AZADPAKISTAN2009
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 37,669
- Reaction score
- 68
- Country
- Location
Well Kalbujan is dead already and we can't have a court trial for a dead Terrorist
‘Pakistan made a mistake’: Criticism at home over ICJ decision : Pakistani Media
- Thread starter black cat
- Start date
Banglar Bir
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 7,805
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
International-ising Jadhav
Ikram Sehgal, May 19, 2017
This was a good week for Pakistan. First Modi made the faux pas of the decade by boycotting the China Summit on the “One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiatives, then India gave us an enormous platform for internationalizing human rights by going to the ICJ over the Kulbushan Jadhav matter. Arrested by security forces while entering Balochistan from Iran last year on March 23, Lt Comd Jadhav, a serving officer of the Indian Navy, admitted in a confessional video that he is an operative of the Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and that his passport under the pseudonym “Hossein Mubarak Patel” was fabricated for “intelligence gathering”. Admitting Jadhav was a citizen the Indian Foreign Office claimed he had taken “early retirement from the Indian Navy” but was unable to explain away his passport. Before she and her children were whisked away by Indian intelligence agencies Jadhav’s wife confirmed he was due to retire in 2022. His phone calls in Marathi to his family did not go with his assumed identity.
Spies and saboteurs are routinely dealt with a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) under the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) under the Manual of Pakistan Military Law (MPML). Jadhav has the right of appeal to Pakistan’s Supreme Court within 60 days. Every country in the world, including India, has similar statutes and provisions in law. Reacting angrily after the death verdict by a military court, some BJP politicians demanded the Baloch form a government-in-exile and that the Indian govt declare Balochistan ‘an independent state’. Could there be a more blatant example of interference in the internal affairs of another country or inciting its breakup?
While ICJ did not allow Jadhav’s confessional video before a Magistrate that he was tasked by RAW to plan, coordinate and organize espionage and sabotage activities to destabilize Pakistan to be played it is available on the internet. Recruited after the Indian Parliament attack, he ‘contributed his services’ towards information and intelligence gathering within India before RAW tasked him with establishing a small business in Chahbahar in Iran for running a clandestine terror network targetting Pakistan. Answering to Anil Kumar Gupta, the Joint Secretary of RAW, he conducted operations in Balochistan and Karachi training and launching Baloch insurgents to kill or maim Pakistani citizens. Crossing into Pakistan from the Saravan border in Iran on March 3, 2016 during one of his missions he was apprehended. Jadhav is living proof of India using terror as a strategy through its “state actors”. Remember the Tamil Tigers and Prabhakaran in Sri Lanka?
Accusing Pakistan of violating the Vienna Convention, India petitioned ICJ “to take steps to annul the decision of the military court”. Receiving limited international exposure till now the ICJ Jadhav case provides an excellent opportunity for Pakistan to disseminate to a world audience credible evidence about India’s state-sponsored terrorism destabilizing its neighbours. This challenge on the basis of violation of human rights also opens a door of opportunity highlighting the widespread Indian brutalities in Kashmir.
The ICJ’s public hearing on May 15 at “The Hague” first heard India’s observations and thereafter Pakistan’s. Former Solicitor General Harish Salve acted as India’s Counsel while QC Khawar Qureshi represented Pakistan. Pakistan not granting consular access to Jadhav despite many requests was termed by Salve as a violation of the “Vienna Convention on Consular Relations”. He said the trial was conducted without informing Jadhav and legal formalities were not followed, claiming Jadhav’s confession was forcibly extracted and that he was kidnapped from Iran, not arrested in Balochistan. Voicing fears that “Jadhav will be executed before this trial ends”, he requested the court to stay the carrying out of the death sentence.
Queen’s Counsel (QC) Khawar Qureshi said in Pakistan’s response that Jadhav was not eligible for consular access and that India had approached the ICJ in haste. Labeling India’s petition as “time-wasting tactics” he called upon the ICJ to dismiss the petition. Khawar asked if India had accepted Jadhav as its national why they had not provided his birth certificate, Indian passport, etc? India did not provide any evidence to prove Jadhav’s innocence or that he is not an Indian spy. Responding to India’s contention that Jadhav’s trial was in gross violation of the Vienna Convention, Khawar noted that it provisions are not intended to apply to a ‘spy’ involved in terror and espionage activities. Consular access between India and Pakistan is decided solely on the basis of the 2008 bilateral agreement which stipulates such access will be subject to discretion if arrested is made on political and security grounds, such as in Jadhav’s case.
