The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on Monday began a four-day public hearing of the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage and terrorism in April 2017.
India moved the ICJ in May in 2017 against the “farcical trial” by the military court against 48-year-old Jadhav, a retired Indian Navy officer.
The first day of oral arguments concluded with India accusing Pakistan of “knowingly, wilfully and brazenly” flouting the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Here are the updates:
(With inputs from Vidya Ram and PTI )
Court is adjourned.
Oral arguments will continue on February 20, 2019.
Both India and Pakistan will get an hour-and-a-half each to present their final arguments. "Second round must not be a repetition of the first," says Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf.
Pakistan counsel Khawar Qureshi asks the ICJ to dismiss the case.
A page from Pakistan's presentation, which was shown by Pakistan's counsel Khawar Qureshi on the second day of the hearing in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice on February 19, 2019.
"India has made no other claims for relief. So if its all-or-nothing attempt fails, it should not be entitled to any relief," he says.
A page from Pakistan's presentation, which was shown by Pakistan's counsel Khawar Qureshi on the second day of the hearing in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice on February 19, 2019.
"This case is not about consular access. This case is political theatre, grandstanding. It is an impermissible use of the court," he observes.
"Why choose someone sitting nine hours away from Pakistan in Chhabahar and kidnap him and force him to give a confession," says Mr. Qureshi. “India continues to assert without a molecule of evidence,” that Jadhav had retired and was a businessman kidnapped from Iran, he asserts.
A page from Pakistan's presentation, which was shown by Pakistan's counsel Khawar Qureshi on the second day of the hearing in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice on February 19, 2019.
Mr. Qureshi questions as to why India didn't raise the dispute in 2016, when Jadhav was arrested. "Why did it come directly to the ICJ for provisional measures" he asks.
A page from Pakistan's presentation, which was shown by Pakistan's counsel Khawar Qureshi on the second day of the hearing in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice on February 19, 2019.
"This is not an allegation," says Mr. Qureshi. "The allegation that Commander Jadhav is a spy is proven. Allegations of espionage are extremely rare. His confession is highly credible and he was equipped with a state-sponsored campaign of violence and terror in Pakistan, namely the Passport."
Court reconvenes.
Mr. Qureshi brings up India's objections to the procedures in the military courts in Pakistan. He reads out the Pakistani Army rules in defence of the court.
On the matter of consular access, he questions the applicability of these requirements to cases where national security was at issue and individuals accused of espionage, reports Vidya Ram.
He describes India’s efforts to get an acquittal as “outlandish,” insisting that the military court trial had been subject to stringent safeguards, and that genuine opportunities were available to him to challenge his conviction.
Mr. Qureshi cites other examples from the United States and the erstwhile USSR where consular access was not provided in espionage cases under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). He says that the only exemption in state pratices to access to those held on the charges of espionage was family, as family could visit the person in question.
"India's main point is that, if an exception exists as a matter of State practice for consular access in the context of espionage, some States could manufacture an allegation of espionage to deprive the individual of consular access. India's main point I will accept, only if it had any substance," he says.
Court adjourns for a break.
“India’s repost and repeated references to propaganda is subterfuge,” Mr. Qureshi says before the break in a heated presentation. He is asked twice to slow down by the President of the Court, and on several occasions he also refers directly to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
"At no material point time [even now] has India furnished any evidence that Commander Jadhav is an Indian national, despite repeated requests," says Mr. Qureshi in his arguments. "At no stage can India say that Pakistan engaged in any clear and unequivocal representation made directly to India [with the intention of effect that India detrimentally relied upon the same], to the effect that India waived the requirement for India to establish the Indian nationality of Commander Jadhav," he says.
A page from Pakistan's presentation, which was shown by Pakistan's counsel Khawar Qureshi on the second day of the hearing in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice on February 19, 2019.
Among those to have corroborated the authenticity of the passport and its issuance by Indian authorities was a former UK Immigration Officer, Mr. Qureshi notes in his arguments, slamming India’s dismissal of him as a “purported” expert. “The passport – we mustn’t forget the passport,” he says.
He points to an statement made by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval in 2014. He that Mr. Doval wanted to "to tackle Pakistan."
During 2014 speech, Mr. Doval had said, "Pakistan's vulnerability is many times higher than that of India. Once they know that India has shifted its gear from the defensive mode to defensive offence, they will find that it is unaffordable for them. You can do one Mumbai, you may lose Balochistan. There is no nuclear war involved and there is no troops engagement. If you know the tricks, we know the tricks better than you."
Mr. Qureshi describes India's reaction to an alleged passport found with Jadhav. " 'Questions were aimed at propagating falsehood and propaganda' was how India responded," he says.
He also recounts Jadhav's alleged career at the Home office, at the National Document Forgery (NDF) unit. "To describe him as a 'purported expert' after his career in security services, and this document as propaganda, is disgraceful," he says. "India is guilty of egregious conduct of providing Commander Jadhav with a passport and travel documents."
Our Correspondent Vidya Ram writes:
Pakistan’s attorney general Anwar Mansoor Khan kicks off the first day of Pakistan’s oral arguments in the case with a sharply political attack that contrasted with India’s more understated presentations on Monday, accusing India of causing terrorism and training terrorists to act in Pakistan, and sending trained spies to “fund, and create chaos” there.
He says Pakistan suffered more than 74,000 casualties and fatalities due to terrorism, caused “mainly by the interference of our neighbour India,” and accuses RAW – which he describes as India’s Brutal” foreign intelligence agency – of sending Jadhav to “assist plan and cause terrorism” in Balochistan and Sindh provinces.
“This much he admitted before an independent judicial magistrate,” he tells the 15 judges of the ICJ in his opening remarks.
Mr. Qureshi also accuses India of sitting on a "flimsy wall of lies".
Mr. Qureshi references the Frontline Magazine's story on Jadhav and RAW as part of his contention that India has not answered "fundamental" questions about the case.
The ICJ has refused to entertain Pakistan’s request to adjourn the hearing to appoint a new ad hoc judge, reports PTI .
Pakistan, which is presenting its case today, asks the judge to adjourn the case, citing the illness of its ad hoc judge.
Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, ad hoc judge for Pakistan in the ICJ suffered a cardiac attack ahead of the hearing on Monday.
Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan, who is representing Pakistan, at the start of the hearing says: “We applied our right provided to us that we can appoint an ad hoc judge.
“But since our judge is indispensable at this point. In light of the above, Pakistan would like to place before the court that another judge to be sworn in which right has been provided under article 35-5 and the judge be given ample amount of time to go through the briefings before going ahead with arguments,” he says.
The court declines Pakistan’s plea and asks it to continue argument in the absence of the ad hoc judge.
The first day of oral arguments in the case concluded with India requesting the court to annul the verdict of the military court and direct Pakistan to set Jadhav free on the basis of the “review and reconsideration” process that would be available to him in that country.
Jadhav, a former naval officer, was arrested in 2016 and sentenced to death by Pakistan in April 2017 over allegations of espionage and abetting terror, after three-and-a-half months of trial.
In May that year, India filed an application to launch proceedings against Pakistan for “egregious violations” of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, accusing Pakistan of failing to comply with its obligations under Article 36 of that convention. It argued that Pakistan had failed to inform Jadhav of his rights and had denied him consular access, despite repeated requests for this to happen.
India also applied for provisional measures to stay the execution of Jadhav, arguing that without such a measure it feared that he could be executed before the full case could be heard.
