ICJ hearing on Kulbhushan Jadhav case : News, Updates & Discussions
- Thread starter ashok321
- Start date
John Reese
BANNED
- Joined
- May 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,270
- Reaction score
- -33
- Country
- Location
Yeah As per ISPR what authenticity in there claim they not even able to convince ICJ that kulbhushan was Spy
Ask you Elders Who are Surrendered Without fight in just 13 days
John Reese
BANNED
- Joined
- May 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,270
- Reaction score
- -33
- Country
- Location
you can judge the fate of the case by going mind set of judges
third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
https://www.dawn.com/news/1333922/i...-says-india-has-right-to-seek-consular-access
The UN's top court on Thursday announced its ruling on an urgent bid by India to stop Pakistan from carrying out a death sentence on one of its nationals convicted of spying.
Rejecting Pakistan's argument that the court did not have jurisdiction, the court said it would hear the case and seek arguments from both sides.
"[Meanwhile] Pakistan should take all measures to ensure that Mr Jadhav is not executed till the final decision of this court," the court said.
The court also said Pakistan shall inform it of all measures taken in implementation of the order.
The president of the court, Ronny Abraham, read out the decision.
Judgments delivered by the court in disputes between states are binding upon the parties concerned.
Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that "each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party".
Judgments are final and without appeal.
The court's reasoning
"The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie to hear the case. It recalls that India seeks to ground its jurisdiction in Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, which provides that the Court has jurisdiction over “[d]isputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the [Vienna] Convention”.
"In this regard, the Court notes that the Parties do indeed appear to have differed, and still differ today, on the question of India’s consular assistance to Mr. Jadhav under the Vienna Convention. It further notes that the acts alleged by India, i.e., the alleged failure by Pakistan to provide the requisite consular notifications with regard to the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav, as well as the alleged failure to allow communication and provide access to him, appear to be capable of falling within the scope of the Convention. In the view of the Court, this is sufficient to establish that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of the Optional Protocol.
"The Court further observes that the existence of a 2008 bilateral Agreement between the Parties on consular relations does not change its conclusion on jurisdiction.
"The Court then turns to the question whether the rights alleged by India are at least plausible. It observes that the rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals, as well as the obligations of the detaining State to inform the person concerned without delay of his rights with regard to consular assistance and to allow their exercise, are recognized in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, and that India has alleged violations of this provision. In the view of the Court, therefore, it appears that the rights alleged by India are plausible.
"The Court then focuses on the issue of the link between the rights claimed and the provisional measures requested. It considers that the measures requested are aimed at ensuring that the rights contained in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, are preserved. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by India and the provisional measures being sought.
"The Court then examines whether there is a risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency. It considers that the mere fact that Mr. Jadhav is under a death sentence and might therefore be executed is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by India.
"The Court further observes that Pakistan has indicated that any execution of Mr. Jadhav would probably not take place before the month of August 2017. This means that there is a risk that an execution could take place at any moment thereafter, before the Court has given its final decision in the case.
"The Court also notes that Pakistan has given no assurance that Mr. Jadhav will not be executed before the Court has rendered its final decision. In those circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is urgency in the present case.
"The Court concludes by indicating the following measures:
"Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings and shall inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of the present Order.
"The Court also decides that, until it has given its final decision, it shall remain seised of the matters which form the subject-matter of this Order."
Pakistan's argument
The arguments for Pakistan had been presented to the court on Monday in an emergency hearing swiftly organised on Monday on India's appeal.
Pakistani representatives had reminded the court that Jadhav “has confessed to having been sent by India to wage terror on the innocent civilians and infrastructure of Pakistan”.
They had also argued that, according to the Vienna Convention, the court had no jurisdiction to hear such a case.
They said the self-confessed Indian spy was sentenced to death after fulfilling all necessary legal procedures and that he was also given legal counsel to defend the allegations against him.
Lawyer Khawar Qureshi, appearing for Pakistan, had argued that the ICJ is not a criminal court and cannot decide such type of cases relating to national security.
He further appealed to the court to dismiss the Indian application, saying that "there is no agency".
The counsel for Pakistan had argued that the provisions of the Vienna Convention do not apply to a "spy involved in terror activities".
Qureshi said that Jadhav “is a terrorist” and “India invoked the jurisdiction of this court improperly.”
“This court exists to ensure that states engage in peaceful resolution of disputes. This court does not exist for time-wasting and political grandstanding,” he maintained.
"India's allegation regarding the kidnapping of its spy is not true and he [Jadhav] was arrested by Pakistani forces from Balochistan," he maintained.
