Kulbhushan Jadhav Case: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has granted consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav. ICJ has ruled in favour of India on merits, affirming Jadhav's right to consular access and notification.
The International Court of Justice has directed Pakistan to provide effective review and reconsideration of his conviction and sentences.
The court said that Jadhav's death sentence should remain suspended until Pakistan effectively reviews and reconsiders the conviction/sentence in light of Pakistan’s breach of Art 36(1) i.e. denial of consular access and notification.
The court found that Pakistan deprived India of the right to communicate with and have access to Kulbhushan Jadhav, to visit him in detention and to arrange for his legal representation, and thereby breached obligations incumbent upon it under Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Read full ICJ verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhav Case:
Finds that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 1 of the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienne Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, to entertain the Application filed by the Republic of India on 8 May 2017;
2) By fifteen votes to one,
Rejects the objection by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the admissibility of the Application of the Republic of India and finds that the application of the Republic of India is admissible;
IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice president Xue; Judges Tomka, Abrahan, Bennouna, Cancado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani;
3) By fifteen votes to one,
Finds that by informing Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav without delay of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1(B), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan breached the obligations incumbent upon it under that provision;
IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice president Xue; Judges Tomka, Abrahan, Bennouna, Cancado Trindade, Donoghue, gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani;
The Court recalls that it indicated a provisional measure directing to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jhadhav is not executed pending the final decision in the present proceedings(Jadhav(India v. Pakistan), Provisional Measures, order of 18 May 2017, I.C.J Reports 2017, p. 246, para. 61(I)). The Court considers that a continued stay of execution constitutes an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav.
With regard to India's contention that it is entitled to restitutio in integrum and its request to annul the decision of the military court and to restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction, and its further request to direct Pakistan to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, to release Mr Jadhav and to facilitate his safe passage to India, the court reiterates that it is not the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav which are to be regarded as a violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. The Court also recalls that "[i]t is not to be presumed... that partial or total annulment of conviction or sentence provides the necessary and sole remedy" in cases of violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention(ibid., p. 60, para. 123). Thus, the court finds that these submissions made by India cannot be upheld.