ICJ hearing on Kulbhushan Jadhav case : News, Updates & Discussions

[ashok321]

treaty has to be submitted/registered in UN to be applicable, It has not been done yet. Therefore the treaty has no value as of now.

Don't know whether I cry or laugh on this dull remarks.

 

[hacker J]

what oh I see you yourself is indian.thank you but your comments are of no use.kulbhushan will be hanged.cheers


You Indians had that much tiny and closed minds.
On one hand you say that kulbhushan vid was a doctored one but in the kasabs case you rely on that same vids which can be doctored too

Listen mate, dun make me angry now. I do not rely on doctored videos I have seen the video where kasab was caught after he emptied ak 47 cartage on a police man. Not like jhadhavs were camera taking different angles and looks like reading a script. No way both can be compared. Yes I would only compare it to people involved in few months back attack on school who killed more than 200 children. If you wud have caught one of them alive n made video I wud have applauded.

 

[Areesh]

I have heard the argument, may be you have not.

The agent clearly said, '' I intended to share 6 min of video, I understand court has viewed the video but would prefer NOT TO BE SHOWN HERE''

I have already heard that. It clearly shows that we didn't want to show the video since court had already watched the video. Court never stopped Pakistan but it is Pakistan itself who decided not to show the video since judges had already watched it.

I understand your low intellect since you are a Zee TV audience. But still try to understand the context here which is very clear to understand.

Stop embarrassing your country!

Stop fooling yourself with lies and read what an Indian journalist is saying.

https://twitter.com/x/status/864104793278734340

See. Journalist who was present at the hearing clearly says that it is Pakistan who decided not to show the video since judges already have watched t. Your media lied to your once again.

Now sit tight while your desperate attempt at ICJ fails and we hang KBY.

 

[ShoutB]

It clearly shows that we didn't want to show the video since court had already watched the video.

where in their summer farm house with their grand children? When some thing is not permissible in the court this means it is not taken as evidence.

He intended to show but was not allowed in the court.

 

[Areesh]

where in their summer farm house with their grand children? When some thing is not permissible in the court this means it is not taken as evidence.

They have watched it through media and internet. And if it is not permissible in court then show me a judge of ICJ asking Pakistani agent not to show to the video. Come on us show us that part. Show us where Pakistan wanted to show the video but ICJ denied it.

Pakistan didn't even bother to show the video since Pakistan has already ask ICJ to reject Indian request on this case. We have already asked ICJ that it has no jurisdiction in this case so we never ever intended to show the video.

And Indian journalist who was present at the hearing confirmed that.

 

[ShoutB]

They have watched it through media and internet. And if it is not permissible in court then show me a judge of ICJ asking Pakistani agent not to show to the video.

the answer is..

If it was permissible, why your agent did not bring the video when he intended and why he said 'they don't Prefer'? Why don't they prefer?

This means they have not seen the video nor wishes to at their official capacity by not allowing it in the court. This is a professional court not dhobhi ghaat.

 

[Emmie]

Don't know whether I cry or laugh on this dull remarks.

I would laugh and lament simultaneously, laugh because it couldn't be more infantile and lament because hundreds of poor fishermen of both sides will suffer. Lamentible for other reasons too, for instance India had to rely upon technicality rather than merit.

 

[ranjeet]

https://twitter.com/x/status/864815784815611906

 

[Areesh]

the answer is..

If it was permissible, why your agent did not bring the video when he intended and why he said 'they don't Prefer'? Why don't they prefer?

This means they have not seen the video nor wishes to at their official capacity by not allowing it in the court. This is a professional court not dhobhi ghaat.

The answer is:

Pakistan didn't even bother to ask permission to play video since they don't need to. The words of our agent and Indian journalist are very clear. Pakistan clearly said it doesn't want to play any video.

And the reason is since we are challenging jurisdiction of ICJ in this case, we don't consider it necessary to play that video even though judges have already watched it.

So once again. Sit back buddy and watch while ICJ rejects your request and we hang KBY.

 

[graphican]

India doesn't have a case on ICJ - they will be humiliated for lying before the court on multiple accounts.

The fact that Pakistan and India have 2008 agreement with conditional counsellor access doesn't leave a space for ICJ to give "out of the way" verdict. Also ICJ's case is non binding since this is the matter of Pakistan's internal security and Pakistan has accepted ICJ's interventions on the matters other than INTERNAL SECURITY. What space is there which India could use?

I heard Indian analysts the other day who called 2008 agreement is "both binding and non-binding". Indians are so lost and so out of arguments that they have to give absurd explanations like this.

 

[Emmie]

the answer is..

If it was permissible, why your agent did not bring the video when he intended and why he said 'they don't Prefer'? Why don't they prefer?

This means they have not seen the video nor wishes to at their official capacity by not allowing it in the court. This is a professional court not dhobhi ghaat.

Do you know transcripts of such tapes are also annexed? Do you know confessional statement signed by Commander Yadav in front of a magistrate is part of Pakistan's reply? Do you know India has submitted a news article of Dawn news as evidence? Do you know India has submitted transcripts of press conferences of Pakistani officials as evidence? Do you know India has produced printouts of press releases as evidence?