Khawar requested the court to cancel India’s application on three grounds viz there is no urgency, the relief sought by India is manifestly unavailable and the jurisdiction is limited. Pointed out precedents where ICJ decisions were not followed, Paraguay Vs USA, Germany Vs USA and Mexico Vs USA ignored the ICJ verdicts and domestic laws prevailed, Khawar cited the 1999 aerial incident in June 2000 where (based on arguments by India), the ICJ ruled it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute brought by Pakistan against India in September 1999 relating to India’s shooting down of an unarmed Pakistan Navy aircraft in Aug 1999. Khawar said it was wholly inappropriate to invoke jurisdiction of this court for purpose of political grandstanding.
On May 10, the Indian media reported the “stay order” by which the ICJ had “restrained Pakistan from Jadhav’s execution”, this proved to be false. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj even tweeted that she “has told the spy’s mother about the court stay order”. The ICJ may or may not agree to India’s request for provisional measures but even if it does it would keep its perfidy in the international spotlight.
The Federal Information Ministry’s job is primarily to promote the image of the State and its critical installations, secondly to promote the image of the Government that it serves. Pervez Rasheed’s primary interest was in attacking the Army and Imran Khan, in that order. Leaving the Army alone, Mariam Aurangzeb mostly goes after Imran Khan. She should stick to her primary aim of projecting Pakistan and protecting its institutions, leaving attacking Imran Khan to Danyal Aziz since this well suited and booted gentleman seems to have nothing else better to do in life. India challenge by going to the ICJ inadvertently gives us a unique opportunity of not only internationalizing the Jadhav affair but more importantly opens the door for exposing the murderous violation of human rights in Kashmir.
The writer is a defence and security analyst.
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/05/19/international-ising-jadhav/
Ikram Sehgal, May 19, 2017
This was a good week for Pakistan. First Modi made the faux pas of the decade by boycotting the China Summit on the “One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiatives, then India gave us an enormous platform for internationalizing human rights by going to the ICJ over the Kulbushan Jadhav matter. Arrested by security forces while entering Balochistan from Iran last year on March 23, Lt Comd Jadhav, a serving officer of the Indian Navy, admitted in a confessional video that he is an operative of the Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and that his passport under the pseudonym “Hossein Mubarak Patel” was fabricated for “intelligence gathering”. Admitting Jadhav was a citizen the Indian Foreign Office claimed he had taken “early retirement from the Indian Navy” but was unable to explain away his passport. Before she and her children were whisked away by Indian intelligence agencies Jadhav’s wife confirmed he was due to retire in 2022. His phone calls in Marathi to his family did not go with his assumed identity.
Spies and saboteurs are routinely dealt with a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) under the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) under the Manual of Pakistan Military Law (MPML). Jadhav has the right of appeal to Pakistan’s Supreme Court within 60 days. Every country in the world, including India, has similar statutes and provisions in law. Reacting angrily after the death verdict by a military court, some BJP politicians demanded the Baloch form a government-in-exile and that the Indian govt declare Balochistan ‘an independent state’. Could there be a more blatant example of interference in the internal affairs of another country or inciting its breakup?
While ICJ did not allow Jadhav’s confessional video before a Magistrate that he was tasked by RAW to plan, coordinate and organize espionage and sabotage activities to destabilize Pakistan to be played it is available on the internet. Recruited after the Indian Parliament attack, he ‘contributed his services’ towards information and intelligence gathering within India before RAW tasked him with establishing a small business in Chahbahar in Iran for running a clandestine terror network targetting Pakistan. Answering to Anil Kumar Gupta, the Joint Secretary of RAW, he conducted operations in Balochistan and Karachi training and launching Baloch insurgents to kill or maim Pakistani citizens. Crossing into Pakistan from the Saravan border in Iran on March 3, 2016 during one of his missions he was apprehended. Jadhav is living proof of India using terror as a strategy through its “state actors”. Remember the Tamil Tigers and Prabhakaran in Sri Lanka?
