El Sidd
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 67,597
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
They have every right for selFISH determination to develop into super power from regional power
ICJ rejects India’s plea for acquittal, repatriation of Kulbhushan - Updates, News & Discussion
- Thread starter Devil Soul
- Start date
They have every right for selFISH determination to develop into super power from regional power
undercover JIX
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,146
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Haseena told you the time line or its a secret?
Amaa'n
STAFF
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 10,660
- Reaction score
- 149
- Country
- Location
India’s conduct amounted to rights abuse: Justice Jillani
THE HAGUE: The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) verdict in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a serving Indian naval commander who had been awarded death sentence by Pakistan on charges of espionage, came with a detailed dissenting note authored by Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, an ad hoc judge of the court.
Justice Jillani wrote that the court should have found India’s application to be inadmissible because its conduct amounted to abuse of rights. He recalled that the 2008 agreement between India and Pakistan specifically governed questions of consular access and assistance in cases of arrest and detention on national security grounds.
Pakistan lawfully withheld consular access and assistance while examining the case of Jadhav on its merits. Even if the Vienna Convention was applicable in the case, Pakistan had committed no breach of its Article 36 because the country had already in place the procedures necessary for ensuring effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Jadhav, he said.
Vienna Convention doesn’t apply to spies, according to ICJ’s ad hoc judge
Justice Jillani said in his dissenting note: “The Court’s judgment appears to set a dangerous precedent at the times when states are increasingly confronted with transnational terrorist activities and impending threats to national security. Terrorism has become a systemic weapon of war and nations would ignore it at their own peril. Such threats may legitimately justify certain limits to be imposed on the scope of application of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, in the bilateral relations between any two states at any given time.”
Justice Jillani said: “The present case is distinguishable from the Court’s Avena and LaGrand jurisprudence on which the Court has heavily relied. Among various distinguishing factors, the most important one is that the Court was faced here with special circumstances of an individual arrested, detained, tried and convicted for espionage and terrorism offences.”
He said the Vienna Convention had been concluded to contribute ‘to the development of friendly relations among nations’ and it could hardly be the case that the drafters of the convention intended for its rights and obligations to apply to spies and nationals of the sending state (India) on secret missions to threaten and undermine the national security of the receiving state.
Justice Jillani wrote in his dissenting note that India had provided no rebuttal throughout the proceedings to the circumstances in which it had provided an authentic Indian passport, with false identity, to Jadhav and the particulars of Jadhav’s mission in Pakistan, despite the serious nature of the crimes he had committed. The court should have drawn the necessary inferences there from.
Justice Jillani said: “Since 31 May 2017, Pakistan has sent six requests to India for necessary cooperation in the investigation of the criminal case [against Jadhav] and about the passport issue, but these were of no avail. Pakistan even offered to extradite Mr Jadhav to India, if India was prepared to indict him under the Indian laws. The accounts of three respected Indian journalists, Mr Karan Thapar, Mr Praveen Swami and Mr Chandan Nandy, based on interviews conducted with Indian officials, confirm that Mr Jadhav was a RAW agent.”
Justice Jillani said that India’s persistent refusal to cooperate in the investigation against Jadhav was contrary to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, which, inter alia, mandated that all United Nations member states shall “(f) [a]fford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings”.
According to Pakistan, Jadhav’s conduct of perpetrating acts of terror was part of a chain of acts carried out by India to destabilise Pakistan, said Justice Jillani.
According to Pakistan, he stated, “Mr Jadhav was apprehended by security agencies when he entered Balochistan from Iran (Saravan border). India claims that Mr Jadhav is a retired naval officer who was kidnapped from Iran where he was doing business.
‘‘However, neither in its memorial nor in its reply has India given his date of retirement from the Indian Navy. It has not placed any document on record either to indicate the kind of business he was carrying in Iran or when and how he was kidnapped. If Mr Jadhav was in fact kidnapped, as contended by India, India could have lodged a complaint with the Government of Iran, but it failed do so.”
THE HAGUE: The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) verdict in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a serving Indian naval commander who had been awarded death sentence by Pakistan on charges of espionage, came with a detailed dissenting note authored by Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, an ad hoc judge of the court.
