We didn't exactly the way you are asking but as said, that was still a courtesy call. India tried to use that card to release him and what not but got nothing except that counselor access as per our choosing & way. If it was something what India tried to imply and already failed, the verdict would have been different.
I’m sorry but there are no courtesy calls admissible in the court of law unless documented as part of a series of procedures that were followed by a written summary.
If you’re claiming to be so well versed in law, you should know that those count for nothing. If anything, it’s a claim, nothing more.
In legal language and citations being quoted for the reference, it does not matter whether cartel or not but says specifically about "under investigation criminal & informing the country of origin under Vienna Article". ICJ can't influence domestic law of any country or even revert the judgment of any country, like in this Pakistan. To understand such citations & their reference to any legal proceedings, you will have to understand the way of Law & legal language.
Well you started out by talking about legal precedence in other spy cases and then posted this. Of course I’m going to assume you would provide a case of handling a similar spy arrest and trial.
The US has been a notorious violator of the article 36 of Vienna convention. So this isn’t new.
Also, I’m pretty certain the US has a bilateral treaty with Mexico that shapes how such situations are handled. If I’m not mistaken, US can try Mexicans in the US for crimes committed in the US without having to inform the embassy of Mexico. I have to check.
Regarding the bold. That’s a grey area, because it can stay the execution ie decision of Pakistan until a fair trial is conducted. Basically superseding the decision of your court.
So partially true, yes. Of course, Pakistan can be like the US and violate the treaty and hang KJ. But that will set a bad precedence for your country.
