Pakistan said much at ICJ on Kulbhushan Jadhav case but sounded unconvincing
Regardless of the final verdict the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gives in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the alleged Indian spy who was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court, there's no denying the fact that India put up a strong case before the bench of the international court. The arguments raised by New Delhi were sharply focused, non-rhetorical, legally binding and brilliant. The Indian side was all the more stellar when compared to the presentation given by the Pakistani representative, who was rather unsure about the stand to take. He had no arguments to present his case and seemed to be wondering why he was arguing at all as the ‘ICJ had no role to intervene’. The credit for the development so far on this issue must go to the Modi Government, particularly Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, for having taken the strong decision to approach the ICJ. The contribution of India's counsel Harish Salve too cannot be under-estimated. He went there with a reputation of being a legal genius, and the manner in which he presented India's position within a matter of 20 minutes left none in doubt that every bit of the reputation was deserved. Not only were his arguments structured well, but he also had a dossier to substantiate his claims. Essentially, Salve's argument rested on two key factors. First, that Pakistan had violated the Vienna convention. Second, that Islamabad had denied consular access to Jadhav 16 times. To cement his claim regarding the Vienna convention, Salve cited three ICJ rulings in cases pertaining to Mexico, Nicaragua and Germany. Since the argument before the ICJ was not on the merits of the case, India did not waste time arguing the fact that Jadhav was not a spy. The ICJ rejected Pakistan’s demand to play the purported confessional video of Jadhav. Of course, the dramatic events had begun days earlier when the ICJ upheld Salve's demand that Pakistan hold back the execution until India’s application was heard. However, what we have seen are provisional measures so far and baby steps towards pulling the case in our favour.
On the other hand, Pakistan continued to question the ICJ’s jurisdiction and yet proceeded to submit its case. Its arguments were unfocused and flimsy. First, Islamabad claimed that India had not presented it with any evidentiary proof that Jadhav was an Indian. But India has already acknowledged that Jadhav had served the Indian Navy though he had no relations with the force now. Second, Pakistan claimed that the provisions of the Vienna convention did not apply to a spy. But it has not yet been conclusively proved that Jadhav was a spy. And, if he was a terrorist, does Pakistan have any specific proof about his terror activitiesIJ It must bring it up before the international court. And finally, Islamabad had nothing to say but claim that it is not bound by the Vienna convention. Pakistan ought to have focused on refuting the allegations levelled against it by India. Since it was on a weak wicket, it sought to beat around the bush and tried to divert attention by bringing in extraneous issues.