Accusing Pakistan of violating the Vienna Convention, India petitioned ICJ “to take steps to annul the decision of the military court”. Receiving limited international exposure till now the ICJ Jadhav case provides an excellent opportunity for Pakistan to disseminate to a world audience credible evidence about India’s state-sponsored terrorism destabilizing its neighbours. This challenge on the basis of violation of human rights also opens a door of opportunity highlighting the widespread Indian brutalities in Kashmir.
The ICJ’s public hearing on May 15 at “The Hague” first heard India’s observations and thereafter Pakistan’s. Former Solicitor General Harish Salve acted as India’s Counsel while QC Khawar Qureshi represented Pakistan. Pakistan not granting consular access to Jadhav despite many requests was termed by Salve as a violation of the “Vienna Convention on Consular Relations”. He said the trial was conducted without informing Jadhav and legal formalities were not followed, claiming Jadhav’s confession was forcibly extracted and that he was kidnapped from Iran, not arrested in Balochistan. Voicing fears that “Jadhav will be executed before this trial ends”, he requested the court to stay the carrying out of the death sentence.
Queen’s Counsel (QC) Khawar Qureshi said in Pakistan’s response that Jadhav was not eligible for consular access and that India had approached the ICJ in haste. Labeling India’s petition as “time-wasting tactics” he called upon the ICJ to dismiss the petition. Khawar asked if India had accepted Jadhav as its national why they had not provided his birth certificate, Indian passport, etc? India did not provide any evidence to prove Jadhav’s innocence or that he is not an Indian spy. Responding to India’s contention that Jadhav’s trial was in gross violation of the Vienna Convention, Khawar noted that it provisions are not intended to apply to a ‘spy’ involved in terror and espionage activities. Consular access between India and Pakistan is decided solely on the basis of the 2008 bilateral agreement which stipulates such access will be subject to discretion if arrested is made on political and security grounds, such as in Jadhav’s case.
Khawar requested the court to cancel India’s application on three grounds viz there is no urgency, the relief sought by India is manifestly unavailable and the jurisdiction is limited. Pointed out precedents where ICJ decisions were not followed, Paraguay Vs USA, Germany Vs USA and Mexico Vs USA ignored the ICJ verdicts and domestic laws prevailed, Khawar cited the 1999 aerial incident in June 2000 where (based on arguments by India), the ICJ ruled it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute brought by Pakistan against India in September 1999 relating to India’s shooting down of an unarmed Pakistan Navy aircraft in Aug 1999. Khawar said it was wholly inappropriate to invoke jurisdiction of this court for purpose of political grandstanding.
On May 10, the Indian media reported the “stay order” by which the ICJ had “restrained Pakistan from Jadhav’s execution”, this proved to be false. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj even tweeted that she “has told the spy’s mother about the court stay order”. The ICJ may or may not agree to India’s request for provisional measures but even if it does it would keep its perfidy in the international spotlight.
The Federal Information Ministry’s job is primarily to promote the image of the State and its critical installations, secondly to promote the image of the Government that it serves. Pervez Rasheed’s primary interest was in attacking the Army and Imran Khan, in that order. Leaving the Army alone, Mariam Aurangzeb mostly goes after Imran Khan. She should stick to her primary aim of projecting Pakistan and protecting its institutions, leaving attacking Imran Khan to Danyal Aziz since this well suited and booted gentleman seems to have nothing else better to do in life. India challenge by going to the ICJ inadvertently gives us a unique opportunity of not only internationalizing the Jadhav affair but more importantly opens the door for exposing the murderous violation of human rights in Kashmir.
The writer is a defence and security analyst.
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/05/19/international-ising-jadhav/
well ruckus should be made when the person is still alive ! whats the use after he got hanged.
Avon
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 99
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
So true. It was something that happened so fast, dont know in whose favour would the verdict go, however for now what you said stands true.
oops wat a logic.