Now tell me if Yadav's confessional tape and its transcript are not admissible then how on earth Indian material based on press conferences (obviously recorded videos) and newspaper is admissible?

FYI confessional statement signed by Commander Yadav in front of a magistrate alone is ample to make an immaculate legal point.

Look, if you don't understand how courts work you should better remain mum.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Do you know transcripts of such tapes are also annexed? Do you know confessional statement signed by Commander Yadav in front of a magistrate is part of Pakistan's reply? Do you know Indian has submitted a news article of Dawn news as evidence? Do you know India has submitted transcripts of press conferences of Pakistani officials as evidence? Do you know India has produced printouts of press releases as evidence?

Now tell me if Yadav's confessional tape and its transcript are not admissible then how on earth Indian material based on press conferences (obviously recorded videos) and newspaper is admissible?

FYI confessional statement signed by Commander Yadav in front of a magistrate alone is ample to make an immaculate legal point.

Look, if you don't understand how courts work you should better remain mum.

salaam saeen ji if you know anything about british or european legeal system pakistan in the first place would not have send its leagel team rather just a letter that this matter doesn not fall in ICJ juristiction hence we will not be part of the proceeding and not taking part in it ... end of story ... but why your govt shot otself leagelly in the foot

now my second point is inder both british and european law (read criminal) if a murderer goes and alegedlelly confesses on tape without his lawyer bieng present ther by his side that testimony is considerred null & void and considerred he might be drugged or thretenned or both to extract that confession and given benefit of dought if the accused in and if ever is brought to court for hearing and chooses to turn hostile against the so called confession

now sor with all due respect go and ask these two points to the biggest and most intellegent laweyrs you know in USA , UK , europe or Australia and then tell me weather im right or wrong sir

 

[Emmie]

salaam saeen ji if you know anything about british or european legeal system pakistan in the first place would not have send its leagel team rather just a letter that this matter doesn not fall in ICJ juristiction hence we will not be part of the proceeding and not taking part in it ... end of story ... but why your govt shot otself leagelly in the foot

WS Saeen, kush ahiyo tawahan? Legal systems have got nothing to do with what you're trying to say. As an agent Dr. Faisal made it crystal clear in his opening statement as to why Pakistan opted to appear which you seem to have missed. In case if you don't know ICJ compulsory jurisdiction is subject to the reservations of the state, if ICJ violates reservation "Exclusion of ICJ jurisdiction from the matters related to national security" Pakistan will have every right to walk out without out any legal repercussions. What we saw the other day was preliminary hearing, in other words the court still has to decide admissibility of the Indian application.

now my second point is inder both british and european law (read criminal) if a murderer goes and alegedlelly confesses on tape without his lawyer bieng present ther by his side that testimony is considerred null & void and considerred he might be drugged or thretenned or both to extract that confession and given benefit of dought if the accused in and if ever is brought to court for hearing and chooses to turn hostile against the so called confession

Ill make it simple for you, look Saeen every state follows its own domestic laws, ICJ under laws can't supersede domestic laws of any nation. Article/Section 164 CPC governs confessional statement both in India as well as in Pakistan, please read it online.

In nutshell -- What you're saying is a good solace but not practical at all. BTW have you read what kind of jurisdiction does the court, ICJ, have in actuality?

Chai zara dhayan se pijyay ga, garam chai mooh bhi jala deti hy. Good day!

 

[ShoutB]

Now tell me if Yadav's confessional tape and its transcript are not admissible then how on earth Indian material based on press conferences (obviously recorded videos) and newspaper is admissible?

And add to the that that India can give the video as evidence that it is edited and confession is made under military custody, hence cannot be taken as evidence. Then?

As per law such confessions under police custody or military custody are not admissible. Neither in Supreme court of India nor ICJ nor anywhere in EU.

 

[GURU DUTT]

WS Saeen, kush ahiyo tawahan? Legal systems have got nothing to do with what you're trying to say. As an agent Dr. Faisal made it crystal clear in his opening statement as to why Pakistan opted to appear which you seem to have missed. In case if you don't know ICJ compulsory jurisdiction is subject to the reservations of the state, if ICJ violates reservation "Exclusion of ICJ jurisdiction from the matters related to national security" Pakistan will have every right to walk out without out any legal repercussions. What we saw the other day was preliminary hearing, in other words the court still has to decide admissibility of the Indian application.



Ill make it simple for you, look Saeen every state follows its own domestic laws, ICJ under laws can't supersede domestic laws of any nation. Article/Section 164 CPC governs confessional statement both in India as well as in Pakistan, please read it online.

In nutshell -- What you're saying is a good solace but not practical at all. BTW have you read what kind of jurisdiction does the court, ICJ, have in actuality?

Chai zara dhayan se pijyay ga, garam chai mooh bhi jala deti hy. Good day!

Ali janaab you dont get it or your martial race hang over dose not want to make you see the truth that so called 2008 triety between india and pakistan your nation is tryinhg to tell does not means anything when its not rectified or notified/endorsed with UNO & ICJ for related issues like the one on hand (which it is not) hence it stands null & void but you can dream and no one will... khair janne do jaddon faisla aauga aapee pataa lagg jaau