ICJ can't sit on judgement adjudicated by a competent court constituted under the constitution of Pakistan, Yadav was sentenced to death under domestic laws and ICJ is no entity to look into the matters decided under domestic laws. Suspension of the sentence is totally out of question, for neither ICJ has jurisdiction nor Yadav has availed appeal available to him. Urgency pleaded by India holds no ground.
I have a question more to do with Pakistanis observing the case. The below are facts and none are in dispute.
Does it trouble you that:
1. None of the charges against the accused have been made public, or even listed to India. Is it your position that the constitution of Pakistan, either based on Islamic laws or democratic laws, does not require an accused and the public at large to know charges against him?
2. Any curiosity why that the broad term "terror" charges specifically have been levied against the accused in public, YET an incident of terror has not ever been attributed to him? Does it seem odd that a military and government politicians who often levy specific terror acts to India, CIA etc. has in this case, not attributed a single incident of terror to the accused rather simply said in broad terms_ he was involved in terror acts?
3. It is a fact that spies all around the world are allowed consular access in democracies and by civilized, responsible nations. Even if in your estimation you think consular access in not required; what are the possible reasons Pakistan does not allow a single day access? What do you think would happen if he got a single visit being he is an international citizen?
4. Finally- under Pakistan's constitution, is an accused allowed to get proper representation of his/her choice in a court of law? Are you curious at the very least as to why the accused was not allowed to assign a representative
of his choice, rather given one by the military court?
Thank you.
pathankot probe by India herself came to conclusion that it was an inside job so why would sharif waste his time.