Thats right it will simply bring focus on how independent and fair judiciary is in pakistan.
Ajaxpaul
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 4,412
- Reaction score
- -5
Making sure he doesnt get hanged is our priority. Then after that who knows...He may walk free one day.
So as a moderator do you feel the first mistake was made in 1947 when Jinnah asked for Pakistan , as Pakistan through out its history has just jumped from crisis to crisis , coup to coup and now also all this lament for leadership is actually a reflection of looking for saviours.
When actually you should be strenghtening institutions .
No one institution should dominate , rather a trustworthy judiciary ( even when takes unpopular decisions), should be the last word.
Eg trump was all hot air when he took office but a independent judiciary has punctured his extreme acts.
Jhadav is relevant as its a test case whether your army can be accuser, judge and executioner .
The only sad part for Pakistan is that India has acted to protect its citizen , but no one in Pakistan has raised a voice for more than 100 Pakistanis executed in military trials .
Dazzler
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
- Location
Pakistan is a reality, learn to live with it.
Patriots
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 7,200
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
GlobalVillageSpace
Media Partner
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Opposition blasts government for ICJ bungling
Global Village Space |
On Thursday, the opposition subjected the government to a barrage of criticism over the handling of the ICJ case concerning the death sentence of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav. The stay order issued by the world court is being characterized as a humiliating defeat for Pakistan as matters of its sovereignty have been interfered with by a foreign body. Many are claiming that this mishandling of the case was premeditated as a result of a secret deal struck between the Prime Minister and Indian businessmen Sajjan Jindal when the later met with the PM in Murree.
PTI’s Information Secretary Shafqat Mehmood has demanded the PM disclose all details of the covert meeting between him and Jindal.
Marriyum said Pakistan fought the case before the ICJ professionally, urging the opposition parties to stop politicizing the matter.
In a statement, he raised seven critical questions on the matter and sought an explanation from the prime minister. He demanded that the PM to come to the National Assembly and explain why Pakistan failed to appoint an ad hoc judge because it had a right to do so and why the Foreign Office did not take legal advice before initiating correspondence on the issue.
Read More: ICJ verdict allows Pakistan to show the real Machiavellian India
He also demanded an explanation as to why the government had selected a lawyer who had not a single international law case reported from the UK Supreme Court and what was the reason to engage London Queen’s Counsel (QC) who was based in Qatar? He further asked why the government assigned the task to a novice lawyer who had never argued a case independently before the International Court of Justice and what was the reasoning behind the government’s decision to send a first-year associate from Attorney General’s Office instead of AG himself to the ICJ. Seeking an explanation why the government did not submit a written defense before May 15, Mr. Mehmood said today’s decision was a clear outcome of the rendezvous of Mr. Sharif and his Indian friend Jindal.
The PTI leader stated that questions are frequently being raised over the stance of Pakistan on the jurisdiction of the ICJ and added that the idea was gaining ground that the government deliberately adopted an irresolute and fragile strategy in the matter. Dr. Shireen Mazari, another PTI leader who is an expert in international relations, said she was not surprised by the judgment at all and accused the PML-N government of deliberately stumbling with this case to advance the interests of India. “They wanted the ICJ to give a stay. This was a game which started after Jindal’s visit to Pakistan,” she alleged.
Read full article:
Opposition blasts government for ICJ bungling
Global Village Space |
On Thursday, the opposition subjected the government to a barrage of criticism over the handling of the ICJ case concerning the death sentence of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav. The stay order issued by the world court is being characterized as a humiliating defeat for Pakistan as matters of its sovereignty have been interfered with by a foreign body. Many are claiming that this mishandling of the case was premeditated as a result of a secret deal struck between the Prime Minister and Indian businessmen Sajjan Jindal when the later met with the PM in Murree.
PTI’s Information Secretary Shafqat Mehmood has demanded the PM disclose all details of the covert meeting between him and Jindal.
Marriyum said Pakistan fought the case before the ICJ professionally, urging the opposition parties to stop politicizing the matter.
