Point-to-point arguments in Kulbhushan case

LAHORE: Now that both Pakistan and India, parties to the arrested Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) operative Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case, have concluded their arguments at the 70-year old International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague (Netherlands), the arbiters are expected to announce the verdict anytime soon.

India and Pakistan on Monday presented their arguments before the ICJ over the death sentence awarded to Jhadav by a Pakistani military court after he was convicted of espionage and subversive activities on April 10 this year.

Seeking an annulment of the verdict, India had approached the ICJ which was created in February 1946 when the election of the first members of this court had taken place at the first session of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

According to the World Legal Information Institute, at least 166 cases have till date been entered onto the General List for consideration before the ICJ, where only estranged states have the right to bring a compulsory claim against each other. According to the "Indian Express," India had demanded immediate suspension of Jadhav’s death sentence, saying the trial process was farcical.

The top Indian media house states: "India also feared that Pakistan could execute him even before the hearing at the International Court of Justice was over. Pakistan, on the other hand, accused India of using the ICJ as a stage for political theatre. Pakistan also asserted that they have solid evidence of Jadhav’s espionage activities."  The apprehensions about the spy's execution before the ICJ pronounced its decision were expressed by Deepak Mittal, a joint secretary in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs.

Following are some of the key arguments presented by the representatives of both the countries at the ICJ:

Harish Salve (Indian lawyer and country's former solicitor general): Pakistan military court awarding death sentence to Kulbhushan Jadhav is a violation of the Vienna Convention on consular relations by Pakistan. The graver the charges, greater is the need for continued adherence of Vienna Convention.

Khawar Qureshi (Pakistani lawyer): India’s plea for invoking provisions of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention is not relevant in this case. The Vienna Convention was adopted for better communication between friendly countries. But it cannot apply in this case of a spy set up by a state. Provisions of the Vienna Convention do not apply to a spy involved in terror activities. The ICJ is not a criminal court and cannot decide such type of cases relating to national security. I appeal to the court to dismiss the Indian application because there is no urgency.

Harish Salve: Kulbhushan Jadhav has been denied the right to be defended. Pakistan carried out the trial without informing Jadhav.

Khawar Qureshi: India’s application at ICJ is "unnecessary and misconceived”. Kulbhushan Jadhav was given a fair trial in the country. The clemency process was proper. India's 'kangaroo court' charge is bizarre. Jadhav has 150 days to appeal his sentence.

Harish Salve: Jadhav was kidnapped by Pakistan from Iran, where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy.

Khawar Qureshi: Indian accusation that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran is nothing but far-fetched. He was arrested from Balochistan.

Harish Salve: Pakistan is denying Jadhav consular access. Till date, Pakistan has rejected 16 requests for consular access to Jadhav. Rights of consular access are significant in human rights and international law.

Khawar Qureshi: Pakistan gave India all information regarding Jadhav’s investigation, but didn’t receive any response from New Delhi. Jadhav was given 150 days to clarify himself. Spies can’t get consular access. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Harish Salve: There is no evidence of Jadhav being a spy. He was a former naval officer. He is an Indian national having no connection with government. Charge-sheet on Kulbhushan Jadhav was not given to India by Pakistan.

Khawar Qureshi: The Indian spy has admitted to being involved in activities aimed to destabilize Pakistan. India has not presented its evidence in front of the International Court of Justice regarding the case of Kulbhushan Jhadav. Solid evidences were provided regarding alleged spy Kulbhushan Jadhav’s activities. India failed to provide any evidence to counter Pakistan claim. India did not provide his birth certificate to prove his citizenship neither came forward to clarify his passport, which carried a Muslim name. India had stayed silent on the matter of Kulbhushan’s Indian passport and had not given an explanation regarding it. Indian stance is conflicting and riddled with misrepresentation, and its request has lots of glitches. India is on hyper-drive mode. It is using media to drum up the support for Jadhav.

Harish Salve: India refutes all allegations against Kulbhushan Jadhav and demands provisional measures from the ICJ to prevent damage to him.

  Khawar Qureshi: The ICJ must not give relief to the Indian spy. The ICJ has no power to adjudicate a criminal offence. India had wasted the time of the International Court of Justice by bringing in Kulbhushan Jhadav’s case.