Justice Jillani wrote that the court should have found India’s application to be inadmissible because its conduct amounted to abuse of rights. He recalled that the 2008 agreement between India and Pakistan specifically governed questions of consular access and assistance in cases of arrest and detention on national security grounds.
Pakistan lawfully withheld consular access and assistance while examining the case of Jadhav on its merits. Even if the Vienna Convention was applicable in the case, Pakistan had committed no breach of its Article 36 because the country had already in place the procedures necessary for ensuring effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Jadhav, he said.
Vienna Convention doesn’t apply to spies, according to ICJ’s ad hoc judge
Justice Jillani said in his dissenting note: “The Court’s judgment appears to set a dangerous precedent at the times when states are increasingly confronted with transnational terrorist activities and impending threats to national security. Terrorism has become a systemic weapon of war and nations would ignore it at their own peril. Such threats may legitimately justify certain limits to be imposed on the scope of application of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, in the bilateral relations between any two states at any given time.”
Justice Jillani said: “The present case is distinguishable from the Court’s Avena and LaGrand jurisprudence on which the Court has heavily relied. Among various distinguishing factors, the most important one is that the Court was faced here with special circumstances of an individual arrested, detained, tried and convicted for espionage and terrorism offences.”
He said the Vienna Convention had been concluded to contribute ‘to the development of friendly relations among nations’ and it could hardly be the case that the drafters of the convention intended for its rights and obligations to apply to spies and nationals of the sending state (India) on secret missions to threaten and undermine the national security of the receiving state.
Justice Jillani wrote in his dissenting note that India had provided no rebuttal throughout the proceedings to the circumstances in which it had provided an authentic Indian passport, with false identity, to Jadhav and the particulars of Jadhav’s mission in Pakistan, despite the serious nature of the crimes he had committed. The court should have drawn the necessary inferences there from.
Justice Jillani said: “Since 31 May 2017, Pakistan has sent six requests to India for necessary cooperation in the investigation of the criminal case [against Jadhav] and about the passport issue, but these were of no avail. Pakistan even offered to extradite Mr Jadhav to India, if India was prepared to indict him under the Indian laws. The accounts of three respected Indian journalists, Mr Karan Thapar, Mr Praveen Swami and Mr Chandan Nandy, based on interviews conducted with Indian officials, confirm that Mr Jadhav was a RAW agent.”
Justice Jillani said that India’s persistent refusal to cooperate in the investigation against Jadhav was contrary to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, which, inter alia, mandated that all United Nations member states shall “(f) [a]fford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings”.
According to Pakistan, Jadhav’s conduct of perpetrating acts of terror was part of a chain of acts carried out by India to destabilise Pakistan, said Justice Jillani.
According to Pakistan, he stated, “Mr Jadhav was apprehended by security agencies when he entered Balochistan from Iran (Saravan border). India claims that Mr Jadhav is a retired naval officer who was kidnapped from Iran where he was doing business.
‘‘However, neither in its memorial nor in its reply has India given his date of retirement from the Indian Navy. It has not placed any document on record either to indicate the kind of business he was carrying in Iran or when and how he was kidnapped. If Mr Jadhav was in fact kidnapped, as contended by India, India could have lodged a complaint with the Government of Iran, but it failed do so.”
Verve
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
ICJ didn't ask because Pakistan never argued on that being the basis of not granting access. Our argument was that he's a spy and bilateral agreement in place hence no access.
Now that ICJ has ordered access, Pakistan can decline to even entertain it until India provides proof. If India goes to ICJ again, then Pakistan will argue that legal formalities are not complete from India side hence such a request can't be entertained. ICJ can't set aside these legal requirements because precedent cases and judgements exist.
I doubt India will go back to ICJ anytime soon.
El Sidd
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 67,597
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
ankhon ankhon me kiye gaye waday waqt ke pinjron me band nahi hosakte
undercover JIX
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,146
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Jori salamat rahay, do panchi ayaar kay
SecularNationalist
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,046
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Or perhaps its too difficult to you to realize that now you are declared as a terrorist by the international community and soon you will have to burn the dead body of commander yadav.
