India requested ICJ for stay against Kulbhushan's sentence in Pakistan

[NirmalKrish]

alright, so now the game comes down upon challenging. Wait till that 60 days ends, you will witness it yourself, mark my words.
And let me remind you, ICJ has no jurisdiction over Terrorism cases caused by an individual in any Country of the world. Read the ICJ legislation book.

State sponsored premeditated murder, there is no despicable low shallow act that a whole country will be responsible for, that is if he is executed!

 

[boxer_B]

confession.
call recordings. even an I dian media outlet covered this story on how he was caught when he used mobile phone to call his family in India.
if he was using mobile than certainly location record.
also court proceedings recordings.
and last but most important part is the network of kalboshan caught.
our case is strong.
but ICJ have no juristriction over in do pak issues.

Yeah, he was in middle of Baluchistan calling India and speaking in Marathi.

If Pakistan had any proof, KY would be paraded Naked in front of UN and ICJ within a week after his arrest. But Pakistanis here are rejoicing that Indians made KY famous lol. Like you were silent in goodwill all this time.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

Yeah, he was in middle of Baluchistan calling India and speaking in Marathi.

If Pakistan had any proof, KY would be paraded Naked in front of UN and ICJ within a week after his arrest. But Pakistanis here are rejoicing that Indians made KY famous lol. Like you were silent in goodwill.

I never said that. Indians did.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...he-kulbushan-jadhav-trial/article18419512.ece
The International Court of Justice on Monday ruled that Pakistan’s treatment of Indian national, Kulbhshan Jadhav, is a gross violation of international laws and stalled his execution. In doing so, the ICJ has opened a wide debate about its origins, operations and binding value of its judgements.

Here’s a low-down on the International Court of Justice:

What is the ICJ?

The principal judicial wing of the United Nations, the ICJ was established in June, 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations. It is the only organ of the UN that is not headquartered in New York. The seat of the Court is in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.

It consists of 15 judges elected for a period of 9 years by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. Once elected, he judges cease to be representatives of their countries and functions as officers of the Court.

The Court’s current president is Justice Ronny Abraham of France, and Justice Dalveer Bhandari from India is among the 15 members.

Who are its members?

All members of the UN are de facto members of the ICJ. Accordingly, India was among the founding members when the ICJ was established in 1945. Pakistan became a member when it joined the UN in 1960.

However, as per the UN Charter, a non-member state can be included in the ICJ as a party to a dispute on the recommendation of the Security Council and the General Assembly.

What are its origins?

The creation of the ICJ is the culmination of multi-pronged efforts aimed at establishing peace, stability and international security. After World War I, the League of Nations was established as a measure to avoid a second such war. In accordance with this spirit, Article 14 of the League of Nations called for the establishment of a court to solve international disputes in 1920. This became a reality when the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was founded at the Peace Palace inThe Hague in Netherlands in 1922.

However, the beginning of the World War II in 1939 was a strong indication of the failure of theLeague of Nations. Moreover, the war meant the role of PCIJ was all but relevant and the court for some years now had experienced diminished activity.

The Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco Conferences held by the Allied powers of WWII in 1944-1945 period recognised the growing need for an international body that would work impartially to protect ‘succeeding generations from the scourge of war’. In view of this, a UN Charter was adopted which legitimised the established of a UN body and 6 principal organs, including the International Court of Justice.

What is its jurisdiction and binding value?

The ICJ is a world court with dual jurisdictional powers: advisory jurisdiction and jurisdiction in contentious cases. The former relates to the jurisdiction of the Court in providing legal opinions and recommendations on matters refereed to it by the organs and specialised agencies of the UN. Jurisdiction in contentious cases arises when disputes of a legal nature are submitted to it by the States. It has jurisdiction to rule in disputes pertaining to UN member states.

India and Pakistan are signatory to the Optional Protocol of the Vienna Convention concerning Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. As per the Protocol, all disputes relating to the interpretation and/or application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations falls under “compulsory jurisdiction” of the ICJ.

The judgements of the ICJ are considered binding and are without appeal for the parties concerned. It is rare for a decision not to be implemented. However, the Court itself has no direct powers to ensure implementation of its judgements and members States can approach the UN Security Council for matters relating to non-compliance with ICJ rulings.

How does this relate to the Kulbushan Jadhav trial?