India seeks urgent action
Lawyers for New Delhi had urged the ICJ to halt the execution.
India denied Jadhav was a spy, and on Monday accused Pakistan of “egregious violations of the Vienna convention” by denying him access to legal counsel and consular visits, and refusing to reveal the charge sheet against him.
Jadhav was “an innocent Indian national, who, incarcerated in Pakistan for more than a year on concocted charges ... has been held incommunicado... and faces imminent execution,” Indian lawyer Deepak Mittal told the tribunal on Monday.
What we know about Jadhav
The UN's top court on Thursday announced its ruling on an urgent bid by India to stop Pakistan from carrying out a death sentence on one of its nationals convicted of spying.
Rejecting Pakistan's argument that the court did not have jurisdiction, the court said it would hear the case and seek arguments from both sides.
"[Meanwhile] Pakistan should take all measures to ensure that Mr Jadhav is not executed till the final decision of this court," the court said.
The court also said Pakistan shall inform it of all measures taken in implementation of the order.
The president of the court, Ronny Abraham, read out the decision.
Judgments delivered by the court in disputes between states are binding upon the parties concerned.
Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that "each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party".
Judgments are final and without appeal.
The court's reasoning
"The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie to hear the case. It recalls that India seeks to ground its jurisdiction in Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, which provides that the Court has jurisdiction over “[d]isputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the [Vienna] Convention”.
"In this regard, the Court notes that the Parties do indeed appear to have differed, and still differ today, on the question of India’s consular assistance to Mr. Jadhav under the Vienna Convention. It further notes that the acts alleged by India, i.e., the alleged failure by Pakistan to provide the requisite consular notifications with regard to the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav, as well as the alleged failure to allow communication and provide access to him, appear to be capable of falling within the scope of the Convention. In the view of the Court, this is sufficient to establish that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of the Optional Protocol.
"The Court further observes that the existence of a 2008 bilateral Agreement between the Parties on consular relations does not change its conclusion on jurisdiction.
"The Court then turns to the question whether the rights alleged by India are at least plausible. It observes that the rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals, as well as the obligations of the detaining State to inform the person concerned without delay of his rights with regard to consular assistance and to allow their exercise, are recognized in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, and that India has alleged violations of this provision. In the view of the Court, therefore, it appears that the rights alleged by India are plausible.
"The Court then focuses on the issue of the link between the rights claimed and the provisional measures requested. It considers that the measures requested are aimed at ensuring that the rights contained in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, are preserved. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by India and the provisional measures being sought.
"The Court then examines whether there is a risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency. It considers that the mere fact that Mr. Jadhav is under a death sentence and might therefore be executed is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by India.
"The Court further observes that Pakistan has indicated that any execution of Mr. Jadhav would probably not take place before the month of August 2017. This means that there is a risk that an execution could take place at any moment thereafter, before the Court has given its final decision in the case.
"The Court also notes that Pakistan has given no assurance that Mr. Jadhav will not be executed before the Court has rendered its final decision. In those circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is urgency in the present case.
"The Court concludes by indicating the following measures:
"Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings and shall inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of the present Order.
"The Court also decides that, until it has given its final decision, it shall remain seised of the matters which form the subject-matter of this Order."
Pakistan's argument
The arguments for Pakistan had been presented to the court on Monday in an emergency hearing swiftly organised on Monday on India's appeal.
Pakistani representatives had reminded the court that Jadhav “has confessed to having been sent by India to wage terror on the innocent civilians and infrastructure of Pakistan”.
They had also argued that, according to the Vienna Convention, the court had no jurisdiction to hear such a case.
They said the self-confessed Indian spy was sentenced to death after fulfilling all necessary legal procedures and that he was also given legal counsel to defend the allegations against him.
Lawyer Khawar Qureshi, appearing for Pakistan, had argued that the ICJ is not a criminal court and cannot decide such type of cases relating to national security.
He further appealed to the court to dismiss the Indian application, saying that "there is no agency".
The counsel for Pakistan had argued that the provisions of the Vienna Convention do not apply to a "spy involved in terror activities".
Qureshi said that Jadhav “is a terrorist” and “India invoked the jurisdiction of this court improperly.”
“This court exists to ensure that states engage in peaceful resolution of disputes. This court does not exist for time-wasting and political grandstanding,” he maintained.
"India's allegation regarding the kidnapping of its spy is not true and he [Jadhav] was arrested by Pakistani forces from Balochistan," he maintained.
India seeks urgent action
Lawyers for New Delhi had urged the ICJ to halt the execution.
