended that consular access cannot be granted to spies.( With Inputs from Haghe).


About the Author

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>