What's new

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

Pakistan clearly said it doesn't want to play any video

It doesn't want to play the video because Judges don't prefer it played or being made admissible.

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.

NO
Pakistan says the ICJ's jurisdiction is not applicable here because KBY is involved in terror activities. They wanted to prove this by playing the video which judges did not prefer being played in the court because it was edited and confession was made under pressure in military custody!!
 
.
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?

khair janne do jaddon faisla aauga aapee pataa lagg jaau :sarcastic:


Kulbhushan Jadhav case: International Court of Justice to pronounce verdict tomorrow as India, Pakistan cross swords
The International Court of Justice will pronounce its verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhav on Thursday.

By Zee Media Bureau | Last Updated: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 - 17:57
0
Comment

595384-jadhav.jpg


The Hague: The International Court of Justice will pronounce its verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhav on Thursday.

According to news agency PTI, the verdict will be out at 3.30 PM.


Follow
Press Trust of India

@PTI_News

#ICJ order on #KulbhushanJadhav case to be announced tomorrow at 3:30 PM (IST), govt sources say.

5:50 PM - 17 May 2017






Earlier, India and Pakistan on Monday crossed swords at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over Kulbhushan Jadhav's case with New Delhi demanding the immediate suspension of his death sentence and Islamabad accusing it of using the world body as a stage for "political theatre" through a "misconceived" plea.

The two neighbours -- who last faced off at the ICJ 18 years ago when Islamabad sought its intervention over the shooting down of its naval aircraft -- India took the Jadhav case to the world court, accusing Pakistan of violating the Vienna Convention and conducting a "farcical trial" for convicting Jadhav without a "shred of evidence".

After hearing the arguments of the two sides, the court said it will issue its order on India's request for provisional measures "as soon as possible".

"The date on which this order will be delivered at a public sitting will be duly communicated to the parties," the court said.

India demanded the immediate suspension of Jadhav's death sentence, expressing fears that Pakistan could execute him even before the hearing at the ICJ was over.

India made a forceful submission as the ICJ began hearing the case of the 46-year-old former Navy officer who was arrested on March 3 last year and sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage and subversive activities.

"Jadhav has not got the right to get proper legal assistance and the right to consular access. There is an immediate threat to him to be executed even before a decision is passed," joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs Deepak Mittal told the court in his opening remarks.

Representing India, lead attorney Harish Salve said, "The execution of the death sentence cannot be done while this court is hearing the appeal. Else, it will be a violation of the Vienna Convention."

Following India's arguments, Pakistan, in its submission before the the UN's highest judicial body, said India's application on Jadhav, who was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage and subversive activities, was "unnecessary and misconceived" and must be dismissed.

India has seen it fit to use the International Court of Justice as a stage for "political theatre" but "we will not respond in kind", Mohammad Faisal of the Pakistan Foreign Office said in his opening remarks in response to India's submissions earlier in the day.

The ICJ also denied permission to Pakistan to play a purported "confessional" video of Jadhav at the public hearing here.

Representing Pakistan, lawyer Khawar Qureshi said India has sought to persuade this court that Pakistan intends to execute Jadhav within days.

"Simply by referring to the clemency process available as a right to commander Jadhav. A period of 150 days is provided for in this regard which even if started on April 10, 2017, which is the date of conviction at first instance, could extend to well beyond August 2017.

"There is also of course the potential for the writ petition of the High Court to be invoked as we believe India must be well aware," he said.

Earlier, Salve said Pakistan had denied India its 16 requests for consular

"The graver the charges, the greater the need for continued adherence of the Vienna Convention. Jadhav has been in judicial custody without any communication with his family," he said.

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) that recognises that no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their lives.

India had not been given the copy of the charges filed against Jadhav, Salve said.

"The need for a wholesome compliance is greater when charges are serious. We want appropriate legal representation for Kulbhushan Jadhav," he said.

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.

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 asserted that it wants the 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.

On India invoking the Vienna Convention, Qureshi said, "The Vienna convention article 36 which adopted to set up standards of conduct particularly concerning communications and contact with nationals of the sending state which would contribute to the development of the friendly relations among nations...the observation we made immediately is this is unlikely to apply in the context of a spy, terrorist send by a state to engage in acts of terror."

Kulbhushan Jadhav case

Jadhav, the latest flashpoint in the tensions between Pakistan and India, was sentenced last month. On May 8, India moved the ICJ against the death penalty, alleging violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. On May 9, the highest court in the UN gave Jadhav a lease of life.

India, in its appeal to the ICJ, had asserted that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy. However, it denies that he has any connection with the government.

Pakistan claims to have arrested Jadhav from its restive Balochistan province.
 
.
Well the verdict is tommorrow.

Pakistanis here are getting it wrong that we are desperate to save KY , ofcourse we would love to see him return back alive, but we also know that he would be hanged by pakistan even if they loose tommorrow.

But even then it will be win for a india (with sad moment of lost citizen) that pakistan rejects to oblige for ICJ verdicts. That will relieve india of any obligations under IWT, and pave the way for mass punish of pakistanis in india.
 
.
But even then it will be win for a india (with sad moment of lost citizen) that pakistan rejects to oblige for ICJ verdicts. That will relieve india of any obligations under IWT, and pave the way for mass punish of pakistanis in india.

True, if they hang India will not be obliged to follow any third party intervention, be it UN resolution on Kashmir. This will die for ever and become history, so would be IWT! UNHRC in Kashmir would pack their bags!

IHC in Islamabad would close!
 
Last edited:
.
How can ICJ reach to any conclusion so quickly with just one hearing from both the sides ? This doesn't sounds a final verdict regarding he being a terror spy or not.
 