India denied Jadhav was a spy, and on Monday accused Pakistan of “egregious violations of the Vienna convention” by denying him access to legal counsel and consular visits, and refusing to reveal the charge sheet against him.
Jadhav was “an innocent Indian national, who, incarcerated in Pakistan for more than a year on concocted charges ... has been held incommunicado... and faces imminent execution,” Indian lawyer Deepak Mittal told the tribunal on Monday.
What we know about Jadhav
- He was the contact man for Anil Kumar Gupta, the joint secretary of
RAW, and his other operatives in Pakistan
Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav's 'confessional' statement. - His was tasked with disrupting development of CPEC, with Gwadar port as a special target
- Jadhav is still a serving officer in the Indian Navy and will be due for retirement in 2022
- He started carrying out intelligence based operations in 2002 and in 2003 established a small business in Chabahar, Iran
- Jadhav directed various activities in Karachi and Balochistan at the behest of RAW
- He was involved in activities of 'anti-national or terrorist nature'
Pakistan First
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,436
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Among all this noise and hoohaa, the one important victory that Pakistani Establishment secured, was to "INTERNATIONALISE" the matter of "India's direct involvement in Terror within Pakistan".
IMO, Pakistan holds the following cards and this judgement (or interim judgement) makes no impact:
1) Pakistan can keep dangling KY to milk further International PR mileage;
2) Keep presenting itself as the aggrieved party being the victim of Indian-backed terrorism;
3) Maintain it's stand that ICJ holds no jurisdiction in Pakistan's national security matters;
4) Keep KY alive for a three to four years after which he can always (be made to) fall sick due to an infectious disease and pass away naturally. Message will be conveyed without the consequences.
IMO, Pakistan holds the following cards and this judgement (or interim judgement) makes no impact:
1) Pakistan can keep dangling KY to milk further International PR mileage;
2) Keep presenting itself as the aggrieved party being the victim of Indian-backed terrorism;
3) Maintain it's stand that ICJ holds no jurisdiction in Pakistan's national security matters;
4) Keep KY alive for a three to four years after which he can always (be made to) fall sick due to an infectious disease and pass away naturally. Message will be conveyed without the consequences.
graphican
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2009
- Messages
- 12,433
- Reaction score
- 48
- Country
- Location
Why should I not ask you right here what makes you stand on the border for 1 year, with twice more army and dare not cross an inch into Pakistan.
Shameful your 700000+ army in Kashmir fails - and you talk of asking my elders? Are you too afraid to answer your present?
RIP Pak LAW
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,782
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
what fate lol ? after just one hearing. Judges do not watch TOI or Zee News.
Yaseen1
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2014
- Messages
- 9,384
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
i think kulbhusion will be released by nawaz govt and army will do nothing just like dawnleaks for the sake of supporting democracy .All are fooling public if govt is not willing to execute punishment he should not be given death sentence as this is wasting our money and time in not fighting properly the case in icj because govt is not willing to fight this case so we will loose this case and this is embarassing for Pakistan in the whole world and next time if we capture any raw agent world will not believe us.
assassin123
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 508
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
C'mon a 6 minute video with more than 300+ cuts.
No wonder why ICJ rejected the pakistanis to play that fake video in court.
Pakistan First
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,436
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Wrong, ICJ just stated that, 'The issue of consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav falls under our jurisdiction, says judge Ronny Abraham".
Other than consular access matter, it didn't say it had jurisdiction.
AnnoyingOrange
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,251
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
Pakistan was funny un-prepared to handle this ICJ Instance... I mean who sends a Diplomat to do a lawyer's Job... Pakistan sent their Diplomat to Saudi Arabia to ICJ to fight Pakistan's case thinking that his friendship with one of the judges will help the case... India sent a lawyer with International Exposure and a 30 years experience in Legal trade.. there is lies the difference...https://www.dawn.com/news/1333922/i...-says-india-has-right-to-seek-consular-access
The UN's top court on Thursday announced its ruling on an urgent bid by India to stop Pakistan from carrying out a death sentence on one of its nationals convicted of spying.
Rejecting Pakistan's argument that the court did not have jurisdiction, the court said it would hear the case and seek arguments from both sides.
"[Meanwhile] Pakistan should take all measures to ensure that Mr Jadhav is not executed till the final decision of this court," the court said.
The court also said Pakistan shall inform it of all measures taken in implementation of the order.
The president of the court, Ronny Abraham, read out the decision.
Judgments delivered by the court in disputes between states are binding upon the parties concerned.
Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that "each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party".
Judgments are final and without appeal.
