- Adviser says Pakistan’s domestic laws to reign over any ICJ order in Indian agent case
- ‘UNSC best forum for Kashmir, but Pakistan can raise IHK case at ICJ with a human angle’
- ‘Strengthen legal team, Pakistan has ample time, evidence to fight case at The Hague’
Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz on Saturday said that Pakistan’s domestic laws would reign over any order by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the death sentence awarded to Indian agent Kulbhushan Jhadav and Indian media was misleading the public opinion in this regard.
“The ICJ can’t annul our verdict. We can refer to our security dimension if the court goes for it. International laws can’t override our domestic laws and hence the ICJ can’t overrule the verdict awarded to the Indian naval officer caught red-handed from Balochistan, he said while briefing the media here at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In Pakistan’s first official response to the ICJ’s interim order in Jhadav’s case, Sartaj said that Pakistan could have opted to defy the ICJ jurisdiction by not appearing in the case. Being a responsible member of the United Nations (UN), “we decided to follow our stated policy to show respect for the court,” he said, adding that in such cases, it’s always better to submit and defend.
He said that it was a unanimous decision to go to the court and defend Pakistan’s position and all stakeholders had agreed. Flanked by Foreign Affairs Secretary Tehmina Janjua and Foreign Office spokesperson Nafees Zakaria, he said that Pakistan would take full advantage of the Indian move to shun bilateralism as this has provided it an opportunity to highlight the involvement of Indian state actors in fueling terrorism inside Pakistan.
He said that Pakistan’s case on Jhadav was very strong and was on merit while ICJ had no jurisdiction over the internal security matter. “However, since India has opted for ICJ – leaving bilateralism behind – all options are open for us. We will consider our options. We can highlight the role of Indian state actors in terrorism inside Pakistan,” he said.
He reconfirmed that Jhadav has admitted his role in terrorism and related crimes and that the Indian agent was a serving naval officer involved in terrorism. “India is projecting ‘human rights’ angle in this case to mislead the world. But will tell truth to the world,” he added.
Referring to the statement of former judge of India’s Supreme Court Markanday Katju, the adviser said that Pakistan would take advantage of India’s move (to approach the ICJ) and it would highlight Indian role in terrorism at the court.
Asked if Pakistan would raise the Kashmir issue at the ICJ, he said that Pakistan would stick to its principled stance of taking the matter to the UN but it could raise the Indian state terrorism in the Indian-held Kashmir with a human angle.
“For raising Kashmir issue, the forum is UN Security Council and not ICJ. But we can raise human rights dimension in the ICJ. Our political and moral support would continue for Kashmir struggle. Kashmiri youth are torch bearer of this struggle,” he added. He said that Pakistan now has ample time and evidence to fight its case at the ICJ.
“We have to strengthen our legal team. We would also name our ad-hoc judge for the ICJ panel. The ICJ’s provisional order has not impacted in any manner our case on Jhadav as Pakistan’s laws did not allow immediate execution,” Sartaj said. “Under our law, the accused had 40 days for appeal and then again 60 days for moving any superior court. So since we were in no hurry to execute the accused, the ICJ order won’t impact our process,” he said.
Responding to queries about ICJ’s verdict, the adviser said that the ICJ normally issues restraining orders in death-related cases due to moratorium on death sentence in the European countries. However, he said that the interim order had not changed the status or position of Pakistan on Jhadav case. He said that the ICJ had also not ruled on India request for consular access to the sentenced agent and Indian media’s propaganda was misleading.
He said that Pakistan had sent a questionnaire to India in January last about Jhadav which New Delhi had failed to respond to. He said that any decision on consular access could be made once India responds to Pakistan’s questionnaire.
He also rubbished the impression of any divisions between the state institutions over the nomination of Pakistan’s lawyer for ICJ, saying that an inter-agency process was adopted and it was unanimous decision to hire services of Khawar Qureshi who had won Pakistan’s case on the Hyderabad Fund recently.
He also denounced opposition’s criticism on Indian businessman Sajjan Jindal’s private meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, terming the noise as irresponsible statements. He also categorically said that Iranian envoy has clarified Iran did not seek consular access to Jhadav.
On the occasion, the foreign secretary informed the journalists that mother of the Indian agent had submitted an appeal which would be processed accordingly. She (mother) had filed a review petition on April 26 – a copy of which was hand delivered to the foreign secretary by India’s high commissioner.