In a statement, he raised seven critical questions on the matter and sought an explanation from the prime minister. He demanded that the PM to come to the National Assembly and explain why Pakistan failed to appoint an ad hoc judge because it had a right to do so and why the Foreign Office did not take legal advice before initiating correspondence on the issue.
Read More: ICJ verdict allows Pakistan to show the real Machiavellian India
He also demanded an explanation as to why the government had selected a lawyer who had not a single international law case reported from the UK Supreme Court and what was the reason to engage London Queen’s Counsel (QC) who was based in Qatar? He further asked why the government assigned the task to a novice lawyer who had never argued a case independently before the International Court of Justice and what was the reasoning behind the government’s decision to send a first-year associate from Attorney General’s Office instead of AG himself to the ICJ. Seeking an explanation why the government did not submit a written defense before May 15, Mr. Mehmood said today’s decision was a clear outcome of the rendezvous of Mr. Sharif and his Indian friend Jindal.
The PTI leader stated that questions are frequently being raised over the stance of Pakistan on the jurisdiction of the ICJ and added that the idea was gaining ground that the government deliberately adopted an irresolute and fragile strategy in the matter. Dr. Shireen Mazari, another PTI leader who is an expert in international relations, said she was not surprised by the judgment at all and accused the PML-N government of deliberately stumbling with this case to advance the interests of India. “They wanted the ICJ to give a stay. This was a game which started after Jindal’s visit to Pakistan,” she alleged.
Read full article:
Opposition blasts government for ICJ bungling
The more the case drags on it will be negative publicity for india. It was more beneficial for india that KY was hanged silently but now everyone in world know what he did.
And those indians who are saying that he was kidnapped from Iran, they are basically insulting their strategic partner Iran. Did India file any complain to iran that KY kidnapped from Iran. Any record of it?
And those indians who are saying that he was kidnapped from Iran, they are basically insulting their strategic partner Iran. Did India file any complain to iran that KY kidnapped from Iran. Any record of it?
third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/2...if-Pakistan-defies-ICJ-order-on-Yadav-experts
India can move UN Security Council if Pakistan defies ICJ order on Yadav: experts
NEW DELHI: India can approach United Nations Security Council if Islamabad defies the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stay order on RAW agent Kulbhushan Yadav and consular access to him, experts of International law said.
The legal experts said the problem is world court’s order cannot be enforced the way domestic court verdicts can, adding that Pakistan may claim it had not agreed to the case at the judicial branch of the UN.
India said Thursday, there was no ambiguity in ICJ’s judgment, which it said created a legally binding international obligation on Pakistan. India says Yadav should be safe as long as final decision does not come.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday ordered Pakistan to stay the execution of Yadav convicted of spying.
Judges at the ICJ ruled in a unanimous and binding decision that Kulbhushan Sudhir Yadav must not be put to death by Islamabad until they have had time to pass the final judgement in the case.
Yadav was awarded death sentence by Field General Court Martial (FGCM) on charges of espionage.
Pakistan says ICJ has no jurisdiction to hear the case of Yadav as it pertains with the national security of the country.
India can move UN Security Council if Pakistan defies ICJ order on Yadav: experts
NEW DELHI: India can approach United Nations Security Council if Islamabad defies the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stay order on RAW agent Kulbhushan Yadav and consular access to him, experts of International law said.
The legal experts said the problem is world court’s order cannot be enforced the way domestic court verdicts can, adding that Pakistan may claim it had not agreed to the case at the judicial branch of the UN.
India said Thursday, there was no ambiguity in ICJ’s judgment, which it said created a legally binding international obligation on Pakistan. India says Yadav should be safe as long as final decision does not come.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday ordered Pakistan to stay the execution of Yadav convicted of spying.
Judges at the ICJ ruled in a unanimous and binding decision that Kulbhushan Sudhir Yadav must not be put to death by Islamabad until they have had time to pass the final judgement in the case.
Yadav was awarded death sentence by Field General Court Martial (FGCM) on charges of espionage.
