India asked World Court judges on Monday to order Pakistan to stay the execution ofIndian citizen Kulbhushan Jadhav, who Islamabad says is a captured spy, in a case that has escalated tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
India argued in a preliminary hearing at the UN court, formally known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), that Pakistan violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by denying the condemned man access to legal and other assistance from India.
Pakistan responded that the court should decline jurisdiction in the case.
Monday's hearings focused on India's request for so-called "provisional measures" that can be granted at short notice to ensure a dispute between states does not deteriorate during full ICJ proceedings, which typically take several years.
India's representative at the ICJ hearing, Deepak Mittal, described the charges against Jadhav as "concocted" and his trial as "farcical."
Responding, Pakistan’s agent before the court, Mohammad Faisal, said India’s complaint was "political theatre" and the court "should not exercise any jurisdiction in the case".
The court said it would set a date for ruling "as soon as possible".
Salve Responds to Pakistan's Presentation
Speaking to Times Now, Indian counsel Harish Salve took a dig at Pakistan and said he couldn’t fathom what Pakistani counsel meant when he said that India hasn’t proven Jadhav’s nationality, while at the same time maintaining that Jadhav was an Indian spy sent by India.
The date of the order will be communicated to concerned parties as soon as possible, the ICJ said.
'What Has India Done to Prove Jadhav is Indian', Asks Qureshi
He also referred to old cases where India had questioned the jurisdiction of the court. He said the country which wishes to gain consular access to an individual has the onus to establish that the individual is a national of that particular country.
What has India done to establish that Jadhav is an Indian national?QC Khawar Qureshi, Pakistan’s Counsel
With regard to the Vienna Convention that Indian counsel Harish Salve had accused Pakistan of breaching, Qureshi said the Vienna Convention doesn’t apply in cases of espionage and terrorism.
Article 55 (of the Vienna Convention) says there must be no inference in the internal affairs of the receiving state. India’s application on Jadhav must be dismissed on three counts — there is no agency, the relief that is sought is manifestly unavailable and the jurisdiction is limited.
Pakistan’s counsel QC Khawar Qureshi now addressing the ICJ bench.
Indian media reported World Court’s letter as a ‘stay’, which it is not. This shows manoeuvring... This court doesn’t exist for time-wasting and political grandstanding.
Khawar Qureshi said that Pakistan was made to appear before the ICJ at short notice. He told the court that the matter is not urgent, but was made to look so by India.
India generated a sense of urgency, Pakistan did not, and has now interestingly shifted the sense of urgency.
“India claims Jadhav's trial was rushed and that he could be executed summarily. None of that is true," Qureshi told the ICJ. Qureshi asked the court to dismiss India’s application, accusing India of using the ICJ as a stage for political theatre.
Qureshi said Pakistan argued that counsular access is not an absolute right under the Vienna treaty, and that a 2008 bilateral treaty between India and Pakistan supercedes it anyway.
He said that Pakistan did not impose any conditionality on consular access but that consular access to India by Pakistan would be decided on merit.
What is therefore the objective of this application, if this court cannot exercise criminal justice? If the only relief India is seeking is not available, what is the objective?