Hopefully those who tried Jadhav have a fool proof case
India had three objectives when it approached the ICJ on Monday i.e., to seek a stay order against Indian spy Jadhav’s execution, to get a verdict declaring that the execution order was a violation of international law and to get the execution annulled. India has already achieved the first objective through a surprise move the implications of which are yet to be fully realised by Islamabad. . Ordering the stay, ICJ President Justice Ronny Abraham directed Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to “act in such a way so as to enable the court to enforce any decision it takes on the Indian plea.” This effectively stays Jadhav’s execution until the court hears the matter and passes orders
Taking the case to the ICJ must have been excruciating for India as it had consistently opposed internationalising differences with Pakistan stressing that these could only be resolved bilaterally. It is being maintained by India that the Jadhav case required the extreme measure, as “Pakistan had refused to follow any established norm or principle.” India had asked for consular access to Jadhav which was denied by Pakistani authorities both civil and military. Pakistan maintained that consular access is given to prisoners but not to spies. As Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua told Indian High Commissioner Gautam Bambawale, Jadhav was a serving Indian naval officer who was involved in terrorist activities in Pakistan and thus would not be given access.
On Wednesday the ICJ issued a press release which told the Court was to start a public hearing of Indian spy Jadhav’s case on May 15. When the news came Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz was still unclear about its implications. Was the army’s legal wing and the FO unaware of Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes? That is the provision India has successfully used to plead its case at the ICJ. Hopefully those who justified denial of consular access will fight the case forcefully at the court.