Pakistan says ICJ has no jurisdiction to hear the case of Yadav as it pertains with the national security of the country.
shahbaz baig
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 4,433
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
‘All is not lost’ insists govt as opposition fires broadside on 'poor handling' of Jadhav case
ISLAMABAD:As opposition parties lashed out at the ‘poor handling’ of the case of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the government played down the directives issued by the United Nations’ judicial arm, insisting ‘all is not lost.’
Separate reactions from Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz and Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf suggested that the ICJ’s provisional order will not have any bearing on the trial and legal process that was currently underway in Pakistan against Jadhav.
“A stay is granted automatically even in our courts when you file an appeal. But it doesn’t mean that you have lost the case,” Aziz said on Thursday. He insisted that the ICJ had yet to adjudicate on the question of jurisdiction as well as merits of the case. “When that stage comes, Pakistan will forcefully present its case.”
In a separate statement Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf explained that in the interim order, the ICJ had stated that by way of provisional measures, the status quo be maintained in the case of Jadhav. “The court has clearly underscored that the provisional measures are without prejudice to the final determination of the merits and jurisdiction of the case,” he clarified.
ICJ orders Pakistan not to execute Jadhav until its final order in case
Ausaf explained that the provisional measures were a procedural process to enable the court to have full consideration at a later hearing. “These measures have no bearing whatsoever on the final decision of the Court,” he argued.
While some in the country argued that Pakistan should not have gone to ICJ to defend its case by raising the issue of jurisdiction, the attorney general said Pakistan attended the hearing out of its utmost respect for ICJ and “pursuant to the established jurisprudence that the challenge to jurisdiction can be made via appearance and not by abstaining from the process.”
“In addition, Pakistan attended because of its conviction that the only way to resolve all outstanding issues is through peaceful means. We are confident that India will not be able to hide the subversive activities it is trying to carry out through its agents like Commander Jadhav,” Ausaf said, adding that India had no substance in the case.
“As far as Pakistan is concerned, the court’s decision today has not changed the status of Commander Jadhav’s case in any manner,” he stressed.
“In our submissions on 15 May, we had assured the court unambiguously that Commander Jadhav would be provided every opportunity and remedy available under the law to defend his case,” the attorney general pointed out. He maintained that Jadhav still had ample time to petition for clemency.
Former Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir believes that the case would provide an opportunity to Pakistan to expose India’s involvement in terrorism and subversive activities.
ICJ to announce verdict on Jadhav case today
Opposition parties, however, do not agree and instead launched a broadside against the government for poor handling of the case, which they said, Pakistan could have easily won.
The strongest reaction came from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, which linked the ICJ verdict with the meeting between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Indian business tycoon Sajjan Jindal. “Sharif govt deliberately played the Indian game by responding to ICJ when it should have refused to accept ICJ jurisdiction as it is entitled to do,” PTI leader Shireen Mazari said.
“It should have withdrawn from the optional protocol on consular access of the Vienna Convention and also from its acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction if other side accepts same (which India does),” she stressed. “This is a game that began with Jindal’s visit after which India filed before ICJ and Sharif govt found a way to stay Jadhav’s execution.”
“We were under no obligation to accept ICJ jurisdiction by going there to respond to India but we did. And then our lawyers were totally unprepared to respond to Indian points so court accepted all their arguments. By all accounts this is a deliberate policy to free Jadhav. A game plan set in motion by the Jindal visit,” she alleged.
The reaction from Pakistan Peoples Party was also swift. Senior party leader Sherry Rehman was of the view that the Pakistani legal team in The Hague failed to present the case forcefully. “Our lawyer finished the arguments in 50 minutes, though he had 90 minutes to present the case,” Rehman said, insisting that Pakistan could have done better had the legal team been well prepared.
Opposition parties’ criticism aside, Foreign Office Spokesperson Nafees Zakaria said that India, after being exposed of carrying out state sponsored terrorism, terror financing, spying and subversive activities, had desperately tried to divert the world attention by presenting Jadhav’s case from the humanitarian angle.
“India is trying to defend a person whose actions have led to the killing of scores of innocent Pakistanis,” Zakaria said. He said the ICJ did not have jurisdiction on all matters related to national security of Pakistan under the Revised Declaration Pakistan submitted to the UN on March 29
ISLAMABAD:As opposition parties lashed out at the ‘poor handling’ of the case of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the government played down the directives issued by the United Nations’ judicial arm, insisting ‘all is not lost.’
