PAK: INDIA USING JADHAV ISSUE

Pakistan accused India of using the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the ICJ for political theatre and sought dismissal of its plea seeking the former navy officer’s release.

›

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not made out as India has not established that Jadhav is an Indian... KHAWAR QURESHI, Pak’s lawyer

NEW DELHI: Pakistan on Tuesday accused India of using the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a platform for political theatre and sought the dismissal of India’s petition seeking the former navy officer’s release.

In its first round of oral arguments at the UN’s highest court, Pakistan attorney general Anwar Mansoor Khan claimed Jadhav was a serving officer in the Indian Navy, was working for the Research and Analysis Wing and was sent to Balochistan province to destabilise the country.

Pakistan told the ICJ that Jadhav could avail the judicial mechanism of review and reconsideration to challenge his conviction by a military court in a high court and the Supreme Court. Khan also argued his release should not be ordered by the ICJ.

Khan, a former army officer, accused India of sponsoring terrorist activities in Pakistan and causing more than 74,000 casualties. Jadhav, 48, was sentenced to death by a military court in April 2017, a year after he was arrested and charged with alleged involvement in spying and subversive activities. India has denied these charges and said Jadhav, a former serviceman who was running his own business, was abducted from the Iranian port of Chabahar. The hearing of Jadhav’s case at the ICJ has added to bilateral tensions, which spiked over the terror attack by a Pakistan-based group in Pulwama last week that killed 40 troops.

Countering India’s arguments on Pakistan not providing consular access to Jadhav, Pakistan’s lawyer Khawar Qureshi, argued New Delhi had never proved Jadhav is an Indian national and that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations did not apply to individuals accused of espionage.

He said, “Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not made out as India has not established that Jadhav is an Indian national. Customary international law provides for an exception to consular access in the case of an individual reasonably sus- pected of espionage and this remains unaffected by the Vienna Convention.”

This is the first time that the ICJ has been called on to decide a case wherein the issue of providing consular accesses to an individual convicted of espionage has been raised. To support his contention that Jadhav is a spy, Qureshi citied articles written by three Indian journalists. Qureshi claimed Jadhav was given a fair trial by the military court, and that he was given three weeks and legal assistance to prepare his case. At the start of Tuesday’s proceedings, the Pakistani team sought an adjournment as there was no ad hoc judge nominated by Islamabad on the 15-member bench hearing the matter. The Pakistani side said the country’s rights will be “permanently frustrated in the absence of an ad hoc judge”.

According to the ICJ’s rules, if one of the states involved in a dispute has a permanent judge on the bench, the other state has a right to nominate an ad hoc judge. On Monday, Pakistan’s nominee Tassaduq Hussain Jilani fell ill and could not take part in proceedings.

In its first round of arguments on Monday, India called for the release of Jadhav and assailed Pakistan for convicting him in “farcical” proceedings that violated his rights under the Vienna Convention. India also argued Jadhav’s conviction in a secret trial must be set aside as Pakistan never made the charges or the judgment public, or granted consular access to him. There will be two more rounds of oral arguments, first by India on February 20 and by Pakistan the following day. The ICJ is expected to give its ruling after several months.