In a petition filed by senior advocate Harish Salve on May 8, India listed details of the Jadhav case and accused Pakistan of “egregious violation” of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This includes Pakistan’s denial of information regarding Jadhav’s trial, demands for consular access that were repeatedly turned down over 15 times, and suggesting that access would only be granted in exchange for information about Jadhav’s life in India.

The Court has now directed the Pakistan Prime Minister “to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on this request to have had its appropriate effects”. In saying so, the Court has effectively stayed his execution.

The Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations of 1963 is an international treaty that establishes and governs consular relations between independent states. Accordingly, a consul has two primary functions as emissary of an embassy:

1. 
   Protecting the interests of their countrymen in the host country.
   
   Furthering economic and commercial relations between the two States.
   

How is the ICJ different from the International Criminal Court?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in July, 2002 as per the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Court deals with four core international crimes which are genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression and is allowed to act only when States are “unable” or “unwilling” to act by themselves.

While the ICC is charged with criminal prosecution of individuals involved in the above mentioned crimes, the ICJ is solely meant to address legal questions and disputes between States. Moreover, governing doctrines vary, with ICJ falling under the UN Charter and the Statute of the ICJ; the ICC is governed by the Rome Statute.

All members of the UN are de facto members of the ICJ while only 103 States that are party to the Rome Statute are members of the ICC.

*******
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...issue-with-pak-army-chief/article18420115.ece
The Pakistan PM and Javed Bajwa also discussed other issues including the Dawn leaks controversy.
Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa on Wednesday discussed the International Court of Justice’s stay order on the execution of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav, media reports said.

During the meeting, which lasted for around 90 minutes, Mr. Sharif was briefed on the “latest situation” regarding Jadhav’s case, the Geo News reported.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Tuesday stayed the execution of 46-year-old Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of “spying”.

The order by the Hague-based ICJ came a day after India approached it against the death sentence handed down to Mr. Jadhav by Pakistan’s Field General Court Martial last month.

India, in its appeal to the ICJ, accused Pakistan of “egregious” violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and asserted that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy but Pakistan claimed to have arrested him from Balochistan on March 3, 2016.

In the meeting, Mr. Sharif and Mr. Bajwa also discussed other issues including the Dawn leaks controversy and Pak-Afghan relations, the channel said.

The meeting between the Army chief and the premier is the second one within a week and is significant in light of the civil-military row over Dawn’s leaked report that had angered the powerful army.

On May 6, Prime Minister Sharif had met the Army chief and both discussed the Dawn Leaks issue, among other things.

Mr. Sharif and the Army chief had agreed that the issues surrounding Dawn leaks would be dealt with amicably.

In October, a columnist for Dawn wrote a front-page story about a rift between civilian and military leaderships over militant groups that operate from Pakistan but engage in proxy war against India and Afghanistan.

The Army took strong exception to the Dawn story. The military had called the leak of the meeting a breach of national security and urged strong, punitive action against those responsible for leaking information to the newspaper.

 

[simple Brain]

What material evidence is submitted by ISI in court?

Do you have any tapped conversation, call records, GPS data, Money trail etc on him? No evidence was shared with Iran, even Iranians are denied consular access to KY and then being told Iran is complicit in crime.

What i want to say is every intelligence agency at least has one tangible material evidence that can be shared publicly. Especially terrorists, which are continuously churning out or moving cash and explosives from one place to another.

Proofs in KY case are as vague as one who is accused for blasphemy in Pakistan.

If I was an ISI station Chief I would have certainly provided you proofs, and would have explained you that how have we got them. All I can say to you that he had Baluchistan Regional Maps, some of them even I haven't seen in my life as well. He had latest GPS devices on him, contact details of every Baloch Insurgents Commander. The financier details, how he used to execute his plans with the help of three persons, one from Karachi two from Afghanistan at the time of his capture they were resided in Baluchistan. He even had a dealings with Uzair Baloch, now I do not want to get into further details.
It doesn't bother Pakistan at all what your Government or the International community think. What matters the most is that we have your goat and with his confession we have had some of the greatest leads that we ever had against the terrorists, their financiers, their hideouts, inside Pakistan and outside Pakistan.
And one more thing I would want to tell you, he has given around 200 names of the RAW operatives who either were or are working in Afghanistan.
Why I used the word were, well I don't hope less from you.

No buddy, since we have already dragged this to ICJ, you will have to say one word or two there before sending him to the gallows. Else the ICJ may feel bad about it.

