Following the ICJ verdict delivered today, Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj said the order has come as a great relief to the family of Kulbhushan Jadhav and people of India.
3: 54 PM Pakistan shall take all measures to ensure that Kulbhushan Jadhav is not executed, says ICJ President Ronny Abraham
3:45 PM ICJ has its jurisdiction in Kulbhshan jadhav case, says ICJ President Ronny Abraham
3:40 PM India should have been given consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav by Pakistan: ICJ
ICJ on Kulbhushan Jadhav's nationality
3:30 PM ICJ starts reading its verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhva case
Here's the full text of ICJ's verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhav
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 applicat ion of the [Vienna] Convention". In this regard, the Co urt 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 P akistan 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 wit hin the scope of the Conventi on. In the view of the Court, t his is sufficient to establish that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of -2 -the Optional Protocol. The Court further observes that the existence of a 2008 bilateral Agreement between the Parties on consular relati o ns 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 t he 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 al leged violations of this provision. In the view of the Court, therefore, it appears that the rights alleged by India are plausible.
The Court then focu ses on the issue of the link between the rights claimed and the provisional measures requested. It cons iders 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 preju dice 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 irrepara ble 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 circumsta nces, 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.
The International Court of Justice will deliver its verdict on the death sentence of Kulbhushan Jadhav today. An 11-judge ICJ bench will start delivering the verdict at 3.30 pm (IST) at a public sitting in The Hague, Netherlands.
Kulbhushan Jadhav, 46, was awarded death sentence by a Pakistani military court last month for alleged espionage and subversive activities.
Last week, the International Court of Justice held a public hearing at the Great Hall of Justice housed in the Peace Palace at The Hague in Netherlands where India and Pakistan presented their case over the issue. To challenge death penalty handed out to Jadhav, counsel Harish Salve presented India's arguments at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
India has asked the International Court of Justice to suspend the death sentence awarded to Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer. Pakistan has also not responded to the request for visas applied by Jadhav's family.
The ICJ had on May 9 stayed the death sentence to Kulbhushan Jadhav after India had moved a petition before the UN body to seek justice for Kulbhushan Jadhav, 46, alleging violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by Pakistan after its 16 requests for consular access to the former naval officer was consistently denied.
India submitted to the ICJ that it had information that Jadhav was "kidnapped from Iran, where he was carrying on business after retiring from the Indian Navy, and was then shown to have been arrested in Balochistan" on March 3, 2016, and that the Indian authorities were notified of that arrest on March 25, 2016.