ICJ rejects India’s plea for acquittal, repatriation of Kulbhushan - Updates, News & Discussion

[The Eagle]

The judgement is at https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20190717-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf

Can you tell me on which page it is rejected.

have you gone through all the pages and discussion here? I am sure you haven't so instead of asking for baby sitting, members have put a lot of efforts to discuss and even quote relevant Para from the judgment hence, it is your task to go through the judgment and find it. First go through the thread and if couldn't find in appropriate time required to read all pages; I will then see whether to help you out of this or not.

Regards,

 

[KhanBaba2]

You are expecting logic from a member here who cannot write a coherent sentence without religion baiting or insulting other nationalities.

I am expecting something better from the moderator of the site

have you gone through all the pages and discussion here? I am sure you haven't so instead of asking for baby sitting, members have put a lot of efforts to discuss and even quote relevant Para from the judgment hence, it is your task to go through the judgment and find it. First go through the thread and if couldn't find in appropriate time required to read all pages; I will then see whether to help you out of this or not.

Regards,

If you did not want to discuss why did you reply to me in the other thread. I don't remember inviting you there. Then you send me here. And now you don't want to discuss.

If you make a claim it is up to you to show the source. Not for me to find it. In any case I can't find it since it does not exist. Just a figment of the imagination of the people in power at your end.

 

[The Eagle]

I am expecting something better from the moderator of the site



If you did not want to discuss why did you reply to me in the other thread. I don't remember inviting you there. Then you send me here. And now you don't want to discuss.

If you make a claim it is up to you to show the source. Not for me to find it. In any case I can't find it since it does not exist. Just a figment of the imagination of the people in power at your end.

I redirected you about the prayers made by India in KJ case. Those were five.

FINAL SUBMISSION
BY THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA
(1) The Government of India requests this Court to adjudge and declare that, Pakistan acted in
egregious breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (Vienna
Convention) in:
(i) Failing to inform India, without delay, of the detention of Jadhav;
(ii) Failing to inform Jadhav of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, 1963;
(iii) Declining access to Jadhav by consular officers of India, contrary to their right to visit
Jadhav, while under custody, detention or in prison, and to converse and correspond with
him, or to arrange for his legal representation.
And that pursuant to the foregoing,
(2) Declare that:
(a) the sentence by Pakistan’s military court arrived at, in brazen defiance of the Vienna
Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36 paragraph 1 (b), and in
defiance of elementary human rights of Mr. Jadhav, which are also to be given effect as
mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna
Convention;
(b) India is entitled to restitutio in integrum;
(3) Annul the decision of the Military Court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the
sentence or conviction in any manner, and
(4) direct it to release the Indian National, Jadhav, forthwith, and to facilitate his safe passage to
India;
5) In the alternative, and if this Court were to find that Jadhav is not to be released, then
(i) Annul the decision of the Military Court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the
sentence awarded by the Military Court,
or in the further alternative
(ii) direct it to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, as may be available to it
under the laws in force in Pakistan,
and in either event
(iii) direct a trial under the ordinary law before civilian courts, after excluding his confession
that was recorded without affording consular access, and in strict conformity with the
provisions of the ICCPR, with full consular access and with a right to India to arrange for
his legal representation.
Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Agent of India, Dr. Mittal. The Court takes note of the final
submissions which you have just read on behalf of the Republic of India.

15 to 1 vote in favour of India was only the main point of providing consular access.

 

[MilSpec]

@The Eagle

• Indian prayer No. 1 = Rejected which is acknowledgment to the Justice System of Pakistan & our Military Courts.
• Indian prayer No. 2 = Rejected as sentence is not set-aside.
• Indian prayer No. 3 = Rejected & he will remain with Pakistan.
• Indian prayer No. 4 = Rejected as Military Court decision is upheld by ICJ,
• Indian prayer No. 5 = partly approved as consular access be provided but for review & reconsider, ICJ mentioned that Pakistan can do so by way of own choosing.

Please Clarify what you term here as Prayer?

Where is the scope of such terms in Jurisprudence of International Law, is this something specific to Pakistan's Jurisprudence?

I redirected you about the prayers made by India in KJ case. Those were five.

FINAL SUBMISSION
BY THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA
(1) The Government of India requests this Court to adjudge and declare that, Pakistan acted in
egregious breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (Vienna
Convention) in:
(i) Failing to inform India, without delay, of the detention of Jadhav;
(ii) Failing to inform Jadhav of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, 1963;
(iii) Declining access to Jadhav by consular officers of India, contrary to their right to visit
Jadhav, while under custody, detention or in prison, and to converse and correspond with
him, or to arrange for his legal representation.
And that pursuant to the foregoing,
(2) Declare that:
(a) the sentence by Pakistan’s military court arrived at, in brazen defiance of the Vienna
Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36 paragraph 1 (b), and in
defiance of elementary human rights of Mr. Jadhav, which are also to be given effect as
mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna
Convention;
(b) India is entitled to restitutio in integrum;
(3) Annul the decision of the Military Court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the
sentence or conviction in any manner, and
(4) direct it to release the Indian National, Jadhav, forthwith, and to facilitate his safe passage to
India;
5) In the alternative, and if this Court were to find that Jadhav is not to be released, then
(i) Annul the decision of the Military Court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the
sentence awarded by the Military Court,
or in the further alternative
(ii) direct it to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, as may be available to it
under the laws in force in Pakistan,
and in either event
(iii) direct a trial under the ordinary law before civilian courts, after excluding his confession
that was recorded without affording consular access, and in strict conformity with the
provisions of the ICCPR, with full consular access and with a right to India to arrange for
his legal representation.
Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Agent of India, Dr. Mittal. The Court takes note of the final
submissions which you have just read on behalf of the Republic of India.