PakShaheen79
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,548
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Where does 2008 bilateral agreement on consular access stands viz a viz KY case? Is it relevant??
Clutch
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 17,023
- Reaction score
- -3
'Not too bad for Pakistan, pretty bad for India': Reactions pour in on ICJ ruling in Jadhav case
"Delhi defeated. ICJ knocks out India’s major demands about Kulbhushan Jadhav on his release and annulment of sentence."
Dawn.comUpdated about 6 hours ago
As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) verdict in the case of Indian spy Kulbushan Jadhav was announced on Wednesday, members of the legal fraternity as well as journalists took to Twitter to weigh in on the matter, with most viewing it as a favourable outcome for Pakistan.
Attorney-General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor, Foreign Office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal and Shujjat Ali Rathore, Ambassador of Pakistan in the Netherlands, seen before the verdict. — Reuters
Minister for Foreign Affairs Shah Mahmood Qureshi termed it a victory for Pakistan and to clear up any confusion regarding the convicted spy's custody said that he shall "remain in Pakistan" and be "treated in accordance with the laws" of the country.
"Commander Jadhav shall remain in Pakistan. He shall be treated in accordance with the laws of Pakistan. This is a victory for Pakistan," he said.
Shah Mahmood Qureshi
✔@SMQureshiPTI
https://twitter.com/SMQureshiPTI/status/1151510286551212032
Commander Jadhav shall remain in Pakistan. He shall be treated in accordance with the laws of Pakistan. This is a victory for Pakistan. #KulbhushanVerdict
23.4K
9:13 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
5,083 people are talking about this
International Lawyer and founder of Courting the Law, Taimoor Malik, in a series of tweets provided a useful summation on the case, highlighting that the matter had been "left to Pakistani courts".
Taimur Malik@taimur_malik
https://twitter.com/taimur_malik/status/1151477503262973954
Congratulations
Important to highlight some key points regarding the #KulbhushanJadhav case before the #ICJ that came to an end today.
1. In what many are terming as Pakistan’s victory, the Court did not accept India’s request for #Jadhav’s “acquittal, release and return”.
274
7:03 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
151 people are talking about this
In a later comment to Dawn.com, Malik explained: "The ICJ has left the decision regarding the method and forum for the effective review and reconsideration of Jadhav’s case to Pakistan and the Pakistani legal system.
"No comments have been made which suggest that a further review or retrial through the military court system wouldn’t be acceptable as long as consular access and legal representation is provided to Jadhav.
"Therefore, Pakistan now needs to carefully consider whether the same military courts should adjudicate the matter or whether somehow an appeal should lie before the civilian courts in this case. In either case, the important aspect is to provide consular access, legal representation of the defendant’s choice and a further opportunity to Jadhav to present his defence.
"Nothing more than this can be expected by ICJ or India and whatever the outcome is of this process, it would then be Pakistan’s call to decide about its implementation."
Reema Omar, the International Legal Advisor for South Asia at the ICJ, noted that India's appeal for Jadhav's release and return was not granted by the Court.
"The Court has, however, rejected most of the remedies sought by India, including annulment of military court decision convicting Jadhav, his release and safe passage to India," she wrote.
Journalist Talat Hussain condensed the ICJ verdict down in the following few words, reminding readers to remember that however neutral the verdict, it is a defeat of sorts for India, as Pakistan shall effectively be reviewing the case "through its own means".
Syed Talat Hussain
✔@TalatHussain12
https://twitter.com/TalatHussain12/status/1151492441511477249
Delhi defeated. ICJ knocks out India’s major demands about #KulbhushanJadhav about his release and annulment of sentence, practically admits he is a spy, asks Pakistan for review sentence through its own means with consular access.
2,778
8:02 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
776 people are talking about this
"Delhi defeated. ICJ knocks out India’s major demands about #KulbhushanJadhav about his release and annulment of sentence, practically admits he is a spy, asks Pakistan for review sentence through its own means with consular access," he said.
Minister for Science and Technology Fawad Chaudhry congratulated the nation on "a great outcome".
