On Thursday, 1st July, the Government of Pakistan said that it will provide consular access to former Indian Naval Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav.
Pakistan took this decision 11 days after the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Now Indian diplomats will be able to meet Jadhav from Friday.
The ICJ banned the execution of Kulbhushan on July 21st while pronouncing judgment in favor of India. They also demanded from Pakistan to give Kulbhushan Jadhav counselor access.
Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ravish Kumar said, “We have got the proposal of Pakistan’s counselor access. And, will answer after considering. We will assess the proposal according to ICJ’s decision. We will talk to Pakistan on this matter diplomatically,”
Earlier India Expressed to Get Counselor Access For Jadhav
On the next day of the decision of the ICJ, the Pakistan Foreign Ministry issued the statement saying, “Under the ICJ, we have explained Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav his rights related to conjunctive access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. As a responsible country, Pakistan will provide counselor access to Kulbhushan according to its law. Conditions are being prepared for this,”
With the majority of 15-1, the judges in the ICJ had suspended the sentence of Kulbhushan Jadhav.
Court President Justice Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf had said that as long as Pakistan does not review and reconsider the decision, the hanging will remain suspended.
Pakistan Violates the Vienna Treaty – ICJ
Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, court president of Somalia, read the verdict.
In a 42-page verdict, he said that by the time Pakistan has reviewed and reconsidered its decision, they will bar Pakistan from the execution of Kulbhushan.
ICJ said – Pakistan has sidelined the right of India’s dialogue and the access to the consular access with Kulbhushan. Pakistan did not give India the chance to provide a legal representative for Kulbhushan. It violated the Conventional Relations rules under the Vienna Treaty.
The judges said – Pakistan has denied India the right to negotiate and meet with Kulbhushan Jadhav. India has appealed for concurrent access many times, which Pakistan has turned down. It is an undeniable fact that Pakistan did not accept India’s appeal.
“Pakistan had to provide information to India regarding the arrest and confinement of Kulbhushan under the Vienna Treaty. It delayed the submission of information of Jadhav’s arrest, which also violates the terms of the Vienna Treaty. Pakistan has not clarified that because of any disturbance with India, it has stopped himself from fulfilling the conditions of the treaty,”
International legal advisor Rima Omer said: The court also said that Pakistan would reconsider its decision in relation to Article 36 (1) i.e. violation of the grant of concurrent access.
2nd Time in 20 Years that When Pakistan lost to India in ICJ
On 10th August 1999, the Air Force killed the Aircraft Atlantik of Pakistan Navy in Kutch, Gujarat.
They killed all the 16 soldiers. Pakistan claimed that they dropped the aircraft into its airspace.
He sought 6 million dollars for compensation from India in this case.
The bench of 16 judges of ICJ had dismissed Pakistan’s claim on June 21st, 2000 with a 14-2 majority.
This is the second time that Pakistan has lost in an international court and the court has asked him to reconsider Jadhav’s death sentence.
PAKISTAN’S CLAIMS WERE FALSE: HARISH SALVE
Harish Salve said that because of the support of the country in Kulbhushan Jadhav case, it has been possible to intervene so much.
This is the reason Pakistan could not hang Kulbhushan Jadhav.
There was constant pressure on such an issue which prevented the hanging of Kulbhushan Jadhav.
Harish Salve said that Pakistan has been repeatedly saying that he got a passport from Jadhav.
It is clear from this that Pakistan’s claim is false.
Their doubt about the citizenship of Kulbhushan Jadhav was false.
Harish Salve said the ICJ has ordered that Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case should be a free trial.
They based this on the Pakistani constitution.
If the Pakistani court gets this re-examine the military court, then we can not allow it.
In such a case, there will be no entry of an external lawyer, it is contrary to the principles of justice.
INDIA CHALLENGED THE PAKISTAN ARMY’S TRIAL AGAINST JADHAV.
In May 2017, India raised this issue in front of ICJ.
Indian accused Pakistan accused of not providing consular to Jadhav.
India also challenged the Pakistani Army’s trial against Jadhav (49).
The ICJ has banned any kind of action on May 18, 2017, till they have taken a decision on Jadhav.
In February, the International Court had heard the case for four days.
During this time, India and Pakistan gave their own arguments.
India made the basis of its case on two big things.
These include providing consular access and resolving the matter under the Vienna Treaty.
PAKISTAN SAID – KULBHUSHAN JADHAV IS NOT A BUSINESSMAN BUT A DETECTIVE!
India said–they should cancel the orders of Kulbhushan Jadhav’s death sentence.
And, they should order them to released Kulbhushan immediately.
The judgment pronounced by the Pakistani army is ridiculous.
They cannot display the minimal values of the process.
Pakistan says that Indian Navy officer Jadhav is not a businessman but a detective.
Pak claimed that our army had arrested Jadhav on March 3, 2016, from Balochistan. He had entered Iran from Pakistan.
INDIA SAID–THEY KIDNAPPED KULBHUSHAN JADHAV FROM IRAN
Although India has persisted on its plea. According to India, they kidnapped Jadhav from Iran.
Kulbhushan Jadhav was trying to do business after retiring from the Navy there.
After they sentenced Kulbhushan Jadhav to death, it got a sharp reaction in India.
Pakistan rejected India’s petition before the International Court of Justice.
In this, India had sought counselor access for Jadhav. It claimed that India wants to get information from its spy.
Pakistan Issued Video of Jadhav’s Confession
Pakistan had released two videos of Jadhav’s alleged confession. And, there were many cuts in the video.
There was no question-answer in it. The video comprised only statements.