ICJ han? Good luck, that's all I want to say!

Contradictory Statements of yours!!

State sponsored premeditated murder,

Are you referring to Pakistan's Military Court verdict against him? Or you are referring to his actions that caused the deaths of hundreds of Civilian and Military Personals in Pakistan. If you agree with the second statement than yes it was State Sponsored Premeditated murders executed by him.

there is no despicable low shallow act that a whole country will be responsible for,

Yes you are right, we never said that the entire Indians are in one sense or another resemble the intentions of Kulbhushan. But it was a single act, executed solely by him, and yes commanded and directed from India.

that is if he is executed!

Now I consider this sentence a completely separate one from your one and a half line statement. He will be executed, don't worry, and before it happens, you guys should consider him a hero, after all he has done quite a lot for you guys. Don't get into the debate whether has he given less and exposed more. Because you will only lose your sleeps over it.

 

[Basel]

Ok. You are free to believe that but check with any neutral source as to which of our nations has a reputation for terrorism.

International relations are based on mutual interest not what is right or wrong that is why till now India have been able get away with its atrocities against minorities, Kashmiris and terrorism against most countries in south asia.

The height of all frustration, weather you comply or not, is not our concern. But your bluff has been called And your credibility is out for a toss.

Modi is in a different league all together, worry about the abysmal state of affairs the Pakistani political establishment is in first. 1 billion have chosen him for a reason and guess what? he is here to stay and cause you more headaches both internationally and diplomatically. So buckle up!

World knows who is desperate and frustrated since capture of Indian terrorist, that is why India plotted kidnapping of ex military officer of PA.

 

[Jackdaws]

International relations are based on mutual interest not what is right or wrong that is why till now India have been able get away with its atrocities against minorities, Kashmiris and terrorism against most countries in south asia.



World knows who is desperate and frustrated since capture of Indian terrorist, that is why India plotted kidnapping of ex military officer of PA.

Isn't it ironic then that it is minorities in Pakistan and neighboring countries which seek refuge in India rather than the other way around?

 

[boxer_B]

If I was an ISI station Chief I would have certainly provided you proofs, and would have explained you that how have we got them. All I can say to you that he had Baluchistan Regional Maps, some of them even I haven't seen in my life as well. He had latest GPS devices on him, contact details of every Baloch Insurgents Commander. The financier details, how he used to execute his plans with the help of three persons, one from Karachi two from Afghanistan at the time of his capture they were resided in Baluchistan. He even had a dealings with Uzair Baloch, now I do not want to get into further details.
It doesn't bother Pakistan at all what your Government or the International community think. What matters the most is that we have your goat and with his confession we have had some of the greatest leads that we ever had against the terrorists, their financiers, their hideouts, inside Pakistan and outside Pakistan.
And one more thing I would want to tell you, he has given around 200 names of the RAW operatives who either were or are working in Afghanistan.
Why I used the word were, well I don't hope less from you.



ICJ han? Good luck, that's all I want to say!

Contradictory Statements of yours!!



Are you referring to Pakistan's Military Court verdict against him? Or you are referring to his actions that caused the deaths of hundreds of Civilian and Military Personals in Pakistan. If you agree with the second statement than yes it was State Sponsored Premeditated murders executed by him.




Yes you are right, we never said that the entire Indians are in one sense or another resemble the intentions of Kulbhushan. But it was a single act, executed solely by him, and yes commanded and directed from India.




Now I consider this sentence a completely separate one from your one and a half line statement. He will be executed, don't worry, and before it happens, you guys should consider him a hero, after all he has done quite a lot for you guys. Don't get into the debate whether has he given less and exposed more. Because you will only lose your sleeps over it.

I don't know from where you planted all this stuff, I never read this in news.

What's the secrecy about GPS data. Give the device to GARMIN and decrypt old routes taken by device. Also do trace from where device was purchased, like how India traced dinghy engine from Japan to karachi.

This begs one more question that if you caught KY electronically and without him knowing and all his associates are dead or captured, why Pakistan still deny consular access if all information from him is extracted and he is reduced of no value.

Man you have a solid case, why are you sitting on it. You should definitely pursue this case in ICJ and declare India as terrorist sponsored state.

 

[Basel]

Isn't it ironic then that it is minorities in Pakistan and neighboring countries which seek refuge in India rather than the other way around?

