India and Pakistan on Monday crossed swords at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over Kulbhushan Jadhav's case with New Delhi demanding the immediate suspension of his death sentence and Islamabad accusing it of using the world body as a stage for "political theatre" through a "misconceived" plea.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ also denied permission to Pakistan to play a purported "confessional" video of retired Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav at a public hearing.
Here are the India’s charges and Pakistan’s defence in 10 points-
India’s accusations against Pakistan at ICJ-
1- Pakistan is violating the Vienna convention and conducting a "farcical trial" without a "shred of evidence".
2- India argued that human rights treated as “basics” all over had been thrown to the wind by Pakistan
Rights of article 36 are sacrosanct, rights of consular access are significant in human rights and international law:Harish Salve in ICJ pic.twitter.com/SCq7xIiGUR— ANI (@ANI_news) May 15, 2017
3- All requests for consular access to 46-year-old Jadhav had fallen on “deaf ears”.
4-The present situation was grave and that is why India had sought ICJ’s indulgence.
5- The graver the charges, the greater the need for continued adherence of the Vienna Convention. Jadhav has been in judicial custody without any communication with his family.
6- India had not been given the copy of the charges filed against Jadhav.
7- The need for a wholesome compliance is greater when charges are serious. We want appropriate legal representation for Kulbhushan Jadhav.
8- Jadhav has not got the right to get proper legal assistance and the right to consular access. There is an immediate threat to him to be executed even before a decision is passed.
9- The execution of the death sentence cannot be done while this court is hearing the appeal.
10- Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy.
Pakistan’s defence at ICJ -
1-Vienna Convention provisions on consular access were not intended for a "spy" involved in terror activities.
2- Pak accussed India of using the world body as a stage for "political theatre".
3- India's application on Jadhav as "unnecessary and misconceived" and must be dismissed
4- India had been unable to provide an explanation for Jadhav's passport which bears a Muslim name
5- India has been unable or perhaps more accurately unwilling to provide an explanation for this passport which is the most obvious indication of covert and illegal activity
6- We wish to make it absolutely clear that we remain committed to the path of peaceful resolution of all disputes. Whatever the provocation. Pakistan will not be cowed by terrorism, nor will it allow any attempt to malign or misrepresent its position or legal processes to go unchecked.
7- He will touch upon the reasons what the court should not otherwise exercise any jurisdiction or entertain any aspects of India's engagement of its jurisdiction. Indeed, it is somewhat ironic but perhaps consistent that India complains that it has not been given access to commander Jadhav who has confessed to having been sent by India to wage terror on the innocent civilians and infrastructure of Pakistan.
8- There has been deafening silence and no response from India on Pakistan's accusations on Jadhav.
9- There was "no urgency", the relief sought was "manifestly unavailable" and the jurisdiction under the Vienna Convention was not "as unchallenged" as India has suggested.
10- It (jurisdiction of the court) is limited and indeed it is further limited at qualified rules supplemented by the 2008 agreement" on Consular access.