India deserves no relief in Jadhav case for ‘failed response on espionage evidence’, Pakistan tells ICJ

ISLAMABAD, Feb 21 (APP):Pakistan on Thursday said India demonstrated “abject failure to respond to evidences of espionage” against its serving navy commander Kulbhushan Jadhav, and submitted before International Court of Justice (ICJ) to dismiss India’s claim for relief on grounds of its “unfair and unrealistic approach”.
During Pakistan’s second and final round of oral submissions in Kulbhushan Jadhav case, English Queen’s Counsel Barrister Khawar Qureshi made compelling arguments to point India’s weak grounds on
Jadhav’s fake passport, his ‘kidnap fiction’ and unlawful claim for consular access under the Article 36 of Vienna Convention.
The 15-member bench at the Peace Palace – seat of the UN’s top court, concluded its four-day consecutive public hearing of the case, held from February 18 to 21, where India and Pakistan made oral submissions, two days each.
With well-argued facts, Barrister Qureshi responded to yesterday’s claims of Indian Counsel Advocate Harish Salve, saying that “India was challenged to find any discrepancy in facts presented by Pakistan, which it failed to do so.”
Barrister Qureshi termed India’s Military Law Experts Report as ‘irrelevant’ that needed to be ‘completely disregarded’ and said “after having doctored the report, India enthusiastically embraced the
report as being supportive of its conclusions.”
On India’s assertion that the case was only about denial of consular access to Jadhav, he said “India’s accusations were utterly devoid of any evidential basis …. India has been forced to add to its reply as bombastic ballast, with no other value in these proceedings.”
Regarding India’s failure to identify any attempt to engage with Iranian authorities in respect of the “kidnap fiction” of Jadhav, he said the point was left completely unexplained as providing an explanation would have exposed the fiction.
He said India’s assertion that there was no need to address the passport issue as it had no legal consequence, if accepted, “would allow a serious transgression of the duty of good faith never mind fundamental international obligations to go unchecked.”
Barrister Qureshi said India’s approach suggesting to “hammer the facts, hammer the law”, sought to twist the facts and break the law to suit its purpose.
He termed as “plainly wrong” India’s claim for consular access under Vienna Convention, unless India contended that Article 5(a) (compliance with international law) of the VCCR and Article 55 (non-interference in the internal affairs of the State) had no meaning.
He said it was the absence of a consistent practice of allowing consular access to espionage suspects of itself which constituted the customary international law basis for denial of the same and added that India wrongly suggested that Preamble to the VCCR “crystallized” prevailing customary international law.
Pakistan’s counsel said India wrongly blamed Pakistan for not relying upon the recent judgment of the Peshawar High Court in Abdur Rashid case dated 18 October 2018 and for not having a trained independent judge to review the findings of military court.
“The fallacy of the this bald proposition was laid bare by the decision of the Peshawar High Court and the value of independent experts’ report was further confirmed, when they had clearly stated on 28 November 2017 that the High Court possessed an effective review and reconsideration jurisdiction,” he added.
He mentioned that not a single juvenile was convicted by the military court in Pakistan.
Calling India’s former National Security Adviser Ajit Doval as the country’s “self-styled superspy”, Barrister Qureshi said if Doval were to come to London, there was a vacancy for an actor to play James Bond.
Pakistan’s Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan as Agent in his closing statement expressed satisfaction that Pakistan’s Judge Ad hoc Tassadduq Hussain Jillani had recovered from illness and was able to attend the court’s hearing today.
On India’s “irrelevant and uncalled” for criticism on Pakistan’s judicial system, he said the latter had a very robust judicial review and reconsideration system through various levels of courts. However,
said due to state secrets, some of the cases could not be held in open court.
He referred to India’s trial of Afzal Guru case and also the Samjhauta Express tragedy where 42 Pakistanis were burnt alive, which he said showed unfairness in India’s judicial system.
On the recent Pulwama incident in Indian Occupied Kashmir, he said, India had become the judge and executioner at the same time, calling itself the victim without any evidence. Pakistan has the right to ask for proof, he stressed.
The Attorney General also mentioned the horrific human rights violations in IoK including use of pellet guns, rapes and abductions, which he said showed well of the justice denied by India even asked by the United Nations for an inquiry through its report.
He emphasized that military courts in Pakistan were protected under Constitution and pointed that the FIR registered against Jadhav was with Police, a civilian authority.
President of the bench Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf concluded the four-day hearing of the Jadhav case, declaring the Court to retire for deliberations with the date of judgment to be announced later.
However, he asked the Agents of Pakistan and India to remain at the Court’s disposal for further information, if required.
Director General South Asia Dr Mohammad Faisal as Co-Agent and senior officials of the Pakistan government were present in the courtroom.
India’s Counsel Harish Salve and Joint Secretary of India’s Ministry of External Affairs Deepak Mittal also attended the hearing.
Jadhav was arrested on March 3, 2016 in a counter-intelligence operation from Balochistan’s Mashkel area. India on May 9, 2017 had invoked the jurisdiction of ICJ following the death sentence of Jadhav announced by Pakistan’s military court on charges of espionage and sabotage activities in Karachi and Balochistan.