There huge numbers of Muslims who have seek refuge in Pakistan since 1947 from India, Mayanmar, Bangladesh etc nothing special if Hindus went to Hindu state.

 

[Basel]

I don't think that Pakistan will ever consider releasing Kulbhushan Yadav.

A free KbY telling all sort of lies to the world against Pakistan Establishment is totally unthinkable and impossible

Pakistan has left with only choice that is of of Hanging KbY and say goodbye to Indus Water Treaty

The dilemma with India is that they can not confirm release of Yadav and also cant leave IWT that easily.

 

[Hindustani78]

India today newspaper online was quick to post the news and then it has removed the news.

So can anyone tell when did India go to International Court ?

Or is it just a feeler to revive Kalbhushan case again? because the recent events had pushed it into hiding

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.

The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).

The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.

The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ


The Court may entertain two types of cases: legal disputes between States submitted to it by them (contentious cases) and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies (advisory proceedings).

Contentious cases

Only States (States Members of the United Nations and other States which have become parties to the Statute of the Court or which have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions) may be parties to contentious cases.

The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways:

• by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;
• by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a dispute of a given type or disagreement over the interpretation or application of the treaty, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court;
• through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. A number of these declarations, which must be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain reservations excluding certain categories of dispute.
  
  By signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the Court in a case to which it is a party. Since, furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. A State which contends that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court may lay the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.
  

The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council may request advisory opinions on “any legal question”. Other United Nations organs and specialized agencies which have been authorized to seek advisory opinions can only do so with respect to “legal questions arising within the scope of their activities”.

When it receives a request for an advisory opinion, the Court, in order that it may give its opinion with full knowledge of the facts, is empowered to hold written and oral proceedings, certain aspects of which recall the proceedings in contentious cases. In theory, the Court may do without such proceedings, but it has never dispensed with them entirely.

A few days after the request is filed, the Court draws up a list of those States and international organizations that will be able to furnish information on the question before the Court. Those States are not in the same position as parties to contentious proceedings: their representatives before the Court are not known as agents and their participation, if any, in the advisory proceedings does not render the Court’s opinion binding upon them. In general, the States listed are the Member States of the organization requesting the opinion. Any State not consulted by the Court may ask to be.

It is rare, however, for the ICJ to allow international organizations other than the one having requested the opinion to participate in advisory proceedings. With respect to non-governmental international organizations, the only one ever authorized by the ICJ to furnish information did not in the end do so (International Status of South West Africa). The Court has rejected all such requests by private parties.

could be but did India go to ICJ??

18 September 1974

I have the honour to declare, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of India, that they accept, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate such acceptance, as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, and on the basis and condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over all disputes other than:

(1) disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method or methods of settlement;
(2) disputes with the government of any State which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations;
(3) disputes in regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Republic of India;
(4) disputes relating to or connected with facts or situations of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective actions taken in self-defence, resistance to aggression, fulfilment of obligations imposed by international bodies, and other similar or related acts, measures or situations in which India is, has been or may in future be involved;
(5) disputes with regard to which any other party to a dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice exclusively for or in relation to the purposes of such dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of a party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than 12 months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court;
(6) disputes where the jurisdiction of the Court is or may be founded on the basis of a treaty concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, unless the Government of India specially agree to jurisdiction in each case;
(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;
(8) disputes with the Government of any State with which, on the date of an application to bring a dispute before the Court, the Government of India has no diplomatic relations or which has not been recognized by the Government of India;
(9) disputes with non-sovereign States or territories;
(10) disputes with India concerning or relating to:

(a) the status of its territory or the modification or delimitation of its frontiers or any other matter concerning boundaries;
(b) the territorial sea, the continental shelf and the margins, the exclusive fishery zone, the exclusive economic zone, and other zones of national maritime jurisdiction including for the regulation and control of marine pollution and the conduct of scientific research by foreign vessels;
(c) the condition and status of its islands, bays and gulfs and that of the bays and gulfs that for historical reasons belong to it;
(d) the airspace superjacent to its land and maritime territory; and
(e) the determination and delimitation of its maritime boundaries.

(11) disputes prior to the date of this declaration, including any dispute the foundations, reasons, facts, causes, origins, definitions, allegations or bases of which existed prior to this date, even if they are submitted or brought to the knowledge of the Court hereafter.
(12) This declaration revokes and replaces the previous declaration made by the Government of India on 14th September 1959.