. .
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 :sarcastic:

Regrettable that India is relying upon technicalities and blatant lies and not upon merit. The argument that 2008 agreement being unregistered has no binding is an immature rather a bizarre technical argument which also contradicts long standing position of India on bilateral agreements/treaties. It's more like implying India being a signatory state to a treaty can't be and shouldn't be trusted, now that's serious for a country like India.

2008 treaty is operational for a decade now, not a single breech by Pakistan has been suggested by India so far. In fact, this treaty saved many innocent lives especially of those poor fishermen on both sides.

Here;

Indian Declaration ( For Article 36-2 btw, article which has been invoked by India), excepts.

(2) disputes with the government of any State which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

India is contradicting its own reservation by making a common wealth nation a party in the instant application.

(7) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of a multilateral treaty unless all the parties to the treaty are also parties to the case before the Court or Government of India specially agree to jurisdiction;

VC is a multilateral treaty, isn't it? Where are all the states which are party to Vienna Convention? A country's discretion is not applied to other countries (parties/party) for they have their own discretion, in other words all the parties concerned should be in agreement. Please make a note of that.

Pakistan's declaration

e) all matters related to the national security of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan;

Excludes jurisdiction of the ICJ in the instant application.


Moreover, Vienna Convention's provisions have been superceded by 2008 special agreement between Pakistan and India on consular access which has been operational since it's inception. For the sake of argument even if this agreement is invalid, the provisions of convention don't apply to spys. International customary laws govern such matters which expressively deny consular access to spys.
 
.
Well the verdict is tommorrow.

Pakistanis here are getting it wrong that we are desperate to save KY , ofcourse we would love to see him return back alive, but we also know that he would be hanged by pakistan even if they loose tommorrow.

But even then it will be win for a india (with sad moment of lost citizen) that pakistan rejects to oblige for ICJ verdicts. That will relieve india of any obligations under IWT, and pave the way for mass punish of pakistanis in india.

What verdict you are taking about ? Use your head ..how can icj reach to any conclusion with just one hearing ? Either icj will simply reject the Indian request or will ask Pakistan govt to provide counsellar access regardless of he being a terror spy or innocent man. If this will be the case, than his execution will be halted and India will request another petition to prove him innocent which will be a long battle and a difficult one for India to prove though in between that time stay order will most likely be issued. But all this be possible if Pakistan accepts icj decision. PAK legally still has right not to accept any order of icj if it is relevant to her national security.
 
.
It doesn't want to play the video because Judges don't prefer it played or being made admissible.

Then prove it from judges mouth themselves. We all know you can't prove it.

Pakistan says the ICJ's jurisdiction is not applicable here because KBY is involved in terror activities.

What are you smoking buddy? Must be some strong sh!t. In fact your whole nation is high on it.

Pakistan rejected ICJ's jurisdiction from the very start and even gave examples from the past where India did the same. Pakistan played the game that India used to play in the past. Go read about it.

They wanted to prove this by playing the video which judges did not prefer being played in the court because it was edited and confession was made under pressure in military custody!!

Bullsh!t. I have proven from an Indian journalist that Pakistan never asked to play any video. You are just putting words in the mouth of judges. Stop doing that. That won't change anything.

True, if they hang India will not be obliged to follow any third party intervention, be it UN resolution on Kashmir. This will die for ever and become history, so would be IWT! UNHRC in Kashmir would pack their bags!

IHC in Islamabad would close!

Day dreaming :lol:
 
.

If India lose to jurisdiction Issue on National security matters, it won't hurt India

If India wins on Counsellor access plea then Pakistan faces embarrassment
I MUST say ... Great "Logical/ rational / intelligent" reasoning on your part to justify your case of how ..

-if India looses the case it somehow won't hurt India and

-if we (Pak) loose it'll be an embarrassment... :D
 
Last edited:
.
True, if they hang India will not be obliged to follow any third party intervention, be it UN resolution on Kashmir. This will die for ever and become history, so would be IWT! UNHRC in Kashmir would pack their bags!

IHC in Islamabad would close!
Pleas tell your gov close your fvcking ihc and withdraw from every agreement.
Then we will decide everything in the war.
Do or die
 
.
Then prove it from judges mouth themselves. We all know you can't prove it.

Your agent intended to play but he didn't play. Because judges already watched it on 70mm Cineplex near their house, right?<< this is sufficient.

Bullsh!t. I have proven from an Indian journalist that Pakistan never asked to play any video. You are just putting words in the mouth of judges. Stop doing that. That won't change anything.
Irrelevant statement!
Pakistan rejected ICJ's jurisdiction from the very start and even gave examples from the past where India did the same. Pakistan played the game that India used to play in the past. Go read about it.

But it applies because there is no terrorism involved. Judges don't have sufficient evidence that Jadhav was terrorist.
Day dreaming

It is up to us we don't need permission from Isb to close our IHC and remove UNHRC from Kashmir. It would be domestic decision having international implications.

Then we will decide everything in the war.

China definitely does not want to lose it's 100b dollar investment. Stay calm!
 
.
Your agent intended to play but he didn't play. Because judges already watched it on 70mm Cineplex near their house, right?<< this is sufficient.

Whatever. We are still waiting for the moment when judge rejected our attempt to play video.

It is up to us we don't need permission from Isb to close our IHC and remove UNHRC from Kashmir. It would be domestic decision having international implications.

As I said. Day dreaming.

I MUST say ... Great "Logical/ rational / intelligent" reasoning on your part to justify your case of how ..

-if India looses the case it somehow won't hurt India and

-if we (Pak) loose it'll be an embarrassment... :D

Its like if its head we win. Its its tail you lose.

Typical bharati. :lol:
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom