undercover JIX
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,146
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Modi always Wins.
time for celebrations. choti choti khushuyaan
Pakistan declares Kulbhushan Jadhav will get consular access
- Thread starter Aryan0395
- Start date
Aryan0395
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1,134
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
You are basically admitting that up until now, Pakistan didn't follow the law which are clearly not the hallmarks of a responsible nation.
Getting KJ free via ICJ was never going to happen, which is why there was a separate set of demands asking for consular access and suspension of his death sentence.
If you need something, you ask for more, only then do you get what you originally desired.
The Eagle
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 24,239
- Reaction score
- 258
- Country
- Location
You didn't read the part in regard to Vienna Article for consular access to Spy and a dissenting note by Pakistani Adhoc Judge in ICJ? We will still provide consular access for KJ merely that this single point may also not be used by India for Propaganda. Read whole post in connecting contexts to have the idea as why Pakistan is going to decide as such.
There were 5 Indian Prayers not demands, including Consular access along with retrial and this demand only was partially approved by ICJ with consular access but, review will be done as per way of our choosing. No party will reach such higher forum, make a drama till verdict by throwing copies of arguments around and say that we are going to bring back KJ while on other hand, will pray more so could achieve one or half of the demand? Like we don't have all those jingoistic claims in data... even PDF threads are full of the same. The main prayer was to acquit him off spy charges, set him free, set-aside Pakistan Military Court order and send him to India... Consular access prayer was actually the last prayer in-case something goes against India which was indeed, obvious and happened as such. Its like saving grace.
Microsoft
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Messages
- 2,533
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Hmph after begging for consular access for years you show ungratefulness. Wasn't Modi's political pressure supposed to have him released like Abhinandan?
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
First of all there are 2 different cases are going on, one is with the Indian Defence Attache and other is the Indian Civilians.
The Arrest of the Indian Defence Attache on Iranian Soil and then transferring of the Indian Defence Attache to undisclosed location is the real big violation of the Geneva Convention. Vienna Convention and Hague Convention comes under Geneva Convention. French are already under Sanctions for all sort of violations. Pakistan and Iranian Military is working close with French and arresting Indian Defence Attache or any Indian Civilian and conducting trail is in itself a Big Shame.
French has violated the Treaty itself.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCI-commentaryIntroduction
Since the adoption of the 1864 League of Nations Convention, The United Nations body of law has been continually refined. In order to fully appreciate the significance of the First Geneva Convention more than 65 years after its adoption,
The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols constitute the foundation of international humanitarian law today.
The updated Commentary applies the methodology for treaty interpretation as set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Even though that Convention was adopted 20 years after the Geneva Conventions
a. International criminal law
36 With respect to international criminal law, for example, the growing body of case law from the various international criminal courts and tribunals, as well as national courts, illustrates the way in which identical or similar concepts and obligations of international humanitarian law have been applied and interpreted for the purpose of assessing individual criminal responsibility. To the extent that this is relevant for the interpretation of the Conventions, this has been examined.
37 For example, the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages has become a starting point for the interpretation of the notion of the taking of hostages. This is also borne out by subsequent practice, e.g. in the form of the war crime of hostage-taking in the 1998 ICC Statute, the definition in the 2002 ICC Elements of Crimes, and case law
38 That said, it is important to underscore that the humanitarian treaty obligation may be broader than the criminalized parts of it in a rule contained in an instrument of international criminal law. The humanitarian treaty obligation exists independently of the rule of international criminal law on which the case law is founded. The content of the obligation may therefore not be identical in both bodies of law and differences are pointed out wherever they exist.
b. International human rights law
39 With respect to the relationship between humanitarian law and human rights law, it is generally recognized that human rights law applicable in situations of armed conflict complements the protection afforded by humanitarian law because the two bodies of law share a common value of protecting human life and dignity. The relationship between these bodies of law is, however, complex and still subject to further clarification and evolution. It is also highly contextual and therefore the interaction between the two bodies of law depends on the issue at hand. The Commentaries do not purport to set forth a general theory of the relationship applicable to all possible interactions between every rule of the Conventions and human rights law. It will address the relationship on a case-by-case basis, based on the premise of the complementary nature of both bodies of law.
40 Therefore, human rights law has been referred to where relevant in order to interpret shared concepts (e.g. cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment). This does not mean that human rights law and interpretations can be transposed mechanically to humanitarian law provisions and differences have been pointed out where relevant. For example, the definition of torture is set forth in the 1984 Convention against Torture, although ICTY case law and the ICC Elements of Crimes have interpreted this notion to be wider in humanitarian law than in the Convention against Torture.[
c. The Additional Protocols
42 A special issue is the relationship between the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005. The original Commentaries on the Conventions were drafted prior to the adoption of the Additional Protocols. The updated Commentaries aim to provide the clearest picture of the content of the obligations set forth in each article of the Conventions, in the light of the obligations for States that are party to the Additional Protocols.
Section 3: Termination and suspension of the operation of treaties
Article 54 [Termination of or withdrawal from a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the parties] The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place:
(a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or
(b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States.
Article 55 [Reduction of the parties to a multilateral treaty below the number necessary for its entry into force] Unless the treaty otherwise provides, a multilateral treaty does not terminate by reason only of the fact that the number of the parties falls below the number necessary for its entry into force.
Article 56 [Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal]
1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
(b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.
2. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.
Article 57 [Suspension of the operation of a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the parties] The operation of a treaty in regard to all the parties or to a particular party may be suspended:
(a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or
(b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States.
Article 59 [Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty]
1. A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same subject-matter and:
(a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the matter should be governed by that treaty; or
(b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time.
2. The earlier treaty shall be considered as only suspended in operation if it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that such was the intention of the parties.
Article 63 [Severance of diplomatic or consular relations] The severance of diplomatic or consular relations between parties to a treaty does not affect the legal relations established between them by the treaty except in so far as the existence of diplomatic or consular relations is indispensable for the application of the treaty
The Arrest of the Indian Defence Attache on Iranian Soil and then transferring of the Indian Defence Attache to undisclosed location is the real big violation of the Geneva Convention. Vienna Convention and Hague Convention comes under Geneva Convention. French are already under Sanctions for all sort of violations. Pakistan and Iranian Military is working close with French and arresting Indian Defence Attache or any Indian Civilian and conducting trail is in itself a Big Shame.
French has violated the Treaty itself.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCI-commentaryIntroduction
Since the adoption of the 1864 League of Nations Convention, The United Nations body of law has been continually refined. In order to fully appreciate the significance of the First Geneva Convention more than 65 years after its adoption,
The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols constitute the foundation of international humanitarian law today.
The updated Commentary applies the methodology for treaty interpretation as set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Even though that Convention was adopted 20 years after the Geneva Conventions
a. International criminal law
36 With respect to international criminal law, for example, the growing body of case law from the various international criminal courts and tribunals, as well as national courts, illustrates the way in which identical or similar concepts and obligations of international humanitarian law have been applied and interpreted for the purpose of assessing individual criminal responsibility. To the extent that this is relevant for the interpretation of the Conventions, this has been examined.
37 For example, the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages has become a starting point for the interpretation of the notion of the taking of hostages. This is also borne out by subsequent practice, e.g. in the form of the war crime of hostage-taking in the 1998 ICC Statute, the definition in the 2002 ICC Elements of Crimes, and case law
38 That said, it is important to underscore that the humanitarian treaty obligation may be broader than the criminalized parts of it in a rule contained in an instrument of international criminal law. The humanitarian treaty obligation exists independently of the rule of international criminal law on which the case law is founded. The content of the obligation may therefore not be identical in both bodies of law and differences are pointed out wherever they exist.
b. International human rights law
39 With respect to the relationship between humanitarian law and human rights law, it is generally recognized that human rights law applicable in situations of armed conflict complements the protection afforded by humanitarian law because the two bodies of law share a common value of protecting human life and dignity. The relationship between these bodies of law is, however, complex and still subject to further clarification and evolution. It is also highly contextual and therefore the interaction between the two bodies of law depends on the issue at hand. The Commentaries do not purport to set forth a general theory of the relationship applicable to all possible interactions between every rule of the Conventions and human rights law. It will address the relationship on a case-by-case basis, based on the premise of the complementary nature of both bodies of law.
40 Therefore, human rights law has been referred to where relevant in order to interpret shared concepts (e.g. cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment). This does not mean that human rights law and interpretations can be transposed mechanically to humanitarian law provisions and differences have been pointed out where relevant. For example, the definition of torture is set forth in the 1984 Convention against Torture, although ICTY case law and the ICC Elements of Crimes have interpreted this notion to be wider in humanitarian law than in the Convention against Torture.[
c. The Additional Protocols
42 A special issue is the relationship between the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005. The original Commentaries on the Conventions were drafted prior to the adoption of the Additional Protocols. The updated Commentaries aim to provide the clearest picture of the content of the obligations set forth in each article of the Conventions, in the light of the obligations for States that are party to the Additional Protocols.
Section 3: Termination and suspension of the operation of treaties
Article 54 [Termination of or withdrawal from a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the parties] The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place:
(a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or
(b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States.
Article 55 [Reduction of the parties to a multilateral treaty below the number necessary for its entry into force] Unless the treaty otherwise provides, a multilateral treaty does not terminate by reason only of the fact that the number of the parties falls below the number necessary for its entry into force.
Article 56 [Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal]
1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
(b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.
2. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.
Article 57 [Suspension of the operation of a treaty under its provisions or by consent of the parties] The operation of a treaty in regard to all the parties or to a particular party may be suspended:
(a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or
(b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States.
Article 59 [Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty]
1. A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same subject-matter and:
(a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the matter should be governed by that treaty; or
(b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time.
2. The earlier treaty shall be considered as only suspended in operation if it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that such was the intention of the parties.
Article 63 [Severance of diplomatic or consular relations] The severance of diplomatic or consular relations between parties to a treaty does not affect the legal relations established between them by the treaty except in so far as the existence of diplomatic or consular relations is indispensable for the application of the treaty
pothead
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2017
- Messages
- 4,109
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
The ICJ voted on 8 points and each point went in India's favour by 15 to 1. https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20190717-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf
The court could not have passed any remark on the working of the military court as they did not have any information on it. Now KJ will get consular access and then a lawyer to represent him in the review. The lawyer will ask for the proceedings in the military court. That is when the action will start.
You refuse to give us the proceeding and we say that KJ is innocent and India does not indulge in terrorism.
You give us the proceedings and we compare the level of proof required to that used against Hafiz Saeed and call you supporters of terrorism.
If you want to make something stick on India in the international forum, you will have to do a retrial in a civilian court where there are great chances that he will go scot free. Otherwise only Pakistanis will accept that he is a terrorist and India supports terrorism.
Sine Nomine
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 10,067
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
Come out of lala land,before it's too late.
Why don't you guys drag Iran into this?
Tell us what would happen?Sure, deny the access and see what happens
Mighty Bharat would go back into ICJ or UNSC
Just that statement. No rebuttal ? How does one reply to this? Maybe "come out of haha land"?
Microsoft
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Messages
- 2,533
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Sure, deny the access and see what happens
How many years was it denied? What happened?
More ungratefulness. What Pakistan Military Personel was/were released I haven't heard about this.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Classified Information, DGMO talks
Actually Pandits are Religious Scholars who are linked to the Royal Families. Raj Guru Families of the Aryan Thoqra Dynasty are Kashmir Pandits. In every Riyasat , Pandits are known by different name Pandit, Purohit, Poojari, Achary, Chary etc.
Whirling_dervesh
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,000
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
2 wrongs make a right? Great analogy
And why are you giving classified information to the public
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Because its not classified anymore.
Similar threads
