Kulbhushan Jadhav case: How ICJ demolished Pakistan's arguments
The International Court of Justice of Thursday dealt a big blow to Pakistan and stayed the execution of to Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav till its final verdict.
Judge Ronny Abraham of the ICJ delivered the verdict at 3:30 pm from The Hague today.
Officials of both the countries were present when the judge asked the registrar to communicate the order to both the parties.
Here are the five major points of ICJ verdict:
1- ICJ's Jurisdiction:
Rejecting all arguments of Pakistan, the ICJ said it has jurisdiction in the matter.
"The acts alleged by India, i.e., the alleged failure by Pakistan 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 within the scope of the Convention. In the view of the Court, this is sufficient to establish that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of the Optional Protocol. The Court further observes that the existence of a 2008 bilateral Agreement between the Parties on consular relations does not change its conclusion on jurisdiction," Judge Ronny Abraham said in the verdict.
"The 2008 Agreement amplifies, confirms and extends the Parties’ reciprocal obligations relating to consular assistance, for which the Vienna Convention is a framework. Therefore, the 2008 Agreement does not exclude the Court’s jurisdiction in the present case," the court said.
2- Pakistan's argument on consular access:
Pakistan had argued that Vienna Convention provisions on consular access were not intended for a "spy" involved in terror activities. However, ICJ observed that "the rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals"are recognized under the Vienna convention.
"It observes that the 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 alleged violations of this provision."
"In addition to issues of consular relations, this is a case in which it regrettably appears, on a preliminary examination of the facts, that the basic human rights of Mr. Jadhav have been violated by not allowing India to have consular access to him after his arrest and during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him in Pakistan," a concurring declaration of Judge Bhandari said.
3- Vienna Convention:
Rights invoked by India under the Vienna Convention are plausible, the ICJ said in the verdict.
"The Court then turns to the question whether the rights alleged by India are at least plausible....In the view of the Court, therefore, it appears that the rights alleged by India are plausible," the ICJ said.
4- Stay on execution:
Pakistan will take all measures at its disposal to ensure Kulbhushan Jadhav is not executed pending final decision, the court held. "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," ICJ President Judge Ronny Abraham said in aread out of the verdict.
5- Circumstance of arrest:
The court did not accept Pakistan’s version of the circumstances leading to the arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav and said it “remains disputed.”
"Concerning the facts of the case, Judge Bhandari underscores the uncertainty surrounding the circumstances in which Mr. Jadhav was arrested. He makes clear that the Parties do not agree as to where Mr. Jadhav was arrested, whether within or outside Pakistan," a declaration of ICJ's Judge Bhandari said.