The video was released days after India had hit out at Pakistan for violating understandings for the Jadhav-family meet.
External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj accused Pakistan of not following the spirit of understanding reached between the two nations prior to the meeting.
The MEA has accused Pakistan of attempting to “bolster a false and unsubstantiated narrative of Jadhav’s alleged activities.”
Pakistani and Indian officials confirmed that this was not a “consular access” to Jadhav.
Pakistan had agreed to facilitate a meeting of Jadhav with his mother and wife in Islamabad on December 25.
Pakistan foreign office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal said on Thursday that the Indian request is under consideration.
The resolution called for the protection of the rights of foreign nationals facing the death penalty under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the grounds on which India had sued Pakistan in the ICJ.
The stay on Jadhav’s execution will remain in force throughout the hearings on the merits of India’s case against Pakistan and until a final verdict is reached.
I get the feeling Swaraj is more concerned about looking tough in the eyes of her countrymen than acting sagaciously in the interests of her country.
The external affairs minister said a visa application was pending for Indian national Avantika Jadhav who wants to meet her son in Pakistan.
The Pakistani army has also released a second video in which he reiterated his ‘confession’ of being involved in fomenting terror and sectarian actvities.
External Affairs ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay said that ICJ had asked India to file its memorial by September 13, but denied that it was a setback for New Delhi.
With none of the issues which have kept them apart for two years resolved, and the Jadhav case now casting its shadow, the outlook for progress is not good.
The fact that three vacancies – at the ICJ, ITLOS and the Continental Shelf Commission – have arisen at the same time makes the diplomatic task more complex
Pakistan lost and India won but Kulbhushan Jadhav will not be released, writes a senior Pakistani lawyer.
Hopefully the Jadhav matter will encourage Indian policy makers to take international law and its obligations and institutions more seriously, rather than as an encumbrance or distraction.
Disappointed With ‘Weak’ Arguments, Ruling: How Pakistan Reacted to ICJ Verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhav
“We based our case on jurisdiction and it proved weak.”
After Winning Provisional Battle in Jadhav’s Case at the ICJ, India Must Now Settle in for Long Haul
At this stage, it would probably be in India’s interest to stretch the ICJ case as long as possible, as this would at least ensure that Jadhav is not executed by Pakistan pending a final judgment.
“Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings.”
“The acts alleged by India are culpable of falling under the Vienna Convention guaranteeing the right to communicate and have access to consular access rights,” the ICJ said.
The International Court of Justice on Thursday stayed Pakistan’s execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav. Siddharth Varadarajan explains why.
If anything, Pakistan’s lawyers made it clear through their points that there is indeed a dispute between the parties over the interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj disclosed this information about the lead attorney in the Jadhav case late last night, in response to a tweet.
India argued that human rights treated as “basics” all over the world had been thrown to the wind by Pakistan in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case.
A fortnight before making its death sentence on the Indian naval officer public, Pakistan narrowed the conditions under which it accepts the world court’s compulsory jurisdiction
With the first hearing of Jadhav’s case set for May 15 at the Hague, there are three possible primary arguments that Pakistan can make.
In the fiftieth episode of Jan Gan Man Ki Baat, Vinod Dua talks about the decision of the International Court of Justice to stay the death sentence of Kulbhushan Jadhav and the killing of Lieutenant Umar Fayaz in Shopian, Kashmir.
ICJ has scheduled oral hearings on the provisional measures requested by India on May 15.
Pakistan may have denied Indian consuls access to Kulbhushan Jadhav but the ICJ is likely to hold Pakistan’s authorities accountable to the standards set in the Vienna Convention.
This is the first time India has initiated a case at the ICJ since 1971 and has chosen to do so because of the possibility that Pakistan might quickly carry put the death sentence imposed on the former Indian naval officer.
Even as the Pakistani opposition frets about the sudden visit of an Indian businessman, the military ups its hand by releasing the ‘confession’ of an ‘Indian-backed’ terrorist.
India also asked for consular access to Jadhav “for the 16th time”. Pakistan has, so far, refused to accede to the Indian request.
The petition requires at least 100,000 signatures before May 14 to qualify for a response from the Trump administration.
Pakistan is yet to heed to India’s request for consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav, who was given the death penalty by a Pakistani military court on charges of spying.
When it comes to international law, it is mutual respect for rights that is paramount.
Polarisation over Kashmir and Jadhav, and the rise of rhetoric in India and Pakistan, only serves to feed into the narrative of aggressive nationalism that’s taken centre stage in India’s political discourse.
Meanwhile, the minister of state for external affairs V. K. Singh reiterated that the Indian government was considering all steps to get access to Jadhav.
Senior Pakistani official Sartaj Aziz on Friday listed the formal appeal options that Jadhav has under the country’s legal system.
The timing of Kulbhushan Jadhav’s death sentence and the disappearance of a retired Pakistani army officer from near the Indian border has led many to speculate about an imminent swap.
India appears keen to use diplomatic means to resolve the issue, but initiating proceedings against Pakistan before the International Court of Justice would serve us better.