The court's reasoning
"The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie to hear the case. It recalls that India seeks to ground its jurisdiction in Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, which provides that the Court has jurisdiction over “[d]isputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the [Vienna] Convention”.
"In this regard, the Court notes that the Parties do indeed appear to have differed, and still differ today, on the question of India’s consular assistance to Mr. Jadhav under the Vienna Convention. It further notes that the acts alleged by India, i.e., the alleged failure by Pakistan to provide the requisite consular notifications with regard to the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav, as well as the alleged failure to allow communication and provide access to him, appear to be capable of falling within the scope of the Convention. In the view of the Court, this is sufficient to establish that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of the Optional Protocol.
"The Court further observes that the existence of a 2008 bilateral Agreement between the Parties on consular relations does not change its conclusion on jurisdiction.
"The Court then turns to the question whether the rights alleged by India are at least plausible. It observes that the rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals, as well as the obligations of the detaining State to inform the person concerned without delay of his rights with regard to consular assistance and to allow their exercise, are recognized in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, and that India has alleged violations of this provision. In the view of the Court, therefore, it appears that the rights alleged by India are plausible.
"The Court then focuses on the issue of the link between the rights claimed and the provisional measures requested. It considers that the measures requested are aimed at ensuring that the rights contained in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, are preserved. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by India and the provisional measures being sought.
"The Court then examines whether there is a risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency. It considers that the mere fact that Mr. Jadhav is under a death sentence and might therefore be executed is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by India.
"The Court further observes that Pakistan has indicated that any execution of Mr. Jadhav would probably not take place before the month of August 2017. This means that there is a risk that an execution could take place at any moment thereafter, before the Court has given its final decision in the case.
"The Court also notes that Pakistan has given no assurance that Mr. Jadhav will not be executed before the Court has rendered its final decision. In those circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is urgency in the present case.
"The Court concludes by indicating the following measures:
"Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings and shall inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of the present Order.
"The Court also decides that, until it has given its final decision, it shall remain seised of the matters which form the subject-matter of this Order."
Pakistan's argument
The arguments for Pakistan had been presented to the court on Monday in an emergency hearing swiftly organised on Monday on India's appeal.
Pakistani representatives had reminded the court that Jadhav “has confessed to having been sent by India to wage terror on the innocent civilians and infrastructure of Pakistan”.
They had also argued that, according to the Vienna Convention, the court had no jurisdiction to hear such a case.
They said the self-confessed Indian spy was sentenced to death after fulfilling all necessary legal procedures and that he was also given legal counsel to defend the allegations against him.
Lawyer Khawar Qureshi, appearing for Pakistan, had argued that the ICJ is not a criminal court and cannot decide such type of cases relating to national security.
He further appealed to the court to dismiss the Indian application, saying that "there is no agency".
The counsel for Pakistan had argued that the provisions of the Vienna Convention do not apply to a "spy involved in terror activities".
Qureshi said that Jadhav “is a terrorist” and “India invoked the jurisdiction of this court improperly.”
“This court exists to ensure that states engage in peaceful resolution of disputes. This court does not exist for time-wasting and political grandstanding,” he maintained.
"India's allegation regarding the kidnapping of its spy is not true and he [Jadhav] was arrested by Pakistani forces from Balochistan," he maintained.
India seeks urgent action
Lawyers for New Delhi had urged the ICJ to halt the execution.
India denied Jadhav was a spy, and on Monday accused Pakistan of “egregious violations of the Vienna convention” by denying him access to legal counsel and consular visits, and refusing to reveal the charge sheet against him.
Jadhav was “an innocent Indian national, who, incarcerated in Pakistan for more than a year on concocted charges ... has been held incommunicado... and faces imminent execution,” Indian lawyer Deepak Mittal told the tribunal on Monday.
What we know about Jadhav
This is a developing story which will be updated as the court's judgement is made clearer.
- He was the contact man for Anil Kumar Gupta, the joint secretary of
RAW, and his other operatives in Pakistan
Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav's 'confessional' statement.- His was tasked with disrupting development of CPEC, with Gwadar port as a special target
- Jadhav is still a serving officer in the Indian Navy and will be due for retirement in 2022
- He started carrying out intelligence based operations in 2002 and in 2003 established a small business in Chabahar, Iran
- Jadhav directed various activities in Karachi and Balochistan at the behest of RAW
- He was involved in activities of 'anti-national or terrorist nature'
ShoutB
BANNED
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 817
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
but you don't know how to play. The plot got reversed.
I asked about the Chinese factor
Similar threads
