The Geneva Convention (that you refer to) has nothing to do with consular access.
Consular access is a right arising from the 1963 Vienna Convention (different treaty)
The Geneva Convention deals with the treatment of POWs. It obligates signatory countries to provide some degree of protection, due-process etc. That obligation does not extend to spies (or unlawful combatants). Even this by the way applies only in time of armed conflict.
However the request of the Indian Government for consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav is not a request that he be given good food / immunity etc. Consular access means officials of the Indian embassy can speak to him, provide him financial / legal guidance as may be necessary. This right [to consular access] is from the Vienna Convention which provides the right to all persons who are detained.
Understanding this legal position is important - I get the sense that one this issue, as with some others, the Pakistan FO is just not getting good legal advice or is determined to disregard the law. If Pakistan believes he is a spy and has evidence then by all means try the man as per the law.
I'm sorry to say this but you simply do not understand the legal distinction.
The Geneva Conventions relate to the
treatment of POWS and enemies captured during an armed conflict. While it accords POWs some minimal standards of living and care, no such guarantee is made for spies or illegal combatants (that includes civilians and soldiers out of uniform).
The Vienna Convention obligates a country to allow the diplomats of another country
access to their nationals who are detained or arrested upon request. There is no exception to this right for spies, etc. The word 'spy' is not even mentioned in the Vienna Convention.
The two conventions operate in different areas. Request for consular access is not under the Geneva Convention. It's under the Vienna Convention.
If Pakistani nationals are languishing in Indian jails it is upto the Pakistani government to demand consular access - I am not aware of any instance in reported news where this has been denied by India. (If you know of any incident please post the news story). On the contrary when Kasab was captured and held during his trial the Pakistan government disowned him completely. The same when Naved was captured in 2015. In both cases they were entitled to seek consular access but chose not to.
Please understand the law and the distinction before posting.
Once again: consular access does not mean letting Kulbhushan go back to India. It's inexplicable why Pakistan has taken this position. It's short sighted, does not seem to offer any benefit, undermines the rule of law and will only encourage the Indian authorities to reciprocate which can only hurt the next Pakistani charged with espionage.