Ch Fawad Hussain
✔@fawadchaudhry
https://twitter.com/fawadchaudhry/status/1151490253158592514
Apparently news reports from Hague suggests that not only Indian case for acquittal,release,return stands rejected but apparently Int Court also upheld Jurisdiction of Mily Court in #Kalbhushan case,Indeed a great outcome, Congs to Pak legal team for putting up great fight
9,190
7:54 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,406 people are talking about this
"Apparently news reports from Hague suggests that not only Indian case for acquittal, release, return stands rejected but apparently [International] Court also upheld Jurisdiction of [Military] Court in #Kalbhushan case. Indeed a great outcome. Congratulations to Pakistan legal team for putting up [a] great fight," he tweeted.
Express Tribune's executive editor Fahd Husain termed the ruling "not too bad for Pakistan" and "pretty bad for India".
"ICJ verdict: (1) Jadhav will not be released (2) His sentence not overturned (3) His hanging stayed (4) He will get Consular access (5) His sentence to be reviewed. Conclusion: Indian all pleas rejected except consular access. Not too bad for Pakistan. Pretty bad for India," he wrote.
Fahd Husain@Fahdhusain
https://twitter.com/Fahdhusain/status/1151488777426219008
ICJ verdict: (1) Jadhav will not be released (2) His sentence not overturned (3) His hanging stayed (4) He will get Consular access (5) His sentence to be reviewed.
Conclusion: Indian all pleas rejected except consular access. Not too bad for Pakistan. Pretty bad for India
2,872
7:48 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,035 people are talking about this
Nasim Zehra, senior journalist and author, in response to Reema Omar's tweet, said that the judgment acknowledges Pakistan’s position that Jadhav is a spy and while asking that a Pakistani court review the military court's decision, it doesn't quash the military court's decision and safe passage to India.
"Delhi defeated. ICJ knocks out India’s major demands about Kulbhushan Jadhav on his release and annulment of sentence."
Dawn.comUpdated about 6 hours ago
As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) verdict in the case of Indian spy Kulbushan Jadhav was announced on Wednesday, members of the legal fraternity as well as journalists took to Twitter to weigh in on the matter, with most viewing it as a favourable outcome for Pakistan.
Attorney-General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor, Foreign Office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal and Shujjat Ali Rathore, Ambassador of Pakistan in the Netherlands, seen before the verdict. — Reuters
Minister for Foreign Affairs Shah Mahmood Qureshi termed it a victory for Pakistan and to clear up any confusion regarding the convicted spy's custody said that he shall "remain in Pakistan" and be "treated in accordance with the laws" of the country.
"Commander Jadhav shall remain in Pakistan. He shall be treated in accordance with the laws of Pakistan. This is a victory for Pakistan," he said.
Shah Mahmood Qureshi
✔@SMQureshiPTI
https://twitter.com/SMQureshiPTI/status/1151510286551212032
Commander Jadhav shall remain in Pakistan. He shall be treated in accordance with the laws of Pakistan. This is a victory for Pakistan. #KulbhushanVerdict
23.4K
9:13 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
5,083 people are talking about this
International Lawyer and founder of Courting the Law, Taimoor Malik, in a series of tweets provided a useful summation on the case, highlighting that the matter had been "left to Pakistani courts".
Taimur Malik@taimur_malik
https://twitter.com/taimur_malik/status/1151477503262973954
Congratulations
Important to highlight some key points regarding the #KulbhushanJadhav case before the #ICJ that came to an end today.
1. In what many are terming as Pakistan’s victory, the Court did not accept India’s request for #Jadhav’s “acquittal, release and return”.
274
7:03 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
151 people are talking about this
In a later comment to Dawn.com, Malik explained: "The ICJ has left the decision regarding the method and forum for the effective review and reconsideration of Jadhav’s case to Pakistan and the Pakistani legal system.
"No comments have been made which suggest that a further review or retrial through the military court system wouldn’t be acceptable as long as consular access and legal representation is provided to Jadhav.
