FO spokesperson exposes Indian lies in Jadhav case

Profile Picture

ISLAMABAD, June 1 (APP): The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has
clearly stated that its decision on provisional measures was not concerned with jurisdiction/merits and there was nothing unusual in its provisional order that Commander Kulbhushan would not be executed until the full hearing.
This was stated by the Foreign Office Spokesperson, Nafees Zakaria
during weekly media briefing here Thursday.
Referring to the lies that the ‘Indian media has spread’ with regard to
the case of the Indian RAW Agent and serving Naval officer, Commander Kulbhushan Jhadav in the ICJ, the spokesperson presented a fact sheet to address certain misrepresentations/false statements/allegations made in the Indian media following the provisional measures order of the ICJ on May 18, 2017.
He said the Indian Media, backed by the official quarters, misled people
in the two countries by propagating that India has won Commander Jhadav’s case.
The discussions that ensued in the two countries showed a complete lack of understanding of the matter, he added. The fact sheet consists of the following points:
1. Indian media, based on the reported briefing by official quarters, called ICJ’s letter dated May 8, 2017, the day India filed its petition, to the Government of Pakistan as ‘Stay on Kulbhushan Jhadav’s execution. This is a lie. ICJ noted that lie.
2. The ICJ stated clearly that its decision on provisional measures was not concerned with jurisdiction/merits. The court considered that Commander Kulbhushan would not be executed until the full hearing. This is nothing unusual.
Irrespective of ICJ’s stay, Commander Jadhav would remain alive, until
he has exhausted the right to request for clemency, initially with the COAS and later with President of Pakistan.
3. A full hearing will take place after the court sets down a timetable on June 8 at The Hague. We have given the court our arguments on merits and jurisdiction. It has not ruled on any of these arguments.
4. The Jadhav case at the ICJ concerns whether he is entitled to consular access.
Pakistan’s position in this regard has been made clear. We had sought
information from India on January 23, 2017, on the basis of Commander Jhadav’s confession and statements. India has not responded despite reminders.
5. In 3 previous cases in ICJ the request for release or acquittal was not granted by the court. The court stated that it does not have the power to make such orders.
6. Jadhav case purview – The case is about whether Commander Jadhav is entitled to consular access because of the 1963 VCCR. It is NOT about whether the ICJ can act as a Court of Appeal from Pakistani legal proceedings.
That is why Barrister Khawar Qureshi informed the Court that India
cannot obtain from the Court what it is seeking.
He also told the court that India is using media to create false
impression about the case.
7. Suspicions were created regarding Khawar Qureshi’s competence. You may note that he is consistently rated by the Legal Directories as one of the UK’s top International lawyers.
He was the youngest advocate to appear in the ICJ in 1993 in the
Genocide case (for Bosnia against Serbia).
He has undertaken hundreds of cases involving various international
governments (US, Russia, Italy, Kazakhstan to name a few) before all levels of the English courts, as well as international arbitral tribunals and the International Court of Justice.
He has acted or advised on matters involving around 80 different
jurisdictions. As an English Barrister he is bound to represent any client without discrimination.
8. Contrary to Indian media’s disinformation about Barrister Khawar Qureshi QC’s legal fee, I wish to inform you that he has charged highly discounted fees.
He himself covered the costs of his juniors’ fees and even cancelled
other professional commitments for another government in order to assist Pakistan.
9. The propaganda that our side did not counter the Indian argument related to 2008 consular access agreement is also a lie.
In fact Khawar Qureshi QC read out the entire 2008 Agreement from start to finish in his oral submissions and explained why (contrary to India’s submissions) the 2008 Agreement was relevant, that it amplified or supplemented the Vienna Convention and that it made expressly clear that national security matters were to be decided by each country on the merits.
10. There were doubts raised about Barrister Khawar Qureshi due to negative Indian media campaign.
For that purpose it would be advisable that all of you go through his
CV, and you would know his experience, skills and professional credentials.