ಜಾಧವ್ ಮರಣದಂಡನೆ ಪುನರ್ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಸೂದೆಗೆ ಪಾಕ್ ಅಸ್ತು

 ಜಾಧವ್ ಮರಣದಂಡನೆ ಪುನರ್ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಸೂದೆಗೆ ಪಾಕ್ ಅಸ್ತು

ಇಸ್ಲಾಮಾಬಾದ್: ಭಾರತೀಯ ನೌಕಾಪಡೆಯ ನಿವೃತ್ತ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ ಕುಲಭೂಷಣ್ ಜಾಧವ್ ಅವರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ಮರಣ ದಂಡನೆಯನ್ನು ಪುನರ್ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸುವ ಮಸೂದೆಗೆ ಪಾಕಿಸ್ತಾನದ ಸಂಸದೀಯ ಸಮಿತಿ ಅನುಮೋದನೆ ನೀಡಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ ವರದಿಯೊಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿತು.

ವಿರೋಧ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳ ತೀವ್ರ ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆಯ ನಡುವೆಯೂ ‘ಅಂತಾರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ (ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮರುಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ) ಸುಗ್ರೀವಾಜ್ಞೆ‘’ ಶೀರ್ಷಿಕೆಯ ಕರಡು ಮಸೂದೆಯನ್ನು 2020 ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ 21ರ ಬುಧವಾರ ಕಾನೂನು ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಅಸೆಂಬ್ಲಿಯ ಸ್ಥಾಯಿ ಸಮಿತಿ ಅಂಗೀಕರಿಸಿದೆ.

ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ ಫೆಡರಲ್ ಕಾನೂನು ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಚಿವ ಫರೋಗ್ ನಸೀಮ್, ‘ಅಂತರರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ (ಐಸಿಜೆ) ನಿರ್ದೇಶನಗಳಿಗೆ ಅನುಸಾರವಾಗಿ ಮಸೂದೆಯನ್ನು ಮಂಡಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ‘ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು.

ಸಂಸತ್ತು ಮಸೂದೆಯನ್ನು ಅಂಗೀಕರಿಸದಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಐಸಿಜೆ ತೀರ್ಪನ್ನು ಪಾಲಿಸದ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಪಾಕಿಸ್ತಾನವು ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಗಳನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ಎಚ್ಚರಿಸಿದರು.

ಐವತ್ತು ವರ್ಷದ ನಿವೃತ್ತ ಭಾರತೀಯ ನೌಕಾಪಡೆಯ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ ಜಾಧವ್ ಅವರಿಗೆ ೨೦೧೭ರ ಏಪ್ರಿಲ್ ತಿಂಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಗೂಢಚರ್ಯೆ ಮತ್ತು ಭಯೋತ್ಪಾದನೆ ಆರೋಪದ ಮೇಲೆ ಪಾಕಿಸ್ತಾನದ ಸೇನಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಮರಣದಂಡನೆ  ವಿಧಿಸಿತ್ತು.

೨೦೧೭ರಲ್ಲಿ, ಜಾಧವ್ ಅವರ ಜೊತೆ ರಾಜತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ  ಭೇಟಿಗೆ ಪಾಕಿಸ್ತಾನ ಅವಕಾಶ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದ ಕಾರಣ, ಭಾರತವು ಪಾಕಿಸ್ತಾನದ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಅಂತಾರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ (ಐಸಿಜೆ) ಮೊರೆ ಹೋಗಿತ್ತು. ಮರಣದಂಡನೆಯನ್ನು ಪುನರ್ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಆದೇಶ ನೀಡಿತ್ತು.

ICJ stays execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav
till final Judgement

New Delhi: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) pronounced its provisional measures on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case on Thursday, 10 days after India approached it demanding suspension of the death sentence given to its former navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav by a Pakistan military court.

Find the full communique by the International Court of Justice below: 

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today indicated to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that it must take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, of Indian nationality, is not executed pending a final judgment of the Court in the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan).

In its Order indicating provisional measures, which was adopted unanimously, the Court also stated that the Government of Pakistan shall inform it of all measures taken in implementation of that Order. It further decided to remain seised of the matters which form the subject of the Order until it has rendered its final judgment.

History of the proceedings

India filed its Request for the indication of provisional measures on 8 May 2017, the same day that it initiated proceedings against Pakistan in a dispute concerning alleged violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 with respect to an Indian national, Mr. Jadhav, sentenced to death in Pakistan. 

Reasoning of the Court

The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie to hear the case. It recalls that India seeks to ground its jurisdiction in Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, which provides that the Court has jurisdiction over "[d]isputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the [Vienna] Convention".

In this regard, the Court notes that the Parties do indeed appear to have differed, and still differ today, on the question of India's consular assistance to Mr. Jadhav under the Vienna Convention. It further notes that the acts alleged by India, i.e., the alleged failure by Pakistan to provide the requisite consular notifications with regard to the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav, as well as the alleged failure to allow communication and provide access to him, appear to be capable of falling within the scope of the Convention. In the view of the Court, this is sufficient to establish that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of the Optional Protocol. The Court further observes that the existence of a 2008 bilateral Agreement between the Parties on consular relations does not change its conclusion on jurisdiction. 

