- Pakistan’s counsel Khawar Qureshi says India has not provided evidence to rebut that Jadhav is a terrorist
- ‘The ICJ is not a criminal court and cannot decide such type of cases relating to national security’
- After listening to arguments, ICJ close the hearing, with judge saying court will soon announce verdict on India’s petition.
Pakistan on Monday stressed that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) lacked jurisdiction in the case of Indian RAW agent Kulbhushan Jadhav, as Islamabad presented its stance on death sentence handed to the under custody RAW operative in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands.
The ICJ Monday conducted hearing into India’s petition, demanding staying of Pakistan’s death sentence to RAW agent Kulbhushan Jadhav.
Ambassador Moazzam Ahmad Khan, Dr Muhammad Faisal and Syed Faraz Hussain were present at the Peace Palace as members of Pakistan’s legal team.
Khawar Qureshi, Asad Raheem Khan and Joseph Decky were also present on Pakistan’s behalf for the proceedings in The Hague.
Pakistan’s counsel Khawar Qureshi presented the country’s stance on the death sentence handed to Jadhav in the ICJ, contending that according to the Vienna Convention, the case cannot be heard in the ICJ.
“India has not provided any evidence to rebut that Jadhav is a terrorist,” Qureshi informed the court, stressing that Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav did not hold the right to consular access.
Qureshi moved the ICJ to turn down India’s petition on Jadhav’s death sentence. “The case is not that of emergency basis, while India’s petition has too many loopholes.”
“Pakistan has concrete evidence of Jadhav’s involvement in subversive activities and he was sentenced in accordance with law,” he said, noting that Jadhav was arrested from Balochistan.
The Pakistani counsel told the ICJ that Jadhav entered into Pakistan on a fake passport. “It is the responsibility of all states to punish a terrorist,” he added, contending that the under custody RAW operative cannot be given counsellor access.
He also argued that: “The ICJ is not a criminal court and cannot decide such type of cases relating to national security.”
The counsel for Pakistan also said that the provisions of the Vienna Convention do not apply to a “spy involved in terror activities”.
NO SUBSTANCE IN INDIA’S APPLICATION:
Speaking to newsmen after the hearing, Qureshi explained, “The government of India brought an application to seek an exceptional relief from the ICJ, the highest judicial organ of the United Nations, such application should only be brought in circumstances of the extreme emergency.
“It is clear as we have tried to demonstrate in the court that the urgency was contrived and there’s no substance in the application to court.”
He said that, in any event, applications for provisional measures are not an evaluation of the merits or the facts. All an application for provisional measures is intended to do is to enable a full hearing to take place at a subsequent date.
“Government of Pakistan remains confident, whether it is the provisional measures or the application itself, the clarity of the law and the facts will prevail and India ultimately will find that its claim is dismissed,” he said.
‘PAKISTAN WON’T BE COWED DOWN BY TERRORISTS’
Speaking prior to him in the ICJ, South Asia and SAARC DG Dr Muhammad Faisal said, “Pakistan will not be cowed down by terrorists and utilise all legal means to safeguard its people and soil.”
“Kulbhushan Jadhav confessed to having conspired to fan terrorism inside Pakistan, while the passport, he was found in possession of, bore a Muslim name,” he said.
The ICJ was also shown a copy of the passport seized from Jadhav at the time of his arrest.
“The court can see the passport bore a Muslim name and the copy of which was also provided to Indian authorities, but New Delhi has been unable to provide an explanation of it,” the Pakistani diplomat said.
VERDICT TO BE ANNOUNCED SOON:
After having listened to the arguments, the ICJ closed the hearing, with the judge saying that the court will soon announce a verdict on India’s petition.
“The parties will be apprised of the date when the verdict will be announced,” he said, directing counsels from the two sides to remain available for the court.
The court’s president Ronny Abraham said the tribunal would publicly deliver its decision on whether to grant an emergency stay of execution “as soon as possible.”
Earlier, joint secretaries at the Indian External Affairs Ministry, Dr Deepak Mittal, Dr VD Sharma, and Indian counsel Harish Salve completed their statements before the judges.
The Indian side focused on expressing its reservations over the fairness of Jadhav’s trial in Pakistan by an army court, as well as the lack of mercy shown by the Pakistani side, saying the jailed Indian national was not allowed to meet his mother.
The Indian delegation comprised five members, whereas the Pakistani side consists of six individuals, including a European lawyer and members of the diplomatic corps.
Meanwhile, senior Pakistani government officials stated that the incarcerated RAW agent’s confession of involvement in sabotage and espionage activities inside Pakistan is the crux of Islamabad’s case. Moreover, Pakistani legal experts are of the view that India’s case at the global legal tribunal is weak.
Jadhav, in his confessional statement, had admitted to funding sabotage activities in Balochistan.
Criticising India’s designs to cloud the issue, officials said Pakistan’s legal team will lay bare India’s bogus claims regarding the Jadhav case in front of the international court.
Sources also said that India had four months to prepare its case in the global court, whereas Pakistan had to prepare its arguments in a couple of days, owing to New Delhi’s surprise move to approach the ICJ.
On May 9, New Delhi instituted proceedings in the ICJ over Jadhav’s sentencing to death in Pakistan earlier this year.
Jadhav alias Hussein Mubarak Patel was arrested on March 3, 2016, in a ‘Counter-Intelligence Operation’ from Mashkel area of Balochistan over his involvement in espionage and sabotage actives in Pakistan.
According to a press release on May 9 from ICJ, India requested the United Nations’ judicial organ to provide relief “by way of immediate suspension of the sentence of death awarded to the accused”.
A later press release from the ICJ stated that on May 15, it will hear India’s observations in the first session and that of Pakistan in the second session.
The hearing is being streamed live and on demand (VOD) on the ICJ’s website, as well as on the United Nations online television.
India has contended that it was not granted consular access to Jadhav, terming it a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). India has also claimed that it learned about the death sentence by way of a press release from Pakistan.
On April 10, Jadhav was awarded a death sentence by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) under the Pakistan Army Act for espionage and sabotage. Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa ratified Jadhav’s sentencing by the army tribunal.
India had termed the death sentence awarded to Jadhav “an act of premeditated murder,” while maintaining that Jadhav was a retired officer of the Indian Navy.
India has further claimed that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in a business undertaking.