19 Feb 2019 2:25 PM GMT
In the second day of hearing of Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice, Khawar Qureshi QC submitted arguments for Pakistan.Qureshi dubbed India's claim for Jadhav's release "outlandish". He said that Jadhav was convicted on the basis of a confession made before Judicial Magistrate, which revealed commission of offences under the Official Secrets Act.Contesting the...
In the second day of hearing of Kulbhushan Jadhav case at the International Court of Justice, Khawar Qureshi QC submitted arguments for Pakistan.
Qureshi dubbed India's claim for Jadhav's release "outlandish". He said that Jadhav was convicted on the basis of a confession made before Judicial Magistrate, which revealed commission of offences under the Official Secrets Act.
Contesting the arguments made by Harish Salve for India yesterday, Qureshi said the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was not applicable as India had not established that Jadhav was an Indian citizen. Espionage is recognized as an exception in international customary law for right of consular access.
Qureshi affirmed that India had at no point established that Jadhav was an Indian citizen. There was no proof of him being retired from armed forces. He was in possession of an Indian passport with a Muslim cover name.
He cited articles written by Indian journalists Karan Thapar, Praveen Swami and Chandan Nandy to state that Jadhav was a spy planted by India in Pakistan on an espionage mission. An article titled "The Mysterious Case Mr Jadhav" by Thapar published in the Indian Express on April 21, 2017 had questioned RAW stand on Jadhav and asked why he had two passports, including one with a Muslim cover name.
Praveeen Swami had written in Frontline, suggesting that Jadhav was on an espionage mission, based on the plan by National Security Advisor Ajith Doval. Chandan Nandy's article in The Quint claimed that it had information from RAW agents that Jadhav was a planted spy.
He referred to statements reportedly made by National Security Advisor Ajith Doval to argue that India planned to create troubles in Balochistan. The following statment, reportedly made by Doval, was cited by Qureshi : "Pakistan's vulnerabilities many times higher than that of India. Once they know that India has shifted gear from the 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."
He further stated that the passport in Muslim name in possession of Jadhav was not a forged one, but an authentic Indian passport. India failed to provide any explanation as to how Jadhav was able to travel frequently to and from India using an authentic Indian passport bearing a false identity in a Muslim name.
India's act of sending Jadhav on an espionage mission to Pakistan constituted a violation of Article 5(a) and 55 of Vienna Convention, and also international law obligations, he advanced.
"India is living in a wonderland. It is sitting on a weak wall of lies just like Humpty Dumpty and on one day will have a great fall." he said.
"We gave every single opportunity to India to correct/clarify/apologize, but it arrogantly dismissed", he continued. He also claimed that Pakistan had allowed Jadhav's family to meet him on humanitarian grounds, and alleged that India has not exhibited similar gesture in any cases involving Pakistanis.
India will respond to these arguments tomorrow.
Indian National, Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav was sentenced to death in Pakistan by a court martial on allegations of "espionage, sabotage and terrorism". On 18th May 2017, the UN Court had directed Pakistan not to execute him pending the final decision in these proceedings.
Pakistan claims that its forces arrested Jadhav from Balochistan province on March 3, 2016, after he allegedly entered from Iran.However, India maintains that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he had business interests after retiring from the Navy.
India says that since the case involves the interpretation and application of a multilateral international treaty - Vienna Convention on Consular Relations- ICJ can exercise jurisdiction, regardless of Pakistan's consent.
Snippets from the electronic presentation made by Qureshi :