The Court then turns to the question whether the rights alleged by India are at least plausible. It observes that the rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals, as well as the obligations of the detaining State to inform the person concerned without delay of his rights with regard to consular assistance and to allow their exercise, are recognized in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, and that India has alleged violations of this provision. In the view of the Court, therefore, it appears that the rights alleged by India are plausible. 

The Court then focuses on the issue of the link between the rights claimed and the provisional measures requested. It considers that the measures requested are aimed at ensuring that the rights contained in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, are preserved. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by India and the provisional measures being sought.

The Court then examines whether there is a risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency. It considers that the mere fact that Mr. Jadhav is under a death sentence and might therefore be executed is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by India. The Court further observes that Pakistan has indicated that any execution of Mr. Jadhav would probably not take place before the month of August 2017. This means that there is a risk that an execution could take place at any moment thereafter, before the Court has given its final decision in the case. The Court also notes that Pakistan has given no assurance that Mr. Jadhav will not be executed before the Court has rendered its final decision. In those circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is urgency in the present case. 

The Court concludes by indicating the following measures:

Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings and shall inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of the present Order. 

The Court also decides that, until it has given its final decision, it shall remain seised of the matters which form the subject-matter of this Order.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Abraham; Judges Owada, Cançado Trindade, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian; Registrar Couvreur.

Judge Cançado Trindade appends a separate opinion to the Order of the Court; Judge Bhandari appends a declaration to the Order of the Court."

Kulbhushan Jadhav case: ICJ verdict on Thursday 18th May 2017

Kulbhushan Jadhav case: ICJ verdict on Thursday 18^th May 2017

The Hague: The International Court of Justice will pronounce its verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhav on Thursday, 18^th May 2017. According to news agency PTI, the verdict will be out at 3.30 PM.

Earlier, India and Pakistan on Monday, 15^th May 2017, 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 two neighbours -- who last faced off at the ICJ 18 years ago when Islamabad sought its intervention over the shooting down of its naval aircraft -- India took the Jadhav case to the world court, accusing Pakistan of violating the Vienna Convention and conducting a "farcical trial" for convicting Jadhav without a "shred of evidence".

After hearing the arguments of the two sides, the court said it will issue its order on India's request for provisional measures "as soon as possible".

"The date on which this order will be delivered at a public sitting will be duly communicated to the parties," the court said.

India demanded the immediate suspension of Jadhav's death sentence, expressing fears that Pakistan could execute him even before the hearing at the ICJ was over.

India made a forceful submission as the ICJ began hearing the case of the 46-year-old former Navy officer who was arrested on March 3 last year and sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage and subversive activities.

"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," joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs Deepak Mittal told the court in his opening remarks.

Representing India, lead attorney Harish Salve said, "The execution of the death sentence cannot be done while this court is hearing the appeal. Else, it will be a violation of the Vienna Convention." 

Following India's arguments, Pakistan, in its submission before the the UN's highest judicial body, said India's application on Jadhav, who was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage and subversive activities, was "unnecessary and misconceived" and must be dismissed.

India has seen it fit to use the International Court of Justice as a stage for "political theatre" but "we will not respond in kind", Mohammad Faisal of the Pakistan Foreign Office said in his opening remarks in response to India's submissions earlier in the day.

The ICJ also denied permission to Pakistan to play a purported "confessional" video of Jadhav at the public hearing here.

Representing Pakistan, lawyer Khawar Qureshi said India has sought to persuade this court that Pakistan intends to execute Jadhav within days.

"Simply by referring to the clemency process available as a right to commander Jadhav. A period of 150 days is provided for in this regard which even if started on April 10, 2017, which is the date of conviction at first instance, could extend to well beyond August 2017.

"There is also of course the potential for the writ petition of the High Court to be invoked as we believe India must be well aware," he said.

Earlier, Salve said Pakistan had denied India its 16 requests for consular 

"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," he said.

The rights of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations are sacrosanct, Salve said, citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that recognises that no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their lives.

India had not been given the copy of the charges filed against Jadhav, Salve said.

"The need for a wholesome compliance is greater when charges are serious. We want appropriate legal representation for Kulbhushan Jadhav," he said.

Not just had all requests for consular access fallen on "deaf ears", the trial was conducted without providing Jadhav his rights. Pakistan did not even respond to Jadhav's mother's pleas to see her son.

Human rights treated as "basics" all over had been thrown to the wind by Pakistan and the trial had been vitiated, India argued.

Though Pakistan says Jadhav has the right to appeal, two-star generals will hear his mercy plea, Salve stressed, questioning the impartiality of the process.

India asserted that it wants the ICJ to annul Jadhav's death sentence and for Pakistan to ensure that no action is taken that may prejudice the rights of India or of Jadhav.

On India invoking the Vienna Convention, Qureshi said, "The Vienna convention article 36 which adopted to set up standards of conduct particularly concerning communications and contact with nationals of the sending state which would contribute to the development of the friendly relations among nations...the observation we made immediately is this is unlikely to apply in the context of a spy, terrorist send by a state to engage in acts of terror." 

Kulbhushan Jadhav case

Jadhav, the latest flashpoint in the tensions between Pakistan and India, was sentenced last month. On May 8, India moved the ICJ against the death penalty, alleging violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. On May 9, the highest court in the UN gave Jadhav a lease of life.

India, in its appeal to the ICJ, had asserted that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy. However, it denies that he has any connection with the government.

Pakistan claims to have arrested Jadhav from its restive Balochistan province.