15 to 1 vote in favour of India was only the main point of providing consular access.

Prayers again, @Oscar @WebMaster

Are we to assume all of the appeals made by Pakistan in international arbitration and penal cases are "prayers" too?

And when such blatant hypocrisy is pointed out, the staff here get their ego hurt, and issues warnings...

Moderators by the virtue of their title are supposed to have a semblance of balance or is that too much of an expectation.

 

[The Eagle]

Please Clarify what you term here as Prayer?

Where is the scope of such terms in Jurisprudence of International Law, is this something specific to Pakistan's Jurisprudence?

Prayers are made before the Court means submission of one party demanding remedy. Or you mean, I had to copy exact word? like Government of India request this Court.....? The word prayer is used in Honour of the Court. Was that such provocative to quote the word Prayer instead of Request?

Prayer or request are used for the Court and not to the any party at all.

 

[MilSpec]

Prayers are made before the Court means submission of one party demanding remedy. Or you mean, I had to copy exact word? like Government of India request this Court.....? The word prayer is used in Honour of the Court. Was that such provocative to quote the word Prayer instead of Request?

Prayer or request are used for the Court and not to the any party at all.

Please do point out in which document , India's appeals submission has been dubbed with the term Prayer? or for that matter Pakistans submission being referred to prayer.
Even in the state vs Bhutto, I am sure the defendants did not submit a prayer.

The term prayer for a specific request for judgment, relief and/or damages at the conclusion of a complaint or petition. This being an interim judegement at an international court which barely has any ability for enforcement there is no question of the conclusion of the case for the defendant which will happen in Pakistani Courts.

Now given, I can clearly see the reason for the choice of words used here and on other threads, i am quite sure of the intent behind using the term here in context. Now if you do want to play the homonym card to avoid ignominy, that would your choice, although a deceitful one.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

India got what it wanted - consular access and an order to review the conviction by Pakistan.

India's prayer for Pakistan to release Jadhav was a maximalist position which everyone takes in such cases. There is no realistic expectation of such orders.

It's a win for India yet again before the ICJ as has been always the case in international dispute resolution with Pakistan. The international media has reported the verdict in the same way.

 

[The Eagle]

Please do point out in which document , India's appeals submission has been dubbed with the term Prayer? or for that matter Pakistans submission being referred to prayer.
Even in the state vs Bhutto, I am sure the defendants did not submit a prayer.

Did I claim that India uses the word "Prayer"? It was my post with my own wording and I used Prayer word for the better understanding. If I had to quote Pakistan submission as a first party to reach Court for remedy, I will again use word Prayer and that was for understanding only and not the exact wording of the Court or from Document. Regarding any word dubbed as so & so by the Court, I posted relevant Para from the same judgment and RSIL legal analysis.

All you got the word Prayer from my post to certify from the judgment. Again did I claim that India used Prayer word before the Court?

 

[Amaa'n]

Please do point out in which document , India's appeals submission has been dubbed with the term Prayer? or for that matter Pakistans submission being referred to prayer.
Even in the state vs Bhutto, I am sure the defendants did not submit a prayer.

Define 'Prayer' or "Prayer for Relief"?

 

[The Eagle]

India's prayer for Pakistan to release Jadhav was a maximalist position which everyone takes in such cases. There is no realistic expectation of such orders.

@MilSpec he is using the Prayer word as well.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

@MilSpec he is using the Prayer word as well.

Yes and India's main prayers were allowed.

In jurisprudence there is a separate prayer clause in pleadings. I am not sure if that is the case in the ICJ. I am using the term "prayer" in the general context. It could be different in proceedings before the ICJ.

However, still, India's main prayers were allowed by the ICJ.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

India got what it wanted - consular access and an order to review the conviction by Pakistan.

India's prayer for Pakistan to release Jadhav was a maximalist position which everyone takes in such cases. There is no realistic expectation of such orders.

It's a win for India yet again before the ICJ as has been always the case in international dispute resolution with Pakistan. The international media has reported the verdict in the same way.

Sure Sure. 27/02/2019 was also a win by india when the iaf killed 300 terrorists in Balakot and shot down an F-16...........

PS Do you have ANY independent, reliable, honest, genuine and compelling evidence to back your claims?......If so remember to post the links to the evidence here. If not, then it means you are making up tales like all other indians do........

 

[The Eagle]

Yes and India's main prayers were allowed.

I referred your post for using the word "Prayer" to the @MilSpec who seems to be annoyed by the use of word only.

 

[SIPRA]

@MilSpec he is using the Prayer word as well.

I fail to gather, what this discussion is about. Prayer is a common word used in legal jargon, when court is requested for some relief. At least, it is common in Pakistan.

 

[The Eagle]

I fail to gather, what this discussion is about. Prayer is a common word used in legal jargon, when court is requested for some relief. At least, it is common in Pakistan.

The Prayer is word either be used for to seek relief or in reference to the submission for relief or prayer for relief. The issue is not with the word. And that word somehow triggered an unwanted confrontation. I am not sure what goes through his mind even to raise such issue in first place. However, I elaborated further and hope that it was helpful.