Separate reactions from Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz and Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf suggested that the ICJ’s provisional order will not have any bearing on the trial and legal process that was currently underway in Pakistan against Jadhav.
“A stay is granted automatically even in our courts when you file an appeal. But it doesn’t mean that you have lost the case,” Aziz said on Thursday. He insisted that the ICJ had yet to adjudicate on the question of jurisdiction as well as merits of the case. “When that stage comes, Pakistan will forcefully present its case.”
In a separate statement Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf explained that in the interim order, the ICJ had stated that by way of provisional measures, the status quo be maintained in the case of Jadhav. “The court has clearly underscored that the provisional measures are without prejudice to the final determination of the merits and jurisdiction of the case,” he clarified.
ICJ orders Pakistan not to execute Jadhav until its final order in case
Ausaf explained that the provisional measures were a procedural process to enable the court to have full consideration at a later hearing. “These measures have no bearing whatsoever on the final decision of the Court,” he argued.
While some in the country argued that Pakistan should not have gone to ICJ to defend its case by raising the issue of jurisdiction, the attorney general said Pakistan attended the hearing out of its utmost respect for ICJ and “pursuant to the established jurisprudence that the challenge to jurisdiction can be made via appearance and not by abstaining from the process.”
“In addition, Pakistan attended because of its conviction that the only way to resolve all outstanding issues is through peaceful means. We are confident that India will not be able to hide the subversive activities it is trying to carry out through its agents like Commander Jadhav,” Ausaf said, adding that India had no substance in the case.
“As far as Pakistan is concerned, the court’s decision today has not changed the status of Commander Jadhav’s case in any manner,” he stressed.
“In our submissions on 15 May, we had assured the court unambiguously that Commander Jadhav would be provided every opportunity and remedy available under the law to defend his case,” the attorney general pointed out. He maintained that Jadhav still had ample time to petition for clemency.
Former Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir believes that the case would provide an opportunity to Pakistan to expose India’s involvement in terrorism and subversive activities.
ICJ to announce verdict on Jadhav case today
Opposition parties, however, do not agree and instead launched a broadside against the government for poor handling of the case, which they said, Pakistan could have easily won.
The strongest reaction came from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, which linked the ICJ verdict with the meeting between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Indian business tycoon Sajjan Jindal. “Sharif govt deliberately played the Indian game by responding to ICJ when it should have refused to accept ICJ jurisdiction as it is entitled to do,” PTI leader Shireen Mazari said.
“It should have withdrawn from the optional protocol on consular access of the Vienna Convention and also from its acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction if other side accepts same (which India does),” she stressed. “This is a game that began with Jindal’s visit after which India filed before ICJ and Sharif govt found a way to stay Jadhav’s execution.”
“We were under no obligation to accept ICJ jurisdiction by going there to respond to India but we did. And then our lawyers were totally unprepared to respond to Indian points so court accepted all their arguments. By all accounts this is a deliberate policy to free Jadhav. A game plan set in motion by the Jindal visit,” she alleged.
The reaction from Pakistan Peoples Party was also swift. Senior party leader Sherry Rehman was of the view that the Pakistani legal team in The Hague failed to present the case forcefully. “Our lawyer finished the arguments in 50 minutes, though he had 90 minutes to present the case,” Rehman said, insisting that Pakistan could have done better had the legal team been well prepared.
Opposition parties’ criticism aside, Foreign Office Spokesperson Nafees Zakaria said that India, after being exposed of carrying out state sponsored terrorism, terror financing, spying and subversive activities, had desperately tried to divert the world attention by presenting Jadhav’s case from the humanitarian angle.
“India is trying to defend a person whose actions have led to the killing of scores of innocent Pakistanis,” Zakaria said. He said the ICJ did not have jurisdiction on all matters related to national security of Pakistan under the Revised Declaration Pakistan submitted to the UN on March 29
Naara-e-Mastana
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 611
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Pmln will sell Pakistan fortheir business and patwaris will be the responsible of it .