New Delhi, 15 September 1974.

(Signed) Swaran SINGH,
Minister of External Affairs.

********************


This is the first time after 1971 that India has turned to the ICJ, established in 1945 by the United Nations charter, in a dispute with Pakistan.

In 1971 India withdrew Pakistan’s overflight rights after the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight to Lahore in January.

Pakistan, citing the jurisdiction of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), said India could not deny it the overflight as well as landing rights. The court ruled in favour of Pakistan.

India had taken Pakistan to the ICJ only once. Pakistan has done it twice. The first time was in 1973. Pakistan wanted to stop the repatriation of 195 of its nationals to Bangladesh from Indian custody after the 1971 war to stand trial on charges of genocide. But, a year later Pakistan withdrew the case. The 1971 India-Pakistan war led to the creation of Bangladesh.

The second move

Pakistan took India to the ICJ in 1999 after its military plane was shot down in Indian air space over the Rann of Kutch. India contested the case on the issue of jurisdiction and the ICJ upheld New Delhi’s position.



The ICJ was established by the UN charter in 1945. The statute of ICJ guides its work. All UN members are technically parties to the ICJ but each country has made a declaration on the issues they would accept the court’s jurisdiction.

The court’s role is to settle legal disputes and give advice on questions referred to it by various UN bodies and specialised agencies. The court has 15 judges, who are elected for a nine-year term by the UN general assembly and security council.

 

[enquencher]

International Court of Justice to hear Kulbhushan Jadhav's case on May 15
TIMESOFINDIA.COM | 8 mins ago

• Whatsapp
• Facebook
• Google Plus
• Twitter
• Email
• Linkedin
• SMS

Former Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav
NEW DELHI: The next hearing in the case of former Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav at the International Court of Justice that has stayed his execution in Pakistan, will take place on May 15, the judicial body said in a press release on Wednesday.

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold public hearings on Monday 15 May 2017... in the proceedings insituted by the Republic of India on 8 May 2017 against the Islmaic Republic of Pakistan," the statement said.

The ICJ further stated the hearing will be devoted to the request for provisional relief submitted by India in the matter of Kulbhushan Jadhav.

Earlier, senior lawyer Harish Salve, who is representing India at the Hague said it had appealed to the ICJ for granting access to Jadhav under the provisions of the Vienna Convention.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

• WORLDDonald Trump fires FBI Director James Comey

"We moved (the ICJ) for provisional relief. The counsel of the country to which the man belongs has the right of access to that person. The basic idea is that if you are caught in a place where you are a stranger, people from your country are there to help you," he said.

The Hague-based ICJ had on Tuesday issued a stay order on the execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav, who had been sentenced to hang by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage.

India, in its appeal before the ICJ, has accused Pakistan of "egregious" (shocking) violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The plea said that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy, but Pakistan claimed he was arrested from Balochistan on March 3, 2016.

Pakistan army on Wednesday said it will respond at an "appropriate level" to any query by the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

 

[Hindustani78]

because Jadhv is an Indian serving officer

Main point is this that he was abducted from Iran. have heard Iranians takes thier national security seriously. Jadhav entered Iran on legal visa and have set up business there in Iran which is directly linked to Chabahar port investment.

Kulbushan Jadhav was abducted in March 2016, Chabahar and Gwadar ports are just 72 km apart ,
Gwadar Port became formally operational on 14 November 2016.

He will be hanged once the ICJ see our side of it. If not, then he will spend the reminder of his life in prison.

I dont think so , he will be swapped similar like Anna Chapman.

 

[Jackdaws]

There huge numbers of Muslims who have seek refuge in Pakistan since 1947 from India, Mayanmar, Bangladesh etc nothing special if Hindus went to Hindu state.

Can you give me some figures of the number of Indian Muslims who have sought refuge in Pakistan since 1972?

 

[Hindustani78]

Without a doubt, the stage was set when the Sushma Ji, Ajit Ji and modi co set thier plan of attack!

First thing International court of Justice is there , this means United Nations can bring change and try to work for bigger things such as saving humanity.

Again Republic of India is working to make UN more stronger.

I am asking the same can ICJ rule that he should be freed?

I can understand for the time being the hanging is stayed till Pakistani side presents its version but what after that ?

This issue is having more bigger reason and this is directly linked to the CPEC and more direct involvement of Chinese.