"Therefore, Pakistan now needs to carefully consider whether the same military courts should adjudicate the matter or whether somehow an appeal should lie before the civilian courts in this case. In either case, the important aspect is to provide consular access, legal representation of the defendant’s choice and a further opportunity to Jadhav to present his defence.
"Nothing more than this can be expected by ICJ or India and whatever the outcome is of this process, it would then be Pakistan’s call to decide about its implementation."
Reema Omar, the International Legal Advisor for South Asia at the ICJ, noted that India's appeal for Jadhav's release and return was not granted by the Court.
"The Court has, however, rejected most of the remedies sought by India, including annulment of military court decision convicting Jadhav, his release and safe passage to India," she wrote.
Journalist Talat Hussain condensed the ICJ verdict down in the following few words, reminding readers to remember that however neutral the verdict, it is a defeat of sorts for India, as Pakistan shall effectively be reviewing the case "through its own means".
Syed Talat Hussain
✔@TalatHussain12
https://twitter.com/TalatHussain12/status/1151492441511477249
Delhi defeated. ICJ knocks out India’s major demands about #KulbhushanJadhav about his release and annulment of sentence, practically admits he is a spy, asks Pakistan for review sentence through its own means with consular access.
2,778
8:02 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
776 people are talking about this
"Delhi defeated. ICJ knocks out India’s major demands about #KulbhushanJadhav about his release and annulment of sentence, practically admits he is a spy, asks Pakistan for review sentence through its own means with consular access," he said.
Minister for Science and Technology Fawad Chaudhry congratulated the nation on "a great outcome".
Ch Fawad Hussain
✔@fawadchaudhry
https://twitter.com/fawadchaudhry/status/1151490253158592514
Apparently news reports from Hague suggests that not only Indian case for acquittal,release,return stands rejected but apparently Int Court also upheld Jurisdiction of Mily Court in #Kalbhushan case,Indeed a great outcome, Congs to Pak legal team for putting up great fight
9,190
7:54 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,406 people are talking about this
"Apparently news reports from Hague suggests that not only Indian case for acquittal, release, return stands rejected but apparently [International] Court also upheld Jurisdiction of [Military] Court in #Kalbhushan case. Indeed a great outcome. Congratulations to Pakistan legal team for putting up [a] great fight," he tweeted.
Express Tribune's executive editor Fahd Husain termed the ruling "not too bad for Pakistan" and "pretty bad for India".
"ICJ verdict: (1) Jadhav will not be released (2) His sentence not overturned (3) His hanging stayed (4) He will get Consular access (5) His sentence to be reviewed. Conclusion: Indian all pleas rejected except consular access. Not too bad for Pakistan. Pretty bad for India," he wrote.
Fahd Husain@Fahdhusain
https://twitter.com/Fahdhusain/status/1151488777426219008
ICJ verdict: (1) Jadhav will not be released (2) His sentence not overturned (3) His hanging stayed (4) He will get Consular access (5) His sentence to be reviewed.
Conclusion: Indian all pleas rejected except consular access. Not too bad for Pakistan. Pretty bad for India
2,872
7:48 AM - Jul 17, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,035 people are talking about this
Nasim Zehra, senior journalist and author, in response to Reema Omar's tweet, said that the judgment acknowledges Pakistan’s position that Jadhav is a spy and while asking that a Pakistani court review the military court's decision, it doesn't quash the military court's decision and safe passage to India.
kris
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2016
- Messages
- 2,565
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
But it's always repeated by pakistani officials that a spy won't have counselor access, isn't it so?? So it's a wrong claim.
But ICJ also never accepted him as a spy. It asked to review the judgement
Umair Nawaz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
kakay! they accepted that he was issued a valid passport under a false name to conceal his true identity. Hence proved being a spy, how ever what they done is that now any person, regardless of being spy, terrorist will get councilor access regardless of his crimes through out the world!
The interpretation of that Vienna Convention clause has been now defined to the whole World, as different countries interpreted them differently!
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 102,832
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
Umair Nawaz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Very important points raised by him......We failed to declare india a terrorist country through our lawyers and judge in this case judgement, which was the main gain and benefit internationally from this case to Pakistan!
Umair Nawaz
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
