Business Today

India wins Kulbhushan Jadhav case at ICJ: Pakistan's military court justice stands exposed

Kulbhushan Jadhav, 46, was awarded death sentence by a Pakistani military court last month for alleged espionage and subversive activities.

BT Online   New Delhi     Last Updated: May 18, 2017  | 18:02 IST
Kulbhushan Jadhav live updates: ICJ to pronounce verdict at 3:30 PM today

Following the ICJ verdict delivered today, Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj said the order has come as a great relief to the family of Kulbhushan Jadhav and people of India.

3: 54 PM Pakistan shall take all measures to ensure that Kulbhushan Jadhav is not executed, says  ICJ President Ronny Abraham

3:45 PM ICJ has its jurisdiction in Kulbhshan jadhav case, says ICJ President Ronny Abraham

3:40 PM India should have been given consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav by Pakistan: ICJ

ICJ on Kulbhushan Jadhav's nationality

3:30 PM  ICJ starts reading its verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhva case

Here's the full text of ICJ's verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhav

Reasoning of the Court The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie to hear the case. It recalls that India seeks to ground its jurisdiction in Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention,  which  provides  that the  Court has jurisdiction over " [ d ] isputes  arising  out  of  the interpretation  or  applicat ion of the [Vienna] Convention". In  this  regard,  the  Co urt  notes  that the Parties do indeed appear to have differed, and still differ today, on the question of India's consular assistance to  Mr. Jadhav under  the  Vienna  Convention. It  further notes that the acts  alleged  by India, i.e., the alleged failure by P akistan to provide the requisite consular notifications with regard to the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav, as well as the alleged failure to allow communication and provide  access  to  him,  appear  to  be  capable  of  falling  wit hin the  scope  of  the  Conventi on. In  the view of the Court, t his is sufficient to establish that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of -2 -the Optional Protocol. The Court further observes that the existence of a 2008 bilateral Agreement between the Parties on consular relati o ns does not change its conclusion on jurisdiction.

The Court then turns to the question whether the rights alleged by India are at least plausible. It observes that t he rights  to consular notification and access between  a  State and its  nationals,  as well as  the  obligations of the  detaining State to inform the  person concerned without delay of his rights  with  regard  to consular assistance and  to  allow  their exercise, are  recognized  in  Article 36, paragraph 1,  of  the  Vienna Convention,  and  that  India  has  al leged  violations  of  this  provision. In the view of the Court, therefore, it appears that the rights alleged by India are plausible.

The  Court then focu ses  on the  issue  of  the  link  between  the  rights  claimed  and  the provisional measures requested. It cons iders that the measures requested are aimed at ensuring that the rights contained in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, are preserved. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by India and the provisional measures being sought.

The  Court  then  examines  whether  there  is  a  risk  of  irreparable  preju dice  and  urgency. It considers  that  the  mere  fact  that  Mr. Jadhav  is  under  a  death  sentence  and  might  therefore  be executed  is  sufficient  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  a  risk  of  irrepara ble  prejudice  to  the  rights claimed  by  India. The  Court  further  observes  that Pakistan  has  indicated  that  any  execution  of Mr. Jadhav would probably not take place before the month of August 2017. This means that there is a risk that an execution could take place at any moment thereafter, before the Court has given its final  decision  in  the  case. The  Court  also  notes  that  Pakistan  has  given  no  assurance  that Mr. Jadhav  will  not  be  executed  before  the  Court  has  rendered  its  final  decision. In  those circumsta nces, the Court is satisfied that there is urgency in the present case. The Court concludes by indicating the following measures: Pakistan shall take  all  measures  at  its  disposal  to  ensure  that  Mr. Jadhav  is  not  executed pending the final decision in these proceedings and shall inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of the present Order.

The Court also decides that, until it has given its final decision, it shall remain seised of the matters which form the subject -matter of this order.

The International Court of Justice will deliver its verdict on the death sentence of Kulbhushan Jadhav today. An 11-judge ICJ bench will start delivering the verdict at 3.30 pm (IST) at a public sitting in The Hague, Netherlands.

Kulbhushan Jadhav, 46, was awarded death sentence by a Pakistani military court last month for alleged espionage and subversive activities.

Last week, the International Court of Justice held a public hearing at the Great Hall of Justice housed in the Peace Palace at The Hague in Netherlands where India and Pakistan presented their case over the issue. To challenge death penalty handed out to Jadhav, counsel Harish Salve presented India's arguments at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Read Also:Harish Salve charged Re 1 for fighting Jadhav's case

India has asked the International Court of Justice to suspend the death sentence awarded to Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer. Pakistan has also not responded to the request for visas applied by Jadhav's family.

The ICJ had on May 9 stayed the death sentence to Kulbhushan Jadhav after India had moved a petition before the UN body to seek justice for Kulbhushan Jadhav, 46, alleging violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by Pakistan after its 16 requests for consular access to the former naval officer was consistently denied.

India submitted to the ICJ that it had information that Jadhav was "kidnapped from Iran, where he was carrying on business after retiring from the Indian Navy, and was then shown to have been arrested in Balochistan" on March 3, 2016, and that the Indian authorities were notified of that arrest on March 25, 2016.



  • Print

A    A   A